Paul, 

I think that your statement that *everyone on this list is in favor 
of grammar being taught* is fascinating, but doesn't seem to be 
based on facts. Some of the messages I read on this list seem to 
indicate something different. I wonder what the problem is that you 
keep misreading me.

Eduard 


On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paul E. Doniger wrote...

>I would add to Herb's fascinating response that it is my 
understanding that everyone on this list is in favor of grammar 
being taught. Where we differ is in how it should be taught, when 
specific concepts should be taught, how much of it should be taught, 
etc. I don't completely understand Eduard's complaint here since 
nobody on this list has attacked grammar instruction in general, 
only some aspects of past instruction and methods; in fact, most of 
us have attacked the NCTE anti-grammar stance and criticized the 
lack of grammar instruction in education today. I think we all love 
(or at least like) grammar.
> 
>Paul D.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26:52 AM
>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>
>
>Now relax a bit, Eduard.  Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one
>degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the 
way
>grammar has been taught in the schools.  Let me give you one 
example.  A
>couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher
>successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT.  The question
>involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP), 
which
>claims that a sentence like
>
>Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading 
theoretical
>physicist of his time.
>
>is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore 
cannot
>serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him".  A careful study of this 
rule
>and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was 
invented
>in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it.  It 
has
>since crept into general handbooks like Fowler and has come to be 
widely
>accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English 
grammar.
>Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in 
>
>Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion.
>
>are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and 
should
>be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity, 
not a
>point of grammar, even though the problem can be described
>grammatically.  
>
>In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but 
that
>was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong 
with
>the sentence.  In this case, widespread misinformation won the day.
>
>You can read Zwicky's account at
>http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=%22Zwicky%
20poss
>essive%20antecedent%22
>
>You can read about other SAT grammar problems at
>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html
>
>Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social, 
stylistic, or
>simply not so.  I don't question that the social and stylistic must 
be
>included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not 
as
>rules of grammar.  
>
>Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching 
also
>because the pedagogy has been so bad.  This is a baby/bathwater
>situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is 
improve
>the pedagogy.  Improving the content is the other major part of the
>effort.
>
>Herb
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
>Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>
>Hello, all!
>
>This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are 
>so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state 
>that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference 
in 
>writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people 
do 
>not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to 
teach 
>grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as 
they 
>can to avoid the inevitable.
>
>Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing 
if 
>those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach 
it.
>What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around 
and 
>is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of 
>such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself 
>what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>
>If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. 
What 
>for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of 
>the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have 
>just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who 
hate 
>it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work 
of 
>teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on 
>them and the displeasure of the grammar haters. 
>
>Eduard 
>
>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/
>
>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/
>
>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/

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/