Blog Post #6--Linguistics

Evans, Ann. “Beyond Grammar: Linguistics in Language and Writing Courses.” Pedagogy 11.2 (2011): 285-300. EbscoHost. 7 June 2011. Web.

Evans argues that the inclusion of several basic linguistic terms and concepts in either late high-school or early college writing classes can increase students’ understanding of how language works and improve their command of it. The specific terms/concepts she advocates including are morphology, semantics, syntax, and sociolinguistics. Evans devotes several pages to a short definition of each concept, a justification for why it matters and how it can help students write, and suggestions for exercises to try.

Evans stresses throughout the article that the goal is not to turn students into linguists, but to help them understand some basics about how language works. The exercises she proposes are written to encourage a sense of play and to help students gain awareness of their own language-rich environments—for instance, a semantics exercise asks students to transform the word “whoops” depending on context, choosing an approximate synonym that they would use when speaking to different audiences (291), and one of her sociolinguistic exercises encourages students to “report on the various linguistic communities they were a part of during their holiday dinners” (298). Additionally, Evans’s exercises all ask students to generate writing after the concept is explained, rather than fill out worksheets.

However, when Evans writes that “the concepts and exercises introduced here are simple” (286), I have to disagree. Some of the concepts—like morphology—seemed easy at first blush, but as I got further into her descriptions and suggested exercises, I found that the concepts were not simple at all. (In the section on morphology, for example, Evans spends some time using other languages such as Turkish and Italian as examples, and while I think I understand what she is getting at, the examples served to confuse more than clarify.) In fact, I found the definitions in each section somewhat confusing, and I am skeptical that high-school or early-college students would be able to master the concepts without quite a bit of instruction.

In my reading on grammar instruction, I have found that two reasons for moving away from the traditional teaching of grammar are frequently cited: firstly, that such instruction is decontextualized and disconnected from student writing; and secondly, that time spent on grammar instruction is time not spent on actually producing writing. While Evans is not suggesting a return to traditional grammar instruction, I see her methodology as subject to the same critiques. Although her exercises ask students to produce writing, the writing itself is decontextualized in that it is not part of a larger assignment: it is writing to understand the linguistic concept. Also, the concepts she suggests are not simple and will take time to explain. Not only might that time be better spent writing, but students might end up focusing too much on mastering the concepts in the same way that a heavy focus on grammar can lead some students to think that good grammar equals good writing. This article is well written and interesting, but I remain unconvinced that it is the best path for improving student writing.