Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but it seems to me that a combination
of the two (utilitarian and theoretical) is appropriate. If a basic
understanding of grammar is taught in the formative years (sentence
diagraming, which demands an understanding of terminology, which lends
itself to correct punctuation, etc.), then it seems a natural progression
for the advanced high school student and the college student to be taught
"grammar as a subject of study, akin to bio, math, chem..." With a strong
foundation in grammar rules, the theoretical aspect would seem to be the
natural progression of things. Without the "basics," however, is it really
possible for a student to "understand language in a more profound way?" I
realize, of course, this line of thought unrealistically assumes that every
student arrives at the advanced high school/college stage with a strong
grammatical foundation. Why is it that things always look better on
"paper?"
~Ruth
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Einarsson <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Johanna's distinction
>I agree with Johanna's analysis of our divisions, copied below, and
>do not really agree with Connie's objection to it.
>Johanna divides us into the utilitarian camp (grammar used to
>improve style, punctuation, etc.) and the theoretical group
>(grammar as a subject of study, akin to bio, math, chem...).
>Connie's response is that she actually belongs in the theoretical
>group because she wants the student to understand LANGUAGE
>in a more profound way, not just grammar.
>But I think that Johanna's distinction holds.
>Connie's approach does not lead the student toward a theoretical
>understanding of language. Her approach leads toward better
>_uses_ of style, punctuation, and so on, but it purposely sidesteps
>the articulation of the concepts.
>The avoidance of theory is a big part of her whole programme:
>sidestep any articulation of the concepts; just get the kids doing
>crative things with language that will improve their writing ability.
>It doesn't help to switch to the word "language" for the word
>"grammar." Connie does not try to teach a better _understanding_
>of language; she tries to teach a better _use_ of language. She
>therefore belongs in the utilitarian camp.
>I agree that her exercises are creative and beneficial. But I don't
>think that she can claim an interest in teaching the "deeper
>understanding of language."
>P.S. Gretchen! visit me here:
www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb
> There seems to be
> a divide among listers (at least the ones who post) on what purpose
> grammar teaching should serve. One group seems to advocate that it be
> _relatively_ narrowly focused on consistent and persistent problems
> students have with their writing: achieving effective style; using
> standard grammar, punctuation, etc.; and catching errors in
> editing/revising. Bob Yates and Connie Weaver jump to mind. There are
> probably others who just have slipped my mind right now.
>
> The other group seems to advocate teaching grammar as a way of bringing
> students to a deeper understanding of the structure of English -- focusing
> not just on what is problematic for students in their writing, but on
> understanding how grammar (syntax) functions in language in putting
> meanings together and in creating textual coherence and style. Thus Judy
> Diamondstone sees value in having students understand meaning-based
> categories of verbs, while Bob Yates does not -- not only because he
> doesn't seem to like meaning-based categories much, but because he doesn't
> see how knowing these categories is going to help students be good writers
> (this is a recent example that jumps to mind). It seems to be the 'deeper
> understanding' group that aspires to a systematic, long-term grammar
> program that starts relatively early -- 3rd, 4th grade or earlier. I have
> in mind Ed Vavra, Martha Kolln, Judy D., Dick Veit, Bill McCleary?, myself
> ... I'm sure I've left people out.
>
> I think it's important that we recognize this difference, because we
> talk at cross purposes if we don't. I can certainly respect both groups --
> perhaps the first group has more realistic aspirations. (What I say below
> may seem to contradict this.) That's one point I want to make.
>
> The other point I want to make is to advocate for the second position --
> 'deeper understanding'. My reasoning is: I don't think you can achieve the
> first without the second; leastways, I don't think you can ever get beyond
> a relatively mechanical application of formulas, possibly needing to be
> reviewed and relearned at each editing session. I think it will keep the
> students' 'feel for language' pretty superficial; I don't know that they
> will ever really be at ease with grammatical terminology or able to
> analyze sentences and texts. It will also hamper them when it comes time
> to learn a second language, study linguistics, teach English or writing to
> others. I know that only a small proportion of students will do the latter
> two things, and ever fewer learn a second language (but that will, I hope,
> change in the future).
>
> Perhaps this very paragraph points up a second divide: Do we feel that
> students need a 'feel for language', or will a relatively superficial
> understanding, for use in editing, suffice?
>
> This seems like a pretty deep divide, and will cause very different
> desires for what appears in a grammar curriculum. So the two groups will
> likely have endless disagreement. Is there a compromise position? Is
> anybody interested in a compromise?
>
> There is an external factor. The running subject line for this thread has
> been 'putting grammar back in the curriculum'. I have to emphasize, again,
> that it IS back, at least in those things that are being forced upon
> several large states: academic standards and standardized tests. These may
> not be around forever. But if they endure, I don't think children will do
> very well with them under the narrower perspective.
>
> Maybe it is not in the cards for most kids to be able to master
> extensive English grammar at all. Maybe this is only going to happen
> with a minority of kids of above-average ability. We won't know unless an
> _effective_ approach to teaching grammar is tried. There is too much wrong
> with the traditional curriculum to go by the past, and anyway, what do we
> really know about the past? It gets idealized a lot. My suspicion is that,
> of all the kids who went through traditional grammar training in the past,
> only a minority retained extensive knowledge. I don't know how possible it
> would be to tease out the various factors that led to success/failure --
> socioeconomic status? School environment? Family situation?
> Ability/creativity of teachers? Nature of testing?
>
> Am I totally off base with all of this?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
