Lefstein2009rhetoricRhetorical Grammar and The Grammar of Schoolingal Grammar

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling
p. 1
Rhetorical Grammar and the Grammar of Schooling: Teaching Powerful Verbs in the English National Literac Strateg !dam Lefstein"
Debates about grammar teaching have traditionally revolved around curricular content: Should grammar be taught explicitly and systematically? If so, hich grammar? !he outcomes of such debates are inscribed in curricular documents and related materials, typically as a set of topics, ob"ectives and principles to guide teaching and assessment. #olicy is further mediated by textboo$s, instructional aids, professional development materials and activities, and % most crucially % by the teachers and pupils ho translate these texts into classroom activities. !his article traces the tra"ectory of educational ideas about grammar through policy, curricula, instructional aids, and enactment in the classroom. Specifically, I examine current &nglish policy regarding the teaching of grammar in primary schools, and its enactment in a 'ear ( )* year olds+ literacy lesson. ,hile the policy advances a broadly rhetorical approach to grammar and its instruction, the enacted lesson retained a number of features characteristic of the formal, rule-based grammar instruction that the policy sought to replace. I discuss possible explanations for this outcome, and implications for language education policy. .mong other issues, I argue that rhetorical grammar teaching has been th arted by the /grammars0 of schooling )!yac$ 1 !obin, 1223+ and educational accountability. !he article is organised as follo s: 4irst, I contrast t o approaches to grammar teaching % rule-based vs. rhetorical % that help to frame current &nglish policy and practice. Second, I
Institute of &ducation 6niversity of 7ondon8 e-mail: a.lefstein9ioe.ac.u$. !his article is in press at Linguistics and Education )http:::dx.doi.org:1;.1;1<:".linged.=;;2.;3.;;=+.
p. =
revie recent developments in &nglish educational policy ith regard to the teaching of grammar, and in particular the bac$ground to the >ational 7iteracy Strategy )>7S+ adoption of a rhetorical approach to grammar teaching. !hird, I analyse an >7S lesson on /po erful verbs0, sho ing ho the largely rhetorical grammar teaching materials ere enacted in a ay that promoted many rule-based grammar ideas and practices. 4inally, I explore possible explanations for the lesson outcome, discussing, among other factors, teacher $no ledge and s$ill, >7S structure, the accountability regime, and pedagogic culture.
#$ Rule%based &s$ Rhetorical Grammar Teaching !he term grammar is used in many different ays )cf. ?art ell, 12*@+, and there are numerous approaches both to grammatical analysis of the &nglish language and to the teaching of grammar in schools. In this article, grammar is used in the broad sense of the study of language patterns and structure: not only morphology and syntax, but also elements of semantics and pragmatics.1 I introduce and contrast t o general pedagogical approaches to grammar: rulebased and rhetorical grammar teaching. !his analytical division reflects the tensions bet een current policy and status Auo classroom practice and, as such, is a useful heuristic for examining that policyBs enactment. !he underlying premise of rule-based grammar teaching is nicely captured in the follo ing introductory note /to the pupil0 found at the beginning of the school textboo$ Everyday Grammar ).gar, 12*;: p. 3+: Cost of the things that you learn to do need rules. ,hen you play a game, you follo rules. 'ou are allo ed to do some things and you are not allo ed to do other things. !his gives order to the game and helps to ma$e it more en"oyable. If everyone did as they li$ed, the game could not be played properly.
p. (
,hen you spea$ or rite &nglish, you also have to follo rules. 'ou already $no many of the rules from learning to tal$ and from listening to other people. 'ou also learn the rules from reading boo$s. !he rules of &nglish are called grammar. .ccording to this approach, language mastery % i.e. the ability to express oneself correctly and /clearly0 % is a function of learning the rules of grammar. !hese rules are typically taught through teacher transmission, hole class recitation, and individual pupil practice on grammar exercises. !opics tend to focus on parts of speech and /common mista$es0 related to them. !he follo ing passage, ta$en from a different school textboo$, Master Your English )Davies, Dillon, &gerton-Dhesney, 12*1: p. <+, illustrates the sort of concerns motivating rule-based grammar teaching: Singular or 'lural &erb( Cr Eea$ gro led at ,ilfred, /,here ere you on 4riday, boy?0 ,ilfred replied, /I ere at the fair, Sir.0 />o, no, no, ,ilfred,0 corrected Cr Eea$, /I was at the fair, I was at the fair.0 /Fh, as you?0 beamed ,ilfred, /Great, asnBt it?0 .fter Cr Eea$Bs temper had cooled, he tried to explain to his pupil: 6se singular verbs after singular nouns. Like this: ,ilfred is a silly boy. Cr. Eea$ goes to church. !he girl ent on the beach. 6se plural verbs after plural nouns. Like this: !he boys are clever. !he teachers tal$ loudly. 4lags fly in the street. Singular verbs must follo these: each of one of neither of each every none of nobody either neither !hroughout the textboo$ ,ilfred spea$s ith grammatical /errors0 and Cr. Eea$ corrects him.= #upils are arned not to be li$e ,ilfred, and given ample opportunities to practice /correct0 grammatical expression in exercises involving e.g. cloHe tas$s, correcting sentences, etc. !he texts used in these exercises are typically no longer than a sentence, and are not connected to any context other than the grammatical issue being explored.(
p. 3
Rhetorical grammar teaching differs from rule-based grammar teaching ith regard to its approach to language, pedagogy and aims. Rhetorical grammar treats grammatical conventions as resources to be exploited, rather than rules to be follo ed. So, hereas rule-based grammar divides language into t o absolute categories % correct and incorrect % rhetorical grammar treats grammatical choice as, ell, precisely that: a choice from among possibilities. !hese possibilities are "udged as more or less effective, depending upon factors such as audience, purpose and context. !hus, hile both rhetorical and rule-based grammar teaching share the same aim % the improvement of pupil expression % they diverge in their emphases vis-I-vis hat counts as /good0 expression: rule-based grammar teaching privileges /correctness0 )i.e. adherence to Standard grammar norms+, hile rhetorical grammar teaching focuses on effectiveness. Since a central aim of schooling is initiation into academic and formal literacies, Standard grammar also receives a central place in the rhetorical grammar curriculum. ?o ever, rather than being treated as the one correct form, it is taught alongside other language varieties and registers, and in the context of examination of the relationships bet een communicative situation, language choices and rhetorical effects. #edagogically, rhetorical grammar teaching involves inductive explorations of texts, discussion of rhetorical and grammatical choices, and pupil application of grammatical $no ledge in ritten communication tas$s. &xamples of discrete teaching and learning activities, ta$en from the Grammar for Writing handboo$ )Df&&, =;;;+,3 include Function, in hich pupils /investigate the function of a ord class, sentence structure or punctuation mar$0 by examining and discussing repeated occurrences of that linguistic phenomenon in a text )p. 1@<+8 Cloze, in hich some of the ords in an existing text are obscured and pupils discuss possible choices, in order to /consider the effectiveness of a particular ord ithin a sentence
p. @
and to practise using effective language to suit the audience and purpose of the text0 )p. 1@J+8 and Im rove, in hich pupils focus on a particular grammatical issue in collectively editing a piece of riting, /considering the choices open to them and discussing the merits of alternative ords and structures0 )p. 1<1+. ,hile rule-based grammar teaching tends to distrust pupilsB tacit linguistic $no ledge )as a source of errors+, rhetorical grammar teaching is respectful of pupil intuitions, and see$s to build upon them in developing explicit grammatical $no ledge and pupil critical language a areness. 4inally, hile rule-based grammar teaching tends to use decontextualised exercises, rhetorical grammar teaching reAuires that grammar study be embedded in meaningful communicative contexts. !hese differences are summarised in table 1 belo . !a"le #$ %ule&"ased vs$ rhetorical grammar teaching Grammatical conventions are' Grammatical ro"lems a ear in the conte(t of' Grammar ro"lems tend to' )olving grammar ro"lems involves' Learning grammar involves' !acit grammatical knowledge is' )tandard grammar is' Rule%based grammar rules to be obeyed decontextualised grammar exercises have one correct ans er $no ing the rule practice in applying the rules a source of mista$es the structure of proper &nglish Rhetorical grammar resources to be exploited meaningful communication have multiple possible ans ers exercising "udgement a areness, reflection and deliberation a reliable source of $no ledge one variety of &nglish, particularly important in formal and academic communication
)$ ! Shift toward Rhetorical Grammar Teaching in English Primar Polic !raditionally, explicit teaching of rule-based grammar as an integral part of the primary school curriculum in &ngland.@ School grammar study came under increasing criticism in the
p. <
12<;s and 12J;s. Codern linguistics challenged many of its assumptions, including the 7atincentred approach to &nglish grammar, the alleged superiority of /proper0 &nglish, and even the idea that grammar needed to be taught. !he #rogressivist educational movement vie ed grammar study as largely irrelevant, boring and a constraint on pupil expression. Coreover, the emphasis on proper &nglish as criticised as alienating for or$ing class children, ho )li$e fictional ,ilfred above+ spo$e in ays that deviated from Standard grammar conventions )e.g. .nderson 1 Eutler, 12*=+. 4inally, available research appeared to refute the assumption that formal grammar teaching improves pupilsB riting )e.g. Eraddoc$, 12<(8 &lley et. al., 12J<+.< In light of these and related criticisms, grammar teaching had largely fallen out of favour in the &nglish educational establishment by the end of the 12<;s. GrammarBs decline as not universally elcomed. Fpponents pointed to alleged crises in literacy achievement as evidence of an urgent need to go /bac$ to the basics0 of /traditional0 schooling, including the teaching of grammar. 4or many critics the issue as broader than Auestions of curriculum and pedagogy. /!raditional grammar0 is a politically potent symbol, signifying a nostalgic time hen the &nglish language, national identity and social order seemed more certain and secure than they do in the current period of globalisation and /post-modern0 doubt )Dameron 1 Eourne, 12*2+. Interest in grammar teaching resurged in the 12*;s and early 122;s as politicians and educatorsB attention turned to the constitution of a >ational Durriculum. &nglish, including of course grammar, proved to be a particularly controversial sub"ect, prompting then Secretary of State for &ducation Kenneth Ea$er to appoint a Committee of In*uiry into the !eaching of the English Language, or /Kingman Dommittee0 )Great Eritain, 12**+. 6pon launching the committee, Ea$er remar$ed, /I have been struc$ by a particular gap. #upils need to $no about
p. J
the or$ings of the &nglish language if they are to use it effectively0 )Auoted in Sealey, 1223, pp. 1=1-=+. !he +ingman %e ort opened ith the follo ing indictment of current )#rogressivist+ /distractions0 to effective teaching: Lthe belief that this capacity Mto use language effectivelyN can and should be fostered only by exposure to varieties of &nglish language8 that conscious $no ledge of the structure and or$ing of the language is unnecessary for effective use of it8 that attempting to teach such $no ledge induces boredom, damages creativity and may yet be unsuccessful8 and that the enterprise entails imposing an authoritarian vie of a standard language hich ill be unacceptable to many communities in our society. ?o ever, the %e ort did not call for a return to rule-based grammar teaching. Instead, it sought to carve out a middle ground )Gannon, 12**+, by emphasiHing the importance of $no ledge about language )K.7+ in learning, communication and understanding society. K.7 became the centre-piece for the development of a />e Grammar !eaching0 )Darter, 1221+, hich included the follo ing principles )see also Dox, 122@, p. =;+:
7anguage study should be integrated into real communicative contexts )and not constitute a separate curriculum sub"ect+.
7anguage study should build on pupilsB experience, facilitating reflection on their tacit $no ledge.
Kno ledge about language is important as a means of developing linguistic tolerance and understanding ho po er and values are communicated through language.
!eachersB professional $no ledge about language enables them to facilitate pupilsB learning flexibly and effectively.
7anguage is intrinsically interesting, and that alone is reason enough to arrant its study in school.
p. *
!his />e Grammar0 shares many aspects ith rhetorical grammar as I outlined it above, though the emphasis is on understanding language )and, through it, society+ as a goal in and of itself, rather than improving pupilsB riting.J Donservative politicians ere not placated by K.7. ! o pro"ects ere established to implement the +ingman %e ort: the ,ational Curriculum English Working Grou , chaired by Erian Dox )D&S, 12*2+, and the Language in the ,ational Curriculum )7I>D+ in-service professional development programme, directed by Ronald Darter. Eoth pro"ects persisted ith the +ingman model for language education, and both ere subseAuently undermined by the government. In "ustifying his decision to suppress the 7I>D materials, then Secretary of State for &ducation !im &ggar )1221+ rote, /our central concern must be the business of teaching children ho to use their language correctly' M!he materialsN could convey a number of rong impressions % most dangerously that ungrammatical or badly presented or$ should be understood and condoned rather than corrected0 )emphasis in the original+.* . D&S spo$esman put it simply: /Cinisters ant to see more formal teaching of &nglish grammar0 ).brams, 1221+. In 122* the ne ly elected >e 7abour government established the />ational 7iteracy Strategy0 )>7S+ for reform of primary literacy education in &ngland. Ca"or components of this programme include a dedicated daily /literacy hour0, structured into 1@ minutes of shared reading or riting, 1@ minutes direct teaching of s$ills to the hole class, =; minutes of individual study hile the teacher engages a small group in guided reading or riting, and a 1; minute concluding plenary session ith the hole class8 detailed ob"ectives, distributed in a term-by-term progression and divided into ord, sentence and text levels8 and numerous materials to support teaching and professional development.2 !he >7S as introduced against the bac$drop of an accountability regime that critically shaped the ay it as interpreted and
p. 2
implemented. !his regime included yearly standardised testing at ages J and 11, publication of schoolsB test scores in league tables, performance management and high sta$es, on-site inspections every four years. .mong other aims, the >7S sought to reassert and support the explicit teaching of grammar, though not the sort of rule-based grammar teaching that had been advocated by the previous government: Some ould argue that the study of grammar is orth teaching in its o n right because it is intrinsically interesting % and so it is. !his is not the primary aim here8 our aim is to improve childrenBs ritingL It should be clear from this that the purpose of teaching grammar is not simply the naming of parts of speech, nor is it to provide arbitrary rules for OcorrectB &nglish. It is about ma$ing children a are of $ey grammatical principles and their effects, to increase the range of choices open to them hen they rite. )Df&&, =;;;, p. J+ In these brief extracts the anonymous authors attempt to position the >7S approach to grammar in relation to hat has come before. !hey ac$no ledge the Kingman "ustification for grammar teaching )worth teaching in its own right+, but distance themselves from it, adopting a more instrumental approach )to im rove children-s writing+. !hey also distance themselves from traditional, rule-based grammar )sim ly the naming of arts of s eech+, ith its standard grammar emphasis )ar"itrary rules for .correct- English+. !he final sentence aligns the >7S ith rhetorical grammar teaching: the point of grammar study is to enable pupils to ma$e choices from among a range of linguistic resources, and to be a are of the effects of different choices on the rhetorical po er of their riting. !he >7S advanced this rhetorical grammar agenda through its termly ob"ectives, training modules and a collection of lesson plans and related guidance, entitled Grammar for Writing )Df&&, =;;;+.1; &xamples of practical teaching and learning activities from Grammar for Writing ere mentioned above8 these materials ill be further elaborated and discussed belo . Grammar for Writing has been generally ell-received by both teachers and linguists )?udson 1
p. 1;
,almsley, =;;@8 Ffsted, =;;1+.11 ?o ever, e $no very little about ho the text is actually used in classrooms. !his article see$s to address that gap, by analysing in detail one classBs enactment of a Grammar for Writing lesson on /po erful verbs0, and by illustrating through this case the challenges posed by rhetorical grammar for both teachers and educational reformers.
*$ Research +onte,t and -ethod !he data discussed in this article are dra n from an extended case study )Eura oy, 122*8 Citchell, 12*(+ of the enactment of the >ational 7iteracy Strategy in one primary school conducted over the course of the =;;(-=;;3 school year. !his studyBs primary aim as to probe and extend theories about the role of curricular materials in teaching and its improvement. Data collection included participant observation in the school, formal and informal intervie s, audiorecording of lessons, and individual and group feedbac$ conversations. !he theoretical frame, methodology and outcomes of the broader study are reported else here )7efstein, =;;@8 7efstein, =;;*8 Street et al., =;;J+8 here I elaborate methods directly relevant to the data and analyses discussed in this article.
/$# %esearch )ite and Case )election !he research site, hich I call /7o !ide #rimary School0, is a relatively large )almost 3;; pupils+ community primary school serving a village hich has for all intents become a suburb of a Southern &nglish city.1= !he ma"ority of the pupils come from or$ing class bac$grounds, and the ethnic bac$ground of over three Auarters of them is ,hite Eritish. !he schoolBs confidential /#.>D.0 )performance and assessment+ report issued by the Fffice of Standards in &ducation )FfS!&D+ at the beginning of the study portrayed a gloomy
p. 11
picture of the schoolBs achievement standards )according to national tests+. Dompared to similar schools ) ith bet een *-=;P eligibility for free school meals+, pupilsB attainment as in the bottom Auartile for all sub"ects at both Key Stages, ith the exception of Key Stage = &nglish, hich as in the bottom 3; percent.1( Coreover, hereas the five-year national trend reflected a slight rise in scores, the school trend exhibited a do n ard tra"ectory. In Qanuary =;;3 the school received the )failing+ inspection grade of /severe ea$nesses0. !he teacher in the lesson that is the focus of this article is Ciss Cillpond. !hough at the time of the study Ciss Cillpond as only in her fourth year of full-time teaching, she as highly regarded by her colleagues and ?eadteacher. She as trained as a teacher after the inception of the >7S, and her lessons ere typically textboo$ exemplifications of >7S lesson structure and pedagogical principles. ?er classroom as also an interesting and genuinely pleasant place to be. In official recognition of her ability, Ciss Cillpond as granted /.dvanced S$ills !eacher0 status, and at 7o !ide #rimary School as given responsibility for coordinating gifted and talented programmes and made a member of the standards and assessment management team. I have chosen to focus on this particular lesson for several reasons. 4irst, ho to ma$e riting more exciting by using /po erful0 verbs is a rhetorical grammar topic ar e(cellence: it ould ma$e little sense in a rule-based grammar teaching system. Second, as I noted above, Ciss Cillpond is a talented and conscientious teacher, ho is considered exemplary in her appropriation of the >7S. !hird, Ciss Cillpond clearly struggled ith some of the $ey issues discussed in my analysis belo , both during the lesson itself and also in our post-lesson feedbac$ conversation. !he basic findings in this lesson % the subversion of rhetorical grammar and the adherence to a procedural pedagogical model % are supported by the other lessons observed and analysed in the study from hich this lesson is excerpted. !hough these lessons are not
p. 1=
necessarily representative of >7S grammar teaching more generally, their study highlights important theoretical and practical issues relating to the challenges of changing language teaching practice and the relationships bet een the grammar curriculum and the pedagogical and regulatory structures ithin hich it is enacted.
/$0 1ata Collection and 2nalysis Investigation of curricular enactment involved collection and analysis of data at three levels: national policy, school culture and classroom interaction. !he historical development of national literacy policy as investigated through analysis of policy documents and secondary sources. .t the school level, I participated in and observed life in the school t o to three days a ee$ for one year, including participation in teacher professional development sessions and staff meetings8 teaching one lesson a ee$8 conducting intervie s and feedbac$ conversations8 and collecting policy and curricular documents. .t the classroom level, lessons ere observed in four Key Stage = classrooms )including <@ literacy lessons that ere audio-recorded+, teachers ere intervie ed on the basis of lesson transcripts, and artefacts ere collected. . ma"or aim of the data analysis as to integrate findings from these three levels, tracing the movement of ideas and forces bet een national policy, local implementation and classroom activity. !hree sets of lessons ith a grammar focus ere transcribed and sub"ected to detailed analysis. !hese lessons ere interrogated ith regard to academic tas$ reAuirements )cf. Doyle 1 Darter, 12*3+ and the resources and guidance provided to them. I used micro-analytic techniAues to investigate particularly intriguing events, as$ing at each turn, e.g., /,hat is the spea$er doing?0 /,hy that, no ?0 /,hat else might have been done here, but asnBt?0 )Rampton, =;;<+. 7esson activity as contrasted ith policy and curricular materials, in
p. 1(
particular ith regard to approaches to grammar teaching. I examined both the affordances embedded in the curricular materials, and the enacted curriculum % i.e. hat pupils ere reAuired to do and $no , hat resources ere provided to support them, and hat explicit and implicit lessons about language ere communicated.
.$ Rhetorical Grammar in !ction In the three sets of grammar lessons examined in detail I observed partial and problematic enactment of rhetorical grammar teaching principles and practices, hich ere embedded in the curricular materials, and in their stead rule-based grammar teaching practices. !his general tendency as manifested in teachersB selections and adaptations of curricular materials, and in the ay these materials ere then enacted in their classrooms. In the follo ing section I demonstrate this process in the analysis of a /po erful verbs0 lesson. 4irst I discuss the relevant curricular materials used in this lesson and then their enactment by Ciss Cillpond and her 'ear ( pupils )* year-olds+.
