I was discussing grammar teaching a couple of decades back at a SAMLA
conference and describing my English curriculum as a college freshman:
one quarter of formal grammar (based on Jespersen, Curme, and Pence & Emery
with a dab of Fries [sp.?]); one quarter of rhetoric; and one quarter of
descriptive and argumentive writing with written themes weekly and on exams.
The non-credit "bone-head" course required a theme a day. The happy
professor exclaimed that is just the type of curriculum that he was sent
there to find. His school has found its Freshman writing program to be
bankrupt and needed a recipe for recovery. He asked where I attended school
and would they share their curriculum. I said, "Of course. I attended
Mississippi Southern in Hattiesburg." His face went white. "Oh, no, that's
my university. They would never admit that they made a mistake and return
to a program that they had cancelled." "That's their loss" I commented.
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 12 Nov 2010 to 13 Nov 2010 (#2010-194)
There are 2 messages totalling 1177 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. grammar term definitions
2. Birds do it, bees do it
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:10:39 -0600
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
--Apple-Mail-14--6089423
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
> It would be nice to have definitions that are easy to understand, but =
if there are too many exceptions (if they are too simplified) they will =
cause harm in a different way. That's a tough territory to negotiate.
It is indeed tough territory to negotiate, which is why Scott asked for =
help. I am 50 years old and can remember doing only a little sentence =
diagraming in public school. At the time, I was pretty sure there were =
sentences that were not presented in the grammar books that could not be =
solved (i.e. agreed upon). I only wished my teachers had admitted as =
much. Grammar was presented as definitive as mathematics. Even though =
I felt betrayed and frustrated by my teachers, my love for language was =
not destroyed. However, I was no doubt an exception as I suspect many =
of my peers went on to help the NCTE remove grammar from the English =
curriculum.
> Given and new is a very easy concept to teach at my level. I have =
never had a student fail to pick it up quickly, probably because it is =
very basic to the way we use language in our everyday lives.
This comment is interesting because the average high school student does =
not distinguish between concepts that work in every day speech and =
conventions required in academic language. It can be frustrating to see =
the bad habits that student writers carry over from everyday language =
(fragments, "well," indefinite "you," and other colloquialisms) and what =
they refuse to carry over (known-new concepts and transition phrases). =
What is picked up quickly and intuitively by the college-bound is the =
very thing that thwarts and confuses the average writer.
Low-level students who aren't exposed to academic speech and writing =
don't know there are important overlaps that are basic skills to human =
communication.
Susan
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Susan,
> I think you and I are in pretty much agreement. It would be nice =
to have definitions that are easy to understand, but if there are too =
many exceptions (if they are too simplified) they will cause harm in a =
different way. That's a tough territory to negotiate.
> I suggested Martha's book because I know it has been used with =
some success at the high school level. It may surprise you to know that =
back in the earlier days when I went to public school, we diagrammed =
sentences in seventh and eighth grade. I can remember dealing with the =
complements Martha presents in her book for the basic sentence patterns, =
and I can remember dealing with infinitives and participles. It was, I =
think, an attempt to give us a comprehensive overview, and it gave me a =
foundation that has been amended quite a bit, but nevertheless sustained =
me well into adulthood. I may have been rare in liking that, but I think =
there was a sense back in those days that we were ready for it, and in =
my case at least, that was true. It wasn't watered down.
> Given and new is a very easy concept to teach at my level. I have =
never had a student fail to pick it up quickly, probably because it is =
very basic to the way we use language in our everyday lives.
> Grammar study fails to carry over to real world reading and =
writing in part because grammar has been narrowed down to what happens =
internally within isolated sentences. But sentences don't happen in =
isolation when we read and write. Grammar is discourse neutral only if =
you decide to remove discourse from the discussion. It is an artificial =
decision and a harmful one.
