This is intended to support the approach that Bob has adopted in questioning 
the implicit claims made by Craig.  It seems to me that when one joins a 
group such as this and one chooses to function therein actively (and not 
choose to be a lurker), one has a certain ethical academic duty to respond 
to questions about what one has written.

To be frank, I have been disappointed by the approach demonstrated by some 
to raise issues but then implicitly refuse to respond to comments made on 
their posts.

This said, however, I think it's a great List with a ,marvellous potential 
for open and unfettered discussion.- providing we all play the 'game'.

Ron Sheen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Yates" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Rules was Those old transitivity blues


Craig,

This is a list on the teaching of grammar.  I have always understood you to 
be offering your point-of-view
to suggest a more effective approach to the teaching of grammar.  I 
apologize if that is not your purpose in
sharing with us your views on the nature of grammar.

In the meantime, I appear to have a serious reading deficit.

Craig writes:
When I write to Bruce, I don't think I am making 'claims'
that need to be challenged, but simply articulating a point-of-view that
I have been developing --am still developing-- over a period of time.

***
I see the following  point-of-view as making claims about the nature of 
language.

Craig writes:
 I believe that a hammer is formed like a hammer because that form is
suitable for its function. In that sense, the forms of grammar are
context sensitive. We have ways to ask questions, for example, or make
statements. These have evolved because language occurs between people,
and we have evolved ways to offer or request information, and we have
evolved ways to target the specific information we are looking for or
offering, and so on. You can disagree, but I don't think that is an
unusual position.

****************
It seems to me you have drawn clear teaching implications about this 
point-of-view about the nature of language.
I sincerely regret if it is the case that you have not made any teaching 
implications from the point-of-view you articulated above.

If there are problems with the nature of language articulated above, then 
perhaps there are problems with the teaching implications based on that 
point-of-view.

I know the way I teach about writing is based on how I view the nature of 
language.  I think all of us who teach writing have a view of language, but 
I could be mistaken.

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/