Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question
without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to the
average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study of nouns
and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries become a
matter for private stipulative definition.

This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American Songbook."
Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins, Kern, Arlen,
Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges are fuzzy. Is
there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen Foster? How about Billy
Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no definitive answers. Apart from the
core we agree on, everyone is free to stipulate their own definition.

As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical
(and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely
practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce
questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many
years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was focused
almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an "intermediate
ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation,
pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural
differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane
preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined
by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing.

I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what
school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar" courses.

Dick



On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> John,
>
> Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's
> "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's
> "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in
> rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar
> (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as
> ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to
> thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different
> way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most)
> linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising
> language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of
> thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all,
>  people on this list would agree.
>
> What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as
> simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that
> "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate
> component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much
> more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no
> one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and
> there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary
> metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's
> certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of
> public education.
>
> I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've
> come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning.
>
> --- Bill Spruiell
>
> [1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar"
> to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am
> I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number
> of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them
> (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should
> be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the
> terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have
> become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area
> something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go
> along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new
> term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on
> it.
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
>
> Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is
> the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT
> encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into
> the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of
> English.)
>
> If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them
> (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves
> in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of
> meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for
> forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar
> and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this
> level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects
> of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of
> the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is
> that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation
> (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning?
>
> What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look
> at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is
> a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes
> human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the
> social/cultural implications of grammar
> (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a
> major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers
> to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar
> (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the
> brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English
> teachers?
>
> We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze
> these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)
>
> It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the
> composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a
> discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course,
> reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many
> cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin
> with.
>
> I know this also brings into question the relationship between the
> English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a
> foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that
> no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum.
>
> I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!
>
> 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/