Bill,
That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to figure out
how to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to argue
against Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to offer
as well. (Our students should be engaged in reading and writing
activities that they feel are important rather than just building skills
out of workbooks.) I think what we need is a new kind of synthesis, not
just choosing sides in an old debate.
As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly appreciative of
Michael Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a
Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University Press,
2003). He doesn't believe we have innate rules that drive the system,
but highly functional patterns that rise from actual use. Children learn
language in large part because they understand the contexts being named.
Because many language decisions happen below the threshold of
consciousness does not necessarily mean they were not acquired or that
conscious attention was not part of that. To the extent that we
understand language acquisition as a socialization process (one we can
be mentored into), it becomes easier to value (and promote) conscious
understanding.
I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What aspects of
language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those
relevant aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to teach
them.
All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think Ron's point
all along.
Craig
Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
> Craig, Ron, et al.,
>
>
>
> In a sense, the anti-grammar movement isn't based on the innatist
> position as it is developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being the
> most famous example of one of its proponents) -- it's based on a
> dramatic overgeneralization of innatism. In defense of Chomsky -- and
> as a functionalist, I find myself feeling rather odd typing that
> phrase -- his theory simply claims that children acquire the language
> /they're exposed to in infancy and early childhood/ without conscious
> effort, etc. Additional dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the
> written variants of the language (which are in a sense dialect-like,
> but shaped by additional factors such as distancing between writer and
> reader, etc.) would not be "acquired" in the same way. In fact,
> Chomsky's use of innatism to support the idea that language-learning
> ability drops off precipitously in early adolescence implicitly
> contradicts the notion that innatism means you can ignore conscious
> learning procedures in later development.
>
>
>
> I don't happen to agree with Chomsky on the factors leading to
> "critical period" effects, or on a number of other issues as well, but
> I also can't see the antigrammarian position as being motivated by his
> notions of innatism -- it was, in a sense, seized upon as a science-y
> sounding rationale for a position people wanted to adopt anyway. If
> anything, the strict innatist position, along with the notion of a
> critical period, implies that students /can't/ achieve nativelike
> fluency in another dialect. I suppose that could be used as a
> different excuse not to teach grammar, but pessimism makes a lousy
> basis for educational policy.
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> Dept. of English
>
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Craig Hancock
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding
> grammar period
>
>
>
> Ron,
> The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a theoretical
> underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that means thinking
> of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as largely a
> neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what
> students can do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it
> is generally believed that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and
> unhelpful.
> You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just
> happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes
> these points nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and
> Critique (Dec. 2005. You can access it online. Martha and I have an
> article in the same issue.) Here's a few quotes.
>
> from abstract: .../there has never been a critical theorization of
> how grammar might support the development of writing, and thus there
> has been very limited research which has explored that relationship..
> (77)/
>
> Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy
> evidence was /what many in the educational establishment wanted to
> hear/. (80)
>
> /What would be so much more interesting, and valuable, would be to
> explore in more subtly nuanced detail what research can tell us about
> what aspects of grammar and knowledge about language are most relevant
> to writing, whether direct teaching of these features can help
> children improve their writing, and what teaching strategies are most
> successful in enabling this to happen/. (80)
>
> / /
>
> /The truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in
> positive, contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is
> not yet an established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely
> under-researched. (81)/
>
> T/he rejection of decontextualised, and with it by implication,
> prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful critique of
> what was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the "grammar
> in context" principle is both less sharply critiqued and considerably
> less clearly conceptualised. There has been little genuine discussion
> or consideration of what "in context" means. Frequently, observations
> of classroom practice indicate that the notion of "in context" means
> little more than grammar teaching which is slotted into English
> lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some other feature of
> English learning./ (82)
>
> I think we are absolutely on the same wave length. The people who
> rely on these empirical studies that critique the teaching of grammar
> have not done empirical studies of their own. The cure has proven
> worse than the disease.
> But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>
> Thanks, Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number of
> issues which demand careful responses.
>
>
>
> Before providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my
> area of experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I
> have done most of my research. However, I believe that in the field
> of SLA and FLA (first language acquisition) teachers and students have
> been the victims of the educational theorists who claimed that
> exposure to correct language in the classroom will result in the
> students' acquisition thereof in spite of massive exposure to
> non-standard language outside of the classroom.
