Metaphorically Speaking

The other day I posted a link from our cousins at the UCL Englicious project, together with a response from acclaimed author Michael Rosen. There's inevitably a lot that could be discussed here, and it's probably worth noting that I feel a broad sympathy with both perspectives. Nevertheless, for the moment, I wanted to focus on a particular connection made by Professor Aarts - that between grammar and metaphor. In his original post, Professor Aarts redrafts one of Michael Rosen's critical comments thus:

Original Version: So, if I say, something is a ‘conjunction’ – all that tells us is that it conjoins two things. It doesn’t tell me anything about the resultant meaning or why I would want to conjoin anything.

Revised Version: So, if I say, something is a ‘metaphor’ – all that tells us is that it compares two things. It doesn’t tell me anything about the resultant meaning or why I would want to compare anything.

Professor Aarts's own point, if I have it right, is that there is nothing inherently evil or useless about terminology, whether grammatical or otherwise; on the contrary, some sort of reasonably consistent terminology is part-and-parcel of helping children get a purchase on the language they are using. This isn't to claim that such terminology is the be-all and end-all of helping children develop their linguistic skills, of course. After all, being able to define (or even identify) a metaphor won't of itself tell you what a particular metaphorical instance means, or why you might generally want to use a metaphor (or even when; a critical question that is at the heart of our project, and which I'll visit properly when I get the chance). And obviously there is the matter of how you want to introduce particular pieces of terminology with students. But it's surely something you'd want in the mix.

That all seems fairly sensible to me. What is most striking for present purposes, however, is the actual connection between grammar and metaphor itself, even if only because it taps into something that has been on my own mind of late. Specifically, I don't think any teacher would feel instinctively antipathetic when it comes to teaching metaphor. In fact, I'd wager this is something they think important, and probably a substantial part of the reason they got into English-teaching in the first place. Yet, if you think about it, this readiness is a little odd. After all, metaphors are pretty abstruse things; and you needn't take my word for this: the philosophical record on metaphor makes its own case here. (Please do, however, feel free to take my word that really you don't want to worry too much about Philosophy of Language; it's far less interesting than grammar). And I'd also wager you could say much the same thing about other stuff that we take to be valued parts of a writer's repertoire, such as similes or iambic pentameter or some other rhetorical trope. Yet, I've never come across a teacher who felt hugely antipathetic about the very thought of having to teach such tropes. Indeed, even the word "having" here seems out of place: these are not things that teachers have to teach; they are something teachers want to teach, curriculum be damned.

Turn to grammar, however, and suddenly everything feels different, as if two incompatible worlds were colliding: that of the teacher and that of the grammarian (and if Seinfeld has taught me anything, it's that worlds should never ever collide). This is no doubt for a number of good reasons, both pragmatic and practical; the most prominent of these being a lack of confidence when it comes to grammatical terminology and a lack of perceived relevance to the art of quality speaking and writing. And, of course, grammarians have to hold up their hands here, and acknowledge their own historical role in this antipathy.

For me, however, such an antipathy to grammar is fundamentally about as odd as a teacher's willingness to teach metaphor. Certainly, the former is not necessarily more abstruse than the latter, and there is increasing evidence showing that grammatical development can be just as substantive a part of becoming a good writer (e.g. Myhill, 2011). In other words, I'm not at all sure why grammar couldn't, even shouldn't, be just another part of a teacher's repertoire: something to be approached with the same rationale with which you'd approach metaphors and similes and iambic pentameters; hence, something to be approached with just the same verve and confidence. Of course, there's a lot that needs doing in order to tease out the brass tacks of such an approach; and I see our project as a substantive part of that work. Nevertheless, I'm confident that this is a much more practical question than many might think; a question of "what" grammar to teach and "how" and "when", rather than any "if" or "whether". So, by all means, if rhetorical tropes are the sorts of monsters that keep you awake at night, then you might as well add grammar to the horde; but if not, then you have no more to fear from grammar than you do metaphors...

- MB

 

The Project in a Nutshell

At its heart, our project takes its cue from the increasing emphasis on “grammar” within Western education systems; specifically, the requirement that grammatical development be a substantive part of the English curriculum. Thus, for example, the current National Curriculum, which features a statutory grammar appendix, requires that students should ‘acquire…an understanding of grammar’, and states that development in writing requires ‘an increasingly wide knowledge of vocabulary and grammar’.

Suppose we take the validity of all this for granted. The problem remains that there simply isn’t all that much evidence available to support an accurate picture of grammatical development in writing; let alone an educationally productive one. This isn’t, of course, to claim that there is no such evidence, with contemporary research yielding substantive insights into the grammatical underpinnings of student writing (e.g. Berman & Verhoeven 2002; Christie & Derewianka, 2008). Indeed, our prior ESRC-funded study of student writing has already provided a better understanding of these underpinnings (Myhill 2008; 2009). In other words, there is little doubt that writing development has a grammatical basis; we just need a much more comprehensive understanding of exactly what this basis entails. To what extent, for example, do the grammatical features used differ according to the age of the student or the quality of writing? Moreover, to what exent do these features differ according to the specific kinds of writing expected of students?

This is where our project comes in. Specifically, we’re putting together a large collection of student writing, drawn from schools across England and designed to encompass the range of writing produced by students aged 5-16. As such, our collection will not only comprise texts produced in English classes, it will also include writing drawn from both the Science and the Humanities classroom. Once complete, we’ll undertake a comprehensive grammatical analysis of this writing, aiming to provide a clearer picture of what grammatical development in writing looks like. Moreover, once we’re done with this analysis, we’ll also make the collection itself available; not just to other researchers, but for direct use in the classroom. In other words, teachers across the country will have access to a substantial collection of authentic student writing, one that they can use to guide the grammatical development of their own students, and so help them be the best writers that they can be.

Of course, there’s still a lot to unpack in what we’ve just said, and future posts will focus on doing just that; but for the moment, we’ll leave it here. More soon(ish).

Housekeeping

Before getting into the meat of our blog, some housekeeping. 

Most importantly, we very much want this to be a forum; a space for dialogue. Whether you’ve something you want to ask or something of your own that you wish to contribute, we want to hear it; not least, if you’re a teacher or student. In fact, if you’re a teacher or student, we need to hear it. Frankly, grammarians aren’t always the best at producing stuff that’s useful to the classroom; so the more we hear from you, the more successful our project is likely to be.

Secondly, in the spirit of the above, all posts and comments will be moderated for civility. Spirited discussion and debate are welcome; pettiness, personal attacks, and general nastiness are not. Any offensive commentary will be immediately deleted, and the commenter asked to rewrite should they wish their commentary to stand. Persistent offenders will simply be blocked.

Finally, our goal is to keep the blog open to the widest possible readership. That won’t always be easy or even possible, but it does mean that we’ll try to keep the “technical" stuff to a minimum. That said, we’re more than happy to go into as much detail as you want. So if you do want more detail, just comment on the relevant post and we’ll do our best to reply as soon as we can.