Dear Eduard,

I'm not sure how the term "linguistic grammar" got started; on the 
other hand, I may be as responsible as anyone.  I titled my 
contribution to Grammar Alive, published in 2003 by NCTE,  "An 
Overview of Linguistic Grammar."  I did so in order to distinguish my 
description from that of traditional, Latin-based grammar.  We 
ATEGers wrote Grammar Alive for the thousands (tens of thousands?) of 
English teachers who have been led to believe that teaching grammar 
is a waste of time--and, in fact, may be downright harmful--for their 
students.  And for the most part, the only grammar they are familiar 
with, if at all, is the traditional, Latin-based, 
eight-parts-of-speech variety.

I could have titled my chapter "new grammar"--but at age 60 or more 
the structural grammar on which I base my classifications and 
definitions and patterns is no longer new.  I am using the adjective 
"linguistic" simply to designate this sensible way of describing 
grammar, based on the science of linguistics.

One of the tenets of "linguistic grammar" that I emphasize--and one 
that sets it apart from the Latin-based variety that finds its way 
into traditional grammar books and grammar classes--is the importance 
of recognizing the subconscious (unconscious?) grammar knowledge that 
students bring to the classroom, knowledge based on our human ability 
to construct an intricate grammatical system from whatever language 
environment into which we are born. (I have no problem relinquishing 
"innate.")

And I'd be happy to stop using the term "linguistic grammar" if I 
could think of a good replacement.   I welcome suggestions.

Martha

P.S. to Craig:  We believed that NCTE was our best bet as a 
publisher.  And the book has certainly been given a great deal of 
publicity--and is selling well, I understand )  NCTE would not 
publish it if it had contained suggestions for scope & sequence.







>Dear Phil:
>
>In "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics," Trask (1997)
>defines *grammar* as "that part of the structure of a language which
>includes sentence structure(syntax) and word structure (morphology)"
>(p. 29). As linguists well know, *morphology and *syntax* are an
>integral and part of the science of language, which is *linguistics.*
>
>The term *linguistic grammar* is not a linguistic expression.It is a 
>pleonasm, a redundant expression, which confuses those who are not
>familiar with linguistics and its subfields.
>
>Regards,
>
>Eduard
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>
>>I have been in grammar/syntax for over 25 years, but it is only on
>this list that I have heard of "Linguistic Grammar."  Are there
>formal descriptions and discussion of it available in journals and
>books?  Are there recognized authors on the subject?  Also, does
>anyone know where I might get a copy of Tim Hadley's dissertation? 
>>
>>Phil Bralich
>
>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/