>
>
>
> I take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
> unaccountable irresponsibility and this because they did not support
> their advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not
> go into here, educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and
> suddenly teachers were forbidden to teach grammar and were made to
> feel quilty if they did.
>
>
>
> Now, before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would
> appreciate your responding to the above remarks. I know that my
> assumption is correct in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of
> FLA?
>
>
>
> Ron.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Craig Hancock <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding
> grammar period
>
>
>
> Ron,
> My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect
> you and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
> For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness
> that i have read measure their effect on writing as compared to
> students who have had writing instruction, but not grammar.
> Generally, this has been measured over the short term. Generally,
> this has measured students receiving grammar instruction, but not
> practice in writing. (What we would call control groups.) This
> implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that this
> can be accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus
> writing as an either/or choice.
> In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen
> could excite her students about grammar, help them become
> explorers of language, deepen their understanding of what nouns
> are all about, and then have that determined to be "ineffective"
> because these students don't produce more "accurate grammar" (your
> term for it) or don't score better on holistically assessed
> writing samples after a semester or a year. For an accurate
> control group, they would have to be denied real writing practice.
> Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge about nouns as
> opposed to students who have only memorized "person, place, and
> thing" as a definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test their
> confidence as language explorers or their deeper interest in the
> subject. We could compare knowledge about language between a group
> studying language and another merely writing. Everything depends
> on a match between the testing and the goals.
> I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge
> based approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both
> England and Australia, teachers now seem to believe that
> reintegrating language into the curriculum has been a good thing,
> but it's hard to test that out empirically. Perhaps the most
> direct test would measure knowledge about language, since that
> would be the central goal. We could then try to monitor how well
> that knowledge is put to work in reading, writing, speaking,
> listening, and so on. The problem is that we don't have a current
> consensus that knowing about language is a reasonable goal.
> Whether or not Gretchen's students can now produce more "accurate
> grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the short
> term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought
> of as valuable goals in their own right.
> Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and
> putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing
> that does not diminish the value of knowing about language and
> does not demand short term results.
> We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with
> no other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can
> measure progress along the way.
>
> Craig
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>
> My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, were, as I think I
> made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your success. My
> comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of
> how to teach grammar books without including any attempt to
> demonstrate empirically that the approach proposed has been shown
> to be the optimal choice, and a suggestion to you that you
> consider doing some sort of comparative study yourself.in order to
> justify the publication of a book.
>
>
>
> However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the problems with many
> "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so
> narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The
> whole area of comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow
> up in the face of anyone attempting them. This, however, is no
> reason to dismiss them with the sort of unsupported comment that
> Craig makes.
>
>
>
> A discussion group such as this one provides a marvellous forum
> for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said,
> however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the
> 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal and, therefore,
> unreliable. Though comparative empirical studies are not always
> reliable, it is undeniable that such studies rigorously carried
> out are the only way in which we can arrive at reliable findings
> which demonstrate for example that approach A is more effective
> than approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
>
>
>
> Now though the so-called action research carried out by practising
> teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that the
> burden it imposes on teachers is enormous. Consequently, before
> teachers embark on such a project, they should make themselves
> aware of what is involved.
>
>
>
> Ron Sheen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Gretchen Lee <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly,
> rewarding grammar period
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight
> Time, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> Though it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which
> engage students' interest and involvement, one should not
> confuse the latter with effectiveness in improving
> studens' production of more accurate grammar.
>
> *Hello,*
>
>
>
> *I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary. I'm
> a loooong way from a book. However, my students are lucky to
> be from the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy
> upper class. Their production of "correct" grammar is very
> good, barring a few "between you and I" and lesser/fewer
> problems. My aim is to engage them in analyzing grammar and
> making it seem interesting at the same time. I can't teach
> lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't know (and
> don't care) what a countable noun is.*
>
>
>
> *At this point the class is less about error
> detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out
> that grammar is fascinating. With a little luck, they will
> stay interested enough to want to take a linguistics class in
> college, rather than avoiding it at all costs. My little
> class is obviously silly in many ways (see original subject
> line). But for the first time in many of their lives, grammar
> is a class to which they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Gretchen*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See what's new at AOL.com
> <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL
> Your Homepage
> <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>.
>
> 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/
|
