Bill,
    I don't disagree. Indeed I love your example. But I don't see the need for "linguistic" terminology. Your example simply requires the students to understand the concept of subordination and subordinate clauses. I would also suggest that for students to be able to apply what you are teaching, they need to be able to identify subordinate clauses, not just understand the underlying concept.
    I also share your frustration. My Freshman composition classes have been dealing with similar examples in the last two days. Some students really are entranced by the differences that clause structure can make, but most students simply have not had enough time and practice in identifying clauses in the first place.  Thus they have trouble understanding what is going on. From my perspective, we should be doing a lot more of the type of work you suggest, but I don't see how we can do so. Note that there has not been even a suggestion on this thread as to what, specifically, students should be able to do/understand. Should high school students be able to identify (and thus explain and discuss the implications of) the clauses in their own writing? I've seen a lot of suggestions for linguistic concepts that students should know, but I have seen very little that is specific and applicable.
     To be perfectly honest, my sense is that many of the linguists on this list do not want to see specific objectives developed and supported. If they were, then those linguists would, for example, have to teach their students (future teachers) how to identify the subjects, verbs, clauses, etc. in students' writing. As a result, they would not have time to teach phonology, morphology, etc. * the things that they have been taught and want to teach. I hope I am wrong, but we'll see.
Ed


>>> [log in to unmask] 04/19/05 12:31 PM >>>
Ed,

I think I should clarify some of my reasoning behind adding some
linguistically-oriented "wannas" to the discussion of standards. If
you're thinking only in terms of composition, I don't blame you for
being annoyed when linguists keep wanting students to have kinds of
information that you don't see as having any clear direct relation to
improving writing.

Part of the problem, I think, is that when people think of "English
class," they immediately think of two things -- reading (first how to
read, and then literature) and writing -- and then don't consider
further what areas "English" might entail. 

In *all* areas of K-12 education, we want students to develop critical
thinking skills. It's not enough for them to read -- they need to read
critically. And they need to write critically too. A very large
proportion of the human experience is tied up in language, and for
students to think critically, they need to be able to think critically
*about* the language that surrounds them. This is not just a
job-preparation issue, it's an ethical and civic issue as well. And to
think critically about language, you have to be able to talk about kinds
of words, the way words clump together, and the ways different clumping
patterns affect the meaning the hearer/reader constructs. 

It's important for students to realize that there really is a difference
between "Social security is going bankrupt and we have to do something
about it" and "Since social security is going bankrupt, we need to do
something about it." The first presents bankruptcy as an assertion,
something that is open to contradiction; the second presents it as a
fact. That's an important difference, but try discussing it with a
student with no practice in thinking about language structure (I've
tried). 

When thinking about grammar, then, we shouldn't ask what students should
come out of the composition class knowing; we should ask what students
should come out of their K-12 education knowing. Were schools structured
differently, some of this might not even be "housed" within English at
all. Given current course structures, though, English is the logical
place for it -- as if English teachers weren't already called upon to
cover too many areas, alas.

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

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/