On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, EDWARD VAVRA wrote:
 
> ... The first is that, although I recognize
> the importance of grammar in writing, we are
> overlooking the importance of comprehending
> sentence structure in reading -- and thinking. I devote
> a chapter to each of these in TGLA,  and it is difficult
> for me to summarize here. Suffice it to say that this
> plea is coming from someone who teaches five writing
> courses per semester. We need to look at the whole
> picture.
>
I agree completely here; in my new grammar class, I am having students
look at already-existing texts (in all kinds of genres, not just
literature) and using grammatical terminology to talk about what is going
on in the texts, as well as what stylistic effects the writer's choices
have -- for instance, in using subjects to create links between sentences,
predicates to give new information, etc.
 
We really have to find practical reasons for being able to use grammatical
terminology and understanding the structure of the language. I believe
that the sentence-level focus of most traditional grammar (and even
linguistics) textbooks backgrounds the text-level needs that
sentence-level choices serve.
 
I also agree that understanding the structure of English and being able to
use grammatical terminology to describe and analyze it is the core skill.
As Ed says, this is the minimum we can expect in terms of teachers
responding to student writing; and it is also the foundation for
understanding all the other areas, such as lang. acquisition and dialect
diversity.
 
As to language acquisition:
We should be doing more research on language development in the
elementary and high school years. The biases of linguistic theory have
kept research focused on early childhood. As a result, we have little
knowledge on which to base things like grammar curricula in the schools.
When is it appropriate to start asking children to use metalinguistic
skills? The research I am reading suggests that middle school is the
appropriate time for this. Also, it is clear that many children have
trouble achieving sophistication in their writing, and that they are ready
for different kinds of sophistication at different ages. We need to know
more about this so it can be applied in the development of curricula and
teaching materials. I think it is extremely important to have this kind of
information. If your curricula are either too far below or too far above
student readiness, they will fail many students. How long has grammar
teaching essentially been failing now?? And with the present push for
standards and standardized assessment, how many children will be
disadvantaged by developmentally inappropriate standards and tests?
 
> The next item on the hierarchy is "diversity, dialects,
> social roles, etc." Are not most of these differences in
> usage rather than in basic sentence structure?
 
I think this begs the question. Of course they are matters of basic
sentence structure, but the point of instruction about dialect diversity
is not to get teachers understanding and using other dialects. It's to get
them to understand the scientific wisdom on dialect diversity, and to
achieve more equitable instruction in schools. Many children from
nonstandard dialect-speaking backgrounds are still being turned off to
language arts instruction because their teachers and/or materials are
telling them that the language they bring from home is bad or wrong.
Also, a good case can be made that some testing instruments disadvantage
children from non-mainstream backgrounds. A lot of the students in my
grammar class reported that, in their past education, grammar
instruction made them feel inadequate and fearful, self-conscious, etc.
The focus on correctness is the cause of this. An accurate portrayal of
language, one that discusses the reasons why informal and formal language
are different, why spoken and written language are different, why standard
and nonstandard language are different, defuses the threat to students'
self-image and helps them view language as a set of choices that they make
based on communicative need and social situation. It also beefs up their
confidence when they learn that they already are following very complex
rules, and can learn new rules if they expose themselves to a lot of the
kind of language they want to emulate. It's also important to make them
realize that that's the only way they will learn it: you can't learn
formal English by memorizing a set of rules. You have to read and write a
lot, and internalize the rules.
 
We have to enable teachers to distinguish among objections to language
that are based on class or ethnic prejudice (the 'status-marking' errors),
objections based on speech/writing differences (fragments, comma splices),
and objections that are based on muddled thinking behind the language
(dangling participles, for example). When teachers can distinguish these,
students might learn to do so, and fix the problem appropriately.
Students should change a double negative for very different reasons from
why they would change a dangling participle, and they should be aware of
those reasons.
 
There's _my_ sermon!!
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~