Bob,

I suspect where we may be disagreeing (if 'disagree' is even the right
term) is the extent to which we consider some of the linguistic choices
one makes when writing as artificial, different from the kind of thing
we do when we speak. Writing is clearly not simply transcribed speech,
but the implications of that can be rather more far-ranging than what
gets considered under headings like 'formality' or 'dialect'. Not only
does the displacement of the reader that writing implies require use of
linguistic resources in ways alien to face-to-face speech, but there are
conventions based not on the logic or pragmatics of the situation, but
rather upon the complex ways in which Western European writing styles
have developed over the centuries. 

In short, I think there are linguistic practices involved in writing
that are *not* part of the instinctual linguistic endowment of any
native English-speaker. That is not to underplay what students know; it
is simply to acknowledge that writing, unlike speaking, is not a
universal activity of the human species, and that the exigencies
particular to it render it distinct from speech. 

"Core" linguistics has tended to ignore the differences, partly because
of a theoretical focus on the priority of speech (for perfectly good
(and historically vital) reasons), and, I think, because academics deal
with writing so much that we don't distinguish its *architecture* from
that of speech. We home in on spelling/pronunciation discrepancies but
ignore the rest -- how often, for example, do you see syntax articles
that distinguish between sentences used as evidence that come from
spoken sources versus those that would only occur in writing? There's a
general assumption, I think, that the distinction is a non-issue. 

That said, there is a long history of discounting students' grammatical
knowledge, and suspicion is warranted whenever someone starts inveighing
against their students' perceived ignorance. Being suspicious about
claims like the ones I've been making is, therefore, both reasonable and
necessary. I'd like to emphasize, however, that I'm not saying students
have no knowledge of language, but rather that a subset of that
knowledge does not always apply to writing, and that a different subset
has to be learned.

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English
Central Michigan University



-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ROBERT YATES
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar and Writing Class

Of course, this is correct. 

*******************************************
We expect any piece of good writing to "hold together" as a text, and to
be recognizable as fulfilling the functions that readers expect that
type of text to fulfill in a way they can process (and, one hopes,
like).
*****************
And, of course, nobody, not even our students, thinks that their texts
don't "hold together."
Part of the problem is that our students don't have a good sense of
being a reader who doesn't have all the knowledge the writer has.  It is
for this reason that the notion of audience awareness is important in
writing instruction.

If we try to read our students' texts from their perspective (and I
would argue that we must if we are to comment on their grammatical
choices), then there is a problem with the following statement.

**************************************
 A lot of that has to do with grammatical choices - and (partly
contra Yates, here) they're the type of grammatical choices that go well
beyond what we normally think of as instinctual knowledge of language.
*************************************

To label the grammar choices students make as inappropriate, wrong, or
unprincipled is based on our perspective as writing teachers; however,
from the writers' perspective, the grammar choices seem perfectly
appropriate and principled.

***************************
Native English-speakers know to put "the" before a noun, not after, and
know implicitly how to make passives, but they frequently don't know
whether using one or not is the best idea in a particular paragraph.
 ******************************

I have been looking at the inappropriate passive constructions (in other
words, constructions that I would have made active) in my students'
writing this semester.  I find their passives principled, but it is not
a principle that is the one to apply in this particular context.  For
the most part, the passives that I have commented on seem to be ways for
the student to announce a new topic in the text.  The passive allows
this new topic to be in a focused position.  

The point here is that we MUST see our students as principled language
users.  When we find their grammar choices are not appropriate from our
perspective, we have to figure out what inappropriate principles they
have that lead them to these inappropriate choices.  After all,
instructions has to begin where the student is at and not where we would
like the student to be.  

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University

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/