Marshall,
   The problem with the literature around sentence combining is that it 
assumes syntactic fluency is the target goal.  I don't know of any test 
of it that measures its ability to deepen our conscious understanding of 
syntax.  It seems to me that it is used by practitioners who believe a 
conscious understanding is unimportant.  This would be a problem, I 
think, in the training of teachers, who need not only to be fluent as 
language users, but conscious as language teachers. My own position is 
that conscious knowledge is and should be a goal for all students, not 
just the teachers or a select few. But sentence combining is a fun game, 
and it can have its uses.  
   Rhetorical approaches are certainly important and useful.  It bothers 
me that Williams seems to be borrowing heavily from functional grammar 
without acknowledging it, but I agree: students find this useful.  I 
think teachers should have some understanding of the grammar of speech 
and how it might differ from the grammar of writing.  Williams reminds 
us (as does Halliday) that some patterns that routinely show up in 
writing can be highly dysfunctional. I don't think Williams helps us 
understand how nominalizing works functionally within technical disciplines.
    As writing teachers, I think we are used to wondering how to move 
our students forward despite the fact that they know almost nothing 
about language and about how meaning is built within a text.  I would 
certainly include coherence and cohesion.  They are a real key, I think, 
to bridging the ideological gap between teaching writing (empowering) 
and conventional grammar (restraining and constraining). Students may 
acquire syntax from exposure, but they sure don't seem to acquire an 
ability to construct effective text.  We can help them put their own 
natural language to work, and I think a metalanguage is critical  to 
that as its happening.
   If I were to teach teachers, should I teach them to fit into the 
current world or should I offer something else that I feel might be far 
more useful?  If I advocate the actual teaching of grammar, am I getting 
them ready for a curriculum that will never be allowed to happen?
   Should I present the course as though I am disinterested, and here 
are the prevailing arguments for and against teaching grammar, the 
current theories about it, current practices in England, Australia, and 
so on?  Will there be much room left for actual attention to language?

Craig
Myers, Marshall wrote:

> Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>>    I am in very preliminary discussions about developing/teaching a 
>> graduate level course in grammar and writing, essentially for current 
>> and prospective teachers.  Is anyone currently teaching such a 
>> course? If so, would you have a course description and/or syllabus 
>> you could pass on?
>>    As I had the need described to me, these students tend to see 
>> grammar in largely prescriptive terms and don't have a base of 
>> understanding sufficient to carry out even that limited agenda. The 
>> people considering supporting the course want an approach that 
>> wouldn't contradict progressive practices or diminish the whole 
>> enterprise of writing.
>>    My first thoughts are that there's too much to cover in a single 
>> semester without some sort of strategy for limiting it down.  I'm 
>> wondering if anyone else out there has faced this problem and come up 
>> with solutions. Is this a somewhat standard course anywhere in the 
>> U.S.? Should it be?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> 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/
>
>
> Craig,
>
> I took a course in sentence-combining back in the early 1980's. We 
> used transformational grammar as a theoretical basis and learned to 
> manipulate different transformations for different rhetorical effects, 
> what was then called "sentence-combining.". The research is fairly 
> sound, and the textbooks like Max Morenberg's WRITER'S OPTIONS have a 
> good track record. Martha Kolln's RHETORICAL GRAMMAR can also be 
> useful. Joseph Williams's STYLE: TEN LESSONS IN CLARITY AND GRACE has 
> a practical linguistic slant to it that most students find helpful. 
> Other approaches are also available to cover discourse matters like 
> coherence and cohesion and the many useful findings of discourse 
> analysis. There's a lot out there, and some of the theory squares well 
> with some theories of style. If you would like more information, I'll 
> be happy to supply you with any. I hope this is useful.
>
> Marshall
>
> 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/