If I remember correctly, there is at least one grammar that defines twenty-seven.
Some grammars list TEN parts of speech, not eight:
1. Article
2. Noun
3. Pronoun
4. Adjective
5. Numeral
6. Verb
7. Adverb
8. Preposition
9. Conjunction
10. Interjection
Eduard
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Paul E. Doniger wrote...
>Phil,
>
>I don't think anyone wants to dump knowledge of parts of speech,
etc. Also, I think most of us would agree that grammar instruction
should balance both prescriptive and descriptive methods. On the
other hand there is much prescriptivism that needs to be ended (e.g.,
prescriptive rules like "never use a split infinitive," or "never end
a sentence with a preposition."). Part of our mission in the scope
and sequence project is to find exactly where the lines should be
drawn, where they intersect, and when is the right time to teach
specific concepts (and terms). If Ed Vavra weren't so negative about
ATEG, he could offer much that would help us achieve these goals. I
wish he were more open to working with us and would re-join the group.
>
>I doubt that any of us want to stop teaching nouns, verbs (and their
types), adjectives, adverbs, etc.; however, as Martha pointed out
earlier, we also want to teach concepts like adverbial, adjectival,
subject complement, noun phrase. Some of us may even want to add
parts of speech to the "Latin 8" -- again, Martha mentioned the
term 'determiner' which is more useful than adjective or article in
some cases. And of course, we always will have some disagreements as
was pointed out in an earlier posting (e.g., the gerund wars). We
remain open minded, however, and invite all to participate in the
discussion and to build a program that will be acceptable and
successful.
>
>Paul D.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Phil Bralich <
[log in to unmask]>
>To:
[log in to unmask]>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:47:52 AM
>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>
>
>I have no problem with intuition and grammar and use it A LOT in my
classes. But it should not be used as an excuse to dump a knowledge
of the parts speech, sentence roles and so forth. It should be used
to point out that grammarians are not creating things and forcing
them into language but instead are discovering them and pointing them
out to you. This allows the native intuition that the student brings
to class to benefit from the 2000+ years of intuition and study that
have gone before.
>
>The complaint about prescriptivism is largely bogus. Saying grammar
is too prescriptivist is mostly proferred by people who don't want to
bother learning it. This is like a psychologist saying "Freud has a
mother problem" to avoid the responsibility to read and study him.
The few thing that are prescriptivist actually make your writing
better and are hardly an intrusion or a waste of time in a
curriculum.
>
>Phil Bralich
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Martha Kolln <
[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Jul 20, 2006 6:02 PM
>>To:
[log in to unmask]>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>
>>Dear Phil (and Eds and others),
>>
>>I am very grateful for my early training in
>>traditional grammar, just as I know you are. But
>>twenty years after that training, I was
>>introduced to the "new" grammar of the
>>structuralists and Chomsky. They taught me two
>>lessons that I wish my middle school (junior
>>high) teachers had taught me (but back in the
>>40s, they of course hadn't heard about new
>>grammar, so I can't blame them):
>>
>>1) that we, as native speakers, are grammar
>>experts--unconscious though that expertise may be;
>>
>>2) that the eight parts of speech, based on
>>Latin, do not constitute a very accurate
>>description of English grammar.
>>
>>Let's look at your two example sentences, Phil.
>>You maintain that "a thorough and complete
>>knowledge of traditional grammar" is essential to
>>understand the question of subject-verb agreement
>>in these examples. I, on the other hand, would
>>simply suggest to my students that they make use
>>of their innate (or unconscious) grammar
>>expertise. Simply substitute a pronoun for the
>>subject: Would that subject be "It" or "They"?
>>
>> Simply believing in the students = It (not "they")
>> The suggestion that the man be more polite = It
>>
>>In her post, Johanna mentioned the inaccurate
>>definition of "pronoun" that traditional grammar
>>includes. Here's the proof: the subject of your
>>first sentence is neither a noun nor a noun
>>phrase. But it fills a noun phrase, or nominal,
>>slot, so it is by definition a "nominal."
>>
>>I noticed that the -al words--nominal,
>>adjectival, and adverbial--are missing from your
>>list of terms. However, they are essential for
>>understanding how structures function. For
>>example, a traditional explanation of a noun as a
>>prenoun modifier, such as "coke bottle" or "paper
>>airplane," would pobably identify "coke" and
>>"paper" as adjectives, following the traditional
>>definition of "adjective" (a word that modifies a
>>noun). But that traditional definition is really
>>the definition of "adjectival"--and it includes
>>participial phrases and relative clauses and
>>prepositional phrases and anything else that is a
>>modifier in the noun phrase. Another example:
>>In a sentence such as "We walked home," the word
>>"home" is called an adverb in traditional
>>grammar. It's adverbial, true; but its word
>>class is noun--a noun functioning adverbially.
>>
>>I guess I'm adding a third lesson I didn't hear
>>during my traditional grammar education:
>>
>>3) that we need to discuss both form and function
>>to do justice to grammar--and those -al words in
>>our vocabulary help us organize our knowledge of
>>sentence structure.
>>
>>Before I leave your sentences and the importance
>>of using our subconscious grammar, our students'
>>knowledge of pronouns can also be put to use in
>>identifying the parameters of any noun phrase.
>>If your students have trouble finding the main
>>verb in the sentence--perhaps because there are
>>verbs embedded in the subject--simply do the
>>pronoun substitution, as I did with your
>>sentences: The next word is nearly always the
>>verb or its auxiliary.
>>
>>On the topic of my second lesson, regarding the
>>parts of speech. I believe it's essential that
>>students recognize the difference between the
>>four form classes and the structure classes.
>>Again, they will easily learn to apply their
>>intuition about language when they learn some new
>>definitions:
>>
>>A noun is a word that can be made plural and/or
>>possessive--or simply "a word that you
>> can signal with "the" (a determiner, not
>>an adjective, as traditional grammar books define
>>it).
>>
>>A verb is a word that has both an -s and an -ing
>>ending--or simply a word that you can signal with
>>"might" or "could".
>>
>>The study of the inflectional and derivational
>>endings of the form classes is a rich and
>>powerful way into the study of word classes.
>>
>>Intuitive knowledge of grammar should be used--it
>>can be enormously effective. And it helps
>>students recognize that they don't come to
>>grammar class with a blank slate to be filled by
>>new information. It is truly empowering for
>>students to recognize that in studying grammar
>>they are learning in a conscious way the rules
>>that they have been following subconsciously all
>>their lives.
>>
>>Martha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am not piggybacking off the SAT. The fact
>>>remains that an intuitive knowledge of grammar
>>>will be nowhere near as effective as a knowledge
>>>of traditional grammar to prepare yourself for
>>>that test. Subject verb agreement, parallelism
>>>and so forth can be approached intuitively but
>>>it would take years longer and be far less of an
>>>intellectual and valuable achievement without
>>>the knowledge of tradtional grammar behind it.
>>>To do either of these functions you need to know
>>>the whole of tradtional grammar, which quite
>>>frankly, is not that much.
>>>Two examples illustrate this:
>>>
>>>1) Simply believing in the students give(s)
>>>them the necessary confidence to succeed.
>>>
>>>2) The suggestion that the man be more polite was rejected.
>>>
>>>To resolve the subject verb agreement problem in
>>>(1) or to understand the use of the form of be
>>>in (2), a rudimentary understanding of a few
>>>parts of speech or a few sentence roles in not
>>>sufficient nor is a heightened intuition through
>>>a lot of reading, the only way to teach and to
>>>know about those rules is to have a rather
>>>thorough and complete knowledge of traditional
>>>grammar. All of the parts of speech, sentence
>>>roles, sentence types and their possible
>>>relationships in time (tense, aspect, mood,
>>>modality, and voice) and space (number, person,
>>>and gender) needs to be understood to do this
>>>correctly and consistently. Number (1) alone
>>>requires that one know that the subject of the
>>>sentence is a gerund and that gerunds take a
>>>third person singular form of the verb in
>>>present indicative sentences. Number (2)
>>>requires the understanding of subjunctive which
>>>must be necessarily placed in the full context
>>>of tense, aspect, mood, and modality before any
>>>understanding of the unusual use of the verb can
>>>be achieved.
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Craig Hancock <
[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Jul 20, 2006 1:03 PM
>>>>To:
[log in to unmask]>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>>Phil,
>>>> Just a quick response from a busy guy to a very rich and
thoughtful post.
>>>> I understand the strategy of piggybacking off of the new
SAT's.
>>>>Unfortunately, they do not measure knowledge of grammar in the
way you
>>>>thoughtfully advocate. They measure behavior, and they expect
those
>>>>choices to be intuitive. Even in their examples, they do not go
into
>>>>any kind of lengthy explanation of the reasons for their choices.
>>>>Perhaps the reasons for this are obvious: even the middle class
>>>>suburban kids wouldn't pass a test that measures explicit
knowledge
>>>>about language. They are asked to edit someone else's writing
>>>>(basically 'correct" it, but they would say "improve" in some
>>>>instances) on the basis of principles that are never fully
articulated.
>>>>If and when we get a good curriculum in place, we should lobby
for a
>>>>test that fits and for a test/curriculum match that levels the
playing
>>>>field and doesn't just reward intuition.
>>>> I'm surprised, especially in conjunction with Cornelia's fine
post,
>>>>that you don't include "clause" as a basic term. You use it later
on in
>>> >your discussion of misunderstood terms, but not in the core
terms
>>>>needed. By the way, I haven't had much problem with interchanging
>>>>dependent and subordinate, maybe because I present them as
>>>>interchangeable terms for the same thing.
>>>> Just for the record, I found 64 technical terms in Diana
Hacker's
>>>>Writers Reference in the punctuation sections alone. I used that
as
>>>>part of a 4C's talk in which I contrasted that list with Constance
>>>>Weaver's very short list of terms. As you know very well, most
students
>>>>can't read the average handbook, and terminology is a key to that.
>>>> Every year, I ask incoming students for a definition of an
important
>>>>term just to see what the preparation has been. This year it was
>>>>"subordinate clause." By my last class, I was even dangling a five
>>>>dollar reward. Out of 62 students, none was confident enough to
try.
>>>>This is, of course, not their fault.
>>>> I hope you can see that the Scope and Sequence project is an
attempt to
>>>>fill the very real void you describe. If we can get on board on
the
>>>>basis of the need for it, then we can come up with something far
more
>>> >useful than the current head in the sand approach.
>>>> Thanks for passing this on.
>>>>
>>>>Craig
>>>>
>>>> For those of you interested in this issue, my "The New SAT and
>>>>> Fundatmental Misunderstanding of Grammar Teaching" is about to
appear in
>>>>> _English Today_ published by the Cambridge University Press.
I have
>>>>> copied a portion of it below. You can contact that journal or
myself for
>>>>> the full articile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Bralich
>>>>>
>>>>> EXCERPT To Appear _English Today_ July 2006.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traditional Grammar, as we all know, has been on the wane in
education for
>>>>> the last 25 to 50 years in the face of more interactive
classrooms, more
>>>>> exotic developments in transformational grammar, and research
suggesting
>>>>> it may not play an effective role in improving students
writing.
>>>>> Recently, however, there has been a resurgence in the interest
in teaching
>>>>> some of the fundamental concepts of traditional grammar. This
new
>>>>> interest in teaching grammar has taken on a much more
imperative force as
>>>>> secondary schools and to some extent primary schools are
beginning to feel
>>>>> pressure to teach basic grammatical concepts in order to
prepare students
>>>>> for the 35 minute multiple choice grammar and usage questions
on the new
>>>>> SAT. Teachers and schools who cannot pass this section of the
test will
>>>>> be held to account by politicians, school administrators, and
parents, all
>>>>> of whom tend to believe traditional, formal grammar
instruction is the
>>>>> best means to this end. Teachers who send their students off
to the new
>>>>> SAT without this training will have some serious questions to
answer if
>>>>> those students scores are too low.
