Getting grammar back into the curriculum is going to be a big job. One of
the problems has already been noted--that grammar is too much associated
with teaching correctness in writing. In fact, for many people that's what
they think of when they hear the word "grammar." They don't think of
subjects and predicates at all.

I would suggest that instead of seeking to put grammar back into the
curriculum, we seek to put "language" back into the curriculum. Language
always has been one leg of the traditional English tripod of literature,
language, and composition.

To understand the dilemma of the English curriculum, one must take a hard
look at what happened to it. The main thing was that literature virtually
took over the English curriclum, making for an awfully lopsided curriculum.
This is not surprising, since most of us became English teachers because of
our fondness for literature, not to teach grammar and composition, which
are essentially fruitless (grammar) and a huge pile of work (composition).

It has taken legislation establishing state-mandated competency exams to
put composition into the English curriclum and to force school districts to
educate teachers in how to teach composition. Certainly, few college
English departments, given their obsession with literature, have been much
help. And the composition/grammar textbooks that we are criticizing, such
as Warriner's, have been little help either. Their version of composition
has been as unenlightened as their adherence to traditional grammar. (Just
as with grammar, the sections on composition are usually written by
freelancers, not by the person whose name is on the cover.)

I don't think we are going to get legislation putting language back into
the curriclum. Nor are we going to attract anyone even with a "good"
grammar curriclum, whatever that might mean. We need an effort to continue
putting language back into the curriculum. I say "continue," because
putting language back into the curriculum has already begun with the move
to put phonics back. (I hope that the whole-language emphasis on literature
and other good reading will not be lost during this return to phonics. Most
advocates of phonics say it should not be.) Phonics is an aspect of
phonemics, and we certainly need to put phonemics into the curriclum. It's
at least as interesting as grammar and has other practical uses besides
phonics. There is also an interest in putting more vocabulary back into the
curriculum. Vocabulary is an aspect of morphemics, which is also
interesting in its own right as well has having its practical side. Then
comes syntax, and let's call it syntax and not grammar. There are also
other language subjects--semantics, lexicography, history of English,
dialects--that also deserve their place in the English curriculum.

All of these aspects of language work together. You cannot fully understand
syntax without a decent foundation from morphemics, phonemics, the history
of English, and other aspects of language. It could be that one of the
reasons we fail to teach syntax to so many students is that we try to teach
it in isolation.

Bill




William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859