Phil,
We did draft a statement on standard English that takes a position
similar to what you are stating. If, in fact, students are expected to
conform to it, then we owe it to them to be explicit about what it
entails and give a wide enough base of understanding to jump those
obstacles.>
We are not opposed to teaching traditional grammar, so the argument
that it's too prescriptive (and therefor shouldn't be taught) is not
coming from us. Some of us are simply saying that the prescriptivce
parts of it can be carefully weighed.
As far as I am concerned, we can be a group that includes people as
conservative as you seem to be on the issue. We have so much in common,
that it hardly serves anyone's interest to try to reach consensus
before we move forward. (Or delay moving forward because of the lack of
perfect consensus.)
I'm asking for an affirmation of common goals and a willingness to
support each other's right to be heard in the public debate.
Craig
It would seem much more important to address and remove the complaint
> about prescriptivism rather than pander to it. It is an important
> distinction in theoretical syntax but virtually meaningless in
> traditional grammar. The few rules that are generally prescriptivist
> are not that hard to learn, have the job of regulating some gray areas
> and in the long run conform to what is expected by major publishing
> houses.
> The vast majority of grammar is the result of good intutions making very
> good discoveries about very regular properties of language. The
> prescriptivist rules generally exist to add a bit of regularity. They do
> NOT represent a coterier of fascist leaning grammar-obsessives. The
> charge is just far too overblown. The number of prescriptivist rules that
> need to be taught are few and don't take much time to include. The
> better choice in the matter is to address the issue of prescriptivism
> rather than buying into it. Not the smallest reason being that is simply
> sounds like a fourth grader grousing about his homework. In theoretical
> syntax it is reasonable in traditional grammar it is childish. The issue
> must be addressed but it must be addressed in a manner that preserves and
> supports those few rules that are genuinely prescriptivist. Phil
> Bralich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Paul E. Doniger"
> Sent: Jul 21, 2006 8:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>
> Phil, I don't think anyone wants to dump knowledge of parts of
> speech, etc. Also, I think most of us would agree that grammar
> instruction should balance both prescriptive and descriptive methods.
> On the other hand there is much prescriptivism that needs to be ended
> (e.g., prescriptive rules like "never use a split infinitive," or
> "never end a sentence with a preposition."). Part of our mission in
> the scope and sequence project is to find exactly where the lines
> should be drawn, where they intersect, and when is the right time to
> teach specific concepts (and terms). If Ed Vavra weren't so negative
> about ATEG, he could offer much that would help us achieve these
> goals. I wish he were more open to working with us and would re-join
> the group. I doubt that any of us want to stop teaching nouns, verbs
> (and their types), adjectives, adverbs, etc.; however, as Martha
> pointed out earlier, we also want to teach concepts like adverbial,
> adjectival, subject complement, noun phrase. Some of us may even want
> to add parts of speech to the "Latin 8" -- again, Martha mentioned the
> term 'determiner' which is more useful than adjective or article in
> some cases. And of course, we always will have some disagreements as
> was pointed out in an earlier posting (e.g., the gerund wars). We
> remain open minded, however, and invite all to participate in the
> discussion and to build a program that will be acceptable and
> successful. Paul D.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Phil Bralich
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:47:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>
> I have no problem with intuition and grammar and use it A LOT in my
> classes. But it should not be used as an excuse to dump a knowledge of
> the parts speech, sentence roles and so forth. It should be used to
> point out that grammarians are not creating things and forcing them into
> language but instead are discovering them and pointing them out to you.
> This allows the native intuition that the student brings to class to
> benefit from the 2000+ years of intuition and study that have gone
> before.
>
> The complaint about prescriptivism is largely bogus. Saying grammar is
> too prescriptivist is mostly proferred by people who don't want to bother
> learning it. This is like a psychologist saying "Freud has a mother
> problem" to avoid the responsibility to read and study him. The few thing
> that are prescriptivist actually make your writing better and are hardly
> an intrusion or a waste of time in a curriculum.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Martha Kolln
>>Sent: Jul 20, 2006 6:02 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>
>>Dear Phil (and Eds and others),
>>
>>I am very grateful for my early training in
>>traditional grammar, just as I know you are. But
>>twenty years after that training, I was
>>introduced to the "new" grammar of the
>>structuralists and Chomsky. They taught me two
>>lessons that I wish my middle school (junior
>>high) teachers had taught me (but back in the
>>40s, they of course hadn't heard about new
>>grammar, so I can't blame them):
>>
>>1) that we, as native speakers, are grammar
>>experts--unconscious though that expertise may be;
>>
>>2) that the eight parts of speech, based on
>>Latin, do not constitute a very accurate
>>description of English grammar.
>>
>>Let's look at your two example sentences, Phil.
>>You maintain that "a thorough and complete
>>knowledge of traditional grammar" is essential to
>>understand the question of subject-verb agreement
>>in these examples. I, on the other hand, would
>>simply suggest to my students that they make use
>>of their innate (or unconscious) grammar
>>expertise. Simply substitute a pronoun for the
>>subject: Would that subject be "It" or "They"?
>>
>> Simply believing in the students = It (not "they")
>> The suggestion that the man be more polite = It
>>
>>In her post, Johanna mentioned the inaccurate
>>definition of "pronoun" that traditional grammar
>>includes. Here's the proof: the subject of your
>>first sentence is neither a noun nor a noun
>>phrase. But it fills a noun phrase, or nominal,
>>slot, so it is by definition a "nominal."
>>
>>I noticed that the -al words--nominal,
>>adjectival, and adverbial--are missing from your
>>list of terms. However, they are essential for
>>understanding how structures function. For
>>example, a traditional explanation of a noun as a
>>prenoun modifier, such as "coke bottle" or "paper
>>airplane," would pobably identify "coke" and
>>"paper" as adjectives, following the traditional
>>definition of "adjective" (a word that modifies a
>>noun). But that traditional definition is really
>>the definition of "adjectival"--and it includes
>>participial phrases and relative clauses and
>>prepositional phrases and anything else that is a
>>modifier in the noun phrase. Another example:
>>In a sentence such as "We walked home," the word
>>"home" is called an adverb in traditional
>>grammar. It's adverbial, true; but its word
>>class is noun--a noun functioning adverbially.
>>
>>I guess I'm adding a third lesson I didn't hear
>>during my traditional grammar education:
>>
>>3) that we need to discuss both form and function
>>to do justice to grammar--and those -al words in
>>our vocabulary help us organize our knowledge of
>>sentence structure.
>>
>>Before I leave your sentences and the importance
>>of using our subconscious grammar, our students'
>>knowledge of pronouns can also be put to use in
>>identifying the parameters of any noun phrase.
>>If your students have trouble finding the main
>>verb in the sentence--perhaps because there are
>>verbs embedded in the subject--simply do the
>>pronoun substitution, as I did with your
>>sentences: The next word is nearly always the
>>verb or its auxiliary.
>>
>>On the topic of my second lesson, regarding the
>>parts of speech. I believe it's essential that
>>students recognize the difference between the
>>four form classes and the structure classes.
>>Again, they will easily learn to apply their
>>intuition about language when they learn some new
>>definitions:
>>
>>A noun is a word that can be made plural and/or
>>possessive--or simply "a word that you
>> can signal with "the" (a determiner, not
>>an adjective, as traditional grammar books define
>>it).
>>
>>A verb is a word that has both an -s and an -ing
>>ending--or simply a word that you can signal with
>>"might" or "could".
>>
>>The study of the inflectional and derivational
>>endings of the form classes is a rich and
>>powerful way into the study of word classes.
>>
>>Intuitive knowledge of grammar should be used--it
>>can be enormously effective. And it helps
>>students recognize that they don't come to
>>grammar class with a blank slate to be filled by
>>new information. It is truly empowering for
>>students to recognize that in studying grammar
>>they are learning in a conscious way the rules
>>that they have been following subconsciously all
>>their lives.
>>
>>Martha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am not piggybacking off the SAT. The fact
>>>remains that an intuitive knowledge of grammar
>>>will be nowhere near as effective as a knowledge
>>>of traditional grammar to prepare yourself for
>>>that test. Subject verb agreement, parallelism
>>>and so forth can be approached intuitively but
>>>it would take years longer and be far less of an
>>>intellectual and valuable achievement without
>>>the knowledge of tradtional grammar behind it.
>>>To do either of these functions you need to know
>>>the whole of tradtional grammar, which quite
>>>frankly, is not that much.
>>>Two examples illustrate this:
>>>
>>>1) Simply believing in the students give(s)
>>>them the necessary confidence to succeed.
>>>
>>>2) The suggestion that the man be more polite was rejected.
