I'd like to join the chorus of list participants who
have expressed appreciation of Joanna Rubba's message.
The thrill reverberates ...! And I too want to be
down on the short list of people interested in the
book draft. THANKS.

YES, grammar is meaningful/ has a semantic basis, and,
as Bill McLear implied, HAS to be distinguished from the "linguistic
etiquette" that prescribes a standard variety for everyone.
Based on my own experience, bringing the "different,
not deficient" view of dialect variation into teaching
about language can be the key that unlocks the 'at risk'
students' interest in language. One of my students
developed a curriculum unit on dialect based in part on
Wolfram's curricular exercises that invite students to
discover grammartical "rules" for different dialects.
She started with similar activities based on My Fair Lady,
followed by students' research on their own talk with
peers, with parents, with teachers. A great introduction
to sociolinguistic facts (language varies by group; by
speaker; by situation) that are shown IN THE GRAMMAR.
The fascination with grammar can only begin once it has
been made visible, once it has been written down so its
systematicity can be described.

Re: Paul's question, how to "fix" students' grammar,
I think the problem might be in the question. If you
teach the distinction between grammar, which does
have a semantic basis, and those conventions which
do not, or for which the semantic basis holds ONLY
for writing (like the distinction between "their/ there")
then pointing out the 'error' does not impugn the
language that students use to make sense. It's an
error only with respect to standard written English,
which is itself inappropriate in many informal settings.

Courtney Cazden tells the story of Martha Demientoff (sp)
an Athabaskan teacher who would teach the differences
between "bush English" and Standard English by setting
up two big dinners, one a pot latch, where ONLY bush
English could be spoken, the other a formal dinner party
where ONLY the standard could be spoken. The students not
only played the different roles with the zest of role play,
but they also then talked about the differences, how it
felt to be taking on these different roles (which is what
code switching is about -- it's not just a matter of
technicalities; it's a shift in social identity). Janet,
are you familiar with this account?

I am so delighted to see these issues brought up on this
discussion list. Grammar is not an out-of-context mechanical
exercise. I completely agree that the code phrase, "teaching
grammar in context" becomes an excuse not to teach
any grammar. But teaching grammar out of a meaningful
context works least well for those students who need it most.

Pam Dykstra's message is also helpful. An entire
curriculum can be built on speaking versus writing
contrasts. I tend to use systemic functional description
with an article by Chafe as background. Pam, I'm curious
to know your reference for Chafe -- was it his recent
book, _Discourse, Consciousness & Time_ ? (I have it at
home but I haven't yet read it.) It's interesting but
I suppose obvious how Chafe's more cognitively oriented
description of the contrasts between the two modes leads
one to the issues that are also central in SFG....

Thanks to all,
Judith


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183

Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake