Craig, Bob, et al:
I have apparently mixed my metaphors, and poured oil on troubled fires.
The *intent* of my earlier post was to argue that whatever things are
amiss with our current approaches to teaching grammar, they don't derive
as much from "bad theory" as from a misinterpretation of a theory that
was never claimed by its originator to have educational utility. It was,
therefore, not intended to argue that Innatism is wrong (or right);
merely that blaming the movement away from teaching grammar on it seems
mistaken. I don't think that position should annoy any particular camp,
really. If there's a problem with modern teaching, it gets Innatism off
the hook, without even arguing that Emergentism ("Emergency" is just too
awkward) would be better.
This is, perhaps, a good sign that my decision many years ago not to
investigate working for a diplomatic corps was a good thing.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE:
Correct)
There is a serious problem with the following:
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/07/08 12:25 PM >>>
Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences that
actually occur.
****
There are two serious problems with the view of language Craig presents
above.
First, it ignores the fact that ALL language users can make judgments
about sentences they have never encountered.
I have never encountered the following sentence, yet I know it is a
possible sentence in English.
1) There is the woman whose daughter my daughter is prettier than.
If my view of language says it is only "productive" to consider
sentences that actually occur, then (1) would never be a sentence I
would have to account for. That position would have me ignore what
principles of English would account for (1) and ignore knowledge all
native speakers have.
(A corollary of this observation is the problem a researcher has in
determining what the relevant examples are in a given corpus of
language. Does a researcher committed to only studying "real language"
have to account for any language that is encountered? If not, without a
knowledge of what is and is not possible in the language, how does a
researcher ignore certain examples in the data?)
Second, and more seriously, the view of language above clearly cannot
help us as writing teachers responding to what our students actually
write.
Here is an actual sentence written by a native speaker of English at a
regional university.
(2) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
just really shows that you really care about them.
This is a mixed construction. If we have a theory of language that says
we must only consider language that actually occurs, does it mean the
writer of this sentence has actually encountered this construction
somewhere else? If our knowledge of language is based ONLY on sentences
we encounter, the answer to that question is obvious: the writer has
clearly been exposed to a lot of mixed constructions.
Further, if our knowledge of language is based only on the language we
have encountered, how does any writing teacher make a judgment that
there is something inappropriate with (2)?
Even if you are talking about improving a student's writing to make her
language choices better to meet her meaning, how does anyone judge these
choices are not as good as they should be if our knowledge of language
is ONLY based on what we have encountered? The view of language above
denies any underlying competence about language that is under-determined
by production and not allow us to respond to creative structures our
students might use.
****
Craig continues:
It might be more useful for you to respond to the substance of my post.
Given your
belief that grammar is innate and acquired at any early age, what are
the benefits of teaching grammar is school? Is correctness the only
goal?
I hope you realize Craig that the substance of your post makes what we
do as writing teachers impossible. If our knowledge of language is
based upon the language we have encountered, then we have no basis to
judge a particular string our students write is appropriate or
inappropriate. In other words, if Craig is right, we have no basis to
judge that sentence (1) above is a possible sentence in English but
sentence (2) isn't a possible sentence.
I have actually sent Craig papers that respond to his questions and why
we need to teach grammar. And, he knows I have an account for why a
developing writer would write (2) based on a theory of language that is
grounded on the competence/performance distinction. I have set out a
pedagogy based on that. See the Kenkel and Yates (2003) paper in the
Journal of Basic Writing for an accessible paper.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
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/
|
