Keeleteadus ja kooligrammatika: Kas räägime samast keelest?

Abstract

https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa22.05

Artikkel uurib kvantitatiivselt keeleteadlaste ja eesti keele õpetajate arusaamu grammatikamõistete olulisusest emakeeleõpetuses. Uuring tugineb seitsme eksperdi intervjuudele ja 130 vastajaga ankeetküsitlusele, milles hinnati 42 grammatikamõistet. Tulemused näitavad, et nii keeleteadlased kui õpetajad peavad kõige olulisemaks lausetasandi mõisteid, nt lause, liitlause, samas kui abstraktsemad kategooriad jäävad tagaplaanile, nt nominalisatsioon, lause infostruktuur. Statistiliselt olulisi erimeelsusi ilmnes nelja mõiste puhul: lause infostruktuur, fraas, tegusõna käändelised vormid ja veaohtlikud vormid. Lahknevused viitavad ühest küljest erinevatele fookustele: keeleteadlased rõhutavad tähendusloomet, õpetajad õigekeelsust ja eksimuste vältimist. Teisalt näitavad need ka säilivat lõhet ainekavas tehtud keeleteaduslike ja didaktiliste muudatuste ning kooligrammatika vahel.

***

"Linguistics and school grammar: Are we talking about the same language?" 

This article explores the extent to which linguists and Estonian language teachers share common ground in their perceptions of essential grammatical concepts in first language education. While recent Estonian curriculum emphasizes text-based learning and meaning-oriented grammar teaching, classroom practice continues to rely heavily on traditional approaches. To examine this gap, the study combined seven expert interviews with a questionnaire (n = 130), in which respondents evaluated 42 grammatical concepts using a five-point scale. Findings show a strong consensus on the centrality of sentence-level categories such as sentence, clause, and verb, which were rated as highly important for L1 instruction. In contrast, more abstract concepts, such as nominalization and information structure (theme–rheme), were consistently rated as less relevant. Despite broad agreement, statistically significant differences emerged in four cases: linguists valued the concepts of phrase and information structure more highly, while teachers placed greater emphasis on verb inflectional forms and error-prone forms. These differences reflect diverging priorities: linguists are inclined towards descriptive and meaning-focused perspectives, whereas teachers prioritize correctness and error prevention. The analysis also revealed that teachers’ educational background influenced their evaluation of some concepts, particularly case, derivation, and gradation. Overall, the study highlights the persistence of a conceptual divide between school grammar and linguistic research: while linguists advocate a functional approach that integrates grammar into meaning-making, teachers remain oriented towards normative rules and formal accuracy. The article argues that bridging this gap requires closer integration of researchbased approaches into teacher education and professional development, as well as curricular and textbook revisions that place greater emphasis on contextualized, text-centered grammar teaching. In doing so, grammar can be reimagined as a tool for developing students’ awareness of language choices in authentic texts rather than as a set of prescriptive rules.