Craig,
Thank you for your response and the obvious time you put into it. I have two points/comments.
I wish you had been more careful with your characterization of my and Bob Yates's response to the work you refer to of Mary Schleppegrell. I am quite sure that Bob and I have never said or thought anything that resembles what you have written - which I don't at all understand. For one, I don't even know what it might mean to say "that a grammar might evolve in a functional way in the technical disciplines." Since I don't even know what that means, I am quite certain I have never said it. The sentence about "discounting details . . ." is also incomprehensible to me. Finally, I am quite sure that I have never said, and I don't think Bob has ever said, that anyone's work should not be taken seriously. These comments come straight out of you, but they don't reflect anything that Bob Yates and I have done or said. For the record, at a TESOL meeting, Bob Yates and I have spoken with Mary Schleppegrell about her papers. I can assure this list that Mary Schleppegrell is a lovely person and that our conversation could not have been more cordial or collegial.
Second, what I meant by my reference to "hand waving" had to do with examples presented on this listserv for the purpose of facilitating meaningful, productive discussion here. I am not doubting that you have made presentations at various venues, and I congratulate you on your publication - OF COURSE!. But all of that does no one now on this listserv any good who is looking for the opportunity to have meaningful discussion. I have not been to your ATEG presentations or your 4C's presentation, and your Sage publication is not yet out. To participate on the list should not require trips to the library to figure out what a poster means. For example, if I were to make a specific point about SFL on this list, I would provide specific examples to support/illustrate that point. That is only communicatively responsible. I would not for instance, claim that the facts that I made an ATEG presentation on the point in 1997 or that I have a publication on it obviated me from having to present the support explicitly.
Jim Kenkel
Eastern Kentucky University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition (- and a plea)
Jim,
This is a productive response, and I thank you for taking the time. I'll try to be productive in response.
It may sound funny, but I wasn't personally offended by Bob's drunk analogy. The problem as I see it is not that I am being hurt by it, but that questioning the motives and abilities of the other side is a poor way to move a discussion forward. If I say "X is acting like a drunk who is doing something stupid", the connotations will carry over. But I don't drink and seldom misplace my keys and wouldn't look for them in lighted places if I lost them in the dark, so the analogy fails on every level possible. It is a personal blow that falls far short of the mark, but it has the effect of shutting down productive talk.
I don't mean this as an attack, but there has been a pattern of denying form/meaning observations on the basis of theory. I mentioned Schleppegrell's fine work, for example, and you and Bob react by saying that it shouldn't be taken seriously because it is not theoretically possible for grammar to evolve in a functional way within the technical disciplines. If you discount the details because they are not supported by theory, then criticize the theory because it has no details, you are just making it impossible for another position to come forward. I waited to mention the book until I had read it because I anticipated follow-up questions, but they never came. My conclusion might be that this is a place where functional views will not be given fair play. Someone will object and the talk will sidetrack away.
I have been making functional observations about language since I started posting to the list. (Bob objected to the first one, by the way. I said as a writing teacher I found Halliday's work useful, and Bob replied that Halliday's work shouldn't be taken seriously because it is based on failed theory. An argument started up over my head, and I felt shut out of the conversation.) I have written a book that centers on form/meaning connections in the gramamr. I have written on the usefulness of subject function (out of Halliday) in ATEG journal. Many people on list have been to my presentations at ATEG conference, at NCTE, and at 4 C's. I ocassionaly strike up conversations with people on list who ask me questions directly. The idea that there is no detail to what I am talking about is just contrary to a whole pattern of participation.
I started my research in cognitive grammar because I was invited to write an article on "How linguistics can inform the teaching of writing" and didn't feel I could do that in good conscience without knowing more about that emerging side of things. (The article will appear in the Sage Handbook of Writing late spring. The editors seem very happy with the results.) What I found/have been finding seems colossally useful and interesting, and, yes, much truer than I ever would have imagined. This includes a great deal of information about language acquisition and the empirical studies that seem not only to view it as an emergent process, but to verify the efficacy of that approach as they go. I was just deeply struck by finding out that epistemic modals, as a system in English, aren't generally solid until around age 12. (The deontic modals are much earlier.) It's hard to say in a short space how that relates to my interest in grounding systems as they relate to helping students put those systems to work in academic writing, but it's work in progress that I will present next month in San Francisco. If grammar is a form/meaning pairing, then do we master the grammar without the meaning? I don't think so.
You keep asking for particulars, but then seem to act as though the particulars presented don't count. After all these years of posting observations, I am just hand-waving?
But I would agree on one aspect of this, which may be a miscommunication on my part. If I say I believe this is a useful way forward on the public grammar front, I don't expect everyone to agree. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I expect anyone to agree. Am I acting like it's a done deal? Maybe because I'm the only person arguing this side, it never occurred to me that anyone would think I expect ATEG to suddenly become a cognitive/functional grammar list. Would I be happy if ONE other person showed up on the list? Very much. Over the years, I have talked to a number of people who have given up on ATEG precisely because they believed some views weren't welcome. I'm glad you mentioned Ed as someone who remains in touch. We should invite more talk, not discourage it.
So the misunderstanding may be built around that. You think I'm saying this is God's truth. I think you're saying that I am being a troublemaker by presenting a view counter to the prevailing views on the list. I feel more like Galileo (forgive the self inflation) than a drunk who has lost his keys. In order to say the earth isn't the center of the universe, he had to imply that the prevailing view was wrong. This was heresy, not least because many people felt threatened by it.
I am happy to look for mutual agreement wherever we can find it. I take that offer on good faith.
Craig
Kenkel, Jim wrote:
Craig,
I don't think it is the messenger being attacked. Instead, what is being criticized is yet another instance of hand-waving. Yes, it is a very good thing to bring an article that you think interesting to the attention of the group. I thank you for it because it _really_ is a good thing. But to mention this article - even to summarize it - and then to suggest that ATEG should embrace some kind of (vague) functional orientation as opposed to some kind of (vague) "formalist" orientation is to engage in nothing more than hand-waving. To make this article and your assertions about it meaningful to this list, I think what is needed is to take the time to relate the data and claims of this article to the kinds of language/grammar/writing relevant to the concerns of ATEG members in order to show how insightfully it relates to those concerns. Otherwise, you are only preaching to your own choir, which is not very interesting because choirs don't demand very much.
It may very well be that this article will turn out to be fantastic for the goals of ATEG, but from what you have given us, there is no way of knowing what its relevance is. Also, when you are able to present the data and claims of this article and propose how they are relevant to the concerns of ATEG, then the list can really have something to discuss. And maybe it would provide some help for ALL OF US as we try to move forward - wherever "forward" happens to be.
As for your sense of being offended by the old story of the guy and the lamp post, try to be generous and don't assume that all of the qualities of the character in the story are being attributed to you and your post. It is up to you, but I think a better thing to do would be to take a deep breath and move on.
As for the implications that you draw from this article, I would caution you again that presenting gross misrepresentations of generative/formalist approaches to language helps no one. It is only in these gross misrepresentations of generative grammar where are found claims about "language" being "pre-wired into the brain." Even intro to linguistics texts don't make this claim - at least the ones that I have taught from over the years. Also, I don't think it is fair at all to say that generative grammar sees grammar as "rules." But I would be happy to be helped here by Bruce and Bill if they think they have something to say on this point.
* * * * * *
Before I call it a night, I would like to say something about ATEG , this list, and how we could think of ourselves. I am very uncomfortable with an ATEG that believes it knows God's truth. Anyone not belonging to that particular congregation is going to be pushed out, which is not a good thing. I really believe that we should be cautious about our claims. The phenomenon - language - we work with is not well understood. Moreover, we should remind ourselves that in addition to this task, we have taken on the further, and perhaps ultimately insurmountable tasks of understanding how the domains of language that might concern us are _learned_ and how they might be effectively _taught_.
Can any of us have confidence that we know all of God's truth in this context?
I am just speaking for myself, but I think we could take a lesson from the founder of this group, Ed Vavra. Whatever each of us may think of the strengths and weaknesses of KISS, it is easy to respect Ed's contributions to discussions on this list. To me at least, it is clear that Ed carefully reads the posts he responds to, and his responses are always thoughtful. He is not careless with anyone's posts. Importantly, Ed's posts also remind us why this list exists, and that is to develop our understandings of English grammar so that we can use these understandings to help learners.
Finally, it might be helpful, when any of us think that we have been injured in some way, to think of Ed, of his history here, and of how he has conducted himself. He started this list because he had a commitment to help learners and he believed that he had a set of good ideas on how that goal could be pursued. He hoped that through ATEG, a community of people could develop to further this goal.
Well, it didn't work out the way that Ed would have dictated, if he had been The King of ATEG. There can be no doubt that Ed feels some disappointment, given how much of himself he put into this organization. But Ed continues in good faith, and, very impressive to me, he continues to put his ideas on the line before this group. Of course, in doing so, he may be critical of other proposals, but always in an open, constructive way, and he has never to my knowledge tried to silence other participants, even if they disagreed with him.
Jim Kenkel
Eastern Kentucky University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
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/
|
