Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:27:23 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C32B69E1BEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C32B69E1BEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob and Craig, I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my dissertation on. I find both broad categories of theory glaringly underdetermined by data. In other words, there is no way to clearly falsify either approach. Cognitive learning theory has for a long time made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that go beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's broadly called functionalism. There is no question that formal syntactic theories make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the nature of syntactic systems. That they don't deal with discourse structure is not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory. I've used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity. A work like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is a trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition Device. I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, but I'm definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them useful and interesting. Herb ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: common core standards Bob Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? Geoff Layton PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - my first ATEG experience! > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 > From: [log in to unmask] > SubjeTo 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C32B69E1BEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C32B69E1BEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:14:10 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bob, It is hard for me to see this: "If students produce strings that they have never seen before than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed." The term "strictly" is your own addition. If you take the strictly out, how do you get from A to B? Do you see vocabulary as innate as well? It seems to me a similar sort of problem: Why do students use words in ways that differ from what they see in print? My do they misspell or punctuate so awkwardly? "According to..." and "claims" seem to me very important ways to carry out what I sometimes call the attributive function. I work with a text--"They Say/ I Say"--that helps students learn these functions through schematic structures. It's OK to say "According to Craig, he claimed the painting was his when we first saw it..." The problem comes in when we shift to the present tense. The structure works (carries out its function) when you need a kind of double distancing--he claims that he once claimed. You can also make it work for present tense. "According to Craig, he claims that he loves his wife every time she asks." The writer is effectively saying that he isn't sure about the loving or even about the fact that the claiming is happening, but is sure that Craig has said so. This seems to me a problem for a certain kind of verb (like asserts), but not for others. "According to Craig, he plays a good guitar." I would tend to treat it like evidence that grammar is often very locally tied to one or a small group of words. It has to do, at least from my view, with how we cognitively understand the notion of claiming. Cognitive grammar deals with this all the time. Also involved is the discourse function of attribution, which puts the writer/speaker at some distance from an assertion. My students often do so awkwardly as they are learning how to do it, which is true of so many things in life. (I don't necessarily hear every aspect of the music I listen to. What I hear, now that I know so much more about music, is so much more than I heard before.) I don't know about you, but my students don't notice a great deal of what they read. If you slow things down and direct their attention, they have a better shot at it. They are certainly not used to thinking about "how" an essay means. If grammar is emergent and dynamic, it is also constantly innovative. I'm not sure how innate grammar accounts for grammaticalization. Craig > Craig and I come from very different disciplines. I think that may > account for why we see the nature of language and the nature of evidence > so differently. Craig writes: > > Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an > interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. > > Here is why I think that is important for this thread and more importantly > for teaching. > > Craig has written the following about the nature of grammar. > > What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is > huge change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar > is > innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the > notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the > realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. > > If grammar is learned, then the question how students produce strings they > have never seen before is very relevant. (Innovative structures pose a > serious problem for the claim that language is learned and not the > property of innate principles.) > > Likewise, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, then what these > innovative structures say about our students' cognition and ability to > construct a coherent discourse is very relevant, too. > > I take seriously the notion that we have to begin teaching where are > students are. When it comes to grammar, this means we need an > understanding that is a plausible explanation for why students do what > they do. If students produce strings, that they have never seen before > than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > > >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 5:24 PM >>> > Bob, > The claim I made is not about language, but about views that are being > developed by linguists. I'm not sure why you are frustrated by that. > A number of studies have shown (or purportedly show) that study of > formal grammar doesn't carry over to writing. The development of > functional understandings of grammar would open that issue up. It's > not, as far as I can tell, an exorbitant claim. > Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an > interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. > > Craig > > Colleagues, >> >> It can be so frustrating exchanging views with Craig. He makes claims >> about language that are at such a high level of generality it is >> impossible to relate them to the issues those of us who teach language >> (and I'm including writing) face. >> >> An issue my colleague Jim Kenkel and I have been thinking and writing >> about is how to account for strings (grammatical forms) in our students' >> writing that don't seem to occur in the edited reading that they do. I >> tried to give an example of such a form. Students write (1) for (2), >> the >> form that occurs in edited writing. >> >> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >> discourse. >> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >> >> Craig in the previous post said that grammar is "inevitably tied to >> cognition and discourse." And, in his last post, he writes about >> grammar: >> >> The view is simply that it is picked up using >> normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern >> finding (Michael Tomasello). >> >> If (2) is the only pattern our students encounter in their reading, how >> is >> they that produce (1) if grammar is the result of pattern finding? >> >> (I could make the same point with a "mixed construction." Mixed >> constructions don't occur in edited writing, but our students produce >> them. It seems to me this fact suggests that much more is going on than >> "pattern finding." ) >> >> I wish he would apply his views of grammar to real world issues we >> teachers face. However, it is frustrating when his posts and responses >> remain at such a high level of generality. >> >> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >> >> Jim Kenkel and I in the last issue of Written Communication in 2009 >> offer >> an explanation for what we think is going on with such innovations. Of >> course, the paper suggests the need to teach grammar, but it is not from >> the perspective Craig has offered here. >> >>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 6/10/2010 2:04 PM >>> >> Bob, >> There are, of course, many linguists, yourself included, trained in >> generative approaches, who still hold those views, just as there were >> many functionalist linguists while generative grammar held strong >> sway. The comment was about a trend toward functionalism, which I >> think is accurate. >> As I think you know, saying that grammar is learned doesn't mean it >> was >> directly taught. People used language for thousands of years without >> theorizing a grammar. The view is simply that it is picked up using >> normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern >> finding (Michael Tomasello). The view is that children learn about the >> world and acquire the appropriate language simultaneously. It is a >> social semiotic. >> Many people who argue against direct teaching of grammar seem to be >> saying that grammar itself is not meaningful. If your view of grammar >> is that it is deeply tied to both cognition and discourse and that it >> is much more emergent and dynamic than previously believed, then there >> are radical implications for whether or not it should be taught. Those >> implications have not been fully thought through. >> You and I, of course, see it differently. Others on the list may >> well >> be unaware that new views about language are emerging. There are good >> reasons to see the value of knowledge about language as not yet >> settled as an issue. >> >> Craig> >> >> >> I want to cite the following from Craig because it is too contentious >> and >>> can be worded in a way that is more useful. >>> >>> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is huge >>> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >>> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >>> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >>> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >>> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >>> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >>> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >>> society and complex academic disciplines. >>> >>> *** >>> I have decades of experience teaching both native and non-native >>> speakers >>> English. If it is true grammar is not innate but learned, then why is >>> it >>> the case that so many aspects of English have to be taught to >>> non-native >>> speakers that are NEVER mentioned to native speakers? Here are some >>> examples: I have never talked about the count-non-count distinction of >>> English nouns to native speakers, the nature of phrasal verbs, the lack >>> of >>> overt agreement on modal auxiliaries, the property of reverse-psych >>> verbs >>> with the experiencer in the object position (compare "Bob likes movies" >>> to >>> "movies fascinate Bob"), the article system. to name a few. >>> >>> Likewise, if important aspects of grammar is not a formal system, but >>> tied >>> to "cognition and discourse," then we have two problems as teachers. >>> First, why is it the case that the Germanic languages lack any verbal >>> morphology indicating future time, but the Romance languages do? Does >>> this mean we English speakers have difficulty conceiving future time? >>> Why >>> is it the case that English requires something overt in the subject >>> position (noun phrase or pronoun) in tensed clauses, but almost all >>> other >>> languages of the world don't? What does this fact reveal about English >>> speakers cognition in relation to speakers of almost all other >>> languages? >>> >>> A second and more serious teaching problem with claim that grammar is >>> tied >>> to "cognition and discourse" is the implication when our students >>> innovate >>> and use grammatical forms that don't occur in edited texts. What does >>> this perspective say about the cognition of a student who writes (1) (a >>> very common construction in the students I teach) for the standard (2)? >>> >>> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >>> discourse. >>> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >>> >>> Do we really want to say the student who wrote (1) is cognitively >>> different than the student who wrote (2) or when student (1) writes (2) >>> her cognition changes? >>> >>> **** >>> Clearly, there is a difference in the kind of grammar we encounter in >>> the >>> written language than what we encounter in the spoken language. >>> Whatever >>> our perspective is on how we come to know grammar, we did need to know >>> more about those differences and the implication those differences for >>> students to be successful in school. >>> >>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> >>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 9:10 AM >>> >>> Amanda, et. al. >>> >>> Amanda, you should be absolutely commended for your influence in >>> this. I think there is a bit of the committee effect at work, very >>> sensible goals mixed in with almost contrary positions, but the shift >>> toward knowledge about language is palpable, very welcome. I look >>> forward to reading the appendix. >>> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is >>> huge >>> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >>> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >>> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >>> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >>> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >>> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >>> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >>> society and complex academic disciplines. Students need to be MENTORED >>> into that, and we have no chance at all of doing that without >>> demystifying what is required. >>> I do believe that students need to learn to position themselves in >>> relation to important contentious issues, but I worry very much about >>> what Tannen calls our "argument culture", which tends to force us to >>> pick a side instead of exploring possibilities and doesn't encourage >>> us to admit that we don't really know enough to be certain. I tend to >>> emphasize the idea of making a contribution to an ongoing >>> conversation--our disciplines, to the extent that they are functional, >>> are dialogic, and science in particular asks us to hedge in >>> appropriate ways. For the most part, though, English classes shift >>> from essays about literature to rather mechanical research projects. >>> We should do more reportorial and issue related writing, paying >>> attention to the ways in which those purposes are realized through >>> language. I think these standards are at least an attempt to expand >>> the range of discourse we should attend to in our English classes. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> Craig et al., >>>> Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." >>>> I >>>> think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to >>>> consult on the language-related standards. The language-related >>>> standards >>>> were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, >>>> suggesting >>>> that the only reason to think about language at all would be for >>>> editing >>>> formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I >>>> responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that >>>> presents >>>> current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that >>>> some >>>> of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed >>>> "knowledge >>>> ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of >>>> clauses >>>> and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were >>>> not. >>>> The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on >>>> teaching >>>> the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I'm glad >>>> that >>>> they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of >>>> knowledge about language. As far as I know, I am the only person with >>>> a >>>> background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a >>>> consultant on the project, and that concerns me. >>>> >>>> Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of >>>> second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an >>>> unrealistic >>>> dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools >>>> - >>>> an >>>> urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA >>>> curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level >>>> of >>>> informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their >>>> classmates. >>>> I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop >>>> a >>>> vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't >>>> taught >>>> until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher >>>> and >>>> university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's >>>> Choice >>>> writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that >>>> K-12 >>>> students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks >>>> than >>>> we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies >>>> out >>>> of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use >>>> America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement >>>> on >>>> 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable >>>> literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that >>>> the >>>> higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on >>>> argumentative and informational writing in the America's Choice >>>> program. >>>> >>>> Amanda >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ed, >>>> They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other >>>> hand, >>>> I >>>> think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some >>>> time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they >>>> have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in >>>> many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive >>>> those schools that whole schools suffer from low expectations, not >>>> from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these >>>> students come to college, but they respond very well to raised >>>> expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do >>>> much more. >>>> If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I >>>> wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) >>>> for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support >>>> necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for >>>> high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing >>>> with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though, >>>> is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are >>>> saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) >>>> It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to >>>> write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If >>>> you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already >>>> have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to >>>> be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained >>>> goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows >>>> what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem >>>> to >>>> be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can >>>> guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like >>>> "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an >>>> opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact >>>> that >>>> many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different >>>> from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place >>>> in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world >>>> or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't >>>> seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the >>>> ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the >>>> drug >>>> dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets >>>> sick?) >>>> I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where >>>> engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking >>>> about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't >>>> see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high >>>> school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they >>>> don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem >>>> articulated >>>> as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very >>>> natural developments of the students' own voices and interests >>>> (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their >>>> interest to find out and to articulate.) >>>> I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times >>>> seem >>>> strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. >>>> >>>> Craig> >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig et al, >>>>> Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I. He >>>>> gives >>>>> a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade: >>>>> Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce >>>>> a >>>>> topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present >>>>> similar >>>>> information together using headers to signal groupings when >>>>> appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or >>>>> section. >>>>> And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate >>>>> for >>>>> college literature classes. (Once again, I agree.) >>>>> I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever >>>>> taught >>>>> below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and >>>>> I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this >>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ed, >>>>>> My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very >>>>>> much >>>>>> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of >>>>>> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the >>>>>> language >>>>>> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars >>>>>> are >>>>>> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns >>>>>> within the genres. >>>>>> I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he >>>>>> think >>>>>> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be >>>>>> staggering? >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Herb. Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing >>>>>>> standards? Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current >>>>>>> issue of Education Week. He calls them an instance of "magical >>>>>>> thinking," and I agree totally. If they are adopted and enforced, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> dropout rate will be staggering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org. >>>>>>>> Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that >>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language >>>>>>>> (not >>>>>>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for >>>>>>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and >>>>>>>> clauses >>>>>>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems >>>>>>>> to me >>>>>>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of >>>>>>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. >>>>>>>> Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> ********** >>>> Dr. Amanda J. Godley >>>> Associate Professor >>>> English Education >>>> Department of Instruction and Learning >>>> University of Pittsburgh >>>> 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall >>>> 412-648-7313 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/ >> > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:35:32 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Herb, One problem, as I see it, is that those educators who are opposed to teaching about language are NOT agnostic on this issue. They have a view (maybe "theory" would imply that they have paid more attention) that grammar is formal and that the study of formal grammar does not carry over to writing. The point I am trying to make--I'm not trying to open up the theory debate--is that those conclusions have never taken into account the views about language being developed in the functional camps. In other words, if grammar is not thought of as a formal system, perhaps it can carry over to writing in a very dramatic way. If you say "you don't need to teach grammar to a native speaker" at a writing conference, many people will nod their heads, though they have never seriously explored the issue. It is a politically correct position and has been for some time. Can we at least agree that the case isn't closed? If our understanding of grammar shifts, then the value of learning about it (not just acquiring it) might shift as well? Craig > Bob and Craig, > > I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of > language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor > way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the > early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology > better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my > dissertation on. I find both broad categories of theory glaringly > underdetermined by data. In other words, there is no way to clearly > falsify either approach. Cognitive learning theory has for a long time > made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that go > beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's broadly > called functionalism. There is no question that formal syntactic theories > make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the nature > of syntactic systems. That they don't deal with discourse structure is > not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory. I've > used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, > and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity. A work > like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive > exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is a > trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition > Device. > > I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, > but I'm definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that > I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them > useful and interesting. > > Herb > > > ________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: common core standards > > Bob > > Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker > would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but > would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too > much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, > similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's > "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as > simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And > regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them > so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of > writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning > that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that > grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and > that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? > > Geoff Layton > > PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - > my first ATEG experience! > > > >> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> SubjeTo 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:30:31 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:36 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: common core standards Herb, One problem, as I see it, is that those educators who are opposed to teaching about language are NOT agnostic on this issue. They have a view (maybe "theory" would imply that they have paid more attention) that grammar is formal and that the study of formal grammar does not carry over to writing. The point I am trying to make--I'm not trying to open up the theory debate--is that those conclusions have never taken into account the views about language being developed in the functional camps. In other words, if grammar is not thought of as a formal system, perhaps it can carry over to writing in a very dramatic way. If you say "you don't need to teach grammar to a native speaker" at a writing conference, many people will nod their heads, though they have never seriously explored the issue. It is a politically correct position and has been for some time. Can we at least agree that the case isn't closed? If our understanding of grammar shifts, then the value of learning about it (not just acquiring it) might shift as well? Craig > Bob and Craig, > > I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of > language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor > way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the > early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology > better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my > dissertation on. I find both broad categories of theory glaringly > underdetermined by data. In other words, there is no way to clearly > falsify either approach. Cognitive learning theory has for a long time > made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that go > beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's broadly > called functionalism. There is no question that formal syntactic theories > make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the nature > of syntactic systems. That they don't deal with discourse structure is > not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory. I've > used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, > and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity. A work > like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive > exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is a > trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition > Device. > > I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, > but I'm definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that > I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them > useful and interesting. > > Herb > > > ________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: common core standards > > Bob > > Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker > would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but > would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too > much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, > similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's > "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as > simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And > regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them > so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of > writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning > that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that > grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and > that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? > > Geoff Layton > > PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - > my first ATEG experience! > > > >> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> SubjeTo 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:20:39 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--530587586 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) --Apple-Mail-1--530587586 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Amanda, Craig, et al, I have seen unfortunate effects of low expectations in the lives of two good friends, and I have seen extraordinary positive effects of high expectations as a teacher in the Court Reporter program at Temple University in downtown Philadelphia. I am very much in favor of high expectations. However, I have also spent many years reading essays written by Pennsylvanian eleventh graders for the annual state assessment. It is based on that experience that I consider the writing expectations/standards/goals---whatever one wants to call them---of the Common Core Committee unrealistic. On the other hand, I was delighted to hear about the success of the America's Choice writing program in elementary schools in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, and perhaps if such early intervention were more universal, eleventh grade writing might improve dramatically. I would like to think so. Is there any indication, Amanda, that this program has had a positive effect on graduation rates in Pittsburgh, or is it too soon to know that? (We do know that dropout rates nationally have risen recently, in spite of the hiking of standards in many school districts. See Diplomas Count, the June 10 report in Education Week.) Thomas Newkirk wrote his commentary before the final writing standards were released, and in the final version the high school example that he used seems to have been eliminated; the elementary example is still there, but it has been significantly modified. Perhaps the standards makers themselves were aware that they had been been pitching too high? Ed On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Godley, Amanda Joan wrote: > Craig et al., > Craig wrote that the common core standards are “strangely > arbitrary.” I think that’s right on target, especially as someone > who was asked to consult on the language-related standards. The > language-related standards were originally imbedded in the editing > standards for writing, suggesting that the only reason to think > about language at all would be for editing formal academic writing. > Over the course of the seven months that I responded to drafts of > the standards and wrote the appendix that presents current research > on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that some of my > suggestions (such as including standards that addressed “knowledge > ABOUT language” and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of > clauses and phrases) ended up being included, but many other > suggestions were not. The resulting language-related standards > definitely focus more on teaching the conventions of Standard > English than I would like, but I’m glad that they at least nod > toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of knowledge about > language. As far as I know, I am the only person with a background > in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a consultant on > the project, and that concerns me. > > Re: the writing standards, I actually don’t think that the example > of second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an > unrealistic dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh > Public Schools - an urban district - and are taught the district- > wide, standardized ELA curriculum, America’s Choice. I have seen an > astonishingly high level of informational and persuasive writing > from my kids and their classmates. I’ve also seen how early > elementary children can be taught to develop a vocabulary for and > meta-awareness of writing that typically isn’t taught until high > school or college. As a former high school English teacher and > university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America’s > Choice writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to > me that K-12 students are capable of far more difficult and complex > literacy tasks than we typically ask them to complete. > Interestingly, large-scale studies out of the University of Michigan > also show that urban schools that use America’s Choice demonstrate > significantly higher student achievement on 4th grade standardized > tests of reading and writing than comparable literacy curricula/ > reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that the higher 4th > grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on > argumentative and informational writing in the America’s Choice > program. > > Amanda > > > On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Ed, > They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other > hand, I > think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some > time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they > have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in > many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive > those schools that whole schools suffer from low expectations, not > from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these > students come to college, but they respond very well to raised > expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do > much more. > If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I > wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) > for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support > necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for > high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing > with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though, > is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are > saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) > It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to > write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If > you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already > have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to > be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained > goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows > what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem > to > be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can > guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like > "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an > opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact > that > many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different > from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place > in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world > or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't > seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the > ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the > drug > dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets > sick?) > I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where > engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking > about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't > see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high > school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they > don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem > articulated > as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very > natural developments of the students' own voices and interests > (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their > interest to find out and to articulate.) > I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times > seem > strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. > > Craig> > > > Craig et al, > > Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I. > He gives > > a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND > grade: > > Write informative and explanatory texts in which they > introduce a > > topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, > present similar > > information together using headers to signal groupings when > > appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or > section. > > And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more > appropriate for > > college literature classes. (Once again, I agree.) > > I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever > taught > > below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and > > I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this > > nonsense. > > > > Ed > > > > > > On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> Ed, > >> My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very > >> much > >> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of > >> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the > language > >> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus > grammars are > >> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns > >> within the genres. > >> I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he > >> think > >> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be > staggering? > >> > >> Craig> > >> > >> > >> I agree with Herb. Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing > >>> standards? Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current > >>> issue of Education Week. He calls them an instance of "magical > >>> thinking," and I agree totally. If they are adopted and enforced, > >>> the > >>> dropout rate will be staggering. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>> > >>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have > >>>> been > >>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org. > >>>> Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that > >>>> direction, > >>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language > (not > >>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for > >>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and > >>>> clauses > >>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems > >>>> to me > >>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of > >>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. > >>>> Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling > >>>> for > >>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. > >>>> > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>> 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/ > > > ********** > Dr. Amanda J. Godley > Associate Professor > English Education > Department of Instruction and Learning > University of Pittsburgh > 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall > 412-648-7313 > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-1--530587586 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-1--530587586-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:38:46 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, Sorry about the blank message. The debates, both between formalists and functionalists and between the pro and anti grammar folks in composition and language arts, are far from over. The former debate is a very productive one, stimulating scholarship on both sides, just what we want in an academic debate. The latter debate, unfortunately, is between informed understanding and ideology, to put it starkly, and that sort of debate is much more perilous. I'm not sure I'd call the widespread acceptance of the claim that we don't have to teach grammar to native speakers politically correct so much as received wisdom based on ignorance and misconception. The idea that we have innate knowledge of language, however we might choose to formulate that, is a far cry from the idea that we have innate knowledge of our own language or that our unexpressable intuitions as native speakers are sufficient for skilled, compelling writing. That is the point that we need to keep hammering away at, that explicit knowledge of how English works has clear yield for learning to write well. Herb Herb, One problem, as I see it, is that those educators who are opposed to teaching about language are NOT agnostic on this issue. They have a view (maybe "theory" would imply that they have paid more attention) that grammar is formal and that the study of formal grammar does not carry over to writing. The point I am trying to make--I'm not trying to open up the theory debate--is that those conclusions have never taken into account the views about language being developed in the functional camps. In other words, if grammar is not thought of as a formal system, perhaps it can carry over to writing in a very dramatic way. If you say "you don't need to teach grammar to a native speaker" at a writing conference, many people will nod their heads, though they have never seriously explored the issue. It is a politically correct position and has been for some time. Can we at least agree that the case isn't closed? If our understanding of grammar shifts, then the value of learning about it (not just acquiring it) might shift as well? Craig > Bob and Craig, > > I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of > language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor > way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the > early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology > better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my > dissertation on. I find both broad categories of theory glaringly > underdetermined by data. In other words, there is no way to clearly > falsify either approach. Cognitive learning theory has for a long time > made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that go > beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's broadly > called functionalism. There is no question that formal syntactic theories > make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the nature > of syntactic systems. That they don't deal with discourse structure is > not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory. I've > used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, > and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity. A work > like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive > exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is a > trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition > Device. > > I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, > but I'm definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that > I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them > useful and interesting. > > Herb > > > ________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: common core standards > > Bob > > Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker > would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but > would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too > much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, > similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's > "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as > simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And > regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them > so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of > writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning > that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that > grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and > that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? > > Geoff Layton > > PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - > my first ATEG experience! > > > >> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> SubjeTo 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:11:04 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards Comments: To: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1892635063-1276359064=:50921" --0-1892635063-1276359064=:50921 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob Yates wrote:  If students produce strings, that they have never seen before than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed. We learn many things from input, even strictly from input.  For instance, we learn how to identify and create triangles.  Fairly quickly, we are able to create and identify triangles we have never seen before (different in color, angles, size, material, etc.).  When we know the edges of a concept, we can interpolate inside those edges to identify and create instances of that concept.   Although language may be more complex than simple concepts, it would seem that this ability to interpolate applies to language as well.  One possible explanation for why students produce flawed strings that they have never seen before is that they are trying to figure out the boundaries of the concept (e.g., saying "goed" instead of "went").  Scott Woods ________________________________ From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Fri, June 11, 2010 8:23:13 AM Subject: Re: common core standards Craig and I come from very different disciplines.  I think that may account for why we see the nature of language and the nature of evidence so differently.  Craig writes: Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. Here is why I think that is important for this thread and more importantly for teaching. Craig has written the following about the nature of grammar. What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is huge change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. If grammar is learned, then the question how students produce strings they have never seen before is very relevant.  (Innovative structures pose a serious problem for the claim that language is learned and not the property of innate principles.) Likewise, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, then what these innovative structures say about our students' cognition and ability to construct a coherent discourse is very relevant, too. I take seriously the notion that we have to begin teaching where are students are.  When it comes to grammar, this means we need an understanding that is a plausible explanation for why students do what they do.  If students produce strings, that they have never seen before than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 5:24 PM >>> Bob,     The claim I made is not about language, but about views that are being developed by linguists. I'm not sure why you are frustrated by that.     A number of studies have shown (or purportedly show) that study of formal grammar doesn't carry over to writing. The development of functional understandings of grammar would open that issue up. It's not, as far as I can tell, an exorbitant claim.     Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. Craig Colleagues, > > It can be so frustrating exchanging views with Craig.  He makes claims > about language that are at such a high level of generality it is > impossible to relate them to the issues those of us who teach language > (and I'm including writing) face. > > An issue my colleague Jim Kenkel and I have been thinking and writing > about is how to account for strings (grammatical forms) in our students' > writing that don't seem to occur in the edited reading that they do.  I > tried to give an example of such a form.  Students write (1) for (2), the > form that occurs in edited writing. > >  1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and > discourse. >  2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. > > Craig in the previous post said that grammar is "inevitably tied to > cognition and discourse."  And, in his last post, he writes about grammar: > > The view is simply that it is picked up using > normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern > finding (Michael Tomasello). > > If (2) is the only pattern our students encounter in their reading, how is > they that produce (1) if grammar is the result of pattern finding? > > (I could make the same point with a  "mixed construction."  Mixed > constructions don't occur in edited writing, but our students produce > them.  It seems to me this fact suggests that much more is going on than > "pattern finding." ) > > I wish he would apply his views of grammar to real world issues we > teachers face.  However, it is frustrating when his posts and responses > remain at such a high level of generality. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > > Jim Kenkel and I in the last issue of Written Communication in 2009 offer > an explanation for what we think is going on with such innovations.  Of > course, the paper suggests the need to teach grammar, but it is not from > the perspective Craig has offered here. > >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 6/10/2010 2:04 PM >>> > Bob, >    There are, of course, many linguists, yourself included, trained in > generative approaches, who still hold those views, just as there were > many functionalist linguists while generative grammar held strong > sway. The comment was about a trend toward functionalism, which I > think is accurate. >    As I think you know, saying that grammar is learned doesn't mean it was > directly taught. People used language for thousands of years without > theorizing a grammar. The view is simply that it is picked up using > normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern > finding (Michael Tomasello). The view is that children learn about the > world and acquire the appropriate language simultaneously. It is a > social semiotic. >    Many people who argue against direct teaching of grammar seem to be > saying that grammar itself is not meaningful. If your view of grammar > is that it is deeply tied to both cognition and discourse and that it > is much more emergent and dynamic than previously believed, then there > are radical implications for whether or not it should be taught. Those > implications have not been fully thought through. >    You and I, of course, see it differently. Others on the list may well > be unaware that new views about language are emerging. There are good > reasons to see the value of knowledge about language as not yet > settled as an issue. > > Craig> > > >  I want to cite the following from Craig because it is too contentious and >> can be worded in a way that is more useful. >> >> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is huge >> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >> society and complex academic disciplines. >> >> *** >> I have decades of experience teaching both native and non-native >> speakers >> English.  If it is true grammar is not innate but learned, then why is >> it >> the case that so many aspects of English have to be taught to non-native >> speakers that are NEVER mentioned to native speakers?  Here are some >> examples:  I have never talked about the count-non-count distinction of >> English nouns to native speakers, the nature of phrasal verbs, the lack >> of >> overt agreement on modal auxiliaries, the property of reverse-psych >> verbs >> with the experiencer in the object position (compare "Bob likes movies" >> to >> "movies fascinate Bob"), the article system. to name a few. >> >> Likewise, if important aspects of grammar is not a formal system, but >> tied >> to "cognition and discourse," then we have two problems as teachers. >> First, why is it the case that the Germanic languages lack any verbal >> morphology indicating future time, but the Romance languages do?  Does >> this mean we English speakers have difficulty conceiving future time? >> Why >> is it the case that English requires something overt in the subject >> position (noun phrase or pronoun) in tensed clauses, but almost all >> other >> languages of the world don't?  What does this fact reveal about English >> speakers cognition in relation to speakers of almost all other >> languages? >> >> A second and more serious teaching problem with claim that grammar is >> tied >> to "cognition and discourse" is the implication when our students >> innovate >> and use grammatical forms that don't occur in edited texts.  What does >> this perspective say about the cognition of a student who writes (1) (a >> very common construction in the students I teach) for the standard (2)? >> >> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >> discourse. >> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >> >> Do we really want to say the student who wrote (1) is cognitively >> different than the student who wrote (2) or when student (1) writes (2) >> her cognition changes? >> >> **** >> Clearly, there is a difference in the kind of grammar we encounter in >> the >> written language than what we encounter in the spoken language. >> Whatever >> our perspective is on how we come to know grammar, we did need to know >> more about those differences and the implication those differences for >> students to be successful in school. >> >> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >> >>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 9:10 AM >>> >> Amanda, et. al. >> >>      Amanda, you should be absolutely commended for your influence in >> this. I think there is a bit of the committee effect at work, very >> sensible goals mixed in with almost contrary positions, but the shift >> toward knowledge about language is palpable, very welcome. I look >> forward to reading the appendix. >>    What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is >> huge >> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >> society and complex academic disciplines. Students need to be MENTORED >> into that, and we have no chance at all of doing that without >> demystifying what is required. >>    I do believe that students need to learn to position themselves in >> relation to important contentious issues, but I worry very much about >> what Tannen calls our "argument culture", which tends to force us to >> pick a side instead of exploring possibilities and doesn't encourage >> us to admit that we don't really know enough to be certain. I tend to >> emphasize the idea of making a contribution to an ongoing >> conversation--our disciplines, to the extent that they are functional, >> are dialogic, and science in particular asks us to hedge in >> appropriate ways. For the most part, though, English classes shift >> from essays about literature to rather mechanical research projects. >> We should do more reportorial and issue related writing, paying >> attention to the ways in which those purposes are realized through >> language. I think these standards are at least an attempt to expand >> the range of discourse we should attend to in our English classes. >> >> Craig >> >> >> Craig et al., >>> Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." I >>> think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to >>> consult on the language-related standards. The language-related >>> standards >>> were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, >>> suggesting >>> that the only reason to think about language at all would be for >>> editing >>> formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I >>> responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that >>> presents >>> current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that >>> some >>> of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed >>> "knowledge >>> ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of >>> clauses >>> and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were >>> not. >>> The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on >>> teaching >>> the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I'm glad >>> that >>> they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of >>> knowledge about language.  As far as I know, I am the only person with >>> a >>> background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a >>> consultant on the project, and that concerns me. >>> >>> Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of >>> second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an >>> unrealistic >>> dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools  - >>> an >>> urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA >>> curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level >>> of >>> informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their classmates. >>> I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop a >>> vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't >>> taught >>> until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher >>> and >>> university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's Choice >>> writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that >>> K-12 >>> students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks >>> than >>> we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies >>> out >>> of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use >>> America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement >>> on >>> 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable >>> literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that >>> the >>> higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on >>> argumentative and informational writing in the America's Choice >>> program. >>> >>> Amanda >>> >>> >>> On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Ed, >>>    They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other >>> hand, >>> I >>> think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some >>> time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they >>> have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in >>> many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive >>> those schools that  whole schools suffer from low expectations, not >>> from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these >>> students come to college, but they respond very well to raised >>> expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do >>> much more. >>>    If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I >>> wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) >>> for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support >>> necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for >>> high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing >>> with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though, >>> is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are >>> saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) >>>    It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to >>> write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If >>> you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already >>> have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to >>> be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained >>> goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows >>> what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem to >>> be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can >>> guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like >>> "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an >>> opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact that >>> many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different >>> from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place >>> in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world >>> or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't >>> seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the >>> ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the drug >>> dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets sick?) >>> I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where >>> engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking >>> about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't >>> see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high >>> school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they >>> don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem articulated >>> as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very >>> natural developments of the students' own voices and interests >>> (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their >>> interest to find out and to articulate.) >>>    I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times >>> seem >>> strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. >>> >>> Craig> >>> >>> >>> Craig et al, >>>>      Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I.  He >>>> gives >>>> a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade: >>>>      Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce >>>> a >>>> topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present >>>> similar >>>> information together using headers to signal groupings when >>>> appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or            section. >>>>      And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate >>>> for >>>> college literature classes.  (Once again, I agree.) >>>>      I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever taught >>>> below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and >>>> I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ed, >>>>>    My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very >>>>> much >>>>> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of >>>>> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the language >>>>> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars >>>>> are >>>>> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns >>>>> within the genres. >>>>>    I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he >>>>> think >>>>> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be staggering? >>>>> >>>>> Craig> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Herb.  Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing >>>>>> standards?  Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current >>>>>> issue of Education Week.  He calls them an instance of "magical >>>>>> thinking," and I agree totally.  If they are adopted and enforced, >>>>>> the >>>>>> dropout rate will be staggering. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org. >>>>>>>  Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that >>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language (not >>>>>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for >>>>>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and >>>>>>> clauses >>>>>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems >>>>>>> to me >>>>>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of >>>>>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. >>>>>>>    Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> ********** >>> Dr. Amanda J. Godley >>> Associate Professor >>> English Education >>> Department of Instruction and Learning >>> University of Pittsburgh >>> 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall >>> 412-648-7313 >>> >>> >>> 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/ > 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/ --0-1892635063-1276359064=:50921 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1892635063-1276359064=:50921-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:13:25 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00c09f9b0bfc4f6f130488d78ad8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I continue to find your contributions to this list invaluable. All teachers have a challenging job, and language arts teachers sometimes feel even more challenged by the ambiguities that exist in their curriculum. It can be difficult to bring linguists and language arts teachers to the same table (for a variety of reasons), but when we do, the least effective use of that time is debate over theory. I'm not suggesting that debate (or theory) is without value. I simply believe we must pick our battles wisely and make the most of any interaction between linguists and primary/secondary teachers. As someone attempting to apply both the art and the science of language in the classroom, I'm interested in how someone's view of language can help me in that endeavor. I have encountered very few theories or schools of thought so far that cannot contribute *something* to my classroom. Craig's contributions to this list are directly responsible for my exposure to cognitive and discourse-based approaches to grammar, and I am very grateful for that. However, I do recognize that it is just one approach -- *one* tool in a toolbelt that has room for many more. So, following Herb's metaphor, perhaps I'm "polytheistic" when it comes to my grammar religion. I think we all wish there were one simple, unified "theory" or approach to grammar that would solve our classroom woes, but in this case, I'm coming around to the idea of the more the merrier! John Alexander On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:27 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F.W. <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Bob and Craig, > > > > I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of > language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor way > with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the early 70s, > and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology better—not > surprisingly, I suppose, since that’s what I did my dissertation on. I find > both broad categories of theory glaringly underdetermined by data. In other > words, there is no way to clearly falsify either approach. Cognitive > learning theory has for a long time made allowance for the production and > comprehension of structures that go beyond input data, so I don’t see that > as a serious flaw in what’s broadly called functionalism. There is no > question that formal syntactic theories make powerful predictions about the > structure of sentences and the nature of syntactic systems. That they don’t > deal with discourse structure is not a flaw as much as a definition of the > scope of syntactic theory. I’ve used both formal syntactic and functional > explanations in the classroom, and they’ve both added clarity—and sometimes > subtracted clarity. A work like Mark Baker’s _The Atoms of Language_ is a > fascinating and seductive exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey > Sampson’s *Educating Eve* is a trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and > the Language Acquisition Device. > > > > I would say that, in contemporary usage, I’m agnostic as to the debate, but > I’m definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I’m > indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them useful > and interesting. > > > > Herb > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Geoffrey Layton > *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: common core standards > > > > Bob > > Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker > would never say, *"I put the pen the table"* or *"I put the pen on"* (but > would say, *"I put my clothes on"* ), then we really don't have to spend > too much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, > similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's > "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as simply, > "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And regarding your > innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them so positively - > not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of writers struggling > to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning that they're in the > process of discovering? And does this imply that grammar should be taught in > a way that helps students create meaning and that "innovative structures" > are simply part of that process? > > Geoff Layton > > PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - > my first ATEG experience! > > > > > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > SubjeTo 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/ --00c09f9b0bfc4f6f130488d78ad8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I continue to find your contributions to this list invaluable.

