I've been challenged by the Curriculum Co-ordinator for my department
to present a definition of functional grammar that "takes thirty
seconds or less." He strikes me as quite a traditionalist who rolls his
eyes at the very mention of grammar instruction. I'd appreciate any
concise definitions anyone would care to provide.
Thanks.
Warren
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding
grammar period
Bill,
That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to figure
out how to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to
argue against Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to
offer as well. (Our students should be engaged in reading and writing
activities that they feel are important rather than just building
skills out of workbooks.) I think what we need is a new kind of
synthesis, not just choosing sides in an old debate.
As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly appreciative of
Michael Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a
Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University Press,
2003). He doesn't believe we have innate rules that drive the system,
but highly functional patterns that rise from actual use. Children
learn language in large part because they understand the contexts being
named. Because many language decisions happen below the threshold of
consciousness does not necessarily mean they were not acquired or that
conscious attention was not part of that. To the extent that we
understand language acquisition as a socialization process (one we can
be mentored into), it becomes easier to value (and promote) conscious
understanding.
I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What aspects of
language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those
relevant aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to
teach them.
All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think Ron's
point all along.
Craig
Spruiell, William C wrote:
Craig,
Ron, et al.,
In
a sense, the anti-grammar movement isn’t based on the
innatist position as it is developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being
the
most famous example of one of its proponents) – it’s based on a
dramatic overgeneralization of innatism. In defense of Chomsky – and as
a
functionalist, I find myself feeling rather odd typing that phrase –
his theory
simply claims that children acquire the language they’re exposed to
in
infancy and early childhood without conscious effort, etc.
Additional
dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the written variants of the
language
(which are in a sense dialect-like, but shaped by additional factors
such as
distancing between writer and reader, etc.) would not be “acquired”
in the same way. In fact, Chomsky’s use of innatism to support the idea
that language-learning ability drops off precipitously in early
adolescence
implicitly contradicts the notion that innatism means you can ignore
conscious
learning procedures in later development.
I
don’t happen to agree with Chomsky on the factors
leading to “critical period” effects, or on a number of other
issues as well, but I also can’t see the antigrammarian position as
being
motivated by his notions of innatism – it was, in a sense, seized upon
as
a science-y sounding rationale for a position people wanted to adopt
anyway. If
anything, the strict innatist position, along with the notion of a
critical
period, implies that students can’t achieve nativelike
fluency in another dialect. I suppose that could be used as a different
excuse
not to teach grammar, but pessimism makes a lousy basis for educational
policy.
Bill
Spruiell
Dept.
of English
Central
Michigan University
From:
Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig
Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly,
rewarding grammar
period
Ron,
The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a
theoretical underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that
means
thinking of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as
largely a
neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what
students can
do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is generally
believed
that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.
You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just
happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these
points
nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique (Dec.
2005. You
can access it online. Martha and I have an article in the same issue.)
Here's a
few quotes.
from
abstract: …there has never been a critical theorization of how
grammar might support the development of writing, and thus there has
been very
limited research which has explored that relationship.. (77)
Quotes
Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy evidence
was what
many in the educational establishment wanted to hear. (80)
What would be so much more interesting,
and
valuable, would be to explore in more subtly nuanced detail what
research can
tell us about what aspects of grammar and knowledge about language are
most
relevant to writing, whether direct teaching of these features can
help
children improve their writing, and what teaching strategies are most
successful in enabling this to happen. (80)
The
truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in
positive,
contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not yet an
established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely
under-researched.
(81)
The rejection of decontextualised, and with
it by
implication, prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful
critique
of what was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the
“grammar in context” principle is both less sharply critiqued and
considerably less clearly conceptualised. There has been little
genuine
discussion or consideration of what “in context” means.
Frequently, observations of classroom practice indicate that the notion
of
“in context” means little more than grammar teaching which is
slotted into English lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some
other
feature of English learning. (82)
I think we are absolutely on the same wave
length. The people who rely on these empirical studies that critique
the
teaching of grammar have not done empirical studies of their own. The
cure has
proven worse than the disease.
But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
Thanks,
Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number of issues
which demand careful responses.
Before
providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my area of
experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I have done
most of
my research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA
(first language acquisition) teachers and students have been the
victims of the
educational theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language in
the
classroom will result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of
massive
exposure to non-standard language outside of the classroom.
I
take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
unaccountable
irresponsibility and this because they did not support their advocacy
with
empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not go into here,
educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and suddenly
teachers were
forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if they did.
Now,
before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would appreciate
your
responding to the above remarks. I know that my assumption is
correct in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?
Ron.
-----
Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday,
September
11, 2007 6:36 AM
Subject: Re:
Supportive empirical
evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period
Ron,
My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect you
and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness that
i have read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who
have
had writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been
measured
over the short term. Generally, this has measured students receiving
grammar
instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we would call control
groups.)
This implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that this
can be
accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus writing as
an
either/or choice.
In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen
could excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of
language, deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and
then have
that determined to be "ineffective" because these students don't
produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score
better on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or a
year. For
an accurate control group, they would have to be denied real writing
practice.
Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge about nouns as
opposed to
students who have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as a
definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test their confidence as
language
explorers or their deeper interest in the subject. We could compare
knowledge
about language between a group studying language and another merely
writing.
Everything depends on a match between the testing and the goals.
I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge based
approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England and
Australia, teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language
into the
curriculum has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that out
empirically.
Perhaps the most direct test would measure knowledge about language,
since that
would be the central goal. We could then try to monitor how well that
knowledge
is put to work in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and so on. The
problem
is that we don't have a current consensus that knowing about language
is a
reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can now produce
more
"accurate grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the
short term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought
of as
valuable goals in their own right.
Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and
putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that
does not
diminish the value of knowing about language and does not demand short
term
results.
We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with no
other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure
progress
along the way.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen,
were, as I
think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your success.
My
comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to
teach
grammar books without including any attempt to demonstrate empirically
that the
approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, and a
suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of comparative
study
yourself.in order to justify the publication of a book.
However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the
problems with
many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so
narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The whole
area of comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the
face of
anyone attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss them
with
the sort of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
A discussion group such as this one provides a
marvellous
forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said,
however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence '
provided
is largely anecdotal and, therefore, unreliable. Though comparative
empirical studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable that such
studies
rigorously carried out are the only way in which we can arrive at
reliable
findings which demonstrate for example that approach A is more
effective than
approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
Now though the so-called action research
carried out by
practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that the
burden
it imposes on teachers is enormous. Consequently, before teachers
embark
on such a project, they should make themselves aware of what is
involved.
Ron Sheen
-----
Original Message -----
From: Gretchen Lee
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday,
September
10, 2007 6:46 AM
Subject: Re:
Supportive
empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period
In
a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
writes:
Though
it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which engage students'
interest and
involvement, one should not confuse the latter with effectiveness in
improving
studens' production of more accurate grammar.
Hello,
I
absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary.
I'm a loooong way from a book. However, my students are lucky to be
from
the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class.
Their
production of "correct" grammar is very good, barring a few
"between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to
engage them in analyzing grammar and making it seem interesting at the
same
time. I can't teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't
know
(and don't care) what a countable noun is.
At
this point the class is less about error
detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out that
grammar
is fascinating. With a little luck, they will stay interested enough
to want
to take a linguistics class in college, rather than avoiding it at all
costs. My little class is obviously silly in many ways (see original
subject line). But for the first time in many of their lives, grammar
is
a class to which they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.
Thanks,
Gretchen
------------------------------------------------------------
See what's
new at AOL.com and Make
AOL Your
Homepage.
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 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/
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com
=0
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/
|
