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/