Ron, Bob,
   I don't mean to imply that I don't want to have a serious discussion 
about language, and I think Bruce and I are doing just that. But there 
are certain aspects of collegiality that we need to follow for the good 
of the list.
   Frankly, I am disappointed that we do not have cognitive linguists to 
talk to on list. We should be going out of our way to invite cognitive 
linguists and to try to find out what they are doing and how they are 
doing it and what the current state of their approach is and so on. 
These are not shallow people and their work is not unscientific. 
Unfortunately, I have had to research it on my own with very little 
chance to talk about it. I am excited about new ideas and somewhat 
lonely at the moment because no one around me seems to share my 
interests. So when Bruce asks me questions about the current views I am 
trying out as a result of several months of serious reading, I think it 
is more important to elucidate a point of view than it is to defend it 
from hostile challenges (and I don't think Bruce's questions are at all 
hostile.)
     I was disappointed when I first started posting because I said in 
an early post that I found functional grammar very useful as a writing 
teacher, and I was immediately attacked. I don't feel I was given an 
adequate opportunity to talk (though several people came to my defense) 
and backed off a bit. What occurred was more quarrel than conversation. 
But it absolutely baffled me that people wouldn't be open to what I had 
to say, that they would be quick to consider it as a claim that had to 
be challenged and not a perspective that should be respected and 
listened to. I still feel that way. It's not so much a danger that 
people on the list will be exposed to faulty theories so much as it is a 
danger that points of view will be stifled or suppressed before they 
have their day in the ATEG sun.
   The lesson I may take from this is that what I am learning about 
cognitive linguistics is not of interest to the group, or if it is of 
interest to some people, I may have to face hostile questioning that 
will make it difficult to proceed in any meaningful way.
   Let me put it another way. I think there are people who want Bruce to 
win an argument with me and others who may want me to win an argument 
with Bruce, but I don't think Bruce and I are having that kind of 
discussion. I think Bruce has been thinking about these issues long and 
hard and has a position that is not at all trivial. My task is not to 
prove him wrong, but to have a conversation in which we both have a 
chance to present differing perspectives.

   Here's where I see the present issue with pedagogy. Traditional 
school grammar has been questioned, including studies that seem to show 
little or no carry over to writing. Generative grammar declares itself 
essentially irrelevant to pedagogy. Systemic functional grammar and 
cognitive approaches (construction grammar and usage based models) are 
relatively new, still in the early stages of development as perspectives 
on language, just beginning to find their way into classroom practices. 
Many people may feel threatened by new approaches simply because they 
call into question long held beliefs. We need to have a robust, open 
conversation about new ways to understand language.
   Ironically, the article I am working on (close to deadline) is on 
"How linguistics can inform the teaching of writing". It is an invited 
article for an international anthology. One reason for trying to get up 
to speed on cognitive linguistics is that I felt an obligation to 
consider a branch of linguistics that seems to be growing in importance. 
(It is very difficult, by the way, to be somewhat knowledgeable about 
more than one approach.) In the process, I have been becoming more and 
more impressed, more and more intrigued.
   Due to the article and a robust teaching load, I'll have to back off 
for awhile. But I certainly remain very committed to ATEG and to the list.

Craig


  




Ronald Sheen wrote:
> This is intended to support the approach that Bob has adopted in 
> questioning the implicit claims made by Craig.  It seems to me that 
> when one joins a group such as this and one chooses to function 
> therein actively (and not choose to be a lurker), one has a certain 
> ethical academic duty to respond to questions about what one has written.
>
> To be frank, I have been disappointed by the approach demonstrated by 
> some to raise issues but then implicitly refuse to respond to comments 
> made on their posts.
>
> This said, however, I think it's a great List with a ,marvellous 
> potential for open and unfettered discussion.- providing we all play 
> the 'game'.
>
> Ron Sheen
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Yates" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Rules was Those old transitivity blues
>
>
> Craig,
>
> This is a list on the teaching of grammar.  I have always understood 
> you to be offering your point-of-view
> to suggest a more effective approach to the teaching of grammar.  I 
> apologize if that is not your purpose in
> sharing with us your views on the nature of grammar.
>
> In the meantime, I appear to have a serious reading deficit.
>
> Craig writes:
> When I write to Bruce, I don't think I am making 'claims'
> that need to be challenged, but simply articulating a point-of-view that
> I have been developing --am still developing-- over a period of time.
>
> ***
> I see the following  point-of-view as making claims about the nature 
> of language.
>
> Craig writes:
> I believe that a hammer is formed like a hammer because that form is
> suitable for its function. In that sense, the forms of grammar are
> context sensitive. We have ways to ask questions, for example, or make
> statements. These have evolved because language occurs between people,
> and we have evolved ways to offer or request information, and we have
> evolved ways to target the specific information we are looking for or
> offering, and so on. You can disagree, but I don't think that is an
> unusual position.
>
> ****************
> It seems to me you have drawn clear teaching implications about this 
> point-of-view about the nature of language.
> I sincerely regret if it is the case that you have not made any 
> teaching implications from the point-of-view you articulated above.
>
> If there are problems with the nature of language articulated above, 
> then perhaps there are problems with the teaching implications based 
> on that point-of-view.
>
> I know the way I teach about writing is based on how I view the nature 
> of language.  I think all of us who teach writing have a view of 
> language, but I could be mistaken.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/