Craig feels that my comments to his posts are hostile.
> Is there anything in the world to be gained by this kind of hostility?
I regret that some of my comments have a tinge of hostility in them. However, in my discipline, I learned to look at the data behind claims. Because the following by Craig is at such a high level of generality, I have no idea how to evaluate it.
> Both cognitive and functional grammar look at a sentence as a construal
> of experience. That offers great promise for writers looking at the
> reasons for one choice over another. It may very well give us a way to
> respond to those who feel grammar is all about error, not about
> meaning. A few of us have had some success presenting these ideas at
> the 4C's conference, and we have a full workshop scheduled again this
> year, this time on the grammar/genre connection.
OK, so Craig has clearly presented on the "great promise" of cognitive and functional grammar.
Could he just give us ONE example of what the promise is? Apparently making this request of something he has already done is hostile.
****
The conclusion of Craig's post is interesting for what he finds problematic and what he should not be required to provide. The work Jim Kenkel and I have done is narrowly focused and this problematic for him.
> As you say, your articles with Jim are fairly narrowly focused. People
> seem to accept grammar instruction more readily when it's error focused
> or targeted to basic writers. I don't mean that as dismissive. I would
> be genuinely interested in a more widely focused position.
Fair enough. However, it is not problematic for him that he doesn't have a full program.
> Apparently, I should be ridiculed for not having a full program worked
> out.
I have not ridiculed him for not having "a full program." I just asked in my previous post for an example of one point.
I don't believe any theory of language is going to provide "a full program." I just want to read something more specific than "Both cognitive and functional grammar look at a sentence as a construal of experience."
For example, I have no idea how "looking at a sentence as a construal of experience" (whatever that means) applies to any of my experiences as a teacher of writing and grammar.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
Craig,
>
> There are number of points to respond to in your post addressed to Jim.
>
> I only want to address a challenge you make because it shows a conscience
> dismissal of anything that disagrees with your own program. Craig writes:
>
>> If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
>> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
>> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
>> back?
>
> Neither Jim nor I have held out on this. Over the past several years, we
> have mentioned two papers, one in the Journal of Second Language and the
> other the Journal of Basic Writing that assume a generative perspective.
>
> Kenkel, James, & Yates, Robert. (2003). A developmental perspective on
> the relationship between grammar and text. Journal of Basic Writing, 22,
> 35-49.
>
> Yates, Robert, & Kenkel, James (2002). Responding to sentence-level
> errors. Journal of Second language Writing. 22, 29-47.
>
> Granted they only deal with specific domains and do not address THE
> crisis. Assuming a generative perspective, both papers deal with specific
> issues of grammar, grammatical knowledge, and writing. They both offer
> solutions. We know that you are aware of them and, I think, you claim to
> have read them.
>
> By the way, both Noguichi and DeBeaugrande use generative assumptions for
> how grammar needs to be approached.
>
> Over the past several years, you keep mentioning how cognitive linguistics
> is more useful to "solve the crisis of grammar in the schools" than a
> generative perspective. However, you have never shared with us specifics
> on this claim. In other words, how is one of the crisis points in grammar
> in the schools solved by a cognitive linguistic perspective?
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> ******************
>
>
> The post by Craig that I'm responding to.
> Jim,
> I'm happy you're taking the time to air out frustrations. I have some
> of my own. I take your post in good faith and respond in kind.
> In pretty much every one of those posts, Bob is the one who challenges
> new ideas. He seems, quite frankly, to be threatened by them. I don't
> start these conversations. I don't write posts criticizing generative
> grammar. In fact, as evidenced by his post on the physics question, I
> usually regret my conversations with Bob very quickly. I would be happy
> to ignore his posts, but he often pounces on mine. I would like to have
> different views layed side by side instead of being asked to defend so
> often. I would like friendly clarification questions, not "I don't see
> how this can possibly be true" or "If Craig thought hard about
> cognitive linguistics he would see" sort of statements. He seems to
> want to hold me up as the pillar of these positions, so he can
> discredit them by discrediting me. He seems to want to derail
> productive talk about positions different from his own. In short, I
> find his responses very hostile and not at all helpful.
