Herb,
Your post (below) seems to me a very sound formulation of how we can
incorporate a traditional grammar without being crippled by its
weaknesses.
I like the idea of including notional meanings; my main quarrel with
that has been that the simplified introductions haven't been expanded
to meet the complexities of real language. If a child believes a noun
"names a person, place, or thing" on arriving at college (having "done"
with all grammar study), then we are in our current trouble.
I think we get too tied up in tasks like "identifying subjects" and
forget what the ultimate goals might be. Minimalist grammar (what we
need to learn to accomplish the latest discreet task) never scaffolds
into a full understanding. If we want to be able to look at the
language of an educated adult and be able to explain how and why it
works, then we need notional meanings that fit that world.
I like Lakoff and Johnson's take on it: I'm reading Philosphy in the
Flesh, in this case pages 499-501. A protypical noun (the center of the
category) would be a "bounded entity", what a child conceives of as
person, place, or thing. But this is a radial category, and it extends
outward to a number of metaphorical "things" in ways that differ from
language to language. In cognitive linguistics, these are conceptual
categories as well. I think we should make this extension part of what
we discuss in our ideas about nounness. Let our students explore the
kinds of "things" that act as nouns in the language. An hour with a
good dictionary would probably give us very rich results.
We don't need to throw out "person, place, or thing", and we don't need
to think of it as a final answer. >
Craig
Actually, I'd like to see us agree on what should be included, rather
> what should be excluded. I doubt if there's important disagreement on
> splitting infinitives, that vs. which (pace my own linguistic ideas),
> stranded prepositions, etc., but traditional school grammar is a bit
> limiting in the treatment of auxiliary verbs, tense, aspect, modality,
> for example, and benefit from being informed by contemporary research.
> Traditional grammar informed by, for example, the structure/function
> distinction, can be quite a valuable and rigorous discipline for
> students to engage. If the prescriptivism of traditional grammar is
> taught in the context of stylistic and register choices, then what are
> often puzzling prohibitions become a matter of freedom within
> constraints. This, I think, is what a good reference grammar like
> Greenbaum's achieves.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:51:33 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Eduard,
The idea of the scope and sequence is to advocate a single (unified)
grammar, but find ways to portion that out appropriately by grade
level. My own sense is that around 7-9th grade, students are pretty
much ready for an adult grammar. (I know I benefited enormously from a
comprehensive traditional grammar, including Reed-Kellog diagrams, in
seventh and eight grades.)
My one sense is that students are often taught partial understandings
in the hope that they can meet the goals of high stakes tests that
focus much more on behaviour than they do on understanding. If we have
longer range goals in mind (K-12), then it's much easier to be patient
in the earlier grades. But I think it makes sense to ask "what can we
teach on third grade that will help prepare a student for a
comprehensive grammar in the later grades." Our current practice is to
have discreet goals for each grade level, but not to build (scaffold) a
complex understanding, and that's because NCTE's official position has
been that students need to avoid "errors", but that teaching an
understanding of grammar doesn't help us get there. Our approach is
almost opposite: take care of the understanding of language (grammar),
and error will be much, much easier to deal with. We also believe that
understanding of grammar is enormously useful for critical reading and
effective writing. Writing is not just speech put into written form,
but brings with it demands that need to be much more explicit. We don't
think most students are well served by hoping that it will happen.
I suspect that we have a wider consensus on these points than is
evident in our conversations. But we have started with the notion that
traditional grammar needs to be adjusted to better describe the
language we actually find in respected texts.
I am finding more and more instances of people teaching "linguistics"
to students in early grades. Students seem to respond quickly and
readily to exploring language. The goal should be to build a base of
understanding, and to portion that out in age appropriate ways.
Craig >
Herb:
>
> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade(s)
> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
> purposes.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>>Eduard,
>>
>>Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
> my
>>problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
> others
>>of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.
> Traditional
>>school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
> the
>>negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
> of
>>matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
> way
>>in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
> terms,
>>concepts, and maxims.
>>
>>Herb
>
> 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/
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:49:54 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eduard,
=20
I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program, where =
the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar instruction =
that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles, =
analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several grammars =
doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level teacher, =
not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide content =
and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't pretend =
to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll gratefully =
leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
=20
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Eduard =
C. Hanganu
Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Herb:
I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade(s)
are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
purposes.
Eduard
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Eduard,
>
>Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
my
>problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
others
>of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
Traditional
>school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
the
>negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
of
>matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
way
>in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
terms,
>concepts, and maxims.
>
>Herb
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 06:50:35 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Herb,
One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
school.
Eduard
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Eduard,
>=20
>I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
where =
>the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
instruction =
>that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
=
>analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
grammars =
>doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
teacher, =
>not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
content =
>and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
pretend =
>to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
gratefully =
>leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>=20
>Herb
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Eduard =
>C. Hanganu
>Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>
>
>Herb:
>
>I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
(s)
>are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>purposes.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>>Eduard,
>>
>>Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>my
>>problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>others
>>of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>Traditional
>>school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>the
>>negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>of
>>matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>way
>>in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>terms,
>>concepts, and maxims.
>>
>>Herb
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:10:23 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: There is a Standard English
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Hello, all!
Below is the message Johanna has asked me to forward to the forum, as
her posting troubles continue. I appreciate the change of atmosphere
in the forum, and I hope that we can continue to exchange messages in
a kind and friendly manner, in spite of some theoretical differences
which may exist between us.
I haven't had the chance to look over every word or sentence in the
message Johanna asked me to forward to the list, but I can say that
we seem to agree on the English dialects, their linguistic value, and
their social importance. After all that has been said between us, we
may find that our differences in perspective are not as much in the
theoretical positions we have taken, but in the way we have expressed
them.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, [log in to unmask] wrote...
>
>Eduard,
>
>This is both a response to your post and a test message to see if I
can get=
> to the list at last. If it doesn't get to the list, I hope you will
post i=
>t, in spite of our past wrangles. I do try to take a neutral stance
here in=
> response to your post.
>
>I'd like to refine your concept and use of the word "equal" in your
stateme=
>nt
>
>"There is a claim in certain linguistic circles that 'all dialects
are=20
>equal' and that there is no dialect we could call Standard English."
>
>When linguists say that all dialects are equal, they don't mean that
all di=
>alects receive an equal amount of social respect, or are equal in
character=
>istics such as how often they are written down, whether there are
published=
> dictionaries and grammars that describe them, etc. What they mean
is that =
>all dialects of a language are equally capable of expressing
whatever meani=
>ngs a human community wishes to express. In other words, they are
saying th=
>at every dialect (indeed, every language) has the structural
resources to e=
>xpress any idea the community might wish to express.
>
>This is not to say that all dialects/languages have an equal number
of word=
>s, an equal number of sentence types, an equal number of suffixes,
or any s=
>uch specifics. Languages, as I'm sure you well know, vary
tremendously in t=
>hese specifics. The point is that every community can expand or
contract it=
>s language as suits the community's needs. The human mind controls
the stat=
>e of a language. If more words are needed, more words will be
created, whet=
>her through borrowing from another language (English "reality"),
compoundin=
>g ("textbook"), metaphor ("computer virus"), metonymy ("ranch hand")
or who=
>lesale creation ("nerd").
>
>Languages also change over time, and written language differs
structurally =
>from spoken language. The latter fact often raises the prestige of a
dialec=
>t or language, because a language that has a long tradition of
writing may =
>gradually develop greater complexity in sentence structure. There
are also =
>often stylistic pressures such as variety in vocabulary, and
effective writ=
>ing is also clearer in areas such as pronoun-antecedent reference,
because,=
> unlike listeners, readers usually cannot ask a writer to clarify an
unclea=
>r passage. Of course, the fact that revered literature, religious
texts, an=
>d government documents get written down also lends a written dialect
presti=
>ge.
>
>I don't know any linguist who would deny that certain dialects of
English a=
>re socially preferred over others (socially unequal), or that
certain diale=
>cts have undergone the standardization process, while others have
not. What=
> most linguists will disagree with is that the standardization
process make=
>s a dialect "better" than another in any but a most practical sense
(a larg=
>er vocabulary allows more to be said in less space, since
circumlocutions a=
>ren't needed; if a standard dialect is widely taught, and local
dialects ar=
>e very different, the standard enables easy communication across
dialect bo=
>undaries; or similar considerations). Most linguists will disagree
that sta=
>ndardization confers any kind of aesthetic or qualitative
superiority =E2=
>=80=93 e.g., that there is any objective reason to prefer, say, "I
don't wa=
>nt any" over "I don't want none", or "he cut himself" over "he cut
hisself"=
>. To call the former expressions "proper English" and the
latter "bad Engli=
>sh" doesn't make sense, because it compares apples to oranges. "I
don't wa=
>nt any" and "he cut himself" are correct American standard English,
and "I=
> don't want none" and "he cut hisself" are correct in several other
dialect=
>s of English. You don't judge a move in a baseball game by the rules
of cri=
>cket, or vice versa.
>
>As your Trudgill quotations show, there is some dispute over
whether "stand=
>ard English", whether British, American, Australian, Canadian, South
Africa=
>n, or Kiwi (New Zealander?) can be clearly delimited. In fact, I
would disa=
>gree with many of Trudgill's proposals -- spelling and punctuation
are cert=
>ainly very important in America, and the grammar of "standard
British" diff=
>ers from "standard American" in a number of respects. Trudgill seems
to be =
>overlooking the fact that written documents from a British source
may be gr=
>ammatically different from those from an American source. I also
would disa=
>gree that pronunciation is irrelevant in America.
>
>I don't think we can really attain a complete description of all the
featur=
>es of "standard English", whether for America or elsewhere. I do
believe th=
>ere is a sort of "statistical standard English", a collection of
features t=
>hat would be found in most edited American English and in
most "standard" s=
>peech.
>
>This, however, is pretty much the case for most languages and
dialects. Few=
> communities live in such extreme isolation from other communities
that the=
>ir language is "pure"; few communities are so small and so
homogeneous that=
> there is no dialect variation within them. And every community will
experi=
>ence language change between the generations.
>
>So, no competent linguist would deny that dialects are unequal in
social st=
>atus and in such features as frequency of use, existence of written
descrip=
>tions, and so on. Most would, however, disagree concerning
functionality --=
> the limits of a language are the limits of the human mind and body.
Insofa=
>r as the latter are equal, the expressive potential of languages is
equal. =
>Lastly, that one can clearly define "standard English" and describe
it as d=
>ifferent from every other dialect in every way is probably
impossible, but =
>one can compile a list of features that most arbiters would agree
are "stan=
>dard".
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba
>Associate Professor, Linguistics
>English Department
>Cal Poly State University
>San Luis Obispo 93407
>Tel. 805-756-2184
>URL: www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:53:25 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: =?windows-1252?Q?John_Curran?= <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Eduard,
Re your last submission:
Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-face=
,=20
teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this book to=
=20
the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students would=20=
benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There is a=20=
rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such a=20=
book. Can we be so lucky?
John Curran
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:00:13 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
John:
I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
message and will answer your question.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>Eduard,
> Re your last submission:
> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-
face=
>
>,=20
>teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
>Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
book to=
>
>=20
>the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
would=20=
>
>
>benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
is a=20=
>
>
>rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
a=20=
>
>
>book. Can we be so lucky?
> John Curran
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:21:11 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: From the K-12 ranks (was: Defining Traditional Grammar)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1218565296-1156170071=:75304"
--0-1218565296-1156170071=:75304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Eduard, thanks for reminding us of this issue.
I have called for us to attend to this issue often. To follow up on your posting, I am now asking if any ATEG members or lurkers on the list are interested in putting together a committee that would dedicate itself to recruiting K-12 teachers to join our ranks. We especially need members from the lower grades, K-8, where any scope and sequence we finally develop would be taught. Eduard is so right that this group represents the practical home base and needs to be engaged in the discussion.
If anyone is willing to take on the task of building such a group, please let me know.
Thanks,
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Eduard C. Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 7:50:35 AM
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Herb,
One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
school.
Eduard
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Eduard,
>=20
>I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
where =
>the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
instruction =
>that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
=
>analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
grammars =
>doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
teacher, =
>not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
content =
>and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
pretend =
>to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
gratefully =
>leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>=20
>Herb
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Eduard =
>C. Hanganu
>Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>
>
>Herb:
>
>I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
(s)
>are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>purposes.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>>Eduard,
>>
>>Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>my
>>problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>others
>>of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>Traditional
>>school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>the
>>negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>of
>>matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>way
>>in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>terms,
>>concepts, and maxims.
>>
>>Herb
>
>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/
--0-1218565296-1156170071=:75304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Eduard, thanks for reminding us of this issue.
I have called for us to attend to this issue often. To follow up on your posting, I am now asking if any ATEG members or lurkers on the list are interested in putting together a committee that would dedicate itself to recruiting K-12 teachers to join our ranks. We especially need members from the lower grades, K-8, where any scope and sequence we finally develop would be taught. Eduard is so right that this group represents the practical home base and needs to be engaged in the discussion.
If anyone is willing to take on the task of building such a group, please let me know.
Thanks,
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Eduard C. Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 7:50:35 AM
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Herb,
One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
school.
Eduard
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Eduard,
>=20
>I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
where =
>the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
instruction =
>that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
=
>analyses,
etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
grammars =
>doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
teacher, =
>not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
content =
>and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
pretend =
>to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
gratefully =
>leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>=20
>Herb
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Eduard =
>C. Hanganu
>Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>
>
>Herb:
>
>I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>did, but I was referring to basic guiding
principles, and not to the
>details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
(s)
>are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>purposes.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>>Eduard,
>>
>>Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>my
>>problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in
which
>>traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>others
>>of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>Traditional
>>school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>the
>>negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>of
>>matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>way
>>in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>terms,
>>concepts, and maxims.
>>
>>Herb
>
>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/
--0-1218565296-1156170071=:75304--
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:38:21 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6C527.11A6D360"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6C527.11A6D360
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
=20
From: "Jean Waldman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" =
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35 AM
=20
=20
=20
One reason people find grammar confusing is that they are forced to =
memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the actual use of =
language. We should be able to develop a more descriptive notional =
definition, one that can be used to help people, from kindergarten to =
old age, to be aware of what they are doing when they use a common noun. =
I am not opposed to notional definitions. I am opposed to irrelevant =
notional definitions, as exemplified by this recitation of person, =
place, or thing. =20
=20
We all agree that the word chair is a noun: that, in fact, it belongs to =
the subclass we call common nouns. =20
=20
So if I send you the word chair, by speaking the word chair, or =
providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what information does the =
word chair provide for your mind? Does chair have four legs, or none =
at all? Does it have arms? Is it padded? =20
=20
The fact is, I did not give you that information. When I gave you the =
word alone, I did not name a person, place or thing. I did indicate a =
reference to a single member of a class of objects. You could tell it =
was singular because there was no s on the end. The word chair usually =
refers to a device to support the human body in a particular position. =
If you want more information about it, you have to look at other words =
around it when I use it with the intention of giving information. The =
word chair, therefore, is a classifying word. =20
=20
This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae until you try to help a =
foreign student understand the significance of those words around the =
common noun. =20
=20
You can do a lot of talking and writing and make long lists, but do they =
really provide an understanding of the functioning language?
=20
Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a crucial step to understanding =
English grammar. Of course, the more theories you can apply to the =
analysis, the more useful it becomes.=20
=20
Historically, this is my supposition. Common nouns were called common =
because they indicated classes that had characteristics in common. This =
descriptive definition proved difficult for hurried teachers to use, =
and, besides, the word common became associated with lower class or =
vulgar. The word proper, on the other hand, was held in high esteem, so =
teachers borrowed the proper definition for the common noun. Maybe we =
could call them specific or naming nouns and classifying nouns, instead =
of proper and common nouns. =20
=20
Jean Waldman, retired lecturer,=20
University of Maryland=20
=20
=20
=20
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/
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6C527.11A6D360
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Jean Waldman"=20
<[log in to unmask]>
To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English =
Grammar"=20
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional =
Nouns
Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35=20
AM
One reason people find grammar confusing is =
that they are=20
forced to memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the =
actual use=20
of language. We should be =
able to=20
develop a more descriptive notional definition, one that can be used to =
help=20
people, from kindergarten to old age, to be aware of what they are doing =
when=20
they use a common noun. I =
am not=20
opposed to notional definitions. =
I=20
am opposed to irrelevant notional definitions, as exemplified by this =
recitation=20
of person, place, or thing. =20
We all agree that the word chair is a noun: =
that, in=20
fact, it belongs to the subclass we call common nouns.
So if I send you the word chair, by speaking =
the word=20
chair, or providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what =
information does=20
the word chair provide for your mind? Does chair have =
four legs,=20
or none at all? Does it =
have=20
arms? Is it padded?
The fact is, I did not give you that =
information. When I gave you the word =
alone, I did=20
not name a person, place or thing. =20
I did indicate a reference to a single member of a class of =
objects. You could tell it was singular =
because=20
there was no s on the end. =
The word=20
chair usually refers to a device to support the human body in a =
particular=20
position. If you want =
more=20
information about it, you have to look at other words around it when I =
use it=20
with the intention of giving information. =20
The word chair, therefore, is a classifying word.
This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae =
until you=20
try to help a foreign student understand the significance of those words =
around=20
the common noun. =20
You can do a lot of talking and writing and =
make long=20
lists, but do they really provide an understanding of the functioning=20
language?
Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a =
crucial step=20
to understanding English grammar. Of course, the =
more theories=20
you can apply to the analysis, the more useful it becomes.=20
Historically, this is my supposition. Common nouns were called =
common because=20
they indicated classes that had characteristics in common. This descriptive definition =
proved=20
difficult for hurried teachers to use, and, besides, the word common =
became=20
associated with lower class or vulgar. =20
The word proper, on the other hand, was held in high esteem, so =
teachers=20
borrowed the proper definition for the common noun. Maybe we could call them =
specific or=20
naming nouns and classifying nouns, instead of proper and common =
nouns. =
Jean Waldman, retired lecturer,=20
University of =
Maryland =
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/
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6C527.11A6D360--
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:25:34 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
In-Reply-To: <002e01c6c548$993df710$6601a8c0@JWaldman>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-467371181-1156188334=:90638"
--0-467371181-1156188334=:90638
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Of course, I could throw a monkey wrench at your chair: "We asked Dr. Flubber to chair the meeting of The Society of Redundant Rhetoricists next fall." So much for 'chair' being a noun! Without a context, many words are ambiguous (or ambivalent?).
Sorry, but like Oscar Wilde, I couldn't resist the temptation.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:38:21 PM
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
From: "Jean Waldman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35 AM
One reason people find grammar confusing is that they are forced to memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the actual use of language. We should be able to develop a more descriptive notional definition, one that can be used to help people, from kindergarten to old age, to be aware of what they are doing when they use a common noun. I am not opposed to notional definitions. I am opposed to irrelevant notional definitions, as exemplified by this recitation of person, place, or thing.
We all agree that the word chair is a noun: that, in fact, it belongs to the subclass we call common nouns.
So if I send you the word chair, by speaking the word chair, or providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what information does the word chair provide for your mind? Does chair have four legs, or none at all? Does it have arms? Is it padded?
The fact is, I did not give you that information. When I gave you the word alone, I did not name a person, place or thing. I did indicate a reference to a single member of a class of objects. You could tell it was singular because there was no s on the end. The word chair usually refers to a device to support the human body in a particular position. If you want more information about it, you have to look at other words around it when I use it with the intention of giving information. The word chair, therefore, is a classifying word.
This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae until you try to help a foreign student understand the significance of those words around the common noun.
You can do a lot of talking and writing and make long lists, but do they really provide an understanding of the functioning language?
Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a crucial step to understanding English grammar. Of course, the more theories you can apply to the analysis, the more useful it becomes.
Historically, this is my supposition. Common nouns were called common because they indicated classes that had characteristics in common. This descriptive definition proved difficult for hurried teachers to use, and, besides, the word common became associated with lower class or vulgar. The word proper, on the other hand, was held in high esteem, so teachers borrowed the proper definition for the common noun. Maybe we could call them specific or naming nouns and classifying nouns, instead of proper and common nouns.
Jean Waldman, retired lecturer,
University of Maryland
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/
--0-467371181-1156188334=:90638
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Of course, I could throw a monkey wrench at your chair: "We asked Dr. Flubber to chair the meeting of The Society of Redundant Rhetoricists next fall." So much for 'chair' being a noun! Without a context, many words are ambiguous (or ambivalent?).
Sorry, but like Oscar Wilde, I couldn't resist the temptation.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:38:21 PM
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
From: "Jean Waldman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35 AM
One reason people find grammar confusing is that they are forced to memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the actual use of language. We should be able to develop a more descriptive notional definition, one that can be used to help people, from kindergarten to old age, to be aware of what they are doing when they use a common noun. I am not opposed to notional definitions. I am opposed to irrelevant notional definitions, as exemplified by this recitation of person, place, or thing.
We all agree that the word chair is a noun: that, in fact, it belongs to the subclass we call common nouns.
So if I send you the word chair, by speaking the word chair, or providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what information does the word chair provide for your mind? Does chair have four legs, or none at all? Does it have arms? Is it padded?
The fact is, I did not give you that information. When I gave you the word alone, I did not name a person, place or thing. I did indicate a reference to a single member of a class of objects. You could tell it was singular because there was no s on the end. The word chair usually refers to a device to support the human body in a particular position. If you want more information about it, you have to look at other words around it when I use it with the intention of giving information. The word chair, therefore, is a classifying word.
This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae until you try to help a foreign student understand the significance of those words around the common noun.
You can do a lot of talking and writing and make long lists, but do they really provide an understanding of the functioning language?
Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a crucial step to understanding English grammar. Of course, the more theories you can apply to the analysis, the more useful it becomes.
Historically, this is my supposition. Common nouns were called common because they indicated classes that had characteristics in common. This descriptive definition proved difficult for hurried teachers to use, and, besides, the word common became associated with lower class or vulgar. The word proper, on the other hand, was held in high esteem, so teachers borrowed the proper definition for the common noun. Maybe we could call them specific or naming nouns and classifying nouns, instead of proper and common nouns.
