Herb,
    One problem, as I see it, is that those educators who are opposed to
teaching about language are NOT agnostic on this issue. They have a
view (maybe "theory" would imply that they have paid more attention)
that grammar is formal and that the study of formal grammar does not
carry over to writing. The point I am trying to make--I'm not trying
to open up the theory debate--is that those conclusions have never
taken into account the views about language being developed in the
functional camps. In other words, if grammar is not thought of as a
formal system, perhaps it can carry over to writing in a very dramatic
way.
   If you say "you don't need to teach grammar to a native speaker" at a
writing conference, many people will nod their heads, though they have
never seriously explored the issue. It is a politically correct
position and has been for some time.
   Can we at least agree that the case isn't closed? If our understanding
of grammar shifts, then the value of learning about it (not just
acquiring it) might shift as well?

Craig
>


Bob and Craig,
>
> I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of
> language.  I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor
> way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the
> early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology
> better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my
> dissertation on.  I find both broad categories of theory glaringly
> underdetermined by data.  In other words, there is no way to clearly
> falsify either approach.  Cognitive learning theory has for a long time
> made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that go
> beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's broadly
> called functionalism.  There is no question that formal syntactic theories
> make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the nature
> of syntactic systems.  That they don't deal with discourse structure is
> not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory.  I've
> used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom,
> and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity.  A work
> like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive
> exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is a
> trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition
> Device.
>
> I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate,
> but I'm definitely not.  I suppose it would be more accurate to say that
> I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them
> useful and interesting.
>
> Herb
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: common core standards
>
> Bob
>
> Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker
> would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but
> would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too
> much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects?  Or,
> similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's
> "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as
> simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc."  And
> regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them
> so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of
> writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning
> that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that
> grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and
> that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process?
>
> Geoff Layton
>
> PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City -
> my first ATEG experience!
>
>
>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> SubjeTo 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/