Geoff,
   You obviously have a fairly self-contained system (approach ) to the
problem of teaching composition to college students who have had little
exposure to grammar (more misunderstanding than understanding.) I have
a great deal of sympathy for the difficulty of it; I'm dealt the same
problem every year and am trying to do better at it. It's a hugely
difficult, almost impossible task, and we are certainly bailed out by
our students' innate ability to use language purposefully. I would like
to venture that you don't have the complete answer yet, but have a
handful of approaches that you find useful. My own are a bit different
and probably start with a different assumption, that technical terms
are useful precisely because they name sonmething worth drawing
attention to, dependent clause among them. One problem is that soft
understandings (avoiding the technical) are precisely what has gotten
us to this terrbile place where I pretty much have to start from
scratch with little or no shared metalanguage to draw on.
   I think it's useful to seperate this discussion out from scope and
sequence, to say that it's a different problem from the question of
what we teach students K-12 so that they come to college with a routine
understanding of language that we can work with.
   One reason for coming up with three areas is that we can then highlight
some of the differences in how people understand the nature or goals of
grammar. People want students to acquire a Standard English. Therefore,
we should make the nature of Standard English explicit and not simply
expect people to behave "properly" from mere exposure. We should also
teach the rule-governed nature of dialects and help students see the
expressive power (and great usefulness) of non-standard forms. Luckily,
we have a wonderful literature that does exactly that, and it's already
in place in the curriculum.
   Another goal seesm to be some mastery of the conventions of writing,
which I believe are a much different kind of "correctness", perhaps
equally difficult for everyone, regardless of exposure to more
mainstream dialects while growing up. Speech isn't punctuated. It isn't
paragraphed. It doesn't generally include a "review of the literature".
And so on. I think we owe it to students to admit that the conventions
are described in terms of syntax, judged in terms of suyntax, and
aren't easily mastered without some attention to the nature of these
conventions. I have no problem using a term like "restrictive and
non-restrictive modification", however carefully I might explain it in
terms my students can understand. I can certainly find instances in
their writing where unfortunate ambiguity ought to be cleared up. My
students write run-on sentences quite readily when the independent
clauses seem to be saying the same thing. "My father was a generous
guy, he always opened his pockets to the needy." I wouldn't tell them
they are "wrong", but certainly need to tell them that this breaks one
of the major conventions of punctuation and that the semi-colon is a
nice way to connect the two while acknowledging the independence of the
clauses. I wish I didn't have to start from scratch with college
students, but I pretty much have to, not because "complete thought"
isn't a useful idea, but because the conventions haven't changed to
accomodate "complete thoughts" as OK. So that's a second area of
concern (being able to read a handbook.) We can rewrite the handbooks,
but no one has done that yet. We just have non-technical approaches to
meeting technical demands, and it has been a terrible failure. If
teachers took ten minutes to explain a clause, it would do much more
good than ten hours of "complete thought." Complete thought is not
direct. It's not accurate. You can't build on it. with clause, you can.
   The third area is where you want to focus your attention, and I admit
it's the area I am fondest of. We can and should focus attention on the
close realtionship between the form of an expression and its meaning,
especially if meaning is broadened out toward purpose, toward an
audience. I like a great deal of the terminology of functional grammar,
but the concepts are probably the key. How do we develop a topic? How
does a writer convey perspective, and what role does perspective play
in the construal of meaning? Is perspective presented differently in a
narrative than it is in a news story? In an argument?  How do we
establish relationships with readers? How does a text cohere? What is
the role of repitition, of given and new? How does the intonation
grammar of speech carry over into writing? How and why should we unpack
the meaning of our sentences? How and why should we condense? What are
the positions in a text that carry the greatest emphasis? If sentences
can vary widely in the amount of information they contain and in the
way that information is organized, how do those choices impact our
contact with a reader?
   All of those questions require a recognition of the connection between
form and meaning, that these manipulations are not merely "correcting",
but writing and revising in the larger sense revered by composition
teachers (and generally thought of as at war with grammar. If you're
correcting, as it's now understood, you're not really writing or
revising.)
   My fourth area (sub area of three) relates to your disagreement with
Karl. Too long, I think, English teachers have seen narrative (and
poetry and drama) as their prime concern, and so we haven't taken a
good look at the language in the technical disciplines. Building a
technical vocabulary is absolutely essential to the workings of a
discipline, and it takes us away from the more narrative structures
(who, what, where, when, why, how)to a much more heavily nominalized
world where ideas are seen in relation to other ideas. There are, of
course, ways in which this can be merely obfuscation and
self-importance, but there are ways in which the work of the world
cannot happen without it, including the work of understanding langauge.
