----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Yates <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: what grammar needs to be taught and why


> Johanna Rubba wrote:
>
> > This makes it sound like the only people we are teaching to when we
teach
> > grammar is speakers of nonstandard dialects. I don't think Bob intends
> > this to be inferred.
>
> That is a most ungenerous reading of what I wrote.  I am assuming that
> we teach grammar to all native speakers of English to help them make
> conscious decisions about what is appropriate, defining appropriate as
> being standard or textually felicitous.
>
> > And I do see a connection to text structure. I've claimed before that
> > choices about sentence structure are governed by the need to manage
> > information flow in texts.
>
> This statement is right.  However, the central question is whether
> knowledge of
> argument structure is necessary to resolve issues of information flow in
> a text.
> >
> > Where different phrases get placed, and which grammatical forms get
chosen
> > to code them, can also vary depending on text-level needs. Yet the
> > thematic role of a constituent doesn't change no matter how it's
'clothed'
> > or placed.
>
> So, how does argument structure help with this?
> >
> > Karen broke the window with a hammer.
> > A hammer was used to break the window.
> > A hammer broke the window.
> > The window was broken with a hammer.
>
> Notice you can also have: The window broke.
> >
> > In all of these sentences, 'a hammer' retains its instrument thematic
> > role, although it is 'packaged' into different syntactic roles: object
of
> > preposition, subject of passive clause, subject of active clause. It may
> > seem like the subject of the active clause is agent, but remember that
> > thematic roles depend on real-world status (or our conceptualization of
> > same), not syntactic status in a given sentence. Languages differ in
what
> > kind of thematic roles can become subjects of passive sentences, and
some
> > languages will not allow an instrument to be coded as subject of a
> > passive.
>
> Right.  And, in English we are talking about verbs which allow this.
>
> Karen painted the house with a sprayer.
> The house was painted with a sprayer.
> A sprayer was used to paint the house.
> ? A sprayer painted the house.  (where sprayer is a tool and not a
> person)
> *The house painted.
>
> I know of NO dialect of English which would immediately allow the last
> two sentences. All of these facts are interesting and raise really
> interesting questions about our knowledge of language, but . . . do
> public school teachers, who see themselves teaching native speakers,
> need to know the difference between paint and break?
>
> Do I need to know about thematic roles to make decisions about
> information flow?  I don't have Kolln's Rhetorical Grammar in front of
> me, but I don't remember a chapter which deals with this topic.  Do
> native speaker have difficulty in information flow in a text because
> they are not aware which thematic roles can be moved around with or
> without passive morphology?  I don't think so.
>
> All of this is interesting to dispel the notion that the "subject" of a
> sentence/clause is a "doer."  Ok, so we don't want to define the
> grammatical subject of a sentence as a "doer."
>
> > > On the other hand, thematic roles are a problem for non-native
> > > speakers.
>
> > This is true, and it makes thematic roles more immediately useful in
> > teaching non-native speakers. But that's not our primary concern in
ATEG,
> > as we have been reminded in the past.
>
> My entire post was responding to this question:
>
> > > Are thematic roles of any use in grammar teaching?
>
> Excuse me, but the ONLY way to answer that question is to ask who the
> students are.  I can think of any number grammatical structures I have
> to be prepared to teach to non-native speakers that I never have to
> teach to native speakers.  For example, native speakers never have to be
> taught about how the article system in English works.  The entire
> distinction of count/non-count nouns is never something native speakers
> have to be taught. etc.  These distinctions have important implications
> for certain grammatical decisions that are influenced by information
> flow.   I don't know of any study which reveals that native speakers
> have any difficult with these structures.
>
> So, is knowledge about the article system in English or the
> count/non-count distinction of any use in grammar teaching?  It depends
> on the students.
>
> Bob Yates