Ed,

I have to agree with you. It seems that this group has lost its focus
and is drifting back to the NCTE perspective on grammar. There is an
amazing confusion concerning the metalanguage of grammar, or what you
call a " specific set of defined terms." Grammar perspectives are all
mixed-up into a hodge-podge of traditional, structural, generative,
cognitive and anti-grammatical dogmas. A forum participant even wrote
in a post that he did not know what grammar was.

What is worse, I believe, is that there is no discussion openness in
the forum. People sent messages to me stating that they were afraid
to post on the forum because they were afraid of the violent reaction
they would get from a few individuals who believe that they have a
monopoly on the exchange of ideas.

Quite often discussions drift into linguistic diatribes which I don't
believe benefit in any way those who struggle to put together a
coherent approach to teaching grammar in public school. I wonder
sometimes what are the "experts" in Linguistics doing on this forum
which is dedicated to the "good old grammar." If they want to engage
in deep linguistic discussions, why don't they post on the Linguist
List, or some other specilized linguistic forums? I am a member of
the Linguist List, and I go there for linguistics. On the other hand,
I come here for practical suggestions teachers and instructors need
when they teach English Composition.

I recognize that some messages I posted on the forum have not been
very friendly, but the vicious reaction to them and the fact that
from that moment I became a persona non grata is evidence to me that
the forum has lost its fundamental scientific characteristic - the
free circulation of ideas, and open participation and coooperation
among its members.

If 20 years of existence and activity of this forum has had so little
effect on the grammar education of teachers and instructors, what is
that we should expect from the future when there appears to be less
and less consensus about the major objectives and approaches to the
goal of changes the current anti-grammarian perspective in the NCTE
and in the American education in general?

Eduard  




On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Edward Vavra wrote...

>     I basically lost interest in this group (even though I'm
primarily the one who started it), at the first Seattle conference *
when there was the first serious discussion of scope and sequence. At
that conference I suggested that ATEG establish three, perhaps four
distinct groups, each of which could develop a named scope and
sequence, based on a specific set of defined terms. It does not make
any sense to have one group that considers infinitives to be clauses
and another that considers them to be phrases, both working within
the same scope and sequence, and both claiming that they are
teaching "grammar." Most members of this list realize that there are
fundamental differences among traditional, structural,
transformational, etc. grammars. Put them all in one "grammar" pot
and the public has an indigestible mess--the current state of affairs.
>     Let me note here that I would have been (and to a certain
extent still am) open to changes in KISS terminology, but none of the
members of ATEG has shown any specific interest in working with me.
Indeed, I started the newsletter and the first conferences with the
idea of getting suggestions and improvements for KISS.
>    As long as this group refuses to make such distinctions, it will
fail. In effect, it is speaking and writing nonsense (as I understand
Hobbes to call it), since different members use the same terms to
refer to different constructions, and different terms to refer to the
same constructions. Clear definitions are first principles of
philosophy and of the natural sciences. It amazes me that this group
cannot understand that.
>Ed

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/