Bob wrote:

>I look forward to reading more about the following:
>
>> We don't need to
>> continue to support the kind of linguistic insecurity that Bob thinks is
>> inevitable.
>
>I make many typos in writing these responses on-line and constantly
>worry whether those errors will be so egregious that my colleagues will
>ignore my ideas.  I want to know why this worry is not an inevitable
>consequence of engaging in public discourse, especially about the nature
>of English grammar.

Bob, if you read Shirley Heath's articles on literacy in the early years of
this nation, you will learn why >this worry is not an inevitable
>>consequence of engaging in public discourse<

In the early years of the nation, people tended to write anonymously and
their writing was non-standardized. Everyone outside of the cities seemed to
be literate, politically active, reading broadsides, and reading and writing
for practical needs, like how to make the plow wider or whatever. Today, you
have to admit, there is very little participation of a broad public in
political affairs -- maybe language standardization has something to do with
the threat to democracy some perceive in our country today.

Judy




>I appreciate the description of text grammar.  I find the following
>description interesting, especially the use of the word "tendencies."
>
>>  These two functions are fulfilled by grammatical choices,
>> although the patterns are tendencies rather than rigid rules.
>
>I wonder how many students want to be told about tendencies.  Exactly,
>what is the percentage of a tendency?  How much deviation must there be
>from a tendency for a text to be "ungrammatical"?
>
>The Redford example is not unexpected.  What is the point of instruction
>based on the following observation?
>>
>> My analysis of a text
>> about Robert Redford, for instance, finds Redford in subject position
>> 500 times, with no other subtopics or non-topics reaching anywhere near
>> that number.
>
>Would a teacher write:
>
>This text clearly has problems because the person the text is about is
>not in the subject position enough times.  In this text, it is X times
>and for such a text it is usually/often/frequently/always (I don't know
>the correct frequency adverb here) Y times.
>
>When I encounter such texts, I ask the student how this information is
>related to the claim being made in the text.  I don't have to count how
>many times the topic of the text is in the grammatical subject position.
>
>> Of course, this makes the most sense if one views grammar instruction as
>> a process of educating students about their 'writing tool-box'. It makes
>> less sense within a 'grammar as fix-it' philosophy, in which conforming
>> to standard grammar is the main concern. On the other hand, functional
>> grammar can be very helpful for students who have trouble writing
>> coherent texts, and have to fix this trouble.
>
>One of the texts that every writing teacher, especially a basic writing
>teacher, should read is Mina Shaughnessey's Error and Expectations.
>Shaughnessey  places  the problem of basic writing with movement from
>abstract to concrete statements.
>
>"[BW] papers tend to contain either cases or generalizations but not
>both.  If anything, students seem to have more difficulty moving from
>abstract statements down to more concrete levels than they do moving up
>the ladder of abstraction." (p. 240-1)
>
>There are issues of grammar in this "movement," but grammar instruction
>alone, "a tool-box approach" is not issue.  And, clearly, this is not an
>issue of controlling the standard.  It has more to do with expectations
>of the audience about how claims are presented and what appropriate
>kinds of generalization and support for such generalizations are.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183