Michael,
   I agree very much, and I'm happy you spoke up because I hadn't intended
to recommend moving away from terms and distinctions. You and I, I
suspect, probably see this in similar ways.
   Your "however" sentence is what I would call a functional choice; in
other words, with just commas, we don't know the constituency of
"however" because we aren't sure which clause it goes with, and a
semicolon helps make that clear. To the extent that our rules are like
that (better cook the meat to at least X degrees or risk illness), then
the process is very smooth. I was objecting more to the notion that
"for' is thought of as a coordinating conjunction, but "because" is
subordinate, which has more to do with conventional practices than with
the work of writing. "For he's a jolly good fellow" is an OK sentence,
but "because he's a jolly good fellow" is a fragment. I would point
that out when I'm teaching, giving the status quo while I critique it.
For some reason, students seem to like being told that some rules are
not so good as others.
   Punctuation I think of as the most functional part of traditional
school grammar, by far.
   Conjunctive adverb may be an OK category for the punctuation decisions
we make, but it may not help us understand the differing functions of
the kinds of terms that show up in that slot. I think it helps to point
out that some words and phrases help a reader understand how the writer
intends a statement. It helps if our discussion of cohesion brings in
other features of text, like given/new, keeping the same subject in
focus for longer stretches, or lexical repetition, which are more
central to the process. "Marked theme" seems to me a colossally useful
term. Putting semi-colons before conjunctive adverbs doesn't go very
deep or very far. We need to teach more attention to language (not
less) to accomplish our larger goals.
   I just looked back at Herb's presentation to the 4C's conference in
2004 (which later became his fine Syntax in the Schools article on
tense and aspect.) Here's his opening, which I think is germane. (Hope
you don't mind, Herb):
    "Two guiding principles of the New Public Grammar are that grammatical
awareness enhances a writer's choices and that grammatical information
combines in important ways with rhetorical principles to enable
targeted, grammatically rich presentation of options that writers can
develop. Awareness of grammatical and lexical options promotes more
conscious and careful choices in an area like the framing of
information in discourse. My purpose today is to describe one specific
grammatical issue, tense, that is handled poorly in traditional school
grammar. I will show how contemporary scholarship addresses tense, and
I will suggest ways that tense, as point of grammar, can be used to
shape and interpret discourse."
   I know that tense, not conjunctive adverbs is at issue in Herb's talk,
but the model works I think for other areas of traditional school
grammar as well. It's not that we're saying someone would be better off
with no attention to grammar. Perhaps traditional approaches are fine
for avoiding errors like subject/verb agreement and so on; that, in
fact, is what they tend to think of as important. But when we want to
use the grammar to do much more (as we have to if we want to save it
from the stigma of triviality), when we want to help fine-tune our
nuances of meaning, perhaps present time assessment of past events, we
begin to see how error focused attention falls short. And we need to
amend it accordingly. I'm saying that Herb's approach to tense and
aspect will also allow us to deal with the usual dialect interference
errors that come into play within the verb system. It aims at much
more, not less.
   But I am clumsy in my arguments, I'm sure.
   We have such an expectation that error is all that matters and anything
else will just confuse people, but I teach students who have been
through that approach and couldn't possibly be more confused if you
tried. Confusion doesn't increase the more they know; it diminishes.
   If we teach a functional approach to grammar (making of meaning, making
of human contact), then correctness falls into place. If we just aim at
correctness, we won't even get that. And people will continue to
disdain it as not on the level with reading and writing; they will
continue to say there is no room for it in the busy curriculum.

Craig

 Craig and Herb,
>
> While I naturally incline towards your views on the arbitrariness of
> punctuation and usage conventions, I do react differently to a fork placed
> on the right from how I react to a sentence like "Jason was tall, however,
> he did not like basketball."  Over the "however" sentence, I stumble as a
> reader.  A semicolon before the "however" would prevent such a stumble.
>
> It seems important to teach students to prevent their readers' stumbling
> over their writing.  Different names help students sort out different
> categories.  Because common practice punctuates "but" and "however"
> differently, having different names for them is a help in teaching the
> differences.  "Conjunction" and "conjunctive adverb" have worked for me
> quite well; they have the advantage doing what Peter,  I think, suggested
> --
> keeping the conjunctive adverbs not too far from conjunctions.
