I gave up my position teaching grammar to future teachers because I wanted
to go into the high school classroom and see if I could help high school
students avoid remediation at the college level. I currently teach at the
high school and community college level.  I believe that grammar is innate,
but that we also need to give students the language with which to talk
about the elements of grammar.  Students who learn a second language come
to understand the grammar of their own native language.  Why should English
teachers leave it to second language teachers to educate students about
their own language?  

Students need to be aware of grammar because it affects their ability to be
critical readers and better writers.  By understanding the "rules" of the
language, they can write more effectively and decode meaning more easily. 
I make it a practice to spend 15 minutes of every class meeting working on
some aspect of grammar.  I use Grammar Punk with my high school students,
who will ask to play the grammar game when they have free time.  In my 20
years of teaching, I can honestly say that is the first time I have had
students ask to do grammar.  I have noticed an improvement in their writing
and in their peer reviews of other student's work.  They can talk about
their language.  

I am in the process of doing a research project in which I asked all the
seniors in the high school to write an essay at the beginning of the school
year.  I analyzed those essays for the ability to use punctuation
effectively and to write sentences of varying complexity.  Every teacher in
our department approaches grammar instruction in his/her own way.  Seniors
in my classes are being taught grammar systematically using both their
assigned reading and their own sentences for analysis.  Many teachers in my
department don't teach grammar beyond the Daily Language Practice provided
by the publishers of the literature textbook.  The practice is basically a
proofreading exercise.  At the end of the school year, seniors will again
take an assessment test.  I will compare the results of the two writing
samples.  I want to know if my systematic approach produces more
sophisticated writers by the end of the year.  

In teacher preparation courses, we talk about giving students the language
to talk about what they are learning.  Just as we give students the
vocabulary to talk about writing and about literature, we need to give them
the vocabulary to talk about their language.  Knowing the rules of standard
written English gives them the opportunity to break the rules by design to
create their own style, rather than breaking the rules out of ignorance and
creating a meaningless jumble.

Dee

Dee Allen-Kirkhouse




> [Original Message]
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 12/7/2008 10:27:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE:
Correct)
>
> Bob,
>    You are completely misreading my post. I was not arguing that language
> could not possibly be innate, and I don't remember expressing disdain.
> I was just saying that the position that language is innate has been
> used against the teaching of grammar in the public schools. Other ways
> of approaching language (cognitive and functional) do not share that
> view and are therefore much more compatible with the idea that language
> is acquired over a lifetime and is deeply connected to the making of
> meaning.
>    Langacker responds to the kinds of objections you are making in his
> 2008 text. I highly recommend it.
>    Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
> useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
> people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
> grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences that
> actually occur.
>    I don't think it would be productive to repeat the argument between us.
> I also don't think it is helpful to imply that Bickerton is "a really
> smart person", but Langacker, Goldberg, and Bybee are not. It might be
> more useful for you to respond to the substance of my post. Given your
> belief that grammar is innate and acquired at any early age, what are
> the benefits of teaching grammar is school? Is correctness the only
> goal?
>    Are you in favor of a comprehensive teaching of grammar in the public
> schools? What form would that take?
>
>
> Craig
>
> Over the years, Craig has expressed a deep disdain for the notion that
> > grammar cannot possibly be innate.
> >
> > In his latest post, he writes the following indicating why we must
reject
> > innateness:
> >
> >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/07/08 9:34 AM >>>
> >    Innateness is just one part of the theory. If grammar is wired in,
then
> > it has no central connection to our embodied experience of the world or
> > our social interactions or the shared building of meaning within our
> > disciplines. The rules are rules about "forms", not observations about
> > the rich and interactive construction of meaning.
> >
> > Some really smart people have considered what "the rich and interactive
> > construction of meaning" might mean.
> >
> > I have over the last several years shared those observations and Craig
has
> > yet to respond.  In hopes that Craig has now got a response, here are
> > there observations Bickerton makes about Craig's that grammar is about
> > "our embodied experience of the world or our social interactions or the
> > shared building of meaning within our disciplines."
> >
> > All of the following is from Bickerton (1985).
> >
> > First, what is in our "embodied experience" that accounts for the fact
> > that the following sentences have different meanings.
> >
> >  	1) John wants someone to work for.
> > 	2) John wants someone to work for him.
> >
> > Second, given the fact that absence of the pronoun him in (1) and (2)
make
> > a difference, why, with or without the pronoun, (3) and (4) have the
same
> > meaning (for those who find such sentences possible in their dialect)?
> >
> >  	3) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading?
> > 	4) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading them?
> >
> > Finally, what, in our experiences, allows (5) and (6) but does not allow
> > (7)?
> >
> >  	5) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see.
> > 	6) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see her.
> > 	7) *Mary is someone that people like her as soon as they see.
> >
> > Of course, these are questions that someone who sees language as a
formal
> > system would ask.  And, there are formalist explanations.
> >
> > However, Craig is committed to a theory of language that claims all of
> > these differences are the result of our experience of the world.
Someday,
> > I hope he will provide that explanation for the sentences above.
> >
> > ***
> > Craig continues:
> >
> > Innateness also brings with it the widespread belief that children
> > know most of an adult language by the time they reach school. We don't
> > pay much attention to the complex ways in which that language grows
> > and needs to grow as the child enters into more mature roles and more
> > mature relationships with the world. Reducing it to acquiring
> > "Standard English" is part of the problem.
> >
> >
> > The only work I know which considers how language "grows" is Perera's
work
> > on how certain grammatical constructions occur only in writing.
> >
> > I don't know of any systematic teaching of those structures anywhere in
> > the curriculum and I have no idea how these structures reveal a person
> > having a more mature relationship with the world.
> >
> > Perhaps, Craig will share with us an example of a grammatical structure
> > that when learned(?)/acquired(?) by a language learner is part of the
> > maturing he is writing about.
> >
> > Craig, in that second passage, are you saying if a language learner's
> > language does not "grow" that person will be unable to enter into more
> > mature roles and more mature relationship with the world?
> >
> >  Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> >
> > 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/