From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Wed Oct 29 23:46 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00775 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:46:49 GMT Received: (qmail 6628 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 1997 23:45:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6611 invoked by uid 6539); 29 Oct 1997 23:45:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 6543 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1997 23:45:36 -0000 Received: from extra.ucc.su.oz.au (129.78.64.4) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 29 Oct 1997 23:45:36 -0000 Received: from extro.su.OZ.AU (root@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06138; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:46:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost by extro.su.OZ.AU (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08005; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:06:06 +1100 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:06:03 +1100 (EST) From: James Robert Martin Reply-To: James Robert Martin To: Jay Lemke cc: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: nominalizations In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971029120214.007e0890@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 76 Status: RO Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 3743 Jay You suggest the unpacking makes the text easier to understand, if you can unpack along the lines the writer might have intended... what about the loss of knowledge issue... the extent to which the nominalised language contrues the specialised knowledge of the dsicipline... which depends on the elaborated meaning potential the nominalised language affords. I guess the way you put your program it sounds like a 'plain English' perspective... kind of 'negative' towards the nominalisations. A good corrective for this I discovered recently is working on the last two pages of Mandela's autobiography, where nominalised discourse enables him to evaluate the meaning of his life in quite inspiring terms, and to be utterly gracious in doing so. Jim On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jay Lemke wrote: > > Just back from being away for a while (and recovering from the flu), but > found interest in the discussion of teaching students to cope with > nominalizations. > > I focus on this in a course for teachers that is more or less advanced > literacy skills across the curriculum. > > We use Halliday's _Spoken and Written Language_ and focus on the contrasts > between the people-doing worldview and the ideas-relating worldview. > Students find examples of highly nominalized language in their own fields, > usually at an advanced level so that their own struggles are comparable to > what their students would have at a lower level. They then have to > 'translate' from the originals to more spoken-like forms. The end results > are generally much easier to comprehend, and this leads to a basic > procedure for teaching to students: Pose the questions needed to expand > every Semantic-Process or Semantic-Relation into a full finite clause with > all optional participants and circumstances realized and the Process or > Relation realized by the finite verb. Then reconstruct the conjunctive > relations between clauses to get the logic of the argument. > > As you might expect this is not as easy as it sounds. Very often the > ambiguities built into highly nominalized text cannot be resolved, and this > shows students that not even co-text is sufficient, that reading > comprehension requires explicitly drawing on knowledge from other > co-thematic texts, making assumptions, etc. Or posing questions back to the > original author (where possible). > > This approach is oriented to improving reading comprehension, rather than > teaching writing skills. Writing this kind of text is difficult for other > reasons, and that is where issues of textual metafunction become more > central I think. At this level, the area of the grammar that is most > crucial, and most difficult for students, is Non-finite constructions. It > is not just nominalization or GM that is involved here. There is a whole > semantic conspiracy of all the non-finite constructions at work in such > texts. The core of the semantics, I believe, lies in the changes in > probability of realization of implied participants and circumstances when > the register shifts toward abstract academic exposition. The second key > issue is what happens to the expression of logical connections between > semantic-processes when there are no longer finite clauses to be related by > conjunctions; generally speaking it is relational processes that take over, > but there are other devices as well. > > I am not very optimistic about being able to teach WRITING in these terms, > but I do think one can successfully improve READING comprehension skills by > explicating these issues for students at an appropriate level. > > JAY. > > --------------------------- > JAY L. LEMKE > > CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK > JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU > --------------------------- > From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Thu Oct 30 04:09 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA02573 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 04:09:07 GMT Received: (qmail 28175 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 1997 04:08:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 28172 invoked by uid 6539); 30 Oct 1997 04:08:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 28166 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1997 04:08:10 -0000 Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu (128.228.1.2) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 30 Oct 1997 04:08:10 -0000 Received: from jlemke.dh.i-2000.com by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4) with TCP; Wed, 29 Oct 97 23:09:18 EDT Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029231613.007be340@cunyvm.cuny.edu> X-Sender: jllbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:16:13 -0500 To: James Robert Martin From: Jay Lemke Subject: Re: nominalizations Cc: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19971029120214.007e0890@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 42 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2046 Well I guess it may not require nominalizations to produce ambiguity! :) Jim's interpretation of my comments as 'negative toward nominalization' and allied with 'plain language' ideology aren't part of what I was trying to mean. My basic view is that nominalized style serves useful functions when it is part of the thematic condensation of complexes of related processes, enabling us to more fluently constuct/construe logical relations among them (vs. cumbersome finite-clause-and-conjunction styles). In some registers there is no practical alternative to the nominalized style because it would take forever to explicate all the relations down to the level of elementary process primitives (common in highly technical discourses). On the other hand, the nominalized style has acquired a prestige that enables people to use it to pile empty abstractions on one another ad nauseam, and still sound profound. The difference is basically in whether or not there is a canonical explication of the 'condensed' or 'implicate' discourses according to intertextual interpretive rules known to the specialist community. And in particular whether such explication ever in fact does terminate at a level of finite material processes and concrete participants. Educationally, I believe that most students only really make meaning intuitively with the less-nominalizing style, and that it is only when they can translate (explicate) abstract discourses back to their concrete roots that they really comprehend what they themselves or others are saying. It is only with long practice in relatively specific contexts of use that people come to be more naturally at home in the highly nominalized style. Very few people, including academics, I think, actually reach that point. Too many people are just imitating this style because of its prestige, and the reasons for its prestige include many we would probably not assent to. JAY. --------------------------- JAY L. LEMKE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU --------------------------- From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Wed Oct 29 16:55 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA24160 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:55:14 GMT Received: (qmail 25612 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 1997 16:54:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 25607 invoked by uid 6539); 29 Oct 1997 16:54:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 25571 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1997 16:54:05 -0000 Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu (128.228.1.2) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 29 Oct 1997 16:54:05 -0000 Received: from jlemke.dh.i-2000.com by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4) with