Gretchen,
I had a general aim for my posting, and that was to reinforce the
sense that these two groups, middle school language arts teachers
and university linguistics and English grammar teachers, have a
lot to offer each other in part because they come to questions of
grammar from such different perspectives. Since we (college
faculty) teach these many of these teachers, I find this divide
striking, interesting, and a little alarming. Apparently we're
not getting our approach to grammar across very well.
As far as major reference works and authorities are concerned,
I'll speak from my own experience and practice. When I'm
investigating a grammatical question, I use Quirk et al. A
Comprehensive English Grammar, McCawley's English Grammar and
Givon's English Grammar as major sources. However, I also have
the linguistic methodology I was trained in in graduate school
that I use to explore the problem further. Givon and McCawley may
not be standard references, but Quirk certainly is, and I haven't
seen that cited in the middle school discussion.
But how do we present non-traditional, systematic grammar to
teacher trainees? We're not doing it well, and it's not for lack
of trying.
I recognize the cultural power of traditional and prescriptive
grammar and the difficulty of challenging it when our students are
going to be teaching in environments that demand prescriptive
grammar. If they even did good traditional grammar, like
Jespersen, for example, or Quirk, we'd have some common vocabulary
and concepts, but that's not the case.
I see no point, and no virtue, in condemning what middle school
teachers are doing with grammar. Rather, I want to know why they
are doing it, or why they are not doing it. I want to know what
works. I want to hear a non-ATEG voice that says that grammar is
worth studying in middle and high school for the same reason that
biology, social studies, math, and literature are, not that we
don't teach grammar because it doesn't improve writing, a
criticism that applies to the other fields too.
This has been something of a brain dump, and I apologize for the
incoherence, but it reflects the difficulty of getting one's arms
around these issues.
Herb
<<< [log in to unmask] 12/21 7:08p >>>
In a message dated 12/21/2000 11:49:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< a perception of what grammar is that differs from that shared
by
most of us who teach grammar to teachers,
an assumed body of research and of authorities on grammar that is
different from what I have seen discussed elsewhere,
a serious grappling with WHY one might teach grammar and,
whatever
one's reasons, how that question is related to WHAT one teach >>
Herb,
Can you explain what you see in the above that differs from what
you'd have
expected?
I'll try to help from my end, but I'm not sure what it is that you
are seeing.
Gretchen in San Jose
[log in to unmask]
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/
|
