Nancy,

You might be interested in this one (if you don't already have it):

Williams, Joseph M. "The Phenomenology of Error." College Composition
and Communication 32 (May 1981): 152-68.

Williams doesn't discuss grammar instruction or diagramming per se, but
he does talk about how errors in writing should be addressed by teachers
and readers.  This article is famous in part because of its surprise
ending, and that's all I'll say for fear of giving away the surprise.

Also Constance Weaver's work is quite helpful; she has a number of
books about teaching grammar and writing, mostly in a K-12 setting, I
think.

Beth


>>> [log in to unmask] 3/9/2005 10:22:35 AM >>>
Nancy,



Here are some additions to your bibliography, with my comments added:



Some of the major statements against grammar, in addition to NCTE,
are:



*Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in
Written
Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
-Their
far-reaching condemnation of grammar was based primarily on the
results
of only one dissertation:



*Harris, R. J. (1962). "An Experimental Inquiry into the Functions and
Value of Formal Grammar in the Teaching of Written English to Children
Aged Twelve to Fourteen." Ph.D. dissertation. University of London.
-Harris's conclusions, which are not as far-reaching as Braddock et
al.
alleged, are inconclusive and unreliable for many reasons.



*Hartwell, Patrick. "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar."
College English, 47 (1985): 105-107. -Probably THE most influential
article ever written against grammar, though careful reading and
analysis reveal Hartwell's many tendentious arguments and
unsubstantiated claims.



*Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New
Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and
Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in
English.
-Hillocks's ability to condemn grammar was based entirely on how he
defined "grammar" and how he construed "statistical significance."



Some major statements in favor of grammar, in addition to Mulroy's
fine
book, include:



*Kolln, M. (1981). "Closing the books on alchemy." College Composition
and Communication, 32, 139-151. -This is Kolln's incisive analysis of
many of the questionable conclusions reached by Braddock et al. and
others in the anti-grammar camp. She also has articles later in
response
to Hartwell.



*Noguchi, Rei. Grammar and the Teaching of Writing, NCTE, 1991. -an
excellent statement of how grammar can fit appropriately into writing
instruction.



*Tomlinson, D. "Errors in the research into the effectiveness of
grammar
teaching." English in Education 28 (1994): 2-26. -This excellent,
little-known article details a number of ways that the conclusions of
both Braddock and Hillocks are flawed.



*Hunter, Susan and Ray Wallace, eds. The Place of Grammar in Writing
Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1995. -a collection of good
articles discussing many aspects of this debate.



*Kolln, Martha. 2003. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices,
Rhetorical Effects. New York: Longman. -Kolln's grammatical views
explained more systematically.



*Haussamen, Brock, Benjamin, Amy, Kolln, Martha, and Wheeler, Rebecca.
Grammar Alive: A Guide for Teachers. NCTE, 2003. -a good recent
collection of suggestions for teachers, especially K-12, on how to
incorporate grammar instruction into their language arts classrooms.



These are only a few references, but they will complement what you
already have. Others may also wish to supplement this list. I'm sure
I've left out some that others will think are important.



Good luck on your presentation,



Tim



Tim Hadley

Graduate Assistant, Graduate School Fellowships and Scholarships

Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric

Texas Tech University

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Tuten
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Diagramming sentences



Hello. I am brand new to the list. I cannot tell you how excited I am
to
have discovered this group and to have a place to go for questions. I
have browsed through your archives and find the conversations
engaging.



I read with much interest your January discussion on diagramming
sentences. I teach the traditional grammar class for English majors at
my institution. I inherited the tradition of using diagramming as a
major teaching strategy for this class, but--once I mastered it (is
that
possible?) myself--I have always found it very useful as a way of
teaching students syntax--and I have always used it in the context of
helping them to become better writers.



In about two weeks, four English majors and I are presenting at the
International Sigma Tau Delta meeting in Kansas City on the topic of
whether diagramming sentences is an effective teaching strategy. The
title of our presentation is "Minding a Pedagogical Gap: Confessions
of
One Teacher and Four Students Sold on the Value of Sentence
Diagramming."  Despite reports to the contrary, we see tremendous
value
in having students use diagramming to improve their understanding of
syntax and find that--at least for students who care enough about
their
writing to want to improve--it does make a difference in the clarity,
flow, and logic of their writing. Of course, for those students who
plan
to teach (and even for those who, as undergrads, tutor in our writing
center), understanding syntax makes it infinitely easier to help weak
writers understand why their sentences are awkward or unclear.



In preparation for the panel, two students have been researching the
history of the debate over whether there is value in teaching grammar
(diagramming in particular) in isolation from writing. I am not a
specialist in this field and would value the advice of this group
about
seminal essays/studies the we should be sure to include in our brief
overview. We have read David Mulroy's "The War against Grammar," for
example, and recognize the important role the 1985 NCTE report and
statement played in advancing the notion that grammar taught in
isolation is unproductive.



Are there other major statements along those lines that we should know
about? Also, has there been a landmark article published in recent
years
that might suggest that the tide is turning back--that we now realize
we
have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater (pardon the
cliche), either in terms of grammar instruction in general or of
diagramming in particular?



If my question is not of interest to the list, please feel free to
respond to me directly.



Thanks,

Nancy



Nancy L. Tuten, PhD

Professor of English

Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program

Columbia College

Columbia, South Carolina

[log in to unmask]

803-786-3706



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/