Eduard,
    These are delightful polemics, and I want to say I also share a deep
frustration (as do most on this list) with the unconscionable lack of
attention to language in our school curriculums. I would just like to
try to clarify a few ways in which you may be misunderstanding my
position.
    When we say a student already "knows" grammar, we are saying they have
internalized a system of complex rules.  For example, they "know' the
order of operations in a noun phrase ("A very bright college
student"), something that is very hard to teach (to bring to conscious
understanding.)The prescriptive rules (like using "whom" in objective
case, not using "I" in a formal paper, whatever) just float on the
surface of this deeper language.  Prescriptive grammar, in other
words, aims at changing SOME behavior, but doesn't go any deeper than
that. (I know that's not your position.  I think you and I share an
interest in seeing study of language go much deeper than that.)
    I agree that language acquisition depends enormously on interaction
and exposure. My wife and I have read to our children almost from the
day they were born, and they are now lifetime readers. No one is going
to pick up vocabulary without exposure to it.  (Exposure seems more
important than direct teaching.)  I have absolutely no desire to make
apologies for some kid hanging on the corner with nothing to talk
about but drugs and sex. But if that kid comes into my classroom (some
version of him always will), my first step will be to try to put his
language to work in some sort of engaged text. A more mature language
has to build from what he already has.  We have no real choice in
this. And it should build from an appreciation that what he has,
however undeveloped, is already substantial. He simply has no
experience putting it to work in the kinds of tasks required by
writing. If appropriately engaged, progress can be quick and
remarkable.  In my case, if the student doesn't adjust, he/she will
flunk out of college, pure and simple. They need to write clearly and
thoughtfully, and they need to engage in the intellectual practices
demanded of them in the environment of their chosen fields.  Simply
correcting the surface features of their writing will not get us
there.
    The choice is not simply between prescriptive and descriptive
approaches, especially if descriptive is seen as non-judgemental. 
Functional approaches (for example, the systemic functional grammar of
M.A.K. Halliday) advocate LANGUAGE AWARENESS, helping  students become
 conscious users of language, fully capable of using language
purposefully within whatever contexts they wish to function.
    I would like to think my students would tell you that I am a very
demanding (and helpful) teacher.  My quarrel with most prescriptivists
is that they hardly ever push their students.  Avoiding error is a
tawdry and demeaning goal. Generally, too, (and I don't think this is
true of you), they are more concerned with language habits than they
are with deeper understanding. No one writes in order to avoid error.
No one buys a book because it's correct.
    For every student you find who is overconfident, I can probably come
up with ten who believe they do not have the resources to be competent
writers.  Many know they make mistakes, but feel fairly helpless about
that. I wish they knew more than they do so that it would be easier to
talk.
    The hope of many people on ATEG is that we can influence a much
greater attention to language in the language arts curriculum. In
composition, my main field, this frightens people who believe this
means they are being asked to stop teaching writing and go back to
red-pencilling errors, a method of teaching that has been problematic
in the past. "No child Left Behind" seems more interested in shallow
testing than it does in critical literacy.           >
    Of course, the great benefit of deep study of language is that you are
able to look at prescriptive recommendations and understand and
evaluate them.  (Many seem very dysfunctional to me.)It's not an
either/or choice.
   Before anything of mine hits print (my emails are sometimes informal)it
has probably been rewritten many times. Very, very little of that has
to with "correctness." (Although I'm a very clumsy typist.)A great deal
of that has to do with bringing sentences in line with an evolving
purpose, and grammar has everything in the world to do with that.
   I have had a few Korean students (not Korean-American) with very
sophisticated knowledge about language. It would be interesting to
explore what they do in their schools.
   I hope this helps.  From our discussions so far, you seem intuitively
gracious, but very passionate about your positions. I think there are
ways in which we have common cause.  But let me know if that leaves you
with questions.


Craig
 Herb,
>
> "Afflicted with prescriptivism" in relation to foreign-born Americans
> or with foreigners is DEROGATORY. English is in shambles in this
> country, and the teachers of English are in confusion. Speaking a
> standard English is treated as a "problem" foreigners have, and
> illiteracy has become a badge of honor. The American culture is in
> decadence, and if you don't see it you have lost touch with the world.
>
> Why do American universities have to discriminate against Koreans
> when it comes to admission? Because American students cannnot even
> dream to keep up with them. I took graduate classes with some
> Koreans, and their general and specific langauge was just amazing.
>
> Research shows that the American students who know the least  have
> the highest self-esteem concerning their knowledge and performance.
> We are destroying a generation of students by telling them again and
> again that they are all right, and that they should not aim higher
> because as Americans they are natively endowed with knowledge
> superior to any other ethnic groups or nations. We have repeatedly
> made the claim that the Americans are a superior nation. This is
> imperialism at its worst, and the 40 million of Americans who cannot
> read and write is evidence that this distorted perspective of reality
> is bearing terrible fruits.
>
> Eduard
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>
>>Cynthia,
>>
>>Like you, I have a fair number of international students in my
> classes, =
>>and I'm invariably impressed by their understandin of language and
> of =
>>the problems of language learning. Another thing I've noticed,
> though, =
>>is that they are even more intensely afflicted by prescriptivism
> than =
>>native speakers.  The English they have been taught is formal
> standard =
>>English, and they have no contact with nor any comprehension of
> dialect =
>>variation.  They are taught that subject+auxiliary contraction is =
>>colloquial, or maybe even slang, and then they are surprised when
> they =
>>start studying American English more closely.  They are astonished
> at =
>>the range of variation, for example, the fact that most American
> English =
>>speakers consider the past tense of "sneak" to be "snuck", not =
>>"sneaked", and many other such facts.  But their sensitivity to
> language =
>>differences tends to be gratifying.
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
> Cynthia =
>>Baird
>>Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 8:20 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Language Change
>>=20
>>Dear Herb,
>>  =20
>>  I decided to reply privately since the listserve was getting a
> little =
>>clogged w/this recent discussion and I wasn't sure my response added
> =
>>anything of import.  But I wanted to say that having had several =
>>exchange students this past year (which in my small rural Colo.
> district =
>>is a thing of import) I can understand what you are saying and I
> also =
>>realize my own limitations in being monolingual (although I can
> converse =
>>in Spanish).  My favorite student right now (in some ways) is my
> South =
>>Korean student who absolutely loves the English language.  Like many
> =
>>exchange students, he is fluent in several languages, most dominant
> is =
>>his native language and French.  He loves the expressive nature of =
>>English, he says.  He can say exactly what he wants to say.  I don't
> =
>>understand what he's feeling, I only know what he's telling me.  And
> I =
>>also recognize that the ability to understand several languages
> enhances =
>>one's ability to understand the range, and limitations, of
> articulating =
>>the !
>> human
>> experience, which is what I believe language is all about.
>>
>>"Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  Eduard,
>>
>>Your educational, cultural, and linguistic background is indeed
> varied
>>and impressive. While I'm not bilingual, I have reading and/or
> speaking
>>knowledge of German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Yoruba, and a little
> Swedish.
>>I've pretty much forgotten my Ekpari and Ewe, a Nigerian and a
>>Ghanaian/Togolese language respectively. I would agree with you that
> a
>>larger vocabulary gives one educational and employment advantages, a
>>fact that has been borne repeatedly. However, it is not the case that
>>illiteracy equates with limited vocabulary. Some of the most eloquent
>>and highly respected users of Yoruba are elders, who may often be
>>illiterate, even though there is a fairly high level of both English
> and
>>Yoruba literacy in SW Nigeria. These elders will be highly regarded
> for
>>their facility with language, and even educated, literate younger
> people
>>will seek to learn from them and to emulate them. This phenomenon is
>>reflected worldwide in traditional cultures. You'll find it also in
>>this country in areas where a traditional linguistic culture has been
>>preserved, as in some parts of Appalachia, the South, and up and down
>>the East Coast.
>>
>>I'm curious whom you might have been meeting in NYC who would speak
> such
>>a limited Gastarbeiter English. Very recent immigrants?
>>African-Americans, Hispanics, and others of other ethnicities who are
>>native New Yorkers? While some native NYC members of these groups may
>>not have the command of educated vocabulary of someone with an
> advanced
>>degree, their vocabulary will exceed 200 by at least a factor of
> 7500 to
>>12,000, or more. So limited a vocabulary as you refer to would be
> found
>>at best among brand new arrivals who have just begun to learn
> English.
>>Unless you were in contact only with people of that description, your
>>estimate is not credible.
>>
>>Now, are all languages equal? Well, English certainly has the largest
>>vocabulary of any of the major languages in use today, due to its
> heavy
>>borrowing from French, Latin, Greek, and scores of other languages.
> And
>>English has undergone the sort of vocabulary development that comes
> with
>>the development of the sciences and other disciplines among speakers
> of
>>a language. There are vocabulary development projects going on in
> many
>>languages now to adapt them to handle the concepts and products of
> the
>>modern world and the global economy. Adding vocabulary to a language
> is
>>not a trivial task, but it's also a very common one. All languages
> can
>>do this. Some have just had a head start at it.
>>
>>Like you, I've read works in more than one language: the Iliad and
> the
>>Odyssey in Greek and English, the Aeneid in Latin and English,
> Schiller
>>and Goethe in German and English, one of D. O. Fagunwa's novels in
>>Yoruba and English, books of the Bible in Greek or Hebrew and
> English,
>>German or Latin. The difference is far more than vocabulary, although
>>unquestionably differences in lexicon are an important factor. But
>>there are crucial differences in rhetoric, in grammar, in metaphor,
> in
>>cultural connections and themes mediated by language that go into the
>>vast differences between great literature in the original and in
>>translation. And the works in translation aren't inevitably inferior.
>>The German translations of Shakespeare's works by von Schlegel and
>>Wieland, for example, are considered on a par with the originals.=20
>>
>>A culture develops the vocabulary it needs. This is true also of
>>subcultures. Many of us can function well in more than one
> subculture,
>>and our vocabulary suits the subculture we're in.
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Eduard C. Hanganu [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:50 PM
>>To: Stahlke, Herbert F.W.; [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Language Change
>>
>>
>>Dear Herb:
>>
>>I think you said it very well: "A culture culture tends to have
> the=20
>>vocabulary it needs." An illiterate society needs at most a
> survival=20
>>language. When I lived in New York City the people I met on the=20
>>street were speaking a Gastarbait English, that is, about 200
> words=20
>>on the average, and nothing more. Sorry, but this is not my culture.
>>
>>You must also consider lexical attrition and language death. Are=20
>>these also insignificant changes? I don't think so. And yes,
> because=20
>>I am fully bilingual I can tell you from experience that the size
> of=20
>>a language lexicon makes a difference. Not all languages are
> equal.=20
>>The larger your language lexicon is, the better you can express
> the=20
>>concepts and notions you are dealing with.=20
>>
>>I believe that those who believe that language change is neutral
> are=20
>>monolingual and have had very little exposure to the cultures of
> the=20
>>world, otherwise they would not express such an absurdity. I have=20
>>command of Romanian and English, and I can read a novelin
> French,and=20
>>I can see from experience what it is to read the same novel in all=20
>>three languages: an extraordinary difference. And this difference
> is=20
>>in the largest degree due to the lexicon.
>>
>>Ed Vavra asked me a little while ago to talk a little about my=20
>>background, and maybe now is a good time. I grew up in Romania and=20
>>went to public school there. Because I loved languages I took as=20
>>many (languages) as I could. I took Romanian for 12 years, Russian=20
>>for eight years (from the fifth to the 12th grade), French and
> Latin=20
>>for four years (from the 9th to the 12th grade).=20
>>
>>In the 11th grade I began to study English on my own, from grammar=20
>>books, language textbooks, and from different recordings. I=20
>>continued to study English with my family, so that when we came to=20
>>the United States we were all fluent in English.=20
>>
>>My passion for language seemed to grow all the time, so I went to=20
>>college in New York City, and obtained a B.A. in Linguistics from=20
>>CUNY. I moved then to Indiana, and continued with graduate
> education=20
>>in Linguistics, which I completed with an M.A. in Linguistics/TESOL.