>
> It might be that the terms for these things have become to confusing and
> arbitrary.  I saw how gratefully K-12 teachers responded at ATEG this
> summer
> when John Crow presented what seemed to them a much more rational set of
> terms for different connectors between and within sentences.  But let us
> not
> be against terms per se, or think that the fewer is necessarily the
> better.
>
> Michael
>
> On 9/12/06, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Herb,
>>    There are conventions that make meaning possible, and some of the
>> arbitrariness of conventions is inevitable. (The selection of a curved
>> line, for example, to mean what a comma means, or placement of question
>> mark after rather than before. "There" for place, "their" for
>> possession. And so on, with much left out, including the historic fact
>> that our alphabet is roughly phonetic, that we roughly map out the
>> sounds of what we say onto the page.)
>>    What I worry about, though, is that the prevailing notion of what
>> grammar is about is much more like etiquette (your fork holding
>> example) than it is about having something to say and making human
>> connection. Most people believe there are arbitrary rules they are
>> expected to follow, and they don't like the idea of being reminded of
>> it, and so we have a whole field full of English teachers who avoid
>> grammar in part because it seems trivial in comparison with "real"
>> attention to the work of language. The tests that measured the
>> ineffectiveness of grammar point out the huge chasm between those kinds
>> of rules and the real work of writing.
>>    I don't think you and I are at odds over this in any kind of
>> fundamental way, so I don't want this to seem like an argument. If we
>> shift attention to the way language works, these arbitrary conventions
>> fall into place, and I would just as soon have fewer of them. Grammar
>> matters in far more important ways, and the only reason it's so hard to
>> make a case for that is that knowledge about language is reduced to
>> somewhat trivial proscriptions. You are a wonderful exception, but most
>> people don't know enough about grammar to even follow a conversation.
>>    I want my children to be kind and gracious. Those are the "rules"
>> that
>> matter to me. You don't take the last portion without asking. You offer
>> before taking. It's a way of caring. I admit, we put the fork on the
>> left, knife on the right, but that's not, to me, the essence of what
>> the important choices are about.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig,
>> >
>> > You left out my favorite sentence adverb, "hopefully", which came into
>> use
>> > as a sentence adverb in the 1920s and has for a long time been a
>> > shibboleth among such linguistic shamans, to use Dwight Bolinger's
>> term,
>> > as John Simon.  Hopefully, he'll get over it once he comes to
>> understand
>> > sentence adverbs and that "hopefully" doesn't modify "get over".
>> >
>> > As to arbitrariness, it's a part of culture.  Most of our cultural
>> > practices are arbitrary, but we abide by them and find them
>> comfortable
>> > nonetheless.  Semi-colon usage, capitalization, and the use of
>> > contractions are no less arbitrary elements of our culture than are
>> > switching the fork to the left hand (for northpaws) in order to use a
>> > table knife.  And British culture differs on this as well as on points
>> of
>> > comma usage and capitalization.
>> >
>> > Perhaps it's the very irrationality of cultural practices that makes
>> them
>> > such matters of contention.
>> >
>> > Herb
>> >
>> >
>> >> Peter,
>> >
>> >     "surprisingly" and "sadly" are sentence modifiers. They tell us
>> more
>> > about the speaker (tone of the message) than about the world
>> > represented. When you say "surprisingly, Phil likes them too", you are
>> > saying that you are surprised, not that Phil is.  The same is true of
>> > "honestly," "as a matter of fact," "to be frank", and so on. They tell
>> > us how the reader should take the intention of the statement. "off the
>> > record, the mayor is stealing our funds." It's not the mayor who is
>> > off the record, but the statement itself.
>> >    If I say "Meanwhile, Phil is sending an email of his own,"
>> "meanwhile"
>> > has to do with the internal world being represented. Two things are
>> > happening at once in two different spaces. If i say "first, I will
>> tell
>> > you about..." I am using "first" as a statement about the text. I can
>> > also say "first he walked toward the plate," which makes "first" a
>> > number for the steps in the action.
