> Bob,

    Is there anything in the world to be gained by this kind of hostility?
I should respond to this even though you clearly imply that I have
nothing to offer on the subject? Am I the enemy because cognitive
grammar and functional grammar are enemies?
   Both cognitive and functional grammar look at a sentence as a construal
of experience. That offers great promise for writers looking at the
reasons for one choice over another. It may very well give us a way to
respond to those who feel grammar is all about error, not about
meaning. A few of us have had some success presenting these ideas at
the 4C's conference, and we have a full workshop scheduled again this
year, this time on the grammar/genre connection. Cornelia Paraskevas
has very capably brought us together.
   If we understand the special demands of school based literacy, we can
help mentor students into those genres. Both cognitive and functional
grammars approach grammar and genre as though they are inter-connected.
   Rei Noguchi is a friend and scheduled to present with me at the
upcoming 4C's conference on a panel about "alternative grammars". He
has taught a class in functional grammar and believes very strongly in
its value. I have no idea why you would bring his name up in this
context.
   I don't "dismiss" anything not in my position. People post to this list
all the time, and I don't jump in to say "That couldn't possibly be
true" when I disagree with them. I believe people who approach grammar
from a generative perspective should be encouraged to present their
perspective on the list. I don't challenge them when they do. We
discuss traditional grammar and prescriptive grammar all the time. The
list should be a place where alternative perspectives are encouraged
and welcomed.
   There has been very little talk about cognitive grammar, relatively
little about functional grammar, over the years I have been on list.
These topics should be encouraged. We should reach out to those working
in those fields, including invitations for our conference and our
journal.
   As you say, your articles with Jim are fairly narrowly focused. People
seem to accept grammar instruction more readily when it's error focused
or targeted to basic writers. I don't mean that as dismissive. I would
be genuinely interested in a more widely focused position.
   Apparently, I should be ridiculed for not having a full program worked
out. Is it possible to make this a communal exploration? Should people
send only final drafts to the list?