3$# Grammar for ,riting4 5owerful 6er"s !he lesson analysed in this article as devoted to achieving sentence level targets that had been identified as ea$nesses in a revie of pupilsB riting conducted by Ciss Cillpond and the other 'ear ( teacher. .mong the issues targeted by the teachers as pupilsB overuse of common and general verbs, such as /say0, /eat0 and / al$0. !his assessment as aligned ith % and indeed probably influenced by % >7S guidance regarding riting targets )>7S, =;;;+. !he 'ear ( targets include /use interesting vocabulary8 vary use of ad"ectives and verbs for impact,0 and 'ear 3 targets include /use po erful verbs to sho character or add impact.0
p. 13
!he teachers turned to the >7S Grammar for Writing handboo$ to address these issues. !he idea of /po erful verbs0 is elaborated in the /#rinciples and explanation0 section of 6nit ==: . Opo erfulB verb is one hich conveys not "ust the bald or basic action but elements of character, atmosphere and mood. ,e tend to thin$ of ad"ectives and adverbs as the Odescribing ordsB in texts, but verbs are often vividly descriptive ords. ,hen trying to improve a dull text, substituting po erful verbs for ea$ ones can be more effective than lacing it ith ad"ectives and adverbs. !his explanation contains both a definition % i.e. a po erful verb conveys elements of character, atmosphere and mood % and a statement about the context in hich po erful verbs should be used: the improvement of dull texts. ,hich type of texts? !hough not specified here, the ans er can be inferred from the subseAuent activities, most of hich involve using po erful verbs to describe a characterBs mood in stories. 4or example, in the /Dhanging verbs0 activity pupils loo$ at sentences ith / ea$0 verbs )e.g. /!he $ing went across the room0+, discuss hat the verb tells us about the $ingBs character, role play different ays of performing the action, and invent appropriate po erful verbs to describe the different ays of crossing the room. Ciss Cillpond relied primarily upon 6nit 1 in planning her lesson. 6nit 1 addresses t o >7S ob"ectives )both from 'ear (, !erm 1+: #upils should be taught: S* the function of verbs in sentences through: noticing that sentences cannot ma$e sense ithout them8 collecting and classifying examples of verbs from reading and o n $no ledge, eg run7 chase7 s rint8 eat7 consume7 go""le8 said7 whis ered7 shrieked8 experimenting ith changing simple verbs in sentences and discussing their impact on meaning8 S/ to use the term OverbB appropriately8 !hough the term /po erful verb0 is not mentioned here, it is implied in the reference to changing sim le verbs and in the exemplary lists of verbs to be collected )each set involves a /simple0 verb follo ed by t o more po erful alternatives+. !he teaching unitBs /#rinciples and explanation0 section consists of four bullet points:
p. 1@
. verb is a ord )or ords+ that expresses an action, a happening, a process or a state. It can be thought of as a OdoingB ord, eg shouts, has layed7 is skating7 gives, or a ObeingB ord, eg am7 is7 were7 will "e7 has "een7 liked living7 knows7 will feel. Rerbs often occur in chains, eg was living8 were laying8 have "een working. &very sentence needs a verb. !here are often many verbs connected ith a particular action or state of being, and it is important to choose the right one for meaning and impact.
!he first three points relate to various aspects of verbs as a linguistic category or part of speech. !hey are presented as factual $no ledge about language, and do not call upon the reader to ta$e a particular course of action. In the case of the fourth bullet point, the factual $no ledge presented )i.e. /there are often many verbs connected ith a particular action or state of being0+ is the basis for rhetorical guidance: /it is important to choose the right one for meaning and impact0. Seven different activities are suggested in the teaching unit: t o involve investigating the function of verbs or playing ith parts of speech )/4unction0 and /Suic$ma$e0+, one is to search for po erful verbs in the thesaurus )/7oo$ up0+, and four involve examinations of meaning and rhetoric )/.ction verbs0, /DloHe0, /Core cloHe0 and /Shared riting0+. In hat follo s I describe these activities, highlighting their pedagogical affordances and the ideas about grammar and its instruction they embody. In /4unction0 pupils are instructed to investigate a text )the first paragraph of hich is reproduced belo + in hich all the verbs are underlined, in addition to one ord to ard the end of the text that is not a verb. !im ran. ?e ran so fast that his feet seemed disconnected to the rest of him. Eut it ould be no good % not ith Citch Corgan behind him. Citch Corgan as taller and faster than everyone else in their class. !im hurtled do n the alley, the sound of feet pounding after him. ?is lungs ached and his feet "arred against the ground. #upils are supposed to discuss the functions performed by the underlined verbs in their respective sentences. .fter ascertaining verbsB functions they then loo$ for the one underlined
p. 1<
ord that does not belong to the studied ord class. In terms of the approaches to grammar teaching discussed in the preceding section, this activity is typical of the Kno ledge about 7anguage approach: the purpose is to teach about ho language or$s, through an inductive process that builds upon pupilsB tacit grammatical $no ledge. It is also note orthy that this activity employs a paragraph-long text )rather than a set of unrelated sentences+. /Suic$ma$e0 is an oral sentence manipulation game, in hich pupils are provided ith a sentence % /It s irled and fluttered to the floor0 % and ta$e turns replacing ords: a hypothetical example might be: /What s irled and fluttered to the floor0, /,hat soared and fluttered to the floor0, /,hat soared then fluttered to the floor0, /,hat soared then lummeted to the floor0, etc. !hough the authors do not explain the pedagogical rationale for this activity )the stated aim is /to give children oral practice in sentence construction0+, their intention appears to be to give pupils an opportunity to experiment ith ord classes and sentence structure, attending to hich ords can and cannot be inserted in the available slots. Such experimentation again recalls K.7 principles, though the sentence is not embedded in a meaningful context that ould afford exploration of the relative merits of various ord choices. In /.ction verbs0 pupils are reAuested to perform an activity in various ays )e.g. different ays of going across the room+ and to thin$ of appropriate verbs to describe their different actions. Such an activity directs attention to nuances in meaning, and the different rhetorical effects of different lexical choices. !he t o cloHe activities involve concealing the verb chains in a text, inventing possible alternatives, and comparing them to each other and the original. !eachers are instructed to /reread the text to see hether the meaning has been changed or hether the altered verbs really do add impact0. !he point of these activities is to explore rhetorical effectiveness: /to consider
p. 1J
the effectiveness of a particular ord ithin a sentence and to practise using effective language to suit the audience and purpose of the text0 )p. 1@J+. ?o ever, the communicative context of the one provided text is not specified )it appears to be a fragment from a short story+. Similarly, the suggested activity for shared riting involves thin$ing about appropriate verbs hile composing a poem: !he childrenBs choice of verbs may be some hat lac$lustre. ?elp them select unusual and specific verbs. #ause at each verb, giving children a moment to rite their suggestion on their dry- ipe boards. !hey should hold up their suggestions and you choose, giving reasons for your choice. )p. (@+ Interestingly, the terms /simple0 and /po erful0 verbs are not used here, rather the authors contrast /lac$lustre0 ith /unusual0 and /specific0 verbs. ,hy, for example, an unusual verb is necessarily preferable to an ordinary one is neither explained nor "ustified. 4inally, in /7oo$ up0 the teacher is directed to /provide a list of basic verbs and use thesaurus to find alternative, more po erful possibilities0. 6nli$e the preceding four activities, this activity does not involve reflection or deliberation about rhetorical choices. ,hat approaches to grammar teaching are promoted by these activities? ,hat affordances are embedded ithin them? 4or the most part, the activities lend themselves to rhetorical grammar teaching. ,ith the exceptions of /7oo$ up0 and /Suic$ma$e0, the activities explore verbs and verb choices ith the context of a coherent text that is communicating some idea )a scene, part of a story or a poem+. ,ith the exception of /4unction0, none of the activities reAuires pupils to arrive at the one correct ans er, and many of them )DloHe, Core cloHe, .ction verbs and Shared riting+ involve deliberation in order to arrive at a "udgement about hich of the many possible ans ers is most appropriate, po erful or effective. /4unction0 and /Suic$ma$e0 build upon pupilsB tacit grammatical $no ledge, as do of course the activities that reAuire "udgement about the effectiveness of verb choices. ?o ever, as noted above,
p. 1*
communicative contexts are not made explicit, nor are criteria for appropriateness and effectiveness discussed. Ff course these activities can be used in multiple ays, both in terms of the combinations employed and the ay theyBre enacted in the classroom. In the follo ing section I describe ho Ciss Cillpond and her pupils enacted this lesson.
3$0 5owerful 6er"s Enacted !he lesson proceeded through the follo ing stages, divided into categories according to Ciss CillpondBs lesson plan: 1. #resentation of the lesson ob"ectives: /to understand verbs, and to be able to change simple verbs in sentences for more po erful verbs0. )approximately @ minutes+ Word9sentence level : reading ; writing =. 4ocused sentence-level or$: Ciss Cillpond demonstrates replacing the /simple0 verb eat ith more po erful verbs in the sentence 5lease may I eat ice cream< Discusses also synonyms, the use of a thesaurus, and the difference bet een a thesaurus and a dictionary. )* minutes, (; seconds+ (. !he class read in unison a section from !ertius and the =orri"le =unt by .nn Qungman. )* minutes, 3; seconds+. 3. !he class identify and underline all the verbs in the story. !his investigation leads to an impromptu discussion of auxiliary verbs )< minutes+. Grou tasks @. &xplanation of tas$s for independent or$ )differentiated by groups+, including tips for using the thesaurus. )< minutes, 3@ seconds+.
