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/