Craig,
Having done a study of paragraph components in a variety of real-world
texts as part of a graduate seminar on English prose style, I couldn't
agree more with you that not all paragraphs fit the "topic sentence +
supporting sentences" pattern. However, it is a basic pattern, and the
students I am working with at the moment cannot tell a paragraph from a
list of sentences.
The point I was making with the post was that visual metaphors can be
helpful devices in getting students to understand such concepts as focus,
details, general statement, etc. I am in the midst of a research project
that explores how grammar structures can be presented to second language
learners and practiced through visual, musical, kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal pathways.
I have read some of the cautions about this kind of project from Howard
Gardner and others, but I think that the correlations below, represent
reasonable attempts at integrating grammar instruction with the theory of
multiple intelligences:
Musical – rhythm, stress, pitch, intonation contours that go with
particular grammatical structures; elements of the grammar that permit us
to talk about music, e.g. mental & verbal processes
Visual/Spatial – gestures, body language, facial expressions [kinesics],
and distance/orientation in relations to particular grammar structures;
elements of the grammar that permit us to talk about space, line, color,
arrangement, e.g. existential & relational processes
Kinesthetic – kinesics (above) and pronunciation – i.e. fine motor control
of the pronunciation of all grammatical elements; the differentiation of
stressed content words and unstressed function words; elements of the
grammar that permit us to talk about the body and movement, e.g. material
processes
Interpersonal – all the elements of grammar that participate prominently
in realizing Halliday’s interpersonal functions-e.g. mood, modality,
pronoun system, verbal & mental processes, epistemic phrases, etc.
Intrapersonal – all elements of the grammar that allow us to reflect on
what’s going on inside of us; self-regulation of what we speak/write
through monitoring and evaluation based on our internal sense of the
standards; elements of grammar that permit us to talk about our interior
(e.g. mental & verbal processes)
I would welcome comments and insights from readers on these correlations
and the role of each of the mentioned intelligences in creating a
full-bodied understanding of grammar-in-use.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
> I think that topic and support (your previous post) is a very useful
> distinction when it is happening within a text, but I'm not sure it
> fits all--or even most--texts. One of the things I find in looking at
> real world paragraphs is that they don't fit the prescriptive patterns
> that show up in traditional writing books, topic and support being one
> of them. Whatever utility they have for writing doesn't carry over to
> much real world reading. I also think we do harm when we don't offer
> these as ONE way to write. SFL patterns would be a very different
> lens.
>
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle,
brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across
cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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/
|
