Hi. I've heard no direct response to my postings, so I'm getting a bit nervous. Did I violate protocol somehow? I would really like to be in touch with someone else who works with SFG. I'd like some conversational support! Please say more. Judith At 12:43 PM 1/7/99 +0600, you wrote: >Middle school & secondary English education majors are not exactly >thrilled about taking a required English grammar course. I have >been thinking of ways to motivate them by showing them how >grammatical choices and functions are text-driven, so that they can >understand the relationship between sentence level grammar and >written (or spoken) texts. I think this is a key to helping them >see the relevance of grammar-study and moving them away from the >relatively meaningless taxonomies and parsing of "traditional >grammar" (at least as they are taught in isolation). > >One tradition that has paid attention to this kind of >textlinguistics is systemic functional grammar--Michael Halliday, et >al. That tradition has given a lot of attention to pedagogical >grammars, I have been told, but I never encountered any of these in >the American educational system. > >I have worked a little with systemic grammar myself. Just last >year I studied Linda Gerot and Peter Wignell's book _Making Sense of >Functional Grammar_ (that is systemic functional grammar). The book >(an Australian publication available here in the US) does a fairly >good job of making Hallidayan functional grammar accessible to >undergraduate students. I was a little frustrated at times when the >book failed to use the kind of linguistic reasoning I am accustomed >to in setting up categories and justifying analyses of sentences. I >sometimes felt I was being asked to accept too much "on faith." > >As I thought about using this approach in my own English grammar >class, two objections stared me in the face: (1) students who are >somewhat familiar with "traditional grammar" have to learn a whole new >set of terminology--and that is a tedious task for most and a >formidable challenge for some; it is also formidable to require this >kind of tedious learning in a course that is required for education >majors (who may rather not be there); (2) young teachers going out >into our school system (where sometimes the worst kind of "traditional >grammar" still reigns) would be at a total loss of how to make use of >what they learn about systemic grammar. It would be totally foreign >to the kind of textbooks now widely in use in the US. It would take >more determination, skill, and courage than most of our graduates >have to be able to take their knowledge of systemic grammar into >middle and secondary school class rooms. > >So despite these two giant negatives....fools press on where angels >fear to tread! Does anyone know of other materials in the systemic >functional tradition or does anyone have any experience using this >approach with teachers in training here in the US? Could you dispel >either of my big negatives? Thanks. > >Mike Medley > > > > >********************************************************************** >R. Michael Medley VPH 211 Ph: (712) 737-7047 >Assistant Professor Northwestern College >Department of English Orange City, IA 51041 >********************************************************************** > Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake