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/