I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with Ed's great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I can't help but feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an asset. Sure, it feels like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament to the fact that grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single, codified rulebook of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to package a nice and neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able to) seems like a slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students' attentions away from the gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see. All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or teachers-in-training at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at the reality of data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an answer (singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a semester (a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although I'm sure they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize that answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to run a model classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my students, and in the case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to constructive teaching opportunities. Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective, especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic that ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and compromises from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it would also depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on concept, not the label used to describe the concept) as a part of the curriculum. A student who is aware that language ain't easy is much more prepared for grammar than one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook at every turn. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Ed, Craig, et al.: > > To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that > resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the > French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France and > Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach: > regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you > won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a > legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does > cause problems in relation to curriculum. > > > The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which > we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be > successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will > *never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's, > definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others. > Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come > across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause," > and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that > defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope > and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional > investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off > from pushing too much. > > As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much > disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that > one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to > the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal > with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more > agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that > arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't > think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the > standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that > constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use. > > > It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the > basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase > vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since > students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some lutfisk" > together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that, > especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an > organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual > basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic > category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional > recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels. > > Bill Spruiell > Dept. of English > Central Michigan University > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Vavra > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase > > Craig, > Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I > would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when > I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are > good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG > members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the > numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers > and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the > confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide > into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor > it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be > able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own > grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree > on the definition of a clause.) > I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I > believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three > separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG > was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a > decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference. > (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of > students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor > instruction in grammar. > I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it > claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it > really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my > time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence" > plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm > Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG > developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the > competition that would result from several plans. > > Ed V. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase > > Richard, > Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time > to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing > that through ATEG. > My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought > we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My > > plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to > break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might > be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about > Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge > about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people > > would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was resistance, > > though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as > a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with > > our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant > issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result > was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement > asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position > statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was > simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words, ATEG tried to > work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied > by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in > effect, control our existence as an organization. > The other problem came from those at the conference, including the > leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we > have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new > > ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made > up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long > shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in > > the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the > new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most. > But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in > the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do > that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What > happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views? > I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move > on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an > older position. > This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend > > to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole, > those approaches have probably already been written. > As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and > sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never > wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that > point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the > NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the > public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to > pull people away from ATEG. > The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved > forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about > starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list. > NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong > > contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that. > It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the > necessity of ATEG endorsing its views. > I apologize if I have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's > > views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone > being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature > > of the project. > > Craig > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface 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/