On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, EDWARD VAVRA wrote: > ... The first is that, although I recognize > the importance of grammar in writing, we are > overlooking the importance of comprehending > sentence structure in reading -- and thinking. I devote > a chapter to each of these in TGLA, and it is difficult > for me to summarize here. Suffice it to say that this > plea is coming from someone who teaches five writing > courses per semester. We need to look at the whole > picture. > I agree completely here; in my new grammar class, I am having students look at already-existing texts (in all kinds of genres, not just literature) and using grammatical terminology to talk about what is going on in the texts, as well as what stylistic effects the writer's choices have -- for instance, in using subjects to create links between sentences, predicates to give new information, etc. We really have to find practical reasons for being able to use grammatical terminology and understanding the structure of the language. I believe that the sentence-level focus of most traditional grammar (and even linguistics) textbooks backgrounds the text-level needs that sentence-level choices serve. I also agree that understanding the structure of English and being able to use grammatical terminology to describe and analyze it is the core skill. As Ed says, this is the minimum we can expect in terms of teachers responding to student writing; and it is also the foundation for understanding all the other areas, such as lang. acquisition and dialect diversity. As to language acquisition: We should be doing more research on language development in the elementary and high school years. The biases of linguistic theory have kept research focused on early childhood. As a result, we have little knowledge on which to base things like grammar curricula in the schools. When is it appropriate to start asking children to use metalinguistic skills? The research I am reading suggests that middle school is the appropriate time for this. Also, it is clear that many children have trouble achieving sophistication in their writing, and that they are ready for different kinds of sophistication at different ages. We need to know more about this so it can be applied in the development of curricula and teaching materials. I think it is extremely important to have this kind of information. If your curricula are either too far below or too far above student readiness, they will fail many students. How long has grammar teaching essentially been failing now?? And with the present push for standards and standardized assessment, how many children will be disadvantaged by developmentally inappropriate standards and tests? > The next item on the hierarchy is "diversity, dialects, > social roles, etc." Are not most of these differences in > usage rather than in basic sentence structure? I think this begs the question. Of course they are matters of basic sentence structure, but the point of instruction about dialect diversity is not to get teachers understanding and using other dialects. It's to get them to understand the scientific wisdom on dialect diversity, and to achieve more equitable instruction in schools. Many children from nonstandard dialect-speaking backgrounds are still being turned off to language arts instruction because their teachers and/or materials are telling them that the language they bring from home is bad or wrong. Also, a good case can be made that some testing instruments disadvantage children from non-mainstream backgrounds. A lot of the students in my grammar class reported that, in their past education, grammar instruction made them feel inadequate and fearful, self-conscious, etc. The focus on correctness is the cause of this. An accurate portrayal of language, one that discusses the reasons why informal and formal language are different, why spoken and written language are different, why standard and nonstandard language are different, defuses the threat to students' self-image and helps them view language as a set of choices that they make based on communicative need and social situation. It also beefs up their confidence when they learn that they already are following very complex rules, and can learn new rules if they expose themselves to a lot of the kind of language they want to emulate. It's also important to make them realize that that's the only way they will learn it: you can't learn formal English by memorizing a set of rules. You have to read and write a lot, and internalize the rules. We have to enable teachers to distinguish among objections to language that are based on class or ethnic prejudice (the 'status-marking' errors), objections based on speech/writing differences (fragments, comma splices), and objections that are based on muddled thinking behind the language (dangling participles, for example). When teachers can distinguish these, students might learn to do so, and fix the problem appropriately. Students should change a double negative for very different reasons from why they would change a dangling participle, and they should be aware of those reasons. There's _my_ sermon!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~