>=20
> Craig
>=20
> On 11/11/2010 10:03 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM,
> Craig Hancock wrote:
>=20
> >> it doesn't make sense to criticize [k-12 teachers'] lack
> of=20
>=20
> >> knowledge
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > No, it doesn't make sense because we are all at a lack of=20
>=20
> > knowledge--college instructors as well as K-12. We k-12
> teachers=20
>=20
> > need definitions to give to young learners. It would be=20
>=20
> > anti-intellectual to condemn Scott's group as merely
> "reaching back"=20
>=20
> > to what worked for them when they learned grammar instruction
> if the=20
>=20
> > only thing you can replace it with is definitions that are
> beyond the
>=20
> > comprehension of k-12 learners. I was one of those k-12
> learners in
>=20
> > the 70s. I liked the definitions I got because I could
> understand
>=20
> > them. But I didn't like them because there were exceptions
> that I
>=20
> > thought of that drove me crazy and made me think there was
> something
>=20
> > I was missing. The answer I think is for grammar definitions
> to be
>=20
> > simple but to indicate to students that there are exceptions.
> Martha
>=20
> > Kolln is all very well for an adult to read, but she is not
> helping
>=20
> > us explain things to k-12 students (an exception would be AP
>=20
> > classes--I used to use her stuff when I taught AP Lang).
> Given-New is
>=20
> > higher level understanding, a concept more sophisticated than
> you may
>=20
> > realize for some students to understand on a paragraph
> level--let
>=20
> > alone from one sentence to another.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > I appreciate all the responses that this thread has recently
> =20
>=20
> > generated.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Susan
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> >> . There may, in fact, be plenty of room for blame in our
> current=20
>=20
> >> situation. We can look back to the fifties and early
> sixties as a=20
>=20
> >> time in which the definitions of traditional grammar were
> revised=20
>=20
> >> and reformed by the structuralists. Unfortunately, these
> did not=20
>=20
> >> take lasting hold for a few reasons. One is that
> structural=20
>=20
> >> linguistics was supplanted by generative grammar as the
> primary=20
>=20
> >> focus of linguists. Another is that the efficacy of
> formal grammar=20
>=20
> >> was called into question by research studies that seemed
> to show=20
>=20
> >> there was little carryover into improved writing.The
> generativists=20
>=20
> >> also emphasized that grammar was hardwired into the
> brain, which=20
>=20
> >> reinforced the notion that native speakers would pick up
> the=20
>=20
> >> grammar of their language naturally, without direct
> instruction,
>=20
> >> if grammar was understood as the rule based formal system
> that=20
>=20
> >> underlies the language. Opposition to the teaching of
> grammar took=20
>=20
> >> the form that Geoff was expressing: we shouldn't impose
> definitions
>=20
> >> that don't define and we shouldn't give workbook
> exercises in
>=20
> >> correctness (mindless drills). Students will acquire
> language when
>=20
> >> allowed to use language meaningfully in reading and
> writing that
>=20
> >> seems to matter to them. This brought about some much
> needed
>=20
> >> improvements in the curriculum, but pretty much relegated
> language
>=20
> >> to a minimalist place--for example, mini-lessons to deal
> with
>=20
> >> errors when the "need" arises. To protect this minimalist
> approach,
>=20
> >> NCTE has been very reluctant to embrace any kind of
> "scope and
>=20
> >> sequence" approach, for example any attempt to hold
> students
>=20
> >> accountable for KNOWING about language, which would bring
> back a
>=20
> >> more systematic curriculum. In the meantime, functional
> approaches
>=20
> >> to language (approaches that connect grammar to discourse
> and to
>=20
> >> semantics/cognition) have been developed, but have
> not--at least in
>=20
> >> the states--been given pedagogical applications. The big
> exception
>=20
> >> is systemic functional linguistics, which has had a huge
> influence
>=20
> >> on teaching outside the states, most notably in
> Australia. There, a
>=20
> >> focus on genre is a way to connect language study
> directly to
>=20
> >> discourse concerns. In the meantime, it sure as heck
> shouldn't
>=20
> >> surprise us that a group at Scott's school hoping to
> develop a
>=20
> >> thoughtful curriculum for grades five through eight
> should reach
>=20
> >> back to the grammar they remember from the last time it
> was
>=20
> >> seriously taught, a pre-reform grammar, with problematic
>=20
> >> definitions. A nice compromise for this might be to look
> back at
>=20
> >> the structural grammars of the fifties. It comes across
> as a
>=20
> >> reformed traditional grammar. Martha Kolln's
> /Understanding English
>=20
> >> Grammar/ draws on those grammars very heavily. It doesn't
> seem such
>=20
> >> a drastic change from what people are used to. She makes
> some very
>=20
> >> thoughtful choices about what concepts are most
> important. I would
>=20
> >> recommend mixing in something of a discourse
> focus--concepts like
>=20
> >> "given" and "new," for example, which help direct
> attention to the
>=20
> >> ways in which meaning gets built over extended text.
