I share Bob Yates' desire for more specificity in these guidelines. At the
same time, I am very encouraged by their clear implication that future
teachers of language arts and secondary English should have substantial
training in linguistics. It's way past high time that what we know about
language began informing the way standard English is cultivated in our
classrooms. I am especially heartened by the inclusion of understanding of
and tolerance of dialect diversity. Current pedagogical materials are
still stigmatizing nonstandard dialect forms. And the Ebonics flap
demonstrated the public's persistent general ignorance about dialect
diversity and its implications for literacy training of 'disadvantaged'
children.
 
I have a question for Bob: What's the rationale for children being able to
_identify_ (that is, label) constructions that they use? Is it an aid to
help them in talking about their writing, or is such knowledge supposed to
help them use a wider variety of constructions?
 
I don't advocate that we NOT teach such things, but I am very interested
in getting to the bottom of what we think such knowledge is good for.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~