RE: grammar

[Libby Miles <emc@omni.cc.purdue.edu>]

Dear Dave,

I have not heard anyone on this list assert that "grammar and correctness
in prose is of little importance."  Rather, I have heard several people
try to explain (seriously and thoughtfully) that the issue is difficult,
complex, and not so easily handled as providing a few rules and access to
a handbook.  You've made quite a leap here, and it's not one I've heard
anyone else make.  I repeat, nobody has said grammar doesn't matter;
they've said it's not the *only* thing, and they've questioned whether or
not it needs to be taught *first*.

I had thought I was responding to your question with a thoughtful answer.
If my response offended you, I publically apologize.  It won't happen
again.

Libby


On Mon, 4 May 1998, Kuhne, David wrote:

> I think "we" do teach when we give reinforcement--as a "community."  If,
> however, the "community," be it the people on wcenter or the culture as a
> whole, determines that something is not important, then you can be sure the
> message will be heard. I fear we are sending a message that grammar and
> correctness in prose is of little importance.  And I think this is a
> mistake.  It makes it easy for "our" critics to undermind "our" mission.  
> 	----------
> 	From: 	Eric Crump[SMTP:eric@serv1.ncte.org]
> 	Reply To: 	wcenter@ttacs6.ttu.edu
> 	Sent: 	Monday, May 04, 1998 4:07 PM
> 	To: 	Kuhne, David; Kivikko, Mary; Marek, Margaret-Rose; Sherwood,
> Steve
> 	Subject: 	RE: grammar
> 
> 	On Mon, 4 May 1998, Kuhne, David wrote:
> 	->It still seems to me that if we can't teach writers to use correct
> 	->constructions then maybe our "community" needs to take a close
> look at what
> 	->we "really" do.  And no, I'm not joking.  Dave Kuhne
> 
> 	Great idea, Dave! We really *should* look closely at what we
> *really* do
> 	(and we should look rather oftener than we do). And we ought to be
> open to
> 	the possibility that our assumptions (even the most basic) are open
> to
> 	question.
> 
> 	For instance, you open up the possibility of questioning "teaching" 
> 	itself. Perhaps we can't teach anyone to use correct constructions. 
> 	Perhaps we can't teach anyone anything. Perhaps we never could and
> only
> 	believed in a myth of our own construction and for our
> self-justification.
> 
> 	I've been wondering for some time whether teaching, as I was taught
> to
> 	understand it, isn't just a name we give for a process that happens
> in
> 	different conditions and because of different influences than we
> assume.
> 	That is, when people learn something, it's the result of a complex
> of
> 	attitudes, assumptions, social conditions, motivations, and
> resources.
> 	Learning is a product of the interaction between various people,
> present
> 	or not, and all sorts of unaccountable forces. The old model of
> teacher
> 	giving students knowledge or access to it is such a vast
> 	oversimplification that it rather misses the mark entirely!
> 
> 	Maybe teaching, as such, doesn't really exist!
> 
> 	Whatcha think?
> 
> 	--Eric Crump
> 
>