Teaching Grammar s1

TEACHING GRAMMAR

Irene Philippaki-Warburton

Emeritus Professor in Linguistics

University of Reading

[email protected]

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to consider two questions: a more specific and a more general one. The more specific question and the one that comes immediately to our mind when we speak of grammar, concerns the possible contribution that grammar can make to the teaching and learning of a language. To be more precise the question is whether or not, when we are taught a language, we learn it better, faster and more effectively if we have been given lessons in its grammar? The second question concerns whether and to what extent grammar has a role to play in the cultivation of the student’s mind. This is not a question often raised because it is taken for granted that grammar, if needed at all, is used in order to help the student to use the language more correctly, without grammatical errors. If we were to find that grammar has no such practical benefits we will probably conclude that it has no position in the classroom.

In this article we will be concerned with the teaching of the first language ( i.e., mother tongue) though what we will have to say applies also to second and third languages. I will start from the first issue which concerns the question whether it is possible, through the teaching of grammar to achieve a more correct use of the target language, its morphology and its syntax. In order to be able to evaluate the possible contribution of grammar to the knowledge of the taught language we must first define what we mean by the terms ‘grammar’ and ‘knowledge of language’. In this article we are interested in the knowledge of grammar independently of the question how it was acquired (i.e., with the teaching of rules, with organised self teaching, using electronic devices or pedagogical books, reference grammars etc).

2. From the Alexandrine Grammarians to the current linguistic theorising.

1 The term grammar has been used in a number of ways. For most people it usually means rules which teach the students what are the language elements and their correct combinations. The perception that grammar, as a school lesson, aims to present how the nouns of Greek, for example, are declined, what case does the subject of the sentence have etc. has been inherited from the Alexandrine grammarians who created the first grammar. The purpose of that grammar was to help their contemporary scholars who no longer spoke the language of the classical texts, to understand these via some sort of deciphering them as they would be deciphering a foreign language.

Another purpose of such a grammar was to teach the contemporaries but also the future generations what is the correct form of the Greek language. Furthermore, correct was considered to be the original i.e., the one used by Plato, Aristotle etc., a few centuries before. Their works which had been hugely admired could not have been written in any other form of Greek but the best. In this way the grammar that was created consists of a list of forms, rules of combinations, patterns and exceptions. These grammatical descriptions, however, derive from a written language which is no longer spoken and it is outside the experience of children. Thus from the rules extracted from older written texts the children of the Alexandrines had to learn classical Greek as a second language. However we decided to consider the contribution of grammar to the learning/teaching of the first/mother tongue. We must, therefore, turn now our attention to that.

According to the view which has been prevalent in the last 50 years, inspired by the theory of Generative Grammar but also by other linguistic theories the term grammar refers to two closely related meanings. Firstly with the term ‘grammar’ Generative Theory refers primarily to the language competence of the natural speaker, i.e., the subconscious, underlying knowledge of the linguistics system The view that the native speaker has such an internalised linguistic system is supported by the fact that the native speaker gradually becomes able to produce and understand an unlimited number of correctly formed sentences which are furthermore appropriate in the given circumstances. In addition the native speaker has the ability to make judgements on the correctness of a sentence and on relationships across constructions. He/she may not know how to explain why some forms are ok and others are not but as he/she matures linguistically he become more able to also offer explanations, This subconscious knowledge constitutes the grammar of the native speaker.

2 Second. Generative Grammar but other theories too use the term ‘grammar’ to refer to a formal system which consists of grammatical categories in conjunction with rules and principles on the basis of which syllables, words, phrases and sentences are constructed

Let us now return to the question whether the conscious teaching of grammar in its strict sense as grammatical categories (parts of speech) and the rules of their combinations (phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics) helps and improves the use of the grammatically correct expressions. To answer this we must take in to consideration the following. From the amount of difficulties that linguists have encountered in their effort to describe in detail and accuracy the formal characteristics of a language it becomes clear how complicated each grammatical system is. And yet, in spite of this it seems to be acquired by the child fairly quickly independently of the child’s IQ and to a large extent independently of environmental conditions (Chomsky 1965 and elsewhere).

In order to explain this phenomenon the theory of Generative Grammar proposes that the child is born with an innate linguistic structure which becomes activated and enriched by the characteristics of the language of his/her environment. Thus the acquisition of the native language is accomplished in a natural way and at a young age. We must note that the child has already acquired the basic structures on all levels before going to school. We must add that even if the claim that there is an innate and specific structure which guides the acquisition of the child, is rejected it cannot be denied that the child acquires his language in an indirect way at a very young age without conscious effort and without language specific teaching.

The above observations might lead us to the conclusion that since the child has already acquired his language (i.e., the grammar of his language) before going to school, perhaps there is no reason to teach him grammar in school. I note that grammar is the internalised knowledge and the conscious way of referring to it explicitly. Even if some of the more complex constructions have not been acquired before going to school they will be acquired gradually and again in a natural indirect way.

To be more specific, the child of six or seven years uses correctly the verb tenses, he does not make mistakes in the agreement of person and number, uses correctly the pronouns, the singular and plural of the nouns etc. Moreover the mistakes that the children of 2-6 make are not random but derive from the extension to the applicability of a rule to more cases,

3 from the less regular to the more regular. (Kati 1984, 391, /anevusa/ instead of the correct /anevena/ ‘I was going up’, /kaθαrai/, instead of /kaθarizi/ ‘cleans’.) These mistakes are referred to as ‘developmental mistakes’ and they confirm rather than challenge the role of the rules. Such evidence can lead to the position that there is no reason to teach the rules to the children since it seems that they will learn them by themselves. What the children need are language data and practice. The data are everywhere both in school and outside it.

To the extent that this view of language knowledge and acquisition is correct, and the evidence for it is very strong (Pinker 1994/2000) the natural conclusion may be that the school children do not need grammar in order to learn the mechanism of their mother language. This conclusion may then lead in a natural way to the view that grammar has no position in the school curriculum. This argument has been used by teachers of the 60ies and 70ies in Britain and the USA and it led to the removal of grammar from education. We should also add that this view was strengthened by the other idea that most children cannot learn grammatical metaglossary and for those who can it is of little value. (Thompson 1969).

A basic argument expressed by some educators was that since the system of the language is naturally acquired by the native speaker, the only thing that the teaching of grammar can offer is a very complicated metalanguage which is useless. Today, however, the perception about the contribution of grammar to language education has been revised. At the same time it is becoming clear that there is a new enthusiasm in favour of the idea that the children must be taught systematically the grammar of their native language in order to learn and to appreciate its structure and its function. In fact the teaching of grammar now constitutes one of the basic components of the curriculum. (See Στρατηγικής Εθνικού Γραμματισμού (DfEE1997) και του Εθνικού Αναλυτικού Προγράμματος για το μάθημα των Αγγλικών (DfEE και QCA 1999) (Hudson 2000,1).

One of the reasons which led to the re-evaluation of the role of grammar was the understanding that the lack of grammatical education had led to negative results in the use of language. Another reason was the fact that various studies (Bateman and Zidonis 1966, Elley 1994; Had lederriman 1994, Tomlinson 1994 and others) revealed that the students of secondary education, but also of primary education (Gale 1967), can learn grammar as metalanguage, whether of the more traditional kind or the more modern one when it is taught correctly with the appropriate methods. Hudson (2000,1) mentions that evidence from developmental psychology

4 shows that the understanding of metalanguage begins to develop naturally in children from the age of 5 and 7 (Herriman 1994).Therefore, the argument that the children cannot learn metalanguage and thus they cannot learn grammar is rejected but the question remains whether grammar and metalanguage whether easy or difficult are worth teaching or not.

3. Practical benefits from the teaching of Grammar

In what follows I will argue that the teaching of grammar has a lot to offer to the intellectual development of the young people. I repeat that I will restrict my arguments to the grammar in its narrow sense, i.e., (grammatical elements, and rules). I do not think that the interest about language is exhausted with the strictly formal elements neither do I propose that these are the only things that the children should be taught. I simply consider that these formal elements constitute the minimal central linguistic mechanism which must be the necessary component of any grammatical approach and of whatever further examination of the language.

