” Computers, according to Bantick, are at best a poor substitute for the proper study of grammar.
He then offers what amounts to a criticism of the postmodern assertion that communication is a matter of utility and therefore not something to be bothered by the rules of grammar. He refers to as “utter nonsense” the ideas put forth by some modern scholars who claim that grammar is but a power-grabbing tool “to establish linguistic hierarchy” (Bantick 2010). According to Bantick, grammar provides an objective material for study. By denying children grammar, the school system is effectively robbing them of “their own language” and giving them nothing more than a relativistic and ephemeral means to write, speak, and communicate. “Grammar has a sense of order.
This is different from essays, which can frequently be subjectively assessedwhereas grammar deals in objectivity, exactitude and rules” (Bantick 2010). Banticks sympathies are by now quite obvious.
In order to remedy the dearth of proper grammar in Australia, Bantick puts things bluntly: “Make it a requirement of prospective English teachers to sit a rigorous grammar test. / When English teachers are able to teach the rules of language with authority and purpose, the glamour of grammar will return” (Bantick 2010). Students are only as good as their teachers. In a broader sense then, the cultural decline of the times is a product of society itself. Relativism has led to decadence.
Bantick, Christopher. “Poor Show in Classrooms When Grammars Tossed Out the.