Scott,
    For the most part, I would echo Karl; there are descriptions of the
language that are far more thoughtful than traditional grammar and are
not transformational. The Cambridge grammar is a great example.
   On the other hand, I'm not sure I would be so gentle on the linguists.
They, too, don't seem to offer a "unified or coherent vision of what
grammar instruction should look like, what its purposes should be, what
students need to know, how we should analyze language, or how we should
measure success."
    Karl points out that we can't judge a theory of language on the basis
of its pedagogical utility, but pedagogical utility is very much at
stake here. Can a theory of language (should a theory of language) be
both true and useful? I think it should help us understand the nature
of effective text. The gap between grammar study and writing
improvement, for example, comes in part from having a separation
between formal grammar and the higher order concerns of writing.
Linguistics doesn't offer us this as a ready made program. For those
among us who do not aspire to be specialists, what is it most useful
to know?
    The debate you report on isn't surprising. It's not a settled issue.

Craig




 Scott,
>
> Your traditionalists are confusing pedagogy with accuracy, and they're
> further butchering things by engaging in a false dichotomy.
>
> Issue 1:  There were, as I understand it, some attempts decades ago to
> incorporate some transformational grammar into some classroom curriculum,
> and those attempts did not prove successful. But that's primarily a
> commentary on the pedagogical appropriateness of teaching transformational
> grammar to school children. You cannot infer from a pedagogical failure
> anything about the accuracy of the theory. If we tried and failed to teach
> 8th-grade students quantum mechanics we would not therefore assume that
> quantum mechanics was refuted and that we should go back to
> nineteenth-century physics. (I'm not, BTW, suggesting that Chomsky is
> right--I just mean that it's an illogical inference.)
>
> Issue 2: These traditionalists seem to be wholly ignorant of anything
> that's happened in linguistics over the last 40 years if they assume that
> the choices are Chomskian transformational grammar or traditional grammar
> a la Warriners and nothing in between. Perhaps you could educate them a
> bit on the status of contemporary linguistics. Further, the major
> reference grammars (both abbreviated CGEL) make few references to
> transformational grammar, and certainly don't depend on it.
>
> It's definitely possible to update the flawed analyses of traditional
> grammar without touching on a single transformation.
>
> My take on traditional grammar is that it has a superficial appeal (apart
> from familiarity) because it makes some intuitively appealing assumptions,
> but that many of those assumptions are flawed and lead to incorrect
> thinking about grammar down the line and any number of confusions. The
> concept of part of speech is high on that list of flawed constructs.
>
> Karl
>
> On May 11, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Scott Woods wrote:
>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> My English department places fairly heavy emphasis on grammar
>> instructions, but we do not have a unified or coherent vision of what
>> grammar instruction should look like, what its purposes should be, what
>> students need to know, how we should analyze language, or how we should
>> measure success.  Unfortunately, our department seems to be settling
>> into camps based on how closely we want to follow traditional grammar or
>> a more modern analysis. When a colleague of mine opened this discussion
>> with a suggestions, among others, that we should look at whether we want
>> to use parts of speech or word classes in our analysis, the reaction
>> from the traditionalists was to immediately characterize the others as
>> Chomskyites, followers of a failed doctrine and practice. The issue,
>> according to the traditionalists, was settled long ago. Any analysis
>> other than the traditional is worthless.
>>
>> Does anyone have any experience with this? Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Scott Woods
>> 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/