All teachers have a challenging job, and language arts teachers sometimes feel even more challenged by the ambiguities that exist in their curriculum. It can be difficult to bring linguists and language arts teachers to the same table (for a variety of reasons), but when we do, the least effective use of that time is debate over theory. I'm not suggesting that debate (or theory) is without value. I simply believe we must pick our battles wisely and make the most of any interaction between linguists and primary/secondary teachers.

As someone attempting to apply both the art and the science of language in the classroom, I'm interested in how someone's view of language can help me in that endeavor. I have encountered very few theories or schools of thought so far that cannot contribute something to my classroom. Craig's contributions to this list are directly responsible for my exposure to cognitive and discourse-based approaches to grammar, and I am very grateful for that. However, I do recognize that it is just one approach -- one tool in a toolbelt that has room for many more.

So, following Herb's metaphor, perhaps I'm "polytheistic" when it comes to my grammar religion. I think we all wish there were one simple, unified "theory" or approach to grammar that would solve our classroom woes, but in this case, I'm coming around to the idea of the more the merrier!

John Alexander

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00c09f9b0bfc4f6f130488d78ad8-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:51:35 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Herb, This is a very thoughtful position, and I certainly welcome the idea that people who may disagree on theory can come together to jointly lobby for increased attention to grammar. You're right; many of the functionalists tend to present their views in contrast to the generative position, and that seems a useful conversation. One widespread notion, of course, is that grammar is primarily a set of prescriptive rules that need to be followed to write "correctly". The minimalist position seems to grow out of the idea that students need to jump through those painful hoops, but might be able to do that with a minimum of attention. That position seems shaky enough that most people seem at least ready to embrace the need for more robust understanding--to promote some comfort with standard English and some fluency with punctuation. The most explicit of the core standards are framed around punctuation--to set off introductory elements, for example, or between coordinate adjectives, or to set off nonrestrictive postnominal modifiers. By the ways these are phrased, it would seem at least suggested that these would be made explicit, not simply intuited through soft explanations. Beyond that, the question then becomes how do we theorize (or describe) a connection between knowledge about grammar and effective writing. The common core standards don't make those connections as well as they could, but maybe that's asking much at this early stage. It would be useful, I think, to promote experiments with teaching grammars that make connection between form and meaning, between grammar and discourse, more routinely. It's probably a bit early to expect that to be prescribed nationwide. Craig Craig, > > Sorry about the blank message. The debates, both between formalists and > functionalists and between the pro and anti grammar folks in composition > and language arts, are far from over. The former debate is a very > productive one, stimulating scholarship on both sides, just what we want > in an academic debate. The latter debate, unfortunately, is between > informed understanding and ideology, to put it starkly, and that sort of > debate is much more perilous. I'm not sure I'd call the widespread > acceptance of the claim that we don't have to teach grammar to native > speakers politically correct so much as received wisdom based on ignorance > and misconception. The idea that we have innate knowledge of language, > however we might choose to formulate that, is a far cry from the idea that > we have innate knowledge of our own language or that our unexpressable > intuitions as native speakers are sufficient for skilled, compelling > writing. That is the point that we need to keep hammering away at, that > explicit knowledge of how English works has clear yield for learning to > write well. > > Herb > > > Herb, > One problem, as I see it, is that those educators who are opposed to > teaching about language are NOT agnostic on this issue. They have a > view (maybe "theory" would imply that they have paid more attention) > that grammar is formal and that the study of formal grammar does not > carry over to writing. The point I am trying to make--I'm not trying > to open up the theory debate--is that those conclusions have never > taken into account the views about language being developed in the > functional camps. In other words, if grammar is not thought of as a > formal system, perhaps it can carry over to writing in a very dramatic > way. > If you say "you don't need to teach grammar to a native speaker" at a > writing conference, many people will nod their heads, though they have > never seriously explored the issue. It is a politically correct > position and has been for some time. > Can we at least agree that the case isn't closed? If our understanding > of grammar shifts, then the value of learning about it (not just > acquiring it) might shift as well? > > Craig >> > > > Bob and Craig, >> >> I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of >> language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor >> way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the >> early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology >> better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my >> dissertation on. I find both broad categories of theory glaringly >> underdetermined by data. In other words, there is no way to clearly >> falsify either approach. Cognitive learning theory has for a long time >> made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that >> go >> beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's >> broadly >> called functionalism. There is no question that formal syntactic >> theories >> make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the >> nature >> of syntactic systems. That they don't deal with discourse structure is >> not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory. >> I've >> used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, >> and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity. A work >> like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive >> exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is >> a >> trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition >> Device. >> >> I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, >> but I'm definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that >> I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them >> useful and interesting. >> >> Herb >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: common core standards >> >> Bob >> >> Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker >> would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but >> would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend >> too >> much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, >> similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's >> "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as >> simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And >> regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe >> them >> so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of >> writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning >> that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that >> grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and >> that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? >> >> Geoff Layton >> >> PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City >> - >> my first ATEG experience! >> >> >> >>> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 >>> From: [log in to unmask] >>> SubjeTo 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:37:39 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, The only standards I've studied in detail are the Indiana Language Arts Standards. If their wording is taken seriously, they presuppose considerable grammatical and linguistic knowledge on the part of teachers. Needless to say, they are not being applied in that way. There is little connection between the standards and what is taught in English Ed. methods courses, although my English Ed. colleagues would strongly disagree. And there is little connection between the content of undergrad grammar courses, typically taught by linguists, and either the content of methods courses or the state standards. I find myself in the oddly gratifying position of teaching my first ever online course this summer. It's a graduate intro to linguistics for teachers working on ESL certification. The course was designed, from textbook and readings collection to course paper, with the standards in mind. While I'm not comfortable yet with the asynchronous, completely on line format, I am pleased with the sense I get from teachers that the content does have some relevance to what they are doing. It is no surprise that we seem to be able to make this work within linguistics and ESL more easily than across disciplines. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: common core standards Herb, This is a very thoughtful position, and I certainly welcome the idea that people who may disagree on theory can come together to jointly lobby for increased attention to grammar. You're right; many of the functionalists tend to present their views in contrast to the generative position, and that seems a useful conversation. One widespread notion, of course, is that grammar is primarily a set of prescriptive rules that need to be followed to write "correctly". The minimalist position seems to grow out of the idea that students need to jump through those painful hoops, but might be able to do that with a minimum of attention. That position seems shaky enough that most people seem at least ready to embrace the need for more robust understanding--to promote some comfort with standard English and some fluency with punctuation. The most explicit of the core standards are framed around punctuation--to set off introductory elements, for example, or between coordinate adjectives, or to set off nonrestrictive postnominal modifiers. By the ways these are phrased, it would seem at least suggested that these would be made explicit, not simply intuited through soft explanations. Beyond that, the question then becomes how do we theorize (or describe) a connection between knowledge about grammar and effective writing. The common core standards don't make those connections as well as they could, but maybe that's asking much at this early stage. It would be useful, I think, to promote experiments with teaching grammars that make connection between form and meaning, between grammar and discourse, more routinely. It's probably a bit early to expect that to be prescribed nationwide. Craig Craig, > > Sorry about the blank message. The debates, both between formalists and > functionalists and between the pro and anti grammar folks in composition > and language arts, are far from over. The former debate is a very > productive one, stimulating scholarship on both sides, just what we want > in an academic debate. The latter debate, unfortunately, is between > informed understanding and ideology, to put it starkly, and that sort of > debate is much more perilous. I'm not sure I'd call the widespread > acceptance of the claim that we don't have to teach grammar to native > speakers politically correct so much as received wisdom based on ignorance > and misconception. The idea that we have innate knowledge of language, > however we might choose to formulate that, is a far cry from the idea that > we have innate knowledge of our own language or that our unexpressable > intuitions as native speakers are sufficient for skilled, compelling > writing. That is the point that we need to keep hammering away at, that > explicit knowledge of how English works has clear yield for learning to > write well. > > Herb > > > Herb, > One problem, as I see it, is that those educators who are opposed to > teaching about language are NOT agnostic on this issue. They have a > view (maybe "theory" would imply that they have paid more attention) > that grammar is formal and that the study of formal grammar does not > carry over to writing. The point I am trying to make--I'm not trying > to open up the theory debate--is that those conclusions have never > taken into account the views about language being developed in the > functional camps. In other words, if grammar is not thought of as a > formal system, perhaps it can carry over to writing in a very dramatic > way. > If you say "you don't need to teach grammar to a native speaker" at a > writing conference, many people will nod their heads, though they have > never seriously explored the issue. It is a politically correct > position and has been for some time. > Can we at least agree that the case isn't closed? If our understanding > of grammar shifts, then the value of learning about it (not just > acquiring it) might shift as well? > > Craig >> > > > Bob and Craig, >> >> I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of >> language. I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor >> way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the >> early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology >> better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my >> dissertation on. I find both broad categories of theory glaringly >> underdetermined by data. In other words, there is no way to clearly >> falsify either approach. Cognitive learning theory has for a long time >> made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that >> go >> beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's >> broadly >> called functionalism. There is no question that formal syntactic >> theories >> make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the >> nature >> of syntactic systems. That they don't deal with discourse structure is >> not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory. >> I've >> used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, >> and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity. A work >> like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive >> exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is >> a >> trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition >> Device. >> >> I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, >> but I'm definitely not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that >> I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them >> useful and interesting. >> >> Herb >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: common core standards >> >> Bob >> >> Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker >> would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but >> would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend >> too >> much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, >> similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's >> "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as >> simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And >> regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe >> them >> so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of >> writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning >> that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that >> grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and >> that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? >> >> Geoff Layton >> >> PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City >> - >> my first ATEG experience! >> >> >> >>> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500 >>> From: [log in to unmask] >>> SubjeTo 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/ 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:27:55 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Craig, are you sure you understood my example? Here are the two sentences: 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. In (1) he is referring to Craig. Now, my knowledge of English grammar makes (1) decidedly odd if the writer could have written (2). Given you analysis, do you accept (1) in the writing of your students when they really mean (2)? If you do, then you deny the purpose of my example. (By the way, in edited writing, I have never seen 1 for 2, have you?) **** One of the great mysteries of language acquisition is that we clearly need some kind of input. We are not born knowing the lexicon of a language. On the other hand, we have judgments about grammatical constructions that we have never seen. I'm confident you have never seen or read sentence (3), yet you recognize it as English. 3) There is the woman whose daughter my daughter is prettier than. There are myriad of examples like this. Bob Yates >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/11/10 3:18 PM >>> Bob, It is hard for me to see this: "If students produce strings that they have never seen before than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed." The term "strictly" is your own addition. If you take the strictly out, how do you get from A to B? Do you see vocabulary as innate as well? It seems to me a similar sort of problem: Why do students use words in ways that differ from what they see in print? My do they misspell or punctuate so awkwardly? "According to..." and "claims" seem to me very important ways to carry out what I sometimes call the attributive function. I work with a text--"They Say/ I Say"--that helps students learn these functions through schematic structures. It's OK to say "According to Craig, he claimed the painting was his when we first saw it..." The problem comes in when we shift to the present tense. The structure works (carries out its function) when you need a kind of double distancing--he claims that he once claimed. You can also make it work for present tense. "According to Craig, he claims that he loves his wife every time she asks." The writer is effectively saying that he isn't sure about the loving or even about the fact that the claiming is happening, but is sure that Craig has said so. This seems to me a problem for a certain kind of verb (like asserts), but not for others. "According to Craig, he plays a good guitar." I would tend to treat it like evidence that grammar is often very locally tied to one or a small group of words. It has to do, at least from my view, with how we cognitively understand the notion of claiming. Cognitive grammar deals with this all the time. Also involved is the discourse function of attribution, which puts the writer/speaker at some distance from an assertion. My students often do so awkwardly as they are learning how to do it, which is true of so many things in life. (I don't necessarily hear every aspect of the music I listen to. What I hear, now that I know so much more about music, is so much more than I heard before.) I don't know about you, but my students don't notice a great deal of what they read. If you slow things down and direct their attention, they have a better shot at it. They are certainly not used to thinking about "how" an essay means. If grammar is emergent and dynamic, it is also constantly innovative. I'm not sure how innate grammar accounts for grammaticalization. Craig > Craig and I come from very different disciplines. I think that may > account for why we see the nature of language and the nature of evidence > so differently. Craig writes: > > Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an > interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. > > Here is why I think that is important for this thread and more importantly > for teaching. > > Craig has written the following about the nature of grammar. > > What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is > huge change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar > is > innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the > notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the > realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. > > If grammar is learned, then the question how students produce strings they > have never seen before is very relevant. (Innovative structures pose a > serious problem for the claim that language is learned and not the > property of innate principles.) > > Likewise, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, then what these > innovative structures say about our students' cognition and ability to > construct a coherent discourse is very relevant, too. > > I take seriously the notion that we have to begin teaching where are > students are. When it comes to grammar, this means we need an > understanding that is a plausible explanation for why students do what > they do. If students produce strings, that they have never seen before > than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > > >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 5:24 PM >>> > Bob, > The claim I made is not about language, but about views that are being > developed by linguists. I'm not sure why you are frustrated by that. > A number of studies have shown (or purportedly show) that study of > formal grammar doesn't carry over to writing. The development of > functional understandings of grammar would open that issue up. It's > not, as far as I can tell, an exorbitant claim. > Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an > interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. > > Craig > > Colleagues, >> >> It can be so frustrating exchanging views with Craig. He makes claims >> about language that are at such a high level of generality it is >> impossible to relate them to the issues those of us who teach language >> (and I'm including writing) face. >> >> An issue my colleague Jim Kenkel and I have been thinking and writing >> about is how to account for strings (grammatical forms) in our students' >> writing that don't seem to occur in the edited reading that they do. I >> tried to give an example of such a form. Students write (1) for (2), >> the >> form that occurs in edited writing. >> >> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >> discourse. >> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >> >> Craig in the previous post said that grammar is "inevitably tied to >> cognition and discourse." And, in his last post, he writes about >> grammar: >> >> The view is simply that it is picked up using >> normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern >> finding (Michael Tomasello). >> >> If (2) is the only pattern our students encounter in their reading, how >> is >> they that produce (1) if grammar is the result of pattern finding? >> >> (I could make the same point with a "mixed construction." Mixed >> constructions don't occur in edited writing, but our students produce >> them. It seems to me this fact suggests that much more is going on than >> "pattern finding." ) >> >> I wish he would apply his views of grammar to real world issues we >> teachers face. However, it is frustrating when his posts and responses >> remain at such a high level of generality. >> >> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >> >> Jim Kenkel and I in the last issue of Written Communication in 2009 >> offer >> an explanation for what we think is going on with such innovations. Of >> course, the paper suggests the need to teach grammar, but it is not from >> the perspective Craig has offered here. >> >>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 6/10/2010 2:04 PM >>> >> Bob, >> There are, of course, many linguists, yourself included, trained in >> generative approaches, who still hold those views, just as there were >> many functionalist linguists while generative grammar held strong >> sway. The comment was about a trend toward functionalism, which I >> think is accurate. >> As I think you know, saying that grammar is learned doesn't mean it >> was >> directly taught. People used language for thousands of years without >> theorizing a grammar. The view is simply that it is picked up using >> normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern >> finding (Michael Tomasello). The view is that children learn about the >> world and acquire the appropriate language simultaneously. It is a >> social semiotic. >> Many people who argue against direct teaching of grammar seem to be >> saying that grammar itself is not meaningful. If your view of grammar >> is that it is deeply tied to both