>>At the present time I am continuing my education towards a Ph.D.
> in=20
>>Language Education from Indiana State.
>>
>>As you see, my knowledge of language includes an experience with=20
>>traditional grammar and British English in Romania, and
> Linguistics=20
>>in the United States. The fact that I have lived on two continents=20
>>and I have been exposed to a variety of cultures makes it possible=20
>>for me to compare cultures and languages and debunk some of the=20
>>myths which are so common in a culture which is mostly monolingual=20
>>and with very little exposure to the cultures of the world.
>>
>>Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>
>>>Eduard,
>>>
>>>With my question I was taking the Aitchins position, one that is=20
>>very
>>>widely held in linguistics. As to loss and gain in the lexicon, a
>>>culture tends to have the vocabulary it needs. Without getting into
>>>what Geoffrey Pullum has properly called "The Great Eskimo=20
>>Vocabulary
>>>Hoax," we can look at domains like kinship terms. I'm sure that
> in=20
>>the
>>>languages you know different relationships are named that are not=20
>>the
>>>same from language to language. In Yoruba, for example, there is no
>>>word for brother or sister. The contrast is based on age relative=20
>>to
>>>ego, so egbon means "senior sibling" and aburo means "junior=20
>>sibling",
>>>rather than on sex as in English. If young people are losing the
>>>distinctions among "soil", "land", "ground", and "mud" it may be=20
>>that
>>>those distinctions are no longer salient in a highly urbanized=20
>>culture.
>>>At the same time they are developing and acquiring names for myriad
>>>devices that we didn't know about at their age. Whether this loss=20
>>is
>>>good or bad depends on whether you have talk about a domain in which
>>>those distinctions are important. For most people today, that set=20
>>may
>>>be less salient than it used to be. But notice that as young people
>>>specialize, they very quickly acquire the new vocabulary they're=20
>>going
>>>to need in their discipline or hobby.
>>>
>>>Herb
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:19 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Language Change
>>>
>>>Dear Herb:
>>>
>>>Aitchins (and others)claim that language change is neither=20
>>positive=3D20
>>>nor negative. I disagree. One language change that is
> definitely=3D20
>>>negative is loss of words due to cumulating (or collapsing)
>>multiple=3D20
>>>senses into one single word. =3D20
>>>
>>>I the region where I live, for example, people have been using=20
>>more=3D20
>>>and more the word "dirt" to=20
>>describe "soil, "land," "ground," "mud,"=3D20
>>>and "garbage." While some of these words have overlapping
> senses,=3D20
>>>each term has its own specific use. Collapsing all these words=20
>>into=3D20
>>>one word is a lexical loss for the language, and leads to a=20
>>survival=3D20
>>>lexicon.
>>>
>>>Eduard=3D20
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>
>>>>Craig,
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to see more comment on your last clause, "and it may=20
>>not=3D20
>>>always
>>>>seem for the best." Therein lies a mammoth body of social=3D20
>>>judgments and
>>>>prescriptivist nostrums. The question is whether there are=20
>>language
>>>>changes that are in some definable sense good or bad.
>>>>
>>>>Herb
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:12 AM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: comparing superlatives (was: Blue Color; each other)
>>>>
>>>>Paul,
>>>> I'm with you on one level. It's a shame when a perfectly fine
>>>>(indeed,
>>>>a unique word) begins to lose its special quality. You would=20
>>like=3D20
>>>to
>>>>use it in such a way that everyone knows you mean "one of a=20
>>kind".=3D20
>>>It's
>>>>the kind of point I enjoy from William Safire in his columns. Your
>>>>students, though, are used to thinking of it as meaning "unusual"
>>>>because that is a common meaning for it in actual use. I confess=20
>>I=3D20
>>>have
>>>>probably said "very unique" without thinking about it as
>>>>problematic.>Thanks to your conversation, I have now looked=20
>>closely=3D20
>>>at
>>>>the dictionary and deepened my understanding.
