Poor Grammar, Good Writing?

 When I think of defining "grammar," I think of the words we use to label the parts of speech, like subjects, verbs, nouns, etc. It turns out that I am not alone in this simplistic view, but it is incomplete. Grammar also encompasses the syntax, or order of words, in the language we use (Clark 269). It is usually syntax that I find myself marking when I peer-review or when I edit my own work. But, when it comes to college-level writing, what we do with grammar is complex. Not all languages are the same, and if someone comes to English as a second language, there may be grammar and syntax issues that do not indicate bad writing, but instead indicate developing skills. I do not think that being "good at grammar" translates to being a proficient writer, but I do think that being a proficient reader will make one better at both grammar and writing.

In my personal experience with the grammar/writing divorce, I think of my eldest daughter. Carlee was homeschooled until her sophomore year of high school, and I was her teacher. I read widely and often to Carlee, and she loved audiobooks. She also read for pleasure at a young age and continued to do so, oddly only stopping this hobby when she entered public school. In public school, Carlee received high marks in writing, but failed nearly every grammar test. It was confusing for her, and sort of crushed her morale a bit. I had taught her grammar, but stopped teaching it formally after primary grades. She read and analyzed St. Augustine's Confessions as a freshman, and she produced essays for her teachers that received awards, but she failed miserably at identifying clauses and other structural elements of grammar. So, I wondered, "Does it matter? And if it does, why?" 

I believe that if one wants to write well, one could not do better than to read more. Linguists know that our brains are wired for language acquisition. We listen and speak, we read and watch, and we learn to write. I can't always say that I know how to label the parts of the sentence that isn't right, but I know it isn't right because the meaning is lost. I believe this cognitive ability comes from years of reading, and picking up language and syntax in the process. I found it fascinating that the Clark book cited many studies where students were given rigorous grammar instruction, but failed to improve their writing. Others were given rigorous reading assignments, and their writing improved. It seems that Carlee's experience isn't all that unique. 

I think the research on reading and its impact on writing skill makes a great case for the inclusion of reading in composition studies. If there is a debate on the importance of reading (or literature) over/under composition in English Studies, I wonder how the two can be separated if one informs the other? It also made me curious about the idea that listening to language makes us better at speaking it, so does it make us better at writing as well? Or must one physically read in order to write better? I am curious to know if there are studies that correlate audiobooks to improved writing skills, or if it is confined to visual reading. 

Whatever the mode, I think that experiencing great writing and use of language does something pretty magical in the mind. Linguists are still trying to figure out what makes the brain wire for language, and I think it is safe to say that we don't have all the answers yet. But, we do know that if we have more opportunities to see speaking modeled, we speak well, and if we have opportunities to see great writing modeled, we write well. I think it would be interesting to survey students at the beginning of a composition course to see how many of them enjoy reading and read often, and how that correlates with their attitudes and proficiencies in writing. I appreciate that in this field of English Studies, all of the parts compliment each other, inform each other, and bring richness to the study of text and word.