Herb, and all,

   I guess I worry that we might fall right back into the old pattern of
descriptive grammar (classifying words and word groups and describing
formal relations within the sentence), then doing nothing to apply it
in the context of reading and writing. In writing, at least
historically, it has been all about error, in part because classifying
a sentence or classifying the parts of it does little or nothing to
connect the sentence to discourse. So the two primary questions
continue to be "how do we classify this" and "is it correct?" I admit
this would be a huge improvement over the current tendency to define
parts of speech in the early grades and then largely ignore any
description after that. But we may also have an historically unique
opportunity to rethink the whole scope and sequence of a grammar
curriculum, not just fine-tune an old neglected one.
   In the scope and sequence project as we had progressed with it, we
decided that we would largely be asking questions about knowledge, in
constrast with the behavioral focus of most current approaches. Before
we got to sequence, we were beginning to define the knowledge about
language that might be appropriate for any informed citizen. And we had
it divided into four areas.

1) dialects and Standard English. What knowledge about language would
allow a student to pick up Standard English without denigration of the
home language or home dialect? (NCTE has affirmed the student's "right to
their own language", but has never put anything into place that would
accomplish that. Code switching may be an exception.) It doesn't have to
be a choice between the two. In facgt, perhpas exploration of the nature
of a home dialect, inclusing its variance from the standard, might be a
good step toward the mainstream language.

2)  The routine conventions of writing, including punctuation. What
knowledge about language would help students master the routine
conventions of writing? If they are going to be expected to follow
standard punctuation practices, what do they need to know to understand
those practices and, in effect, to read a standard handbook.

3)  Effective discourse and effective rhetorical choice. What knowledge
about language would allow a student to connect syntactic choice to
rhetorical effect? What grammatical resources are at work in the
construction of an effective text, including texts aimed at narration,
exposition, or persuasion?

4) Academic discourse and technical disciplines. What knowledge about
language would help in the transition to academic texts and the technical
disciplines?

   If language is learned, as I tend to think it is, then this would be a
very goal directed kind of mentoring, making much more explicit the
nature of literacy as we guided students into it, not just expecting it
to happen while attention is on other things.

Craig

Perhaps one solution to our excess of terminology lies in the sequence
> part of scope and sequence.  Taking the main clause as a beginning
> definition of sentence, one that fourth graders, for example, might
> understand, makes it possible to cover relative clauses and tensed
> adverbial and "that" clauses.  Understanding why certain participial and
> infinitival structures are clauses requires a higher level of
> sophistication that might come in the upper grades or high school, and
> introducing the idea that those phrases have clausal properties would
> follow naturally after the necessary grammatical background knowledge has
> been established.  I suspect the same could be done with grammatical
> relations like subject and indirect object, where both structural and
> functional considerations are involved.
>
> This sequencing approach won't work in all cases of terminological
> conflict, but it certainly would cover a lot of them, and one very
> beneficial effect of it would be that these terms would be presented in
> context, not in conflict.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
> Sent: 2008-12-17 04:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with Ed's
> great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I can't help
> but feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an asset. Sure, it
> feels like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament to the
> fact that grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single,
> codified rulebook of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to
> package a nice and neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able
> to) seems like a slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students'
> attentions away from the gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see.
>
> All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or teachers-in-training
> at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at the reality of
> data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an answer
> (singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a
> semester (a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although
> I'm sure they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize
> that answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to
> run a model classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my
> students, and in the case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to
> constructive teaching opportunities.
>
> Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some
> semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective,
> especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from
> elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic
> that ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and
> compromises from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think
> it would also depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e.
> emphasis on concept, not the label used to describe the concept) as a part
> of the curriculum. A student who is aware that language ain't easy is much
> more prepared for grammar than one who goes scrambling for a delineated
> rulebook at every turn.
>
> John Alexander
> Austin, Texas
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Ed, Craig, et al.:
>
> To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that
> resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the
> French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France and
> Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:
> regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you
> won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a
> legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does
> cause problems in relation to curriculum.
>
>
> The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which
> we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be
> successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will
> *never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,
> definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.
> Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come
> across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,"
> and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that
> defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope
> and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional
> investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off
> from pushing too much.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much
> disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that
> one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to
> the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal
> with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more
> agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that
> arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't
> think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the
> standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that
> constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.
>
>
> It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the
> basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase
> vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since
> students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some lutfisk"
> together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,
> especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an
> organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual
> basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic
> category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional
> recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.
>
> Bill Spruiell
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> Behalf Of Edward Vavra
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Craig,
>    Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I
> would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when
> I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are
> good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
> members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
> numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers
> and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the
> confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide
> into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor
> it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be
> able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own
> grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree
> on the definition of a clause.)
>     I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I
> believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
> separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
> was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a
> decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.
> (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of
> students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor
> instruction in grammar.
>    I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it
> claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it
> really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my
> time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence"
> plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
>    Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
> developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
> competition that would result from several plans.
>
> Ed V.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Richard,
>   Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
> to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
> that through ATEG.
>   My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
> we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
>
> plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
> break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
> be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
> Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
> about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
>
> would then feel a vested interest in  the project. There was resistance,
>
> though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
> a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
>
> our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
> issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
> was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
> asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
> statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
> simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words,  ATEG tried to
> work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
> by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
> effect, control our existence as an organization.
>   The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
> leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
> have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
>
> ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
> up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
> shot) views.  This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
>
> the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
> new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
>   But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
> the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
> that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
> happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
>   I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
> on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
> older position.
>   This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
>
> to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
> those approaches have probably already been written.
>   As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
> sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
> wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
> point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
> NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
> public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
> pull people away from ATEG.
>   The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
> forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
> starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
>   NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
>
> contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
>   It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
> necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
>   I apologize if I have  misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
>
> views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
> being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
>
> of the project.
>
> Craig
>
> 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/