>>>
>>>To resolve the subject verb agreement problem in
>>>(1) or to understand the use of the form of be
>>>in (2), a rudimentary understanding of a few
>>>parts of speech or a few sentence roles in not
>>>sufficient nor is a heightened intuition through
>>>a lot of reading, the only way to teach and to
>>>know about those rules is to have a rather
>>>thorough and complete knowledge of traditional
>>>grammar. All of the parts of speech, sentence
>>>roles, sentence types and their possible
>>>relationships in time (tense, aspect, mood,
>>>modality, and voice) and space (number, person,
>>>and gender) needs to be understood to do this
>>>correctly and consistently. Number (1) alone
>>>requires that one know that the subject of the
>>>sentence is a gerund and that gerunds take a
>>>third person singular form of the verb in
>>>present indicative sentences. Number (2)
>>>requires the understanding of subjunctive which
>>>must be necessarily placed in the full context
>>>of tense, aspect, mood, and modality before any
>>>understanding of the unusual use of the verb can
>>>be achieved.
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Craig Hancock
>>>>Sent: Jul 20, 2006 1:03 PM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>>Phil,
>>>> Just a quick response from a busy guy to a very rich and thoughtful
>>>> post.
>>>> I understand the strategy of piggybacking off of the new SAT's.
>>>>Unfortunately, they do not measure knowledge of grammar in the way you
>>>>thoughtfully advocate. They measure behavior, and they expect those
>>>>choices to be intuitive. Even in their examples, they do not go into
>>>>any kind of lengthy explanation of the reasons for their choices.
>>>>Perhaps the reasons for this are obvious: even the middle class
>>>>suburban kids wouldn't pass a test that measures explicit knowledge
>>>>about language. They are asked to edit someone else's writing
>>>>(basically 'correct" it, but they would say "improve" in some
>>>>instances) on the basis of principles that are never fully articulated.
>>>>If and when we get a good curriculum in place, we should lobby for a
>>>>test that fits and for a test/curriculum match that levels the playing
>>>>field and doesn't just reward intuition.
>>>> I'm surprised, especially in conjunction with Cornelia's fine post,
>>>>that you don't include "clause" as a basic term. You use it later on in
>>> >your discussion of misunderstood terms, but not in the core terms
>>>>needed. By the way, I haven't had much problem with interchanging
>>>>dependent and subordinate, maybe because I present them as
>>>>interchangeable terms for the same thing.
>>>> Just for the record, I found 64 technical terms in Diana Hacker's
>>>>Writers Reference in the punctuation sections alone. I used that as
>>>>part of a 4C's talk in which I contrasted that list with Constance
>>>>Weaver's very short list of terms. As you know very well, most students
>>>>can't read the average handbook, and terminology is a key to that.
>>>> Every year, I ask incoming students for a definition of an
>>>> important
>>>>term just to see what the preparation has been. This year it was
>>>>"subordinate clause." By my last class, I was even dangling a five
>>>>dollar reward. Out of 62 students, none was confident enough to try.
>>>>This is, of course, not their fault.
>>>> I hope you can see that the Scope and Sequence project is an
>>>> attempt to
>>>>fill the very real void you describe. If we can get on board on the
>>>>basis of the need for it, then we can come up with something far more
>>> >useful than the current head in the sand approach.
>>>> Thanks for passing this on.
>>>>
>>>>Craig
>>>>
>>>> For those of you interested in this issue, my "The New SAT and
>>>>> Fundatmental Misunderstanding of Grammar Teaching" is about to
>>>>> appear in
>>>>> _English Today_ published by the Cambridge University Press. I have
>>>>> copied a portion of it below. You can contact that journal or
>>>>> myself for
>>>>> the full articile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Bralich
>>>>>
>>>>> EXCERPT To Appear _English Today_ July 2006.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traditional Grammar, as we all know, has been on the wane in
>>>>> education for
>>>>> the last 25 to 50 years in the face of more interactive classrooms,
>>>>> more
>>>>> exotic developments in transformational grammar, and research
>>>>> suggesting
>>>>> it may not play an effective role in improving students writing.
