First, thanks to Johanna for her shrewd and informed comments on single-word modifiers. Next, on the teaching of grammar: breaking into sub-groups -- preferably with very limited tasks -- dxoes seem the best way to get started on a task which is otherwise too daunting to make a start on. And I agree wholly with the idea of gteaching grammar "in conect": this may bne the only answer to the teaching-grammar-is-useless-or-harmful school of NCTE thought. On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Johanna Rubba wrote: > I have two things to comment on in this message, so forgive its length. > > #1 Participle/adjective 'chains' > This is a case where I really wish I had a copy of QUIGLS** on my shelf. I > have a feeling they must address this issue. > > **Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik Comprehensive Grammar of English. > > There seems to be some interesting stuff going on with placement after the > verb -- it seems to depend somewhat on what kind of verb you've got: > > -My friends returned to camp bleeding and limping. > -My friends returned to camp exhausted and sleepy. > -*The campers devoured the meal hungry and thirsty. > -The campers devoured the meal, slurping and smacking their lips. > > I don't feel good about the last sentence without the comma. > > Why do participles seem 'verbier' than other single-word noun modifiers? > In Cognitive Grammar (a fancy newish theory of grammar), the reason would > be something called 'scanning'. A participle's meaning consists of a > 'frame-by-frame' scan of the process the verb portrays (even 'smiling' has > a hint of duration about it -- for me at least). This is not true of > adjectives or past participles, which designate states, whether or not > they are the result of a process. (Consider not only words like 'insulted' > but also words like 'long-legged', 'bearded' or 'red-headed', which are > not derived from verbs at all). States don't involve frame-by-frame > scanning. > > As to Burkhard Leuschner's analysis of a participle as a 'very short > sentence', he seems to be appealing to a transformationalist analysis > under which participles have to be viewed as the product of some kind of > ellipsis operation which deletes the rest of the sentence. This isn't the > only view of grammar that is out there. Transformationalist views have > varied widely, going as far as saying that even pre-noun adjectives are > derived from clauses. There are also now theories which argue that there > are no 'deep structures', and that, whatever the history of a construction > like 'bleeding and limping' might be, it is no more or less than it is 'on > the surface'. The fact that they can be paraphrased as clauses doesn't > distinguish them from adjectives within noun phrases, which can be > paraphrased with relative clauses or separate sentences, for that matter. > > As to these having nothing to do with modifying, I have to dispute that > on its face. After all, we know which noun phrase in the sentence to > relate the participles to, that is, we know which ones they modify. Maybe > Burkhard has a different definition of modification. > > #2-----------On grammar teaching-------------------- > Don't worry, Ed; the games may begin. You wrote: > > " In order to develop some suggestions about grammar in the curriculum (scope > and sequence), what questions do we want to ask, and how is the best way > to get the answers?" > > Here are some questions and position statements: > #1 What is the purpose of teaching grammar? > #2 To what extent can we teach grammar in context, and is that the best > way to teach it; what does 'teaching grammar in context' mean? My opinion > is that this means that the discourse or text-level functions of the > various elements of English have to be included in grammar instruction, so > that students understand what grammar is good for in our language. > #3 As for scope and sequence, these have to be based on valid research > about children's productive as well as passive knowledge through the > school years. The reason I haven't said much about this yet is that I > haven't read some of the literature Ed cites. I am trying to find his web > address so that I can copy his bibliography and get going on reading it. > I did propose in a recent e-mail that we not start explicit grammar > instruction before grade 4. I haven't had a response to that proposal. As > far as how we get the info we need to formulate 'psychologically correct' > scope and sequence, we have to read what has been done, and perhaps do > more research such as Ed and others have done. A great deal is already > known about birth-age 5; this can already inform teaching. For instance, > native speakers of standard English have already learned all inflectional > morphology before school age, but there is still a lot of derivational > morphology to learn. It makes sense to work with derivational morphology > in school. But lessons on items such as 'forms of 'be'' or plurals in > nouns only need to be taught to students of other dialect/language > backgrounds. So perhaps another bit of info we need is: How many native > speakers of nonstandard dialects are in the 'typical' school classroom? > #4 The correctness issue and language attiudes: I also firmly believe that > we have to take a more objective stance on 'correctness', emphasizing that > it is relative to the social situation; that the grammar of spoken English > or of the various nonstandard dialects of English isn't 'bad grammar', but > 'different grammar'. This is not only true, but adopting this frame of > mind seems to _increase_ student interest in grammar and motivation to > learn formal standard grammar, not the opposite. Another way to look at > this is to say that I see grammar teaching as part of a larger 'language > awareness' curriculum that doesn't compartmentalize or neglect social > issues as they relate to language. So I would recommend framing > instruction, not in terms of 'errors' like double negatives and how to > correct them, but in comparative terms: what are the ways > various forms of English negate? Which is used most widely in academic and > business contexts? > #5 We need to do some information-gathering on what is out there > now in the way of scope, sequence, and standards in major textbook > packages and state standards documents. That way we have something to > respond to. > > I'm sure I could go on, but I have probably already lost half of the ATEG > list. Anyway, this should be something to start on. Especially for SSS > people (ATEG's scope/sequence/standards committee). > > We of SSS should also begin thinking about how to go about our business: > setting questions, as Ed says; perhaps divvying them up among subgroups > within SSS; setting timelines for gathering results of subgroup work; etc. > I know Martha is the facilitator for the group, but I don't think that > precludes SSS members from starting to brainstorm on the list, do you? > Martha does read the list, and can include what happens on it in her > mailings to SSS members who might not use e-mail. > > I hereby issue a call to develop a list of questions we have to answer as > we cogitate upon a scope/sequence/standards document. SSS people, you're > responsible for helping come up with this list. I'm sure SSS people would > welcome ideas from non-SSS people. > > Thanks for hanging in through the long message. We should probably > separate the 'teaching grammar' topic from now on, give it its own thread. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ > English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ > Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~ > E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~ > Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~ > Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >