This message was originally submitted by Edith Wollin
([log in to unmask]) to the
ATEG list at MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU. in response to a message was
originally submitted by
> [log in to unmask] to the ATEG (added below her
posting).
ON the contrary, I teach a grammar course that does teach better writing
at the same time. My colleague and I have done some research that shows
that it works. It is based on sentence combining using syntactic
structures and the theory behind it is one that Martha shares--tech the
rehtoric of grammar.
> ---------------------------------
originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the ATEG
> To 'grammar' or not to 'grammar'?
>
> Why, both, of course. Just not at the same time.
>
> What is necessary is to distinguish between teaching language use
(writing,
> reading, etc.) and teaching about language (which is linguistics).
>
> When teaching writing, reading etc., writing, reading must be taught.
When
> teaching linguistics, rules about what language is, how it functions,
etc.
> must be taught. We learn what we do. It is that simple.
>
> Knowledge of language (use) and knowledge about language are stored in
> different regions of the brain. There does not seem to be much
> collaboration between the two. Thus teaching about appositions and things
> won't influence the actual writing process. Writing must be learned
through
> writing. There is no other way.
>
> This applies to both foreign language teaching and the teaching of the
> mother tongue. I've done both, and tried innumerable ways (with and
without
> 'grammar') and there is no practical doubt that teaching lingustics
> (however well done, however simple) with the goal of supporting the use
of
> language is a waste of time.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater of linguistics, on the contrary I
love
> it, I teach it even - to teacher trainees, because language teachers need
> linguistics as a lesson planning tool. I also find it essential to teach
> linguistics in schools because everybody should know more about language
> than just that there are words; also because linguistics, when taught
> properly, can develop the thinking skills.
>
> But these are different objectives. The language teacher's objectives and
> the linguistics teacher's objectives should not be made into a mixture.
>
> As for teaching grammar when a problem crops up - that again is something
> different and should not be confused with linguistics and linguistics
> teaching. It has to do with metacommunication. Metacommunication is
> communication about the communication situation. We metacommunicate
> whenever a communication problem arises. By discussing the problem we try
> to pin it down so we can repair it. This is unsystematic, usually takes
> seconds only, and immediately after we plunge back into the communication
> situation proper. Grammar rules taught in this situation certainly should
> not be taught systematically, the teacher would be trying to answer
> questions that no one has asked and no one is interested in and therefore
> no one would learn anything from it. It would mean turning
> metacommunication into a linguistics lesson - a waste of time.
>
> ------------
>
> Or are y'all arguing about educating professional writers? That would be
an
> altogether different matter. A professional writer would have to be an
> expert in language and linguistics and literature and in a lot more. He
> would have to know about 'horses' and 'riders' and 'stables' and so on,
> unlike the child who sits on the dog or the cat.
>
> And as to the biology teacher who teaches the names of bones - his
> objective is to teach ABOUT things, not do things (like growing a new
leg).
> The biology teacher must be compared to the linguist, not to the language
> teacher.
> ------
>
> My pfennig's worth ...
> B. Leuschner
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany
> E-mail: [log in to unmask] [h] Fax: +49 7383 2212
>
|
