There are some persons that I find beneath my comment and I merely ignore
them as too stupid to waste my time and effort
on them. There are others with whom I disagree, often vehemently; however,
I respect then as scholars with a differing point of view.
Disallowing the anuses can only increase the level of intelligent debate
among the rest of us. I shall never convert a rabid Chomskyite
nor he me. What we MAY achieve is agreement on some points that we hold in
common and that our disagreement does not lower our
professional regard for one another. I have colleagues with whom we share
little in common but a respect for the intellectual integrity
and beliefs of the other.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ATEG automatic digest system" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 9:00 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: ATEG Digest - 2 Sep 2011 to 3 Sep 2011 (#2011-167)
> There are 3 messages totalling 1032 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Recent "ad hominem" postings
> 2. The Domain of Grammar (2)
>
> 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/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 06:01:25 -0400
> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Recent "ad hominem" postings
>
> --bcaec5015e5d9a2d8b04ac068f6c
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Geoff,
>
> I, for one, would certainly be in favor of it. Note how the quality of
> posts and numbers of participants have increased since a certain person
> was
> barred. I think a civility rule with exclusion as an option would be a
> step
> in the right direction.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Geoffrey Layton
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> John and Amy -
>>
>> Given Eduard's recent outburst ("Only an ignorant, provincial American
>> can
>> make such totally absurd and nonsensical claims"), might now be a good
>> time
>> to hop in with a "rules and regs" for list postings, perhaps even an
>> ominous
>> warning of exclusion from the list applied to those who can't maintain
>> civility?
>>
>> Geoff Layton
>> 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/
>
> --bcaec5015e5d9a2d8b04ac068f6c
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Geoff,<br><br>I, for one, would certainly be in favor of it.=A0 Note how
> th=
> e quality of posts and numbers of participants have increased since a
> certa=
> in person was barred.=A0 I think a civility rule with exclusion as an
> optio=
> n would be a step in the right direction.<br>
> <br>John<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM,
> =
> Geoffrey Layton <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a
> href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
> om">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote
> class=3D"gma=
> il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
> solid;padding-lef=
> t:1ex;">
>
>
>
>
> <div><div dir=3D"ltr">
>
>
>
>
> <div dir=3D"ltr">John and Amy -<br>=A0<br>Given Eduard's recent
> outburs=
> t ("Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally
> absurd=
> and nonsensical claims"), might now be a good time to hop in with a
> &=
> quot;rules and regs" for list postings, perhaps even an ominous
> warnin=
> g of exclusion from the list applied to those who can't maintain
> civili=
> ty?<br>
> <br>Geoff Layton<br></div>
> </div></div>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interf=
> ace at:
> <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
> target=3D"_b=
> lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> <p>
> Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/"
> target=3D"_blank"=
>>http://ateg.org/</a>
> </p></blockquote></div><br>
> 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"
> <p>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> --bcaec5015e5d9a2d8b04ac068f6c--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:12:44 -0400
> From: MARTHA KOLLN <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>
> --=-yTWOBZYDM3TkM25t4qNq
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear fellow ATEGers,
> I too always started my grammar classes with the "you are experts" message
> to
> the native speakers in the class. "In this class you won't be learning
> grammar;
> you'll be learning about grammar; you will learn to talk about grammar;
> you
> will learn in a conscious way what you know subconsciously as native
> speakers."
> Let me add one other point to the discussion: I have never heard the
> argument
> from the anti-grammar folk that teaching grammar is unnecessary for the
> reason
> that their students are already experts. The argument I've always heard
> is the
> Constance Weaver/George Hillocks position that class time spent on grammar
> is
> time taken away from teaching writing. And both of them argue that time
> spent
> learning about grammar in any systematic way is time wasted.
> Those are the fightin' words on which ATEG was founded all those years
> ago.
> Martha
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 05:34 PM, "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
> Bob,
>> It's good to find this level of agreement. My own sense is that the
>> chess
>>analogy is not as useful as, say, a tools analogy. We don't get things
>>done
>>through chess, but we do through language. So, in a sense, we haven't
>>really
>>acquired a circular saw if we don't know how to use it to cut angles or to
>>mitre or to cut to a limited depth, all things my son is so much more
>>adept at
>>than I am.
