In
your postings on ATEG discourse, you have divided discourse into two
genres: rigorous, research and literature based, empirically designed
studies of specific topics and informal coffee break bull sessions. This
is a serious reduction of discourse genres as this list has employed them, and
there is room for many in between the two extremes you describe.
This is hardly a fair way to describe a somewhat-tongue-in-cheek
suggestion for letting members know when they might and might not take a
discussion seriously and invoke what we might derive from the
literature.
Furthermore, Herb, my posts are not solely on the necessity for
empirical studies - far from it.
In the discussion of Gretchen's teaching ideas, I have suggested
that she would have more chance of clinching a book deal were she to have
carried out a comparative study demonstrating her approach to be the most
effective.
In the discussion on The Bell Curve, I appealed to members to
support their negative comments with supportive evidence drawn from the book
itself.
In the discussion on the inductive option, I have suggested that
we need more precision in making clear what we mean by that option. In
fact, though I prefer a deductive approach, I always prefer to introduce it
with inductive exercises.
In the face of Scott Woods's questions about repetition, I have
suggested that his questions are impossible to respond to adequately unless he
clarifies what he means by the word.
I, therefore, think it unfair to paint me as a
one-trick-pony.
This said, it still seems odd to support the discussion of
issues related to grammar teaching whilst ignoring all the available evidence
in the literature. Seems a little like two flat-earthists discussing the
pros and cons of their different hypotheses whilst completely ignoring all the
evidence which demonstrates their ideas to be potty.
Ron Sheen