I think GENRE is a very key component of this. different structures show up in different ways in different kinds of texts for good functional reasons. My experience has been that students coming out of high school have been exposed to "literary" texts in their English classes. In the state of New York, the emphasis is on "literary elements," those features of language that are thought of as peculiar to literature (a position that can be disputed.) These texts are organized quite differently from what are normally thought of as "academic texts," and they also differ quite a bit in their language patterns. I find that students coming out of high school cannot tell me the difference between a story and an essay; in fact, they tend to keep referring to essays as "stories" just out of habit. They expect to "interpret" what they read, without a strong sense that a good nonfiction text shouldn't have to be subject to interpretation in the ways they are used to. In other words, a good nonfiction text should make its meaning clear. Meaning in a literary text is often open and implied.
It's interesting that fiction has a lexical density very similar to conversation. The lexical density of academic text is built around complexity in the noun phrases. Fiction has a much higher frequency of pronouns. Whereas fiction tends to organize around plot (and point of view), academic text tends to build coherence differently, quite often by making explicit reference to the text as a text.
I work with students at the college level who will not, for the most part, be English majors. I find that they are radically underprepared for the kinds of reading and writing they will be doing in college, in part because high schools classes are so deeply organized around literature.
I agree that academic writing can be thought of as a second language for most students. Our job is to mentor them into fluency with that language, and we cannot do so just through poems and plays and stories.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Teresa Lintner [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spoken vs. formal written English
Hi Herb,
I am always so impressed by the depth of your knowledge and passion that
you show for your work. The workshop you describe sounds absolutely
wonderful. I only wish you had the notes.
Best,
Terre
Teresa Lintner
Senior Development Editor
Cambridge University Press
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10013-2473
Telephone: 212 337-5070
Fax: 212 645-5960
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: "Stahlke, Herbert" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: 01/06/2012 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Spoken vs. formal written English
Sent by: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
When I used the term “grammar in context” earlier in this context, I was
intentionally using it in a broader sense that it typically has in the
literature. A number of years ago I did a summer workshop for writing
teachers in which we chose constructions and grammatical categories on the
basis of discourse needs. So we dealt with constructions that change focus
and topic, ways of foregrounding and backgrounding, etc. That led us to
talking about phrases, clauses, parts of speech, grammatical relations,
etc. always in the context of effective expression. Unfortunately, I no
longer have the notes or papers from that class, but I remember iis fondly.
The students, all secondary and middle writing teachers, were a very
thoughtful bunch. Of course, Martha Kolln’s work is deservedly respected
for its pioneering of this sort of approach.
In my grammar classes, I’ve frequently used poems as objects of analysis.
One of my favorites, and one of the most challenging, is Sir Philip
Sidney’s sonnet “With how sad steps.”
With how sad steps, O Moon, thou climb’st the skies,
How silently, and with how wan a face!
What! May it be that even in heav’nly place
That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?
Sure, if that long-with-love-acquainted eyes 5
Can judge of love, thou feel’st a lover’s case.
I read it in thy looks, thy languisht grace
To me, that feel the like, thy state descries.
Then, ev’n of fellowship, O Moon, tell me,
Is constant love deem’d there but want of wit? 10
Are beauties there as proud as here they be?
Do they above love to be lov’d, and yet
Those lovers scorn whom that love doth possess?
Do they call virtue there ungratefulness?
Sidney is, of course, mid-sixteenth c., which means Early Modern English,
and that makes his language a bit of a challenge for students. As an
exercise, try grammatically analyzing the four sentences found in the last
six lines.
On an old chestnut of a topic, the poem also illustrates some interesting
historical phenomena in the uses of “that.”
Line 3: “that” is a subordinating conjunction
Line 5: “that” is an EME use of that to mark “if” as a subordinating
construction.
Line 8: “that” introduces a nonrestrictive relative clause, something
grammars generally tell us is wrong.
Line 13: “that” functions as in line 5, supporting “whom” as a
subordinator.
But that’s another topic.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spoken vs. formal written English
Hello...
I'm understanding that the "grammar in context" model means finding
grammatical functions and processes that just happen to happen in a given
piece of prose, academic or otherwise. But then what? We take out a
sentence, a clause, a phrase, whatever and analyze it for its grammar (what
other choice would we have, anyway, since we're bound to a few words at a
time when reading that way?). If "context" simply means the plot, focus,
theme, purpose, or audience of a text, then analyzing how grammar works
specifically to that context is really more about analyzing rhetorical
strategies (looking at bits of language for what they do to the larger
whole and thus to the reader/listener). Looking sentence level for things
like adjectives etc is looking at grammar isolated - and I'm not saying
that's a bad thing. We study prepositional phrases first and then read
Hemingway - and it clicks. Maybe I haven't seen a successful "context"
model for the High School level... and to get back to the SAT and other
high stakes tests, the grammar error identification questions look at
single sentences without larger rhetorical/narrative context. We'd like to
be able to approach many goals; carrying sound reading comprehension
strategies that consider both grammar and rhetoric and also being able to
pass a very cold state, board, or agency test is often a funky marriage for
the average student.