> Structural
>=20
> >> grammar has a tendency to treat sentences as isolated
> units. I
>=20
> >> would also recommend the corpus grammars, including the
> Longman
>=20
> >> Grammar (Biber et. al.), which looks at patterns of
> grammar in
>=20
> >> different discourse contexts. If students pay attention
> to how a
>=20
> >> story works, for example, carrying that attention down to
> the level
>=20
> >> of the sentence, then grammar is not disconnected from
> reading and
>=20
> >> writing. I have recently been sent a prepublication draft
> of an
>=20
> >> article describing a very successful program in England
> focusing on
>=20
> >> genre. You can't expect grammar to have an influence on
> reading and
>=20
> >> writing unless you make explicit connections. To me, that
> means
>=20
> >> making the construction of meaning the central focus. I
> like the
>=20
> >> idea that linguistics is "art" as well as "science," but
> to the
>=20
> >> extent that it is a science, it needs to bow down to what
> it
>=20
> >> studies. The language is under no obligation to match our
>=20
> >> understanding of it. I like "patterns" instead of
> "rules." a
>=20
> >> definition for "noun" should not supplant an opportunity
> to explore
>=20
> >> the nature and behavior of real nouns in the wild.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> Craig
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> On 11/10/2010 6:40 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
>=20
> >>> Brett,
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> Students immediately understand the "you" understood
> concept.
>=20
> >> Scott's
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> definitions need to be simple. Exceptions can be
> handled with
>=20
> >> an
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> asterisk. In fact, Scott's header should have an
> asterisk,
>=20
> >> telling
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> students that grammar is an art and not a science, so
> these
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> definitions may have some exceptions to the basic
> rule. I
>=20
> >> think
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> what we need with younger students is a foundation.
> But we
>=20
> >> should
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> share with them up front that these definitions have
> a few
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> exceptions.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> I was complimenting you for actually taking the
> question
>=20
> >> seriously
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> and providing good responses. You did respond as
> though it
>=20
> >> was
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> beneath you to have to tediously proofread his list.
> And it's
>=20
> >> true.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> You shouldn't have to do the entire list, but the few
>=20
> >> examples you
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> gave were great. So why not end by saying that you
> don't have
>=20
> >> time
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> to do more. You personally don't have to feel on the
> spot to
>=20
> >> give a
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> complete response (or any response at all). This is a
>=20
> >> listserv.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> Others could add on to your efforts. Instead, your
> last
>=20
> >> sentence
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> may have stopped others from carrying on in the
> spirit you
>=20
> >> began (my
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> paraphrase of your last sentence: stop bothering us
> with
>=20
> >> petty
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> concerns and get yourself a good glossary).
