FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OYE EKITI,

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND

LITERARY STUDIES,

FACULTY OF ARTS.

NAME:
AKINLABI ABIOLA TEMITAYO

MATRIC NUMBER:
20606567IA

COURSE:
ELS 103.
ASSIGNMENT
1. DISCUSS AND DEFINE ALL TYPES OF GRAMMAR

2.DISCUSS FIVE (5) FEATURES EACH OF THE GRAMMAR

3.THREE (3) WEAKNESSES AND THREE (3) STRENGTH OF EACH

GRAMMAR

1. DISCUSS AND DEFINE ALL TYPES OF GRAMMAR

INTRODUCTION TO GRAMMAR.

Grammar is used to refer to a number of different things: it can be used to

refer to books that contain descriptions of the structure of a language; it can be
used to refer to the knowledge that a native speaker has of his or her language and
to descriptions of that knowledge; it can be used to refer to a set of rules developed
to control certain aspects of the usage of native speakers; and it can be used to refer
to a set of rules typically taught in school about “appropriate usage” and about
writing. We’re concerned with three of these kinds of grammars: descriptive
grammar which has as its goal a description of the usage of native speakers of a
language; prescriptive grammar which has as its goal to control the usage of native
speakers of a language; and school grammar which is primarily the simplified
subset of prescriptive grammar taught in school.

Ancient and medieval grammars

In Europe the Greeks were the first to write grammars. To them, grammar
was a tool that could be used in the study of Greek literature; hence their focus on
the literary language. The Alexandrians of the 1st century BC further developed
Greek grammar in order to preserve the purity of the language. Dionysus Thrax of
Alexandria later wrote an influential treatise called The Art of Grammar, in which
he analyzed literary texts in terms of letters, syllables, and eight parts of speech.

The Romans adopted the grammatical system of the Greeks and applied it
to Latin. Except for Varro, of the 1st century BC, who believed that grammarians
should discover structures, not dictate them, most Latin grammarians did not
attempt to alter the Greek system and also sought to protect their language from
decay. Whereas the model for the Greeks and Alexandrians was the language of
Homer, the works of Cicero and Virgil set the Latin standard. The works
of Donatus (4th century AD) and Priscian (6th century AD), the most important
Latingrammarians, were widely used to teach Latin grammar during the
European Middle Ages. In medieval Europe, education was conducted in Latin,
and Latin grammar became the foundation of the liberal arts curriculum. Many
grammars were composed for students during this time. Aelfric, the abbot of
Eynsham (11th century), who wrote the first Latin grammar in Anglo-Saxon,
proposed that this work serve as an introduction to English grammar as well. Thus
began the tradition of analyzing English grammar according to a Latin model.

The modistae, grammarians of the mid-13th to mid-14th century who viewed

language as a reflection of reality, looked to philosophy for
explanations of grammatical rules. The modistae sought one “universal” grammar
that would serve as a means of understanding the nature of being. In 17th-century
France a group of grammarians from Port-Royal were also interested in the idea
of universal grammar. They claimed that common elements of thought could be
discerned in grammatical categories of all languages. Unlike their Greek and Latin
counterparts, the Port-Royal grammarians did not study literary language but
claimed instead that usage should be dictated by the actual speech of living
languages. Noting their emphasis on linguistic universals, the contemporary
linguist Noam Chomsky called the Port-Royal group the first transformational
grammarians.

Modern and contemporary grammars

By 1700 grammars of 61 vernacular languages had been printed. These were

written primarily for purposes of reforming, purifying, or standardizing language
and were put to pedagogical use. Rules of grammar usually accounted for formal,
written, literary language only and did not apply to all the varieties of actual,
spoken language. This prescriptive approach long dominated the schools, where
the study of grammar came to be associated with “parsing” and sentence
diagramming. Opposition to teaching solely in terms of prescriptive and
proscriptive (i.e., what must not be done) rules grew during the middle decades of
the 20th century.

The simplification of grammar for classroom use contrasted sharply with the
complex studies that scholars of linguistics were conducting about languages.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries the historical point of view flourished.
Scholars who realized that every living language was in a constant state of flux
studied all types of written records of modern European languages to determine the
courses of their evolution. They did not limit their inquiry to literary languages but
included dialects and contemporary spoken languages as well. Historical
grammarians did not follow earlier prescriptiveapproaches but were interested,
instead, in discovering where the language under study came from.

