One time I wrote in my own blog:
you're sharing the same tent together.
SVO にtogether(あーっと、together はCになるの？）"
and ended up being ridiculed by one of the writers in this blog.
Another time another member said to me, "MrsMaloneさんの文法の感覚は、さすがに学校文法がほとんど入ってなかっただけあって・・・."
I know, I know. I'm the last person who should make an entry about English grammar. But since I got a FULL score in the grammar section of TOEIC even when I can understand close to nil of Japanese explanations about English grammar, let me introduce you some books that might change your ideas about teaching grammar from "it's definitely important and should be done foremost, or people won't be able to use English well without a grammar knowledge" to "could it be that having a thorough knowledge about grammar has nothing to do with the usability or fluency of using English."
First comes Bill Bryson. He's an author of many intriguing books and this title is especially good for language otaku and English teachers.
The Mother Tongue
Quote: "Considerations of what makes for good English or bad English are to an uncomfortably large extent matters of prejudice and conditioning. Until the eighteenth century it was correct to say "you was" if you were referring to one person. It sounds odd today, but the logic is impeccable. Was is a singular verb and were a plural one. Why should you take a plural verb when the sense is clearly singular? The answer-surprise, surprise-is that Robert Lowth didn't like it. "
Huh? Is the quote saying that such a rule was made simply because one grammarian in the past preferred one to the other? mmm Isn't it kind of absurd if we have to follow some rules that one person set up on without any substantial reason? I think if you have time to study ABOUT English grammar with Japanese books, then it might not be a waste of time to read similar kind of books in English. You know, there's a pile of books out there about history of English grammars.
The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left
In the previous post, TSJ-san wrote「 文法書や文法問題集をやったって本当の文法は身につきません！まずはたくさん使う！」I found exactly the same message in this book.
Quote: "The basic problem was that there was no means of relating the analytical skills involved in doing grammar to the practical skills involved in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The grammarians argued that there just had to be a connection-that any child who learned to parse would inevitably end up being a better user of its language. But there was nothing at all inevitable about it. And there was an obvious counter-argument, best summed up in an analogy. I have a friend who is a wonderful car mechanic-but he is a terrible driver.
The analogy is worth developing. To be a good driver takes a lot more than knowledge of how a car engine works. All kinds of fresh sensitivities and awarenesses are involved. Indeed, most of us learned to drive with next to no understanding of what goes on inside the bonnet. It is the same with language. As we shall see in the next chapter, something else has to happen if children are to use a knowledge of grammar in order to become better speakers, listeners, readers, or writers. A connection has to be made-and, more to the point, demonstrated."
I'm ready now to go so far as to say that the more thoroughly you learn English grammar, the less likely you'd be a fluent user of English, thanks to the excessively vast knowledge you gained.