I'm disturbed that a number of people seem to be unsubscribing themselves,
maybe because they are looking for something else (like ideas that work in
the classroom!) rather than a lot of theoretical discussion and the SSS
mission. Perhaps we should set up a separate list for SSS members
and other ATEGers who would like to 'listen in'.
I'd like to apologize for what I'm sure many have found to be overgenerous
bombast in my postings. I have a relatively brief reply to Ed and Edith
below.
Edith writes that 'non-passive participles' = 'stative participles'. This
is true, but 'non-passive participles' also include _active_ past
participles, such as in 'We have _eaten_ all the cake.' A stative
participle appears in sentences like 'The window is _broken_'.
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, EDWARD VAVRA wrote:
> 5. Would anyone object to my posting many of the messages on this thread on our web site? Many of the messages are long and substantive, and I hate to see them get lost. (I can, as far as I know, do so without express permission, but I'm simply asking if there would be
>any objections?)
No objections on my part.
>
> 3. I think we need to make a clear distinction between teaching grammar to
> non-native speakers as opposed to native speakers.
I agree totally. Grammar for ESL learners can _sometimes_ serve as a model
for teaching native speakers, and can _sometimes_ give us ideas for
teaching methods. But the two are quite different enterprises, and
justifiably are treated as two different fields. One way in which ESL
grammar and teaching methods can be a model for us is that they are more
solidly based -- in current linguistic analyses of English as well as
current learning theory -- than is traditional grammar.
4. On terminology, I agree with Ed: we need to arrive at a set of terms --
not just basic terms but also terms for advanced grammar teaching that
might be done in high schools and colleges. I think this is going to be a
very thorny one, because of the differences in terminology between most
modern American linguistic theories and traditional grammar. I would like
to see that students can not only move from state to state, but also from
writing and literature courses to linguistics (which is increasingly part
of the required education for teachers, for instance) with greater ease
and less confusion. It would also be very helpful for English teachers at
all levels and linguists to be able to talk to each other, not across each
other. Trouble is, if we linguists insist on _our_ terminology, we'll be
viewed as trying to bully everyone else, and we'll also be demanding many,
many people currently teaching grammar to revise their own usage. This
might not be feasible for a lot of working professionals.
I see several moderating factors: (a) there aren't really that many terms
in traditional grammar, compared to linguistics; (b) there already is
significant overlap between the two; (c) linguistics can, I feel, claim
_some_ authority in having a more-accurate analysis of some aspects of the
language than trad. grammar. So, for instance, being able to distinguish
between 'determiners' and 'articles' (articles are a kind of determiner,
but there are other determiners, like demonstrative pronouns and
quantifiers, that don't count as articles).
So one thing that we need to have on our 'questions to answer' list is:
-What set of terms can we agree on and suggest to the rest of the country?
Is anyone else pondering which questions need to be on our SSS list?
Cheers,
Johanna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~
E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~
Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
