I made the Oakland Ebonics policy a regular part of my sophomore-level Language and Culture course for years in part to clear up misunderstandings about the policy like the one Scott expresses. The Oakland policy was badly written, based on ideology that had no place in the classroom and on badly flawed science and mistaken assumptions about AAVE. But it did not propose to teach Ebonics. It proposed to do no more than is done in school systems across the country, using the local dialect as a medium in the early grades in order to teach the children Standard English and to help them to progress in their other subjects. As the children learn, teaching shifts to Standard English. Children in the early grades in Appalachia don't get taught by people from Michigan, and children in Gloucester, Mass., hear that variety of English in their classrooms. It took about eight hours for the Oakland papers to get the policy wrong, and from there we had the Ebonics flap including congressional hearings.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: 2009-06-04 01:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 2 Jun 2009 (#2009-136)
As a linguist at the dioctoral level, I aver that linguists have been taught
since the '6rs that speech is primary in language and that written materials
must, of course, reflect the spoken language. As the decades progressed,
more and more attention was given to not denigrating the speech (or writing)
of any cultural group. We have Ebonics taught in public schools.
The Assistant Secretary of Education for FL a few years back, an active
African-American, stated that he never dreamed that he would ever see Black
radicals and the KKK singing off the same sheet music. He credited the
support of Ebonics by the KKK as part of the proof that Ebonics would place
its adherents in the lower class for ever--the the Klan knew it.
The domain of grammar belongs to the English teacher--not the linguist, who
often uses a language understood by only the initiated. Although I have a
doctorate in linguistics (English & Spanish), it was in structural
linguistics and I am auditing a graduate course in English grammar just to
try to understand what in the world they are talking about. Wish me luck!
N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus
history & languages
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 2 Jun 2009 (#2009-136)
There are 13 messages totalling 6380 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. training wheels & ain't (5)
2. levels of formality (4)
3. Fwd: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30
May
2009 (#2009-129)
4. "Result gives"; ATEG Digest - 2 Jun 2009 - Special issue (#2009-135)
(2)
5. levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HS education
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:49:09 -0500
From: Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've likely used all those myself. Thanks for the examples. I was trying =
to use "ain't" where has/have are main nouns, rather than helping verbs. =
Maybe it can be used to replace main have/has also?
Larry
Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> 06/02/09 2:17 PM >>>
I'm not Herb, but what about "He ain't been there." "She ain't got none." =
"It ain't been so long since the last storm."
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
U] On Behalf Of Larry Beason [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Herb,
Can you give examples of people who use 'ain't' for a contraction of =
'has/have not.' I might not be thinking it through, but I cannot think of =
any such instances myself.
Just curious.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 6/1/2009 8:30 PM >>>
Peter,
That's exactly what happened with "ain't." Up into the 16th c. it was the =
standard contraction of "am not," a string for which we now have no =
contraction. In some dialects of English, "ain't" came to be used with =
all persons, and so 18th c. prescriptive grammarians rejected "ain't" =
completely, in any usage. The result is that today, English speakers =
don't even consider "ain't" to be a legitimate possibility for "am not." =
Those who use it use it not only for all persons but also as a contraction =
of "has/have not." So the answer to your question is yes. Prescriptive =
rules can bring about linguistic change.
Oddly, the form persisted among the nobility. Dorothy Sayers, who's very =
careful with her representation of dialect and register, has Lord Peter =
Wimsey using "I ain't" regularly. The nobility, who didn't bother to read =
the 18th c. self-help literature on how to sound like the nobility, didn't =
give up the contraction. While it was still current in the early 20th c., =
as the Sayers novels demonstrate, the use of "ain't" for "am not" has now =
disappeared among the nobility as well.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: 2009-06-01 20:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Here's a scary thought. If enough teachers have taught these
"training wheel rules" to enough generations of students, who are now
out there teaching them to others and editing books and periodicals
and even the NY Times, so that most people in America believe that
starting a sentence with "because" or "there" or "and" is just plain
wrong, could what started as "training wheels" actually become
descriptions of how the language is used? Despite what a handful of
brilliant ATEG members think, can what started as "training wheels"
actually become "the rules" if enough people think they are the
rules? And then we ATEG-ers become the reactionaries trying to resist
"change" in the language? Really scary. [Note that, as if to prove
I'm not influenced by training wheels, I just started a sentence with
"and."]
Peter Adams
On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:
> I have the same concern about the training wheels never coming off.
> I will never forget suggesting to the senior high school teachers in
> one of the best public schools in the state of New Jersey that it
> was OK to start a sentence with "and" or "but," only to discover
> that the department chair had just sent out a memo urging every
> English teacher to be on guard against this sinful practice and join
> him in wiping it off the face of the Earth. If college English
> teachers frequently find their students believing such things as
> never use the passive, never begin sentences with "there," never use
> "I" in formal writing, and such, it would seem the training has
> lasted for 12 years.
> As for "formal" writing, what is it? and where is it published? And
> what chance is there that more than (fill in the number) percent of
> our students are ever going to have to write it?
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>> Herb, Peter, et al.:
>>
>> I'm just kibitzing with a couple of points (and whole-heartedly agree
>> with Herb's points about the value of this thread) --
>>
>> (1) I think Peter's point about training wheels being useful only
>> insofar as the students *know* they're there and they will come off
>> eventually is a crucial one. Simplifications used in textbooks should
>> always be accompanied by some comment, however brief, that the actual
>> situation is more complex, and that discussion of that will occur at
>> some later point. From what I've seen of K-12 textbooks, this kind of
>> comment is almost never added, and I have gotten the impression at
>> times
>> that the publishers of the texts didn't actually know that the
>> material
>> *was* a simplification (like an inset box in one text I've examined
>> that
>> made the point that (a) dialects are very different and quaint
>> kinds of
>> speech, like one hears in Scotland, and (b) dialects are dying out;
>> it
>> was accompanied by a picture of a child in a kilt, playing bagpipes).
>> Students are hardly ever shocked to discover that there's more
>> complexity to a subject than they are being asked to deal with right
>> now. They *are* annoyed when they've been presented with something
>> as an
>> absolute fact about English and then hear someone tell them it's
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> (2) I always want to add a third domain to the two Peter mentioned.
>> Grammar-as-a-discipline, like chemistry or biology, focuses on the
>> architecture of part of our experienced reality. Grammar-for-
>> composition
>> focuses on expression; interpretation is automatically included the
>> minute audience awareness becomes a topic, but it's not the primary
>> focus. As future citizens, and consumers, students also benefit from
>> examining how language is *on* them. It's possible to study
>> traditional
>> formal grammar and have a large amount of practice with composition
>> without ever really noticing how "virtually" is used as a weasel
>> word,
>> or how a politician is using a passive construction in a way that
>> happens to omit the agent when referring to a major problem. A
>> consciousness of grammar during "reception" is vital, even if it's
>> unconnected to a current writing task.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>> Dept. of English
>> Central Michigan University
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of
>> how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of
>> Goal Two:
>>
>> This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?
>>
>> But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing
>> and
>> language arts teachers. How much students should know about
>> language is
>> directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US
>> history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much
>> students should know about grammar does fall much more directly
>> into the
>> domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher.
>> Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half
>> century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem
>> aside,
>> linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language
>> arts
>> teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and
>> sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
>>
>> I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor,
>> is one
>> of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in
>> quite a
>> while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge,
>> experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long
>> felt towards good K12 teachers.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]
>> ]
>> Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
>> resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much
>> grammar
>> should students know.
>>
>> It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
>> grammar instruction:
>>
>> Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
>> conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
>>
>> Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
>> language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?)
>>
>> Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
>> question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
>> agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
>> it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
>> to reach that goal.
>>
>> And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
>> complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
>> so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
>>
>> I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
>> question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
>> questions are.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
>>> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
>>> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
>>> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
>>> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward
>>> grammar
>>> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
>>> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
>>> grammar in
>>> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
>>> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
>>> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
>>> difficult
>>> to displace.
>>> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we
>>> observe
>>> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
>>> itself
>>> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
>>> to come
>>> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an
>>> observation
>>> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
>>> it.
>>> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
>>> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
>>> we
>>> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
>>> dynamic than
>>> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
>>> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
>>> purposefully.
>>> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
>>> understanding
>>> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
>>> about
>>> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
>>> educated
>>> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
>>> of the
>>> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
>>> and it
>>> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
>>> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
>>> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
>>> about
>>> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
>>> in
>>> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
>>> effectively or "correctly". >
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Susan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>>>> anger." I
>>>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I
>>>> called
>>>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>>>> them--but I
>>>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think
>>>> you're
>>>> picking up from me.
>>>>
>>>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called
>>>> "training
>>>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>>>> differently,
>>>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>>>> has
>>>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>>>> training
>>>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>>>> skills
>>>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>>>> wheels
>>>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>>>> can do
>>>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>>>> teachers
>>>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>>>> OK, but
>>>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>>>> sentences
>>>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>>>> some
>>>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>>>> what it
>>>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>>>> These
>>>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>>>> getting
>>>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>>>> wheels
>>>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers
>>>> use
>>>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>>>> "avoid
>>>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>>>> made-up
>>>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>>>> sentence
>>>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of
>>>> effective
>>>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>>>> from; the
>>>> latter is not even a norm.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>>>> characterizing your
>>>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>>>> always
>>>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>>>> right, you
>>>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>>>> sentence
>>>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>>>> to try
>>>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>>>> become
>>>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>>>> using a
>>>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>>>> writers";
>>>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>>>> that I
>>>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>>>> which would
>>>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>>>> is
>>>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>>>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having
>>>> students
>>>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>>>> scaffolding.
>>>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>>>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>>>
>>>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>>>> he
>>>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>>>> now
>>>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>>>> statement,
>>>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>>>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>>>> this
>>>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>>>> be.
>>>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>>>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>>>> as an
>>>> example of the important educational techniques called
>>>> "scaffolding." In
>>>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>>>> finally
>>>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are
>>>> helpful.
>>>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing
>>>> if a
>>>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>>>> trying to
>>>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>>>> any
>>>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>>>> under
>>>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks
>>>> his
>>>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>>>> will
>>>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>>>> internalized
>>>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>>>> but still
>>>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>>>> then I'm
>>>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>>>> beginning with
>>>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>>>> you have
>>>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>>>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>>>> don't
>>>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>>>> bike with
>>>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>>>> off
>>>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>>>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>>>> sentence
>>>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>>>> Don't
>>>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>>>> advocated
>>>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>>>> those
>>>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>>>> a row
>>>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>>>> If there
>>>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>>>> "there
>>>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>>>> what
>>>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>>>> allows
>>>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>>>
>>>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>>>> So...let'e
>>>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>>>> spigots.
>>>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>>>> texts
>>>> do you find harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Have at it.
>>>>
>>>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.
>>>> Our
>>>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>>>> its
>>>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
>>>> this
>>>> listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>>>
>>>> Hurts, donut?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I just wanted to say that I find your contribu
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:51:15 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Larry,
Not people, off-hand, but I've heard "I ain't been here before" and things =
like it often enough.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: 2009-06-02 14:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Herb,
Can you give examples of people who use 'ain't' for a contraction of 'has/h=
ave not.' I might not be thinking it through, but I cannot think of any su=
ch instances myself.
Just curious.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 6/1/2009 8:30 PM >>>
Peter,
That's exactly what happened with "ain't." Up into the 16th c. it was the =
standard contraction of "am not," a string for which we now have no contrac=
tion. In some dialects of English, "ain't" came to be used with all person=
s, and so 18th c. prescriptive grammarians rejected "ain't" completely, in =
any usage. The result is that today, English speakers don't even consider =
"ain't" to be a legitimate possibility for "am not." Those who use it use =
it not only for all persons but also as a contraction of "has/have not." S=
o the answer to your question is yes. Prescriptive rules can bring about l=
inguistic change.
Oddly, the form persisted among the nobility. Dorothy Sayers, who's very c=
areful with her representation of dialect and register, has Lord Peter Wims=
ey using "I ain't" regularly. The nobility, who didn't bother to read the =
18th c. self-help literature on how to sound like the nobility, didn't give=
up the contraction. While it was still current in the early 20th c., as t=
he Sayers novels demonstrate, the use of "ain't" for "am not" has now disap=
peared among the nobility as well.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: 2009-06-01 20:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Here's a scary thought. If enough teachers have taught these
"training wheel rules" to enough generations of students, who are now
out there teaching them to others and editing books and periodicals
and even the NY Times, so that most people in America believe that
starting a sentence with "because" or "there" or "and" is just plain
wrong, could what started as "training wheels" actually become
descriptions of how the language is used? Despite what a handful of
brilliant ATEG members think, can what started as "training wheels"
actually become "the rules" if enough people think they are the
rules? And then we ATEG-ers become the reactionaries trying to resist
"change" in the language? Really scary. [Note that, as if to prove
I'm not influenced by training wheels, I just started a sentence with
"and."]
Peter Adams
On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:
> I have the same concern about the training wheels never coming off.
> I will never forget suggesting to the senior high school teachers in
> one of the best public schools in the state of New Jersey that it
> was OK to start a sentence with "and" or "but," only to discover
> that the department chair had just sent out a memo urging every
> English teacher to be on guard against this sinful practice and join
> him in wiping it off the face of the Earth. If college English
> teachers frequently find their students believing such things as
> never use the passive, never begin sentences with "there," never use
> "I" in formal writing, and such, it would seem the training has
> lasted for 12 years.
> As for "formal" writing, what is it? and where is it published? And
> what chance is there that more than (fill in the number) percent of
> our students are ever going to have to write it?
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>> Herb, Peter, et al.:
>>
>> I'm just kibitzing with a couple of points (and whole-heartedly agree
>> with Herb's points about the value of this thread) --
>>
>> (1) I think Peter's point about training wheels being useful only
>> insofar as the students *know* they're there and they will come off
>> eventually is a crucial one. Simplifications used in textbooks should
>> always be accompanied by some comment, however brief, that the actual
>> situation is more complex, and that discussion of that will occur at
>> some later point. From what I've seen of K-12 textbooks, this kind of
>> comment is almost never added, and I have gotten the impression at
>> times
>> that the publishers of the texts didn't actually know that the
>> material
>> *was* a simplification (like an inset box in one text I've examined
>> that
>> made the point that (a) dialects are very different and quaint
>> kinds of
>> speech, like one hears in Scotland, and (b) dialects are dying out;
>> it
>> was accompanied by a picture of a child in a kilt, playing bagpipes).
>> Students are hardly ever shocked to discover that there's more
>> complexity to a subject than they are being asked to deal with right
>> now. They *are* annoyed when they've been presented with something
>> as an
>> absolute fact about English and then hear someone tell them it's
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> (2) I always want to add a third domain to the two Peter mentioned.
>> Grammar-as-a-discipline, like chemistry or biology, focuses on the
>> architecture of part of our experienced reality. Grammar-for-
>> composition
>> focuses on expression; interpretation is automatically included the
>> minute audience awareness becomes a topic, but it's not the primary
>> focus. As future citizens, and consumers, students also benefit from
>> examining how language is *on* them. It's possible to study
>> traditional
>> formal grammar and have a large amount of practice with composition
>> without ever really noticing how "virtually" is used as a weasel
>> word,
>> or how a politician is using a passive construction in a way that
>> happens to omit the agent when referring to a major problem. A
>> consciousness of grammar during "reception" is vital, even if it's
>> unconnected to a current writing task.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>> Dept. of English
>> Central Michigan University
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of
>> how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of
>> Goal Two:
>>
>> This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?
>>
>> But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing
>> and
>> language arts teachers. How much students should know about
>> language is
>> directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US
>> history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much
>> students should know about grammar does fall much more directly
>> into the
>> domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher.
>> Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half
>> century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem
>> aside,
>> linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language
>> arts
>> teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and
>> sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
>>
>> I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor,
>> is one
>> of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in
>> quite a
>> while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge,
>> experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long
>> felt towards good K12 teachers.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]
>> ]
>> Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
>> resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much
>> grammar
>> should students know.
>>
>> It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
>> grammar instruction:
>>
>> Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
>> conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
>>
>> Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
>> language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?)
>>
>> Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
>> question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
>> agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
>> it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
>> to reach that goal.
>>
>> And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
>> complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
>> so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
>>
>> I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
>> question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
>> questions are.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
>>> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
>>> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
>>> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
>>> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward
>>> grammar
>>> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
>>> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
>>> grammar in
>>> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
>>> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
>>> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
>>> difficult
>>> to displace.
>>> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we
>>> observe
>>> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
>>> itself
>>> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
>>> to come
>>> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an
>>> observation
>>> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
>>> it.
>>> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
>>> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
>>> we
>>> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
>>> dynamic than
>>> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
>>> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
>>> purposefully.
>>> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
>>> understanding
>>> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
>>> about
>>> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
>>> educated
>>> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
>>> of the
>>> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
>>> and it
>>> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
>>> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
>>> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
>>> about
>>> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
>>> in
>>> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
>>> effectively or "correctly". >
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Susan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>>>> anger." I
>>>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I
>>>> called
>>>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>>>> them--but I
>>>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think
>>>> you're
>>>> picking up from me.
>>>>
>>>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called
>>>> "training
>>>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>>>> differently,
>>>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>>>> has
>>>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>>>> training
>>>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>>>> skills
>>>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>>>> wheels
>>>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>>>> can do
>>>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>>>> teachers
>>>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>>>> OK, but
>>>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>>>> sentences
>>>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>>>> some
>>>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>>>> what it
>>>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>>>> These
>>>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>>>> getting
>>>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>>>> wheels
>>>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers
>>>> use
>>>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>>>> "avoid
>>>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>>>> made-up
>>>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>>>> sentence
>>>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of
>>>> effective
>>>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>>>> from; the
>>>> latter is not even a norm.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>>>> characterizing your
>>>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>>>> always
>>>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>>>> right, you
>>>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>>>> sentence
>>>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>>>> to try
>>>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>>>> become
>>>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>>>> using a
>>>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>>>> writers";
>>>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>>>> that I
>>>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>>>> which would
>>>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>>>> is
>>>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>>>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having
>>>> students
>>>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>>>> scaffolding.
>>>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>>>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>>>
>>>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>>>> he
>>>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>>>> now
>>>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>>>> statement,
>>>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>>>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>>>> this
>>>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>>>> be.
>>>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>>>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>>>> as an
>>>> example of the important educational techniques called
>>>> "scaffolding." In
>>>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>>>> finally
>>>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are
>>>> helpful.
>>>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing
>>>> if a
>>>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>>>> trying to
>>>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>>>> any
>>>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>>>> under
>>>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks
>>>> his
>>>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>>>> will
>>>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>>>> internalized
>>>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>>>> but still
>>>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>>>> then I'm
>>>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>>>> beginning with
>>>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>>>> you have
>>>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>>>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>>>> don't
>>>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>>>> bike with
>>>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>>>> off
>>>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>>>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>>>> sentence
>>>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>>>> Don't
>>>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>>>> advocated
>>>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>>>> those
>>>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>>>> a row
>>>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>>>> If there
>>>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>>>> "there
>>>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>>>> what
>>>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>>>> allows
>>>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>>>
>>>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>>>> So...let'e
>>>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>>>> spigots.
>>>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>>>> texts
>>>> do you find harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Have at it.
>>>>
>>>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.
>>>> Our
>>>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>>>> its
>>>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
>>>> this
>>>> listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>>>
>>>> Hurts, donut?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very
>>>> thoughtful and
>>>> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the
>>>> opening
>>>> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I
>>>> would
>>>> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm
>>>> than
>>>> good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean
>>>> that
>>>> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions
>>>> to
>>>> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial)
>>>> solutions.
>>>> As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college
>>>> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my
>>>> total
>>>> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my
>>>> students'
>>>> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could
>>>> come up
>>>> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny
>>>> vocabulary
>>>> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might
>>>> amuse me
>>>> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more
>>>> effective writing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good
>>>> writers do
>>>> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the
>>>> time,
>>>> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about
>>>> doing
>>>> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence
>>>> are an
>>>> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I
>>>> don't see
>>>> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend
>>>> teaching
>>>> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way
>>>> put
>>>> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence
>>>> is ,
>>>> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's
>>>> experience
>>>> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time,
>>>> if a
>>>> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft,
>>>> that
>>>> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant
>>>> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved
>>>> topic
>>>> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more
>>>> various
>>>> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and
>>>> thus
>>>> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context
>>>> and
>>>> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path
>>>> to
>>>> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you
>>>> put
>>>> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our
>>>> students
>>>> to produce easy to read and pleasurable,
>>>> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're
>>>> in a
>>>> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a
>>>> student
>>>> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that
>>>> student's
>>>> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and
>>>> more
>>>> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would
>>>> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more
>>>> deliberate and
>>>> effective writing process tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he
>>>> or she
>>>> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the
>>>> revision
>>>> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a
>>>> rhetorical
>>>> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to
>>>> "she" as
>>>> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could
>>>> be such
>>>> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where
>>>> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I
>>>> would
>>>> have favored coherence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not
>>>> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must
>>>> have a
>>>> different subject." I don't think the different sides in this
>>>> Great War
>>>> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear
>>>> about
>>>> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts.
>>>> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing.
>>>> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to
>>>> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them.
>>>> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they
>>>> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really??! Really. Really??!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are
>>>> problems
>>>> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems
>>>> for
>>>> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one
>>>> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion
>>>> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring
>>>> to
>>>> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor.
>>>> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from
>>>> chaotic
>>>> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can
>>>> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is
>>>> causing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is
>>>> simply
>>>> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against
>>>> coherence. Both are important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not
>>>> make
>>>> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping
>>>> reading.
>>>> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable,
>>>> informative reading.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might
>>>> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how
>>>> each sentence connects]?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying
>>>> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's
>>>> inconclusive
>>>> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her
>>>> revision:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has
>>>> become
>>>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really
>>>> started
>>>> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because
>>>> she
>>>> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her
>>>> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her
>>>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period
>>>> of
>>>> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a
>>>> writer
>>>> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows
>>>> she
>>>> has not been considering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a
>>>> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style,"
>>>> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka,
>>>> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing
>>>> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on
>>>> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run?
>>>> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes*
>>>> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority?
>>>> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long-
>>>> term improvement should take priority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers
>>>> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change
>>>> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having
>>>> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think
>>>> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I
>>>> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short
>>>> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a
>>>> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been
>>>> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately
>>>> attaining a mature style).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class
>>>> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably
>>>> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good"
>>>> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face
>>>> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term
>>>> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students--
>>>> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write
>>>> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start
>>>> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students
>>>> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading
>>>> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually
>>>> improve at, coordination and subordination.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad
>>>> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in
>>>> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help
>>>> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness
>>>> and control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're
>>>> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking
>>>> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond
>>>> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate
>>>> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect,
>>>> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One
>>>> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers
>>>> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few
>>>> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to
>>>> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you
>>>> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read,
>>>> that will make this easier."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the
>>>> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the
>>>> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and
>>>> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And
>>>> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over
>>>> the long one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and
>>>> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of
>>>> advice?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van Druten
>>>> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John, you have actually made my point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate,
>>>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to
>>>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging
>>>> of verb choice."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me
>>>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say
>>>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up
>>>> their sentence starts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences
>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
>>>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school
>>>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix
>>>> the core problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to
>>>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can
>>>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts
>>>> with what I have experienced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as
>>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly
>>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given
>>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate
>>>> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the
>>>> structure).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and
>>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more
>>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me)
>>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the
>>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core
>>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences
>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
>>>> what teachers want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Alexander
>>>> Austin, Texas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up
>>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is
>>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your
>>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th
>>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "When I cover
>>>> parallel structure in AP and honors classes, we talk about the
>>>> difference between purposeful repetition (emphasis, humor, known-
>>>> new, hooks, etc.) and repetition born by uninspired, lazy writing."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to
>>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree
>>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her
>>>> sentence starts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had
>>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves
>>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so
>>>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her
>>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing
>>>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken
>>>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He
>>>> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan,
>>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid
>>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that
>>>> varying
>>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as
>>>> opening)is
>>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
>>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
>>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that
>>>> students
>>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
>>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
>>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which
>>>> starts
>>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie
>>>> Silko's
>>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of
>>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and
>>>> copied
>>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
>>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for
>>>> long
>>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
>>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and
>>>> repeating
>>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
>>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information
>>>> flow in a
>>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost
>>>> always
>>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
>>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The
>>>> opening
>>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
>>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit
>>>> repetition
>>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
>>>> quickly.
>>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different
>>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
>>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used
>>>> for
>>>> continuity, though, not for variation.
>>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what
>>>> kind of
>>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A
>>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
>>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open
>>>> sentences is
>>>> another.
>>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting
>>>> that most
>>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have
>>>> variation
>>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
>>>> adverbials.
>>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is
>>>> harmful to
>>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
>>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them
>>>> to see
>>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of
>>>> subjects, to
>>>> build coherence into texts.
>>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good
>>>> teaching
>>>> practices, not a personal criticism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still
>>>> believe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to
>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea
>>>> that I
>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought
>>>> you
>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
>>>> not enjoying myself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan,
>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward
>>>> a mature
>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should
>>>> all be
>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far,
>>>> far from
>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our
>>>> profession
>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if
>>>> what we
>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you
>>>> posted to
>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings
>>>> to keep
>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at
>>>> all to do
>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad
>>>> teacher. We
>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an
>>>> open mind.
>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was
>>>> never
>>>> intended to be personal.
>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously
>>>> whether the
>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate.
>>>> It says,
>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50%
>>>> of the
>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly
>>>> study. The
>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a
>>>> professional
>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an
>>>> average of
>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the
>>>> highest
>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the
>>>> case,
>>>> then
>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature
>>>> writers. I
>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not
>>>> boring.
>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
>>>> Grammar" as a
>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice.
>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I
>>>> apologize if
>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
>>>> teacher.
>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully
>>>> grounded,
>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful
>>>> of each
>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
>>>> on my
>>>> part to do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style
>>>> guides.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing
>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same
>>>> starting word
>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sentence Beginnings
>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-
>>>> far
>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But
>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
>>>> sentences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WORDS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
>>>> fight back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and
>>>> clattering came
>>>> from the heights around us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just
>>>> survived the
>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere
>>>> is all
>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high
>>>> school,
>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
>>>> important as a healthy mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature,
>>>> minerals-
>>>> these affect the health of plants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PHRASES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For
>>>> one
>>>> thing, it can be ruthless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of
>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
>>>> existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise
>>>> program
>>>> is essential.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high
>>>> over
>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead
>>>> surrounded
>>>> by fields.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission
>>>> provides
>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went
>>>> on the
>>>> attack.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CLAUSES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and
>>>> I think
>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to
>>>> death that
>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never
>>>> going to
>>>> show up again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a
>>>> joiner of
>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of
>>>> a group
>>>> of animal lovers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a
>>>> questions to
>>>> ask a geologist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan,
>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you
>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible
>>>> variations?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jean Waldman
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>
>> 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/
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:52:54 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've heard it only as an auxiliary. "We ain't any" for "We don't have any"=
just doesn't work.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: 2009-06-02 15:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've likely used all those myself. Thanks for the examples. I was trying =
to use "ain't" where has/have are main nouns, rather than helping verbs. M=
aybe it can be used to replace main have/has also?
Larry
Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> 06/02/09 2:17 PM >>>
I'm not Herb, but what about "He ain't been there." "She ain't got none." =
"It ain't been so long since the last storm."
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
U] On Behalf Of Larry Beason [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Herb,
Can you give examples of people who use 'ain't' for a contraction of 'has/h=
ave not.' I might not be thinking it through, but I cannot think of any su=
ch instances myself.
Just curious.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 6/1/2009 8:30 PM >>>
Peter,
That's exactly what happened with "ain't." Up into the 16th c. it was the =
standard contraction of "am not," a string for which we now have no contrac=
tion. In some dialects of English, "ain't" came to be used with all person=
s, and so 18th c. prescriptive grammarians rejected "ain't" completely, in =
any usage. The result is that today, English speakers don't even consider =
"ain't" to be a legitimate possibility for "am not." Those who use it use =
it not only for all persons but also as a contraction of "has/have not." S=
o the answer to your question is yes. Prescriptive rules can bring about l=
inguistic change.
Oddly, the form persisted among the nobility. Dorothy Sayers, who's very c=
areful with her representation of dialect and register, has Lord Peter Wims=
ey using "I ain't" regularly. The nobility, who didn't bother to read the =
18th c. self-help literature on how to sound like the nobility, didn't give=
up the contraction. While it was still current in the early 20th c., as t=
he Sayers novels demonstrate, the use of "ain't" for "am not" has now disap=
peared among the nobility as well.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: 2009-06-01 20:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Here's a scary thought. If enough teachers have taught these
"training wheel rules" to enough generations of students, who are now
out there teaching them to others and editing books and periodicals
and even the NY Times, so that most people in America believe that
starting a sentence with "because" or "there" or "and" is just plain
wrong, could what started as "training wheels" actually become
descriptions of how the language is used? Despite what a handful of
brilliant ATEG members think, can what started as "training wheels"
actually become "the rules" if enough people think they are the
rules? And then we ATEG-ers become the reactionaries trying to resist
"change" in the language? Really scary. [Note that, as if to prove
I'm not influenced by training wheels, I just started a sentence with
"and."]
Peter Adams
On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:
> I have the same concern about the training wheels never coming off.
> I will never forget suggesting to the senior high school teachers in
> one of the best public schools in the state of New Jersey that it
> was OK to start a sentence with "and" or "but," only to discover
> that the department chair had just sent out a memo urging every
> English teacher to be on guard against this sinful practice and join
> him in wiping it off the face of the Earth. If college English
> teachers frequently find their students believing such things as
> never use the passive, never begin sentences with "there," never use
> "I" in formal writing, and such, it would seem the training has
> lasted for 12 years.
> As for "formal" writing, what is it? and where is it published? And
> what chance is there that more than (fill in the number) percent of
> our students are ever going to have to write it?
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>> Herb, Peter, et al.:
>>
>> I'm just kibitzing with a couple of points (and whole-heartedly agree
>> with Herb's points about the value of this thread) --
>>
>> (1) I think Peter's point about training wheels being useful only
>> insofar as the students *know* they're there and they will come off
>> eventually is a crucial one. Simplifications used in textbooks should
>> always be accompanied by some comment, however brief, that the actual
>> situation is more complex, and that discussion of that will occur at
>> some later point. From what I've seen of K-12 textbooks, this kind of
>> comment is almost never added, and I have gotten the impression at
>> times
>> that the publishers of the texts didn't actually know that the
>> material
>> *was* a simplification (like an inset box in one text I've examined
>> that
>> made the point that (a) dialects are very different and quaint
>> kinds of
>> speech, like one hears in Scotland, and (b) dialects are dying out;
>> it
>> was accompanied by a picture of a child in a kilt, playing bagpipes).
>> Students are hardly ever shocked to discover that there's more
>> complexity to a subject than they are being asked to deal with right
>> now. They *are* annoyed when they've been presented with something
>> as an
>> absolute fact about English and then hear someone tell them it's
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> (2) I always want to add a third domain to the two Peter mentioned.
>> Grammar-as-a-discipline, like chemistry or biology, focuses on the
>> architecture of part of our experienced reality. Grammar-for-
>> composition
>> focuses on expression; interpretation is automatically included the
>> minute audience awareness becomes a topic, but it's not the primary
>> focus. As future citizens, and consumers, students also benefit from
>> examining how language is *on* them. It's possible to study
>> traditional
>> formal grammar and have a large amount of practice with composition
>> without ever really noticing how "virtually" is used as a weasel
>> word,
>> or how a politician is using a passive construction in a way that
>> happens to omit the agent when referring to a major problem. A
>> consciousness of grammar during "reception" is vital, even if it's
>> unconnected to a current writing task.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>> Dept. of English
>> Central Michigan University
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of
>> how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of
>> Goal Two:
>>
>> This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?
>>
>> But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing
>> and
>> language arts teachers. How much students should know about
>> language is
>> directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US
>> history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much
>> students should know about grammar does fall much more directly
>> into the
>> domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher.
>> Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half
>> century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem
>> aside,
>> linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language
>> arts
>> teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and
>> sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
>>
>> I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor,
>> is one
>> of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in
>> quite a
>> while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge,
>> experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long
>> felt towards good K12 teachers.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]
>> ]
>> Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
>> resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much
>> grammar
>> should students know.
>>
>> It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
>> grammar instruction:
>>
>> Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
>> conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
>>
>> Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
>> language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?)
>>
>> Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
>> question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
>> agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
>> it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
>> to reach that goal.
>>
>> And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
>> complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
>> so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
>>
>> I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
>> question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
>> questions are.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
>>> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
>>> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
>>> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
>>> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward
>>> grammar
>>> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
>>> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
>>> grammar in
>>> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
>>> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
>>> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
>>> difficult
>>> to displace.
>>> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we
>>> observe
>>> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
>>> itself
>>> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
>>> to come
>>> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an
>>> observation
>>> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
>>> it.
>>> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
>>> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
>>> we
>>> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
>>> dynamic than
>>> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
>>> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
>>> purposefully.
>>> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
>>> understanding
>>> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
>>> about
>>> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
>>> educated
>>> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
>>> of the
>>> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
>>> and it
>>> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
>>> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
>>> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
>>> about
>>> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
>>> in
>>> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
>>> effectively or "correctly". >
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Susan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>>>> anger." I
>>>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I
>>>> called
>>>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>>>> them--but I
>>>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think
>>>> you're
>>>> picking up from me.
>>>>
>>>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called
>>>> "training
>>>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>>>> differently,
>>>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>>>> has
>>>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>>>> training
>>>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>>>> skills
>>>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>>>> wheels
>>>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>>>> can do
>>>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>>>> teachers
>>>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>>>> OK, but
>>>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>>>> sentences
>>>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>>>> some
>>>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>>>> what it
>>>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>>>> These
>>>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>>>> getting
>>>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>>>> wheels
>>>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers
>>>> use
>>>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>>>> "avoid
>>>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>>>> made-up
>>>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>>>> sentence
>>>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of
>>>> effective
>>>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>>>> from; the
>>>> latter is not even a norm.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>>>> characterizing your
>>>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>>>> always
>>>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>>>> right, you
>>>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>>>> sentence
>>>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>>>> to try
>>>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>>>> become
>>>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>>>> using a
>>>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>>>> writers";
>>>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>>>> that I
>>>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>>>> which would
>>>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>>>> is
>>>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>>>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having
>>>> students
>>>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>>>> scaffolding.
>>>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>>>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>>>
>>>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>>>> he
>>>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>>>> now
>>>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>>>> statement,
>>>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>>>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>>>> this
>>>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>>>> be.
>>>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>>>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>>>> as an
>>>> example of the important educational techniques called
>>>> "scaffolding." In
>>>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>>>> finally
>>>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are
>>>> helpful.
>>>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing
>>>> if a
>>>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>>>> trying to
>>>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>>>> any
>>>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>>>> under
>>>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks
>>>> his
>>>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>>>> will
>>>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>>>> internalized
>>>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>>>> but still
>>>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>>>> then I'm
>>>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>>>> beginning with
>>>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>>>> you have
>>>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>>>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>>>> don't
>>>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>>>> bike with
>>>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>>>> off
>>>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>>>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>>>> sentence
>>>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>>>> Don't
>>>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>>>> advocated
>>>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>>>> those
>>>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>>>> a row
>>>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>>>> If there
>>>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>>>> "there
>>>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>>>> what
>>>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>>>> allows
>>>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>>>
>>>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>>>> So...let'e
>>>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>>>> spigots.
>>>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>>>> texts
>>>> do you find harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Have at it.
>>>>
>>>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.
>>>> Our
>>>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>>>> its
>>>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
>>>> this
>>>> listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>>>
>>>> Hurts, donut?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I just wanted to say that I find your contribu
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:07:32 -0400
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Just a terminology side-note --
I, and I think a lot of other linguists, would count the "ain't" of "He
ain't hungry yet" as an auxiliary (since it appears initially in the
yes/no question equivalent, "Ain't he done yet?"), but traditional
terminology would treat it as the main verb, since adopting the
auxiliary analysis entails accepting that there *is* no main verb in
this kind of construction.=20
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've heard it only as an auxiliary. "We ain't any" for "We don't have
any" just doesn't work.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: 2009-06-02 15:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've likely used all those myself. Thanks for the examples. I was
trying to use "ain't" where has/have are main nouns, rather than helping
verbs. Maybe it can be used to replace main have/has also?
Larry
Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> 06/02/09 2:17 PM >>>
I'm not Herb, but what about "He ain't been there." "She ain't got
none." "It ain't been so long since the last storm."
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Herb,
Can you give examples of people who use 'ain't' for a contraction of
'has/have not.' I might not be thinking it through, but I cannot think
of any such instances myself.
Just curious.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 6/1/2009 8:30 PM >>>
Peter,
That's exactly what happened with "ain't." Up into the 16th c. it was
the standard contraction of "am not," a string for which we now have no
contraction. In some dialects of English, "ain't" came to be used with
all persons, and so 18th c. prescriptive grammarians rejected "ain't"
completely, in any usage. The result is that today, English speakers
don't even consider "ain't" to be a legitimate possibility for "am not."
Those who use it use it not only for all persons but also as a
contraction of "has/have not." So the answer to your question is yes.
Prescriptive rules can bring about linguistic change.
Oddly, the form persisted among the nobility. Dorothy Sayers, who's
very careful with her representation of dialect and register, has Lord
Peter Wimsey using "I ain't" regularly. The nobility, who didn't bother
to read the 18th c. self-help literature on how to sound like the
nobility, didn't give up the contraction. While it was still current in
the early 20th c., as the Sayers novels demonstrate, the use of "ain't"
for "am not" has now disappeared among the nobility as well.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: 2009-06-01 20:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Here's a scary thought. If enough teachers have taught these
"training wheel rules" to enough generations of students, who are now
out there teaching them to others and editing books and periodicals
and even the NY Times, so that most people in America believe that
starting a sentence with "because" or "there" or "and" is just plain
wrong, could what started as "training wheels" actually become
descriptions of how the language is used? Despite what a handful of
brilliant ATEG members think, can what started as "training wheels"
actually become "the rules" if enough people think they are the
rules? And then we ATEG-ers become the reactionaries trying to resist
"change" in the language? Really scary. [Note that, as if to prove
I'm not influenced by training wheels, I just started a sentence with
"and."]
Peter Adams
On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:
> I have the same concern about the training wheels never coming off.
> I will never forget suggesting to the senior high school teachers in
> one of the best public schools in the state of New Jersey that it
> was OK to start a sentence with "and" or "but," only to discover
> that the department chair had just sent out a memo urging every
> English teacher to be on guard against this sinful practice and join
> him in wiping it off the face of the Earth. If college English
> teachers frequently find their students believing such things as
> never use the passive, never begin sentences with "there," never use
> "I" in formal writing, and such, it would seem the training has
> lasted for 12 years.
> As for "formal" writing, what is it? and where is it published? And
> what chance is there that more than (fill in the number) percent of
> our students are ever going to have to write it?
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>> Herb, Peter, et al.:
>>
>> I'm just kibitzing with a couple of points (and whole-heartedly agree
>> with Herb's points about the value of this thread) --
>>
>> (1) I think Peter's point about training wheels being useful only
>> insofar as the students *know* they're there and they will come off
>> eventually is a crucial one. Simplifications used in textbooks should
>> always be accompanied by some comment, however brief, that the actual
>> situation is more complex, and that discussion of that will occur at
>> some later point. From what I've seen of K-12 textbooks, this kind of
>> comment is almost never added, and I have gotten the impression at
>> times
>> that the publishers of the texts didn't actually know that the
>> material
>> *was* a simplification (like an inset box in one text I've examined
>> that
>> made the point that (a) dialects are very different and quaint
>> kinds of
>> speech, like one hears in Scotland, and (b) dialects are dying out;
>> it
>> was accompanied by a picture of a child in a kilt, playing bagpipes).
>> Students are hardly ever shocked to discover that there's more
>> complexity to a subject than they are being asked to deal with right
>> now. They *are* annoyed when they've been presented with something
>> as an
>> absolute fact about English and then hear someone tell them it's
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> (2) I always want to add a third domain to the two Peter mentioned.
>> Grammar-as-a-discipline, like chemistry or biology, focuses on the
>> architecture of part of our experienced reality. Grammar-for-
>> composition
>> focuses on expression; interpretation is automatically included the
>> minute audience awareness becomes a topic, but it's not the primary
>> focus. As future citizens, and consumers, students also benefit from
>> examining how language is *on* them. It's possible to study
>> traditional
>> formal grammar and have a large amount of practice with composition
>> without ever really noticing how "virtually" is used as a weasel
>> word,
>> or how a politician is using a passive construction in a way that
>> happens to omit the agent when referring to a major problem. A
>> consciousness of grammar during "reception" is vital, even if it's
>> unconnected to a current writing task.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>> Dept. of English
>> Central Michigan University
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of
>> how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of
>> Goal Two:
>>
>> This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?
>>
>> But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing
>> and
>> language arts teachers. How much students should know about
>> language is
>> directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US
>> history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much
>> students should know about grammar does fall much more directly
>> into the
>> domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher.
>> Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half
>> century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem
>> aside,
>> linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language
>> arts
>> teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and
>> sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
>>
>> I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor,
>> is one
>> of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in
>> quite a
>> while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge,
>> experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long
>> felt towards good K12 teachers.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
[[log in to unmask]
>> ]
>> Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
>> resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much
>> grammar
>> should students know.
>>
>> It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
>> grammar instruction:
>>
>> Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
>> conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
>>
>> Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
>> language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?)
>>
>> Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
>> question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
>> agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
>> it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
>> to reach that goal.
>>
>> And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
>> complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
>> so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
>>
>> I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
>> question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
>> questions are.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
>>> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
>>> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
>>> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
>>> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward
>>> grammar
>>> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
>>> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
>>> grammar in
>>> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
>>> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
>>> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
>>> difficult
>>> to displace.
>>> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we
>>> observe
>>> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
>>> itself
>>> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
>>> to come
>>> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an
>>> observation
>>> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
>>> it.
>>> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
>>> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
>>> we
>>> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
>>> dynamic than
>>> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
>>> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
>>> purposefully.
>>> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
>>> understanding
>>> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
>>> about
>>> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
>>> educated
>>> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
>>> of the
>>> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
>>> and it
>>> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
>>> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
>>> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
>>> about
>>> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
>>> in
>>> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
>>> effectively or "correctly". >
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Susan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>>>> anger." I
>>>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I
>>>> called
>>>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>>>> them--but I
>>>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think
>>>> you're
>>>> picking up from me.
>>>>
>>>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called
>>>> "training
>>>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>>>> differently,
>>>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>>>> has
>>>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>>>> training
>>>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>>>> skills
>>>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>>>> wheels
>>>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>>>> can do
>>>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>>>> teachers
>>>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>>>> OK, but
>>>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>>>> sentences
>>>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>>>> some
>>>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>>>> what it
>>>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>>>> These
>>>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>>>> getting
>>>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>>>> wheels
>>>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers
>>>> use
>>>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>>>> "avoid
>>>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>>>> made-up
>>>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>>>> sentence
>>>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of
>>>> effective
>>>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>>>> from; the
>>>> latter is not even a norm.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>>>> characterizing your
>>>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>>>> always
>>>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>>>> right, you
>>>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>>>> sentence
>>>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>>>> to try
>>>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>>>> become
>>>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>>>> using a
>>>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>>>> writers";
>>>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>>>> that I
>>>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>>>> which would
>>>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>>>> is
>>>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>>>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having
>>>> students
>>>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>>>> scaffolding.
>>>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>>>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>>>
>>>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>>>> he
>>>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>>>> now
>>>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>>>> statement,
>>>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>>>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>>>> this
>>>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>>>> be.
>>>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>>>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>>>> as an
>>>> example of the important educational techniques called
>>>> "scaffolding." In
>>>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>>>> finally
>>>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are
>>>> helpful.
>>>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing
>>>> if a
>>>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>>>> trying to
>>>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>>>> any
>>>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>>>> under
>>>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks
>>>> his
>>>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>>>> will
>>>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>>>> internalized
>>>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>>>> but still
>>>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>>>> then I'm
>>>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>>>> beginning with
>>>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>>>> you have
>>>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>>>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>>>> don't
>>>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>>>> bike with
>>>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>>>> off
>>>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>>>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>>>> sentence
>>>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>>>> Don't
>>>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>>>> advocated
>>>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>>>> those
>>>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>>>> a row
>>>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>>>> If there
>>>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>>>> "there
>>>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>>>> what
>>>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>>>> allows
>>>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>>>
>>>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>>>> So...let'e
>>>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>>>> spigots.
>>>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>>>> texts
>>>> do you find harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Have at it.
>>>>
>>>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.
>>>> Our
>>>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>>>> its
>>>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
>>>> this
>>>> listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>>>
>>>> Hurts, donut?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I just wanted to say that I find your contribu
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:41:05 -0400
From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: levels of formality
In Trimmer and Hairston's "Riverside Reader," a book offering
professional models of good writing under headings such as Process
Analysis, Division and Classification, Cause and Effect, Definition,
Persuasion and Argument, there are 50 essays. Forty-one of them (82%)
are written in the first person.
Contractions are everywhere, including books on style---such as Joseph
Williams and Strunk and White---in "College English," "Research in the
Teaching of English," in virtually every essay published in the annual
anthologies of "Best American Essays," in all sections of the New York
Times, in "Atlantic" and "New Yorker."
Ed S
On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Peter,
> Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing I do. I
> have
> yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine through
> four
> issues and never took issue with it.
> I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas should be
> impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may be a
> reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't matter, I suppose,
> who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I can't for
> the
> life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing from my own
> schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the classroom. I don't
> have "logical" views about it separate from my values and experiences.
> It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educational opportunity
> program students for twenty-three years" when I'm trying to
> characterize my own background. Other people may have opinions about
> it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking students to
> avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking them to avoid
> being
> honest about where their views are coming from. This also shortchanges
> the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has grown up with
> a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone shot by a
> fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to talk unless
> those differing experiences can be acknowledged as legitimate.
> We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't benefit from
> pretending to leave our values and experiences at the door. Quite
> often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the fact.
>
> Craig
>
>
> I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first person, so I
>> look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.
>>
>> I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students that they
>> shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing to an
>> audience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also tell them I've
>> never written anything in my life that was so formal that I avoided
>> contractions. Where do others stand on this?
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>
>>> In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English," I
>>> often come across some gray areas. My tendancy is to be somewhat
>>> conservative about formal language. I wonder where others draw
>>> lines regarding levels of formality. For example, some of my
>>> students use words that seem too informal to me, like "morph" (verb
>>> form). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the first person
>>> before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to challenge students
>>> to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first person
>>> altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such issues?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>
>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade English, I teach four
>>> groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet with each
>>> group five times each week. I think that I could get better results
>>> by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each
>>> group separately on others. This would reduce total student contact
>>> hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact hours per
>>> week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit from
>>> reducing my contact load and spending that time planning, developing
>>> lessons, and responding to writing.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>>
>>> I=92m not join this debate because I don=92t know the research on eith=
er
>>> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than
>>> four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as
>>> simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.
>>> Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group
>>> seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups
>>> of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and
>>> much less response to writing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link
>>> between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research
>>> I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in
>>> improving student performance is changing what teachers do.
>>> Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class,
>>> but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that
>>> if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students
>>> that much would change in what students know and can do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students,
>>> but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had
>>> all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give
>>> me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their
>>> writing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Woods
>>>
>>> BASIS Scottsdale
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that
>>> class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is
>>> especially important to the writing classroom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>
>>>
>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>
>>> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
>>> the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in
>>> teaching
>>> writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma
>>> mater,
>>> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly,
>>> had
>>> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed
>>> the
>>> English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my
>>> advisor had
>>> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I
>>> had to
>>> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first
>>> Freshman
>>> English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that
>>> I had
>>> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the
>>> class size
>>> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day
>>> instead
>>> of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an
>>> excellent
>>> teacher.
>>>
>>> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
>>> experience, class size is more important in English composition than
>>> in any
>>> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.
>>>
>>> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>
>>> **********************************************************************=
*****
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:32:14 -0500
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fwd: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to
30 May 2009 (#2009-129)
--Apple-Mail-14--613237481
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
In my students' words, "If we get too formal, we have to exclude a
lot of our best sentences."
Good writing is good writing. It's disingenuous to claim errors of
clarity and coherence are okay because you don't want to sound too
formal. Someone who has difficulty rephrasing a parallel structure
error while maintaining a natural tone is someone who is developing
as a writer.
Susan
> From: Susan van Druten [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:31 AM
> To: susan van druten
> Subject: Fwd: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May
> 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129)
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: June 1, 2009 9:25:36 PM CDT
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May
>> 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129)
>> Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> I have to disagree with Susan. I think you're right on the money
>> as usual, Herb. My 11th graders and I have been discussing and
>> working with discourse structures, attempting to "articulate"
>> elements of coherence and rhetorical force. My students have
>> identified (I believe rightfully so) a certain relationship
>> between clarity and "organic" language (we use that to mean
>> natural spoken language or written language styled to feel
>> "natural" and "conversational"): as one's attention to clarity
>> increases, one approaches a threshhold at which the organic
>> quality declines. In my students' words, "If we get too formal, we
>> have to exclude a lot of our best sentences."
>>
>> My goal is for them to see language registers as something other
>> than a concept. I want them to make a connection between register
>> and rhetorical effect, and I think they're making good progress on
>> that discovery. Equipped with functional knowledge of register and
>> its force on composition, the students (in "the plan") will apply
>> it themselves.
>>
>> I'm going to present your passage to them tomorrow, Herb. I want
>> to see what they think about the effect of parallelism in a
>> broader discourse unit. It may fit into their theory. This passage
>> may be perfectly understandable and carry appropriate parallel
>> force at the price of some formal clarity. I agree with you that
>> the appropriateness is entirely dependent on context, but I like
>> to let them make their own judgments.
>>
>> Also, thanks for the "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax" example! As part
>> of our study of discourse, we've been looking at this very thing
>> -- how discourse context can validate structure (and of course,
>> create meaning). I'm going to use this example in tomorrow's class.
>>
>> John Alexander
>> Austin, Texas
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Susan van Druten
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Heather and her sister Joanne were both afraid of spiders.
>> Heather's fear was offset by her deep sense of compassion for
>> vulnerable creatures. Unlike Heather, who would always put
>> spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne's
>> fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.
>>
>> Hmm, how about this:
>> Unlike Herb, who was unclear about how parallel structure provides
>> clarity of thought, Susan lacked any fear of Herb's credentials
>> because she knew the Emperor had a scarcity of cloth coverage.
>>
>>
>> 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/
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This E-mail message, including any
> attachments, 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 E-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
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/
--Apple-Mail-14--613237481
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-style: =
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: =
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div id=3D"divRpF989804" =
style=3D"direction: ltr; "><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">In my =
students' words, "If we get too formal, we have to exclude a lot of our =
best sentences."=A0</span></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><font =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"3"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: =
13px;"><br></span></font></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Tahoma" =
color=3D"#000000" size=3D"2">Good writing is good writing.=A0=A0It's =
disingenuous to claim errors of clarity and coherence are okay because =
you don't want to sound too formal.=A0 Someone who has difficulty =
rephrasing a parallel structure error while maintaining a natural tone =
is someone who is developing as a writer.=A0</font></div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"tahoma" size=3D"2"></font>=A0</div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"tahoma" size=3D"2">Susan</font></div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D"3"><p =
class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; =
margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; ">=A0</p></font></div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"tahoma" =
size=3D"2"></font>=A0</div></div></span><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-style: =
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: =
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><div id=3D"divRpF322306" =
style=3D"direction: ltr; "><hr tabindex=3D"-1"><font face=3D"Tahoma" =
size=3D"2"><b>From:</b><span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span>Sus=
an van Druten [<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>]<br><b>Sent:=
</b><span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span>Tuesday, June 02, =
2009 6:31 AM<br><b>To:</b><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span>susan van =
druten<br><b>Subject:</b><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span>Fwd: Parallel structure and =
homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 =
(#2009-129)<br></font><br></div><div></div><div><br><div><br><div>Begin =
forwarded message:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><font face=3D"Helvetica" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"5" =
style=3D"font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Helvetica; color: rgb(0, =
0, 0); "><b>From:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span></b></font><font =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal =
16px/normal Helvetica; ">John Dews-Alexander <<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></font=
></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: =
0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face=3D"Helvetica" color=3D"#000000" =
size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Helvetica; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><b>Date:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span></b></font><font =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal =
16px/normal Helvetica; ">June 1, 2009 9:25:36 PM CDT</font></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><font face=3D"Helvetica" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"5" =
style=3D"font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Helvetica; color: rgb(0, =
0, 0); "><b>To:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span></b></font><font =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal =
16px/normal Helvetica; "><a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a></fon=
t></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: =
0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face=3D"Helvetica" color=3D"#000000" =
size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Helvetica; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><b>Subject:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span></b></font><font =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal =
16px/normal Helvetica; "><b>Re: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG =
Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129)</b></font></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><font face=3D"Helvetica" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"5" =
style=3D"font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Helvetica; color: rgb(0, =
0, 0); "><b>Reply-To:<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span></b></font><font =
face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"5" style=3D"font: normal normal normal =
16px/normal Helvetica; ">Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar =
<<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></fo=
nt></div><div style=3D"min-height: 14px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: =
0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><br></div>I have to =
disagree with Susan. I think you're right on the money as usual, Herb. =
My 11th graders and I have been discussing and working with discourse =
structures, attempting to "articulate" elements of coherence and =
rhetorical force. My students have identified (I believe rightfully so) =
a certain relationship between clarity and "organic" language (we use =
that to mean natural spoken language or written language styled to feel =
"natural" and "conversational"): as one's attention to clarity =
increases, one approaches a threshhold at which the organic quality =
declines. In my students' words, "If we get too formal, we have to =
exclude a lot of our best sentences."<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span><br><br>My goal is for them to =
see language registers as something other than a concept. I want them to =
make a connection between register and rhetorical effect, and I think =
they're making good progress on that discovery. Equipped with functional =
knowledge of register and its force on composition, the students (in =
"the plan") will apply it themselves.<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span><br><br>I'm going to present =
your passage to them tomorrow, Herb. I want to see what they think about =
the effect of parallelism in a broader discourse unit. It may fit into =
their theory. This passage may be perfectly understandable and carry =
appropriate parallel force at the price of some formal clarity. I agree =
with you that the appropriateness is entirely dependent on context, but =
I like to let them make their own judgments.<br><br>Also, thanks for the =
"Spiro=A0 conjectures Ex-Lax" example! As part of our study of =
discourse, we've been looking at this very thing -- how discourse =
context can validate structure (and of course, create meaning). I'm =
going to use this example in tomorrow's class.<br><br>John =
Alexander<br>Austin, Texas<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun =
1, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Susan van Druten<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span><span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></span><span=
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span>wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"padding-left: 1ex; margin-top: 0pt; =
margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.8ex; =
border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; =
border-left-style: solid; "><div class=3D"im"><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"padding-left: 1ex; margin-top: 0pt; =
margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.8ex; =
border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; =
border-left-style: solid; ">Heather and her sister Joanne were both =
afraid of spiders. =A0Heather's fear was offset by her deep sense of =
compassion for vulnerable creatures. =A0Unlike Heather, who would always =
put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne's fear =
kept her from going anywhere near the =
creatures.<br></blockquote><br></div>Hmm, how about this:<br>Unlike =
Herb, who was unclear about how parallel structure provides clarity of =
thought, Susan lacked any fear of Herb's credentials because she knew =
the Emperor had a scarcity of cloth coverage.<div><div></div><div =
class=3D"h5"><br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit =
the list's web interface at:<br>=A0 =A0<a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" =
target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>and=
select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web site at<span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span><a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><=
br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at:<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span><a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" =
target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span>and select "Join or leave the =
list"<div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; ">Visit ATEG's =
web site at<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</span><a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org" =
target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org</a>/</div></blockquote></div><br></div><=
/div><br clear=3D"all">Confidentiality Notice: This E-mail message, =
including any attachments, 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 E-mail and destroy all copies of the original =
message.</span></blockquote></div><br></body></html>=
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-14--613237481--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:59:16 -0500
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: levels of formality
One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays is to =20
prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from weakening the =20=
power of their arguments. "I believe," "I feel," and "I think" =20
shouldn't preface every idea expressed. I tell my students to use =20
first person only when relating personal experiences in their essays.
Susan
On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Peter,
> Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing I do. =20
> I have
> yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine through =20
> four
> issues and never took issue with it.
> I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas should be
> impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may be a
> reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't matter, I suppose,
> who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I can't for =20=
> the
> life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing from my own
> schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the classroom. I don't
> have "logical" views about it separate from my values and experiences.
> It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educational opportunity
> program students for twenty-three years" when I'm trying to
> characterize my own background. Other people may have opinions about
> it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking students to
> avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking them to avoid =20
> being
> honest about where their views are coming from. This also shortchanges
> the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has grown up with
> a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone shot by a
> fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to talk unless
> those differing experiences can be acknowledged as legitimate.
> We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't benefit from
> pretending to leave our values and experiences at the door. Quite
> often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the fact.
>
> Craig
>
>
> I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first person, =20
> so I
>> look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.
>>
>> I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students that they
>> shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing to an
>> audience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also tell them I've
>> never written anything in my life that was so formal that I avoided
>> contractions. Where do others stand on this?
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>
>>> In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English," I
>>> often come across some gray areas. My tendancy is to be somewhat
>>> conservative about formal language. I wonder where others draw
>>> lines regarding levels of formality. For example, some of my
>>> students use words that seem too informal to me, like "morph" (verb
>>> form). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the first person
>>> before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to challenge students
>>> to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first person
>>> altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such issues?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>
>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade English, I teach four
>>> groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet with each
>>> group five times each week. I think that I could get better results
>>> by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each
>>> group separately on others. This would reduce total student contact
>>> hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact hours per
>>> week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit from
>>> reducing my contact load and spending that time planning, developing
>>> lessons, and responding to writing.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>>
>>> I=92m not join this debate because I don=92t know the research on =
either
>>> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than
>>> four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as
>>> simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.
>>> Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group
>>> seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups
>>> of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and
>>> much less response to writing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link
>>> between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research
>>> I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in
>>> improving student performance is changing what teachers do.
>>> Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class,
>>> but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that
>>> if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students
>>> that much would change in what students know and can do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students,
>>> but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had
>>> all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give
>>> me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their =20
>>> writing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Woods
>>>
>>> BASIS Scottsdale
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that
>>> class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is
>>> especially important to the writing classroom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>
>>>
>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>
>>> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
>>> the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in
>>> teaching
>>> writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma
>>> mater,
>>> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised =20
>>> highly, had
>>> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed
>>> the
>>> English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my
>>> advisor had
>>> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I
>>> had to
>>> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first
>>> Freshman
>>> English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that
>>> I had
>>> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the
>>> class size
>>> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day
>>> instead
>>> of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an =20
>>> excellent
>>> teacher.
>>>
>>> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
>>> experience, class size is more important in English composition than
>>> in any
>>> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.
>>>
>>> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>
>>> ********************************************************************=20=
>>> *******
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>> 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 =20
>> 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 =20
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:33:45 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
But if "ain't" is a contraction of "am not" that has generalized to all oth=
er present forms of "be," then its behavior would be identical with that of=
"be." How would traditional terminology treat "be" in "Isn't he home yet?=
" Perhaps I'm showing my own uncertainty as to whether traditional grammar=
ians would call the main verb the auxiliary+verb, just the lexical verb wha=
tever its form, or just the tensed auxiliary.
Have and be are anomalous among English verbs in that they behave both as a=
uxiliaries and as lexical verbs, although "have" shows more variation acros=
s dialects in this behavior.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: 2009-06-02 16:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Just a terminology side-note --
I, and I think a lot of other linguists, would count the "ain't" of "He
ain't hungry yet" as an auxiliary (since it appears initially in the
yes/no question equivalent, "Ain't he done yet?"), but traditional
terminology would treat it as the main verb, since adopting the
auxiliary analysis entails accepting that there *is* no main verb in
this kind of construction.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've heard it only as an auxiliary. "We ain't any" for "We don't have
any" just doesn't work.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: 2009-06-02 15:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've likely used all those myself. Thanks for the examples. I was
trying to use "ain't" where has/have are main nouns, rather than helping
verbs. Maybe it can be used to replace main have/has also?
Larry
Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> 06/02/09 2:17 PM >>>
I'm not Herb, but what about "He ain't been there." "She ain't got
none." "It ain't been so long since the last storm."
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Herb,
Can you give examples of people who use 'ain't' for a contraction of
'has/have not.' I might not be thinking it through, but I cannot think
of any such instances myself.
Just curious.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 6/1/2009 8:30 PM >>>
Peter,
That's exactly what happened with "ain't." Up into the 16th c. it was
the standard contraction of "am not," a string for which we now have no
contraction. In some dialects of English, "ain't" came to be used with
all persons, and so 18th c. prescriptive grammarians rejected "ain't"
completely, in any usage. The result is that today, English speakers
don't even consider "ain't" to be a legitimate possibility for "am not."
Those who use it use it not only for all persons but also as a
contraction of "has/have not." So the answer to your question is yes.
Prescriptive rules can bring about linguistic change.
Oddly, the form persisted among the nobility. Dorothy Sayers, who's
very careful with her representation of dialect and register, has Lord
Peter Wimsey using "I ain't" regularly. The nobility, who didn't bother
to read the 18th c. self-help literature on how to sound like the
nobility, didn't give up the contraction. While it was still current in
the early 20th c., as the Sayers novels demonstrate, the use of "ain't"
for "am not" has now disappeared among the nobility as well.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: 2009-06-01 20:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Here's a scary thought. If enough teachers have taught these
"training wheel rules" to enough generations of students, who are now
out there teaching them to others and editing books and periodicals
and even the NY Times, so that most people in America believe that
starting a sentence with "because" or "there" or "and" is just plain
wrong, could what started as "training wheels" actually become
descriptions of how the language is used? Despite what a handful of
brilliant ATEG members think, can what started as "training wheels"
actually become "the rules" if enough people think they are the
rules? And then we ATEG-ers become the reactionaries trying to resist
"change" in the language? Really scary. [Note that, as if to prove
I'm not influenced by training wheels, I just started a sentence with
"and."]
Peter Adams
On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:
> I have the same concern about the training wheels never coming off.
> I will never forget suggesting to the senior high school teachers in
> one of the best public schools in the state of New Jersey that it
> was OK to start a sentence with "and" or "but," only to discover
> that the department chair had just sent out a memo urging every
> English teacher to be on guard against this sinful practice and join
> him in wiping it off the face of the Earth. If college English
> teachers frequently find their students believing such things as
> never use the passive, never begin sentences with "there," never use
> "I" in formal writing, and such, it would seem the training has
> lasted for 12 years.
> As for "formal" writing, what is it? and where is it published? And
> what chance is there that more than (fill in the number) percent of
> our students are ever going to have to write it?
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>> Herb, Peter, et al.:
>>
>> I'm just kibitzing with a couple of points (and whole-heartedly agree
>> with Herb's points about the value of this thread) --
>>
>> (1) I think Peter's point about training wheels being useful only
>> insofar as the students *know* they're there and they will come off
>> eventually is a crucial one. Simplifications used in textbooks should
>> always be accompanied by some comment, however brief, that the actual
>> situation is more complex, and that discussion of that will occur at
>> some later point. From what I've seen of K-12 textbooks, this kind of
>> comment is almost never added, and I have gotten the impression at
>> times
>> that the publishers of the texts didn't actually know that the
>> material
>> *was* a simplification (like an inset box in one text I've examined
>> that
>> made the point that (a) dialects are very different and quaint
>> kinds of
>> speech, like one hears in Scotland, and (b) dialects are dying out;
>> it
>> was accompanied by a picture of a child in a kilt, playing bagpipes).
>> Students are hardly ever shocked to discover that there's more
>> complexity to a subject than they are being asked to deal with right
>> now. They *are* annoyed when they've been presented with something
>> as an
>> absolute fact about English and then hear someone tell them it's
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> (2) I always want to add a third domain to the two Peter mentioned.
>> Grammar-as-a-discipline, like chemistry or biology, focuses on the
>> architecture of part of our experienced reality. Grammar-for-
>> composition
>> focuses on expression; interpretation is automatically included the
>> minute audience awareness becomes a topic, but it's not the primary
>> focus. As future citizens, and consumers, students also benefit from
>> examining how language is *on* them. It's possible to study
>> traditional
>> formal grammar and have a large amount of practice with composition
>> without ever really noticing how "virtually" is used as a weasel
>> word,
>> or how a politician is using a passive construction in a way that
>> happens to omit the agent when referring to a major problem. A
>> consciousness of grammar during "reception" is vital, even if it's
>> unconnected to a current writing task.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>> Dept. of English
>> Central Michigan University
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of
>> how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of
>> Goal Two:
>>
>> This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?
>>
>> But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing
>> and
>> language arts teachers. How much students should know about
>> language is
>> directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US
>> history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much
>> students should know about grammar does fall much more directly
>> into the
>> domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher.
>> Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half
>> century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem
>> aside,
>> linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language
>> arts
>> teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and
>> sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
>>
>> I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor,
>> is one
>> of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in
>> quite a
>> while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge,
>> experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long
>> felt towards good K12 teachers.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
[[log in to unmask]
>> ]
>> Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
>> resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much
>> grammar
>> should students know.
>>
>> It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
>> grammar instruction:
>>
>> Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
>> conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
>>
>> Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
>> language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?)
>>
>> Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
>> question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
>> agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
>> it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
>> to reach that goal.
>>
>> And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
>> complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
>> so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
>>
>> I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
>> question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
>> questions are.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
>>> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
>>> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
>>> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
>>> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward
>>> grammar
>>> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
>>> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
>>> grammar in
>>> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
>>> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
>>> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
>>> difficult
>>> to displace.
>>> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we
>>> observe
>>> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
>>> itself
>>> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
>>> to come
>>> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an
>>> observation
>>> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
>>> it.
>>> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
>>> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
>>> we
>>> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
>>> dynamic than
>>> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
>>> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
>>> purposefully.
>>> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
>>> understanding
>>> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
>>> about
>>> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
>>> educated
>>> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
>>> of the
>>> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
>>> and it
>>> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
>>> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
>>> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
>>> about
>>> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
>>> in
>>> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
>>> effectively or "correctly". >
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Susan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>>>> anger." I
>>>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I
>>>> called
>>>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>>>> them--but I
>>>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think
>>>> you're
>>>> picking up from me.
>>>>
>>>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called
>>>> "training
>>>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>>>> differently,
>>>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>>>> has
>>>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>>>> training
>>>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>>>> skills
>>>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>>>> wheels
>>>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>>>> can do
>>>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>>>> teachers
>>>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>>>> OK, but
>>>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>>>> sentences
>>>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>>>> some
>>>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>>>> what it
>>>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>>>> These
>>>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>>>> getting
>>>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>>>> wheels
>>>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers
>>>> use
>>>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>>>> "avoid
>>>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>>>> made-up
>>>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>>>> sentence
>>>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of
>>>> effective
>>>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>>>> from; the
>>>> latter is not even a norm.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>>>> characterizing your
>>>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>>>> always
>>>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>>>> right, you
>>>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>>>> sentence
>>>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>>>> to try
>>>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>>>> become
>>>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>>>> using a
>>>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>>>> writers";
>>>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>>>> that I
>>>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>>>> which would
>>>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>>>> is
>>>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>>>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having
>>>> students
>>>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>>>> scaffolding.
>>>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>>>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>>>
>>>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>>>> he
>>>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>>>> now
>>>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>>>> statement,
>>>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>>>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>>>> this
>>>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>>>> be.
>>>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>>>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>>>> as an
>>>> example of the important educational techniques called
>>>> "scaffolding." In
>>>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>>>> finally
>>>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are
>>>> helpful.
>>>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing
>>>> if a
>>>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>>>> trying to
>>>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>>>> any
>>>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>>>> under
>>>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks
>>>> his
>>>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>>>> will
>>>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>>>> internalized
>>>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>>>> but still
>>>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>>>> then I'm
>>>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>>>> beginning with
>>>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>>>> you have
>>>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>>>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>>>> don't
>>>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>>>> bike with
>>>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>>>> off
>>>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>>>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>>>> sentence
>>>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>>>> Don't
>>>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>>>> advocated
>>>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>>>> those
>>>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>>>> a row
>>>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>>>> If there
>>>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>>>> "there
>>>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>>>> what
>>>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>>>> allows
>>>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>>>
>>>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>>>> So...let'e
>>>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>>>> spigots.
>>>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>>>> texts
>>>> do you find harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Have at it.
>>>>
>>>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.
>>>> Our
>>>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>>>> its
>>>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
>>>> this
>>>> listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>>>
>>>> Hurts, donut?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I just wanted to say that I find your contribu
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:49:41 -0400
From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: levels of formality
The argument Susan makes for banning the use of first person strikes
me as a perfect example of training wheels. There is a possible
construction involving first person that we might prefer students
avoid. Rather than teach students to avoid that construction, we
simply ban all uses of first person.
That bothers me.
Peter Adams
On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
> One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays is to
> prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from weakening
> the power of their arguments. "I believe," "I feel," and "I think"
> shouldn't preface every idea expressed. I tell my students to use
> first person only when relating personal experiences in their essays.
>
> Susan
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>> Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing I do. I
>> have
>> yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine through
>> four
>> issues and never took issue with it.
>> I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas should be
>> impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may be a
>> reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't matter, I
>> suppose,
>> who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I can't for
>> the
>> life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing from my own
>> schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the classroom. I don't
>> have "logical" views about it separate from my values and
>> experiences.
>> It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educational
>> opportunity
>> program students for twenty-three years" when I'm trying to
>> characterize my own background. Other people may have opinions about
>> it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking students to
>> avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking them to avoid
>> being
>> honest about where their views are coming from. This also
>> shortchanges
>> the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has grown up
>> with
>> a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone shot by a
>> fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to talk unless
>> those differing experiences can be acknowledged as legitimate.
>> We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't benefit from
>> pretending to leave our values and experiences at the door. Quite
>> often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the fact.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first person,
>> so I
>>> look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.
>>>
>>> I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students that they
>>> shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing to an
>>> audience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also tell them I've
>>> never written anything in my life that was so formal that I avoided
>>> contractions. Where do others stand on this?
>>>
>>> Peter Adams
>>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>>
>>>> In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English," I
>>>> often come across some gray areas. My tendancy is to be somewhat
>>>> conservative about formal language. I wonder where others draw
>>>> lines regarding levels of formality. For example, some of my
>>>> students use words that seem too informal to me, like "morph" (verb
>>>> form). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the first person
>>>> before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to challenge students
>>>> to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first person
>>>> altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such issues?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>
>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>
>>>> Herb,
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade English, I teach four
>>>> groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet with each
>>>> group five times each week. I think that I could get better
>>>> results
>>>> by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each
>>>> group separately on others. This would reduce total student contact
>>>> hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact hours per
>>>> week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit
>>>> from
>>>> reducing my contact load and spending that time planning,
>>>> developing
>>>> lessons, and responding to writing.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>>>>
>>>> Scott,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I=92m not join this debate because I don=92t know the research on
>>>> either
>>>> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather
>>>> than
>>>> four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me
>>>> as
>>>> simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.
>>>> Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group
>>>> seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups
>>>> of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and
>>>> much less response to writing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>>> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link
>>>> between reducing class size and increasing performance. The
>>>> research
>>>> I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in
>>>> improving student performance is changing what teachers do.
>>>> Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class,
>>>> but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest
>>>> that
>>>> if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students
>>>> that much would change in what students know and can do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students,
>>>> but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had
>>>> all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give
>>>> me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their
>>>> writing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott Woods
>>>>
>>>> BASIS Scottsdale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that
>>>> class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is
>>>> especially important to the writing classroom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>
>>>> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid;
>>>> however,
>>>> the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in
>>>> teaching
>>>> writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My
>>>> alma
>>>> mater,
>>>> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised
>>>> highly, had
>>>> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had
>>>> failed
>>>> the
>>>> English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my
>>>> advisor had
>>>> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I
>>>> had to
>>>> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first
>>>> Freshman
>>>> English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied
>>>> that
>>>> I had
>>>> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the
>>>> class size
>>>> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day
>>>> instead
>>>> of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an
>>>> excellent
>>>> teacher.
>>>>
>>>> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in
>>>> my
>>>> experience, class size is more important in English composition
>>>> than
>>>> in any
>>>> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.
>>>>
>>>> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
>>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************************=
******
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:33:44 -0400
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "Result gives"; ATEG Digest - 2 Jun 2009 - Special issue
(#2009-135)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0180_01C9E3C1.6CA8E0D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The result of old-fashioned diagramming's being ingrained in me gives
me the subject and verb immediately.
Scott Catledge
I deleted the 120 pages in this Special issue. Is everyone getting that
much garbage. Some messages are clear; most are contained in gibberish.
I am not referring to anyone's expression as 'gibberish'-just the printed
results.
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/
------=_NextPart_000_0180_01C9E3C1.6CA8E0D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:.7in 77.95pt .5in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>The result of old-fashioned diagramming's =
being ingrained
in me gives<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>me the subject and verb =
immediately.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Scott Catledge<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>I deleted the 120 pages in this Special =
issue. Is
everyone getting that <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>much garbage. Some messages are clear; =
most are
contained in gibberish.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>I am not referring to anyone’s =
expression as ‘gibberish’—just
the printed<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>results.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_NextPart_000_0180_01C9E3C1.6CA8E0D0--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:52:58 -0500
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value of HS education
Peter, I think we should be concerned about teachers who present =20
"training wheels" as real life. However, I think it might be wise to =20=
consider why those teachers do this.
My guess is that they are inundated with students who don't ever want =20=
to "ride a bike" in their entire lives, but are forced to act like =20
they want to "ride a bike" because society values bike-riding over =20
carpentry, plumbing, or whatever hands-on skill or craft they excel =20
at. In other words, we all have to stop believing that people who =20
can't write an academic essay shouldn't get a high school diploma.
Clearly, the "training wheel" analogy really messes with my point. =20
If anyone is confused, let me be more clear: If we force all 18-year-=20
old human beings to write academically in order to pass high school =20
(or any bar that equates to sentience), then we will produce teachers =20=
who will create stupid short-cuts to get non-academically-inclined =20
teens to produce something that is tolerable. If playing hockey, =20
instead of academic writing, were the goal for a high school diploma, =20=
you can imagine all the coaches telling the non-athletically-inclined =20=
teens that they are good hockey players if they just do their best to =20=
pass the puck to Lutska.
We should rethink what high schools should require and how long a =20
student should be required to attend (I think 8th grade is a better =20
minimum). We need to teach math so that students can balance a check =20=
book and know why carrying a balance on a credit card is stupid. =20
Students should have to know how to write argumentatively to promote =20
themselves or their causes, but not to lie about why a piece of =20
literature is meaningful because a teacher decides they should =20
believe that.
We should value education. But we have to stop only equating =20
academics with education. There are plenty of non-academic fields =20
that we need. After all, most academic jobs could be shipped =20
overseas, but we need to have "in-house" plumbers.
Susan
On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Peter Adams wrote:
> The argument Susan makes for banning the use of first person strikes
> me as a perfect example of training wheels. There is a possible
> construction involving first person that we might prefer students
> avoid. Rather than teach students to avoid that construction, we
> simply ban all uses of first person.
>
> That bothers me.
>
> Peter Adams
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays is to
>> prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from weakening
>> the power of their arguments. "I believe," "I feel," and "I think"
>> shouldn't preface every idea expressed. I tell my students to use
>> first person only when relating personal experiences in their essays.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> Peter,
>>> Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing I do. I
>>> have
>>> yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine through
>>> four
>>> issues and never took issue with it.
>>> I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas should be
>>> impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may be a
>>> reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't matter, I
>>> suppose,
>>> who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I can't for
>>> the
>>> life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing from my own
>>> schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the classroom. I don't
>>> have "logical" views about it separate from my values and
>>> experiences.
>>> It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educational
>>> opportunity
>>> program students for twenty-three years" when I'm trying to
>>> characterize my own background. Other people may have opinions about
>>> it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking students to
>>> avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking them to avoid
>>> being
>>> honest about where their views are coming from. This also
>>> shortchanges
>>> the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has grown up
>>> with
>>> a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone shot by a
>>> fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to talk unless
>>> those differing experiences can be acknowledged as legitimate.
>>> We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't benefit from
>>> pretending to leave our values and experiences at the door. Quite
>>> often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the fact.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first person,
>>> so I
>>>> look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.
>>>>
>>>> I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students that they
>>>> shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing to an
>>>> audience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also tell them I've
>>>> never written anything in my life that was so formal that I avoided
>>>> contractions. Where do others stand on this?
>>>>
>>>> Peter Adams
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English," I
>>>>> often come across some gray areas. My tendancy is to be somewhat
>>>>> conservative about formal language. I wonder where others draw
>>>>> lines regarding levels of formality. For example, some of my
>>>>> students use words that seem too informal to me, like =20
>>>>> "morph" (verb
>>>>> form). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the first person
>>>>> before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to challenge students
>>>>> to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first person
>>>>> altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such issues?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>
>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade English, I teach =20
>>>>> four
>>>>> groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet with each
>>>>> group five times each week. I think that I could get better
>>>>> results
>>>>> by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each
>>>>> group separately on others. This would reduce total student =20
>>>>> contact
>>>>> hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact hours per
>>>>> week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit
>>>>> from
>>>>> reducing my contact load and spending that time planning,
>>>>> developing
>>>>> lessons, and responding to writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I=92m not join this debate because I don=92t know the research on
>>>>> either
>>>>> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me
>>>>> as
>>>>> simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.
>>>>> Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group
>>>>> seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups
>>>>> of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and
>>>>> much less response to writing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>>>> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link
>>>>> between reducing class size and increasing performance. The
>>>>> research
>>>>> I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in
>>>>> improving student performance is changing what teachers do.
>>>>> Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a =20
>>>>> class,
>>>>> but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest
>>>>> that
>>>>> if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 =20
>>>>> students
>>>>> that much would change in what students know and can do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students,
>>>>> but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I =20=
>>>>> had
>>>>> all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would =20
>>>>> give
>>>>> me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their
>>>>> writing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott Woods
>>>>>
>>>>> BASIS Scottsdale
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that
>>>>> class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is
>>>>> especially important to the writing classroom.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 -
>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>
>>>>> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid;
>>>>> however,
>>>>> the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in
>>>>> teaching
>>>>> writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My
>>>>> alma
>>>>> mater,
>>>>> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised
>>>>> highly, had
>>>>> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had
>>>>> failed
>>>>> the
>>>>> English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my
>>>>> advisor had
>>>>> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I
>>>>> had to
>>>>> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first
>>>>> Freshman
>>>>> English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied
>>>>> that
>>>>> I had
>>>>> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the
>>>>> class size
>>>>> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each =20=
>>>>> day
>>>>> instead
>>>>> of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an
>>>>> excellent
>>>>> teacher.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in
>>>>> my
>>>>> experience, class size is more important in English composition
>>>>> than
>>>>> in any
>>>>> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
>>>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>>>
>>>>> ******************************************************************=20=
>>>>> *********
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 =20
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:45:51 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: levels of formality
> Paul,
I think it is far, far, far more important for students to learn to
place their own perspectives in the context of a larger conversation.
They need to be able to summarize an opposing side, find and
acknowledge areas of agreement, and treat the opposing side
respectfully. I have students at a college level who find it very hard
to do that, very hard to admit that an issue is not just black and
white with all the evidence on their own side. They find it hard to
see an issue through someone else's eyes. They want to defeat their
audience, not win them over. That's an egocentricity of sorts, but it
doesn't get cured by forbidding first person. If I acknowledge my own
complex humanity, I might be a step closer to acknowledging someone
else's.
Craig
In requiring students to write some papers in "formal English," I often
> come across some gray areas.=C2=A0 My tendancy is to be somewhat conser=
vative
> about formal language.=C2=A0 I wonder where others draw lines regarding=
levels
> of formality.=C2=A0 For example, some of my students use words that see=
m too
> informal to me, like "morph" (verb form).=C2=A0 Also, I know we have di=
scussed
> the use of the first person before, but I think it is sometimes valuabl=
e
> to challenge students to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the
> first person altogether. Where=C2=A0do the rest of you stand on such is=
sues?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul E. Doniger
> =C2=A0"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Spec=
ial
> issue (#2009-127)
>
>
> Herb,
>
> I wasn't clear.=C2=A0 Currently,=C2=A0for seventh grade English,=C2=A0I=
teach four
> groups of students for a total of 112 students.=C2=A0 I meet with each =
group
> five times each week.=C2=A0 I think that I could get better results by =
meeting
> with all the groups together on some days and with each group separatel=
y
> on others. This would reduce total student contact hours for me, but no=
t
> for them.=C2=A0 With 28 total contact hours per week next year (I teach=
other
> classes as well), I would benefit from reducing my contact load and
> spending that time planning, developing lessons, and responding to
> writing.=C2=A0
>
> Scott
>
> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Spec=
ial
> issue (#2009-127)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>
>
> Scott,
> =C2=A0
> I=E2=80=99m not join this debate because I don=E2=80=99t know the resea=
rch on either
> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than fo=
ur
> groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as simply =
a
> different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.=C2=A0 Meeting=
four
> groups of 112 students twice a week for each group seems a more apt
> contrast.=C2=A0 Or you could lower that to four groups of 42 or 56 stud=
ents.=C2=A0
> The result would be much less writing and much less response to writing.
> =C2=A0
> Herb
> =C2=A0
> From:Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Spec=
ial
> issue (#2009-127)
> =C2=A0
> Paul,
> =C2=A0
> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link betwe=
en
> reducing class size and increasing performance.=C2=A0The research I hav=
e seen
> strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student
> performance is changing what teachers do.=C2=A0 Reducing class size can=
reduce
> the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base
> (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every clas=
s
> in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students k=
now
> and can do.=C2=A0
> =C2=A0
> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but =
I
> could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 o=
f
> my students in a lecture hall together. =C2=A0That would give me eight =
hours
> of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing.
> =C2=A0
> Scott Woods
> BASIS Scottsdale
> =C2=A0
>
> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that clas=
s
> size is a vital component in successful learning.=C2=A0 This is especia=
lly
> important to the writing classroom.
> =C2=A0
> Paul E. Doniger
> =C2=A0
> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improba=
ble
> fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
> =C2=A0
> =C2=A0
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Spec=
ial
> issue (#2009-127)
>
> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
> the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teachin=
g
> writing must have been brought up by a school board member.=C2=A0 My al=
ma
> mater,
> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed th=
e
> English placement exam.=C2=A0 I had scored a 100 in the exam but my adv=
isor
> had
> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had =
to
> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshm=
an
> English class.=C2=A0 My advisor apologized to me later but I replied th=
at I
> had
> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class
> size
> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day
> instead
> of one a week.=C2=A0 The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excel=
lent
> teacher.
>
> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
> experience, class size is more important in English composition than in
> any
> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.
>
> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
> Professor Emeritus
>
> ***********************************************************************=
****
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interf=
ace
> at:
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 interf=
ace
> 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 interf=
ace
> 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 interf=
ace
> 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 interf=
ace
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:56:42 -0400
From: "Paul T. Wilson" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "Result gives"; ATEG Digest - 2 Jun 2009 - Special issue
(#2009-135)
Hi Scott,
When people reply to digests, intending to speak only to one message=
=20
therein but without deleting the rest, and then others chime in, the=
=20
total length can get excessive. Two such messages recently were 1.7 a=
nd=20
2.3 megabytes, with plenty of unreadable character strings. This is=
=20
because some email programs translate perfectly from other programs,=
=20
while others fail to digest properly, and what they pass on can be ha=
rd=20
to swallow. Slightly more technically, when prose is transformed into=
=20
machine language, the obscure result is very long, certainly not a=
=20
reader's digest. Though this is a very high volume list, there is no=
=20
consistent tradition of editing digests down to exclude all but the m=
ost=20
relevant text, but that would be the only real solution.
Paul
Scott wrote:
>
> The result of old-fashioned diagramming's being ingrained in me giv=
es
>
> me the subject and verb immediately.
>
> Scott Catledge
>
> I deleted the 120 pages in this Special issue. Is everyone getting =
that
>
> much garbage. Some messages are clear; most are contained in gibber=
ish.
>
> I am not referring to anyone=92s expression as =91gibberish=92=97ju=
st the printed
>
> results.
>
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 2 Jun 2009 (#2009-136)
*******************************************
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/
|
