Ed Vavra writes:
"It is simply not possible to make students comfortable
with systematic grammatical terminology in one year (or one semester) and
still have time to have them explore, for example, how clause structure
affects style and readability."

True. But we can do some of each, and hope that doing it in such a way
that they understand SOME of it well may equip them to continue on their
own. If we unlock the mysteries of some of the more arcane points,
students might be able to use reference books on their own with greater
ease. Rei Noguchi has made some suggestions in his book on grammar and the
teaching of writing.

"I'm still challenging others to set forth their ideas, either for a
somewhat comprehensive design (like mine or even more detailed), or just
about what constructions should or should not be taught where."

We're working on it, Ed! And, of course, several of our states have
already set this curriculum. In CA, for example, very specific objectives
for grammar have been set for each grade. Subject/verb agreement, for
example, comes up for the first time in grade 3. In grade 7, appositives
and prepositional phrases are targeted.

We certainly DO need to coordinate this and at least come up with a
suggested scope and sequence, which is what the ATEG committee is all
about. But we should definitely do this not only on the basis of what we
think kids need to know and be able to do, but on what they are
cognitively and linguistically ready for. THere is not a lot of research
on language development during the school years, but what is out there
does suggest a few things: (a) that children between ages 5 and 8 are
still subconsciously working out some rules of grammar, for example the
nuances of article use. Passive sentences aren't handled well much before
age 7. There is a shift from chaining of coordinate sentences to
increased subordination in late middle school. But we need to know more,
and replicate the findings of past research. (b) It is unclear exactly
when kinds become ready to do 'metalanguage', that is, talking _about_
language rather than just using the language to communicate. Research
indicates that many children don't handle this well before age 8 or 9,
which would be 3rd or 4th grade for most kids.

We also need to be sure that benchmarks make sense from the point of view
of how language really (not ideally) works. CA, for example, will demand
of kindergartners that they 'speak in complete sentences'. This makes
linguists chuckle (and roll their eyes). Most people do not speak in
complete sentences in most situations. It is simply unfair to expect a
kindergartner, who is just developing an understanding of how to alter
language structure to fit social situation, to monitor her output for
'complete sentencehood' while she speaks, even in a set-aside testing
situation. (Maybe _especially_ in such a situation.)

"Some people have, by the way, suggested that it is not necessary for
students to be able to recognize grammatical constructions (such as
prepositional phrases, subjects, verbs, clauses, etc.) To me, that is
insane."

'Insane' is perhaps a little strong; there is reasoning behind this point
of view. But I agree with Ed that, _IF_ we want students to be able to
talk about their writing (and I do), they have to learn grammatical
terminology and analysis. WHEN do we begin? Given what I have said above,
and given how language acquisition works, my first suggestion would be
that we do not teach _any_ explicit grammar before 3rd grade at the
earliest, and preferably 4th grade (since that is also the first step
beyond 'primary school'). If people fear that this will mean that children
will not acquire 'correct English', I have some reassurance. I have said
before that acquiring correct English at these early ages will be
automatic if children experience a lot of exposure (reading, hearing, TV)
to standard English and if they are _motivated_ to learn -- that is, they
feel accepted, and they identify enough with the standard-speaking
community to buy the program. This second item can be a major obstacle in
many situations.

Also, the kinds of communication children engage in at that age are not
going to require high-level writing or speaking skills. I don't think we
need to have 2nd graders editing their work. Starting such habits in
middle school should be early enough to entrench them (although I am not
an educational psychologist, so I don't know for sure).

"the fact that students cannot identify these constructions,
especially in their own writing, is a primary reason for the failure of
much instruction about grammar."

You mean it's a _result_ of the failure of grammar instruction?

What do others think of holding explicit grammar instruction until 3rd or
4th grade? Classroom teachers are best equipped to respond, I think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184     Fax: (805)-756-6374                   ~
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                           ~
Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm   ~
Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba                     ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~