I apologize for responding to your post addressed to Craig. I feel
we need to cut Craig some slack; he has some serious work to do right
now. I was the one who brought up the analogy with the hammer as a tool in the
workshop. The idea I had in mind had to do with language being that
workshop offering the user with a number of tools, each designed for various
purposes. In language the tools offered are not very flexible and keep
their original nature, even when we try to use them in other ways. Like
any metaphor this one can be pressed too far and may not illuminate very
much the field it was originally applied to. Systemic functional
grammar, which, I believe, Craig has brought into the classroom (a tool in
another sense), has a primary focus on how grammatical structures function in
actual use; in the "game" (Wittgenstein) that is social and personal
interactions. . . .
Many thanks to Craig for expressing his various
concerns. I really do not
think that 'hostile' is not the best
way to characterise Bob's questions
though he was clearly challenging your
position but isn't that what robust
debate is all about?
However,
to concentrate on cognitive linguistics (CL), could you explain to
us,
Craig, how your example of 'hammer' fits into CL.
Ron
Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Hancock"
<
[log in to unmask]>
To: <
[log in to unmask]>
Sent:
Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: An ethical academic duty
was Rules was Those old transitivity
blues
> Ron,
Bob,
> I don't mean to imply that I don't want to have a
serious discussion
> about language, and I think Bruce and I are doing
just that. But there are
> certain aspects of collegiality that we need
to follow for the good of the
> list.
> Frankly, I am
disappointed that we do not have cognitive linguists to
> talk to on
list. We should be going out of our way to invite cognitive
> linguists
and to try to find out what they are doing and how they are
> doing it
and what the current state of their approach is and so on. These
> are
not shallow people and their work is not unscientific. Unfortunately,
>
I have had to research it on my own with very little chance to talk about
> it. I am excited about new ideas and somewhat lonely at the moment
because
> no one around me seems to share my interests. So when Bruce
asks me
> questions about the current views I am trying out as a result
of several
> months of serious reading, I think it is more important to
elucidate a
> point of view than it is to defend it from hostile
challenges (and I don't
> think Bruce's questions are at all
hostile.)
> I was disappointed when I first
started posting because I said in an
> early post that I found
functional grammar very useful as a writing
> teacher, and I was
immediately attacked. I don't feel I was given an
> adequate
opportunity to talk (though several people came to my defense)
> and
backed off a bit. What occurred was more quarrel than conversation.
>
But it absolutely baffled me that people wouldn't be open to what I had to
> say, that they would be quick to consider it as a claim that had to
be
> challenged and not a perspective that should be respected and
listened to.
> I still feel that way. It's not so much a danger that
people on the list
> will be exposed to faulty theories so much as it
is a danger that points
> of view will be stifled or suppressed before
they have their day in the
> ATEG sun.
> The lesson I
may take from this is that what I am learning about
> cognitive
linguistics is not of interest to the group, or if it is of
> interest
to some people, I may have to face hostile questioning that will
> make
it difficult to proceed in any meaningful way.
> Let me put
it another way. I think there are people who want Bruce to
> win an
argument with me and others who may want me to win an argument with
>
Bruce, but I don't think Bruce and I are having that kind of discussion. I
> think Bruce has been thinking about these issues long and hard and
has a
> position that is not at all trivial. My task is not to prove
him wrong,
> but to have a conversation in which we both have a chance
to present
> differing perspectives.
>
> Here's
where I see the present issue with pedagogy. Traditional school
>
grammar has been questioned, including studies that seem to show little or
> no carry over to writing. Generative grammar declares itself
essentially
> irrelevant to pedagogy. Systemic functional grammar and
cognitive
> approaches (construction grammar and usage based models)
are relatively
> new, still in the early stages of development as
perspectives on language,
> just beginning to find their way into
classroom practices. Many people may
> feel threatened by new
approaches simply because they call into question
> long held beliefs.
We need to have a robust, open conversation about new
> ways to
understand language.
> Ironically, the article I am working
on (close to deadline) is on "How
> linguistics can inform the teaching
of writing". It is an invited article
> for an international anthology.
One reason for trying to get up to speed
> on cognitive linguistics is
that I felt an obligation to consider a branch
> of linguistics that
seems to be growing in importance. (It is very
> difficult, by the way,
to be somewhat knowledgeable about more than one
> approach.) In the
process, I have been becoming more and more impressed,
> more and more
intrigued.
> Due to the article and a robust teaching load,
I'll have to back off for
> awhile. But I certainly remain very
committed to ATEG and to the list.
>
>
Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen
wrote:
>> This is intended to support the approach that Bob has
adopted in
>> questioning the implicit claims made by Craig.
It seems to me that when
>> one joins a group such as this and one
chooses to function therein
>> actively (and not choose to be a
lurker), one has a certain ethical
>> academic duty to respond to
questions about what one has written.
>>
>> To be frank, I
have been disappointed by the approach demonstrated by
>> some to
raise issues but then implicitly refuse to respond to comments
>>
made on their posts.
>>
>> This said, however, I think it's
a great List with a ,marvellous
>> potential for open and unfettered
discussion.- providing we all play the
>>
'game'.
>>
>> Ron Sheen
>>
>>
>>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Yates"
<
[log in to unmask]>
>> To:
<
[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007
5:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: Rules was Those old transitivity
blues
>>
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> This
is a list on the teaching of grammar. I have always understood you
>> to be offering your point-of-view
>> to suggest a more
effective approach to the teaching of grammar. I
>> apologize
if that is not your purpose in
>> sharing with us your views on the
nature of grammar.
>>
>> In the meantime, I appear to have a
serious reading deficit.
>>
>> Craig writes:
>>
When I write to Bruce, I don't think I am making 'claims'
>> that
need to be challenged, but simply articulating a point-of-view
that
>> I have been developing --am still developing-- over a period
of time.
>>
>> ***
>> I see the following
point-of-view as making claims about the nature of
>>
language.
>>
>> Craig writes:
>> I believe that a
hammer is formed like a hammer because that form is
>> suitable for
its function. In that sense, the forms of grammar are
>> context
sensitive. We have ways to ask questions, for example, or make
>>
statements. These have evolved because language occurs between
people,
>> and we have evolved ways to offer or request information,
and we have
>> evolved ways to target the specific information we are
looking for or
>> offering, and so on. You can disagree, but I don't
think that is an
>> unusual position.
>>
>>
****************
>> It seems to me you have drawn clear teaching
implications about this
>> point-of-view about the nature of
language.
>> I sincerely regret if it is the case that you have not
made any teaching
>> implications from the point-of-view you
articulated above.
>>
>> If there are problems with the
nature of language articulated above, then
>> perhaps there are
problems with the teaching implications based on that
>>
point-of-view.
>>
>> I know the way I teach about writing is
based on how I view the nature of
>> language. I think all of
us who teach writing have a view of language,
>> but I could be
mistaken.
>>
>> Bob Yates, University of Central
Missouri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
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.htmland
select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/