This refers to the Mr. H. D. I. Anthony’s opinion, titled "Spoken English in Schools", appearing in ‘The Island’ of January 29th, 2009. Teaching grammar to your students will definitely make them ‘understand’ the rules of grammar and explain them to another, and this transference of grammatical knowledge may happily go on forever without their being able to be fluent in the language.

This may easily be demonstrated by teaching English grammar, using Sinhala as the medium of instruction to a batch of Sinhala students. Given that they are of average intelligence, they would certainly be able to explain most of the grammar rules they have learnt to another in perfect Sinhala. The question is whether it would give them any fluency in English when they reach the end of the programme.

If Mr. Anthony’s argument is valid, the students involved in the above programme should be able to speak and write fluently at the end of the programme, because, according to him, students’ learning formal grammar would do the trick and the argument should stand whether you teach them in Sinhala or English. In fact, if the argument is tenable, the student should be able to do better if it were explained in their mother tongue for the simple reason that it would help them to ‘understand’ or form concepts more easily. English may not be used at all for the purpose of explaining.

To understand the situation better, we can think of another class being conducted for the same duration in which students would not be taught any grammar at all. Instead, they would be engaged in doing various language activities which would make them listen, read, speak and write in English. It would not matter, or perhaps it would even be better, if the ‘subject’ taught were to be carpentry, scouting, IT or even cricket, which would make the students interact.

Surely, the second would be much more successful than the first if the expected outcome was to make them proficient in English. No doubt that the students who learnt grammar would be able to correct any grammatical errors made by the students in the second group, but they would not be a patch on the latter when it came to using English in real life situations.

I think this demonstrates the distinction between "learning" a language and "learning about" a language. To my mind, those who learn grammar ‘learn about’ the language while the others "learn" it or rather acquire it. When people migrate, they acquire the language of the new community in no time without being taught the formal grammar of the new language. On the other hand, those who learn the grammar of that language without being exposed to it in real life situations may at best acquire only a sort of grammatical competence. In the business of acquiring what is called language competency, frequency of exposure to the target language in practical situations can far outdo the benefits reaped by learning of grammar rules however much time you may devote to it.

Confidence in using a second language scarcely depends on getting a good dose of grammar. Consider, for example, the Sinhala or Tamil speakers who frequently incorporate English words, phrases and even sentences in their day to day conversation. Even though they may not be considered "fluent" in English at all, they would say their good mornings, thank yous, my congratulations, next weeks, that’s okay, what to do and even you’re welcomes very confidently as if they were part of their mother tongue. They would also read and understand ads, notices, sports news and certainly listen and comprehend the English they hear on the radio or television. Ask them to explain the grammar in any of those structures and they would be clueless. Ironically, those who have learnt English grammar in the medium of Sinhala or Tamil, which happens to be their mother tongue, are not likely to have developed any of the above skills or gained the same confidence as those who are referred to above.

It seems that the yearning to learn the grammar of the second language is more or less psychological. It is a form of delaying tactic conveniently used by adult learners of English. They would plead with you in their mother tongue: "Teach us nothing but grammar and mind you, you’d better start from the very beginning - we want things like tenses, past participles, etc". They would listen in rapt attention and chuckle gleefully every time you pull a grammar rule out of the box, but it would not worry them overmuch even if they couldn’t ask the simple question: "Could you tell me the time?" without stuttering in the middle. Of course they would vehemently insist on more and more grammar as the guaranteed cure.

What I feel is that this hectic demand for grammar, which usually comes from adult learners of English, is a symptom of their desperate need to acquire the language without getting themselves into awkward situations in the classroom or outside. It is pathetic because it tends to make them more and more self-conscious and inhibited. Children learn a second language much faster because they are less self-conscious or inhibited about making mistakes.

Go to any primary class and try to teach them your favourite grammar rule, either in English or in their mother tongue, and you are sure to traumatize the poor fellows. Alternatively, make them forget that they are going to do anything dreadful like "learning English" and make them actively participate in situations where they can freely use English - they would be delighted so far you wouldn’t try to hammer grammatical morals down their throats.

I should think that such an approach would be a far more natural and an exciting way to make your students acquire English. After all, we have already mastered at least one language without our elders policing us about violating grammar. Nobody is bothered about the grammar of our mother tongue and the result is that we speak it better than anybody else in the world. Who taught us the formal grammar of our language to make us more confident?