Teresa - we use Prentice Hall Literature anthologies for which Kate
Kinsella happens to be a contributing author. I was fascinated by the
"Academic English Second Language" assertion, as we've had this
conversation among faculty dozens of times. Yet teachers simply go ahead
and assign x number of pages to read and still wonder why students (who
actually do pass their eyes over letters and words) come back and fail
reading check quizzes. I'd like to know more about her comments and
suggestions, especially since she writes for textbooks...
Thank you...
John
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Dixon, Jack <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Terre and Herb,
Herb raises some excellent questions for us to consider as we think through
how we teach grammar -- all the language arts, actually. I think his idea
about "a much more thorough-going grammar in context model" is very
important. I certainly agree with the idea of teaching grammar in context,
but I have also observed that often "grammar in context" means not teaching
much grammar (or language development) at all. Herb's idea of a more
carefully thought through scope and sequence would be very helpful --
though I recognize all the problems confronting anyone willing to take on
this onerous task. We've discussed this issue numerous times in one way or
another on this site.
Terre's integrated approach to teaching reading, vocabulary, writing, and
grammar makes much sense. Finding those readings that students find
relevant can certainly be a problem. (I've found one on car buying that my
college students enjoy; the author, a former car salesman, discusses how
customers are manipulated because of their ignorance.)
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Teresa Lintner
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spoken vs. formal written English
Hi Herb,
Textbooks for teaching grammar to English Language Learners in secondary
and higher education are going in the direction of teaching grammar in
context, especially in more academic contexts. It's much easier to get
students to use adjectives, say, if you start off with an article on
worker's rights and then discuss the article as well as students'
experiences afterwards. Students care about the topic and want to talk
about it. Along the way, they learn the correct placement of adjectives as
well as great vocabulary and other grammar that happens to crop up within
the context. ...this just happens to be the approach taken on the
textbooks series I'm working on. I'm not endorsing it, for the record.
Best,
Terre
Teresa Lintner
Senior Development Editor
Cambridge University Press
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10013-2473
Telephone: 212 337-5070
Fax: 212 645-5960
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: 12/26/2011 02:32 PM
Subject: Re: Spoken vs. formal written English
Sent by: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Jack,
You raise important questions or pedagogy and of content, questions we have
discussed at length on this forum without reaching consensus. Should
grammar be taught as content? Should it be taught as an adjunct to the
teaching of writing? What you suggest is that a significant amount of
grammar, grammar that is useful to writers, can be taught in the process of
meeting the needs of developing writers. And this leads me to wonder
whether a grammar in context approach might not be a way to introduce
grammatical knowledge that we all think is useful and presenting it in a
way that makes its relevance obvious. This suggests a much more
thorough-going grammar in context model than we usually see in writing
classrooms, rather, an approach that starts in early grades and
incorporates grammar into language arts activities across the board.
Not being a K12 teacher, I may be describing what some teachers are already
doing.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dixon, Jack
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spoken vs. formal written English
Terre:
Thank you for your detailed response. I do want to check out Kate
Kinsella's work in using academic vocabulary and sentence frames. (Any
titles in particular where I should start?) I am familiar with "They Say,
I Say" and agree that it can be useful for helping students understand
those deeper cognitive structures that academic writers use - actually used
by more than just academics.
I would like a copy of your rubric if you are willing to share. Are the
two essays you use pieces that you have collected or written yourself, or
are they published somewhere so that I could access them?
What I like about your strategies for teaching academic vocabulary and
using sentence frames is that you are teaching students how to communicate
without putting the focus on error. So many objectives that involve
developing language proficiency involve error avoidance or correction.
While correcting errors is important, teaching students how to accomplish
larger rhetorical goals seems more productive to me. In my classes over
the last few years (developmental writing and freshman English at an
open-admissions community college), I have worked with sentence imitation,
tied with comprehension. I take sentences with some level of structural
complexity that I can be fairly sure my students will understand when we
read and discuss them. I then model imitating the structure, not the
content; we do a few together; then, I have them write a few original
sentences which we read around the room. At the end of that session, the
students feel they have done something important.
My underlying goal is to show them that, in fact, they know more grammar
than they think they do and that we are going to build on what they know.
As we discuss how any given structure works, I begin to introduce them to
the concepts of phrases, clauses, punctuation - all tied to the ways the
meaning gets conveyed.
Jack
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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/
|
