Bill, Bruce, Bob, Jim, and Craig,
This set of threads has taken a positive turn in tone as well as in content. The two posts below are excellent examples of this shift.
As Bob is aware from earlier discussions, I take a somewhat different position from him on matters like innateness, Universal Grammar, and competence and performance. In particular, I find the last to be at best a very useful metaphor for dealing with the ability of speakers of a language to distinguish well-formed from ill-formed utterances in their language. There are, of course, disagreements among native speakers on some of these judgments. I find the sentence "There's the guy met me at the airport" well-formed and Craig does not. Some of accept extraposition from "it" in direct object position and others do not, so I have no problem with a sentence like "I appreciated it that all the rooms were cleaned after the party" but I know plenty of English speakers who reject sentences like that. So competence is not something that is well-defined across speakers of a language, even speakers with very similar backgrounds. I'm not sure how generative linguists have dealt with such inconsistencies. As a metaphor, competence can be used productively in the classroom to talk about what we know about our native language, however we might disagree on what competence means and where it might come from.
I maintain the fond hope that we can draw on different, even conflicting theoretical positions to develop effective pedagogy. Surely discussing social context as an explanation of register choices can be very productive without going on to insist that our knowledge of language grows entirely out of social contexts in which we use it. Our common goal is sound pedagogy that will make the concepts of grammar available to developing writers as tools for constructing and editing more effective writing, and I think we can draw on our diverse backgrounds and theoretical stances to develop such pedagogy. In fact, I suspect that our doing so would provide the best argument against those who reject contributions from linguists because "linguists can't agree on anything." In our own classrooms we can explain as we wish, but a common pedagogy needn't entail our theoretical biases.
I distrust arguments from analogy and usually regret it when I offer one anyway, but I think our situation is analogous to that found in abortion debates. We can argue the morality (theoretical foundations) of it endlessly and get no where, or we can agree that all sides want to reduce the need for and number of abortions and work together on ways to do so. That's worked. We can do the same thing with grammar pedagogy, drawing on the strengths of our various positions but not insisting that they become a part of everyone's pedagogy.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: February 12, 2009 10:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition (- and a plea)
Bob,
I should probably clarify my comments a bit. You'll notice toward the end of that earlier post, I throw in the following:
>>I think functionalists in general don’t mind claiming that performance (including comprehension in a social context, rather than just production) partly creates competence as an epiphenomenon...<<
The "partly" was there by intention, as was the entailment that competence exists (you can't create something that is nonexistent....well, barring certain interpretations of null-elements). Obviously, native speakers do have the ability to recognize if novel strings are acceptable in their language or not. Production and comprehension appear to conform to certain norms, and it's hard to deal with that without positing some kind of "rest state" system (not impossible, since I *think* Eco's semiotics manages it, but I'm by no means positive). Functionalists tend to think the fundamental characteristics of that system are determined by general cognitive constraints together with *meaningful* interaction with other speakers, rather than by the operation of a specific-only-to-language module on a semantically neutral set of input strings. If for "competence" we substitute "how one expects the language to act, given what's gone before," we've got something closer to the functionalist conception (or at least, my version of it). I also don't expect the waiter at a diner to give me apple pie before my meatloaf, or to put the meatloaf on top of a three-inch layer of uncooked cornmeal -- those aren't linguistic expectations, but from my perspective, they're fundamentally the same *kind* of expectations. After all, my parents never told me, "Son....don't put the meatloaf on a three-inch layer of uncooked cornmeal. It's just wrong." Somehow, the absence of negative evidence didn't prevent acquisition.
As for sentence combining, I don't think *anyone* has problems with the technique as a pedagogic tool. If -- and only if -- one further claims that the operations one performs in a sentence-combining activity mirror psychologically real relationships among underlying abstract representations is there a problem for functionalists. I don't think people relate a sentence with a relative clause in it to a pair of full-clause equivalents with gaps in the right places, but I think it's useful to *pretend* that they do in order to help students practice figuring out whether to use "who" or "whom." I also don't think copular BE is actually an equals sign, but pretending that it is can be useful sometimes (and, of course, I don't think coordinating conjunctions have anything to do with fan-bearing boys). There are lots of teaching tricks that don't presuppose that reality itself is structured like the trick. Due credit goes to Generativists for creating clause-combining as a pedagogic device, but only if the process is reified does it become a theoretic construct. And of course students, even young ones, produce complex sentence structures. They don't have much practice, though, *talking* about them, or weighing how a particular one will work in a written text, particularly in unfamiliar genres.
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition (- and a plea)
Dear all,
Again Bill Spruiell makes a valuable contribution to this discussion.