Jean Waldman, retired lecturer,
University of Maryland
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/
--0-467371181-1156188334=:90638--
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:58:52 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C6C53A.B2CC5B30"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C6C53A.B2CC5B30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
Paul, what I should have said was that we can all agree that the word =
chair is often used as a noun.=20
=20
We could spend a lot of time searching for example nouns that are never =
used as members of other word classes, but if we confined ourselves to =
that kind of word for examples, we would be limiting the usefulness of =
our examples.
=20
So I send you the word chair, and one possible picture in your mind is =
the responsibility of someone to be acquainted with Roberts Rules of =
Order. This is in addition to the other pictures that I presented. As =
a result, the word by itself has even more possible interpretations to =
be clarified by surrounding words. =20
=20
That monkey wrench strengthens the argument. =20
=20
Thanks, Jean=20
=20
Jean Waldman, retired lecturer,
University of Maryland =20
=20
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/
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C6C53A.B2CC5B30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul, what I should have =
said was=20
that we can all agree that the word chair is often used as a noun.=20
We could spend a lot of =
time=20
searching for example nouns that are never used as members of other word =
classes, but if we confined ourselves to that kind of word for examples, =
we=20
would be limiting the usefulness of our examples.
So I send you the word =
chair, and=20
one possible picture in your mind is the responsibility of someone to be =
acquainted with Roberts Rules of Order. This is in addition to the =
other pictures=20
that I presented. As a =
result, the=20
word by itself has even more possible interpretations to be clarified by =
surrounding words. =20
That monkey wrench =
strengthens the=20
argument. =
Thanks, Jean
Jean Waldman, retired=20
lecturer,
University of Maryland
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/
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C6C53A.B2CC5B30--
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:02:37 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: There is a Standard English
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And this is why we all have to drop the pretense that we are somehow going =
to create some sort of new grammar or new linguistics that will revolutioni=
ze grammar teaching and writing. The standard is out there, it has been fo=
r many years and standard books already tell us what there is to be taught.=
The fight about traditional and modern grammar needs to be dropped utterl=
y as the Scope and Sequence committee can make straightforward decisions ab=
out what to teach and when from a well-known body of knowledge that comes f=
rom Standard English. We look like fools or uneducated exuberant youth in =
anything else. The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, the style ma=
nuals of all publishers and academic journals and so on are waiting for us =
to grow up. They are also waiting for us to be sure that students in eleme=
ntary, secondary, and post-secondary schools know what is in there. They a=
re not waiting for a break through, a tantrum, or even a discussion of trad=
itional vs modern grammar They are also laughing at NCTE and their moroni=
c stance about grammar so we don't have to feel too bad. =20
Phil=20
>Conclusion
>
>
>From an educational point of view, the position of Standard English=20
>as the dialect of English used in writing is unassailable. (We should=20
>perhaps add, however, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with=20
>spelling or punctuation!) As far as spoken Standard English is=20
>concerned, we could conclude that the teaching of Standard English to=20
>speakers of other dialects may be commendable - as most would in=20
>theory agree, if for no other reason than the discrimination which is=20
>currently exercised against nonstandard dialect speakers in most=20
>English-speaking societies - and possible - which I am inclined, for=20
>sociolinguistic reasons (see Trudgill, 1975) to doubt. Either way,=20
>however, there is clearly no necessary connection at all between the=20
>teaching of formal styles and technical registers, on the one hand,=20
>and the teaching of the standard dialect, on the other.
>
>
>
>References
>Chambers, J. and Trudgill, P. (1997) Dialectology. 2nd edition.=20
>London: Cambridge University Press.
>Cheshire, J. (1982) Variation in an English Dialect. London:=20
>Cambridge University Press.
>Giles, H. (1973) Accent mobility: a model and some data.=20
>Anthropological Linguistics 15: 87-105.
>Hudson, R. and Holmes, J. (1995) Children's use of spoken Standard=20
>English. London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
>Kloss, H. (1967) Abstand languages and Ausbau languages.=20
>Anthropological Linguistics 9: 29-41.
>Labov, W. (1966) The social stratification of English in New York=20
>City. Washington: CAL.
>Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University=20
>of Pennsylvania Press.
>Le Page, R. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of identity. London:=20
>Cambridge University Press.
>Stein, G. and Quirk, R. (1995) Standard English. The European English=20
>Messenger 4.2: xxx=20
>Trudgill, P. (1975) Accent dialect and the school. London: Edward=20
>Arnold.=20
>Trudgill, P. (1992) Introducing language and society. London: Penguin.
>Trudgill, P. and Cheshire, J. (1989) Dialect and education in the=20
>United Kingdom. In J. Cheshire, V. Edwards, H. M=FCnstermann & B.=20
>Weltens (eds.), Dialect and education: some European perspectives.=20
>Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 94-109.=20
>=20
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:52:14 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Jean:
I am not sure a first grader would have too much fun with this very
theoretical discussion on the definition of nouns. I cannot imagine
myself getting into such details when he might have trouble figuring
out why his mother wakes him up and sends him away from home to do
something he doesn't like and has trouble understanding. With people
like him who "find grammar confusing" I would want to be as clear as
possible: A noun is a car, a doll, a pencil, a cloud. I am sure he
will have plenty of time later to split the hairs.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jean Waldman wrote...
>
>
>
>
>From: "Jean Waldman" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar"
<[log in to unmask]>
>
>Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
>
>Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>One reason people find grammar confusing is that they are forced to
memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the actual use
of language. We should be able to develop a more descriptive
notional definition, one that can be used to help people, from
kindergarten to old age, to be aware of what they are doing when they
use a common noun. I am not opposed to notional definitions. I am
opposed to irrelevant notional definitions, as exemplified by this
recitation of person, place, or thing.
>
>
>
>We all agree that the word chair is a noun: that, in fact, it
belongs to the subclass we call common nouns.
>
>
>
>So if I send you the word chair, by speaking the word chair, or
providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what information does
the word chair provide for your mind? Does chair have four legs,
or none at all? Does it have arms? Is it padded?
>
>
>
>The fact is, I did not give you that information. When I gave you
the word alone, I did not name a person, place or thing. I did
indicate a reference to a single member of a class of objects. You
could tell it was singular because there was no s on the end. The
word chair usually refers to a device to support the human body in a
particular position. If you want more information about it, you have
to look at other words around it when I use it with the intention of
giving information. The word chair, therefore, is a classifying
word.
>
>
>
>This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae until you try to help a
foreign student understand the significance of those words around the
common noun.
>
>
>
>You can do a lot of talking and writing and make long lists, but do
they really provide an understanding of the functioning language?
>
>
>
>Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a crucial step to
understanding English grammar. Of course, the more theories you
can apply to the analysis, the more useful it becomes.
>
>
>
>Historically, this is my supposition. Common nouns were called
common because they indicated classes that had characteristics in
common. This descriptive definition proved difficult for hurried
teachers to use, and, besides, the word common became associated with
lower class or vulgar. The word proper, on the other hand, was held
in high esteem, so teachers borrowed the proper definition for the
common noun. Maybe we could call them specific or naming nouns and
classifying nouns, instead of proper and common nouns.
>
>
>
>Jean Waldman, retired lecturer,
>
>University of Maryland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:25:33 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Eduard, I absolutely agree. A noun is a car, a doll, a pencil, a cloud, a
chair.
But these are not names of things. Do we need to give a theoretical
definition to first graders? If we do, we should find something better than
A noun is the name of a person, place or thing. The student has to learn
this by rote because it doesn't mean anything.
First graders have perfectly good brains. If they couldn't make
generalizations and apply them, they would not know how to speak at all. It
is the teachers who think the stuff they had to memorize as children is
simple. It is amazing how much we believe when the people around us tell
it, and when they give examples we make the connection, even though it
defies logic.
A proper noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Ellen and Barbara
and Bob are names. When we get theoretical we can talk about naming words,
and talk about proper nouns, but not common nouns.
Can we find a better way to talk about common nouns, one that will not leave
the students confused when they try to apply it in new situations?
This definition leads to problems when the students are learning more
sophisticated uses of language. The same system that talks about persons,
places, and things also talks about words called articles, which are only
three, a, an, and the.
We need to be able to deal with a class of words that tell which car, or
doll, or pencil we want the child to bring to us. These words can be
articles. They can also be possessives, or demonstratives, or each, every,
which, what, or any. These are the referential determiners, and usually
only one of these can be used before a noun. There is another group of
determiners, quantifying determiners, that can be used alone or with
referential determiners to tell about the noun.
I am not advocating teaching this to first grade students. It can be very
important for international students who ask: Sometimes you use a or an and
sometimes you use the, and sometimes you don't use anything at all. How can
we tell which one to use when?
My argument is that if we don't want grammar to be confusing, we should not
give confusing definitions. A noun is the name of a person, place, or
thing. may be simple, but it does not provide clarity. In fact, this
definition is confusing.
Maybe we could say that a noun is a word that tells something about a
person, place, or thing. Then later we can talk about groups and words that
help us find which one in the group.
Maybe we can just provide examples.
However, it's good to avoid giving lists of isolated words. Paul's example
of the use of the word chair as a verb is one example of the reason this
system is confusing.
It would be useful to help the students learn to identify the nouns in
sentences, and in the process they can discover a lot about nouns.
We also need to have teachers who have dealt with various relevant theories
so they can help lead the students to understanding, instead of boring the
students with rote recitations.
Whatever we do, let's not leave the students thinking grammar is the word
that comes before drills, or that grammar doesn't make any sense because the
definitions are irrelevant.
Jean
Jean Waldman, retired lecturer
University of Maryland
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:00:00 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to thought.
'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
something. But the word is not the thing.
My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like 'pencil'
in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it is
a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a traditional
grammar regiment.
And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well, probably
because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything out
of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
> Herb,
>
> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
> school.
>
> Eduard
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>
>> Eduard,
>> =20
>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>
> where =
>
>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>
> instruction =
>
>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>
> =
>
>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>
> grammars =
>
>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>
> teacher, =
>
>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>
> content =
>
>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>
> pretend =
>
>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>
> gratefully =
>
>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>> =20
>> Herb
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>
> Eduard =
>
>> C. Hanganu
>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>
>>
>>
>> Herb:
>>
>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>
> (s)
>
>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>> purposes.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>
>>
>>> Eduard,
>>>
>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>>>
>> my
>>
>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>
>> others
>>
>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>
>> Traditional
>>
>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>>>
>> of
>>
>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>
>> way
>>
>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>
>> terms,
>>
>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>> 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/
>
>
--
James Sebastian Bear
Montpelier Public School
www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:29:24 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Dear John and Eduard and all,
It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the way,
includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly at
teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
"reading/writing connection"
exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
today's language arts classes are very different from what many of us
remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's teachers
rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of which we
include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax in an
organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to the
teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help from
textbooks.
We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this fall
in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well as in
selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing
and planning to market it ourselves.
As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence patterns.
I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns has been
enormously helpful for my college-level students in the teacher-prep
grammar class. In the new book, we are including the very simplest
diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be there for those
teachers who want to include them.
As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into a
classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also bring to
the students' conscious understanding step by organized step the
subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they entered
kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available.
The table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
better idea of our program.
Martha
>John:
>
>I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>message and will answer your question.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>
> >Eduard,
>> Re your last submission:
>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-
>face=
>>
>>,=20
>>teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
>>Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>book to=
>>
>>=20
>>the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>would=20=
>>
>>
>>benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>is a=20=
>>
>>
>>rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
>a=20=
>>
>>
>>book. Can we be so lucky?
>> John Curran
>>
>>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:42:45 EDT
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_c12.240d7e7.321bc925_boundary"
--part1_c12.240d7e7.321bc925_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Congratulations, Martha. Your book sounds wonderful. Once a generation of
students has benefited from your thorough and thoughtful treatment, there
will be little need for the book I'm working on--a handbook for developmental
writing students.
Peter Adams
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/
--part1_c12.240d7e7.321bc925_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Congratulations, Martha. Your bo=
ok sounds wonderful. Once a generation of students has benefited from=
your thorough and thoughtful treatment, there will be little need for the b=
ook I'm working on--a handbook for developmental writing students.
Peter Adams
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/
--part1_c12.240d7e7.321bc925_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:38:57 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Dear Martha:
Thanks for bringing us to date with your latest grammar project. I am
sure John is more than excited that he will have a textbook tailored
to the needs of his beginning Japanese students.
Regards,
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Martha Kolln wrote...
>Dear John and Eduard and all,
>
>It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
>at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
>production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
>Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
>students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
>
>We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the
way,
>includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
>minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
>phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
>form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
>students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
>minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
>with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
>essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly
at
>teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
>"reading/writing connection"
>exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
>connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
>
>I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
>today's language arts classes are very different from what many of
us
>remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's teachers
>rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of which we
>include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax in an
>organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to the
>teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help from
>textbooks.
>
>We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
>first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this
fall
>in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well as in
>selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
>in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
>finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing
>and planning to market it ourselves.
>
>As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
>"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
patterns.
>I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns has been
>enormously helpful for my college-level students in the teacher-prep
>grammar class. In the new book, we are including the very simplest
>diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be there for those
>teachers who want to include them.
>
>As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
>here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
>we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
>are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
>books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
>workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into
a
>classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also bring
to
>the students' conscious understanding step by organized step the
>subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they entered
>kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
>
>I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
>might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available.
>The table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
>better idea of our program.
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>John:
>>
>>I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>>Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>>designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>>say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>>book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>>message and will answer your question.
>>
>>Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>>
>> >Eduard,
>>> Re your last submission:
>>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the
chalk-
>>face=
>>>
>>>,=20
>>>teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide
for=20
>>>Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>>book to=
>>>
>>>=20
>>>the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>>would=20=
>>>
>>>
>>>benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>>is a=20=
>>>
>>>
>>>rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing
such
>>a=20=
>>>
>>>
>>>book. Can we be so lucky?
>>> John Curran
>>>
>>>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:46:39 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
James:
Then we need to teach first graders about word sense, denotation and
connotation, reference and referent, meaning and context, etc. And
why not, right? These things are common knowledge, so why shouldn't
the first grade teachers share them with their students? Maybe a bit
of symbolic logic would help the students also to understand what a
noun is.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, James Bear wrote...
>I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and
so
>forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to
thought.
>'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>something. But the word is not the thing.
>
>My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to
make
>the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters
yet)
>that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and
quite
>possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word
like 'pencil'
>in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it
is
>a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f'
understands
>parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a
traditional
>grammar regiment.
>
>And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well,
probably
>because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches
her
>traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
out
>of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would
say
>something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>
>Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem
to
>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must
be
>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to
know
>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>> school.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>
>>
>>> Eduard,
>>> =20
>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>
>> where =
>>
>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>
>> instruction =
>>
>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts,
principles,
>>>
>> =
>>
>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>
>> grammars =
>>
>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>
>> teacher, =
>>
>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>
>> content =
>>
>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>
>> pretend =
>>
>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>
>> gratefully =
>>
>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>> =20
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>
>> Eduard =
>>
>>> C. Hanganu
>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb:
>>>
>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar
than I
>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to
the
>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to
write a
>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which
grade
>>>
>> (s)
>>
>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
adjusted
>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
elementary
>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students.
Each
>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its
own
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eduard,
>>>>
>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil.
Part of
>>>>
>>> my
>>>
>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in
which
>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>
>>> others
>>>
>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>
>>> Traditional
>>>
>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools
for
>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with
a
>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't
have
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
lot
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes
mindless
>>>>
>>> way
>>>
>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>
>>> terms,
>>>
>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>James Sebastian Bear
>Montpelier Public School
>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:52:36 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Jean:
The use of articles, whether for native students or for international
students, is a notoriously difficult problem because most students do
not understand the article role in definiteness and deixis. I would
leave such concepts for the most advanced students - probably those
who are doing majors in language and linguistics.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jean Waldman wrote...
>Eduard, I absolutely agree. A noun is a car, a doll, a pencil, a
cloud, a
>chair.
>
>But these are not names of things. Do we need to give a theoretical
>definition to first graders? If we do, we should find something
better than
>A noun is the name of a person, place or thing. The student has to
learn
>this by rote because it doesn't mean anything.
>
>
>
>First graders have perfectly good brains. If they couldn't make
>generalizations and apply them, they would not know how to speak at
all. It
>is the teachers who think the stuff they had to memorize as children
is
>simple. It is amazing how much we believe when the people around us
tell
>it, and when they give examples we make the connection, even though
it
>defies logic.
>
>
>
>A proper noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Ellen and
Barbara
>and Bob are names. When we get theoretical we can talk about naming
words,
>and talk about proper nouns, but not common nouns.
>
>
>
>Can we find a better way to talk about common nouns, one that will
not leave
>the students confused when they try to apply it in new situations?
>
>
>
>This definition leads to problems when the students are learning
more
>sophisticated uses of language. The same system that talks about
persons,
>places, and things also talks about words called articles, which are
only
>three, a, an, and the.
>
>We need to be able to deal with a class of words that tell which
car, or
>doll, or pencil we want the child to bring to us. These words can
be
>articles. They can also be possessives, or demonstratives, or each,
every,
>which, what, or any. These are the referential determiners, and
usually
>only one of these can be used before a noun. There is another group
of
>determiners, quantifying determiners, that can be used alone or with
>referential determiners to tell about the noun.
>
>
>
>I am not advocating teaching this to first grade students. It can
be very
>important for international students who ask: Sometimes you use a
or an and
>sometimes you use the, and sometimes you don't use anything at all.
How can
>we tell which one to use when?
>
>
>
>My argument is that if we don't want grammar to be confusing, we
should not
>give confusing definitions. A noun is the name of a person, place,
or
>thing. may be simple, but it does not provide clarity. In fact,
this
>definition is confusing.
>
>
>
>Maybe we could say that a noun is a word that tells something about
a
>person, place, or thing. Then later we can talk about groups and
words that
>help us find which one in the group.
>
>
>
>Maybe we can just provide examples.
>
>However, it's good to avoid giving lists of isolated words. Paul's
example
>of the use of the word chair as a verb is one example of the reason
this
>system is confusing.
>
>
>
>It would be useful to help the students learn to identify the nouns
in
>sentences, and in the process they can discover a lot about nouns.
>
>
>
>We also need to have teachers who have dealt with various relevant
theories
>so they can help lead the students to understanding, instead of
boring the
>students with rote recitations.
>
>
>
>Whatever we do, let's not leave the students thinking grammar is the
word
>that comes before drills, or that grammar doesn't make any sense
because the
>definitions are irrelevant.
>
>
>
>Jean
>
>
>
>Jean Waldman, retired lecturer
>
>University of Maryland
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:54:40 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say, yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in time and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park last night."
Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so are numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
Phil Bralich
-----Original Message-----
>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to thought.
>'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>something. But the word is not the thing.
>
>My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like 'pencil'
>in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it is
>a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
>parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a traditional
>grammar regiment.
>
>And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well, probably
>because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
>traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything out
>of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>
>Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>> school.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>
>>
>>> Eduard,
>>> =20
>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>
>> where =
>>
>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>
>> instruction =
>>
>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>>
>> =
>>
>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>
>> grammars =
>>
>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>
>> teacher, =
>>
>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>
>> content =
>>
>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>
>> pretend =
>>
>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>
>> gratefully =
>>
>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>> =20
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>
>> Eduard =
>>
>>> C. Hanganu
>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb:
>>>
>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>
>> (s)
>>
>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eduard,
>>>>
>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>>>>
>>> my
>>>
>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>
>>> others
>>>
>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>
>>> Traditional
>>>
>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>
>>> way
>>>
>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>
>>> terms,
>>>
>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>James Sebastian Bear
>Montpelier Public School
>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:08:55 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
using the word.
I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
little less.
Phil Bralich wrote:
> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say, yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in time and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park last night."
>
> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so are numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>
>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to thought.
>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>
>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like 'pencil'
>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it is
>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a traditional
>> grammar regiment.
>>
>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well, probably
>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything out
>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>
>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>> school.
>>>
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eduard,
>>>> =20
>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> where =
>>>
>>>
>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>
>>>>
>>> instruction =
>>>
>>>
>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>>
>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>
>>>>
>>> grammars =
>>>
>>>
>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>
>>>>
>>> teacher, =
>>>
>>>
>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>
>>>>
>>> content =
>>>
>>>
>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>
>>>>
>>> pretend =
>>>
>>>
>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>
>>>>
>>> gratefully =
>>>
>>>
>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>> =20
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Eduard =
>>>
>>>
>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herb:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>>
>>>>
>>> (s)
>>>
>>>
>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>>> purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Eduard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> others
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Traditional
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> terms,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>> James Sebastian Bear
>> Montpelier Public School
>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>
>> 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/
>
>
--
James Sebastian Bear
Montpelier Public School
www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:18:54 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns - and Other Grammar Terms
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
It sounds as if this thread is running out of steam, but I wanted to jump in
here with some of the difficulties I have had with my students (inner-city
high school) and their frustration (and mine) with the great "parts of
speech hunts." You all know the drill: "Find the (FILL IN PART OF SPEECH
HERE) in the following sentence (paragraph, etc)."
Here are examples I put on the board, asking students to determine the part
of speech of
"run/running" in each sentence. "I like to run." "Running is fun." "She
is running." "I bought a pair of running shoes." "He tripped on his
shoelaces while running after the dog."
Suffice it to say that the success rate is low. However, regardless of
their knowledge of "formaL grammar, every student can successfully create
sentences using exactly the form shown, even though they may have no idea
what part of speech they're using to do it.
Therefore, my question to myself, to them, and to this group is simply this
- why try to teach them parts of speech (or any other grammar term for that
matter) when learning them makes absolutely no difference in their ability
to speak, write, or even take standardized tests (where there are no grammar
questions, only usage and syntax).
Geoff Layton
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:45:20 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns - and Other Grammar Terms
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Geofrrey:
The claim that teaching students "parts of speech (or any other
grammar term for that >matter) when learning them makes absolutely
no difference in their ability >to speak, write, or even take
standardized tests (where there are no grammar >questions, only
usage and syntax)" cannot be supported empirically. I have in my
research collection more than 30 articles which show that teaching
grammar to students makes a clear difference.
