John,
    I wanted to reply to a few parts of your thoughtful post.
     

Craig:  One statement that you made struck me:  "Because grammar is at the
heart of language, it can be the foundation for so much else."  Help me out
here:  I would have said that meaning is at the heart of language and that
grammar is but one of the tools that we employ to achieve it. 

    I wouldn't disagree with this, but I think it may not be a big enough challenge to common misunderstandings. Most student writers tend to think that meaning exists independently of its formulation into language, and grammar is just a way of deciding which expressions of it are acceptable or unacceptable. Writing teachers tend to downplay grammar because they want students to do the real work of writing (the making of meaning) and see this rather superficial attention to surface forms as a harmful distraction. In the meantime, there are many teachers who respond to writing by red-pencilling the errors, thus reinforcing the notion that grammar is error and error is grammar. We need to find ways to describe grammar that radically change the public orientation. One way to do that is to point out that language is impossible without grammar, that we cannot talk without it or write without it or mean without it. It is as essential to language as are words. 

   I think you are absolutely right in saying that math is somewhat different from grammar in that students don't learn many math concepts without direct instruction, but I'm not willing to say math has no connection to natural language. Perhaps someone on the list is knowledgeable about the relationships between math concepts and natural language.  Can we have math without a preceding notion of the meaning of "and" or "or"? Isn't negation a grammatical concept before it becomes a math topic in school?  Do numbers in language predate formal math?  Certainly children learn about eating the whole candy bar or having two or taking one away even before they arrive at school. You might even be able to make the case for this "natural" knowledge of math being sufficient for anyone who isn't going to become a scientist or engineer. Will the computer and calculator make math knowledge obsolete?  I don't think so, but the parallels may be greater than you acknowledge.  

    What does it mean to say that students are "masters" of their language?
 
"Our native speaker students, in contrast, are (or soon will be) masters of informal, spoken language, and this fact changes things."

    If we studied this process, we would find that many students are relatively inarticulate in speech, whereas others are fairly glib, perhaps depending greatly on context and situation. They may be able to produce the requisite forms and say things that are thought of as "grammatical" (by definition, since they are native speakers), but much might be gained by helping them become more conscious of what is going on within these informal situations. Is a child a "master" of native language when he allows himself to be seduced into smoking or taking hard drugs?  Are there children out there who have a hard time talking to teachers or parents, yet have, even feel, a desperate need to do just that?  The idea that they are masters is based on a shallow notion of what language (and grammar) is about. We simply mean that they talk grammatically, not that they talk effectively or talk well.

    If students are natural masters of grammar, why do they write so poorly?  Is their writing poor simply because they haven't mastered writing conventions?  If we "correct" their writing to conform to those standards, will their work suddenly become moving and thoughtful and clear? Can we publish the texts of our successful students and examine ways in which the form of the text works to produce its meaningfulness?  

    People have mentioned that we tend to come back at the same issues over and over again, but that may be because both sides have been wrong, and what we need is a new synthesis. The choice has been between shallow attention to grammar or trying to minimize the need for a shallow grammar.  It's time to recognize that grammar is at the heart of language, and changes in the form of a text and changes in the meaning of a text are not independent activities. 

     You tend to argue against teaching some of the more subtle aspects of grammar in school, but your own lists (and purposes) tend to be marvelously inclusive. Obviously, we do have tough choices to make and other things on the agenda.  You and I are in great agreement, I believe, in advocating far more attention to language, including grammar.  We should certainly, as you suggest, make very real and practical connections to advertising and speeches and so on, to making our way effectively within the world outside of the classroom.  

     The word "basic" has weak connotations.  It may be that the most basic concepts within grammar (like constituency) are also the most profound.  When we understand how the language works, we understand how our minds work.  Even at its most "basic", this is far from a trivial enterprise.

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/