ATEG Archives

March 1999

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
EDWARD VAVRA <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:38:59 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 lines)
Rebecca's response about "completeness" raises a fundamental point. She agrees that she would not teach it in a comp class, but sees it as something she would teach in a "grammar" class. My question is ¯ can she (or we) convince most English teachers that such stuff belongs in an "English Grammar" class. My guess it that most teachers will find that they have plenty to do in a "grammar class" simply teaching students to be able to identify and discuss the implications of prepositional phrases, subjects, verbs, clauses, and participles. Why do they need to know about these "incomplete" sentences.
     No, I'm not playing devil's advocate here. If, after we ideally have a suggested curriculum, if we find that there is time left (in the students' work), then I have no problems with introducing such linguistic questions. Indeed, the model I have proposed includes the option for twelfth grade of  studying more aspects of general linguistics. I don't however, see the relevance of teaching all students that "John is" is an "incomplete" or whatever else you want to call it, sentence. And remember ¯ in spite of the tone of my comments, I'm on your side.
Ed

ATOM RSS1 RSS2