Some of what he writes I would disagree because they have the flavor of
his theoretical commitments and I would word them differently. I will
focus on the most important statement that I believe is wrong.
In this post Bill correctly notes that Formalists like me believe that
fundamental to understanding the nature of language requires positing a
difference between competence (what we know is possible in a language)
and performance (what we actually do with that knowledge.) Especially
for the kind of functionalism Bill is committed to, this is a
distinction without a difference. From his perspective, understanding
the nature of language is trying to account for how it is used. In
other words, only performance is the object of study.
It is this difference that leads to me disagree with the following:
> It doesn't do the wider public any good, though, *especially* since a
majority of the differences between the paradigms > has no real
implication for what we need to do in classrooms.
From a competence-performance distinction, sentence combining exercises
make perfect sense. Students come to our classes knowing the kind of
subordinate structures that are the focus of such exercises. Such
exercises allow them to practice them and make them aware of how
information is managed in such subordinate structures.
It is unclear to me how someone who believes there is only performance
thinks these exercises are valuable. If students don't produce such
structures, then from a performance perspective, does it follow that
such students don't know how these structures are formed? In other
words, native and non-native speakers are the same. (Note: Bill
acknowledges he uses sentence-combining exercises even though is a
functionalist.)
If you are familiar with DeBeaugrande's Forward to they Basics paper
and Noguchi's NCTE book, then you know they present a number of tests
for students to find a tense verb and whether a string is an appropriate
academic sentence. From a competence-performance perspective, this is
predicted. We can use a student's underlying knowledge of the language
to show them what they already know. I have no idea how a
performance-only perspective explains the success for such tests.
A final example that is predicted by a competence-performance
distinction that has important classroom applications. Jim Kenkel and I
are looking a 60 essays written by both native and non-native speakers.
All of the essays have perfectly appropriate punctuated academic
sentences. Yet, almost all of them also have run-ons, comma splices,
fragments, and/or mixed constructions. All of these non-mature
structures never occur (with the exception of fragments) in the edited
texts these students read. If what we know about language is the result
of the frequency of the language forms we experience, it is puzzling why
such non-matures structures should occur in the first place. Likewise,
from the performance-only perspective, why should some sentences be
unproblematic and others problematic?
These puzzles can be explained, we believe, from a
competence-performance distinction. The data suggest to us that the
writers KNOW they have an obligation to order the information in their
texts in particular ways, i. e. in the areas of announcing new topics
and meeting the obligation of given-new information among others It is
just such places, trying to meet these obligations, that the writers
"innovate" (produce structures that are non-standard). It is for a
number of reasons that such writers do not have access to the structures
that mature writers use to meet those obligations.
The competence-performance distinction is about what is in the mind of a
individual. Those innovations are not an "error" from the writer's
perspective. The writer is trying to meet obligations of how information
is to be ordered in a text based upon the writer's access to his/her
underlying co(What I have written above is not unique. It is the disposition
Shaughnessey proposes we must have in her foundational text Errors and
Expectations.)
As Bill noted in a previous post, systemic functional linguistics is not
a cognitive theory about what a language user knows. It is a
perspective about the range of grammatical forms found to be used in
well-defined contexts. From a teaching perspective (especially to
non-native speakers), this is valuable information because it may
suggest grammar that has to be taught. However, it is not a perspective
that tells a teacher about WHY a student produces structures commonly
labeled an "error" (I prefer the term "innovation") that are rarely
encountered in real texts. To understand why writers innovate requires
some understanding of what their competence is and how that competence
is accessed to meet their obligations of ordering information in the
text they are constructing
I hope I have shown that there is a teaching perspective at stake in
one's understanding of what it means to know a language.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 2/11/2009 12:49 PM >>>
Dear All:
At the risk perhaps annoying everyone to one extent or another, I'm
going to describe what I see as the social, rather than scientific,
reasons behind some of the tensions between the major theoretical camps,
with an eye to mitigating them a bit (I say 'annoying' because it's my
*interpretation* of the history, and I may be wrong in unamusing ways; I
trust the other list members will add their voices).
The Formalist and Functionalists camps operate from different underlying
assumptions, both about what are the "core" linguistic phenomena to
explain, and about methodological procedures. To give an example of the
latter, the Formalist use of Occam's Razor yields a simplicity measure
that focuses on the number of primitive elements in the system, and the
number of "rules" (with rule being defined as a kind of relationship,
rather than a mandate or process). A model with fewer primitives and
rules beats one with more, as long as both can explain the same
phenomena, and the phenomena to be explained comprise mainly (a)
speaker's ability to recognize whether a sentence is grammatical or not,
and (b) the process by which they were able to learn to do that given
limited input.
