I don't think I disagree with you at all but there are some clarifications required.  I don't know what you mean by 
"linguistic grammars".  Let me draw a little map independent of other works and I suspect we will agree quite abit.

Traditional grammar deals with the parts of speech, the parts of sentence, and sentence types (including clauses) to create structure.   Traditional grammar also describes sentence relations such as active to passive, question to statement and so forth.  

The entirety of traditional grammar exists in theoretical syntax without modification.  In fact it is assumed that syntacticians have a good knowledge of traditional grammar in both their native and hopefully a couple of other languages.  What theoretical grammar then does is add a level of sophistication to the mix that rarely has much use at the traditional level.  I believe this is the distinction that Mulroy uses as well.  

Calling oneself a functionalist or shaping public grammar is fine, but it doesn't change the core taxonomy and functionality that must be taught as outlined in the previous paragraph.  Pedagogical concerns about how these are taught are another matter.  Sentence diagramming could be used, as could interactive exercises, lectures and drills.  I think most agree that the coming age in FL, ESL and the traditional grammar classroom is a combination of all of these.  Probably the biggest underlying fear for all concerned is that their personal, favorite style may get underplayed.  For example, an analytic type teacher might worry the interactivity will cheat his students of sound grammatical principles and the more global teacher may fear that students will lose their opportunities to have a direct interaction with the grammar if the lectures turn up too much.  Digramming is a form of interactivity that makes parts of speech come alive for some people.  Especially if you work on it pairs or teams and have the students present the results the classroom.  It is learned quickly and it imparts a profound understanding of sentence structure.  One which will undoubtedly result in more precise speech and writing.  

I don't think there is a person alive who honestly attacks new approaches or is looking for a return to some sort of archaic and ineffective teaching method, but the teaching of parts of speech, parts of the sentence and sentence type cannot fail to improve students minds as well as their use of language in all areas.  The NCTE position is absurd when it intimates that a knowledge of grammar somehow interferes with writing skills or any other language skills.  It makes grammar into the only study on the planet that would not benefit your writing.  You could equally well argue that writing classes have no direct benefit on your knowledge of grammar.  

As for a rich offerings in language programs -- well that is all fine and a positive contribution but you are a little far afield of that very narrrow NCTE position which argues that the teaching of parts of speech, parts of sentence, sentence types is somehow going to distract from your writing.  

>Everyone in ATEG who wants to should
>have a look at the Scope and Sequence project while still in draft
>form.  It should be something we are all proud of.

Where is this located?  


Phil Bralich

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/