>> But it's good to have a strong sense of agreement that the domain of
>> grammar
>>should include putting grammar to work It's not just about the forms.
>>
>>Craig
>>________________________________________
>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>[[log in to unmask]]
>>On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>>
>>The issue now is about our conception of language. Craig is, of course,
>>right.
>>
>>> "Hancock, Craig G" >
>> Some of us seem far more articulate than others, even in non- school,
>>non-prescriptive contexts. Some of us simply seem more adept at using
>>language
>>in all its manifestations.
>>
>>However, is being an adept language user really the same kind of knowledge
>>as
>>knowing what the possible forms of the language are?
>>
>>If you include that functional side to it, I don't think the assumptions
>>hold.
>>It's a more defensible position if you are looking primarily at forms.
>>Native
>>speakers speak grammatically if we decide that grammaticality is
>>determined by
>>what native speakers say. Again, it seems circular to me.
>> Eduard's point, even if a bit overly strident, is that many people use
>> this
>>reasoning as a basis for dismissing grammar from the curriculum. If our
>>students are already "expert," then there is no value to direct study.
>> This is quite different from saying that students' knowledge of
>> language
>>should be respected.
>> From a usage based perspective, what grammar we carry was learned,
>> but has
>>now become automatic. It's there, but not something we normally notice.
>>
>> Being adept at using the language is not about our knowledge of what is
>>possible, but being able to use that in an effective way.
>>
>>It is not circular to say that I know the rules of chess, but I am not a
>>very
>>good chess player. However, knowing the rules and knowing how to win is
>>different kind of knowledge. And, it is exactly the same for knowing what
>>is
>>possible in our language and how to use that knowledge effectively.
>>
>>We all agree that we want our students to be effective language users and
>>that
>>is why we participate here. There are those who claim that competence is
>>enough. Of course, such claims are wrong.
>>
>>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/
>>
>>
>>
>
> Martha Kolln
>
>
>
> 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/
>
> --=-yTWOBZYDM3TkM25t4qNq
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
>
> <div>Dear fellow ATEGers,</div><div><br></div><div>I too always started my
> grammar classes with the "you are experts" message to the native speakers
> in
> the class. "In this class you won't be learning grammar; you'll be
> learning <b>about</b> grammar; you will learn to talk about grammar; you
> will
> learn in a conscious way what you know subconsciously as native
> speakers."</div><div><br></div><div>Let me add one other point to the
> discussion: I have never heard the argument from the anti-grammar
> folk
> that teaching grammar is unnecessary for the reason that their students
> are
> already experts. The argument I've always heard is the Constance
> Weaver/George Hillocks position that class time spent on grammar is time
> taken
> away from teaching writing. And both of them argue that time spent
> learning about grammar in any systematic way is time
> wasted.</div><div><br></div><div>Those are the fightin' words on which
> ATEG was
> founded all those years ago.</div><div><br></div><div>Martha
> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>On Fri, Sep 2, 2011
> 05:34
> PM, <b>"Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]></b>
> wrote:<br><blockquote
> id="quoted_response" style="padding-left: 3px; padding-right: 0px;
> margin-left:
> 3px; margin-right: 0px; border-left: 1px solid #000;">
> <pre>
> Bob,
> It's good to find this level of agreement. My own sense is that the
> chess
> analogy is not as useful as, say, a tools analogy. We don't get things
> done
> through chess, but we do through language. So, in a sense, we haven't
> really
> acquired a circular saw if we don't know how to use it to cut angles or to
> mitre or to cut to a limited depth, all things my son is so much more
> adept at
> than I am.
> But it's good to have a strong sense of agreement that the domain of
> grammar
> should include putting grammar to work It's not just about the forms.
>
> Craig
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>
> The issue now is about our conception of language. Craig is, of course,
> right.
>
> > "Hancock, Craig G" >
> Some of us seem far more articulate than others, even in non- school,
> non-prescriptive contexts. Some of us simply seem more adept at using
> language
> in all its manifestations.
>
> However, is being an adept language user really the same kind of knowledge
> as
> knowing what the possible forms of the language are?
>
> If you include that functional side to it, I don't think the assumptions
> hold.
