Richard:
The curious thing is that I have learned English with a traditional
grammar, a dictionary, and a textbook, and with no exposure to the
spoken English of the "native" speakers. The traditional grammar was
for me the COMPLETE SOLUTION to learning. If I wanted to learn the
same language from a "modern" grammar I could not have done it, as
the "modern" grammars are all a mambo-jumbo of confusing concepts.
I assume that people who belittle the traditional grammar have no
experience with the learning of a foreign language, otherwise they
would not make the statements you have made about the "problems" with
the traditional grammar. Try, for instance to learn French or German
from a "modern" grammar, and you will see that it is not possible.
I am refreshing my French now, and all the grammar is "traditional."
The grammar of the French language is so complex and difficult, that
one needs very clear grammar concepts to grasp it. Such concepts are
not offered by the "modern" grammars.
My speaking and writing skills in English are at a level which only a
few "native" speakers have attained. How do you explain my superior
language skills if, according to your statements, traditional grammar
fails everybody?
I have read and heard repeated statements concerning the fact
that "English is not derived from Latin." What people forget, though,
is that English has gone throughh three major Latin influences which
radically changed the language. If you know about the Norman invasion
you also know that the bulk of the English lexicon is Latin based.
While English is not a Romance language, the influence Latin has had
on English is extraordinary.
I will not take time to go through all the critical points you have
developed in your message, but I believe that most if not all of them
are not based in facts, but are personal impressions.
Eduard
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Richard Betting wrote...
>A short response to Phil's request for a list of problems with
traditional grammar. Here is the list I have been working on for a
couple of years. I don't intend to offend anyone. My point is that
traditional grammar-the grammar of popular handbooks that I used
fifty years ago and that are apparently still used by a majority of
schools in the US, not accurate language analysis-is still being
taught. Teachers teach what they have been taught and know. And they
teach what their texts include, unless they have information with
which to supplement, and many do not.
>
>These are meant to be strident generalizations in order to get
teachers to understand that there are problems with the old way.
>
>After having said all this, I agree with one of the main principles
of ATEG: accurate, descriptive grammar (and much language
information) must be taught for at least two reasons: to allow a
discussion of language itself and to be able to use grammar
information to improve student style in writing and speaking.
>
>It seems to me (and I may be wrong, this may be too strong and it
might be counterproductive to begin with a list of negatives) that
teachers have to understand the problems first and then almost start
over, deciding what to teach and how about language and grammar so
that the goals of student learning are met, not the goals of covering
traditional grammar material.
>
>In my book I am fleshing out these items one by one, after which I
would put what the ATEG comes up in its scope and sequence project.
>
> Dick Betting
>
>
>
>FIFTEEN PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
>
>
>
>1. TG, LIKE CATECHISM, TEACHES WELL, LEARNS POORLY
>
>
>
>2. TG is BASED ON FALSE PROMISE: LEARN GRAMMAR FIRST, IMPROVEMENT IN
WRITING AND SPEAKING WILL FOLLOW ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY.
>
>
>
>3. TG is BASED ON a FALSE PREMISE: KNOWING GRAMMAR WILL MAKE
STUDENTS BETTER WRITERS AND SPEAKERS.
>
>
>
>4. TG claims to be everything students need to know about language;
>
>
>
>5. TG claims there is only one right way, one form of correctness;
>
>
>
>6. TGs contain mistaken information:
>
> a. English in not derived from Latin
>
> b. English does not have eight parts of
speech
>
> c. English does not have six verb tenses
>
> d.
>
>
>
>7. TG uses defective methodology: top down, deductive, absolutes
taught as
>
> Gospel;
>
>
>
>8. TG exploits the pedagogy of rote memorization, passive
acceptance;
>
>
>
>9. TG uses confusing definitions for basic concepts: language,
grammar, usage, parts of speech;
>
>
>
>10. TG wastes time and energy, too much time on minutiae
>
>
>
>11. TG fails to put learned material to use;
>
>
>
>12. TG fails to notice that language study is philosophy, elaborate,
abstract, multi-level, open-ended;
>
>
>
>13. TG reinforces monotheistic social values and standards at the
expense of individuals, minorities and differents;
>
>
>
>14. TG has no skeleton, no structure on which to hang language and
grammar
>
> information;
>
>
>
>15 TG is all fasteners and no projects.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Phil Bralich
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>
>
> The real problem is that there are few if any traditional ideas
that need to go. Someone should actually sit down and make a list of
ideas that need to be expunged from grammar teaching and you would
see there are actually only a few if any. The real problem is that
people want to wallow around in a sea of unaccountability where
pontification and pretense take precedence over good sense.
>
> We should not be talking in terms of modern versus traditional
grammar as there is nearly zero difference. Instead we should speak
merely of teaching grammar and put the whole false problem behind
us.
>
> If any one disagrees, please draw up a list of tradtional notions
that should be abandonded.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Paul E. Doniger"
> Sent: Aug 16, 2006 7:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The role of English teachers
>
>
> Peter Adams raised an interesting issue with: "In fact, I am
wondering why the role of English teachers seems to always be to slow
down this process and defend the traditional conventions." Is this
really the role of English teachers? What do others think about this?
>
> Personally, I don't see myself as a defender of traditional
conventions at all. I suspect that many of my colleagues in the high
school English classroom feel the same as I do. I rather see the
English teacher in me as a promoter/fascilitator of deep thinking
(and critical and creative thinking) through the disciplines of
reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Grammar instruction is one
item in the toolbox, albeit an important one (and a too often
neglected one at that). However, it's not for me so much as a
teaching of convention as it is a teaching of the way language works -
- as a means towards better/deeper thinking in these four disciplines.
>
> I'd add that as a drama teacher, grammar is important in a
similar way. When I ask my acting students to point up the nouns
or "play to (or 'with' or 'on')" the verbs, I need first to make sure
they know what these words are. My goal for them, however, is not
grammatical, but theatrical -- I want them to make the language
meaningful and rich, and to bring the text across clearly to the
audience.
>
> Paul D.
> 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/
>
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/
|
