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:
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:18:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
I want to thank Robert Einarsson for his reference to my curriculum proposal. In visiting his web site,  (
www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarsson)I noted that he proposes the need for fewer grammatical concepts than I do. He says:

"I have found that these three units are enough to teach and test upon: 

a.  prepositional phrase; always starts on a preposition and goes to the next noun. 
b.  clause conjunction; for every additional clause added to a sentence, there will always be a clause conjunction. 
c.  dependent clause; contains the key subject-verb combination but is not an independent sentence."

I have been watching this discussion with interest. There is (was) somewhat general agreement that the description of the grammar to be taught should be the first priority. Might I suggest that we need a few people to step forward with lists of the constructions/concepts that they think need to be included in the K-12 grammar curriculum. These lists will then become either topics of debate toward one list, or focal points around which like-minded people can gather to develop a coherent, complete description.
Ed V.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2