This message was originally submitted by Edith Wollin ([log in to unmask]) to the ATEG list at MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU. in response to a message was originally submitted by > [log in to unmask] to the ATEG (added below her posting). ON the contrary, I teach a grammar course that does teach better writing at the same time. My colleague and I have done some research that shows that it works. It is based on sentence combining using syntactic structures and the theory behind it is one that Martha shares--tech the rehtoric of grammar. > --------------------------------- originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the ATEG > To 'grammar' or not to 'grammar'? > > Why, both, of course. Just not at the same time. > > What is necessary is to distinguish between teaching language use (writing, > reading, etc.) and teaching about language (which is linguistics). > > When teaching writing, reading etc., writing, reading must be taught. When > teaching linguistics, rules about what language is, how it functions, etc. > must be taught. We learn what we do. It is that simple. > > Knowledge of language (use) and knowledge about language are stored in > different regions of the brain. There does not seem to be much > collaboration between the two. Thus teaching about appositions and things > won't influence the actual writing process. Writing must be learned through > writing. There is no other way. > > This applies to both foreign language teaching and the teaching of the > mother tongue. I've done both, and tried innumerable ways (with and without > 'grammar') and there is no practical doubt that teaching lingustics > (however well done, however simple) with the goal of supporting the use of > language is a waste of time. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater of linguistics, on the contrary I love > it, I teach it even - to teacher trainees, because language teachers need > linguistics as a lesson planning tool. I also find it essential to teach > linguistics in schools because everybody should know more about language > than just that there are words; also because linguistics, when taught > properly, can develop the thinking skills. > > But these are different objectives. The language teacher's objectives and > the linguistics teacher's objectives should not be made into a mixture. > > As for teaching grammar when a problem crops up - that again is something > different and should not be confused with linguistics and linguistics > teaching. It has to do with metacommunication. Metacommunication is > communication about the communication situation. We metacommunicate > whenever a communication problem arises. By discussing the problem we try > to pin it down so we can repair it. This is unsystematic, usually takes > seconds only, and immediately after we plunge back into the communication > situation proper. Grammar rules taught in this situation certainly should > not be taught systematically, the teacher would be trying to answer > questions that no one has asked and no one is interested in and therefore > no one would learn anything from it. It would mean turning > metacommunication into a linguistics lesson - a waste of time. > > ------------ > > Or are y'all arguing about educating professional writers? That would be an > altogether different matter. A professional writer would have to be an > expert in language and linguistics and literature and in a lot more. He > would have to know about 'horses' and 'riders' and 'stables' and so on, > unlike the child who sits on the dog or the cat. > > And as to the biology teacher who teaches the names of bones - his > objective is to teach ABOUT things, not do things (like growing a new leg). > The biology teacher must be compared to the linguist, not to the language > teacher. > ------ > > My pfennig's worth ... > B. Leuschner > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany > E-mail: [log in to unmask] [h] Fax: +49 7383 2212 >