Jeff,
As I mentioned in my posting to Eduard, I do
think that we will have to include applications
to writing in any program that we try to get
accepted in K-12, so I don't think we're in
disagreement. And I'm very happy to counter
Connie Weaver's "Grammar in Context" with ATEG's
"Rhetorical Grammar"--and, in my opinion, that's
exactly what we must do! I should mention that
in my book by that name, I begin with a
description of structural grammar, which includes
sentence patterns. And I do a great deal with
principles of modification and coordination and
subordination--so don't get me wrong about what I
mean by "rhetorical grammar."
And Jeff, just in case your non-academic hours
take a new turn--horseback riding--you will
indeed want to know what a horse can and will do.
And you'll want to be be prepared!
Best wishes.
Martha
P.S. Will you be joining us in Connecticut? I
hope so. Don't stay away too long.
>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: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>Martha Kolln
>To: <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).
>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/
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/