Our recent discussion about knowledge of language seems worth a
discussion thread in its own right, one that should have major
implications for scope and sequence.
   Geoff's point is that native speakers already know how to use
prepositions, nouns, and so on, so there is no need to teach this. It's
a position pretty much taken up by Constance Weaver and other
minimalists, with the difference being that Geoff sees a role for
knowledge about language in rhetorical application (in the making of
meaning) and Weaver seems more tuned in to the minimum we need to avoid
certain kinds of error or to encourage "stylistic" flair.
   I have been thinking in terms of three kinds of knowledge about
language and the differing needs for teachers and students and looking
for a chance to interject that into the conversation. I think there are
different issues at stake, and we often disagree because we mean
different things by grammar.
   Area one would be issues related to Standard English, and here we have
the problem of rule-driven language that is deemed inappropriate in
some contexts. For many, I suppose that having "soaked up" the standard
is sufficient, but we have taken the position that students have a
right to explicit knowledge of what constitutes Standard English and
have taken the position that a students' non-standard language
shouldn't be thought of as deficient or "wrong." This means explicit
teaching about the nature of dialect, observations about the effective
ways that non-standard forms show up in many kinds of texts,
differentiating between "Standard English" and the various kinds of
"myth-rules" that show up from time to time. Depending on local need,
that might mean talking about third person singular present tense, 'ed
endings on past tense verbs, irregular past participles, double
negatives, and so on. The idea would be that simply "correcting"
doesn't eliminate error and has negative impact that goes well beyond
its intentions. We need to deepen understanding about language,
including its role in the shared experience of language communities,
and the fact that its rules are often unconscious.
   The second area would have to do with the somewhat arbitrary
conventions for representing language in writing. This includes the
alphabet and spelling and understanding the "meaning" of various kinds
of punctuation, conventions for attribution of sources, and so on.
Despite many attempts to get through this on the basis of "soft
explanations" like "a sentence is a complete thought" and "put commas
where you hear a pause," these "rules" are based on syntax and
explained in the handbooks on the basis of syntax, so it would make
sense to teach relevant terminology and concepts. For this perspective,
a term like "independent clause" becomes important precisely because it
is the core unit needed to avoid sentence fragments and because two of
them together can be run-on sentences if not punctuated in accordance
with the standards, and so on. We continue to hold students accountable
to following the rules, but aren't currently giving enough background
to explain what those rules are. In fact, most teachers seem to come
short of a full knowledge as well. If students think a "run-on
sentence" has too many ideas or just "runs on too long," then it
shouldn't surprise us that this is insufficient understanding. When
teachers think that way, we are in even deeper trouble.
   The third area is one that I think has been woefully under examined,
and that would be the connection between grammar and many different
kinds of meaning, including both thought and expression. This is what
Geoff is talking about with "who, what, where, when, why, and how",
which are one of many, many ways of approaching this rich and complex
area. We also have fine insights being developed in cognitive
linguistics and in systemic functional grammar.  To me, this is
especially important because it redeems grammar from those who feel
it's a sort of unfortunate nuisance, a final veneer placed over writing
to make it "correct," far more mundane then the rest of the English
curriculum. This is what connects the study of gramamr to issues
(goals) of effectiveness, not only in writing, but in critical reading.
   Geoff's argument, that people know language as native speakers and
don't need to have it taught, has to be respected, but I think the time
in which this has been the prime rationale for NOT teaching gramamr has
run its course.
   Knowledge about gramamr helps recognize (make explicit) Standard
English and gain access to public life while still respecting the
community languages that are important to so many of us and important
sources of literary expression.
   Knowledge about language helps us understand the conventions that come
with language as writing, including standard punctuation practices that
have always been formulated and explained in terms of syntax and seem
to resist explanation in softer (non-technical) ways.
   Knowledge about language can help us understand the nature of effective
discourse. It can lead us deeply into the heart of the meaning of a
text. It can help us understand grammatical choice as deeply connected
to building and establishing meaning, to winning friends and
influencing people, well beyond the goals of mere "correctness."
  I would add to this a fourth area, which might be best understood as
division of area three. I believe there is ample evidence that writing,
especially the work of the technical disciplines, puts pressure on
writing that leads toward structures that are not at all common in
speech. Writing is not merely putting speech into words, but doing a
very different kind of work in very different kinds of communities. The
more we understand the kinds of changes that need to happen, the better
we will be at helping students through, especially those who have
historically been under-represented in the professional and technical
fields.
   Whole language approaches should be commended for putting emphasis on
our innate abilities as language users and for putting high emphasis on
engagement as being at the heart of all good teaching. If students come
to care about reading and writing, much good will follow. We have much
to gain from extensive reading and writing. But I think it has been a
terrible mistake to put these goals at odds with a deepening
understanding of language and how it works.

Craig

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/