Craig,
Could you recommend any books or articles dealing with teaching techniques
using a formalist approach?
Thanks.
-José
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Functional grammar definition
Warren,
Like a good linguist, Bill is trying to give you a definition that
all functionalists would agree on. Since I’m not a linguist, I can be
more idiosyncratic.
Functionalists believe that grammar itself is highly meaningful. It
is not a neutral conveyor of meaning, but an integral part of the making
of meaning. They also tend to extend meaning out beyond representing the
world to include the interpersonal and the construction of “text.”
A functional approach allows us to connect what is happening at the
level of the sentence with what is happening through the whole text.
Language gives us resources that help us represent the world. Language
gives us resources that help us establish relationships with a reader or
readers. Language gives us resources that help us carry out work that
extends beyond the boundaries of a single sentence. (Constructing an
argument. Making an apology. Telling a story. And so on)
I think most functionalists would say that language has evolved to
accomplish these purposes.
It’s hard to know for sure what kind of traditionalist you are
talking to, and that might change the kinds of comparisons you might
make to what he/she already knows. For a formalist, you might say that a
functional approach helps us understand “how” something means. It might
be similar to looking at image patterns in a poem. The meaning doesn’t
happen without them. For a prescriptivist, you might say it helps give
sufficient background to tie choice to context, including the context of
academic writing.
When you focus on effectiveness, correctness follows easily. If you
focus just on correctness, you tend to fail on both counts.
Hope that helps.
Craig
Warren Sieme wrote:
> I've been challenged by the Curriculum Co-ordinator for my department
> to present a definition of functional grammar that "takes thirty
> seconds or less." He strikes me as quite a traditionalist who rolls
> his eyes at the very mention of grammar instruction. I'd appreciate
> any concise definitions anyone would care to provide.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Warren
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 1:02 pm
> Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding
> grammar period
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to figure
> out how to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to
> argue against Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to
> offer as well. (Our students should be engaged in reading and writing
> activities that they feel are important rather than just building
> skills out of workbooks.) I think what we need is a new kind of
> synthesis, not just choosing sides in an old debate.
>
> As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly appreciative of
> Michael Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a
> Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University Press,
> 2003). He doesn't believe we have innate rules that drive the system,
> but highly functional patterns that rise from actual use. Children
> learn language in large part because they understand the contexts being
> named. Because many language decisions happen below the threshold of
> consciousness does not necessarily mean they were not acquired or that
> conscious attention was not part of that. To the extent that we
> understand language acquisition as a socialization process (one we can
> be mentored into), it becomes easier to value (and promote) conscious
> understanding.
>
> I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What aspects of
> language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those
> relevant aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to
> teach them.
>
> All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think Ron's
> point all along.
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig,
> Ron, et al.,
>
> In
> a sense, the anti-grammar movement isn’t based on the
> innatist position as it is developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being
> the
> most famous example of one of its proponents) – it’s based on a
> dramatic overgeneralization of innatism. In defense of Chomsky – and as
> a
> functionalist, I find myself feeling rather odd typing that phrase –
> his theory
> simply claims that children acquire the language they’re exposed to
> in
> infancy and early childhood without conscious effort, etc.
> Additional
> dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the written variants of the
> language
> (which are in a sense dialect-like, but shaped by additional factors
> such as
> distancing between writer and reader, etc.) would not be “acquired”
> in the same way. In fact, Chomsky’s use of innatism to support the idea
> that language-learning ability drops off precipitously in early
> adolescence
> implicitly contradicts the notion that innatism means you can ignore
> conscious
> learning procedures in later development.
>
> I
> don’t happen to agree with Chomsky on the factors
> leading to “critical period” effects, or on a number of other
> issues as well, but I also can’t see the antigrammarian position as
> being
> motivated by his notions of innatism – it was, in a sense, seized upon
> as
> a science-y sounding rationale for a position people wanted to adopt
> anyway. If
> anything, the strict innatist position, along with the notion of a
> critical
> period, implies that students can’t achieve nativelike
> fluency in another dialect. I suppose that could be used as a different
> excuse
> not to teach grammar, but pessimism makes a lousy basis for educational
> policy.
>
> Bill
> Spruiell
>
> Dept.
> of English
> Central
> Michigan University
>
>
>
> From:
> Assembly for the Teaching of English
> Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig
> Hancock
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly,
> rewarding grammar
> period
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a
> theoretical underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that
> means
> thinking of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as
> largely a
> neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what
> students can
> do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is generally
> believed
> that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.
>
> You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just
> happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these
> points
> nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique (Dec.
> 2005. You
> can access it online. Martha and I have an article in the same issue.)
> Here's a
> few quotes.
> from
> abstract: …there has never been a critical theorization of how
> grammar might support the development of writing, and thus there has
> been very
> limited research which has explored that relationship.. (77)
> Quotes
> Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy evidence
> was what
> many in the educational establishment wanted to hear. (80)
> What would be so much more interesting,
> and
> valuable, would be to explore in more subtly nuanced detail what
> research can
> tell us about what aspects of grammar and knowledge about language are
> most
> relevant to writing, whether direct teaching of these features can
> help
> children improve their writing, and what teaching strategies are most
> successful in enabling this to happen. (80)
>
> The
> truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in
> positive,
> contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not yet an
> established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely
> under-researched.
