Hi all:

I wanted to add my perspective and hopefully move this discussion in a
different direction, as I have a foot in both "camps": I have two
degrees in formal/empirical linguistics, including an MA, and I also
have the better part of a Master's degree in the teaching of writing.
I currently teach writing at a community college.

The present argument typifies one of the biggest problems I struggle
with when it comes to teaching grammar: The breakdown of
inter-disciplinary dialogue. Members of different disciplines and
sub-disciplines feel the need to isolate themselves from from one
another when it comes to how we approach grammar. Such isolation
hinders our ability to produce new knowledge.

Rather than perpetuating the fragmentation, we need more of an
inter-disciplinary dialogue. As a writing teacher, I think that the
way I teach sentence-level issues is enhanced by the insights from
formal linguistics. And as a Linguist, I think that my understanding
of language as a natural phenomenon is enhanced by analyzing the ways
in which students (and other authors) actually use the language, and
how teachers choose to talk about it.

Such a dialogue requires at least three things to be productive:

First, all participants need to make a good-faith effort to understand
the methodology and worldview of those who have training in other
disciplines, even if they disagree. From my conversations with Mr.
Johnston and from his posts to the list, it is evident that he is not
fully acquainted with the methods and assumptions of formal/empirical
linguistics, and it's not clear to me from his responses whether he is
interested in taking seriously the formidable task of becoming so
acquainted. At the same time, I will admit that I don't know what
training and methodological assumptions Mr. Johnston operates under,
I'm at a loss as to how to respond to his claims about grammar.

Second, the dialogue needs to remain civil, respectful, and inclusive.
As a Linguist, I will be the first to admit that there are many of us
who tend to be excessively blunt in how we criticize other people's
ides, which is not always helpful for obvious reasons. This bluntness
I think goes hand-in-hand with the empirical reliance on the
scientific method, which places a high value on the ability of one to
disprove the hypotheses of others'. But we need to remember that not
all members of this list work within the scientific method.

Third, we need to be clear about the terminology we use. MANY people
(i.e. Patrick Hartwell) have pointed out that even the term "grammar"
itself is ambiguous, meaning different things to people that come from
different academic backgrounds. If person A takes "grammar" to mean X,
and person B takes it to mean Y, then it's pointless for them to even
debate the nature of grammar until they clarify their terms.

Sincerely,
--Dan Roth
Contra Costa College

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/