Phil,
   I knew right away you had a made up example because the SAT grammar
test does not include subject/verb agreement, by design. As I
understand it, it's not a race neutral item, and they are at great
pains to be a race neutral test. You can't use the SAT as an excuse to
teach subject/verb agreement (however valuable it may be in itself.) As
an item, it won't show up.>
   David Mulroy makes the wonderful point that students have trouble
reading because they are unable to locate the core subject of the main
cause. There's no place on the SAT where they are asked to do that. If
we believe that this is an important, critical skill, then we should
lobby for a test that measures it. They don't currently have it
precisely because it is not being taught. People across the country who
failed the test would be up in arms.
   Again, I think we are much, much closer than you think we are in our
goals.

Craig


I understand you correctly, but am saying that an awareness of traditional
> grammar is required to do the SAT.  The more specific references to overt
> grammatical knowledge that you recommend are not as yet required.  The
> examples I used are better than those on the web site for making the
> point.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>
>>   You misunderstand my post. I also think you are making up examples
>>rather than using the actual ones you can get to on line.
>>
>>   I think the SAT people do not test actual knowledge of grammar
>>directly, and they are afraid to precisely because it is not being
>>taught.
>>   We can say that we can better prepare people for the SAT, which takes
>>away our ability to say the SAT is a rather trivial test in comparison
>>to our larger goal, "the knowledge of traditional grammar" if that's
>>how we agree on it.
>>
>>How about something like the following: "identify the prepositional
>>phrases in the following passage and tell what word groups they modify
>> and
>>whether they are adjectival or adverbial." Even a brief study of grammar
>>would prepare a student for this. It's the opening task, I believe, in Ed
>>Vavra's KISS grammar. It has nothing to do with errors or correcting. It
>>would be a direct test of explicit knowledge. The SAT tests don't ask for
>>this kind of explicit knowledge. If they did, most students would fail. A
>>typical entering college student can do OK on the SAT test by intuition
>>alone, but would not be able to identify prepositional phrases and the
>>word groups they modify. They would be baffled by "adverbial" and
>>"adjectival" as function labels.
>>   The students you teach aren't well prepared for language studies.
>> Would
>>they all fail the SAT's? Look at the actual examples before you answer.
>>None of them ask for explicit knowledge. I know plenty of people (the
>>typical English major) who know very little grammar but could finesse
>>them by feel.
>>   But let's not lose sight of the fact thar we're on the same side in
>>this debate. "All students should have explicit knowledge about
>>language." That's the opening of what is now an official ATEG position.
>>We have a much more ambitious agenda than preparing students for the
>>kinds of questions asked by the grammar section of the SAT. They ask
>>students to behave, but draw back from asking what they know.
>>   The grammar in context people say behavior is everything and
>>metalanguage is unnecessary. There's very little in the SAT test to
>>challenge their approach.
>>   Conscious knowledge would help us prepare people, but I think you make
>>that argument at some cost.
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>
>>I am not piggybacking off the SAT.  The fact remains that an intuitive
>>> knowledge of grammar will be nowhere near as effective as a knowledge
>>> of
>>> traditional grammar to prepare yourself for that test.  Subject verb
>>> agreement, parallelism and so forth can be approached intuitively but
>>> it
>>> would take years longer and be far less of an intellectual and valuable
>>> achievement without the knowledge of tradtional grammar behind it.  To
>>> do
>>> either of these functions you need to know the whole of tradtional
>>> grammar, which quite frankly, is not that much.
>>> Two examples illustrate this:
>>>
>>> 1)  Simply believing in the students give(s) them the necessary
>>> confidence
>>> to succeed.
>>>
>>> 2)  The suggestion that the man be more polite was rejected.
>>>
>>> To resolve the subject verb agreement problem in (1) or to understand
>>> the
>>> use of the form of be in (2), a rudimentary understanding of a few
>>> parts
>>> of speech or a few sentence roles in not sufficient nor is a heightened
>>> intuition through a lot of reading, the only way to teach and to know
>>> about those rules is to have a rather thorough and complete knowledge
>>> of
>>> traditional grammar.  All of the parts of speech, sentence roles,
>>> sentence
>>> types and their possible relationships in time (tense, aspect, mood,
>>> modality, and voice) and space (number, person, and gender) needs to be
>>> understood to do this correctly and consistently.  Number (1) alone
>>> requires that one know that the subject of the sentence is a gerund and
>>> that gerunds take a third person singular form of the verb in present
>>> indicative sentences.  Number (2) requires the understanding of
>>> subjunctive which must be necessarily placed in the full context of
>>> tense,
>>> aspect, mood, and modality before any understanding of the unusual use
>>> of
>>> the verb can be achieved.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Jul 20, 2006 1:03 PM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>>Phil,
>>>>   Just a quick response from a busy guy to a very rich and thoughtful
>>>> post.
