Phil,

I know this is going to sound like a disrespectful flame, but I don't 
find it productive to respond to your posts. In one post, you say nouns 
are entities; in the latest one on this thread, you say that verbs are 
also entities. So what differentiates them? Didn't you say in a 
previous post that only nouns are entities?

In what sense do "the present king of France" and "patriotism" exist 
outside of the human mind? They don't, so far as we understand reality. 
They are _concepts_, and concepts exist in the human mind. As you say, 
they exist  "as discoverable qualities within the observed world ergo 
as nounness in the dog". Discoverable by whom, apart from humans? Who 
decides which qualities are "discoverable"? Humans do. Humans are not 
the final arbiters of what exists "out there". Humans are biased in 
which qualities are discoverable and not. They're biased by their 
brains' capabilities, which are limited.

How does "canine" solve the problem of different words for dogs in 
different languages? And if species exist as entities, what happens 
when biologists revise their classification systems, as is currently 
being proposed? What happens to the entities whose class name has been 
disposed of, and they have been assigned another class? Where in your 
theory is room for different construals of "discoverable" properties?

The point of my criticism of the grammar lesson is that it doesn't 
teach the standard-English-speaking child anything, if the child just 
does the exercise by consulting her internalized grammar. She doesn't 
have to pay any attention at all to the terms, etc. She is likely to 
find it boring and irrelevant. These lessons are designed primarily to 
correct the language of kids who speak nonstandard English. Otherwise, 
there would be no lessons on double negatives, "hisself", and so on. 
These do not occur in the speech of standard-English-speaking children. 
They occur in some young children when they are going through the phase 
of overgeneralizing English morphology rules, but this phase passes, 
with or without grammar instruction. Children will leave the forms 
behind simply by observing the language in their social circle.

I agree that grammar study improves thinking skills, as does algebra, 
etc. But using that as the main motivation for teaching it isn't going 
to convince many people. Teaching grammar for its most valuable purpose 
-- acquainting children with how language works in communication -- 
will incidentally cultivate analytical thinking skills. And people will 
find that a much more sensible reason for teaching it.

Please, statements like "I honestly cannot believe you will find many 
people who would see those exercises as problematic" are specious. 
Obviously, hundreds of people have found them problematic, hence the 
"war on grammar" and NCTE's position.

Quite a while ago, I asked you specifically to respond to a challenge 
to one of your arguments. You never did. You never responded to a 
number of my arguments, such as the claim that grammar instruction as 
currently done in K-12 is discriminatory against children whose native 
language is nonstandard English. I'm sure you have the right to pick 
and choose which arguments you respond to, but discrimination is a 
pretty serious accusation. You have nothing to say on this? Nothing on 
differences in test scores that can be brought about, it seems, merely 
by changing grammar instruction?

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: 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/