p. 12
<. #upils or$ individually on tas$s, hile Ciss Cillpond conducts a guided riting session ith one group.13 !he tas$s involve identifying verbs in a given text and replacing simple verbs ith more po erful alternatives. Fne group uses the /4unction0 text from Grammar for Writing, another listens to a story on a tape and rites do n the verbs, a third performs a computer-based cloHe exercise, and a fourth uses a commercial textboo$ or$sheet ith cloHe sentences and a set of possible verbs )e.g. /. farmer TTTT on a farm08 sails, climbs, or$s, mends, types or flies+.1@ )=; minutes+ 5lenary J. &ach group receives a large sheet of paper ith a verb in the middle )e.g. to close, to $eep, to sleep+ and is instructed to list more po erful verbs )the /7oo$ up0 activity from Grammar for Writing+. )< minutes, (; seconds+ *. Doncluding discussion: Ciss Cillpond surveys the groupsB lists of verbs and provides feedbac$. She concludes the lesson as follo s: /Dhildren, if I said to you, do you understand a bit more about ho you can choose more po erful verbs and, sometimes, instead of Oto run,B you can thin$ of a better one. Do you understand? #ut your hand up if you thin$, OCiss Cillpond, you $no , IBve got to thin$ carefully about the verbs that I use in my riting no .B Fh, I hope thatBs a lot of you, eBll "ust have to see no , in your riting. Erilliant.0 )3 minutes, =; seconds+ ,hat ere pupils reAuired to $no or do in this lesson? !hey ere called upon to identify verbs in a text, find synonyms )e.g. in a thesaurus+, and replace simple verbs ith /more po erful0 alternatives. !hese three activities can be )and often ere+ performed mechanically, ith little attention to meaning or context. 4or example, in section <, one pupil or$ed on
p. =;
replacing simple ith po erful verbs in the follo ing sentence )the verbs ere underlined in the original exercise, the /4unction0 activity described above+: /?e ran so fast that his feet seemed disconnected to the rest of him.0 She loo$ed up /seemed0 in the thesaurus and as faced ith t o alternatives % /appeared0 and /sounded0. She chose the latter, so that the /strengthened0 sentence no read: /?e ran so fast that his feet sounded disconnected to the rest of him.0 In the follo ing analysis, hich focuses primarily on the hole class discussions )sections =, @ and *+, I examine ho and hy pupils developed this mechanical orientation to the problem of /empo ering0 verbs, and ho Ciss Cillpond dealt ith the issue. In particular I inAuire into the bases for "udging a verbBs po er. I identify three implicit theories regarding hat ma$es a verb po erful: essentialism, meaning, and context and purpose. In extract 1, Ciss Cillpond demonstrates the procedure for replacing verbs:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Extract 1. (section 2, 3:05 minutes)16 M. Millpond: Kelvin (.) could ou !ive me " sentence ple"se #it$ t$e ve::e%& (1) e"t Kelvin: ' e"t M. Millpond: do #e s" ' e"t( Kelvin: ' (3) "te M. Millpond: )K (.) '*m !oin! to stop ou t$e%e (.) &ec"use ou*%e %i!$t (.) !ood &o (.) &ut ' #"nt ou to use t$e #o%d (.) e"t so t$in+ o, " #o%d (1) " sentence #it$ e"t in (3) ple":se c"n ':' Kelvin: e"t (2) ice c%e"m M. Millpond: -ple"se c"n ' e"t ice c%e"m. (.) &%illi"nt no# (.) t$"t*s " !ood sentence t$"t #"s " /uestion ple"se c"n ' e"t ice c%e"m &ut (.) t$"t ve%& e"t (2) it0it*s !ood (.) ' li+e e"t &ut (.) could #e t$in+ o, pe%$"ps " &it mo%e o, "n (.) e1citin! (.) o% " mo%e po#e%,ul ve%& &ec"use t$"t*s #$"t #e*%e t% in! to do tod" isn*t it (.) %emem&e% #$en ou told me (.) t$"t #e #"nt to t% "nd ,ind mo%e po#e%,ul ve%&s so (.) #$o t$in+s t$e c"n !ive me t$e s"me sentence &ut pe%$"ps (.) c$"n!e t$"t ve%& ,o% " &it mo%e o, " po#e%,ul ve%& (2) 2o%ot$ ( 2o%ot$ : "te
p. =1
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
M. Millpond:
3upil: M. Millpond:
3upil: M. Millpond:
2i"ne: M. Millpond: 5$%is: M. Millpond: 6et$: M. Millpond: Keit$: M. Millpond: Keit$: M. Millpond:
Keit$: M. Millpond: Keit$: M. Millpond: Keit$: M. Millpond:
does t$"t m"+e sense( ple"se c"n ' "te (.) ice c%e"m( (.) #$"t ou*ve done is c$"n!e t$e ve%& to " di,,e%ent tense (.) #$"t '*m "s+in! ou to do (.) is t$in+ o, " di,,e%ent ve%& (.) so it*s not !oin! to &e e"t (' t$in+ it*s ) &ut #ould m"+e it sound " mo%e po#e%,ul ve%& )K (.) do ou #"nt to $"ve "not$e% !o( (1) #$"t*s "not$e% #o%d t$"t ou could use inste"d o, e"t do ou t$in+ (.) t$"t*s "lso " ve%& (8) no( not su%e( $"ve " !o (.) -it doesn*t m"tte% i, ou*%e #%on!. (.) #$"t c"n ou s" (t$"t e"t) !o&&le &%illi"nt (.) ou c"n $"ve !o&&le to !o&&le (1) )K ple"se c"n ' 4!o&&le ice c%e"m4 o% -!o&&le up. ou mi!$t $"ve (1) 2i"ne ple"se c"n ' t"ste some ice c%e"m ple"se c"n ' t"ste ice c%e":m (.) 5$%is ple"se c"n ' consume consume ice c%e"m (2) 6et$ (5) (t$in+ o, "not$e% one) ple"se c"n ' (2) munc$( 7ice c%e"m8 7munc$ ice c%e"m8 "not$e% one (1) Keit$( ple"se m" ' demolis$ some ice c%e"m( ple"se m" '( demolis$ demolis$ )o$ ' /uite li+e t$"t c"n ' demolis$ ' li+e t$"t #$"t does t$e #o%d demolis$ (.) t$e ve%& demolis$ !ive ou t$e imp%ession Keit$ i, ou*%e "s+in! to demolis$ t$e ice c%e"m #$"t0#$"t do0#$"t does t$"t !ive t$e imp%ession o, #$"t #ould ' see (.) t$"t*s #$"t '*m t% in! to s" ( ) i, ou #e%e !oin! to demolis$ it $o# #ould ou e"t it( 9ust : !o on e1pl"in t$"t "ction ' c"n see ou !oin! ((pantomimes shovelling food into mouth)) 9ust stu,, it in e"$ ( ) ou 9ust stu,, it in i, ou*%e demolis$in! it !et %id o, it %e"ll /uic+ demolis$in! it t$"t*s it t$e%e*s not$in! !oin! to &e le,t is t$e%e(
p. ==
87 88 89 90 91
!ood &o " me%it ' %e"ll li+e t$"t ve%& to demolis$ somet$in! )K t$e ide" $o# ou*%e e"tin! t$"t ice c%e"m )K, put ou% $"nds do#n
!here are three ma"or stages in this segment. In the first )lines 1-1@+, Ciss Cillpond see$s to create % together ith Kelvin % a simple sentence ith hich to experiment. KelvinBs suggested sentence, /I eat0, as of course an accurate and succinct response to her reAuest, /give me a sentence, please, ith the verb eat0. Ciss Cillpond as probably dissatisfied ith the sentence because it lac$ed the detail necessary for demonstrating the different meanings and effects of alternative verbs. Donsider, for example, ho important the context of a young boy eating ice cream is for ma$ing /I demolish0 a meaningful substitute for /I eat0. 4urthermore, by using /eat0 in intransitive form, Kelvin sentence severely limited the range of possible replacements. Eut Ciss CillpondBs prompt, /Do e say, OI eatB?0 does not inform Kelvin hat he is doing rong. ?is next response, /I ate0, is also a legitimate sentence, but again not hat Ciss Cillpond had in mind. ,hat is Kelvin thin$ing? !he form of the Auestion % /Do e sayL?0 % is typically used by teachers in this school as a prompt for children to correct ungrammatical expressions. So perhaps he thought he needed to change the verb in some ay, and guessed that Ciss Cillpond as loo$ing for past tense )Dorothy similarly proposed /ate0 instead of /eat0 in line =2+. Ciss Cillpond insists that she ants him to use the ord, /eat0. !hen, after a brief pause, she resolves the misunderstanding by providing for him the first half of the sentence % /#lease can IL0 % hich he readily completes, /Leat ice cream.0 In the second stage )lines 1<-<J+ Ciss Cillpond see$s to generate possible )more po erful+ alternatives to the verb /eat0. She as$s the children to thin$ of /a bit more of an exciting or a more po erful verb0 in place of /eat0, /because thatBs hat eBre trying to do today0. .fter a
p. =(
bit more confusion involving /ate0, the synonyms spill out in rapid succession: gobble, taste, consume, munch and demolish. !his is a strange collection, hich includes some a $ ard expressions, for instance, the combinations of /please0 and /gobble0, or /munch0 and /ice cream0. !his a $ ardness is li$ely attributable to the fact that most of the children erenBt attending to the sentence, but ere focusing on the ord /&at0, and the list of synonyms appearing under it on a display posted overhead )reproduced in figure 1+. Shortly after the interaction reproduced in extract 1, Ciss Cillpond praised the children for loo$ing at the display for ideas, thereby also reminding the other pupils of the poster and its utility. Eut, she continued, /itBs not al ays going to be on display0, as an introduction to using the thesaurus. Figure #$ >!ry these synonyms?@ oster in Miss Mill ond-s classroom
6sing interesting words can ma$e your stories more exciting to read.
Nice beautiful gorgeous lovely fabulous exAuisite fantastic Run race sprint gallop march "og
Tr these s non ms0

Walk Eat gobble taste chomp munch consume stroll march amble stagger canter step
!hroughout these first t o stages, the procedure for replacing simple verbs has been entirely mechanical: identify the verb and search )the display or thesaurus+ for synonyms to replace it. >o attention has been given to hat might ma$e one verb better or orse than another. Indeed, no attention has yet been given to differences in meaning. Eased on the display of /interesting ords0, and on the ay pupils chose more po erful verbs in their independent
p. =3
or$, one can construct an implicit theory of po erful verbs according to hich po er is predetermined, a function of the ordBs obscurity, specificity and:or length. !his theory of po erful verbs, hich I term essentialism, posits a hierarchy of synonymous ords, each possessing a different essential value or po er )though they are eAuivalent in terms of their referential meaning+. >ote that one unfortunate effect of this eAuation of obscurity and po er is to encourage pupils to select for use relatively unfamiliar ords. In the third stage )lines <*-21+, Ciss Cillpond briefly touches on another possible factor in distinguishing simple from po erful verbs as she inAuires into hat impression is created by the ord /demolish0. ?o ever, this line of inAuiry is not ta$en up again until the plenary at the end of the lesson )section *+, hich I describe belo . !hroughout the bul$ of the lesson % the group or$ and preparation for the plenary % many pupils appear to have operated according to the essentialist theory of po erful verbs, and did not entertain any other means of assessing po er. Ciss Cillpond confronted this issue in a post-lesson feedbac$ conversation )conducted a month later on the basis of excerpts of the lesson transcript+. R&S&.RD?&R: It didnBt seem to me that Mthe pupils I observed during independent or$N made a distinction bet een, Ohurtled,B Opounding,B OachedB and O"arred,B Oran,B Oseemed,B OyelledB % they changed all of them. .nd one of the things that I thin$ is most challenging about po erful verbs is ho you discern hatBs po erful and hatBs not po erful. ,hat are your thoughts about that? ?o do you try to deal ith that? CISS CI77#F>D: Initially, I as concerned, /Fh gosh, theyBre not going to really thin$ about changing them into a po erful verb, theyBre "ust going to loo$ in the thesaurus,0 but, as I loo$ed around and assessed hat they ere doing, a lot of children, li$e, OranB they changed, and Oseemed.B O#oundingB and Ohurtled,B they actually loo$ed them up in the thesaurus and they ere doing alternatives hich ere "ust as po erful, hich I as happy ith. If theyBd gone for something that as a simple verb, I thin$ I ould have panic$ed and gone, /Fh, my God, the opposite,0 and IBd have to try and bring in, /Fh, loo$ hat youBve done, youBve found the opposite to a po erful verb.0 .nd I thin$ I did % I donBt remember % I thin$ I stressed to some of them that, actually, these are very po erful verbs, any ay, and actually loo$ing at alternatives that you could use ) + impression ould you give? If I could do it again, or I could do something on from this, as an extension, IBd li$e to thin$ that they thought more about hat the ords meant, the meaning of the ords, because a lot of them ill use them in a context that they onBt understand. So, itBs
p. =@
ma$ing sure that actually although theyBre using the po erful verbs and introduce ne vocabulary, they understand in hat context theyBd be used. I ould change it. !he concern articulated by Ciss Cillpond % that pupils might replace /po erful0 verbs for /simple0 ones % captures nicely the absurdity of the activity in hich many pupils ere engaged: replacing all verbs ith alternatives gathered from the thesaurus. Ciss Cillpond recogniHes that many of them ere recording ords ithout $no ing their meanings. ! o comments are in order here: 4irst, although Ciss Cillpond expresses dissatisfaction at pupilsB relative inattention to the verbsB meanings, she as content ith the result: creating /alternatives hich ere "ust as po erful0. Second, from Ciss CillpondBs comments an implicit theory of po erful verbs emerges, according to hich a ordBs po er is primarily a function of its meaning. ?o ever, hile meaning clearly has a role to play in determining po er, it is insufficient: participants, purpose and context must also be considered )and meaning is partially determined by them+. !o further clarify my point here, consider a young child petitioning his parents for ice cream. In my family, he ould be more successful as$ing, /#lease may I eat some ice cream?0 than /#lease may I demolish:devour:devastate some ice cream?0 !he latter constructions are li$ely to have achieved a response along the lines of /if youBre that hungry, you should eat something nutritious0. !his third possibility, that po er is a function of audience, purpose and context, emerges once, during the concluding plenary of the lesson )section *+, hich I discuss belo . Shortly after the brief explanation of po erful verbs in extract 1, the class loo$s at the thesaurus, hich is identified as a $ey tool for identifying possible po erful verbs in the independent tas$s. Ciss Cillpond as$s, /,hatBs one of those? ,hat happens in a thesaurus?0 She gives them =; seconds to discuss the issue ith their partners, after hich extract = begins.
Extract 2. (section 2, 1:36)
p. =<
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
M. Millpond:
2"nn : M. Millpond:
Keit$: M. Millpond:
;'<=> )K ?'@A ?)B; >=;AA >C) )DA (2.6) u:$ (.) 2"nn "not$e% #o%d ,o% it "not$e% #o%d ,o% it E%illi"nt )K #e did $"ve " discussion do#n $e%e "t t$e ,%ont #e s"id it !ives ou " di,,e%ent #o%d ou*ve !ot to &e c"%e,ul it !ives ou " di,,e%ent #o%d #$ic$ $"s " #$"t t$e s"me me"nin! : !o on Keit$ !ood t$e s"me o% simil"% me"nin! ' 9ust loo+ed up ,o% e1"mple c",F "nd i, & it it s"id &us 728 t$"t #ouldn*t &e %i!$t #ould it (.) &ec"use it*s not it*s " di,,e%ent #o:%d &ut it*s not t$e s"me me"nin! (.) c",F "nd &us )K so t$e c",F ' loo+ed "t c",F "nd it s"id (.) " te" %oom " c",ete%i" " c"nteen " &"% &u,,et (.) t$e *%e "ll ve% simil"% to " c",F t$e *%e "lte%n"tive #o%ds (.) so i, #e #e%e loo+in! up in ve%&s in $e%e (.) so i, #e loo+ed "t t$e ve%& to %un i, #e loo+ed up %un it #ould "lso !ive ou "lte%n"tives "nd some o, t$ose '*m not s" in! "ll o, t$em some o, t$em #ould &e mo%e po#e%,ul ve%&s t$e #ould &e " &ette:% "lte%n"tive (.) dependin! on ou% sentence )K so #$"t ou*%e !oin! to !et t$e oppo%tunit to do !i%ls )K is to use " t$es"u%us one &et#een t#o "nd ou #ill &e c$"n!in! loo+in! up ve%&s "nd $"vin! " c$oice o, " mo%e po#e%,ul ve%& t$"t ou t$in+ mi!$t &e t$e%e no# #$"t ou mi!$t t$in+ is po#e%,ul mi!$t not &e #$"t ' t$in+ is po#e%,ul o% ' mi!$t t$in+ it*s po#e%,ul "nd ou mi!$t t$in+ o$ no Miss Millpond (.) so it is c$oice &ut ou $"ve to t$in+ o, t$e sentence
p. =J
58 59
t$"t it*s in Ad#"%d (.) )K
! o problems emerge in this extract. 4irst, the slippery nature of synonyms. Fn the one hand, a synonym is a different ord hich, as Keith puts it, /has the same meaning0 )line 1(+. Eut, on the other hand, as Ciss Cillpond arns in this extract, itBs more complicated than that. . synonym is a different ord ith the same or similar meaning.1J Indeed, itBs partly on account of the differences in meaning that one ord may be seen as more po erful than another. .nd, because of these differences, ords deemed synonymous by the thesaurus are not interchangeable in the same ay that 1:= and @:1; can replace one another in a mathematical eAuation. Ciss Cillpond is a are of this problem, and attempts to demonstrate it ith the example of /cafU0 and /bus0 )lines 1<-=(+. !he second problem that arises in this extract is the sub"ective nature of a ordBs relative po er )lines 3*-@@+. Ciss Cillpond explains that some of the ords in the thesaurus ill be more po erful than the ord they are intended to replace, but some ill not. ?o can pupils decide? It depends on the sentence, and it depends on individual "udgement: /,hat you might thin$ is po erful might not be hat I thin$ is po erful, or I might thin$ itBs po erful and you might thin$, OFh no, Ciss Cillpond.B0 >ote Ciss CillpondBs rhetorical grammar emphases: thereBs no one correct ans er, itBs a choice, and it depends on the sentence. ?o ever, ithout explication of the criteria according to hich that choice should be made, and ithout clarification of the relationship bet een verb choice and host sentence, the concept remains a mystery to many of the pupils. During the concluding plenary )section *+ the third theory of po erful verbs briefly emerges, according to hich po er is a function of audience, purpose and context. !he plenary is a discussion of a final tas$ )/7oo$ up0+, in hich each group as given a large sheet of paper
p. =*
ith a verb in the middle, and as instructed to list more po erful alternatives. >ote that this tas$, li$e some of the independent tas$s, reAuires that "udgements of a ordBs relative po er be made outside the context of a meaningful sentence. Representatives from each group stand before the class ith the lists of synonyms theyBve compiled )the first term is the given, presumably simple verb % the other ords are the pupilsB suggestions+: to sleep: to doHe to lift: liftting, carry, hoist to eat: to feed, che , bite, munch, chomp, gobble to close: shut, slam, bloc$ create: compose, read, trouble, beautiful $eep: say, retained, have, to put a ay &xtract ( documents the beginning of this concluding discussion:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Extract 3. (section 8 2:52) M. Millpond: OK so to sleep weve got a good one to doze I like that word (1) if Im asleep and I shouldnt be Im sat on the sofa at Christmas time and Ive eaten too much (.) and Ive fallen asleep I dont say that Ive been asleep someone says (.) OH (.) Miss Millpond they don't say Miss Millpond they say Meredith (.) have you been asleep? I go (.) no no no Im just having a little doze it doesnt sound quite so bad then youve sort of got away with it so--so the verb doze I think thats a lovely one isnt it? (.) does that seem a bit more powerful to you than just sleep? Many: yeah M. Millpond: OK youve got to think about what your sentence is which were going on to tomorrow (.) OK (.) so weve got to lift Im not sure what that one is 3upil: lifting M. Millpond: is that a different word to lift (2) thats the same word isnt it? lifting (.) youve just put ing on it havent you? 3upil: (and we've added) another T M. Millpond: (Are you allowed to though?) lifting is L I F T hold it up for me there (Irene) please OK youve got another one here to carry (1) and I like this one I think this one is a powerful verb (1) to hoist
p. =2
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Stephan: M. Millpond: Seth: M. Millpond:
Gemma: M. Millpond:
Margaret: M. Millpond:
to lift if you hoist something up OK another idea another word for lifting just Chris just hold it still sweetheart otherwise I can get somebody else out (.) OK well done Purple Group youve got lots to eat theyve got to chew to feed to gobble to chomp to munch to bite (.) now it does depend on the sentence but just by having the verbs out which one do you think is the most powerful verb? Stephan which one would you choose as a powerful verb do you think? (.) Tom please put your feet down (2) to munch I quite liked to munch as well Seth which one would you choose? to gobble? I like the idea of gobble it depends how you were doing it what idea you wanted to get across because what did Keith what word did Keith use earlier do you remember? (1) beginning with D (.) to (1) it was to do with the ice cream (.) Gemma demolish good to demolish the ice cream that was a very powerful verb (.) brilliant Green Group (.) or (.) Green-Yellow table youve got to close to shut to slam to block (.) oh I like to block (1) thats a different kind of word isnt it? (2) OK (.) so I like to slam tso instead of closing the door (.) in your story the character could be (.) slamming the door (.) what does that give the impression of please? if your character is slamming the door what does that tell the reader? Margaret hes angry? good the character might be angry (.) so (.) next time you go to write to close the door oh ((inhales sharply as if suddenly has an idea)) brilliant your character can slam the door and youre telling the reader that this characters probably very angry
?ere, for the first time in the hole class discussions, Ciss Cillpond invites deliberation about hich of the various alternatives is most po erful )lines 3(-<=+. She prefaces this discussion ith the caveat that /it does depend on the sentence0 but proceeds to survey the
p. (;
children about their preferences ithout reference to possible contexts or "ustification. &ach ans er is affirmed, though again ith the hedge that /it depends ho you ere doing it, hat idea you anted to get across0. Since no such purpose is established, all ans ers are eAually "ustifiable, and a plurality of preferences is maintained % although all candidates are by definition seen as more po erful than the original. .t t o points in this extract Ciss Cillpond demonstrates possible contexts in hich a verb might be po erful % or, more precisely, contexts in hich the choice of a different verb might be used for po erful effect. 4irst, she recalls the embarrassment of falling asleep after Dhristmas dinner, and ho saying, /IBm "ust having a little doHe,0 )instead of simply /IBve been asleep0+ might enable her to /sort of MgetN a ay ith it0 )lines @-J+. Second, at the end of the extract )lines <*-*1+, she discusses the impression created by riting that a character has /slammed0 a door )instead of simply /closing0 it+. !hese t o brief instances are the only cases in hich rhetorical context is explored throughout this lesson. !hey demonstrate ho verbs become more or less po erful in relation to specific communicative contexts and purposes. ,hat happens in the rest of the lesson? It ould be misleading to claim that in these instances choices of verbs ere not guided by context. .s Cino and Spelman )1221+ remind, /,e are al ays in some context, as are the texts that e read, their authors and readers, our problems, and our efforts to achieve solutions0 )p. =3*+. So hat is the context in hich pupils select verbs throughout most of the lesson? It is the lesson ob"ective, and the need to provide evidence of achieving that ob"ective for Ciss Cillpond hen she goes to mar$ their boo$s. Ciss Cillpond reminds them of this expectation immediately before the class brea$s off for independent tas$s )reproduced in extract 3+.
