Grammar: how to tame the unruly beast

Simon Buckland
A young child sat at a desk in a classroom writing

“Grammar, which knows how to control even kings”- ѴDZè

When you think of grammar, “rule” is probably the first word that pops into your mind. Certainly the traditional view of grammar is that it’s about the “rules of language”. Indeed, not so long ago, teaching a language meant just teaching grammatical rules, plus perhaps a few vocabulary lists. However, I’m going to suggest that there’s actually no such thing as a grammatical rule.

To show you what I mean, let’s take the comparative of adjectives: “bigger”, “smaller”, “more useful”, “more interesting”, etc. We might start with a simple rule: for adjectives with one syllable, add -er, and for adjectives with two or more syllables, use more + adjective.

But this doesn’t quite work: yes, we say “more useful”, but we also say “cleverer”, and “prettier”. OK then, suppose we modify the rule. Let’s also say that for two-syllable adjectives ending in -y or -er you add -er.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t quite work either: we do say “cleverer”, but we also say “more sober” and “more proper”. And there are problems with some of the one-syllable adjectives too: we say “more real” and “more whole” rather than “realer” or “wholer”. If we modify the rule to fit these exceptions, it will be half a page long, and anyway, if we keep looking we’ll find yet more exceptions. This happens repeatedly in English grammar. Very often, rules seem so full of exceptions that they’re just not all that helpful.

And there’s another big problem with the “rule approach”: it doesn’t tell you what the structure is actually used for, even with something as obvious as the comparative of adjectives. You might assume that it’s used for comparing things: “My house is smaller than Mary’s”; “John is more attractive than Stephen”. But look at this: “The harder you work, the more money you make.” Or this: “London is getting more and more crowded.” Both sentences use comparative adjectives, but they’re not directly comparing two things.

What we’re actually looking at here is not a rule but several overlapping patterns, or paradigms to use the correct technical term:

  1. adjective + -er + than
  2. more + adjective + than
  3. parallel comparative adjectives: the + comparative adjective 1 … the + comparative adjective 2
  4. repeated comparative adjective: adjective + -er + and + adjective + -er/more and more + adjective

This picture is more accurate, but it looks abstract and technical. It’s a long way from what we actually teach these days and the way we teach it, which tends to be organized around learning objectives and measurable outcomes, such as: “By the end of this lesson (or module) my students should be able to compare their own possessions with someone else’s possessions”. So we’re not teaching our students to memorize a rule or even to manipulate a pattern; we’re teaching them to actually do something in the real world. And, of course, we’re teaching it at a level appropriate for the student’s level.

So, to come back to grammar, once we’ve established our overall lesson or module objective, here are some of the things we’re going to need to know.

  • What grammatical forms (patterns) can be used to express this objective?
  • Which ones are appropriate for the level of my students? Are there some that they should already know, or should I teach them in this lesson?
  • What do the forms look like in practice? What would be some good examples?

Existing grammar textbooks generally don’t provide all this information; in particular, they’re very vague about level. Often they don’t even put grammar structures into specific CEFR levels but into a range, e.g. A1/A2 or A2/B1, and none fully integrates grammar with overall learning objectives.

At app, we’ve set ourselves the goal of addressing these issues by developing a new type of grammar resource for English teachers and learners that:

  • Is based on the Global Scale of English with its precise gradation of developing learner proficiency
  • Is built on the Council of Europe language syllabuses, linking grammar to CEFR level and to language functions
  • Uses international teams of language experts to review the structures and assess their levels

We include grammar in the GSE Teacher Toolkit, and you can use it to:

  • Search for grammar structures either by GSE or CEFR level
  • Search for grammar structures by keyword or grammatical category/part of speech
  • Find out at which level a given grammar structure should be taught
  • Find out which grammar structures support a given learning objective
  • Find out which learning objectives are related to a given grammar structure
  • Get examples for any given grammar structure
  • Get free teaching materials for many of the grammar structures

Think of it as an open-access resource for anyone teaching English and designing a curriculum.

More blogs from app

  • A number of students sat at computers in a library

    What's the most effective way to learn English?

    By Mike Mayor

    "What’s the most effective way to learn English?" It’s a question that has perplexed linguists for years. I see room for plenty of innovation in where it all starts - 'Ed'.

    The evolution of edtech

    In the seventies, reel to reel tape recorders were the latest technology. They enabled us school kids in the north of England to hear French sentences spoken by a first language speaker, rather than by an English teacher.