>>>> I love the idea that you would talk to your students about it.=20
>>=3D20
>>>When
>>>>language changes, something is gained and something is lost.
> You=3D20
>>>care
>>>>about fine shades of meaning, as we all should. Ultimately, I think
>>>>decisions about these sorts of changes are out of our hands. A=20
>>word
>>>>means what people think it means. But I also think that sort of
>>>>discussion with students is very productive. Language changes over
>>>>time, and it may not always seem for the best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Craig,
>>>>>
>>>>> My problem with "very unique" is that unique means (to ME),=20
>>one=3D20
>>>of a
>>>>> kind (or some emphatic variation of that idea). It is=20
>>illogical=3D20
>>>to me
>>>>to
>>>>> say that something can be "very one of a kind" or "most one of a
>>>>kind."
>>>>> I'm not sure how I feel about "thoroughly unique" and "absolutely
>>>>> unique;" for some reason, and I am hard pressed to express=20
>>what=3D20
>>>that
>>>>> reason is, the logic doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm being too fussy
>>>>about
>>>>> that usage. What I really meant to emphasise in my previous post,
>>>>> however, was that many of my students couldn't see the
> logical=3D20
>>>problem
>>>>> in the expression in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's curious that the two most "objectional" examples from=20
>>the=3D20
>>>OED
>>>>below
>>>>> are first from the voice of a toad (In "The Wind in the Willows")
>>=3D20
>>>and
>>>>> next from an advertisement (Country Life, 1939). I guess that
>>>>fictional
>>>>> toads and real-life ad copy writers have a different sent of=3D20
>>>standards
>>>>> from mine!
>>>>>
>>>>> So it goes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>> >Paul,
>>>>> I just remembered I can access the OED if I use my UAlbany=3D20
>>>account.
>>>>> Here's a section copied from their entry for "unique". It has=20
>>been
>>>>> "Objected to", as they say, but a fairly common practice in=20
>>their=3D20
>>>own
>>>>> examples, dating back well into the nineteenth century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> From the OED, the second entry for "unique":
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. a. That is or forms the only one of its kind; having no
> like=20
>>or
>>>>> equal; standing alone in comparison with others, freq. by=20
>>reason=3D20
>>>of
>>>>> superior excellence; unequalled, unparalleled, unrivalled.
>>>>> In this sense readopted from French at the end of the 18th c. and
>>>>> regarded as a foreign word down to the middle of the 19th,=20
>>from=3D20
>>>which
>>>>> date it has been in very common use, with a tendency to take=20
>>the=3D20
>>>wider
>>>>> meaning of 'uncommon, unusual, remarkable'.
>>>>> The usage in the comparative and superlative, and with advs. as
>>>>> absolutely, most, quite, thoroughly, totally, etc., has been=3D20
>>>objected
>>>>to
>>>>> as tautological.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1618 W. BARCLAY Well at King-horne Avij, This is a soueraigne and
>>>>vnicke
>>>>> remedie for that disease in Women. 1794 R. J. SULIVAN View=20
>>Nat.=3D20
>>>I. 3 A
>>>>> concentrated, and an unique aggregation of almost all the=20
>>wonders=3D20
>>>of
>>>>the
>>>>> natural world. 1809 R. K. PORTER Trav. Sk. Russia & Sweden (1813)
>>=3D20
>>>I.
>>>>xxv.
