RE Eduard's mention of my article --a couple of corrections: (1) the article has been submitted to TESOL Q, but it hasn't been accepted yet. (2) The copy of the manuscript that I sent to Eduard and a few others on the ATEG list was slightly different from the copy sent to the journal, and I didn’t check it before I sent it out. For those who received that copy (it has a header) there is a reference to a non-native speaker (NNS) in the group. I didn’t use the NNS's data, but her errors were few, minor, and very distinct from the types produced by the native speakers. In the submitted version I deleted a lengthy discussion about the NNS in order to meet the length requirements of the journal, but I missed a one-sentence reference to the NNS, and that might be confusing to ATEG- ers who read the paper. I still have the NNSpeaker data if anyone wants to discuss the differences between her minor L2 errors and the massive L1 errors of the native speakers. (3) The language problems of the native speaker ESL teachers that are described in this paper are compared to examples of L1 errors that are used as standard criteria for language impairment (e.g., Specific Language Impairment, etc), but these problems are very different from what is known as semilingualism. Semilingualism refers to non- native speakers (e.g., ESL students, and usually identified in elementary school settings), who have not acquired a sufficient foundation in either the first or second language. The data in my paper indicate that native speakers of English have a problem at the formal level of L1 -the level associated with literacy (complexity of sentences, larger vocabulary), not at the basic everyday level. They are definitely not semilingual. I agree with Eduard’s point about non-native teachers of ESL. I’ve noticed that non-native speakers who teach ESL very often have an excellent command of the language and a much better understanding of the grammar. Non-native ESL teachers are usually able to explain complex structures (relative clauses, use of and interpretation of passive) much better than native speaker ESL teachers (at least in my experience in several countries. ESL students really appreciate this competence, especially at higher skill levels of the language. Most of the ESL teachers that I've taught in TESL programs are much more interested in cultural aspects of language (e.g., sociolinguistics). The inability of native speaker ESL teachers to teach the harder levels of the language --e.g., the ability to prepare students for academic/professional skills, the TOEFL test, etc is a real disservice to ESL students. Most Americans do not have to acquire the high level skills in foreign languages that are required in the education systems of other nations. Perhaps for that reason many Americans do not realize it is possible to acquire everyday discourse skills in L2 without a lot of grammar, but higher- level L2 skills (e.g., academic, professional use of L2) are not possible without knowledge of the grammar. The same is probably true for native speakers. I appreciate that people on the ATEG list are committed to providing a better foundation for (native) English speakers, even if ATEG-ers disagree about how to accomplish that task. yvonne ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:47:21 -0500 >From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: The role of English teachers >To: [log in to unmask] > >Richard: > > >In a TESOL graduate class I said that most "native" English teachers >cannot teach English to foreigners because they do not know their own >language. Yvonne Stapp has just published a research article which >shows that facts support my assertion. She found out that in an ESL >class most students, with the exception of a foreigner, had very poor >English language skills, and could be classified as *semi- lingual." >They we not qualified to teach the foreign students, because their >English language skills were often behind the English language skills >of their students. > >The truth is that learning English "by ear" is just like learning a >musical instrument by ear. The obtained knowledge is minimal and does >not qualify someone to teach. Most English teaching grammars have not >been written by English "natives," but bu foreigners like Jespersen. >My best grammar book in my library of about 30 textbooks is still one >written by a Romanian writer. I go there when I have trouble with >different grammar issues, because the explanations are concise and >clear, free of the confusion one sees in most grammar textbooks on >the market at this time. > >The traditional grammar is still as good as always, and can provide >students with the knowledge they need to write in Standard English. >New teaching approaches and methods may need to be adopted to make >grammar instruction adequate and efficient, while the teachers and >instructors need to adapt to different classroom environment, but to >dump the baby with the dirty water is evidence of lack of knowledge >of grammar and personal failure to teach it to the students. > >Eduard > > > > >>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Richard Betting wrote... >> >>>A short response to Phil's request for a list of problems with >>traditional grammar. Here is the list I have been working on for a >>couple of years. I don't intend to offend anyone. My point is that >>traditional grammar-the grammar of popular handbooks that I used >>fifty years ago and that are apparently still used by a majority of >>schools in the US, not accurate language analysis-is still being >>taught. Teachers teach what they have been taught