    We looked at pictures projected onto the wall, listened to the sentences and repeated them over and over again.Not only did the audio-lingual methodology use the latest technology – but the pedagogy was also based on the 'sound' learning science of behaviorism. In a nutshell: if you repeat something often enough, it becomes automatic.

    This 'drill and kill' approach to language learning has since been discredited and replaced by the communicative approach. Nevertheless, it lasted long enough to inform all of my secondary school French education.

    I was considered a linguist and a grade A student. I went on to study for a French degree. But when I finally landed in France, I was unable to participate in even the most basic conversations. How effective had my language learning been?

    A focus on outcomes is needed

    So what is the takeaway? Publishers, entrepreneurs and edtech companies must think carefully about their products and courses. What problems are they trying to address? What outcomes are they trying to target?

    It’s not enough to be innovative or novel. The shiny new toy will only engage learners for a short time if they don’t feel like they are making progress. We need to measure the impact on actual learning.

    However, it is great to see so many exciting things happening in the world of edtech. For the first time, I believe we are on the cusp of delivering truly personalized learning journeys to all students –not just those who can afford individual tuition.

    Many of us are developing AI that makes the learning journey adaptive, that monitors learner progress and surfaces that progress to the learner, that offers feedback on pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, speaking and writing.

    We know that feedback has a significant impact on learning. We also know that it is challenging to give feedback on spontaneous language. But this is where AI is heading and soon the vision of learners interacting with virtual tutors on various topics will be a reality.

    The role of teachers in the edtech landscape

    Will technology replace teachers? Unlikely. Language is a social construct. We learn languages to communicate with others – and an increasing number of language apps are partnering with online tutors and creating language communities to address this need for human interaction. But technology can supplement what the teacher does – and will be able to do so more meaningfully thanks to AI.

    It can extend language learning outside of the classroom, driving faster progress. It is available 24/7.It provides learners with a safe space to practice and fail – a way to build confidence. It does not replace the teacher. Instead, it enables the teacher to be replaced in the classroom, focusing on the communicative elements of language learning that are still a challenge for apps.

  • A young man sat in a library, he has a pen in hand and is looking at the camera; a stack of books are next to him

    What does it mean to be fluent in English?

    By Mike Mayor

    What do we mean by English fluency, and how can understanding competencies across the four skills provide a more realistic picture of communicative English ability?

    What is fluency?

    As someone who worked in dictionaries, the meaning of words has always interested me – and fluency is a particular case in point. Language learners often set themselves the goal of becoming fluent in a language. Job adverts often specify “fluent in English or Spanish” as a requirement. But what does being 'fluent' in a language actually mean? If we look in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, we see that fluent means “able to speak a language very well”. Fluent speech or writing is described as “smooth and confident, with no mistakes”. In general, fluency is most often associated with spoken language – but is that the goal of all language learners? And what does being able to speak fluently show about the other language skills?

    Describing English proficiency

    Before entering the world of dictionaries, I taught English as a foreign language in France. At that time, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) had not yet been published and learners were described in very general terms – beginner, intermediate, advanced – with no agreed standards on what learners at each level were expected to know. As well as establishing standards, the CEFR also shifted the focus of language assessment from knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to functional competence, i.e. what can a student actually do with the language they’re learning across the four skills:

    • listening
    • reading
    • speaking
    • writing

    Interestingly, while calling out specific objectives for each skill, almost two-thirds of the information in the CEFR describes spoken language. This seems to imply that spoken fluency is indeed the most important goal for all language learners.

    Mapping out a personalized path to proficiency

    As a global publisher, app English recognizes that all learners are different – in their backgrounds, learning environments and learning goals. This is why we have undertaken new research to extend the set of learning objectives contained in the CEFR to account for learners who need detailed information about their level in all four skills, not just in one (typically, that of speaking).

    No learner will be equally proficient in all four language skills – in the same way that no native speaker is equally proficient in all skills in their first language. Some of us are better at writing than speaking, and many are illiterate in their first language. A true measure of language proficiency needs to take into account all of the skills. Equally, not every learner of English will need to be 'fluent' in spoken communication.

    Many researchers need to read papers in English and attend conferences in English – but will only ever present and write in their first language. Is 'fluency' a good way to describe their goal? And if it isn’t, does that somehow diminish their language achievements? By acknowledging proficiency in individual skills – rather than catch-all terms such as 'fluent' – we gain a clearer understanding of goals and outcomes, and with this knowledge, we are in a better position to tailor learning to the individual.

    Interested in learning more about the English language? Check out our postHow using jargon, idioms and colloquialism confuses English learners and our post on strange English phrases.

    If you're looking to improve your own fluency (in any language) make sure to check out our language learning app Mondy.