John,
     These are extraordinarily interesting questions. I hope we can 
offer different perspectives on it in a spirit of collegiality.
    In the public mind, error is grammar and grammar is error. They 
often seem to think of it as a set of prescriptive rules that are only 
tangentially associated with discourse (what is "appropriate") or cognition.
    Grammar can be looked at as a discreet formal system, which means a 
focus on underlying (non-prescriptive) rules. Much of twentieth century 
linguistics has done exactly that, dealing with grammar as separate from 
the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition. Of course, if you 
study grammar as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to 
apply that to--for example--writing. You need to devise a whole other 
set of "rules" before that knowledge can be put to use.
    If we see grammar as a somewhat elitist set of prescriptive rules 
(many very weak in foundation) or as a set of neutral formal rules, it's 
easy to argue against including grammar in the English curriculum, as 
happened in the 1960's and for decades beyond.
    For a functional linguist, though--and I don't mean to imply that 
all functionalists think alike--these approaches are limited and 
limiting. First of all, grammar and lexicon are not separate, but part 
of a lexico-grammar cline, with the lexicon at a higher level of 
delicacy. "When they use a language, people bring together their 
knowledge of word behavior (lexis) with their knowledge of grammatical 
patterns. These two aspects of language interact in lexico-grammatical 
patterns" (Biber et. al. Longman Student Grammar).  As second 
difference, functionalists would say that a language is what it is 
because of what it does, and that responsiveness to task happens in and 
through the grammar. For systemic functional linguists, for example, 
three kinds of meaning are interwoven through the clause: we represent 
the world, enact relations, and construct text in and through the 
grammar. Cognitivists would certainly include cognition in the mix. 
Grammar is not separate from the way we see and construct the world.
    One advantage to a functional approach--and again, there are many 
ways in which that is happening--is that it is immediately applicable to 
the kind of literacy we try to mentor as English teachers.
    ATEG has been and should be a big tent, allowing prescriptivists and 
formalists and functionalists to bring their perspectives to the table.
    The biggest problem, as I see it, is not with each other, but with 
so many English teachers that are too sure of what grammar means and too 
sure that it is not particularly valuable or important. Because it has 
been missing from the curriculum for so long, it's hard to hold a 
thoughtful conversation.

Craig

On 8/30/2011 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
> Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What 
> is the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it 
> NOT encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be 
> incorporated into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to 
> only the grammar of English.)
>
> If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them 
> (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern 
> ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic 
> units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? 
> Are the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the 
> Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these 
> "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of 
> language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity, 
> information structuring? What about all of the context that informs 
> our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we 
> even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even 
> if they have a huge impact on meaning?
>
> What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to 
> look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical 
> linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to 
> emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we 
> even start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar 
> (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be 
> doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring 
> science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar 
> (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the 
> brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English 
> teachers?
>
> We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to 
> analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)
>
> It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but 
> the composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that 
> it is a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of 
> course, reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar 
> in many cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look 
> like to begin with.
>
> I know this also brings into question the relationship between the 
> English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those 
> with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree 
> by now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a 
> minimum.
>
> I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!
>
> John
>
>
> 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/