and know. And they >>teach what their texts include, unless they have information with >>which to supplement, and many do not. >>> >>>These are meant to be strident generalizations in order to get >>teachers to understand that there are problems with the old way. >>> >>>After having said all this, I agree with one of the main principles >>of ATEG: accurate, descriptive grammar (and much language >>information) must be taught for at least two reasons: to allow a >>discussion of language itself and to be able to use grammar >>information to improve student style in writing and speaking. >>> >>>It seems to me (and I may be wrong, this may be too strong and it >>might be counterproductive to begin with a list of negatives) that >>teachers have to understand the problems first and then almost start >>over, deciding what to teach and how about language and grammar so >>that the goals of student learning are met, not the goals of >covering >>traditional grammar material. >>> >>>In my book I am fleshing out these items one by one, after which I >>would put what the ATEG comes up in its scope and sequence project. >>> >>> Dick Betting >>> >>> >>> >>>FIFTEEN PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR >>> >>> >>> >>>1. TG, LIKE CATECHISM, TEACHES WELL, LEARNS POORLY >>> >>> >>> >>>2. TG is BASED ON FALSE PROMISE: LEARN GRAMMAR FIRST, IMPROVEMENT >IN >>WRITING AND SPEAKING WILL FOLLOW ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY. >>> >>> >>> >>>3. TG is BASED ON a FALSE PREMISE: KNOWING GRAMMAR WILL MAKE >>STUDENTS BETTER WRITERS AND SPEAKERS. >>> >>> >>> >>>4. TG claims to be everything students need to know about language; >>> >>> >>> >>>5. TG claims there is only one right way, one form of correctness; >>> >>> >>> >>>6. TGs contain mistaken information: >>> >>> a. English in not derived from Latin >>> >>> b. English does not have eight parts of >>speech >>> >>> c. English does not have six verb tenses >>> >>> d. >>> >>> >>> >>>7. TG uses defective methodology: top down, deductive, absolutes >>taught as >>> >>> Gospel; >>> >>> >>> >>>8. TG exploits the pedagogy of rote memorization, passive >>acceptance; >>> >>> >>> >>>9. TG uses confusing definitions for basic concepts: language, >>grammar, usage, parts of speech; >>> >>> >>> >>>10. TG wastes time and energy, too much time on minutiae >>> >>> >>> >>>11. TG fails to put learned material to use; >>> >>> >>> >>>12. TG fails to notice that language study is philosophy, >elaborate, >>abstract, multi-level, open-ended; >>> >>> >>> >>>13. TG reinforces monotheistic social values and standards at the >>expense of individuals, minorities and differents; >>> >>> >>> >>>14. TG has no skeleton, no structure on which to hang language and >>grammar >>> >>> information; >>> >>> >>> >>>15 TG is all fasteners and no projects. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Phil Bralich >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:45 AM >>> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers >>> >>> >>> The real problem is that there are few if any traditional ideas >>that need to go. Someone should actually sit down and make a list >of >>ideas that need to be expunged from grammar teaching and you would >>see there are actually only a few if any. The real problem is that >>people want to wallow around in a sea of unaccountability where >>pontification and pretense take precedence over good sense. >>> >>> We should not be talking in terms of modern versus traditional >>grammar as there is nearly zero difference. Instead we should speak >>merely of teaching grammar and put the whole false problem behind >>us. >>> >>> If any one disagrees, please draw up a list of tradtional notions >>that should be abandonded. >>> >>> Phil Bralich >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Paul E. Doniger" >>> Sent: Aug 16, 2006 7:22 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: The role of English teachers >>> >>> >>> Peter Adams raised an interesting issue with: "In fact, I am >>wondering why the role of English teachers seems to always be to >slow >>down this process and defend the traditional conventions." Is this >>really the role of English teachers? What do others think about this? >>> >>> Personally, I don't see myself as a defender of traditional >>conventions at all. I suspect that many of my colleagues in the high >>school English classroom feel the same as I do. I rather see the >>English teacher in me as a promoter/fascilitator of deep thinking >>(and critical and creative thinking) through the disciplines of >>reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Grammar instruction is >one >>item in the toolbox, albeit an important one (and a too often >>neglected one at that). However, it's not for me so much as a >>teaching of convention as it is a teaching of the way language >works - >>- as a means towards better/deeper thinking in these four >disciplines. >>> >>> I'd add that as a drama teacher, grammar is important in a >>similar way. When I ask my acting students to point up the nouns >>or "play to (or 'with' or 'on')" the verbs, I need first to make >sure >>they know what these words are. My goal for them, however, is not >>grammatical, but theatrical -- I want them to make the language >>meaningful and rich, and to bring the text across clearly to the >>audience. >>> >>> Paul D. >>> 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/ >>> >> >>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/ Yvonne Stapp PhD Assistant Professor of ESL James Madison University Dept of Exceptional Education MSC 6908 Memorial Hall 3130B Harrisonburg, VA 22807 phone 540-568-4525