Elizabeth:
Thank you for a post that, in many ways, sings my song.
The task of theoretical linguists (Herb, et al.) is so daunting that
hundreds and hundreds of phenomenal minds working for many decades have yet
to accomplish it. Their task is to devise some systematic representation of
the knowledge that native speakers possess that allows them to create and
understand language. In fact, the task is so daunting that they have
decided to try to create an absolutely abstract representation first. Such
a representation is viewed as being foundational: one cannot continue to
build a house of language theory until it is solidly in place. If they are
ever successful at doing so, perhaps then they will turn their attention to
devising a system that reflects how the brain actually works vis-a-vie
language, i.e., a system that reflects psychologically reality. This final
step is, of course, the one you and I thirst for as we struggle to help
students improve their writing and pass tests that purport to measure said
ability.
Meanwhile, the fallout from the work of theoretical linguistics has had an
enormous impact on language-related problems of all sorts. Applied
linguists are principally concerned with the psychological reality of
linguistic theory and with the application of this theory to
language-related problems. We have MUCH better insights into the workings
of language thanks to the efforts of theoreticians.
The postings on this list are often the wranglings of theoretical linguists
as they wrestle with their mission. However, I have found many of the
postings on this listserv to be phenomenally useful as I struggle with how
best to teach composition. When a post delves into areas that don't scratch
where I itch, I just move on to the next one.
I applaud your approach to grammar in the composition classroom: functional
terminology and, in your own words, ". . . only those elements of grammar
that actually affect how well a writer can produce the standard English
their situation calls for." This is _exactly_ what I am doing. My hero,
BTW, is Rei Noguchi. If you haven't read _Grammar and the Teaching of
Writing_, another NCTE publication, I highly recommend it.
Finally, your belief that this listserv is exclusively for college teachers
of English is false. It is intended for grammar concerns at all levels.
The problem is that K-12 classroom teachers are reluctant to participate
actively. However, things will never change unless people like you roll up
their sleeves and jump in. And your observation that color-coding of
sentences is too childish for college. Anything that works hits a homerun
in my book. I, like Herb, would be interested in seeing how it works.
This list needs people like you who are willing to advocate for K-12
teachers. I would encourage you not to leave, but to come out swinging. . .
.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Ward
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 3/7/04 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: RK diagrams
Herb:
Thank you for putting my effort into historical perspective. I judge you
don't think much of such efforts, but the RK diagrams are still
acceptable, so who knows. My color code is part of a grammar-composition
program that I have been working on for a couple of years. Originally, I
started out to simply show that grammar can and should be a support to
composition. I did not intend to do anything radical, merely helpful.
Reading this list has changed my mind about that as has the announcement
of the upcoming new SAT and Act tests. Those tests have been the subject
of some strong words of disparagement on this list. The criticism is
certainly justified, but dismissing the tests as worthless doesn't make
them go away and doesn't do a thing for the countless teachers who must
somehow help their students get through them.
I was finding it hard to understand that attitude until a recent e-mail
discussion in which the writer made clear that the investigations of a
working linguist must not be distracted by pedagogy. Of course
theorizing pushes back the horizons, and only the scholars can do that.
Still if, as one recent e-mailer stated, it is possible to go through a
linguistic course today and come out with no idea of how a sentence is
put together, is that really what you want?
Something else you might give a moment's consideration to is what
happens to someone like myself when left to create a course mainly out
of experience with little scholarly guidance. I signed up for these
e-mails because I wanted to know as much as possible about the current
thinking on modern grammar. I am sorry to report that the principal
lesson I am taking away is that there is no unified position; the most
basic concepts are up for grabs; whatever terminology I choose to
include will make someone unhappy; whatever approach I take will be
dismissed along with those tests.
These realizations stopped me for a while, but those tests are still
coming, and so time is of the essence. Of course a single year's course
cannot do justice to modern theories. Please be certain that neither I
nor, I suspect, any one else who is trying to "fix the situation"
presumes that our answers will be more than stopgaps until something
better comes along. But meanwhile your lack of guidelines leaves me free
from the possibility of conforming to any one theory. You have turned
this peaceful, law-abiding. retired old educator into a radical. For my
course, I have chosen functional terminology while telling teachers they
might want to warn students that there are more sets of labels under
consideration.. I have also decided to include only those elements of
grammar that actually affect how well a writer can produce the standard
English their situation calls for. It is amazing how that focus has
changed my entire presentation. Anyway it is better that students
should get some overall picture of how the language operates than to
leave them to mindlessly memorize the disjointed lists of errors in the
popular test prep manuals.
One e-mailer worried that we might be out here teaching "something
wrong." Define that for us, and you can be sure we will pay respectful
attention. One year I acquired a class from middle school who had been
taught the past perfect tense and thought it was the only one worth
using. That attitude produced some remarkably "wrong" sentences. I know
enough grammar not to lead anyone that seriously astray.
Sorry if I have offended any of you. This complaint was not meant to be
directed at any particular person. But it is so frustrating that the
people who know the most about language and who obviously love it are so
disinterested in creating some kind of practical course of study
especially for the kids who will never get a chance to sit in a college
classroom and learn exciting things about their language. (Yes, Grammar
Alive is a good help for teachers who already know some grammar, but
it's not enough for most to use as a course of study.
Sorry for dumping all this on you, Herb. It wasn't meant for you in
particular. You just answered the wrong e-mail at the wrong time. If
you or anyone else is really interested in a color code, I could put a
page of radical hues on my web site, but I suspect coloring sentences is
a bit too childish for college. Don't know why that wasn't obvious to me
from the beginning.
Elizabeth Ward
PS. Since pedagogy is not your thing, could this assembly at least
review the new SAT when it comes out, find all the outmoded standards
and other absurdities it will undoubtedly contain, and then let the test
makers know how you feel. You they might listen to.
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/
|
