Re: Grammars
Martha, I'll offer that I have very little technical understanding of "what a horse can and will do." Since I've never felt the urge to ride, why would I be interested? And isn't that the issue for our students? If they don't see the point of technical knowledge about grammar, why will they want to bother?
 
I think this scope and sequence project just won't have much impact on students (and that's goal ultimately, isn't it?) as long as we allow ourselves to separate grammar and rhetoric--students' knowledge about language and their meaningful engagement in contexts of language use. Neither is prior. Students need the knowledge to engage, but just won't pursue that knowledge without the engagement (and not just the "promise" of engagement, by the way). This relationship is organic and irreducible.
 
So I think Eduard's attraction to the name "rhetorical grammar" suggests a principled and crucial orientation for the scope and sequence project. That is, it's not just a matter of determining what grammatical elements to teach and how those elements can be logically sequenced with respect to one another, but just as crucially which elements are most likely to dovetail with students' broader engagement with language at any given point in time. We have a great many sets of state and national standards and curriculum guides that can help with this.
 
What I'm saying then, is that scope and sequence need to be contextualized. Yes, Craig, we're back to "contextual grammar"! It's unfortunate how that description has been co-opted over the past generation such that it's equated with "minimalist grammars." I believe the same is true of "functional grammar" because of its close associations with a particular grammatical theory, which many folks just don't embrace. Without that baggage, I think those terms would be perfect descriptions. But given the current climate, I suggest that "rhetorical grammar" is the best option offered so far.
 
Jeff
 
Dr. Jeff Wiemelt
English Department
Director of Freshman English
Southeastern Louisiana University
985-549-5761
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Martha Kolln
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Grammars

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/

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/