I think consulting any recent pedagogical grammar will answer a lot of
Janet's questions. There are lots of these available. I don't mean books
written by linguists (such as Martha Kolln's Understanding English
Grammar or Kaplan's English Grammar), but books like the Emery et al.
college grammars and good ole Warriner's.

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> The writing standards state throughout the document that students will "know
> and apply correct spelling, grammar, sentence structure, punctuation and
> capitalization."  Here is what I hope to figure out:
> 1.  What exactly is meant by correct grammar?

It's mostly avoiding nonstandard and informal usage. For instance, no
double negatives; avoiding topicalized structures ('My mother, she loves
to dance'), using 'few' for count nouns instead of 'less', using the
standard past tense and past participle forms for irregular verbs
(listed in nearly every grammar book); using 'doesn't' for 3rd person
singular, not 'he don't'; using 'himself' and 'themselves', not
'hisself' and 'theirselves'. There are more points. They are touched
upon in pedagogical grammars of wider scope.

Most teaching grammars include punctuation and capitalization and
frequently misspelled words in them. It's unclear whether they intend to
call these 'grammar' or not. But they certainly are likely to be tested.

> 2.  What exactly is meant by correct sentence structure?

Probably things like avoiding fragments, commma splices, run-ons,
topicalized structures (see above), etc. Again, wide-scope pedagogical
grammars cover these. A lot of these are actually punctuation problems,
not sentence structure problems.

  and
> 3.  What do my students need to know in order to help their students achieve
> these?

Whoa! Big question. At minimum, they need to know the contents of these
pedagogical grammars. I don't know what kind of textbooks WA is using
K-12, but nearly all the latest textbooks adopted by CA include grammar
sections that repeat the usual stuff as found in Warriner's, Emery, etc.
Of course, the CA standards are more specific -- they say explicitly
'identify and correctly use' various points of grammar. But from the
phraseology in the WA standards, it seems like they mean mastery of the
contents of one of these typical pedagogical grammars: being able to
label grammatical entities, analyze sentences (e.g. find the subject),
and write using the grammar described as correct in the books.

But of course, I would say they also need education in grammar as
related to text structure (functional grammar) and the linguistic wisdom
on language variation, as well as effective methods for teaching grammar
and writing.
>
> I am assuming that in order to teach students to write complete sentences,
> the teacher needs to both be able to recognize a complete sentences and know
> why it is complete.  I have met many people who can recognize complete
> sentences, but don't know what makes them complete.  I want to try to
> identify what a teacher needs to know about grammar in order to help students
> achieve the standards mandated by the state.

Simple test that works with many monoclausal sentences: put the string
you are testing into the blank in the following frame:

I am convinced that ___________________.

Don't change the wording of the frame. If the string begins with a
coordinating conjunction (and, or, but, nor, for), remove it before
testing. If the resulting statement sounds right, then the string is a
sentence. If it doesn't, it's not a sentence. Example:

I am convinced that Mary ate strawberries.  vs.
*I am convinced that Mary eating strawberries.

If you practice this with a lot of monoclausal sentences at first, it
might begin to work with more complex sentences. It is difficult to use
this test with very long sentences.

The tag and yes/no question tests work well, too, although long
sentences present a challenge for any of these tests. In the best of all
possible worlds, children will be taught to use these tests at grade
levels in which they are working with shorter, simpler sentences; this
practice will then help them internalize what a complete sentence is so
that they can use their intuitions to spot longer non-sentences in
editing their writing later.

Being able to identify clauses will also help a lot in judging
sentencehood. A clause needs a tense-marked verb and needs to pass the
'I am convinced that test' in order to qualify as a 'complete sentence'.

My students used this test very successfully in finding and fixing
fragments and comma splices in a text presented to them for homework and
on tests. It's hard to judge, but I think it also improved their
performance on papers (for those who edited carefully). The papers I got
from the two classes that learned these tests seemed to have fewer
fragments and splices than past classes, but I haven't done a scientific comparison.

A lot of the subscribers to this list don't agree with the philosophy of
grammar taught in most traditional grammars ('good English' vs. 'bad
English' instead of variation according to situation of use). But, as
you note, states are requiring knowledge of the traditional grammar
curriculum. It is possible to teach this material in a more
linguistically-informed framework, which is what I have been doing. Once
my students are taught the linguistic approach to language variation,
they can often spot and critique grammar prescriptions that denigrate
nonstandard dialects and test/exercise items that disadvantage
nonstandard-dialect students. Yet they still understand the necessity of
using 'correct grammar'.

As to teaching writing, schools face a big problem. The best way for
students to become fluent writers is to have them reading lots and lots
of standard English texts and practicing writing from an early age. This
allows their innate language acquisition ability to kick in and
internalize standard sentence grammar and text structure. This, of
course, means taking a uniform approach across grades, which is
extremely hard to achieve. Also, many schools are not producing fluent
readers by 4th grade, and a kid who can't read is not likely to be able
to write standard English, especially not formal standard English of the
variety required for more sophisticated reports and papers. As a rule,
no one can acquire a variety of a language if they are not exposed to
generous amounts of it and required to use it for immediate
communication in realistic contexts.

As we know from the frequent disputes on this list, we don't have
consensus on whether explicit grammar instruction improves students'
writing. Knowing what I do about language acquisition, I doubt that it
has much effect for native speakers of English (that's my opinion). But
for someone who already is fluent in standard English it can certainly
be very helpful as an editing tool in the revision process.

Can you initiate the process of becoming a good writer in the later
grades  -- 5th, 8th, 10th? -- for students who have been poor writers or
non-writers up to that point?  I'd like to hear from teachers who have
had success doing this. I'd especially like to know whether they found
that a close tie to generous reading was part of the program, or if
programs without intense reading still worked in producing good writers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~