I was talking to someone about the state of English language learning in India today, and while talking to them, my mind went to the phrase ‘analysis paralysis’. The phrase simply means ‘not being able to make a decision owing to overthinking’. Let me explain why my mind thought of the phrase and how it typifies the state of the majority of English language learners in our country. Many individuals, particularly teachers, who assert a comprehensive understanding of grammar and also advocate for it in language teaching often hold misconceptions about its true nature. This misunderstanding can lead to ineffective teaching practices, which, in turn, contribute to learners possessing significant passive — albeit confused — grammatical knowledge. Those learners despite possessing the said knowledge struggle to communicate effectively. A common issue among educators is the conflation of grammar with sentence syntax. This approach assumes that if learners grasp and master the smaller components of language, they can gradually apply these ‘rules’ to larger textual structures, relying on a fundamental bottom-up methodology. For many, grammar is often simplified to, for instance, the ‘correct’ application of verb tenses. However, this presents a challenge. Regardless of one’s proficiency in grammatical mechanics, it is crucial to recognise that the same communication situation rarely occurs in identical circumstances. Factors such as the time elapsed since an event and the distance from its occurrence to the present, amongst others, can significantly influence one’s recollection. In essence, the awareness of broader contextual features determines our smaller linguistic choices — rather than the reverse. The same principle applies to grammar. Our overarching communicative goals and contexts fundamentally shape the grammatical decisions we make. I personally recall an instance where a learner once asked me , ‘Which is correct: “I have been to London” or “I went to London”?’ As any perceptive English speaker knows, the correctness of either statement hinges on the speaker’s intent. If the emphasis is on providing details about the visit, ‘went to’ would be preferable. Conversely, if the aim is merely to state an experience, ‘I have been to London’ is more suitable. The same reasoning applies to questions like ‘How long have you been in London?’ versus ‘How long were you in London?’ Here too, the notion of correctness is contingent upon the current context of the person being asked the question. There is no intrinsic quality within these sentences that renders them inherently correct or incorrect; rather, it is the macrostructure that influences the microstructural choices. Thus, instead of emphasising syntactical elements such as the ‘grammatical subject’, we should focus on macrostructural functions such as the context, the topic or the theme of the conversation. This perspective represents a top-down understanding of grammar, where overarching communicative intents guide the specific linguistic choices made. So, what is the practical implication of this analysis? Simply put, teaching grammar through a sentence-level syntax approach — a bottom-up as opposed to a top-down strategy — may enhance passive language skills such as reading or translation. However, it proves much less effective for developing productive skills, particularly those needed for real-time communication. This disparity helps explain the challenges observed in numerous English classrooms in our country today.
