-----¿øº» ¸Þ½ÃÁö-----
º¸³½ »ç¶÷: James Vanden Bosch <[log in to unmask]>
¹Þ´Â »ç¶÷: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
³¯Â¥: 1999³â 3¿ù 25ÀÏ ¸ñ¿äÀÏ ¿ÀÈÄ 10:25
Á¦¸ñ: Re: what grammar needs to be taught and why
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bob Yates <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 12:20 AM
>Subject: Re: what grammar needs to be taught and why
>
>
>> Johanna Rubba wrote:
>>
>> > This makes it sound like the only people we are teaching to when we
>teach
>> > grammar is speakers of nonstandard dialects. I don't think Bob intends
>> > this to be inferred.
>>
>> That is a most ungenerous reading of what I wrote. I am assuming that
>> we teach grammar to all native speakers of English to help them make
>> conscious decisions about what is appropriate, defining appropriate as
>> being standard or textually felicitous.
>>
>> > And I do see a connection to text structure. I've claimed before that
>> > choices about sentence structure are governed by the need to manage
>> > information flow in texts.
>>
>> This statement is right. However, the central question is whether
>> knowledge of
>> argument structure is necessary to resolve issues of information flow in
>> a text.
>> >
>> > Where different phrases get placed, and which grammatical forms get
>chosen
>> > to code them, can also vary depending on text-level needs. Yet the
>> > thematic role of a constituent doesn't change no matter how it's
>'clothed'
>> > or placed.
>>
>> So, how does argument structure help with this?
>> >
>> > Karen broke the window with a hammer.
>> > A hammer was used to break the window.
>> > A hammer broke the window.
>> > The window was broken with a hammer.
>>
>> Notice you can also have: The window broke.
>> >
>> > In all of these sentences, 'a hammer' retains its instrument thematic
>> > role, although it is 'packaged' into different syntactic roles: object
>of
>> > preposition, subject of passive clause, subject of active clause. It may
>> > seem like the subject of the active clause is agent, but remember that
>> > thematic roles depend on real-world status (or our conceptualization of
>> > same), not syntactic status in a given sentence. Languages differ in
>what
>> > kind of thematic roles can become subjects of passive sentences, and
>some
>> > languages will not allow an instrument to be coded as subject of a
>> > passive.
>>
>> Right. And, in English we are talking about verbs which allow this.
>>
>> Karen painted the house with a sprayer.
>> The house was painted with a sprayer.
>> A sprayer was used to paint the house.
>> ? A sprayer painted the house. (where sprayer is a tool and not a
>> person)
>> *The house painted.
>>
>> I know of NO dialect of English which would immediately allow the last
>> two sentences. All of these facts are interesting and raise really
>> interesting questions about our knowledge of language, but . . . do
>> public school teachers, who see themselves teaching native speakers,
>> need to know the difference between paint and break?
>>
>> Do I need to know about thematic roles to make decisions about
>> information flow? I don't have Kolln's Rhetorical Grammar in front of
>> me, but I don't remember a chapter which deals with this topic. Do
>> native speaker have difficulty in information flow in a text because
>> they are not aware which thematic roles can be moved around with or
>> without passive morphology? I don't think so.
>>
>> All of this is interesting to dispel the notion that the "subject" of a
>> sentence/clause is a "doer." Ok, so we don't want to define the
>> grammatical subject of a sentence as a "doer."
>>
>> > > On the other hand, thematic roles are a problem for non-native
>> > > speakers.
>>
>> > This is true, and it makes thematic roles more immediately useful in
>> > teaching non-native speakers. But that's not our primary concern in
>ATEG,
>> > as we have been reminded in the past.
>>
>> My entire post was responding to this question:
>>
>> > > Are thematic roles of any use in grammar teaching?
>>
>> Excuse me, but the ONLY way to answer that question is to ask who the
>> students are. I can think of any number grammatical structures I have
>> to be prepared to teach to non-native speakers that I never have to
>> teach to native speakers. For example, native speakers never have to be
>> taught about how the article system in English works. The entire
>> distinction of count/non-count nouns is never something native speakers
>> have to be taught. etc. These distinctions have important implications
>> for certain grammatical decisions that are influenced by information
>> flow. I don't know of any study which reveals that native speakers
>> have any difficult with these structures.
>>
>> So, is knowledge about the article system in English or the
>> count/non-count distinction of any use in grammar teaching? It depends
>> on the students.
>>
>> Bob Yates
|