TCP; Wed, 29 Oct 97 11:55:13 EDT Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029120214.007e0890@cunyvm.cuny.edu> X-Sender: jllbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:02:14 -0500 To: SFL Education Group From: Jay Lemke Subject: nominalizations Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 55 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2833 Just back from being away for a while (and recovering from the flu), but found interest in the discussion of teaching students to cope with nominalizations. I focus on this in a course for teachers that is more or less advanced literacy skills across the curriculum. We use Halliday's _Spoken and Written Language_ and focus on the contrasts between the people-doing worldview and the ideas-relating worldview. Students find examples of highly nominalized language in their own fields, usually at an advanced level so that their own struggles are comparable to what their students would have at a lower level. They then have to 'translate' from the originals to more spoken-like forms. The end results are generally much easier to comprehend, and this leads to a basic procedure for teaching to students: Pose the questions needed to expand every Semantic-Process or Semantic-Relation into a full finite clause with all optional participants and circumstances realized and the Process or Relation realized by the finite verb. Then reconstruct the conjunctive relations between clauses to get the logic of the argument. As you might expect this is not as easy as it sounds. Very often the ambiguities built into highly nominalized text cannot be resolved, and this shows students that not even co-text is sufficient, that reading comprehension requires explicitly drawing on knowledge from other co-thematic texts, making assumptions, etc. Or posing questions back to the original author (where possible). This approach is oriented to improving reading comprehension, rather than teaching writing skills. Writing this kind of text is difficult for other reasons, and that is where issues of textual metafunction become more central I think. At this level, the area of the grammar that is most crucial, and most difficult for students, is Non-finite constructions. It is not just nominalization or GM that is involved here. There is a whole semantic conspiracy of all the non-finite constructions at work in such texts. The core of the semantics, I believe, lies in the changes in probability of realization of implied participants and circumstances when the register shifts toward abstract academic exposition. The second key issue is what happens to the expression of logical connections between semantic-processes when there are no longer finite clauses to be related by conjunctions; generally speaking it is relational processes that take over, but there are other devices as well. I am not very optimistic about being able to teach WRITING in these terms, but I do think one can successfully improve READING comprehension skills by explicating these issues for students at an appropriate level. JAY. --------------------------- JAY L. LEMKE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU --------------------------- From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Thu Oct 30 22:44 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA26261 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 22:44:23 GMT Received: (qmail 1354 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 1997 22:43:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 1351 invoked by uid 6539); 30 Oct 1997 22:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 1345 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1997 22:43:24 -0000 Received: from extra.ucc.su.oz.au (129.78.64.4) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 30 Oct 1997 22:43:24 -0000 Received: from extro.su.OZ.AU (jmartin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA27317; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:44:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost by extro.su.OZ.AU (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18288; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:44:06 +1100 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:44:06 +1100 (EST) From: James Robert Martin To: Jay Lemke cc: James Robert Martin , sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: nominalizations In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971029231613.007be340@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 78 Status: RO Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 3883 Jay I agree nominalised discourse has high status and may be aped... though we need to be careful about the hypernominalised style people can get into when then are learning nominalisation and beating it to death... exploring what to do with it. But there is also the negative reaction to it... that's its all jargon or bullshit... and I think this may in fact be a bigger problem. I was thinking about this in our work on bureaucracy in relation to your notion of disjunctions... basically people in an irreverent culture like Australia don't have anything good to say about administration...just negative things... and I would include lots of academic work in this, especially critical work... there is a pervasive very negative attitiude to grammatical metaphor as something hiding, disguising, obfuscating... this makes it hard to understand the functionality of nomninalised discourse in a context like administration... so we tend to dismiss the discourse in both our common sense and uncommon sense discussions.. and the I ask, in whose interest is it that we don't really engage with administration critically or as involved citizens? The negative attitude to metaphorical discourse seems to fuel the disjunction. I'm also curious about the idea that to be meaningful metaphroical dsicourse has to be connected somewhere along some chain with common sense every day un-grammatical metaphor discourse... hmmm... not sure In other words, the idea that grammatical metaphor increases the meaning potential of a culture seems to be getting backgrounded to the fact that it produces ambiguity for outsiders... the new meanings for the insiders aren't being functionally interpreted well enough. Jim On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jay Lemke wrote: > > Well I guess it may not require nominalizations to produce ambiguity! :) > > Jim's interpretation of my comments as 'negative toward nominalization' and > allied with 'plain language' ideology aren't part of what I was trying to > mean. > > My basic view is that nominalized style serves useful functions when it is > part of the thematic condensation of complexes of related processes, > enabling us to more fluently constuct/construe logical relations among them > (vs. cumbersome finite-clause-and-conjunction styles). In some registers > there is no practical alternative to the nominalized style because it would > take forever to explicate all the relations down to the level of elementary > process primitives (common in highly technical discourses). > > On the other hand, the nominalized style has acquired a prestige that > enables people to use it to pile empty abstractions on one another ad > nauseam, and still sound profound. The difference is basically in whether > or not there is a canonical explication of the 'condensed' or 'implicate' > discourses according to intertextual interpretive rules known to the > specialist community. And in particular whether such explication ever in > fact does terminate at a level of finite material processes and concrete > participants. > > Educationally, I believe that most students only really make meaning > intuitively with the less-nominalizing style, and that it is only when they > can translate (explicate) abstract discourses back to their concrete roots > that they really comprehend what they themselves or others are saying. It > is only with long practice in relatively specific contexts of use that > people come to be more naturally at home in the highly nominalized style. > Very few people, including academics, I think, actually reach that point. > Too many people are just imitating this style because of its prestige, and > the reasons for its prestige include many we would probably not assent to. > > JAY. > > --------------------------- > JAY L. LEMKE > > CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK > JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU > --------------------------- > From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Mon Oct 27 14:33 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10080 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:33:14 GMT Received: (qmail 27596 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 1997 14:32:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 27593 invoked by uid 6539); 27 Oct 1997 14:32:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 27587 invoked from network); 27 Oct 1997 14:32:14 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 27 Oct 1997 14:32:14 -0000 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21494 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:32:59 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:32:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199710271432.JAA21494@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: grammatical metaphor -- FORWARDED Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 51 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1489 >X-Sender: s9570344@pop3.unsw.edu.au >Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:48:49 +1000 >To: Judy Diamondstone >From: Louise Ravelli >Subject: grammatical metaphor > >Judy, >would you forward this to the list please, and could you also re-send me >instructions on sending messages to the list, and subscribing (partly for >my own benefit, I'm receiving messages from the list but sending my replies >directly to you, and partly for general benefit as I'll print it in the >next edition of a local newsletter) > >thanks > >re Grammatical Metaphor > >we have a page or two on grammatical metaphor in 'Meanings and messages: >language guidelines for museum exhibitions', by L. Ferguson, C. MacLulich >and L. Ravelli, published by the Australian Museum in 1995. This is >intended to help museum staff write written texts for public exhibitions, >one common problem being over-nominalisation. It's very basic, but >practical. Can post you the relevant pages if you send me your snail mail >address, else contact the Australian Museum directly for a copy of the >book, ($A19.95) > >Mail Order Shop >Australian Museum >6 College St >Sydney NSW 2000 >Fax (02) 9320 6066 > > >cheers > >Louise Ravelli > > > > Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Tue Oct 28 00:08 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26324 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:08:41 GMT Received: (qmail 13203 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 1997 00:07:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13200 invoked by uid 6539); 28 Oct 1997 00:07:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 13194 invoked from network); 28 Oct 1997 00:07:45 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 28 Oct 1997 00:07:45 -0000 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA10256 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:08:29 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:08:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199710280008.TAA10256@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: Re: GRammatical metaphor (fwd) Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 115 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4645 FORWARDED... >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:31:27 +1100 (EST) >X-Sender: rveel@cce.cce.usyd.edu.au >To: Judy Diamondstone >From: Robert Veel >Subject: Re: GRammatical metaphor (fwd) > >At 09:29 AM 10/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Would you be willing to repost your very helpful response to >>the discussion list? >>_Thanks again._ > >Judy - Of course - I'd be delighted if anyone found it useful!! ANd thanks >for your kind comments >> >Robert >> >> >> >>At 10:25 AM 10/27/97 +1100, you wrote: >>>Dear Judy, >>> >>>I have teachers using it all the time as a way of organizing both field and >>>mode for essay writing - the most common form of assessment is senior >>>school here. Of course it is a multi-step process, following roughly the >>>following pattern: >>> >>>1. Compare structure of 'descriptive' text with 'analytical' texts >>>(examiners here are always lamenting that students do not analyse enough >>>and that most writing is 'merely descriptive'). Analytical texts tend to be >>>organised around 'abstract terms' (usually grammatical metaphors); >>>descriptive texts tend to be organised around 'concrete features' (i.e. >>>observable properties, usually not metaphorical. >>> >>>2. Look at the potential of 'abstract terms' - collecting examples, >>>creating cause-effect relationships, allowing contrast and comparison >>>between specific examples etc. >>> >>>3. Examine the structure of successful and less successful essays (as >>>judged by the examination committee) and compare the use of abstract terms >>> >>>4. Many activities requiring students to plan responses using abstract >>>terms -particularly using the same body of information to answer different >>>kinds of questions - this is where the power of grammatical metaphor in >>>relation to mode really becomes obvious. >>> >>>5. Grammar focus - students create single words and phrases containing >>>nominalisations to condense whole clauses; students create cause-effect >>>relations in single clauses using grammatical metaphor from clause >complexes. >>> >>>6. Macro-Theme - A close look at the introduction phase of essays, noting >>>the use of metaphor to organise ideas (field focus) and to structure the >>>response (mode focus). There is a quite distinct lexis for each - one is >>>field dependent the other uses familiar terms such as consequences, >>>contributors, outcomes, impact, effects etc. >>> >>>7. Hyper-Theme - Using g.m. to construct topic sentences which look both >>>back to the overall topic of the essay and also predict the >>>content/structure of the paragraph at hand. >>> >>>7a. Definitions - In some subject areas definitions are used as a way of >>>bridging from metaphorical expressions to more congruent representations. >>>Definitions can appear in topic sentences and in the follow-up sentences >>>after the topic sentence. As for all our activities, they are carefully >>>modelled, jointly constructed and then independently constructed. >>> >>>8. Collecting examples - in the humanities, esp. English Lit and History, >>>grammatical metaphor is used to create abstract categories with which to >>>collect, compare and contrast examples (e.g. imperialism, colonialism, >>>post-war diplomacy etc in History; relationships, rivalry, jealousy, >>>revenge, overcoming the odds, Bildensromanz etc in English). Here the >>>teaching activities work in two ways. First, students are presented with >>>primary sources/texts and asked to group them using grammatical metaphor. >>>This is often extremely interesting as the same piece of information can >>>usually be placed under a range of metaphorical categories - giving rise to >>>discussions of interpretive difference, reading position etc. Secondly, >>>when teaching note-taking, close reading etc, students are given >>>metaphorical categories and asked to find examples which illustrate, prove >>>or even contradict the 'given' categories. >>> >>>These are but a few ideas of the many which I have seen teachers use. I >>>hope they help to illustrate some strategies. >>> >>>Robert Veel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >>Judith Diamondstone >> * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 >>MAILING ADDRESS: >>Graduate School of Education >>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >>10 Seminary Place >>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 >> * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * >> >> > > Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From SYSFLING-owner@u.washington.edu Thu Oct 30 16:41 GMT 1997 Received: from lists3.u.washington.edu (root@lists3.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.3]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA20007 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:40:44 GMT Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13]) by lists3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP id IAA02913; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:30:28 -0800 Received: from mx2.u.washington.edu (mx2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP id IAA30940 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:30:23 -0800 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (erebus.rutgers.edu [165.230.116.132]) by mx2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with SMTP id IAA16482 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:30:14 -0800 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA26933 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:30:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199710301630.LAA26933@erebus.rutgers.