 |
Daniel Kies Department of English College of DuPage |
|
 |
||
| Modern English
Grammar English 2126 |
Contact Form | |
Teaching English Usage: A Discussion
From December 11th to December 18th of 1996, several professors of English discuss, quite specifically, the issues surrounding the teaching of English grammar:
- what should be taught,
- why, and
- how.
The discussion begins with Rebecca Wheeler of Weber State asking colleagues how they approach the scoring of grammatical "errors" in student compositions. An interesting, informal discussion from the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar email list. Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar is a nation-wide assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English.
Current work:
Days remaining this term:
Notes:
Add Note |
Log in? | Privacy | Change Name & Email
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:04:34 -0700 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: "REBECCA S. WHEELER" Subject: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm finding myself being self-contradictory in some of my attitudes toward grammar/usage and grading and I wondered if anyone has a way out of this box. Let's assume you come down to something like the position that was so well articulated by Rhoda Byler Yoder in EJ. There, she said, "I teach my students grammar because these young minds have big plans. They are going somewhere with their lives, and they know they need Standard American English (SAE) to get there." (p. 82). Implicit in this viewpoint (a viewpoint I embrace) is that we teach aspects of the structure of SAE because the students find it useful to be able to use SAE when it suits their purposes. That means we're not teaching SAE because everyone must command the prestige dialect. And that suggests to me, that if a student chooses not to learn the usage details of Standard American English, because they don't find it useful, then that should be their choice too. If it is truly their choice, then we shouldn't penalize them with grades. However, when I see usage issues like the following, in a 3rd and final draft of a paper, at the end of the quarter, I am dismayed: "Now, location, a very important part of fishing because where you go is half the success or failed of fishing. The mountains are one of the best places to go because you have different locations to choose from such a lake which is use all more crowded." I mean like while this kid is at times wondrous in his images ("My brother started to get very mad his face turned bright red and is eyes dark green"), seems to me that he falls down on "knowing English". His trouble goes way beyond the Dirty Dozen of usage errors. I am very troubled assessing this student as passing College English, and indeed I did not pass him. But then that puts me in a position of Language cop, a position which I don't find a useful one to the students. Anyone have any ideas on the interrelation of how freeing yourself from usage nearsightedness and grading mix? thanks! rebecca wheeler dept. english weber state university ogden, utah 84408-1201 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:52:51 CST ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Bob Yates Organization: Central Missouri State University Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have some problems with metaphors we use to describe language. The language as tool metaphor has some problems. It does not suggest the creative nature of language. On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:28:33 +0000 Norman Carlson said: >Hence, wouldn't a language which could effectively do a variety of >things be superior to one which is more limited in the variety of things >it can do? I sure wish I knew what this meant. I can not think of a language that can not do anything any other language can do. English has huge advantages in the world in whole domains of knowledge: computers, medicine physics, international business. However, this has nothing to do with the English language but everything to do with the economic and political power of people who speak English as their first language. >Another thought: might not ease-of-acquisition be a factor in judging >languages on a good--better--best scale? (Which is to say, I guess, >isn't a language that has a logical system of verb conjugations superior >to one that has a considerable number of "irregular" conjugations that >may be easy enough for a native speaker who literally spends a lifetime >learning the language?) I actually like this proposal. In fact, I gave a version of this question in my linguistics class. Which of the following paradigms is easier to learn and, thus, "better"? Paradigm 1 Paradigm 2 I don't like I don't like You don't like You don't like She doesn't like She don't like We don't like We don't like They don't like They don't like Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University, ryates@cmsuvmb.cmsu.edu Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:37:47 -0800 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Johanna Rubba Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A few thoughts on the Standard English and usage discussion ... Rebecca, your student clearly has problems beyond the standard usage 'errors'. I read that paragraph as ungrammatical in any dialect I know of. Maybe s/he needs to revise more carefully??? Is not used to using writing as a means of expression? As to the general issue -- this is, of course, a constant problem for linguists. I, too, must seem to my students to be talking out of both sides of my mouth, since I preach dialect and style equality in my courses, while enforcing formal Standard English on student papers. I tell them that that is exactly what I am doing: I am enforcing their adherence to the form of language that is currently used in professional and academic writing. I also inform them of changes that are underway, and whether they are likely to get in trouble or not with various teachers/readers. For example, I allow -- even encourage -- 'they' as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. But I warn my students that some of their teachers may find this unacceptable. We talk about these issues. It leaves them a little confused, but that's reality: different readers have different standards. As to the 'quality' of languages / dialects / styles -- linguistics has, I believe, now established beyond doubt that every language, dialect, and style is equally systematic and equally capable of expressing the full richness of human experience. That doesn't mean that this knowledge has made it to the general public or even to many English teachers at all levels of education. It also doesn't mean that every dialect/style is appropriate to every occasion. 'Good' language is situation-dependent. It would be as 'bad' to use formal English with intimates or friends on an informal occasion as it would be to use informal English, slang, or 'curse words' in court or at a job interview. I believe change in the current situation (that only one kind of English is considered 'good', in spite of the fact that this statement is incomplete at best and false at worst) can only happen slowly. I see it coming about in stages. First, the message will get out to the general public and teachers through linguistics courses (like the ones I teach). _Some_ of those students will retain the message; many (I see this all the time) will be 'recidivist' English purists. This will make some few people more tolerant of, especially, variant dialects. The message will spread, slowly, with them. If our education system reforms its approach to language arts by teaching the truth about language variation from early on, and having children work with language in various styles, then the message of 'relative goodness' will become part of our world view about language. If at the same time society integrates, dialects will merge slightly in any case (I already see examples of, e.g., 'Black' English in 'quality' media, as inserts of expression in pieces by respected Afr. Amer. writers/speakers). And last night on a stupid sitcom a white woman used a snippet of Afr. Amer. dialect to make a point. This will lead to changes in Standard English, and a general wearing down of language and dialect-based prejudices. As Standard English becomes more inclusive of 'minority' dialect patterns, perhaps the use of dialect as a means of exclusion from society's goodies will decrease, as other prejudices are slowly wearing down. This is a very idealistic picture, I realize, but it is my dream. I plan on doing what I can professionally to get it going. I hope other linguists whose jobs bring them in touch with non-linguists will work towards the same end. Most important first steps are: (a) working on getting the message across VERY CLEARLY in teacher education, since teachers are the main enforcers of 'good English' in children's lives; (b) working with teachers and other experts on revising the teaching of language arts (esp. 'grammar') so that it more accurately reflects the truth about language. I will be undertaking this starting next year in a new grammar course our dept. is creating. I think it would also be a good idea for linguists to write editorial pieces which offer retorts for the usual 'language maven' pieces that people like Wm. Safire write, or in response to situations like the current Supreme Court case involving AZ's English-only law. Linguists and others who know the truth about language have to be activists, in at least small ways. It does everyone a disservice to allow myths to continue. Simply enforcing Standard English usage without explaining all this perpetuates the myths. Johanna ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: jrubba@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From - Wed Dec 11 12:54:20 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Mieke Koppen Tucker Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Implicit in this viewpoint (a viewpoint I embrace) is that we teach aspects of > the structure of SAE because the students find it useful to be able to > use SAE when it suits their purposes. That means we're not teaching SAE > because everyone must command the prestige dialect. And that suggests to me, > that if a student chooses not to learn the usage details of Standard American > English, because they don't find it useful, then that should be their choice > too. Sorry, but I don't see how the last statement follows. As students, students should learn to use Standard English. If they wish to use non-standard English in other domains (as athletes, friends, etc.) that, of course, is an other matter. All the best, Mieke From - Wed Dec 11 19:09:56 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Norman Carlson Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi-- I'm slightly puzzled by the following, which it seems to me is a fairly common statement among linguists: "SWE is not inherently better than any other langauge;..." Is this the same as saying: "SWE is not better than any other language"? Which leads to the crucial question: Are some languages "better" than other languages? Is there a "best" language? Norm Carlson From - Thu Dec 12 11:39:36 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Norman Carlson Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, it is impossible to declare that a saw is better than a hammer, or vice-versa. But certainly some saws are better than other saws; I know, because I've owned some cheap, not very good ones. Also, I have owned for 41 years (it was a wedding gift) what I consider to be the VERY BEST bar tool ever designed and manufactured; it is a combination jigger, corkscrew, and ice-cube-smasher. It may not be able to perform its three separate functions quite as efficiently as separate implements designed for single tasks [I think of the currently available "Screw-Pull", for example], but I would happily give up the separate instruments if I could still count on being able to buy a replacement combination tool. Hence, wouldn't a language which could effectively do a variety of things be superior to one which is more limited in the variety of things it can do? Alternatively, though probably related: wouldn't a language that is relatively easily adaptable to change be superior to one that is less adaptable? (For example, might not German be considered a superior language to French because of the ease with which new composite words can be created? Another thought: might not ease-of-acquisition be a factor in judging languages on a good--better--best scale? (Which is to say, I guess, isn't a language that has a logical system of verb conjugations superior to one that has a considerable number of "irregular" conjugations that may be easy enough for a native speaker who literally spends a lifetime learning the language?) Finally, to repeat my original question more bluntly: is there any difference between "better" and "inherently better"? Happy Holidays! Norm Carlson From - Wed Dec 11 13:26:36 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Pamela Dykstra Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Rebecca, I present SWE as the langauge, the code, used in academia and the workplace. SWE is not inherently better than any other langauge; it is different. Students are familiar with code-switching. People need to know the code in order to be able to switch. As teachers we evaluate the students' ability to use this code. Happy grading during this finals crunch week! Pam Dykstra From - Thu Dec 12 11:38:56 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: "Paul E. Doniger" Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 03:32 PM 12/11/96 +0000, you wrote: >---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- >Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > >Poster: Norman Carlson >Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Hi-- > >I'm slightly puzzled by the following, which it seems to me is a fairly >common statement among linguists: > >"SWE is not inherently better than any other langauge;..." > >Is this the same as saying: "SWE is not better than any other language"? > >Which leads to the crucial question: Are some languages "better" than >other languages? Is there a "best" language? > >Norm Carlson > This question made me wonder if SWE is a language different from spoken English (British, American, or otherwise)... how much difference is necessary to define it as a separate language (better or not)? what do you think? Paul E. Doniger From - Wed Dec 11 19:38:52 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Steven Cohen Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 96-12-11 13:22:37 EST, you write: << Anyone have any ideas on the interrelation of how freeing yourself from usage nearsightedness and grading mix? >> I have no qualms about requiring SAE in the classroom and grading for it (though, I think that if I could find a way to eliminate letter grades, I would). The school line should be something like: People make judgements about you because of how you look, act and, among other things, write. We are in the business of teaching the prestige dialect and of opening doors to you. If you choose not to write in the prestige dialect on occasions then that is your choice. Our job is to be sure that you are writing nonstandard English out of a conscious choice, not ignorance. The latter reason means you have no choice. Since you are in school in the first place, then you accept our mission (you do have the choice not to be here). Therefore, what we do is what we do and if you stay here you are implicitly asking to take part in what we do. I, too, teach SAE as dialect that is prestigious for socio-political reasons not for linguistic ones. We know students can use their own dialects. Our job is to teach them something new, not provide an arena for them to show us what they come already knowing. Steve Cohen From - Fri Dec 13 11:03:21 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Burkhard Leuschner Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 14:52 12.12.1996 CST, Bob Yates wrote: >I have some