Craig feels that my comments to his posts are hostile.
I regret that some of my comments have a tinge of hostility in them. However, in my discipline, I learned to look at the data behind claims. Because the following by Craig is at such a high level of generality, I have no idea how to evaluate it.
> Is there anything in the world to be gained by this kind of hostility?
OK, so Craig has clearly presented on the "great promise" of cognitive and functional grammar.
> Both cognitive and functional grammar look at a sentence as a construal
> of experience. That offers great promise for writers looking at the
> reasons for one choice over another. It may very well give us a way to
> respond to those who feel grammar is all about error, not about
> meaning. A few of us have had some success presenting these ideas at
> the 4C's conference, and we have a full workshop scheduled again this
> year, this time on the grammar/genre connection.
Could he just give us ONE example of what the promise is? Apparently making this request of something he has already done is hostile.
****
The conclusion of Craig's post is interesting for what he finds problematic and what he should not be required to provide. The work Jim Kenkel and I have done is narrowly focused and this problematic for him.
Fair enough. However, it is not problematic for him that he doesn't have a full program.
> As you say, your articles with Jim are fairly narrowly focused. People
> seem to accept grammar instruction more readily when it's error focused
> or targeted to basic writers. I don't mean that as dismissive. I would
> be genuinely interested in a more widely focused position.
I have not ridiculed him for not having "a full program." I just asked in my previous post for an example of one point.
> Apparently, I should be ridiculed for not having a full program worked
> out.
I don't believe any theory of language is going to provide "a full program." I just want to read something more specific than "Both cognitive and functional grammar look at a sentence as a construal of experience."
For example, I have no idea how "looking at a sentence as a construal of experience" (whatever that means) applies to any of my experiences as a teacher of writing and grammar.
Bob Yates, University of Central MissouriCraig,
>
> There are number of points to respond to in your post addressed to Jim.
>
> I only want to address a challenge you make because it shows a conscience
> dismissal of anything that disagrees with your own program. Craig writes:
>>> If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
>> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
>> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
>> back?
>> Neither Jim nor I have held out on this. Over the past several years, we
> have mentioned two papers, one in the Journal of Second Language and the
> other the Journal of Basic Writing that assume a generative perspective.
>
> Kenkel, James, & Yates, Robert. (2003). A developmental perspective on
> the relationship between grammar and text. Journal of Basic Writing, 22,
> 35-49.
>
> Yates, Robert, & Kenkel, James (2002). Responding to sentence-level
> errors. Journal of Second language Writing. 22, 29-47.
>
> Granted they only deal with specific domains and do not address THE
> crisis. Assuming a generative perspective, both papers deal with specific
> issues of grammar, grammatical knowledge, and writing. They both offer
> solutions. We know that you are aware of them and, I think, you claim to
> have read them.
>
> By the way, both Noguichi and DeBeaugrande use generative assumptions for
> how grammar needs to be approached.
>
> Over the past several years, you keep mentioning how cognitive linguistics
> is more useful to "solve the crisis of grammar in the schools" than a
> generative perspective. However, you have never shared with us specifics
> on this claim. In other words, how is one of the crisis points in grammar
> in the schools solved by a cognitive linguistic perspective?
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>> ******************
>
>
> The post by Craig that I'm responding to.> Jim,
> I'm happy you're taking the time to air out frustrations. I have some
> of my own. I take your post in good faith and respond in kind.
> In pretty much every one of those posts, Bob is the one who challenges
> new ideas. He seems, quite frankly, to be threatened by them. I don't
> start these conversations. I don't write posts criticizing generative
> grammar. In fact, as evidenced by his post on the physics question, I
> usually regret my conversations with Bob very quickly. I would be happy
> to ignore his posts, but he often pounces on mine. I would like to have
> different views layed side by side instead of being asked to defend so
> often. I would like friendly clarification questions, not "I don't see
> how this can possibly be true" or "If Craig thought hard about
> cognitive linguistics he would see" sort of statements. He seems to
> want to hold me up as the pillar of these positions, so he can
> discredit them by discrediting me. He seems to want to derail
> productive talk about positions different from his own. In short, I
> find his responses very hostile and not at all helpful.
