Eduard,
Nice to see that I have made your list of ignorant, provincial Americans.
John
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 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/
|
