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


Richard betting wrote:

Janet, Craig, et al. continued
   One of the reasons I  tend to believe in the innateness of some grammatical structures is that children can understand the kinds of sentences that have been used in recent posts. For example, a first grader will understand this exchange: "If you continue to behave badly, you will not get a present" leads, later in the day, to "That you won't get a present is very obvious."  Another example results in the prepositional phrase as subject. "He said that he would leave at nine" might lead to "For him to leave at nine means that we'll have to finish our project quickly." I got those kinds of sentences and explanations from my study of generative grammar forty years ago. Transformations. The second called the T For To transform.
   A comment and a question. The naming of parts: are word groups phrases or clauses, participial phrases or clauses and should we call them one- or two-object verbs? Are these transitive or intransitive structures, finite or non-finite verbs, and are these adjective, qualifying, complementary or appositional clauses or phrases? Are they complex transitive, di- or bi-transitive? Will  R & K diagrams help explain them and will students be able to distinguish form from function? Are participles and infinitives parts of speech? Why or why not? How many parts of speech are there, anyway? And finally, what is the relationship between the naming of parts and improvement in student speaking and writing?  Do teachers consciously and consistently make those connections between theory and practice? Are students being asked to write and speak and are they creating portfolios of written work to demonstrate their competence? And are they participating in the assessment process?

I would bet that the majority of middle school/high school English teachers would not be able to define and explain the terms that have been discussed, to say nothing of doing so from the perspective of more than one grammatical approach. That is not to criticize the teachers themselves so much as to ask about the educational process shat enabled them to get where they are without an adequate knowledge of the English language that they spend so much time teaching. In order to have an ADEQUATE (minimal) background in English, what courses should/must all language arts teachers have? Could we agree on the required courses? Do current textbooks (for teachers) meet the content requirement we might create? Is anyone still working on scope and sequence?

Is the current discussion helping create a consensus on these and other issues that we should be helping decide? Unfortunately, perhaps, the end result seems to be that each person will create his/her own curriculum.  If English teachers don't take the opportunity now, someone else will, as NoChild evolves and insupportable standards (like the naming of  grammar parts) are created. So much to do, so little time.






On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:

Janet, Craig, et al.

There are a number of traditional grammars that would call the 'me' in
'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect object. In Latin, the pronoun
would be in the dative case, and "indirect object" started out as a
label that meant, basically, "dative object, as opposed to accusative
object."

There's a major stress point in the traditional system, though -- the
noun that normally goes with a preposition is usually called "the object
of the preposition," and it can't be *both* an indirect object and the
object of the preposition (keep in mind that the traditional approach
always asks, 'what word does this go with,' so you have to say either
'the verb' or 'the preposition' with one of these). Some earlier
grammars dodged this by considering the prepositions themselves to be
case-markers, but then ran into the fact that English has a LOT more
prepositions than Latin has cases. One group of later grammars ruled out
the version with the preposition as an indirect object. Another group
treated it as an indirect object, but only in cases where the
preposition-ed version could be paraphrased as the prepositionless
version (so no indirect object in 'Joe finished off the lutfisk for
me'). Some early generative approaches considered the prepositionless
version as being made out of the preposition-ed one, so in a sense there
were no ditransitive verbs (I said "early" here because I'm sure about
those; I'm not sure about what the current way to deal with the
construction is).

Whatever you do with it, it's a bit of a mess. Since specific grammars,
particularly older ones, usually adopt one approach but don't mention
that there are others, I think it's important for teachers and students
to know there *is* a history of disagreement over this. I end up
imagining someone writing a state test and thinking there is, and has
always been, exactly one approach here, and creating a major problem.

The "infinitive with understood subject" (For NP to V") presents even
more of a terminological muddle. From what I've seen, one approach is to
just call the whole thing a specialized kind of infinitive construction,
treating the For....to... sequence as a kind of discontinuous marker, a
bit analogous to either...or; others give one label to the 'for' part
and another to the 'to' part. I cheat, and call the part introduced by
"for" 'subject-ish'.

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 Castilleja, Janet
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 12:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase

Yeah - I meant 'me.'  What I was really trying to get at is whether or
not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
object,  since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe baked
me
a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
substantially more complex.

'For me to criticize him would be foolish.'   Here 'for me' seems to be
the subject of the infinitive clause.  I know that 'for' constructions
introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
prepositions?

I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
complement.'  I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way beyond
what anyone should be required to know.

My state, Washington has teacher tests.  We use Praxis by ETS. Students
are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
take before entering our teacher ed program.  Then, if they get an
endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
and the test really asks them questions about grammar.

Examples:
My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
behind our house.

The underlined word in the sentence above is an
example of

(A) a conjunction

(B) a participle

(C) a gerund

(D) an adverb

We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.

The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in

(A)    question formation

(B)    relative clause formation

(C)    passive formation

(D)    command formation

Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to use,
because I know they see it on the test.

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase

Janet,
 These are wonderful questions. Much of what I would say Bill covers,
so
I'll add a few sidenotes. I have struggled through the same questions
and feel a little more settled in my thinking.
 I think it's so much more important to describe the structure than it
is to put it in the "right" category. So looking closely at these
non-finite structures and saying they usually are missing a subject
(not always) and aren't grounded with finite verbs is probably the most
important thing. My students seem OK with saying we'll call them
clauses, but traditional grammar calls them phrases. I end up doing
somewhat the same thing with "gerund" as a term. I don't like it, but
it's out there, and it helps to at least point out what the word refers
to for the people who use it.
 I start out with "the elements of the simple clause", so I cover
postnominal modification with prepositional phrases first and say there
are other word groups in that slot that we'll cover later. That seems
to work for me. I sometimes postpone restrictive and non-restrictive
modification until later as well. Appositional phrases also fit in that
slot, but I don't bring them in right away.
 I think you mistakenly ask about "Joe" as indirect object in your
cake
sentence. My guess is you meant "me". I like the multi-functional
analysis of functional gramamr for that one. From that view, the
transitivity system helps us represent the world. The clause gives us
processes and participants and circumstances andestablishes participant
roles. We also have systems in place for construing that event in
different ways. In passives, for example, the direct or indirect object
gets shifted into the grammatical subject slot without changing their
real world roles. ("The cake was baked by Joe. I was baked the cake by
Joe." In both these cases, Joe is obviously still doing the baking.)
This can also give us a way to put different information in the usual
given slot and in the clause ending slot we usually use for new
information. "Who was the cake for?" "The cake was baked for me."
"What did Joe bake you?"  "Joe baked me a cake."  "Who baked the cake?
"The cake was baked by Joe."  Students seem to enjoy putting a clause
through its various permutations and then reflecting on how that
"construes" the process. We can also say something like "Joe baked all
night", or "Joe baked with great care", not because we have stopped
understanding that "baking" means you bake something and are probably
doing that for some sort of beneficiary, but because those elements are
not always in focus. Even categories like "transitive" and
"intransitive" and "di-transitive" and "complex transitive" can be used
to talk about the verb itself as well as about the structure of a
particular clause. Is "Joe baked all night" intransitive? I think
that's easier to understand if you realize the process hasn't changed,
but certain aspects of it are simply not in focus for the statement.
 I have found that most state tests for students have no real
knowledge
content to them. Even the phrasing of the standards is something like
"Can puncutate sentences," never anything like "can identify a
participle phrase" or "Can differentiate compound sentences from
compound predicates." Even the SAT simply asks students to pick a
version that seems more effective or more correct. It never asks for
terminology. Language, at least for students, is treated like a
behavior.
 Are there teacher tests in your state?

Craig

How would you analyze this:  Once upon a time, there was a prince named

Joe.



Do you analyze a prince named Joe as a noun phrase with a participle
phrase modifying the noun head, or as a participle clause?  I've

always

called these non-finite constructions reduced clauses or participle
clauses, but I have run into a problem.  In my grammar class for
pre-service teachers, I start with noun phrases.  When I teach noun
modification, I want to teach students about post-modification, but

they

really don't know anything about finite and non-finite verbs yet, nor

do

they know much about clauses.  So this semester, I decided I would

just

call them participle phrases which modify nouns.  But then I was in
trouble when we got to clauses because I wanted to call then reduced

or

non-finite clauses.  By that time, the students knew enough to say

"Hey

wait a minute!  Didn't you just tell us those were phrases?"  At least

I

know they were listening in October.



Also, do you call 'Joe' a retained object complement, or is there a
better way to label this?



How about this:  Joe baked a cake for me.  Can I just go ahead and

call

'Joe' an indirect object? It means exactly the same this as Joe baked

me

a cake.



This is an on-going problem for me, because, even though I try to

teach

them a pretty straight forward descriptive-structural-functional view

of

syntax (Quirk et al is my bible), with a little discussion of
prescriptivism thrown in so they'll know what to expect when they get
into the schools, I find that frequently there is more than one way to
analyze a given structure.  This disturbs my students.  They want to
know the 'right' way, and it better be the way that it is gong to show
up on the subject area test they have to take.  Do you think there is
any consensus on the 'best' grammar approach to teach pre-service
teachers?  This is not a trivial issue, since they have high-stakes
tests (for themselves and their students) principals and parents in
their futures.



Comments?



Janet Castilleja


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface

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/