>> >    Functional grammar calls the sentence opening position "thematic",
>> and
>> > when something other than grammatical subject opens the clause, it
>> > becomes "marked theme." So it might make sense to say that these words
>> > have different functions in the discourse, but share a marked theme
>> > status.
>> >    "Outside, the cold wind blows. Inside, a warm fire glows."
>> "Outside"
>> > and "inside" aren't subjects, but they are very much a stepping off
>> > point for the message structure of the sentence.
>> >    Some words are in sentence opening position by default. For the
>> most
>> > part, this is true of the conjunctions (though compounding can happen
>> > at almost any point.) Others, like the ones above, are there by
>> choice.
>> > The notions of marked theme extends to the first non-default choice.
>> > "As a child, he loved baseball. But, after all the scandals, he lost
>> > his love."
>> >    When I talk about discourse this way, I always feel I'm helping
>> people
>> > out. The categories are functional. Like you, I get mixed feelings
>> when
>> > the rules seem arbitrary. I want the categories to be highly
>> functional
>> > in ways other than simply "this is the rule book rule for how you are
>> > supposed to do it." I want to say "this is a nice way to build a
>> > relationship with your reader," or "this keeps the sequence of actions
>> > clear."
>> >    Some arbitrariness is necessary (a comma and not a smiley face),
>> but
>> I
>> > would like much less.
>> >    To me, it makes more sense to take a goal like coherence and then
>> > discuss how it happens rather than just pay attention to the rules and
>> > then occasionally point out that they help a text be coherent. The
>> > whole issue of coherence is never adequately covered, especially by
>> > minimalist approaches.
>> >    I get students who write incoherent texts, but stick on a few
>> > transition phrases. One doesn't necessarily give you the other.
>> >    From a wider functional base, though, you do get a chance to see
>> what
>> > is arbitrary and what is not. You almost have to say so to keep your
>> > credibility. It's hard to defend dysfunctional aspects of the system,
>> > but they are there, realities we have to deal with.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> >> In a message dated 9/11/06 11:14:29 AM, [log in to unmask]
>> writes:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> These are frequently called "transitions" or "conjunctive adverbs".
>> I
>> >>> find
>> >>> it best to teach them along side subordinate and coordinate
>> >>> conjunctions
>> >>> because that is the full set of words the provide the function of
>> >>> linking one
>> >>> idea to the next. Sentences are more tightly bound by conjunctions,
>> >>> but
>> >>> conjunctive adverbs have the same meaning effect. They should not be
>> >>> taught to
>> >>> distantly from conjunctions because they will muddle students'
>> >>> thinking.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> This makes sense, but what about the following:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Christine likes adverbs; surprisingly, Phil likes them too.
>> >> 2. Martha knows her grammar; sadly, Peter's knowledge is more shaky.
>> >> 3. Herb sent an email; later, he thought better of it.
>> >> 4. Herb sent an email; meanwhile, Ed was composing a similar one.
>> >> 5. Herb sent yet another email; finally, he went to bed.
>> >>
>> >> I expect general agreement that the words following the semicolon in
>> >> numbers
>> >> 1, 2, and 3 are, in fact, adverbs.   But what about meanwhile, in the
>> >> fourth
>> >> one.   Martha calls it a conjunctive adverb; so do Hacker, Troyka,
>> and
>> >> Aaron.
>> >> And finally in number 5.   These do serve "the function of linking
>> one
>> >> idea
>> >> to the next," but so does later in #3.   And so does the next day in
>> #6,
>> >> but I
>> >> don't think anyone would want to call it conjunctive in any way.
>> >>
>> >> 6. Peter sent an email.   The next day he tried to retrieve it.
>> >>
>> >> So perhaps "the function of linking one idea to the next" is not a
>> >> characteristic solely of conjunctions . . .
>> >>
>> >> I realize that some do not find this discussion interesting.   Please
>> >> indulge
>> >> those of us who do.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Peter Adams
>> >>
>> >> 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/
>

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/