John, You were talking about cognitive dimensions of language before I followed out my own interest in it. I learned quite a bit from listening to that. One reason why we should pay attention to the grammar(in effect, the language) the child brings is because that grammar is highly meaningful. It is deeply bound up with how that child has come to comprehend the world. It's not simply a formal system. Of course, the child's cognitive growth is not at all complete. I believe it is a mistake to believe that one aspect of language (acquiring grammar) is INDEPENDENT of the intellectual maturation process. You can only make that judgement if you minimize the role of grammar and/or think of it as innate. Similarly, the grammar the child brings is deeply bound up in discourse, though it is somewhat limited in that way by the kinds of discourse the child has experience with. If we look at language through these dimensions and acknowledge that grammar is learned, not simply there, then it becomes so much more important to bring this complexity to conscious attention. Thanks for the warm words. I agree; you and I don't see everything the same way, but I have always enjoyed and often learned from our interactions. "Intelligently taught grammar that takes advantage of native speaker fluency should be a required element in the educational process." I like that framing of it. Too often, native speaker fluency has been used as a reason to remove grammar (at least substantial attention to grammar) from the curriculum. Any attention to grammar should include a celebration and appreciation of what the students bring with them as users of language in the wider world.That's a great place to start. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 4:33 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar Craig, Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting response. Dick Veit's list of types of expertise nicely distinguishes between the various grammar skills. I, of course, am referring to his type 3. I very carefully made the point of saying that native speakers are experts in their home or street variety of language, so, to me, even from a functional perspective, they are masters of that dialect. How long would it take an adult non-native speaker to become equally functional? Only the talented few ever would. Grammaticality is, over the long term, determined by what native speakers say. The only thing certain about language is that it changes, and those changes are imposed across time by a community of native speakers. Of course there will always be registers that are less stigmatized, but that's a socially imposed standard that has often been used as a gateway to determine membership. Even gateway grammaticality is imposed by a community of speakers, however. And you know that I am not using this position to defend dismissing grammar from the curriculum. Quite the opposite--intelligently taught grammar that takes advantage of native speaker fluency should be a required element in the educational process. But I digress. You and I have had many differences of opinions across the years, but I do appreciate and respect not only your position, but also the civility and professionalism of all of your posts. John On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: John, I agree that a great deal of grammar knowledge is below conscious awareness, and I certainly use that in my teaching, but I’m also troubled by the notion (assumption) that we are all masters of the language. There’s a kind of circularity to this reasoning. 1) For purposes of being scientific, we should describe what we see when we examine a language, not assume that it should be otherwise; we should consider what native speakers say to be the basis for that. 2) Native speakers say what native speakers say and are therefore “experts” in the language. Some of us seem far more articulate than others, even in non- school, non-prescriptive contexts. Some of us simply seem more adept at using language in all its manifestations. If you include that functional side to it, I don’t think the assumptions hold. It’s a more defensible position if you are looking primarily at forms. Native speakers speak grammatically if we decide that grammaticality is determined by what native speakers say. Again, it seems circular to me. Eduard’s point, even if a bit overly strident, is that many people use this reasoning as a basis for dismissing grammar from the curriculum. If our students are already “expert,” then there is no value to direct study. This is quite different from saying that students’ knowledge of language should be respected. From a usage based perspective, what grammar we carry was learned, but has now become automatic. It’s there, but not something we normally notice. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of John Crow Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 7:34 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar Eduard, I don't think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement. Instead I think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed. Most of this knowledge is beyond awareness, of course. But they could neither speak nor understand other English speakers with such ease if they weren't absolute masters of English grammar at some level. I find it refreshing to hear someone acknowledge this fact and take it into account when teaching. John On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: "We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert" This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven theories of native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are born with a grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run into the ground the English language education in the United States. Dumb and provincial American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell this story to students who learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to refer only to some European languages) - when they know that in order to have a good command of their language they need to spend thousands of yours LEARNING to decline and conjugate in their languages. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sharon Saylors" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar My community college grammar course for English majors and future secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding English Grammar as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component. My students tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time. We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting, rhetorical grammar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more than the students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also include grammar in my freshman composition courses. Sherry Saylors >>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>> I am about to embark on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one developmental writing course at the community college level. Both classes have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The basic writing course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and reading texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many entities that fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and written communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not to present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a natural part of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage written by Dick Veit: "I am now a volunteer teaching an 'intermediate ESL grammar class' that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing." Friday in class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I classes, just to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, adverb, phrase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help them become more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what will help my students the most with their writing and daily communicating and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things that fall under the whole language umbrella to learn grammar. Carol Morrison --- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries become a matter for private stipulative definition. This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins, Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to stipulate their own definition. As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical (and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing. I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar" courses. Dick On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: John, Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all, people on this list would agree. What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of public education. I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning. --- Bill Spruiell [1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it. On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of English.) If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning? What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English teachers? We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis) It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course, reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin with. I know this also brings into question the relationship between the English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum. I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks! John 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/ ****************************************************** DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). This e-mail may contain confidential information and/or information protected by intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies of it. OVPTS 12-07-09 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/