As a foreigner, I can also attest to it with my personal experience.
I have learned to write well English because I studied grammar, that
is, parts of speech, parts of sentences, and all.
I have a question for you: how can you students identify the simple
subject, the simple predicate, and the objects in a sentence if they
do not know the parts of speech?
Eduard
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Geoffrey Layton wrote...
>It sounds as if this thread is running out of steam, but I wanted
to jump in
>here with some of the difficulties I have had with my students
(inner-city
>high school) and their frustration (and mine) with the great "parts
of
>speech hunts." You all know the drill: "Find the (FILL IN PART OF
SPEECH
>HERE) in the following sentence (paragraph, etc)."
>
>Here are examples I put on the board, asking students to determine
the part
>of speech of
>"run/running" in each sentence. "I like to run." "Running is
fun." "She
>is running." "I bought a pair of running shoes." "He tripped on
his
>shoelaces while running after the dog."
>
>Suffice it to say that the success rate is low. However,
regardless of
>their knowledge of "formaL grammar, every student can successfully
create
>sentences using exactly the form shown, even though they may have
no idea
>what part of speech they're using to do it.
>
>Therefore, my question to myself, to them, and to this group is
simply this
>- why try to teach them parts of speech (or any other grammar term
for that
>matter) when learning them makes absolutely no difference in their
ability
>to speak, write, or even take standardized tests (where there are
no grammar
>questions, only usage and syntax).
>
>Geoff Layton
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:06:06 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It is unquestionably real that a thing is a noun. You can no more say it is not a noun as to say it is not an entity. It is an entity it is a noun. The fact that entity and noun are more general than pencil doesn't make them false distinctions.
If it helps think of parts of speech as the species of the words. pencil, table, and chair are of the species noun. You can argue that a particular dog is not an example of the species canine only superficially. Likewise it is only superficially that you can say that a particular example of a pencil is not a noun.
Phil Bralich
-----Original Message-----
>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:08 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
>you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
>confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
>what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
>It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
>classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
>using the word.
>
>I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
>5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
>opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
>try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
>all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
>ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
>they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
>sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
>sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
>of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
>wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
>
>So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
>"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
>noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
>adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
>said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
>bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
>identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
>little less.
>
>Phil Bralich wrote:
>> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say, yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in time and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park last night."
>>
>> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so are numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>
>>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to thought.
>>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>>
>>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like 'pencil'
>>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it is
>>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
>>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a traditional
>>> grammar regiment.
>>>
>>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well, probably
>>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
>>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything out
>>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>>
>>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Herb,
>>>>
>>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
>>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>>> school.
>>>>
>>>> Eduard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>> =20
>>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> where =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> instruction =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> grammars =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> teacher, =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> content =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> pretend =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> gratefully =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Herb
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Eduard =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> (s)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> my
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> others
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Traditional
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> way
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> terms,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> James Sebastian Bear
>>> Montpelier Public School
>>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>James Sebastian Bear
>Montpelier Public School
>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:36:32 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Marshall Myers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------010109090905000309010304"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010109090905000309010304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Martha Kolln wrote:
> Dear John and Eduard and all,
>
> It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
> at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
> production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
> Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
> students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
>
> We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the way,
> includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
> minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
> phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
> form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
> students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
> minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
> with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
> essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly at
> teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
> "reading/writing connection"
> exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
> connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
>
> I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
> today's language arts classes are very different from what many of us
> remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's teachers
> rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of which we
> include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax in an
> organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to the
> teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help from
> textbooks.
>
> We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The first
> section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this fall in all
> nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well as in
> selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
> in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
> finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing and
> planning to market it ourselves.
>
> As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
> "Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence patterns.
> I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns has been
> enormously helpful for my college-level students in the teacher-prep
> grammar class. In the new book, we are including the very simplest
> diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be there for those
> teachers who want to include them.
>
> As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
> here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If we
> want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these are
> not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her books, the
> "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing workshops. Ours
> are organized in small steps, designed to fit into a classroom period,
> that scaffold on one another but that also bring to the students'
> conscious understanding step by organized step the subconscious
> knowledge that they had with them when they entered kindergarten.
> Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
>
> I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
> might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available. The
> table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a better
> idea of our program.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> John:
>>
>> I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>> Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>> designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>> say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>> book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>> message and will answer your question.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>>
>> >Eduard,
>>
>>> Re your last submission:
>>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-
>>
>> face=
>>
>>>
>>> ,=20
>>> teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
>>> Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>>
>> book to=
>>
>>>
>>> =20
>>> the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>>
>> would=20=
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>>
>> is a=20=
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
>>
>> a=20=
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> book. Can we be so lucky?
>>> John Curran
>>>
>>> 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/
Martha,
Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
Marshall
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/
--------------010109090905000309010304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">Dear John and Eduard and all,
It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English at
State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of production.
Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language Toolbox for
Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and students step
by small step through minilessons to mastery.
We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the way,
includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the minilessons
do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun phrases and
pronouns. These lessons include discussions of form--singular/plural
as well as derivational endings-- that help students unlock their own
inner grammar expertise. Next come seven minilessons on verb forms.
All of these lead to and are integrated with the next series of lessons
on ten sentence patterns, which are essentially predicate patterns.
With each lesson, directed mainly at teachers, we include several
"Unlocking" exercises and "reading/writing connection"
exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
today's language arts classes are very different from what many of us
remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's teachers rely
on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of which we
include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax in an
organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to the
teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help from
textbooks.
We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The first
section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this fall in all
nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well as in
selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing and
planning to market it ourselves.
As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence patterns. I
firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns has been
enormously helpful for my college-level students in the teacher-prep
grammar class. In the new book, we are including the very simplest
diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be there for those
teachers who want to include them.
As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If we
want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these are
not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her books, the
"teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing workshops. Ours are
organized in small steps, designed to fit into a classroom period, that
scaffold on one another but that also bring to the students' conscious
understanding step by organized step the subconscious knowledge that
they had with them when they entered kindergarten. Mastery through
minilessons is our goal.
I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available. The
table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a better
idea of our program.
Martha
John:
I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
message and will answer your question.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>Eduard,
Re your last submission:
Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-
face=
,=20
teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
book to=
=20
the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
would=20=
benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
is a=20=
rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
a=20=
book. Can we be so lucky?
John Curran
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/
Martha,
Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called Grammar
1 and Grammar 2.
Marshall
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/
--------------010109090905000309010304--
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:03:04 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I believe the (long) tradition of defining nouns as "names for things"
is at least partly based on the etymology of "noun." It basically
*means* "name."=20
The Latinate term "nominative" derives from the fact that it was not
only the case used in Latin for subjects, but also the case used if
someone asked you what the name of something was (If little Tertius
pointed at a garbanzo bean and wanted to know what to call it, the
answer would be 'cicero', not 'ciceri' or 'cicerum', etc.). The same
situation applied to Greek, from which the Romans adapted their
grammars. If I remember correctly (and that's not just a rhetorical
tag!), Aristotle divided sentences into an 'onoma' and a 'rhema', which
is frequently taken as 'subject' and 'predicate' but could also be
loosely translated as 'name' and 'thing said about the name.'
That does not, of course, mean that we should simply replicate the
definition over and over. Getting into an argument over "name-hood" or
the nature of reference has been a cottage industry among philosophers
for over two millenia, so I doubt we're going to resolve that issue.
Figuring out a better pedagogic approach to defining the grammatical
category, though, may be doable.=20
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:02:11 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1055838363==_ma============"
--============_-1055838363==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Marshall,
No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find them?
Martha
>Martha Kolln wrote:
>
>>Dear John and Eduard and all,
>>
>>It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of
>>English at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes
>>of production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the
>>Language Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes
>>teachers and students step by small step through minilessons to
>>mastery.
>>
>>We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the
>>way, includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
>>minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
>>phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
>>form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
>>students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
>>minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are
>>integrated with the next series of lessons on ten sentence
>>patterns, which are essentially predicate patterns. With each
>>lesson, directed mainly at teachers, we include several "Unlocking"
>>exercises and "reading/writing connection"
>>exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
>>connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
>>
>>I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
>>today's language arts classes are very different from what many of
>>us remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
>>teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
>>which we include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax
>>in an organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part
>>to the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant
>>help from textbooks.
>>
>>We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
>>first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this
>>fall in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as
>>well as in
>>selected classes in four other school districts, including
>>districts in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect
>>to have the finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are
>>publishing and planning to market it ourselves.
>>
>>As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
>>"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
>>patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
>>has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
>>teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including the
>>very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
>>there for those teachers who want to include them.
>>
>>As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
>>here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
>>we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
>>are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
>>books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
>>workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into
>>a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also
>>bring to the students' conscious understanding step by organized
>>step the subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they
>>entered kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
>>
>>I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you
>>who might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes
>>available. The table of contents will be ready soon; that might
>>give you a better idea of our program.
>>
>>Martha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>John:
>>>
>>>I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>>>Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>>>designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>>>say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>>>book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>>>message and will answer your question.
>>>
>>>Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>>>
>>> >Eduard,
>>>
>>>> Re your last submission:
>>>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-
>>>>
>>>face=
>>>
>>>>
>>>>,=20
>>>>teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
>>>>Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>>>>
>>>book to=
>>>
>>>>
>>>>=20
>>>>the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>>>>
>>>would=20=
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>>>>
>>>is a=20=
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
>>>>
>>>a=20=
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>book. Can we be so lucky?
>>>> John Curran
>>>>
>>>>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://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at Re: Middle School grammar book
Marshall,
No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find
them?
Martha
Martha Kolln wrote:
Dear John and Eduard and all,
It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the
Language Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers,"
takes teachers and students step by small step through minilessons to
mastery.
We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the way,
includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and
noun phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come
seven minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and
are integrated with the next series of lessons on ten sentence
patterns, which are essentially predicate patterns. With each
lesson, directed mainly at teachers, we include several
"Unlocking" exercises and "reading/writing
connection"
exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
today's language arts classes are very different from what many of us
remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
which we include), with very little, if any, attention to
syntax in an organized way. That lack of attention is due
in large part to the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and
very scant help from textbooks.
We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this fall
in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well as
in
selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to
have the finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are
publishing and planning to market it ourselves.
As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including
the very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
there for those teachers who want to include them.
As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools.
If we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me,
these are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in
her books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in
writing workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed
to fit into a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that
also bring to the students' conscious understanding step by
organized step the subconscious knowledge that they had with them when
they entered kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our
goal.
I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available. The
table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
better idea of our program.
Martha
John:
I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to
ask
Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a
book
designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure,
as you
say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of
this
book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading
this
message and will answer your question.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>Eduard,
Re your last submission:
Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the
chalk-
face=
,=20
teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide
for=20
Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt
this
book to=
=20
the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
would=20=
benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level.
There
is a=20=
rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing
such
a=20=
book. Can we be so lucky?
John Curran
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/
Martha,
Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
Marshall
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/
--============_-1055838363==_ma============--
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:41:05 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]
t>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Phil,
Perhaps things are nouns, but that doesn't mean nouns are things or
that a word that's a noun isn't also a verb or adjective. If you look
at any dictionary, the point has to come home. If I "pencil something
in," I am scheduling it tentatively. It's clearly a verb. If I put
something in a pencil box, it is telling me the purpose of the box.
Modifying.
There are many words that seem almost equally noun and verb, like
"contact" and "flow."
How about "True justice is a comforting illusion?" "A just truth is an
illusory comfort?" Where are the things in those statements?
When we take abstract entities and treat them as things, we are not
necessarily going to meet them in the world as we would, say, a pencil,
or the other examples you give.
Is attack a verb? Noun? Battle? Hope? Dream? Desire? Act?
"He quietly quieted the least quiet class, restoring the quiet." Is
quiet a condition? A thing?
There are, of course, different ways to answer these questions, but we
owe it to our students to let them experience the flexibility and
richness of language is in its full blossom.
When we nominalize, we bring something into focus, often a topical one,
and many times those are processes, not things, even in their noun
form. I can mistake a mistake, act an act, give an apology, or simply
apologize. If these are things, then they are not things in the same
way a pencil is a thing.
Craig
>
It is unquestionably real that a thing is a noun. You can no more say it
> is not a noun as to say it is not an entity. It is an entity it is a
> noun. The fact that entity and noun are more general than pencil doesn't
> make them false distinctions.
>
> If it helps think of parts of speech as the species of the words. pencil,
> table, and chair are of the species noun. You can argue that a particular
> dog is not an example of the species canine only superficially. Likewise
> it is only superficially that you can say that a particular example of a
> pencil is not a noun.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:08 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>
>>Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
>>you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
>>confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
>>what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
>>It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
>>classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
>>using the word.
>>
>>I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
>>5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
>>opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
>>try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
>>all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
>>ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
>>they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
>>sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
>>sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
>>of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
>>wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
>>
>>So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
>>"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
>>noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
>>adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
>>said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
>>bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
>>identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
>>little less.
>>
>>Phil Bralich wrote:
>>> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity
>>> independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can
>>> classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate
>>> this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which
>>> exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of
>>> the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say,
>>> yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in time
>>> and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park
>>> last night."
>>>
>>> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so are
>>> numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else
>>> that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the
>>> difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We
>>> EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>>>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>>>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>>>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>>>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>>>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to
>>>> thought.
>>>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>>>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>>>
>>>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>>>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>>>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>>>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>>>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>>>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like
>>>> 'pencil'
>>>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it
>>>> is
>>>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>>>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
>>>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a
>>>> traditional
>>>> grammar regiment.
>>>>
>>>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well,
>>>> probably
>>>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
>>>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
>>>> out
>>>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>>>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>>>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>>>
>>>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
>>>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>>>> school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> where =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> instruction =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> grammars =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> teacher, =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> content =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> pretend =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> gratefully =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Eduard =
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>>>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>>>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> (s)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
>>>>>> elementary
>>>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> others
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Traditional
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> way
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> James Sebastian Bear
>>>> Montpelier Public School
>>>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>James Sebastian Bear
>>Montpelier Public School
>>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>
>>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:29:38 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Trudy Grisham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grade six teacher responds to tching grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
It is with great trepidation that I leave my lurkdom and presume to
post to this group, but you asked for a little input from elementary
teachers and I have a little experience.
I have taught what I considered traditional grammar to sixth graders
for the past fifteen years. Yes, it's confusing for them; and, at
times, me. However, without giving students the vocabulary of grammar,
I have felt that we could not discuss their errors in their writing.
For the most part, the students have come to me thinking that they know
nouns and verbs. And they've heard of adjectives and adverbs. Forget
about the other parts of speech and the parts of a sentence. The
students haven't even heard of phrases or clauses. I consider them a
clean slate when it comes to any knowledge of grammar.
With some, I am successful. With others, well, let's just say that
they need more time to absorb the information.
As an excuse I offer up the fact that when queried, their earlier
teachers had NO formal training in grammar themselves. I'm old enough
to have had grammar training in my jr high and high school experiences.
Trudy
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity
independent
of the meanings of independent words which is why we can classify them
the way
we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate this. A noun is merely
another
word for an entity, something which exists in time and space. At this
point the
wiseacre in the back of the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he,
he he."
And you say, yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an
entity in
time and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the
park last
night."
Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so
are numbers
and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else that is
being
presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the difficult task of
teaching
just because children are confused. We EXPECT them to be confused and
then we
teach a little bit more.
Phil Bralich
-----Original Message-----
>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to
thought.
>'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>something. But the word is not the thing.
>
>My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like
'pencil'
>in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it
is
>a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f'
understands
>parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a
traditional
>grammar regiment.
>
>And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well,
probably
>because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches
her
>traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
out
>of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>
>Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to
know
>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>> school.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>
>>
>>> Eduard,
>>> =20
>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>
>> where =
>>
>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>
>> instruction =
>>
>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts,
principles,
>>>
>> =
>>
>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>
>> grammars =
>>
>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>
>> teacher, =
>>
>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>
>> content =
>>
>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>
>> pretend =
>>
>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>
>> gratefully =
>>
>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>> =20
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>
>> Eduard =
>>
>>> C. Hanganu
>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb:
>>>
>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than
I
>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to
the
>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to
write a
>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>
>> (s)
>>
>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
adjusted
>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
elementary
>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eduard,
>>>>
>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part
of
>>>>
>>> my
>>>
>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in
which
>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>
>>> others
>>>
>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>
>>> Traditional
>>>
>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools
for
>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
lot
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>
>>> way
>>>
>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>
>>> terms,
>>>
>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>James Sebastian Bear
>Montpelier Public School
>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>
>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/
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:14:29 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional nouns
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Supposedly, my list access has been restored. Another test ...
Let's get crazy ...
Phil defines a noun as an entity; but what is an entity? Cognitive
Grammar defines a noun as "a bounded region in some domain". By this is
meant something which is "marked off" from other things -- that is,
differentiated from other things. Also, a noun does not track the
evolution of some situation through time, which is what verbs do (hence
the frequent term "process" for verb).
This is, of course, a very vague definition, as it has to be if it is
to cover all nouns' meanings. There is also more to the Cog. Gr.
definition, defining prototypical nouns, but I won't go into that
unless someone asks me.
We also need to consider WHY languages have nouns. And why do we make
some verbs into nouns, like "flash" and "fight"? Why do we create
gerunds and noun clauses? Some linguists believe that part-of-speech
categories emerge out of discourse needs. We need nouns because we want
to talk ABOUT things. We need nouns (and other nominals) as "hooks" to
hang predicates on. We need nouns in order to direct our listener's or
reader's conscious attention to something we want to talk about (in
other words, to refer). We need nouns in order to have topics to which
we can add ever more information in a text.
As someone else pointed out, a noun names a category, not a single,
actual thing. A conceptual category, at that. This is evidenced in
English by the fact that we usually cannot use a noun (especially a
count noun) alone to talk about something. I can't say "cat is sick". I
have to point my listener to which cat I mean -- "My mother's tabby cat
is sick." Even for generic or category reference, we have to use either
"a" or a plural: "A cat is a selfish animal." "Cats are millstones." (A
famous linguist had a cat named Millstone; my favorite cat name --
though I do love cats!) Mass nouns can be used alone in the generic
sense because they already name an unindividuated type: "Sand is
gritty." "Grammar is hard." Not all languages work this way, of course.
In teaching nouns, I believe children as young as six can use the
"the", "a", and "my" tests. Since young children's literature and lives
have a lot to do with concrete things that are prototypically named by
nouns, I have no trouble with starting out with a combination of the
functional "the" test and a notional definition; but the notional
definition has to be extended fairly rapidly to include abstract
things. Again, you start with stuff that kids are familiar: a task, an
idea, a joke, a problem.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:12:31 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Nancy Tuten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
With college students, I start out the very first day of my "advanced"
grammar class (largely English majors, but at square one in terms of
grammar) by writing the word "fish" on the board and asking the students
what part of speech that word represents. Once we have made the point that
it can, in fact, be a noun, a verb, or an adjective, we then agree that we
are more concerned with how a word functions than with labeling it one part
of speech or another for all situations.
The second point I make on the first day is that studying language is not
like studying chemistry. Language is fluid, changing according to the needs
of the speakers, etc. I pick out one or two examples of usage changes
through the centuries to drive home the point that "correctness" is a
societal construct. Wearing certain kinds of clothes in order to look
professional is also a societal construct; that fact doesn't diminish the
importance of knowing the "rules" by which one is going to be judged--fairly
or not.
It seems to me that both these points drive home the need to understand how
language functions *in general*, acknowledging, of course, that what makes
this study so fascinating is that sometimes a particular phrase, clause, or
sentence simply won't play by the so-called "rules." I tell them that there
will be times when we may disagree about how a word, phrase, or clause is
functioning in a sentence, but that's OK as long as they can defend their
view in a way that proves they understand basic patterns of thought and
methods of constructing meaning. And then we're off to study Martha's
sentence patterns.
By the way, we always tie those insights to a discussion about writing well:
which construction is more clear/less ambiguous? How could the writer's
intention be skewed by choosing one construction over another? Etc. To
understand basic sentence patterns is to understand basic THINKING patterns,
and better thinkers are better writers.
I have children ages 9 and 13, so I have thought a lot over the last decade
about how early children can understand the notion that while we have
categories and labels, they don't always work neatly. I am convinced that
pretty young children can grasp this idea. I could go into my younger
daughter's class of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade kids (a Montessori mixed-grade
class, and they have already learned "parts of speech," including verbals),
do the "fish" exercise mentioned above, and make the point that
understanding how language works (that is, how it makes meaning) means
understanding how words function *in relationship with one another in a
sentence* and not in isolation.
They can do this, of course, because in their early elementary class (grades
1-3), they were taught the parts of speech. We all know that the parts of
speech are limited (didn't the structuralists and the deconstructionists
teach us that ALL our attempts to name our experiences and our world fail
miserably?), but they provide us with a common vocabulary with which to move
on to the next level of the discussion: the "fish" exercise.
My advanced grammar class for English majors starts in a week. Many of them
are going to be language arts teachers. The ones who will struggle the most
are those who do not understand the basic concepts. How can we move to the
more sophisticated view (which, as I have argued above, they should also
have already been exposed to) if they haven't been taught the basics?
Preaching to the choir, I know--but thanks for letting me vent!
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Notional nouns
Supposedly, my list access has been restored. Another test ...
Let's get crazy ...
Phil defines a noun as an entity; but what is an entity? Cognitive
Grammar defines a noun as "a bounded region in some domain". By this is
meant something which is "marked off" from other things -- that is,
differentiated from other things. Also, a noun does not track the
evolution of some situation through time, which is what verbs do (hence
the frequent term "process" for verb).
This is, of course, a very vague definition, as it has to be if it is
to cover all nouns' meanings. There is also more to the Cog. Gr.
definition, defining prototypical nouns, but I won't go into that
unless someone asks me.
We also need to consider WHY languages have nouns. And why do we make
some verbs into nouns, like "flash" and "fight"? Why do we create
gerunds and noun clauses? Some linguists believe that part-of-speech
categories emerge out of discourse needs. We need nouns because we want
to talk ABOUT things. We need nouns (and other nominals) as "hooks" to
hang predicates on. We need nouns in order to direct our listener's or
reader's conscious attention to something we want to talk about (in
other words, to refer). We need nouns in order to have topics to which
we can add ever more information in a text.