problems with metaphors we use to describe language. The >language as tool metaphor has some problems. It does not suggest the creative >nature of language. The problem is what do we understand by the 'creative nature of language'. Perhaps we should distinguish between the creative tool and the creative use of the tool. The creative nature of the tool: Unlike a hammer which is existent before it is put to use, a word (for example) has to be made before it is used, or rather it is being made while being used. The making is a creative act - less so with words (although we often invent words on the spur of the moment) than with higher units (sentence parts, sentences, and so on). The creative use of the tool: While crayons are not creative in themselves, they are used in creative acts. In the same way language (creative or not in itself) is used creatively. The tool metapher then need not be ditched for want of creativity. (What metaphor would be more helpful for the daily work of training teachers to USE language in the classroom instead of talking about it in their mother tongue? - Any suggestions?) Burkhard -------------------------------- Burkhard Leuschner Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend Germany Burkhard.Leuschner@extern.uni-ulm.de From - Fri Dec 13 11:05:36 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: NAME = Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca worried about this passage of student writing, which I'll break up into sections and number: 1] Now, location, a very important part of fishing because where you go is half the success or failed of fishing. 2] The mountains are one of the best places to go because you have different locations to choose from 3] such a lake which is used all more crowded. This kind of writing doesn't bother me. But before I explain my view, let me point out that Rebecca ended her post with this ungrammatical sentence, which I will simplify to reveal its overlapping syntax: "Anyone have any ideas on the interrelation of how X and Y mix?" X = freeing yourself from usage nearsightedness y = grading We can say: "...the interrelation of X and Y" OR "how X and Y mix," but Rebecca overlapped the two structures, a common error in syntax when one is writing complexly and quickly. Students do it often, as do educated adults like Rebecca (and me and the rest of us). If we can make syntactical errors and not notice them, we should not be surprised that beginning writers, who are always under pressure when they write, make a lot of these errors--and don't notice them (they not only make more errors than we do, they are worse proofreaders than we are). The student passage seems so strange because the errors are proofreading errors, not grammatical errors. When the brain takes amorphous thought (ideas and the intention to express them) and converts that thought to seriel order at lightening speed, it sometimes makes mistakes. These are usually called "speech errors"; they have been categorized by a number of psycholinguists, but always among the categories are: word exchanges, substitutions, deletions, and anticipations, as well as word-part exchanges, substitutions, deletions, and anticipations. Most speech errors also occur in writing. Let's take #1 above, which I would classify as a stylistically defensible fragment. The only problem is the substitution of -ed for -ure during language processing, a common speech error. #2 is flawless. #3 begins with a word deletion error (intended: "such as a lake"). From there on you would have to ask the student to do a re-aloud of his text to find out what he intended (e.g. did he substitute "used" for "usually"?). But the point is, he certainly did not intend to write what appeared on the page, because what appeared on the page is not human language. This student needs training in proofreading, not a grammar lesson. --Bill Murdick From - Fri Dec 13 11:33:29 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: NAME = Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOrman's statement that a native speaker "literally spends a life-time learning his language" (rough quote) might be misunderstood in the context of the discussion on whether or not a highly inflected verb system (like Italian or Russian) is harder for native speakers to acquire than a minimally inflected one like English. Language acquistion studies show that Russian children, for example, master their verb system within the first years of life, effortlessly, just as English speaking children master theirs. It doesn't take a life-time. The English verb system has its own complexities. Things that are\ expressed through tense in inflected languages must be expresed through auxiliary verbs (model-have-be) and adverbs in English. Try teaching the many subtle connotations of models to a foreigner, and you'll see what I mean. What, for example, are the different degrees of certainty expressed by these verb phrases: He may be upstairs. He'll be upstairs. He might be upstairs. He should be upstairs. He has to be upstairs. He could be upstairs. He would be upstairs. He ought to be upstairs. --Bill Murdick From - Fri Dec 13 15:20:11 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Bob Yates Organization: Central Missouri State University Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:42:00 MET Burkhard Leuschner said: >The problem is what do we understand