> It's a more defensible position if you are looking primarily at forms.
> Native
> speakers speak grammatically if we decide that grammaticality is
> determined by
> what native speakers say. Again, it seems circular to me.
> Eduard's point, even if a bit overly strident, is that many people use
> this
> reasoning as a basis for dismissing grammar from the curriculum. If our
> students are already "expert," then there is no value to direct study.
> This is quite different from saying that students' knowledge of language
> should be respected.
> From a usage based perspective, what grammar we carry was learned, but
> has
> now become automatic. It's there, but not something we normally notice.
>
> Being adept at using the language is not about our knowledge of what is
> possible, but being able to use that in an effective way.
>
> It is not circular to say that I know the rules of chess, but I am not a
> very
> good chess player. However, knowing the rules and knowing how to win is
> different kind of knowledge. And, it is exactly the same for knowing what
> is
> possible in our language and how to use that knowledge effectively.
>
> We all agree that we want our students to be effective language users and
> that
> is why we participate here. There are those who claim that competence is
> enough. Of course, such claims are wrong.
>
> 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/
>
>
> </pre></blockquote>Martha Kolln<br><br><br></div>
> 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"
> <p>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> --=-yTWOBZYDM3TkM25t4qNq--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:24:18 -0400
> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>
> --20cf3079b6ee54335f04ac10f0ae
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Eduard,
>
> Nice to see that I have made your list of ignorant, provincial Americans.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Eduard Hanganu
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> "All native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they handle
>> the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with absolute
>> precision and speed."?
>>
>>
>>
>> Absolute nonsense!!! If you make such a claim then you have NEVER
>> listened
>> to and read text from "native speakers" of English, and you have never
>> struggled to help college students write in English. Who can claim that
>> he
>> can use English "with ABSOLUTE PRECISION AND SPEED?" You? My experience
>> with
>> college students is that almost all L2 students show better "competence"
>> and
>> "performance" than their classmates who are "native speakers." Why are 40
>> million Americans illiterate if their knowledge of the English language
>> is
>> "native" and "instinctive"?
>>
>>
>>
>> My L1 language is Romanian, but I dare you to prove that your
>> "competence"
>> and "performance" in English is better than mine, although English is my
>> L2. The idea that "all native speakers are grammar experts" is so old and
>> void of evidence that my grandfather abandoned it a long time ago - when
>> he
>> had to spend hour upon hour learning the declensions of ALL PARTS OF
>> SPEECH,
>> and the CONJUGATION of the verbs in Romanian.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally absurd and
>> nonsensical claims.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"John Crow" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>> *Sent: *Friday, September 2, 2011 6:34:08 AM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: The Domain of Grammar
>>
>> Eduard,
>>
>> I don't think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement.
>> Instead
>> I think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are
>> grammar
>> experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or
>> street
>> dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed. Most of this
>> knowledge is beyond awareness, of course. But they could neither speak
>> nor
>> understand other English speakers with such ease if they weren't absolute
>> masters of English grammar at some level. I find it refreshing to hear
>> someone acknowledge this fact and take it into account when teaching.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Eduard Hanganu
>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> "We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert"
>>>
>>> This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven
>>> theories
>>> of native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are born
>>> with a grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run
>>> into
>>> the ground the English language education in the United States. Dumb and
>>> provincial American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell this story
>>> to
>>> students who learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to refer only
>>> to
>>> some European languages) - when they know that in order to have a good
>>> command of their language they need to spend thousands of yours LEARNING
>>> to
>>> decline and conjugate in their languages.
>>>
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Sharon Saylors" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>>>
>>> My community college grammar course for English majors and future
>>> secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding English Grammar
>>> as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component. My
>>> students tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time. We
>>> start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move
>>> from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting, rhetorical
>>> grammar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more
>>> than the students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also
>>> include grammar in my freshman composition courses.
>>> Sherry Saylors
>>>
>>> >>> [log in to unmask] 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>>
>>> I am about to embark on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one
>>> developmental writing course at the community college level. Both
>>> classes have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The basic
>>> writing course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and
>>> grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and reading
>>> texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many entities that
>>> fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and written
>>> communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not to
>>> present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a natural
>>> part of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage written
>>> by Dick Veit:
>>>
>>> "I am now a volunteer teaching an 'intermediate ESL grammar class' that
>>> includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics,
>>> punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences,
>>> job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the
>>> most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the
>>> students in front of us would most benefit from knowing."
>>>
>>> Friday in class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I
>>> classes, just to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar
>>> terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, adverb,
>>> phrase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help them
>>> become more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what
>>> will help my students the most with their writing and daily
>>> communicating and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things
>>> that fall under the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.
>>>
>>> Carol Morrison
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question
>>> without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to
>>> the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study
>>> of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries
>>> become a matter for private stipulative definition.
>>>
>>> This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American
>>> Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins,
>>> Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges
>>> are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen
>>> Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no
>>> definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to
>>> stipulate their own definition.
>>>
>>> As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical
>>> (and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely
>>> practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce
>>> questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many
>>> years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was
>>> focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an
>>> "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also
>>> pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language
>>> etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last
>>> week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of
>>> grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most
>>> benefit from knowing.
>>>
>>> I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what
>>> school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar"
>>> courses.
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand,
>>> there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other,
>>> there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so
>>> long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology
>>> as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the
>>> distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public
>>> is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to
>>> say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the
>>> public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on
>>> deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I
>>> certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula,
>>> and I suspect most, if not all, people on this list would agree.
>>>
>>> What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area
>>> as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that
>>> "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a
>>> separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being
>>> defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists;
>>> in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes,
>>> it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that
>>> talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language
>>> analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or
>>> some of the other mainstays of public education.
>>>
>>> I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but
>>> I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic
>>> reasoning.
>>>
>>> --- Bill Spruiell
>>>
>>> [1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting
>>> "grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more
>>> particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the
>>> position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that
>>> firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide
>>> range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms.
>>> To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's
>>> partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars.
>>> I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb
>>> or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact,
>>> letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to
>>> call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is
>>> the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT
>>> encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated
>>> into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar
>>> of English.)
>>>
>>> If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them
>>> (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern
>>> ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic
>>> units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are
>>> the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the
>>> Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these
>>> "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of
>>> language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity,
>>> information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our
>>> understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even
>>> consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they
>>> have a huge impact on meaning?
>>>
>>> What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to
>>> look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical
>>> linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to
>>> emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even
>>> start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar
>>> (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be
>>> doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring
>>> science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar
>>> (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the
>>> brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English
>>> teachers?
>>>
>>> We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to
>>> analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)
>>>
>>> It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the
>>> composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is
>>> a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course,
>>> reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many
>>> cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to
>>> begin with.
>>>
>>> I know this also brings into question the relationship between the
>>> English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those
>>> with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by
>>> now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a
>>> minimum.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!
>>>
>>> John
>>> 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/
>>>
>>> ******************************************************
>>> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is
>>> intended
>>> for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s).
>>> This e-mail may contain confidential information and/or information
>>> protected by intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are
>>> not
>>> the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any
>>> dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
>>> contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and
>>> may be
>>> unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
>>> sender and delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any
>>> printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies of it.
