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/