>>>>> Recently, however, there has been a resurgence in the interest in
>>>>> teaching
>>>>> some of the fundamental concepts of traditional grammar. This new
>>>>> interest in teaching grammar has taken on a much more imperative
>>>>> force as
>>>>> secondary schools and to some extent primary schools are beginning
>>>>> to feel
>>>>> pressure to teach basic grammatical concepts in order to prepare
>>>>> students
>>>>> for the 35 minute multiple choice grammar and usage questions on the
>>>>> new
>>>>> SAT. Teachers and schools who cannot pass this section of the test
>>>>> will
>>>>> be held to account by politicians, school administrators, and
>>>>> parents, all
>>>>> of whom tend to believe traditional, formal grammar instruction is
>>>>> the
>>>>> best means to this end. Teachers who send their students off to the
>>>>> new
>>>>> SAT without this training will have some serious questions to answer
>>>>> if
>>>>> those students scores are too low.
>>>>> This refocus on teaching grammar has raised many old arguments and
>>>>> much of
>>>>> the same confusion that caused grammar to be taken off the
>>>>> curriculum in
>>>>> many schools in the first place, confusion which even led to the
>>>>> remarkable and, to many, reprehensible decision by the National
>>>>> Council of
>>>>> Teachers of English (NCTE) to make a resolution in 1985 stating,
>>>>> …[the
>>>>> NCTE] urge[s] the discontinuance of testing practices that encourage
>>>>> the
>>>>> teaching of grammar… While many educators, parents, students,
>>>>> and
>>>>> politicians have all along been in favor of the teaching of grammar
>>>>> in
>>>>> spite of claims by the NCTE and others, their voices have largely
>>>>> been
>>>>> ignored or drowned out through the years of what David Mulroy, a
>>>>> classicist at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, has named
>>>>> The War
>>>>> Against Grammar in his book of that title.
>>>>> As a Professor at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language
>>>>> Center
>>>>> in Monterey, CA, charged with the responsibility to prepare students
>>>>> for
>>>>> Foreign Language study in a wide variety of the worlds languages, I
>>>>> can
>>>>> attest that basic grammar knowledge is the most important factor in
>>>>> reducing attrition and enhancing student success rates. I have a
>>>>> Ph.D. in
>>>>> theoretical linguistics with a focus on theoretical syntax. I have
>>>>> taught
>>>>> traditional grammar to native speakers, ESL grammar to non-native
>>> >> speakers, and composition to both. I have never found any of the
>>>>> anti-grammar articles or positions to be convincing. In fact they
>>>>> have
>>>>> always struck me as more of a political movement than as a reasoned
>>>>> position taken in the face of convincing evidence a political
>>>>> movement
>>>>> rooted in the profits, short hours, and world travel to be had in
>>>>> the
>>>>> years of the ESL boom in the 80s and 90s, profits eyed by those who
>>>>> did
>>>>> not know grammar. Since that time the only tangible results of that
>>>>> policy have been a significant lessening in American Foreign
>>>>> Language
>>>>> skills and Foreign Language program enrollments, significantly
>>>>> increased
>>>>> need for remedial reading and writing programs at colleges and
>>>>> universities across the United States, and complaints from business,
>>>>> academia, and government about the lack of verbal skills in those
>>>>> who have
>>>>> turned up on their doorsteps since grammar teaching has fallen out
>>>>> of
>>>>> favor. Thus, rather than the leap forward for language arts that
>>>>> proponents of the anti-grammar attitude might have expected, there
>>>>> has
>>> >> only been a lamentable and evident decline in language arts skills.
>>>>> These last few decades of the War Against Grammar have left serious
>>>>> gaps
>>>>> in the understanding of what constitutes a proper curriculum in
>>>>> English
>>>>> Grammar. Thus, while there is a stronger interest in grammar and in
>>>>> preparing students for the new SAT, there are many, many educators
>>>>> who
>>>>> simply were not trained in grammar and do not know where to begin.
