Grammar and Education 4, 198-t Dear Mrs. Da,is; Thanks \ery much for sending me your paper and discussion commems, which I read with much imerest. I hesitate to express a judgment on the main question you are addressing. simply from lack of rele\am knowledge. My uninformed guess would be that the study of grammar would ha\e little detectable effect on writing ability, but I think it should be taught for Hs 0""'11 intrinsic interest and imponance. I don't see how any person can truly be called '"educated" '>''ho doesn't know the elements of sentence structure, or who doesn't understand the nacure of a relative clause, a passive construction, and so on. Furthermore, if one is going to discuss literature, including here what studems '>'Tite themselves, and to come to understand how it is '>'Titten and why, these conceptual tools are indispensable. For these purposes. I think traditional grammar so-called (say. the grammar of Jespersen l remains today a very impressive and useful basis for such reaching. I canr see any reason for teaching structural grammars of English. or for reaching transformational grammar in the manner of some instructional books that I have seen (I really don't know the literacure well at all), which simply amoum to memorizing meaningless formulas. If contemporary linguistics is to be taught (I think it should be). it is in a different comext. I do think it offers an incomparable avenue to understanding the nature of the human mind. It also can pro\'ide students with a way to understand how science works. There are questions that are. or should be. fascinating and puzzling: for example, why does the sentence "who did the boys expect to see them" allow the interpretation with them referring to the boys, '>'hile the sentence "the boys expect co see them" does not. Or why do the sentences "john is too stubborn to talk to Bill" and "john is rou stubborn to talk ro" have different "understood subjects" for "'talk ro" (John" in the case; someone other than john in the . .;b l:'duuaiull. lutume Si.\'11!1!11. .\'umber 3. Ocrober 198-i 16:; Englisb Ed.w.:a!I011 second). And mvriad others. These are simple, but very puzzling facts. Everv child has command of a huge mass of data of this son. It is also possible to develop explanatory theories of a rather non- trivial son that explain some of these facts, and ro do so wt:hour reson to higher mathematics or orher tools not avatlable ro the student (or reacher, generally). In thts way. one mtghr be introduced into rhe marvellous world of inquiry in which one learn_s to wonder about the nature of what seem. superficially, robe obn- ous phenomena, and to ask why they are the way they are. and come up with answers. This is an experience generally lackmg tn the srudv of the sciences unless the instruction is really done well. These are all reasons for studyin_g contemporary grammar-as a branch of science, which deals of central human concern and which happens to be fatrly accesstble, as compared. say, with quamum physics. I doubt that it '>viii improve writing style, but it could help srudems learn how (and why) w think about hard and intriguing questtons, and to de,elop the natural curiosirv that is so often dulled by what we (perhaps mis- leadingly) call .:education.'' . . Amwav, for what it is worth, my own \'lew ts that you should go on reaching traditional grammar, e\en if educational research shows no effect on ability to write. That should nor be the mam goal of such reaching, in my view. Sincerely, Noam Chomsky Letter from Noam Chomsky to the Editor March 21, 1984 Dear Professor Berger, . In response to your letter of March 15, I suppose I :vould ha,e no objection to your publishing my letter ro Mrs. Davrs, though I would appreciate it if you would make it clear t.har it was an informal letter. not written with an eye to publrcat10n. As rndtcated in the letter, I would nor want people ro be misled into thinking that I have any special insight into the question of grammar- reaching and writing or any special competence to talk abou1 the matter. Quire frankly, I doubt that others are in a better posn1on, apart from teachers rhemsekes. \vho really have expenence m the matter. Sincerely yours, Noam Chomsh.y