On the question of what needs to be taught, my vote is for the more
broad approach.

> Johanna Rubba wrote:

> should K-12 grammar instruction be more-narrowly
>focused on 'things native speakers have trouble with in learning the
>formal standard variety of English' or should it be broader, 'to give
>speakers of English a relatively thorough understanding of how
>English works'?
>
>The more-narrow focus may be a practical, more-attainable aim in the
>short term. What do other listers think of the value of the broader
>scope? One value I see in it is that it would give students a basis
>for considering and forming opinions on such issues as language
>legislation and Ebonics in the schools.

I don't think that the narrow approach really is more practical in
the short term.  Teaching grammatical correctness ultimately entails
the underlying knowledge.

I also think that grammar should be taught as any other subject in
the curriculum, and that means that it has its own theoretical
domain.  Other school subjects have not been truncated on the basis
of utility alone.  Grammar should follow the model of other school
curriculua.

My vote would be for the more broad, comprehensive proposal on k-12
and college grammar curriculum.

It would look a lot like Ed Vavra's proposal (on the ATEG home page).

However, on a traditionalist foundation like that, it would move into
some of the new dimensions.  These would be ideas that people have
been discussing here, such as the "discourse level grammar." It would
branch out into style in the later grades, and into valence, other
linguistic models, and political questions about language.

I would envision a comprehensive, sequential, sophisticated,
"theoretical plus practical," neo-traditional school grammar.

That's my dream, and that would be my vote.

Robert Einarsson
www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb