I see that my comments earlier about civil discourse have gone unheeded. How sad. I would only add one additional caution: Sweeping generalizations are never true.
Paul D.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:10:16
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
John,
"All native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed."?
Absolute nonsense!!! If you make such a claim then you have NEVER listened to and read text from "native speakers" of English, and you have never struggled to help college students write in English. Who can claim that he can use English "with ABSOLUTE PRECISION AND SPEED?" You? My experience with college students is that almost all L2 students show better "competence" and "performance" than their classmates who are "native speakers." Why are 40 million Americans illiterate if their knowledge of the English language is "native" and "instinctive"?
My L1 language is Romanian, but I dare you to prove that you r "competence" and "performance" in English is better than mine, although English is my L2. The idea that "all native speakers are grammar experts" is so old and void of evidence that my grandfather abandoned it a long time ago - when he had to spend hour upon hour learning the declensions of ALL PARTS OF SPEECH, and the CONJUGATION of the verbs in Romanian.
Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally absurd and nonsensical claims.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Crow" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 6:34:08 AM
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
Eduard,
I don't think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement. Instead I think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed. Most of this knowledge is beyond awareness, of course. But they could neither speak nor understand other English speakers with such ease if they weren't absolute masters of English grammar at some level. I find it refreshing to hear someone acknowledge this fact and take it into account when teaching.
John
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Eduard Hanganu < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
"We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert"
This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven theories of native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are born with a grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run into the ground the English language education in the United States. Dumb and provincial American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell this story to students who learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to refer only to some European languages) - when they know that in order to have a good command of their language they need to spend thousands of yours LEARNING to decline and conjugate in their languages.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Saylors" < [log in to unmask] >
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
My community college grammar course for English majors and future
secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding English Grammar
as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component. My
students tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time. We
start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move
from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting, rhetorical
grammar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more
than the students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also
include grammar in my freshman composition courses.
Sherry Saylors
>>> [log in to unmask] 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>>
I am about to embark on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one
developmental writing course at the community college level. Both
classes have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The basic
writing course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and
grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and reading
texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many entities that
fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and written
communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not to
present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a natural
part of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage written
by Dick Veit:
"I am now a volunteer teaching an 'intermediate ESL grammar class' that
includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics,
punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences,
job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the
most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the
students in front of us would most benefit from knowing."
Friday in class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I
classes, just to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar
terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, adverb,
phrase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help them
become more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what
will help my students the most with their writing and daily
communicating and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things
that fall under the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.
Carol Morrison
--- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
From: Dick Veit < [log in to unmask] >
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM
Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question
without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to
the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study
of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries
become a matter for private stipulative definition.
This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American
Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins,
Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges
are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen
Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no
definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to
stipulate their own definition.
As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical
(and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely
practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce
questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many
years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was
focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an
"intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also
pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language
etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last
week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of
grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most
benefit from knowing.
I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what
school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar"
courses.
Dick
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C
< [log in to unmask] > wrote:
John,
Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand,
there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other,
there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so
long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology
as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the
distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public
is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to
say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the
public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on
deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I
certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula,
and I suspect most, if not all, people on this list would agree.
What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area
as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that
"grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a
separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being
defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists;
in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes,
it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that
talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language
analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or
some of the other mainstays of public education.
I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but
I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic
reasoning.
--- Bill Spruiell
[1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting
"grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more
particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the
position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that
firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide
range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms.
To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's
partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars.
I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb
or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact,
letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to
call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it.
On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is
the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT
encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated
into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar
of English.)
If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them
(phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern
ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic
units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are
the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the
Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these
"rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of
language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity,
information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our
understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even
consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they
have a huge impact on meaning?
What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to
look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical
linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to
emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even
start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar
(dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be
doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring
science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar
(cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the
brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English
teachers?
We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to
analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)
It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the
composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is
a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course,
reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many
cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to
begin with.
I know this also brings into question the relationship between the
English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those
with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by
now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a
minimum.
I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!
John
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/
******************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). This e-mail may contain confidential information and/or information protected by intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies of it.
OVPTS 12-07-09
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/
|
