Brock, I like the distinction you make; I find it useful. In the message
below, I am referring to what Brock calls "private grammar."

I am going to repeat here a point I made that no one has 'taken up" (as the
ethnomethodologists say), because I think it might be germane to the problem
of getting grammar back into a curriculum that teachers might be able to
play, instructively, with. Much of what I envision is possible was done in
England (LINC), but sadly cut off before any research could be done.

From my functional perspective, of course, treating grammar as if it had
little to do with the making and understanding of written texts is a bit
weird. This is one of the issues dividing the discussion; another (all our
disagreements are related, I think) is the question of what needs to be made
explicit; what, about language, ought to be conscious knowledge.

I take the position that a deep and coherent view of what language "is" and
how language works is desirable, useful, and teachable, but only if grammar
is not disembedded from its uses. Others, I realize, see grammar as a system
that CAN be treated apart from its uses, and MUST be so treated if it's to
be taught at all. I will represent my own views here; let others promote theirs.

It's not surprising to me, Connie, that Chomsky-inspired curriculum never
took off. Jim Gee has said that Chomsky has something to say about the mind,
but nothing to say about language. I think that's right. Language is the
world we inhabit; we use language to become persons as well as to get things
done with others. If a program for language in the curriculum started from
that premise, a lot of the structure of language could be introduced while
showing the connections between language and thought & learning (vygotsky),
language and social life (sociolinguists), and language of different
varieties (spoken/ written; language for literacy).

I, like Connie, can't agreee that students need to know how to categorize
every word -- I think they can learn how words go together (also Ed's goal)
without learning how, formally, to identify each word. Pam is quite right
that we speak in chunks, not words, and this insight I also see as important
for understanding what "counts" as language description.

However, I wonder if Connie's caution against feeding the 'back to basics'
movement might carry its own risks. The problem with whole language was that
it did not give teachers a way of talking about language itself -- ONLY
meaning; only text -- which turned into phobias about saying anything
'technical' or analytical about the language used to MAKE meaning; MAKE
text. So I think there is room for discussion here.

Also, Susan's point is well taken -- that a focus on public grammar can
interfere with the mastery of private grammar. Here again, I think that a
focus on the social, situational context of language use is important for
making important distinctions regarding what counts as what when (to revert
to vagueness - sorry; I'm trying to get to other matters stacked on my desk
right now....)

So anyway, for those who are interested in a focus on language rather than
ONLY grammar, I hope you will respond to some of these considerations.

judy

P.S., I'll pursue the question of research on meta-language & report back.


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183