Larry,
I've turned the typos in the answer key into a benefit, in a sense. I
tell the students that I expect them to do the exercises and check their
answers in the back. I then tell them that there are some typos, and
therefore that if they don't ask me questions, I *know* they're not
doing the exercises.
There's a general issue raised by some of this, though: what changes to
the traditional K-12 framework would most of us view as *mandatory*?
There's enormous variation in positions on grammar, and each of us would
have a different "wanna" list, but I think there's total, or vanishingly
close to total, consensus among linguists that the following are
necessary for a grammar to function as a good description of English:
(1) It has to deal with relations among word *groups*, rather than
primarily with single words.
(2) It has to discuss the functions that these groups serve in
sentences ("function" here in a basic sense, as for example "modify
a nominal," "modify a verb group," "act as a nominal," etc. -- something
we'd all probably agree on).
(3) It has to make a form/function distinction -- or alternatively,
state that every word in the language exists in multiple lexical
classes (that last option is the logical consequence of denying a
form/function distinction).
(4) It has to acknowledge that the number of lexical classes depends
on what you count, and that whatever you do with English, eight
is by no means a magic number.
Lester does all but #3, and he strongly points at #3 in several places,
but doesn't fully go there. I'm sympathetic, especially since he does
such a good job on all the other points, but at the same time it's hard
not to see the omission as facilitating the bad habits of
textbook-publishers in this field.
Lester's description is still far, better than the general description
I've found in most of the K-12 texts I've looked at (adjusting for
complexity; a college text will always go into more detail, but I'm
referring to the general architecture of the description here). The
students benefit from his description, and it has direct applications to
what they know they'll do in the classroom. I've also used Martha
Kolln's text, which does 1-4 along with a lot of other things on my
"wanna" list, but it isn't aimed at English Ed. majors.
I keep being astounded at the mismatch between what we know about
language and what shows up in K-12 texts. Obviously, there would be
simplifications at lower grade levels, but for a high school or college
text to ignore points like 1-4 is roughly equivalent to what would
happen if a physics text used "the aether" and "phlogiston" to explain
heat transfer, or if an anthropology book stated that there used to be
hominids with single giant feet who lived in the desert and used their
feet for shade during the daytime, but they died out. Grammar textbooks,
and grammar sections in writing textbooks, are a very weird category.
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 Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
and found it effective as well. I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
though he also adds various twists on it.
One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
the answer key. Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.
Larry Beason
Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
John,
I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is").
The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
Greetings, ATEGers!
Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.
I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.
* Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
* When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
* While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
* Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,
John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)
John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)
Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
* Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
* Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
* Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
* As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.
Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
Regards,
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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/
|
