Ron,
I apologize for responding to your post addressed to Craig. I feel we need to cut Craig some slack; he has some serious work to do right now. I was the one who brought up the analogy with the hammer as a tool in the workshop. The idea I had in mind had to do with language being that workshop offering the user with a number of tools, each designed for various purposes. In language the tools offered are not very flexible and keep their original nature, even when we try to use them in other ways. Like any metaphor this one can be pressed too far and may not illuminate very much the field it was originally applied to. Systemic functional grammar, which, I believe, Craig has brought into the classroom (a tool in another sense), has a primary focus on how grammatical structures function in actual use; in the "game" (Wittgenstein) that is social and personal interactions. . . .
Bruce
>>> Ronald Sheen <[log in to unmask]> 10/18/07 7:16 PM >>>
Many thanks to Craig for expressing his various concerns. I really do not
think that 'hostile' is not the best way to characterise Bob's questions
though he was clearly challenging your position but isn't that what robust
debate is all about?
However, to concentrate on cognitive linguistics (CL), could you explain to
us, Craig, how your example of 'hammer' fits into CL.
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: An ethical academic duty was Rules was Those old transitivity
blues
> Ron, Bob,
> I don't mean to imply that I don't want to have a serious discussion
> about language, and I think Bruce and I are doing just that. But there are
> certain aspects of collegiality that we need to follow for the good of the
> list.
> Frankly, I am disappointed that we do not have cognitive linguists to
> talk to on list. We should be going out of our way to invite cognitive
> linguists and to try to find out what they are doing and how they are
> doing it and what the current state of their approach is and so on. These
> are not shallow people and their work is not unscientific. Unfortunately,
> I have had to research it on my own with very little chance to talk about
> it. I am excited about new ideas and somewhat lonely at the moment because
> no one around me seems to share my interests. So when Bruce asks me
> questions about the current views I am trying out as a result of several
> months of serious reading, I think it is more important to elucidate a
> point of view than it is to defend it from hostile challenges (and I don't
> think Bruce's questions are at all hostile.)
> I was disappointed when I first started posting because I said in an
> early post that I found functional grammar very useful as a writing
> teacher, and I was immediately attacked. I don't feel I was given an
> adequate opportunity to talk (though several people came to my defense)
> and backed off a bit. What occurred was more quarrel than conversation.
> But it absolutely baffled me that people wouldn't be open to what I had to
> say, that they would be quick to consider it as a claim that had to be
> challenged and not a perspective that should be respected and listened to.
> I still feel that way. It's not so much a danger that people on the list
> will be exposed to faulty theories so much as it is a danger that points
> of view will be stifled or suppressed before they have their day in the
> ATEG sun.
> The lesson I may take from this is that what I am learning about
> cognitive linguistics is not of interest to the group, or if it is of
> interest to some people, I may have to face hostile questioning that will
> make it difficult to proceed in any meaningful way.
> Let me put it another way. I think there are people who want Bruce to
> win an argument with me and others who may want me to win an argument with
> Bruce, but I don't think Bruce and I are having that kind of discussion. I
> think Bruce has been thinking about these issues long and hard and has a
> position that is not at all trivial. My task is not to prove him wrong,
> but to have a conversation in which we both have a chance to present
> differing perspectives.
>
> Here's where I see the present issue with pedagogy. Traditional school
> grammar has been questioned, including studies that seem to show little or
> no carry over to writing. Generative grammar declares itself essentially
> irrelevant to pedagogy. Systemic functional grammar and cognitive
> approaches (construction grammar and usage based models) are relatively
> new, still in the early stages of development as perspectives on language,
> just beginning to find their way into classroom practices. Many people may
> feel threatened by new approaches simply because they call into question
> long held beliefs. We need to have a robust, open conversation about new
> ways to understand language.
> Ironically, the article I am working on (close to deadline) is on "How
> linguistics can inform the teaching of writing". It is an invited article
> for an international anthology. One reason for trying to get up to speed
> on cognitive linguistics is that I felt an obligation to consider a branch
> of linguistics that seems to be growing in importance. (It is very
> difficult, by the way, to be somewhat knowledgeable about more than one
> approach.) In the process, I have been becoming more and more impressed,
> more and more intrigued.
> Due to the article and a robust teaching load, I'll have to back off for
> awhile. But I certainly remain very committed to ATEG and to the list.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>> This is intended to support the approach that Bob has adopted in
>> questioning the implicit claims made by Craig. It seems to me that when
>> one joins a group such as this and one chooses to function therein
>> actively (and not choose to be a lurker), one has a certain ethical
>> academic duty to respond to questions about what one has written.
>>
>> To be frank, I have been disappointed by the approach demonstrated by
>> some to raise issues but then implicitly refuse to respond to comments
>> made on their posts.
>>
>> This said, however, I think it's a great List with a ,marvellous
>> potential for open and unfettered discussion.- providing we all play the
>> 'game'.
>>
>> Ron Sheen
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Yates" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: Rules was Those old transitivity blues
>>
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> This is a list on the teaching of grammar. I have always understood you
>> to be offering your point-of-view
>> to suggest a more effective approach to the teaching of grammar. I
>> apologize if that is not your purpose in
>> sharing with us your views on the nature of grammar.
>>
>> In the meantime, I appear to have a serious reading deficit.
>>
>> Craig writes:
>> When I write to Bruce, I don't think I am making 'claims'
>> that need to be challenged, but simply articulating a point-of-view that
>> I have been developing --am still developing-- over a period of time.
>>
>> ***
>> I see the following point-of-view as making claims about the nature of
>> language.
>>
>> Craig writes:
>> I believe that a hammer is formed like a hammer because that form is
>> suitable for its function. In that sense, the forms of grammar are
>> context sensitive. We have ways to ask questions, for example, or make
>> statements. These have evolved because language occurs between people,
>> and we have evolved ways to offer or request information, and we have
>> evolved ways to target the specific information we are looking for or
>> offering, and so on. You can disagree, but I don't think that is an
>> unusual position.
>>
>> ****************
>> It seems to me you have drawn clear teaching implications about this
>> point-of-view about the nature of language.
>> I sincerely regret if it is the case that you have not made any teaching
>> implications from the point-of-view you articulated above.
>>
>> If there are problems with the nature of language articulated above, then
>> perhaps there are problems with the teaching implications based on that
>> point-of-view.
>>
>> I know the way I teach about writing is based on how I view the nature of
>> language. I think all of us who teach writing have a view of language,
>> but I could be mistaken.
>>
>> 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/
>> 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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
|