>>>>> This refocus on teaching grammar has raised many old arguments
and much of
>>>>> the same confusion that caused grammar to be taken off the
curriculum in
>>>>> many schools in the first place, confusion which even led to
the
>>>>> remarkable and, to many, reprehensible decision by the
National Council of
>>>>> Teachers of English (NCTE) to make a resolution in 1985
stating, Â…[the
>>>>> NCTE] urge[s] the discontinuance of testing practices that
encourage the
>>>>> teaching of grammarÂ… While many educators, parents,
students, and
>>>>> politicians have all along been in favor of the teaching of
grammar in
>>>>> spite of claims by the NCTE and others, their voices have
largely been
>>>>> ignored or drowned out through the years of what David Mulroy,
a
>>>>> classicist at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, has
named The War
>>>>> Against Grammar in his book of that title.
>>>>> As a Professor at the Defense Language Institute Foreign
Language Center
>>>>> in Monterey, CA, charged with the responsibility to prepare
students for
>>>>> Foreign Language study in a wide variety of the worlds
languages, I can
>>>>> attest that basic grammar knowledge is the most important
factor in
>>>>> reducing attrition and enhancing student success rates. I
have a Ph.D. in
>>>>> theoretical linguistics with a focus on theoretical syntax. I
have taught
>>>>> traditional grammar to native speakers, ESL grammar to non-
native
>>> >> speakers, and composition to both. I have never found any of
the
>>>>> anti-grammar articles or positions to be convincing. In fact
they have
>>>>> always struck me as more of a political movement than as a
reasoned
>>>>> position taken in the face of convincing evidence a
political movement
>>>>> rooted in the profits, short hours, and world travel to be had
in the
>>>>> years of the ESL boom in the 80s and 90s, profits eyed by
those who did
>>>>> not know grammar. Since that time the only tangible results
of that
>>>>> policy have been a significant lessening in American Foreign
Language
>>>>> skills and Foreign Language program enrollments, significantly
increased
>>>>> need for remedial reading and writing programs at colleges and
>>>>> universities across the United States, and complaints from
business,
>>>>> academia, and government about the lack of verbal skills in
those who have
>>>>> turned up on their doorsteps since grammar teaching has fallen
out of
>>>>> favor. Thus, rather than the leap forward for language arts
that
>>>>> proponents of the anti-grammar attitude might have expected,
there has
>>> >> only been a lamentable and evident decline in language arts
skills.
>>>>> These last few decades of the War Against Grammar have left
serious gaps
>>>>> in the understanding of what constitutes a proper curriculum
in English
>>>>> Grammar. Thus, while there is a stronger interest in grammar
and in
>>>>> preparing students for the new SAT, there are many, many
educators who
>>>>> simply were not trained in grammar and do not know where to
begin. In
>>>>> particular, some rather deeply rooted misunderstandings about
grammar have
>>>>> grown up and stand in the way of the educator wishing to
address this need
>>>>> and the politicians and parents wishing to evaluate the
attempts to
>>>>> address this need. I wish to address seven of them here in
order to
>>>>> provide the parent, the politician, the student, and the
otherwise
>>>>> concerned a rubric by which they can evaluate grammar teaching
and grammar
>>>>> teachers and get a sense that the grammar movement is valuable
and the new
>>>>> SAT is not insurmountable.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #1: All grammar rules are equally as
distrusted and
>>>>> untrustworthy as, Dont end a sentence with a preposition, Dont
let
>>>>> modifiers dangle, and Dont split infinitives. Nothing could be
>>>>> further from the truth. People routinely accept almost all
the rules of
>>>>> grammar and often even find a certain elegance in them.