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:30:10 -0500 Reply-To: diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu Sender: SYSFLING-owner@u.washington.edu Precedence: bulk From: Judy Diamondstone To: "Systemic Functional Linguistics" Subject: exchange w/ Columbia School linguist Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN X-Lines: 149 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 8088 >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:54:59 -0500 >X-Sender: wreid@erebus.rutgers.edu >To: diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu >From: Wallis Reid >Subject: Potential meaning > >Judith, > Great to get a response so fast. Fine to pass my question/challenge on to >the Hallidayan discussion group, though of course they don't have ready >access to the Otheguy article. I'm glad you see that a change in usage >doesn't necessarily mean a change in the system. It may or it may not. >Otheguy begins with two examples of new usage which he acknowledges are >pretty clearly changes in the lexio-grammnatical system. The first is a new >loan word, estin. Clearly the addition of a new word changes the system. >The second example is one in which the meaning of a word, jugar, expands, >wiping out the lexical contrast between jugar and tocar. Then he comes to >llamar para atras, and he says there has not yet been a systemic change. >I'm interested in how such such an argument would be carried out in terms of >potential meaning. I'm interested in hearing from Hallidayans when one can >conclude that the potential meaning of an item has changed, versus when one >has encountered the first instance of a potential that was always there. >I'm famished and must get home to eat. I'll read through your remarks >tomorrow with more care. > >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:43:58 >To: Wallis Reid >From: Judy Diamondstone >Subject: Re: Potential meaning > >Wally, somehow I don't think other members of the cluster (other >than Michael) would be excited about our conversation. However, > _I_ appreciate the conversation. Still, I am not in a position >to argue linguistic theory. I can point to confusions that arise >for me when you make one assertion or another, confusions that >arise out of my understanding, partial at best, of SFL. And I can >try to articulate them and so learn better what I do and do not >understand. > >All of what you say below makes logical sense - >that's not the issue; I'm sure that Hallidayans would agree >that a change in useage of an item does not indicate a change in the >system. Does it indicate a change in the meaning potential of the >item? - I think that would depend on the change in question. Does >grammatical metaphor change the meaning potential of an item? - I >would be inclined to say YES. I think Hallidayans would >say that patterns of change in useage DO indicate change in >the meaning potential of the SYSTEM, but I'm not sure. >I would like to pose this question to Hallidayans, >preferably in the context of our exchange, so that likenesses and >differences between the two different functional linguistic theories >can be specified. > >At 01:26 PM 10/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >> October 25, 1997 >>Dear Judith, >> >>I much enjoyed last Monday's lunch and am pleased that we seem to be >>somewhat closer intellectually than a year ago. In the interests of >>continuing the dialog I've been mulling over the notion 'potential meaning' >>and my misgivings about it. It strikes me that it's a fine notion until one >>tries to give some substance to it. At that point one encounters both >>conceptual and analytical problems whose solution I cannot envision. Perhaps >>you can fill me in, either with Halliday's ideas or your own. >> >>First, what does the potential meaning of a word/form/morpheme/ >>structure/construction look like? (I'm assuming, here, that you really do >>mean potential meaning, as opposed to actual meaning on a given occasion. >>The latter I have no difficulty envisioning: a paraphrase in either the >>target language or some metalanguage.) Secondly, how does one arrive at >>the potential meaning of a word/form etc.? By what analytical procedure? >>Presumably one would begin with observation, collect data. One could list >>all the interpretations of the item under analysis that one had amassed. >>But then what? The potential meaning of an item must be more than a simple >>list of the observations. A list has no potential; its simply a description >>of what one has encountered so far. How does one move from observation to >>theory? from description to an explanatory construct? >> >>The Otheguy article "When Contact Speakers Talk, Linguistic Theory Listens' >>I gave you illustrates the necessity of satisfactory answers to these >>questions if the notion of potential meaning is to be viable. Putting >>Otheguy's question in your terms: "Does the usage current in U.S. Spanish of >>the phrase 'llamer para atras' to communicate 'to call back' constitute a >>change in the potential meaning of any of its constituent parts (llamer, >>para, atras) from their potential meaning in Latin American Spanish, where >>such usage is unknown? Or, does it constitute, by contrast, the >>actualization of a meaning potential of the component parts that had always >>existed in them but until now was never realized? In other words, does the >>potential meaning of these words in Latin America encompass the new usage >>in the States? If so, then there has been no systemic change, no change in >>potential meaning, only a change in usage; a communicative innovation (due >>to contact with American culture) but no linguistic innovation as Otheguy >>puts it. On the other hand, if the potential meanings of these words in >>Latin American Spanish do not encompass this new usage then there has indeed >>been a change in their potential meaning. >> >>You can see the centrality of my first question to this analytical issue. >>The potential meaning of an item must be stated in such a way that one can >>confront it with data and determine whether or not it predicts/accounts for/ >>encompasses/ the data. This is the crux of the testing procedure that any >>construct must undergo. In the case of the proposed potential meaning of an >>item, that testing procedure is the arena in which we see the productive and >>creative aspect of language; we should get an insight into how, in one >>common formulation, 'finite means achieve infinite ends.' >> >>One final remark. There is a temptation, even among linguists, to claim >>systemic change whenever one encounters a new observation. (Otheguy >>documents this tendency well in showing how loan translations are commonly >>taken to be evidence of 'structural' change without actually going through >>an analytical procedure to determine what, exactly, had changed >>structurally.) The paradox here is that if one freely posits systemic >>change every time one has a new observation, one is implicitly diminishing >>the adaptive and creative potential of the existing system at any particular >>point in time. Moreover, one has not diminished the need for a clear >>statement of the potential meaning of an item. The seeds of any systemic >>change must lie in the language state before the change. For example, given >>sequential language states A and B, if the potential meaning of an item in >>state B is different from its potential meaning in state A, then the >>mechanism of that change must lie in the item's potential meaning in state >>A. In short, the explanation for both synchronic creativity and diachronic >>change lies in the language state just prior to the creativity/change, so >>accounting for either would require a clear statement of potential meaning. >> >>I didn't have the Halliday book home with me or I would have skimmed it to >>see what his response would be. I could do that now, but then I wouldn't get >>this sent til tomorrow or Thursday. Better to get this out to you, even in >>pieces. >>I'm sending Michael a copy in the hopes he will want to join in the dialog. >>What about the other members of the cluster? >> >> Wallis >> >> >> >> > Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Fri Oct 31 20:40 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA18283 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:40:21 GMT Received: (qmail 19480 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 1997 20:39:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 19477 invoked by uid 6539); 31 Oct 1997 20:39:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 19471 invoked from network); 31 Oct 1997 20:39:24 -0000 Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu (128.228.1.2) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 31 Oct 1997 20:39:24 -0000 Received: from jlemke.dh.i-2000.com by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4) with TCP; Fri, 31 Oct 97 15:40:33 EST Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971031152238.007a3730@cunyvm.cuny.edu> X-Sender: jllbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:22:38 -0500 To: James Robert Martin From: Jay Lemke Subject: Re: nominalizations Cc: James Robert Martin , sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19971029231613.007be340@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 104 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 6428 Jim is raising some very important questions for social linguistics generally, and they certainly seem to apply in education particularly. On the matter of social attitudes, there is certainly at least a social class difference in habitus regarding nominalized style -- i.e. discourse about relationships among abstractions. My sense is that the upper middle class attitude is that this is a discourse of power, even though it can be misused. The power involved is both rhetorical (or 'external' as in Ruqaiya's analysis of Bourdieu on language) and substantive, i.e. there are meanings you can make this way better and they are meanings that need to be made given how we have organized activities in our society. But this latter point is perhaps just the basis for the working class and other disaffected resistance to the style. We are a hierarchical society as well as a bureaucratic one, and these two social organizing principles are conflated in our institutions. Bureaucracy, in one sense, may be necessary and desirable (cf. Jim on admin), but insofar as it implies hierarchy in practice, it is legitimately resisted -- and the nominalizing style with it. What I mean here by 'bureaucracy' is really just the complexity of our social institutional networks, the fact that it takes a lot of organization of activity by many people to keep even the basics going in our society (food supply, fuel, building maintenance ... not to mention education, government, business, etc.), and that no one has ever found any practical way to do this except by specialization and co-ordination, which together produce either bureaucracies (which are simply the most explicitly rule-governed solution) or at least some sort of large, complex, internally differentiated and functionally coordinated organization. Such organizations do not need to be 'hierarchical' in the sense that they don't need to have a small number of role-positions within them that exert maximal control over the work and compensation of others with almost no accountability to them. There are many viable forms of 'horizontal' coordination, and I think recent insights into complex self-organizing systems suggests these are more efficient in fact that vertical, hierarchical organization. So the nominalized style, de facto, is both the language of specialization and coordination and the language of unjust power relations. It has evolved historically under conditions in which hierarchy and 'bureaucracy' have always been fused; functionally it serves both interests. I am not sure that an analysis strictly at the level of the grammar could disentangle the resources that serve one of these functions from the other (actually there are three: specialization, co-ordination, and domination). My sense is that a lot of grammatical metaphor is entrained in the service of all three. We would have to go more of what I think of as the 'text-semantic' level of analysis, seeing how various specific thematic formations (specific at the lexical-semantic as well as grammatical level) are deployed across extended stretches of text, and redound with particular social-institutional contexts. My one serious effort at analysis of technocratic discourse tried to do this in a partial way (see chapter 4 of _Textual Politics_ or the original AILA paper). Educationally, I think we have to recognize that many students will resist learning and using the nominalized style. They will see it as the language of the class (or culture, or even gender) enemy, as a mask for power, as mystifying and obfuscating, as essentially unnecessary. In part they are right, but we also have to bear in mind that many of these same students have no life experience / habitus that enables them to see the kinds of real needs and social functions this sort of discourse serves. You have to have at least some of the perspective of the uppermiddle / professional classes to see just how far specialization has to go in our society and just how difficult it therefore becomes to coordinate all the different components of collective activity on the very large scale. Many of our students do not ever really see what specialization looks like in its realistic forms, they do not see firsthand the work and discourse of technical and professional specialists in its full complexity. Much less do they ever see just what managers are up against in trying to get the work of such people co-ordinated. I might even go so far as to say that some _ideology_ is socially functional insofar as it creates an artificial common ground among diverse social sectors (of course it too has been distorted to also support the unjust aspects of the dominance of ruling castes). But many of our students really see a world that looks to be far simpler than in fact it is. Working class conservatism is based, I think, on really believing, on the basis of experience, that the world can be a simpler place. The problem lies with the limits of that experience, and one of the greatest contributions education could make would be to widen that experience and show students just how unbelievably complicated every aspect of modern society actually is, and more or less has to be. Unfortunately, the curriculum itself delivers only highly oversimplified images; it shows a sketchy caricature of our actual society. In doing this, it does help to insure that less privileged students stay 'in their place' and remain largely unable as well as unwilling to operate the discourses of power, or to challenge the unjust and unnecessary aspects of the social order. It may be correct that students cannot handle the real levels of complexity in our society -- but it seems clear that for the most part adults can't handle these levels of complexity either. Their youth is no excuse for keeping them in ignorance of the most basic truths about the world they live in: it's terrifyingly complicated and systematically unjust. I don't think we can regard the problem of teaching nominalized discourse forms and the uses of grammatical metaphor as a purely technical pedagogical issue. Students have to face the complexities of life that require these discourses, or they will never see the point in mastering them. I'm grateful to Jim for focussing our attention on this critical point. JAY. --------------------------- JAY L. LEMKE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU --------------------------- From sys-func-owner@uts.edu.au Mon Nov 3 00:22 GMT 1997 Received: from solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au (solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au [138.25.16.3]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06680 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 00:21:58 GMT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5/1.3.antispam) id LAA25591 for sys-func-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:20:26 +1100 (EADT) Received: from extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (extra.ucc.su.oz.au [129.78.64.4]) by solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5/1.3.antispam) with ESMTP id LAA25574 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:20:22 +1100 (EADT) Received: from extro.su.OZ.AU (jmartin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23273 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:20:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost by extro.su.OZ.AU (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25541; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:20:19 +1100 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:20:17 +1100 (EST) From: James Robert Martin To: sys-func@uts.edu.au Subject: FWD>Initial teacher-training (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au id LAA25576 Sender: owner-sys-func@uts.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: James Robert Martin X-Info: To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe' to sys-func-request@uts.edu.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au id LAB25591 Status: RO X-Lines: 181 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 7849 Of some contemporary relevance, perhaps Jim ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 31 Oct 1997 10:13:44 +1100 From: John Gibbons To: Jim Martin Subject: FWD>Initial teacher-training Mail*Link=AE SMTP FWD>Initial teacher-training Jim, I'm on a British LAGB Ed Linguistics list, run by Dick Hudson, and hence = quite 'Grammar In Schools' oriented. I enclose their latest offering, as = it might interest you. Very best John -------------------------------------- Date: 29/10/97 8:05 PM From: Dick Hudson Members of the new LAGB Educational Linguistics list may be interested in the following. The Teacher-Training Agency for England and Wales (not Scotland?) has produced an official curriculum for courses that train new primary-school teachers, and the `English' section includes the following points. My personal view (from my ivory tower) of this development is ver= y positive (in spite of a few reservations about details), but I imagine so= me members of the list may be involved directly in implementing the curricul= um so I'd be most interested to hear from them. If you mail comments to me I= 'll forward them to the list. Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for Primary English 2. As part of all courses trainees must be taught: a. the importance, in order to secure pupils' progress in English, of ensuring that pupils of all ages develop their skills in English at: word level, through being taught phonics, spelling and vocabulary; sentence level, through being taught grammar and punctuation; and text level, through being taught comprehension and composition, .... 