Let us begin from the following question. What do we consider that the student must know when he finishes school? We will agree that the least expected from him is to understand without difficulties and to produce without much effort spoken language correctly constructed with words appropriate for the communicative needs of his/her age.

We saw earlier that these elements the student either knows when she/he comes to school or he/she learns them in a natural, indirect way from his/her contact with the data in the communicative environment For these abilities, therefore, the student does not need to be taught rules of grammar. Nor does he/she need to specially explore the structure of the language. This conclusion is strengthened by the facts that people who have not had any schooling communicate quite well, that there are communities whose members have no schooling, that folk poetry but also the epic poetry of the Ancient Greeks,( ie. (Homer) were not created by people who had explicit grammatical knowledge etc.

A significant contribution of grammar is the fact that through grammar the student is made aware of the characteristics of his language, its formal properties and the functions they fulfil. He/she is exposed to the systematicity, the regularities, the multiplicity of the relations between its elements and the endless productivity of its rules. For example, the correct presentation of the grammar of Greek will lead to the realisation that the Greek of today, the Modern Greek, does not lack systematicity

5 and therefore, it must not be considered the result of ignorance and corruption of the Classical language as many devotees of Ancient Greek believe. When the students through the presentation of its grammar will see that Modern Greek is as systematic as Classical Greek even though the categories and the rules have changed somewhat, they will be less susceptible to the oratory of narrow minded fanatics who believe that we must return to the classical Greek. According to them all the problems of the Greek society derive from the corruption of the language.

Another positive outcome of grammar teaching concerns the correct evaluation of the standard form of a language (Dendrinou 2000). Societies today especially those with an education system and for which the question is raised about the teaching of grammar are both socially and linguistically very complex. Within such a society even a small one like Greek, the language has many different dimensions and it is required to satisfy more functions. In such societies it is very important to teach the people the standard variety based on its grammar

The Greek language, like many other languages contains many local dialects which differ from the official standard. For example, the expression that somebody from Crete will use to ask his interlocutor about his health is [inda kanis]. and not the standard [ti kanis] or [ti kanete]. He will also say [idoka tu to] ‘I gave it to him’ and not the standard [tu to edosa]. School is obliged to teach the standard lexicon and the standard grammar which will secure wider and better communication and will strengthen the common identity among all the people of the community. It will also strengthen the identity of the Greeks in the diaspora. But in order to teach the standard we must refer to grammatical categories and rules of grammar. For example to discuss the standard form of the Greek examples above we must speak of verbs, pronouns, person, case, order, imperative etc.

We must note that the teacher needs to have sensitivity and must take care to avoid making the student think that his local dialect is inferior and must reject it. Instead the student should see that he can operate with both varieties depending on the situation. For this the informed educator can point out that the local variety too has systematicity. Here too the teacher will have to refer to the grammar of the dialect. The issues pertaining to the varieties of a language should not be avoided. On the contrary they should be discussed in the class room. Presenting the grammar of both standard and the varieties offers the best opportunity to avoid prejudices.

6 The language variation which young people have to face is not restricted to the local (geographical) type. In Greece we had an example of ‘Diglossia’i.e., the coexistence of two linguistic codes Dimotiki and Katharevousa each one with its own functions. The problem of Diglossia no longer exists since in 1976 the state recognised as official the ‘Dimotiki’ But the coexistence of two varieties next to each other for hundreds of years left a more complex language with elements from both Dimotiki and from the Learned variety via Katharevousa.

The elements of the Learned tradition belong mainly to the more formal style and for this reason they do not appear frequently in the everyday informal discourse. Thus while it is possible for a student in his communication with his friends to come across the First Declension word Nom:[o mathitis] ‘the student’ Gen:[ tu mathiti, ect ] it is less likely that he will have encountered the 3rd Declention noun Nom [epimelis] ‘studious’,Gen:[tu epimelus] Thus because the two elements have the same ending in the Nom they may be considered as belonging to the same morphological paradigm. As a consequence the learned adjective may be reinterpreted as being declined like the Dimotiki noun of the First declention ‘mathitis.