cognition and discourse and that it >> is much more emergent and dynamic than previously believed, then there >> are radical implications for whether or not it should be taught. Those >> implications have not been fully thought through. >> You and I, of course, see it differently. Others on the list may >> well >> be unaware that new views about language are emerging. There are good >> reasons to see the value of knowledge about language as not yet >> settled as an issue. >> >> Craig> >> >> >> I want to cite the following from Craig because it is too contentious >> and >>> can be worded in a way that is more useful. >>> >>> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is huge >>> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >>> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >>> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >>> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >>> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >>> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >>> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >>> society and complex academic disciplines. >>> >>> *** >>> I have decades of experience teaching both native and non-native >>> speakers >>> English. If it is true grammar is not innate but learned, then why is >>> it >>> the case that so many aspects of English have to be taught to >>> non-native >>> speakers that are NEVER mentioned to native speakers? Here are some >>> examples: I have never talked about the count-non-count distinction of >>> English nouns to native speakers, the nature of phrasal verbs, the lack >>> of >>> overt agreement on modal auxiliaries, the property of reverse-psych >>> verbs >>> with the experiencer in the object position (compare "Bob likes movies" >>> to >>> "movies fascinate Bob"), the article system. to name a few. >>> >>> Likewise, if important aspects of grammar is not a formal system, but >>> tied >>> to "cognition and discourse," then we have two problems as teachers. >>> First, why is it the case that the Germanic languages lack any verbal >>> morphology indicating future time, but the Romance languages do? Does >>> this mean we English speakers have difficulty conceiving future time? >>> Why >>> is it the case that English requires something overt in the subject >>> position (noun phrase or pronoun) in tensed clauses, but almost all >>> other >>> languages of the world don't? What does this fact reveal about English >>> speakers cognition in relation to speakers of almost all other >>> languages? >>> >>> A second and more serious teaching problem with claim that grammar is >>> tied >>> to "cognition and discourse" is the implication when our students >>> innovate >>> and use grammatical forms that don't occur in edited texts. What does >>> this perspective say about the cognition of a student who writes (1) (a >>> very common construction in the students I teach) for the standard (2)? >>> >>> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >>> discourse. >>> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >>> >>> Do we really want to say the student who wrote (1) is cognitively >>> different than the student who wrote (2) or when student (1) writes (2) >>> her cognition changes? >>> >>> **** >>> Clearly, there is a difference in the kind of grammar we encounter in >>> the >>> written language than what we encounter in the spoken language. >>> Whatever >>> our perspective is on how we come to know grammar, we did need to know >>> more about those differences and the implication those differences for >>> students to be successful in school. >>> >>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> >>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 9:10 AM >>> >>> Amanda, et. al. >>> >>> Amanda, you should be absolutely commended for your influence in >>> this. I think there is a bit of the committee effect at work, very >>> sensible goals mixed in with almost contrary positions, but the shift >>> toward knowledge about language is palpable, very welcome. I look >>> forward to reading the appendix. >>> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is >>> huge >>> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >>> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >>> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >>> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >>> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >>> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >>> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >>> society and complex academic disciplines. Students need to be MENTORED >>> into that, and we have no chance at all of doing that without >>> demystifying what is required. >>> I do believe that students need to learn to position themselves in >>> relation to important contentious issues, but I worry very much about >>> what Tannen calls our "argument culture", which tends to force us to >>> pick a side instead of exploring possibilities and doesn't encourage >>> us to admit that we don't really know enough to be certain. I tend to >>> emphasize the idea of making a contribution to an ongoing >>> conversation--our disciplines, to the extent that they are functional, >>> are dialogic, and science in particular asks us to hedge in >>> appropriate ways. For the most part, though, English classes shift >>> from essays about literature to rather mechanical research projects. >>> We should do more reportorial and issue related writing, paying >>> attention to the ways in which those purposes are realized through >>> language. I think these standards are at least an attempt to expand >>> the range of discourse we should attend to in our English classes. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> Craig et al., >>>> Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." >>>> I >>>> think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to >>>> consult on the language-related standards. The language-related >>>> standards >>>> were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, >>>> suggesting >>>> that the only reason to think about language at all would be for >>>> editing >>>> formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I >>>> responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that >>>> presents >>>> current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that >>>> some >>>> of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed >>>> "knowledge >>>> ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of >>>> clauses >>>> and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were >>>> not. >>>> The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on >>>> teaching >>>> the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I'm glad >>>> that >>>> they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of >>>> knowledge about language. As far as I know, I am the only person with >>>> a >>>> background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a >>>> consultant on the project, and that concerns me. >>>> >>>> Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of >>>> second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an >>>> unrealistic >>>> dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools >>>> - >>>> an >>>> urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA >>>> curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level >>>> of >>>> informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their >>>> classmates. >>>> I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop >>>> a >>>> vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't >>>> taught >>>> until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher >>>> and >>>> university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's >>>> Choice >>>> writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that >>>> K-12 >>>> students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks >>>> than >>>> we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies >>>> out >>>> of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use >>>> America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement >>>> on >>>> 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable >>>> literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that >>>> the >>>> higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on >>>> argumentative and informational writing in the America's Choice >>>> program. >>>> >>>> Amanda >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ed, >>>> They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other >>>> hand, >>>> I >>>> think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some >>>> time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they >>>> have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in >>>> many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive >>>> those schools that whole schools suffer from low expectations, not >>>> from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these >>>> students come to college, but they respond very well to raised >>>> expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do >>>> much more. >>>> If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I >>>> wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) >>>> for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support >>>> necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for >>>> high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing >>>> with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though, >>>> is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are >>>> saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) >>>> It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to >>>> write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If >>>> you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already >>>> have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to >>>> be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained >>>> goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows >>>> what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem >>>> to >>>> be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can >>>> guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like >>>> "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an >>>> opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact >>>> that >>>> many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different >>>> from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place >>>> in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world >>>> or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't >>>> seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the >>>> ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the >>>> drug >>>> dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets >>>> sick?) >>>> I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where >>>> engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking >>>> about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't >>>> see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high >>>> school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they >>>> don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem >>>> articulated >>>> as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very >>>> natural developments of the students' own voices and interests >>>> (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their >>>> interest to find out and to articulate.) >>>> I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times >>>> seem >>>> strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. >>>> >>>> Craig> >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig et al, >>>>> Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I. He >>>>> gives >>>>> a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade: >>>>> Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce >>>>> a >>>>> topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present >>>>> similar >>>>> information together using headers to signal groupings when >>>>> appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or >>>>> section. >>>>> And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate >>>>> for >>>>> college literature classes. (Once again, I agree.) >>>>> I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever >>>>> taught >>>>> below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and >>>>> I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this >>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ed, >>>>>> My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very >>>>>> much >>>>>> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of >>>>>> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the >>>>>> language >>>>>> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars >>>>>> are >>>>>> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns >>>>>> within the genres. >>>>>> I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he >>>>>> think >>>>>> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be >>>>>> staggering? >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Herb. Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing >>>>>>> standards? Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current >>>>>>> issue of Education Week. He calls them an instance of "magical >>>>>>> thinking," and I agree totally. If they are adopted and enforced, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> dropout rate will be staggering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org. >>>>>>>> Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that >>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language >>>>>>>> (not >>>>>>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for >>>>>>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and >>>>>>>> clauses >>>>>>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems >>>>>>>> to me >>>>>>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of >>>>>>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. >>>>>>>> Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> ********** >>>> Dr. Amanda J. Godley >>>> Associate Professor >>>> English Education >>>> Department of Instruction and Learning >>>> University of Pittsburgh >>>> 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall >>>> 412-648-7313 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/ >> > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:46:39 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bob, I think I understood (understand) your example very well. I simply don't agree that you can use it as some sort of "proof" that grammar is innate rather than learned using ordinary (nonspecial) cognitive capabilities. What I have seen from students over and over again is that when they are trying to do new things with language, they will do so awkwardly. I work very hard with my students to help them learn how to attribute perspectives and claims that are offered by other people. "According to..." and "claims" are two ways of doing that function, a function that most students don't have sufficient practice with. I wouldn't be at all surprised by that sentence. My view--and I don't expect you to agree--is that the operative grammar is locally tied to the notion of "claiming" and both "claiming' and the schematic structure "according to X" are tied to the goal of trying to place our own perspectives within a dialogic frame. These are very important in journalism and academic writing. (They are some of "the moves that matter in academic writing"). I would also say they are hugely important for civil discourse in a civil society, something very much threatened in our current climate, where we tune into the narrow channels that reinforce our beliefs and demonize the opposition. ("Claims", of course, can be sarcastic at various levels. You can anticipate the "but". "Craig claims that grammar is tied to discourse and cognition, but...") Do we really know a word if we don't know the full range of its meanings? Do we know a grammatical construction if we haven't mastered the full range of its uses? A functionalist would likely answer "no" to that. A student doers not know close to an adult grammar when they come to school precisely because they haven't learned to use language with an adult sophistication. If students have trouble understanding a text, is it at least in part because they are not seeing the connections between the words? I think it is probably not possible for us to agree with each other about core issues, but I do think it is important for this list that opposing views (such as ours) are welcomed into the conversation. I do believe that new approaches are called for, and I apologize if that seems an attack on those who have supported older positions. It may be more useful to lay out our own views separately (internally consistent) rather than present them as argument. Craig > Craig, are you sure you understood my example? Here are the two > sentences: > > 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and > discourse. > 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. > > In (1) he is referring to Craig. Now, my knowledge of English grammar > makes (1) decidedly odd if the writer could have written (2). > > Given you analysis, do you accept (1) in the writing of your students when > they really mean (2)? If you do, then you deny the purpose of my example. > (By the way, in edited writing, I have never seen 1 for 2, have you?) > > **** > One of the great mysteries of language acquisition is that we clearly need > some kind of input. We are not born knowing the lexicon of a language. > On the other hand, we have judgments about grammatical constructions that > we have never seen. > > I'm confident you have never seen or read sentence (3), yet you recognize > it as English. > > 3) There is the woman whose daughter my daughter is prettier than. > > There are myriad of examples like this. > > Bob Yates > > > >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/11/10 3:18 PM >>> > Bob, > It is hard for me to see this: > "If students produce strings that they have never seen before than an > explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is flawed." > > The term "strictly" is your own addition. If you take the strictly > out, how do you get from A to B? > > Do you see vocabulary as innate as well? It seems to me a similar sort > of problem: Why do students use words in ways that differ from what > they see in print? My do they misspell or punctuate so awkwardly? > > "According to..." and "claims" seem to me very important ways to > carry out what I sometimes call the attributive function. I work with > a text--"They Say/ I Say"--that helps students learn these functions > through schematic structures. > > It's OK to say "According to Craig, he claimed the painting was his > when we first saw it..." The problem comes in when we shift to the > present tense. The structure works (carries out its function) when you > need a kind of double distancing--he claims that he once claimed. > > You can also make it work for present tense. "According to Craig, he > claims that he loves his wife every time she asks." The writer is > effectively saying that he isn't sure about the loving or even about > the fact that the claiming is happening, but is sure that Craig has > said so. > > This seems to me a problem for a certain kind of verb (like asserts), > but not for others. "According to Craig, he plays a good guitar." I > would tend to treat it like evidence that grammar is often very > locally tied to one or a small group of words. It has to do, at least > from my view, with how we cognitively understand the notion of > claiming. Cognitive grammar deals with this all the time. Also > involved is the discourse function of attribution, which puts the > writer/speaker at some distance from an assertion. My students often > do so awkwardly as they are learning how to do it, which is true of so > many things in life. (I don't necessarily hear every aspect of the > music I listen to. What I hear, now that I know so much more about > music, is so much more than I heard before.) > > I don't know about you, but my students don't notice a great deal of > what they read. If you slow things down and direct their attention, > they have a better shot at it. They are certainly not used to thinking > about "how" an essay means. > > If grammar is emergent and dynamic, it is also constantly innovative. > I'm not sure how innate grammar accounts for grammaticalization. > > > > Craig > > >> > > > Craig and I come from very different disciplines. I think that may >> account for why we see the nature of language and the nature of evidence >> so differently. Craig writes: >> >> Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an >> interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. >> >> Here is why I think that is important for this thread and more >> importantly >> for teaching. >> >> Craig has written the following about the nature of grammar. >> >> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is >> huge change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that >> grammar >> is >> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. >> >> If grammar is learned, then the question how students produce strings >> they >> have never seen before is very relevant. (Innovative structures pose a >> serious problem for the claim that language is learned and not the >> property of innate principles.) >> >> Likewise, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, then what these >> innovative structures say about our students' cognition and ability to >> construct a coherent discourse is very relevant, too. >> >> I take seriously the notion that we have to begin teaching where are >> students are. When it comes to grammar, this means we need an >> understanding that is a plausible explanation for why students do what >> they do. If students produce strings, that they have never seen before >> than an explanation that grammar is learned strictly from input is >> flawed. >> >> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >> >> >>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 5:24 PM >>> >> Bob, >> The claim I made is not about language, but about views that are >> being >> developed by linguists. I'm not sure why you are frustrated by that. >> A number of studies have shown (or purportedly show) that study of >> formal grammar doesn't carry over to writing. The development of >> functional understandings of grammar would open that issue up. It's >> not, as far as I can tell, an exorbitant claim. >> Why our students write things they have never seen in writing is an >> interesting question. I'm not sure of the connection to this thread. >> >> Craig >> >> Colleagues, >>> >>> It can be so frustrating exchanging views with Craig. He makes claims >>> about language that are at such a high level of generality it is >>> impossible to relate them to the issues those of us who teach language >>> (and I'm including writing) face. >>> >>> An issue my colleague Jim Kenkel and I have been thinking and writing >>> about is how to account for strings (grammatical forms) in our >>> students' >>> writing that don't seem to occur in the edited reading that they do. I >>> tried to give an example of such a form. Students write (1) for (2), >>> the >>> form that occurs in edited writing. >>> >>> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >>> discourse. >>> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >>> >>> Craig in the previous post said that grammar is "inevitably tied to >>> cognition and discourse." And, in his last post, he writes about >>> grammar: >>> >>> The view is simply that it is picked up using >>> normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern >>> finding (Michael Tomasello). >>> >>> If (2) is the only pattern our students encounter in their reading, how >>> is >>> they that produce (1) if grammar is the result of pattern finding? >>> >>> (I could make the same point with a "mixed construction." Mixed >>> constructions don't occur in edited writing, but our students produce >>> them. It seems to me this fact suggests that much more is going on >>> than >>> "pattern finding." ) >>> >>> I wish he would apply his views of grammar to real world issues we >>> teachers face. However, it is frustrating when his posts and responses >>> remain at such a high level of generality. >>> >>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> >>> Jim Kenkel and I in the last issue of Written Communication in 2009 >>> offer >>> an explanation for what we think is going on with such innovations. Of >>> course, the paper suggests the need to teach grammar, but it is not >>> from >>> the perspective Craig has offered here. >>> >>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 6/10/2010 2:04 PM >>> >>> Bob, >>> There are, of course, many linguists, yourself included, trained in >>> generative approaches, who still hold those views, just as there were >>> many functionalist linguists while generative grammar held strong >>> sway. The comment was about a trend toward functionalism, which I >>> think is accurate. >>> As I think you know, saying that grammar is learned doesn't mean it >>> was >>> directly taught. People used language for thousands of years without >>> theorizing a grammar. The view is simply that it is picked up using >>> normal cognitive processes: for example, intention reading and pattern >>> finding (Michael Tomasello). The view is that children learn about the >>> world and acquire the appropriate language simultaneously. It is a >>> social semiotic. >>> Many people who argue against direct teaching of grammar seem to be >>> saying that grammar itself is not meaningful. If your view of grammar >>> is that it is deeply tied to both cognition and discourse and that it >>> is much more emergent and dynamic than previously believed, then there >>> are radical implications for whether or not it should be taught. Those >>> implications have not been fully thought through. >>> You and I, of course, see it differently. Others on the list may >>> well >>> be unaware that new views about language are emerging. There are good >>> reasons to see the value of knowledge about language as not yet >>> settled as an issue. >>> >>> Craig> >>> >>> >>> I want to cite the following from Craig because it is too contentious >>> and >>>> can be worded in a way that is more useful. >>>> >>>> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is huge >>>> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >>>> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >>>> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >>>> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >>>> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >>>> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >>>> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >>>> society and complex academic disciplines. >>>> >>>> *** >>>> I have decades of experience teaching both native and non-native >>>> speakers >>>> English. If it is true grammar is not innate but learned, then why is >>>> it >>>> the case that so many aspects of English have to be taught to >>>> non-native >>>> speakers that are NEVER mentioned to native speakers? Here are some >>>> examples: I have never talked about the count-non-count distinction >>>> of >>>> English nouns to native speakers, the nature of phrasal verbs, the >>>> lack >>>> of >>>> overt agreement on modal auxiliaries, the property of reverse-psych >>>> verbs >>>> with the experiencer in the object position (compare "Bob likes >>>> movies" >>>> to >>>> "movies fascinate Bob"), the article system. to name a few. >>>> >>>> Likewise, if important aspects of grammar is not a formal system, but >>>> tied >>>> to "cognition and discourse," then we have two problems as teachers. >>>> First, why is it the case that the Germanic languages lack any verbal >>>> morphology indicating future time, but the Romance languages do? Does >>>> this mean we English speakers have difficulty conceiving future time? >>>> Why >>>> is it the case that English requires something overt in the subject >>>> position (noun phrase or pronoun) in tensed clauses, but almost all >>>> other >>>> languages of the world don't? What does this fact reveal about >>>> English >>>> speakers cognition in relation to speakers of almost all other >>>> languages? >>>> >>>> A second and more serious teaching problem with claim that grammar is >>>> tied >>>> to "cognition and discourse" is the implication when our students >>>> innovate >>>> and use grammatical forms that don't occur in edited texts. What does >>>> this perspective say about the cognition of a student who writes (1) >>>> (a >>>> very common construction in the students I teach) for the standard >>>> (2)? >>>> >>>> 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and >>>> discourse. >>>> 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. >>>> >>>> Do we really want to say the student who wrote (1) is cognitively >>>> different than the student who wrote (2) or when student (1) writes >>>> (2) >>>> her cognition changes? >>>> >>>> **** >>>> Clearly, there is a difference in the kind of grammar we encounter in >>>> the >>>> written language than what we encounter in the spoken language. >>>> Whatever >>>> our perspective is on how we come to know grammar, we did need to know >>>> more about those differences and the implication those differences for >>>> students to be successful in school. >>>> >>>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>>> >>>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/10/10 9:10 AM >>> >>>> Amanda, et. al. >>>> >>>> Amanda, you should be absolutely commended for your influence in >>>> this. I think there is a bit of the committee effect at work, very >>>> sensible goals mixed in with almost contrary positions, but the shift >>>> toward knowledge about language is palpable, very welcome. I look >>>> forward to reading the appendix. >>>> What we should be talking about more than we are is that there is >>>> huge >>>> change going on within linguistics, away from the idea that grammar is >>>> innate, toward the realization that grammar is learned, away from the >>>> notion that grammar is well understood as a formal system, toward the >>>> realization that it is inevitably tied to cognition and discourse. One >>>> very important corollary of that is that the language a child needs to >>>> learn to use through school is NOT just cleaned up speech, but a kind >>>> of language that is evolving to accomplish the work of a complex civil >>>> society and complex academic disciplines. Students need to be MENTORED >>>> into that, and we have no chance at all of doing that without >>>> demystifying what is required. >>>> I do believe that students need to learn to position themselves in >>>> relation to important contentious issues, but I worry very much about >>>> what Tannen calls our "argument culture", which tends to force us to >>>> pick a side instead of exploring possibilities and doesn't encourage >>>> us to admit that we don't really know enough to be certain. I tend to >>>> emphasize the idea of making a contribution to an ongoing >>>> conversation--our disciplines, to the extent that they are functional, >>>> are dialogic, and science in particular asks us to hedge in >>>> appropriate ways. For the most part, though, English classes shift >>>> from essays about literature to rather mechanical research projects. >>>> We should do more reportorial and issue related writing, paying >>>> attention to the ways in which those purposes are realized through >>>> language. I think these standards are at least an attempt to expand >>>> the range of discourse we should attend to in our English classes. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig et al., >>>>> Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." >>>>> I >>>>> think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to >>>>> consult on the language-related standards. The language-related >>>>> standards >>>>> were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, >>>>> suggesting >>>>> that the only reason to think about language at all would be for >>>>> editing >>>>> formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I >>>>> responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that >>>>> presents >>>>> current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that >>>>> some >>>>> of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed >>>>> "knowledge >>>>> ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of >>>>> clauses >>>>> and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were >>>>> not. >>>>> The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on >>>>> teaching >>>>> the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I'm glad >>>>> that >>>>> they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of >>>>> knowledge about language. As far as I know, I am the only person >>>>> with >>>>> a >>>>> background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a >>>>> consultant on the project, and that concerns me. >>>>> >>>>> Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of >>>>> second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an >>>>> unrealistic >>>>> dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools >>>>> - >>>>> an >>>>> urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA >>>>> curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level >>>>> of >>>>> informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their >>>>> classmates. >>>>> I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop >>>>> a >>>>> vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't >>>>> taught >>>>> until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher >>>>> and >>>>> university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's >>>>> Choice >>>>> writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that >>>>> K-12 >>>>> students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks >>>>> than >>>>> we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies >>>>> out >>>>> of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use >>>>> America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement >>>>> on >>>>> 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable >>>>> literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that >>>>> the >>>>> higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on >>>>> argumentative and informational writing in the America's Choice >>>>> program. >>>>> >>>>> Amanda >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ed, >>>>> They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other >>>>> hand, >>>>> I >>>>> think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some >>>>> time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they >>>>> have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates >>>>> in >>>>> many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive >>>>> those schools that whole schools suffer from low expectations, not >>>>> from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these >>>>> students come to college, but they respond very well to raised >>>>> expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do >>>>> much more. >>>>> If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, >>>>> I >>>>> wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) >>>>> for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of >>>>> support >>>>> necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for >>>>> high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing >>>>> with students who have made it to college. The view from here, >>>>> though, >>>>> is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there >>>>> are >>>>> saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) >>>>> It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn >>>>> to >>>>> write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. >>>>> If >>>>> you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already >>>>> have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem >>>>> to >>>>> be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained >>>>> goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows >>>>> what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem >>>>> to >>>>> be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can >>>>> guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like >>>>> "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an >>>>> opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact >>>>> that >>>>> many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different >>>>> from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place >>>>> in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own >>>>> world >>>>> or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't >>>>> seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also >>>>> the >>>>> ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the >>>>> drug >>>>> dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets >>>>> sick?) >>>>> I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where >>>>> engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking >>>>> about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't >>>>> see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high >>>>> school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when >>>>> they >>>>> don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem >>>>> articulated >>>>> as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very >>>>> natural developments of the students' own voices and interests >>>>> (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in >>>>> their >>>>> interest to find out and to articulate.) >>>>> I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times >>>>> seem >>>>> strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. >>>>> >>>>> Craig> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Craig et al, >>>>>> Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I. He >>>>>> gives >>>>>> a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND >>>>>> grade: >>>>>> Write informative and explanatory texts in which they >>>>>> introduce >>>>>> a >>>>>> topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present >>>>>> similar >>>>>> information together using headers to signal groupings when >>>>>> appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or >>>>>> section. >>>>>> And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate >>>>>> for >>>>>> college literature classes. (Once again, I agree.) >>>>>> I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever >>>>>> taught >>>>>> below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and >>>>>> I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this >>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed, >>>>>>> My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of >>>>>>> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the >>>>>>> language >>>>>>> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns >>>>>>> within the genres. >>>>>>> I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be >>>>>>> staggering? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with Herb. Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing >>>>>>>> standards? Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current >>>>>>>> issue of Education Week. He calls them an instance of "magical >>>>>>>> thinking," and I agree totally. If they are adopted and enforced, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> dropout rate will be staggering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org. >>>>>>>>> Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that >>>>>>>>> direction, >>>>>>>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language >>>>>>>>> (not >>>>>>>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for >>>>>>>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and >>>>>>>>> clauses >>>>>>>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems >>>>>>>>> to me >>>>>>>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of >>>>>>>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. >>>>>>>>> Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ********** >>>>> Dr. Amanda J. Godley >>>>> Associate Professor >>>>> English Education >>>>> Department of Instruction and Learning >>>>> University of Pittsburgh >>>>> 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall >>>>> 412-648-7313 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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/ >>> >> >> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:07:32 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Godley, Amanda Joan" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C83AEB04F307agodleypittedu_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_C83AEB04F307agodleypittedu_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed, The research that I know of on the America's Choice curriculum/program was not conducted in Pittsburgh; I'm not sure where it was done. The lead author was Brian Rowan, if you'd like to search for more information. I don't think there's any research out yet about long-term effects, positive or negative, of America's Choice on graduation rates or high school writing. Amanda On 6/11/10 1:20 PM, "ed Schuster" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Amanda, Craig, et al, I have seen unfortunate effects of low expectations in the lives of two good friends, and I have seen extraordinary positive effects of high expectations as a teacher in the Court Reporter program at Temple University in downtown Philadelphia. I am very much in favor of high expectations. However, I have also spent many years reading essays written by Pennsylvanian eleventh graders for the annual state assessment. It is based on that experience that I consider the writing expectations/standards/goals---whatever one wants to call them---of the Common Core Committee unrealistic. On the other hand, I was delighted to hear about the success of the America's Choice writing program in elementary schools in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, and perhaps if such early intervention were more universal, eleventh grade writing might improve dramatically. I would like to think so. Is there any indication, Amanda, that this program has had a positive effect on graduation rates in Pittsburgh, or is it too soon to know that? (We do know that dropout rates nationally have risen recently, in spite of the hiking of standards in many school districts. See Diplomas Count, the June 10 report in Education Week.) Thomas Newkirk wrote his commentary before the final writing standards were released, and in the final version the high school example that he used seems to have been eliminated; the elementary example is still there, but it has been significantly modified. Perhaps the standards makers themselves were aware that they had been been pitching too high? Ed On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Godley, Amanda Joan wrote: Craig et al., Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." I think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to consult on the language-related standards. The language-related standards were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, suggesting that the only reason to think about language at all would be for editing formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that presents current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that some of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed "knowledge ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of clauses and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were not. The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on teaching the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I'm glad that they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of knowledge about language. As far as I know, I am the only person with a background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a consultant on the project, and that concerns me. Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an unrealistic dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools - an urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level of informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their classmates. I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop a vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't taught until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher and university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's Choice writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that K-12 students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks than we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies out of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement on 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that the higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on argumentative and informational writing in the America's Choice program. Amanda On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Ed, They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other hand, I think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive those schools that whole schools suffer from low expectations, not from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these students come to college, but they respond very well to raised expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do much more. If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though, is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem to be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact that many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the drug dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets sick?) I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem articulated as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very natural developments of the students' own voices and interests (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their interest to find out and to articulate.) I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times seem strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. Craig> Craig et al, > Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I. He gives > a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade: > Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce a > topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present similar > information together using headers to signal groupings when > appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or section. > And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate for > college literature classes. (Once again, I agree.) > I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever taught > below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and > I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this > nonsense. > > Ed > > > On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Ed, >> My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very >> much >> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of >> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the language >> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars are >> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns >> within the genres. >> I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he >> think >> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be staggering? >> >> Craig> >> >> >> I agree with Herb. Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing >>> standards? Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current >>> issue of Education Week. He calls them an instance of "magical >>> thinking," and I agree totally. If they are adopted and enforced, >>> the >>> dropout rate will be staggering. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have >>>> been >>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org . >>>> Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that >>>> direction, >>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language (not >>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for >>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and >>>> clauses >>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems >>>> to me >>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of >>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. >>>> Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling >>>> for >>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> 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/ ********** Dr. Amanda J. Godley Associate Professor English Education Department of Instruction and Learning University of Pittsburgh 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall 412-648-7313 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/ ********** Dr. Amanda J. Godley Associate Professor English Education Department of Instruction and Learning University of Pittsburgh 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall 412-648-7313 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/ --_000_C83AEB04F307agodleypittedu_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed,
The research that I know of on the America’s Choice curriculum/program was not conducted in Pittsburgh; I’m not sure where it was done. The lead author was Brian Rowan, if you’d like to search for more information. I don’t think there’s any research out yet about long-term effects, positive or negative, of America’s Choice on graduation rates or high school writing.
Amanda


On 6/11/10 1:20 PM, "ed Schuster" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Amanda, Craig, et al,

I have seen unfortunate effects of low expectations in the lives of two good friends, and I have seen extraordinary positive effects of high expectations as a teacher in the Court Reporter program at Temple University in downtown Philadelphia.  I am very much in favor of high expectations.  However, I have also spent many years reading essays written by Pennsylvanian eleventh graders for the annual state assessment.  It is based on that experience that I consider the writing expectations/standards/goals---whatever one wants to call them---of the Common Core Committee unrealistic.   
On the other hand, I was delighted to hear about the success of the America's Choice writing program in elementary schools in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, and perhaps if such early intervention were more universal, eleventh grade writing might improve dramatically. I would like to think so.  Is there any indication, Amanda, that this program has had a positive effect on graduation rates in Pittsburgh, or is it too soon to know that?
(We do know that dropout rates nationally have risen recently, in spite of the hiking of standards in many school districts.  See
Diplomas Count, the June 10 report in Education Week.)
Thomas Newkirk wrote his commentary before the final writing standards were released, and in the final version the high school example that he used seems to have been eliminated; the elementary example is still there, but it has been significantly modified.  Perhaps the standards makers themselves were aware that they had been been pitching too high?

Ed  

 
On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Godley, Amanda Joan wrote:

Craig et al.,
 Craig wrote that the common core standards are “strangely arbitrary.” I think that’s right on target, especially as someone who was asked to consult on the language-related standards. The language-related standards were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, suggesting that the only reason to think about language at all would be for editing formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that presents current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that some of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed “knowledge ABOUT language” and asking students to think about the FUNCTION of clauses and phrases) ended up being included, but many other suggestions were not. The resulting language-related standards definitely focus more on teaching the conventions of Standard English than I would like, but I’m glad that they at least nod toward and leave room for teaching other kinds of knowledge about language.  As far as I know, I am the only person with a background in teaching/researching grammar and language who was a consultant on the project, and that concerns me.
 
 Re: the writing standards, I actually don’t think that the example of second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an unrealistic dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools  - an urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA curriculum, America’s Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level of informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their classmates. I’ve also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop a vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn’t taught until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher and university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America’s Choice writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that K-12 students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy tasks than we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale studies out of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools that use America’s Choice demonstrate significantly higher student achievement on 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than comparable literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers hypothesize that the higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the greater focus on argumentative and informational writing in the America’s Choice program.
 
 Amanda
 
 
 On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
 

Ed,
    They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other hand, I
 think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some
 time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they
 have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in
 many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive
 those schools that  whole schools suffer from low expectations, not
 from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these
 students come to college, but they respond very well to raised
 expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do
 much more.
     If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I
 wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else)
 for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support
 necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for
 high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing
 with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though,
 is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are
 saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.)
    It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to
 write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If
 you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already
 have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to
 be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained
 goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows
 what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem to
 be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can
 guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like
 "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an
 opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact that
 many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different
 from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place
 in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world
 or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't
 seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the
 ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the drug
 dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets sick?)
 I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where
 engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking
 about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't
 see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high
 school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they
 don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem articulated
 as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very
 natural developments of the students' own voices and interests
 (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their
 interest to find out and to articulate.)
     I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times seem
 strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high.
 
 Craig>
 
 
 Craig et al,
 >       Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I.  He gives
 > a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade:
 >       Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce a
 > topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present           similar
 > information together using headers to signal groupings when
 > appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or             section.
 >       And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate for
 > college literature classes.  (Once again, I agree.)
 >       I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever taught
 > below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and
 > I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this
 > nonsense.
 >
 > Ed
 >
 >
 > On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
 >
 >> Ed,
 >>    My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very
 >> much
 >> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of
 >> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the language
 >> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars are
 >> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns
 >> within the genres.
 >>    I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he
 >> think
 >> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be staggering?
 >>
 >> Craig>
 >>
 >>
 >> I agree with Herb.  Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing
 >>> standards?  Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current
 >>> issue of Education Week.  He calls them an instance of "magical
 >>> thinking," and I agree totally.  If they are adopted and enforced,
 >>> the
 >>> dropout rate will be staggering.
 >>>
 >>> Ed
 >>>
 >>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
 >>>
 >>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have
 >>>> been
 >>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org <http://www.corestandards.org> .
 >>>>   Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that
 >>>> direction,
 >>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language (not
 >>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for
 >>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and
 >>>> clauses
 >>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems
 >>>> to me
 >>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of
 >>>> writing" or through mini-lessons.
 >>>>    Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling
 >>>> for
 >>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12.
 >>>>
 >>>> Craig
 >>>>
 >>>> 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/
 
 

 **********
 Dr. Amanda J. Godley
 Associate Professor
 English Education
 Department of Instruction and Learning
 University of Pittsburgh
 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall
 412-648-7313
 
  
  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/ --_000_C83AEB04F307agodleypittedu_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:45:13 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Amanda, I think you mentioned having written an appendix. Is that available on the core standards site? Craig Ed, > The research that I know of on the America's Choice curriculum/program was > not conducted in Pittsburgh; I'm not sure where it was done. The lead > author was Brian Rowan, if you'd like to search for more information. I > don't think there's any research out yet about long-term effects, positive > or negative, of America's Choice on graduation rates or high school > writing. > Amanda > > > On 6/11/10 1:20 PM, "ed Schuster" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Amanda, Craig, et al, > > I have seen unfortunate effects of low expectations in the lives of two > good friends, and I have seen extraordinary positive effects of high > expectations as a teacher in the Court Reporter program at Temple > University in downtown Philadelphia. I am very much in favor of high > expectations. However, I have also spent many years reading essays > written by Pennsylvanian eleventh graders for the annual state assessment. > It is based on that experience that I consider the writing > expectations/standards/goals---whatever one wants to call them---of the > Common Core Committee unrealistic. > On the other hand, I was delighted to hear about the success of the > America's Choice writing program in elementary schools in Pittsburgh and > elsewhere, and perhaps if such early intervention were more universal, > eleventh grade writing might improve dramatically. I would like to think > so. Is there any indication, Amanda, that this program has had a positive > effect on graduation rates in Pittsburgh, or is it too soon to know that? > (We do know that dropout rates nationally have risen recently, in spite of > the hiking of standards in many school districts. See > Diplomas Count, the June 10 report in Education Week.) > Thomas Newkirk wrote his commentary before the final writing standards > were released, and in the final version the high school example that he > used seems to have been eliminated; the elementary example is still there, > but it has been significantly modified. Perhaps the standards makers > themselves were aware that they had been been pitching too high? > > Ed > > > On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Godley, Amanda Joan wrote: > > Craig et al., > Craig wrote that the common core standards are "strangely arbitrary." I > think that's right on target, especially as someone who was asked to > consult on the language-related standards. The language-related standards > were originally imbedded in the editing standards for writing, suggesting > that the only reason to think about language at all would be for editing > formal academic writing. Over the course of the seven months that I > responded to drafts of the standards and wrote the appendix that presents > current research on learning and teaching about grammar, I found that > some of my suggestions (such as including standards that addressed > "knowledge ABOUT language" and asking students to think about the > FUNCTION of clauses and phrases) ended up being included, but many other > suggestions were not. The resulting language-related standards definitely > focus more on teaching the conventions of Standard English than I would > like, but I'm glad that they at least nod toward and leave room for > teaching other kinds of knowledge about language. As far as I know, I am > the only person with a background in teaching/researching grammar and > language who was a consultant on the project, and that concerns me. > > Re: the writing standards, I actually don't think that the example of > second grade writing standards you shared, Ed, represents an unrealistic > dream. My children (grades 1 and 3) attend Pittsburgh Public Schools - > an urban district - and are taught the district-wide, standardized ELA > curriculum, America's Choice. I have seen an astonishingly high level of > informational and persuasive writing from my kids and their classmates. > I've also seen how early elementary children can be taught to develop a > vocabulary for and meta-awareness of writing that typically isn't taught > until high school or college. As a former high school English teacher and > university-level basic writing instructor, I think the America's Choice > writing curriculum is not perfect, but it has demonstrated to me that > K-12 students are capable of far more difficult and complex literacy > tasks than we typically ask them to complete. Interestingly, large-scale > studies out of the University of Michigan also show that urban schools > that use America's Choice demonstrate significantly higher student > achievement on 4th grade standardized tests of reading and writing than > comparable literacy curricula/reform programs. The researchers > hypothesize that the higher 4th grade reading scores may be caused by the > greater focus on argumentative and informational writing in the America's > Choice program. > > Amanda > > > On 6/9/10 10:49 PM, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Ed, > They do read a bit more like goals than standards. On the other hand, > I > think we have resisted any clear articulation of standards for some > time. I think our students are capable of a great deal more than they > have been asked to do. I know we have shamefully high dropout rates in > many of our schools, but I get the sense from students who survive > those schools that whole schools suffer from low expectations, not > from high ones. I know I'm in a much different situation when these > students come to college, but they respond very well to raised > expectations when they get here. They take pride in being asked to do > much more. > If I were poor and raising my children in an urban neighborhood, I > wouldn't accept any of that as an excuse from them (or anyone else) > for mediocre performance. Raise the bar high. Give the kind of support > necessary for those who struggle with it. To me, that's a formula for > high engagement. Again, I know I say that from the luxury of dealing > with students who have made it to college. The view from here, though, > is that we don't care enough and don't expect enough (though there are > saints in the middle of all that. Bless them all.) > It seems to me that they have decided that students should learn to > write narratives, to write an argument, and to write informatively. If > you look through the sequence, it becomes clear that we don't already > have some sort of proven way laid out to accomplish that. They seem to > be imagining a sequence that might work. There are huge unexplained > goals (like "logical") with a strange assumption that everyone knows > what that is all about. Hugely important goals like "coherence" seem to > be reduced down to the right sort of transition words, which I can > guess will become formulaic. I would love to see a word like > "perspective" show up from time to time. (Either something is an > opinion or it's factual/logical, not much respect paid to the fact that > many topics benefit from a myriad of perspectives. It looks different > from this neighborhood than it does in the suburbs.) There's no place > in all this where students are encouraged to report on their own world > or become "expert" enough to have something to offer. There doesn't > seem to be a recognition that the narrative of their lives is also the > ground for significant contribution to public issues. (Why are the drug > dealers not bothered? What happens around here when someone gets sick?) > I guess I wouldn't be alone among writing teachers in wondering where > engagement comes in. You've got to know what the hell you are talking > about OR BE WILLING TO ADMIT THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU KNOW and I don't > see any respect paid to that. I keep getting students out of high > school who have been encouraged to take definitive positions when they > don't have the knowledge base. Most of these standards seem articulated > as ends in themselves. There's no sense that these are or can be very > natural developments of the students' own voices and interests > (interests in a double sense--what interests them and what is in their > interest to find out and to articulate.) > I would say the standards are not fully thought out and at times seem > strangely arbitrary. But I'm not convinced they are too high. > > Craig> > > > Craig et al, > > Indeed, he thinks the standards are too high, and so do I. He > gives > > a couple of excellent examples, including this one, for SECOND grade: > > Write informative and explanatory texts in which they introduce a > > topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, present > similar > > information together using headers to signal groupings when > > appropriate, and provide a concluding sentence or section. > > And another, for 12th grade, which he says is more appropriate > for > > college literature classes. (Once again, I agree.) > > I can't believe anyone on that writing committee has ever taught > > below college, or in any public schools that I'm familiar with, and > > I'm amazed that officials from AFT and NEA are going along with this > > nonsense. > > > > Ed > > > > > > On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> Ed, > >> My quick reaction to the writing standards is that they are very > >> much > >> genre focused without a particularly sophisticated understanding of > >> the genres in play. It would be interesting, too, to see the language > >> section more closely connected to genre, since the corpus grammars are > >> now giving us a pretty good view of functional language patterns > >> within the genres. > >> I couldn't access Newkirk's article without subscribing. Does he > >> think > >> the standards are too high? Why would the dropout rate be staggering? > >> > >> Craig> > >> > >> > >> I agree with Herb. Also, has anyone looked closely at the writing > >>> standards? Read Thomas Newkirk's comments on them in the current > >>> issue of Education Week. He calls them an instance of "magical > >>> thinking," and I agree totally. If they are adopted and enforced, > >>> the > >>> dropout rate will be staggering. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>> > >>>> The National governor's Association's Common core Standards have > >>>> been > >>>> released and can be accessed at www.corestandards.org > . > >>>> Though they still don't go as far as they ought to in that > >>>> direction, > >>>> they seem a radical shift in favor of knowledge about language (not > >>>> just language behavior) throughout the grade levels. This, for > >>>> example, is from grade 7: "Explain the function of phrases and > >>>> clauses > >>>> in general and their function in specific sentences." This seems > >>>> to me > >>>> the sort of thing that can't happen solely "within the context of > >>>> writing" or through mini-lessons. > >>>> Check it out. If I am reading this correctly, they are calling > >>>> for > >>>> far more conscious attention to language from K-12. > >>>> > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>> 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/ > > > > ********** > Dr. Amanda J. Godley > Associate Professor > English Education > Department of Instruction and Learning > University of Pittsburgh > 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall > 412-648-7313 > > > 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/ > > ********** > Dr. Amanda J. Godley > Associate Professor > English Education > Department of Instruction and Learning > University of Pittsburgh > 5316 Wesley W. Posvar Hall > 412-648-7313 > > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:47:53 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards Comments: To: [log in to unmask] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Now the conversation is progressing. Although I don't use Craig's language, there is something right about this. What I have seen from students over and over again is that when they are trying to do new things with language, they will do so awkwardly. *** My colleague Jim Kenkel and I call them innovations. Here is the problem with the perspective that Craig has on the nature of language and his observation above. If language is learned from input and pattern matching, what do students have access to for the awkward constructions (Craig's label) or the innovations. If you think about it, they should have read a number of examples of people integrating others' ideas into a text. Because Craig's perspective denies innate principles, those awkward constructions have to leave us teachers perplexed. And, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, why should students be redundant in attributing claims to other people? Why isn't it sufficient for them to do it once? Craig reveals the most serious problem with his perspective for teachers. He believes that "according to" and "claim" functions the same way for our students as it does for more mature writers. "According to..." and "claims" are two ways of doing that function, a function that most students don't have sufficient practice with. I wouldn't be at all surprised by that sentence. My view--and I don't expect you to agree--is that the operative grammar is locally tied to the notion of "claiming" and both "claiming' and the schematic structure "according to X" are tied to the goal of trying to place our own perspectives within a dialogic frame. In the second language acquisition literature, the above passage commits the "comparative fallacy." You cannot assume that the same grammatical form functions the same way for a second language learner as it does for native speakers -- to do so commits the comparative fallacy. It is my belief that our students don't know or ignore that "according to" is a way to make an attribution, but is functioning for them as a way to announce a topic so that a commit can be made about it. By the way, this is how to look at the "innovative" punctuation practices of our students. In other words, fragments and comma splices are not, from the student perspective, awkward attempts to express ideas but are principled (non-standard principles) to identify and show relationships between idea units. My comments here show how important it is to understand the nature of language. If what we know about language is based solely on input, then you are lead, as Craig shows, to an awkwardness explanation. On the other hand, if our students know a set of principles about language, then their innovative structures might be seen as interaction of those principles when those principles are incomplete or are not easily accessible because of the task they are trying to accomplish. If you want to see how this innate principle perspective is applied to real sentences written by real students, then see Kenkel and Yates (2009) The Interlanguage Grammar of Information Management in L1 and L2 Developing Writing. 26:4 Written Communication. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri One final point that is irrelevant to this conversation that Craig keeps bringing up. He writes: I do believe that new approaches are called for, and I apologize if that seems an attack on those who have supported older positions. It may be more useful to lay out our own views separately (internally consistent) rather than present them as argument. Craig keeps dismissing innatist views of language because they have been used to dismiss the teaching grammar. Herb has corrected him several times that the connection to not teaching grammar and innatist views of language are not based on an understanding of what the innatist views really are. In this conversation, the paragraph above is irrelevant and does not advance anything. I wish Craig would stop having to write his disgust for views that everyone here recognizes are wrong. He can, in other words, stop preaching to the choir. >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/13/10 10:51 AM >>> Bob, I think I understood (understand) your example very well. I simply don't agree that you can use it as some sort of "proof" that grammar is innate rather than learned using ordinary (nonspecial) cognitive capabilities. What I have seen from students over and over again is that when they are trying to do new things with language, they will do so awkwardly. I work very hard with my students to help them learn how to attribute perspectives and claims that are offered by other people. "According to..." and "claims" are two ways of doing that function, a function that most students don't have sufficient practice with. I wouldn't be at all surprised by that sentence. My view--and I don't expect you to agree--is that the operative grammar is locally tied to the notion of "claiming" and both "claiming' and the schematic structure "according to X" are tied to the goal of trying to place our own perspectives within a dialogic frame. These are very important in journalism and academic writing. (They are some of "the moves that matter in academic writing"). I would also say they are hugely important for civil discourse in a civil society, something very much threatened in our current climate, where we tune into the narrow channels that reinforce our beliefs and demonize the opposition. ("Claims", of course, can be sarcastic at various levels. You can anticipate the "but". "Craig claims that grammar is tied to discourse and cognition, but...") Do we really know a word if we don't know the full range of its meanings? Do we know a grammatical construction if we haven't mastered the full range of its uses? A functionalist would likely answer "no" to that. A student doers not know close to an adult grammar when they come to school precisely because they haven't learned to use language with an adult sophistication. If students have trouble understanding a text, is it at least in part because they are not seeing the connections between the words? I think it is probably not possible for us to agree with each other about core issues, but I do think it is important for this list that opposing views (such as ours) are welcomed into the conversation. I do believe that new approaches are called for, and I apologize if that seems an attack on those who have supported older positions. It may be more useful to lay out our own views separately (internally consistent) rather than present them as argument. Craig > Craig, are you sure you understood my example? Here are the two > sentences: > > 1) According to Craig, he claims grammar is tied to cognition and > discourse. > 2) According to Craig, grammar is tied to cognition and discourse. > > In (1) he is referring to Craig. Now, my knowledge of English grammar > makes (1) decidedly odd if the writer could have written (2). > > Given you analysis, do you accept (1) in the writing of your students when > they really mean (2)? If you do, then you deny the purpose of my example. > (By the way, in edited writing, I have never seen 1 for 2, have you?) > > **** > One of the great mysteries of language acquisition is that we clearly need > some kind of input. We are not born knowing the lexicon of a language. > On the other hand, we have judgments about grammatical constructions that > we have never seen. > > I'm confident you have never seen or read sentence (3), yet you recognize > it as English. > > 3) There is the woman whose daughter my daughter is prettier than. > > There are myriad of examples like this. > > Bob Yates > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:55:30 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: common core standards Comments: To: [log in to unmask] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Geoff, You are right. Although there are clearly variation in how native speakers use prepositions, whatever those variations are are not stigmatizing. As a consequence, they are not taught. On the other hand, non-native speakers don't have that knowledge and prepositions must be taught. I like the term "innovation" for the non-target-like constructions because it suggests what are students do are principled. Our obligation as teachers is to try to figure out what our student principles are to provide the data (lesson) so their principles become those of a more mature writer. If we see their non-target-like structures as "awkward," what do we do as teachers? Provide them with non-awkward examples? Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> 06/11/10 10:54 AM >>> Bob Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects? Or, similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc." And regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process? Geoff Layton PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - my first ATEG experience! 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:17:36 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: innovations In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2010-06-13, at 9:47 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > If language is learned from input and pattern matching, what do students have access to for the awkward constructions (Craig's label) or the innovations. If you think about it, they should have read a number of examples of people integrating others' ideas into a text. Because Craig's perspective denies innate principles, those awkward constructions have to leave us teachers perplexed. And, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, why should students be redundant in attributing claims to other people? Why isn't it sufficient for them to do it once? In this particular example, at least, I see nothing perplexing. It seems to me that students are simply overgeneralizing from other patterns or picking up only part of the pattern. Moreover, the relevant input certainly goes far beyond 'according', and likely includes: According to x, y says... "I think", he says, ... "My opinion", he says, ... According to consensus, he says... In the acknowledgements, he says In addition, he says, ... For example, he says, ... Myself, I think... etc. There's no claim in any theory of language acquisition that I know of that input will be correctly processed, in particular when it comes to the meaning of individual lexical items. I remember vividly finding out when I was 22 that my understanding of the word 'pedantic' was wrong. I had assumed that 'ped' was from 'pedis' for foot rather than from 'paidagogia' for teaching, and I thought that the word was similar to 'plodding'. Someone who drags their feet on an issue was 'pedantic' I thought. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:49:25 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: innovations In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We need, I think, a term for the constructional equivalent of "malapropism." I have read some student papers that have caused me to think that "dystruction" would be a good term for this, but it is a bit over the top, I suppose. --- Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:18 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: innovations Importance: Low On 2010-06-13, at 9:47 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > If language is learned from input and pattern matching, what do students have access to for the awkward constructions (Craig's label) or the innovations. If you think about it, they should have read a number of examples of people integrating others' ideas into a text. Because Craig's perspective denies innate principles, those awkward constructions have to leave us teachers perplexed. And, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, why should students be redundant in attributing claims to other people? Why isn't it sufficient for them to do it once? In this particular example, at least, I see nothing perplexing. It seems to me that students are simply overgeneralizing from other patterns or picking up only part of the pattern. Moreover, the relevant input certainly goes far beyond 'according', and likely includes: According to x, y says... "I think", he says, ... "My opinion", he says, ... According to consensus, he says... In the acknowledgements, he says In addition, he says, ... For example, he says, ... Myself, I think... etc. There's no claim in any theory of language acquisition that I know of that input will be correctly processed, in particular when it comes to the meaning of individual lexical items. I remember vividly finding out when I was 22 that my understanding of the word 'pedantic' was wrong. I had assumed that 'ped' was from 'pedis' for foot rather than from 'paidagogia' for teaching, and I thought that the word was similar to 'plodding'. Someone who drags their feet on an issue was 'pedantic' I thought. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:51:20 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: innovations In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_23c3be2c-5705-4f0f-bab8-0e0baeea3c04_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_23c3be2c-5705-4f0f-bab8-0e0baeea3c04_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that neither of these terms does justice to what students are struggling to achieve. "Innovations" suggests that the students are attempting to create meaning - just because it doesn't quite work doesn't mean that the attempt has been in vain. Geoff Layton > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:49:25 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: innovations > To: [log in to unmask] > > We need, I think, a term for the constructional equivalent of > "malapropism." I have read some student papers that have caused me to > think that "dystruction" would be a good term for this, but it is a bit > over the top, I suppose. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:18 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: innovations > Importance: Low > > On 2010-06-13, at 9:47 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > wrote: > > > If language is learned from input and pattern matching, what do > students have access to for the awkward constructions (Craig's label) or > the innovations. If you think about it, they should have read a number > of examples of people integrating others' ideas into a text. Because > Craig's perspective denies innate principles, those awkward > constructions have to leave us teachers perplexed. And, if grammar is > tied to cognition and discourse, why should students be redundant in > attributing claims to other people? Why isn't it sufficient for them to > do it once? > > In this particular example, at least, I see nothing perplexing. It seems > to me that students are simply overgeneralizing from other patterns or > picking up only part of the pattern. Moreover, the relevant input > certainly goes far beyond 'according', and likely includes: > > According to x, y says... > "I think", he says, ... > "My opinion", he says, ... > According to consensus, he says... > In the acknowledgements, he says > In addition, he says, ... > For example, he says, ... > Myself, I think... > etc. > > There's no claim in any theory of language acquisition that I know of > that input will be correctly processed, in particular when it comes to > the meaning of individual lexical items. I remember vividly finding out > when I was 22 that my understanding of the word 'pedantic' was wrong. I > had assumed that 'ped' was from 'pedis' for foot rather than from > 'paidagogia' for teaching, and I thought that the word was similar to > 'plodding'. Someone who drags their feet on an issue was 'pedantic' I > thought. > > Best, > Brett > > ----------------------- > Brett Reynolds > English Language Centre > Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning > Toronto, Ontario, Canada > [log in to unmask] > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 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/ --_23c3be2c-5705-4f0f-bab8-0e0baeea3c04_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that neither of these terms does justice to what students are struggling to achieve.  "Innovations" suggests that the students are attempting to create meaning - just because it doesn't quite work doesn't mean that the attempt has been in vain.

