Here's what you can find online:

French curriculum for 3rd, 4th and 5th grades (scroll down to 3. Etude de
la langue française):
http://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/2008/hs3/programme_CE2_CM1_CM2.htm

for first and second grade:
http://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/2008/hs3/programme_CP_CE1.htm

middle school (starts page 4):
http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/special_6/21/8/programme_francais_general_33218.pdf


Hoping you find it interesting,
Marie


> Marie,
>
> No, traditional U.S. grammar books make no consistent distinction
> between category and function. A classic example of such a book--widely
> used for decades--would be Warriner's, which so completely ignores the
> point that it doesn't appear even aware of the possibility that there's
> a difference.
>
> BTW, I would be interested to look at the French national curriculum on
> grammar. Is there any substantial description available on line? (I can
> read French.)
>
> Karl
>
> On 11/18/2010 8:11 AM, Marie-Pierre Jouannaud wrote:
>> Karl,
>>
>> Having been born and raised in France, I guess I'm missing some of the
>> ideological overtones of the debate...
>>
>> Still, I think that an outdated grammar is better than no grammar at
>> all. The grammar taught in French schools isn't great (I sometimes
>> wonder what the writers of the national curriculum were thinking), but
>> it's a foundation you can build on later on. Doesn't traditional grammar
>> in the US distinguish between category and function?
>>
>> Marie
>>
>> Karl Hagen a écrit :
>>> Marie,
>>>
>>> I hope you're not suggesting that all simplifications are more or less
>>> interchangeable.
>>>
>>> The problem I have with teaching 8 categories specifically, as opposed
>>> to some other number, is that it is not an innocent choice. It's a
>>> signal that we're teaching the old, late-19th-century grammar, and
>>> there is absolutely no good reason to do this. (The fact that your
>>> school board requires you to use a textbook that regurgitates outdated
>>> nonsense is not, to my mind, a good reason.)
>>>
>>> Everyone who's studied the matter knows that old parts-of-speech
>>> account doesn't work well as a theoretical description of English (and
>>> this holds of old grammars that pick some other number than 8 too), so
>>> why subject students to something that we know is not right?
>>>
>>> The 8-category account isn't just a simplification for young minds,
>>> it's an integral part of a wider, incorrect account of English, one
>>> that has substantially different assumptions than contemporary
>>> linguistic grammars do.
>>>
>>> Those of us who acquired a linguistic background after being subjected
>>> to traditional grammar essentially had to be reprogrammed. Why do we
>>> want to waste students' time with that? I think we can do better by
>>> providing a well thought out introduction to language from the start.
>>>
>>> Of course we need to give beginning students simplified accounts of
>>> syntax. Why not start with the 5 big categories (noun, verb,
>>> adjective, adverb, preposition)? We can mention that there a number of
>>> other smaller categories that will be covered later.
>>>
>>> I don't have any problem with calling these categories parts of
>>> speech, as long as we teach them strictly as word categories and don't
>>> use them to describe grammatical functions. For example, don't call a
>>> prepositional phrase that modifies a noun an adjective phrase.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2010 4:24 AM, Marie-Pierre Jouannaud wrote:
>>>> I don't agree with Susan in that I think languages are just as much
>>>> "out
>>>> there" as planets or electrons. Sure, they're a creation of the human
>>>> mind, but I don't really see what difference it makes. They might be
>>>> harder to study because they change all the time and each person uses
>>>> a
>>>> slightly different version of the same language, but then you could
>>>> also
>>>> argue that they're easier to have access to than far-away planets or
>>>> electrons.
>>>>
>>>> What I do agree with is that there's nothing harmful in teaching
>>>> children that there are 8 parts of speech (or 7, or 9, or any other
>>>> number). Isn't that more of less what all of you were taught, and
>>>> didn't
>>>> you become grammarians or linguists? As long as teachers realize that
>>>> what they are teaching is a simplication of reality, and that there
>>>> might be other ways of simplifying it, and don't shy away from
>>>> discussing "in-between" cases, then we're good. If they manage to
>>>> convey
>>>> these ideas to their students, then the students might not be
>>>> destabilized if their next teacher uses a slightly different
>>>> categorization scheme.
>>>>
>>>> Children DO need to know the names of basic categories: how far can
>>>> they
>>>> go in their study of English (not to mention foreign languages) if
>>>> they
>>>> don't know what a noun is, or a verb, or a preposition?
>>>>
>>>> Marie
>>>> France
>>>>
>>>> PS: From a pedagogical perpective, the real difference between
>>>> established "hard" sciences like physics or biology and linguistics
>>>> could be that they agree on useful, productive simplications and we
>>>> don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan van Druten a écrit :
>>>>> This passage does not negate what I have been saying about basic
>>>>> grammar definitions: grammar is a subjective reality.
>>>>> I have avoided using the terms hard science and soft science, but I
>>>>> guess these terms cut to the chase.
>>>>> Grammar is a human construct. Gravity is not. Grammar has no
>>>>> objective
>>>>> reality to test and discover. I like the work of Steven Pinker a lot
>>>>> more than the philosophers you mentioned. I think Pinker does "hard"
>>>>> science with grammar and doesn't dabble much in theory. I see most
>>>>> theoretical grammarians as trend-setters, and their followers are
>>>>> bandwagon-jumpers. They come in and out of fashion. Right now it is
>>>>> trendy to disparage an 8-parts-of-speech view of the world; those
>>>>> grammarians act like they are Copernicus and have discovered that the
>>>>> earth revolves around the sun. Sorry, it's not even close to
>>>>> comparable. If it's so damaging to think that way, give me a reason.
>>>>> Why are kids poorly served by dividing all words into only 8
>>>>> categories? These are kids who don't know that "is" (such a small,
>>>>> preposition-like word) is a powerful verb. You haven't come up with
>>>>> an
>>>>> answer because there is no answer. It's a subjective reality. There
>>>>> is
>>>>> no grammatical reality "hiding a number of mysteries."
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. I wish you had taken
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> time to read the few pages that I have written on the scientific
>>>>>> approach. Here is an example of how our languages give us a view of
>>>>>> reality that is not scientific.
>>>>>> The scientist does not necessarily want to study the phenomena of
