Nancy,

 

Here are some additions to your bibliography, with my comments added:

 

Some of the major statements against grammar, in addition to NCTE, are:

 

*Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in Written Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. –Their far-reaching condemnation of grammar was based primarily on the results of only one dissertation:

 

*Harris, R. J. (1962). "An Experimental Inquiry into the Functions and Value of Formal Grammar in the Teaching of Written English to Children Aged Twelve to Fourteen." Ph.D. dissertation. University of London. –Harris’s conclusions, which are not as far-reaching as Braddock et al. alleged, are inconclusive and unreliable for many reasons.

 

*Hartwell, Patrick. "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar." College English, 47 (1985): 105-107. –Probably THE most influential article ever written against grammar, though careful reading and analysis reveal Hartwell’s many tendentious arguments and unsubstantiated claims.

 

*Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English. –Hillocks’s ability to condemn grammar was based entirely on how he defined “grammar” and how he construed “statistical significance.”

 

Some major statements in favor of grammar, in addition to Mulroy’s fine book, include:

 

*Kolln, M. (1981). “Closing the books on alchemy.” College Composition and Communication, 32, 139-151. –This is Kolln’s incisive analysis of many of the questionable conclusions reached by Braddock et al. and others in the anti-grammar camp. She also has articles later in response to Hartwell.

 

*Noguchi, Rei. Grammar and the Teaching of Writing, NCTE, 1991. –an excellent statement of how grammar can fit appropriately into writing instruction.

 

*Tomlinson, D. "Errors in the research into the effectiveness of grammar teaching." English in Education 28 (1994): 2-26. –This excellent, little-known article details a number of ways that the conclusions of both Braddock and Hillocks are flawed.

 

*Hunter, Susan and Ray Wallace, eds. The Place of Grammar in Writing Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1995. –a collection of good articles discussing many aspects of this debate.

 

*Kolln, Martha. 2003. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects. New York: Longman. –Kolln’s grammatical views explained more systematically.

 

*Haussamen, Brock, Benjamin, Amy, Kolln, Martha, and Wheeler, Rebecca. Grammar Alive: A Guide for Teachers. NCTE, 2003. –a good recent collection of suggestions for teachers, especially K-12, on how to incorporate grammar instruction into their language arts classrooms.

These are only a few references, but they will complement what you already have. Others may also wish to supplement this list. I’m sure I’ve left out some that others will think are important.

 

Hello. I am brand new to the list. I cannot tell you how excited I am to have discovered this group and to have a place to go for questions. I have browsed through your archives and find the conversations engaging.

 

I read with much interest your January discussion on diagramming sentences. I teach the traditional grammar class for English majors at my institution. I inherited the tradition of using diagramming as a major teaching strategy for this class, but--once I mastered it (is that possible?) myself--I have always found it very useful as a way of teaching students syntax—-and I have always used it in the context of helping them to become better writers.

 

In about two weeks, four English majors and I are presenting at the International Sigma Tau Delta meeting in Kansas City on the topic of whether diagramming sentences is an effective teaching strategy. The title of our presentation is "Minding a Pedagogical Gap: Confessions of One Teacher and Four Students Sold on the Value of Sentence Diagramming."  Despite reports to the contrary, we see tremendous value in having students use diagramming to improve their understanding of syntax and find that--at least for students who care enough about their writing to want to improve--it does make a difference in the clarity, flow, and logic of their writing. Of course, for those students who plan to teach (and even for those who, as undergrads, tutor in our writing center), understanding syntax makes it infinitely easier to help weak writers understand why their sentences are awkward or unclear.

 

In preparation for the panel, two students have been researching the history of the debate over whether there is value in teaching grammar (diagramming in particular) in isolation from writing. I am not a specialist in this field and would value the advice of this group about seminal essays/studies the we should be sure to include in our brief overview. We have read David Mulroy's "The War against Grammar," for example, and recognize the important role the 1985 NCTE report and statement played in advancing the notion that grammar taught in isolation is unproductive.

 

Are there other major statements along those lines that we should know about? Also, has there been a landmark article published in recent years that might suggest that the tide is turning back--that we now realize we have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater (pardon the cliche), either in terms of grammar instruction in general or of diagramming in particular?

 

If my question is not of interest to the list, please feel free to respond to me directly.

 

Thanks,

Nancy

 

Nancy L. Tuten, PhD

Professor of English

Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program

Columbia College

Columbia, South Carolina

[log in to unmask]

803-786-3706