However, even
>>>>> though each of the three rules cited here is an actual rule of
grammar,
>>>>> they form a group as the grammar rules that are often cited as
unnecessary
>>>>> or cloying. Fortunately, they are about the only rules of
grammar anyone
>>>>> really complains about. I suspect that most people who dont
know their
>>>>> grammar find it easier to memorize one of these handy and well-
known rules
>>>>> for grousing about grammar than going to the trouble of
actually working
>>>>> through a few grammar exercises. This is like knowing to
quip, Freud had
>>>>> a mother problem, as a means of escaping the responsibility to
actually
>>>>> reading Freud.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #2: Parts of Speech, Parts of Sentence, and
Sentence
>>>>> Types are three not two sets of terms. This misunderstanding
is a little
>>>>> more complicated then the previous one or the next two, but it
is the most
>>>>> important to know if you want to create or evaluate a grammar
course or
>>>>> textbook. In beginning your approach to the language arts the
first thing
>>>>> anyone needs to know is the taxonomy of the field and that
that taxonomy
>>>>> is based on first the identification of words and kinds of
words which are
>>>>> then made into phrases and those themselves phrases being made
into
>>>>> sentences. In short, we need a set of terms for each of
words, phrases,
>>>>> and sentences. The main thing that confuses people about
these terms is
>>>>> that most books fail to point out that parts of speech and
parts of the
>>>>> sentence form two distinct sets with the term verb common to
both.
>>>>> Dividing the three steps in building a sentence (word, phrase,
sentence)
>>>>> into three sets of terms and laying them side by side as below
>>> >> demonstrates two things: 1) that there is a lot less to
learning grammar
>>>>> than there is to learning other subjects like math, chemistry,
geometry,
>>>>> home economics, or auto mechanics; and 2) that there really is
a fixed and
>>>>> bounded body of knowledge that can be mastered underlying the
grammar of a
>>>>> language. There are only 27 terms here, but this is rather
complete, at
>>>>> least it is more than sufficient to get you through the New
SAT or most
>>>>> any foreign language or language arts course. You should
also note how
>>>>> the top four items of each column are actually widely known
and are not
>>>>> particularly difficult, thus, leaving the teacher with a
challenge with
>>>>> less than fifteen terms. This is clearly much less than
algebra,
>>>>> geometry, or astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parts of Speech Parts of Sentence Sentence Types
>>>>> Noun Subject Declarative
>>>>> Verb Predicate Interrogative
>>>>> Adjective Verb Imperative
>>>>> Adverb Object (indirect, direct, of prep.) Exclamatory
>>>>> Preposition Complement (subj. obj) Simple
>>>>> Conjunction Noun Phrase Compound
>>> >> Comparatives Verb Phrase Complex
>>>>> Noun Morphology (-s, -es, s) Adjective
>>>>>Phrase Compound/Complex
>>>>> Verb Morphology (helping verbs, -ing, ed,
>>>>>etc.) Adverb Phrase Relative
>>>>> Clauses / Reduced Clauses
>>>>>
>>>>> Misunderstanding #3: There is a standardized vocabulary for
referring to
>>>>> grammatical functions. There are several places in the set of
traditional
>>>>> grammar terms where different books and different traditions
use different
>>>>> terminology. This is unfortunate and should be addressed.
The NCTE for
>>>>> example should be establishing a set of common, recommended
terminology in
>>>>> these areas rather than trying to eliminate the teaching of
grammar.