The presentation in the class of the morphological paradigms which will include the patterns of the Learned tradition will make the student more sensitive to the character of his language and its history and will present to him all the morphological patterns so that it will not be a random occurrence whether he comes across the forms of; for example, the 3rd declention adjectives or not. We see, therefore, that the explicit teaching of the inflectional paradigms completes the gaps that may exist in the experience of the student.

Returning to the issue of the teaching of the standard we must stress that it should not be presented as a closed system without variants and choices. For example we present the form Gen:[ tis kivernisis] ‘of the government’ in parallel with the alternative from the 3rd Declention Gen [tis kivernisis], We also have the form of 1st Pers. Pres. Ind. [agapo] ‘I love’ alternating with [agapao] In some circumstances one form is used in a specific context, linguistic or social, with some slight difference. In other cases the choice is free, the result of taste or habit. Also variants like GEN.PL.[ton petaloύdon] ‘of the butterflies’ with immovable stress, as the adjectives require instead of the correct [ton petaludόn] as the nouns demand have some systematic justification, as observed by Θεοφανοπούλου-Κοντού who has used this particular example (1999:254). «These departures from the standard rule constitute

7 indications for the existence of some degree of vagueness and lack of clarity and they create the conditions for a possible change in the next stage of the language>. These phenomena, do not lead to the view that grammar should not be taught they rather strengthen the need for its teaching. The variants are connected with stylistic dimensions. All such phenomena show that language combines both strict systematicity but also some choice.

Another type of variation derives from the communicative function satisfied or the type of the text we are considering. For example, a politicians speaks and writes differently from a policeman. We address our professor differently from our close friend. We use different expressions when we send a document to some authority and different when we write to our parents. In fact, as correctly argued by the supporters of communicative approach, the choices of the linguistic expressions are many because they serve many communicative requirements.Therefore, the more advanced language lessons should aim to the development of the abilities which are necessary to the student in order to be able to understand and to produce many different types of text of both oral and written discourse. Such varieties of language expressions cannot be acquired by chance but through systematic teaching of both the formal and functional means of the language, i.e., the grammar (Boutoulousi 2000).

I hope that it became clear that the teaching of grammar constitutes a basic precondition for the further realization of the student as to the nature of language and its relation with the speaker and his geographical and social environment, the social context and the type of text.

4.The contribution of Morphology and aspects of the written language.

The knowledge of language also contains the written language. We will now consider whether or not grammar has something to offer to this expression of language. We must not forget that the term ‘grammar’ means ‘the art of writing. The Alexandrine grammarians who created this object of study considered grammatical education necessary mainly for the correction and the cultivation of the written expression.

One aspect of the written language which can be supported directly by the teaching of grammar is the orthography (spelling). From the very first lessons of writing which concern the teaching of the alphabetic symbols we begin to introduce the student to linguistic metalanguage. The teaching of the alphabet and of the correspondence between graphemes and phonemes is part of the teaching of the elements and rules of the

8 phonological component. The word ‘phoneme’ is a linguistic term. Naturally the introduction of the student to the phonological system of his language does not stop here. For example, in order to explain that the spelling of the phonological clusters /ks, ps/, is represented by single alphabetic symbols /ξ,ψ/ we must use linguistic metalanguage again. Also to account for the distribution of the word final euphonic ‘n’ we must speak of adjacent phonemes, fricatives and stops etc ‘/ton – pira/ >, [tombira] ‘I took him’ vs /ton- spiro/ > [tospiro] as well as grammatical categories such as clitic pronound vs determiners /ton kalesa/- [ton galesa] ‘I invited him’ vs /ton stelio/ - [tostelio], Also consider the verb phrases below: [ο φίλοz mas] ‘our friend’ but [mas kalesane]’they invited us’ etc. For the student to learn that if he must put stress on a clitic pronoun he mut understand the difference between possessive pronouns vs. object clitic pronouns.

