Tim,
"Contortions" is a pretty good word for the gap between "positions"
and practice on these issues. I have been reading Geneva Smitherman's
account of the official policy politics related to the "students'
right to their own language" issue. She points out that NCTE often
gets the credit, but that 4C's was not only first, but had to push the
issue through a reluctant NCTE (with some "in your face" tactics), and
that NCTE ended up watering it down in significant ways. One result
is that "right to your own language" has had very little impact on
curriculum. To do so, I think they would have to promote a deeper
look at how language works, not just express "attitudes". If what you
do doesn't support the students' right to their own language, then all
the policy statements in the world are just self-serving
"contortions".
The most enlightened position (which means I agree with it) is the
4C's National Language Policy, endorsed by the executive committee in
1988. It has three "inseparable parts." In summary, those are
resources to promote oral and writing competence with English, the
"language of wider communication." Programs that "assert the value" of
alternate languages and dialects and ensure that the "mother tongue
will not be lost." And "to foster the teaching of languages other
than English" so that students can "rediscover their native tongue or
learn a second language."
Something like this should be part of our Scope and Sequence project,
and it would be nice to simply be able to affirm well articulated
positions already in place. >
Can/should we encourage writing projects that ask students to write
within dialect? (First person narrators? Plays? Dialogue within
stories?) Students certainly encounter this in their literature
classes. It's a skill highly valued in writers. It would certainly
deepen understanding of language just to bring conscious attention to
how this language works when it is working well.
Smitherman's English Journal columns and her first major book (Talkin'
and Testifyin') mix black English with more mainstream writing in a
very playful way. It's interesting, though that she stopped doing
that in part because it was very hard work. "...this kind of writing
was the hardest writing I have ever done, requiring draft after draft
after draft to get it right." (Introduction to Talkin that Talk, p.9)
It's interesting to realize that Black English is often highly edited
before it finds its way into print. That can get us rethinking what we
mean by "correctness."
Craig
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/
>
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/
|
