Thanks to Bob Yates for pointing out that not all
grammatical conventions have a semantic basis.

I still treat them separately from those grammatical
conventions that do have a semantic basis.
It's a matter of convention, not meaning.
Not to take up the convention where
it is expected has consequence that is social &
political -- not for comprehension.

Bob Yates wrote
>The only problem with this truism is deciding what the purpose of learning
about
>grammar is.  Do we really have to teach students, especially those in primary
>school, their particular dialect? (Wasn't this exactly the misunderstanding
in the
>Ebonics debate?)  For better or worse, isn't one of the purposes of
schooling to
>teach literacy and one of the purposes of literacy is to control the formal
>standard?
>
>Does anyone know of any academic journal that regularly accepts papers that are
>written in non-standard English or fail to follow the there/their distinction?

Certainly we do not have to teach students what they already
know. I'm sorry if my previous message implied that we were to
teach students their native dialect -- that was certainly not
my intention. The point is that we can USE students' dialects
as a point of departure, for learning how to look AT language,
how to see what there is to analyze, to build up a language for
talking about language with our students, to enlist them in
the work of understanding. This is what I understood to be
the crux of the Ebonics controversy. The resolution was
intended for the TEACHER's benefit, to improve communication
between teachers and students (so teachers can understand
what the Other system is that "interferes" with the students'
use of standard English, so that they can diagnose more
accurately the difficulties students are having and therefore
intervene more effectively...), and to improve students'
attitudes/ stance toward school (which is, in my view,
 the bottom line of literacy instruction -- getting
students invested....)

To ward off any misunderstanding, I want to clarify my position.
I am certainly not suggesting that grammar should never be taught
explicitly; I prefer to set up activities/problems that highlight
grammatical features before making those features explicit. It
can't always be done and it doesn't always work, but it shows
students the relevance of grammar to social life, to their
primary educational project, which is undertstanding themselves
and their world, and that makes my educational responsibilities, which
are to enlarge the world that students understand, possible.

Judith

P.S. This is too long already but I want to add some thoughts
that those who have read this far can choose to read or not...

Mina Shaughnessy's book is still in my view the best reference
for how to intervene in students' non-standard uses of language
in writing -- to provide for novice writers the 'next steps'
in their development. Shaughnessy had the student, not some
idealized system, squarely in view, asking not what the
students were NOT doing but what they WERE doing, reading
formal features of text for students' underlying sense-making.

The differences between school-valued language and less
standard written-text-based language are more than formal.
They are differences with respect to values, concerns,
ways of putting 'things' together -- there is an awful
lot we expect our students to learn; grammatical
conventions are one piece of it. And none of it will
be learned if students have no stake in what they're
doing.

Mina Shaughnessy, _Errors & Expectations: A Guide for the
Teacher of Basic Writing. Sorry, I don't have more of the
cite.

The article mentioned in my last posting:
Wallace Chafe & Jane Danielwica, "Properties of
spoken and written language" IN R. Horowitz & F. J.
Samuels (Eds.) 1987 _Comprehending oral and written
language_

Another cite of possible relevance from the Ablex
series: Advances in Discourse Processes:
Deborah Tannen (Ed.) 1982. _Spoken and Written Language: Exploring
Orality and Literacy_ -- This also has an article by
Wally Chafe.

JD



At 11:28 AM 1/12/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>
>> YES, grammar is meaningful/ has a semantic basis, and,
>> as Bill McLear implied, HAS to be distinguished from the "linguistic
>> etiquette" that prescribes a standard variety for everyone.
>
>This seems to identify one of the big divides in conceptualizing grammar.
>I can think of any number of grammatical distinctions that don't seem to have
>any semantic basis.
>
>Here is one formal property that is not reflected in the underlying meaning and
>that poses some problem in writing standard English.
>
>Consider the tag question for the following sentence:
>    1) Everyone is sick of hearing about Monica Lewinsky, (?) isn't he?
>
>(?) isn't he/she?
>
>2)
>aren't they?
>Notice you cannot say
>     3) *Everyone are sick of hearing about Monica Lewinsky, aren't they?
>
>This is the kind of evidence which shows that there are formal distinctions in
>grammar which can not be related to some underlying semantic difference.
>
>
>> Re: Paul's question, how to "fix" students' grammar,
>> I think the problem might be in the question. If you
>> teach the distinction between grammar, which does
>> have a semantic basis, and those conventions which
>> do not, or for which the semantic basis holds ONLY
>> for writing (like the distinction between "their/ there")
>> then pointing out the 'error' does not impugn the
>> language that students use to make sense. It's an
>> error only with respect to standard written English,
>> which is itself inappropriate in many informal settings.
>
>The only problem with this truism is deciding what the purpose of learning
about
>grammar is.  Do we really have to teach students, especially those in primary
>school, their particular dialect? (Wasn't this exactly the misunderstanding
in the
>Ebonics debate?)  For better or worse, isn't one of the purposes of
schooling to
>teach literacy and one of the purposes of literacy is to control the formal
>standard?
>
>Does anyone know of any academic journal that regularly accepts papers that are
>written in non-standard English or fail to follow the there/their distinction?
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183

Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake