John,
I posed the statement about what students should know in terms of
high school because I was looking for the minimum that we could all
agree on. At that time, the members of ATEG would not agree that high
school graduates should be able to recognize clauses. In the KISS
Approach, clauses are the focus of grades 7, 8, and 9, i.e., middle
school.
I also agree with Bill Spruiell. Within KISS, students learn to
identify subordinate clauses by recognizing their function as an
adjective, adverb, or noun.
To support Diane's statement, I do not teach English majors or
future teachers. Many of my students are going into trades. But they too
are often annoyed that they were not taught basic recognition of
subjects, verbs, and clauses in their schools.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/21/04 09:09AM >>>
Ed,
Nice clarification. I absolutely agree with you. Paul's emendation
that
this skill be an _entrance_ requirement for high school is
well-received. I
have never taught at that level, so I have to defer to the judgment of
others. All I know is that I came out of the seventh grade knowing
subjects, verbs, and clauses.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Vavra [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: college-bound grammar
John,
Nice question. Before I explain my own specific position, let me
note
that I would be thrilled if ATEG could come to any agreement, even if
it
does not accord with my own view. Should such an agreement be achieved,
it
would fall upon me to try to make the KISS Approach meet the
agreement.
What I would propose, more specifically, are main and subordinate
clauses. This would include coordinated main and coordinated
subordinate
clauses, but I'm not sure I see the necessity for teaching "relative."
Almost all subordinate clauses can be discussed in functional terms of
adjectives, adverbs, and nouns, and it seems to me that "relative" is
a
sub-category of adjectival clauses. Note that I do not object to
teaching
relative clauses ? I'm just saying that they would go beyond the
minimum.
Why do I want main and subordinate? First of all, when I asked
the
group about main and subordinate in "He thought she would be a good
president," if I remember correctly, most of the linguists said that
the
whole sentence is the main clause. I agree, and so would, I would
suggest,
Hunt, O'Donnell, and Loban. Thus, subordinate clauses are parts,
sub-assemblies of main clauses. From here I go in two directions.
First, the
problem of errors. Many errors, fragments, comma-slplices, run-ons,
are
clause boundary errors. Thus students who can identify main and
subordinate
clauses will be able to understand the errors, and why they are errors,
etc.
(Yes, I know that not all fragments are errors, but the point is that
students would be able to discuss such questions intelligently.) From
the
perspective of errors, the ability to recognize subordinate clauses
enables
students to recognize (and discuss) a subordinate clause fragment when
it
occurs.
The other direction is style. Hunt, O'Donnell, Loban, etc.
discussed
"T-units," but a T-unit is a main clause, defined as including all the
attached subordinate clauses. In other words, students who can deal
with
main and subordinate clauses can literally analyze their own writing
and
match what they find against the results of these researchers. When my
own
students do this, some of them find that they use very few subordinate
clauses, and no subordinate clauses with subordinate clauses. Others
find
that they have subordinate clauses within subordinate clasues that are
within subordinate clauses. (In other words, they write extremely
complicated sentences which are sometimes difficult to read.)
In sum, I am suggesting the subordinate / main distinction
because
students who understand it, and can identify such clauses, can do a
great
deal with that knowledge, both in terms of errors and style. I hope
this
helps.
Ed
P.S. I admire what Bill McCleary is suggesting in his proposal, but
I'm
wondering what, if any grammatical terms students would be expected to
be
able to use. I would love to see the curriculum for grades 4-9
developed in
detail, but I can't picture what he has in mind. In one sense, that
curriculum could deal exclusively with linguistic principles, and
totally
exclude analytical ability on the part of the students. Which is more
important, that students be taught morphology, or that they be taught
to
identify subjects and verbs? Does what Bill is proposing include both?
That
would be great.
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/20/04 02:20PM >>>
Ed,
You wrote: "Many years ago, at an ATEG conference, I suggested that
the
group pass a resolution to the effect that every high school graduate
should
be able to identify the subjects, verbs, and clauses in a typical
passage
written by a high school student."
I couldn't agree more with you. I request one point of clarification:
When
you say "identify . . . clauses," do you mean being able to identify a
dependent clause from an independent one or do you mean something more
specific (subordinate, coordinate, relative, etc.)?
John
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/
|
