We can all come up with instances of grammatical ignorance in high places. My current favorite comes from an invitation I received to talk to one of our graduate composition methods classes about grammar and rhetoric. The instructor gave me a couple of xeroxes from articles dealing with how teachers should mark student essays. In both examples, the model marker had flagged a sentence as passive, and therefore questionable, that was not passive but clearly active with an experiencer subject. I asked the class what made the sentences passive, and no one knew, but further discussion showed that no one knew what a passive sentence was either. The point is not to revel in the ignorance of colleagues but rather that colleagues don't know how to deal with a structure that has a particularly important role in discourse. In my guest presentation, the problem led to an interesting and spirited discussion of how sentence grammar interacts with rhetorical considerations, what linguists would call discourse pragmatics. I've done summer workshops for middle and high school English teachers where we've concentrated specifically on such discourse-motivated grammatical alternations. The discourse motivation, the tie-in to rhetoric, gives relevance to building the grammatical basis for discussion of sentence structure options, and we end up covering quite a lot of grammar. This can be done in a linguistically and intellectually faithful manner and is generally stimulating to all involved. I'm sure my experience is not unique. Herb Stahlke Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] >>> [log in to unmask] 12/04/00 02:22AM >>> Bill (McCleary) writes: "We cannot expect members of ATEG to agree on terminology when the rest of the world does not. Instead, we need to agree upon the CONCEPTS to be taught and the ages at which to introduce them to students. Then we can decide on names for concepts, understanding when we do that there will be disagreement." I have (of course) several problems with that statement. First of all, if we do not have names for the CONCEPTS, how can we know what we are talking about, i.e., how can we agree that certain concepts should (or should not) be taught? The fact that Max's, Martha's, and even most other grammar books do not use the term "main clause" simply reflects the wrong-headedness of all those books -- and I mean that literally. The books are all made for (headed toward) the teaching of grammar as an end in itself, and not as a tool with which STUDENTS can analyze discourse. A while back, I asked if anyone could diagram any English sentence. Edith responded "Yes," if she could call on Michael for help. But that, in fact, helps prove my point -- if Edith, who knows grammar very well, needs Michael's help, then how are students supposed to use sentence diagramming to straighten out some of their mangled sentences, some of which are very complicated? Judith has suggested that the 3S committee has made great progress. Perhaps, but I don't see it. All I have seen is generalizations. And unless ATEG can agree on some specifics, I doubt that many primary, middle, and high school teachers will be interested in what this group does. From their perspective, I suggest, we simply offer a muddle of conflicting views and impenetrable terminology. I realize that I am in a minority position in the group, and I would like to see more K-12 teachers involved in the group. Perhaps they could bring the group to its senses. Many members of this group teach grammar to future teachers. How effective, or useful, is that instruction? Need I remind members of this list once again of the NCTE teacher who defended grammar and the teaching of transient and intransient sentences? Clearly this teacher had been "taught" grammar, but to what end? Once again I suggest that we need a limited number of well-defined concepts (for which we need terms), and we need to teach teachers how to use those terms to analyze texts -- including their students' writing. Question: Is the following sentence an example of a comma-splice, or an example of a well-written sentence? My dog moaned, its tail stuck between its back legs. 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/