Jeff,
I am working on an article focused on reclaiming "context" and
"minimalism" as concepts, so I have been giving this much thought.
One problem with Weaver's approach is that it is not a context-based
grammar, but a system for using context as a way to diagnose
decontextualised problems. (Correct errors when they show up.) And
minimalism doesn't have to mean using soft terms and avoiding an
accurate description of the language "at point of need". You can't
"scaffold" off of soft terminology. It's not transferable to the next
situation. >
To a modern sensibility, rhetoric has more to do with expressive and
interactive meanings than it does with representational ones. Of
course, the old rhetorical triangle included writer/speaker,
listener/reader, and world. These got picked up in the Prague School,
by Firth (in England), and eventually Halliday. Since this approach
to grammar is inherently rhetorical, there is no way NOT to be talking
about language in use when you talk about it. It's a little like
imagining a noncontextual approach to ecology. Ecology is ABOUT life
in the world.
In Australia, the intermediary focus in on genre, which is applied
much more widely than it is over here. (A marriage proposal is a
genre. As is an apology, job letter, story, editorial, and so on.)
Herb's article on verbs is a nice example, since his focus was on the
nuances of meaning these forms convey doing the work of writing.
(I was just looking at "advice" for story telling for an elementary
school curriculum, and the focus was on keeping events in
chronological order as the "correct" way. That sounds fine, until you
realize that stories don't often work that way. A good narrator
controls perspective, and the order of the happening and the order of
the telling don't even normally match. Often the opening is close to
climax, with some eventual background as to how all this came to pass.
Time/tense is largely determined by point of entry.)
Of course, analysis of how stories work (and how/why they are of
importance to us as a people) can be a great resource to both reading
and writing. Meanwhile, we'll find past tense verbs, lots of aspect,
verbal process clauses (for dialogue and conversation), speech
closely related to character (dialogue), careful use of perception
and feeling and thinking verbs for the narrator (unless it's a
dramatic narrator, creating a need to get those out), and so on.
I was interested in your comment about state standards. The ones I
have been looking at seem at odds with the curriculum. If students
coming to college can't punctuate, what are we to make of standards
that say it should be done "without error" in Junior high? Is it
reasonable to expect that students will be able to correct errors on
standardized tests without some conscious understanding of language?
This is at the heart of our Scope and Sequence project, and it would
be nice not to have to reinvent the wheel if standards and curriculum
guidelines are already in place. I know you're involved with that in
Louisiana. Can we count on you to help us out? What's good about the
current standards and what are you guys changing? Are you modeling
after someone else? Can we use your help to come up with advice about
how this should be done?
Craig
Re: GrammarsMartha, I'll offer that I have very little technical
> understanding of "what a horse can and will do." Since I've never felt the
> urge to ride, why would I be interested? And isn't that the issue for our
> students? If they don't see the point of technical knowledge about
> grammar, why will they want to bother?
>
> I think this scope and sequence project just won't have much impact on
> students (and that's goal ultimately, isn't it?) as long as we allow
> ourselves to separate grammar and rhetoric--students' knowledge about
> language and their meaningful engagement in contexts of language use.
> Neither is prior. Students need the knowledge to engage, but just won't
> pursue that knowledge without the engagement (and not just the "promise"
> of engagement, by the way). This relationship is organic and irreducible.
>
> So I think Eduard's attraction to the name "rhetorical grammar" suggests a
> principled and crucial orientation for the scope and sequence project.
> That is, it's not just a matter of determining what grammatical elements
> to teach and how those elements can be logically sequenced with respect to
> one another, but just as crucially which elements are most likely to
> dovetail with students' broader engagement with language at any given
> point in time. We have a great many sets of state and national standards
> and curriculum guides that can help with this.
>
> What I'm saying then, is that scope and sequence need to be
> contextualized. Yes, Craig, we're back to "contextual grammar"! It's
> unfortunate how that description has been co-opted over the past
> generation such that it's equated with "minimalist grammars." I believe
> the same is true of "functional grammar" because of its close associations
> with a particular grammatical theory, which many folks just don't embrace.
> Without that baggage, I think those terms would be perfect descriptions.
> But given the current climate, I suggest that "rhetorical grammar" is the
> best option offered so far.
>
> Jeff
>
> Dr. Jeff Wiemelt
> English Department
> Director of Freshman English
> Southeastern Louisiana University
> 985-549-5761
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martha Kolln
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Grammars
>
>
> Eduard,
>
>
> It's good to know that our efforts in ATEG are appreciated. I'm
> especially humbled by your words 'classic' and 'manifesto' in
> describing my words. Of course I have not abandoned "rhetorical
> grammar" with my use of the term "linguistic grammar." I consider my
> description of linguistic grammar in the same light as my book for
> teacher preparation, Understanding English Grammar--that is, a
> foundational description--whereas I consider my Rhetorical Grammar a
> text for writing classes (although it is also being used in teacher prep
> classes). I do think that we will have to include applications to
> writing in any program that we try to get accepted in K-12; but I also
> think that before we can discuss "RG" concepts such as cohesion and
> sentence focus and rhythm and stylistic variations and such, teachers
> and their students need the foundation of descriptive grammar, whatever
> we choose to call it; they need to understand how sentences work; how
> punctuation affects the message; how modification and subordination and
> coordination contribute.
>
>
> On the importance of that understanding, I like to quote Richard Weaver
> from his The Ethics of Rhetoric: "Using a Language may be compared to
> riding a horse. Much of one's success depends on an understanding of
> what it can and will do."
>
>
> Please join us in Connecticut next July.
>
>
> And thank you for your support--and your welcome words.
>
>
> Martha
>
>
> Dear Martha:
>
> I understand your perspective. There is a pathologic fear of grammar
> in this country, which has been initiated and fed by some inept
> decision-makers at NCTE, and some English language *researchers* who
> had no idea what they were talking about, and irreparable damage has
> been done to many of the students who graduated from public school in
> this country. We have regressed to illiteracy, in spite of all the
> educational privileges American students have. I have been following
> you and Ed Vavra for the past years, and I know that you have done an
> incredible work to dispel that fear and to show that students benefit
> tremendously from an explicit knowledge of the grammar of their
> language.
>
> I have more than 20 *standard grammar* textbooks in my library, not
> counting the linguistics textbooks which discuss grammar from a
> linguistic perspective. Among those books there are an ìEnglish
> 3200: A Programmed Course in Grammar and Usageî published in 1962 by
> Blumenthal, and the famous ìComprehensive Grammar of the English
> Languageî by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, 2004 edition. I
> have also started to read ìThe War Against Grammarî by Mulroy. You
> are represented also in this collection of grammars with two books,
> the ìRhetorical Grammar,î and the classic ìUnderstanding English
> Grammar.î
>
> What is interesting about theses textbooks is that each of them
> offers a specific *grammar model,* more or less different from the
> others. You have your own perspective, or approach to grammar, and I
> would call it *rhetorical grammar.* In the introduction of the book
> with the same title, you state:
>
> ìÖRhetorical grammar brings together the insights of composition
> researchers and linguists; it makes the connection between writing
> and grammar that has been missing from our classrooms. It also avoids
> the prescriptive rules of handbooks, offering instead explanations of
> the rhetorical choices that are available. And, perhaps what is most
> important, it gives students confidence in their own language ability
> by helping them recognize the intuitive grammar expertise that all
> human beings share.î(x ñ xi)
>
> I believe that this statement is a great *manifesto,* and there is
> evidence that you have followed through with your promises during
> more than 20 years of work to restore the value of grammar teaching
> and the dignity of those who believe that grammar has been wrongly
> removed from the curriculum and that students *could benefit* and *do
> benefit* from learning grammar.
>
> The first time I encountered your ìRhetorical Grammarî I thought that
> the name of your grammar model, the same with the title of your book,
> *rhetorical grammar,* was great. I wonder why you did not stay with
> it, especially because you defined it in a very good way, in
> contradistinction with the *traditional grammar* which has been
> taught before in this country and is still taught by some teachers.
>
> A short review of the most common grammar models shows that one
> encounters *prescriptive grammars,* *descriptive grammars,*
> *traditional grammars, *Latin-based grammars* *teaching grammars,
> *generative grammars,* transformational grammars,* *formal grammars,*
> *functional grammars,*etc. I believe that the term *linguistic
> grammar* is too vague, and the phrase is a pleonasm, as I mentioned
> in a previous message. Most of the grammars I have listed claim a
> linguistic basis. How can one distinguish the *linguistic grammar*
> you and ATEG promote from other *linguistic grammars*?
>
> If I had to select a name for the ATEGís *movement grammar* I would
> probably choose to stay with the name *RHETORICAL GRAMMAR.* The
> second option would be *NATURAL GRAMMAR,* because what most of us
> work to promote is the NATURAL STRUCTURE of the English language, as
> opposed to the imposition of a Latin-based grammar on the English
> language.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eduard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Martha Kolln wrote...
>
> >Dear Eduard,
> >
> >I'm not sure how the term "linguistic grammar" got started; on the
> >other hand, I may be as responsible as anyone. I titled my
> >contribution to Grammar Alive, published in 2003 by NCTE, "An
> >Overview of Linguistic Grammar." I did so in order to distinguish
> my
> >description from that of traditional, Latin-based grammar. We
> >ATEGers wrote Grammar Alive for the thousands (tens of thousands?)
> of
> >English teachers who have been led to believe that teaching grammar
> >is a waste of time--and, in fact, may be downright harmful--for
> their
> >students. And for the most part, the only grammar they are familiar
> >with, if at all, is the traditional, Latin-based,
> >eight-parts-of-speech variety.
> >
> >I could have titled my chapter "new grammar"--but at age 60 or more
> >the structural grammar on which I base my classifications and
> >definitions and patterns is no longer new. I am using the adjective
> >"linguistic" simply to designate this sensible way of describing
> >grammar, based on the science of linguistics.
> >
> >One of the tenets of "linguistic grammar" that I emphasize--and one
> >that sets it apart from the Latin-based variety that finds its way
> >into traditional grammar books and grammar classes--is the
> importance
> >of recognizing the subconscious (unconscious?) grammar knowledge
> that
> >students bring to the classroom, knowledge based on our human
> ability
> >to construct an intricate grammatical system from whatever language
> >environment into which we are born. (I have no problem relinquishing
> >"innate.")
> >
> >And I'd be happy to stop using the term "linguistic grammar" if I
> >could think of a good replacement. I welcome suggestions.
> >
> >Martha
> >
> >P.S. to Craig: We believed that NCTE was our best bet as a
> >publisher. And the book has certainly been given a great deal of
> >publicity--and is selling well, I understand ) NCTE would not
> >publish it if it had contained suggestions for scope & sequence.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Dear Phil:
> >>
> >>In "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics," Trask
> (1997)
> >>defines *grammar* as "that part of the structure of a language which
> >>includes sentence structure(syntax) and word structure (morphology)"
> >>(p. 29). As linguists well know, *morphology and *syntax* are an
> >>integral and part of the science of language, which is
> *linguistics.*
> >>
> >>The term *linguistic grammar* is not a linguistic expression.It is
> a
> >>pleonasm, a redundant expression, which confuses those who are not
> >>familiar with linguistics and its subfields.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Eduard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
> >>
> >>>I have been in grammar/syntax for over 25 years, but it is only on
> >>this list that I have heard of "Linguistic Grammar." Are there
> >>formal descriptions and discussion of it available in journals and
> >>books? Are there recognized authors on the subject? Also, does
> >>anyone know where I might get a copy of Tim Hadley's dissertation?
> >>>
> >>>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/
> >
>
> 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/
|