As a result of the work of historical grammarians, scholars came to see that the
study of language can be either diachronic (its development through time) or
synchronic (its state at a particular time). The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure and other descriptive linguists began studying the spoken language. They
collected a large sample of sentences produced by native speakers of a language
and classified their material starting with phonology and working their way to
syntax.

Generative, or transformational, grammarians of the second half of the 20th

century, such as Noam Chomsky, studied the knowledge that native speakers
possess which enables them to produce and understand an infinite number of
sentences. Whereas descriptivists like Saussure examined samples of individual
speech to arrive at a description of a language, transformationalists first studied the
underlying structure of a language. They attempted to describe the “rules” that
define a native speaker’s “competence” (unconscious knowledge of the language)
and account for all instances of the speaker’s “performance” (strategies the
individual uses in actual sentence production). See generative
grammar; transformational grammar.

The study of grammatical theory has been of interest to philosophers,

anthropologists, psychologists, and literary critics over the centuries. Today,
grammar exists as a field within linguistics but still retains a relationship with these
other disciplines. For many people, grammar still refers to the body of rules one
must know in order to speak or write “correctly.” However, from the last quarter of
the 20th century a more sophisticated awareness of grammatical issues has taken
root, especially in schools. In some countries, such as Australia and the United
Kingdom, new English curricula have been devised in which grammar is a focus of
investigation, avoiding the prescriptivism of former times and using techniques
that promote a lively and thoughtful spirit of inquiry
Types of Grammar
1. Generative grammar

A generative parse tree: the sentence is divided into a noun phrase (subject),
and a verb phrase which includes the object. This is in contrast to structural and
functional grammar which consider the subject and object as equal constituents. [1][2]
Generative grammar is a concept in generative linguistics, a linguistic
theory that regards linguistics as the study of a hypothesised innate grammatical
structure.[3] It is a biological[4] or biologistic[5] modification of structuralist theories,
deriving ultimately from glossematics.[6][7][a] Generative grammar
considers grammar as a system of rules that generates exactly those combinations
of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language. The difference
from structural and functional models is that the object is base-generated within
the verb phrase in generative grammar.[8][9] This purportedly cognitive structure is
thought of as being a part of a universal grammar, a syntactic structure which is
caused by a genetic mutation in humans.[10]
Generativists have created numerous theories to make the NP VP (NP)
analysis work in natural language description. That is, the subject and the verb
phrase appearing as independent constituents, and the object placed within the verb
phrase. A main point of interest remains in how to appropriately analyse Wh-
movement and other cases where the subject appears to separate the verb from the
object.[11] Although claimed by generativists as a cognitively real
structure, neuroscience has found no evidence for it.[12][13] In other words,
generative grammar encompasses proposed models of linguistic cognition; but as
of yet there is no specific indication that these are quite correct.

2. Transformational grammar
In linguistics, transformational grammar (TG) or transformational-generative
grammar (TGG) is part of the theory of generative grammar, especially of natural
languages. It considers grammar to be a system of rules that generate exactly those
combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language and
involves the use of defined operations (called transformations) to produce new
sentences from existing ones. The method is commonly associated with American
linguist Noam Chomsky.
Transformational algebra was first introduced to general linguistics by
the structural linguist Louis Hjelmslev.[1] A modification which
separated discourse and semantics from syntax was subsequently made by Zellig
Harris, giving rise to what became known as transformational generative grammar.
[1]
The full Hjelmslevian conception, in contrast, is incorporated into functional
grammar.[2]