1 2 Extract 4. (section 5, 55 seconds) M. Millpond: tell me #$"t ou $"ve to do 5$%is 5$%is: ou $"ve to !o to e"c$ one
p. (1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
M. Millpond:
Ad#"%d: M. Millpond: Ad#"%d: M. Millpond:
M"n : M. Millpond:
("nd) loo+ it up in t$e t$es"u%us ( ) %i!$t (.) "nd #$"t "%e #e t% in! to do( #$"t is t$e o&9ective( #$"t evidence do ' #"nt to see( "n &od (.) #$"t #$en '*m t"+in! ou% &oo+s o% '*m t"+in! t$e s$eet (.) #$"t is !oin! to &e t$e c%ite%i" t$"t '*m !oin! to m"%+ "!"inst to s" (.) t$is c$ild $"s done it $"s succeeded $"s succeeded $"s succeeded "nd '*m !oin! to $i!$li!$t it (.) #$"t do ' need to see in ou% &oo+s( ou tell me #$"t ou need to do ,o% me (.) onl t$%ee people c"n tell me t$"t (.) #$"t do ' need ou to do( (.) #$"t*s it !oin! to loo+ li+e( (1) u:::$m (.) mo%e people (.) !ood Ad#"%d (.) it*s li:+e (.) it*s !oin! to &e li+e (2.3) #$"t "m ' loo+in! ,o%( (1.4) mo%e po#e%,ul ve%&s e1cellent t$"t ou $"ve c$osen mo%e po#e%,ul ve%&s (.) t$"t*s #$"t '*m loo+in! ,o% eve% &od unde%st"nd #$"t ou% t"s+ is ple"se( e"$ (.) %i!$t !o "nd sit do#n ple"se
In this segment Ciss Cillpond con"ures up an image of herself poring over the pupilsB or$boo$s ith a highlighting mar$er. She encounters an example of pupil learning, as defined by the mar$ing criteria % in this case, a po erful verb. She "oyfully highlights this /evidence0 of learning, exclaiming, /!his child has done itV ?as succeededV ?as succeededV ?as succeededV0 Ciss Cillpond not only focuses the children on the learning ob"ective but also evo$es the need, created by the inspection regime, to produce evidence of success. !he relationship bet een learning ob"ective and communicative purpose is complicated here. Fn the one hand, the learning ob"ective dominates the lesson, eclipsing potential rhetorical purposes. Fn the other
p. (=
hand, since the ob"ective involves /choosing more po erful verbs0, and relative po er is necessarily a function of rhetorical context and purpose, the ob"ective is itself obscured. In summary, this discussion has revolved primarily around the Auestion of hat ma$es a verb more or less po erful. It appears that many pupils treated this issue mechanically, ithout
attention to the purpose of the sentence or even the candidate verbsB meanings. !hey identified verbs )unless they ere pre-determined for them+, searched for alternatives in the thesaurus )or on a poster+ and replaced the given verbs ith one of the synonyms they found. !heir choices suggest that they preferred obscure, specific and longer ords over more common, general or shorter synonyms. !his approach as facilitated by the structure of the tas$s, in hich sentences ere considered out of meaningful contexts )and, in some cases, verbs out of the context of sentences+, and to a certain extent by the content of classroom discourse. !heir implicit theory of po erful verbs, according to hich po er is an essential Auality of the verb, is of course logically fla ed, since a ordBs effectiveness depends on the context of its use, including text, audience and purpose.
/$ 1iscussion In the preceding sections I sho ed ho national policy as translated into curricular materials, and ho those materials ere in turn enacted in the classroom. !he policy sought to advance a broadly rhetorical approach to grammar teaching, and indeed a number of $ey rhetorical grammar principles ere reflected in the curricular materials: e.g. grammatical problems ere explored ithin meaningful contexts, no one correct ans er as expected, and pupilsB tacit $no ledge as treated as a reliable resource. ?o ever, I illustrated ho in the po erful verbs lesson many of these principles ere undermined in the process of curricular
p. ((
enactment. Cost of the activities and:or related classroom discourse severed verb choice from potentially meaningful contexts, and an essentialist theory of po erful verbs dominated the lesson. It is important to note that, although many rhetorical grammar principles ere th arted, the lesson does not reflect a reversion to rule-based grammar in all respects. 4or example, Ciss Cillpond as open to a number of possible ans ers to the Auestion of hich verb as most po erful. 7i$e ise, she in no ay endorsed the essentialist rule implicitly guiding many pupilsB determinations of verbsB po er. >either standard grammar nor correct expression ere emphasised, nor did the class focus on the correction of common errors. 4inally, Ciss Cillpond encouraged pupils to exercise independent "udgment )e.g. in extract =+. It appears that the lesson reflects a mixture of elements of rhetorical grammar, rule-based grammar and other practices, not directly related to grammar teaching, hich I explore belo . ?o can this outcome be explained? I address this Auestion in terms of both local factors % i.e. ,hy did essentialism emerge as the dominant theory of po erful verbs in this lesson? % and broader conditions: i.e. ,hat are the factors that made this particular lesson possible or even li$ely? I highlight four issues: the lac$ of an alternative explanation for po erful verbs, hich I relate to teacher $no ledge about language and the curricular materials8 tas$ structure, rooted in the literacy hour structure8 the application of a procedural pedagogical model, part of the /grammar0 of contemporary schooling8 and the focus on evidence, related to the accountability regime.
A$# E( lanatory 6acuum7 !eacher +nowledge a"out Language and the Curricular Materials
p. (3
&ssentialism emerged in an explanatory vacuum, created by the absence of coherent guidance about ho to distinguish po erful from simple verbs. Indeed, not only did Ciss Cillpond esche positive explanations of the matter, she also further mystified it by emphasising its sub"ective and context-dependent nature )see extract =+. So the main clues pupils had to rely upon ere )a+ the given verbs, presumed to be simple, hich tended to be common, monosyllabic ords )e.g. eat, run, close, sleep+, and )b+ the examples of po erful verbs highlighted by Ciss Cillpond, hich tended to be more obscure, more specific and:or longer than their simple counterparts )see e.g. figure 1+. Ciss Cillpond struggled ith this issue in the lesson and in the post-lesson intervie ith
me. ,hile she as troubled by the ay in hich pupils ere selecting verbs % specifically, by their inattention to meaning % she did not appear to have appreciated or understood the rhetorical approach to grammar teaching underlying the Grammar for Writing materials. 6nfortunately, Ciss Cillpond and other teachers have had fe opportunities to learn about this approach to grammar, despite general agreement that teachers are anxious and insecure about their grammatical sub"ect $no ledge, and that provision for $no ledge about language in initial teacher education is inadeAuate )e.g. Da"$ler 1 ?islam, =;;=8 ?udson 1 ,almsley, =;;@8 Cyhill, =;;(+. >7S professional development as based largely on a demonstration and imitation model, in hich the teachers observed live or video demonstrations, hich they ere then expected to emulate. !he Grammar for Writing materials did little to rectify this situation: the /#rinciples and explanation0 bullet points )see section 3.1+ provided insufficient bac$ground or guidance, especially on the fundamental issues of the salient contexts and criteria for "udging a verbBs effectiveness. Indeed, the issue of context as further obscured in the suggested
p. (@
exercises, hich provided textual fragments ithout specifying intended audiences, purposes or communicative situations.
A$0 !ask )tructure and Literacy =our )tructure !he structure of most of the tas$s, in both hole class discussions and independent or$, presented the Auestion of verb choice in relatively meaningless contexts: e.g. an isolated sentence such as /#lease can I eat ice cream?0 or even a decontextualised ord as in the final group tas$s. .s I noted above, such isolation of problem from meaningful context made a rhetorical theory of verb choice unli$ely and un or$able. !his tas$ structure as facilitated by mixed messages in >7S materials and structure. 4irst, Grammar for Writing presents a broad range of possible activities, hich lend themselves to various types of grammar teaching. !hough the ma"ority of these activities reflected rhetorical grammar teaching principles, some did not. Indeed, it is orth noting that the only activity Ciss Cillpond used more or less as prescribed, /7oo$ up0, is also the only one that presents verbs ithout any context hatsoever. Second, and most crucially, is the literacy hour structure, hich allots discrete units of time to ord, sentence and text levels, each ith a corresponding set of learning ob"ectives. Such an organisation poses both practical and conceptual problems. #ractically, eaving together the
various ob"ectives into coherent lessons is a complicated and onerous tas$ )though this tas$ is facilitated by >7S /planning exemplifications0 for some units of or$+. It is much simpler to treat each of the different segments of the 7iteracy ?our as independent units, hich is indeed the path ta$en by most teachers at 7o !ide #rimary School )and in the commercial textboo$
p. (<
most freAuently used in the school+. Donceptually, the fragmentation of grammatical and textual study promotes a /building bloc$s0 model of language, succinctly critiAued by Sealey )1222+: MINt ould be convenient for the strategy if language could be seen as neatly distributed ithin the metaphorical OstructureB imagined in the >7S Framework, a static edifice comprised of sounds, ords and sentences. If texts ere simply collections of sentences put together from these building bloc$s, and if meanings ere inherent in ordsL Eut the Obuilding-bloc$sB model fails to capture the po er of language as meaning potential, a net or$ of options. )p. =1+ So, hile the introductory sections and many of the activities in Grammar for Writing advance a rhetorical approach to grammar teaching, the Strategy structure is based upon and pro"ects a contrary theory of language.
