DOCUMENT RESUME ED 076 999 CS 200 464 AUTHOR Hogan, Robert F., Ed. TITLE The English Language in the School Program. INSTITUTION National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, PUB DAZE 66 NOTE 271p. AVAILABLE FROMNational Council of Teachers of English, 1111 Kenyon Road, Urbana, Ill. 61801 (Stock No. 25109, $2.75 non-member, $2.50 member) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9.87 DESCRIPTORS American English; Composition (Literary); Curriculum Development; Dictionaries; *Elementary Education; *English Curriculum; *English Instruction-'anguage Instruction; Language Programs; *Language search; Language Usage; Linguistics; Linguistic Theory; *Secondary Education; Standard Spoken Usage; Teacher Education ABSTRACT The 22 papers in this publication, drawn from the 1963 and 1964 NCTE Spring Institutes on Language, Linguistics, and School Programs, concentrate on the relevance of recent scholarship for English language programs in elementary and secondary schools. Language theory is the focus of articles by Harold B. Allen, Sumner Ives, Albert B. Marckwardt, W. Nelson Francis, Priscilla Tyler, William R. Slager, and Noam Chomsky. Papers concerned with language usage are by tavid W. Reed, Jean Malmstrom, Karl W. Dykema, Robert C. Pooley, Hans Kurath, Philip B. Gove, and Raven I. McDavid, Jr. Articles concentrating on the language curriculum are by Robert L. Allen, Dudley Bailey, Ruth G. Strickland, Albert H. Marckwardt, Harold B. Allen, and Francis Christensen. A bibliography on generative-transformational grammar, by Don L. F. Nilsen, is included. (This document previously announced as ED 037 428.) WO FILMEDr FROM BESTAVAILABLE COPY U S 0E.^RTNIENT OFHEALTH. EOL ..+TION &WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFkOM ORIGIN THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OOPINIONS STATED DO NO' NECESSARILYREPRE INSTITUTE OF SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERSOF ENGLISH NCTE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS JAMES R. SQUIRE, NCTE Executive Secretary, Chairman ROBERT M. GORRELL, University of Nevada WALTER J. Moons, University of Illinois FRANK E. Ross, Eastern Michigan University Elm M. OLSON, NCTE Director of Publications "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY- RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY National Council of Teachers of English TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN- STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO- DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE- QUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER" Copyright 1966 National Council of Teachers of English 508 South Sixth Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 1 INTRODUCTION In professional journals and conferences, in faculty loungesand PTA meetings, a topic widely discussed formore than a decade is whether or not linguistic scholarship has anythingsignificant and use- ful to say to the teacher of English. To dramatizethe issues or to capture attention, we have at times polarized discussion into debates about such questions as these: "Whatcan linguistics do that gram- mar can't?" or "Which is bettergrammar or linguistics?"or "Should we throw out grammar and substitute a program in linguistics?" Insofar as these questions have drawnour attention to recent scholar- ship in language and its relevance for the Englishcurriculum, they have served a useful purpose. At times, however, we forgot that thiswas the strategy. We mis- took these for valid questions, andwe thought the goal of the debate was to "answer" them. It was then that we confused issues and muddied the dialogue. To the extent thatgrammar represents an effort to describe accurately the structures ofa language and to record its varieties, it is part of linguistics. In themeasure that a linguist is concerned with the spoken and written forms of words andwith their syntactical relationships in sentences, he isa grammarian. "Which is bettergrammar or linguistics?"may seem a more interesting question than "Which is bettercarrotsor vegetables?" But it is not any more valid. Long before we began debating such questions,concepts drawn from linguistic scholarshipwere already embedded in the language curriculum: levels of use,e; regional, social, andfunctional varieties of English; structural patterns of the Englishsentence; essential dif- ferences between speech and writing. Conservativeteachers who like to believe that there is some choice left in thematter have to ignore the fact that virtually every serious publisher ofEnglish language textbooks has retained in at leasta continuing consultant role a lin- guist to help shape new programs andto revise existing series. But the times are just as troubling for theeager zealot, who searches in vain for a system that is atonce total