>
>Furthermore, even our labels for grammatical concepts are problems. If you
>understand the morphemes in the word "photosynthesis" (which is not hard to
>do), that helps you understand and remember the concept behind the term. By
>contrast, words like "adjective" and "preposition" are no help whatsoever.
>It's not that the words aren't made up of meaningful morphemes; it's that
>meanings are either unknown or unhelpful to students. The terms can only be
>memorized, and what must be memorized is easily forgotten.
>
>In the end, if teachers cannot successfully teach grammar, and if the
>labels used for grammatical concepts fail to help them in the teaching, it
>is little wonder that so many are reluctant to teach either the concepts or
>the terminology.


Bill, This is a topic that has preoccupied me too. I appreciate your helpful
explanation, and it leads me to related questions: 1) Why can't we,
educators and linguists, work together to develop an inquiry-based language
awareness program for K-12 students & teachers?
 2) Since this was done not long ago in England (but suppressed by the
Thatcher government), what do teachers there have to say about an
inquiry-based language awareness curriculum, and if what they say is
favorable, can we/ should we work more closely with our English colleagues....
3) Since we do know about a text-based, meaning-based, functional
description of language that is pervasive in other English-speaking regions
of the world, can we make use of its conceptual base, integrate its terms
with terms that are more familiar to educators here?

I know many ATEG members will disagree with you and object to the functional
description I am referring to (systemic functional grammar) -- but the
questions seemed to fall right out of what you had said, so there may be
interest for some.

Judy


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