Whoah, there. Didn't see anything in there about you, Bob. Unless you are
"much of twentieth century linguistics" or perhaps if you "study grammar as
an isolated formal system" (maybe you do, but I didn't think so), I don't
see how you take this as a slight.

How are you dismissed? Offended? Really? Craig reminds us, quite accurately,
of ATEG's big tent nature with invitations for all. This is your response?

I'm not "defending" Craig, only expressing how tired I am of the pattern.
Craig posts collegiality; Bob yells foul. C'mon, brother. Either grow a
thicker skin, contribute *your* input without feeling the need to defend
yourself, or simply don't read emails that are from people you don't care
for. Email filters are easy to set up.

Maybe this is how things are done in whatever academic bubble you reside ,
but here it is simply not helpful. We've got to make ATEG a community of
practitioners that are more concerned about *sharing*, *building, *and *
growing* than defending their own towers.

Definitely just my opinion.

John

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Really?
>
> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 08/30/11 10:56 AM >>>
>  Much of twentieth century linguistics has done exactly that, dealing with
> grammar as separate from
> the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition. Of course, if you
> study grammar as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to
> apply that to--for example--writing. You need to devise a whole other
> set of "rules" before that knowledge can be put to use.
>
> Thanks Craig for once again writing in this public forum that the work Jim
> Kenkel and I have done over the last decade has absolutely nothing to say
> about developmental writing.
>
> For an example of what Craig dismisses, you might want to read:
>
> Kenkel, J. & Yates, R. (2009).  The interlanguage grammar of information in
> L1 and L2 developmental writing.  Written Communication, 26/4, 392-416.
>
> Someday you might actually read that work, Craig, and explain how that
> paper is seriously flawed and your perspective is more insightful.
>
> Let me make the following challenge so you can stop writing the above:
> Let's  propose a presentation at a conference and you can tell me to my face
> why my work has nothing to say about the teaching of writing to
> developmental writers.
>
> In the meantime, I'm more than willing to tell you why Systemic Functional
> Linguistics can't explain (at least the papers I know) why developmental
> writers do what they do.
>
> Of course, it could be we are interested in two different things: you want
> to describe developmental writing as how it deviates from some standard
> while Jim and I have been interested in understanding what the underlying
> principles are that result in such deviations.
>
> In the meantime, your last post is incredibly offensive to the work Jim
> Kenkel and I have done. and you know this because i have written this
> before. Please educate yourself and stop it or tell me how our work is
> useless and you assumptions are to be preferred.
>
> Bob Yates
>
> 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/