And I'm a heretic, I'm sure, when I suggest to my prospective English teachers that they not teach the exceptions to young, struggling students.  I think it's good to tell them that there ARE exceptions but not to bother them with all the "ifs" and "excepts" and "yes buts."  In the early years, kids just need the basics.  There is plenty of time in their high school college prep classes and beyond to learn the exceptions -- after the basics have become automatic.

Just my 2 cents.
Lorraine 



>>> "Susan van Druten" <[log in to unmask]> 11/11/2010 8:03 PM >>>
On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>  it doesn't make sense to criticize [k-12 teachers'] lack of knowledge

No, it doesn't make sense because we are all at a lack of knowledge--college instructors as well as K-12.  We k-12 teachers need definitions to give to young learners.  It would be anti-intellectual to condemn Scott's group as merely "reaching back" to what worked for them when they learned grammar instruction if the only thing you can replace it with is definitions that are beyond the comprehension of k-12 learners.  I was one of those k-12 learners in the 70s.  I liked the definitions I got because I could understand them.  But I didn't like them because there were exceptions that I thought of that drove me crazy and made me think there was something I was missing.  The answer I think is for grammar definitions to be simple but to indicate to students that there are exceptions.  Martha Kolln is all very well for an adult to read, but she is not helping us explain things to k-12 students (an exception would be AP classes--I used to use her stuff when I taught AP Lang).  Given-New is higher level understanding, a concept more sophisticated than you may realize for some students to understand on a paragraph level--let alone from one sentence to another.

I appreciate all the responses that this thread has recently generated.

Susan


> . There may, in fact, be plenty of room for blame in our current situation.
>     We can look back to the fifties and early sixties as a time in which the definitions of traditional grammar were revised and reformed by the structuralists. Unfortunately, these did not take lasting hold for a few reasons. One is that structural linguistics was supplanted by generative grammar as the primary focus of linguists. Another is that the efficacy of formal grammar was called into question by research studies that seemed to show there was little carryover into improved writing.The generativists also emphasized that grammar was hardwired into the brain, which reinforced the notion that native speakers would pick up the grammar of their language naturally, without direct instruction, if grammar was understood as the rule based formal system that underlies the language. Opposition to the teaching of grammar took the form that Geoff was expressing: we shouldn't impose definitions that don't define and we shouldn't give workbook exercises in correctness (mindless drills). Students will acquire language when allowed to use language meaningfully in reading and writing that seems to matter to them. This brought about some much needed improvements in the curriculum, but pretty much relegated language to a minimalist place--for example, mini-lessons to deal with errors when the "need" arises. To protect this minimalist approach, NCTE has been very reluctant to embrace any kind of "scope and sequence" approach, for example any attempt to hold students accountable for KNOWING about language, which would bring back a more systematic curriculum.
>     In the meantime, functional approaches to language (approaches that connect grammar to discourse and to semantics/cognition) have been developed, but have not--at least in the states--been given pedagogical applications. The big exception is systemic functional linguistics, which has had a huge influence on teaching outside the states, most notably in Australia. There, a focus on genre is a way to connect language study directly to discourse concerns.
>     In the meantime, it sure as heck shouldn't surprise us that a group at Scott's school hoping to develop a thoughtful curriculum for grades five through eight should reach back to the grammar they remember from the last time it was seriously taught, a pre-reform grammar, with problematic definitions.
>     A nice compromise for this might be to look back at the structural grammars of the fifties. It comes across as a reformed traditional grammar. Martha Kolln's Understanding English Grammar draws on those grammars very heavily. It doesn't seem such a drastic change from what people are used to. She makes some very thoughtful choices about what concepts are most important. 
>     I would recommend mixing in something of a discourse focus--concepts like "given" and "new," for example, which help direct attention to the ways in which meaning gets built over extended text. Structural grammar has a tendency to treat sentences as isolated units. I would also recommend the corpus grammars, including the Longman Grammar (Biber et. al.), which looks at patterns of grammar in different discourse contexts. If students pay attention to how a story works, for example, carrying that attention down to the level of the sentence, then grammar is not disconnected from reading and writing. I have recently been sent a prepublication draft of an article describing a very successful program in England focusing on genre. You can't expect grammar to have an influence on reading and writing unless you make explicit connections. To me, that means making the construction of meaning the central focus.
>     I like the idea that linguistics is "art" as well as "science," but to the extent that it is a science, it needs to bow down to what it studies. The language is under no obligation to match our understanding of it.  I like "patterns" instead of "rules." a definition for "noun" should not supplant an opportunity to explore the nature and behavior of real nouns in the wild. 
> 
> Craig
> 
> On 11/10/2010 6:40 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
> > Brett,
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > Students immediately understand the "you" understood concept.
>       Scott's
> 
>       > definitions need to be simple. Exceptions can be handled with
>       an
> 
>       > asterisk. In fact, Scott's header should have an asterisk,
>       telling
> 
>       > students that grammar is an art and not a science, so these 
> 
>       > definitions may have some exceptions to the basic rule. I
>       think
> 
>       > what we need with younger students is a foundation. But we
>       should
> 
>       > share with them up front that these definitions have a few
> 
>       > exceptions.
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > I was complimenting you for actually taking the question
>       seriously 
> 
>       > and providing good responses. You did respond as though it
>       was 
> 
>       > beneath you to have to tediously proofread his list. And it's
>       true. 
> 
>       > You shouldn't have to do the entire list, but the few
>       examples you 
> 
>       > gave were great. So why not end by saying that you don't have
>       time 
> 
>       > to do more. You personally don't have to feel on the spot to
>       give a 
> 
>       > complete response (or any response at all). This is a
>       listserv. 
> 
>       > Others could add on to your efforts. Instead, your last
>       sentence
> 
>       > may have stopped others from carrying on in the spirit you
>       began (my
> 
>       > paraphrase of your last sentence: stop bothering us with
>       petty 
> 
>       > concerns and get yourself a good glossary).
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > I love to hear people debate an idea with logic, but it was 
> 
>       > irritating to read straw man responses assuming the only
>       possible 
> 
>       > purpose of a list must be to force students to memorize
>       definitions. 
> 
>       > I can't imagine for a moment that was Scott's intention. I
>       was 
> 
>       > reading this thread with great interest and hoping for good 
> 
>       > suggestions BECAUSE I do not have any.
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > I don't contribute often, but I stay subscribed and read most
> 
>       > threads because you all are so smart. Unfortunately,
>       sometimes some
> 
>       > of you are thin-skinned and ridiculously protective of your
>       turf. But
> 
>       > you are smart, so I forgive you.
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > Susan
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
> 
>       >> PS, I'm afraid I must have missed Susan's own suggestions
>       about
> 
>       >> how to improve the definitions.
> 
>       > 
> 
>       > 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/ 
> 


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/