Jo,
You and I agree on a whole lot, but I don't think we simply internalize
grammar in the same sort of way you propose. Unless we pay attention to
the interconnection between form and meaning, students don't naturally soak
that up. I can remember times when key concepts came alive at the hands of
a good teacher, like the use of leads to control and set a story or the functional
organization of a text, or the way a first person narrator creates perspective
in a story, and I know that students simply do not know these things or know
how to produce these things from simple exposure. I suspect that somewhat
the same thing happens at the level of the sentence, that good writing is
good in the very sense that its form is somewhat invisible. Students don't
see it because it doesn't call attention to itself. Speaking the standard
by virtue of exposure is also problematic when one is exposed to a number
of versions and no one is discussing how they vary or how they might be appropriate
within different contexts.
This whole language notion that the proper forms of grammar are soaked
up in reading and talking to the "right" people has been a major argument
against direct attention to language. To me, it's a distraction. We simply
bemoan the fact that people haven't read enough and throw up our hands and
accept the status quo. I know you are calling for the direct teaching of
grammar, but you are also echoing a major argument against it. Whole language
advocates, who have run the show in most places for a long time, say that
teaching about grammar takes up valuable time that could be spent reading
and writing. What they mean. of course, is banal understanding and banal
teaching, which is what they associate with grammar.
My colleague and friend teaching at a local community college tells me
she has "given up on the comma" and is trying to hold the fort at comma splices,
run-ons, fragments. Maybe that is a lack of exposure to good writing, but
it is also a lack of shared understanding on the part of teacher and student.
Titles are, in fact, sometimes restrictive and sometimes not in appositional
slots. If we put commas around Beloved in Toni Morrison's novel,
Beloved, we are implying, quite wrongly, that she has only written
one novel. It's not just a stylistic error, but an error in meaning that
is not likely recoverable from context.
I like to think I am deeply read and have a fine ear for language. I
also know something about grammar and quite a bit about standard punctuation
practices, and I'm very glad for all of that, though it does mean I get called
on to edit other people's work all the time. Much of that time, as in working
with my students, I wish they knew more about language so that I could actually
talk to them about the kinds of decisions I am making. They lack a knowledge
they can't get from just reading.
Craig
Johanna Rubba wrote:
[log in to unmask]">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/