A$/ 5rocedural 5edagogy and the Grammar of )chooling !he primary activity in this lesson % replacing simple verbs ith more po erful alternatives % as not foreign to the Grammar for Writing po erful verbs lesson plan. . number of the given activities involved such a process )e.g. the DloHe activities, .ction verbs+, but the emphasis as placed on examination of the rhetorical effects of different choices, and deliberation about hich choice as best for the given context. . crucial difference bet een the prescribed and enacted activities as that hereas in the former the replacement tas$ as used as a catalyst for critical discussion, in the latter replacement as in and of itself the goal of the lesson % there as almost no consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative verb choices. Fne possible explanation for this difference is that the curricular enactment as guided by a procedural pedagogical model, hich is shared by Ciss Cillpond and her pupils, and is prevalent in &nglish education more generally. In this pedagogical model content $no ledge is bro$en do n into discrete s$ills, converted into a set of procedures, hich are demonstrated by
p. (J
the teacher and then repeatedly practiced by the pupils. In the case of this lesson, replacing simple ith po erful verbs as presented as a component s$ill of effective riting. !he s$ill as further divided into a four-stage procedure that includes identifying verbs, searching for synonyms, assessing verbsB po er, and replacing simple verbs ith more po erful alternatives. Ciss Cillpond demonstrated the process to the pupils )e.g. extract 1+ and assigned to them exercises for practicing the procedure and:or its individual stages. !his procedural pedagogical model is commensurate ith >7S structure and indeed as evident throughout the school and across sub"ect areas. It appears to be deeply embedded in schooling practices and culture beyond 7o !ide #rimary School. 4or example, a ma"or thrust of mathematics education reforms in the past t o decades has been moving from an emphasis on /computational0 or /procedural0 understanding % i.e. ho to use given algorithms to compute solutions to given problems % to an emphasis on conceptual or principled understanding % i.e. a grasp of the mathematical principles upon hich the procedures are based )e.g. 7ampert, 12*<+. !his distinction resonates ith the differences bet een curricular enactment and prescription in the po erful verbs lesson, suggesting that perhaps the critical axis for ma$ing sense of the lesson is not rhetorical vs. rules-based grammar teaching, but rather rhetorical grammar vs. procedural pedagogy. I have borro ed from !yac$ and !obin )1223+ the term /grammar of schooling0 to describe the influence of this pedagogical model: #racticesL structure schools in a manner analogous to the ay grammar organiHes meaning in language. >either the grammar of schooling nor the grammar of speech needs to be consciously understood to operate smoothly. Indeed, much of the grammar of schooling has become so ell established that it is typically ta$en for granted as "ust the ay schools are. )p. 3@3+
p. (*
!hough they examine practices at a different level of analysis )curricular organisation, division of time and space+, their analogy is helpful as a ay of thin$ing about ho procedural pedagogical practices may shape the enactment of >7S policy. In the case of the lesson analysed here, Ciss Cillpond and the pupils interpreted and enacted the problem of po erful verbs ithin the frame provided by the procedural pedagogical model, discarding or transforming those aspects of rhetorical grammar that ere incommensurate ith their habitual classroom roles and practices )7efstein, =;;*+.
A$3 Focus on Evidence and the 2ccounta"ility %egime !he procedural pedagogical orientation discussed in the previous section is reinforced in practice by teachersB need to produce % for accountability purposes % evidence of pupil learning. .s I noted in section 3.=, Ciss Cillpond as oriented to ard the production of such evidence and similarly focused the class on learning products % i.e. getting the or$ done % rather than the learning process % i.e. reasoning about verb choice. ,hat counted in this lesson as completion of the or$sheets such that they included evidence of verbs that could be considered as po erful or more po erful than the verbs they replaced. Such a focus is arguably a direct result of the accountability regime, in hich inspectors chec$ lesson plans and ob"ectives against pupil or$boo$s. !eachersB concerns ith creating evidence of compliance ith >7S prescriptions, and these concernsB impact on the conduct of lessons, as palpable throughout the school, in much less subtle ays than observed in this lesson )7efstein, =;;*8 see also Coss, =;;3+.
2$ +onclusion
p. (2
!his article has traced the tra"ectory of a rhetorical grammar initiative from policy through curricular materials and into the classroom. I have sho n ho the >7S rhetorical approach to grammar teaching, hich is outlined in policy documents and manifested in curricular materials, as th arted in its enactment in one lesson. !hough this lesson should not be vie ed as representative of >7S grammar teaching in general, there are good reasons to assume that many of the issues identified here pose problems for the enactment of rhetorical grammar teaching else here. 4irst, similar enactment processes ere observed in other classrooms in the school. Second, Ciss Cillpond as an .dvanced S$ills !eacher, highly regarded by her colleagues and considered exemplary in her implementation of the >7S. /#o erful verbs0 is a Auintessentially rhetorical grammar topic of study. If rhetorical grammar principles ere subverted in these conditions, they are li$ely to be subverted in less favourable circumstances. !hird, all four of the contributing factors identified % explanatory vacuum, tas$ structure, focus on evidence, and procedural pedagogical model % appear to be related to broader processes: teacher $no ledge about language and related support, the >7S literacy hour structure, the accountability regime and the grammar of schooling. I opened this article by noting that debates about grammar teaching tend to revolve around curricular content: Should grammar be taught? .nd, if so, hich grammar? ?o ever, this article has sho n that a shift to rhetorical grammar has implications for the ay that curriculum is structured, the pedagogical models used, teacher $no ledge about language, and educational governance. ,ould-be reformers of language education must not only address language grammar and its instruction, but also the grammar of schooling and its transformation.
p. 3;
!''endi, % Transcri'tion notations te::xt text >text< 4text [ t? ( ) Stretched sounds &mphasised relative to surrounding tal$ Speeded up relative to surrounding tal$ Slo ed do n relative to surrounding tal$ Fverlapping tal$ or action Word cut off Rising intonation, as in a Auestion !ranscription uncertainty )including blan$ space in parentheses for inaudible utterances+ (.) (1) ((text)) pupil: Erief pause )under one second+ 7onger pause )the number indicates length in seconds+ Description of prosody or non-verbal activity .n unidentified pupil spea$er
p. 31
References .brams, 4. )1221, Qune 13+. Cinister suppresses W=1m study$ !imes Educational )u lement7 pp. 1, (. .gar, K. )12*;+. Everyday Grammar. 7ondon: Dassell 7td. .nderson, S. ?., 1 Eutler, S. )12*=+. 7anguage and #o er in the Dlassroom: .n Intervie ith ?arold Rosen. !he English Bournal7 C#)(+, =3-=*. .ndre s, R., !orgerson, D., Eeverton, S., 4reeman, .., 7oc$e, !., 7o , G., et al. )=;;3a+. !he effect of grammar teaching Dsentence com"iningE in English on A to #F year oldsaccuracy and *uality in written com osition. 7ondon: Research &vidence in &ducation 7ibrary. 7ondon: &##I-Dentre, Social Science Research 6nit, Institute of &ducation. .ndre s, R., !orgerson, D., Eeverton, S., 7oc$e, !., 7o , G., Robinson, .., et al. )=;;3b+. !he effect of grammar teaching Dsynta(E in English on A to #F year olds-accuracy and *uality in written com osition. 7ondon: Research &vidence in &ducation 7ibrary. 7ondon: &##IDentre, Social Science Research 6nit, Institute of &ducation. Eeverton, S. )=;;1+. ,hatever ?appened to #rimary &nglish Kno ledge and 6nderstanding? Evaluation and %esearch in Education7 #A)(+, 1=*-1(@. Eourdieu, #. )122;+. !he logic of ractice )R. >ice, !rans.+. Dambridge: #olity. Eraddoc$, R. R. )12<(+. %esearch in written com osition. Dhampaign, Ill.,: >ational Douncil of !eachers of &nglish. Eura oy, C. )122*+. !he extended case method. )ociological !heory7 #F)1+, 3-((. Da"$ler, ,. )=;;3+. ?o a Dead Eutler as Killed: !he ,ay &nglish >ational Strategies Caim Grammatical #arts. Language and Education7 #G)1+, 1-1<. Da"$ler, ,., 1 ?islam, Q. )=;;=+. !rainee !eachersX Grammatical Kno ledge: !he !ension Eet een #ublic &xpectation and Individual Dompetence. Language 2wareness7 ##)(+, 1<1-1JJ. Dameron, D., 1 Eourne, Q. )12*2+. >o common ground: Kingman, grammar and the nation. Language and Education7 0)(+, 13J-1<;. Darter, R. )1221+. !he ne grammar teaching. In R. Darter )&d.+, +nowledge a"out language and the curriculum4 !he LI,C reader )pp. 1;3-1=1+. 7ondon: ?odder 1 Stoughton. Dox, D. E. )122@+. Co( on the "attle for the English curriculum. 7ondon: ?odder 1 Stoughton. Dro ley, !. )=;;(+. )tandard English and the olitics of language )=nd ed.+. Easingsto$e: #algrave Cacmillan. Davies, G. D., Dillon, S. C., 1 &gerton-Dhesney, D. )12*1+. Master your English4 Common Mistakes. Fxford: Easil Elac$ ell. D&S )Great Eritain Department of &ducation and Science+, 1 >ational Durriculum &nglish ,or$ing Group. )12*2+. English for ages A to #F D#HGHE. 7ondon: ?CSF. Df&& )Great Eritain Department of &ducation and &mployment+. )=;;;+. Grammar for writing. 7ondon: Df&&. Doyle, ,., 1 Darter, K. )12*3+. .cademic !as$s in Dlassrooms. Curriculum In*uiry7 #3)=+, 1=2132. &arl, 7. C., 1 Fntario Institute for Studies in &ducation. )=;;(+. Watching ; learning /4 final re ort of the e(ternal evaluation of EnglandIs national literacy and numeracy strategies. >ottingham: Great Eritain. Dept. for &ducation and S$ills. &ggar, !. )1221, Qune =*, 1221+. Dorrect use of &nglish is essential$ !imes Educational )u lement7 p. 13.
