Jumping into the fray on what to teach, what not--a good axiom from
technical writing is that you
move from the known to the unknown.  Linguistics, like it or not, came
from and is still connected to traditional grammar in so many complex
ways.  I'm trying to write a text and teach a course in "traditional"
grammar that starts with things students know and then insinuates other
ways of looking at it, that describes places where the paradigm doesn't
fit well.
 
I also think Max Morenberg's "Doing Grammar" addresses the issue nicely
by paralleling traditional terminologies/concepts with
transformational-generative methodologies.  (Unfortunately, a bit much
for my community college folks, but great, I'll bet for others.)
 
 
 
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, MIKE MEDLEY wrote:
 
> Reply to part of Ed Vavra's comments:
>
> > And, although I appreciate the participation of
> > linguists in the group, my sense is that they will want
> > more terms -- and more complicated concepts -- than
> > the K-12 curriculum will be able to handle.>
>
> Ed,
> Should K-12 history and social studies teachers ignore the
> methodology and findings of professional historians or college &
> university historians?
> Should K-12 math and science teaching ignore college & university
> specialists in math & science?
> The teaching of English grammar in K-12 has to be informed as much by
> the methodology and findings of professional linguists as the
> teaching of  other subjects has to be informed by what their more
> advanced students say.  It is rather uncharitable to suggest of
> linguists that they are all essentially ignorant of the cognitive
> constraints on children at various stages of mental & social
> development and would insist on more terminology or more complex
> terminology than can be handled.
> A part of the question is : "How can we simplify without unduly
> distorting?"   Since I tend to get a few  students who have been
> drilled in "traditional grammar" I know how frustrating it is to get
> them to unlearn some of the distortions they have come to believe in.
> What kinds of simplification will do the least damage?
>
> Another question I raise also has a bearing on what you might want to
> include in the "core concepts" that we all agree should be
> taught.  Do we study grammar (linguistics) because it is valuable in
> its own right for children/young people to understand this very
> basic, very powerful (apparently unique) human artifact/tool--how
> it's put together and how it works?   Or do we study grammar for its
> utilitarian value--because it is useful for something else?  I
> sometimes get the feeling that some ATEG members would like grammar
> to be viewed merely as "the handmaiden of composition."
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> R. Michael Medley       VPH 211                Ph: (712) 737-7047
> Assistant Professor     Northwestern College
> Department of English   Orange City, IA  51041
> **********************************************************************
>