Craig -

Great points.  And thank you for recognizing the difference between Weaver's 
position ("grammar in the context of writing") and mine ("writing in the 
context of grammar").  She relegates grammar to the role of error avoidance 
and detection (AN "UNFORTUNATE NUISANCE" - I LOVE IT!), consigning it to 
"mini-lessons" thoroughly subjugated to, presumably, the "maxi-lessons" of 
"brainstorming," "graphic organizers," and other non-writing techniques for 
producing writing.  My point is that students can - and should - use grammar 
to create writing.  For example, how can you use a prepositional phrase or a 
dependent clause to create "when" or "where" or "why" meaning?  What are the 
various ways to create "who" meaning - for example, an appositive.

Therefore, I'm NOT suggesting that native speakers don't need to be taught 
grammar.  But it seems to me that terminology is the type of grammar that 
they don't need to be taught. In other words, taking students on the now 
infamous Parts of Speech Hunts - find (PART OF SPEECH HERE) in the following 
paragraph - is clearly useless.  My point was simply that native speakers 
don't need to be taught what prepositions (or nouns or adjectives or adverbs 
or dependent clauses) are since they so clearly already know how to use 
them.  They just don't know how to use them to create meaning to fullest 
possible extent.

What they need to be taught, then, is how to use grammar - how to use 
grammatical tools to create meaning that would be impossible without these 
tools.  Terminology can be introduced - but it's the creation of meaning 
that's paramount, not the terminology used to name the tools.  There have 
been some attempts at other approaches such as sentence combining.  However, 
this method has severe limitations in that students are not producing their 
own meaning but guessing at how to impose meaning on writing created by 
other authors.

Some other observations - you don't have to teach "dependent clause" 
terminology in order to avoid sentence fragments and run-ons.  There are 
much more direct ways to get this job accomplished.  Terminology is also 
unnecessary to teach the nature of complete sentences or predicates or 
punctuation.  The old "a sentence is a complete thought" is almost ludicrous 
in its lack of usefullness. And the predicate as an "action" word or a 
"state of being" is equally innane.  What in God's name is a "state of 
being," and if the predicate is an "action" word, then why isn't "Running" 
in "Running is fun" or "I bought a pair of running shoes" the predicate?  
And why is "am" in "I am running" the part of the predicate?  I get 
frustrated just thinking about the confusion created by what you have 
properly called "soft" definitions.

Anyway - a great new thread - thanks!

Geoff

>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar              
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: knowledge about language
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 15:20:27 -0400
>
>    Our recent discussion about knowledge of language seems worth a
>discussion thread in its own right, one that should have major
>implications for scope and sequence.
>    Geoff's point is that native speakers already know how to use
>prepositions, nouns, and so on, so there is no need to teach this. It's
>a position pretty much taken up by Constance Weaver and other
>minimalists, with the difference being that Geoff sees a role for
>knowledge about language in rhetorical application (in the making of
>meaning) and Weaver seems more tuned in to the minimum we need to avoid
>certain kinds of error or to encourage "stylistic" flair.
>    I have been thinking in terms of three kinds of knowledge about
>language and the differing needs for teachers and students and looking
>for a chance to interject that into the conversation. I think there are
>different issues at stake, and we often disagree because we mean
>different things by grammar.
>    Area one would be issues related to Standard English, and here we have
>the problem of rule-driven language that is deemed inappropriate in
>some contexts. For many, I suppose that having "soaked up" the standard
>is sufficient, but we have taken the position that students have a
>right to explicit knowledge of what constitutes Standard English and
>have taken the position that a students' non-standard language
>shouldn't be thought of as deficient or "wrong." This means explicit
>teaching about the nature of dialect, observations about the effective
>ways that non-standard forms show up in many kinds of texts,
>differentiating between "Standard English" and the various kinds of
>"myth-rules" that show up from time to time. Depending on local need,
>that might mean talking about third person singular present tense, 'ed
>endings on past tense verbs, irregular past participles, double
>negatives, and so on. The idea would be that simply "correcting"
>doesn't eliminate error and has negative impact that goes well beyond
>its intentions. We need to deepen understanding about language,
>including its role in the shared experience of language communities,
>and the fact that its rules are often unconscious.
>    The second area would have to do with the somewhat arbitrary
>conventions for representing language in writing. This includes the
>alphabet and spelling and understanding the "meaning" of various kinds
>of punctuation, conventions for attribution of sources, and so on.
>Despite many attempts to get through this on the basis of "soft
>explanations" like "a sentence is a complete thought" and "put commas
>where you hear a pause," these "rules" are based on syntax and
>explained in the handbooks on the basis of syntax, so it would make
>sense to teach relevant terminology and concepts. For this perspective,
>a term like "independent clause" becomes important precisely because it
>is the core unit needed to avoid sentence fragments and because two of
>them together can be run-on sentences if not punctuated in accordance
>with the standards, and so on. We continue to hold students accountable
>to following the rules, but aren't currently giving enough background
>to explain what those rules are. In fact, most teachers seem to come
>short of a full knowledge as well. If students think a "run-on
>sentence" has too many ideas or just "runs on too long," then it
>shouldn't surprise us that this is insufficient understanding. When
>teachers think that way, we are in even deeper trouble.
>    The third area is one that I think has been woefully under examined,
>and that would be the connection between grammar and many different
>kinds of meaning, including both thought and expression. This is what
>Geoff is talking about with "who, what, where, when, why, and how",
>which are one of many, many ways of approaching this rich and complex
>area. We also have fine insights being developed in cognitive
>linguistics and in systemic functional grammar.  To me, this is
>especially important because it redeems grammar from those who feel
>it's a sort of unfortunate nuisance, a final veneer placed over writing
>to make it "correct," far more mundane then the rest of the English
>curriculum. This is what connects the study of gramamr to issues
>(goals) of effectiveness, not only in writing, but in critical reading.
>    Geoff's argument, that people know language as native speakers and
>don't need to have it taught, has to be respected, but I think the time
>in which this has been the prime rationale for NOT teaching gramamr has
>run its course.
>    Knowledge about gramamr helps recognize (make explicit) Standard
>English and gain access to public life while still respecting the
>community languages that are important to so many of us and important
>sources of literary expression.
>    Knowledge about language helps us understand the conventions that come
>with language as writing, including standard punctuation practices that
>have always been formulated and explained in terms of syntax and seem
>to resist explanation in softer (non-technical) ways.
>    Knowledge about language can help us understand the nature of effective
>discourse. It can lead us deeply into the heart of the meaning of a
>text. It can help us understand grammatical choice as deeply connected
>to building and establishing meaning, to winning friends and
>influencing people, well beyond the goals of mere "correctness."
>   I would add to this a fourth area, which might be best understood as
>division of area three. I believe there is ample evidence that writing,
>especially the work of the technical disciplines, puts pressure on
>writing that leads toward structures that are not at all common in
>speech. Writing is not merely putting speech into words, but doing a
>very different kind of work in very different kinds of communities. The
>more we understand the kinds of changes that need to happen, the better
>we will be at helping students through, especially those who have
>historically been under-represented in the professional and technical
>fields.
>    Whole language approaches should be commended for putting emphasis on
>our innate abilities as language users and for putting high emphasis on
>engagement as being at the heart of all good teaching. If students come
>to care about reading and writing, much good will follow. We have much
>to gain from extensive reading and writing. But I think it has been a
>terrible mistake to put these goals at odds with a deepening
>understanding of language and how it works.
>
>Craig
>
>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/