And it seems to me terrible that literature teachers don't shy away
from "literary elements", but seem to think it's harmful or wrong to
look at syntax in the same clear and thoughtful way. Is "metaphor" a
technical term? How about "protagonist"? We use them because they help
understand how language works and how stories are organized. To me,
given and new, tonic prominence, intonation group, nominalization, and
so on, are equally useful.
   So, again, I propose these PURPOSES that will help us organize
knowledge about language in purposeful ways. What knowledge will help
us make Standard English accessible, especially to those students who
seem most at risk from not becoming comfortable with it? What knowledge
about language will help students understand the routine conventions
that make written discourse possible, including discourse in whatever
communities they want to be part of? What knowledge about language will
help us understand the nature of effective discourse and help students
accomplish their own purposes as writers? What knowledge about language
will help us understand the demands of a technical field? What will
help us understand the complex ways in which writing differs from
speech?
   It's an ambitious project, especially in light of the prevailing
tendency toward reducing knowledge of grammar to the smallest possible.

 Craig -
>
> Great points.  And thank you for recognizing the difference between
> Weaver's
> position ("grammar in the context of writing") and mine ("writing in the
> context of grammar").  She relegates grammar to the role of error
> avoidance
> and detection (AN "UNFORTUNATE NUISANCE" - I LOVE IT!), consigning it to
> "mini-lessons" thoroughly subjugated to, presumably, the "maxi-lessons" of
> "brainstorming," "graphic organizers," and other non-writing techniques
> for
> producing writing.  My point is that students can - and should - use
> grammar
> to create writing.  For example, how can you use a prepositional phrase or
> a
> dependent clause to create "when" or "where" or "why" meaning?  What are
> the
> various ways to create "who" meaning - for example, an appositive.
>
> Therefore, I'm NOT suggesting that native speakers don't need to be taught
> grammar.  But it seems to me that terminology is the type of grammar that
> they don't need to be taught. In other words, taking students on the now
> infamous Parts of Speech Hunts - find (PART OF SPEECH HERE) in the
> following
> paragraph - is clearly useless.  My point was simply that native speakers
> don't need to be taught what prepositions (or nouns or adjectives or
> adverbs
> or dependent clauses) are since they so clearly already know how to use
> them.  They just don't know how to use them to create meaning to fullest
> possible extent.
>
> What they need to be taught, then, is how to use grammar - how to use
> grammatical tools to create meaning that would be impossible without these
> tools.  Terminology can be introduced - but it's the creation of meaning
> that's paramount, not the terminology used to name the tools.  There have
> been some attempts at other approaches such as sentence combining.
> However,
> this method has severe limitations in that students are not producing
> their
> own meaning but guessing at how to impose meaning on writing created by
> other authors.
>
> Some other observations - you don't have to teach "dependent clause"
> terminology in order to avoid sentence fragments and run-ons.  There are
> much more direct ways to get this job accomplished.  Terminology is also
> unnecessary to teach the nature of complete sentences or predicates or
> punctuation.  The old "a sentence is a complete thought" is almost
> ludicrous
> in its lack of usefullness. And the predicate as an "action" word or a
> "state of being" is equally innane.  What in God's name is a "state of
> being," and if the predicate is an "action" word, then why isn't "Running"
> in "Running is fun" or "I bought a pair of running shoes" the predicate?
> And why is "am" in "I am running" the part of the predicate?  I get
> frustrated just thinking about the confusion created by what you have
> properly called "soft" definitions.
>
> Anyway - a great new thread - thanks!
>
> Geoff
>
>>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: knowledge about language
>>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 15:20:27 -0400
>>
>>    Our recent discussion about knowledge of language seems worth a
>>discussion thread in its own right, one that should have major
>>implications for scope and sequence.
>>    Geoff's point is that native speakers already know how to use
>>prepositions, nouns, and so on, so there is no need to teach this. It's
>>a position pretty much taken up by Constance Weaver and other
>>minimalists, with the difference being that Geoff sees a role for
>>knowledge about language in rhetorical application (in the making of
>>meaning) and Weaver seems more tuned in to the minimum we need to avoid
>>certain kinds of error or to encourage "stylistic" flair.
>>    I have been thinking in terms of three kinds of knowledge about
>>language and the differing needs for teachers and students and looking
>>for a chance to interject that into the conversation. I think there are
>>different issues at stake, and we often disagree because we mean
>>different things by grammar.
