Mike raises several interesting questions which,
unfortunately, I cannot respond to in  detail. I would
suggest, however, that there is a difference
between taking the ideas of linguists into
consideration in developing the role of grammar in
the  curriculum, and have the linguists develop that
curriculum. As I see it, linguists are interested in
grammar per se, and, to respond to another aspect
of Mike's comments, GRAMMAR SHOULD NOT
BE TAUGHT IN THE K-12 CURRICULUM FOR ITS
OWN SAKE!!!!!!!!!!
     Students are not interested. They hate it, just as
much as they hate math. Once students begin to
see that grammar is related to how they think, and
how meaning is conveyed (or not conveyed), then
they become interested in grammar. I don't see
grammar as a handmaiden of composition; I see it
as a handmaiden of thought.
    If you want to make the arguement that grammar
should be taught for its own sake, then why should
not mechanics -- or cake decorating -- be taught
instead. For their own sake, they are just as
important, aren't they?
    Sorry if the tone of this is abrupt. It's my
frustration at having to respond to colleagues whom
I respect about a topic that we all think is important,
when I was supposed to be in the library with a
class five minutes ago.
Please forgive me,
Ed
 
>>> MIKE MEDLEY
<[log in to unmask]> 01/28/98
01:07am >>>
Reply to part of Ed Vavra's comments:
 
> And, although I appreciate the participation of
> linguists in the group, my sense is that they will
want
> more terms -- and more complicated concepts --
than
> the K-12 curriculum will be able to handle.>
 
Ed,
Should K-12 history and social studies teachers
ignore the
methodology and findings of professional
historians or college &
university historians?
Should K-12 math and science teaching ignore
college & university
specialists in math & science?
The teaching of English grammar in K-12 has to be
informed as much by
the methodology and findings of professional
linguists as the
teaching of  other subjects has to be informed by
what their more
advanced students say.  It is rather uncharitable to
suggest of
linguists that they are all essentially ignorant of the
cognitive
constraints on children at various stages of mental
& social
development and would insist on more terminology
or more complex
terminology than can be handled.
A part of the question is : "How can we simplify
without unduly
distorting?"   Since I tend to get a few  students
who have been
drilled in "traditional grammar" I know how
frustrating it is to get
them to unlearn some of the distortions they have
come to believe in.
What kinds of simplification will do the least
damage?
 
Another question I raise also has a bearing on what
you might want to
include in the "core concepts" that we all agree
should be
taught.  Do we study grammar (linguistics) because
it is valuable in
its own right for children/young people to
understand this very
basic, very powerful (apparently unique) human
artifact/tool--how
it's put together and how it works?   Or do we study
grammar for its
utilitarian value--because it is useful for something
else?  I
sometimes get the feeling that some ATEG
members would like grammar
to be viewed merely as "the handmaiden of
composition."
 
 
 
**********************************************************************
R. Michael Medley       VPH 211                Ph: (712)
737-7047
Assistant Professor     Northwestern College
Department of English   Orange City, IA  51041
**********************************************************************