Re: What good is linguistics?

[Margaret Clark <mag@hal-pc.org>]

Oh, my, let me add a few words here.  I've been teaching an Intro to
Language course (very much a survey) to elementary ed majors and
professional writing majors for three semesters now.  Even though I've
been browbeating them with more morphology and semantics and trees than
they think they have any need for, now that we're over that hurdle and
into all the applications (socio- and psycho-linguistics, acquisition,
historical, and discourse linguistics) they are ecstatic about 1) their
achievement, which is not inconsiderable, and 2) the obvious
applications.  We're an open-admissions, urban univer., and these folks
(who were mostly at-risk students when they began) are going to be
teaching inner-urban kids, deefinitely an at-risk population.  What they
are learning about language universals, development of dialects,
language processing -- about thinking -- is absolutely invaluable.  They
trotted in to the class with all their assumptions and biases firmly in
place:  "kids with two first languages are going to be confused in
school" -- "there's only one real English, and everything else is wrong"
-- "smart people speak correct English, dumb ones don't" -- and so on.
They know better now.  If the Oakland school district had had
linguistics training the Ebonics issue would have looked a lot
different.  My students LOVE tearing into that argument, plus others on
the vileness of Spanglish, etc.  My favorite presentation last semester
was one on discrete bound morphemes, demonstrated by a student
proficient in duck calls. It was hysterically funny and perfect.
    In addition (I'm almost done) at CRLA I was dazzled and delighted by
rita Smilkstein's use of "natural learning theory" to teach grammar in a
new way.  I'm looking forward to integrating her ideas with many that I
have on bringing linguistic universals into grammar intructions.  For
heaven's sake, once we know that we are essentially born to learn nouns
and verbs, to internalize whatever grammar exists in our environment, to
make elaborate shifts in syntax to render subtle changes in meaning,
certainly we can make an end run around traditional grammar rules which
are proven to be worse than useless in teaching kids how to write and go
directly to what they already know, but don't know that they know . . .
    I don't know how to do this, but I believe firmly that it is
possible, and that understanding how language itself works is essential
to bringing about a new way to address natural learning. I know this is
vague; it's still a twinkle in my eye, although Rita's wonderful books
are right out there where we can turn their pages and revel in her
enlightened thinking. What I do know is that I use linguistic principles
in the Writing Lab when I tutor every day. No, of course I don't teach
transformations.  But I do sneak in phrase structures that I know damn
good and well that the students -- first or second language learners, by
the way -- know perfectly well.  And it works, folks, over and over
again.
    I've been  working for a couple of years on a "grammar project" that
uses linguistic universals and some of the methods that rita has applied
so well in her book. I'm delighted that we came up with similar stuff
completely independently of each other, and I'm going to push it a
little further in the direction of linguistic universals and discourse
analysis and see what I get.  In the meantime, I'm going to keep on
proselytising like crazy for a broad understanding among the teachers we
train of what language really is, and hope they carry the word -- the
acceptance, the delight -- into their kids' classrooms.
     I am unabashedly in love with what linguistics can bring to the
study of literature and writing.
    And that is my "few" words!  Hope you aren't sorry you asked.

Best wishes --

-- Margaret clark, Univ. of Houston - Downtown


Sara Kimball wrote:

> > ----------
> > From:         Sara Kimball[SMTP:SKIMBALL@UTS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU]
> > Sent:         Saturday, November 01, 1997 10:54:09 AM
> > To:   Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject:      What good is linguistics?
> > Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >
> This question is directed to those of you with degrees from English
> departments in non-linguistic concentrations (literature, rhet-comp.,
> medieval studies .... etc.) who may have taken linguistics courses
> either
> because they were required or because you thought they would be
> useful.
> What did you think of the courses?  Were they useful in teaching
> composition?  Were they useful to you in other areas?  Do you have
> suggestions for people teaching linguistics courses within English
> departments to undergrad and grad majors?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Sara Kimball