Most functionalist approaches, on the other hand, expand the phenomena
to be explained to include (c) speakers' choice of structure in context
and (d) relation of language to other human cognitive and communicative
functions. Since functionalists also view production and interpretation
("Performance") as a primary area of concern, a functionalist simplicity
metric has to (or rather, I'd *argue* it has to) take into account not
just number of elements and rules, but also the processing load for a
range of operations distributed across a range of contexts. It's still
Occam's Razor, but it's shaving a different face. Having multiple
representations of the same thing, for example, is a bit messy from an
abstract standpoint, but if the different representations are each
time-savers in a specific context, the benefits may outweigh the
disadvantages (or to put it another way, the simplest way to explain why
speakers take the same amount of time to do X and Y even though those
two tasks are very different is to posit that they're using a different
representation for each).
And here's the problem: There's no real way to prove one simplicity
metric is better than another, especially if what they're measuring are
models of different phenomena. To me, at least, it looks like a classic
situation where both sides should just admit there's probably a lot of
value in what the others are doing, but that they're more interested in
their own thing. We don't, for example, often see sculptors laying into
painters for using incompatible forms.
History complicates things, though (and here's where I might start
raising hacklewhen American linguistics had gotten rather rigid, and demanded a
lock-step adherence to behaviorism. The Generative paradigm didn't just
emerge as a theoretic position, it had to establish itself as a kind of
alternative power structure, and its proponents, in some cases, used
rather blatantly political strategies to accomplish this (and there were
blatantly political strategies used by their opponents as well). A
number of generativists adopted -- or appear to me to have adopted --
the stance that those not adhering to the model weren't really
linguists, or were thinking unclearly, and certainly shouldn't ever be
hired (again, the old-school behaviorists sometimes treated early
Generativists that way, so there's a lot of blame to go around). Giving
books titles like "The Theory of Syntax" didn't help the situation much,
since it wouldn't have taken much effort to use "A" instead of "The."
The models in the paradigm are usually marvels of internal consistency,
but their proponents appeared to demand that everyone agree with all of
their underlying assumptions, and some of those assumptions are beyond
the reach of empiricism (so are some of functionalism's, of course; the
problem isn't the existence of such assumptions, but rather the demand
to "convert," and the attitude that refusal represents an inability to
perceive Revealed Truth).
Functionalists of my generation thus came of academic age feeling
roughly like academic equivalents of medieval heretics, and we've got
baggage. I fully realize that claiming every linguist should become a
functionalist is committing exactly the same kind of move that give me
baggage to begin with, but it's sooooo tempting to take potshots (fill
in the image of the peasant from "Monty Python's Holy Grail" shouting
"Witness the Oppression!" and waving a hoe). It doesn't do the wider
public any good, though, *especially* since a majority of the
differences between the paradigms has no real implication for what we
need to do in classrooms. I may get arguments on this, but I don't think
applying some of Halliday's concepts to create teaching tools would
threaten any Formalist -- and as a Functionalist, I use
sentence-combining exercises (which are, really, Generative-esque) all
the time. I don't really think *anyone* in a K-12 classroom should have
to look at my Stratificational diagrams (frankly, even other linguists
don't; if you stand far enough back to see the entire diagram, you can't
see the nodes anymore).
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition (- and a plea)
Jim,
Ignoring the difference between performance and competence is to me
tantamount to denying the reality of the difference between the way the
brain works and the way it is put together. And indeed the way it often
works in learning is to put together new structures on top of or by
displacing the disused ones.
If we can see the difference that the five syntactic structures make,
that I mentioned in my former post, I think we can develop "rules" or
principles of pedagogy in grammar, such as: "do not nest structures more
than three levels", "do not self-embed structures more than two levels",
"do not mix right-branching and left-branching structures of more than
one level," etc. If the student does not understand how to recognize
the structure, it is not possible to be explicit about the bad
(ineffective) syntax. We can only say things like, "That's too
complicated," "the reader gets confused," "split this complex sentence
up." Or maybe, "the reader's construal capacity is being taxed and your
writing is not effective." And maybe that's enough for some.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kenkel, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I don't think it is the messenger being attacked. Instead, what is
being criticized is yet another instance of hand-waving. Yes, it is a
very good thing to bring an article that you think interesting to the
attention of the group. I thank you for it because it _really_ is a
good thing. But to mention this article - even to summarize it - and
then to suggest that ATEG should embrace some kind of (vague)
functional orientation as opposed to some kind of (vague) "formalist"
orientation is to engage in nothing more than hand-waving. To make this
article and your assertions about it meaningful to this list, I think
what is needed is to take the time to relate the data and claims of this
article to the kinds of language/grammar/writing relevant to the
concerns of ATEG members in order to show how insightfully it relates to
those concerns. Otherwise, you are only preaching to your own choir,
which is not very interesting because choirs don't demand very much.