> This current thread started because I said I don't think it is a given
> that all children learn language in preordained sequence of stages. If
> we look at it from a cognitive perspective, it's easy to call that
> assumption into question. I'm not sure it's productive to believe that
> all children come to school knowing the same language. If we were more
> attentive to this, perhaps we could be more effective in mentoring
> children into the language of school.
> Cognitive positions are very different from generative positions, and
> the literature presents it that way. I'm not making this stuff up. If I
> prefer one over the other, I don't mean that personally. Quite frankly,
> if I don't bring it up, many people on list won't know this stuff is
> out there. I get posts, by the way, thanking me for it. If I start
> getting complaints, I'll stop.
> Is this welcome on the list? I hope so. I will be followng these ideas
> out somewhere. I am passionate about it and will find people to talk
> to.
> If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
> back?
> I'm sorry I missed your comment on innateness. It seems to contradict
> what Bob has been saying. He seems to reject the idea that there can be
> "a grammar of advanced literacy." Would that include physics? Is it
> possible that advanced literacy differs in the technical disciplines?
> Do your views on this differ from Bob's?
> Bob seems to dismiss the possibility.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Craig,
>> I suspect that some of the exacerbation/frustration that crept into
>> Bob's responses to your posts are not very different from mine.
>>
>> First - and foremost for me - is your insistence in these
>> discussions
>> that generative-inspired notions of grammar have NOTHING to say that
>> is useful to the goal of promoting the teaching of grammar. In fact,
>> you over and over again maintain that generative grammar is even
>> responsible for this situation because you believe that generative
>> grammar claims that grammar is learned naturally from very ordinary
>> exposure to input/verbal interaction . . . whatever.
>> Over a period of several years now, this claim of yours has been
>> responded to many times. However, you continue to present to the list
>> the same gross misrepresentations of generative grammar, and then go
>> on to appeal to this parody as reason for dismissing the assumptions
>> of generative grammar as potentially relevant to this list's concerns,
>> and you repeatedly position generative grammar as a clear negative.
>>
>> This rhetorical strategy of yours is "tiresome" and "frustrating."
>> What is the point of it?
>>
>> Just two days ago, on Friday, February 06, 2009 1:26 PM, you
>> presented
>> the latest example of this rhetorical strategy, one I consider
>> uncollegial and irresponsible, and which I hope we would try to avoid
>> on this list.
>>
>> "If you think grammar is innate and meaningfully neutral, just a
>> system of forms, then don't teach it. It just happens. If you see it
>> as learned and deeply connected to cognition and discourse, then you
>> ought to attend to it and not just expect it to happen.
>>
>> There are views of language which support the teaching of grammar and
>> views of language that support our current status quo. Bob and I are on
>> opposite poles of that argument."
>>
>> This claim is both ridiculous and insulting. No one who reads this
>> list
>> can believe that Bob Yates, active here for more than a decade and
>> involved with ATEG since 1991, supports the "status quo." Nor can
>> anyone who reads this list believe that Bob Yates believes that grammar
>> knowledge of the type this list is most interested in - i.e., the
>> grammar of more advanced literacy - "just happens."
>>
>> Two months ago on this list there was a discussion about
>> "innateness."
>> I made a small contribution to that discussion on Dec 9 and argued
>> that no "generativist" would claim that the grammar of advanced
>> literacy would be learned without some kind of focused
>> attention/instruction. At the time, you did not quarrel with what was
>> written, but apparently it had no effect on your thinking. Instead of
>> ignoring what are at least intended to be substantive comments, it
>> would be better to explain why they are problematic.
>>
>> There was also an appeal to move away from the disparaging
>> rhetoric - an appeal which obviously has been disregarded.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can do better than this.
>>
>>
>> Jim Kenkel
>> Eastern Ky Univ
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
