I basically lost interest in this group (even though I'm primarily the one who started it), at the first Seattle conference * when there was the first serious discussion of scope and sequence. At that conference I suggested that ATEG establish three, perhaps four distinct groups, each of which could develop a named scope and sequence, based on a specific set of defined terms. It does not make any sense to have one group that considers infinitives to be clauses and another that considers them to be phrases, both working within the same scope and sequence, and both claiming that they are teaching "grammar." Most members of this list realize that there are fundamental differences among traditional, structural, transformational, etc. grammars. Put them all in one "grammar" pot and the public has an indigestible mess--the current state of affairs.
Let me note here that I would have been (and to a certain extent still am) open to changes in KISS terminology, but none of the members of ATEG has shown any specific interest in working with me. Indeed, I started the newsletter and the first conferences with the idea of getting suggestions and improvements for KISS.
As long as this group refuses to make such distinctions, it will fail. In effect, it is speaking and writing nonsense (as I understand Hobbes to call it), since different members use the same terms to refer to different constructions, and different terms to refer to the same constructions. Clear definitions are first principles of philosophy and of the natural sciences. It amazes me that this group cannot understand that.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 7/6/2006 10:28:14 PM >>>
I support Ed's concern over terminology. Perhaps there needs to be a working group that will look not simply at terminology but at the principles underlying choice of terminology. We've all got our (least) favorite terms (I don't like "gerund" for English), and if we have some agreed upon principles for choosing terms we might make some progress at it. I think what I've read of the scope and sequence discussion bodes well for developing such principles. I don't suggest that we impose a set of terms; rather that we make a principled set available.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock
Sent: Thu 7/6/2006 4:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG conference, Scope and Sequence project
Ed,
I think that's a very reasonable question to ask. Should we go with
more traditional terminology (like gerund) or for a revised
understanding? Uniform terminology is one issue and what we choose is
another.
Before the conference, I'll be getting materials from England (NATE
curriculum documents), and I'll bring them with me. (I'll also have
ordering information if people want their own copies.)>I believe they
have already addressed that issue; it will be interesting to see their
choices.
Craig
Craig,
> Is the "scope" question going to deal with what terminology should
> be used, or is that problem going to be left wide open? In one of the
> two last issues of the ATEG journal, I noted that "gerund" does not
> appear to be an acceptable term.
> Thanks,
> Ed
>
> 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/
|