It may very well be that this article will turn out to be
fantastic for the goals of ATEG, but from what you have given us, there
is no way of knowing what its relevance is. Also, when you are able to
present the data and claims of this article and propose how they are
relevant to the concerns of ATEG, then the list can really have
something to discuss. And maybe it would provide some help for ALL OF US
as we try to move forward - wherever "forward" happens to be.
As for your sense of being offended by the old story of the guy and
the lamp post, try to be generous and don't assume that all of the
qualities of the character in the story are being attributed to you and
your post. It is up to you, but I think a better thing to do would be
to take a deep breath and move on.
As for the implications that you draw from this article, I would
caution you again that presenting gross misrepresentations of
generative/formalist approaches to language helps no one. It is only in
these gross misrepresentations of generative grammar where are found
claims about "language" being "pre-wired into the brain." Even intro to
linguistics texts don't make this claim - at least the ones that I have
taught from over the years. Also, I don't think it is fair at all to say
that generative grammar sees grammar as "rules." But I would be happy
to be helped here by Bruce and Bill if they think they have something to
say on this point.
* *
* * *
*
Before I call it a night, I would like to say something about ATEG
, this list, and how we could think of ourselves. I am very
uncomfortable with an ATEG that believes it knows God's truth. Anyone
not belonging to that particular congregation is going to be pushed out,
which is not a good thing. I really believe that we should be cautious
about our claims. The phenomenon - language - we work with is not well
understood. Moreover, we should remind ourselves that in addition to
this task, we have taken on the further, and perhaps ultimately
insurmountable tasks of understanding how the domains of language that
might concern us are _learned_ and how they might be effectively
_taught_.
Can any of us have confidence that we know all of God's truth in
this context?
I am just speaking for myself, but I think we could take a lesson
from the founder of this group, Ed Vavra. Whatever each of us may think
of the strengths and weaknesses of KISS, it is easy to respect Ed's
contributions to discussions on this list. To me at least, it is clear
that Ed carefully reads the posts he responds to, and his responses are
always thoughtful. He is not careless with anyone's posts. Importantly,
Ed's posts also remind us why this list exists, and that is to develop
our understandings of English grammar so that we can use these
understandings to help learners.
Finally, it might be helpful, when abeen injured in some way, to think of Ed, of his history here, and of
how he has conducted himself. He started this list because he had a
commitment to help learners and he believed that he had a set of good
ideas on how that goal could be pursued. He hoped that through ATEG, a
community of people could develop to further this goal.
Well, it didn't work out the way that Ed would have dictated, if
he had been The King of ATEG. There can be no doubt that Ed feels some
disappointment, given how much of himself he put into this organization.
But Ed continues in good faith, and, very impressive to me, he continues
to put his ideas on the line before this group. Of course, in doing so,
he may be critical of other proposals, but always in an open,
constructive way, and he has never to my knowledge tried to silence
other participants, even if they disagreed with him.
Jim Kenkel
Eastern Kentucky University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition
Bob,
I have a copy of the article in PDF format and have been told I can
pass it on. (Requests should come to me off list. We are not set up for
attachments.) I would be happy to send you one. I extend that to
others.
I had to laugh. The first sentence expresses appreciation, and a few
sentences down I'm a drunk too stupid to look for my keys where I
dropped them.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
The gist of the article is that emergent, usage-based models are more
empirically sound.
I hope people can see independently that I have particulars to fill
these general statements. It is easier to talk about those with people
who feel they are valuable than with those who attack your motives and
your intelligence or who feel "this could not possibly be true." Come
to the 4C's conference and join our workshop on the genre/grammar
connection. There's a practical side to it. >
I believe I am accused of favoring a theory that is practical at the
expense of a theory that is true. The literature increasingly seems to
be on the emergent side. The pedagogical implications have yet to be
fully worked out. I would hope that ATEG would be a place where some of
that discussion can happen.
Craig
I appreciate Craig providing us with the abstract from the paper. It
> sounds interesting and I'm in the process of getting it by
interlibrary
> loan.
>
> I want to explain why the following statement that does make someone
> like me angry.
> And, it is not because it dismisses another understanding of
language.
>
>
> *****
> I know I get people angry when I say this, but a more functional,
> emergent understanding of grammar also gives us a better chance of
> arguing for a much larger place for attention to it in the English
> curriculum.