by the 'creative nature of language'. >Perhaps we should distinguish between the creative tool and the creative use >of the tool. This is a very fair comment to make. Let me suggest that we are constantly constructing and comprehending sentences we have never heard before. That is in one sense the nature of creativity I was trying to capture. >The creative use of the tool: >While crayons are not creative in themselves, they are used in creative >acts. In the same way language (creative or not in itself) is used creatively. > >The tool metapher then need not be ditched for want of creativity. I like the crayon analogy, but it runs into a problem. Crayons get "used up." What started me on the metaphors we have for language is a statement a presenter made at last year's ATEG. Specifically, the reference was to language as "a precious resource." This bothered me a lot and I began to think of better metaphors for language. >(What metaphor would be more helpful for the daily work of training >teachers to USE language in the classroom instead of talking about it in >their mother tongue? - Any suggestions?) I think language as a tool with reference to creativity as suggested by Burkhard is better, but I am still not comfortable with it. I don't have an answer to his final questions. Does anyone? Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University, ryates@cmsuvmb.cmsu.edu From - Fri Dec 13 15:40:43 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Mieke Koppen Tucker Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This student needs training in proofreading, not a grammar lesson. > > --Bill Murdick This is a fascinating and persuasive analysis, but now I'm afraid to write to this group! Mieke From - Sat Dec 14 12:49:21 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Jim Dubinsky Subject: A posting by Rebecca Wheeler (RE: Connundrum . . . .) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, everybody. We (at ATEG Listserv HQ) are having trouble getting Rebecca's account squared away, so I thought I'd forward her interesting response to the list. Here it is: > Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This student needs training in proofreading, not a grammar lesson. > > > > --Bill Murdick > This is a fascinating and persuasive analysis, but now I'm afraid to > write to this group! > Mieke Chuckle, well, I do know what you mean, but isn't that sort of like when people say to us, "oh! an English teacher! I'll have to watch my grammar"? While I did find Bill's analysis very well presented, I don't actually know that I fully believe it. I wish that student were returning next quarter; he's not. He's off to California, having found Utah a bit too unlively for his tastes. I'm not totally convinced that all this student stumbled over was proof reading. The frequence of the kinds of errors, or whatever those were ("not human language" or some such, Bill said?), suggested to me that the problem may well have gone beyond mere proofreading. Maybe I'm influenced by knowing that this person seemed not to know very well how to use a pen -- I mean, the hand-coordination of it. His printing reminded me of the printing of a first grader who was learning how to shape letters. Very wavy and stumbly. That may be unrelated, but it spoke of some deeper discomfort with expression, at the least. But, hey! Proof reading is a GOOD thing to take a run with. Next time, I'll try that, and see if I can get beyond being so daunted by language non-structures that baffle me. ciao, rebecca wheeler p.s. In Bill's analysis, he pointed to an ungrammaticalityy (speech-like error) in a sentence I had written and conjectured I hadn't noticed. then he used that as evidence for the presence of speech error like things in writing. and then used that to say it was a proofing problem. Well, although maybe it could've been, what I wrote wasn't a speech-error ungrammaticality; it was indeed a failure of proofing, but from a different vantage. What I did was revise and then fail to delete the previous version. I'd written a sentence using "the interaction of X and Y" and then I went back and used a wh-clause with verb "how X and Y mix" instead of the nominalization, but silly me, forgot to then, ahem, like delete the first version. yup, proofing indeed is a good idea. And If I feel like I have to explain this, for pete's sake, HOW on earth must students feel? quite instructive. :) rsw From - Sat Dec 14 13:19:10 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Mieke Koppen Tucker Subject: Re: A posting by Rebecca Wheeler (RE: Connundrum . . . .) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > And If I feel like I have to explain this, for pete's sake, HOW on earth must > students feel? quite instructive. > > :) > rsw This is precisely what I've been reflecting on and has made me more determined to remember to praise my students' efforts and recognize how they are constantly having to put themselve on the line for us. Mieke From - Sun Dec 15 11:27:41 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Eric Feingold ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This student needs training in proofreading, not a grammar lesson. >> >> --Bill Murdick >This is a fascinating and persuasive analysis, but >now I'm afraid to >write to this group! >Mieke Me too. I'm American.I live in Spain and teach English as a second language. I do not