3. Descriptive Grammar
As described above, descriptive grammar attempts to describe the usage of
native speakers.
Descriptive grammar assumes that the only authority for what is exists in a
language is what
its native speakers accept and understand as part of their language. A speaker who
says “I
ain’t doing nothing,” intending to say just that, has produced a sentence which is
grammatical
in the dialect and register in which he or she is speaking. This utterance is
“grammatical” (i.e.,
produced by the grammar of a native speaker) for speakers of several different
dialects of
English and appropriate in different registers for those dialects.
A descriptive grammar therefore will specify many rules for structures in which no
native
speaker will ever produce anything except a single form, for example, rules like (1)
– (3) below.
1. In English, the article precedes the noun and any adjectives modifying the noun.
a. The short people moved.
b. *Short the people moved.1
c. *Short people the move.
2. In English, demonstratives agree in number with the nouns they modify: that
and this go
with singulars; those and these go with plurals.
a. That dog is surprisingly fond of these bones.
b. *Those dog is surprisingly fond of this bones.
3. Use only one question word at the beginning of an English sentence.
a. Who said what?
b. *Who what said?
c. *What who said?
1 before a sentence means the sentence is ungrammatical in the sense that the
sentence is not produced by the
grammar of a native speaker of English; ? before a sentence means the sentences is
questionable – it sounds weird,
but not as bad as a *’d sentence; % before a sentences means that some speakers
would accept a sentence while
others would not.
A descriptive grammar will also specify rules which allow variation in structures
which
speakers use variably. What does that mean? (4) is an example of a rule that varies
in different
contexts:
Speakers of more or less standard dialects of American English
4. typically use objective pronouns after copular verbs;
a. That is me.
b. It’s him.
c. The guy in the front row with the red hat is him.
5. use subject case pronouns after copular verbs with very short subjects in formal
contexts;
a. %That is I.
b. %It is he.
c. ?That guy in the front row with the red hat is he.

4. Prescriptive Grammar
Prescriptive grammars, on the other hand, assume the existence of better
authorities than the
usage and judgment of native speakers. People who write prescriptive grammars
adduce better
language users (educated speakers, high-class speakers, great writers), better
languages (usually
Latin) and better information systems (mathematics or predicate calculus) as
authorities for
preferring one usage over another. Prescriptive rules exist only to express a
preference for one
structure or usage or linguistic item over another. A prescriptive grammar will not
contain rules
that tell you to put articles before nouns, rather than after, because no native
speakers of English
put articles after nouns. Prescriptive rules are reserved for places where speakers
have choices
and they exist to limit those choices. For example, consider this discussion from
Fowler’s A
Dictionary of Modern English Usage.
6. preposition at end. It was once a cherished superstition that prepositions must be
kept true to their name and placed before the word they govern in spite of the
incurable English instinct for putting them late (’They are the fittest timber to make
great politics of,’ said Bacon; and ‘What are you hitting me for?’ says the modern
schoolboy). ‘A sentence ending in a preposition is an inelegant sentence’
represents what used to be a very general belief,
and it is not yet dead. One of its chief supports is the fact that Dryden, an
acknowledged master of English prose, went through all his prefaces contriving
away the final prepositions that he had been guilty of in his first editions. It is
interesting to find Ruskin almost reversing this procedure. In the text of the Seven
Lamps there is a solitary final preposition to be found and no more; but in the later
footnotes they are not avoided (Anymore wasted words...I never heard of./Men
whose occupation for the next fifty years wouldbe the knocking down every
beautiful building they could lay their hands on). Dryden’s
earlier practice shows him following the English instinct; his later shows him
sophisticated with deliberate latinism: ‘I am often put to a stand in considering
whether what I write be the idiom of the tongue, ... and have no other way to clear
my doubts but by translating my
English into Latin’. The natural inference from this would be: you cannot put a
preposition
(roughly speaking) later than its word in Latin, and therefore you must not do so in
English.
Gibbon improved upon the doctrine, and , observing that prepositions and adverbs
are not
always easily distinguished, kept on the safe side by not ending sentences with on,
over,
under, or the like, when they would have been adverbs.
The fact is that the remarkable freedom enjoyed by English in putting its
prepositions
late and omitting its relatives is an important element in the flexibility of the
language. The
power of saying A state of dejection such as they are absolute strangers to instead
of A
state of dejection of an intensity to which they are absolute strangers, or People
worth
talking to instead of People with whom it is worthwhile to talk, is not one to be
lightly
surrendered. But the Dryden-Gibbon tradition has remained in being, and even
now
immense pains are sometimes expended in changing spontaneous into artificial
English.
That depends on what they are cut with is not improved by conversion into That
depends
on with what they are cut; and too often the lust for sophistication, once blooded,
becomes
uncontrollable, and ends with, That depends on the answer to the question as to
with what
they are cut. Those who lay down the universal principle that final prepositions are
'inelegant' are unconsciously trying to deprive the English language of a valuable
idiomatic
resource, which has been used freely by all our greatest writers except those whose
instinct
for English idiom has been overpowered by notions of correctness derived from
Latin
standards. The legitimacy of the prepositional ending in literary English must be
uncompromisingly maintained; in respect of elegance or inelegance, every
example must be judged not by any arbitrary rule, but on its own merits, according
to the impression it makes on the feeling of educated English readers. (473-4)
Notice that Fowler said that Dryden in revising himself did not ask “What sounds
good in English?”, instead he very explicitly changed his writing so it existed as a
pseudo-translation of Latin (an odd thing to do unless you really believe in the
superiority of Latin). Fowler distinguishes between style and grammar much more
effectively than most prescriptivists. He is
arguing in favor of (or against) different usages because of what he perceives their
stylistic effect to be – he is not claiming that ending a sentence with a preposition
(or avoiding ending a sentence
with a preposition) is “ungrammatical”. He is expressing a stylistic preference.
There has been a long tradition in prescriptivism to claim that those things which
the prescriptivists dislike are
ungrammatical. (7) suggests that split infinitives or verb phrases are somehow
wrong; the data
suggests that not only do English speakers prefer to split infinitives sometimes,
sometimes they actually must.
7. "Avoid separating the parts of a verb phrase or the parts of an infinitive." (H.
Ramsay
Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook: 242)
a. Our five-year mission is to boldly go where no one has gone before.
b. Our five-year mission is to go boldly where no one has gone before.
c. To only read the first chapter, and not answer the questions, would be a waste of
time.
d. ?*Only to read the first chapter, and not answer the questions, would be a waste
of time.
e. To read only the first chapter, and not answer the questions, would be a waste of
time.
((e) means something different from (c))
One of the most important things about prescriptive grammarians or various
stylists is that their
rules must sit on top of an adequate descriptive grammar. Why? Descriptive
grammar tells us
what a preposition or an infinitive is. If you don’t know what an infinitive is, how
can you
interpret (7) above? Nothing in prescriptive grammar defines infinitives.
It is descriptive grammar that notes that speakers have choices in certain
constructions about
where the preposition can appear. The prescriptivist comes in and asserts that only
one of
the choices is “correct”, but the existence of the choices and the structure that sits
beside
them can only be found by competent observation and description of native
speaker usage.
Prescriptive rules are a set of social and sometimes more narrowly aesthetic rules
about
linguistic structure – they are not, contrary to way they are often presented – rules
of language.
The degree to which a speaker or writer abides by these rules may affect how his
or her
audience judges the work or the author of it. A failure to abide by the rules may
suggest to an
audience that the speaker/writer is unfamiliar with these rules (which can be
associated with
intellectual, scholastic or social success), while abiding by them may suggest to an
audience that
the speaker/writer is pompous and overly formal.
5. School Grammar

