Health update – and some linguistics!

Hi everyone

I’m just gearing up for chemo round three, so I thought I’d update this blog before I go underground for a few days! I’m delighted to say that you continue to impress me with your challenges – including, recently, someone who made it up Helvellyn in the Lake District and someone who is returning to studying Lithuanian after a break (and well might he do so as it’s the language of his wife!). There’s also my lovely friend Kate who is planning to learn to crotchet. My challenges are progressing slowly – I am starting to learn my sixth poem now and the other five sustain me almost every night at some point when I’m wakeful. I’m playing the piano fairly frequently and I’m on a long Duolingo streak as well as reading some short stories in Italian!

But what I wanted to say today was something about linguistics, which is one of the loves of my life. I happened to see a post by Michael Rosen the other day on FB which enraged me, so I thought I’d share a few thoughts about this with you. I know Rosen is beloved by many in the UK and beyond, for good reason – he has written many lovely children’s books (although I knew the bear hunt story about 60 years ago as a girl guide, so it’s never been clear to me why he gets the credit for that!) and I often agree with his social and political observations too, which he shares liberally on social media. However, his stance on learning about language (i.e. linguistics) in primary schools is, in my view, simplistic, mistaken and very damaging to the field that I and many others have dedicated their lives to. Here’s the post that I’m referring to (from November 5th):

Someone (Alison Wrench) asked me on an earlier post about how come primary schools had to do the grammar test and the grammar curriculum in England. This is my answer: ‘It came from a report (Bew Report 2011) on account of interference and diktat from Michael Gove. Tame linguists were hired, including Richard Hudson and Bas Aarts. An exam was devised which then forced on Year 6 pupils a ‘grammar’ curriculum, a lot of which is out of date and irrelevant. This is then used to define ‘good writing’ in terms of ‘expected levels’ and so you got a situation in which a false tail was wagging a huge dog: children’s writing, distorting it as it wagged it!’

This post was commented on by many followers of Rosen, most of whom were horrified that young children should have to learn about something called a ‘fronted adverbial’. No one seems to have any other targets in mind (e.g. learning what a noun or a verb might be), just the fronted adverbial. Here are the reasons I think Rosen is making a point in a, frankly, populist manner, about something that should be much more nuanced and considered:

1. We teach – and expect primary age pupils to understand – many complex concepts in maths, science and other subjects. They are at an age to cope with learning new ideas, so this is a perfect time to teach them some ideas about how humans communicate too, including some grammar (why not?), if not the fronted adverbial. There is no reason to link this to the question of writing, good or otherwise, or reading. Whilst knowledge about language might feed into pupils’ writing or reading in different ways, it is worth teaching for its own sake. To that extent, I agree that some of the way it has been employed in schools is harmful, but…
2. …the political/ideological impetus for the aspects of this curriculum that Rosen dislikes came from a government wedded to old-fashioned ideas of education, often drawn from their own Eton-type experience, or aspirations to such. It doesn’t come from linguists. Of that I am absolutely sure. It is particularly invidious to pick out and name two highly respected linguists whose work was used in ways that they may not have anticipated when asked to provide some help to a government apparently valuing the work they do and the field they work in. To call them ‘tame’ is unworthy of sensible calm debate about what is best for pupils to study.
3. There is, of course, a question to be asked about whether grammar is the only – or most important – aspect of language knowledge to teach at this age, or whether, perhaps, some other aspects of language knowledge (phonetics – how we speak; sociolinguistics – how we judge people by their accents; pragmatics – how we mean things without exactly saying them; discourse – how we put together our arguments into coherent or persuasive texts) might be introduced early in their education. A case in point – I have just edited this list into three parts as that is an ideal way to list things when you want to appear to have covered every aspect of the subject under consideration!

So, I understand that the curriculum as set was probably not aimed at the right target. In other words, it was used rather mechanically to ‘improve’ reading and writing instead of being used to discuss human communication more generally. There are three (yes, another three-part list, indicating completeness) points to make about what should/could happen instead of a divisive attack on linguistics as though it, rather than narrowly ideological government policy, were the problem:

1. Teachers need a much better understanding of/background in linguistics in order to teach knowledge about language effectively. There is a large cohort of linguistics/languages academics waiting to be asked to help and they are not ‘tame’ but truly engaged.
2. The national curriculum should include content about human communication as a vital part of children’s learning in its own right. Whilst new developments in citizenship, financial understanding etc. are maybe fine as additions to the curriculum, if we want pupils to really understand the modern world we live in, then communication through language is a massive part of what is going on (see Artificial Intelligence, internet content and influence – it’s mostly language-based, even where it’s also visual). Its importance is such that I’d argue that knowledge about communication should be on a par with core subjects like maths and science and should not just be a sub-part of something called ‘English’. Indeed, it would also be better to learn about language not just through English, but through all the languages pupils speak at home or might learn in due course to make them citizens of the world. I’d not be afraid to call it what it is – Linguistics. This won’t frighten the kids even if it frightens you!
3. Finally, I would ask that we consider the importance of linguistics in learning to read, in learning to write and most importantly for learning to appreciate literary and other verbal arts. I am not alone in thinking that despite the failures of the curriculum that Rosen so despises, this is not a reason to ignore the fact that, like learning to play an instrument, real appreciation of literature can be enhanced not just by the experience of reading it, important though that is, but also by learning to understand how it works in a more conscious way. This doesn’t have to be boring and it can start gently at the younger ages, but it would involve (yes!) a bit of basic grammar and I can’t see a problem with that.

That’s it – I just needed to get that off my chest! We who care about – and understand – how language works need to work together to keep this vital area of study alive at all levels, from primary to university. I was once on Michael Rosen’s radio programme with my co-editor, Dan McIntyre, to talk about our magazine, Babel (https://babelzine.co.uk/) and we’re passionate to spread the word about how important linguistics is in all areas of life. We’re also both researchers who work on literary language as well as other types of text. Our field is called ‘Stylistics’ and we see it as central to linguistics and very helpful in literary studies too. I don’t really think Rosen is as down on linguists as he comes over in the FB post I quoted above – I know he often talks to them on his show. I await my next invitation with great pleasure!