Eduard,
It's good to know that our efforts in ATEG are appreciated.
I'm especially humbled by your words 'classic' and 'manifesto'
in describing my words. Of course I have not abandoned
"rhetorical grammar" with my use of the term
"linguistic grammar." I consider my description of
linguistic grammar in the same light as my book for teacher
preparation, Understanding English Grammar--that is, a
foundational description--whereas I consider my Rhetorical
Grammar a text for writing classes (although it is also being used
in teacher prep classes). I do think that we will have to
include applications to writing in any program that we try to get
accepted in K-12; but I also think that before we can discuss
"RG" concepts such as cohesion and sentence focus and rhythm
and stylistic variations and such, teachers and their students need
the foundation of descriptive grammar, whatever we choose to call it;
they need to understand how sentences work; how punctuation affects
the message; how modification and subordination and coordination
contribute.
On the importance of that understanding, I like to quote Richard
Weaver from his The Ethics of Rhetoric: "Using a
Language may be compared to riding a horse. Much of one's
success depends on an understanding of what it can and will
do."
Please join us in Connecticut next July.
And thank you for your support--and your welcome words.
Martha
Dear Martha:
I understand your perspective. There is a pathologic fear of
grammar
in this country, which has been initiated and fed by some inept
decision-makers at NCTE, and some English language *researchers*
who
had no idea what they were talking about, and irreparable damage
has
been done to many of the students who graduated from public school
in
this country. We have regressed to illiteracy, in spite of all the
educational privileges American students have. I have been
following
you and Ed Vavra for the past years, and I know that you have done
an
incredible work to dispel that fear and to show that students
benefit
tremendously from an explicit knowledge of the grammar of their
language.
I have more than 20 *standard grammar* textbooks in my library,
not
counting the linguistics textbooks which discuss grammar from a
linguistic perspective. Among those books there are an ìEnglish
3200: A Programmed Course in Grammar and Usageî published in
1962 by
Blumenthal, and the famous ìComprehensive Grammar of the English
Languageî by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, 2004 edition.
I
have also started to read ìThe War Against Grammarî by
Mulroy. You
are represented also in this collection of grammars with two
books,
the ìRhetorical Grammar,î and the classic ìUnderstanding
English
Grammar.î
What is interesting about theses textbooks is that each of them
offers a specific *grammar model,* more or less different from the
others. You have your own perspective, or approach to grammar, and
I
would call it *rhetorical grammar.* In the introduction of the
book
with the same title, you state:
ìÖRhetorical grammar brings together the insights of
composition
researchers and linguists; it makes the connection between writing
and grammar that has been missing from our classrooms. It also
avoids
the prescriptive rules of handbooks, offering instead explanations
of
the rhetorical choices that are available. And, perhaps what is
most
important, it gives students confidence in their own language
ability
by helping them recognize the intuitive grammar expertise that all
human beings share.î(x ñ xi)
I believe that this statement is a great *manifesto,* and there is
evidence that you have followed through with your promises
during
more than 20 years of work to restore the value of grammar
teaching
and the dignity of those who believe that grammar has been wrongly
removed from the curriculum and that students *could benefit* and
*do
benefit* from learning grammar.
The first time I encountered your ìRhetorical Grammarî I thought
that
the name of your grammar model, the same
with the title of your book,
*rhetorical grammar,* was great. I wonder why you did not stay
with
it, especially because you defined it in a very good way, in
contradistinction with the *traditional grammar* which has been
taught before in this country and is still taught by some
teachers.
A short review of the most common grammar models shows that one
encounters *prescriptive grammars,* *descriptive grammars,*
*traditional grammars, *Latin-based grammars* *teaching grammars,
*generative grammars,* transformational grammars,* *formal
grammars,*
*functional grammars,*etc. I believe that the term
*linguistic
grammar* is too vague, and the phrase is a pleonasm, as I
mentioned
in a previous message. Most of the grammars I have listed claim
a
linguistic basis. How can one distinguish
the *linguistic grammar*
you and ATEG promote from other *linguistic grammars*?
If I had to select a name for the ATEGís *movement grammar* I
would
probably choose to stay with the name *RHETORICAL GRAMMAR.* The
second option would be *NATURAL GRAMMAR,* because what most of us
work to promote is the NATURAL STRUCTURE of the English language,
as
opposed to the imposition of a Latin-based grammar on the English
language.
What do you think?
Eduard
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Martha Kolln wrote...
>Dear Eduard,
>
>I'm not sure how the term "linguistic grammar" got
started; on the
>other hand, I may be as responsible as anyone. I titled
my
>contribution to Grammar Alive, published in 2003 by NCTE,
"An
>Overview of Linguistic Grammar." I did so in order to
distinguish
my
>description from that of traditional, Latin-based grammar.
We
>ATEGers wrote Grammar Alive for the thousands (tens of
thousands?)
of
>English teachers who have been led to believe that teaching
grammar
>is a waste of time--and, in fact, may be downright
harmful--for
their
>students. And for the most part, the only grammar they are
familiar
>with, if at all, is the traditional, Latin-based,
>eight-parts-of-speech variety.
>
>I could have titled my chapter "new grammar"--but at age
60 or more
>the structural grammar on which I base my classifications and
>definitions and patterns is no longer new. I am using the
adjective
>"linguistic" simply to designate this sensible way of
describing
>grammar, based on the science of linguistics.
>
>One of the tenets of "linguistic grammar" that I
emphasize--and one
>that sets it apart from the Latin-based variety that finds its
way
>into traditional grammar books and grammar classes--is the
importance
>of recognizing the subconscious (unconscious?) grammar
knowledge
that
>students bring to the classroom, knowledge based on our human
ability
>to construct an intricate grammatical system from whatever
language
>environment into which we are born. (I have no problem
relinquishing
>"innate.")
>
>And I'd be happy to stop using the term "linguistic grammar"
if I
>could think of a good replacement. I welcome
suggestions.
>
>Martha
>
>P.S. to Craig: We believed that NCTE was our best bet as
a
>publisher. And the book has certainly been given a great
deal of
>publicity--and is selling well, I understand ) NCTE would
not
>publish it if it had contained suggestions for scope &
sequence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Dear Phil:
>>
>>In "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics,"
Trask
(1997)
>>defines *grammar* as "that part of the structure of a
language which
>>includes sentence structure(syntax) and word structure
(morphology)"
>>(p. 29). As linguists well know, *morphology and *syntax* are
an
>>integral and part of the science of language, which is
*linguistics.*
>>
>>The term *linguistic grammar* is not a linguistic
expression.It is
a
>>pleonasm, a redundant expression, which confuses those who are
not
>>familiar with linguistics and its subfields.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>>
>>>I have been in grammar/syntax for over 25 years, but it is
only on
>>this list that I have heard of "Linguistic
Grammar." Are there
>>formal descriptions and discussion of it available in journals
and
>>books? Are there recognized
authors on the subject? Also, does
>>anyone know where I might get a copy of Tim Hadley's
dissertation?
>>>
>>>Phil Bralich
>>
>>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/
>
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/