From the sidelines, I'VE HAD AN EPIPHANY which seems to be  
reinforced by Johanna's message quoting Chomsky --- DON'T call it  
English.  Call it STANDARD English.   !!!!!

  As Chomsky said

>> one would have to ask whether my
>> children would suffer in the real world of power, authority,
>> inequality, and coercion if they were not to acquire relevant  
>> features
>> of the dominant culture. Surely this consideration would have to be
>> given weight, if the welfare of my children were to be taken into
>> account.

It's the title of the course that is the problem.

Rebecca Watson


On Jul 21, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

>    Another forwarded message from Johanna. Happy to be of service.
>
> Craig--
>
> -------------------------- Original Message  
> ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Scope and Sequence & Trad. grammar]
> From:    "Johanna Rubba" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:    Thu, July 20, 2006 11:38 pm
> To:      "New Public Grammar public grammar"  
> <[log in to unmask]>
>          "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc:      "Johanna Rubba" <[log in to unmask]>
>          "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----
>
> Hi, Craig,
>
> Sorry to bother you again. I wonder if you would post this for me.
> Apologies for the length.
>
> Chomsky on grammar teaching, 1987. From "Language, Language  
> Development
> and Reading" - Noam Chomsky interviewed by Lillian R. Putnam. Reading
> Instruction Journal, Fall 1987
>
> "QUESTION: Reading teachers are concerned with language acquisition
> since oral language provides a basis for reading. In your writing, you
> state that at birth, children are genetically programmed to acquire
> language and that it is innate. Is, then, the heavy emphasis placed on
> language development by nursery schools and kindergartens justified?
>
> CHOMSKY: There is little doubt that the basic structure of language  
> and
> the principles that determine the form and interpretation of sentences
> in any human language are in large part innate. But it does not follow
> that emphasis on language development is misplaced. If a child is
> placed in an impoverished environment, innate abilities simply will  
> not
> develop, mature, and flourish. To take an extreme case, a child who
> wears a cast on its legs for too long will never learn to walk, and a
> child deprived of appropriate nutrition may undergo puberty only after
> a long delay, or never, though there is no doubt that walking and
> sexual maturation are innately determined biological properties.
> Similarly, a child brought up in an institution may have ample
> experience and nutrition, but still may not develop normally, either
> physically or mentally, if normal human interaction is lacking.
>
> It is a traditional insight that teaching is not like filling a cup
> with water, but more like enabling a flower to grow in its own way;  
> but
> it will not grow and flourish without proper care. Language
> development, like all human development, will be heavily determined by
> the nature of the environment, and may be severely limited unless the
> environment is appropriate. A stimulating environment is required to
> enable natural curiosity, intelligence, and creativity to develop, and
> to enable our biological capacities to unfold. The fact that the  
> course
> of development is largely internally determined does not mean that it
> will proceed without care, stimulation, and opportunity.
>
> QUESTION: We realize that linguistics is the scientific study of
> language, and not a recipe for language instruction. If teachers in
> primary grades were familiar with your work, what kinds of changes or
> emphases might they make in reading instruction? What general
> suggestions would help them?
>
> CHOMSKY: I'm hesitant even to suggest an answer to this question.
> Practitioners have to decide for themselves what is useful in the
> sciences, and what is not. As a linguist, I have no particular
> qualifications or knowledge that enables or entitles me to prescribe
> methods of language instruction. As a person, I have my own ideas on
> the topic, based on my own experience (in part, as a teacher of
> language to children), introspection, and personal judgment, but these
> should not be confused with some kind of professional expertise,
> presented from on high. My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that
> at any level, from nursery to graduate school, teaching is largely a
> matter of encouraging natural development. The best "method" of
> teaching is to make it clear that the subject is worth learning,  
> and to
> allow the child's -- or adult's -- natural curiosity and interest in
> truth and understanding to mature and develop. That is about 90% of  
> the
> problem, if not more. Methods of instruction may influence the  
> residue.
>
> QUESTION: Many of our early beliefs about the nature of language of
> disadvantaged children have been disproven by research, for example,
> that Black English is deficient or inferior; or that it fails to
> provide an adequate basis for abstract thinking. Speakers of Black
> English want their children to learn Standard English. Is this best
> done by direct instruction or by osmosis?
>
> CHOMSKY: Anyone who was familiar with language took for granted, or
> should have taken for granted, that so-called Black English is  
> simply a
> language on a par with my urban Philadelphia dialect of English, the
> English of High Table at Oxford, Japanese, Greek, etc. If race, class,
> and other power relations were to change, Black English might  
> emerge as
> the standard language and what I speak would be regarded as defective.
> None of this has anything to do with the nature of languages. The idea
> that Black English, or my urban dialect, or any other language  
> fails to
> provide an adequate basis for abstract thinking is utterly  
> implausible,
> and I think one should be extremely skeptical about claims to the
> contrary. Typically, they are based on gross misunderstanding.
>
> Questions nevertheless arise about what should be taught in the
> schools. If speakers of Black English came to dominate and control
> American society, so that my speech would be regarded as nonstandard
> and defective, then it might be argued that my children should be
> taught the language of the dominant culture, Black English, not the
> particular variety of English that I speak. The decision would not be
> based on characteristics of the language, or on some ludicrous beliefs
> about how certain languages stand in the way of abstract thought, but
> rather on other considerations. Thus one would have to ask whether my
> children would suffer in the real world of power, authority,
> inequality, and coercion if they were not to acquire relevant features
> of the dominant culture. Surely this consideration would have to be
> given weight, if the welfare of my children were to be taken into
> account.
>
> On the other hand, if my children were to be instructed in what  
> amounts
> to a foreign language, their intellectual development might be
> inhibited; there is little doubt, for example, that it would be harder
> for them to learn to read if the language of instruction were Black
> English, which is not the language that they acquired in their
> preschool environment. The same questions would arise if I had  
> moved to
> Italy when my children were young. Exactly how these factors should be
> balanced is not a simple question, and there is no reason to believe
> that there is any uniform answer to them; too many factors vary.
>
> My own personal judgment, for what it is worth, is that speakers of a
> language that is not that of groups that dominate some society should
> probably be taught in their own languages at least at the very early
> stages, until basic skills are acquired, and should be taught in the
> dominant language at later stages, so that they can enter the society
> without suffering disadvantages that are rooted in the prevailing
> power, privilege, and domination. One might hope to modify these
> features of the dominant society, but that is another question.
> Children have to be helped to function in the world that exists, which
> does not mean, of course, that they -- or others -- should not try to
> change it to a better world."
>
> I am not presuming to express any firm judgments or to offer general
> proposals. There are a great many factors to consider, and the answers
> will surely not be the same for every person or every circumstance. We
> have to do here not with problems of language, but of the society at
> large, and they have to be confronted in these terms.
>
> 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/