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/