Admittedly I scowled and tut-tutted when I saw how Japanese were failing in competency in their own language, thanks to katakana, cell phones, and the decreasing inclination toward writing handwritten letters (oh, Kanji is soooo difficult).
Then I saw this: http://
>Ontario's Waterloo University is one of the few post-secondary
>institutions in Canada to require the students they accept
>to pass an exam testing their English language skills.
>Almost a third of those students are failing.
>"Thirty per cent of students who are admitted are not able
>to pass at a minimum level," says Ann Barrett, managing director
>of the English language proficiency exam at Waterloo University.
>"We would certainly like it to be a lot lower."
>Barrett says the failure rate has jumped five percentage
>points in the past few years, up to 30 per cent from 25 per cent.
>"What has happened in high school that they cannot pass our
>simple test of written English, at a minimum?" she asks.
>Even those with good marks out of Grade 12, so-called elite
>students, "still can't pass our simple test," she says.
>Poor grammar is the major reason students fail, says Barrett.
>"If a student has problems with articles, prepositions,
>verb tenses, that's a problem."
>Some students in public schools are no longer being taught
>grammar, she believes.
So, what do you guys think: is grammar in a language truly necessary? Should we get out there and try to ameliorate grammar atrocities, or just capitulate to a sort of lingual Darwinism?
Then I saw this: http://
>Ontario's Waterloo University is one of the few post-secondary
>institutions in Canada to require the students they accept
>to pass an exam testing their English language skills.
>Almost a third of those students are failing.
>"Thirty per cent of students who are admitted are not able
>to pass at a minimum level," says Ann Barrett, managing director
>of the English language proficiency exam at Waterloo University.
>"We would certainly like it to be a lot lower."
>Barrett says the failure rate has jumped five percentage
>points in the past few years, up to 30 per cent from 25 per cent.
>"What has happened in high school that they cannot pass our
>simple test of written English, at a minimum?" she asks.
>Even those with good marks out of Grade 12, so-called elite
>students, "still can't pass our simple test," she says.
>Poor grammar is the major reason students fail, says Barrett.
>"If a student has problems with articles, prepositions,
>verb tenses, that's a problem."
>Some students in public schools are no longer being taught
>grammar, she believes.
So, what do you guys think: is grammar in a language truly necessary? Should we get out there and try to ameliorate grammar atrocities, or just capitulate to a sort of lingual Darwinism?
|
|
|
|
コメント(5)
Grammar is always there. What we should ask instead is, is "prescriptive grammar" truly necessary? That is, do we continue to follow the "grammatical guidelines" written by the authorities and correct the variations that do not fit in there, or should we acknowledge that language changes naturally overtime and simply follow how people speak it instead of telling them how to?
Native speakers of a language need not be taught its grammar. They already know it; otherwise they would not be able to speak or understand it. Whether or not they can explain the grammar is entirely another matter, but do they need to be able to?
A case in point. Which of the following two sentences is grammatically correct?
1) What are you looking at?
2) At what are you looking?
Prescriptive grammarians may say (2), because you are not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. Now, is there any native speaker of English who would choose to say (2) instead of (1)? I'd be darned if there was.
Native speakers of a language need not be taught its grammar. They already know it; otherwise they would not be able to speak or understand it. Whether or not they can explain the grammar is entirely another matter, but do they need to be able to?
A case in point. Which of the following two sentences is grammatically correct?
1) What are you looking at?
2) At what are you looking?
Prescriptive grammarians may say (2), because you are not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. Now, is there any native speaker of English who would choose to say (2) instead of (1)? I'd be darned if there was.
I would agree to an extent. I am a native speaker of English; however, I learned sentence diagramming when I was in elementary school, and recall having to memorize lists of irregular verb forms (is am are, was were, be been, has have had, do does did) and other pleasantries. Perhaps I am nostalgic for those days of old, when people had to write with ink upon the page and had said "composing" a letter rather than "writing" one. Texting seems to be truncating so much of the way we communicate in English (and Japanese?), reducing the sensual lexical pleasantries of the language into thumbable snippets and emoticons. I truly wonder how the digital generation will communicate in the future--probably in 160 characters or fewer.
Putting aside that this report might be some kind of advertisal for that Uni (We enroll only clever people) or Ms. Kelley had nothing other to write about - the phenomenon can be seen on a global scale. In German newspapers similar articles appeared when potential employers complained about lacking language skills of applicants (Though then again, in many cases the skill fits exactly to the amount of payment people get...). You will notice it also in your daily life, by the way that younger people talk with each other.
About Grammar, is it necessary, is it not? Frankly, i never cared for grammar - not in German and not in English. As soon as they started to introduce latin terms to describe your own language, things have gone to far IMHO. It's not that i'm ignorant on education, but I have reason to ask why German people can't explain their own language in German? Why English people can't explain their own language in English? The Roman Empire fell in the fifth Century, English is the worlds language no. 1. Hmm, is it realy?
Just check Wikipedia for the explanation of "Noun". You'll get bombarded by latinic phrases, not only in English but also and even more in German.
To sum it up: Technology replaced content, instead of expressing our feelings and thoughts we're happy by sending beep beep or bits and bytes. But even before that, we lost our ability to describe and define our language with our language.
About Grammar, is it necessary, is it not? Frankly, i never cared for grammar - not in German and not in English. As soon as they started to introduce latin terms to describe your own language, things have gone to far IMHO. It's not that i'm ignorant on education, but I have reason to ask why German people can't explain their own language in German? Why English people can't explain their own language in English? The Roman Empire fell in the fifth Century, English is the worlds language no. 1. Hmm, is it realy?
Just check Wikipedia for the explanation of "Noun". You'll get bombarded by latinic phrases, not only in English but also and even more in German.
To sum it up: Technology replaced content, instead of expressing our feelings and thoughts we're happy by sending beep beep or bits and bytes. But even before that, we lost our ability to describe and define our language with our language.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆のメンバーはこんなコミュニティにも参加しています
人気コミュニティランキング
- 1位
- 愛知発！35歳〜カラオケ♪
- 935人
- 2位
- 音楽が無いと生きていけない
- 196653人
- 3位
- 30代〜40代から友達作り【友活】
- 35822人