The posting from Janet Castilleja has a lot in it.

These are some of the most prominent points for me:

> It has become apparent to me that there are
> two vital strands within grammar, one of which deals with clause-level grammar
> and another which deals with discourse-level grammar.  Any discussion of scope
> and sequence is going to have to take these strands into consideration

This is a really interesting point that both Judy and Johanna also
zero in on.

In one sense, grammar is limited to "the description of sentences."

Personally, I thought that anything above the sentence level would
really need another subject to discuss it, that "grammar" didn't apply.

However, this higher level, "rhetorical," "discourse-level grammar,"
should definitely be fitted into the final grammar curriculum.

> But there is much more to connected,
> written discourse than error free sentences. In addition to functioning within
> clauses, grammar also functions between clauses and among the larger elements
> of written texts.

>The way that grammar functions in extended discourse
> involves the second grammatical strand: the role of  nouns, pronouns and
> shortened forms.   These forms work both within and among sentences to
>provide flow, unity and cohesiveness.

This is Janet's curriculum suggestion:

> Students would
> be taught very early (first grade?) to pay attention to words and phrases that
> help the reader understand the story.  These will frequently be nouns,
> pronouns and shortened forms.  As children’s repertoire of linguistic
> strategies grows, they can be taught to identify increasingly more complex
> structures and to use more sophisticated terms.
>
> At about the sixth grade level ( to correspond with Piagetian cognitive
> levels, although I have some questions about the validity of these), clause-
> level grammar can be introduced as a separate discipline.

And then, she suggests discourse-level grammar to polish off their
writing ability.

This curriuculum suggestion really adds something to grammar, i.e.,
the discourse level.

Janet also has this to say:

>Understanding
> clause-level grammar is not really about writing. Rather, it is an abstract,
> metalinguistic discipline which  should be valued for itself, as logic and
> algebra are, rather than being presented simply as a means to an end: becoming
> a better writer.   In other words, if we want to teach students to write, we
> need to work on writing, and on the grammatical concepts that enhance writing.
> If we want to teach students about grammar, then we need to work on grammar.

I really support the idea of grammar as an independent subject,
analogous to the other subjects mentioned.

Janet points out that it is an independent subject, and also points out
the other use of grammar, a means to teach writing.


R. E.