p. 3=
&lley, ,. E., Earham, I. ?., 7amb, ?., 1 ,yllie, C. )12J<+. Role of Grammar in a SecondarySchool &nglish Durriculum. %esearch in the !eaching of English7 #J, @-=1. 4isher, R. )=;;=+. Inside the literacy hour4 learning from classroom e( eriences. 7ondon: Routledge4almer. Gannon, #. )12**+. Kingman: setting the scene. In &. .sh orth 1 7. Casterman )&ds.+, %es onding to +ingman 4 roceedings of a national conference on the +ingman re ort held at ,ottingham Kniversity7 !uesday 0#st Bune #HGG )pp. 1-2+. M>ottinghamN: >ottingham 6niversity School of &ducation. Great Eritain. Dommittee of InAuiry into the !eaching of &nglish 7anguage., 1 Kingman, Q. 4. D. )12**+. %e ort of the Committee of In*uiry into the !eaching of English Language4 a ointed "y the )ecretary of )tate under the chairmanshi of )ir Bohn +ingman7 March #HGG. 7ondon: ?.C.S.F. Green, E. )122*+. Eorn-again teaching? Governmentality, YgrammarY, and public schooling. In !. S. #op$e itH 1 C. Erennan )&ds.+, FoucaultIs challenge4 discourse7 knowledge7 and ower in education )pp. 1J(-=;3+. >e 'or$: !eachers Dollege #ress. ?art ell, #. )12*@+. Grammar, Grammars, and the !eaching of Grammar. College English7 3C)=+, 1;@-1=J. ?illoc$s, G. )12*3+. ,hat ,or$s in !eaching Domposition - a Ceta-.nalysis of &xperimental !reatment Studies. 2merican Bournal of Education7 H/)1+, 1((-1J;. ?udson, R. )=;;1+. Grammar teaching and riting s$ills: the research evidence. )ynta( in the )chools #C, 1-<. ?udson, R., 1 ,almsley, Q. )=;;@+. !he &nglish patient: &nglish grammar and teaching in the ! entieth Dentury. English !eaching4 5ractice and Criti*ue7 3)(+. Kolln, C. )12*1+. Dlosing the Eoo$s on .lchemy. College Com osition and Communication7 /0)=, 7anguage Studies and Domposing+, 1(2-1@1. 7ampert, C. )12*<+. Kno ing, Doing, and !eaching Cultiplication. Cognition and Instruction7 /)3+, (;@ - (3=. 7efstein, .. )=;;@+. !eacher enactments of the English ,ational Literacy )trategy : an e(tended case study$ 6npublished Doctoral dissertation, KingXs Dollege 7ondon, 7ondon. 7efstein, .. )=;;*+. Dhanging Dlassroom #ractice through the &nglish >ational 7iteracy Strategy: . Cicro-Interactional #erspective. 2merican Educational %esearch Bournal7 3A)(+, J;1-J(J. Cino , C., 1 Spelman, &. R. )1221+. In context. In C. Erint 1 ,. ,eaver )&ds.+, 5ragmatism in law and society )pp. =3J-=J(+. Eoulder, Dolorado: ,estvie . Citchell, Q. D. )12*(+. Dase and Situation .nalysis. )ociological %eview7 /#)=+, 1*J-=11. Coss, G. )=;;3+. Dhanging practice: !he >ational 7iteracy Strategy and the politics of literacy policy. Literacy7 /G)(+, 1=<-1((. Cyhill, D. )=;;(+. #rincipled understanding? !eaching the active and passive voice. Language and Education7 #C)@+, (@@-(J;. >ational 7iteracy Strategy )>7S+. )=;;;+. !arget statements for writing. #rimary ?eadteacher Donference % .utumn =;;;: 7eading on 7iteracy. Fffice for Standards in &ducation )Ffsted+. )=;;=+. !he ,ational Literacy )trategy4 the first four years #HHG:0JJ0 )>o. ?CI @@@+. 7ondon: Ffsted. Fffice for Standards in &ducation )F4S!&D+. )=;;1+. !he ,ational Literacy )trategy4 the third year4 an evaluation "y =MI. 7ondon: Ffsted. #oulson, 7. )122*+. !he English curriculum in schools. 7ondon: Dassell.
p. 3(
Sualifications and Durriculum .uthority )Great Eritain+. )122*+. !he grammar a ers4 ers ectives on the teaching of grammar in the national curriculum. M7ondonN: SD.. Rampton, E. )=;;<+. Language in Late Modernity4 Interaction in an Kr"an )chool$ Dambridge: Dambridge 6niversity #ress. Richmond, Q. )1221+. ,hat do e mean by $no ledge about language? In R. Darter )&d.+, +nowledge a"out language and the curriculum4 !he LI,C reader )pp. =(-33+. 7ondon: ?odder 1 Stoughton. Rubba, Q. )=;;=+. . revie of the >ational 7iteracy Strategy: Grammar for riting. )ynta( in the )chools, #H)1+, 1-J. Sealey, .., 1 6niversity of ,ar ic$. Dentre for Research in &lementary and #rimary &ducation. )1222+. !heories a"out language in the ,ational Literacy )trategy. Doventry: Dentre for Research in &lementary and #rimary &ducation 6niversity of ,ar ic$. Stannard, Q., 1 ?uxford, 7. )=;;J+. !he literacy game4 the story of the ,ational Literacy )trategy. .bingdon, Fxon: Routledge. Street, E. R., 7efstein, .., 1 #ahl, K. )=;;J+. !he >ational 7iteracy Strategy in &ngland: contradictions of control and creativity. In Q. 7arson )&d.+, Literacy as snake oil4 "eyond the *uick fi( )=nd ed.+. >e 'or$: #eter 7ang. !omlinson, D. )1223+. &rrors in the research into the effectiveness of grammar teaching. English in Education7 0G, =;-=<. !yac$, D., 1 !obin, ,. )1223+. !heY GrammarY of Schooling: ,hy ?as it Eeen so ?ard to Dhange? 2merican Educational %esearch Bournal7 /#)(+, 3@(-3J2. RalUry, #. )1231+. !el *uel. #aris: Gallimard. ,ardhaugh, R. )1222+. 5ro er English4 myths and misunderstandings a"out language. Fxford: Elac$ ell. ,yse, D. )=;;1+. Grammar. 4or riting? . critical revie of empirical evidence. Lritish Bournal of Educational )tudies7 3H)3+, 311-3=J.
!c3nowledgements I am grateful to Richard .ndre s, Ron Darter, Riv &llis, .manda Godley, Qohn ?ardcastle, .lexandra Qaffe, Een Rampton, Erian Street, Celinda ,hong, .ndre ,right, t o anonymous revie ers, and participants at the annual meetings of the .merican &ducational Research .ssociation )=;;J+ and Eritish .ssociation of .pplied 7inguistics )=;;<+ for helpful comments on previous drafts of this article. Endnotes In adopting such an expansive approach to /grammar0 I follo the lead of the educational materials I am investigating. = It is orth noting that in this example the lesson topic )singular vs. plural verbs+ and Cr. Eea$Bs explanation are irrelevant to ,ilfredBs /errors0 in the opening dialogue, hich relate to the differences bet een first and second person singular past tense forms of the verb to "e. ( #aul RalUry )1231+ comments on the /meaning0 of school grammar texts: /Muia nominor Leo does not mean For my name is Lion but: I am an example of grammar0 )Auoted in Eourdieu, 122;, p. (=+. 3 See belo for more details about this textboo$ and the policy bac$ground against hich it as introduced. @ Discussions of the history of grammar teaching in &ngland, upon hich the follo ing brief and partial summary is based, may be found in Eeverton )=;;1+, Darter )1221+, Dox )122@+, Dro ley )=;;(+, Green )122*+, ?udson 1 ,almsley )=;;@+, #oulson )122*+, SD. )122*: paper 1+, Richmond )1221+ and ,ardhaugh )1222+. < See ?illoc$s )12*3+ for an influential meta-analysis and ,yse )=;;1+ and .ndre s et al. )=;;3a, =;;3b+ for recent 6K-oriented revie s. 4or dissenting vie s see ?udson )=;;1+, Kolln )12*1+ and !omlinson )1223+. J Darter )1221+, hile hopeful that pupil explicit $no ledge about language might enhance riting performance, as cautious on this point, asserting only that /such a connection is plausible0 )p. 1<+. * &ggar also too$ exception to the 7I>D indirect enactment model, hich concentrated on teacher professional development as a means for changing classroom practice. ?e favoured a more direct model, in hich government provided teachers ith materials to be used ith pupils )i.e. the >ational 7iteracy Strategy model+. 2 See Stannard 1 ?uxford )=;;J+ for descriptions of the >7S and a first-hand account of its development. See 4isher )=;;=+, &arl and colleagues )=;;(+, Coss )=;;3+ and Ffsted )=;;=+ for studies of its implementation. 4or critiAues of the >7S treatment of grammar education see Sealey )1222+ and Da"$ler )=;;3+. Cost >7S materials are available online, at http::: .standards.dfes.gov.u$:primary:literacy:. 1; Cy characterisation of the >7S as advancing a rhetorical grammar agenda needs to be Aualified: 4irst, the >7S materials are not monolithic in their approach. .s policy documents, they contain numerous compromises bet een competing interests and perspectives8 although most of the ob"ectives and lesson plans reflect a shift to ard rhetorical grammar principles )relative to hat came before+, some are more closely aligned ith rule-based grammar. Second, as I ill argue in the conclusion, the rhetorical grammar aspects are undermined by the literacy hour structure and other elements of the Strategy. 11 See also Da"$ler )=;;3+ for inaccuracies in >7S texts, and Rubba )=;;=+ for a generally favourable revie of Grammar for Writing, hich also criticises the text for its /minimalist approach0, for /missed opportunities to connect sentence-level grammar to text structure0, for /features of traditional, prescriptive grammar that survive in the program0, and for /occasional sexist examples0. 1= >ames used for the teacher, school and pupils are pseudonyms. 1( !he &nglish >ational Durriculum divides compulsory schooling into four /$ey stages0: 'ears 1-= )@-J years old+ are Key Stage 1 )KS1+8 'ears (-< )J-11 years old+ are KS=8 'ears J-2 )11-13 years old+ are KS(8 and 'ears 1;-11 )13-1< years old+ are KS3. .t the time of this research, national standardised tests ere administered at the end of each $ey stage )the mandatory KS( tests ere cancelled in =;;*+. 13 >ote that I have not analysed the guided riting session, since my record of that activity is very partial )I primarily observed and or$ed ith pupils engaging in independent or$+. 1@ It is orth noting that this last cloHe exercise, hich ith its one correct ans er most closely resembles more traditional, rule-based tas$s, as assigned to the /lo est0 ability group in the class, suggesting that the distribution of ideas about grammar teaching may be stratified according to perceived ability groups, ith rhetorical grammar targeted to /more able0 pupils. 1< See appendix for transcription notations. 1J ItBs more complicated than that of course. ?udson and Earton )=;;=+ distinguish bet een three types of synonyms: exact synonyms )e.g. lorry:truc$+, general:specific pairs )e.g. tree:oa$+, and contrasting pairs )e.g. rain:driHHle+. !heir conclusion is particularly apt here: /So the one thing not to tell the children is that they should use a thesaurus to avoid repetition. . thesaurus is a very crude tool indeed except in the hands of an expert.0

Lefstein2009rhetoricRhetorical Grammar and The Grammar of Schoolingal Grammar

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lefstein2009rhetoricRhetorical Grammar and The Grammar of Schoolingal Grammar

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Keit$: M. Millpond: Keit$: M. Millpond: Keit$: M. Millpond:

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Tr these s non ms0

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

t$"t it*s in Ad#"%d (.) )K

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Stephan: M. Millpond: Seth: M. Millpond:

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Ad#"%d: M. Millpond: Ad#"%d: M. Millpond:

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi