First, thanks to Johanna for her shrewd and informed comments on
single-word modifiers.

Next, on the teaching of grammar:  breaking into sub-groups -- preferably
with very limited tasks -- dxoes seem the best way to get started on a
task which is  otherwise too daunting to make a start on.  And I agree
wholly with the idea of gteaching grammar "in conect": this may bne the
only answer to the teaching-grammar-is-useless-or-harmful school of NCTE
thought.

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Johanna Rubba wrote:

> I have two things to comment on in this message, so forgive its length.
>
> #1 Participle/adjective 'chains'
> This is a case where I really wish I had a copy of QUIGLS** on my shelf. I
> have a feeling they must address this issue.
>
> **Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik Comprehensive Grammar of English.
>
> There seems to be some interesting stuff going on with placement after the
> verb -- it seems to depend somewhat on what kind of verb you've got:
>
> -My friends returned to camp bleeding and limping.
> -My friends returned to camp exhausted and sleepy.
> -*The campers devoured the meal hungry and thirsty.
> -The campers devoured the meal, slurping and smacking their lips.
>
> I don't feel good about the last sentence without the comma.
>
> Why do participles seem 'verbier' than other single-word noun modifiers?
> In Cognitive Grammar (a fancy newish theory of grammar), the reason would
> be something called 'scanning'. A participle's meaning consists of a
> 'frame-by-frame' scan of the process the verb portrays (even 'smiling' has
> a hint of duration about it -- for me at least). This is not true of
> adjectives or past participles, which designate states, whether or not
> they are the result of a process. (Consider not only words like 'insulted'
> but also words like 'long-legged', 'bearded' or 'red-headed', which are
> not derived from verbs at all). States don't involve frame-by-frame
> scanning.
>
> As to Burkhard Leuschner's analysis of a participle as a 'very short
> sentence', he seems to be appealing to a transformationalist analysis
> under which participles have to be viewed as the product of some kind of
> ellipsis operation which deletes the rest of the sentence. This isn't the
> only view of grammar that is out there. Transformationalist views have
> varied widely, going as far as saying that even pre-noun adjectives are
> derived from clauses. There are also now theories which argue that there
> are no 'deep structures', and that, whatever the history of a construction
> like 'bleeding and limping' might be, it is no more or less than it is 'on
> the surface'. The fact that they can be paraphrased as clauses doesn't
> distinguish them from adjectives within noun phrases, which can be
> paraphrased with relative clauses or separate sentences, for that matter.
>
> As to these having  nothing to do with modifying, I have to dispute that
> on its face. After all, we know which noun phrase in the sentence to
> relate the participles to, that is, we know which ones they modify. Maybe
> Burkhard has a different definition of modification.
>
> #2-----------On grammar teaching--------------------
> Don't worry, Ed; the games may begin. You wrote:
>
> " In order to develop some suggestions about grammar in the curriculum (scope
> and sequence), what questions do we want to ask, and how is the best way
> to get the answers?"
>
> Here are some questions and position statements:
> #1 What is the purpose of teaching grammar?
> #2 To what extent can we teach grammar in context, and is that the best
> way to teach it; what does 'teaching grammar in context' mean? My opinion
> is that this means that the discourse or text-level functions of the
> various elements of English have to be included in grammar instruction, so
> that students understand what grammar is good for in our language.
> #3 As for scope and sequence, these have to be based on valid research
> about children's productive as well as passive knowledge through the
> school years. The reason I haven't said much about this yet is that I
> haven't read some of the literature Ed cites. I am trying to find his web
> address so that I can copy his bibliography and get going on reading it.
> I did propose in a recent e-mail that we not start explicit grammar
> instruction before grade 4. I haven't had a response to that proposal. As
> far as how we get the info we need to formulate 'psychologically correct'
> scope and sequence, we have to read what has been done, and perhaps do
> more research such as Ed and others have done. A great deal is already
> known about birth-age 5; this can already inform teaching. For instance,
> native speakers of standard English have already learned all inflectional
> morphology before school age, but there is still a lot of derivational
> morphology to learn. It makes sense to work with derivational morphology
> in school. But lessons on items such as 'forms of 'be'' or plurals in
> nouns only need to be taught to students of other dialect/language
> backgrounds. So perhaps another bit of info we need is: How many native
> speakers of nonstandard dialects are in the 'typical' school classroom?
> #4 The correctness issue and language attiudes: I also firmly believe that
> we have to take a more objective stance on 'correctness', emphasizing that
> it is relative to the social situation; that the grammar of spoken English
> or of the various nonstandard dialects of English isn't 'bad grammar', but
> 'different grammar'. This is not only true, but adopting this frame of
> mind seems to _increase_ student interest in grammar and motivation to
> learn formal standard grammar, not the opposite. Another way to look at
> this is to say that I see grammar teaching as part of a larger 'language
> awareness' curriculum that doesn't compartmentalize or neglect social
> issues as they relate to language. So I would recommend framing
> instruction, not in terms of 'errors' like double negatives and how to
> correct them, but in comparative terms: what are the ways
> various forms of English negate? Which is used most widely in academic and
> business contexts?
> #5 We need to do some information-gathering on what is out there
> now in the way of scope, sequence, and standards in major textbook
> packages and state standards documents. That way we have something to
> respond to.
>
> I'm sure I could go on, but I have probably already lost half of the ATEG
> list. Anyway, this should be something to start on. Especially for SSS
> people (ATEG's scope/sequence/standards committee).
>
> We of SSS should also begin thinking about how to go about our business:
> setting questions, as Ed says; perhaps divvying them up among subgroups
> within SSS; setting timelines for gathering results of subgroup work; etc.
> I know Martha is the facilitator for the group, but I don't think that
> precludes SSS members from starting to brainstorm on the list, do you?
> Martha does read the list, and can include what happens on it in her
> mailings to SSS members who might not use e-mail.
>
> I hereby issue a call to develop a list of questions we have to answer as
> we cogitate upon a scope/sequence/standards document. SSS people, you're
> responsible for helping come up with this list. I'm sure SSS people would
> welcome ideas from non-SSS people.
>
> Thanks for hanging in through the long message. We should probably
> separate the 'teaching grammar' topic from now on, give it its own thread.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
> Tel. (805)-756-2184     Fax: (805)-756-6374                   ~
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]                           ~
> Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm   ~
> Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba                     ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>