Within prescriptive and descriptive grammar is a subset of (usually highly

oversimplified) rules
which are explicitly taught in school. These will include things like definitions of
word categories
(nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc.) and the very explicit prescriptive rules like the
“don’t end a
sentence in a preposition” rule discussed above. These rules are found in textbooks
and other
materials used in schools from elementary school to college. They include
statements like “A
verb is an action word” (a definition which we will find woefully inadequate when
we start
actually working with verbs), and rules like
8. "Use the subjective case for all parts of compound subjects and for subject
complements." (H. Ramsay Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook:162)
a. That's her.
b. That's she.
c. The best person for the job would be me.
d. *The best person for the job would be I.
Compare this with the rule (4) above and the data listed with (4) and (8), it should
be clear
that there is a substantial problem with it. It appears unfortunately to press English
speakers
and writers to produce things which sound absolutely horrible to the English ear.

6. Cognitive grammar

Cognitive grammar is a usage-based approach to grammar that

emphasizes symbolic and semantic definitions of theoretical concepts that have
traditionally been analyzed as purely syntactic.
Cognitive grammar is associated with wider movements in contemporary language
studies, especially cognitive linguistics and functionalism.

The term cognitive grammar was introduced by American linguist Ronald

Langacker in his two-volume study Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Stanford
University Press, 1987/1991).
 2
Features of Generative Grammar

1. The main principle of generative grammar is that all humans are born with an
innate capacity for language and that this capacity shapes the rules for what is
considered "correct" grammar in a language. The idea of an innate language
capacity—or a "universal grammar"—is not accepted by all linguists. Some
believe, to the contrary, that all languages are learned and, therefore, based on
certain constraints. Linguists who work within the framework of generative
grammar strive to develop a general theory that reveals the rules and laws that
govern the structure of particular languages, and the general laws and principles
governing all natural languages.

2. The basic areas of study include phonology (the study of the sound patterns of
language), morphology (the study of the structure and meaning of
words), syntax (the study of the structure of sentences), and semantics (the study of
linguistic meaning).

