Dear Herb:

A RHETORICAL GRAMMAR is of necessity a *grammar in context* because 
its purpose is to give cohesion and coherence to the (con)text. It 
is also a grammar which does not dwell on isolated grammar notions 
and items, but integrates them for communicative and interractive 
purposes. It is not *traditional* or *Latin-based,* as it follows 
the natural structure of the English language. It is also based on 
the linguistic perspective of language development and usage. The 
term RHETORICAL GRAMMAR is a good name for a grammar which would 
make a difference in the class

Eduard 




On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...

>My first reaction to this discussion is that too much energy is 
being
>poured into a name.  But then I look at the use of naming in
>contemporary politics and how effectively a group can control an 
agenda
>by careful naming, among other things (consider "death tax" 
for "estate
>tax"), and it's clear that choice of a name is important.  What 
ATEG is
>doing now, particularly with the scope and sequence project, needs 
to be
>appropriately named, and by ATEG, not by NCTE or someone else.  And 
that
>name has to be both transparent and inherently attractive to help
>establish a favorable impression.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion for such a name, although I
>agree that "Rhetorical Grammar" has a good ring to it.  Anyone for a
>focus group?
>
>Herb
>
>
>Dear Martha:
>
>I understand your perspective. There is a pathologic fear of 
grammar=20
>in this country, which has been initiated and fed by some inept=20
>decision-makers at NCTE, and some English language *researchers* 
who=20
>had no idea what they were talking about, and irreparable damage 
has=20
>been done to many of the students who graduated from public school 
in=20
>this country. We have regressed to illiteracy, in spite of all 
the=20
>educational privileges American students have. I have been 
following=20
>you and Ed Vavra for the past years, and I know that you have done 
an=20
>incredible work to dispel that fear and to show that students 
benefit=20
>tremendously from an explicit knowledge of the grammar of their=20
>language.
>
>I have more than 20 *standard grammar* textbooks in my library, 
not=20
>counting the linguistics textbooks which discuss grammar from a=20
>linguistic perspective. Among those books there are an "English=20
>3200:  A Programmed Course in Grammar and Usage" published in 1962 
by=20
>Blumenthal, and the famous "Comprehensive Grammar of the English=20
>Language" by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, 2004 edition. 
I=20
>have also started to read  "The War Against Grammar" by Mulroy. 
You=20
>are represented also in this collection of grammars with two 
books,=20
>the "Rhetorical Grammar," and the classic "Understanding English=20
>Grammar." =20
>
>What is interesting about theses textbooks is that each of them=20
>offers a specific *grammar model,* more or less different from 
the=20
>others. You have your own perspective, or approach to grammar, and 
I=20
>would call it *rhetorical grammar.* In the introduction of the 
book=20
>with the same title, you state:
>
>"...Rhetorical grammar brings together the insights of 
composition=20
>researchers and linguists; it makes the connection between 
writing=20
>and grammar that has been missing from our classrooms. It also 
avoids=20
>the prescriptive rules of handbooks, offering instead explanations 
of=20
>the rhetorical choices that are available. And, perhaps what is 
most=20
>important, it gives students confidence in their own language 
ability=20
>by helping them recognize the intuitive grammar expertise that 
all=20
>human beings share."(x - xi)
>
>I believe that this statement is a great *manifesto,* and there 
is=20
>evidence  that you have followed through with your promises 
during=20
>more than 20 years of work to restore the value of grammar 
teaching=20
>and the dignity of those who believe that grammar has been 
wrongly=20
>removed from the curriculum and that students *could benefit* and 
*do=20
>benefit* from learning grammar.
>
>The first time I encountered your "Rhetorical Grammar" I thought 
that=20
>the name of your grammar model, the same with the title of your 
book,=20
>*rhetorical grammar,* was great. I wonder why you did not stay 
with=20
>it, especially because you defined it in a very good way, in=20
>contradistinction with the *traditional grammar* which has been=20
>taught before in this country and is still taught by some 
teachers.=20
>
>A short review of the most common grammar models shows that one=20
>encounters *prescriptive grammars,* *descriptive grammars,*=20
>*traditional grammars, *Latin-based grammars* *teaching grammars,=20
>*generative grammars,* transformational grammars,* *formal 
grammars,*=20
>*functional grammars,*etc.  I believe that the term *linguistic=20
>grammar* is too vague, and the phrase is a pleonasm, as I 
mentioned=20
>in a previous message. Most of the grammars I have listed claim a=20
>linguistic basis. How can one distinguish the *linguistic 
grammar*=20
>you and ATEG promote from other *linguistic grammars*?
>
>If I had to select a name for the ATEG's *movement grammar* I 
would=20
>probably choose to stay with the name *RHETORICAL GRAMMAR.* The=20
>second option would be *NATURAL GRAMMAR,* because what most of us=20
>work to promote is the NATURAL STRUCTURE of the English language, 
as=20
>opposed to the imposition of a Latin-based grammar on the English=20
>language.=20
>
>What do you think?
>
>Eduard=20
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Martha Kolln wrote...
>
>>Dear Eduard,
>>
>>I'm not sure how the term "linguistic grammar" got started; on 
the=20
>>other hand, I may be as responsible as anyone.  I titled my=20
>>contribution to Grammar Alive, published in 2003 by NCTE,  "An=20
>>Overview of Linguistic Grammar."  I did so in order to 
distinguish=20
>my=20
>>description from that of traditional, Latin-based grammar.  We=20
>>ATEGers wrote Grammar Alive for the thousands (tens of thousands?)
=20
>of=20
>>English teachers who have been led to believe that teaching 
grammar=20
>>is a waste of time--and, in fact, may be downright harmful--for=20
>their=20
>>students.  And for the most part, the only grammar they are 
familiar=20
>>with, if at all, is the traditional, Latin-based,=20
>>eight-parts-of-speech variety.
>>
>>I could have titled my chapter "new grammar"--but at age 60 or 
more=20
>>the structural grammar on which I base my classifications and=20
>>definitions and patterns is no longer new.  I am using the 
adjective=20
>>"linguistic" simply to designate this sensible way of describing=20
>>grammar, based on the science of linguistics.
>>
>>One of the tenets of "linguistic grammar" that I emphasize--and 
one=20
>>that sets it apart from the Latin-based variety that finds its 
way=20
>>into traditional grammar books and grammar classes--is the=20
>importance=20
>>of recognizing the subconscious (unconscious?) grammar knowledge=20
>that=20
>>students bring to the classroom, knowledge based on our human=20
>ability=20
>>to construct an intricate grammatical system from whatever 
language=20
>>environment into which we are born. (I have no problem 
relinquishing=20
>>"innate.")
>>
>>And I'd be happy to stop using the term "linguistic grammar" if 
I=20
>>could think of a good replacement.   I welcome suggestions.
>>
>>Martha
>>
>>P.S. to Craig:  We believed that NCTE was our best bet as a=20
>>publisher.  And the book has certainly been given a great deal 
of=20
>>publicity--and is selling well, I understand )  NCTE would not=20
>>publish it if it had contained suggestions for scope & sequence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dear Phil:
>>>
>>>In "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics," Trask=20
>(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=20
>*linguistics.*
>>>
>>>The term *linguistic grammar* is not a linguistic expression.It 
is=20
>a=20
>>>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?
=20
>>>>
>>>>Phil Bralich
>>>
>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's 
web=20
>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=20
>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/