A RESPONSE TO Phil's comments about needing to know all of traditional
grammar in order to use some information to discuss grammar or usage issues.
Phil wrote that "You cannot do s/v agreement without being introduced to
subjects and predicates,
internal clauses (the man from whom mary got the books is/are here), person,
number, (throw in gender), participles, gerunds, a little on tenses -- Each
of these beg questions in other areas. In short the whole of traditional
grammar is required."
I would opt for trying. Otherwise, where does one stop? The "whole" is way
too deep. I might suggest writing the sentence "the man from who mary got
the books is/are here" on the board and asking who said this. Who would say,
"The man from whom Mary got the books is/ are here."? A tuxedoed butler in
an upper class home? Someone in the movies pretending to be a butler? My
students would say, "The man Mary got the books from is here." No verb
problem. But, I persist, if you had to say that sentence, which verb would
you use, is or are? Is the man here or the books? Which one seems to be the
subject, the man or the books?
So at least two dead birds: agreement and context. Both necessary. And an
interesting road to our destination.
Verbals, clauses, phrases and nominative absolutes are not yet needed.
It might be more productive to say that the NCTE position is on purpose. We
ought to be trying to meet that position with this: Grammar instruction is
necessary when it leads to an improvement in student writing and speaking.
In other words, in student awareness and use of stylistic changes to be more
effective.
It seems to me.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bear" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
> To say the war against grammar is phenom[e]nally stupid is taking a huge
> leap. Because what happens when we teach the whole of traditional
> grammar? If we have an English teacher that understands it, and if he/she
> can convey what he/she knows to students, what have we accomplished? Do
> we make better communicators? I doubt it. Maybe. But, those are two
> tremendous if's. Because as our language is, each of us comes away from
> everything with a slightly different understanding than the rest of us.
> What traditional grammar tries to do is defy that statement. Even if,
> though, we have a super-grammarian that understands all of traditional
> grammar well enough to be able to teach it, he will spend his entire
> school year trying to teach it to students. Will he? Possibly. If he
> does, however, what other things have been missed? I've known students
> who can ace every grammar test yet cannot string a sentence together
> --myself included perhaps.
>
> Personally, I teach high school English -- for a small part of the day.
> For the rest of the day I teach computer science. Life is a lot easier if
> we can spend all day teaching parts of speech out of a grammar book. I
> learned long ago, though, that students don't write or speak better
> because of it. Computer Science, on the other hand, where we can teach
> programming languages instead of spoken languages, is easy. I can go over
> the text book and give students tutorials and never give anything of
> myself. Those are the periods I feel like the C- student trying to avoid
> work. It's a lot more work to have students write and help them sort out
> where they failed to communicate. And at that time, it's true, I end up
> teaching some traditional grammar. It's tough to tell a student his
> sentence needs to be revised because his noun and verb do not agree when
> he does not recognize a noun or verb.
>
> To me, though, this is how we teach 'just what is necessary'. We learn to
> walk by walking. We learn to speak by speaking. We learn to write by
> writing. When we learn to walk, sometimes we fall down and we learn how
> to avoid it. The same holds true with speaking and writing. The problem
> is that with speaking and writing we sometimes don't know when we fall.
> That's where the English teacher fits in.
>
> Phil Bralich wrote:
>> And this is the point that grammar advocates need to make. You cannot do
>> s/v agreement without being introduced to subjects and predicates,
>> internal clauses (the man from whom mary got the books is/are here),
>> person, number, (throw in gender), participles, gerunds, a little on
>> tenses -- Each of these beg questions in other areas. In short the whole
>> of traditional grammar is required. This is also true of parallel
>> structure, the correct use of passive and so on. The whole is hopelessly
>> interlocked and when you are recommended to teach "just what is
>> necessary"
>> for anyone of these, that means the whole of traditional grammar. This
>> is
>> why the NCTE position and the whole of the war against grammar so
>> phenominally stupid. Its as those the whole field were taken over by C-
>> students looking to avoid work.
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Fay Sweney <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Jul 24, 2006 8:22 PM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>
>>>The SAT always includes subject-verb agreement problems, just as Nancy
>>>Tuten's posting illustrates. One type is like Nancy's example, with
>>>prepositional phrases between the subject and verb which have have
>>> objects
>>>that are different in number than the subject. In another type there is
>>> a
>>>delayed subject, as in this practice question from "The Official SAT, a
>>>Teacher's Guide" published by College Board: "At the heart of the
>>> program,
>>>enthusiastically endorsed by the city's business association, is plans
>>> for
>>>refurbishing neighborhoods . . . ."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Fay Sweney
>>>701 Foster Ave.
>>>Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
>>>208-664-2274
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>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/
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by EduTech's MailScanner Vaccine1, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>
>
> James Bear
> Destination: Quietude
>
> 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/
|