>>>>> In
>>>>> particular, some rather deeply rooted misunderstandings about
>>>>> grammar have
>>>>> grown up and stand in the way of the educator wishing to address
>>>>> this need
>>>>> and the politicians and parents wishing to evaluate the attempts to
>>>>> address this need. I wish to address seven of them here in order to
>>>>> provide the parent, the politician, the student, and the otherwise
>>>>> concerned a rubric by which they can evaluate grammar teaching and
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> teachers and get a sense that the grammar movement is valuable and
>>>>> the new
>>>>> SAT is not insurmountable.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #1: All grammar rules are equally as distrusted
>>>>> and
>>>>> untrustworthy as, Dont end a sentence with a preposition, Dont let
>>>>> modifiers dangle, and Dont split infinitives. Nothing could be
>>>>> further from the truth. People routinely accept almost all the
>>>>> rules of
>>>>> grammar and often even find a certain elegance in them. However,
>>>>> even
>>>>> though each of the three rules cited here is an actual rule of
>>>>> grammar,
>>>>> they form a group as the grammar rules that are often cited as
>>>>> unnecessary
>>>>> or cloying. Fortunately, they are about the only rules of grammar
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> really complains about. I suspect that most people who dont know
>>>>> their
>>>>> grammar find it easier to memorize one of these handy and well-known
>>>>> rules
>>>>> for grousing about grammar than going to the trouble of actually
>>>>> working
>>>>> through a few grammar exercises. This is like knowing to quip,
>>>>> Freud had
>>>>> a mother problem, as a means of escaping the responsibility to
>>>>> actually
>>>>> reading Freud.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #2: Parts of Speech, Parts of Sentence, and
>>>>> Sentence
>>>>> Types are three not two sets of terms. This misunderstanding is a
>>>>> little
>>>>> more complicated then the previous one or the next two, but it is
>>>>> the most
>>>>> important to know if you want to create or evaluate a grammar course
>>>>> or
>>>>> textbook. In beginning your approach to the language arts the first
>>>>> thing
>>>>> anyone needs to know is the taxonomy of the field and that that
>>>>> taxonomy
>>>>> is based on first the identification of words and kinds of words
>>>>> which are
>>>>> then made into phrases and those themselves phrases being made into
>>>>> sentences. In short, we need a set of terms for each of words,
>>>>> phrases,
>>>>> and sentences. The main thing that confuses people about these
>>>>> terms is
>>>>> that most books fail to point out that parts of speech and parts of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sentence form two distinct sets with the term verb common to both.
>>>>> Dividing the three steps in building a sentence (word, phrase,
>>>>> sentence)
>>>>> into three sets of terms and laying them side by side as below
>>> >> demonstrates two things: 1) that there is a lot less to learning
>>> grammar
>>>>> than there is to learning other subjects like math, chemistry,
>>>>> geometry,
>>>>> home economics, or auto mechanics; and 2) that there really is a
>>>>> fixed and
>>>>> bounded body of knowledge that can be mastered underlying the
>>>>> grammar of a
>>>>> language. There are only 27 terms here, but this is rather
>>>>> complete, at
>>>>> least it is more than sufficient to get you through the New SAT or
>>>>> most
>>>>> any foreign language or language arts course. You should also note
>>>>> how
>>>>> the top four items of each column are actually widely known and are
>>>>> not
>>>>> particularly difficult, thus, leaving the teacher with a challenge
>>>>> with
>>>>> less than fifteen terms. This is clearly much less than algebra,
>>>>> geometry, or astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parts of Speech Parts of Sentence Sentence Types
>>>>> Noun Subject Declarative
>>>>> Verb Predicate Interrogative
>>>>> Adjective Verb Imperative
>>>>> Adverb Object (indirect, direct, of prep.) Exclamatory
>>>>> Preposition Complement (subj. obj) Simple
>>>>> Conjunction Noun Phrase Compound
>>> >> Comparatives Verb Phrase Complex
>>>>> Noun Morphology (-s, -es, s) Adjective
>>>>>Phrase Compound/Complex
>>>>> Verb Morphology (helping verbs, -ing, ed,
>>>>>etc.) Adverb Phrase Relative
>>>>> Clauses / Reduced Clauses
>>>>>
>>>>> Misunderstanding #3: There is a standardized vocabulary for
>>>>> referring to
>>>>> grammatical functions. There are several places in the set of
>>>>> traditional
>>>>> grammar terms where different books and different traditions use
>>>>> different
>>>>> terminology. This is unfortunate and should be addressed. The NCTE
>>>>> for
>>>>> example should be establishing a set of common, recommended
>>>>> terminology in
>>>>> these areas rather than trying to eliminate the teaching of
>>>>> grammar.
