I just read a whole list of responses headed "A Basic Question" and only
a few of them addressed the issue John brought up. Most of them were
about phrasal verbs. I can see why Ed gets exasperated--as soon as
someone brings up a particular analysis, there is a flurry of discussion
arguing over it. Of course, that is often the point of the original
post, but I would have liked to see more response directly to the
original issue: Why give sentence grammar so much time and attention in
the school curriculum?

John brought up many topics related to linguistics and areas of applied
linguistics that are indeed extremely interesting to schoolkids and the
public, and he is absolutely right that it would be a great idea to
teach about these in school. I also believe that a good grammar
curriculum will either touch on most of them or even bring them in to
the core of the curriculum.

Many of us on the list are very interested in developing grammar
materials that focus on grammar as a meaning-making system. I emphasize
this in my courses. I currently incoporate into my courses language
variation, and, at varying degrees of depth, language acquisition,
conversation structure, and speech acts. I incorporate a small amount of
semantics. I would do much more if I had a semester instead of a
ten-week quarter, and even more if my students already understood
language structure by virtue of having had consistent training in it
throughout their K-12 years!

Which leads to a more fundamental argument: It is difficult for someone
to truly understand and fully appreciate many language topics unless
they have a good foundation in the basics of how language works. Grammar
courses address, at a minimum, words and sentences. Understanding how
language varies, how styles of discourse differ, how literary style is
achieved, how children acquire language, and how conversation is
structured requires being fluently knowledgeable about the linguistic
elements involved: An understanding of negation, reflexive pronouns,
subject/verb agreement, etc. enables specific discussion of
dialect/style variation or language change. Understanding of sentence
types enables understanding of the developmental stages of acquisition
of syntax, and of second-language-acquisition issues. Understanding how
propaganda and doublespeak work can call on knowledge of structures like
passive ("Mistakes were made") and linguistic markers of involvement vs.
distance (for instance, using generic 'you' in advertising to make the
reader feel as if the ad is about him/her personally, and thus elicit an
identification with or emotional attachment to the product).

The gist is: Grammar instruction provides the foundation for further
study of language, just as math provides a basis for engineering and science.

If one thinks of grammar as only referring to word forms and sentences,
it only provides part of this foundation. But if we extend 'grammar'
class to include meaning, discourse function, and variation, we are
moving into the areas of interest John brings up. It would be very nice
to add more depth in phonology and semantics to the basic courses. Then
people would have an even fuller foundation for topics like variation
and language acquisition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics 
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •      Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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/