> Bill,
I appreciate your attempt to douse the fire. The case for cognitive
grammar is available to anyone interested, and I hope there are many
on the list.
As you say, generative grammar was never intended to be a pedagogical
grammar. Other grammars, if they prove to be more accurate descriptions
of the language, may also have the benefit of giving us a case for
placing grammar much closer to the center of the English curriculum.
"Cognitive grammar accepts that becoming a fluent speaker involves a
prodigious amount of actual learning, and tries to minimize the
postulation of innate structures specific to language." (Ronald
Langacker, "A Dynamic Usage Based Model", in Barlow and Kemmer, Usage
Based Models of Language, 2000.) In the same essay, he calls cognitive
grammar "maximilist, non-reductive, and bottom-up" in contrast to the
"Minimalist, reductive, and top-down approach of generative grammar."
"Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it follows
that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data
from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
of these views is available within the literature.
I also think we shouldn't discourage each other from full articulation
of views, even when they clash.
I have been on this list for several years, and cognitive grammar has
hardly been mentioned. I believe that is a weakness in ATEG, that we
haven't reached out. Generative grammar observations have been
constant. I hate to think that alternative views are suddenly not
welcome. We should be open to new ideas, not stuck in the same old
place, especially given the current public stalemate on the teaching of
grammar.
Craig
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/
>
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/
|
