>Scott,
   I like your way of summing it up; we not only need to read these texts,
but we need to explore the structure of them, essentially "how they
work." One reason that doesn't happen is that most people don't know
how they work; another is that many people believe the processing of
syntax can and should remain below consciousness for most people.
   I don’t want to imply that there is no value in reading. I am an avid
reader, and my children have been read to almost from birth. My
reaction to Johanna’s post is that she seemed to be saying that
exposure to complex texts would be sufficient for the transition. It
seemed to me out of character with her other positions. But this is
important enough to take some time with; I think it’s more important
than some of the details we are getting bogged down on in our current
talk.
    The current progressive anti-grammar position is largely “whole
language” in its base. The whole language position is that language is
acquired, largely unconsciously, within the context of use.  One
argument against the teaching of grammar is that it draws attention
and time away from the “higher order” activities of reading and
writing. This position also draws on the linguists’ observation that
children everywhere routinely learn the language they hear around them
without the need for direct instruction. Exposure is the main
requirement. One problem, of course, is that the students’ home
language tends to be non-standard in very predictable ways, so what’s
needed, they believe, is some minimally intrusive process  to
“correct’ those forms without making the student feel too badly about
their home language and their home communities. (Code-switching is one
way to deal with that without shaking the boat too hard.)  Not much
knowledge is needed, as these people see it, and it should happen in
“mini-lessons” and “at point of need.”  Language is essentially a
behavior, and one that can happen unconsciously unless some “error”
calls to us for attention. The position wouldn’t have lasted as long
as it has if there wasn’t some substance to it, the most substantial
part of it being that exposure to excellent language has a very
positive effect. Johanna’s point that exposure to complex texts would
solve the problem brings, at least to me, this whole progressive
position into play.
     One point I would like to make, and one I haven’t heard often or
clearly, is that the transition from speaking to writing is far, far
more important and complex than the transition from home language to
the language of Standard English. I think we have it exactly wrong.
To the extent that students learn to attend to the real work of
writing, standard forms will fall into their repertoire. But they
will not learn to write effective narratives and reports and
arguments and technical texts just by exposure or just by shallow
“corrections”.  Publicly, we simply do not understand the changes a
child has to go through to do well in school and in public life. The
argument has been—and continues to be--a very shallow one.
    I say from time to time that error is best dealt with from a deep
knowledge base, and I will continue to say that, but that also means
that error is best dealt with if we aim at something far more
substantial and important.
    Meaning happens in and through the grammar. It is a meaning-making
system, and it includes ways for us to represent the world, ways to be
expressive, and ways to engage our readers. I’m taking a position very
opposite to Bruce (with high regards and respect.) We need a public
grammar that pays deep attention to the way grammar works within the
context of discourse. Traditional grammar doesn’t do that, but a
revised traditional grammar can at least give us a base of
understanding we can put to work in those contexts. I’m disturbed by
having error reduction or passing high stakes tests as our primary
goal, in part because they bring the minimalist approach into play.
People want to know what they need to know for these purposes, and
since many middle class kids don’t make these errors, and since middle
class people own the decision making apparatus, the deeper needs are
not being addressed. I'm uncomfortable with the notion that the only
solution is a choice between more high interewst reading, more drills
to reduce error, or some combination of the two.
    Let me sum this up as a response to Johanna’s original post. Technical
texts differ from speech in ways that are not well explained by
traditional grammar or by adherence to Standard English. Some students
seem to do well by mere exposure within the context of the
disciplines, but many do not. The better we understand these changes,
the better chance we have of helping the great number of students who
might otherwise be shut out of important professions. In the process,
I think we need to change what people know about language, not just
what they do.
    Like those who advocate "whole language" instruction, I think we need
to pay homage to the language we all learn by virtue of being human.
But I advocate the value of knowledge about language, and in part that
means shifting the attention away from error and toward the role of
grammar in the making of meaning, in representing the world,
expressing our own ideas and feelings and experiences and
perspectives, and engaging readers of various kinds in various ways.
   This approach to grammar doesn’t take us AWAY from literature, but
deeply into it. It is as necessary to English studies as reading and
writing in part because it deeply enriches those activities.
   To the extent that we don’t explore grammar publicly, it is deeply
misunderstood and deeply marginalized. We can’t make the argument
because very few people are even open to the possibility that grammar
is at the heart of language, not just a superficial set of rules that
attempt to constrain it.
   To this point, we don't even have consensus as a group about our goals.
The Scope and Sequence project has been evolving as an approach that
advocates understanding, not just "exposure."

 Craig,
>
>   Dr. Rubba seems to be saying that high school students do not read very
> much, and if they read more, they would become better readers.  Unless I
> misread Dr. Rubba's post, what she suggests is demonstrably true.
> People who read more become better readers.  Those who read more and get
> careful, explicit instruction in how to read increasingly difficult
> texts become even better readers.  Texts differ in their structure;
> students who are explicitly taught how to understand the structure and
> purpose of the different kinds of texts they are expected to comprehend
> will improve their reading more than those who receive no such
> instruction.  But students who who do not read very much, regardless of
> the instruction they receive, do not improve nearly as much in their
> reading skill as those who read more.  Could this really be in dispute?
> Reading well requires a combination of knowledge acquisition and skill
> development, both of which take time and effort.
>
>   Scott W. Woods
>   Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   Johanna,
> I'm surprised you would fall back on the "if they read it will rub off"
> argument for difficult texts.>It seems out of place with all the rest.
> One problem, I think, is that students mainly read literature in their
> English classes. Texts in the technical disciplines, even history and
> the social sciences, can be organized quite differently. The other
> problem is that we are asking students to make changes that we do not
> understand. It doesn't help to simply say it will happen from exposure.
> I have been reading Mary Schleppegrell's "The Language of Schooling",
> and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in these issues. It's a
> rich discussion of the way that language functions within the technical
> registers. Our first tendency, I think, is to believe that these are
> superficial differences, as in your example, but they are not. She
> makes a good case that students can be much better served if we have a
> better understanding of the kind of changes that have to happen and if
> we make those changes explicit. I'm working my way toward a full review
> of the book, but that's a quick summary of the reasons for my comments.
> From a functional perspective, these are not just formal differences in
> the texts, but highly functional differences. Technical texts do a
> different kind of work than we find in a typical narrative.
> Schleppegrel also focuses in on the kinds of texts that are valued in
> high stakes testing, where we read passages and respond. Again, it's
> not just a matter of conventional correctness, and I don't think the
> school population is well served by teachers who are unconscious of
> their own decisions and unaware of what they are asking students to do.
> She is writing out of a systemic functional linguistics tradition, but
> does a nice job of summarizing other research.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Paul,
>>
>> I favor using the "-al" suffix to distinguish class from function. It
>> is a little subtle, and hard for older students who aren't used to
>> studying about language, and for people who have internalized
>> traditional grammar. But I can't think of an alternative, and it should
>> work well if it is introduced and maintained in a long-term (over
>> years!) grammar curriculum.
>>
>> I also believe it's important to go to even-more superordinate levels,
>> like "head", "modifier", and "complement". All at the appropriate age,
>> of course.
>>
>> Craig raised the issue of the complexity of written texts in an earlier
>> post. I believe a major reason students have trouble with these texts
>> is that they don't read enough -- not enough of such texts, and not
>> enough, period. I think we will find that studying grammar helps with
>> reading ability, but I believe the main way to become fluent at reading
>> is by reading, and progressing incrementally from easier to harder
>> levels (like we used to do in school). (Granted, school readers still
>> advance incrementally, but too many kids aren't doing enough reading to
>> become fluent at the higher levels.)
>>
>> I also remain firmly convinced that reading high-level texts is
>> necessary to being able to write them. No grammar course can teach the
>> full range of structures used in high-level writing. Not only is there
>> variety in grammar, but there is a very large number of fixed
>> expressions that occur in formal writing (such as "I remain firmly
>> convinced"). Language learning doesn't stop at age 5. People continue
>> to learn unconsciously probably all of their lives, but certainly very
>> actively in childhood and adolescence.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
> countries) for 2¢/min or less.
>
> 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/