> (81)
> The rejection of decontextualised, and with
> it by
> implication, prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful
> critique
> of what was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the
> “grammar in context” principle is both less sharply critiqued and
> considerably less clearly conceptualised. There has been little
> genuine
> discussion or consideration of what “in context” means.
> Frequently, observations of classroom practice indicate that the notion
> of
> “in context” means little more than grammar teaching which is
> slotted into English lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some
> other
> feature of English learning. (82)
> I think we are absolutely on the same wave
> length. The people who rely on these empirical studies that critique
> the
> teaching of grammar have not done empirical studies of their own. The
> cure has
> proven worse than the disease.
>
> But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>
> Thanks,
> Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number of issues
> which demand careful responses.
>
>
>
>
>
> Before
> providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my area of
> experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I have done
> most of
> my research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA
> (first language acquisition) teachers and students have been the
> victims of the
> educational theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language in
> the
> classroom will result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of
> massive
> exposure to non-standard language outside of the classroom.
>
>
>
>
>
> I
> take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
> unaccountable
> irresponsibility and this because they did not support their advocacy
> with
> empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not go into here,
> educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and suddenly
> teachers were
> forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if they did.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now,
> before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would appreciate
> your
> responding to the above remarks. I know that my assumption is
> correct in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron.
>
>
>
> -----
> Original Message -----
>
>
> From: Craig Hancock
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday,
> September
> 11, 2007 6:36 AM
>
>
> Subject: Re:
> Supportive empirical
> evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period
>
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect you
> and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
>
> For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness that
> i have read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who
> have
> had writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been
> measured
> over the short term. Generally, this has measured students receiving
> grammar
> instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we would call control
> groups.)
> This implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that this
> can be
> accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus writing as
> an
> either/or choice.
>
> In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen
> could excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of
> language, deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and
> then have
> that determined to be "ineffective" because these students don't
> produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score
> better on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or a
> year. For
> an accurate control group, they would have to be denied real writing
> practice.
> Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge about nouns as
> opposed to
> students who have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as a
> definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test their confidence as
> language
> explorers or their deeper interest in the subject. We could compare
> knowledge
> about language between a group studying language and another merely
> writing.
> Everything depends on a match between the testing and the goals.
>
> I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge based
> approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England and
> Australia, teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language
> into the
> curriculum has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that out
> empirically.
> Perhaps the most direct test would measure knowledge about language,
> since that
> would be the central goal. We could then try to monitor how well that
> knowledge
> is put to work in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and so on. The
> problem
> is that we don't have a current consensus that knowing about language
> is a
> reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can now produce
> more
> "accurate grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the
> short term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought
> of as
> valuable goals in their own right.
>
> Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and
> putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that
> does not
> diminish the value of knowing about language and does not demand short
> term
> results.
>
> We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with no
> other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure
> progress
> along the way.
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>
> My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen,
> were, as I
> think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your success.
> My
> comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to
> teach
> grammar books without including any attempt to demonstrate empirically
> that the
> approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, and a
> suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of comparative
> study
> yourself.in order to justify the publication of a book.
>
>
>
>
>
> However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the
> problems with
> many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so
> narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The whole
> area of comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the
> face of
> anyone attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss them
> with
> the sort of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
>
>
>
>
>
> A discussion group such as this one provides a
> marvellous
> forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said,
> however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence '
> provided
> is largely anecdotal and, therefore, unreliable. Though comparative
> empirical studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable that such
> studies
> rigorously carried out are the only way in which we can arrive at
> reliable
> findings which demonstrate for example that approach A is more
> effective than
> approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now though the so-called action research
> carried out by
> practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that the
> burden
> it imposes on teachers is enormous. Consequently, before teachers
> embark
> on such a project, they should make themselves aware of what is
> involved.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Sheen
>
>
>
> -----
> Original Message -----
>
>
> From: Gretchen Lee
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday,
> September
> 10, 2007 6:46 AM
>
>
> Subject: Re:
> Supportive
> empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In
> a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
>
> Though
> it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which engage students'
> interest and
> involvement, one should not confuse the latter with effectiveness in
> improving
> studens' production of more accurate grammar.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
> I
> absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary.
> I'm a loooong way from a book. However, my students are lucky to be
> from
> the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class.
> Their
> production of "correct" grammar is very good, barring a few
> "between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to
> engage them in analyzing grammar and making it seem interesting at the
> same
> time. I can't teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't
> know
> (and don't care) what a countable noun is.
>
>
>
>
>
> At
> this point the class is less about error
> detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out that
> grammar
> is fascinating. With a little luck, they will stay interested enough
> to want
> to take a linguistics class in college, rather than avoiding it at all
> costs. My little class is obviously silly in many ways (see original
> subject line). But for the first time in many of their lives, grammar
> is
> a class to which they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Gretchen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See what's
> new at AOL.com and Make
> AOL Your
> Homepage.
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
> - http://mail.aol.com
> =0
>
> 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/
|
