> Eduard,
No one, to my knowledge, has ever made your simple point that, since
teachers teaching foreign languages do not make any use of later grammars
but stick to the readily understandable and practically applicable
traditional grammar, there is no reason at all why English teachers of the
Standard language should not do the same. The other day, for example, my
German teacher was very pleased to discover that she did not have to teach
me what an indirect object was. It is also shaming to find that German
students coming to the school spoke -- and in one case, wrote, -- a more
secure Standard English than many of my pupils, albeit with an accent. Let
our students remain virtually bilingual -- the anti-grammar faction seem to
believe that teaching Standard English somehow deprives those who speak a
vernacular of their ability to speak it! Those German children didn't lose
the ability to speak German!
Edmond
Richard:
>
> The curious thing is that I have learned English with a traditional
> grammar, a dictionary, and a textbook, and with no exposure to the
> spoken English of the "native" speakers. The traditional grammar was
> for me the COMPLETE SOLUTION to learning. If I wanted to learn the
> same language from a "modern" grammar I could not have done it, as
> the "modern" grammars are all a mambo-jumbo of confusing concepts.
>
> I assume that people who belittle the traditional grammar have no
> experience with the learning of a foreign language, otherwise they
> would not make the statements you have made about the "problems" with
> the traditional grammar. Try, for instance to learn French or German
> from a "modern" grammar, and you will see that it is not possible.
>
> I am refreshing my French now, and all the grammar is "traditional."
> The grammar of the French language is so complex and difficult, that
> one needs very clear grammar concepts to grasp it. Such concepts are
> not offered by the "modern" grammars.
>
> My speaking and writing skills in English are at a level which only a
> few "native" speakers have attained. How do you explain my superior
> language skills if, according to your statements, traditional grammar
> fails everybody?
>
> I have read and heard repeated statements concerning the fact
> that "English is not derived from Latin." What people forget, though,
> is that English has gone throughh three major Latin influences which
> radically changed the language. If you know about the Norman invasion
> you also know that the bulk of the English lexicon is Latin based.
> While English is not a Romance language, the influence Latin has had
> on English is extraordinary.
>
> I will not take time to go through all the critical points you have
> developed in your message, but I believe that most if not all of them
> are not based in facts, but are personal impressions.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Richard Betting wrote...
>
>> A short response to Phil's request for a list of problems with
> traditional grammar. Here is the list I have been working on for a
> couple of years. I don't intend to offend anyone. My point is that
> traditional grammar-the grammar of popular handbooks that I used
> fifty years ago and that are apparently still used by a majority of
> schools in the US, not accurate language analysis-is still being
> taught. Teachers teach what they have been taught and know. And they
> teach what their texts include, unless they have information with
> which to supplement, and many do not.
>>
>> These are meant to be strident generalizations in order to get
> teachers to understand that there are problems with the old way.
>>
>> After having said all this, I agree with one of the main principles
> of ATEG: accurate, descriptive grammar (and much language
> information) must be taught for at least two reasons: to allow a
> discussion of language itself and to be able to use grammar
> information to improve student style in writing and speaking.
>>
>> It seems to me (and I may be wrong, this may be too strong and it
> might be counterproductive to begin with a list of negatives) that
> teachers have to understand the problems first and then almost start
> over, deciding what to teach and how about language and grammar so
> that the goals of student learning are met, not the goals of covering
> traditional grammar material.
>>
>> In my book I am fleshing out these items one by one, after which I
> would put what the ATEG comes up in its scope and sequence project.
>>
>> Dick Betting
>>
>>
>>
>> FIFTEEN PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. TG, LIKE CATECHISM, TEACHES WELL, LEARNS POORLY
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. TG is BASED ON FALSE PROMISE: LEARN GRAMMAR FIRST, IMPROVEMENT IN
> WRITING AND SPEAKING WILL FOLLOW ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. TG is BASED ON a FALSE PREMISE: KNOWING GRAMMAR WILL MAKE
> STUDENTS BETTER WRITERS AND SPEAKERS.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. TG claims to be everything students need to know about language;
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. TG claims there is only one right way, one form of correctness;
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. TGs contain mistaken information:
>>
>> a. English in not derived from Latin
>>
>> b. English does not have eight parts of
> speech
>>
>> c. English does not have six verb tenses
>>
>> d.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. TG uses defective methodology: top down, deductive, absolutes
> taught as
>>
>> Gospel;
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. TG exploits the pedagogy of rote memorization, passive
> acceptance;
>>
>>
>>
>> 9. TG uses confusing definitions for basic concepts: language,
> grammar, usage, parts of speech;
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. TG wastes time and energy, too much time on minutiae
>>
>>
>>
>> 11. TG fails to put learned material to use;
>>
>>
>>
>> 12. TG fails to notice that language study is philosophy, elaborate,
> abstract, multi-level, open-ended;
>>
>>
>>
>> 13. TG reinforces monotheistic social values and standards at the
> expense of individuals, minorities and differents;
>>
>>
>>
>> 14. TG has no skeleton, no structure on which to hang language and
> grammar
>>
>> information;
>>
>>
>>
>> 15 TG is all fasteners and no projects.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Phil Bralich
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>>
>>
>> The real problem is that there are few if any traditional ideas
> that need to go. Someone should actually sit down and make a list of
> ideas that need to be expunged from grammar teaching and you would
> see there are actually only a few if any. The real problem is that
> people want to wallow around in a sea of unaccountability where
> pontification and pretense take precedence over good sense.
>>
>> We should not be talking in terms of modern versus traditional
> grammar as there is nearly zero difference. Instead we should speak
> merely of teaching grammar and put the whole false problem behind
> us.
>>
>> If any one disagrees, please draw up a list of tradtional notions
> that should be abandonded.
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Paul E. Doniger"
>> Sent: Aug 16, 2006 7:22 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: The role of English teachers
>>
>>
>> Peter Adams raised an interesting issue with: "In fact, I am
> wondering why the role of English teachers seems to always be to slow
> down this process and defend the traditional conventions." Is this
> really the role of English teachers? What do others think about this?
>>
>> Personally, I don't see myself as a defender of traditional
> conventions at all. I suspect that many of my colleagues in the high
> school English classroom feel the same as I do. I rather see the
> English teacher in me as a promoter/fascilitator of deep thinking
> (and critical and creative thinking) through the disciplines of
> reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Grammar instruction is one
> item in the toolbox, albeit an important one (and a too often
> neglected one at that). However, it's not for me so much as a
> teaching of convention as it is a teaching of the way language works -
> - as a means towards better/deeper thinking in these four disciplines.
>>
>> I'd add that as a drama teacher, grammar is important in a
> similar way. When I ask my acting students to point up the nouns
> or "play to (or 'with' or 'on')" the verbs, I need first to make sure
> they know what these words are. My goal for them, however, is not
> grammatical, but theatrical -- I want them to make the language
> meaningful and rich, and to bring the text across clearly to the
> audience.
>>
>> Paul D.
>> 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/
|