Craig


Craig,
>
> There are number of points to respond to in your post addressed to Jim.
>
> I only want to address a challenge you make because it shows a conscience
> dismissal of anything that disagrees with your own program.  Craig writes:
>
>>   If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
>> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
>> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
>> back?
>
> Neither Jim nor I have held out on this.  Over the past several years, we
> have mentioned two papers, one in the Journal of Second Language and the
> other the Journal of Basic Writing that assume  a generative perspective.
>
> Kenkel, James, & Yates, Robert. (2003).  A developmental perspective on
> the relationship between grammar and text.  Journal of Basic Writing, 22,
> 35-49.
>
> Yates, Robert, & Kenkel, James (2002). Responding to sentence-level
> errors.  Journal of Second language Writing. 22, 29-47.
>
> Granted they only deal with specific domains and do not address THE
> crisis.  Assuming a generative perspective, both papers deal with specific
> issues of grammar, grammatical knowledge, and writing.  They both offer
> solutions. We know that you are aware of them and, I think, you claim to
> have read them.
>
> By the way, both Noguichi and DeBeaugrande use generative assumptions for
> how grammar needs to be approached.
>
> Over the past several years, you keep mentioning how cognitive linguistics
> is more useful to "solve the crisis of grammar in the schools" than a
> generative perspective.   However, you have never shared with us specifics
> on this claim.  In other words, how is one of the crisis points in grammar
> in the schools solved by a cognitive linguistic perspective?
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> ******************
>
>
> The post by Craig that I'm responding to.
> Jim,
>   I'm happy you're taking the time to air out frustrations. I have some
> of my own. I take your post in good faith and respond in kind.
>   In pretty much every one of those posts, Bob is the one who challenges
> new ideas. He seems, quite frankly, to be threatened by them. I don't
> start these conversations. I don't write posts criticizing generative
> grammar. In fact, as evidenced by his post on the physics question, I
> usually regret my conversations with Bob very quickly. I would be happy
> to ignore his posts, but he often pounces on mine. I would like to have
> different views layed side by side instead of being asked to defend so
> often. I would like friendly clarification questions, not "I don't see
> how this can possibly be true" or "If Craig thought hard about
> cognitive linguistics he would see" sort of statements. He seems to
> want to hold me up as the pillar of these positions, so he can
> discredit them by discrediting me. He seems to want to derail
> productive talk about positions different from his own. In short, I
> find his responses very hostile and not at all helpful.
>   This current thread started because I said I don't think it is a given
> that all children learn language in preordained sequence of stages. If
> we look at it from a cognitive perspective, it's easy to call that
> assumption into question. I'm not sure it's productive to believe that
> all children come to school knowing the same language. If we were more
> attentive to this, perhaps we could be more effective in mentoring
> children into the language of school.
>   Cognitive positions are very different from generative positions, and
> the literature presents it that way. I'm not making this stuff up. If I
> prefer one over the other, I don't mean that personally. Quite frankly,
> if I don't bring it up, many people on list won't know this stuff is
> out there. I get posts, by the way, thanking me for it. If I start
> getting complaints, I'll stop.
>   Is this welcome on the list? I hope so. I will be followng these ideas
> out somewhere. I am passionate about it and will find people to talk
> to.
>   If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
> back?
>   I'm sorry I missed your comment on innateness. It seems to contradict
> what Bob has been saying. He seems to reject the idea that there can be
> "a grammar of advanced literacy." Would that include physics? Is it
> possible that advanced literacy differs in the technical disciplines?
> Do your views on this differ from Bob's?
>   Bob seems to dismiss the possibility.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Craig,
>>    I suspect that some of the exacerbation/frustration that crept into
>> Bob's responses to your posts are not very different from mine.
>>
>>     First - and foremost for me - is your insistence in these
>> discussions
>> that generative-inspired notions of grammar have NOTHING to say that
>> is useful to the goal of promoting the teaching of grammar.  In fact,
>> you over and over again maintain that generative grammar is even
>> responsible for this situation because you believe that generative
>> grammar claims that grammar is learned naturally from very ordinary
>> exposure to input/verbal interaction . . . whatever.
>>     Over a period of several years now, this claim of yours has been
>> responded to many times. However, you continue to present to the list
>> the same gross misrepresentations of generative grammar, and then go
>> on to appeal to this parody as reason for dismissing the assumptions
>> of generative grammar as potentially relevant to this list's concerns,
>> and you repeatedly position generative grammar as a clear negative.
>>
>>    This rhetorical strategy of yours is "tiresome" and "frustrating."
>> What is the point of it?
>>
>>     Just two days ago, on Friday, February 06, 2009 1:26 PM, you
>> presented
>> the latest example of this rhetorical strategy, one I consider
>> uncollegial and irresponsible, and which I hope we would try to avoid
>> on this list.
>>
>>      "If you think grammar is innate and meaningfully neutral, just a
>> system of forms, then don't teach it. It just happens. If you see it
>> as learned and deeply connected to cognition and discourse, then you
>> ought to attend to it and not just expect it to happen.
>>
>>    There are views of language which support the teaching of grammar and
>> views of language that support our current status quo. Bob and I are on
>> opposite poles of that argument."
>>
>>   This claim is both ridiculous and insulting. No one who reads this
>> list
>> can believe that Bob Yates, active here for more than a decade and
>> involved with ATEG since 1991, supports the "status quo."  Nor can
>> anyone who reads this list believe that Bob Yates believes that grammar
>> knowledge of the type this list is most interested in - i.e., the
>> grammar of more advanced literacy - "just happens."
>>
>>     Two months ago on this list there was a discussion about
>> "innateness."
>> I made a small contribution to that discussion on Dec 9 and argued
>> that no "generativist" would claim that the grammar of advanced
>> literacy would be learned without some kind of focused
>> attention/instruction. At the time, you did not quarrel with what was
>> written, but apparently it had no effect on your thinking. Instead of
>> ignoring what are at least intended to be substantive comments, it
>> would be better to explain why they are problematic.
>>
>>          There was also an appeal to move away from the disparaging
>> rhetoric - an appeal which obviously has been disregarded.
>>
>>
>>
>>                   We can do better than this.
>>
>>
>>                                  Jim Kenkel
>>                                  Eastern Ky Univ
>
> 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/