{This message was originally submitted by  Bill McCleary [log in to unmask]
to the ATEG list }
 
This is to carry on the discussion of whether it's necessary to use
terminology that makes distinctions between nouns and things that may take
the function of nouns, etc. Of course, Bernhard's reply to me turns out to
be things I already know, such as that horse remains like a noun even when
used as a modifier in "horse barn." I thought maybe I was missing
something, but I guess not.
 
But then he goes on to say that making such distinctions makes grammar
easier to teach. I'd like to hear more about that. The typical secondary
textbook lumps all kinds of modifiers into the category of adjective--all
kinds of determiners, attributive nouns, and what one may call "true
adjectives." One issue--subject to much debate on this list--is whether
there is any point to teaching any grammar at all at the secondary level or
below. Many people, apparently, believe that there is not. The other issue
is whether there is a "best" way of teaching grammar at each age level.
Assming that students can learn grammar, do they learn it more easily if
the grammar is "scientific" than if it is typical schoolbook grammar? I'd
like to know if there is any evidence one way or the other on this
question.
 
Bill McCleary
 
William J. McCleary                     Editor: Composition Chronicle
Associate Prof. of English              Viceroy Publications
Coordinator of Secondary English        3247 Bronson Hill Road
SUNY at Cortland                        Livonia, NY 14487
607-753-2076                            716-346-6859
[log in to unmask]         [log in to unmask]