3. A signature feature of generative grammar is the view that humans have an

innate "language faculty" and that the universal principles of human language
reflect intrinsic properties of this language faculty. In learning their native
languages, children acquire specific rules that determine the sound and meaning of
utterances in the language.

4. These rules interact with each other in complex ways, and the entire system is
learned in a relatively short time and with little or no apparent conscious effort.
The most plausible explanation for the success of human language learners is that
they have access to a highly restrictive set of principles which does not require (or
permit) them to consider many alternatives in order to account for a particular
construction, but instead limits them to a few possible rules from which a choice
can be made -- if necessary, without much further evidence.

5. Since there is no evidence that the principles that define the class of possible
rules and systems of rules are learned, it is thought that these principles serve as
the preconditions for language learning, forming part of the innate capacity of
every normal child. Viewed in this light, the principles we are attempting to
discover are part of the genetic endowment of all humans. It follows that an
understanding of these principles is necessary to an understanding of the mental
makeup of the human species.

Only after extensive parts of the grammars of different languages have been
formulated is it possible to ask questions concerning the ways in which various
languages differ or the ways in which all languages are the same. Consequently, a
large part of our effort is devoted to the study of linguistic detail (for example, the
interpretation of English verb phrase ellipsis, the morpho-semantics of the Greek
perfect, the syntax of multiple questions, or prosodic phrasing in Korean). The
ultimate goal is not merely to understand these details, but to use them as a bridge
to understanding the human language faculty in general.

 Features of transformational Generative Grammar

If you want to talk about central tenets, two appear in the phrase “transformational
generative.” Language (syntax) is created by a series of derivations
(transformations) from deeper levels to surface levels. These account for how we
get from the active to the passive voice, for example. This part has been de-
emphasized in recent decades as the psychological implausibility of it has become
evident. The generative part of the title seems to have weathered better: language is
a result of generative algorithms that account for the infinite capability of language
expressions using finite resources. TG grammar is also referred to simply as
Universal Grammar. This is because it is believed to be universal across all
languages. What we see in the bewildering linguistic variations across the planet
are mere surface phenomena; underneath, languages are said to be derived from a
common core of essential principles. This claim has come under considerable fire
for the difficulty involved in demonstrating it in any believable and systematic
way.

 Features of Descriptive Grammar

1. The grammar of a language is part of human cognition and interacts

with other cognitive faculties, especially with perception, attention,
and memory. . . .
2. The grammar of a language reflects and presents generalizations about
phenomena in the world as its speakers experience them. . . .
 3. Forms of grammar are, like lexical items, meaningful and never
'empty' or meaningless, as often assumed in purely structural models
of grammar.
4. The grammar of a language represents the whole of a native speaker's
knowledge of both the lexical categories and the grammatical
structures of her language.
5. The grammar of a language is usage-based in that it provides speakers
with a variety of structural options to present their view of a given
scene."

 Features of Prescriptive Grammar

 The grammar of a language is part of human cognition and interacts with

other cognitive faculties, especially with perception, attention, and
memory. . . .
 The grammar of a language reflects and presents generalizations about
phenomena in the world as its speakers experience them. . . .
 Forms of grammar are, like lexical items, meaningful and never 'empty' or
meaningless, as often assumed in purely structural models of grammar.
 The grammar of a language represents the whole of a native speaker's
knowledge of both the lexical categories and the grammatical structures of
her language.
 The grammar of a language is usage-based in that it provides speakers with a
variety of structural options to present their view of a given scene."
 Descriptive grammar is mainly interested in observing and describing the
language , hence its name, since it has a descriptive interest.
 It is always linked to a particular linguistic community , which will study in
depth, in order to describe the rules and principles by which it is governed.
 He has no pretensions to judge the language he studies , since his mission is
not to determine if a word is good or bad, beautiful or ugly, but to
understand if it is understood by the language as grammatical, and what are
the principles by which his use.
 When approaching the Language, to be able to understand its reality through
its expression in the Speech, the prescriptive Grammar also enters the realm
of the concrete or the tangible, since part of facts, realized in the speech, to
carry out its study.
 Features of Traditional Grammar

 The term traditional grammar refers to the collection of prescriptive rules

and concepts about the structure of language that is commonly taught in
schools. Traditional English grammar, also referred to as school grammar, is
largely based on the principles of Latin grammar, not on
modern linguistic research in English.

