Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
using the word.
I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
little less.
Phil Bralich wrote:
> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say, yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in time and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park last night."
>
> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so are numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>
>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and so
>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to thought.
>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>
>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to make
>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters yet)
>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and quite
>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like 'pencil'
>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it is
>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f' understands
>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a traditional
>> grammar regiment.
>>
>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well, probably
>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches her
>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything out
>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would say
>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>
>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to know
>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>> school.
>>>
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eduard,
>>>> =20
>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> where =
>>>
>>>
>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>
>>>>
>>> instruction =
>>>
>>>
>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts, principles,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>>
>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>
>>>>
>>> grammars =
>>>
>>>
>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>
>>>>
>>> teacher, =
>>>
>>>
>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>
>>>>
>>> content =
>>>
>>>
>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>
>>>>
>>> pretend =
>>>
>>>
>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>
>>>>
>>> gratefully =
>>>
>>>
>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>> =20
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Eduard =
>>>
>>>
>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herb:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than I
>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to the
>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to write a
>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which grade
>>>>
>>>>
>>> (s)
>>>
>>>
>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each adjusted
>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the elementary
>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students. Each
>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its own
>>>> purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Eduard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in which
>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> others
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Traditional
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools for
>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with a
>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't have
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a lot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes mindless
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> terms,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>> James Sebastian Bear
>> Montpelier Public School
>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
>>
>> 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/
>
>
--
James Sebastian Bear
Montpelier Public School
www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.html
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/
|
