While I agree that traditional and linguistic grammars are
inadequate to the challenge of improving students' writing, I am
doubtful that the treatment of discourse-level concerns as a
problem of "nouns pronouns and shortened forms" is adequate
either, even as an approximation of the sorts of issues that
matter.
It seems to me that the issue here is whether we restrict
grammar to a Saussurian system of valeurs or whether we
treat language-as-a-system (including lexicon and grammar)
as resources for making communicative meanings. Unless we
consider the latter as a legitimate concern, we will find
little of use to say to students learning to write.
I am also in disagreement with Janet over the assertion that
the salient features of stories are nouns/pronouns/shortened forms.
It is in fact the dependence of story/narrative on verbs that are
not only linking verbs --- that is, the events that stories
are about --- that distinguishes stories (movement through time/
progression) from most other kinds of texts. We should begin with
what students already know tacitly about texts....
Judy
....It has become apparent to me that there are
>two vital strands within grammar, one of which deals with clause-level grammar
>and another which deals with discourse-level grammar...
>Clause-level grammar deals with the role of verbs within clauses. Within
>clauses, verbs are all-powerful.... Verbs control the way sentences can
end, the
>tense, mood and aspect of the sentence, even which words can be the subject....
However,
>I find that the difficulty with abstractness becomes increasingly apparent
>when I concentrate on this aspect of grammar.
>
>By concentrating on verbs, it is possible to teach students to produce and
>analyze grammatically correct clauses. ...
The way that grammar functions in extended discourse
>involves the second grammatical strand: the role of nouns, pronouns and
>shortened forms. These forms work both within and among sentences to provide
>flow, unity and cohesiveness...
In my
>experience, students find these ideas less abstract and easier to grasp.
>
>Even though I spend a lot of time working on clause level grammar with my
>students, I am leaning towards the idea that the characteristics of good
>writing (clarity, simplicity and unity) stem from the functions of nouns
>rather than verbs. I also think that these functions could be taught earlier
>in students' careers than the technical functions of verbs.
>
>My idea of an effective grammar sequence would be as follows. Students would
>be taught very early (first grade?) to pay attention to words and phrases that
>help the reader understand the story. These will frequently be nouns,
>pronouns and shortened forms. As children's repertoire of linguistic
>strategies grows, they can be taught to identify increasingly more complex
>structures and to use more sophisticated terms.
>
>At about the sixth grade level ( to correspond with Piagetian cognitive
>levels, although I have some questions about the validity of these), clause-
>level grammar can be introduced as a separate discipline. Understanding
>clause-level grammar is not really about writing. Rather, it is an abstract,
>metalinguistic discipline which should be valued for itself, as logic and
>algebra are, rather than being presented simply as a means to an end: becoming
>a better writer. In other words, if we want to teach students to write, we
>need to work on writing, and on the grammatical concepts that enhance writing.
>If we want to teach students about grammar, then we need to work on grammar.
>When we decide to teach students about grammar, we need to be clear about what
>we mean by grammar and what we hope students will gain from it.
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake
|