share many of the problems voiced by teachers in some of the last posts. I am obligated to teach an extremely standard grammatically correct British version of English, however I can relate very well to these American educational problems, believe me. I also am the language cop for many kids. The Spanish language is funny in having an "Academia" that sets rules and allows or disallows the entrance of new words into the language. Therefore the language has little evolutionary tug from the top. However, there do exist other what you'd have to call dialects, just like in American English. However, these words and innovative uses of language can almost never enter into the mainstream literary formal language. They are isolated more effectively. Better-Shmetter: American English appears to be in an evolutionary state of flux. Is it true that contractions only entered the language from below, so to speak, about a century ago? Could someone inform me about this please? In the same way, I guarantee that "she don't" will be the common fare in a century's time. English, and American English in particular, has been on a "simplification trip" for centuries. Whether this is desirable is debatable as well as completely academic because language is alive and apparently not under anyone's control. >Which of these paradigms is easier to learn and, thus, "better"? Paradigm 1 Paradigm 2 I don't like I don't like You don't like You don't like She doesn't like She don't like We don't like We don't like They don't like They don't like From - Mon Dec 16 13:00:03 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: NAME = Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mieke, Yikes! The last thing I want to do is make people nervous about using their own language. I write overlapping sentences, too. I only pointed out the syntactical problem in Rebecca's sentence to show that we do the same things that our students do; we just do it less often and notice it more often in time to edit out the problem. --Bill Murdick From - Tue Dec 17 21:45:21 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: Johanna Rubba Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know if we really need a metaphor to talk about language. In the kind of linguistics I do, there is a very direct connection between form and meaning in language: form can be manipulated to affect the way a listener responds, cognitively, to my speech. (Of course we can't literally control another person's cognition, but as long as the meanings of certain forms are pretty widespread and have a high degree of similarity across individuals, my choice of forms will have consequences for the activation of meanings in the listener's mind.) To give a simple example, consider the preference for 'action' verbs over 'state' verbs expressed in so much writing instruction. According to cognitive linguistics, the way we cognize when processing an 'action' verb is in fact dynamic -- we conceptualize change in progress. For stative verbs, we conceptualize sameness over time (a static rather than dynamic situation). Another example is use of the passive. It's no accident that the Watergate tapes' transcripts show a high incidence of agentless passives (as Jeanne van Oosten pointed out in her Berkeley diss. a number of years ago). Agentless passives don't call for conceptualization of an identified agent, and are therefore useful when one desires to hide the identity of an agent. George Bush made good use of this with his famous 'Mistakes were made'. Another example: the now common use of 'harvest' in reference to logging (even logging of virgin forest) in the media. I don't have the facts, but I'd bet this practice was started by the timber industry in order to (a) make logging seem like an agricultural practice; (b) transfer the many positive associations of the word to logging. I have lately seen this word used by the LA Times in reference to the taking of down (and up!) timber in the Headwaters Forest in No. CA. Not a harvest in any usual sense of the word, so far as I'm concerned! I'm a little disappointed that my long posting of a while ago generated virtually no list response. I thought it was sort of controversial. I'd like to know how many of you out there agree or disagree with me; or maybe you just think I'm so far out in left field (in multiple senses of the word) that you don't find it worthwhile responding. Or maybe you're just busy with grading, holiday plans, etc. Speaking of which, happy! (If I may be so elliptical.) Johanna ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: jrubba@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From - Wed Dec 18 12:13:52 1996 ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Poster: NAME = Subject: Re: here's a conundrum I'm dealing with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOhanna, could you give some examples of different cognitive responses to "action" verbs and "state" verbs. Are you aware of Joseph Williams's and Lee O'Dell's research showing that English teachers and people in bureaucracies prefer essays (in the Williams study) and memos (in the O'Dell study) written in the passive voice, regardless of their avowed preferences? What's going on there, from a cognitivist's perspective? --Bill Murdick
Take Note! | Table of Contents | Syllabus | eForum | Search
The HyperTextBooks | The English Main Page | The Composition Links