Dear Herb: A RHETORICAL GRAMMAR is of necessity a *grammar in context* because its purpose is to give cohesion and coherence to the (con)text. It is also a grammar which does not dwell on isolated grammar notions and items, but integrates them for communicative and interractive purposes. It is not *traditional* or *Latin-based,* as it follows the natural structure of the English language. It is also based on the linguistic perspective of language development and usage. The term RHETORICAL GRAMMAR is a good name for a grammar which would make a difference in the class Eduard On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote... >My first reaction to this discussion is that too much energy is being >poured into a name. But then I look at the use of naming in >contemporary politics and how effectively a group can control an agenda >by careful naming, among other things (consider "death tax" for "estate >tax"), and it's clear that choice of a name is important. What ATEG is >doing now, particularly with the scope and sequence project, needs to be >appropriately named, and by ATEG, not by NCTE or someone else. And that >name has to be both transparent and inherently attractive to help >establish a favorable impression. > >Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion for such a name, although I >agree that "Rhetorical Grammar" has a good ring to it. Anyone for a >focus group? > >Herb > > >Dear Martha: > >I understand your perspective. There is a pathologic fear of grammar=20 >in this country, which has been initiated and fed by some inept=20 >decision-makers at NCTE, and some English language *researchers* who=20 >had no idea what they were talking about, and irreparable damage has=20 >been done to many of the students who graduated from public school in=20 >this country. We have regressed to illiteracy, in spite of all the=20 >educational privileges American students have. I have been following=20 >you and Ed Vavra for the past years, and I know that you have done an=20 >incredible work to dispel that fear and to show that students benefit=20 >tremendously from an explicit knowledge of the grammar of their=20 >language. > >I have more than 20 *standard grammar* textbooks in my library, not=20 >counting the linguistics textbooks which discuss grammar from a=20 >linguistic perspective. Among those books there are an "English=20 >3200: A Programmed Course in Grammar and Usage" published in 1962 by=20 >Blumenthal, and the famous "Comprehensive Grammar of the English=20 >Language" by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik, 2004 edition. I=20 >have also started to read "The War Against Grammar" by Mulroy. You=20 >are represented also in this collection of grammars with two books,=20 >the "Rhetorical Grammar," and the classic "Understanding English=20 >Grammar." =20 > >What is interesting about theses textbooks is that each of them=20 >offers a specific *grammar model,* more or less different from the=20 >others. You have your own perspective, or approach to grammar, and I=20 >would call it *rhetorical grammar.* In the introduction of the book=20 >with the same title, you state: > >"...Rhetorical grammar brings together the insights of composition=20 >researchers and linguists; it makes the connection between writing=20 >and grammar that has been missing from our classrooms. It also avoids=20 >the prescriptive rules of handbooks, offering instead explanations of=20 >the rhetorical choices that are available. And, perhaps what is most=20 >important, it gives students confidence in their own language ability=20 >by helping them recognize the intuitive grammar expertise that all=20 >human beings share."(x - xi) > >I believe that this statement is a great *manifesto,* and there is=20 >evidence that you have followed through with your promises during=20 >more than 20 years of work to restore the value of grammar teaching=20 >and the dignity of those who believe that grammar has been wrongly=20 >removed from the curriculum and that students *could benefit* and *do=20 >benefit* from learning grammar. > >The first time I encountered your "Rhetorical Grammar" I thought that=20 >the name of your grammar model, the same with the title of your book,=20 >*rhetorical grammar,* was great. I wonder why you did not stay with=20 >it, especially because you defined it in a very good way, in=20 >contradistinction with the *traditional grammar* which has been=20 >taught before in this country and is still taught by some teachers.=20 > >A short review of the most common grammar models shows that one=20 >encounters *prescriptive grammars,* *descriptive grammars,*=20 >*traditional grammars, *Latin-based grammars* *teaching grammars,=20 >*generative grammars,* transformational grammars,* *formal grammars,*=20 >*functional grammars,*etc. I believe that the term *linguistic=20 >grammar* is too vague, and the phrase is a pleonasm, as I mentioned=20 >in a previous message. Most of the grammars I have listed claim a=20 >linguistic basis. How can one distinguish the *linguistic grammar*=20 >you and ATEG promote from other *linguistic grammars*? > >If I had to select a name for the ATEG's *movement grammar* I would=20 >probably choose to stay with the name *RHETORICAL GRAMMAR.* The=20 >second option would be *NATURAL GRAMMAR,* because what most of us=20 >work to promote is the NATURAL STRUCTURE of the English language, as=20 >opposed to the imposition of a Latin-based grammar on the English=20 >language.=20 > >What do you think? > >Eduard=20 > > > > > > > >On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Martha Kolln wrote... > >>Dear Eduard, >> >>I'm not sure how the term "linguistic grammar" got started; on the=20 >>other hand, I may be as responsible as anyone. I titled my=20 >>contribution to Grammar Alive, published in 2003 by NCTE, "An=20 >>Overview of Linguistic Grammar." I did so in order to distinguish=20 >my=20 >>description from that of traditional, Latin-based grammar. We=20 >>ATEGers wrote Grammar Alive for the thousands (tens of thousands?) =20 >of=20 >>English teachers who have been led to believe that teaching grammar=20 >>is a waste of time--and, in fact, may be downright harmful--for=20 >their=20 >>students. And for the most part, the only grammar they are familiar=20 >>with, if at all, is the traditional, Latin-based,=20 >>eight-parts-of-speech variety. >> >>I could have titled my chapter "new grammar"--but at age 60 or more=20 >>the structural grammar on which I base my classifications and=20 >>definitions and patterns is no longer new. I am using the adjective=20 >>"linguistic" simply to designate this sensible way of describing=20 >>grammar, based on the science of linguistics. >> >>One of the tenets of "linguistic grammar" that I emphasize--and one=20 >>that sets it apart from the Latin-based variety that finds its way=20 >>into traditional grammar books and grammar classes--is the=20 >importance=20 >>of recognizing the subconscious (unconscious?) grammar knowledge=20 >that=20 >>students bring to the classroom, knowledge based on our human=20 >ability=20 >>to construct an intricate grammatical system from whatever language=20 >>environment into which we are born. (I have no problem relinquishing=20 >>"innate.") >> >>And I'd be happy to stop using the term "linguistic grammar" if I=20 >>could think of a good replacement. I welcome suggestions. >> >>Martha >> >>P.S. to Craig: We believed that NCTE was our best bet as a=20 >>publisher. And the book has certainly been given a great deal of=20 >>publicity--and is selling well, I understand ) NCTE would not=20 >>publish it if it had contained suggestions for scope & sequence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Dear Phil: >>> >>>In "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics," Trask=20 >(1997) >>>defines *grammar* as "that part of the structure of a language which >>>includes sentence structure(syntax) and word structure (morphology)" >>>(p. 29). As linguists well know, *morphology and *syntax* are an >>>integral and part of the science of language, which is=20 >*linguistics.* >>> >>>The term *linguistic grammar* is not a linguistic expression.It is=20 >a=20 >>>pleonasm, a redundant expression, which confuses those who are not >>>familiar with linguistics and its subfields. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Eduard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Phil Bralich wrote... >>> >>>>I have been in grammar/syntax for over 25 years, but it is only on >>>this list that I have heard of "Linguistic Grammar." Are there >>>formal descriptions and discussion of it available in journals and >>>books? Are there recognized authors on the subject? Also, does >>>anyone know where I might get a copy of Tim Hadley's dissertation? =20 >>>> >>>>Phil Bralich >>> >>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20 >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=20 >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/