Perhaps one solution to our excess of terminology lies in the sequence part of scope and sequence. Taking the main clause as a beginning definition of sentence, one that fourth graders, for example, might understand, makes it possible to cover relative clauses and tensed adverbial and “that” clauses. Understanding why certain participial and infinitival structures are clauses requires a higher level of sophistication that might come in the upper grades or high school, and introducing the idea that those phrases have clausal properties would follow naturally after the necessary grammatical background knowledge has been established. I suspect the same could be done with grammatical relations like subject and indirect object, where both structural and functional considerations are involved.

This sequencing approach won’t work in all cases of terminological conflict, but it certainly would cover a lot of them, and one very beneficial effect of it would be that these terms would be presented in context, not in conflict.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: 2008-12-17 04:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase

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/