>>    Area one would be issues related to Standard English, and here we
>> have
>>the problem of rule-driven language that is deemed inappropriate in
>>some contexts. For many, I suppose that having "soaked up" the standard
>>is sufficient, but we have taken the position that students have a
>>right to explicit knowledge of what constitutes Standard English and
>>have taken the position that a students' non-standard language
>>shouldn't be thought of as deficient or "wrong." This means explicit
>>teaching about the nature of dialect, observations about the effective
>>ways that non-standard forms show up in many kinds of texts,
>>differentiating between "Standard English" and the various kinds of
>>"myth-rules" that show up from time to time. Depending on local need,
>>that might mean talking about third person singular present tense, 'ed
>>endings on past tense verbs, irregular past participles, double
>>negatives, and so on. The idea would be that simply "correcting"
>>doesn't eliminate error and has negative impact that goes well beyond
>>its intentions. We need to deepen understanding about language,
>>including its role in the shared experience of language communities,
>>and the fact that its rules are often unconscious.
>>    The second area would have to do with the somewhat arbitrary
>>conventions for representing language in writing. This includes the
>>alphabet and spelling and understanding the "meaning" of various kinds
>>of punctuation, conventions for attribution of sources, and so on.
>>Despite many attempts to get through this on the basis of "soft
>>explanations" like "a sentence is a complete thought" and "put commas
>>where you hear a pause," these "rules" are based on syntax and
>>explained in the handbooks on the basis of syntax, so it would make
>>sense to teach relevant terminology and concepts. For this perspective,
>>a term like "independent clause" becomes important precisely because it
>>is the core unit needed to avoid sentence fragments and because two of
>>them together can be run-on sentences if not punctuated in accordance
>>with the standards, and so on. We continue to hold students accountable
>>to following the rules, but aren't currently giving enough background
>>to explain what those rules are. In fact, most teachers seem to come
>>short of a full knowledge as well. If students think a "run-on
>>sentence" has too many ideas or just "runs on too long," then it
>>shouldn't surprise us that this is insufficient understanding. When
>>teachers think that way, we are in even deeper trouble.
>>    The third area is one that I think has been woefully under examined,
>>and that would be the connection between grammar and many different
>>kinds of meaning, including both thought and expression. This is what
>>Geoff is talking about with "who, what, where, when, why, and how",
>>which are one of many, many ways of approaching this rich and complex
>>area. We also have fine insights being developed in cognitive
>>linguistics and in systemic functional grammar.  To me, this is
>>especially important because it redeems grammar from those who feel
>>it's a sort of unfortunate nuisance, a final veneer placed over writing
>>to make it "correct," far more mundane then the rest of the English
>>curriculum. This is what connects the study of gramamr to issues
>>(goals) of effectiveness, not only in writing, but in critical reading.
>>    Geoff's argument, that people know language as native speakers and
>>don't need to have it taught, has to be respected, but I think the time
>>in which this has been the prime rationale for NOT teaching gramamr has
>>run its course.
>>    Knowledge about gramamr helps recognize (make explicit) Standard
>>English and gain access to public life while still respecting the
>>community languages that are important to so many of us and important
>>sources of literary expression.
>>    Knowledge about language helps us understand the conventions that
>> come
>>with language as writing, including standard punctuation practices that
>>have always been formulated and explained in terms of syntax and seem
>>to resist explanation in softer (non-technical) ways.
>>    Knowledge about language can help us understand the nature of
>> effective
>>discourse. It can lead us deeply into the heart of the meaning of a
>>text. It can help us understand grammatical choice as deeply connected
>>to building and establishing meaning, to winning friends and
>>influencing people, well beyond the goals of mere "correctness."
>>   I would add to this a fourth area, which might be best understood as
>>division of area three. I believe there is ample evidence that writing,
>>especially the work of the technical disciplines, puts pressure on
>>writing that leads toward structures that are not at all common in
>>speech. Writing is not merely putting speech into words, but doing a
>>very different kind of work in very different kinds of communities. The
>>more we understand the kinds of changes that need to happen, the better
>>we will be at helping students through, especially those who have
>>historically been under-represented in the professional and technical
>>fields.
>>    Whole language approaches should be commended for putting emphasis on
>>our innate abilities as language users and for putting high emphasis on
>>engagement as being at the heart of all good teaching. If students come
>>to care about reading and writing, much good will follow. We have much
>>to gain from extensive reading and writing. But I think it has been a
>>terrible mistake to put these goals at odds with a deepening
>>understanding of language and how it works.
>>
>>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/