Peter,
    Very happy to hear your voice on list and happy to respond to such
thoughtful observations and questions.
    You're right; if I had my way, we would all integrate a highly
functional approach to grammar. If that can't happen, it might be
better in some cases to have room for a teacher to bring in a more
minority view. As you know from my NCTE talk last year, I advocate "a
whole text view of the sentence" as a way to connect grammar to
discourse. To me, a wholesale embrace of a discourse friendly grammar
is the best of all possible worlds. To many people, grammar in context
means bringing grammar up once in awhile when the errors get too
irritating, but I know you mean much more than that.
    The hypothetical question I proposed came right out of our own recent
thread, which started as a question about "correctness" ( whether an
opening phrase might be a dangling modifier) and ended with a
discussion about why adverbial prepositional phrases might effectively
open a sentence. Both "prepositional phrase" and "adverbial" were key
parts of that conversation. Without those terms, I don't think we
could have that talk. I thought those might be terms that most of us
could advocate--perhaps not ideal to all of us, but a very mainstream
compromise. I know there are objections to "adverbial" for a group
that "modifies" (adjunct to?) a verb, but it is the most mainstream
way we talk about it amongst ourselves.
   My question wasn't really a terminology question. That is, I used the
terms, but was asking a respondent to recognize what was going on
within the sentence. The question, in other words, was directed at
knowledge about language, using terminology that most of us (despite
our large differences in approach to language) would either use or
recognize easily. I could have said "marked theme" (out of systemic
functional grammar), a term I use with my own classes, but most people
on list would not be familiar with that. It might be parallel to asking
"which of the following is a fraction?" The student would not only need
to recognize the term, but be able to recognize a member of the
category.
     Fractions, of course, are a huge resource in so many registers.
     My ideal test for knowledge about language would be an analysis of a
text, exploring how the sentences work together to build a larger
meaning. Before my students can do that, they have to explore
different components of the grammar. Terminology inevitably comes
with that.

Craig

 Craig, Let me add to the issues raised by your sample question. I was
> surprised, when I saw it, that it focussed on terminology. I know that
> your
> interests are really on the use of language (and knowledge about language)
> as a resource for expressing meaning. Questions that simply focus on
> terminology cannot possibly gain information on the abilities of students
> to
> use these resources as they write, nor even on the students' ability to
> talk
> about how language contributes to the expression of meaning in texts that
> already exist, nor, as some have pointed out the abilities of students to
> edit their or others' writings. I would have predicted that with your
> focus
> you would have created a question that focused on meaning.
>
> Further, questions that focus on terminology run into a problem that this
> group is very well aware of -- the great variety of grammatical
> terminology
> that exists across the country. Some on this list have expended great
> effort
> in attempting to develop a terminology (and associated teaching materials)
> that everyone can accept and use. We have seen that many on the list while
> accepting the goal of a uniform terminology disagree as to the exact
> nature
> of the terminology that is best for such a purpose.
> On a more personal level, having grown up in a variety of approaches to
> grammar, I am rather pessimistic that such a terminology can be achieved
> even for pedagogical purposes since each terminological system is useful
> specifically within the fundamental assumptions and goals of the theory in
> which it is found.
> Further, having spent most of my life in minority theories I am rather
> happy
> that no such consensus has been reached--at least among the theoretical
> linguists, since the things that interested me over the years (e.g. the
> analysis of connected text, the use of corpora in linguistics) were
> solidly
> out of favor until recently.
> Peter
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, John Chorazy
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>>
>>  I see another side of this issue every day – students who do very well
>> on
>> SAT questions aren't necessarily better writers for all their awareness
>> ( I
>> hesitate to use knowledge) of SAT error patterns. And then the
>> insinuation
>> is made, yet again, that grammar instruction doesn't improve student
>> writing. Your point about conceptualization is well taken; so, while the
>> SAT
>> test doesn't necessarily approach that aspect, it's more upon me as a
>> teacher of that test-taking population to approach essential skill sets
>> with
>> a larger picture in mind – the rhetorical function of grammar in a
>> particular phrase, paragraph, etc. We should always hope for transfer of
>> knowledge within and across disciplines, and as we all know the SAT
>> isn't
>> constructed to demonstrate that type of thinking, I find it a matter of
>> classroom practice.
>>
>> The SAT and related test-prep methodology and practices manage to keep
>> students tracked and stratified, which to me is of even greater concern
>> (and
>> a matter for a different thread). Those who do well have paid to learn
>> how
>> to do well, or at least better than the average test taker. It's that
>> student who also can afford to pay to actually attend the school he or
>> she
>> was "smart enough" to get into. Let's be courageous enough to admit that
>> "school" is a glorified class system of haves and have nots and that
>> Education has done a fine job in keeping those distinctions in proper
>> working order.
>>
>> But back to the change in curriculum addressed by the article, we can
>> hope
>> it moves beyond correctness and into the dynamics of language. I was
>> pleasantly surprised to watch my young nephew, in the 4th grade, learn
>> about
>> predicates and adverb phrases explicitly (while I have 11th grade
>> students
>> who arrive unable explain nouns, verbs, prepositions, fragments, etc.)
>> ...
>> but again, it's a step on a greater staircase. If we want others (let's
>> start with NCTE, yes?) to believe that this particular, specific type of
>> knowledge is valuable and can in fact improve student writing - which I
>> fully believe it can - then the rest is up to good teaching. Purposeful,
>> explicit, critical, rigorous, and ongoing instruction at that.
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> > Karl,
>> > It's interesting that they still equate grammar with
>> > "conventions" and
>> > with error, though they open up with more sophisticated terminology.
>> > The SAT test doesn't measure explicit knowledge about language; it
>> > simply asks you to find (or intuit) the best choice among options.
>> > There isn't, for example, a need to identify a structure as a
>> > prepositional phrase or modal auxiliary. No need to handle the "in
>> > early morning dawn" type of question we have been discussing other
>> > than to choose it as an alternative. It's interesting that they also
>> > separate proofreading and grammar from "more conceptual" skills,
>> > clearly not even aware that other views of grammar are possible. (One
>> > core concept of cognitive grammar--grammar is conceptualization.)They
>> > still don't seem to be making the judgment that knowledge about
>> > language is valuable in itself.
>> > This is pretty much true of the National Governor's Standards
>> > as well.
>> > They are a bit better, but still old school in their construal of
>> > grammar. Whether you are for it or against it, it still seems to be
>> > focused on correctness.
>> > >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > I'm surprised that no one has brought this up. It appears Texas
>> > schools> are going to get a lot more explicit grammatical instruction.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-grammar_15met.ART.State.Edition1.14a5f2e.html
>> > >
>> > > When Texas was arguing about new curriculum standards, I heard
>> > a lot
>> > > about the fight over the science standards, but nothing at all about
>> > > English standards.
>> > >
>> > > Are there any Texas educators on the list who would care to comment
>> > > about what difference these changes are making in the trenches?
>> > >
>> > > 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/
>> >
>>
>>
>> John Chorazy
>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
>> Pequannock Township High School
>>
>> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit
>> the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave
>> the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter H. Fries
> From December 20, 2010 to May 1, 2011
>   3661 N. Campbell Ave
>   Box 290
>   Tucson AZ 85719
>
> Phone: 520-529-0824
> Cell:  989-400-3764
>
>
> From May 1, 2011 to December 2011
> Box 310
> Mount Pleasant MI 48804
>
> Phone:  989-644-3384
> Cell:      989-400-3764
>
> Email:  [log in to unmask]
>
> Web page:
> <http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml<http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml>>
> [among 'emeritus faculty']
>
> 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/