In response to Ed:

1. The concept of 3S, as I understand it, is to produce a K-12 (from
kindergarten THROUGH 12th grade) curriculum, the content of which is
_grade-appropriate_. In other words, we will not teach stuff to 4th
graders that they do not need or cannot learn. My vision of the
curriculum is from core basics 'outward' into ever-more-sophisticated
'layers' of structural enrichment, starting in 4th grade. In other
words, find out what the rudiments are through what is known about
language acquisition and linguistic theory, and start with them. Add
more content incrementally through the higher grades. We have to USE
linguistic theory to produce a good set of points to cover; we don't
have to TEACH advanced linguistic theory to achieve knowledge of grammar
in students.

2. I, for one, do not delude myself that the purpose of our grammar
curriculum is to teach anyone any particular language, or to teach them
to write well in any particular language. I have said already many times
that people learn a language by being generously exposed to it and by
using in contexts of real communication. The purpose of grammar
instruction, from my viewpoint, is to teach kids _about_ language, not
to teach kids language. It is to enable them to analyze and understand
the tool which makes human civilization possible. Also, it is to enable
them to understand those facets of standard English that they have not
natively acquired (not to enable them to _learn_ them, but to understand
them structurally and perhaps compare them to their native-dialect
versions). Eventually, it will help them understand how language
functions in human relations and how it gets used to manipulate in
advertising and politics, for example.

3. The terms noun, object, and preposition are used in every modern
linguistic theory I know of, and their meanings are very, very close to
the meanings given to them in traditional grammar. The traditional
definitions are usually either incomplete or inaccurate in _some_ ways.
If you look at my proposed list, all three are included.

4.Who is handing 12-16-year-olds 4- and 500-page grammar books??? What
books are these? Many schools are teaching no grammar at all in any
grades. Trying to apply any particular modern linguistic theory in
grammar instruction is not the goal here. The intention is not to
confuse people by introducing new terminology and formulae. The goal is
to achieve a description of the language that is as accessible as
possible to people trained in traditional grammar, but at the same time
accurate. That's why I keep working with teachers.

The grammar I see in CA's K-12 texts is traditional grammar. Not a
transformation anywhere. And a noun is a person, place or thing.

5. I find the goals of being 'scientific' (i.e. accurate in our
description and methodology, so that the curriculum actually works) and
'all-inclusive' admirable. The _entire_ curriculum, viewed in totality,
should be quite inclusive (there _is_ stuff that I don't think needs to
be included). I don't recall anyone ever saying that every grade should
include instruction on every point of grammar. That just doesn't make
sense from a developmental point of view.

6. Are twelve parts of speech really all that much more burdensome than
eight? Suppose there really ARE 12? Suppose using 12 is more helpful and
more successful than using 8?

7. " I feel very strongly that we have to find ways other than the
traditional eight-parts-of-speech way to describe language". (Martha Kolln)

Parse: 'I' is subject; 'feel' is NOT a linking verb; it is equivalent
here to 'believe'; 'very strongly' is an adverbial of degree modifying
'feel'; 'that ...' to the end is a subordinate clause which is the
complement of 'feel', i.e. it is a clausal direct object of 'feel'. No
exceptions in sight. And I used traditional grammar to parse this
sentence; it would parse virtually the same in many modern linguistic theories.

8. Why 'morphology' (roots, prefixes, suffixes, plural, tense,
possession, comparison, etc.) has to be included in sums of language acquisition:

Children learn the inflectional morphology of their first
language/dialect before school age, so they come to school with an
entrenched set of inflectional habits. Therefore, we must re-examine why
early-grade grammar materials include lessons on these inflections
(answer: 1. people don't realize that kids come to school knowing these
inflections; 2. people want to train nonstandard-dialect-speaking kids
out of their 'incorrect' past tenses and plurals, etc.)

Children begin mastering derivational morphology in early childhood, but
their learning continues through the school years, as part of vocabulary
expansion (e.g., learning the Latinate vocabulary). Therefore it might
be a good idea to develop teaching approaches that include derivational
morphology over numerous grades.

9. What I see in Ed's response is something I have seen in a lot of
suspicious
schoolteachers: 'Here come those ivory-tower theorists again, with their
cockeyed ideas of how we should do our jobs and their fancy Ph.D's which
they use to make us feel inferior. Then they deliver a curriculum loaded
with rocket-science gobbledygook that only they understand, and expect
us to implement it'.

I know that this accusation can be very correctly aimed at plenty of
academics who are involved in k-12 curricula. But it's also often a
visceral, stereotyped reaction that is not deserved. MY goal in being
involved in this work is NOT to impose my superior views of grammar on
schoolteachers. In fact, it is to be an exception to that stereotype. It
is to help develop a curriculum that WORKS FOR EVERYBODY -- TEACHERS,
KIDS. And it is to help develop a curriculum that is ACCURATE AND
EFFECTIVE -- which the traditional grammar curriculum is not.
Linguistically it is not accurate, so how then can it be effective?

Members of the 3S committee who are not extensively educated in
linguistics must take something on faith: Linguists DO know more about
the English language than do either most English teachers or most
teachers of writing. I mean to say that they know how it is structured,
not what sounds terrific and not what constitutes a terrific essay.
These are judgments that can be made intuitively without understanding
what about the language makes them good. People in my college department
often make statements about English which are prima facie false. I know
that many teachers don't know linguistics because I know that many are
never required to study it. I only got this knowledge by taking
linguistics courses. I don't fault people for not having been required
to study linguistics. It doesn't mean anything about how bright or
competent they are. Many brilliant, successful teachers know zip about linguistics.

I am taking on faith that the non-linguists on the committee know more
than I do about what methods and content work at which grade level, and
I take it on faith that there are people on the committee who know more
about certain topics (e.g., developmental syntax) than I do.

In the end, if we don't trust each other's motives and we don't
understand each other's vision and if we don't share at least central
chunks of the vision, the committee as currently configured will not work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant 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.  756-259
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
                                       **
"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~