As someone else pointed out, a noun names a category, not a single,
actual thing. A conceptual category, at that. This is evidenced in
English by the fact that we usually cannot use a noun (especially a
count noun) alone to talk about something. I can't say "cat is sick". I
have to point my listener to which cat I mean -- "My mother's tabby cat
is sick." Even for generic or category reference, we have to use either
"a" or a plural: "A cat is a selfish animal." "Cats are millstones." (A
famous linguist had a cat named Millstone; my favorite cat name --
though I do love cats!) Mass nouns can be used alone in the generic
sense because they already name an unindividuated type: "Sand is
gritty." "Grammar is hard." Not all languages work this way, of course.
In teaching nouns, I believe children as young as six can use the
"the", "a", and "my" tests. Since young children's literature and lives
have a lot to do with concrete things that are prototypically named by
nouns, I have no trouble with starting out with a combination of the
functional "the" test and a notional definition; but the notional
definition has to be extended fairly rapidly to include abstract
things. Again, you start with stuff that kids are familiar: a task, an
idea, a joke, a problem.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:32:56 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional nouns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Johanna,
This is a very rich and interesting post, and it leads me to ask
whether we should follow this direction out in order to make our
grammar much more interesting and useful than the old approaches. Let's
face it, the old "person, place, and thing" definition is both BORING
and LIMITED, and it does not translate well to actual practice. I have
seen "exercises" that seem like nothing more than make-work activities,
picking nouns out from a graph with scrambled up letters, and so on. I
don't think replacing limited notional definitions with "a noun is a
word you can put "the" in front of" is very helpful, even in
combination. We can, of course, put "the" in front of "flash" and
"fight", your two noun/verb examples. We can house the paint and paint
the house. We can murder the lecture and lecture about the murder. We
can fence our troubles and trouble our fences. I can debate the battle
and battle the debate. If the next generation needs to be protected
from this sort of confusion, then we are all in trouble. >
For someone politically conservative, perhaps it would help to point
out that a word like "democracy" is only meaningful within the "frame"
of government and politics (and social organization.) It may take
considerable time to help students "differentiate" this term (concept)
from other possibilities. It is not simply a thing in a world of
things, but a rich and complex concept, vital to our communal
experience and interests as a people. If students are studying these
rich and challenging questions in history and social science, but come
to English class and learn that nouns are things like "button" or
"toad", it's no wonder people believe language study is unimportant.
One reason why people have trouble adjusting to texts in a highly
technical register (we seem to lag much of the world these days in
getting students prepared) is the high level of nominalization in those
texts. Writing is not simply speech put into a constrained (correct)
form, but a way of accomplishing tasks that don't and can't happen
without writing as a medium for interaction and thought. Most of the
evidence seems to be that technical texts make very specialized kinds
of demands on language. To the extent that we can make those explicit,
we can perhaps do a better job of understanding why so many people
have trouble adjusting.
When I am able to say things to my grammar class like "restrictive
postnominal modifiers don't create an additional intonation group", I
sometimes stop long enough to discuss how those kinds of shared
understandings are built into a shared language. We can create
enormously complex structures in order to bring a complex understanding
into focus--in a technical community, this is usually a shared
understanding. So I can say "the additional intonation group created by
a nonrestrictive postnominal modifier..." and simply use that as the
subject of the sentence. As you say well, we do so (nominalize) in
order to carry forward the work of the discourse. One reason our
students' writing does not work well is that it often fails to build
this sort of understanding, but simply says a number of independent
things about a topic.
I don't know if the rest of the list is willing or able to try to
create a scope and sequence that replaces the old simplicities with a
view of language that's more challenging, but more interesting and true
and useful, but to me, it's the only way to go. We have the old
handbooks if someone wants to continue to use them or to dust them off.
I don't think it helps the project for people to claim that there is
nothing new to say or do about grammar when the project itself is, and
has always been, an attempt to create something new.
To me, the prime question is whether ATEG as a group wants to move
forward along those lines. If all we want to do is endorse existing
grammars, we can do so with a simple statement.
Craig
Supposedly, my list access has been restored. Another test ...
>
> Let's get crazy ...
>
> Phil defines a noun as an entity; but what is an entity? Cognitive
> Grammar defines a noun as "a bounded region in some domain". By this is
> meant something which is "marked off" from other things -- that is,
> differentiated from other things. Also, a noun does not track the
> evolution of some situation through time, which is what verbs do (hence
> the frequent term "process" for verb).
>
> This is, of course, a very vague definition, as it has to be if it is
> to cover all nouns' meanings. There is also more to the Cog. Gr.
> definition, defining prototypical nouns, but I won't go into that
> unless someone asks me.
>
> We also need to consider WHY languages have nouns. And why do we make
> some verbs into nouns, like "flash" and "fight"? Why do we create
> gerunds and noun clauses? Some linguists believe that part-of-speech
> categories emerge out of discourse needs. We need nouns because we want
> to talk ABOUT things. We need nouns (and other nominals) as "hooks" to
> hang predicates on. We need nouns in order to direct our listener's or
> reader's conscious attention to something we want to talk about (in
> other words, to refer). We need nouns in order to have topics to which
> we can add ever more information in a text.
>
> As someone else pointed out, a noun names a category, not a single,
> actual thing. A conceptual category, at that. This is evidenced in
> English by the fact that we usually cannot use a noun (especially a
> count noun) alone to talk about something. I can't say "cat is sick". I
> have to point my listener to which cat I mean -- "My mother's tabby cat
> is sick." Even for generic or category reference, we have to use either
> "a" or a plural: "A cat is a selfish animal." "Cats are millstones." (A
> famous linguist had a cat named Millstone; my favorite cat name --
> though I do love cats!) Mass nouns can be used alone in the generic
> sense because they already name an unindividuated type: "Sand is
> gritty." "Grammar is hard." Not all languages work this way, of course.
>
> In teaching nouns, I believe children as young as six can use the
> "the", "a", and "my" tests. Since young children's literature and lives
> have a lot to do with concrete things that are prototypically named by
> nouns, I have no trouble with starting out with a combination of the
> functional "the" test and a notional definition; but the notional
> definition has to be extended fairly rapidly to include abstract
> things. Again, you start with stuff that kids are familiar: a task, an
> idea, a joke, a problem.
>
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel.: 805.756.2184
> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:50:13 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Christine Gray <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: [log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nancy, thank you for mentioning what you do on your first day. Instead of
the word "fish," I use the word "light," but the message is the same.
I am curious as to what others do in the first day of the term.
Would others comment please?
Christine Gray
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Tuten
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
With college students, I start out the very first day of my "advanced"
grammar class (largely English majors, but at square one in terms of
grammar) by writing the word "fish" on the board and asking the students
what part of speech that word represents. Once we have made the point that
it can, in fact, be a noun, a verb, or an adjective, we then agree that we
are more concerned with how a word functions than with labeling it one part
of speech or another for all situations.
The second point I make on the first day is that studying language is not
like studying chemistry. Language is fluid, changing according to the needs
of the speakers, etc. I pick out one or two examples of usage changes
through the centuries to drive home the point that "correctness" is a
societal construct. Wearing certain kinds of clothes in order to look
professional is also a societal construct; that fact doesn't diminish the
importance of knowing the "rules" by which one is going to be judged--fairly
or not.
It seems to me that both these points drive home the need to understand how
language functions *in general*, acknowledging, of course, that what makes
this study so fascinating is that sometimes a particular phrase, clause, or
sentence simply won't play by the so-called "rules." I tell them that there
will be times when we may disagree about how a word, phrase, or clause is
functioning in a sentence, but that's OK as long as they can defend their
view in a way that proves they understand basic patterns of thought and
methods of constructing meaning. And then we're off to study Martha's
sentence patterns.
By the way, we always tie those insights to a discussion about writing well:
which construction is more clear/less ambiguous? How could the writer's
intention be skewed by choosing one construction over another? Etc. To
understand basic sentence patterns is to understand basic THINKING patterns,
and better thinkers are better writers.
I have children ages 9 and 13, so I have thought a lot over the last decade
about how early children can understand the notion that while we have
categories and labels, they don't always work neatly. I am convinced that
pretty young children can grasp this idea. I could go into my younger
daughter's class of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade kids (a Montessori mixed-grade
class, and they have already learned "parts of speech," including verbals),
do the "fish" exercise mentioned above, and make the point that
understanding how language works (that is, how it makes meaning) means
understanding how words function *in relationship with one another in a
sentence* and not in isolation.
They can do this, of course, because in their early elementary class (grades
1-3), they were taught the parts of speech. We all know that the parts of
speech are limited (didn't the structuralists and the deconstructionists
teach us that ALL our attempts to name our experiences and our world fail
miserably?), but they provide us with a common vocabulary with which to move
on to the next level of the discussion: the "fish" exercise.
My advanced grammar class for English majors starts in a week. Many of them
are going to be language arts teachers. The ones who will struggle the most
are those who do not understand the basic concepts. How can we move to the
more sophisticated view (which, as I have argued above, they should also
have already been exposed to) if they haven't been taught the basics?
Preaching to the choir, I know--but thanks for letting me vent!
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Notional nouns
Supposedly, my list access has been restored. Another test ...
Let's get crazy ...
Phil defines a noun as an entity; but what is an entity? Cognitive
Grammar defines a noun as "a bounded region in some domain". By this is
meant something which is "marked off" from other things -- that is,
differentiated from other things. Also, a noun does not track the
evolution of some situation through time, which is what verbs do (hence
the frequent term "process" for verb).
This is, of course, a very vague definition, as it has to be if it is
to cover all nouns' meanings. There is also more to the Cog. Gr.
definition, defining prototypical nouns, but I won't go into that
unless someone asks me.
We also need to consider WHY languages have nouns. And why do we make
some verbs into nouns, like "flash" and "fight"? Why do we create
gerunds and noun clauses? Some linguists believe that part-of-speech
categories emerge out of discourse needs. We need nouns because we want
to talk ABOUT things. We need nouns (and other nominals) as "hooks" to
hang predicates on. We need nouns in order to direct our listener's or
reader's conscious attention to something we want to talk about (in
other words, to refer). We need nouns in order to have topics to which
we can add ever more information in a text.
As someone else pointed out, a noun names a category, not a single,
actual thing. A conceptual category, at that. This is evidenced in
English by the fact that we usually cannot use a noun (especially a
count noun) alone to talk about something. I can't say "cat is sick". I
have to point my listener to which cat I mean -- "My mother's tabby cat
is sick." Even for generic or category reference, we have to use either
"a" or a plural: "A cat is a selfish animal." "Cats are millstones." (A
famous linguist had a cat named Millstone; my favorite cat name --
though I do love cats!) Mass nouns can be used alone in the generic
sense because they already name an unindividuated type: "Sand is
gritty." "Grammar is hard." Not all languages work this way, of course.
In teaching nouns, I believe children as young as six can use the
"the", "a", and "my" tests. Since young children's literature and lives
have a lot to do with concrete things that are prototypically named by
nouns, I have no trouble with starting out with a combination of the
functional "the" test and a notional definition; but the notional
definition has to be extended fairly rapidly to include abstract
things. Again, you start with stuff that kids are familiar: a task, an
idea, a joke, a problem.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:51:33 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It simply doesn't matter that a word can be used as two parts of speech. There is absolutely no requirement that it not do so and no problem inherent in it. When the sequence of five sounds or letters "pencil" is used as an entity, it is a noun, when it is used as a process (as a cute way of saying "write") it is a verb. The choice of the five sounds or letters in "pencil" versus the sounds in "write" is immaterial. One could choose either "write" or "pencil" or any combination that was socially "agreed upon." Some string of string of sounds or letters does not have to remain one and only part of speech in eternity.
Secondly things are nouns but nouns are not things in the same way that dogs are not pure ecxamples of canines. There is no example of a canine (e.g. something that is canine alone without also being of one of the genii of canine) though there are genii of canine but there are examples of dogs. Noun is at the level of the species. Nounness is an abstract quality inherent (yes physically present like canineness) in all entities. The same for verbs, adjectives, and so on. When pencil is used as a verb it is a verb, no problem whatsoever.
Phil Bralich
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 4:41 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>Phil,
> Perhaps things are nouns, but that doesn't mean nouns are things or
>that a word that's a noun isn't also a verb or adjective. If you look
>at any dictionary, the point has to come home. If I "pencil something
>in," I am scheduling it tentatively. It's clearly a verb. If I put
>something in a pencil box, it is telling me the purpose of the box.
>Modifying.
> There are many words that seem almost equally noun and verb, like
>"contact" and "flow."
> How about "True justice is a comforting illusion?" "A just truth is an
>illusory comfort?" Where are the things in those statements?
> When we take abstract entities and treat them as things, we are not
>necessarily going to meet them in the world as we would, say, a pencil,
>or the other examples you give.
> Is attack a verb? Noun? Battle? Hope? Dream? Desire? Act?
> "He quietly quieted the least quiet class, restoring the quiet." Is
>quiet a condition? A thing?
> There are, of course, different ways to answer these questions, but we
>owe it to our students to let them experience the flexibility and
>richness of language is in its full blossom.
> When we nominalize, we bring something into focus, often a topical one,
>and many times those are processes, not things, even in their noun
>form. I can mistake a mistake, act an act, give an apology, or simply
>apologize. If these are things, then they are not things in the same
>way a pencil is a thing.
>
>Craig
> >
>
>
>It is unquestionably real that a thing is a noun. You can no more say it
>> is not a noun as to say it is not an entity. It is an entity it is a
>> noun. The fact that entity and noun are more general than pencil doesn't
>> make them false distinctions.
>>
>> If it helps think of parts of speech as the species of the words. pencil,
>> table, and chair are of the species noun. You can argue that a particular
>> dog is not an example of the species canine only superficially. Likewise
>> it is only superficially that you can say that a particular example of a
>> pencil is not a noun.
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:08 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>
>>>Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
>>>you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
>>>confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
>>>what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
>>>It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
>>>classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
>>>using the word.
>>>
>>>I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
>>>5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
>>>opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
>>>try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
>>>all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
>>>ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
>>>they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
>>>sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
>>>sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
>>>of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
>>>wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
>>>
>>>So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
>>>"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
>>>noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
>>>adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
>>>said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
>>>bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
>>>identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
>>>little less.
>>>
>>>Phil Bralich wrote:
>>>> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity
>>>> independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can
>>>> classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate
>>>> this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which
>>>> exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of
>>>> the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say,
>>>> yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in time
>>>> and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park
>>>> last night."
>>>>
>>>> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so are
>>>> numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else
>>>> that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the
>>>> difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We
>>>> EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>>>>
>>>> Phil Bralich
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>
>>>>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>>>>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>>>>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>>>>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>>>>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>>>>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to
>>>>> thought.
>>>>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>>>>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>>>>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>>>>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>>>>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>>>>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>>>>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like
>>>>> 'pencil'
>>>>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it
>>>>> is
>>>>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>>>>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
>>>>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a
>>>>> traditional
>>>>> grammar regiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well,
>>>>> probably
>>>>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
>>>>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
>>>>> out
>>>>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>>>>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>>>>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>>>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>>>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>>>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>>>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>>>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
>>>>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>>>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>>>>> school.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> where =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> instruction =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> grammars =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> teacher, =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> content =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> pretend =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> gratefully =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>>>>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>>>>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (s)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
>>>>>>> elementary
>>>>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>>>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>>>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Traditional
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>>>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> James Sebastian Bear
>>>>> Montpelier Public School
>>>>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>James Sebastian Bear
>>>Montpelier Public School
>>>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>>
>>>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:08:52 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]
.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Phil,
I have no problem with the notion that noun is more general than
"thing". And I could also accept the notion that nounness is an
abstract quality inherent in all entities. This is, of course, a long
way away from the person, place, and thing definition we are trying to
replace. Does that mean that nominalization makes something an entity?
When I talk, for example, about "the intonation group not formed by
restrictive postnominal modifiers," am I in fact recognizing an entity
that could be there, but is not? If we decided to give that missing
entity a name, would we be creating language? Is it just the noun, or
the whole noun phrase, that designates an entity? What do we do with
clauses that act in noun roles? Are they entities as well? I think we
would both say "yes" to all, but that means we understand the range of
the concept by thinking of all that it applies to.
Where we differ, I think, might be in the way we allow that culture has
a role in the creation of these entities. "Democracy", for example,
would not be in the world without people and is capable of disappearing
from our cultural life if we are not careful. It probably means
different things to different people, and what it means is something
worth caring deeply about. It's an "entity" that language supports and
sustains. I don't think my children will be honest if I don't use the
word "honest" with them and try to shape their understanding of it over
time. It is not a simple entity at all, and I have to admit that my own
understanding of it is subject to change.
I remember laughing at an HBO sitcom when two "survivors" came to the
same dinner party--one from the holocaust, the other from the TV show
"Survivor"--and argued about who had suffered the most. The end result,
of course, is that the TV show "survivor" was comically vain and
trivial. The holocaust survivor was deeply frustrated that his frame of
reference was not at all understood. He didn't have the words for it.
Certainly the concept "survivor" was culturally changed by the
holocaust, and that cultural understanding is endangered when the
cultural references are lost (no longer shared).
I think we have much to gain by recognizing that language is not just a
neutral conveyor of meaning. Nouns don't just name things that are
clearly concrete and there is nothing like a simple one to one
relationship between words and "things". Even a word like
"traditional" in a frame like "grammar" is proving so hard to pin down.
We have to decide what we mean by it before we can take a position.
When we do, we may be creating/recognizing an entity that wouldn't
exist any other way. And that entity will exist within our shared
understanding. We may need to promote it before it can move out into
the wider world.
Craig
It simply doesn't matter that a word can be used as two parts of speech.
> There is absolutely no requirement that it not do so and no problem
> inherent in it. When the sequence of five sounds or letters "pencil" is
> used as an entity, it is a noun, when it is used as a process (as a cute
> way of saying "write") it is a verb. The choice of the five sounds or
> letters in "pencil" versus the sounds in "write" is immaterial. One could
> choose either "write" or "pencil" or any combination that was socially
> "agreed upon." Some string of string of sounds or letters does not have
> to remain one and only part of speech in eternity.
>
> Secondly things are nouns but nouns are not things in the same way that
> dogs are not pure ecxamples of canines. There is no example of a canine
> (e.g. something that is canine alone without also being of one of the
> genii of canine) though there are genii of canine but there are examples
> of dogs. Noun is at the level of the species. Nounness is an abstract
> quality inherent (yes physically present like canineness) in all entities.
> The same for verbs, adjectives, and so on. When pencil is used as a verb
> it is a verb, no problem whatsoever.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 4:41 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>
>>Phil,
>> Perhaps things are nouns, but that doesn't mean nouns are things or
>>that a word that's a noun isn't also a verb or adjective. If you look
>>at any dictionary, the point has to come home. If I "pencil something
>>in," I am scheduling it tentatively. It's clearly a verb. If I put
>>something in a pencil box, it is telling me the purpose of the box.
>>Modifying.
>> There are many words that seem almost equally noun and verb, like
>>"contact" and "flow."
>> How about "True justice is a comforting illusion?" "A just truth is an
>>illusory comfort?" Where are the things in those statements?
>> When we take abstract entities and treat them as things, we are not
>>necessarily going to meet them in the world as we would, say, a pencil,
>>or the other examples you give.
>> Is attack a verb? Noun? Battle? Hope? Dream? Desire? Act?
>> "He quietly quieted the least quiet class, restoring the quiet." Is
>>quiet a condition? A thing?
>> There are, of course, different ways to answer these questions, but we
>>owe it to our students to let them experience the flexibility and
>>richness of language is in its full blossom.
>> When we nominalize, we bring something into focus, often a topical
>> one,
>>and many times those are processes, not things, even in their noun
>>form. I can mistake a mistake, act an act, give an apology, or simply
>>apologize. If these are things, then they are not things in the same
>>way a pencil is a thing.
>>
>>Craig
>> >
>>
>>
>>It is unquestionably real that a thing is a noun. You can no more say it
>>> is not a noun as to say it is not an entity. It is an entity it is a
>>> noun. The fact that entity and noun are more general than pencil
>>> doesn't
>>> make them false distinctions.
>>>
>>> If it helps think of parts of speech as the species of the words.
>>> pencil,
>>> table, and chair are of the species noun. You can argue that a
>>> particular
>>> dog is not an example of the species canine only superficially.
>>> Likewise
>>> it is only superficially that you can say that a particular example of
>>> a
>>> pencil is not a noun.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:08 AM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
>>>>you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
>>>>confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
>>>>what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
>>>>It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
>>>>classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
>>>>using the word.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
>>>>5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
>>>>opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
>>>>try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
>>>>all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
>>>>ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
>>>>they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
>>>>sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
>>>>sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
>>>>of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
>>>>wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
>>>>"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
>>>>noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
>>>>adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
>>>>said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
>>>>bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
>>>>identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
>>>>little less.
>>>>
>>>>Phil Bralich wrote:
>>>>> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity
>>>>> independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can
>>>>> classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate
>>>>> this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which
>>>>> exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of
>>>>> the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say,
>>>>> yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in
>>>>> time
>>>>> and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park
>>>>> last night."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so
>>>>> are
>>>>> numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else
>>>>> that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the
>>>>> difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We
>>>>> EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Bralich
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>>>>>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>>>>>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>>>>>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>>>>>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to
>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>>>>>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>>>>>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters
>>>>>> yet)
>>>>>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>>>>>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like
>>>>>> 'pencil'
>>>>>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>>>>>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f'
>>>>>> understands
>>>>>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a
>>>>>> traditional
>>>>>> grammar regiment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well,
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches
>>>>>> her
>>>>>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>>>>>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>>>>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>>>>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>>>>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>>>>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>>>>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>>>>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>>>>>> school.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instruction =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts,
>>>>>>>> principles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grammars =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> teacher, =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> content =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pretend =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gratefully =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Herb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to
>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>>>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which
>>>>>>>> grade
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (s)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>>>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
>>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
>>>>>>>> elementary
>>>>>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students.
