“What is a participial
phrase?” asked a teacher who was preparing for an interview because her school
was being shut down by vested interests.
“No clue,” I said. “Never heard of such a thing.”
She wondered how I had
mastered the art of lying so quickly.
She refused to believe that I had not heard of such a thing as
participial phrase. She opened the grammar
book she had brought (a fraction of which is here in the picture) and showed me
the phrase.
It was a grammar textbook
for grade 8. I flipped through the pages
and realised how ineffective English language teaching is in our country. My memory went back to my childhood when they
taught me things like Vocative Case and other Cases all of which disappeared
without a trace from English grammar eventually.
“See, dear,” I told the
teacher, “I didn’t learn English by learning the grammar. Did you learn your mother tongue by learning
its grammar?”
She pondered a while and
said, “No.”
“If I ask you about things
like sandhi and samasam will it make much sense to you?”
“What are those?”
“Yup. I think they are rules about how you join
letters or words together to make sentences.”
“Aren’t I making sentences
in my language without knowing these rules?”
“Of course, you are. More significantly, you are speaking your
language fluently and efficiently without knowing most of the rules that grammarians
have made for it.”
She paused again. Good student, I thought. She must be a good teacher. Only good students can be good teachers.
“Which came first
then? The language or its grammar?” She asked.
“Isn’t the answer obvious?”
“Are you saying that
grammar is immaterial?”
“Not really.” I cited the example of an architect in my
village in Kerala who has constructed umpteen houses. He is illiterate. He started working as a bricklayer and
eventually became the master architect.
The buildings he makes may last longer than those which are made by
architects trained professionally in some reputed universities. You know, the Taj Mahal was not built by any
university-trained architect. Yet the
builders knew the grammar of construction.
Without that knowledge they could not have built anything. They leant the rules naturally. The rules were in their blood in fact. Of course, a teacher can be of much
help. To help them discover the rules
which are already in their blood... Language is no different from architecture
or any other art and craft. It is much
more natural, in fact. Natural in the
sense it comes to you automatically whereas architecture can come naturally
only to those who have it in their blood.
Language is in everybody’s blood.
The child will speak even if you tell it to shut up. The child speaks primarily for three reasons:
(1) to express a need; (2) to draw attention to itself; and (3) to draw
attention to something else. These are
all basic human needs. Language is the
primary tool for these. It doesn’t need
a teacher really. It needs the
environment. Just like the architect in
my village got the right environment for materialising what was already in his
blood. You know, language flows into the
veins of the child along with the mother’s milk. That’s why it’s called mother tongue. And for learning another language, you have
to become a child again. Sucking it into
your veins.
“How do I tell these
things in the interview?” asked the teacher.
“Tell them that if they
want their students to master a language they should create an environment that
is bathed in the language.”
She was convinced. But she thought I was crazy. When she left I googled for participial
phrase. There it was staring at me like
some missionary who was determined to baptise me with yet another unholy water.
Loved it.. especially the last lines :)
ReplyDeleteGrammarians are very like missionaries :)
DeleteSometimes me think so...most of the good grammarians can not big in natural flow of writing..!
ReplyDeleteNot really. Grammar can be an interesting hobby or passion for those who have an aptitude for that. But for mastering a language grammar is not the real way any more than is bookish knowledge of different strokes is for mastering swimming.
DeleteBrilliant point, brilliantly made
ReplyDeleteMy experience as an English teacher helped. Thanks for the accolade.
DeleteRightly explained the difference between Knowledge & Knowing.
ReplyDeleteOur education system is highly skewed in favour of knowledge!
DeleteWow! The difference between grammar and language is so wonderfully shown in the story.
ReplyDeleteAll those technical terms which are there on the page reproduced as well as the numerous others in the book will kill whatever desire a student may have for learning the language. There's a huge difference between language and grammar. Thanks for you Wow :)
DeleteLovely post.....
ReplyDeleteThank you
DeleteWell cited by examples, this really provokes a question to our teaching methods / the module set and approved by the authorities for understanding subjects in school and collages, where a student studies to get a better life by achieving high scores not by achieving the pinnacle of understanding the subject !
ReplyDeleteWe are killing the students' creativity with unnecessary jargon. Why can' language be taught through reading, writing, speaking and listening? Simple but creative and productive. Effective too. Shakespeare was no university product.
Delete