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> I love to hear people debate an idea with logic, but
> it was
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> irritating to read straw man responses assuming the
> only
>=20
> >> possible
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> purpose of a list must be to force students to
> memorize
>=20
> >> definitions.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> I can't imagine for a moment that was Scott's
> intention. I
>=20
> >> was
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> reading this thread with great interest and hoping
> for good
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> suggestions BECAUSE I do not have any.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> I don't contribute often, but I stay subscribed and
> read most
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> threads because you all are so smart. Unfortunately,
>=20
> >> sometimes some
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> of you are thin-skinned and ridiculously protective
> of your
>=20
> >> turf. But
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> you are smart, so I forgive you.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> Susan
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>> PS, I'm afraid I must have missed Susan's own
> suggestions
>=20
> >> about
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>> how to improve the definitions.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
> list's
>=20
> >> web
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>=20
> >> and
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> select "Join or leave the list"
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
> list's web=20
>=20
> >> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and=20
>=20
> >> select "Join or leave the list"
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web=20
>=20
> > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and=20
>=20
> > select "Join or leave the list"
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org
> 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/
>=20
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/
--Apple-Mail-14--6089423
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><blockquote type=3D"cite">It would be nice to have definitions that =
are easy to understand, but if there are too many exceptions (if they =
are too simplified) they will cause harm in a different way. That's a =
tough territory to negotiate.</blockquote><div>It is indeed tough =
territory to negotiate, which is why Scott asked for help. I am 50 =
years old and can remember doing only a little sentence diagraming in =
public school. At the time, I was pretty sure there were sentences =
that were not presented in the grammar books that could not be solved =
(i.e. agreed upon). I only wished my teachers had admitted as =
much. Grammar was presented as definitive as mathematics. =
Even though I felt betrayed and frustrated by my teachers, my love =
for language was not destroyed. However, I was no doubt an =
exception as I suspect many of my peers went on to help the NCTE remove =
grammar from the English curriculum.<div><br></div><div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff"> =
Given and new is a very easy concept to teach at my level. I have =
never had a student fail to pick it up quickly, probably because it is =
very basic to the way we use language in our everyday =
lives.</div></blockquote><br></div><div>This comment is interesting =
because the average high school student does not distinguish between =
concepts that work in every day speech and conventions required in =
academic language. It can be frustrating to see the bad habits =
that student writers carry over from everyday language (fragments, =
"well," indefinite "you," and other colloquialisms) and what they refuse =
to carry over (known-new concepts and transition phrases). What is =
picked up quickly and intuitively by the college-bound is the very thing =
that thwarts and confuses the average =
writer.</div><div><br></div><div>Low-level students who aren't exposed =
to academic speech and writing don't know there are important overlaps =
that are basic skills to human =
communication.</div><div><br></div><div>Susan</div><div><br></div><div><di=
v><div>On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff">
Susan,<br>
I think you and I are in pretty much =
agreement. It would be nice to have definitions that are easy to =
understand, but if there are too many exceptions (if they are too =
simplified) they will cause harm in a different way. That's a tough =
territory to negotiate.</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div =
text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff">
I suggested Martha's book because I know it has =
been used with
some success at the high school level. It may surprise you to =
know
that back in the earlier days when I went to public school, we
diagrammed sentences in seventh and eighth grade. I can remember
dealing with the complements Martha presents in her book for the
basic sentence patterns, and I can remember dealing with infinitives
and participles. It was, I think, an attempt to give us a
comprehensive overview, and it gave me a foundation that has been
amended quite a bit, but nevertheless sustained me well into
adulthood. I may have been rare in liking that, but I think there
was a sense back in those days that we were ready for it, and in my
case at least, that was true. It wasn't watered down.<br>
Given and new is a very easy concept to teach at =
my level. I
have never had a student fail to pick it up quickly, probably
because it is very basic to the way we use language in our everyday
lives.<br>
Grammar study fails to carry over to real world =
reading and
writing in part because grammar has been narrowed down to what
happens internally within isolated sentences. But sentences don't
happen in isolation when we read and write. Grammar is discourse
neutral only if you decide to remove discourse from the discussion.
It is an artificial decision and a harmful one.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
On 11/11/2010 10:03 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:<br>
<span style=3D"white-space: pre;">> On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM,
Craig Hancock wrote:<br>
>> it doesn't make sense to criticize [k-12 teachers'] lack
of <br>
>> knowledge<br>
> <br>
> No, it doesn't make sense because we are all at a lack of =
<br>
> knowledge--college instructors as well as K-12. We k-12
teachers <br>
> need definitions to give to young learners. It would be <br>
> anti-intellectual to condemn Scott's group as merely
"reaching back" <br>
> to what worked for them when they learned grammar instruction
if the <br>
> only thing you can replace it with is definitions that are
beyond the<br>
> comprehension of k-12 learners. I was one of those k-12
learners in<br>
> the 70s. I liked the definitions I got because I could
understand<br>
> them. But I didn't like them because there were exceptions
that I<br>
> thought of that drove me crazy and made me think there was
something<br>
> I was missing. The answer I think is for grammar definitions
to be<br>
> simple but to indicate to students that there are exceptions.
Martha<br>
> Kolln is all very well for an adult to read, but she is not
helping<br>
> us explain things to k-12 students (an exception would be =
AP<br>
> classes--I used to use her stuff when I taught AP Lang).
Given-New is<br>
> higher level understanding, a concept more sophisticated than
you may<br>
> realize for some students to understand on a paragraph
level--let<br>
> alone from one sentence to another.<br>
> <br>
> I appreciate all the responses that this thread has recently
<br>
> generated.<br>
> <br>
> Susan<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> . There may, in fact, be plenty of room for blame in our
current <br>
>> situation. We can look back to the fifties and early
sixties as a <br>
>> time in which the definitions of traditional grammar were
revised <br>
>> and reformed by the structuralists. Unfortunately, these
did not <br>
>> take lasting hold for a few reasons. One is that
structural <br>
>> linguistics was supplanted by generative grammar as the
primary <br>
>> focus of linguists. Another is that the efficacy of
formal grammar <br>
>> was called into question by research studies that seemed
to show <br>
>> there was little carryover into improved writing.The
generativists <br>
>> also emphasized that grammar was hardwired into the
brain, which <br>
>> reinforced the notion that native speakers would pick up
the <br>
>> grammar of their language naturally, without direct
instruction,<br>
>> if grammar was understood as the rule based formal system
that <br>
>> underlies the language. Opposition to the teaching of
grammar took <br>
>> the form that Geoff was expressing: we shouldn't impose
definitions<br>
>> that don't define and we shouldn't give workbook
exercises in<br>
>> correctness (mindless drills). Students will acquire
language when<br>
>> allowed to use language meaningfully in reading and
writing that<br>
>> seems to matter to them. This brought about some much
needed<br>
>> improvements in the curriculum, but pretty much relegated
language<br>
>> to a minimalist place--for example, mini-lessons to deal
with<br>
>> errors when the "need" arises. To protect this minimalist
approach,<br>
>> NCTE has been very reluctant to embrace any kind of
"scope and<br>
>> sequence" approach, for example any attempt to hold
students<br>
>> accountable for KNOWING about language, which would bring
back a<br>
>> more systematic curriculum. In the meantime, functional
approaches<br>
>> to language (approaches that connect grammar to discourse
and to<br>
>> semantics/cognition) have been developed, but have
not--at least in<br>
>> the states--been given pedagogical applications. The big
exception<br>
>> is systemic functional linguistics, which has had a huge
influence<br>
>> on teaching outside the states, most notably in
Australia. There, a<br>
>> focus on genre is a way to connect language study
directly to<br>
>> discourse concerns. In the meantime, it sure as heck
shouldn't<br>
>> surprise us that a group at Scott's school hoping to
develop a<br>
>> thoughtful curriculum for grades five through eight
should reach<br>
>> back to the grammar they remember from the last time it
was<br>
>> seriously taught, a pre-reform grammar, with =
problematic<br>
>> definitions. A nice compromise for this might be to look
back at<br>
>> the structural grammars of the fifties. It comes across
as a<br>
>> reformed traditional grammar. Martha Kolln's
/Understanding English<br>
>> Grammar/ draws on those grammars very heavily. It doesn't
seem such<br>
>> a drastic change from what people are used to. She makes
some very<br>
>> thoughtful choices about what concepts are most
important. I would<br>
>> recommend mixing in something of a discourse
focus--concepts like<br>
>> "given" and "new," for example, which help direct
attention to the<br>
>> ways in which meaning gets built over extended text.
