ATEG Archives

October 2005

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:25:54 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
I'll have to dig up a few examples of repeat-reference sentences from 
my student papers.

I've just been looking at various bits of Talmy Givon's "English 
Grammar: A Functional-Typological Introduction" that are about topic 
and focus. In the second volume of this pair of books, he discusses 
"topicalizing constructions", under which he includes both left- and 
right-dislocation ("My father, he rarely votes - He rarely votes, my 
father"). These books are challenging to make one's way through, but 
reveal a great deal about the relation between grammar and function. I 
know that some people in the functional/typological field have some 
problems with Givon's work, but I think, in the main, it is very 
valuable (as is functional syntax generally).

As to Hallidayan functional syntax (I call it systemic-functional 
grammar to distinguish it from American funcitonalism): I haven't read 
extensively into this theory, but what I have read is both satisfying 
and unsatisfying. I believe the various notions are not adequately 
refined and teased apart. Perhaps this has been done over the history 
of the theory.

Defining "subject" as "actor" is not a good idea, for example. All 
sorts of semantic roles get into subject position. While "actor" may be 
a preferred choice because of certain cognitive biases, the actual 
range of subjects found in text makes the "actor" definition too 
misleading. Just looking at one of today's headline stories in the NY 
Times, there is, indeed, a good number of actor-subjects, but there is 
also a large number of other kinds, e.g., "the nomination", "an up or 
down vote", "The president's new effort to fill a second Supreme Court 
vacancy", "public opinion polls", "American casualties", "parts of the 
president's domestic agenda", etc.

As to grading drafts of papers, I just can't fit this in in many cases. 
My classes have 30 students, and there is a lot of content to cover. I 
usually have 3 classes of 30 students each on a 10-week quarter. In one 
class, I have the paper come in in three installments. Students do like 
this idea. I also got my best batch of papers in this class one 
quarter, when I really pushed them to work hard on meeting my 
formal-writing standards. I also got very low evaluation scores that 
quarter!

My classes are junior-level, for the most part, and they aren't 
intended as writing classes.  By their junior year, students should 
have had their comp and some practice writing for their courses. It's 
time for them to take responsibility for their editing and 
proofreading. I'm not saying they should be totally mature writers at 
that stage, but they should be _working on it_ -- taking a second look 
at their writing to see if they can make it more concise. Too often, 
they are rewarded for bulk. I also often get papers that really don't 
look like they have been proofread, or at least proofread carefully.

Johanna Rubba, Assoc. Prof., Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93047
Tel. 805.756.2184
Dept. Tel. 805.756.6374
Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

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/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2