Years ago –in the 50’s – there was a very popular English lecturer in Bangalore, who enjoyed a great reputation as a debater and public speaker. When he stood before an audience he would let loose such a torrent of words, the audience would be literally swept off their feet. But this tremendous eloquence was marred –to the ears of the more discriminating-by the numerous grammatical mistakes and faulty vocabulary that mostly went unnoticed.  The man went to the US and returned (for a short time) later.   His public speech was as vibrant as ever with discuss about, fortunately or unfortunately, do one thing, all in place, as usual.

Too often we mistake a fluent flow of words as a sign of ‘command over the language’.  It is not. The advocates of fluency today utter the same mantra. ‘Let go. Don’t hold back.’

Not surprisingly even famous academics who command great respect and admiration suffer from this torrid flow of faulty grammar and misused words. A leading Management Guru who boasts of his institution which has, among other things, ‘unparalleled Faculty Members  who are most Powerful Speakers themselves’ says, in one of his writings ‘…a Trinmool Congress will always be on tender-hooks even after winning….’

Can this be a typo? What about this: ‘Politicians well know that the only way to staying in power…’ Is it ‘to staying in power’ or ‘to stay in power’?

Here is something subtler.  They all become criminalised. This is correct.  You can also say. All of them become criminalised. But:  Even they all become criminalised? How about this: But even they will all become criminalised? (The speaker’s sentence would become better, actually unexceptionable, if there is a pause between they and all. In effect the sentence would read: Even they — all become criminalised.

Notice the effect even (an emphasiser) has on the placement of all.
Again: They would know clearly that they aren’t liked too much more than their rivals. We often make the mistake of thinking that too and very are synonyms.  They are not. You can say: It is very good. But you can’t say: It is too good.  Yet this is what one usually finds in IE. The proper phrasing would be: They aren’t liked very much more than their rivals.

These are all small points, one might say.  For that very reason there is no excuse for not getting them right. Merely concentrating on vocabulary and ‘fluency’ (whatever it’s parallel in writing) results in such elementary mistakes. Grammar is the nuts and bolts of language.  Neglecting it you come out with a rickety, shaky structure. (On the proper study of words as against a passing acquaintance with them see below.) 

The situation cannot be remedied by teaching ‘Functional Grammar’ (as though there is a lot of ‘dysfunctional grammar’) or drawing attention to some ad hoc points of grammar in a haphazard way – as is usually done in Readers which have some Notes on grammatical points following each lesson. There is no logic or system in these Notes. If a lesson happens to have a number of infinitive phrases, the writer puts in a few words on the infinitives. The next lesson may have some comments on the past perfect and the following lesson may talk about some points of comparison.  But this cannot be a substitute for a systematic teaching of grammar. The results are there for all to see.

We don’t write stories involving, here and there, some calculations and then append notes on multiplication and division. Nobody will say this is the best way of teaching Arithmetic, Functional Arithmetic. Arithmetic has to be taught separately and independently as a subject in its own right. So too with Grammar. In this respect most convent schools have an edge over other schools. They teach grammar.

Rather than teach grammar in an ad hoc and haphazard way in the Notes following a lesson, one should use the Notes to teach vocabulary and usage. Attention should be drawn to the use of words; not just the meaning(s), but points of register, collocation, idiom and usage. The text provides a natural context for discussing these points.

Herbert Vernon George — George for his students and admirers — was the most remarkable of the professors at the CIE in its early days. Officially he was supposed to teach us Methods. But he had somehow contrived to turn his Methods classes into lectures on grammar. But for him we wouldn’t have heard of the great European grammarians Kruisinga and Zandvoort. In the Demonstration classes he wouldn’t waste time teaching comprehension (‘You don’t teach comprehension. You test it’.) but would concentrate on the teaching of vocabulary —words and their ways. He was all for teaching Vocabulary. 

There are grammar books aplenty but very few which deal with words and their ways. There are of course dictionaries. But how many students consult dictionaries? How many, even among parents, are aware of suitable dictionaries for the learner?  Further the dictionary, of necessity, presents information in a condensed, often coded form, which is sure to baffle the young learner. The textbook writer would be doing a great service if his Notes opened a window on the fascinating world of words.

If grammar is taught independently, there is a point in using the lessons in the Reader to reinforce what the student has learned or drawing attention to some points of grammar in the lesson not presented in the grammar book.(For example, if the lesson has the sentence: School opens on 15th September. Or Vivek has gone to school — the question why no article appears before the noun school can be discussed in the Notes. In the absence of a systematic exposure to grammar, stray notes on points of grammar serve no purpose.

The writer can be contacted on ksyadurajan@yahoo.com