Steven Pinker and others like him are being disingenuous by constantly 
insisting that we don't have to teach people the grammar of their 
language. They are overlooking the fact that the acquired language 
competence of most people conflicts on numerous points with the 
prescribed standard (even in the middle class, thanks to language change 
in standard English). Therefore, if we want people to be fluent in the 
prescribed standard, many have to learn it as second dialect. The degree 
of difference between the native dialect and the standard is going to 
vary with numerous individual characteristics like home environment, 
region, social class, etc.

Then they are just dismissive of the standard, because they have the 
"all dialects are equal" mindset. That's fine, since it is also 
scientifically grounded. But linguists as a group just have not taken 
very seriously the need to address these issues in terms the general 
audience and language authorities will respond to positively. They too 
often talk down to their audience.

A lot of commentary about Charrow's piece seems to buy her basic 
assumption that explicit teaching of grammar is how you teach people 
standard English, including punctuation. This is just not likely to be 
the case. There's too much to teach, from grammar to punctuation to 
idiomatic phraseology to rhetorical structure. The best way that people 
acquire a language or dialect is by generous exposure in an environment 
that motivates them to learn. This includes punctuation. Lately, I have 
been trying to figure out what rules I follow in using or not using 
commas around titles. I know I do it right, but I can't figure out the 
rules. They're most likely written down somewhere, but I haven't found 
time to look them up. I'm interested in them because it is an area of 
almost universal error. When you have a phrase like

Toni Morrison's novel _Beloved_

you will want commas around the title sometimes and no commas other 
times. In much writing I see, including some published material, the 
writer has almost always made the wrong choice, usually by putting one 
comma before the title and no comma after it, or putting two commas 
where no commas are needed. People seem to have absorbed a rule "always 
put a comma before the title of a work."

Now, if I can't state the rule I'm following, that means it is part of 
my subconscious knowledge of written English. Where and how did I learn 
it? Where and how did I learn all of the other punctuation rules that I 
know how to follow, but have trouble explaining?

Maybe the rules are the same as those for restrictive/non-restrictive 
modifiers. But then how did I learn that difference? Have teachers on 
this list had success cultivating awareness of this difference? It often 
seems to me that my students haven't internalized the _meaning_ 
difference, and therefore cannot use their knowledge of meaning to guide 
their punctuation choices.

Conscious knowledge of grammar is always going to be an important tool 
in discussing and understanding language--in raising language awareness 
and aiding understanding of how grammar shapes meaning. I strongly 
support an effective, informed grammar curriculum through most of the 
school years (it would most likely be quite safe to wait until 3rd or 
4th grade). But that curriculum is not what will make students fluent in 
prescribed English. Experience with it in a sound motivational 
environment will.

We are in a sad state right now with cultivating fluency in standard 
English, especially the written standard. Very large numbers of students 
and teachers do not have adequate internalized command of prescribed 
English. The motivational situation is poor--elitism, anxiety and 
prejudice against "bad English" are still being used as motivators. The 
exposure situation is poor--students are reading and writing less; 
intellecutal pursuits are "uncool"; parents will not accept low grades 
for their children. Even college professors are very uneven in how much 
they enforce standard English. A better grammar curriculum, even if it 
is implemented through most years of schooling, is not going to fix 
this. Also, there is no magic-bullet one-semester or one-year grammar 
course that can bring either students or teachers completely up to 
speed. We can certainly reshape their motivational mindset and give them 
some basics, but they are going to have to commit themselves to hard 
work to develop true fluency: they are going to have to read a lot more, 
and continue their grammar education on their own.

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic about this; I would love to hear from 
someone that they brought someone's written English up to par with a 
one-term course or even a year-long course in grammar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •      Home page: 
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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/