Herb,
Your post (below) seems to me a very sound formulation of how we can
incorporate a traditional grammar without being crippled by its
weaknesses.
I like the idea of including notional meanings; my main quarrel with
that has been that the simplified introductions haven't been expanded
to meet the complexities of real language. If a child believes a noun
"names a person, place, or thing" on arriving at college (having "done"
with all grammar study), then we are in our current trouble.
I think we get too tied up in tasks like "identifying subjects" and
forget what the ultimate goals might be. Minimalist grammar (what we
need to learn to accomplish the latest discreet task) never scaffolds
into a full understanding. If we want to be able to look at the
language of an educated adult and be able to explain how and why it
works, then we need notional meanings that fit that world.
I like Lakoff and Johnson's take on it: I'm reading Philosphy in the
Flesh, in this case pages 499-501. A protypical noun (the center of the
category) would be a "bounded entity", what a child conceives of as
person, place, or thing. But this is a radial category, and it extends
outward to a number of metaphorical "things" in ways that differ from
language to language. In cognitive linguistics, these are conceptual
categories as well. I think we should make this extension part of what
we discuss in our ideas about nounness. Let our students explore the
kinds of "things" that act as nouns in the language. An hour with a
good dictionary would probably give us very rich results.
We don't need to throw out "person, place, or thing", and we don't need
to think of it as a final answer. >
Craig
Actually, I'd like to see us agree on what should be included, rather
> what should be excluded. I doubt if there's important disagreement on
> splitting infinitives, that vs. which (pace my own linguistic ideas),
> stranded prepositions, etc., but traditional school grammar is a bit
> limiting in the treatment of auxiliary verbs, tense, aspect, modality,
> for example, and benefit from being informed by contemporary research.
> Traditional grammar informed by, for example, the structure/function
> distinction, can be quite a valuable and rigorous discipline for
> students to engage. If the prescriptivism of traditional grammar is
> taught in the context of stylistic and register choices, then what are
> often puzzling prohibitions become a matter of freedom within
> constraints. This, I think, is what a good reference grammar like
> Greenbaum's achieves.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bralich
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>
>
>
> I agree and I think it would be best to come with a list the everyone
> agrees should be banned from modern grammar from traditional grammar
> e.g. not splitting infinitives. Once this is done, we can organize what
> is left and then make decissions about how it is to be presented to each
> of elementary, secondary and post-secondary students.
>
>
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W."
> Sent: Aug 18, 2006 3:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>
>
>
>
> I have a feeling this debate over traditional grammar will
> continue to go in a circle. We don't agree on what traditional grammar
> is. We don't agree on the relationships between traditional grammar and
> language learning and teaching. If we want to spend some time
> specifying what traditional grammar is and what it teaches and
> encompasses, then we might have a productive topic to discuss. I
> suspect Eduard, Phil, and I, for example, agree on more than is
> apparent, but we're using different language and making different
> assumptions.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>
>
>
> After a long period of silence, I finally see a thread that
> strikes a chord. And I have to agree w/Phil. (Richard, notice the
> deliberate use of a fragment? Does that make up for the fact that I am a
> high school English teacher that teaches burdensome traditional
> grammar?).
>
>
>
> I do not believe that we English teachers, high school or other
> levels. "slow down" the progress of language. We strive to preserve
> clear communication and enable our language learners to be heard in a
> variety of settings. I will never be bound by contemporary
> novelists--no Tom Clancy or any other popular writer will convince me of
> what is clear communication for a variety of reasons, most of which have
> to do with commercialism. I've said this before on this listserve, and
> I will say it again after years of teaching in a remote, rural,
> bilingual geographical area: good writers are good grammarians. They
> know "the rules" and they know how to break them and when. My job is to
> teach students what the majority of the world uses to communciate
> clearly and then facilitate their "breakage" of the rules.
>
>
>
> Quite frankly, in case you haven't noticed, I am tired of
> defending my teaching of grammar, traditional or otherwise, to my high
> school colleagues. I teach grammar and will continue to do so because I
> believe that language is structured and rule-bound, whether conscious or
> unconscious. In my experience, at the high school level, a lack of
> rules opens language arts to ridicule by other disciplines. I'm not
> suggesting that we instruct in an overly prescriptive way, as anyone who
> has read my posts know. But to suggest that language usage is without
> "rules" is ridiculous.
>
>
>
> In a secondary world that diminishes the importance of language
> arts in favor of math and science, we are doing a disservice to our
> field when we throw out form and structure. Language users follow form
> and structure far more than we realize, and teachers of English or any
> other language need to capture that form and structure and defend it
> before language arts becomes relegated to the curricular dustbin.
>
>
>
> Change is not always productive, particularly where language is
> involved. Perhaps I've read too much Orwell.
>
>
>
> Cyndi B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Your list is not exactly what I had in mind but it does
> help illustrate my point. All 15 of those things are statements about
> problems in traditional grammar without a single example to substantiate
> them. What I think would be eye opening to most people is to try and
> create a list of things that need to be expunged from traditional
> grammar books. You will find there is very, very little. The only one
> that even comes close to being acceptablt (tho is not) is the one that
> dares to bolldy say that infinitives should not be split.
>
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Betting
> Sent: Aug 17, 2006 5:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>
>
>
>
>
> A short response to Phil's request for a list of
> problems with traditional grammar. Here is the list I have been working
> on for a couple of years. I don't intend to offend anyone. My point is
> that traditional grammar-the grammar of popular handbooks that I used
> fifty years ago and that are apparently still used by a majority of
> schools in the US, not accurate language analysis-is still being taught.
> Teachers teach what they have been taught and know. And they teach what
> their texts include, unless they have information with which to
> supplement, and many do not.
>
> These are meant to be strident generalizations
> in order to get teachers to understand that there are problems with the
> old way.
>
> After having said all this, I agree with one of
> the main principles of ATEG: accurate, descriptive grammar (and much
> language information) must be taught for at least two reasons: to allow
> a discussion of language itself and to be able to use grammar
> information to improve student style in writing and speaking.
>
> It seems to me (and I may be wrong, this may be
> too strong and it might be counterproductive to begin with a list of
> negatives) that teachers have to understand the problems first and then
> almost start over, deciding what to teach and how about language and
> grammar so that the goals of student learning are met, not the goals of
> covering traditional grammar material.
>
> In my book I am fleshing out these items one by
> one, after which I would put what the ATEG comes up in its scope and
> sequence project.
>
> Dick Betting
>
>
>
> FIFTEEN PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
>
>
>
> 1. TG, LIKE CATECHISM, TEACHES WELL, LEARNS
> POORLY
>
>
>
> 2. TG is BASED ON FALSE PROMISE: LEARN GRAMMAR
> FIRST, IMPROVEMENT IN WRITING AND SPEAKING WILL FOLLOW ALMOST
> AUTOMATICALLY.
>
>
>
> 3. TG is BASED ON a FALSE PREMISE: KNOWING
> GRAMMAR WILL MAKE STUDENTS BETTER WRITERS AND SPEAKERS.
>
>
>
> 4. TG claims to be everything students need to
> know about language;
>
>
>
> 5. TG claims there is only one right way, one
> form of correctness;
>
>
>
> 6. TGs contain mistaken information:
>
> a. English in not derived
> from Latin
>
> b. English does not have
> eight parts of speech
>
> c. English does not have six
> verb tenses
>
> d.
>
>
>
> 7. TG uses defective methodology: top down,
> deductive, absolutes taught as
>
> Gospel;
>
>
>
> 8. TG exploits the pedagogy of rote
> memorization, passive acceptance;
>
>
>
> 9. TG uses confusing definitions for basic
> concepts: language, grammar, usage, parts of speech;
>
>
>
> 10. TG wastes time and energy, too much time on
> minutiae
>
>
>
> 11. TG fails to put learned material to use;
>
>
>
> 12. TG fails to notice that language study is
> philosophy, elaborate, abstract, multi-level, open-ended;
>
>
>
> 13. TG reinforces monotheistic social values and
> standards at the expense of individuals, minorities and differents;
>
>
>
> 14. TG has no skeleton, no structure on which to
> hang language and grammar
>
> information;
>
>
>
> 15 TG is all fasteners and no projects.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Phil Bralich
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:45 AM
>
> Subject: Re: The role of English
> teachers
>
>
>
> The real problem is that there are few
> if any traditional ideas that need to go. Someone should actually sit
> down and make a list of ideas that need to be expunged from grammar
> teaching and you would see there are actually only a few if any. The
> real problem is that people want to wallow around in a sea of
> unaccountability where pontification and pretense take precedence over
> good sense.
>
>
>
> We should not be talking in terms of
> modern versus traditional grammar as there is nearly zero difference.
> Instead we should speak merely of teaching grammar and put the whole
> false problem behind us.
>
>
>
> If any one disagrees, please draw up a
> list of tradtional notions that should be abandonded.
>
>
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Paul E. Doniger"
> Sent: Aug 16, 2006 7:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The role of English teachers
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Adams raised an interesting issue
> with: "In fact, I am wondering why the role of English teachers seems to
> always be to slow down this process and defend the traditional
> conventions." Is this really the role of English teachers? What do
> others think about this?
>
>
>
> Personally, I don't see myself as a
> defender of traditional conventions at all. I suspect that many of my
> colleagues in the high school English classroom feel the same as I do. I
> rather see the English teacher in me as a promoter/fascilitator of deep
> thinking (and critical and creative thinking) through the disciplines of
> reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Grammar instruction is one
> item in the toolbox, albeit an important one (and a too often neglected
> one at that). However, it's not for me so much as a teaching of
> convention as it is a teaching of the way language works -- as a means
> towards better/deeper thinking in these four disciplines.
>
>
>
> I'd add that as a drama teacher, grammar
> is important in a similar way. When I ask my acting students to point up
> the nouns or "play to (or 'with' or 'on')" the verbs, I need first to
> make sure they know what these words are. My goal for them, however, is
> not grammatical, but theatrical -- I want them to make the language
> meaningful and rich, and to bring the text across clearly to the
> audience.
>
>
>
> Paul D.
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42297/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/ha
> ndraisers> 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/
|
