I was planning on reading all the 153 messages ahead before responding to any of them, but Paul's comment about me (below) changed my mind. I came in today to read the e-mail from this group and to praise the excerpt from Phil Bralich's article for English Today. I do have some questions for him, but perhaps I should address Paul's comment first.
    Yes, I'm very negative about the group. There are many frustrating aspects about it. I just read a message, for example, that implied amazement at the fact that traditional grammar terminology need not be prescriptive. I can easily forgive that kind of message. As new members join the list, they simply take the group back to questions that have been discussed before. That's life.
    I'm not so forgiving, however, with many of the people who have been members for years, but who express similar ignorance. Among these were several messages to the effect that ATEG is "just starting" to develop a scope and sequence. This group is twenty years old. When I started it, KISS grammar already had a scope and sequence plan, a plan very close to the one it has today. I didn't push it, and for years I remained open to people who want to express different theories of grammar, etc. But it is time for this group to grow up.
     I have repeatedly stated that I have no objections to, I even strongly recommend, that ATEG develop several named scope and sequence plans, each constructed around a different set of grammatical terms. I'll have more to say about that in my questions for Phil (below), but here the question regards my relationship to ATEG. In one of my articles in English Journal, I compared the teaching of grammar to too many cooks trying to cook the same meal. One ends up with spaghetti sauce on tacos mixed in an Oriental salad. This is precisely what is going on in this group, and I'm becoming very annoyed that few, if any, members of this group are willing to recognize it and do something about it. No one is going to eat that meal, and the nation is not going to accept a single mandated scope and sequence plan based on such a mixture.
     I realize that my comments about linguists are not appreciated, but many of the linguists in this group are a major part of the problem. As scientists, they ought to know that science begins with clear terminology. And, if they are talking about teaching grammar in our schools, they ought to realize that that means clear terminology for the students. The linguists in this group ought to be the ones pushing for several different, distinguishable instructional plans. I have to wonder about their opposition.
    As I believe I noted in a previous recent post, I basically lost interest in this group after the first Seattle conference. (Was that in 2000?) That conference established a "scope and sequence commitee," a single committee in spite of my pouting because my suggestion that there should be at least three such committees was ignored. (Note again that now we are being told that ATEG is "just starting" on scope and sequence.) As I expected, nothing came from that committee. How could it, when it had cooks from so many different nations?
 
    I really appreciate Paul's comment about wanting me to particiipate in ATEG. I would probably do so, and I even would stop criticizing the linguists, if ATEG formally ackowledges the differences in pedagogical grammars and calls for all pedagogical grammars to be easily identifiable, by the name of the approach upon which they are built. The following is off the top of my head, but it suggests what I have in mind:
=======
There are many different theories of English grammar, and they often use different terms to mean the same thing, or they use the same term to mean different things. In light of this fact, ATEG supports any pedagogical grammar that clearly identifies, at the beginning of the text, the theory upon which it is built. These theories include, but are not limited to:
 
The Oregon Curriculum
KISS Grammar
_____(structural?) Grammar
_____(transformational) grammar
 
Each of the above grammatical theories has provided a list of its assumptions, objectives, and definitions of terms to ATEG, and these documents are available on the ATEG web site. 
   Individual grammar texts can thus identify themselves by simply indicating, by name, which theory it is based on. Grammar textbooks may receive ATEG's endorsement even if they vary from a specified theory, but to do so the texts must clearly indicate at least how they differ.
=====
 
Something equivalent to the above it all that I am asking for. Yes, it will cause some work, and yes, there will be problems to be worked out. The work, however, will primarily be for those who want to propose an essentially different theory. But it would also stop a lot of the interminable discussion of terms on this list. Thus, for example, anyone who wanted to could put together a textbook and simply state:
 
This textbook is based on KISS Grammar, with the following exceptions:
1. It uses "independent" and "dependent" in place of "main" and "subordinate" clauses.
2. It uses the term "participle" for "gerundive" and eliminates the term "gerund."
 
Paul, thanks again,
Ed * now on to Phil
 
Phil,
    It was very pleasing to see your thoughful discussion, especially that about the problem of terminology. I agree with much of what you wrote, and I believe we might be able to have some very fruitful discussions. I do, however, have some questions.
 
1. Do you think that NCTE would (or could) ever establish "a [one] set of common, recommmended terminology"? This is the most important problem facing the progress of ATEG, and I was delighted to see you address it. As you may imagine, I was thrilled to see your statement, "In beginning your approach to the language arts the first thing anyone needs to know is the taxonomy of the field and that that taxonomy is based on first the identification of words and kinds of words which are then made into phrases and those themselves phrases being made into sentences. "
 
1. a. Remember, for one, that English Journal includes advertisements for many of the major "language arts" texts by major publishers. Would not such a recommendation meet intense resistance from the publishers, and do you really expect NCTE to give up the advertising money?
 
1. b. At least one recent post referred to "state standards." I found this humorus, but many members in the past have referred to ATEG's need to consider such standards. How will this objection be met? 
 
1. c. My suggestions for dealing with this problem were suggested above.
 
2. Are you limiting your argument just to what you can do in your classroom, with the students you teach? Put differently, is your argument based on one course, with ESL students, or do you see what you propose as an integral part of a broader design?
 
I get the sense, for example, that you do not teach students to analyze any sentences that they read or write. This comes out in at least two places. You state that, "Even that one term is generally limited to two credits and even then it has to be liberally mixed with paragraph and essay writing to actually generate enough work to fill a whole semester." [my emphasis]
 
I could easily devote two entire semesters to just the KISS Approach, but then KISS entails having students analyze almost every word in any text. It then gets into questions of style, errors, logic, etc.
 
