Phil,

If there were a good grammar curriculum in place, I would agree that
that was where we should start.  Since there is not, although we
evidently aren't in agreement on that, we are working on scope and
sequence and should also be working on certification.  Organizationally,
two independent committees, which isn't precisely what you've advocated,
would to easily work at cross purposes (is "cross purposes" an "ice
cream" phrase?).  That there might be two groups working together and
influencing each others work so as to arrive at a curriculum and
certification standards seems reasonable.

I've gone through the Houghton Mifflin web site for Honegger's book, and
it looks pretty decent.  Given some of the things that he does with
parts of speech, phrase structure, etc., I would not infer that it
represents traditional grammar in the senses you have alluded to.  But
in terms of presentation of structure it's not bad.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bralich
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar Certification vs. scope and sequence

>
>Perhaps I left a step out of the argument.  I agree with many on this
>list that we need a new grammar curriculum.  You and I differ on that.


You are really missing the whole discussion here.  Scope and sequence
are a part of any field's curriculum design.  Certification or the
offering of degrees is the result of a curriculum having been taught.
The development of a final test for certification naturally must be
based on the curriculum that is offered by the school offers the
curriculum.  However, the issues that arise in the splitting of a fields
body of knowledge into a series for scope and sequence are very
different from the issues that arise in trying to test that field's body
of knowledge all-of-a-peice as a certifcation exam.  The issues are
sufficiently different that not only do they suggest two different
committees to develop them, they more or less compell us to create two
committees.  This is what you keep missing here.  



>I'm not being intentionally dense when I say that I don't understand
>what you mean by "... the entirety of traditional grammar is
>inescapable."  Both "entirety" and "inescapable" are a little unclear
to
>me.  

Take a look at my review of Mark Honegger's _Grammar for Writing_ in the
last ATEG Journal.  I made a similar discussion and pointed this out
with more examples when I explained why I believed his book was very
complete and that he had, in spite of protests to the contrary, provided
the entirety of traditional grammar.  


Phil Bralich

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/