>>>>> There arent that many more than you see here, but these are
>>>>> particularly
>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Main Clause = Independent Clause
>>>>> Subordinate Clause = Dependent Clause
>>>>>
>>>>> Participial Phrase = Reduced Adjective or Reduced Adverb
>>>>> Clause
>>>>> Bare Infintives = Reduced infinitives, small clauses
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject Complement = Predicate Adjective or Predicate
>>>>> Nominative
>>>>>
>>>>> What is particularly troubling about this is that if you know any
>>>>> one of
>>>>> the above sets the other terms sound like they must be nuanced
>>>>> versions of
>>>>> something in grammar that you dont yet know. Grammar books or at
>>>>> least
>>>>> the NCTE need to settle on one set, but they should also point out
>>>>> in a
>>>>> foot note that the other terms also exist for the same phenomenon.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> confusing if, after youve mastered the concepts of main and
>>>>> subordinate
>>>>> clause, you hear someone talking about independent and dependent
>>>>> clauses
>>>>> and wondering what is the difference. Worse yet, are the terms
>>>>> predicate
>>>>> nominative and predicate adjective to refer to the two kinds of
>>>>> subject
>>>>> complement. The problem of course is that the students are never
>>>>> sure
>>>>> when they are done until these terminological overlaps are pointed
>>>>> out to
>>>>> them.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #4: The word gerund. The term gerund is often
>>>>> dropped in
>>>>> grammatical circles the way some drop Kennedy in political circles.
>>>>> If
>>>>> you know what it is, it marks your knowledge of grammar as learned.
>>>>> If
>>>>> you dont know what it is, you are likely to be marked as illiterate
>>>>> or at
>>>>> best one of the semi-literate dharma-bum sort who can only do flow
>>>>> of
>>>>> consciousness writing and are incapable of the introspection that
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> requires. However, both the pride and the shame that come with the
>>>>> word
>>>>> gerund are unjustified as the word gerund is itself somewhat
>>>>> ill-formed as
>>>>> a grammatical term. A gerund as many of the readers of this
>>>>> publication
>>>>> will know is a present participle used as a noun. However, what
>>>>> most
>>>>> people fail to note is that an infinitive can also be used as a noun
>>>>> but
>>>>> no one has bothered to make a whole new term for it. For example,
>>>>> we can
>>>>> call a present participle used as a noun, a present participle used
>>>>> as a
>>>>> noun or we can call it a gerund. An infinitive used as a noun,
>>>>> however,
>>>>> can only be called an infinitive used as a noun, there is no special
>>>>> word
>>>>> dreamed up for this case. The word gerund therefore is a complete
>>>>> and
>>> >> utter waste of grammatical terminology in that it is unbalanced and
>>> it
>>>>> makes you wonder why a present participle used as a noun should be
>>>>> singled
>>>>> out for the honor of an extra term while the infinitive used as a
>>>>> noun is
>>>>> ignored utterly in this. If you are new to grammar, it also makes
>>>>> you
>>>>> wonder if there isnt some difference between a present participle
>>>>> used as
>>>>> a noun and a gerund. It makes a student of grammar feel that there
>>>>> must
>>>>> be something else going on. Without adding a special term for
>>>>> infinitive
>>>>> used as a noun, the word gerund should be dropped as it is
>>>>> unnecessarily
>>>>> confusing, and it could lead to elitist pretenses to knowledge of
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> obscuring real knowledge of grammar. Thank god past participles
>>>>> are
>>>>> never used as nouns.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #5: Modern linguistics has obviated the need for
>>>>> traditional grammar. No syntacticians worth his salt is going to
>>>>> get
>>>>> very far without an understanding of all the basic concepts and
>>>>> terms of
>>> >> traditional grammar. What theoretical syntax has done is to add
>>> many
>>>>> more nuanced and complicated terms to that basic set, but it has not
>>>>> obviated the need for any of them. It has also not replaced any of
>>>>> them.