Structural<br>
>> grammar has a tendency to treat sentences as isolated
units. I<br>
>> would also recommend the corpus grammars, including the
Longman<br>
>> Grammar (Biber et. al.), which looks at patterns of
grammar in<br>
>> different discourse contexts. If students pay attention
to how a<br>
>> story works, for example, carrying that attention down to
the level<br>
>> of the sentence, then grammar is not disconnected from
reading and<br>
>> writing. I have recently been sent a prepublication draft
of an<br>
>> article describing a very successful program in England
focusing on<br>
>> genre. You can't expect grammar to have an influence on
reading and<br>
>> writing unless you make explicit connections. To me, that
means<br>
>> making the construction of meaning the central focus. I
like the<br>
>> idea that linguistics is "art" as well as "science," but
to the<br>
>> extent that it is a science, it needs to bow down to what
it<br>
>> studies. The language is under no obligation to match =
our<br>
>> understanding of it. I like "patterns" instead of
"rules." a<br>
>> definition for "noun" should not supplant an opportunity
to explore<br>
>> the nature and behavior of real nouns in the wild.<br>
>> <br>
>> Craig<br>
>> <br>
>> On 11/10/2010 6:40 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:<br>
>>> Brett,<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> Students immediately understand the "you" understood
concept.<br>
>> Scott's<br>
>> <br>
>>> definitions need to be simple. Exceptions can be
handled with<br>
>> an<br>
>> <br>
>>> asterisk. In fact, Scott's header should have an
asterisk,<br>
>> telling<br>
>> <br>
>>> students that grammar is an art and not a science, so
these<br>
>> <br>
>>> definitions may have some exceptions to the basic
rule. I<br>
>> think<br>
>> <br>
>>> what we need with younger students is a foundation.
But we<br>
>> should<br>
>> <br>
>>> share with them up front that these definitions have
a few<br>
>> <br>
>>> exceptions.<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> I was complimenting you for actually taking the
question<br>
>> seriously<br>
>> <br>
>>> and providing good responses. You did respond as
though it<br>
>> was<br>
>> <br>
>>> beneath you to have to tediously proofread his list.
And it's<br>
>> true.<br>
>> <br>
>>> You shouldn't have to do the entire list, but the =
few<br>
>> examples you<br>
>> <br>
>>> gave were great. So why not end by saying that you
don't have<br>
>> time<br>
>> <br>
>>> to do more. You personally don't have to feel on the
spot to<br>
>> give a<br>
>> <br>
>>> complete response (or any response at all). This is =
a<br>
>> listserv.<br>
>> <br>
>>> Others could add on to your efforts. Instead, your
last<br>
>> sentence<br>
>> <br>
>>> may have stopped others from carrying on in the
spirit you<br>
>> began (my<br>
>> <br>
>>> paraphrase of your last sentence: stop bothering us
with<br>
>> petty<br>
>> <br>
>>> concerns and get yourself a good glossary).<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> I love to hear people debate an idea with logic, but
it was<br>
>> <br>
>>> irritating to read straw man responses assuming the
only<br>
>> possible<br>
>> <br>
>>> purpose of a list must be to force students to
memorize<br>
>> definitions.<br>
>> <br>
>>> I can't imagine for a moment that was Scott's
intention. I<br>
>> was<br>
>> <br>
>>> reading this thread with great interest and hoping
for good<br>
>> <br>
>>> suggestions BECAUSE I do not have any.<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> I don't contribute often, but I stay subscribed and
read most<br>
>> <br>
>>> threads because you all are so smart. =
Unfortunately,<br>
>> sometimes some<br>
>> <br>
>>> of you are thin-skinned and ridiculously protective
of your<br>
>> turf. But<br>
>> <br>
>>> you are smart, so I forgive you.<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> Susan<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Brett Reynolds =
wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>>>> PS, I'm afraid I must have missed Susan's own
suggestions<br>
>> about<br>
>> <br>
>>>> how to improve the definitions.<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's<br>
>> web<br>
>> <br>
>>> interface at:
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
>> and<br>
>> <br>
>>> select "Join or leave the list"<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web <br>