>>>
>>> OVPTS 12-07-09
>>>
>>> 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/
>
> --20cf3079b6ee54335f04ac10f0ae
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Eduard,<br><br>Nice to see that I have made your list of ignorant,
> provinci=
> al Americans.<br><br>John=A0 <br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On
> =
> Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Eduard Hanganu <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
> =3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"
> target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]
> om</a>></span> wrote:<br>
>
> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;
> borde=
> r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style=
> =3D"font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0,
> 0);"><p=
>>John,</p>
>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>"All native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they
> h=
> andle the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with
> absolu=
> te precision and speed."?</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>Absolute nonsense!!! If you make such a claim then you have=A0NEVER
> list=
> ened to and read text from "native speakers" of English, and you
> =
> have never struggled to help college students write in English. Who can
> cla=
> im that he can use=A0English "with=A0ABSOLUTE PRECISION AND
> SPEED?&quo=
> t; You? My experience with college students=A0is that almost all L2
> student=
> s=A0show=A0better "competence"=A0and "performance"
> than=
> =A0their classmates who are "native speakers." Why are 40
> million=
> Americans illiterate if their knowledge of the English language is
> "n=
> ative" and "instinctive"? </p>
>
>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>My L1 language is Romanian,=A0=A0but I dare you to prove that
> your=A0&qu=
> ot;competence" and "performance"=A0in English is better
> than=
> mine, although English is my L2.=A0The idea that "all native
> speakers=
> are grammar experts" is so old and void of evidence that my
> grandfath=
> er abandoned it a long time ago - when he had to spend hour upon hour
> learn=
> ing the declensions of ALL PARTS OF SPEECH, and the CONJUGATION of the
> verb=
> s in Romanian.</p>
>
>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally absurd and
> n=
> onsensical claims. </p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>Eduard </p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>
> </p><hr>
> <p></p>
> <p><b>From: </b>"John Crow" <<a
> href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
> COM" target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>></p><div><br><b>To:
> </b><a=
> href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"
> target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]
> UOHIO.EDU</a><br>
>
> </div><b>Sent: </b>Friday, September 2, 2011 6:34:08
> AM<div><div></div><div=
>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: The Domain of Grammar<br><br>Eduard,<br><br>I
>>don&=
> #39;t think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement.=A0 Instead
> =
> I think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are grammar
> =
> experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or
> street=
> dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed.=A0 Most of this
> k=
> nowledge is beyond awareness, of course.=A0 But they could neither speak
> no=
> r understand other English speakers with such ease if they weren't
> abso=
> lute masters of English grammar at some level.=A0 I find it refreshing to
> h=
> ear someone acknowledge this fact and take it into account when
> teaching.<b=
> r>
>
> <br>John<br><br></div></div><p></p>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div>On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at
> 7:19=
> AM, Eduard Hanganu <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a
> href=3D"mailto:echanganu@insig=
> htbb.com" target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>></span>
> wrote:<b=
> r>
>
> </div></div><blockquote style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
> 204);=
> margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
> class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=
> <div></div><div>"We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar
> =
> expert"<br>
>
> <br>This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven
> th=
> eories of native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are
> =
> born with a grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run
> i=
> nto the ground the English language education in the United States. Dumb
> an=
> d provincial American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell
> thi=
> s story to =A0students who learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to
> r=
> efer only to some European languages) - when they know that in order to
> hav=
> e a good command of their language they need to spend thousands of yours
> LE=
> ARNING to decline and conjugate in their languages.<br>
>
> <br>Eduard<br><br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From:
> "Sharo=
> n Saylors" <<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"
> target=3D"_blank">=
> [log in to unmask]</a>><br>To: <a
> href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
> " target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM<br>Subject: Re: The Domain of
> =
> Grammar<br><br>My community college grammar course for English majors and
> f=
> uture<br>secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding
> Engli=
> sh Grammar<br>
>
> as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component.
> My<br>s=
> tudents tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time.
> We<br>=
> start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move<br>
>
> from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting,
> rhetorical<br>gram=
> mar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more<br>than
> th=
> e students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also<br>include
> gramm=
> ar in my freshman composition courses.<br>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sherry
> Saylors<br><br>&g=
> t;>> <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"
> target=3D"_blank">caro=
> [log in to unmask]</a> 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>><br>I am about to
> emba=
> rk on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one<br>
>
> developmental writing course at the community college level.