>>>>> 285 As it was thoroughly unique, I cannot forbear presenting=20
>>you=3D20
>>>with
>>>>so
>>>>> singular a curiosity. 1842 J. P. COLLIER Armin's Nest Ninn.=3D20
>>>Introd., A
>>>>> relic..not only unique in itself, but unprecedented in its=20
>>kind.=3D20
>>>1866
>>>>> LIDDON Bamp. Lect. v. (1867) 368 [Christ's] relationship to the
>>>>Father..is
>>>>> absolutely unique. 1871 B. TAYLOR Faust (1875) II. II. i. 84
> A=3D20
>>>thing
>>>>so
>>>>> totally unique The great collectors would go far to seek. 1885
>>>>Harper's
>>>>> Mag. April 703/1 When..these summer guests found themselves=3D20
>>>defrauded
>>>>of
>>>>> their uniquest recreations. 1908 K. GRAHAME Wind in Willows=20
>>viii.=3D20
>>>168
>>>>> 'Toad Hall,' said the Toad proudly, 'is an eligible self-
>>contained
>>>>> gentleman's residence, very unique.' 1912 CHESTERTON Manalive=20
>>I.=3D20
>>>iii.
>>>>86
>>>>> Diana Duke..began putting away the tea things. But it was
> not=3D20
>>>before
>>>>> Inglewood had seen an instantaneous picture so unique that
> he=3D20
>>>might
>>>>well
>>>>> have snapshotted it. 1939 Country Life 11 Feb. p. xviii/2=20
>>(Advt.),
>>>>Almost
>>>>> the most unique residential site along the south coast. 1960 [see
>>>>DIQUAT].
>>>>> 1980 Verbatim Autumn 15/2 A high-ranking state Alcoholic Beverage
>>>>> Commission official said Friday that Wednesday's retroactive=3D20
>>>renewal
>>>>and
>>>>> transfer of the beverage permit of the rural Bloomington=20
>>Liars'=3D20
>>>Lodge
>>>>by
>>>>> the Monroe County Alcoholic Beverage Board was 'unique but not
>>>>uncommon'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't the 'each' automatically make the 'other' singular?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of redundancy, my students often struggle against=20
>>the=3D20
>>>notion
>>>>>> that "very unique" doesn't make sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> stein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is your posting Joanne.
>>>>>> Thank you, Herb and Paul for responding to my question.
>>>>>> Dalia
>>>>>> -------Original Message-------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Johanna Rubba
>>>>>> Date: 03/15/06 02:51:00
>>>>>> To: stein
>>>>>> Cc: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Blue Color; each other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dalia,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if you could post this for me: (Thanks!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I like the blue color" could be another example of the tendency
>>>>>> towards redundant expressions which seems to be strong in=20
>>English
>>>>right
>>>>>> now. My students often write things like "equally as good";=3D20
>>>there's
>>>>the
>>>>>> old "refer back"; "both my sister and brother share this=3D20
>>>tendency";
>>>>and
>>>>>> others that don't come readily to mind. I can imagine someone
>>>>>> responding to a question like "Which color shirt do you
> like=3D20
>>>best?"
>>>>>> with "The blue color." "Color" links the answer to the=20
>>question,=3D20
>>>and
>>>>>> puts the queried word ("which color") in the answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also have a query about "each other" -- how do we make it
>>>>possessive,
>>>>>> as in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They are always snooping into each other's business." Should=20
>>it=3D20
>>>be <
>>>>>> each others' > ? I keep doing a Gestalt shift on this; right=20
>>now=3D20
>>>the
>>>>>> first one looks right. How about a clear more-than-two:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The students then proofread each other's papers." Here, the=20
>><'s>
>>>>looks
>>>>>> wrong; the coreference with the plural "students" is getting=20
>>in=3D20
>>>the
>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>>>>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor
>>>>>> English Department
>>>>>> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>>>>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Tel.: 805.756.2184
>>>>>> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>>>>>> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>>>>>> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This mail was scanned via Beit Berl PineApp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This mail was scanned via Beit Berl PineApp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and=3D20
>>>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/
>>>>
>>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web=3D20
>>>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=20
>>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/
>>
>>
>>	=09
>>---------------------------------
>> Yahoo! Mail
>> Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
>>
>>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/