Geoff Layton


 
> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:49:25 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: innovations
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> We need, I think, a term for the constructional equivalent of
> "malapropism." I have read some student papers that have caused me to
> think that "dystruction" would be a good term for this, but it is a bit
> over the top, I suppose.
>
> --- Bill Spruiell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:18 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: innovations
> Importance: Low
>
> On 2010-06-13, at 9:47 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> wrote:
>
> > If language is learned from input and pattern matching, what do
> students have access to for the awkward constructions (Craig's label) or
> the innovations. If you think about it, they should have read a number
> of examples of people integrating others' ideas into a text. Because
> Craig's perspective denies innate principles, those awkward
> constructions have to leave us teachers perplexed. And, if grammar is
> tied to cognition and discourse, why should students be redundant in
> attributing claims to other people? Why isn't it sufficient for them to
> do it once?
>
> In this particular example, at least, I see nothing perplexing. It seems
> to me that students are simply overgeneralizing from other patterns or
> picking up only part of the pattern. Moreover, the relevant input
> certainly goes far beyond 'according', and likely includes:
>
> According to x, y says...
> "I think", he says, ...
> "My opinion", he says, ...
> According to consensus, he says...
> In the acknowledgements, he says
> In addition, he says, ...
> For example, he says, ...
> Myself, I think...
> etc.
>
> There's no claim in any theory of language acquisition that I know of
> that input will be correctly processed, in particular when it comes to
> the meaning of individual lexical items. I remember vividly finding out
> when I was 22 that my understanding of the word 'pedantic' was wrong. I
> had assumed that 'ped' was from 'pedis' for foot rather than from
> 'paidagogia' for teaching, and I thought that the word was similar to
> 'plodding'. Someone who drags their feet on an issue was 'pedantic' I
> thought.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/ --_23c3be2c-5705-4f0f-bab8-0e0baeea3c04_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:52:25 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Frank Barnett, 1921-1993 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-162674437-1276656745=:86670" --0-162674437-1276656745=:86670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New York Times archives. Published: August 18, 1993  Frank R. Barnett, founder and president of the National Strategy Information Center of Washington and New York, died on Sunday at a Manhattan nursing home. He was 72 and lived in Manhattan.   The cause was heart failure, the center said, adding that he had had cancer. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   If he "had" cancer, he had cancer at the time of his death.   If he "had had" cancer, he did not have cancer at the time of his death.   The past perfect is a device that changes meaning. Its proper use is never optional.   The example makes clear why the past tense is always the default. 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/ --0-162674437-1276656745=:86670 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

New York Times archives. Published: August 18, 1993  Frank R. Barnett, founder and president of the National Strategy Information Center of Washington and New York, died on Sunday at a Manhattan nursing home. He was 72 and lived in Manhattan.   The cause was heart failure, the center said, adding that he had had cancer. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   If he "had" cancer, he had cancer at the time of his death.   If he "had had" cancer, he did not have cancer at the time of his death.   The past perfect is a device that changes meaning. Its proper use is never optional.   The example makes clear why the past tense is always the default.

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/ --0-162674437-1276656745=:86670-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:09:35 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Frank Barnett, 1921-1993 In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--142451492 --Apple-Mail-3--142451492 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Brad, Strangely, that is not the meaning I take from this configuration. It seems that English uses its limited palate of verb forms to accomplish a variety of tasks. In this instance, the fact that the cause of death was heart failure is in the foreground. "That he had had cancer" tells us it was not the cause of death. I imagine that had he died of some other cause not mentioned or alluded to and we had been told "that he had cancer," we should conclude that he had passed with that being the primary cause of this death. The mind fills the spaces between the words with meaning. The words merely prompt us, and the mystery you present to us--why should both "had" and "had" be brought together within that context?--is resolved by us, not the text. The proper use of words is always optional. Ambiguity invites our participation. That is what communication is all about. It makes us glad to be alive. Enjoy, Gregg On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > New York Times archives. Published: August 18, 1993 > > Frank R. Barnett, founder and president of the National Strategy > Information Center of Washington and New York, died on Sunday at a > Manhattan nursing home. He was 72 and lived in Manhattan. > > The cause was heart failure, the center said, adding that he had > had cancer. > . . . . . . . . > > If he "had" cancer, he had cancer at the time of his death. > > If he "had had" cancer, he did not have cancer at the time of his > death. > > The past perfect is a device that changes meaning. Its proper use > is never optional. > > The example makes clear why the past tense is always the default. > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-3--142451492 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Brad,

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-3--142451492-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:10:30 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Frank Barnett, 1921-1993 In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-41279887-1276816230=:65428" --0-41279887-1276816230=:65428 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gregg,   My reaction to your non-sequitur comments was that surely there cannot be an academic discipline that would put up with such fuzzy thinking and that you must make your living driving a FedEx truck.   Then I noticed the 1:09 a.m. dateline and assumed you had yourself a night on the town in the preceding hours and were not possessed of your normal faculties when you wrote.   Please write to us again after you have had another opportunity to consider, while sober, what was written in the original message.   I'm just now heading to town. Perhaps we can meet at The Pub and arm-wrestle, leaving weightier matters for the light of the cold grey dawn.   .brad.1910h.thur.17june10. --- On Wed, 6/16/10, Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Frank Barnett, 1921-1993 To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 1:09 AM Brad, Strangely, that is not the meaning I take from this configuration.  It seems that English uses its limited palate of verb forms to accomplish a variety of tasks.  In this instance, the fact that the cause of death was heart failure is in the foreground.  "That he had had cancer" tells us it was not the cause of death.  I imagine that had he died of some other cause not mentioned or alluded to and we had been told "that he had cancer," we should conclude that he had passed with that being the primary cause of this death. The mind fills the spaces between the words with meaning.  The words merely prompt us, and the mystery you present to us--why should both "had" and "had" be brought together within that context?--is resolved by us, not the text.  The proper use of words is always optional.  Ambiguity invites our participation.  That is what communication is all about.  It makes us glad to be alive. Enjoy, Gregg ~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: New York Times archives. Published: August 18, 1993  Frank R. Barnett, founder and president of the National Strategy Information Center of Washington and New York, died on Sunday at a Manhattan nursing home. He was 72 and lived in Manhattan.   The cause was heart failure, the center said, adding that he had had cancer. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   If he "had" cancer, he had cancer at the time of his death.   If he "had had" cancer, he did not have cancer at the time of his death.   The past perfect is a device that changes meaning. Its proper use is never optional.   The example makes clear why the past tense is always the default. 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/ --0-41279887-1276816230=:65428 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gregg,   My reaction to your non-sequitur comments was that surely there cannot be an academic discipline that would put up with such fuzzy thinking and that you must make your living driving a FedEx truck.   Then I noticed the 1:09 a.m. dateline and assumed you had yourself a night on the town in the preceding hours and were not possessed of your normal faculties when you wrote.   Please write to us again after you have had another opportunity to consider, while sober, what was written in the original message.   I'm just now heading to town. Perhaps we can meet at The Pub and arm-wrestle, leaving weightier matters for the light of the cold grey dawn.   .brad.1910h.thur.17june10. --- On Wed, 6/16/10, Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Frank Barnett, 1921-1993 To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 1:09 AM Brad, Strangely, that is not the meaning I take from this configuration.  It seems that English uses its limited palate of verb forms to accomplish a variety of tasks.  In this instance, the fact that the cause of death was heart failure is in the foreground.  "That he had had cancer" tells us it was not the cause of death.  I imagine that had he died of some other cause not mentioned or alluded to and we had been told "that he had cancer," we should conclude that he had passed with that being the primary cause of this death. The mind fills the spaces between the words with meaning.  The words merely prompt us, and the mystery you present to us--why should both "had" and "had" be brought together within that context?--is resolved by us, not the text.  The proper use of words is always optional.  Ambiguity invites our participation.  That is what communication is all about.  It makes us glad to be alive. Enjoy, Gregg ~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: New York Times archives. Published: August 18, 1993  Frank R. Barnett, founder and president of the National Strategy Information Center of Washington and New York, died on Sunday at a Manhattan nursing home. He was 72 and lived in Manhattan.   The cause was heart failure, the center said, adding that he had had cancer. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   If he "had" cancer, he had cancer at the time of his death.   If he "had had" cancer, he did not have cancer at the time of his death.   The past perfect is a device that changes meaning. Its proper use is never optional.   The example makes clear why the past tense is always the default.

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/ --0-41279887-1276816230=:65428-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:35:04 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Firing squad executes killer Comments: To: Associated Press <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1048894995-1276896904=:98572" --0-1048894995-1276896904=:98572 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Utah firing squad executes convicted killer (AP)   AP - A death row inmate who had used a gun to fatally shoot two men suffered the same fate Friday morning as he was executed by a team of marksmen — the first time Utah used the firing squad to carry out a death sentence in 14 years. .  .  .  .  .  .   The Associated Press cannot resist. They cannot help themselves. They see a past tense verb they can put 'had' in front of and they just go ahead and do it. What the heck. Let 'er fly. Either way, everyone knows what it means. 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/ --0-1048894995-1276896904=:98572 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Utah firing squad executes convicted killer (AP)   AP - A death row inmate who had used a gun to fatally shoot two men suffered the same fate Friday morning as he was executed by a team of marksmen — the first time Utah used the firing squad to carry out a death sentence in 14 years. .  .  .  .  .  .   The Associated Press cannot resist. They cannot help themselves. They see a past tense verb they can put 'had' in front of and they just go ahead and do it. What the heck. Let 'er fly. Either way, everyone knows what it means.

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/ --0-1048894995-1276896904=:98572-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:19:38 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Purchase of Russian Mi-17s Comments: To: Craig Whitlock <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-614036195-1276989578=:76071" --0-614036195-1276989578=:76071 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Purchase of Russian Mi-17s is criticized.   U.S. military buying helicopters for use by Afghan air corps.   By Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, Saturday 19 June 2010.   The Defense Department is seeking to buy 10 more of the Mi-17s next year, and had planned to buy dozens more over the next decade. (as written) . . . . . . . . . .   (a) "had planned to buy dozens more" = did but doesn't plan to at the time of the reporting = incorrect grammar.   (b) "planned to buy dozens more" = did but doesn't plan to at the time of the reporting, proving that (a) is grammatically incorrect.   (c) "plans to buy dozens more" = expects to buy more = probable intended meaning.   Anyone with empty seats in a sixth grade classroom is asked to contact The Washington Post. 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/ --0-614036195-1276989578=:76071 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Purchase of Russian Mi-17s is criticized.   U.S. military buying helicopters for use by Afghan air corps.   By Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, Saturday 19 June 2010.   The Defense Department is seeking to buy 10 more of the Mi-17s next year, and had planned to buy dozens more over the next decade. (as written) . . . . . . . . . .   (a) "had planned to buy dozens more" = did but doesn't plan to at the time of the reporting = incorrect grammar.   (b) "planned to buy dozens more" = did but doesn't plan to at the time of the reporting, proving that (a) is grammatically incorrect.   (c) "plans to buy dozens more" = expects to buy more = probable intended meaning.   Anyone with empty seats in a sixth grade classroom is asked to contact The Washington Post.

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/ --0-614036195-1276989578=:76071-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:22:37 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Just kidding, are you Peter? (one photo) Comments: To: Roxanne Roberts <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-939602462-1277342557=:963" --0-939602462-1277342557=:963 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What's next for Peter Orszag? A wedding, for starters Peter Orszag with Bianna Golodryga at the White House, on May, 19, 2010 in Washington, D.C. (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)   Sad day in Washington as we prepatre to bid adieu to Peter Orszag, the unlikely sex god of the Obama administration. So what's next -- and why do we care so much?   The outgoing OMB director with the wacky haircut looked like another policy wonk until the divorced father of two was romantically linked with venture capitalist Claire Milonas and Bianna Golodryga, the ABC financial reporter he met at the 2009 White House Correspondents' Association dinner. In December, Golodryga announced their engagement on "Good Morning America" -- just a week before Milonas confirmed Orszag was the father of her baby daughter.   ~~~~~~~~~~   There's a wrong verb in the last line. If the child is alive, it should read, " Milonas confirmed Orszag is the father of her baby daughter. Even the reckless can't give children away.   .brad.23june10. 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/ --0-939602462-1277342557=:963 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What's next for Peter Orszag? A wedding, for starters Peter Orszag with Bianna Golodryga at the White House, on May, 19, 2010 in Washington, D.C. (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)   Sad day in Washington as we prepatre to bid adieu to Peter Orszag, the unlikely sex god of the Obama administration. So what's next -- and why do we care so much?   The outgoing OMB director with the wacky haircut looked like another policy wonk until the divorced father of two was romantically linked with venture capitalist Claire Milonas and Bianna Golodryga, the ABC financial reporter he met at the 2009 White House Correspondents' Association dinner. In December, Golodryga announced their engagement on "Good Morning America" -- just a week before Milonas confirmed Orszag was the father of her baby daughter.   ~~~~~~~~~~   There's a wrong verb in the last line. If the child is alive, it should read, " Milonas confirmed Orszag <was> is the father of her baby daughter. Even the reckless can't give children away.   .brad.23june10.

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/ --0-939602462-1277342557=:963-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:34:56 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Just kidding, are you Peter? (one photo) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00c09f899ace6afdb80489bf2e69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I don't necessarily disagree with you in this case, Brad. I think it is revealing about the author's attitude on the topic, but the nuance, if intended, is not effective in this context. I would add that the tense could be meaningful and effective in other contexts though. I work often with parents-to-be and new parents, and I find that "he was the father" and "he is the father" mean very different things, and the difference has nothing to do with whether or not the child is alive. The verb form used immediately tells me a lot about the situation (specifically, the role of the biological father in the parenting dynamic). The use may not be explicitly chosen by the speaker, but it is meaningful for the right audience -- a good exercise in clarity, context, and audience judgment! John On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > What's next for Peter Orszag? A wedding, for starters > > Peter Orszag with Bianna Golodryga at the White House, on May, 19, 2010 in > Washington, D.C. (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post) > > Sad day in Washington as we prepatre to bid adieu to Peter Orszag, the > unlikely sex god of the Obama administration. So what's next -- and why do > we care so much? > > The outgoing OMB director with the wacky haircut looked like another policy > wonk until the divorced father of two was romantically linked with venture > capitalist Claire Milonas and Bianna Golodryga, the ABC financial reporter > he met at the 2009 White House Correspondents' Association dinner. In > December, Golodryga announced their engagement on "Good Morning America" > -- just a week before Milonas confirmed Orszag was the father of her baby > daughter. > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > There's a wrong verb in the last line. If the child is alive, it should > read, " Milonas confirmed Orszag * is* the father of her baby > daughter. Even the reckless can't give children away. > > .brad.23june10. > > 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/ --00c09f899ace6afdb80489bf2e69 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't necessarily disagree with you in this case, Brad. I think it is revealing about the author's attitude on the topic, but the nuance, if intended, is not effective in this context.

I would add that the tense could be meaningful and effective in other contexts though. I work often with parents-to-be and new parents, and I find that "he was the father" and "he is the father" mean very different things, and the difference has nothing to do with whether or not the child is alive. The verb form used immediately tells me a lot about the situation (specifically, the role of the biological father in the parenting dynamic). The use may not be explicitly chosen by the speaker, but it is meaningful for the right audience -- a good exercise in clarity, context, and audience judgment!

John

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00c09f899ace6afdb80489bf2e69-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:00:27 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "Adams' "Clearin=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Ansel Adams @ auction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1055880088-1277470827=:64287" --0-1055880088-1277470827=:64287 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From The Washington Post of Thursday, 24 June 2010.   Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park," a moody black-and-white mural-size print of the park's rugged, rocky terrain, sold for $722,500 on Monday. It shattered the previous auction record of $609,600 for his "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," from 1941, set in 2006.   (a) "Clearing Winter Storm" was estimated to sell for $300,000 to $500,000." ?   (b) "Clearing Winter Storm" had been estimated to sell for $300,000 to $500,000." ?   Anybody and everybody, please reply to [log in to unmask] please add "A" or "B" to the reply's subject line, so I can count them without opening them.   N.B., this is about grammar, not linguistics, i.e, not what people do but the standard that should be taught in the classrooms of what used to be called "grammar schools".   .brad.24june10. 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/ --0-1055880088-1277470827=:64287 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1055880088-1277470827=:64287--