3. As part of all courses trainees must be taught: e. that in order to extend pupils' understanding of the structure of writ= ten and spoken language and how language works they must teach pupils: i. how word order influences meaning (e.g. that putting an object first= in the sentence gives it greater emphasis), ii. how different kinds of words function in sentences (parts of speech= ), e.g. that adverbs usually qualify verbs, iii. how language can be described in terms of various functions (e.g. questions, statements, commands), iv. how sentences can be analysed into their constituent parts and how they can be connected in different ways (e.g. dependent clauses and phras= es), v. that some words are more essential to meaning than others (e.g. that the modal verb has little meaning unless used in conjunction with the mai= n verb [??]) and to use this knowledge in their reading and writing. 5. As part of all courses trainees must be taught: f. how to teach writing so that pupils write confidently, accurately, fluently and with understanding, including how to: i. teach compositional skills ..... ii. teach grammar systematically, through: - direct instruction on grammatical rules and conventions; - investigating word order in sentences, the ways words function in sentences, the effects of deleting words and the ways words and sentences can be transformed (e.g. made into plurals, negated, turned into question= s), - requiring pupils to use relevant subject specific terminology when discussing their own and other people's writing (e.g. past/present tense, pronoun, singular/plural, direct speech)( iii. teach punctuation ... iv. teach spelling ... including teaching: - strategies for learning to spell which draw on pupils' knowledge of word meanings and derivations, including: - using word families, roots and derivations (e.g. ...) - knowledge of prefixes and suffixes and their meanings ... - knowledge of comparative and superlative forms of words ... - knowledge of how word endings relate to verb tenses ... - knowledge that many interrogatives begin `wh' ... 6. As part of all courses trainees must be taught: a. to recognise common errors in English, to understand how these arise, = how they can be prevented and how to remedy them, including, among others: [various examples of unsuccessful spelling, punctuation, tense selection= , choice of connectives and overall structure - nothing about standard/non-standard] 12. As part of all courses trainees must demonstrate that they know and understand: a. the nature and role of standard English ... b. the spoken and written language systems of English [Then a table of `lexical' knowledge, including phonology, morphology and word meanings; and a table of `grammatical' knowledge including grammatic= al functions, words order, cohesion within sentence, sentence-types, simple, compound and complex sentences, and punctuation] d. technical terms including: - sub-lexical features including: grapheme, digraph, trigraph, phoneme, blend, onset, rime, syllable, morpheme, roots of words/word stems, diphthong, prefix, suffix; - syntactic and grammatical features, including: word classes ... word functions (e.g. subject, object, predicate), simple, compound and complex sentences, clauses and phrases, finite and non-finite verbs; - textual features including: figurative language (e.g. simile and metaphor), cohesion, voice, style, genre. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Richard (=3DDick) Hudson Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT work phone: +171 419 3152; work fax: +171 383 4108 email: dick@ling.ucl.ac.uk web-sites: home page =3D http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm unpublished papers available by ftp =3D ....uk/home/dick/papers.htm ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by outpost.arts.usyd.edu.au with ADMIN;29 Oct 1997 20:00:16 +11= 00 Received: from crow.phon.ucl.ac.uk by mail-b.bcc.ac.uk with SMTP (XT-PP); Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:57:13 +0000 Received: from dialup-3.ucl.ac.uk by crow.phon.ucl.ac.uk (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AC04307; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:57:10 +0000 Message-Id: <9710290857.AC04307@crow.phon.ucl.ac.uk> X-Sender: dick@crow.phon.ucl.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:14:51 +0000 To: dick@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk, ewa jaworska , nicolajw@cogs.susx.ac.uk, larryt@cogs.susx.ac.uk, k.e.borjars@manchester.ac.uk, J.L.Cheshire@qmw.ac.uk, joan.cutting@sunderland.ac.uk, Mick Randall , Southampton dept , Abdul Jalil , jmiller@ling.ed.ac.uk, steve.whitley@sunderland.ac.uk, DR Pauline M REA-DICKINS , richardc@cogs.susx.ac.uk, b.clark@mdx.ac.uk, Brian Richards , S.Muhlhaus@kingston.ac.u= k, Florence Myles , carys.jones@kcl.ac.uk, Theresa O'Brien , "Dr. Winifred Davies" , George Blue , m.scott@ioe.ac.uk, T.Bloor@aston.ac.uk, j-treffersdaller@wpg.uwe.ac.u= k, "M.A.Cazzoli-Goeta" , G.M.Habermann@massey.ac= .nz, Ernesto Macaro , Tim Parke , Daniel Robertson , john.gibbons@linguistics.usyd.edu.a= u, SUNDERLAND Jane , =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=3DE9?=3D Moulin , Anna Ciliberti , "C. George Hunt" , "Prof. Walsmley, C6-238, 3699" From: Dick Hudson Subject: Initial teacher-training content-length: 4969 From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Wed Oct 15 18:04 BST 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA27307 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:04:13 +0100 Received: (qmail 23308 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 1997 17:03:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 23305 invoked by uid 6539); 15 Oct 1997 17:03:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 23295 invoked from network); 15 Oct 1997 17:03:14 -0000 Received: from fax.ceniai.inf.cu (169.158.128.146) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 15 Oct 1997 17:03:14 -0000 Received: from ceniai.inf.cu by fax.ceniai.inf.cu with esmtp (Smail3.2) id m0xLWrq-000M6UC; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:04:18 -0500 (CST) Received: from comuh.uh.cu by ceniai.inf.cu with UUCP (Smail3.2) id m0xLWrQ-000B5JC; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:03:52 -0500 (CST) Received: by comuh.uh.cu (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA15350; Wed, 15 Oct 97 10:44:37 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:44:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Gilberto Diaz-Santos To: SFL list Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 148 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 4679 Gilberto Diaz-Santos Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras Universidad de la Habana Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza C. Habana 10600, CUBA fax: 5 37 335930 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:53:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Gilberto Diaz-Santos To: Gilberto Diaz-Santos Sixth Annual GELI Convention and International Conference CALL FOR PARTICIPATION The GELI (Grupo de Especialistas en Lengua Inglesa - Asociacion de Linguistas de Cuba) Convention Programme Committee invites presentations dealing with classroom practices, as well as research in language learning and teaching and other related areas. We welcome proposals from teachers, teacher educators, curriculum designers, materials writers as well as other professionals in fields such as English language life and culture, communications, linguistics, education, translation and interpretation. THEMES Teaching and Learning Strategies Action Research Communicative Teaching Teacher Training English for Specific Purposes English Programs on Radio and Television Curriculum and Materials Design Translation and Interpretation Learning Styles English Language Life and Culture Assessment and Evaluation Themes other than those listed may be discussed in the Open Forum CONVENTION: December 11-13, 1997 9:30 a.m. Havana Sessions at the Convention will include: LECTURES AND TALKS Guest speakers will address contemporary issues in the themes of the conference. SYMPOSIA The abstracts of the papers for the symposia should be submitted before November 17, 1997. Authors will have 15 minutes for their presentations. WORKSHOPS Workshop descriptions should be submitted before November 17 together with a 50-word biodata of the presenter. Workshop presentations are allotted a maximum of two hours. POSTERS Posters should not exceed one square meter and may include a brief text with photos, drawings, graphs or charts. Presenters should go to the convention site the day before the Convention at 5:00 p.m. to put up their poster in the allocated area. During the Convention, scheduled two-hour poster sessions will be held in the morning and afternoon, during which time the presenters will be given a 15-minute time slot in the programme to explain the content of their posters. SWAP SHOP Participants can exchange one of their successful teaching ideas for their favourite ten from among the others submitted by their colleagues, by dropping off a one-page copy of their material (one or both sides) the first day of the Convention between 9:00 and 10:30 a.m. The quality of the material should allow for photocopying. