[This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the ATEG
list
replying to a message originally submitted by  Bill McCleary
[log in to unmask]
to the ATEG list]
 
Bill, I don't know of any studies that indicate students learn one "kind"
of grammar better than others, tho I do remember that Paul Roberts many
years ago claimed that he had more success teaching transformational
grammar (at least the early form he mixed with structural grammar) than
other kinds of grammar.  I suspect he did.  And I suspect that he likely
did because he was teaching a system that made a kind of sense rather than
presenting grammar as shards of definitions that never come together into a
complete, understandable system.
 
My own feeling is that students do better with some kind of system within
which the parts fit and make sense.  Beyond that, I'm not sure how much
"intensity" of definitions or "differentiation" of parts they need.   The
question you bring up about "horse barns" is a good case in point.  If you
push it very far, "horse" is a noun that functions as an adjective.  But
then again, you can also define "horse" as a noun functioning as a genitive
(a barn for horses) that is not marked with a preposition or an inflection
('s) as it is in a "girl's school" (a school for girls).   I fear to tread
too far into definitions in a junior-level course for college students.
Too far and you confuse most of the students.  How far to define is a
problem when you're teaching a class and a problem when you're writing a
textbook.  Personally, I try to do as little defining as I think I can
legitimately get away with.  I always hope that students will understand
the system and learn to define parts in a way that makes sense to them. and
that "fits."
 
If I talk much more, I'm afraid I'll start lecturing to people who don't
need lectures.  So I'll stop here.  But I do think this discussion gets at
a major question about teaching grammar that teachers and textbooks have to
confront.  I've been trying for years to figure out what is essential core
knowledge about grammar and what is peripheral.  I haven't been very
successful answering that question.  I suspect not many of us have.
 
Max Morenberg
 
>
>This is to carry on the discussion of whether it's necessary to use
>terminology that makes distinctions between nouns and things that may take
>the function of nouns, etc. Of course, Bernhard's reply to me turns out to
>be things I already know, such as that horse remains like a noun even when
>used as a modifier in "horse barn." I thought maybe I was missing
>something, but I guess not.
>
>But then he goes on to say that making such distinctions makes grammar
>easier to teach. I'd like to hear more about that. The typical secondary
>textbook lumps all kinds of modifiers into the category of adjective--all
>kinds of determiners, attributive nouns, and what one may call "true
>adjectives." One issue--subject to much debate on this list--is whether
>there is any point to teaching any grammar at all at the secondary level
or
>below. Many people, apparently, believe that there is not. The other issue
>is whether there is a "best" way of teaching grammar at each age level.
>Assming that students can learn grammar, do they learn it more easily if
>the grammar is "scientific" than if it is typical schoolbook grammar? I'd
>like to know if there is any evidence one way or the other on this
>question.
>
>Bill McCleary
>
>William J. McCleary                     Editor: Composition Chronicle
>Associate Prof. of English              Viceroy Publications
>Coordinator of Secondary English        3247 Bronson Hill Road
>SUNY at Cortland                        Livonia, NY 14487
>607-753-2076                            716-346-6859
>[log in to unmask]         [log in to unmask]