1.1 The Grammar Fatigue Syndrome
The word "grammar" comes from "graphein", a Greek root meaning "to write" or "to draw". Early forms of grammar can be traced to ancient Greece and India as far back as 500 BC. The term is now generally used to refer to the study of the interrelated system of structures — sounds (phonology), words (morphology), meanings (semantics), and sentences (syntax) — within a language or across languages. Grammar instruction has been a hallmark of English teaching in China since English was reinstated as a legitimate school subject in foreign language education some 40 years ago. Although there have been numerous attempts at reforming and improving English teaching for the English and non-English majors during this period (see 文秋芳，2019 for an informative reflection on the history of English teaching in China over the past 70 years), most of which were informed by pedagogical shifts in the broader field of second or foreign language education (see, for example, Nassaji & Fotos, 2004 for a review), grammar instruction remains surprisingly identical over time (1970s-2010s) and consistent across contexts (elementary-secondary-tertiary).
Much of what was taught in English classrooms across China is traditional grammar. This grammar, which is inherited from the Greeks and Romans, addresses such topics as parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb, adjective), tense (e.g., present tense, past tense, future tense), voice (i.e., active voice, passive voice), gerunds (e.g., Running is good for you.), participles (e.g., a running contest), determiners (i.e., a, an, the), modals (e.g., can, should, may, will), pronouns (e.g., it, they, you, this, those, which), clauses (e.g., subordinate clause, coordinate clause), and subject-verb agreement. This sort of grammar instruction focuses on form, paying little attention to meaning or function. It imposes arbitrary — and often rigid — rules that proficient users of English frequently violate, such as "Do not start a sentence with a conjunction", "Never use colloquial expressions in academic writing", and "Do not end a sentence with a preposition". Perhaps the most disappointing of all — to teachers, students, and employers alike — is that it has, by and large, led to decreased student engagement with language learning and failed to empower them as readers and writers. This has in turn reinforced a perception, widely held among English education scholars and teachers, that grammar instruction is neither useful (on the ground that it does not improve students' literacy performance) nor necessary in college (on the ground that students have learned enough grammar in their K-12 schooling).
The perception that grammar instruction is neither useful nor needed has led some English education scholars (e.g., 常俊跃、刘晓蕖、邓耀臣，2009;孙有中、李莉文，2011) to advocate for content-based instruction, or CBI, in English teaching. A major force in English as a second or foreign language pedagogy across the K-16 contexts, CBI promotes integration of language and content, allowing students to build content knowledge and improve language/literacy proficiency at the same time (Stoller, 2004). In actual CBI practice, however, English education scholars in China generally embraced a content-driven curriculum model, where content learning objectives are prioritized and language learning objectives are backgrounded. For example, the curriculum for the English major at a number of institutions that implemented CBI saw a marked increase in the number of courses aimed at developing students' content knowledge about Western history and culture (e.g., literature, arts, humanity, philosophy) and a concomitant reduction in the number of courses aimed at developing students' language proficiency. As Figure 1-1 shows, the traditional English curriculum is dominated by courses that focus on building basic language skills of speaking, listening, reading, writing, interpreting, and translating. Content-focused courses in such areas as linguistics, literature, and Western society and culture are only offered in junior and senior years.
Figure 1-1 Traditional Curriculum for English Students(https://www.daowen.com)
In the new curriculum model inspired by the Chinese version of CBI, illustrated in Figure 1-2, the number of content-focused courses increases noticeably and the number of courses dedicated to building language and literacy skills drops appreciably through either elimination or reconfiguration (e.g., 常俊跃、刘晓蕖、邓耀臣，2009; 孙有中、金利民，2010; 高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组，2000). This new orientation in curriculum design is likely due to the perception that most students, especially those attending elite universities (i.e., institutions with 985 and/or 211 designations), are already grammatically competent and have developed basic literacy in English by the time they enter college. There appears to be a general consensus today among many prominent English education scholars that grammar should no longer be within the purview of responsibility for English teachers at the college level. In fact, grammar is now widely considered a "pediatric" topic that belongs in elementary and secondary schooling. In short, the grammar fatigue syndrome has set in within the postsecondary English education community today.
Figure 1-2 A Content-Driven CBI Curriculum for English Students