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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
