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 “English 
3200:  A Programmed Course in Grammar and Usage” published in 1962 by 
Blumenthal, and the famous “Comprehensive Grammar of the English 
Language” by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, 2004 edition. I 
have also started to read  “The War Against Grammar” by Mulroy. You 
are represented also in this collection of grammars with two books, 
the “Rhetorical Grammar,” and the classic “Understanding English 
Grammar.”  

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:

“…Rhetorical 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.”(x – 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 “Rhetorical Grammar” 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 ATEG’s *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/