and teachable. Change in language is continual and makes obsoleteonce valid descriptions or prescriptions. New "grammars"emerge which, while not contradic- tory, start from different assumptions about whata "grammar" should do, or attack language froma different starting point. Only the charla- tan claims that his system providesa comprehensive, leak-proof" description of contemporary English. Against such a background the National Council ofTeachers of English in 1963 and 1964 sponsoreda program of Spring Institutes iii on Language, Linguistics, and School Programs.The purpose of the program was not to advance the cause of a particular "grammar" since none by itself can do all that English teachers hope todo in language teaching. Rather, the institutes provided an opportunity for teachers, supervisors, curriculum directors,trainers of teachers, and others interested in English curriculum to hear distinguished scholars from a variety of fields of language study and to discusswith them the relevance of recent scholarship for English language programs in elementary and secondary schools and for the preparation of teachers. Two problems attend .he publication of the papers from the institutes. What may seem an unevenness in style stems from the fact that some papers were written primarily for publication, with the authors reading their papers at the institute. Others, who extempo- rized from notes, supplied what are virtually transcripts of remarks prepared as speeches. No concerted effort has been made to render the papers into a uniform style. To do so would imperil the focus and the emphasis that each speaker intended. Worse, it would oblit- erate the variety that gave strength to the institute program. A more serious issue is contemporaneity. The papers that follow were drawn largely from the 1964 institutes. In a few instances, papers given in the 1963 program and published by NCTE earlier in Lan- guage, Linguistics, and School Programs have been reprinted here, either because the speaker or the topic did not appear in the second institute series, or the approach was unique. In 'uoth cases, language scholarship has hanged so rapidly during the intervening time that any one of the speakers would add to or amend his remarks in the light of these changes if asked to speak to the same point now. Yet with NCTE's assurance of the merit in the papers as they stand, of the need to avoid further delay in publication, and of a more than corresponding lag between school language programs and what was known even in 1963 and 1964, the authors have consented to the publishing of the papers in their present form. In recognition of these new developments, this publication goes beyond the 1963-64 institute series for one additional paper and a special bibliography. Generative grammar, understood a few years ago only by those engaged in this frontier of scholarship, has sud- denly moved into the curriculum for teachers in training and into English programs for elementary and secondary schools. The paper by Noam Chomsky ( see p. 73), which also appears in College English for May 1966, and the bibliography prepared especially for this publi- cation by Don L. F. Nilsen will introduce the reader to concepts and issues which were not widely understood at the time of the institute program. Together, these papers are collected and published as an iv enlargement and a replacement for the older Language, Linguistics, and School Programs, now out of print. Any program of five institutes is a complicated affair.- For their success thanks go not only to the speakers whose manuscripts appear here, but to the codirectors: Bernard J. Weiss ( Assistant Director for Language Arts, Detroit Public Schools) and sirs. Marion Steet (En- glish Specialist, Philadelphia Public Schools). Dr. Weiss lust collected the papers which are published here and earlier edited the proceedings of the 1963 institutes. NCTE is grateful as well to the local directors of the institutes: Dr. Thomas Devine, Boston University; Mrs. Ruth Herin, Broad Ripple High School, Indianapolis, Indiana; Mr. John Murphy, Oklahoma City University; Mr. Jack Owens, Des Moines Public Schools; and Dr. Silvy Kraus, University of Oregon. If institutesare complicated, so are publications. Mrs. Mary Vander Hart, NCTE Edi- torial Assistant, brought such care and commitment to this project that the editor's life was easy indeed. Roma F. HocAN National Council of Teachers of English JJ I Our English language may be visualizedas a ship, sailing, carrying all its speakers along. But they are a restless lot: as the ship sails they stop at various ports, pick up new cargo and newpassen- gers, throw some overboard. They are always fussing with the boat, constantly rebuilding it piecemeal, changing over from oars to sails, ten convertingto steam; substituting