I also ask this question because of your dumping of "gerund." I know that many members of ATEG want to dump "gerund," but then they do not teach students to analyze real texts. If you want to teach students how to analyze real texts, I'd suggest that you also add "verbal." In KISS, "verbal" is simply a single term that covers gerunds, gerundives, and infinitives. In learning to identify subjects and finite verbs in real sentences, students will be stumped by the verbals. And if you try to teach them all about the individual verbals, you will overwhelm most students with too much terminology too fast. By using "verbal," students can learn (relatively easily) to distinguish finite verbs from verbals. They can also learn another often overlooked aspect of verbals * like finite verbs, they all have subjects and complements. Assume, for example, that a student is trying to analyze
 
We saw the boy playing baseball.
 
Most of my college Freshmen would underline "playing" as a finite verb. But a simple sentence test can help them learn that it is not. ("The boy playing baseball" is not an acceptable sentence, and my students all know that.) But rather than trying, at this point, to have them learn about gerundives (your "participle"), they can simply call it a verbal. (Any verb that is not finite has to be a verbal. There are no exceptions.) That's easy enough. And then, since verbals have subjects and complements, students easily see that "baseball" is the direct object of "playing," and "boy" is the subject of "playing." 
 
 
3. Why do students need to learn the "Sentence Types"? This brings me back to the question of state standards because just before I read your post I had drafted my local monthly column. In it, I argue that the Pennsylvania State Standards are essentially meaningless. (So are most, if not all, of the other states'. California's, however, are ridiculous * unless they have changed their definition of "appositive.") Please forgive me for simply quoting that part of the column. The column, by the way, is about why most teachers justifiably hate to teach grammar and are skeptical of arguments that they should do so.
 
The "standards" of State Departments of Education simply add to the problem. In regard to grammar, the current Pennsylvania Standards make no sense whatsoever. First of all, the word "grammar" does not even appear in the "Academic Standards for Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening" (22 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 4, Appendix A). And the things that are there are not "standards" in the normal sense of the word. Almost all of the relevant statements are in section "F. Edit writing using the conventions of language" (pp. 13-14) There you can find, for example, that third grade students should "Use complete sentences (simple, compound, declarative, interrogative, exclamatory and imperative)."Doesn't this "standard" suggest that no one in the state Department of Education has ever had any children? Pre-school children use "complete" "simple" and "compound" sentences every day. They daily make statements ("declarative"), and they ask no end of ("interrogative") questions. They holler ("exclamatory"), and they make ("imperative") demands. And as soon as they learn how to write, they can do all of this in writing. Thus this "standard" essentially means that the students have learned the conventions of writing. But those conventions are covered under standards regarding capitalization and punctuation. Thus this "standard" is mere puffery.As if that standard is not bad enough, the "standard" for Grade 5 is exactly the same. Doesn't this mean that any child who can meet the standard for grade three can also meet the standard for grade five? And the "standards" for grades eight and eleven differ from this standard only in that the word "complex" is added to the types of sentences. But five-year-olds use complex sentences.In defense of the state DoE's, they will have trouble doing much better than what they have for the simple reason that there is no agreement about important grammatical terms. Thus, for example, they cannot say that students should be able to identify subjects and finite verbs, because there is no agreement, in the textbooks, about what "finite verbs" are. And then, as noted above, the professors are not teaching future teachers how to do this. States could, of course, choose a set of terms, if there were named sets of grammatical terms, but no state's DoE has shown any interest in addressing this problem.The types of sentences is one of five bulleted "standards" in Section "F." The "standards" are on the web at the Pennsylvania DoE site, so you can check them out for yourself. You'll see that all five are almost identical across all grade levels. As A. E Housman said, "Terence, this is stupid stuff." These are not "standards." And they give no indication of what grammar teachers should teach, how they should teach it, or why.
[End of quotation from article.]
 
Please remember that these have simply been questions. If you decide to name your approach and further develop it, I'll be happy to continue discussion such as this, both on and off the list. I would, of course, appreciate some similar suggestions about KISS.
 
Sincerely,
Ed V.
 
 
 
 


>>> [log in to unmask] 7/21/2006 11:31:08 AM >>>

Phil,
 
I don't think anyone wants to dump knowledge of parts of speech, etc. Also, I think most of us would agree that grammar instruction should balance both prescriptive and descriptive methods. On the other hand there is much prescriptivism that needs to be ended (e.g., prescriptive rules like "never use a split infinitive," or "never end a sentence with a preposition."). Part of our mission in the scope and sequence project is to find exactly where the lines should be drawn, where they intersect, and when is the right time to teach specific concepts (and terms). If Ed Vavra weren't so negative about ATEG, he could offer much that would help us achieve these goals. I wish he were more open to working with us and would re-join the group.
 
I doubt that any of us want to stop teaching nouns, verbs (and their types), adjectives, adverbs, etc.; however, as Martha pointed out earlier, we also want to teach concepts like adverbial, adjectival, subject complement, noun phrase. Some of us may even want to add parts of speech to the "Latin 8" -- again, Martha mentioned the term 'determiner' which is more useful than adjective or article in some cases. And of course, we always will have some disagreements as was pointed out in an earlier posting (e.g., the gerund wars). We remain open minded, however, and invite all to participate in the discussion and to build a program that will be acceptable and successful.
 
Paul D.





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/