 Traditional grammar defines what is and is not correct in the English

language, not accounting for culture or modernizing in favor of maintaining
tradition. Because it is fairly rigid and rooted in the ways of the past,
traditional grammar is often considered outdated and regularly criticized by
experts. Even so, many children learn this proper, historical form of
grammar today.

 The main characteristics of traditional grammar relate to usage, diction, style

and punctuation.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Generative Grammar
Strengths

 It stressed the creative or generative aspect of the language faculty. Before

the Chomskyan revolution, a Skinnerian behaviorist approach reigned where
language was pretty much thought to be a simple response to environmental
stimuli. Chomsky put the emphasis on our possibly innate capacity to build
language in our heads--I say possibly here because it's a very controversial
and as yet unresolved issue. This hearkens back to the old nature vs. nurture
debate and puts the weight firmly back on nature. In other words, we're not
just mindless automatons but cognitively sophisticated beings capable of
building complex, intricate structures in our brains. Chomsky's approach
was instrumental in bringing about the cognitive science revolution which
proceeds from the assumption that the mind is composed of structured
representations that are combinatorial, rule-bound, and generative and not
just some connectionist network of patterned associations.
 The use of transformations highlighted the multilayered nature of
grammatical structures and how what you see is not always what you get.
For example, how does one get from the active to passive voice? What
operations must occur? Might the failure to acquire some of these operations
by adult L2 speakers show the amazing language-building capacity of the
child brain? Some of these multistratal analyses went quite a ways toward
explaining and clarifying linguistic complexity that, imo, are more logically
concise than previous muddled, traditional approaches to teaching syntax.
They brought an almost mathematical clarity to questions of language that
had always seemed opaque.

Weaknesses

 Chomsky's approach is syntactocentric. In other words, it stresses syntax

over phonology and semantics. This actually led to a bitter division in the
early generative tradition by those who wanted to propose that not only were
deeper levels of syntax encoded in the brain but semantics was too. This
overriding emphasis on syntax has unfortunately led to the estrangement of
linguistics from philosophy, which emphasizes semantics; its rationalistic
orientation has also isolated it from psychology and neurology, which are
empiricist in approach. Insights from these other domains has unfortunately
 not always played as big a role in constraining theoretical proposals by the
die-hard Chomskyans. And vice-versa.
 Chomsky's rationalist approach which tends to dismiss empirical evidence in
conflict with the theory. Chomsky tends to write off such contradictory
evidence as mere "performance" phenomena of no use to the abstractions the
generative linguist is interested in exploring. When not dismissed, empirical
evidence that conflicts with or complicates a Chomskyan analysis seems to
lead to, in my view, ad hoc innovations, which are really not constructed for
any reason other than to accommodate this new wrinkle in the theory. This
makes the theory unbelievably complex. It simply strains credulity to
believe that the human brain--and the child brain at that--is capable of
accommodating so many complicated layers of branching DP's and IP's and
CP's and movement and merging. I assume the theory is trying to address
questions of how language is actually structured in the brain, although some
of Chomsky's recent remarks make me question if that is an actual goal of
the theory. He seems more interested in idealizations that work rather than
testing those proposals against the admittedly frustrating miasma of real
world evidence.

Transformational Generative Grammar

Strengths
 Commonly accepted method of the organization expression of words and
phrases so that intended meaning is communicated effectively and correctly.
 If grammar is incorrect, the intended message is fragmented and could become
awkward in verbal conversation
 Incorrect or misuse of grammar can portray the reader/listener that the
communicator is uneducated or unintelligent

Weaknesses

 Prescriptive notion of rules for learner

 Places priority on rules rather than on the functions and applications of
communication
· It does not discern between all linguistic levels, such as phonology,
morphology, syntactic and semantic

Strengths and Weaknesses of Prescriptive Grammar

(+) Teaching prescriptive grammar creates formal writers and resources.

(+) Teaching prescriptive grammar is beneficial for both non-native teachers and
learners, as it has definite rules of language that help reduce confusion.

(-) Prescriptive grammar might keep non-native speakers wondering and

confused when they talk with a native speaker, as they might realize that some
natives do not write or speak with these rules.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Descriptive Grammar

(+) The descriptive grammar approach improves non-native speakers’

pronunciation and helps them sound like native speakers.

(+) The descriptive grammar approach helps language learners understand the
applied usage of language and communicate better with native speakers.

(-) The descriptive grammar approach is sometimes not used in formal settings,
such as exams and speech.