Well, well, well, Ed -- you DO teach morphology, aka "prefixes,
suffixes, and roots". Be careful of letting any more linguistics sneak
into your curriculum.
I don't actually think there is anything that could change your stubborn
insistence on misunderstanding (and misrepresenting) linguists, but
I'll take a last try. I have a web page on English morphology (call it
'word structure' if you like), as well as several exercises on the web
in word analysis (I call it 'morphological analysis', but 'word
analysis' is fine outside of linguistics classes, and is, in fact, what
it's called in CA language arts materials). You will find some
linguistic terminology on these pages, but again, that's because they
are for linguistics classes. Virtually all of the material could be
adapted for classes at 'lower' levels quite easily, with few terminology
changes. Many of the words on the pages are identical to terms used in
everyday pedagogical grammars (maybe even KISS).
As for 'linguistic theory', the approach on my pages is basic
structuralism, which corresponds in most aspects to how traditional
teaching materials depict the language. I never use the term
"structuralism" in my classes. ANY description of a language is a theory
of it, for you have no choice but to define and categorize according to
some scheme or other. The traditional approach to word analysis is known
as the word-and-paradigm approach. I don't introduce network models (the
theory I believe in), optimality theory, discontinuous morphology,
generative morphology, or any other modern linguistic theory, on these
web pages.
It would be fun to work with a few people on actually "translating" my
basic page into language that you (or others) accept as non-theoretical
enough. It would also be fun to discuss which concepts teachers think
are appropriate at which levels. Any volunteers?
Here are links to my pages:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/morph/morph.over.html
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/morph/morphex.html
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/morph/morphex2.html
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/moremorphex.html
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/morph/auxlex.html
(could be seen as a syntax exercise)
One might object to the most basic term of morphology, "morpheme". One
could propose an alternative like "word part" or "word-building unit".
But is "morpheme" really any harder than "appositive", "apostrophe", or
"preposition"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/
|
