I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with Ed's
great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I can't help but
feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an asset. Sure, it feels
like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament to the fact that
grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single, codified rulebook
of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to package a nice and
neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able to) seems like a
slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students' attentions away from the
gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see.

All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or teachers-in-training
at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at the reality of
data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an answer
(singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a semester
(a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although I'm sure
they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize that
answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to run a
model classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my students,
and in the case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to constructive
teaching opportunities.

Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some
semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective,
especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from
elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic that
ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and
compromises from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it
would also depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on
concept, not the label used to describe the concept) as a part of the
curriculum. A student who is aware that language ain't easy is much more
prepared for grammar than one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook
at every turn.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Ed, Craig, et al.:
>
> To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that
> resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the
> French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France and
> Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:
> regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you
> won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a
> legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does
> cause problems in relation to curriculum.
>
>
> The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which
> we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be
> successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will
> *never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,
> definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.
> Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come
> across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,"
> and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that
> defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope
> and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional
> investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off
> from pushing too much.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much
> disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that
> one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to
> the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal
> with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more
> agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that
> arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't
> think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the
> standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that
> constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.
>
>
> It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the
> basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase
> vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since
> students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some lutfisk"
> together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,
> especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an
> organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual
> basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic
> category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional
> recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.
>
> Bill Spruiell
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Vavra
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
>  Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Craig,
>    Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I
> would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when
> I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are
> good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
> members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
> numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers
> and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the
> confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide
> into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor
> it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be
> able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own
> grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree
> on the definition of a clause.)
>     I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I
> believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
> separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
> was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a
> decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.
> (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of
> students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor
> instruction in grammar.
>    I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it
> claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it
> really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my
> time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence"
> plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
>    Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
> developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
> competition that would result from several plans.
>
> Ed V.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Richard,
>   Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
> to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
> that through ATEG.
>   My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
> we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
>
> plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
> break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
> be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
> Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
> about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
>
> would then feel a vested interest in  the project. There was resistance,
>
> though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
> a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
>
> our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
> issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
> was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
> asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
> statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
> simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words,  ATEG tried to
> work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
> by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
> effect, control our existence as an organization.
>   The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
> leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
> have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
>
> ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
> up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
> shot) views.  This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
>
> the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
> new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
>   But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
> the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
> that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
> happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
>   I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
> on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
> older position.
>   This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
>
> to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
> those approaches have probably already been written.
>   As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
> sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
> wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
> point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
> NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
> public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
> pull people away from ATEG.
>   The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
> forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
> starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
>   NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
>
> contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
>   It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
> necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
>   I apologize if I have  misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
>
> views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
> being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
>
> of the project.
>
> 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/
>
> 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/