>>>>> There arent that many more than you see here, but these are
particularly
>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Main Clause = Independent Clause
>>>>> Subordinate Clause = Dependent Clause
>>>>>
>>>>> Participial Phrase = Reduced Adjective or Reduced Adverb
Clause
>>>>> Bare Infintives = Reduced infinitives, small clauses
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject Complement = Predicate Adjective or Predicate
Nominative
>>>>>
>>>>> What is particularly troubling about this is that if you know
any one of
>>>>> the above sets the other terms sound like they must be nuanced
versions of
>>>>> something in grammar that you dont yet know. Grammar books or
at least
>>>>> the NCTE need to settle on one set, but they should also point
out in a
>>>>> foot note that the other terms also exist for the same
phenomenon. It is
>>>>> confusing if, after youve mastered the concepts of main and
subordinate
>>>>> clause, you hear someone talking about independent and
dependent clauses
>>>>> and wondering what is the difference. Worse yet, are the
terms predicate
>>>>> nominative and predicate adjective to refer to the two kinds
of subject
>>>>> complement. The problem of course is that the students are
never sure
>>>>> when they are done until these terminological overlaps are
pointed out to
>>>>> them.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #4: The word gerund. The term gerund is
often dropped in
>>>>> grammatical circles the way some drop Kennedy in political
circles. If
>>>>> you know what it is, it marks your knowledge of grammar as
learned. If
>>>>> you dont know what it is, you are likely to be marked as
illiterate or at
>>>>> best one of the semi-literate dharma-bum sort who can only do
flow of
>>>>> consciousness writing and are incapable of the introspection
that grammar
>>>>> requires. However, both the pride and the shame that come
with the word
>>>>> gerund are unjustified as the word gerund is itself somewhat
ill-formed as
>>>>> a grammatical term. A gerund as many of the readers of this
publication
>>>>> will know is a present participle used as a noun. However,
what most
>>>>> people fail to note is that an infinitive can also be used as
a noun but
>>>>> no one has bothered to make a whole new term for it. For
example, we can
>>>>> call a present participle used as a noun, a present
participle used as a
>>>>> noun or we can call it a gerund. An infinitive used as a
noun, however,
>>>>> can only be called an infinitive used as a noun, there is no
special word
>>>>> dreamed up for this case. The word gerund therefore is a
complete and
>>> >> utter waste of grammatical terminology in that it is
unbalanced and it
>>>>> makes you wonder why a present participle used as a noun
should be singled
>>>>> out for the honor of an extra term while the infinitive used
as a noun is
>>>>> ignored utterly in this. If you are new to grammar, it also
makes you
>>>>> wonder if there isnt some difference between a present
participle used as
>>>>> a noun and a gerund. It makes a student of grammar feel that
there must
>>>>> be something else going on. Without adding a special term for
infinitive
>>>>> used as a noun, the word gerund should be dropped as it is
unnecessarily
>>>>> confusing, and it could lead to elitist pretenses to knowledge
of grammar
>>>>> obscuring real knowledge of grammar. Thank god past
participles are
>>>>> never used as nouns.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #5: Modern linguistics has obviated the
need for
>>>>> traditional grammar. No syntacticians worth his salt is going
to get
>>>>> very far without an understanding of all the basic concepts
and terms of
>>> >> traditional grammar. What theoretical syntax has done is to
add many
>>>>> more nuanced and complicated terms to that basic set, but it
has not
>>>>> obviated the need for any of them. It has also not replaced
any of them.
>>>>> However, in its search for greater and greater generality,
theoretical
>>>>> syntacticians does seem able to avoid the use of a few terms
like
>>>>> predicate, predicate nominative, and predicate adjective.
They tend to
>>>>> make due with verb phrase, a verb and its arguments or a verb
and
>>>>> its complement. Naturally, however, these would not be
discarded but
>>>>> left for more traditional treatments of sentence structure.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #6: Writing and language arts are the only
fields in
>>>>> the world that are somehow better off without a taxonomy. Not
teaching
>>>>> the parts of speech and parts of the sentence in a writing
class or
>>>>> language arts class is like not teaching abstractions such as
meat,
>>>>> poultry, and baked goods in an economics class. The parts of
speech,
>>>>> parts of sentence, and sentence types described above form a
largely
>>>>> complete set and demonstrate that there is not much to
traditional
>>>>> grammar in the first place: eight parts of speech, eight parts
of the
>>>>> sentence, and eight sentence types this is not rocket
science. It is
>>>>> also not algebra, geometry, home economics, or even auto
mechanics. It
>>>>> is far simpler than all of these which is why colleges
generally only
>>>>> offer one term of it rather than a major in it. Even that one
term is
>>>>> generally limited to two credits and even then it has to be
liberally
>>>>> mixed with paragraph and essay writing to actually generate
enough work
>>>>> to fill a whole semester. Traditional grammar is far simpler
than all of
>>>>> that. If you are as baffled as I am in looking for an
explanation for
>>>>> how this training was ever dropped from the curriculum or how
it ever
>>>>> became vilified by the NCTE, you too might agree that perhaps
a political
>>>>> explanation is one that might work. Perhaps Jack Kerouac-
like, stream of
>>>>> consciousness writers, who likely did not know their grammar
wanted to
>>>>> remove that burden from their teaching. Perhaps adjunct
writing teachers
>>>>> greedy for the extra hours ran the grammar teachers out and
raised the
>>>>> writing requirements. Perhaps grammar just provided a
convenient
>>>>> scapegoat for teachers of a number of disciplines looking to
vent their
>>>>> spleens outside their own classrooms and departments. Perhaps
several of
>>>>> these ideas teamed up to spell the demise of traditional
grammar
>>>>> teaching. However, whatever the political motive may have
been it was
>>>>> never able to alter the fact that what was under attack is the
basic
>>>>> taxonomy of all the language arts, the periodic table of
language.
>>>>> Misunderstanding #7: Grammar needs to be taught in
context. Well,
>>>>> seeing grammar on the hoof so to speak is not such a bad idea;
it is just
>>>>> a tremendous waste of time. For example, you could find a
beautiful use
>>>>> of a future perfect progressive or a past passive modal in a
delightfully
>>>>> pertinent article on-line. Or, you could collect several
dozen such
>>> >> sentences, put them into an exercise and have students
practice them, and
>>>>> then put one or two in context on the web. Teaching grammar
in context
>>>>> is slow and cumbersome, though in many cases it can be quite
elucidating.
>>>>> The misunderstanding here is to lose perspective and miss the
value of
>>>>> working through 10 or 15 of the best examples you can find in
an exercise
>>>>> before (or after) seeing the examples in literature, on-line,
in the
>>>>> press, or wherever else the particularly illustrative example
was found.
>>>>> A particularly good example of the wealth of contextually
contrived and
>>>>> valuable examples that can be found over and over again
throughout the
>>>>> exercises of a grammar book is the Betty Azar's series of ESL
grammar
>>>>> books. Page after page of representative and meaningful
exercises where
>>>>> each sentence cues the student into the wide possible uses of
particular
>>>>> grammatical structures. If you have not seen these books,
these exercises
>>> >> are a treat for those who like grammar in context as well as
for those
>>>>> who like a series of well chosen and meaningful examples in
each
>>>>> exercise.
>>>>>
>>>>> In sum, with the New SAT here and unavoidable, high school
students are
>>>>> going to have to know more grammar and high school teachers
are going to
>>>>> have to teach more grammar. For the parents, the politicians,
educators
>>>>> outside of English departments, and students, awareness of the
above seven
>>>>> misunderstandings about grammar will take them a long way
toward
>>>>> evaluating their own skills and of those charged with the
responsibility
>>>>> to get students through that test and through their post-
secondary
>>>>> education. Hopefully, armed with this knowledge, the NCTE
position will
>>>>> be removed, grammar teaching will begin in earnest again, and
students
>>>>> will pass their new SATs, foreign language skills and
attendance will
>>>>> increase, and politicians and business men will once again
respect the
>>>>> institutes of higher education from whence they are choosing
their rank
>>>>> and file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <
[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>Sent: Jul 19, 2006 11:36 AM
>>>>>>To:
[log in to unmask]>>>>>>Subject: Re: Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Craig,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no need to get defensive here. Constructive criticism
is the
>>>>>>need of all academic endeavors, and should be invited and
appreciated
>>>>>>in this forum. There are some problems which need to be
addressed in
>>>>>>order for things to move forward, because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web interface
>>>>> at:
>>>>>
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please
>>>>visit the list's web interface at:
>>>>
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>>Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/>>>
>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
>>>
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>>Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
>>
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
>
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
>
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/