Craig,

There are number of points to respond to in your post addressed to Jim.

I only want to address a challenge you make because it shows a conscience dismissal of anything that disagrees with your own program.  Craig writes:

>   If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
> back?

Neither Jim nor I have held out on this.  Over the past several years, we have mentioned two papers, one in the Journal of Second Language and the other the Journal of Basic Writing that assume  a generative perspective.

Kenkel, James, & Yates, Robert. (2003).  A developmental perspective on the relationship between grammar and text.  Journal of Basic Writing, 22, 35-49.

Yates, Robert, & Kenkel, James (2002). Responding to sentence-level errors.  Journal of Second language Writing. 22, 29-47.

Granted they only deal with specific domains and do not address THE crisis.  Assuming a generative perspective, both papers deal with specific issues of grammar, grammatical knowledge, and writing.  They both offer solutions. We know that you are aware of them and, I think, you claim to have read them.  

By the way, both Noguichi and DeBeaugrande use generative assumptions for how grammar needs to be approached.

Over the past several years, you keep mentioning how cognitive linguistics is more useful to "solve the crisis of grammar in the schools" than a generative perspective.   However, you have never shared with us specifics on this claim.  In other words, how is one of the crisis points in grammar in the schools solved by a cognitive linguistic perspective?  

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

******************


The post by Craig that I'm responding to.
Jim,
  I'm happy you're taking the time to air out frustrations. I have some
of my own. I take your post in good faith and respond in kind.
  In pretty much every one of those posts, Bob is the one who challenges
new ideas. He seems, quite frankly, to be threatened by them. I don't
start these conversations. I don't write posts criticizing generative
grammar. In fact, as evidenced by his post on the physics question, I
usually regret my conversations with Bob very quickly. I would be happy
to ignore his posts, but he often pounces on mine. I would like to have
different views layed side by side instead of being asked to defend so
often. I would like friendly clarification questions, not "I don't see
how this can possibly be true" or "If Craig thought hard about
cognitive linguistics he would see" sort of statements. He seems to
want to hold me up as the pillar of these positions, so he can
discredit them by discrediting me. He seems to want to derail
productive talk about positions different from his own. In short, I
find his responses very hostile and not at all helpful.
  This current thread started because I said I don't think it is a given
that all children learn language in preordained sequence of stages. If
we look at it from a cognitive perspective, it's easy to call that
assumption into question. I'm not sure it's productive to believe that
all children come to school knowing the same language. If we were more
attentive to this, perhaps we could be more effective in mentoring
children into the language of school.
  Cognitive positions are very different from generative positions, and
the literature presents it that way. I'm not making this stuff up. If I
prefer one over the other, I don't mean that personally. Quite frankly,
if I don't bring it up, many people on list won't know this stuff is
out there. I get posts, by the way, thanking me for it. If I start
getting complaints, I'll stop.
  Is this welcome on the list? I hope so. I will be followng these ideas
out somewhere. I am passionate about it and will find people to talk
to.
  If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
back?
  I'm sorry I missed your comment on innateness. It seems to contradict
what Bob has been saying. He seems to reject the idea that there can be
"a grammar of advanced literacy." Would that include physics? Is it
possible that advanced literacy differs in the technical disciplines?
Do your views on this differ from Bob's?
  Bob seems to dismiss the possibility.

Craig




Craig,
>    I suspect that some of the exacerbation/frustration that crept into
> Bob's responses to your posts are not very different from mine.
>
>     First - and foremost for me - is your insistence in these discussions
> that generative-inspired notions of grammar have NOTHING to say that
> is useful to the goal of promoting the teaching of grammar.  In fact,
> you over and over again maintain that generative grammar is even
> responsible for this situation because you believe that generative
> grammar claims that grammar is learned naturally from very ordinary
> exposure to input/verbal interaction . . . whatever.
>     Over a period of several years now, this claim of yours has been
> responded to many times. However, you continue to present to the list
> the same gross misrepresentations of generative grammar, and then go
> on to appeal to this parody as reason for dismissing the assumptions
> of generative grammar as potentially relevant to this list's concerns,
> and you repeatedly position generative grammar as a clear negative.
>
>    This rhetorical strategy of yours is "tiresome" and "frustrating."
> What is the point of it?
>
>     Just two days ago, on Friday, February 06, 2009 1:26 PM, you presented
> the latest example of this rhetorical strategy, one I consider
> uncollegial and irresponsible, and which I hope we would try to avoid
> on this list.
>
>      "If you think grammar is innate and meaningfully neutral, just a
> system of forms, then don't teach it. It just happens. If you see it
> as learned and deeply connected to cognition and discourse, then you
> ought to attend to it and not just expect it to happen.
>
>    There are views of language which support the teaching of grammar and
> views of language that support our current status quo. Bob and I are on
> opposite poles of that argument."
>
>   This claim is both ridiculous and insulting. No one who reads this list
> can believe that Bob Yates, active here for more than a decade and
> involved with ATEG since 1991, supports the "status quo."  Nor can
> anyone who reads this list believe that Bob Yates believes that grammar
> knowledge of the type this list is most interested in - i.e., the
> grammar of more advanced literacy - "just happens."
>
>     Two months ago on this list there was a discussion about "innateness."
> I made a small contribution to that discussion on Dec 9 and argued
> that no "generativist" would claim that the grammar of advanced
> literacy would be learned without some kind of focused
> attention/instruction. At the time, you did not quarrel with what was
> written, but apparently it had no effect on your thinking. Instead of
> ignoring what are at least intended to be substantive comments, it
> would be better to explain why they are problematic.
>
>          There was also an appeal to move away from the disparaging
> rhetoric - an appeal which obviously has been disregarded.
>
>
>
>                   We can do better than this.
>
>
>                                  Jim Kenkel
>                                  Eastern Ky Univ

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/