The issue now is about our conception of language. Craig is, of course, right.
>>> "Hancock, Craig G" >>>
Some of us seem far more articulate than others, even in non- school, non-prescriptive contexts. Some of us simply seem more adept at using language in all its manifestations.
However, is being an adept language user really the same kind of knowledge as knowing what the possible forms of the language are?
If you include that functional side to it, I don't think the assumptions hold. It's a more defensible position if you are looking primarily at forms. Native speakers speak grammatically if we decide that grammaticality is determined by what native speakers say. Again, it seems circular to me.
Eduard's point, even if a bit overly strident, is that many people use this reasoning as a basis for dismissing grammar from the curriculum. If our students are already "expert," then there is no value to direct study.
This is quite different from saying that students' knowledge of language should be respected.
From a usage based perspective, what grammar we carry was learned, but has now become automatic. It's there, but not something we normally notice.
Being adept at using the language is not about our knowledge of what is possible, but being able to use that in an effective way.
It is not circular to say that I know the rules of chess, but I am not a very good chess player. However, knowing the rules and knowing how to win is different kind of knowledge. And, it is exactly the same for knowing what is possible in our language and how to use that knowledge effectively.
We all agree that we want our students to be effective language users and that is why we participate here. There are those who claim that competence is enough. Of course, such claims are wrong.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
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/
|
