At the moment, I am in Europe and I am not as faithful a reader of this list as normal. There have been several discussions over the past several weeks that are very interesting.  I have several points to make about the teaching of grammar and teacher preparation.

1) We must have some understanding of why there should be any teaching of grammar (I prefer "knowledge about language") in the first place.  Based on a paper we gave several years ago at ATEG, in the most recent issue of Syntax in the Schools Jim Kenkel and I try to provide just such a rationale.  We argue that ATEG must defend the teaching of Standard English, but we reject both the conservative position (without the Standard there will be chaos) and the "liberal" position (the Standard must be learned because there are important context when it is appropriate).  We suggest that knowledge of the Standard does not have to be seen as devaluing knowledge of other varieties of English but as expanding the rhetorical choices available to students.

2) We must have some understanding about what aspects of English grammar should be taught.  For example, to my knowledge there is no variety of English whose principles for the use of the articles (a, an, the, or nothing) are so different from the Standard that usage of the articles must be taught to any native speaker of English.  On the other hand, there are varieties of English whose principles for using pronouns are highly stigmatized in relation to Standard English.  We need to have ways for which students can decide when use of such stigmatized forms can achieve a desire rhetorical effect and when such use doesn't.  And, let us not forget that conventions of written English are different from any spoken variety.  It should surprise no one that when we talk about teaching grammar we are really talking about learning the conventions of written English.

3) We must figure out what kind of knowledge students need to have about grammar to talk about the choices available to them in composing a text.  This is a reference to Kolln's Rhetorical Grammar.

4) Teachers at all levels need to understand what the nature of language is and that the non-Standard varieties which some of their students may bring to class are as complex and rule-governed as Standard English.  Further, teachers need to understand what kinds of grammatical structures show progress in the abilities of their students to write Standard English.  This is not just a statement about "error," but about development.  As teachers, we want to talk about what our students can do and not what they can't do.
     I find the wh-questions that Herb Stalke posted which ended in "prepositions" interesting in this regard.  I think all teachers need to have some understanding of why some of those questions are very strange and no native speaker would ever ask them and others would be more likely.  To the degree that a teacher would be able to classify those question in this way a teacher would be better able to understand the reason why some varieties of English differ from other varieties.

Finally, just a word about multiple intelligence.  In my years of teaching English grammar, I have found that students who claim to have difficulty with math also have difficulty in my course.  I teach grammar as a formal system which, to such students, appears as a kind of mathematics.  I teach grammar as a formal system not to favor students who like logic and symbolic systems, but because that is the fundamental characteristic of grammar.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University [log in to unmask]

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/