In catching up with past e-mail, I read this previous message (below) from
Johanna Rubba and couldn't help responding.

In the early 80s, I made the mistake of agreeing to be the major "grammar"
author on a writing and grammar series for Holt, Rinehart.  I was promised
that I could draw upon transformational and structural grammar and make the
grammar more accurate than traditional grammar texts.  Well, things changed,
and the grammar turned out as traditional as every other text.  If I recall
correctly, I wasn't even allowed to put absolute constructions in the grammar
section, though I did get two activities on sentence-combining into the
writing part, and one of these logically would have produced absolutes.
Linguists and those of us with even somewhat of a linguistic background and
bent are not likely to get far with the publishers.  Why?  Because they are
afraid of doing anything different from anyone else, lest they lose a major
share of the market.  I remember that we allegedly missed the Texas adoption
list because we dared redefine the "infinitive" form of the verb as the
"base" form, since that form serves more than the infinitive function!   I
share Johanna's concerns and simply want to suggest that informed linguists
haven't much of a chance with commercial publishers, when it comes to
textbooks for elementary and secondary education.

I'd also like to ask for help:  Do any of you know of recent (last five
years) experimental research on the teaching of grammar, either within or in
isolation from context?  I'd trying to catch up, and it looks as if the ERIC
system has virtually nothing.  A friend checked various other sources in
1997, but didn't find a single thing that wasn't already included in widely
known summaries, such as that of Hillocks and Smith in 1991.  Sometimes good
research just doesn't make it into the readily accessible sources, so I'd
appreciate any help y'all can give.

Connie Weaver
Professor of English
Western Michigan University
Home:  (616) 372-7224
Fax:  (616) 372-7225

Johanna Rubba wrote:

> Last fall I had the chance to take a close look at grammar materials in
> books for K-8, of about a 1997-1998 vintage. Major publishers such as
> Houghton-Mifflin, Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, etc. The material is
> quite generous in most cases, but it is also quite traditional. I can't
> be satisfied with these materials as long as they continue to use
> definitions that are inaccurate ('pronouns take the place of nouns' --
> they take the place of noun phrases) or not particularly useful ('the
> subject is what the sentence is about'; 'a sentence expresses a complete
> thought'). They confuse form with function: anything that modifies a
> noun must be an adjective (but nouns can modify nouns in English). Also,
> I have found no book that tells the truth about dialect variation:
> double negatives aren't wrong, they follow the rules of a different
> dialect of English.
>
> Also, none of the materials related sentence grammar to text functions
> such as maintaining topic thread, achieving coherence, or distinguishing
> given from new information. This connection is what makes grammar
> relevant to writing. I just demonstrated this for an hour to my
> students, and several of them left remarking on how interesting and
> useful this material is; one wants me to help her with her writing
> because she has coherence problems.
>
> Simply resurrecting traditional grammar is no guarantee that students
> will be able to take advantage of knowledge of grammar in their writing.
> It's not even a guarantee that they will be able to pass the
> standardized tests that a lot of the curriculum is teaching to.
>
> I also find most of these materials discriminatory. A lot of exercises
> and tests target nonstandard dialect grammar, such as 'he don't' and
> double negation. A lot of these materials ask students to either supply
> the 'correct' form or choose between a 'correct' and 'incorrect' form.
> Some of these are multiple-choice items. Looking at such items from the
> point of view of children, some will intuitively know the 'right' answer
> simply because they grew up in a home in which the standard dialect is
> spoken. Others will have trouble choosing because both standard and
> nonstandard forms will sound right. For yet others, the nonstandard
> forms will sound most natural, and they will pick the wrong answer.
> Isn't it obvious that such materials disadvantage children from
> nonstandard-dialect backgrounds? Won't it be these children that score
> low on the standardized tests (not to mention their school tests)?
>
> The instruction itself sends these children the message that there is
> something wrong with _their_ English, while the children in their school
> from middle-class homes, and their teachers, already speak 'correct'
> English. What are the children supposed to conclude from this? That they
> grew up in defective homes/communities? That they aren't smart enough to
> have learned 'correct' English, like their classmates?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-259
> • E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>                                        **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~