Dear Craig:

I have no argument with your perspective. I feel just the same (with 
some insignificant differences). I take my students where they are, 
but I want them to grow and acquire the language skills which will 
make them successful in the business world, just like you want to do.

Yes, we can discuss and debate, and this might be nice. Be we have to 
deal almost every day with practical matters which relate to guiding 
and motivating students to do want to work hard, to want to do their 
best, and to want to succeed.

And yes, I am quite passionate about knowledge in general and more so 
about language knowledge.


Regards,

Eduard 





On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Craig Hancock wrote...

>Eduard,
>    These are delightful polemics, and I want to say I also share a 
deep
>frustration (as do most on this list) with the unconscionable lack of
>attention to language in our school curriculums. I would just like to
>try to clarify a few ways in which you may be misunderstanding my
>position.
>    When we say a student already "knows" grammar, we are saying 
they have
>internalized a system of complex rules.  For example, they "know' the
>order of operations in a noun phrase ("A very bright college
>student"), something that is very hard to teach (to bring to 
conscious
>understanding.)The prescriptive rules (like using "whom" in objective
>case, not using "I" in a formal paper, whatever) just float on the
>surface of this deeper language.  Prescriptive grammar, in other
>words, aims at changing SOME behavior, but doesn't go any deeper than
>that. (I know that's not your position.  I think you and I share an
>interest in seeing study of language go much deeper than that.)
>    I agree that language acquisition depends enormously on 
interaction
>and exposure. My wife and I have read to our children almost from the
>day they were born, and they are now lifetime readers. No one is 
going
>to pick up vocabulary without exposure to it.  (Exposure seems more
>important than direct teaching.)  I have absolutely no desire to make
>apologies for some kid hanging on the corner with nothing to talk
>about but drugs and sex. But if that kid comes into my classroom 
(some
>version of him always will), my first step will be to try to put his
>language to work in some sort of engaged text. A more mature language
>has to build from what he already has.  We have no real choice in
>this. And it should build from an appreciation that what he has,
>however undeveloped, is already substantial. He simply has no
>experience putting it to work in the kinds of tasks required by
>writing. If appropriately engaged, progress can be quick and
>remarkable.  In my case, if the student doesn't adjust, he/she will
>flunk out of college, pure and simple. They need to write clearly and
>thoughtfully, and they need to engage in the intellectual practices
>demanded of them in the environment of their chosen fields.  Simply
>correcting the surface features of their writing will not get us
>there.
>    The choice is not simply between prescriptive and descriptive
>approaches, especially if descriptive is seen as non-judgemental. 
>Functional approaches (for example, the systemic functional grammar 
of
>M.A.K. Halliday) advocate LANGUAGE AWARENESS, helping  students 
become
> conscious users of language, fully capable of using language
>purposefully within whatever contexts they wish to function.
>    I would like to think my students would tell you that I am a very
>demanding (and helpful) teacher.  My quarrel with most 
prescriptivists
>is that they hardly ever push their students.  Avoiding error is a
>tawdry and demeaning goal. Generally, too, (and I don't think this is
>true of you), they are more concerned with language habits than they
>are with deeper understanding. No one writes in order to avoid error.
>No one buys a book because it's correct.
>    For every student you find who is overconfident, I can probably 
come
>up with ten who believe they do not have the resources to be 
competent
>writers.  Many know they make mistakes, but feel fairly helpless 
about
>that. I wish they knew more than they do so that it would be easier 
to
>talk.
>    The hope of many people on ATEG is that we can influence a much
>greater attention to language in the language arts curriculum. In
>composition, my main field, this frightens people who believe this
>means they are being asked to stop teaching writing and go back to
>red-pencilling errors, a method of teaching that has been problematic
>in the past. "No child Left Behind" seems more interested in shallow
>testing than it does in critical literacy.           >
>    Of course, the great benefit of deep study of language is that 
you are
>able to look at prescriptive recommendations and understand and
>evaluate them.  (Many seem very dysfunctional to me.)It's not an
>either/or choice.
>   Before anything of mine hits print (my emails are sometimes 
informal)it
>has probably been rewritten many times. Very, very little of that has
>to with "correctness." (Although I'm a very clumsy typist.)A great 
deal
>of that has to do with bringing sentences in line with an evolving
>purpose, and grammar has everything in the world to do with that.
>   I have had a few Korean students (not Korean-American) with very
>sophisticated knowledge about language. It would be interesting to
>explore what they do in their schools.
>   I hope this helps.  From our discussions so far, you seem 
intuitively
>gracious, but very passionate about your positions. I think there are
>ways in which we have common cause.  But let me know if that leaves 
you
>with questions.
>
>
>Craig

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/