Tim,
     All this is enormously interesting.  It does sound in some ways like
current minimalist approaches to grammar in avoidance of formal
terminolgy.  It differs from functional grammar, or seems to, in that
functional grammar sees a lot of meaningful work being done within
the internal structure of the clause. It's not so much that grammar
comes in the back door, but that the frame of reference is
functional.  If, for example, establishing a relationship with a
reader is important, we can look at ways in which that function is
carried out within the grammar.  Grammar and meaning are no longer at
war; a focus on the grammar brings us more deeply into the heart of
the meaning. Asking if it's necessary is a bit like asking if deep
understanding is necessary.  Not at all.  Most people do without it.
    Of course, the most important question of all is "why learn grammar",
and the most common answer is "to avoid error." It seems to me that
decades ago some people were searching for ways to make knowledge of
grammar far more useful, less superficial.>
     You say they were interested in "whole chunks".  Did they advocate
shaping the sentence to fit in its place within the whole text? Is
grammar attention pretty much localized to discreet sentences?  Was
there also a rhetorical process at work?
     I enjoyed your recent introduction of yourself, by the way.  I look
forward to meeting you in Chicago.

Craig



 Dear ATEGers,
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago I asked for help on identifying an approach to teaching
> composition known as the "thought approach." Thanks to Martha Kolln and Ed
> Schuster for responding. In addition to the information they provided, I
> did some digging on my own. I thought I would provide a short summary of
> what I found out, since I have seen this referred to many times, and I
> suspect that this information might help others who might also run into
> references to this methodology.
>
>
>
> It appears that this pedagogical approach was popular during the 1930s and
> 1940s, and perhaps even into the 1950s. The primary spokesperson for the
> method seems to be Ellen Frogner, who wrote her dissertation at Minnesota
> on this topic (see this and other references below). Frogner's articles
> are supplemented in the reference list by an article by Hoskins, which is
> actually a review of a popular textbook of the 1930s that used the thought
> approach as its primary pedagogical methodology.
>
>
>
> In essence, in the thought approach the student is encouraged to think in
> "wholes"-whole sentences, clauses, and phrases, and to relate punctuation
> to meaning. Formal grammar is in the background, and when mentioned is
> simplified and reduced. The thought approach is also used to emphasize the
> coordination and subordination of ideas, and the resultant mastery of the
> appropriate clause types, leading to a variety of complex sentences and a
> mature style. All of this is accomplished with virtually no reference to
> any formal rules of grammar.
>
>
>
> The thought approach is also used to deal with common errors, such as
> sentence fragments, run-on (or comma splice) errors, and other sentence
> boundary issues-on the basis that the students look for "what makes
> sense," giving primary attention to the validity of the ideas expressed,
> rather than trying to remember and apply memorized rules.
>
>
>
> As I see it, this approach would come close to what I would call "grammar
> in context," or perhaps "functional grammar" or something similar, since
> it tries to teach the necessary grammar by approaching it "through the
> back door" rather than directly. One thing that always needs stating, it
> seems to me, is that no matter what type of approach is used, grammar IS
> being taught. The difference here seems to be that it (the thought
> approach) was a functional, contextual approach instead of a formal,
> linguistic approach.
>
>
>
> For those interested in delving deeper into this method, most of the
> articles listed below (except for Frogner's dissertation) are easily
> retrieved from online sources. If anyone has any questions, I will be
> happy to respond.
>
>
>
> References
>
>
>
> Frogner, Ellen. "Clarifying Some Facts." English Journal 29.8 (1940),
> 653-655.
>
>
>
> ---. "Grammar and Thought Approaches in Improving Sentence Structure."
> School Review 47.9 (1939), 663-675.
>
>
>
> ---. "Grammar Approach versus Thought Approach in Teaching Sentence
> Structure." English Journal 28.7 (1939), 518-526.
>
>
>
> ---. "A Study of the Relative Efficacy of a Grammatical and a Thought
> Approach to the Improvement of Sentence Structure in Grades Nine and
> Eleven." Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Minnesota, 1939.
>
>
>
> Hoskins, Luella. "The 'Thought Approach' to Composition." English Journal
> 26.7 (1937), 592-593.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
> Tim Hadley
> Research Assistant, The Graduate School
> Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
> Texas Tech University
>
>
> 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/