As a general rule, the college students with whom I deal are incapable of
conjugating the verb BE.  Of course, they can use its forms correctly.
You could say that they have subconscious knowledge of its grammar in the
same sense that birds have a subconscious knowledge of aerodynamics.  I
assume that education is ultimately aimed at conscious knowledge.  I find
it hard to believe that many English teachers apparently view as
inconsequential the fact hardly any high school graduates can produce a
coherent account of the relationships between BE, IS, WAS, and BEEN.  If
we are going to try to impart to our students any conscious knowledge of
the English language at all, wouldn't that be a good place to start?  What
would be an example of something about grammar that is more important to
know, consciously that is?



On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Johanna Rubba wrote:

> Maybe D. (is it David?) Mulroy was just using shorthand in his
> description of a particular student's abilities, but if not, I'd like to
> encourage him (and everybody) to maintain at all times a distinction
> between two kinds of knowledge of language: conscious and subconscious.
> People keep saying things like 'he had no idea how to conjugate BE' and
> 'the author obviously has no grasp of basic sentence structure'. This
> student had both, of course, but that knowledge lies below the level of
> conscious awareness. What Mr. Mulroy is lamenting is the student's lack
> of CONSCIOUS or explicit knowledge of terminology, and slips in the
> ability to notice what is wrong with a sentence that the student has
> written. I have no doubt that this student used the verb 'be' perfectly
> grammatically in his speech and writing most of the time. The sentence
> from his work that was cited --
> 
> > "Generally, the importance of having the ability to write papers and to
> > construct a well-composed essay is considered very important throughout a
> > student's education and even in their career."
> 
> shows a probable processing error -- the sentence is long and complex,
> and the first constituent containing 'importance' was out of conscious
> awareness by the time the second one was produced. Errors like this
> occur _constantly_ in speech and are rarely noticed [unless the speaker
> is a male member of the Bush family] and most often tolerated, since
> what people focus on most in talk is understanding the message. It's not
> surprising to find an error like this at all. Most people would catch an
> error like this in revision, if they had the time and were practiced at
> revision. Even in revision, one must keep the long and complex subject
> phrase in awareness while checking the predicate. This is a cognitive
> challenge for a novice editor, although the repetition of 'important'
> screams at us more-practiced people. Novice editors have a lot to pay
> attention to.
> 
> Why is it important to keep this distinction in mind? Because statements
> like 'he doesn't know how to ... ' can be interpreted as a lack of
> linguistic ability. This is a false and dangerous assessment. Many of my
> students have gotten the message from grammar and writing classes, and
> from the general atmosphere, it seems, that they don't know English or
> that their English is bad. They often go on to conclude from this that
> they're stupid and have less intellectual ability than they actually
> have. Students certainly lack METALINGUISTIC knowledge -- the knowledge
> of descriptive terms and categories of grammatical analysis, and
> explicit knowledge of how constituents build sentences. And many
> students _do_ lack linguistic ability in the formal, written mode. But
> if their past schooling has not required them to read and write
> extensively, and if they have spent 6+ hours per day watching
> television, can we blame them for lacking this? You can't learn a
> language you're not exposed to.
> 
> My students report great relief and a much more positive attitude
> towards learning grammatical metalanguage when I make clear to them how
> much _subconscious_ knowledge of English they possess, and how they can
> use that to help them with things like comma splices, etc. They still
> report that the material is difficult and challenging, but they are
> relieved of the stigma of 'not knowing their own language'.
> 
> It is also tremendously helpful to discuss explicitly matters such as
> the structural differences between speech and writing (see Pam Dykstra's
> great work on incorporating this into writing instruction) and the
> linguistic/metalinguistic difference itself.
> 
> It is also a very good idea to point out the intrinsic logic of certain
> typical errors. Comma splices, for instance, are likely to occur between
> two sentences that are closely related in meaning and in rhetorical
> function in the text. Fragments are likely to be 'afterthoughts' that
> are again closely related in meaning to what went before. So students
> are actually cuing to meaning relationships when they make these errors.
> They just signal the meaning relationships in the wrong way -- they
> violate punctuation rules. When I cast these errors in this light,
> students realize that there is a 'method to their madness' -- that their
> errors aren't just random stupidity. They are aware of rhetorical links
> in their writing -- they just do not know how to use punctuation
> conventionally in such situations.
> 
> Research on second-language acquisition has demonstrated the importance
> of affective or emotional factors as determinative of motivation and
> confidence in learning; I think these factors are being recognized in
> learning in general these days. They're important in learning grammar, too.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba   Assistant 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.  756-259
> • E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>                                        **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>