> This current thread started because I said I don't think it is a given
> that all children learn language in preordained sequence of stages. If
> we look at it from a cognitive perspective, it's easy to call that
> assumption into question. I'm not sure it's productive to believe that
> all children come to school knowing the same language. If we were more
> attentive to this, perhaps we could be more effective in mentoring
> children into the language of school.
> Cognitive positions are very different from generative positions, and
> the literature presents it that way. I'm not making this stuff up. If I
> prefer one over the other, I don't mean that personally. Quite frankly,
> if I don't bring it up, many people on list won't know this stuff is
> out there. I get posts, by the way, thanking me for it. If I start
> getting complaints, I'll stop.
> Is this welcome on the list? I hope so. I will be followng these ideas
> out somewhere. I am passionate about it and will find people to talk
> to.
> If you have a program on how generative grammar will help us solve the
> crisis in grammar in the schools, why not present it? I'm not going to
> say it's not possible, but I haven't seen it yet. Why are you holding
> back?
> I'm sorry I missed your comment on innateness. It seems to contradict
> what Bob has been saying. He seems to reject the idea that there can be
> "a grammar of advanced literacy." Would that include physics? Is it
> possible that advanced literacy differs in the technical disciplines?
> Do your views on this differ from Bob's?
> Bob seems to dismiss the possibility.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Craig,
>> I suspect that some of the exacerbation/frustration that crept into
>> Bob's responses to your posts are not very different from mine.
>>
>> First - and foremost for me - is your insistence in these
>> discussions
>> that generative-inspired notions of grammar have NOTHING to say that
>> is useful to the goal of promoting the teaching of grammar. In fact,
>> you over and over again maintain that generative grammar is even
>> responsible for this situation because you believe that generative
>> grammar claims that grammar is learned naturally from very ordinary
>> exposure to input/verbal interaction . . . whatever.
>> Over a period of several years now, this claim of yours has been
>> responded to many times. However, you continue to present to the list
>> the same gross misrepresentations of generative grammar, and then go
>> on to appeal to this parody as reason for dismissing the assumptions
>> of generative grammar as potentially relevant to this list's concerns,
>> and you repeatedly position generative grammar as a clear negative.
>>
>> This rhetorical strategy of yours is "tiresome" and "frustrating."
>> What is the point of it?
>>
>> Just two days ago, on Friday, February 06, 2009 1:26 PM, you
>> presented
>> the latest example of this rhetorical strategy, one I consider
>> uncollegial and irresponsible, and which I hope we would try to avoid
>> on this list.
>>
>> "If you think grammar is innate and meaningfully neutral, just a
>> system of forms, then don't teach it. It just happens. If you see it
>> as learned and deeply connected to cognition and discourse, then you
>> ought to attend to it and not just expect it to happen.
>>
>> There are views of language which support the teaching of grammar and
>> views of language that support our current status quo. Bob and I are on
>> opposite poles of that argument."
>>
>> This claim is both ridiculous and insulting. No one who reads this
>> list
>> can believe that Bob Yates, active here for more than a decade and
>> involved with ATEG since 1991, supports the "status quo." Nor can
>> anyone who reads this list believe that Bob Yates believes that grammar
>> knowledge of the type this list is most interested in - i.e., the
>> grammar of more advanced literacy - "just happens."
>>
>> Two months ago on this list there was a discussion about
>> "innateness."
>> I made a small contribution to that discussion on Dec 9 and argued
>> that no "generativist" would claim that the grammar of advanced
>> literacy would be learned without some kind of focused
>> attention/instruction. At the time, you did not quarrel with what was
>> written, but apparently it had no effect on your thinking. Instead of
>> ignoring what are at least intended to be substantive comments, it
>> would be better to explain why they are problematic.
>>
>> There was also an appeal to move away from the disparaging
>> rhetoric - an appeal which obviously has been disregarded.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can do better than this.
>>
>>
>> Jim Kenkel
>> Eastern Ky Univ
>> 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/