Eduard,
Your own comment, "Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally
absurd and nonsensical claims" is the example of a sweeping generalization that
I was referring to. I think we need to practice what we preach - and practice
it with a civil voice, too.
Disagree if you will, but understand that the people on this list with whom you
disagree are intelligent, thoughtful, and most likely well-meaning people. We
are educators, and probably because we want to make this a better world. Respect
for that attitude may make this discourse much more meaningful.
Paul "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable
fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
________________________________
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 2, 2011 4:20:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
Paul,
You got it right this time with your tautology: "sweeping generalizations are
never true." Please, refer to John Crow's generalization that "ALL native
speakers are grammar experts by definition." Generalizations are logical
fallacies. Ergo, fallacies are "never true."And this is THE DOCTRINE you,
people, have perpetuated year after year on this "grammar forum": the fallacy
that the "native speaker" is a "grammar expert." No scientific evidence has ever
been produced to document the CLAIM, but the statement has been made again and
again as if it were FACTUAL TRUTH. Why you have not provided any factual
evidence for your claim? Because there is none.
The truth is that this "native speaker-grammar expert" nonsense has been
promoted again and again on this forum EXCLUSIVELY about the "native American
English speakers" due to the "American native speakers" attitude of superiority
over and condenscence towards all non-native speakers of English. Isn't it true
that ONLY "all native [American] speakers are grammar experts by definition
since they handle the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with
absolute precision and speed," but that all other native speakers who inhabit
this planet don't have this special God-given gift exclusively handed into the
hands of the "American native speakers" by the All Mighty, and have to LEARN
their own language?
Eduard
________________________________
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 2:39:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
I see that my comments earlier about civil discourse have gone unheeded. How
sad. I would only add one additional caution: Sweeping generalizations are never
true.
Paul D.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
________________________________
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:10:16 -0400
To: <[log in to unmask]>
ReplyTo: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
John,
"All native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they handle the
grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision
and speed."?
Absolute nonsense!!! If you make such a claim then you have NEVER listened to
and read text from "native speakers" of English, and you have never struggled to
help college students write in English. Who can claim that he can use English
"with ABSOLUTE PRECISION AND SPEED?" You? My experience with college students is
that almost all L2 students show better "competence" and "performance"
than their classmates who are "native speakers." Why are 40 million Americans
illiterate if their knowledge of the English language is "native" and
"instinctive"?
My L1 language is Romanian, but I dare you to prove that your "competence" and
"performance" in English is better than mine, although English is my L2. The
idea that "all native speakers are grammar experts" is so old and void of
evidence that my grandfather abandoned it a long time ago - when he had to spend
hour upon hour learning the declensions of ALL PARTS OF SPEECH, and the
CONJUGATION of the verbs in Romanian.
Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally absurd and
nonsensical claims.
Eduard
________________________________
From: "John Crow" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 6:34:08 AM
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
Eduard,
I don't think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement. Instead I
think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are grammar experts
by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or street dialect
effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed. Most of this knowledge is
beyond awareness, of course. But they could neither speak nor understand other
English speakers with such ease if they weren't absolute masters of English
grammar at some level. I find it refreshing to hear someone acknowledge this
fact and take it into account when teaching.
John
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
"We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert"
>
>This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven theories of
>native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are born with a
>grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run into the ground
>the English language education in the United States. Dumb and provincial
>American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell this story to students who
>learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to refer only to some European
>languages) - when they know that in order to have a good command of their
>language they need to spend thousands of yours LEARNING to decline and conjugate
>in their languages.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sharon Saylors" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM
>Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>
>My community college grammar course for English majors and future
>secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding English Grammar
>as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component. My
>students tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time. We
>start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move
>from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting, rhetorical
>grammar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more
>than the students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also
>include grammar in my freshman composition courses.
> Sherry Saylors
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>>
>I am about to embark on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one
>developmental writing course at the community college level. Both
>classes have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The basic
>writing course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and
>grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and reading
>texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many entities that
>fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and written
>communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not to
>present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a natural
>part of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage written
>by Dick Veit:
>
>"I am now a volunteer teaching an 'intermediate ESL grammar class' that
>includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics,
>punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences,
>job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the
>most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the
>students in front of us would most benefit from knowing."
>
>Friday in class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I
>classes, just to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar
>terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, adverb,
>phrase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help them
>become more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what
>will help my students the most with their writing and daily
>communicating and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things
>that fall under the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.
>
>Carol Morrison
>
>
>--- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM
>
>
>Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question
>without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to
>the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study
>of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries
>become a matter for private stipulative definition.
>
>This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American
>Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins,
>Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges
>are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen
>Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no
>definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to
>stipulate their own definition.
>
>As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical
>(and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely
>practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce
>questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many
>years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was
>focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an
>"intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also
>pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language
>etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last
>week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of
>grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most
>benefit from knowing.
>
>I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what
>school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar"
>courses.
>
>Dick
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>John,
>
>Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand,
>there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other,
>there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so
>long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology
>as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the
>distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public
>is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to
>say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the
>public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on
>deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I
>certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula,
>and I suspect most, if not all, people on this list would agree.
>
>What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area
>as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that
>"grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a
>separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being
>defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists;
>in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes,
>it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that
>talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language
>analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or
>some of the other mainstays of public education.
>
>I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but
>I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic
>reasoning.
>
>--- Bill Spruiell
>
>[1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting
>"grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more
>particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the
>position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that
>firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide
>range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms.
>To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's
>partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars.
>I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb
>or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact,
>letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to
>call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it.
>
>
>On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
>
>Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is
>the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT
>encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated
>into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar
>of English.)
>
>If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them
>(phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern
>ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic
>units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are
>the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the
>Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these
>"rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of
>language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity,
>information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our
>understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even
>consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they
>have a huge impact on meaning?
>
>What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to
>look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical
>linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to
>emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even
>start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar
>(dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be
>doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring
>science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar
>(cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the
>brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English
>teachers?
>
>We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to
>analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)
>
>It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the
>composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is
>a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course,
>reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many
>cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to
>begin with.
>
>I know this also brings into question the relationship between the
>English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those
>with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by
>now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a
>minimum.
>
>I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!
>
>John
>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/
>
>******************************************************
>DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended for
>the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). This e-mail
>may contain confidential information and/or information protected by
>intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are not the intended
>recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and
>attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
>have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the
>original and any copies of this e-mail and any printouts immediately from your
>system and destroy all copies of it.
>
>OVPTS 12-07-09
>
>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/ 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/
|