>> interface at:
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and <br>
>> select "Join or leave the list"<br>
>> <br>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext"=
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
>> <br>
> <br>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web <br>
> interface at: <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and <br>
> select "Join or leave the list"<br>
> <br>
> Visit ATEG's web site at <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org</a></span><br>
</div>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at:
<a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>=
</p></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>=
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-14--6089423--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:42:03 -0800
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Birds do it, bees do it
--0-1318834459-1289702523=:2306
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Birds do it, bees do it, maybe we all do it.=0A=A0=0AYou wrote:=0A=A0=0A"As=
another reviewer <has> pointed out, this sentence as a guide to the correc=
t =0Ause of .."=0A=A0=0AThe pointing is past, done. And 'pointed' never has=
the=A0capacity to carry into =0Athe present, so it's over. The 'has' in yo=
ur sentence is=A0thus incorrect.=0A=A0=0AMaybe people=A0put=A0'has' or 'hav=
e' in front of past tense verbs, the same way they =0Aput 'had' in front of=
past tense verbs.=A0Maybe they also try to put 'has' or =0A'have' in front=
of past tense verbs and when that doesn't work, they force the =0Airregula=
r past participle, just as they do with 'had'. =0A=0A=A0=0AWe shall see. I'=
ve only recently=A0.. oops, I only=A0recently=A0put the present =0Aperfect =
under my microscope. I'll watch for them and let you know. You can help =0A=
if you want to, n.t.s.=0A=A0=0A.brad.sat.13nov10.=0A=0A=0A
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/
--0-1318834459-1289702523=:2306
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1=
0pt"><DIV><FONT size=3D3 face=3Darial,helvetica>Birds do it, bees do it, ma=
ybe we all do it.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT size=3D3 face=3Darial,helvetica=
></FONT> </DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D3>You=
wrote:</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-se=
rif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new yo=
rk, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, hel=
vetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">=0A<P><FONT size=3D3> </FONT></P>=
=0A<P><FONT size=3D3>"As another reviewer <FONT color=3D#c00000><</FONT>=
has<FONT color=3D#c00000>></FONT> pointed out, this sentence as a guide =
to the correct use of .."</FONT></P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </P>=
=0A<P><FONT size=3D3>The pointing is past, done. And 'pointed' never has th=
e capacity to carry into the present, so it's over. The 'has' in your =
sentence is thus incorrect.</FONT></P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3></FONT>&nbs=
p;</P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3>Maybe people put 'has' or 'have' in fr=
ont of past tense verbs, the same way they put 'had' in front of past tense=
verbs. Maybe they also try to put 'has' or 'have' in front of past te=
nse verbs and when that doesn't work, they force the irregular past partici=
ple, just as they do with 'had'. </FONT></P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3></FONT>&nb=
sp;</P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3>We shall see. I've only recently .. oops, =
<U>I only recently</U> put the present perfect under my microscop=
e. I'll watch for them and let you know. You can help if you want to, n.t.s=
.</FONT></P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3></FONT> </P>=0A<P><FONT size=3D3>.bra=
d.sat.13nov10.</FONT></FONT></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></div><br>=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=
=0A=0A=0A </body></html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1318834459-1289702523=:2306--
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 12 Nov 2010 to 13 Nov 2010 (#2010-194)
***********************************************************
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/
|
