Thanks, Craig. This is my sense, too, of what is happening. (BTW, I did not mean to disparage Shaughnessy. I, too, approve of her work and greatly admire what she did. I think some of her writings have been inappropriately used by anti-grammarites.)
Williams covers himself by saying that grammar should be studied, but for other reasons, such as being able to discuss language. He also insists that students from minority backgrounds who speak non-standard dialects must learn Standard English because there is a stigma attached to nonstandard speaking and writing. So he ends up pretty much at the same place--but he goes through great contortions in the earlier stages to explain away grammar instruction in the writing classroom.
Thanks for your thorough and very helpful comments.
Tim
Tim Hadley
Research Assistant, The Graduate School
Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Texas Tech University
Editor, ATEG Journal
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tue 2/14/2006 10:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New thread: Grammar vs. Usage
Tim,
There have been attempts to teach punctuation without reference to
syntax, but I have never known them to be successful.>(If we are going
to say to a student they can put commas where the pause goes, then we
can't argue with them when they don't put them in the 'right" places.
But people deon't seem reaqdy to go all the way woth that.) Constance
Weaver tries to reduce it to about five terms, but not very
successfully. For my 4 C's presentation last year, I counted 64
technical terms in Diana Hacker's Writer's Reference for the
punctuation section alone (including the sections on fragments and
run-ons.) If you are interested in following standard punctuation
practice,or even in NOTICING deviation from it, then you are
interested in following rules that are formed and explained in
relation to syntax. (An "error" in punctuation is only definable in
terms of the syntax based rules for punctuation.)
Usage questions are often fairly superficial and elitist. To the
extent that these are dialect interference issues, a true grammarian
might say it's not an argument about grammar, but about which grammar
is given primacy. Even there, the decision to leave off -ed endings or
-s endings in the verb system (to give one example)is a grammar based
pattern, following alternative rules in fairly predictable ways. To
say it has nothing to do with grammar seems goofy.
I'm a big fan of Shaughnessy, by the way. Her argument, in Errors and
Expectations, was in an open-admission context at a time when
non-traditional students were thought of as being intellectually not
up to par. She pointed out, rather well I think, that the errors
weren't careless or unintelligent, but thoughtful ways of trying to
adjust to new ways of using language. (I'm good friends with Allan
Ballard, who hired her at City College and still speaks reverently
about her to this day.) At that time, there was an open question as to
whether certain kinds of students were at all teachable. She and
Bartholomae (quite a bit later)saw student "error" as awkwardness with
new kinds of discourse. Writing Across the curriculum is a recognition
of this, that writing in history is different from writing in biology,
and so on, because the work differs and the community differs and the
conventions differ. The best way to help students is to know what they
are being asked to do, and teachers are not very good at this. They
throw down grades, but aren't very good at saying why. We still don't
understand well the kinds of changes a student needs to go though to
be successful within an academic discipline. Those in the business of
helping them (myself included) owe much to Shaugnessy and anyone else
who continues that line of thinking.
When we revise writing, by the way, we don't just correct it, but
bring it closer to an ideal of effectiveness. Most arguments against
grammar classify it on the error side. People aren't used to seeing
it as having a role in the creation of meaning.
I haven't read Williams' book, so all this may be off track.
Craig
ATEG Colleagues,
>
> With all the spirited discussion of "linguistic grammar" and other
> issues going on, I don't know if this is a good time to initiate a new
> thread. But I have been reading a book (James Williams' The Teacher's
> Grammar Book, 2nd ed.) where the author tries to argue that most errors
> in writing have nothing to do with *grammar* at all. Rather, he says,
> they are either mechanical issues like punctuation (conventions of
> writing) or, more often, issues of _usage_. This defining of grammar so
> narrowly allows him to claim that most errors in writing are not grammar
> issues but "usage" issues.
>
> This is not new. It goes back at least to the 70s--to Shaughnessy,
> Bartholomae, and others-and perhaps even earlier.
>
> What I would appreciate comment and feedback on is whether he is right
> about this. I'll prejudice the issue up front by stating that I feel
> that he has defined grammar much too narrowly, most probably in an
> effort to justify removing it from writing pedagogy. If one defines all
> errors as usage errors rather than grammar errors, then why does one
> need to teach grammar? It seems to me that this was just one of the many
> ways that those with anti-grammar views tried (and still try) to justify
> removing grammar from the writing classroom.
>
> But I wonder if I am right about this-or is Williams right? Any
> feedback, comments, or response will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> Tim Hadley
> Research Assistant, The Graduate School
> Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
> Texas Tech University
> Editor, ATEG Journal
>
>
> 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/
|