> For a formal or structural grammar, you need to theorize ways in
> which
> knowledge of the underlying forms can be put to work. In a functional
> model, those connections are already there. As Bill put it in a recent
> post, there is no performance/competence split.
> ****
>
> The first paragraph, "might give us a better chance," reminds me of
the
> joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under a lamp post.
> Someone comes up and asks, "What are you doing?" The drunk replies,
> "Looking for my car keys." The stranger asks, "Where did you lose
> them?" The drunk answers, "Over there, but the light is better here."
>
> It may or may not be true that a "functional, emergent understanding"
> is better for understanding the nature of language, but it fits
Craig's
> purposes (the light is better there).
>
> As interesting as the paper he cites is, the second paragraph is key.
> If it is true that a functional model makes the connections that are
> already there between formal structures and how they are> not a theory of language that posits a competence-performance
> distinction, then Craig should be able to demonstrate why without
> reference to this paper. In other words, how does positing direct
> connections between formal structures and their use assists writing
and
> grammar teachers in the classroom and not proposing a
> competence-performance distinction?
>
> (For examples of how positing a competence-performance distinction can
> assist writing teachers see the papers that Jim Kenkel and I have in
the
> Journal of Second Language Writing and the Journal of Basic English.)
>
> I don't get angry when someone suggests a view of language that I have
> might be wrong. I was educated at a university that taught me to
always
> consider the data first.
>
> It deeply offends me when someone tells me my views are wrong because
> it doesn't accomplish the goals that person wants to accomplish in the
> way that person wants them accomplished. And, that person proposes a
> solution that is so general that I have no idea what he is talking
> about.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 2/10/2009 1:13 PM >>>
> As one happy result of our online discussion, I have been alerted to a
> very interesting, very current article on these issues.
> “Building Language Competence in First Language
> Acquisition”.European
> Review, Vol 16, No. 4, 445-456. 2008.
> Elena Lieven, the author, is, according to the author note,
Director
> of
> the Max Planck Child Study Centre in the School of Psychological
> Sciences at the University of Manchester and was editor of The Journal
> of Child Language from 1996-2005.
>
> The abstract is as follows:
>
> “Most accounts of child language acquisition use as analytic
> tools
> adult-like syntactic categories and grammars with little concern for
> whether they are psychologically real for young children. However,
> when approached from a cognitive and functional theoretical
> perspective, recent research has demonstrated that children do not
> operate initially with such abstract linguistic entities, but instead
> on the basis of distributional learning and item-based, form-meaning
> constructions. Children construct more abstract, linguistic
> representations only on the basis of the language they hear and use
> and they constrain these constructions to their appropriate ranges of
> use only gradually as well—again on the basis of linguistic
> experience in which frequency plays a key role. Results from
> empirical analyses of children’s early multi-word utterances, the
> development of the transitive construction and certain types of
> errors are presented to illustrate this approach.”
>
> Some of you may find the article useful for the careful and
> thoughtful
> way she presents the dual perspectives of Universal Grammar and the
> alternative (constructive, emergent, usage-based) approach. In all
> three of the empirical studies summarized, the constructivist model
> seems the most in play.
>
> Here’s from the conclusion: “The structure of language emerges
> from
> language use historically and ontogenetically. Children use what they
> hear
> in order to communicate and thus come to share in a language community
> in
> terms of the network of form-meaning mappings that comprises their
> grammar.” She points out that much work needs to be done, including
> a
> focus on the role of “saliency, communicative relevance to the child
> and
> relationships between items in the network of connectionsâ€|” “My
aim
> here
> has been to illustrate ways in which a constructivist accounts would
> approach these issues and to argue that because these accounts are
> more
> psychologically realistic, they are likely to provide a much sounder
> theoretical and empirical basis for further research.”
>
> I think there are major implications. One, certainly, is that the
> grammar of the language doesn't seem to be already pre-wired into the
> brain. Acquisition depends a great deal on input, on the kinds of
> interactions involved. The other implication is that gramamr is not
> best thought of as a set of abstract, formal "rules". It is, by its
> very nature, functional in orientation, connected to a shared language
> community.
>
> I know I get people angry when I say this, but a more functional,
> emergent understanding of grammar also gives us a better chance of
> arguing for a much larger place for attention to it in the English
> curriculum.
> For a formal or structural grammar, you need to theorize ways in
> which
> knowledge of the underlying forms can be put to work. In a functional
> model, those connections are already there. As Bill put it in a recent
> post, there is no performance/competence split.
>
> Craig
>
> 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/
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
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/
|