>>>>>>>> Each
>>>>>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Traditional
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes
>>>>>>>>> mindless
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Sebastian Bear
>>>>>> Montpelier Public School
>>>>>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>James Sebastian Bear
>>>>Montpelier Public School
>>>>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>>>
>>>>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:10:55 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Moving forward (was: Notional nouns)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1679857957-1156353055=:34412"
--0-1679857957-1156353055=:34412
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Craig,
Count my vote for something new, honest, meaningful, and useful.
Paul
----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:32:56 AM
Subject: Re: Notional nouns
Johanna,
This is a very rich and interesting post, and it leads me to ask
whether we should follow this direction out in order to make our
grammar much more interesting and useful than the old approaches. Let's
face it, the old "person, place, and thing" definition is both BORING
and LIMITED, and it does not translate well to actual practice. I have
seen "exercises" that seem like nothing more than make-work activities,
picking nouns out from a graph with scrambled up letters, and so on. I
don't think replacing limited notional definitions with "a noun is a
word you can put "the" in front of" is very helpful, even in
combination. We can, of course, put "the" in front of "flash" and
"fight", your two noun/verb examples. We can house the paint and paint
the house. We can murder the lecture and lecture about the murder. We
can fence our troubles and trouble our fences. I can debate the battle
and battle the debate. If the next generation needs to be protected
from this sort of confusion, then we are all in trouble. >
For someone politically conservative, perhaps it would help to point
out that a word like "democracy" is only meaningful within the "frame"
of government and politics (and social organization.) It may take
considerable time to help students "differentiate" this term (concept)
from other possibilities. It is not simply a thing in a world of
things, but a rich and complex concept, vital to our communal
experience and interests as a people. If students are studying these
rich and challenging questions in history and social science, but come
to English class and learn that nouns are things like "button" or
"toad", it's no wonder people believe language study is unimportant.
One reason why people have trouble adjusting to texts in a highly
technical register (we seem to lag much of the world these days in
getting students prepared) is the high level of nominalization in those
texts. Writing is not simply speech put into a constrained (correct)
form, but a way of accomplishing tasks that don't and can't happen
without writing as a medium for interaction and thought. Most of the
evidence seems to be that technical texts make very specialized kinds
of demands on language. To the extent that we can make those explicit,
we can perhaps do a better job of understanding why so many people
have trouble adjusting.
When I am able to say things to my grammar class like "restrictive
postnominal modifiers don't create an additional intonation group", I
sometimes stop long enough to discuss how those kinds of shared
understandings are built into a shared language. We can create
enormously complex structures in order to bring a complex understanding
into focus--in a technical community, this is usually a shared
understanding. So I can say "the additional intonation group created by
a nonrestrictive postnominal modifier..." and simply use that as the
subject of the sentence. As you say well, we do so (nominalize) in
order to carry forward the work of the discourse. One reason our
students' writing does not work well is that it often fails to build
this sort of understanding, but simply says a number of independent
things about a topic.
I don't know if the rest of the list is willing or able to try to
create a scope and sequence that replaces the old simplicities with a
view of language that's more challenging, but more interesting and true
and useful, but to me, it's the only way to go. We have the old
handbooks if someone wants to continue to use them or to dust them off.
I don't think it helps the project for people to claim that there is
nothing new to say or do about grammar when the project itself is, and
has always been, an attempt to create something new.
To me, the prime question is whether ATEG as a group wants to move
forward along those lines. If all we want to do is endorse existing
grammars, we can do so with a simple statement.
Craig
Supposedly, my list access has been restored. Another test ...
>
> Let's get crazy ...
>
> Phil defines a noun as an entity; but what is an entity? Cognitive
> Grammar defines a noun as "a bounded region in some domain". By this is
> meant something which is "marked off" from other things -- that is,
> differentiated from other things. Also, a noun does not track the
> evolution of some situation through time, which is what verbs do (hence
> the frequent term "process" for verb).
>
> This is, of course, a very vague definition, as it has to be if it is
> to cover all nouns' meanings. There is also more to the Cog. Gr.
> definition, defining prototypical nouns, but I won't go into that
> unless someone asks me.
>
> We also need to consider WHY languages have nouns. And why do we make
> some verbs into nouns, like "flash" and "fight"? Why do we create
> gerunds and noun clauses? Some linguists believe that part-of-speech
> categories emerge out of discourse needs. We need nouns because we want
> to talk ABOUT things. We need nouns (and other nominals) as "hooks" to
> hang predicates on. We need nouns in order to direct our listener's or
> reader's conscious attention to something we want to talk about (in
> other words, to refer). We need nouns in order to have topics to which
> we can add ever more information in a text.
>
> As someone else pointed out, a noun names a category, not a single,
> actual thing. A conceptual category, at that. This is evidenced in
> English by the fact that we usually cannot use a noun (especially a
> count noun) alone to talk about something. I can't say "cat is sick". I
> have to point my listener to which cat I mean -- "My mother's tabby cat
> is sick." Even for generic or category reference, we have to use either
> "a" or a plural: "A cat is a selfish animal." "Cats are millstones." (A
> famous linguist had a cat named Millstone; my favorite cat name --
> though I do love cats!) Mass nouns can be used alone in the generic
> sense because they already name an unindividuated type: "Sand is
> gritty." "Grammar is hard." Not all languages work this way, of course.
>
> In teaching nouns, I believe children as young as six can use the
> "the", "a", and "my" tests. Since young children's literature and lives
> have a lot to do with concrete things that are prototypically named by
> nouns, I have no trouble with starting out with a combination of the
> functional "the" test and a notional definition; but the notional
> definition has to be extended fairly rapidly to include abstract
> things. Again, you start with stuff that kids are familiar: a task, an
> idea, a joke, a problem.
>
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel.: 805.756.2184
> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/
--0-1679857957-1156353055=:34412
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Craig,
Count my vote for something new, honest, meaningful, and useful.
Paul
----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:32:56 AM
Subject: Re: Notional nouns
Johanna,
This is a very rich and interesting post, and it leads me to ask
whether we should follow this direction out in order to make our
grammar much more interesting and useful than the old approaches. Let's
face it, the old "person, place, and thing" definition is both BORING
and LIMITED, and it does not translate well to actual practice. I have
seen "exercises" that seem like nothing more than make-work activities,
picking nouns out from a graph with scrambled up letters, and so on. I
don't think replacing limited notional definitions with "a noun is a
word you can put "the" in front of" is very helpful, even in
combination. We can, of course, put "the" in front of "flash" and
"fight", your two noun/verb examples. We can house the paint and paint
the house. We can murder the lecture and lecture about the murder. We
can fence our troubles and trouble our fences. I can debate the battle
and battle the debate. If
the next generation needs to be protected
from this sort of confusion, then we are all in trouble. >
For someone politically conservative, perhaps it would help to point
out that a word like "democracy" is only meaningful within the "frame"
of government and politics (and social organization.) It may take
considerable time to help students "differentiate" this term (concept)
from other possibilities. It is not simply a thing in a world of
things, but a rich and complex concept, vital to our communal
experience and interests as a people. If students are studying these
rich and challenging questions in history and social science, but come
to English class and learn that nouns are things like "button" or
"toad", it's no wonder people believe language study is unimportant.
One reason why people have trouble adjusting to texts in a highly
technical register (we seem to lag much of the world these
days in
getting students prepared) is the high level of nominalization in those
texts. Writing is not simply speech put into a constrained (correct)
form, but a way of accomplishing tasks that don't and can't happen
without writing as a medium for interaction and thought. Most of the
evidence seems to be that technical texts make very specialized kinds
of demands on language. To the extent that we can make those explicit,
we can perhaps do a better job of understanding why so many people
have trouble adjusting.
When I am able to say things to my grammar class like "restrictive
postnominal modifiers don't create an additional intonation group", I
sometimes stop long enough to discuss how those kinds of shared
understandings are built into a shared language. We can create
enormously complex structures in order to bring a complex understanding
into focus--in a technical community, this is usually a
shared
understanding. So I can say "the additional intonation group created by
a nonrestrictive postnominal modifier..." and simply use that as the
subject of the sentence. As you say well, we do so (nominalize) in
order to carry forward the work of the discourse. One reason our
students' writing does not work well is that it often fails to build
this sort of understanding, but simply says a number of independent
things about a topic.
I don't know if the rest of the list is willing or able to try to
create a scope and sequence that replaces the old simplicities with a
view of language that's more challenging, but more interesting and true
and useful, but to me, it's the only way to go. We have the old
handbooks if someone wants to continue to use them or to dust them off.
I don't think it helps the project for people to claim that there is
nothing new to say or do about grammar when the project itself is, and
has
always been, an attempt to create something new.
To me, the prime question is whether ATEG as a group wants to move
forward along those lines. If all we want to do is endorse existing
grammars, we can do so with a simple statement.
Craig
Supposedly, my list access has been restored. Another test ...
>
> Let's get crazy ...
>
> Phil defines a noun as an entity; but what is an entity? Cognitive
> Grammar defines a noun as "a bounded region in some domain". By this is
> meant something which is "marked off" from other things -- that is,
> differentiated from other things. Also, a noun does not track the
> evolution of some situation through time, which is what verbs do (hence
> the frequent term "process" for verb).
>
> This is, of course, a very vague definition, as it has to be if it is
> to cover all nouns' meanings. There is also more to the Cog. Gr.
>
definition, defining prototypical nouns, but I won't go into that
> unless someone asks me.
>
> We also need to consider WHY languages have nouns. And why do we make
> some verbs into nouns, like "flash" and "fight"? Why do we create
> gerunds and noun clauses? Some linguists believe that part-of-speech
> categories emerge out of discourse needs. We need nouns because we want
> to talk ABOUT things. We need nouns (and other nominals) as "hooks" to
> hang predicates on. We need nouns in order to direct our listener's or
> reader's conscious attention to something we want to talk about (in
> other words, to refer). We need nouns in order to have topics to which
> we can add ever more information in a text.
>
> As someone else pointed out, a noun names a category, not a single,
> actual thing. A conceptual category, at that. This is evidenced in
> English by the fact that we usually
cannot use a noun (especially a
> count noun) alone to talk about something. I can't say "cat is sick". I
> have to point my listener to which cat I mean -- "My mother's tabby cat
> is sick." Even for generic or category reference, we have to use either
> "a" or a plural: "A cat is a selfish animal." "Cats are millstones." (A
> famous linguist had a cat named Millstone; my favorite cat name --
> though I do love cats!) Mass nouns can be used alone in the generic
> sense because they already name an unindividuated type: "Sand is
> gritty." "Grammar is hard." Not all languages work this way, of course.
>
> In teaching nouns, I believe children as young as six can use the
> "the", "a", and "my" tests. Since young children's literature and lives
> have a lot to do with concrete things that are prototypically named by
> nouns, I have no trouble with starting out with a combination of the
>
functional "the" test and a notional definition; but the notional
> definition has to be extended fairly rapidly to include abstract
> things. Again, you start with stuff that kids are familiar: a task, an
> idea, a joke, a problem.
>
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel.: 805.756.2184
> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/
--0-1679857957-1156353055=:34412--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:40:01 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Marshall Myers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------040406020800080302000903"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040406020800080302000903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Martha Kolln wrote:
> Marshall,
>
> No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find them?
>
> Martha
>
>> Martha Kolln wrote:
>>
>>> Dear John and Eduard and all,
>>>
>>> It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
>>> at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
>>> production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
>>> Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
>>> students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
>>>
>>> We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the
>>> way, includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
>>> minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
>>> phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
>>> form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
>>> students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
>>> minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
>>> with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
>>> essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly
>>> at teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
>>> "reading/writing connection"
>>> exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
>>> connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
>>>
>>> I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
>>> today's language arts classes are very different from what many of
>>> us remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
>>> teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
>>> which we include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax
>>> in an organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to
>>> the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help
>>> from textbooks.
>>>
>>> We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
>>> first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this
>>> fall in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well
>>> as in
>>> selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
>>> in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
>>> finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing
>>> and planning to market it ourselves.
>>>
>>> As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
>>> "Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
>>> patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
>>> has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
>>> teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including the
>>> very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
>>> there for those teachers who want to include them.
>>>
>>> As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
>>> here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
>>> we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
>>> are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
>>> books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
>>> workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into
>>> a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also bring
>>> to the students' conscious understanding step by organized step the
>>> subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they entered
>>> kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
>>>
>>> I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
>>> might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available.
>>> The table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
>>> better idea of our program.
>>>
>>> Martha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>>>> Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>>>> designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>>>> say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>>>> book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>>>> message and will answer your question.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eduard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>>>>
>>>> >Eduard,
>>>>
>>>>> Re your last submission:
>>>>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the chalk-
>>>>
>>>> face=
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ,=20
>>>>> teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide for=20
>>>>> Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>>>>
>>>> book to=
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =20
>>>>> the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>>>>
>>>> would=20=
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>>>>
>>>> is a=20=
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
>>>>
>>>> a=20=
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> book. Can we be so lucky?
>>>>> John Curran
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>
>> Martha,
>>
>> Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
>> published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
>> Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
>>
>> Marshall
>> 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/
>
Martha,
I have copies of both.
Give me your snail mail address, and I'll loan them to you.
My memory is not very sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE
study of middle schoolers to see if teaching them transformational
grammar would affect their writing. I believe it was in the 60's or 70's.
Best wishes,
Marshall
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/
--------------040406020800080302000903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
Re: Middle School grammar book
Marshall,
No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find
them?
Martha
Martha Kolln wrote:
Dear John and Eduard and all,
It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the
Language Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers,"
takes teachers and students step by small step through minilessons to
mastery.
We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the way,
includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and
noun phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come
seven minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and
are integrated with the next series of lessons on ten sentence
patterns, which are essentially predicate patterns. With each
lesson, directed mainly at teachers, we include several
"Unlocking" exercises and "reading/writing
connection"
exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
today's language arts classes are very different from what many of us
remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
which we include), with very little, if any, attention to
syntax in an organized way. That lack of attention is due
in large part to the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and
very scant help from textbooks.
We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this fall
in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well as
in
selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to
have the finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are
publishing and planning to market it ourselves.
As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including
the very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
there for those teachers who want to include them.
As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools.
If we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me,
these are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in
her books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in
writing workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed
to fit into a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that
also bring to the students' conscious understanding step by
organized step the subconscious knowledge that they had with them when
they entered kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our
goal.
I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available. The
table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
better idea of our program.
Martha
John:
I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to
ask
Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a
book
designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure,
as you
say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of
this
book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading
this
message and will answer your question.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, =?Windows-1252?Q?John_curran?= wrote...
>Eduard,
Re your last submission:
Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the
chalk-
face=
,=20
teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide
for=20
Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt
this
book to=
=20
the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
would=20=
benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level.
There
is a=20=
rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing
such
a=20=
book. Can we be so lucky?
John Curran
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/
Martha,
Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
Marshall
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/
Martha,
I have copies of both.
Give me your snail mail address, and I'll loan them to you.
My memory is not very sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE
study of middle schoolers to see if teaching them transformational
grammar would affect their writing. I believe it was in the 60's or
70's.
Best wishes,
Marshall
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/
--------------040406020800080302000903--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:45:45 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Marshall Myers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grade six teacher responds to tching grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Trudy Grisham wrote:
> It is with great trepidation that I leave my lurkdom and presume to
> post to this group, but you asked for a little input from elementary
> teachers and I have a little experience.
>
> I have taught what I considered traditional grammar to sixth graders
> for the past fifteen years. Yes, it's confusing for them; and, at
> times, me. However, without giving students the vocabulary of grammar,
> I have felt that we could not discuss their errors in their writing.
> For the most part, the students have come to me thinking that they
> know nouns and verbs. And they've heard of adjectives and adverbs.
> Forget about the other parts of speech and the parts of a sentence.
> The students haven't even heard of phrases or clauses. I consider them
> a clean slate when it comes to any knowledge of grammar.
>
> With some, I am successful. With others, well, let's just say that
> they need more time to absorb the information.
>
> As an excuse I offer up the fact that when queried, their earlier
> teachers had NO formal training in grammar themselves. I'm old enough
> to have had grammar training in my jr high and high school experiences.
>
> Trudy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity
> independent
> of the meanings of independent words which is why we can classify
> them the way
> we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate this. A noun is merely
> another
> word for an entity, something which exists in time and space. At this
> point the
> wiseacre in the back of the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he,
> he he."
> And you say, yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an
> entity in
> time and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the
> park last
> night."
>
> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so
> are numbers
> and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else that is
> being
> presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the difficult task
> of teaching
> just because children are confused. We EXPECT them to be confused and
> then we
> teach a little bit more.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
> >
> >I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
> >verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
> >already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
> >verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
> >forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
> >darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to thought.
> >'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
> >something. But the word is not the thing.
> >
> >My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
> >answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
> >the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
> >that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
> >possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
> >infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like
> 'pencil'
> >in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it is
> >a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
> >couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
> >parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a traditional
> >grammar regiment.
> >
> >And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well, probably
> >because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
> >traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
> out
> >of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
> >something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
> >this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
> >
> >Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
> >> Herb,
> >>
> >> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
> >> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
> >> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
> >> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
> >> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
> >> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
> >> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
> >> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
> >> school.
> >>
> >> Eduard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Eduard,
> >>> =20
> >>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
> >>>
> >> where =
> >>
> >>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
> >>>
> >> instruction =
> >>
> >>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
> >>>
> >> =
> >>
> >>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
> >>>
> >> grammars =
> >>
> >>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
> >>>
> >> teacher, =
> >>
> >>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
> >>>
> >> content =
> >>
> >>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
> >>>
> >> pretend =
> >>
> >>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
> >>>
> >> gratefully =
> >>
> >>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
> >>> =20
> >>> Herb
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
> >>>
> >> Eduard =
> >>
> >>> C. Hanganu
> >>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Herb:
> >>>
> >>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
> >>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
> >>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to
> write a
> >>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
> >>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
> >>>
> >> (s)
> >>
> >>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
> >>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
> adjusted
> >>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
> elementary
> >>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
> >>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
> >>> purposes.
> >>>
> >>> Eduard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Eduard,
> >>>>
> >>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
> >>>>
> >>> my
> >>>
> >>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
> >>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
> >>>>
> >>> others
> >>>
> >>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
> >>>>
> >>> Traditional
> >>>
> >>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
> >>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
> >>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
> >>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
> lot
> >>>>
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
> >>>>
> >>> way
> >>>
> >>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
> >>>>
> >>> terms,
> >>>
> >>>> concepts, and maxims.
> >>>>
> >>>> Herb
> >>>>
> >>> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >
> >James Sebastian Bear
> >Montpelier Public School
> >www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
> >
> >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/
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
> and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
>
> 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/
Trudy,
Out of a class of 20 students in my grammar class for juniors and
seniors in college, including mostly English majors, about two have had
training in grammar in the middle school or high school. Many times that
training is quite limited, so students really learn grammar for the
first time. I suppose I could argue that their not having training in
grammar is an advantage to me as their instructor.
Marshall
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:15:21 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Marshall,
I haven't seen the study, but Hillocks refers to it in his Research on
the Teaching of composition, the 1986 book that heavily influenced
NCTE's anti-grammar position. I don't have it in front of me, but my
memory is that, as he sums it up, the curriculum was met with a great
deal of resistance, anger, and hostility. To some extent, the focus on
sentence combining was a way to salvage some use for generative grammar
within the classroom. It, too, has had mixed results.
Craig>
Martha Kolln wrote:
>
>> Marshall,
>>
>> No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find them?
>>
>> Martha
>>
>>> Martha Kolln wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear John and Eduard and all,
>>>>
>>>> It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
>>>> at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
>>>> production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
>>>> Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
>>>> students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
>>>>
>>>> We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the
>>>> way, includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
>>>> minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
>>>> phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
>>>> form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
>>>> students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
>>>> minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
>>>> with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
>>>> essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly
>>>> at teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
>>>> "reading/writing connection"
>>>> exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
>>>> connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
>>>>
>>>> I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
>>>> today's language arts classes are very different from what many of
>>>> us remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
>>>> teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
>>>> which we include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax
>>>> in an organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to
>>>> the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help
>>>> from textbooks.
>>>>
>>>> We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
>>>> first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this
>>>> fall in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well
>>>> as in
>>>> selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
>>>> in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
>>>> finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing
>>>> and planning to market it ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
>>>> "Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
>>>> patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
>>>> has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
>>>> teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including the
>>>> very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
>>>> there for those teachers who want to include them.
>>>>
>>>> As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
>>>> here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
>>>> we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
>>>> are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
>>>> books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
>>>> workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into
>>>> a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also bring
>>>> to the students' conscious understanding step by organized step the
>>>> subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they entered
>>>> kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
>>>>
>>>> I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
>>>> might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available.
>>>> The table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
>>>> better idea of our program.
>>>>
>>>> Martha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>>>>> Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>>>>> designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>>>>> say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>>>>> book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>>>>> message and will answer your question.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, John curran wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> >Eduard,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Re your last submission:
>>>>>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the
>>>>>> chalk-
>>>>>
>>>>> face=
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,=20
>>>>>> teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide
>>>>>> for=20
>>>>>> Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>>>>>
>>>>> book to=
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>>>>>
>>>>> would=20=
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>>>>>
>>>>> is a=20=
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
>>>>>
>>>>> a=20=
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> book. Can we be so lucky?
>>>>>> John Curran
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>>>
>>> Martha,
>>>
>>> Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
>>> published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
>>> Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
>>>
>>> Marshall
>>> 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/
>>
> Martha,
>
> I have copies of both.
>
> Give me your snail mail address, and I'll loan them to you.
>
> My memory is not very sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE
> study of middle schoolers to see if teaching them transformational
> grammar would affect their writing. I believe it was in the 60's or 70's.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marshall
>
> 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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:22:50 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Marshall Myers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------000509030406070206000704"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000509030406070206000704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Craig Hancock wrote:
>Marshall,
> I haven't seen the study, but Hillocks refers to it in his Research on
>the Teaching of composition, the 1986 book that heavily influenced
>NCTE's anti-grammar position. I don't have it in front of me, but my
>memory is that, as he sums it up, the curriculum was met with a great
>deal of resistance, anger, and hostility. To some extent, the focus on
>sentence combining was a way to salvage some use for generative grammar
>within the classroom. It, too, has had mixed results.
>
>Craig>
>
>
> Martha Kolln wrote:
>
>
>>>Marshall,
>>>
>>>No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find them?
>>>
>>>Martha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Martha Kolln wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear John and Eduard and all,
>>>>>
>>>>>It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
>>>>>at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
>>>>>production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
>>>>>Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
>>>>>students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
>>>>>
>>>>>We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the
>>>>>way, includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
>>>>>minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
>>>>>phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
>>>>>form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
>>>>>students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
>>>>>minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
>>>>>with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
>>>>>essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly
>>>>>at teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
>>>>>"reading/writing connection"
>>>>>exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
>>>>>connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
>>>>>today's language arts classes are very different from what many of
>>>>>us remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
>>>>>teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
>>>>>which we include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax
>>>>>in an organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to
>>>>>the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help
>>>>>from textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>>We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
>>>>>first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this
>>>>>fall in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well
>>>>>as in
>>>>>selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
>>>>>in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
>>>>>finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing
>>>>>and planning to market it ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
>>>>>"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
>>>>>patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
>>>>>has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
>>>>>teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including the
>>>>>very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
>>>>>there for those teachers who want to include them.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
>>>>>here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
>>>>>we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
>>>>>are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
>>>>>books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
>>>>>workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into
>>>>>a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also bring
>>>>>to the students' conscious understanding step by organized step the
>>>>>subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they entered
>>>>>kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
>>>>>might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available.
>>>>>The table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
>>>>>better idea of our program.
>>>>>
>>>>>Martha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
>>>>>>Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
>>>>>>designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
>>>>>>say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
>>>>>>book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
>>>>>>message and will answer your question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eduard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, John curran wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Eduard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re your last submission:
>>>>>>> Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the
>>>>>>>chalk-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>face=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>,=20
>>>>>>>teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide
>>>>>>>for=20
>>>>>>>Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>book to=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>would=20=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>is a=20=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>a=20=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>book. Can we be so lucky?
>>>>>>> John Curran
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Martha,
>>>>
>>>>Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
>>>>published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
>>>>Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
>>>>
>>>>Marshall
>>>>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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Martha,
>>
>>I have copies of both.
>>
>>Give me your snail mail address, and I'll loan them to you.
>>
>>My memory is not very sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE
>>study of middle schoolers to see if teaching them transformational
>>grammar would affect their writing. I believe it was in the 60's or 70's.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Marshall
>>
>>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/
>
>
Craig,
Yes, those are memories, too.
Marshall
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/
--------------000509030406070206000704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
Marshall,
I haven't seen the study, but Hillocks refers to it in his Research on
the Teaching of composition, the 1986 book that heavily influenced
NCTE's anti-grammar position. I don't have it in front of me, but my
memory is that, as he sums it up, the curriculum was met with a great
deal of resistance, anger, and hostility. To some extent, the focus on
sentence combining was a way to salvage some use for generative grammar
within the classroom. It, too, has had mixed results.
Craig>
Martha Kolln wrote:
Marshall,
No, I'm not familiar with them. Any idea where I could find them?
Martha
Martha Kolln wrote:
Dear John and Eduard and all,
It is indeed true that my colleague Sandra Wyngaard, head of English
at State College (PA) High School, and I are in the throes of
production. Our book, "Discovering Grammar: Unlocking the Language
Toolbox for Middle School Readers and Writers," takes teachers and
students step by small step through minilessons to mastery.
We begin with a short lesson on Subject/Predicate, which, by the
way, includes a structured writing assignment (which many of the
minilessons do). Then come nine minilessons on nouns and noun
phrases and pronouns. These lessons include discussions of
form--singular/plural as well as derivational endings-- that help
students unlock their own inner grammar expertise. Next come seven
minilessons on verb forms. All of these lead to and are integrated
with the next series of lessons on ten sentence patterns, which are
essentially predicate patterns. With each lesson, directed mainly
at teachers, we include several "Unlocking" exercises and
"reading/writing connection"
exercises, classroom activities for the students--many of which are
connected to the young-adult literature they are reading.
I have learned from Sandra--and by talking to many teachers--that
today's language arts classes are very different from what many of
us remember way back when--or even not so way back. Today's
teachers rely on minilessons, on word study, on word sorts (many of
which we include), with very little, if any, attention to syntax
in an organized way. That lack of attention is due in large part to
the teachers' own inadequate grammar background and very scant help
from textbooks.
We are very excited about what we have accomplished so far. The
first section of the book--100+ pages--will be class-tested this
fall in all nine middle schools of Carroll County, Maryland, as well
as in
selected classes in four other school districts, including districts
in two other states as well as Pennsylvania. We expect to have the
finished published version ready for fall 2007. We are publishing
and planning to market it ourselves.
As I explain in the Introduction, the material is based on my
"Understanding English Grammar," which is based on sentence
patterns. I firmly believe that the framework of sentence patterns
has been enormously helpful for my college-level students in the
teacher-prep grammar class. In the new book, we are including the
very simplest diagrams for the sentence patterns--so they will be
there for those teachers who want to include them.
As I said in my keynote address at ATEG last month, minilessons are
here to stay in the language arts classrooms of middle schools. If
we want to have an impact, we have to join them. Believe me, these
are not the minilessons that Constance Weaver describes in her
books, the "teachable moment" occasions that occur in writing
workshops. Ours are organized in small steps, designed to fit into
a classroom period, that scaffold on one another but that also bring
to the students' conscious understanding step by organized step the
subconscious knowledge that they had with them when they entered
kindergarten. Mastery through minilessons is our goal.
I'll appreciate your input and interest, especially those of you who
might be interested in seeing more detail as it becomes available.
The table of contents will be ready soon; that might give you a
better idea of our program.
Martha
John:
I guess the safest way to find out if this is true or not is to ask
Martha Kolln herself if she and her friends intend to publish a book
designed for "the lower level Japanese students." I am sure, as you
say, that "Japanese students would benefit from a version of this
book pitched at a lower level." Hopefully Martha is reading this
message and will answer your question.
Eduard
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, John curran wrote...
>Eduard,
Re your last submission:
Here is a message from an Australian teacher in Japan at the
chalk-
face=
,=20
teaching at the primary level. ATEG's "Grammar Alive - A guide
for=20
Teachers" has been very helpful but it is difficult to adapt this
book to=
=20
the needs of the lower level Japanese students. Japanese students
would=20=
benefit from a version of this book pitched at a lower level. There
is a=20=
rumour going around that Martha Kolln and friends are preparing such
a=20=
book. Can we be so lucky?
John Curran
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/
Martha,
Are you familiar with the two t-g books by Jacobs and Rosenbaum,
published in 1967 and designed for seventh graders? They're called
Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.
Marshall
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/
Martha,
I have copies of both.
Give me your snail mail address, and I'll loan them to you.
My memory is not very sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE
study of middle schoolers to see if teaching them transformational
grammar would affect their writing. I believe it was in the 60's or 70's.
Best wishes,
Marshall
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/
Craig,
Yes, those are memories, too.
Marshall
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/
--------------000509030406070206000704--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:55:28 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Marshall Myers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Book Reviewers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------050102060203030804070701"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050102060203030804070701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Fellow Grammarians:
Enough time has past, and I have enough applicants now for the two slots
as book reviewers for an upcoming issue of ATEG Journal.
I'll review the candidates and get back to them in the next few days.
Thanks for your interest.
Best wishes,
Marshall Myers
Book Review Editor
ATEG Journal
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/
--------------050102060203030804070701
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Enough time has past, and I have enough applicants now for the two
slots as book reviewers for an upcoming issue of ATEG Journal.
I'll review the candidates and get back to them in the next few days.
Thanks for your interest.
Best wishes,
Marshall Myers
Book Review Editor
ATEG Journal
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/
--------------050102060203030804070701--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:33:46 EDT
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Study of the Effectiveness of Teaching Grammar in Three Middle
Schools
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_be4.34cc567.321df98a_boundary"
--part1_be4.34cc567.321df98a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/23/06 1:38:59 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
> My memory is not very sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE study
> of middle schoolers to see if teaching them transformational grammar would
> affect their writing. I believe it was in the 60's or 70's.
>
Marshall, perhaps the study you are referring to is this one:
Elley, W. B., I. H. Barham, H. Lamb, and M. Wyllie. "The Role of Grammar in
a Secondary School English Curriculum." Research in the Teaching of English
10.1(Spring 1976): 5-21.
Peter Adams
Peter Adams
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/
--part1_be4.34cc567.321df98a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 8/23/06 1:38:59 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
My memory is not very=
sharp about this, but I think there was a NCTE study of middle schoolers to=
see if teaching them transformational grammar would affect their writing. I=
believe it was in the 60's or 70's.
Marshall, perhaps the study you are referring to is this one:
Elley, W. B., I. H. Barham, H. Lamb, and M. Wyllie. "The Role of Gram=
mar in a Secondary School English Curriculum." Research in the T=
eaching of English 10.1(Spring 1976): 5-21.
Peter Adams
Peter Adams
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/
--part1_be4.34cc567.321df98a_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:48:04 EDT
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Notional Nouns - and Other Grammar Terms, the easy way
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_496.97d8bce.321e0af4_boundary"
--part1_496.97d8bce.321e0af4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am responding to Eduard's question:
> I have a question for you: how can you students identify the simple
> subject, the simple predicate, and the objects in a sentence if they
> do not know the parts of speech?
> Eduard
>
My answer is to use tag questions. (Is it?) In 1991, Rei Noguchi explained
tag questions and answered that question in his NCTE publication, Grammar and
the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities. (Didn't he?)
After a possible sentence or clause, students can add a very short tag
question that asks only whether the statement is true. (Can't they?) The first
word in the tag question refers to the main predicate (and is usually a
helping/auxiliary verb or a form of be). (Does it? (and is it?))
The second word is a pronoun referring to the subject. (Isn't it?) If the
second word is you, but you does not appear in the sentence, the sentence is a
request/command/imperative or whatever like that you want to call it. (Isn't
it?) Often you can add two tag questions, and then the sentence has a
connector (conjunction) to combine them. (Can you? and does it?) Verbs reporting
a mental event of feeling, thinking, or stating an idea can add an idea
directly in a second complete sentence (clause) included in the main one. (Can't
they?) Such verbs assume (that) the following idea serves as their object.
(Don't they? Does it?)
Some teachers and textbooks have used tag questions for quite some time, and
in further detail, as needed. (Haven't they?) (I explained them in 2000 in
Meaning First: A Functional Handbook of Fifty Ways to Polish Your Writing,
Parlaypress.com.) (Didn't I?)
Carolyn Hartnett
Professor Emeritus, College of the Mainland
2027 Bay Street
Texas City, Texas 77590
Phone and Fax: 409-948-1446
[log in to unmask]
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/
--part1_496.97d8bce.321e0af4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am responding to Eduard's questio=
n:
I have a question for you: how=20=
can you students identify the simple
subject, the simple predicate, and the objects in a sentence if they
do not know the parts of speech?
Eduard
My answer is to use tag questions. (Is it?) In 1991, Rei Noguchi=
explained tag questions and answered that question in his NCTE publication,=
Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities. (Didn't he?)
After a possible sentence or clause, students can add a very short tag quest=
ion that asks only whether the statement is true. (Can't they?)=
The first word in the tag question refers to the main predicate (and=20=
is usually a helping/auxiliary verb or a form of be). (Does=20=
it? (and is it?))
The second word is a pronoun referring to the subject. (Isn't it?) If the second word is you, but you does not appear i=
n the sentence, the sentence is a request/command/imperative or whatever lik=
e that you want to call it. (Isn't it?) Often you c=
an add two tag questions, and then the sentence has a connector (conjunction=
) to combine them. (Can you? and does it?) Ve=
rbs reporting a mental event of feeling, thinking, or stating an idea can ad=
d an idea directly in a second complete sentence (clause) included in=20=
the main one. (Can't they?) Such verbs assume (that) the=20=
following idea serves as their object. (Don't they? Doe=
s it?)
Some teachers and textbooks have used tag questions for quite some time, and=
in further detail, as needed. (Haven't they?) (I explain=
ed them in 2000 in Meaning First: A Functional Handbook of Fifty Ways to=20=
Polish Your Writing, Parlaypress.com.) (Didn't I?)
Carolyn Hartnett
Professor Emeritus, College of the Mainland
2027 Bay Street
Texas City, Texas 77590
Phone and Fax: 409-948-1446
[log in to unmask]
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/
--part1_496.97d8bce.321e0af4_boundary--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:18:23 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
According to linguistic definitions of word classes (parts of speech),
"fish" is not an adjective. It cannot take comparative suffixes
*fisher, *fishest; and it cannot appear alone after "seems": *It seems
fish. A suffix has to be added to make it an adjective: "fishy",
"fishlike".
Nouns routinely are used to modify other nouns; this does not change
them to adjectives. So in "fish soup", "fish heads" and so on, we have
a sequence of two nouns.
This is a difference in how parts of speech are defined between
traditional or school grammar and linguistics. In my teaching, I follow
linguistic practice. It is useful to distinguish between the category
of a word and how it functions in language, or, better put, the
functions of language and the kinds of words or phrases that can
perform them. The role "modifier of noun", for example, can be filled
by nouns, adjectives, prepositional phrases, and relative clauses (and
more things):
1. A blue book (adj)
2. A history book (noun)
3. A torn book (past participle)
4. An aging book (present participle)
5. A book for children (prepositional phrase)
6. A book which every educated person should read (relative clause)
7. A book destined for obscurity (past-participle phrase)
8. A book begging to be read (present-participle phrase)
9. A book to take to the beach (infinitive phrase)
10. A book good to take to the beach (adjective phrase)
11. A book thick enough to press flowers (adjective phrase)
(The last five are considered by some to be reduced clauses or reduced
relative clauses.)
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:40:12 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1530708751-1156376412=:45533"
--0-1530708751-1156376412=:45533
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Johanna (and others),
What's your take on using the term 'adjectival' to refer to those noun modifiers that aren't stricly adjectives and 'adverbial' for constructions that act like adverbs? They seem logical and useful to me.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:18:23 PM
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
According to linguistic definitions of word classes (parts of speech),
"fish" is not an adjective. It cannot take comparative suffixes
*fisher, *fishest; and it cannot appear alone after "seems": *It seems
fish. A suffix has to be added to make it an adjective: "fishy",
"fishlike".
Nouns routinely are used to modify other nouns; this does not change
them to adjectives. So in "fish soup", "fish heads" and so on, we have
a sequence of two nouns.
This is a difference in how parts of speech are defined between
traditional or school grammar and linguistics. In my teaching, I follow
linguistic practice. It is useful to distinguish between the category
of a word and how it functions in language, or, better put, the
functions of language and the kinds of words or phrases that can
perform them. The role "modifier of noun", for example, can be filled
by nouns, adjectives, prepositional phrases, and relative clauses (and
more things):
1. A blue book (adj)
2. A history book (noun)
3. A torn book (past participle)
4. An aging book (present participle)
5. A book for children (prepositional phrase)
6. A book which every educated person should read (relative clause)
7. A book destined for obscurity (past-participle phrase)
8. A book begging to be read (present-participle phrase)
9. A book to take to the beach (infinitive phrase)
10. A book good to take to the beach (adjective phrase)
11. A book thick enough to press flowers (adjective phrase)
(The last five are considered by some to be reduced clauses or reduced
relative clauses.)
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
--0-1530708751-1156376412=:45533
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Johanna (and others),
What's your take on using the term 'adjectival' to refer to those noun modifiers that aren't stricly adjectives and 'adverbial' for constructions that act like adverbs? They seem logical and useful to me.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:18:23 PM
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
According to linguistic definitions of word classes (parts of speech),
"fish" is not an adjective. It cannot take comparative suffixes
*fisher, *fishest; and it cannot appear alone after "seems": *It seems
fish. A suffix has to be added to make it an adjective: "fishy",
"fishlike".
Nouns routinely are used to modify other nouns; this does not change
them to adjectives. So in "fish soup", "fish heads" and so on, we have
a sequence of two nouns.
This is a difference in how parts of speech are defined between
traditional or school grammar and linguistics. In my teaching, I follow
linguistic practice. It is useful to distinguish between the category
of a word and how it functions in language, or, better put, the
functions of language and the kinds of words or phrases that can
perform them. The role "modifier of noun", for example, can be filled
by nouns, adjectives, prepositional phrases, and relative clauses
(and
more things):
1. A blue book (adj)
2. A history book (noun)
3. A torn book (past participle)
4. An aging book (present participle)
5. A book for children (prepositional phrase)
6. A book which every educated person should read (relative clause)
7. A book destined for obscurity (past-participle phrase)
8. A book begging to be read (present-participle phrase)
9. A book to take to the beach (infinitive phrase)
10. A book good to take to the beach (adjective phrase)
11. A book thick enough to press flowers (adjective phrase)
(The last five are considered by some to be reduced clauses or reduced
relative clauses.)
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
--0-1530708751-1156376412=:45533--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:44:49 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Two corrections, from the standpoint of linguistics, to two recent
posts.
1) From Eduard Hanganu: "how can you [sic] students identify the simple
subject, the simple predicate, and the objects in a sentence if they
do not know the parts of speech?"
Single words do not fill roles such as subject, predicate, direct
object, and so on. These are clause-level ROLES that are filled by a
variety of types of structures: subjects can be noun phrases, pronouns,
clauses, and, some even claim, prepositional phrases*. If a single noun
occupies the subject slot, that is just a case of the smallest possible
subject constituent. But if a sentence has a noun-phrase subject, the
whole phrase is the subject, not the head noun. The subject of "The
pre-school children in room 5 are going to the park this afternoon" is
"The pre-school children in room 5", not "children". "Children" is the
head of the subject phrase. Nominals fill these roles (see below).
Ex.: "Under the bed is all dusty." (R. W. Langacker)
2. Phil Bralich claims all entities or things are nouns. A noun is a
class of word; classes of words are elements of language; language is a
mental phenomenon. Nouns exist only in the minds of human beings. You
cannot point to something in the world, like a rock, and say it is a
noun. Word meanings are concepts, not things outside the mind. When we
are exposed to the world, we make a mental record of our experience; we
see things like rocks and form a concept of rocks. We learn to
associate a word ("rock") with the concept. Then we classify words
into categories based on certain _perceived_ features of the things and
on discourse needs. The prototypical entity likely to be named by a
noun is (a) concrete (b) clearly differentiated from other entities (c)
time-stable, that is, it does not change its essence or properties very
fast; (d) it is internally differentiated, that is, it has parts that
are different from each other; (e) it is countable.
The fewer of these properties an entity is perceived to have, the less
likely it is to be named by a noun. Also, the fewer of these properties
it has, the fewer noun inflection "privileges" it will have, such as
being able to be pluralized.
Perception and cultural conditioning are extremely important. Not all
languages assign the same phenomena to the noun and verb classes.
In response to Craig and others, I believe it is very helpful to teach
students how to use inflectional tests like adding plural -s to
identify a word's class. It's like a basic definition in mathematics --
not sexy, but part of the basic equipment. Much more can be said about
nouns, of course, and should, according to the students' level.
I spoke in another message of the difference between class and
function. "Nominal" is the function that clauses play when they are
subjects or direct objects; in fact, "nominal" is the superordinate
term for structures that play roles like subject, direct object, and so
on. "Nominal" is a discourse function for referring and for supplying
something to which we can assign a predicate (say something about).
My own textbook takes a thoroughgoing cognitive/functional approach
(along with structural descriptions) to English grammar. If all goes
well, it will be out by summer of '07 or a little later.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:59:56 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paul,
I favor using the "-al" suffix to distinguish class from function. It
is a little subtle, and hard for older students who aren't used to
studying about language, and for people who have internalized
traditional grammar. But I can't think of an alternative, and it should
work well if it is introduced and maintained in a long-term (over
years!) grammar curriculum.
I also believe it's important to go to even-more superordinate levels,
like "head", "modifier", and "complement". All at the appropriate age,
of course.
Craig raised the issue of the complexity of written texts in an earlier
post. I believe a major reason students have trouble with these texts
is that they don't read enough -- not enough of such texts, and not
enough, period. I think we will find that studying grammar helps with
reading ability, but I believe the main way to become fluent at reading
is by reading, and progressing incrementally from easier to harder
levels (like we used to do in school). (Granted, school readers still
advance incrementally, but too many kids aren't doing enough reading to
become fluent at the higher levels.)
I also remain firmly convinced that reading high-level texts is
necessary to being able to write them. No grammar course can teach the
full range of structures used in high-level writing. Not only is there
variety in grammar, but there is a very large number of fixed
expressions that occur in formal writing (such as "I remain firmly
convinced"). Language learning doesn't stop at age 5. People continue
to learn unconsciously probably all of their lives, but certainly very
actively in childhood and adolescence.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:38:40 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: =?windows-1252?Q?John_Curran?= <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Martha,
I can't wait for your book to be released. In Japan the long summer=20
vacation ends at the end of August and I will be introducing to my=20
students sentence patterns and diagrams adapted from UEG. I have canvasse=
d=20
several teacher/education/linguistic forums online in Japan but can find=20=
nobody who is teaching grammar along these lines. Similarly there is=20
nobody apparently teaching grammar in schools in the functional=20
grammar/Halliday perspective. Discussion of grammar seems to be limited t=
o=20
scholarly exchange of views on esoteric subjects.(I share the same sense=20=
of trepidation as Trudy when contacting these lofty venues - I feel like =
a=20
midget raching for the shelf)
U.S.A. supplies most of the English teachers here in Japan and I guess=20=
they were influenced by the anti-grammar movement - I hear was prevalent=20=
in their schooldays. Please let me know if I can trial any of your work i=
n=20
my Japanese classes.
John
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:40:35 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Nancy Tuten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My slip, Johanna. In that exercise I would have called "fish" a "modifier,"
not an adjective. (Sorry, Martha! I do know better after many years of using
_UEG_!)
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
According to linguistic definitions of word classes (parts of speech),
"fish" is not an adjective. It cannot take comparative suffixes
*fisher, *fishest; and it cannot appear alone after "seems": *It seems
fish. A suffix has to be added to make it an adjective: "fishy",
"fishlike".
