Johanna, I think that the linguists like Steven Pinker are using the word "grammar" as a technical term for the rules as structures that guide the mind in making language. Certainly a teacher must think of "grammar" as those rules that are internalized in making communication possible between people using the same language. You will remember that the TG agenda is to characterize the commonalities of all human languages as variations in the repertoire of possible rules. For the linguist this may be quite different from adapting to the particular habits and conventions of a certain speech community. In the end we may have a large continuum of possible meanings for "grammar." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 12/20/2004 12:33:03 PM >>> 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/