Even more important is the contribution of the grammatical categories and the morphology to the orthography of the endings of the declinable words, nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, as also seen in the following examples

1a. Το βάζο /to vazo/ ‘the vaz’

b. Το βάζω /to vazo/ ‘I‘put it’

2a. Το ράφι /to rafi/ ‘the shelf ‘

b Το ράβει /to ravi/ ‘she is sewing it’

3a.. Αυτό πίνεται πολύ /afto pinete poli/ ‘this is drunk a great deal’

b. Δεν πρέπει να πίνετε πολύ /den prepi na pinete poli/ ‘you must not drink a lot’.

4a. Φάγανε πολύ /fagane poli/ ‘they ate a lot’ b.Φαγανε πολλοι /fagane poli/ ‘a lot of people ate’

The differences in the spelling of the endings in the above examples, indicates their inflectional properties which are associated with different meaning on the basis of the following rules.

· The neuter nouns and the masculines and feminines which end in the phoneme /o/, and the masculines and feminines which end in the phoneme/ o/ or /os/ are spelled with ‘ο’ (omikron)

9 · The neuters which end in /i/ are written with ‘ι’ ‘jiota’

· The verbs which end in /o/ are written with ‘ω’.’omega’

· The endings of the verbs of the singular and of the 3rd person plural of mediopassive are written with ‘αι’’alpha jiota’

· The endings of 1st and 2nd person of the plural of the active are written with ‘ε’ ‘’epsilon

· The adverb /poli/ ‘much’ is written with ‘υ’.(ιpsilon)

· The numeral /poli/ ‘many’ is written with ‘οι’’omikron jiota’ κ.ο.κ.

It is clear that the Greek orthography is very difficult especially for the vowels because each of the five phonemes / i, e, a, o, u/ can correspond to more than one grapheme. Passing from the spelling to the pronunciation is not so difficult but passing from the pronunciation to the spelling there are no rules based on the phonology, i.e., on the way the segments sound. However, we can use rules which determine the orthography of the grammatical endings as we saw above. But for the formulation of such rules we must appeal to grammatical categories. Therefore, we must teach the students the appropriate metaglossa, i.e., the right terminology in order to be able next to formulate the rules which reveal the connection between the grammatical structure and the spelling. The student armed with such rules will check his writing against them until the correct orthography becomes automatic.

It is possible that one can express reservations about the above suggestions claiming that the student will have to learn the spelling of the other morphemes of the language, i.e. of the stems of words for example, by memorisation since there are no correspondences between them and either the pronunciation (phonology) or the grammar. So why don’t we encourage the student to learn the spelling of the grammatical endings in the same way. If we accept this view the student will be relieved from having to know grammar with all its complex metalanguage.

The answer is rather simple. The memorisation of the spelling of every word separately requires a lot of time and strong visual memory which is not possessed by everybody. Therefore, whatever rules and patterns exist they will make the learning easier. After all it is a fact that the grammatical and the graphemic system of Greek are very closely related as we showed with the few examples above. Since this relationship is a

10 reality why should we refuse to present it to our students? Why not make them share this characteristic of our language, especially since the students from the age of 6 or 7 ask for rules and explanations. To those who perhaps propose that spelling is secondary and that we should not burden the student with rules we reply that an arbitrary orthography obstructs the quick recognition of the word and its meaning. Thus misspelled words slow down the understanding of a text. Furthermore a stable orthography and one connected to the grammar will help the constantly increasing use of the new technologies.

5. The contribution of Syntax: An example

The graphemic system contains some other elements too whose presence and function is based on grammatical categories indicating once again that we cannot teach and learn Greek without grammar. Such an element is the punctuation, which often plays an important role for the understanding of more complex units. The punctuation system is also based on grammar. In order to explain to the student where and how we use comma, full stop, colon, question mark, etc. we must introduce him to the concepts of word, phrase, sentence etc These concepts do not represent semantic units but syntactic ones. For example a sentence cannot be defined as a complete thought because such a definition is unclear and circular since we do not have a definition of ‘complete thought’ Instead the student will understand the syntactic status of ‘phrase’, ‘sentence’ etc since most of the rules of syntax concern the ways in which the linguistic elements depend on each other. The grammar will reveal the function of punctuation and they in turn will support indirectly the existence of the various units within the system of the language.

According to recent views expressed by theorists of the generative grammar tradition there is a universal syntactic principle referred to as the ‘Extended Projection Principle.’ This principle claims that every sentence in every language must contain an explicitly present subject. It explains why the English sentence in (1) is correct while that in (2) is wrong. The former has expressed subject while the latter has not.

1a. My sister plays the piano b. She plays the piano c. It is nice to play the piano

*2a ….Plays the piano *β It is nice to play the piano

But if the EPP is universal it should be confirmed by Greek too. However, the Greek sentences in (3g,d) which are comparable to those in (2 ) and should be wrong on the basis of EPP, are correct.

3 α. Η αδερφή μου παίζει πιάνο ? β. Αυτή παίζει πιάνο γ ...... παίζει πιάνο δ ...... Είναι ωραίο να παίζεις πιάνο

We also notice that (3b) where the subject is a pronoun is less natural than (3g) which appears to have no subject thus apparently violating the EPP. How do we explain this contradiction? The answer is as follows:

An important difference between English and Greek is that Greek is an inflectional language This means that the nouns, the verbs, the pronouns etc. have inflectional ending marking a number of grammatical categories. Thus the verb /pezo/ ‘I play’in the present may appear in six different varieties. as in (4):

4 α. Παίζ-ω 1ο πρόσωπο ενικός αριθ. (= εγώ) (I) play b. Παίζ -εις 2ο (= εσύ) (you) play c. Παίζ-ει 3ο (αυτός, αυτή, αυτό) (he,she,it play d. Παίζ-ουμε 1ο πρόσωπο πληθυντικός ( = εμείς) etc e. Παίζ-ετε 2ο ( = εσείς) f’. Παίζ-ουν 3ο (= αυτοί, αυτές, αυτά)

The endings in the different forms indicate what sort of subject is expressed in them. It is shown by the verb ending that tsubject is either First Person (I), or Second Singular (you) etc This morphological marking in the verb ending makes the explicit presence of a subject redundant, unless it is required in order to carry the main stress and thus show emphasis? Thus, the theory proposes that EPP is connected with some options known as ‘Parameters’. The principles express the common characteristics of all languages, while the parameters account for their variations. The parameter which accounts for the difference between English and Greek, as we saw above, is referred to as the pro- drop parameter. This parameter has two values +[pro-drop] and – [pro- drop]. Some languages chose the positive value while others the negative . English is – [pro-drop] while Greek is +[pro-drop]. Greek by being +[pro-drop] makes the subject pronoun redundant.The sentence is more natural without subject as in (3c). The reason that subject here is

12 present is because the subject pronoun is emphatic and it must carry the emphatic stress.

5. Τηλεφώνησα στην Ελένη πολλές φορές αλλά αυτή με αγνόησε ‘I telephoned Mary many times but she ignored me’

6. Αυτή φταίει για όλα ‘ She is to blame for everything’

The subject pronoun in (5,6) is not present in order to show us the subject. The subject is marked by the ending of the verbs, as we saw above. The subject pronoun in thee examples is necessary to express emphasis.

The principle EPP along with the pro-drop parameter offers a satisfactory explanation for the Greek data. They also explain why students of Greek whose first language is English use so many subject pronouns redundantly. This shows lack of understanding of the structure of Greek and the difference between Greek and English. Compare the examples (7) and (8)). In (7) where the subject pronoun is present but does not express either emphasis or contrast the sentence is unnatural. While in (8) the sentence is both grammatical and natural. In these examples the pronouns necessary in order to carry the emphasis or the contrast or to express the topic.

7. Γεια σου Γιάννη. Τι κανει η Μαρία? Hi John How is Mary ?Αυτή είναι καλύτερα She is better

8. Αυτή είναι καλυτερα τώρα αλλά η μητέρα της ειναι χάλια. She is better but her mother is terrible

From the above it must have become clear that not only the morphology and the phonology but also the syntax contributes to our understanding of the special character of our language and that if we want to teach the correct language we must become aware of all the levels of its analysis.