Nouns routinely are used to modify other nouns; this does not change
them to adjectives. So in "fish soup", "fish heads" and so on, we have
a sequence of two nouns.
This is a difference in how parts of speech are defined between
traditional or school grammar and linguistics. In my teaching, I follow
linguistic practice. It is useful to distinguish between the category
of a word and how it functions in language, or, better put, the
functions of language and the kinds of words or phrases that can
perform them. The role "modifier of noun", for example, can be filled
by nouns, adjectives, prepositional phrases, and relative clauses (and
more things):
1. A blue book (adj)
2. A history book (noun)
3. A torn book (past participle)
4. An aging book (present participle)
5. A book for children (prepositional phrase)
6. A book which every educated person should read (relative clause)
7. A book destined for obscurity (past-participle phrase)
8. A book begging to be read (present-participle phrase)
9. A book to take to the beach (infinitive phrase)
10. A book good to take to the beach (adjective phrase)
11. A book thick enough to press flowers (adjective phrase)
(The last five are considered by some to be reduced clauses or reduced
relative clauses.)
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:03:41 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My problem with terms like these, and they are used in this way fairly =
widely, is that they are an attempt to extend structural categories to =
cover what are functional distinctions. We need to be able to talk =
about nouns used as modifiers, etc., precisely so that we can keep the =
structure function distinction before our students.
=20
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Paul E. =
Doniger
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 6:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
Johanna (and others),
=20
What's your take on using the term 'adjectival' to refer to those noun =
modifiers that aren't stricly adjectives and 'adverbial' for =
constructions that act like adverbs? They seem logical and useful to me.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:18:23 PM
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
According to linguistic definitions of word classes (parts of speech),=20
"fish" is not an adjective. It cannot take comparative suffixes=20
*fisher, *fishest; and it cannot appear alone after "seems": *It seems=20
fish. A suffix has to be added to make it an adjective: "fishy",=20
"fishlike".
Nouns routinely are used to modify other nouns; this does not change=20
them to adjectives. So in "fish soup", "fish heads" and so on, we have=20
a sequence of two nouns.
This is a difference in how parts of speech are defined between=20
traditional or school grammar and linguistics. In my teaching, I follow=20
linguistic practice. It is useful to distinguish between the category=20
of a word and how it functions in language, or, better put, the=20
functions of language and the kinds of words or phrases that can=20
perform them. The role "modifier of noun", for example, can be filled=20
by nouns, adjectives, prepositional phrases, and relative clauses (and=20
more things):
1. A blue book (adj)
2. A history book (noun)
3. A torn book (past participle)
4. An aging book (present participle)
5. A book for children (prepositional phrase)
6. A book which every educated person should read (relative clause)
7. A book destined for obscurity (past-participle phrase)
8. A book begging to be read (present-participle phrase)
9. A book to take to the beach (infinitive phrase)
10. A book good to take to the beach (adjective phrase)
11. A book thick enough to press flowers (adjective phrase)
(The last five are considered by some to be reduced clauses or reduced=20
relative clauses.)
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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"=20
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:58:47 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I use a 16th c. poem in some of my grammar classes, Sir Philip Sydney's =
"With how sad steps", partly because it contains structures students =
aren't familiar with and don't know how to interpret. The grammatical =
analysis of these structures helps them to work through other unfamiliar =
and complex structures.
=20
Herb=20
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Johanna =
Rubba
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 6:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
Paul,
I favor using the "-al" suffix to distinguish class from function. It
is a little subtle, and hard for older students who aren't used to
studying about language, and for people who have internalized
traditional grammar. But I can't think of an alternative, and it should
work well if it is introduced and maintained in a long-term (over
years!) grammar curriculum.
I also believe it's important to go to even-more superordinate levels,
like "head", "modifier", and "complement". All at the appropriate age,
of course.
Craig raised the issue of the complexity of written texts in an earlier
post. I believe a major reason students have trouble with these texts
is that they don't read enough -- not enough of such texts, and not
enough, period. I think we will find that studying grammar helps with
reading ability, but I believe the main way to become fluent at reading
is by reading, and progressing incrementally from easier to harder
levels (like we used to do in school). (Granted, school readers still
advance incrementally, but too many kids aren't doing enough reading to
become fluent at the higher levels.)
I also remain firmly convinced that reading high-level texts is
necessary to being able to write them. No grammar course can teach the
full range of structures used in high-level writing. Not only is there
variety in grammar, but there is a very large number of fixed
expressions that occur in formal writing (such as "I remain firmly
convinced"). Language learning doesn't stop at age 5. People continue
to learn unconsciously probably all of their lives, but certainly very
actively in childhood and adolescence.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:27:51 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Hello, all!
This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are
so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in
writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do
not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach
grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they
can to avoid the inevitable.
Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if
those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it.
What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and
is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of
such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself
what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What
for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have
just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate
it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of
teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on
them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
Eduard
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:16:09 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar instruction--how early and what kind?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Johanna,
I'm surprised you would fall back on the "if they read it will rub off"
argument for difficult texts.>It seems out of place with all the rest.
One problem, I think, is that students mainly read literature in their
English classes. Texts in the technical disciplines, even history and
the social sciences, can be organized quite differently. The other
problem is that we are asking students to make changes that we do not
understand. It doesn't help to simply say it will happen from exposure.
I have been reading Mary Schleppegrell's "The Language of Schooling",
and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in these issues. It's a
rich discussion of the way that language functions within the technical
registers. Our first tendency, I think, is to believe that these are
superficial differences, as in your example, but they are not. She
makes a good case that students can be much better served if we have a
better understanding of the kind of changes that have to happen and if
we make those changes explicit. I'm working my way toward a full review
of the book, but that's a quick summary of the reasons for my comments.
From a functional perspective, these are not just formal differences in
the texts, but highly functional differences. Technical texts do a
different kind of work than we find in a typical narrative.
Schleppegrel also focuses in on the kinds of texts that are valued in
high stakes testing, where we read passages and respond. Again, it's
not just a matter of conventional correctness, and I don't think the
school population is well served by teachers who are unconscious of
their own decisions and unaware of what they are asking students to do.
She is writing out of a systemic functional linguistics tradition, but
does a nice job of summarizing other research.
Craig
Paul,
>
> I favor using the "-al" suffix to distinguish class from function. It
> is a little subtle, and hard for older students who aren't used to
> studying about language, and for people who have internalized
> traditional grammar. But I can't think of an alternative, and it should
> work well if it is introduced and maintained in a long-term (over
> years!) grammar curriculum.
>
> I also believe it's important to go to even-more superordinate levels,
> like "head", "modifier", and "complement". All at the appropriate age,
> of course.
>
> Craig raised the issue of the complexity of written texts in an earlier
> post. I believe a major reason students have trouble with these texts
> is that they don't read enough -- not enough of such texts, and not
> enough, period. I think we will find that studying grammar helps with
> reading ability, but I believe the main way to become fluent at reading
> is by reading, and progressing incrementally from easier to harder
> levels (like we used to do in school). (Granted, school readers still
> advance incrementally, but too many kids aren't doing enough reading to
> become fluent at the higher levels.)
>
> I also remain firmly convinced that reading high-level texts is
> necessary to being able to write them. No grammar course can teach the
> full range of structures used in high-level writing. Not only is there
> variety in grammar, but there is a very large number of fixed
> expressions that occur in formal writing (such as "I remain firmly
> convinced"). Language learning doesn't stop at age 5. People continue
> to learn unconsciously probably all of their lives, but certainly very
> actively in childhood and adolescence.
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel.: 805.756.2184
> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:22:37 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Eduard,
I think recent posts have been very much pro grammar, so I'm curious
about what you are referring to. On the other hand, I think you seem
reluctant to advocate trying to teach a more accurate (admittedly more
complex) grammar. What I see on the list more often than not is the
kind of post that says "students can't learn this" or "they don't need
to know this." The scope and sequence project, as we have envisioned it
all along, is counter to that prevailing minimalist approach. We
believe students can learn the truth about language and that those
truths are very rich, interesting, and useful. >
Craig
Hello, all!
>
> This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are
> so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
> that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in
> writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do
> not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach
> grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they
> can to avoid the inevitable.
>
> Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if
> those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it.
> What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and
> is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of
> such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself
> what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>
> If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What
> for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
> the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have
> just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate
> it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of
> teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on
> them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
>
> Eduard
>
> 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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:26:52 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Now relax a bit, Eduard. Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one
degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the way
grammar has been taught in the schools. Let me give you one example. A
couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher
successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT. The question
involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP), which
claims that a sentence like
Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading theoretical
physicist of his time.
is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore cannot
serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him". A careful study of this rule
and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was invented
in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it. It has
since crept into general handbooks like Fowler and has come to be widely
accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English grammar.
Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in=20
Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion.
are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and should
be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity, not a
point of grammar, even though the problem can be described
grammatically. =20
In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but that
was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong with
the sentence. In this case, widespread misinformation won the day.
You can read Zwicky's account at
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=3D%22Zwicky%20pos=
s
essive%20antecedent%22
You can read about other SAT grammar problems at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html
Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social, stylistic, or
simply not so. I don't question that the social and stylistic must be
included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not as
rules of grammar. =20
Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching also
because the pedagogy has been so bad. This is a baby/bathwater
situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is improve
the pedagogy. Improving the content is the other major part of the
effort.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Hello, all!
This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are=20
so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state=20
that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in=20
writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do=20
not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach=20
grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they=20
can to avoid the inevitable.
Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if=20
those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it.
What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and=20
is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of=20
such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself=20
what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What=20
for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of=20
the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have=20
just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate=20
it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of=20
teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on=20
them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.=20
Eduard=20
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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:22:54 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-14287906-1156425774=:884"
--0-14287906-1156425774=:884
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I would add to Herb's fascinating response that it is my understanding that everyone on this list is in favor of grammar being taught. Where we differ is in how it should be taught, when specific concepts should be taught, how much of it should be taught, etc. I don't completely understand Eduard's complaint here since nobody on this list has attacked grammar instruction in general, only some aspects of past instruction and methods; in fact, most of us have attacked the NCTE anti-grammar stance and criticized the lack of grammar instruction in education today. I think we all love (or at least like) grammar.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26:52 AM
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Now relax a bit, Eduard. Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one
degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the way
grammar has been taught in the schools. Let me give you one example. A
couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher
successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT. The question
involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP), which
claims that a sentence like
Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading theoretical
physicist of his time.
is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore cannot
serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him". A careful study of this rule
and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was invented
in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it. It has
since crept into general handbooks like Fowler and has come to be widely
accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English grammar.
Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in
Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion.
are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and should
be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity, not a
point of grammar, even though the problem can be described
grammatically.
In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but that
was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong with
the sentence. In this case, widespread misinformation won the day.
You can read Zwicky's account at
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=%22Zwicky%20poss
essive%20antecedent%22
You can read about other SAT grammar problems at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html
Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social, stylistic, or
simply not so. I don't question that the social and stylistic must be
included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not as
rules of grammar.
Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching also
because the pedagogy has been so bad. This is a baby/bathwater
situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is improve
the pedagogy. Improving the content is the other major part of the
effort.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Hello, all!
This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are
so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in
writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do
not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach
grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they
can to avoid the inevitable.
Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if
those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it.
What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and
is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of
such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself
what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What
for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have
just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate
it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of
teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on
them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
Eduard
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/
--0-14287906-1156425774=:884
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I would add to Herb's fascinating response that it is my understanding that everyone on this list is in favor of grammar being taught. Where we differ is in how it should be taught, when specific concepts should be taught, how much of it should be taught, etc. I don't completely understand Eduard's complaint here since nobody on this list has attacked grammar instruction in general, only some aspects of past instruction and methods; in fact, most of us have attacked the NCTE anti-grammar stance and criticized the lack of grammar instruction in education today. I think we all love (or at least like) grammar.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26:52 AM
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Now relax a bit, Eduard. Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one
degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the way
grammar has been taught in the schools. Let me give you one example. A
couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher
successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT. The question
involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP), which
claims that a sentence like
Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading theoretical
physicist of his time.
is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore cannot
serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him". A careful study of this rule
and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was invented
in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it. It has
since crept into general handbooks like
Fowler and has come to be widely
accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English grammar.
Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in
Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion.
are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and should
be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity, not a
point of grammar, even though the problem can be described
grammatically.
In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but that
was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong with
the sentence. In this case, widespread misinformation won the day.
You can read Zwicky's account at
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=%22Zwicky%20poss
essive%20antecedent%22
You can read about other SAT grammar problems
at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html
Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social, stylistic, or
simply not so. I don't question that the social and stylistic must be
included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not as
rules of grammar.
Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching also
because the pedagogy has been so bad. This is a baby/bathwater
situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is improve
the pedagogy. Improving the content is the other major part of the
effort.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Hello, all!
This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are
so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in
writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do
not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach
grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they
can to avoid the inevitable.
Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if
those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it.
What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and
is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of
such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself
what they needed to know in order to qualify for
teaching.
If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What
for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have
just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate
it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of
teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on
them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
Eduard
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/
--0-14287906-1156425774=:884--
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:01:02 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It isn't so much grammar teaching that gets attacked but "bad" grammar teaching. My personal feeling is that there has likely never been particularly much bad grammar teaching just a fair amount of resistance and frustration with grammar and grammar teaching that got blown way out of proportion. It is much more of a folk myth like big foot or ufos. The believers in some past age of bad grammar and bad grammar teachers are much like those believers in bigfoot. A few anecdotes and a couple of foggy references and pictures is enough to set off the alarms and the rhetoric. But in actual fact there is very little sound proof of bad grammar practices. I think it would be of value for someone actually to describe the bad practices in the past in some detail and then to provide examples from the textbooks with these bad practices.
I think we would all note that there is very little difference in teaching grammar now, 25 years ago or even 50 years ago EXCEPT for interesting and provocative anecdotal evidence that there were repititive exercises out there. However, interactivity, more real life exercises and the internet have made it more exciting and more effective.
Don't get me wrong. I am aware there was also some limited evidence that suggested that grammar teaching could not be shown to be directly of value for writing skills but this is another issue. What I want to impress on everyone is the idea that most of the "bad grammar" is non-existent. It's a bigfoot with exciting and attractive evidence that never leads to a definitie discovery. Someone needs to write an essay that types and lists rather exhaustively the bad grammar teaching practices. (I am thinking about it but have three other writing projects ahead of it and I don't have much of a library available to me). My article in "English Today_ this month on "The New SAT and Fundamental Misunderstandings of English Grammar" lists some of the myths as well.
And of course let's all bow our heads in the direction of Mulroy's _The War Against Grammar_ as much of the work to disprove the existence of bad grammar is already there.
Phil Bralich
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 24, 2006 4:27 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>
>Hello, all!
>
>This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are
>so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
>that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in
>writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do
>not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach
>grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they
>can to avoid the inevitable.
>
>Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if
>those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it.
>What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and
>is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of
>such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself
>what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>
>If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What
>for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
>the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have
>just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate
>it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of
>teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on
>them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
>
>Eduard
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:21:33 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Craig:
As I said before, I want to read posts from people who work with
children from the beginning of those children's education. I want to
learn how they teach grammar to the students between the first and
the fourth grades. The elementary grades, or even before, is the
time when teachers sow the grammar seeds and set up the foundation
of what is going to happen later. On the other hand, if I may return
you comment about your perspective, you seem to want to beging
grammar instruction at college level. Talking about scope and
sequence, what is the sequence you have in mind, and what is your
plan for the curriculum for the elementary grades? An introduction
to linguistics?
Eduard
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Craig Hancock wrote...
>Eduard,
> I think recent posts have been very much pro grammar, so I'm
curious
>about what you are referring to. On the other hand, I think you seem
>reluctant to advocate trying to teach a more accurate (admittedly
more
>complex) grammar. What I see on the list more often than not is the
>kind of post that says "students can't learn this" or "they don't
need
>to know this." The scope and sequence project, as we have
envisioned it
>all along, is counter to that prevailing minimalist approach. We
>believe students can learn the truth about language and that those
>truths are very rich, interesting, and useful. >
>
>Craig
>
>
>Hello, all!
>>
>> This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why
are
>> so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
>> that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no
difference in
>> writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people
do
>> not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to
teach
>> grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as
they
>> can to avoid the inevitable.
>>
>> Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student
writing if
>> those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to
teach it.
>> What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around
and
>> is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few
of
>> such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them
myself
>> what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>>
>> If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list.
What
>> for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
>> the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I
have
>> just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who
hate
>> it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work
of
>> teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks
on
>> them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>> 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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:29:51 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Herb:
I think we need to turn back to NCTE's decision to take grammar out
of schools. What was the reason? That teaching gramar does not do
any good to students, but could damage them. Just a few days ago
someone posted a message which said just that, that grammar teaching
does not make any difference to the student writers. That it doesn't
improve in any way their writing. Do you subscribe to this claim?
The fact that a some individuals did not use the right methodology
to teach grammar is something else, a topic I have not approached in
my message.
Eduard
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Now relax a bit, Eduard. Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one
>degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the
way
>grammar has been taught in the schools. Let me give you one
example. A
>couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher
>successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT. The question
>involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP),
which
>claims that a sentence like
>
>Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading
theoretical
>physicist of his time.
>
>is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore
cannot
>serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him". A careful study of this
rule
>and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was
invented
>in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it. It
has
>since crept into general handbooks like Fowler and has come to be
widely
>accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English
grammar.
>Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in=20
>
>Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion.
>
>are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and
should
>be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity,
not a
>point of grammar, even though the problem can be described
>grammatically. =20
>
>In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but
that
>was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong
with
>the sentence. In this case, widespread misinformation won the day.
>
>You can read Zwicky's account at
>http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=3D%22Zwicky%
20pos=
>s
>essive%20antecedent%22
>
>You can read about other SAT grammar problems at
>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html
>
>Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social,
stylistic, or
>simply not so. I don't question that the social and stylistic must
be
>included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not
as
>rules of grammar. =20
>
>Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching
also
>because the pedagogy has been so bad. This is a baby/bathwater
>situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is
improve
>the pedagogy. Improving the content is the other major part of the
>effort.
>
>Herb
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
>Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>
>Hello, all!
>
>This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why
are=20
>so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state=20
>that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference
in=20
>writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people
do=20
>not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to
teach=20
>grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as
they=20
>can to avoid the inevitable.
>
>Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing
if=20
>those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach
it.
>What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around
and=20
>is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few
of=20
>such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them
myself=20
>what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>
>If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list.
What=20
>for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part
of=20
>the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I
have=20
>just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who
hate=20
>it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work
of=20
>teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks
on=20
>them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.=20
>
>Eduard=20
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:34:56 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Paul,
I think that your statement that *everyone on this list is in favor
of grammar being taught* is fascinating, but doesn't seem to be
based on facts. Some of the messages I read on this list seem to
indicate something different. I wonder what the problem is that you
keep misreading me.
Eduard
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paul E. Doniger wrote...
>I would add to Herb's fascinating response that it is my
understanding that everyone on this list is in favor of grammar
being taught. Where we differ is in how it should be taught, when
specific concepts should be taught, how much of it should be taught,
etc. I don't completely understand Eduard's complaint here since
nobody on this list has attacked grammar instruction in general,
only some aspects of past instruction and methods; in fact, most of
us have attacked the NCTE anti-grammar stance and criticized the
lack of grammar instruction in education today. I think we all love
(or at least like) grammar.
>
>Paul D.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26:52 AM
>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>
>
>Now relax a bit, Eduard. Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one
>degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the
way
>grammar has been taught in the schools. Let me give you one
example. A
>couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher
>successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT. The question
>involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP),
which
>claims that a sentence like
>
>Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading
theoretical
>physicist of his time.
>
>is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore
cannot
>serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him". A careful study of this
rule
>and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was
invented
>in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it. It
has
>since crept into general handbooks like Fowler and has come to be
widely
>accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English
grammar.
>Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in
>
>Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion.
>
>are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and
should
>be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity,
not a
>point of grammar, even though the problem can be described
>grammatically.
>
>In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but
that
>was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong
with
>the sentence. In this case, widespread misinformation won the day.
>
>You can read Zwicky's account at
>http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=%22Zwicky%
20poss
>essive%20antecedent%22
>
>You can read about other SAT grammar problems at
>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html
>
>Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social,
stylistic, or
>simply not so. I don't question that the social and stylistic must
be
>included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not
as
>rules of grammar.
>
>Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching
also
>because the pedagogy has been so bad. This is a baby/bathwater
>situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is
improve
>the pedagogy. Improving the content is the other major part of the
>effort.
>
>Herb
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
>Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>
>Hello, all!
>
>This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are
>so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
>that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference
in
>writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people
do
>not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to
teach
>grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as
they
>can to avoid the inevitable.
>
>Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing
if
>those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach
it.
>What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around
and
>is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of
>such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself
>what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>
>If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list.
What
>for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
>the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have
>just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who
hate
>it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work
of
>teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on
>them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
>
>Eduard
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:39:42 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Phil,
You are hitting the nail on the head. Bad grammar teaching is very
much like the Bigfoot story. One or two foot prints (examples) which
seem to be inflated to scary generalizations. On the other hand THE
WAR AGAINST GRAMMAR is a reality which cannot be denied.
Eduard
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>It isn't so much grammar teaching that gets attacked but "bad"
grammar teaching. My personal feeling is that there has likely
never been particularly much bad grammar teaching just a fair amount
of resistance and frustration with grammar and grammar teaching that
got blown way out of proportion. It is much more of a folk myth
like big foot or ufos. The believers in some past age of bad
grammar and bad grammar teachers are much like those believers in
bigfoot. A few anecdotes and a couple of foggy references and
pictures is enough to set off the alarms and the rhetoric. But in
actual fact there is very little sound proof of bad grammar
practices. I think it would be of value for someone actually to
describe the bad practices in the past in some detail and then to
provide examples from the textbooks with these bad practices.
>
>I think we would all note that there is very little difference in
teaching grammar now, 25 years ago or even 50 years ago EXCEPT for
interesting and provocative anecdotal evidence that there were
repititive exercises out there. However, interactivity, more real
life exercises and the internet have made it more exciting and more
effective.