>>>>   I understand the strategy of piggybacking off of the new SAT's.
>>>>Unfortunately, they do not measure knowledge of grammar in the way you
>>>>thoughtfully advocate. They measure behavior, and they expect those
>>>>choices to be intuitive. Even in their examples, they do not go into
>>>>any kind of lengthy explanation of the reasons for their choices.
>>>>Perhaps the reasons for this are obvious: even the middle class
>>>>suburban kids wouldn't pass a test that measures explicit knowledge
>>>>about language. They are asked to edit someone else's writing
>>>>(basically 'correct" it, but they would say "improve" in some
>>>>instances) on the basis of principles that are never fully articulated.
>>>>If and when we get a good curriculum in place, we should lobby for a
>>>>test that fits and for a test/curriculum match that levels the playing
>>>>field and doesn't just reward intuition.
>>>>   I'm surprised, especially in conjunction with Cornelia's fine post,
>>>>that you don't include "clause" as a basic term. You use it later on in
>>>>your discussion of misunderstood terms, but not in the core terms
>>>>needed. By the way, I haven't had much problem with interchanging
>>>>dependent and subordinate, maybe because I present them as
>>>>interchangeable terms for the same thing.
>>>>   Just for the record, I found 64 technical terms in Diana Hacker's
>>>>Writers Reference in the punctuation sections alone. I used that as
>>>>part of a 4C's talk in which I contrasted that list with Constance
>>>>Weaver's very short list of terms. As you know very well, most students
>>>>can't read the average handbook, and terminology is a key to that.
>>>>   Every year, I ask incoming students for a definition of an important
>>>>term just to see what the preparation has been. This year it was
>>>>"subordinate clause." By my last class, I was even dangling a five
>>>>dollar reward. Out of 62 students, none was confident enough to try.
>>>>This is, of course, not their fault.
>>>>   I hope you can see that the Scope and Sequence project is an attempt
>>>> to
>>>>fill the very real void you describe. If we can get on board on the
>>>>basis of the need for it, then we can come up with something far more
>>>>useful than the current head in the sand approach.
>>>>   Thanks for passing this on.
>>>>
>>>>Craig
>>>>
>>>>   For those of you interested in this issue, my "The New SAT and
>>>>> Fundatmental Misunderstanding of Grammar Teaching" is about to appear
>>>>> in
>>>>> _English Today_ published by the Cambridge University Press.  I have
>>>>> copied a portion of it below.  You can contact that journal or myself
>>>>> for
>>>>> the full articile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Bralich
>>>>>
>>>>> EXCERPT To Appear _English Today_ July 2006.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traditional Grammar, as we all know, has been on the wane in
>>>>> education
>>>>> for
>>>>> the last 25 to 50 years in the face of more interactive classrooms,
>>>>> more
>>>>> exotic developments in transformational grammar, and research
>>>>> suggesting
>>>>> it may not play an effective role in improving student’s writing.
>>>>> Recently, however, there has been a resurgence in the interest in
>>>>> teaching
>>>>> some of the fundamental concepts of traditional grammar.  This new
>>>>> interest in teaching grammar has taken on a much more imperative
>>>>> force
>>>>> as
>>>>> secondary schools and to some extent primary schools are beginning to
>>>>> feel
>>>>> pressure to teach basic grammatical concepts in order to prepare
>>>>> students
>>>>> for the 35 minute multiple choice grammar and usage questions on the
>>>>> new
>>>>> SAT.  Teachers and schools who cannot pass this section of the test
>>>>> will
>>>>> be held to account by politicians, school administrators, and
>>>>> parents,
>>>>> all
>>>>> of whom tend to believe traditional, formal grammar instruction is
>>>>> the
>>>>> best means to this end.  Teachers who send their students off to the
>>>>> new
>>>>> SAT without this training will have some serious questions to answer
>>>>> if
>>>>> those students scores are too low.
>>>>> This refocus on teaching grammar has raised many old arguments and
>>>>> much
>>>>> of
>>>>> the same confusion that caused grammar to be taken off the curriculum
>>>>> in
>>>>> many schools in the first place,  confusion which even led to the
>>>>> remarkable and, to many, reprehensible decision by the National
>>>>> Council
>>>>> of
>>>>> Teachers of English (NCTE) to make a resolution in 1985 stating,
>>>>> “…[the
>>>>> NCTE] urge[s] the discontinuance of testing practices that encourage
>>>>> the
>>>>> teaching of grammar…”  While many educators, parents, students, and
>>>>> politicians have all along been in favor of the teaching of grammar
>>>>> in
>>>>> spite of claims by the NCTE and others, their voices have largely
>>>>> been
>>>>> ignored or drowned out through the years of what David Mulroy, a
>>>>> classicist at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, has named The
>>>>> War
>>>>> Against Grammar in his book of that title.
>>>>> As a Professor at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language
>>>>> Center
>>>>> in Monterey, CA, charged with the responsibility to prepare students
>>>>> for
>>>>> Foreign Language study in a wide variety of the world’s languages, I
>>>>> can
>>>>> attest that basic grammar knowledge is the most important factor in
>>>>> reducing attrition and enhancing student success rates.  I have a
>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>> in
>>>>> theoretical linguistics with a focus on theoretical syntax.  I have
>>>>> taught
>>>>> traditional grammar to native speakers, ESL grammar to non-native
>>>>> speakers, and composition to both.  I have never found any of the
>>>>> anti-grammar articles or positions to be convincing.  In fact they
>>>>> have
>>>>> always struck me as more of a political movement than as a reasoned
>>>>> position taken in the face of convincing evidence –  a political
>>>>> movement
>>>>> rooted in the profits, short hours, and world travel to be had in the
>>>>> years of the ESL boom in the 80’s and 90’s, profits eyed by those who
>>>>> did
>>>>> not know grammar.  Since that time the only tangible results of that
>>>>> policy have been a significant lessening in American Foreign Language
>>>>> skills and Foreign Language program enrollments, significantly
>>>>> increased
>>>>> need for remedial reading and writing programs at colleges and
>>>>> universities across the United States, and complaints from business,
>>>>> academia, and government about the lack of verbal skills in those who
>>>>> have
>>>>> turned up on their doorsteps since grammar teaching has fallen out of
>>>>> favor.  Thus, rather than the leap forward for language arts that
>>>>> proponents of the anti-grammar attitude might have expected, there
>>>>> has
>>>>> only been a lamentable and evident decline in language arts skills.
>>>>> These last few decades of the War Against Grammar have left serious
>>>>> gaps
>>>>> in the understanding of what constitutes a proper curriculum in
>>>>> English
>>>>> Grammar.  Thus, while there is a stronger interest in grammar and in
>>>>> preparing students for the new SAT, there are many, many educators
>>>>> who
>>>>> simply were not trained in grammar and do not know where to begin.
>>>>> In
>>>>> particular, some rather deeply rooted misunderstandings about grammar
>>>>> have
>>>>> grown up and stand in the way of the educator wishing to address this
>>>>> need
>>>>> and the politicians and parents wishing to evaluate the attempts to
>>>>> address this need.  I wish to address seven of them here in order to
>>>>> provide the parent, the politician, the student, and the otherwise
>>>>> concerned a rubric by which they can evaluate grammar teaching and
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> teachers and get a sense that the grammar movement is valuable and
>>>>> the
>>>>> new
>>>>> SAT is not insurmountable.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #1:  All grammar rules are equally as distrusted
>>>>> and
>>>>> untrustworthy as, “Don’t end a sentence with a preposition,” “Don’t
>>>>> let
>>>>> modifiers dangle,” and “Don’t split infinitives.”  Nothing could be
>>>>> further from the truth.  People routinely accept almost all the rules
>>>>> of
>>>>> grammar and often even find a certain elegance in them.  However,
>>>>> even
>>>>> though each of the three rules cited here is an actual rule of
>>>>> grammar,
>>>>> they form a group as the grammar rules that are often cited as
>>>>> unnecessary
>>>>> or cloying.  Fortunately, they are about the only rules of grammar
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> really complains about.  I suspect that most people who don’t know
>>>>> their
>>>>> grammar find it easier to memorize one of these handy and well-known
>>>>> rules
>>>>> for grousing about grammar than going to the trouble of actually
>>>>> working
>>>>> through a few grammar exercises.  This is like knowing to quip,
>>>>> “Freud
>>>>> had
>>>>> a mother problem,” as a means of escaping the responsibility to
>>>>> actually
>>>>> reading Freud.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #2:  Parts of Speech, Parts of Sentence, and
>>>>> Sentence
>>>>> Types are three not two sets of terms.  This misunderstanding is a
>>>>> little
>>>>> more complicated then the previous one or the next two, but it is the
>>>>> most
>>>>> important to know if you want to create or evaluate a grammar course
>>>>> or
>>>>> textbook.  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.  In short, we need a set of terms for each of words,
>>>>> phrases,
>>>>> and sentences.  The main thing that confuses people about these terms
>>>>> is
>>>>> that most books fail to point out that parts of speech and parts of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sentence form two distinct sets with the term “verb” common to both.
>>>>> Dividing the three steps in building a sentence (word, phrase,
>>>>> sentence)
>>>>> into three sets of terms and laying them side by side as below
>>>>> demonstrates two things: 1) that there is a lot less to learning
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> than there is to learning other subjects like math, chemistry,
>>>>> geometry,
>>>>> home economics, or auto mechanics; and 2) that there really is a
>>>>> fixed
>>>>> and
>>>>> bounded body of knowledge that can be mastered underlying the grammar
>>>>> of a
>>>>> language.  There are only 27 terms here, but this is rather complete,
>>>>> at
>>>>> least it is more than sufficient to get you through the New SAT or
>>>>> most
>>>>> any foreign language or language arts course.   You should also note
>>>>> how
>>>>> the top four items of each column are actually widely known and are
>>>>> not
>>>>> particularly difficult, thus, leaving the teacher with a challenge
>>>>> with
>>>>> less than fifteen terms.  This is clearly much less than algebra,
>>>>> geometry, or astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parts of Speech	Parts of Sentence	Sentence Types
>>>>> Noun	Subject	Declarative
>>>>> Verb	Predicate	Interrogative
>>>>> Adjective	Verb	Imperative
>>>>> Adverb	Object (indirect, direct, of prep.)	Exclamatory
>>>>> Preposition	Complement (subj. obj)	Simple
>>>>> Conjunction	Noun Phrase	Compound
>>>>> Comparatives	Verb Phrase	Complex
>>>>> Noun Morphology (-s, -es, ‘s)	Adjective Phrase	Compound/Complex
>>>>> Verb Morphology (helping verbs, -ing, ed, etc.)	Adverb
>>>>> Phrase	Relative
>>>>> Clauses / Reduced Clauses
>>>>>
>>>>> Misunderstanding #3:  There is a standardized vocabulary for
>>>>> referring
>>>>> to
>>>>> grammatical functions.  There are several places in the set of
>>>>> traditional
>>>>> grammar terms where different books and different traditions use
>>>>> different
>>>>> terminology.  This is unfortunate and should be addressed.  The NCTE
>>>>> for
>>>>> example should be establishing a set of common, recommended
>>>>> terminology
>>>>> in
>>>>> these areas rather than trying to eliminate the teaching  of grammar.
>>>>> There aren’t that many more than you see here, but these are
>>>>> particularly
>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Main Clause		=	Independent Clause
>>>>> Subordinate Clause	=	Dependent Clause
>>>>>
>>>>> Participial Phrase	=	Reduced Adjective or Reduced Adverb Clause
>>>>> Bare Infintives		=	Reduced infinitives, small clauses
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject Complement	=	Predicate Adjective or Predicate Nominative
>>>>>
>>>>> What is particularly troubling about this is that if you know any one
>>>>> of
>>>>> the above sets the other terms sound like they must be nuanced
>>>>> versions
>>>>> of
>>>>> something in grammar that you don’t yet know.  Grammar books or at
>>>>> least
>>>>> the NCTE need to settle on one set, but they should also point out in
>>>>> a
>>>>> foot note that the other terms also exist for the same phenomenon.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is
>>>>> confusing if, after you’ve mastered the concepts of main and
>>>>> subordinate
>>>>> clause, you hear someone talking about independent and dependent
>>>>> clauses
>>>>> and wondering what is the difference.  Worse yet, are the terms
>>>>> predicate
>>>>> nominative and predicate adjective to refer to the two kinds of
>>>>> subject
>>>>> complement.  The problem of course is that the students are never
>>>>> sure
>>>>> when they are done until these terminological overlaps are pointed
>>>>> out
>>>>> to
>>>>> them.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #4: The word gerund.  The term gerund is often
>>>>> dropped
>>>>> in
>>>>> grammatical circles the way some drop Kennedy in political circles.
>>>>> If
>>>>> you know what it is, it marks your knowledge of grammar as learned.
>>>>> If
>>>>> you don’t know what it is, you are likely to be marked as illiterate
>>>>> or
>>>>> at
>>>>> best one of the semi-literate dharma-bum sort who can only do flow of
>>>>> consciousness writing and are incapable of the introspection that
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> requires.  However, both the pride and the shame that come with the
>>>>> word
>>>>> gerund are unjustified as the word gerund is itself somewhat
>>>>> ill-formed
>>>>> as
>>>>> a grammatical term.  A gerund as many of the readers of this
>>>>> publication
>>>>> will know is a present participle used as a noun.  However, what most
>>>>> people fail to note is that an infinitive can also be used as a noun
>>>>> but
>>>>> no one has bothered to make a whole new term for it.  For example, we
>>>>> can
>>>>> call a present participle used as a  noun, a present participle used
>>>>> as
>>>>> a
>>>>> noun or we can call it a gerund.  An infinitive used as a noun,
>>>>> however,
>>>>> can only be called an infinitive used as a noun, there is no special
>>>>> word
>>>>> dreamed up for this case.  The word gerund therefore is a complete
>>>>> and
>>>>> utter waste of grammatical terminology in that it is unbalanced and
>>>>> it
>>>>> makes you wonder why a present participle used as a noun should be
>>>>> singled
>>>>> out for the honor of an extra term while the infinitive used as a
>>>>> noun
>>>>> is
>>>>> ignored utterly in this.  If you are new to grammar, it also makes
>>>>> you
>>>>> wonder if there isn’t some difference between a present participle
>>>>> used
>>>>> as
>>>>> a noun and a gerund.  It makes a student of grammar feel that there
>>>>> must
>>>>> be something else going on.  Without adding a special term for
>>>>> infinitive
>>>>> used as a noun, the word gerund should be dropped as it is
>>>>> unnecessarily
>>>>> confusing, and it could lead to elitist pretenses to knowledge of
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> obscuring real knowledge of grammar.   Thank god past participles are
>>>>> never used as nouns.
>>>>> 	Misunderstanding #5:  Modern linguistics has obviated the need for
>>>>> traditional grammar.  No syntacticians worth his salt is going to get
>>>>> very far without an understanding of all the basic concepts and terms
>>>>> of
>>>>> traditional grammar.  What theoretical syntax has done is to add many
>>>>> more nuanced and complicated terms to that basic set, but it has not
>>>>> obviated the need for any of them.  It has also not replaced any of
>>>>> them.
>>>>>  However, in its search for greater and greater generality,
>>>>> theoretical
>>>>> syntacticians does seem able to avoid the use of a few terms like
>>>>> predicate, predicate nominative, and predicate adjective.  They tend
>>>>> to
>>>>> make due with “verb phrase,” “a verb and its arguments” or “a verb
>>>>> and
>>>>> its complement.”  Naturally, however, these would not be discarded
>>>>> but
>>>>> left for more traditional treatments of sentence structure.
>>>>> 	Misunderstanding #6:  Writing and language arts are the only fields
>>>>> in
>>>>> the world that are somehow better off without a taxonomy.  Not
>>>>> teaching
>>>>> the parts of speech and parts of the sentence in a writing class or
>>>>> language arts class is like not teaching abstractions such as meat,
>>>>> poultry, and baked goods in an economics class.  The parts of speech,
>>>>> parts of sentence, and sentence types described above form a largely
>>>>> complete set and demonstrate that there is not much to traditional
>>>>> grammar in the first place: eight parts of speech, eight parts of the
>>>>> sentence, and eight sentence types – this is not rocket science.  It
>>>>> is
>>>>> also not algebra, geometry, home economics, or even auto mechanics.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is far simpler than all of these which is why colleges generally only
>>>>> offer one term of it rather than a major in it.  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.  Traditional grammar is far simpler than
>>>>> all
>>>>> of
>>>>> that.  If you are as baffled as I am in looking for an explanation
>>>>> for
>>>>> how this training was ever dropped from the curriculum or how it ever
>>>>> became vilified by the NCTE, you too might agree that perhaps a
>>>>> political
>>>>> explanation is one that might work.  Perhaps Jack Kerouac-like,
>>>>> stream
>>>>> of
>>>>> consciousness writers, who likely did not know their grammar wanted
>>>>> to
>>>>> remove that burden from their teaching.  Perhaps adjunct writing
>>>>> teachers
>>>>> greedy for the extra hours ran the grammar teachers out and raised
>>>>> the
>>>>> writing requirements.  Perhaps grammar just provided a convenient
>>>>> scapegoat for teachers of a number of disciplines looking to vent
>>>>> their
>>>>> spleens outside their own classrooms and departments.  Perhaps
>>>>> several
>>>>> of
>>>>> these ideas teamed up to spell the demise of traditional grammar
>>>>> teaching.  However, whatever the political motive may have been it
>>>>> was
>>>>> never able to alter the fact that what was under attack is the basic
>>>>> taxonomy of all the language arts, the “periodic table” of language.
>>>>> 	Misunderstanding #7:  Grammar needs to be taught in context.  Well,
>>>>> seeing grammar on the hoof so to speak is not such a bad idea; it is
>>>>> just
>>>>> a tremendous waste of time.  For example, you could find a beautiful
>>>>> use
>>>>> of a future perfect progressive or a past passive modal in a
>>>>> delightfully
>>>>> pertinent article on-line.  Or, you could collect several dozen such
>>>>> sentences, put them into an exercise and have students practice them,
>>>>> and
>>>>> then put one or two “in context” on the web.  Teaching grammar in
>>>>> context
>>>>> is slow and cumbersome, though in many cases it can be quite
>>>>> elucidating.
>>>>>  The misunderstanding here is to lose perspective and miss the value
>>>>> of
>>>>> working through 10 or 15 of the best examples you can find in an
>>>>> exercise
>>>>> before (or after) seeing the examples in literature, on-line, in the
>>>>> press, or wherever else the particularly illustrative example was
>>>>> found.
>>>>> A particularly good example of the wealth of contextually contrived
>>>>> and
>>>>> valuable examples that can be found over and over again throughout
>>>>> the
>>>>> exercises of a grammar book is the Betty Azar's series of ESL grammar
>>>>> books.  Page after page of representative and meaningful exercises
>>>>> where
>>>>> each sentence cues the student into the wide possible uses of
>>>>> particular
>>>>> grammatical structures. If you have not seen these books, these
>>>>> exercises
>>>>> are a treat for those who like grammar in context as well as for
>>>>> those
>>>>> who like a series of well chosen and meaningful examples in each
>>>>> exercise.
>>>>>
>>>>> In sum, with the New SAT here and unavoidable, high school students
>>>>> are
>>>>> going to have to know more grammar and high school teachers are going
>>>>> to
>>>>> have to teach more grammar.  For the parents, the politicians,
>>>>> educators
>>>>> outside of English departments, and students, awareness of the above
>>>>> seven
>>>>> misunderstandings about grammar will take them a long way toward
>>>>> evaluating their own skills and of those charged with the
>>>>> responsibility
>>>>> to get students through that test and through their post-secondary
>>>>> education.  Hopefully, armed with this knowledge, the NCTE position
>>>>> will
>>>>> be removed, grammar teaching will begin in earnest again, and
>>>>> students
>>>>> will pass their new SATs, foreign language skills and attendance will
>>>>> increase, and politicians and business men will once again respect
>>>>> the
>>>>> institutes of higher education from whence they are choosing their
>>>>> rank
>>>>> and file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>Sent: Jul 19, 2006 11:36 AM
>>>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Craig,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no need to get defensive here. Constructive criticism is the
>>>>>>need of all academic endeavors, and should be invited and appreciated
>>>>>>in this forum. There are some problems which need to be addressed in
>>>>>>order for things to move forward, because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>
> 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/