>>>>>> nature in the same way that language has come to refer to them. A
>>>>>> particularly apt case in point concerns the discovery that heat and
>>>>>> work do not refer to anything tangible (Peter Atkins, 2003
>>>>>> <file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Bruce/My%20Documents/WebDev05/phil/note/refap03.htm>,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pp. 110–112) Before 1798 heat was something like a liquid, which
>>>>>> scientists called “caloric,” that could flow from one object to
>>>>>> another. This theory arose despite the fact that heat was “subtle”
>>>>>> (could enter any substance), and was “imponderable” (could not be
>>>>>> weighed). In that year Benjamin Thompson (1753–1814) showed that
>>>>>> heat
>>>>>> could be created at will and was inexhaustible. Since it was
>>>>>> generated by friction, it must be related to the motion of
>>>>>> particles.
>>>>>> Involved with extensive study using the steam engine scientists
>>>>>> attempted to show how work, measured in ergs, could be related to
>>>>>> heat, measured in calories. Sometime before 1875 James Joule
>>>>>> (1818–1889) found that there was a direct equivalence between the
>>>>>> work done (mechanical energy) and the heat generated (heat energy).
>>>>>> In fact they are two manifestations of one and the same thing!
>>>>>> “Heat”
>>>>>> and “work” are really verbs, /i.e./, two ways of transferring energy
>>>>>> from one object (location) to another. We speak of an object as
>>>>>> “hot,” but the more accurate truth is that the object, if it must be
>>>>>> “storing energy,” is doing so by the rapid vibrations of its parts.
>>>>>> Heat is the agency of transfer and not an entity being transferred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would submit that you comments about gravity might well be hiding
>>>>>> something. The way it is able to work at a distance has always been
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> mystery; assumed to be true for the theory to work and the
>>>>>> mathematics to describe it accurately. Some theoreticians posit
>>>>>> particles (gravitons) like the photons of light that let it travel
>>>>>> through space. Where is the reality here? I think the theories are
>>>>>> frameworks that are missing some of the underlying details. One
>>>>>> person may want to say reality is out there, another that it is in
>>>>>> here. Wherever it is, it is hiding a number of mysteries.
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:08:54 -0600
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before leaving the subject you want to throw out a misrepresentation
>>>>>> of my position? That sounds like someone who can no longer argue
>>>>>> logically and must resort to name-calling.
>>>>>> there is a reality out there that scientists can observe,
>>>>>> measure, standardize, and control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is obviously true. Not even worth arguing with you about it.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> if you don't believe it, you may provide an example for me to knock
>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires
>>>>>> a good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so.
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> a vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>>>>>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>>>>>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of
>>>>>> reasoning are tools of the linguist.
>>>>>> I have no complaint about this. I think you have misread me. (Let's
>>>>>> be clear, an existing scientific framework is "gravity will work
>>>>>> tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that, etc."
>>>>>> Philosophical frameworks are not as easy to agree upon. THAT'S my
>>>>>> complaint about science v. philosophy.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The positions of both Kuhn and Popper are discussed...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as you used their ideas to explain grammar, would you
>>>>>> characterize them as being scientific or philosophical? I'm guessing
>>>>>> it's both (especially scientific when it involves mathematics), but
>>>>>> I'm guessing you relied heavily--very heavily--on philosophy to
>>>>>> present their ideas. That's my point. Grammar is an art.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before leaving this subject I did want to comment on a Susan's
>>>>>> position on philosophy and Herb's on the history of science. Susan
>>>>>> seems to subscribe to the common naive notion (a
>>>>>> pre-theoretical phlosophy) that there is a reality out there that
>>>>>> scientists can observe, measure, standardize, and control. But
>>>>>> the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires a
>>>>>> good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. It's
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>>>>>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>>>>>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of
>>>>>> reasoning are tools of the linguist. The positions of both Kuhn and
>>>>>> Popper are discussed in my Logical
>>>>>> Approach to the /Syntax of English/. The first chapter covers
>>>>>> the approach of science in some detail as the language of science
>>>>>> (mathematics) is also amenable to linguistic investigation. The
>>>>>> section on presentation outlines the characteristics of a
>>>>>> successful theory. http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm
>>>>>> <http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm>
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>> --- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:45:06 -0600
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also need to read more carefully. I wrote that Kuhn was not
>>>>>> a scientist when he is writing about what science is. When he
>>>>>> does that, he leaves the realm of science and becomes a
>>>>>> philosopher. When he creates controlled experiments to determine
>>>>>> what matter, energy, motion, and force are, then he is a scientist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 2010-11-15, at 6:54 PM, Susan wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Hi Bob, do you think philosophy is a science in the same way
>>>>>> that physics is a science? You will need a more precise
>>>>>> definition of science to follow my argument. But perhaps that is
>>>>>> what you don't want to do.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > But Kuhn was a physicist and Susan said he wasn't a scientist!
>>>>>> I know I'm having trouble following her argument.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Best,
>>>>>> > Brett
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----------------------
>>>>>> > Brett Reynolds
>>>>>> > English Language Centre
>>>>>> > Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
>>>>>> > Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 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/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>

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/