Karl -

I may not have been clear - my concern is that (to continue the orthopod 
analogy) the doctor learns all about the human body and then tries to treat 
his patients by having them learn the same material rather than having them 
apply it, which is what I see happening when we keep trying to teach 
"grammar talk" to high school and college-comp students.  Therefore, it is 
my view that just like patients don't need to know medical terminology in 
order to improve their ability to walk, neither do students "need a set of 
terms that will help them think productively about what they're doing with 
language."  In fact, the terms are not helpful, productive, or consistent.  
They're just confusing.

As an example of confusing, I offer the following:  "If you call all 
pre-head NP modifiers
'adjectives', as many older textbooks do, then genitive NPs (e.g., John's) 
become adjectives. This in turn leads to it-must-be-so arguments like 
"possessive NPs can't be antecedents for pronouns
because possessive NPs are adjectives, and adjectives can't serve as 
antecedents," which was the silly rule at the heart of the PSAT writing 
question flap a few years ago."  I'd hate to have to unpack this sentence!

Geoff


>From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar              
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:33:33 -0700
>
>Geoff,
>
>I agree with you that this discussion isn't directly relevant to students. 
>But I would argue that it is relevant to teachers, who are, after all, the 
>audience of this list.
>
>Students need a consistent, helpful set of terms that will help them think 
>productively about what they're doing with language. They certainly don't 
>need to worry about alternate analyses of the sort we've been discussing 
>here.
>
>But teachers need to understand the implications of that terminology. It is 
>an unfortunate but inescapable reality that K-12 grammar teaching is 
>littered with the detritus of obsolete attempts to analyze English grammar. 
>It's as if science textbooks still explained combustion with phlogiston. 
>That means that teachers can't duck from the need to find their way among 
>all the various schemes of varying levels of accuracy. They can't, in other 
>words, leave the job of figuring out the terminology to some elite cabal of 
>grammarians.
>
>The choice of terminology is not innocent, because it shapes other 
>decisions. For example, if you call all pre-head NP modifiers "adjectives", 
>as many older textbooks do, then genitive NPs (e.g., John's) become 
>adjectives. This in turn leads to it-must-be-so arguments like "possessive 
>NPs can't be antecedents for pronouns because possessive NPs are 
>adjectives, and adjectives can't serve as antecedents," which was the silly 
>rule at the heart of the PSAT writing question flap a few years ago.
>
>Karl Hagen
>
>Geoffrey Layton wrote:
>>Herb -
>>
>>Here's my point about native speakers - every native speaker knows how to 
>>use prepositional phrases.  No one would say "I put the glass the table."  
>>Similarly, everyone knows what an object of a preposition is.  No one 
>>would say "I put the glass on."  Therefore, I find it less than productive 
>>to try to teach prepositional phrases and their objects.  Similarly, every 
>>native speaker knows how to use nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and 
>>every other part of speech.
>>
>>Now your point is well taken - not very many people know how to use them 
>>well.  So while it may be useful - even critical - to teach anatomy and 
>>physiology to the orthopod, it may not be worthwhile to try to teach this 
>>same information to the rehab patient.  What the patient needs is an 
>>orthopod who knows how to apply this information.  And this is precisely 
>>the point I try to make every time we engage in discussions about "What to 
>>do with 'put'" type questions - fascinating as these might be to language 
>>scholars, they are of not much use to high school students or college 
>>freshman comp students (or other "rehab" patients).  And it seems to me 
>>that since the interest of many on this list focuses on the communication 
>>with the patient rather than fellow doctors, our discussions should 
>>occassionally be re-directed to the patient in clinic rather than the 
>>technician in the lab.  (WOW - YOU'RE RIGHT, TRYING TO MAINTAIN AND EXTEND 
>>THESE ANALOGIES CAN BE EXHAUSTING!)
>>
>>So I believe that staying away from the terminology and sticking with the 
>>basic development of meaning actually helps the basic writer, voter, and 
>>walker improve their chances of becoming better writers, voters, and 
>>walkers.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>
>>>From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar              
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]
>>>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:29:48 -0400
>>>
>>>Geoff,
>>>
>>>This argument, that every native speaker already knows the answer to the
>>>question about different sentence types, mixes two very different forms
>>>of knowledge.  I don't like arguing from analogy because all analogies
>>>ultimately fail, but I'll do it for a moment.  Every human knows how to
>>>walk, but without some knowledge of anatomy and physiology it's hard to
>>>communicate clearly to an orthopod when something goes wrong with one's
>>>walking.  Every citizen knows something about our system of government,
>>>but one of our problems is how little some citizens know about the
>>>functions of different branches, about the electoral process, about the
>>>Bill of Rights.  That lack of knowledge sometimes prevent citizens from
>>>exercising and defending constitutional rights that no one can deprive
>>>them of.  Knowledge about grammar and about language use is like these.
>>>A writer who can talk analytically about what's going on in her
>>>sentences has an advantage over the writer who works on the basis of
>>>less explicit knowledge.  Certainly there are natural writers, just as
>>>there are those among us with a bent for grammatical analysis.  We're
>>>not talking about those statistical fringes but about all those in the
>>>middle to whom such matters don't come naturally.
>>>
>>>Herb
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:16 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]
>>>
>>>Bill - I'm not sure that I agree.  First of all, every native speaker
>>>already knows the answer to the question about the different sentence
>>>types.
>>>   They probably don't know the terminology, but my contention is that
>>>knowing it doesn't help any.
>>>
>>>Second, the analogy is not between types of sentences and types of
>>>living
>>>things.  Rather the analogy is between types of living things and types
>>>of
>>>meaning.  So, for example, while the biologist asks about living things,
>>>the
>>>grammarian asks about meaning.  The biologist talks about the three
>>>parts of
>>>life (domains); the grammarian about the six parts of meaning
>>>(who-what-why-where-when-how).  The biologist invesigates the Animalia
>>>Kingdom; the grammarian the world of "who."  I won't try to complete the
>>>
>>>analogy here, although it may be interesting to try - it's a good one
>>>that I
>>>think is worthwhile.
>>>
>>>Again, Bill, the difference between my approach and that taken by most
>>>of
>>>the population of this list is one that's defined by student population.
>>>
>>>It's the difference between a class of advanced college and/or graduate
>>>language students and a class of high school students and/or first-year
>>>college composition students.
>>>
>>>Geoff
>>>
>>>
>>> >From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> ><[log in to unmask]>
>>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]
>>> >Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:41:14 -0400
>>> >
>>> >Geoff --
>>> >
>>> >Even my college students are bored by the terminology (mirabile
>>>dictu!).
>>> >However, I think stepping back from the whole issue and asking a few
>>> >questions, such as "How many basic kinds of sentences are there?" and
>>> >"What are the really important differences and what are the trivial
>>> >ones?" may be a good tactic for a wide range of age groups, as long as
>>> >one doesn't harp too much on labels, or insist there is a single
>>>correct
>>> >answer. It's parallel to what can happen even in low-level biology
>>> >classes when the teacher asks, "How many kinds of living things are
>>> >there? How could you even start to answer that question?" as a way of
>>> >approaching systems for classifying species (I have friends who are
>>>avid
>>> >bird-watchers, and who were horrified when they discovered that my
>>> >taxonomy for birds has, as top-level categories, "Goes with garlic
>>> >butter" and "Does not go with garlic butter").
>>> >
>>> >The important part is not really the "right labels" for things, it's
>>> >gaining an understanding of the ways scientists (or grammarians) think
>>> >when they're faced with such a task. Since my course has objectives
>>>that
>>> >include "being able to work with traditional grammar labels," I'm more
>>> >label-focused than is probably needed. -- Bill Spruiell
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
>>> >Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:31 PM
>>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]
>>> >
>>> >Before this interesting discussion runs out of steam, I wanted to add
>>>my
>>> >2
>>> >cents - specifically about how the interest level in this problem
>>>varies
>>> >
>>> >based on the student audience.  To a class of undergrads or grad
>>> >students,
>>> >the terminology may be of interest.  To high school students, however,
>>> >this
>>> >entire discussion would be mind-numbing - except as it might generally
>>> >relate to sentence development using "who-what-when-why-where-how"
>>> >constructions.
>>> >
>>> >To use the "Fastow was in the pen" example, I have my students
>>>construct
>>> >
>>> >sentences using "when" information first (based on using "old"
>>> >informtion
>>> >first) followed by the S-V and then "where" information.
>>> >
>>> >So the sentence would read, then, "After the scandal, Fastow was in the
>>> >penitentiary."  They would then be encouraged to add additional "when"
>>> >and
>>> >"where" information, preferably using more varied construction,
>>> >including
>>> >dependent clauses, resulting in a sentence that might read like this:
>>> >"Last
>>> >month after the scandal while his co-defendants were still on trial,
>>> >Fastow
>>> >was in the penitentiary where he had been sent immediately after his
>>> >trial."
>>> >
>>> >Please note that the terminology of all of these constructions is of
>>> >minor
>>> >importance because all native speakers already know how to use each and
>>> >every one of them.  After developing sentences such as this, students
>>> >then
>>> >learn how to fill in the paragraph.  For example, the old "when"
>>> >information
>>> >logically requires "who" "what" "why" and "how" explanations; the
>>> >"where"
>>> >requires additional descriptive and action information.  And thus a
>>> >story is
>>> >developed using a variety of complex, logical sentences, taught with
>>> >almost
>>> >no "formal" grammar instruction whatsoever!
>>> >
>>> >Geoff Layton
>>> >
>>> >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/
>>>
>>>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/

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/