LISTSERV - ATEG Archives - LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

In my view, which you may feel free not to share, civil academic discourse focuses on ideas, not on people. It asserts claims about the topic under discussion, not about the person making a claim. Personal attacks assert objectionable or defamatory claims about a person. It seemed to me, and I did feel personally attacked until I realized your error, that the tone of your post was an attack on a person for his dishonest approach to defending his ideas. I can cite two examples:

"What I disagree with is his misrepresentation of what is entailed in grammar teaching."

"I provided a detailed response thereto but apparently he chose not to respond to it. Now, he offers it in a different guise...."

"Misrepresentation" asserts a willful attempt to mistate what one knows to be true, and "guise" implies an attempt to trick others. These are, to my way of thinking, defamatory and objectionable claims made about a person. They are not claims made about an academic topic under discussion, nor are they presented in a civil tone. Therefore, they are personal attacks and not civil academic discourse.

By the way, my earlier statement, "It would probably also be helpful to differentiate between civil academic discourse and personal attacks," could be charitably read as a statement which is arguably true. However, in context, as you inferred, it can reasonably be read to mean that you, Ron Sheen, were making personal attacks as opposed to engaging in civil academic discourse. Both of the meanings were intended. I felt personally attacked by your statements, and I believe that such feelings were warranted by your use of the terms discussed above, as well as by the general tone of your post. I request that you refrain from such personal attacks on this list in the future.

P.S. I offer the context below.

What I disagree with is his misrepresentation of what is entailed in grammar teaching. I have already disagreed with his other offering on grammar teaching. The one entailing problem solving. based on exemplars. (what he called the 'inductive' approach) I provided a detailed response thereto but apparently he chose not to respond to it.

Now, he offers it in a different guise but he is still proposing that students learn grammar by reaching generalisations based on few or many exemplars, completely ignoring the approach to grammar teaching used by most teachers and learners. That is the one which he termed 'deductive'.

May I suggest that he first respond to my previous post and then provide us with reliable empirical evidence from the literature demonstrating which grammar learners have learned based solely on exemplars - few or many. Failing this, perhaps he could provide anecdotal evidence derived from his own teaching. However, if he chooses to do so, may I suggest that he will need to provide a detailed account including:

Ronald Sheen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I am disappointed to find no e-mail to the List from you either providing the citation of my words which you imply constitute a personal attack against the other Scott or a 'public' apology for making such an irresponsible accusation.

In case you have forgotten, here are the words you used in response to my post.:

'It would probably also be helpful to differentiate between civil academic discourse and personal attacks'.

I look forward to reading your response on the List.

Please note that I do not wish to settle this matter off-List. By implication, you have made a serious accusation on-List against me. It is now your responsibility to either justify your accusation or offer an apology - on-List.