When we organized our Scope & Sequence committee (SSS, actually--the third
S is Standards) last summer at our ATEG conference in Seattle, we assumed
that those among the 18 of us who were wired would be getting together
electronically.  It didn't occur to me at the time that this ATEG List
would prove to be a source of input from others as well.  I haven't been
part of the conversation up to now, but I've read and considered all of the
ideas that you all have offered.  And I'm so pleased that so many of you
are sharing ideas and asking questions.

The mission of our committee is to answer these particular questions:  How
should we teach grammar?  What should we teach?  When should we teach it?

I am hoping that the outcome of our work will be a publication for K-12
teachers, published by NCTE--one that will overcome the hold that Weaver's
"Grammar for Teachers" has had on the curriculum.  To be published by NCTE
means to have their approval--and their distribution system.

So in planning the answers to those three questions, we must think of our
audience:  current K-12 classroom teachers; teacher-training institutions;
NCTE powers-that-be.

Some of you have suggested we begin with terminology--and it seems to me
that is a good suggestion.  Johanna's list of word classes (or do we want
to retain "parts of speech"?) is a good beginning.  Besides the traditional
eight "parts," she has added determiner, qualifier, particle, and
expletive.  We need those if we are to get away from Latin-based
terminology and describe English in its own terms (as the Structuralists
did sixty years ago).  Johanna has also put them into their open and closed
subclasses--another needed distinction.  And she suggested "proform" for
"pronoun" since the traditional "takes the place of a noun" definition is
inaccurate.  Let's think about that one.  While I agree that "pronoun" is
inaccurate (and I just may nominate "pronominal"), I also think we should
stick to familiar terms as much as possible.  Remember our audience:  K-12
classroom teachers, most of whom have not studied "new"grammar or
linguistics of any kind.  We cannot overwhelm them with new terminology.

Meanwhile, I would like to suggest other terms to settle on, most of which
are also familiar:  infinitive and participle, both of which also refer to
forms; gerund, which includes both form and function (-ing or -en verb that
functions as a nominal).  Then there are subclasses of pronouns:
demonstrative pronoun,  reflexive pronoun,  relative pronoun, personal
pronoun, along with case and the names of the cases: subjective (not
nominative), possessive, objective; subclasses of conjunctions:
subordinating, coordinating, correlative, conjunctive adverb.  (Obviously,
some of these terms will come in the later years.)

Then there are the function names, three of which are not a part of
traditional grammar, but which I propose as useful:  the -al
words--nominal, adjectival, and adverbial.  I would point out too that the
traditional definition of adjective (a word that modifies a noun) is
actually the definition of adjectival, but we would modify that definition
to "any structure that modifies a noun"; the word adjective names a form--a
word class--not a function.  Likewise, adverb is a word; adverbial is a
function (a structure that modifies a verb).  Then there are the nominal
functions:  subject, direct object, object complement, subject complement,
object of preposition.

In addition to those terms, we have names of phrases, some of which are old
favorites:  prepositional phrase, gerund phrase, infinitive phrase,
participial (or participle) phrase.  I would add two that are not a part of
traditional grammar, obvious though they are:  noun phrase and verb phrase.
And predicate, or predicate phrase, has to come in there somewhere too.
And later we'll have appositives and absolute phrases--we'll take up the
"when" question later!

And names of clauses:  Do we call them dependent and independent?  Or main
clause and subordinate clause?  And what do we call those dependent
clauses:  How about nominal, adverbial and adjectival--i.e., their function
names?  (And by the way, I agree with Ed that we should stick to the
traditional concept of clause--a structure with a subject and a predicate.
Again, remember our audience!)

So those are my suggestions for some terminology.

In closing, let me mention that of the 18 members of our committee, 16
teach at the college level.  And I've noticed about that same ratio in the
writers of the postings here.  We want and need to hear also from the K-12
crowd.

Thanks again for your contributions.

Martha Kolln