> Both<br>classe=
> s have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The
> basic<br>w=
> riting course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and<br>
> grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and
> reading<br>
> texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many
> entitie=
> s that<br>fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and
> writ=
> ten<br>communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not
> to=
> <br>
>
> present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a
> natural<br>p=
> art of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage
> written<br>=
> by Dick Veit:<br><br>"I am now a volunteer teaching an
> 'intermedia=
> te ESL grammar class' that<br>
>
> includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics,
> semantics,<br>=
> punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural
> differences,<br>job-i=
> nterview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the<br>
>
> most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what
> the<br>stu=
> dents in front of us would most benefit from knowing."<br><br>Friday
> i=
> n class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I<br>classes,
> j=
> ust to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar<br>
>
> terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective,
> adverb,<br>ph=
> rase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help
> them<br>be=
> come more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what<br>
>
> will help my students the most with their writing and
> daily<br>communicatin=
> g and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things<br>that fall
> un=
> der the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.<br><br>Carol
> Morrison<br>
>
> <br><br>--- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit <<a
> href=3D"mailto:dickveit@GMAIL=
> .COM" target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:<br><br><br>From:
> =
> Dick Veit <<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"
> target=3D"_blank">dickv=
> [log in to unmask]</a>><br>
>
> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar<br>To: <a
> href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
> UOHIO.EDU" target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a><br>Date:
> Wednesda=
> y, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM<br><br><br>Asking about the domain of grammar
> i=
> s worthwhile, but it's a question<br>
>
> without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist
> to<br>t=
> he average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the
> study<br>o=
> f nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries<br>
>
> become a matter for private stipulative definition.<br><br>This is akin to
> =
> a discussion I just had about "the Great American<br>Songbook."
> E=
> veryone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins,<br>Kern,
> Arlen,=
> Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges<br>
>
> are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include
> Stephen<br>Foste=
> r? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no<br>definitive
> a=
> nswers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to<br>stipulate
> t=
> heir own definition.<br>
>
> <br>As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite
> th=
> eoretical<br>(and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on
> =
> a purely<br>practical level. In a high school "grammar" class,
> sh=
> ould we introduce<br>
>
> questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after
> many<br=
>>years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that
>>wa=
> s<br>focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching
> an=
> <br>
>
> "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax
> bu=
> t also<br>pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary,
> la=
> nguage<br>etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even
> (=
> last<br>
>
> week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain
> of<br>g=
> rammar is determined by what the students in front of us would
> most<br>bene=
> fit from knowing.<br><br>I am interested in hearing more about theory.
> I=
> 9;d also like to hear what<br>
>
> school teachers and college faculty include in their own
> "grammar"=
> ;<br>courses.<br><br>Dick<br><br><br><br><br>On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52
> P=
> M, Spruiell, William C<br><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"
> target=
> =3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:<br>
>
> <br>John,<br><br>Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the
> o=
> ne hand,<br>there's "the material about language we want to
> teach.=
> " On the other,<br>there's "grammar." Because linguists
> =
> have used the word "grammar" for so<br>
>
> long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of
> phonolog=
> y<br>as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't
> view=
> the<br>distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the
> pu=
> blic<br>
>
> is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff
> we'=
> re supposed to<br>say in a different way, because the way we say it is
> Wron=
> g" Neither the<br>public nor (most) linguists would typically think
> of=
> including a unit on<br>
>
> deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but
> =
> I<br>certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English
> curricula,=
> <br>and I suspect most, if not all, =A0people on this list would
> agree.<br>
>
> <br>What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think
> o=
> f the area<br>as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who
> =
> firmly believe that<br>"grammar" should refer only to
> morphosynta=
> x, conceptualized as a<br>
>
> separate component, probably won't object to "language
> analysis&qu=
> ot; being<br>defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would
> functio=
> nalists;<br>in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language
> an=
> alysis." [1] Yes,<br>
>
> it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking
> that<br>t=
> alking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a
> language<br>a=
> nalysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social
> studies=
> " or<br>
>
> some of the other mainstays of public education.<br><br>I used to like the
> =
> label "language structure awareness" for this, but<br>I've
> co=
> me to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic<br>
> reasoning.<br>
> <br>--- Bill Spruiell<br><br>[1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not
> saying=
> here that restricting<br>"grammar" to morphosyntax is either a
> g=
> ood or bad position, nor (more<br>particularly) am I suggesting that that
> p=
> osition is Bob's. It *is* the<br>
>
> position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists
> that<br>firm=
> ly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide<br>range
> of=
> language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms.<br>To a
> cert=
> ain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and
> that's=
> <br>
>
> partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position
> wars.<br>I&=
> #39;d be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like
> Theeb<br=
>>or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact,<br>
> letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want
> to<br=
>>
> call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it.<br><br><br>On
> A=
> ug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:<br><br>Picking up on
> a=
> point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is<br>the
> domai=
> n of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT<br>
>
> encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be
> incorporated<br>int=
> o the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the
> grammar<b=
> r>of English.)<br><br>If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how
> =
> we use them<br>
>
> (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to
> concern<br>ourselv=
> es in the classroom with breaking language down into it's
> basic<br>unit=
> s of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are<br>
>
> the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax)
> the<br>Sover=
> eign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of
> these<br>"rules=
> "? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of<br>
> language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity,<br>
> information structuring? What about all of the context that informs
> our<br>=
> understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we
> even<br>co=
> nsider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they<br>
>
> have a huge impact on meaning?<br><br>What supports the teaching of
> grammar=
> ? Is it valuable/worth while to<br>look at the history that informs/shapes
> =
> the grammar (historical<br>linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication
> =
> worthwhile in order to<br>
>
> emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we
> even<br=
>>start with all of the social/cultural implications of
>>grammar<br>(dialecto=
> logy/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be<br>doing a
> major=
> disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring<br>
>
> science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of
> grammar<br>(cogni=
> tive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and
> the<br>brain/cogni=
> tion is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to
> English<br>teachers?<br=
>>
>
> <br>We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along
> to<br>a=
> nalyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text
> analysis)<br><br>It's=
> a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the<br>
>
> composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it
> is<br=
>>a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of
>>course,<b=
> r>reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in
> many<br=
>>
>
> cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like
> to<br=
>>begin with.<br><br>I know this also brings into question the relationship
>>=
> between the<br>English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role
> =
> of those<br>
>
> with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree
> b=
> y<br>now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at
> a<br>m=
> inimum.<br><br>I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!<br><br>
> John<br>
> </div></div><div>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
> list=
> 's web<br>interface at: <a
> href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/=
> ateg.html"
> target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html<=
> /a> and select<br>
>
> "Join or leave the list"<br>Visit ATEG's web site at <a
> href=
> =3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br><br>To
> join=
> or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<br>interface
> =
> at:<br>
>
> =A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
> target=3D=
> "_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>and select
> &q=
> uot;Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web site at <a
> hre=
> f=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
>
> <br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> in=
> terface at:<br>=A0 =A0 <a
> href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.=
> html"
> target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><b=
> r>and select "Join or leave the list"<br>
>
> <br>Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/"
> target=3D"_bl=
> ank">http://ateg.org/</a><br><br></div><div>*******************************=
> ***********************<br>DISCLAIMER: =A0This e-mail and any file(s)
> trans=
> mitted with it, is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s)
> mentione=
> d above as recipient(s). =A0This e-mail may contain confidential
> informatio=
> n and/or information protected by intellectual property rights or other
> rig=
> hts. =A0If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are
> hereb=
> y notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
> i=
> n relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly
> pr=
> ohibited and may be unlawful. =A0If you have received this e-mail in
> error,=
> please notify the sender and delete the original and any copies of this
> e-=
> mail and any printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies
> =
> of it.<br>
>
> <br>OVPTS 12-07-09<br><br></div><div>To join or leave this LISTSERV list,
> p=
> lease visit the list's web interface at:<br>=A0 =A0 <a
> href=3D"http://l=
> istserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
> target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.mu=
> ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
>
> and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web
> s=
> ite at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/"
> target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><=
> br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web=
> interface at:<br>
>
> =A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
> target=3D=
> "_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>and select
> &q=
> uot;Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web site at <a
> hre=
> f=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
>
> </div></blockquote></div><div><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list,
> plea=
> se visit the list's web interface at: <a
> href=3D"http://listserv.muohio=
> .edu/archives/ateg.html"
> target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archi=
> ves/ateg.html</a> and select "Join or leave the list"=20
> <p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/"
> target=3D"_bla=
> nk">http://ateg.org/</a> </p></div></div></div><div><div></div><div>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interf=
> ace at:
> <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
> target=3D"_b=
> lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> <p>
> Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/"
> target=3D"_blank"=
>>http://ateg.org/</a></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
> 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"
> <p>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> --20cf3079b6ee54335f04ac10f0ae--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ATEG Digest - 2 Sep 2011 to 3 Sep 2011 (#2011-167)
> *********************************************************
>
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/
|