>>>>> However, in its search for greater and greater generality,
>>>>> theoretical
>>>>> syntacticians does seem able to avoid the use of a few terms like
>>>>> predicate, predicate nominative, and predicate adjective. They tend
>>>>> to
>>>>> make due with verb phrase, a verb and its arguments or a verb and
>>>>> its complement. Naturally, however, these would not be discarded
>>>>> but
>>>>> left for more traditional treatments of sentence structure.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #6: Writing and language arts are the only
>>>>> fields in
>>>>> the world that are somehow better off without a taxonomy. Not
>>>>> teaching
>>>>> the parts of speech and parts of the sentence in a writing class or
>>>>> language arts class is like not teaching abstractions such as meat,
>>>>> poultry, and baked goods in an economics class. The parts of
>>>>> speech,
>>>>> parts of sentence, and sentence types described above form a largely
>>>>> complete set and demonstrate that there is not much to traditional
>>>>> grammar in the first place: eight parts of speech, eight parts of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sentence, and eight sentence types this is not rocket science. It
>>>>> is
>>>>> also not algebra, geometry, home economics, or even auto mechanics.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is far simpler than all of these which is why colleges generally
>>>>> only
>>>>> offer one term of it rather than a major in it. Even that one term
>>>>> is
>>>>> generally limited to two credits and even then it has to be
>>>>> liberally
>>>>> mixed with paragraph and essay writing to actually generate enough
>>>>> work
>>>>> to fill a whole semester. Traditional grammar is far simpler than
>>>>> all of
>>>>> that. If you are as baffled as I am in looking for an explanation
>>>>> for
>>>>> how this training was ever dropped from the curriculum or how it
>>>>> ever
>>>>> became vilified by the NCTE, you too might agree that perhaps a
>>>>> political
>>>>> explanation is one that might work. Perhaps Jack Kerouac-like,
>>>>> stream of
>>>>> consciousness writers, who likely did not know their grammar wanted
>>>>> to
>>>>> remove that burden from their teaching. Perhaps adjunct writing
>>>>> teachers
>>>>> greedy for the extra hours ran the grammar teachers out and raised
>>>>> the
>>>>> writing requirements. Perhaps grammar just provided a convenient
>>>>> scapegoat for teachers of a number of disciplines looking to vent
>>>>> their
>>>>> spleens outside their own classrooms and departments. Perhaps
>>>>> several of
>>>>> these ideas teamed up to spell the demise of traditional grammar
>>>>> teaching. However, whatever the political motive may have been it
>>>>> was
>>>>> never able to alter the fact that what was under attack is the basic
>>>>> taxonomy of all the language arts, the periodic table of language.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #7: Grammar needs to be taught in context.
>>>>> Well,
>>>>> seeing grammar on the hoof so to speak is not such a bad idea; it is
>>>>> just
>>>>> a tremendous waste of time. For example, you could find a beautiful
>>>>> use
>>>>> of a future perfect progressive or a past passive modal in a
>>>>> delightfully
>>>>> pertinent article on-line. Or, you could collect several dozen such
>>> >> sentences, put them into an exercise and have students practice
>>> them, and
>>>>> then put one or two in context on the web. Teaching grammar in
>>>>> context
>>>>> is slow and cumbersome, though in many cases it can be quite
>>>>> elucidating.
>>>>> The misunderstanding here is to lose perspective and miss the value
>>>>> of
>>>>> working through 10 or 15 of the best examples you can find in an
>>>>> exercise
>>>>> before (or after) seeing the examples in literature, on-line, in the
>>>>> press, or wherever else the particularly illustrative example was
>>>>> found.
>>>>> A particularly good example of the wealth of contextually contrived
>>>>> and
>>>>> valuable examples that can be found over and over again throughout
>>>>> the
>>>>> exercises of a grammar book is the Betty Azar's series of ESL
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> books. Page after page of representative and meaningful exercises
>>>>> where
>>>>> each sentence cues the student into the wide possible uses of
>>>>> particular
>>>>> grammatical structures. If you have not seen these books, these
>>>>> exercises
>>> >> are a treat for those who like grammar in context as well as for
>>> those
>>>>> who like a series of well chosen and meaningful examples in each
>>>>> exercise.
>>>>>
>>>>> In sum, with the New SAT here and unavoidable, high school students
>>>>> are
>>>>> going to have to know more grammar and high school teachers are
>>>>> going to
>>>>> have to teach more grammar. For the parents, the politicians,
>>>>> educators
>>>>> outside of English departments, and students, awareness of the above
>>>>> seven
>>>>> misunderstandings about grammar will take them a long way toward
>>>>> evaluating their own skills and of those charged with the
>>>>> responsibility
>>>>> to get students through that test and through their post-secondary
>>>>> education. Hopefully, armed with this knowledge, the NCTE position
>>>>> will
>>>>> be removed, grammar teaching will begin in earnest again, and
>>>>> students
>>>>> will pass their new SATs, foreign language skills and attendance
>>>>> will
>>>>> increase, and politicians and business men will once again respect
>>>>> the
>>>>> institutes of higher education from whence they are choosing their
>>>>> rank
>>>>> and file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu"
>>>>>>Sent: Jul 19, 2006 11:36 AM
>>>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Craig,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no need to get defensive here. Constructive criticism is the
>>>>>>need of all academic endeavors, and should be invited and appreciated
>>>>>>in this forum. There are some problems which need to be addressed in
>>>>>>order for things to move forward, because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/ 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/
|
