Hi,

I'll try to clarify what may be your slight misunderstanding (only
slight).  In my book Teaching Grammar in Context, I didn't discuss, or
mean to discuss, whether I reject traditional grammar per se.  I was
objecting to the formal TEACHING of grammar as it has conventionally
been done.

As far as my own convictions on the adequacy of traditional schoolroom
grammar, I have long known it was inadequate, and I fought to avoid some
of its inadequacies in working on that grammar series I mentioned.  No
luck; the publishers won (the marketing division, not the editor that
hired me, who I think genuinely wanted me to include linguistic
insights).  I think you're right that my book suggests I've virtually
given up that particular fight in working with schools and publishers,
despite my background in linguistics.  Thus "She stops short of
endorsing traditional grammar, and yet her book actually allows for the
teaching of most or all concepts within grammar theory" seems
essentially accurate to me, though I remember trying to weave
structural, transformational, and even functional grammar insights into
my explanations here and there, especially in the glosssary.

Connie Weaver
Western Michigan University

Robert Einarsson wrote:

> Perhaps I'm not being subtle enough, but I do not fully understand
> the position taken by Connie Weaver in relation to traditional
> grammar.  She stops short of endorsing traditional grammar, and
> yet her book actually allows for the teaching of most or all
> concepts within grammar theory.
>
> The following is what I wrote about her textbook (Teaching
> Grammar in Context) in a little conference presentation that I gave
> recently.  I am arguing that once we account for the many
> concessions in her argument there is very little exception to
> traditional grammar left over.
>
> The following excerpt from my presentation contains an excerpt
> from her book in which she lists numerous concessions:
>
> "Note the series of concessions that Weaver is forced to make in
> the course of her argument. She begins with a rejection of formal
> grammar, but eventually allows 'that we limit our teaching of
> grammar and grammatical terminology to only those features that
> will be most valuable in helping writers eliminate errors and
> increase the effectiveness of their sentences' (104-105).
>
> "At this point she has gone from rejecting theory to allowing it
> within limits.
>
> "A series of concessions eventually follows, including
>
>      "The recommendation that we not try to teach grammar as a
> complete description of the structure of English (except, perhaps,
> in an elective course or unit), but instead that we focus our
> teaching on those concepts and terms that are most helpful in
> discussing sentence expansion, revision, and editing.
>      "The suggestion that we focus instructional attention on those
> aspects of grammar that are particularly helpful in creating,
> rearranging, and revising sentences for greater stylistic
> effectiveness.
>      "The suggestion that we also attend particularly to those
> aspects of grammar that are most critical in helping students
> punctuate sentences conventionally.
>      "The suggestion that while a few basic grammatical concepts
> may be taught in separate language lessons, such concepts
> should generally be taught and reinforced as students are revising
> and editing their writing. (Teaching Grammar in Context, 181)
>
> "Weaver's attack on grammar, as vigorous as it is, fails to dislodge
> the underlying principle of structural and grammatical awareness.
> Her own argument advocates the teaching of fundamental sentence
> structure grammar.  The new-grammarian criticisms are not really
> directed at the eradication of grammar; they are directed at getting
> students involved with language in a more genuine way than any
> handbook can provide. The question, even for these critics, is not
> 'should we teach grammar;' the question is how should we go
> about doing this."
>
> (http://www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb/elac.html)
>
> Once we have added up all of the concessions in the above
> excerpt, we have a pretty wide lattitude for teaching grammar
> theory.  Connie has evidently discovered that it is awkward or
> impossible to carry on theory-free grammar activities for very long.
> She would simply let the activities take precedence, and control
> the order of the theory concepts. I have no disagreement with that.
>
>  I fail to see why this order cannot lead to a systematic approach
> to the subject of grammar, in both skills and theory, taken through
> the k-12 years.
>
> The other part of my presentation is an argument that today's
> grammar handbooks are all a misrepresentation of grammar
> teaching in the truly traditional sense.
>
> The current handbooks cannot be taken as a representation of
> traditional grammar.  What we have today, what Connie refers to as
> "the traditional publications," is handbook grammar, not textbook
> grammar.
>
> Ed's KISS page, on the other hand, is textbook grammar:  it builds
> up a body of knowledge through a series of incremental chapters.
> Ed's system works like the textbook of any other school subject.
>
> The grammar handbooks of today are structued in a non-sequential
> way.  They are in alphabetical, or glossary order, not conceptual
> order.  They are not textbooks in the incremental, systematic
> sense.
>
> A biology or chemistry "handbook" patterned after today's
> approach to grammar would be a ludicrous failure.
>
> But Connie Weavers' book is also a textbook in the true sense.  I
> just don't see the need for the declared hostility to the theory side
> of this subject.
>
> Robert Einarsson