The research in language acquisition reveals to us that it moves in stages from the simpler to the more complex. The children learn first the present tense, then the past, then the future etc. This research has also shown that there are some less and some more fundamental phenomena on which are based a cluster of less fundamental ones.. The characteristic expression

13 of pro-drop is that the verb in Greek agrees with its subject in person and number.

9 α. Ο φίλος μου μιλάει Ελληνικά b.. Οι φίλοι μου μιλούν Ελληνικά

From this fundamental characteristic we derive some other characteristics which follow as consequences of the basic pro-drop. These are a) the optional presence of explicit subject.

The freedon of the subject to occur in various positions

10a. μιλάει ο φίλος μου ελληνικάβ. b. μιλάει ελληνικά ο φίλος μου) κλπ.

11 . When present the subject serves concepts such as emphasis, contrast , topic etc

6. Grammar and the intellectual development of the students

In the preceding discussion we presented some of the practical advantages of the teaching of grammar but also of a wider examination of the language. In the following paragraphs we will support the view that even if we could not find practical benefits the teaching of grammar must be recognised as an important subject of study because from it we are led to a deeper understanding of the human nature.

The examination of language which led to the recognition of the grammatical categories of verb, noun etc started by the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle was interested in explaining human thought and Plato wanted to explain the relationship between language and knowledge. Both believed that language as an instrument of thought and as the key and the repository of knowledge will reveal to us the workings of the human mind. Many philosophers, such as Cartesius, Humbolt, and others since then, expressed similar ideas. More recently the great theoretician Chomsky (see for example, Chomsky 1988) says that has been and will continue to be a very important parameter in the study of human thought and nature because language is the unique human ability and a most important part of our biological inheritance. It is the instrument of thought and the means of social interaction.

14 These important human qualities and abilities which can be studied through language because language is accessible to examination and study whereas thought cannot be studied independently from language. The questions which we should try to answer and whose answer will lead us to a deeper knowledge of human nature are:

1) What is the system of the language;

2) How is this system acquired?

3) How is this knowledge transferred in the use of written and spoken language?.

In order to approach the first and more basic question, on which everything else is based we must identify the elements of linguistic knowledge and how they relate and connect with each other. In other words we must identify the grammatical categories and the rules of their combinations.

We must add that the grammatical categories which were first proposed by Aristotle and by the Alexandrine grammarian are no longer considered fictions of the linguists. It has been shown that they have an objective, biological reality. Studies on aphasics have shown that linguistic concepts are located in different positions of the brain. Such studies prove the biological status of the grammar in the narrow sense. (See the articles in (Miller (1973) especially the work of Norman Geschwind ‘The brain and language.

The subject of the psychological and philosophical importance of grammar cannot be covered with the scanty comments here. The space, however, does not allow us to expand any further. Nevertheless we must stress that language has inspired the biggest philosophers from antiquity to the present day. Indeed if the research into language has been extended to anthropologists and biologists (Pinker 1994, Calvin&Bikerton 2000) this indicates that language constitutes an object of inquiry as -if not more- worthy of study as physics, or biology. Let us put it in another way. If we believe that the child benefits from the study of physics and biology with the complex metalanguage that these fields require, it would be at least strange to consider that the teaching of the structure and of the rules of language is redundant or even, according to some damaging.

We must also add that besides the psychological and biological side each language also has its own features which reflect social, cultural and historical dimensions. Details of the lexicon but of grammar too show us

15 how a language perceives the physical and social world. There are very many examples in the literature. Greek has inflectional morphemes which distinguish three genders even for nouns referring to inanimate objects. For example the word ‘sky’ is masculine while the word for ‘earth’ is feminine. In Greek we can use a metaphor where the sky is presented as a male lover embracing the female lover ‘earth’. This metaphor appears in poems and although it can be also used in a language like English without genders the impact of the marked grammatical gender is certainly much stronger. The Japanese add in the sentence some characteristic morpheme which indicates the status of the speaker within the social hierarchy. The linguistic means that the Greeks use to express politeness are different from those used by the English etc. We might add that the rich coexistence of variants existing in Greek also reveals its historical sources k.ο.κ. After what we said in the previous paragraphs we can conclude that the study of language in addition to its practical benefits it is a invaluable source of knowledge and wisdom.

