Hi Craig,

I think we're conversing at cross purposes.  In no way do I believe "we don't need to teach grammar to native speakers."  I teach grammar to native speakers as often as I get the opportunity.  I've worked hard to get ever more grammar into our curriculum.

What I don't do is spend time in a writing class to ponder the abstract essence of a sentence.  When I address sentences in a writing class, I'm doing so with the purpose of teaching students how to write better. (Not "to avoid error.")   So, for example, I make sure that students can identify important features of a sentence (e.g., subject/verb vs agent/action) so that we have a common terminology for discussing sentences.  We look at real sentences and talk about how they are constructed, what makes them more/less effective in context, how they might be rewritten and what effects the rewriting would have.  The last time I taught about fragments, my students and I brought in examples and we discussed the concepts of fragment vs ellipsis, what sorts of fragments readers are most likely to object to, and why writers might use fragments to begin with.  We had a great class without ever formally defining the sentence. 

When a definition is required, I use S = NP + VP, or "a sentence has a subject and predicate" and go on to explain those definitions as necessary.  Wouldn't most people?  Like you (and just about anyone I've ever talked to about this stuff), I agree that definitions like "words beginning with capital/ending with period" or "complete thought," could mislead.  But I'm still not clear on what a new discourse-sensitive definition would accomplish that existing grammatical/linguistic definitions do not.   I guess I should go read your book. :)

Beth


>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 09/22/09 11:21 AM >>>

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/