Johanna (et. al.),
Thank you for taking the time to say what I decided I didn't have time to
put together yesterday.  Yes, I agree.  I also agree that grammar has gotten
some strange definitions--like punctuation and usage.  I don't consider
either of those grammar, although one might need some knowledge of grammar
to talk about them clearly.  I agree that doing the exercises in the
Handbook--which seems to be, in many people's minds, short for "grammar
handbook"--does no good. But exercises like sentence combining of specific
structures done over and over do work to improve student writing and, from
what students say, their reading also.  I think that it is important to note
that free sentence combining exercises, which do not force the students to
use a particular syntactic structure, will not improve the students' ability
to use syntactic structures.  There needs to be repeated use of the
structure for the brain to pick it up as something that it can use, not just
in editing, but also, as Johanna says, in composing. With this kind of
practice of syntactic structures, many punctuation and usage issues
disappear.---not all, but many.  It is not absolutely necessary to teach the
analysis of the syntax for the students to practice it (see Strong's
Crafting Cumulative Sentences), but as many people have said it is a helpful
framework for discussion, it helps students look at this important piece of
being human (language), it is interesting in itself, etc. I think a little
history of the language thrown in is also helpful; it helps make the point
about the arbitrariness, yet usefulness, of standard dialects.
Edith Wollin
North Seattle Community College

> ----------
> From:         Johanna Rubba[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> Sent:         Monday, January 10, 2000 4:47 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Teaching grammar
>
> Bill McCleary writes:
>
> "  Most schemes of the process approach include a stage on editing. In
> line with the
> basic theory behind the process approach--that teaching should occur
> during the writing
> process--grammar (however one defines that term) would be taught
> primarily during the editing stage.
> The usual advice is that the teacher pick out a couple of the most
> prevalent errors and teach about
> those. "
>
> And he later writes on various non-traditional " modern approaches to
> correctness. "
>
> These are two things I see as problematic with grammar instruction --
> the 'fix-it' approach of only talking about grammar when editing, so as
> to 'clean up' 'incorrect' output. This completely glosses over the
> coherence function of sentence grammar. It also keeps grammar in the
> anxiety-producing 'approach to correctness' territory. Part of the
> reason grammar instruction is often ineffective is that it feels
> arbitrarily demanding and punitive to students; it focuses on what they
> don't do 'right' instead of the uses they are making of grammar during
> the entire composing process. Being reserved for the editing phase, it
> looks entirely 'after the fact' to the writer. It appears to be divorced
> from meaning -- an exercise in conforming to somebody ELSE'S idea of
> English, not the writer's native idea. But the writer was making
> grammatical choices as soon as she began to compose, even beforehand,
> when making organizational decisions about content. Students aren't
> taught the reasons why their 'errors' occur, or why they're considered
> 'errors' in the first place (in many cases, they are only considered
> errors because they display a change in standard English grammar that
> hasn't become accepted by the relevant authorities yet). Fix-it grammar
> makes writing and grammar less appealing to students; it lessens their
> confidence in themselves as writers; it gives them a false self-concept
> of being linguistically incompetent. This too often carries over into
> self-doubts about intellectual ability.
>
> Students can learn to follow formal English rules in editing without
> this motivation-destroying baggage. My students report feeling much
> better about grammar when they understand why certain things are
> considered 'error'. This doesn't lessen their understanding of the
> necessity of following the rules -- in other words, they don't come away
> with the idea that 'anything goes'. If anything, they feel a little more
> confident about their language abilities.
>
> Grammar can be much more deeply integrated into the writing process than
> just as an editing 'clean-up' procedure.
>
> Does anyone else share these feelings?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>