7. Conclusion.

In this article we suggested that the teaching of grammar is necessary for the general education of young people. I argued that the student will derive many practical benefits from the study of language. More specifically I provided evidence which shows that grammar will cultivate his sensitivity which will allow him to use both spoken and written language more correctly. I supported the view that grammar is indispensible for the intellectual development of the student since from it he will be led to a deeper knowledge of the human nature in general and the individuality of his own mother tongue.

In spite of the fact that I concentrated on the subject of grammar in its narrow sense, as a basic and necessary aspect for any further extension to the study of language, I expressed the view that the teaching must also contain functional and communicative dimensions. In closing this article I must also stress that the successful teaching of grammar depends on many factors among which exceptionally important is the existence of contemporary, informed by current knowledge of linguistic theorising. I hope that the Grammar by Holton, Mackridge & Φιλιππάκη-Warburton 1997/1999 is a positive attempt in that direction.

8. References

BATEMAN, D.R. & F.J. ZIDONIS. 1966. The effect of a study of transformational grammar on the writing of ninth and tenth

16 graders. NCTE Research Report, No.6.Champain, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

CALVIN, W.H. & D. BICKERTON. 2000. Lingua ex Machina. Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain. Cambridge Massachusetes: MIT Press.

CHOMSKY, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge Massachusets: MIT Press.

———. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures.Cambridge Massachusetes: MIT Press.

ΔΕΝΔΡΙΝΟΥ, Β. 2000. Διδασκαλία της μητρικής γλώσσας. Στο Eγκυκλοπαιδικός Οδηγός για τη Γλώσσα, επιμ. Α.–Φ. Χριστίδης. Θεσσαλονίκη: Κέντρο Ελληνικής Γλώσσας. (π.β. www.komvos.edu.gr)

ELLEY, W.B. 1994. Grammar teaching and language skill. Στο Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R. Asher, 1468-71. Oxford :Pergamon.

GALE, I.F. 1967. An experimental study of two fifth-grade language- artsPrograms, an analysis of the writing of children taught linguistic grammars compared to those taught traditional grammar.Ph.D Thesis. University of Μichigan. Ann Arbor

HERRIMAN, M. 1994. Literacy and metalinguistic awareness. Στο Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, επιμ. R. Asher, 2243- 6, Oxford: Pergamon.

HOLTON, D., P. MACKRIDGE & I. PHILIPPAKI-WARBURTON. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge. [Greek translation(1999) by V. Spyropoulos Patakis Athens, Second Edition 2012).

HUDSON, R. 2000. Grammar Teaching and writing skills: the research evidence. http:www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/writing.htm

THEOPHANOPOULOU-KONTOU, D. 1999. The Anatomy of a mistake (in Greek). Proceedings of the Conference of the Greek Language 1976- 1996: 20 years since the establishment of Dimotiki as the official language, Athens: 253-260

17 MILLER, G, επιμ. 1973. Communication, Language and Meaning: Psychological Perspective.New York: Basic Books.

MPOUTOULOUSI. E. 2000. Linguistic Realisation. (In Greek). Στο Εγκυκλοπαιδικός Οδηγός για τη Γλώσσα, επιμ. Α.–Φ. Christidis Thessaloniki: Center of the Greek language. (π.β. www.komvos.edu.gr)

PINKER, S. 1994. The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language andMind. Allen Lane. The Penguin Press. London [ In Greek]

SIFIANOU, M. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

TOMLINSON, D. 1994. Errors in the research into the effectiveness of grammar teaching. English in Education 28: 2-26.

THOMPSON, D., επιμ. 1969. Directions in the teaching of English. Cambridge: University Press.