Rethinking the teaching of grammar from the perspective of corpus linguistics

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Despite calls from many composition and rhetoric scholars for instructors of writing to stop teaching prescriptive grammar, a vast number of handbooks intended for college writing classes encourage this tradition. For example, Hacker's Pocket Style Manual has a section on grammar with instructions for students on how to write appropriately. While Hacker may not intend for her instructions to be taken as dictums, they often are, and much time is spent in many classrooms teaching students these rules of grammar. This article uses the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) to support the calls from composition and rhetoric scholars that prescriptive instruction in grammar is more a hindrance to writing instruction than a benefit. Focusing on a few specifics from frequently used grammar handbooks and illustrating how big data shows the "rules" are incorrect at best, this article argues that, just as scholars of English have begun using big data to better understand literary history, scholars of rhetoric and composition might better understand how to help students to write by understanding patterns within big data. Certainly, this argument recognizes that "common usage" may not necessarily be the most eloquent usage. In making this argument, this article focuses on the [neither or either of X] + Verb construction, where the Verb may have either a plural or a singular form. Our findings illustrate that the "real world" writing is different from what textbooks dictate, and we suggest the data-driven observations need to be appropriately incorporated in writing classes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-65
Number of pages31
JournalLinguistic Research
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019

Fingerprint

grammar
linguistics
hacker
Teaching
rhetoric
instruction
writing instruction
literary history
student
textbook
instructor
Corpus Linguistics
Grammar
classroom
Rhetoric
Verbs
Handbook

Keywords

  • Corpus linguistics
  • Indefinite pronouns
  • Logistic regression statistic
  • Writing handbook
  • Writing instruction

Cite this

Rethinking the teaching of grammar from the perspective of corpus linguistics. / Park, Chongwon; Wright, Elizabethada A; Beard, David E; Regal, Ron.

In: Linguistic Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.03.2019, p. 35-65.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3bdabed1774c41d48007f521f3a91764,
title = "Rethinking the teaching of grammar from the perspective of corpus linguistics",
abstract = "Despite calls from many composition and rhetoric scholars for instructors of writing to stop teaching prescriptive grammar, a vast number of handbooks intended for college writing classes encourage this tradition. For example, Hacker's Pocket Style Manual has a section on grammar with instructions for students on how to write appropriately. While Hacker may not intend for her instructions to be taken as dictums, they often are, and much time is spent in many classrooms teaching students these rules of grammar. This article uses the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) to support the calls from composition and rhetoric scholars that prescriptive instruction in grammar is more a hindrance to writing instruction than a benefit. Focusing on a few specifics from frequently used grammar handbooks and illustrating how big data shows the {"}rules{"} are incorrect at best, this article argues that, just as scholars of English have begun using big data to better understand literary history, scholars of rhetoric and composition might better understand how to help students to write by understanding patterns within big data. Certainly, this argument recognizes that {"}common usage{"} may not necessarily be the most eloquent usage. In making this argument, this article focuses on the [neither or either of X] + Verb construction, where the Verb may have either a plural or a singular form. Our findings illustrate that the {"}real world{"} writing is different from what textbooks dictate, and we suggest the data-driven observations need to be appropriately incorporated in writing classes.",
keywords = "Corpus linguistics, Indefinite pronouns, Logistic regression statistic, Writing handbook, Writing instruction",
author = "Chongwon Park and Wright, {Elizabethada A} and Beard, {David E} and Ron Regal",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.17250/khisli.36.1.201903.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "35--65",
journal = "Linguistic Research",
issn = "1229-1374",
publisher = "Institute for the Study of Language and Information, Kyung Hee University",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rethinking the teaching of grammar from the perspective of corpus linguistics

AU - Park, Chongwon

AU - Wright, Elizabethada A

AU - Beard, David E

AU - Regal, Ron

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Despite calls from many composition and rhetoric scholars for instructors of writing to stop teaching prescriptive grammar, a vast number of handbooks intended for college writing classes encourage this tradition. For example, Hacker's Pocket Style Manual has a section on grammar with instructions for students on how to write appropriately. While Hacker may not intend for her instructions to be taken as dictums, they often are, and much time is spent in many classrooms teaching students these rules of grammar. This article uses the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) to support the calls from composition and rhetoric scholars that prescriptive instruction in grammar is more a hindrance to writing instruction than a benefit. Focusing on a few specifics from frequently used grammar handbooks and illustrating how big data shows the "rules" are incorrect at best, this article argues that, just as scholars of English have begun using big data to better understand literary history, scholars of rhetoric and composition might better understand how to help students to write by understanding patterns within big data. Certainly, this argument recognizes that "common usage" may not necessarily be the most eloquent usage. In making this argument, this article focuses on the [neither or either of X] + Verb construction, where the Verb may have either a plural or a singular form. Our findings illustrate that the "real world" writing is different from what textbooks dictate, and we suggest the data-driven observations need to be appropriately incorporated in writing classes.

AB - Despite calls from many composition and rhetoric scholars for instructors of writing to stop teaching prescriptive grammar, a vast number of handbooks intended for college writing classes encourage this tradition. For example, Hacker's Pocket Style Manual has a section on grammar with instructions for students on how to write appropriately. While Hacker may not intend for her instructions to be taken as dictums, they often are, and much time is spent in many classrooms teaching students these rules of grammar. This article uses the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) to support the calls from composition and rhetoric scholars that prescriptive instruction in grammar is more a hindrance to writing instruction than a benefit. Focusing on a few specifics from frequently used grammar handbooks and illustrating how big data shows the "rules" are incorrect at best, this article argues that, just as scholars of English have begun using big data to better understand literary history, scholars of rhetoric and composition might better understand how to help students to write by understanding patterns within big data. Certainly, this argument recognizes that "common usage" may not necessarily be the most eloquent usage. In making this argument, this article focuses on the [neither or either of X] + Verb construction, where the Verb may have either a plural or a singular form. Our findings illustrate that the "real world" writing is different from what textbooks dictate, and we suggest the data-driven observations need to be appropriately incorporated in writing classes.

KW - Corpus linguistics

KW - Indefinite pronouns

KW - Logistic regression statistic

KW - Writing handbook

KW - Writing instruction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064491864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064491864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.17250/khisli.36.1.201903.002

DO - 10.17250/khisli.36.1.201903.002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85064491864

VL - 36

SP - 35

EP - 65

JO - Linguistic Research

JF - Linguistic Research

SN - 1229-1374

IS - 1

ER -