>
>Don't get me wrong. I am aware there was also some limited
evidence that suggested that grammar teaching could not be shown to
be directly of value for writing skills but this is another issue.
What I want to impress on everyone is the idea that most of the "bad
grammar" is non-existent. It's a bigfoot with exciting and
attractive evidence that never leads to a definitie discovery.
Someone needs to write an essay that types and lists rather
exhaustively the bad grammar teaching practices. (I am thinking
about it but have three other writing projects ahead of it and I
don't have much of a library available to me). My article
in "English Today_ this month on "The New SAT and Fundamental
Misunderstandings of English Grammar" lists some of the myths as
well.
>
>And of course let's all bow our heads in the direction of Mulroy's
_The War Against Grammar_ as much of the work to disprove the
existence of bad grammar is already there.
>
>Phil Bralich
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Aug 24, 2006 4:27 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar
>>
>>Hello, all!
>>
>>This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why
are
>>so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state
>>that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference
in
>>writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people
do
>>not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to
teach
>>grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as
they
>>can to avoid the inevitable.
>>
>>Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing
if
>>those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach
it.
>>What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around
and
>>is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few
of
>>such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them
myself
>>what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching.
>>
>>If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list.
What
>>for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of
>>the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I
have
>>just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who
hate
>>it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work
of
>>teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks
on
>>them and the displeasure of the grammar haters.
>>
>>Eduard
>>
>>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:56:50 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Middle School grammar book
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
John,
We'd be very pleased to have you and your students help us pilot the
new book. Within the next two weeks we'll have our first three
parts (nouns and noun phrases, verbs, sentence patterns) ready to go.
I can send them to you in pdf format. You can simply reproduce the
student lessons or make transparencies--whatever works.
If you are getting underway sooner, I can send you the first section
separately.
Martha
>Martha,
> I can't wait for your book to be released. In Japan the long summer
>vacation ends at the end of August and I will be introducing to my
>students sentence patterns and diagrams adapted from UEG. I have canvassed
>several teacher/education/linguistic forums online in Japan but can find
>nobody who is teaching grammar along these lines. Similarly there is
>nobody apparently teaching grammar in schools in the functional
>grammar/Halliday perspective. Discussion of grammar seems to be limited to
>scholarly exchange of views on esoteric subjects.(I share the same sense
>of trepidation as Trudy when contacting these lofty venues - I feel like a
>midget raching for the shelf)
> U.S.A. supplies most of the English teachers here in Japan and I guess
>they were influenced by the anti-grammar movement - I hear was prevalent
>in their schooldays. Please let me know if I can trial any of your work in
>my Japanese classes.
> John
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:40:48 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a problem that has been discussed by Plato, Aristotle, Paramenides,=
Spinoza, Hegel and Kant to name just a few. It is discussed under a vare=
ity of names so it may difficult to recognize at first, for Hegel the Begri=
ff, for Plato the Logos, and for most English speaking philopshers the Conc=
ept or the Idea of Ideas. In this the issue of the degree to which words a=
nd language interact with the actual objects that they refer to. That is t=
oo say, this is an issue of some complexity. However, for our purposes the=
issue is more rooted in the specifics of grammar teaching than in the wide=
r world of philosophy but we beg these issues at this point. The word "dog=
" is an element of language and exists in the head as part of a system of s=
igns. However, the meaning of dog (even its nounness) is dependent on the =
actually occuring animal for learning and for periodic review. For exampl=
e, we must know that a dog has hair, claws, four legs, and so forth. The w=
ord is dependent on this knowledge of the real world. Also and more genera=
lly but no less true, it is a mammal, a living being, an entity, and finall=
y a noun. This quality can no more be completely severed from the dog as t=
he sequence of three sounds d - o - g can be completely severed from the ex=
isting animal. You, like Paramenides, separate the word the thing a bit to=
o much. I am much more with Plato, Kant, and Hegel in believing the relati=
on between the word dog and the concept dog are quite dependent. And there=
by I believe that noun is a quality of the animal itself -- more general th=
an entity or mammal but still a quality of the animal itself. =20
Phil Bralich
>2. Phil Bralich claims all entities or things are nouns. A noun is a=20
>class of word; classes of words are elements of language; language is a=20
>mental phenomenon. Nouns exist only in the minds of human beings. You=20
>cannot point to something in the world, like a rock, and say it is a=20
>noun. Word meanings are concepts, not things outside the mind. When we=20
>are exposed to the world, we make a mental record of our experience; we=20
>see things like rocks and form a concept of rocks. We learn to=20
>associate a word ("rock") with the concept. Then we classify words=20
>into categories based on certain _perceived_ features of the things and=20
>on discourse needs. The prototypical entity likely to be named by a=20
>noun is (a) concrete (b) clearly differentiated from other entities (c)=20
>time-stable, that is, it does not change its essence or properties very=20
>fast; (d) it is internally differentiated, that is, it has parts that=20
>are different from each other; (e) it is countable.
>
>The fewer of these properties an entity is perceived to have, the less=20
>likely it is to be named by a noun. Also, the fewer of these properties=20
>it has, the fewer noun inflection "privileges" it will have, such as=20
>being able to be pluralized.
>
>Perception and cultural conditioning are extremely important. Not all=20
>languages assign the same phenomena to the noun and verb classes.
>
>In response to Craig and others, I believe it is very helpful to teach=20
>students how to use inflectional tests like adding plural -s to=20
>identify a word's class. It's like a basic definition in mathematics --=20
>not sexy, but part of the basic equipment. Much more can be said about=20
>nouns, of course, and should, according to the students' level.
>
>I spoke in another message of the difference between class and=20
>function. "Nominal" is the function that clauses play when they are=20
>subjects or direct objects; in fact, "nominal" is the superordinate=20
>term for structures that play roles like subject, direct object, and so=20
>on. "Nominal" is a discourse function for referring and for supplying=20
>something to which we can assign a predicate (say something about).
>
>My own textbook takes a thoroughgoing cognitive/functional approach=20
>(along with structural descriptions) to English grammar. If all goes=20
>well, it will be out by summer of '07 or a little later.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>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/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:00:42 -0600
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part3015942A.0__="
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
--=__Part3015942A.0__=
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Phil,
Not to deep-six the discussion, but there is a fatal flaw in your idea of
nounness. We can see in the progress of science how language has misled
investigators in many places. One example is "heat" as a noun. For many years
investigators tried to find the element that was flowing from one object to
another. It could never be found. It does not exist. (Now science speaks of
"entropy".) People had reified the concept. Let's not do this to our students,
if we can avoid it.
Bruce
>>> "Phil Bralich" <[log in to unmask]> 08/24/06 9:40 AM >>>
This is a problem that has been discussed by Plato, Aristotle, Paramenides,
Spinoza, Hegel and Kant to name just a few. It is discussed under a vareity of
names so it may difficult to recognize at first, for Hegel the Begriff, for
Plato the Logos, and for most English speaking philopshers the Concept or the
Idea of Ideas. In this the issue of the degree to which words and language
interact with the actual objects that they refer to. That is too say, this is
an issue of some complexity. However, for our purposes the issue is more rooted
in the specifics of grammar teaching than in the wider world of philosophy but
we beg these issues at this point. The word "dog" is an element of language and
exists in the head as part of a system of signs. However, the meaning of dog
(even its nounness) is dependent on the actually occuring animal for learning
and for periodic review. For example, we must know that a dog has hair, claws,
four legs, and so forth. The word is dependent on this knowledge of the real
world. Also and more generally but no less true, it is a mammal, a living
being, an entity, and finally a noun. This quality can no more be completely
severed from the dog as the sequence of three sounds d - o - g can be completely
severed from the existing animal. You, like Paramenides, separate the word the
thing a bit too much. I am much more with Plato, Kant, and Hegel in believing
the relation between the word dog and the concept dog are quite dependent. And
thereby I believe that noun is a quality of the animal itself -- more general
than entity or mammal but still a quality of the animal itself.
Phil Bralich
>2. Phil Bralich claims all entities or things are nouns. A noun is a
>class of word; classes of words are elements of language; language is a
>mental phenomenon. Nouns exist only in the minds of human beings. You
>cannot point to something in the world, like a rock, and say it is a
>noun. Word meanings are concepts, not things outside the mind. When we
>are exposed to the world, we make a mental record of our experience; we
>see things like rocks and form a concept of rocks. We learn to
>associate a word ("rock") with the concept. Then we classify words
>into categories based on certain _perceived_ features of the things and
>on discourse needs. The prototypical entity likely to be named by a
>noun is (a) concrete (b) clearly differentiated from other entities (c)
>time-stable, that is, it does not change its essence or properties very
>fast; (d) it is internally differentiated, that is, it has parts that
>are different from each other; (e) it is countable.
>
>The fewer of these properties an entity is perceived to have, the less
>likely it is to be named by a noun. Also, the fewer of these properties
>it has, the fewer noun inflection "privileges" it will have, such as
>being able to be pluralized.
>
>Perception and cultural conditioning are extremely important. Not all
>languages assign the same phenomena to the noun and verb classes.
>
>In response to Craig and others, I believe it is very helpful to teach
>students how to use inflectional tests like adding plural -s to
>identify a word's class. It's like a basic definition in mathematics --
>not sexy, but part of the basic equipment. Much more can be said about
>nouns, of course, and should, according to the students' level.
>
>I spoke in another message of the difference between class and
>function. "Nominal" is the function that clauses play when they are
>subjects or direct objects; in fact, "nominal" is the superordinate
>term for structures that play roles like subject, direct object, and so
>on. "Nominal" is a discourse function for referring and for supplying
>something to which we can assign a predicate (say something about).
>
>My own textbook takes a thoroughgoing cognitive/functional approach
>(along with structural descriptions) to English grammar. If all goes
>well, it will be out by summer of '07 or a little later.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
--=__Part3015942A.0__=
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: HTML
Phil,
Not to deep-six the discussion, but there is a fatal flaw in your idea of nounness. We can see in the progress of science how language has misled investigators in many places. One example is "heat" as a noun. For many years investigators tried to find the element that was flowing from one object to another. It could never be found. It does not exist. (Now science speaks of "entropy".) People had reified the concept. Let's not do this to our students, if we can avoid it.
This is a problem that has been discussed by Plato, Aristotle, Paramenides, Spinoza, Hegel and Kant to name just a few. It is discussed under a vareity of names so it may difficult to recognize at first, for Hegel the Begriff, for Plato the Logos, and for most English speaking philopshers the Concept or the Idea of Ideas. In this the issue of the degree to which words and language interact with the actual objects that they refer to. That is too say, this is an issue of some complexity. However, for our purposes the issue is more rooted in the specifics of grammar teaching than in the wider world of philosophy but we beg these issues at this point. The word "dog" is an element of language and exists in the head as part of a system of signs. However, the meaning of dog (even its nounness) is dependent on the actually occuring animal for learning and for periodic review. For example, we must know !
that a
dog has hair, claws, four legs, and so forth. The word is dependent on this knowledge of the real world. Also and more generally but no less true, it is a mammal, a living being, an entity, and finally a noun. This quality can no more be completely severed from the dog as the sequence of three sounds d - o - g can be completely severed from the existing animal. You, like Paramenides, separate the word the thing a bit too much. I am much more with Plato, Kant, and Hegel in believing the relation between the word dog and the concept dog are quite dependent. And thereby I believe that noun is a quality of the animal itself -- more general than entity or mammal but still a quality of the animal itself.
Phil Bralich
>2. Phil Bralich claims all entities or things are nouns. A noun is a
>class of word; classes of words are elements of language; language is a
>mental phenomenon. Nouns exist only in the m!
inds of
human beings. You
>cannot point to something in the world, like a rock, and say it is a
>noun. Word meanings are concepts, not things outside the mind. When we
>are exposed to the world, we make a mental record of our experience; we
>see things like rocks and form a concept of rocks. We learn to
>associate a word ("rock") with the concept. Then we classify words
>into categories based on certain _perceived_ features of the things and
>on discourse needs. The prototypical entity likely to be named by a
>noun is (a) concrete (b) clearly differentiated from other entities (c)
>time-stable, that is, it does not change its essence or properties very
>fast; (d) it is internally differentiated, that is, it has parts that
>are different from each other; (e) it is countable.
>
>The fewer of these properties an entity is perceived to have, the less
>likely it is to be named by a noun.!
Also,
the fewer of these properties
>it has, the fewer noun inflection "privileges" it will have, such as
>being able to be pluralized.
>
>Perception and cultural conditioning are extremely important. Not all
>languages assign the same phenomena to the noun and verb classes.
>
>In response to Craig and others, I believe it is very helpful to teach
>students how to use inflectional tests like adding plural -s to
>identify a word's class. It's like a basic definition in mathematics --
>not sexy, but part of the basic equipment. Much more can be said about
>nouns, of course, and should, according to the students' level.
>
>I spoke in another message of the difference between class and
>function. "Nominal" is the function that clauses play when they are
>subjects or direct objects; in fact, "nominal" is the superordinate
>term for structures that play roles like subject, direct ob!
ject, and
so
>on. "Nominal" is a discourse function for referring and for supplying
>something to which we can assign a predicate (say something about).
>
>My own textbook takes a thoroughgoing cognitive/functional approach
>(along with structural descriptions) to English grammar. If all goes
>well, it will be out by summer of '07 or a little later.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/ --=__Part3015942A.0__=-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:24:53 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1951367673-1156440293=:14858" --0-1951367673-1156440293=:14858 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii However, to build on Johanna's and Craig's earlier points: "I have dogged him like his murderer" (Shakespeare Twelfth Night 3.2.81). The use of dog as a verb extends into the early 16th century (80+ years before Twelfth Night) and is quite common. Of course the concept comes from the idea that the animal, dog, tends to follow its master closely, but the word in these sentences is clearly used as a verb, not a noun. Consequently, the image of the animal is removed into the background and the concept of following closely -- the action -- to the foreground. And what about expressions like: "My dogs (aching feet) are killing me," and "That picture was a dog (piece of junk)." These sentences use the word as a noun, of course, but through the metamorphoses of colloquial speech, it is far removed from the cute little furry pet with four legs. One should also bear in mind that the term dog as a generic word for the domestic animal is fairly recent (400-500 year only); it originally was a specific breed of the OE/Germanic word, Hund. Dog at first was specifically a breed (genus? species?) of English racing hound. Of course, in that context, the word is also a noun and has the characteristics you mention -- along with a few more specific ones (apparently, powerfulness was one of them -- a characteristic totally lacking in some modern dogs). Language, including the 8 or more parts of speech, is neither static nor rigid. It seems to me that flexibility in discussing and teaching these concepts is essential. Paul D. ----- Original Message ---- From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:40:48 AM Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar This is a problem that has been discussed by Plato, Aristotle, Paramenides, Spinoza, Hegel and Kant to name just a few. It is discussed under a vareity of names so it may difficult to recognize at first, for Hegel the Begriff, for Plato the Logos, and for most English speaking philopshers the Concept or the Idea of Ideas. In this the issue of the degree to which words and language interact with the actual objects that they refer to. That is too say, this is an issue of some complexity. However, for our purposes the issue is more rooted in the specifics of grammar teaching than in the wider world of philosophy but we beg these issues at this point. The word "dog" is an element of language and exists in the head as part of a system of signs. However, the meaning of dog (even its nounness) is dependent on the actually occuring animal for learning and for periodic review. For example, we must know that a dog has hair, claws, four legs, and so forth. The word is dependent on this knowledge of the real world. Also and more generally but no less true, it is a mammal, a living being, an entity, and finally a noun. This quality can no more be completely severed from the dog as the sequence of three sounds d - o - g can be completely severed from the existing animal. You, like Paramenides, separate the word the thing a bit too much. I am much more with Plato, Kant, and Hegel in believing the relation between the word dog and the concept dog are quite dependent. And thereby I believe that noun is a quality of the animal itself -- more general than entity or mammal but still a quality of the animal itself. Phil Bralich >2. Phil Bralich claims all entities or things are nouns. A noun is a >class of word; classes of words are elements of language; language is a >mental phenomenon. Nouns exist only in the minds of human beings. You >cannot point to something in the world, like a rock, and say it is a >noun. Word meanings are concepts, not things outside the mind. When we >are exposed to the world, we make a mental record of our experience; we >see things like rocks and form a concept of rocks. We learn to >associate a word ("rock") with the concept. Then we classify words >into categories based on certain _perceived_ features of the things and >on discourse needs. The prototypical entity likely to be named by a >noun is (a) concrete (b) clearly differentiated from other entities (c) >time-stable, that is, it does not change its essence or properties very >fast; (d) it is internally differentiated, that is, it has parts that >are different from each other; (e) it is countable. > >The fewer of these properties an entity is perceived to have, the less >likely it is to be named by a noun. Also, the fewer of these properties >it has, the fewer noun inflection "privileges" it will have, such as >being able to be pluralized. > >Perception and cultural conditioning are extremely important. Not all >languages assign the same phenomena to the noun and verb classes. > >In response to Craig and others, I believe it is very helpful to teach >students how to use inflectional tests like adding plural -s to >identify a word's class. It's like a basic definition in mathematics -- >not sexy, but part of the basic equipment. Much more can be said about >nouns, of course, and should, according to the students' level. > >I spoke in another message of the difference between class and >function. "Nominal" is the function that clauses play when they are >subjects or direct objects; in fact, "nominal" is the superordinate >term for structures that play roles like subject, direct object, and so >on. "Nominal" is a discourse function for referring and for supplying >something to which we can assign a predicate (say something about). > >My own textbook takes a thoroughgoing cognitive/functional approach >(along with structural descriptions) to English grammar. If all goes >well, it will be out by summer of '07 or a little later. > >Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics >Linguistics Minor Advisor >English Department >California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >E-mail: [log in to unmask] >Tel.: 805.756.2184 >Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > >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/ --0-1951367673-1156440293=:14858 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1951367673-1156440293=:14858-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:31:35 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-890423750-1156440695=:12317" --0-890423750-1156440695=:12317 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Eduard, I don't think I misread you; however, I don't agree with your view of ATEG. We are all in favor of teaching grammar -- that is why we exist. We simply have a variety of ideas about what, when, and how to teach it. If anyone reading this thinks we should NOT teach grammar, please let me know. What is your evidence that there are anti-grammar attitudes among the list? Paul ----- Original Message ---- From: Eduard C. Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:34:56 AM Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar Paul, I think that your statement that *everyone on this list is in favor of grammar being taught* is fascinating, but doesn't seem to be based on facts. Some of the messages I read on this list seem to indicate something different. I wonder what the problem is that you keep misreading me. Eduard On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paul E. Doniger wrote... >I would add to Herb's fascinating response that it is my understanding that everyone on this list is in favor of grammar being taught. Where we differ is in how it should be taught, when specific concepts should be taught, how much of it should be taught, etc. I don't completely understand Eduard's complaint here since nobody on this list has attacked grammar instruction in general, only some aspects of past instruction and methods; in fact, most of us have attacked the NCTE anti-grammar stance and criticized the lack of grammar instruction in education today. I think we all love (or at least like) grammar. > >Paul D. > > >----- Original Message ---- >From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26:52 AM >Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar > > >Now relax a bit, Eduard. Those who oppose grammar teaching, to one >degree or another, have legitimate grounds for doing so, given the way >grammar has been taught in the schools. Let me give you one example. A >couple of years a go, a Florida high school student and his teacher >successfully challenged a grammar question on the SAT. The question >involved the so-called Possessive Antecedent Prohibition (PAP), which >claims that a sentence like > >Einstein's work on relativity established him as the leading theoretical >physicist of his time. > >is ungrammatical because "Einstein's" is possessive and therefore cannot >serve as antecedent for the pronoun "him". A careful study of this rule >and its history, by Arnold Zwicky, established that the PAP was invented >in the mid-1940s, that grammars before that do not mention it. It has >since crept into general handbooks like Fowler and has come to be widely >accepted even though there never was grounds for it in English grammar. >Granted, some possessive antecedents, as in > >Mary's mother's cooking gives her indigestion. > >are poorly crafted and result in ambiguity or even vagueness and should >be avoided, but this is a matter of careful attention to clarity, not a >point of grammar, even though the problem can be described >grammatically. > >In the successful SAT challenge, the sentence contained a PAP, but that >was not what the test was looking for in determining what was wrong with >the sentence. In this case, widespread misinformation won the day. > >You can read Zwicky's account at >http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/adshand.pdf#search=%22Zwicky% 20poss >essive%20antecedent%22 > >You can read about other SAT grammar problems at >http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001863.html > >Much of what has been taught as English grammar is social, stylistic, or >simply not so. I don't question that the social and stylistic must be >included in language arts, but they need to be taught as that, not as >rules of grammar. > >Of course, many English teachers have objected to grammar teaching also >because the pedagogy has been so bad. This is a baby/bathwater >situation, though, and one of the things we're trying to do is improve >the pedagogy. Improving the content is the other major part of the >effort. > >Herb > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu >Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:28 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Scared of Grammar > >Hello, all! > >This is supposed to be a "grammar lovers" forum, right? But why are >so many post on this list from people who atack grammar and state >that teaching grammar does not make sense, and makes no difference in >writing? The explanation appears to be quite simple: these people do >not like grammar, do not understand grammar, and do not want to teach >grammar. Their posts indicate that they are fighting as hard as they >can to avoid the inevitable. > >Of course, grammar cannot cause any improvement in student writing if >those who "teach" it have no idea what grammar is and how to teach it. >What role model, or inspiration can a teacher who fumbles around and >is in confusion about grammar could be for students? I had a few of >such teachers and instructors, and often I had to teach them myself >what they needed to know in order to qualify for teaching. > >If I did not like grammar I would not bother to be on this list. What >for? To read again and again about others love and I hate? Part of >the endless harangue in the forum is caused by the situation I have >just described, people who love grammar fighting with people who hate >it. In the meantime, some people do the quiet and unrewarded work of >teaching their students Standard English in spite of the attacks on >them and the displeasure of the grammar haters. > >Eduard > >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/ --0-890423750-1156440695=:12317 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-890423750-1156440695=:12317-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:32:55 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable