Craig,

Your post helps a lot.

Here's my perspective: I think the most practical aspect of teaching
grammar in K-12 is to understand how sentence structure creates coherent
texts, and determines the style of these texts. This is pretty squarely
the center of your concern as a teacher. Halliday's grammar tries to
contribute directly in this way; American discourse analysis does so
indirectly (being immediately preoccupied with understanding spoken
language) and some stylistics  does so; maybe stylistics is the
epicenter of this field, but I don't know stylistics well.  We may hear
from Bob Yates/Jim Kenkel on this topic, who don't believe there is any
regular, describable sentence-grammar/text-coherence connection. This is
one reason they speak out against SFG. Linguists in the functionalist
tradition disagree on this point.

As to 'native' grammar vs. 'correct' grammar, we have to ask ourselves
why, if all grammar is internalized as children use language, children
are NOT internalizing the formal grammar they need to succeed in school
and the professions. Is it that they are not getting enough exposure via
literature and formal texts of other kinds (you don't need to study
Shakespeare, Milton, or Bellow to learn how to write an acceptable
business letter)? Is it that the structures they need to learn are not
in the literature they read? Or is it that they don't realize that they
should be taking texts they read, such as textbooks, magazines, and
well-edited newspapers, as models for their own writing, and so are not
using them as input for internalizing grammar? Is it that they just
plain aren't reading enough, period? Is it that teachers aren't teaching
them how to edit their papers and catch slips? Is it that many teachers
don't care whether the grammar, punc., spelling, is correct, but only if
the ideas are good and the student is engaging in self-expression?

I'm a linguist, and though I recognize and decry the prejudice that
underlies insistence on standard grammar, I also realize that the
insistence is there. I insist on it myself when my students write
papers. I believe we can deal with this by making students aware that
language varies, and that variation is tied to social context, and you
can be wrong in any context--you can, for instance, be too formal for an
informal situation, or try to use 'slang' and get it wrong because you
don't know the rules, just as you can blow it by having too many
fragments or misplaced commas in a job application cover letter.

Students need to be aware that formal writing has its own structural
characteristics, which are different from the structure of speech (see
Pam Dykstra's approach). If these characteristics aren't already native
to the students, they have to learn them, just as they would have to
learn new rules if they decided they wanted to learn AAVE. _Everybody_
has to learn punctuation. How you can teach punctuation rules without
teaching grammar is beyond me.

This is a bit of a scattered response, but I'm hitting various points in
your post. I'd like to close by saying that I do believe _some_
schoolteachers are lazy, just as some college teachers are lazy.  But
most are not. Most work their patooties off. Many have the smarts and
the will to get all the education they need in linguistics; they just
don't have the time, resources, etc. Some don't have the smarts, as with
anyone in any field. In my own linguistics teaching, in courses that I
know are taken by mostly future teachers, I make a strong effort to
connect linguistics to language arts teaching. This is paying off in
increased interest levels in my students. It is not feasible for every
single linguistics course. Future teachers do need to treat some courses
as a seemingly distant basis for applied  knowledge. But teachers should
be able to take courses that are either immediately applicable, or whose
applications require just some inference work on the part of the teacher
(the implications of a basic sociolinguistics course for an inner-city
classroom shouldn't be too hard to derive, for instance).

It is not good that only generative grammar courses are available in
your area, and it is not good that people who teach generative grammar
don't let people know that other views are out there (sometimes it is
not their fault; they are often taught by people who choose to ignore
all non-generative approaches). But as you and others have discovered,
there are some introductory books out there that can be read.

I believe you when you say that SFG is useful in your teaching. I'm
interested in exactly which aspects are useful, but this sounds like
asking you to write a book. Maybe you can give a general run-down. One
reason I did not question you more deeply on this is that I took you at
your word; I believe it would be useful!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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/