We can all come up with instances of grammatical ignorance in high
places.  My current favorite comes from an invitation I received
to talk to one of our graduate composition methods classes about
grammar and rhetoric.  The instructor gave me a couple of xeroxes
from articles dealing with how teachers should mark student
essays.  In both examples, the model marker had flagged a sentence
as passive, and therefore questionable, that was not passive but
clearly active with an experiencer subject.  I asked the class
what made the sentences passive, and no one knew, but further
discussion showed that no one knew what a passive sentence was
either.

The point is not to revel in the ignorance of colleagues but
rather that colleagues don't know how to deal with a structure
that has a particularly important role in discourse.  In my guest
presentation, the problem led to an interesting and spirited
discussion of how sentence grammar interacts with rhetorical
considerations, what linguists would call discourse pragmatics.

I've done summer workshops for middle and high school English
teachers where we've concentrated specifically on such
discourse-motivated grammatical alternations.  The discourse
motivation, the tie-in to rhetoric, gives relevance to building
the grammatical basis for discussion of sentence structure
options, and we end up covering quite a lot of grammar.  This can
be done in a linguistically and intellectually faithful manner and
is generally stimulating to all involved.

I'm sure my experience is not unique.

Herb Stahlke



Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]

>>> [log in to unmask] 12/04/00 02:22AM >>>
Bill (McCleary) writes:

"We cannot expect members of ATEG to agree on terminology when
the rest
of
the world does not. Instead, we need to agree upon the CONCEPTS
to be
taught and the ages at which to introduce them to students. Then
we can
decide on names for concepts, understanding when we do that there
will
be
disagreement."

I have (of course) several problems with that statement. First of
all,
if we do not have names for the CONCEPTS, how can we know what we
are
talking about, i.e., how can we agree that certain concepts
should (or
should not) be taught?

The fact that Max's, Martha's, and even most other grammar books
do not
use the term "main clause" simply reflects the wrong-headedness
of all
those books -- and I mean that literally. The books are all made
for
(headed toward) the teaching of grammar as an end in itself, and
not as
a tool with which STUDENTS can analyze discourse. A while back, I
asked
if anyone could diagram any English sentence. Edith responded
"Yes," if
she could call on Michael for help. But that, in fact, helps
prove my
point -- if Edith, who knows grammar very well, needs Michael's
help,
then how are students supposed to use sentence diagramming to
straighten
out some of their mangled sentences, some of which are very
complicated?

     Judith has suggested that the 3S committee has made great
progress.
Perhaps, but I don't see it. All I have seen is generalizations.
And
unless ATEG can agree on some specifics, I doubt that many
primary,
middle, and high school teachers will be interested in what this
group
does. From their perspective, I suggest, we simply offer a muddle
of
conflicting views and impenetrable terminology.
     I realize that I am in a minority position in the group, and
I
would like to see more K-12 teachers involved in the group.
Perhaps they
could bring the group to its senses. Many members of this group
teach
grammar to future teachers. How effective, or useful, is that
instruction? Need I remind members of this list once again of the
NCTE
teacher who defended grammar and the teaching of transient and
intransient sentences? Clearly this teacher had been "taught"
grammar,
but to what end? Once again I suggest that we need a limited
number of
well-defined concepts (for which we need terms), and we need to
teach
teachers how to use those terms to analyze texts -- including
their
students' writing.

Question: Is the following sentence an example of a comma-splice,
or an
example of a well-written sentence?

My dog moaned, its tail stuck between its back legs.

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/