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum will provide an opportunity for anyone to address any topic without previous submission. Participants will put down their names and topics the first day of the Convention and will be allotted a time limit and the timetable for their presentations the following day. Topics for the open forum may range from in-progress work (research, book-writing, etc.); classroom experiences; polemical issues; book, film and journal reviews. These may take the form of reports, comments, anecdotes, etc. BOOK AND JOURNAL DISCUSSION Topics and themes related to the discussion of any book or journal should be submitted before November 17. The time allotted for presentations is 15 minutes. International participants may request participation before November 17 and pay the registration fee on arrival in Cuba. Letters of invitation and additional information about lodging transportation, tours and travelling regulations are available on request. Contact: Adrienne Hunter FAX: (537) 332723 TEL (537) 332818 Registration fee: $ 40.00 US dollars SPECIAL PRE-CONVENTION SYMPOSIA AND WORKSHOPS Fifth Symposium on Canadian Studies Fourth Symposium on Caribbean Studies Second Symposium on British Studies These will be organized by GELI SIGs and will be held on December 11. Registration fee: $ 5.00 US dollars Correspondence should be addressed to: Sixth GELI Annual Convention and International Conference International School of Havana Calle 18# 315, esq. 5ta. Avenida Mirarnar, La Habana, Cuba Telephone: (537) 24 2818 FAX: (537) 24 2723 For information you can also contact Gilberto Diaz Santos, Conference Organizer gilbert@comuh.uh.cu Tony Irizar, National GELI Executive Board tonygeli@ceniai.cu Gilberto Diaz-Santos Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras Universidad de la Habana Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza C. Habana 10600, CUBA fax: 5 37 335930 From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Mon Nov 10 02:38 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA04133 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:38:32 GMT Received: (qmail 1259 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 1997 02:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 1256 invoked by uid 6539); 10 Nov 1997 02:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 1250 invoked from network); 10 Nov 1997 02:37:29 -0000 Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu (128.228.1.2) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 10 Nov 1997 02:37:28 -0000 Received: from jlemke.dh.i-2000.com by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4) with TCP; Sun, 09 Nov 97 21:38:37 EST Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971109212805.007af9b0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> X-Sender: jllbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 21:28:05 -0500 To: SFL Education Group From: Jay Lemke Subject: Re: Style shifting/genre variation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4026 Like Jim and others, I certainly find this work of Gilberto's very promising for many reasons. In my own work on text semantics, beginning from science classroom discourse and then looking at the relations to textbooks, etc. (I even touch briefly on the relations to narrative in a very minor piece I wrote once, citation below), it seemed very important to me that there were what I called 'thematic formations': relatively invariant collocations and webs of semantic relations among thematic items (the linguistic equivalent of 'concepts') that stayed the same across different genres. This is the real 'content' of science as scientists see things. When I started to analyze genres, I was concerned with how they differed from notions of register (including Field). My ultimate conclusion on this, not really published since all three written versions seem to have got lost in never-published volumes, was that register is mainly about what stays the same all the way through a text, whereas Genre is about the semantic inhomogeneity of texts: how Field, say, _changes_ from one Stage or phase of the text to the next (cf. phasal analysis, Gregory & Malcolm). In register terms we are often dealing here with an issue of 'delicacy': a physics research article is about the Field of Physics all the way through, but it is about different aspects of physics in different parts (theory here, experiments there, etc.). What does it take to master the thematic formations ('conceptual content') of physics? my conclusion was it requires practice in transposing the same thematic formation from one genre to another (talking science, writing science; informal talk, formal talk, several written genres, etc.) What does it take to master, or at least to gain an explicit sense about a genre? I think it takes reading/writing/talking/hearing the genre filled with different Field/Thematic contents. To understand a genre you need to know: how each instance of it is like every other; how each part of it is different from every other; how the micro-register of each part is realized lexico-grammatically. What Gilberto is doing is getting students to move across genres while keeping thematic formations relatively constant. This will tend to help them learn BOTH about the science AND about the genres. I know of another project, at Deakin U. in Australia, that tries to teach science through science fiction; it is run by a post-modernist who is very aware of discourse theory. But Gilberto, even though I take it he is more interesting in teaching writing than science, is going further -- and in effect teaching both! Here are a couple cites to the work I've done that may be relevant: Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 1990. "Personal Narrative and Academic Discourse: Tools for Making Meaning." Liberal Education 78(3): 28-33. 1992. "Text structure and text semantics" In R. Veltman and E. Steiner, Eds. Pragmatics, Discourse, and Text (pp. 158-170). London: Pinter. 1988. -- and then there are the papers that are 'missing in action', one of these dealt with how the same thematics was instantiated in a chemistry lesson and in the accompanying textbook (written by the teacher in the classroom), another set deal with how to conceptualize the semantic heterogeneity of extended texts in terms of register and genre; one version of this work might still appear in the long-planned Festschrift for Michael Gregory, another version was incorporated into my infamously unpublished paper on genre topology, lost in the struggles of _Network_ to find a stable editorship. JAY. PS. I have heard for some time now that there is a Spanish translation of _Talking Science_ in the works (a group in Barcelona, with connections in Mexico). If it ever happens, I'd be happy to send a copy to Havana via Toronto or some other politically rational country. --------------------------- JAY L. LEMKE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU --------------------------- From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Sun Nov 9 22:47 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02414 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:47:00 GMT Received: (qmail 22772 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 1997 22:46:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 22769 invoked by uid 6539); 9 Nov 1997 22:46:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 22763 invoked from network); 9 Nov 1997 22:45:58 -0000 Received: from extra.ucc.su.oz.au (129.78.64.4) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 1997 22:45:58 -0000 Received: from extro.su.OZ.AU (jmartin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08207; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:46:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost by extro.su.OZ.AU (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17626; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:46:44 +1100 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:46:43 +1100 (EST) From: James Robert Martin To: "B.Mohan" cc: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Style shifiting/genre variation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 165 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 8080 Early 1998 Routledge will publish a book edited by Robert Veel and I called Reading Science... which has chapters on science fiction, popular science writing, social science, cognitive science and other science discourses in various contexts... approached from critical and functional perspectives. Might generate some ideas relevant to these discussions. cheers, Jim Martin On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, B.Mohan wrote: > Dear Judy: > I would like to bring you (and anybody else interested) up to date on > conversations Gilberto and I have had about his study of his English course > for computer science and math students at the University of Havana, built > around technothrillers, which he presented at ISFC97 in Toronto, and which > he is developing further. I will target the questions which intrigued me, as > an invitation to other folk to contribute to Gilberto's work, and to help me > think a bit further. > > Gilberto collected a detailed student evaluation of the course which was > positive. My general question was WHY students were so positive. In Toronto > he showed student interviews on video which are VERY positive. These > increased my curiosity. > > His student evaluation results give a good start on "why". One general > explanation to start with is: the students found the content of the course > (talking about science and fiction) more interesting than the traditional > content of a language course (e.g. verb tenses). In fact, the students say > this. In the literature of content-based second language teaching and > learning, this is a standard explanation that has been used by a number of > scholars justifying content-based approaches. As a very bland standard old > explanation, it needs to be pushed further. Gilberto's data allows you to go > further. In this was it can mark an advance on the present state of > content-based language learning research. > > (Another parallel explanation is that because the content is science > content, exposes students to the language of science. The students say > this, but they express themselves in terms of learning vocabulary. However > they may be working with other aspects of language as well, and this may > appear more clearly in bits of classroom discussion, or other free-flowing > kind of data. This vocabulary-learning explanation is inadequate because > presumably they could learn vocabulary in a traditional language course, or > in their science textbooks if they are written in English). > > A next level of explanation is that the students show appreciation of the > narrative genre in which the science content comes - they explicitly mention > novels. Now we have reached a pattern which systemics can help us to see > more clearly - SAME CONTENT OR FIELD, BUT DIFFERENT GENRE (plus the variety > of discourse features that are involved). However, at this point it is too > easy to say: "Students enjoy novels more than textbooks. Novels are fun, > textbooks are not. Case closed". There is some truth to this, but it is too > superficial. Again, Gilberto's data allows you to go further. > > Beyond mentioning novels, the students mention that the technothriller > novels bring out the consequences of the development of science in ways that > their science textbooks often do not. In other words, while the textbook > genre highlights (or constructs) certain aspects of the science content, > the narrative genre highlights (or constructs) others. Thus the content or > field is only the same considered broadly; at a detail level it is not, and > the learner engagement with it is probably different. For me, this is an > important issue to explore: why do Gilberto's students want to explore > science content though genres other than the textbook? > > Also at ISFC97 in Toronto, Gillian Perret presented an intriguing paper on > work with the communication skills of (English-speaking) math students at U. > of Technology, Sydney. As I understood it (Gillian, please correct), one > finding was that math professors felt that their students read their math > textbooks but did not read more informally (e.g. articles in the New > Scientist) or find it easy to talk informally about math in free and > open-ended discussions. For me, this raised a parallel question: why do > these professors want their students to explore math content through genres > other than the textbook? > > I know that there's lots more systemic work out there that bears on these > questions. Any comments, particularly about the interaction between field > and genre? > > > >Gilberto, I'm very interested in what you are doing with > >your students. Can you say more about how you have proceeded > >so far? > > > >I was wondering if you have any Write It Right > >curriculum materials? I'm thinking of the "Draft Units of > >work for: English" -- different grade levels. They do a nice > >job of introducing various genres, such as detective fiction, > >film review, etc. I don't know of any curricular materials > >that "translate" from popular genres to more academic ones. > >But the Write It Right materials suggest ways to do that.... > > > >Just imagining for a moment - : > >If you were "translating" a technothriller into a - what? > >a report genre? you might start by identifying the language > >for construing field and tenor in the thriller, then give > > models of the report genre and compare the kind of > >lexicon for construing field in reports to the kind of lexicon for > >construing field in the thriller. Identify the kinds of resources that > >seem specific to the thriller genre &, on the basis of the language > >identified in the thriller, generate a report-appropriate version > >of that language. You could do the same for evaluative language. > >Then you could go on to identifying and comparing generic structures > > - identify the stages of a report, say what the purpose of the > >stage is, and let students select report-appropriate language likely > >to be included in each stage. All you have left is texture :-) > >-- thematizing & cohesion. > > > >I wonder if that would work.... > > > >Judith > > > > > >At 12:58 PM 11/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > >>Hello there! > >>I've seen that the hot topic these days is nominalizations, however I > >>want to take advantage of the active state of the list and hear something > >>on style shifting/genre variation. > >>My main motivation to send this msg has to do with an article I've just > >>read in a back issue of College English -please don't be suprised about > >>this, bibliographic resources are scarce on this side of the planet and > >>sometimes we are fortunate to have friends abroad who retire and donate > >>portions of their libraries-. The point is that I am teaching my math & > >>cs students the different academic genres. I depart from popular fiction > >>novels featuring high-tech plots and use the field content -whatever the > >>topic may be- to teach the academic genres through a > >>variation/transformation of the technothriller genre. This has proved > >>quite successful and less painful for student though mastering these > >>genres takes time and effort. > >>Could you please mention some references I could consult or mention any > >>personal experience you might have on this? > >>Thanks in advance! > >>Gilberto > >> > >>Gilberto Diaz-Santos > >>Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras > >>Universidad de la Habana > >>Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza > >>C. Habana 10600, CUBA > >>fax: 5 37 335930 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >Judith Diamondstone > > * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 > >MAILING ADDRESS: > >Graduate School of Education > >Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey > >10 Seminary Place > >New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 > > * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * > > > > > > > -- > Bernard Mohan Ph.D., Professor > Dept of Language Education, Faculty of Education > University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall > Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 > Tel: (604) 822-5788 Fax: (604) 822-3154 > > From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Sun Nov 9 16:49 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA29400 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:49:33 GMT Received: (qmail 15964 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 1997 16:48:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 15958 invoked by uid 6539); 9 Nov 1997 16:48:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 15952 invoked from network); 9 Nov 1997 16:48:32 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 1997 16:48:32 -0000 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12769 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:49:21 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:49:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199711091649.LAA12769@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: FORWARDED FROM GILBERTO Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 112 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4244 (Gilberto, I tried to return this to you for you to resend - it kept bouncing back, so I'm forwarding it to the list. Please everyone -- remember to write the name of the discussion list in the address line. -- J) >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:45:07 -0500 (EST) >From: Gilberto Diaz-Santos >To: Judy Diamondstone >Subject: Re: Style shifting/genre variation > > >hello Judy! >Thanx for your reply, which I'll comment right now. > >On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Judy Diamondstone wrote: > >> Gilberto, I'm very interested in what you are doing with >> your students. Can you say more about how you have proceeded >> so far? > >Well, I'm basically using some passages from Jurassic Park where I >identify some elements in the narration which are suitable for genre >variation. For instance, the description of technothriller characters are >more concerned with porfessional background than with physical >characteristics. So we depart from a description such as "Ian Malcolm was >a professor of Dynamical Systems at the University of Texas-Austing and >one of the foremost researchers...." and after teaching my students the >basic ingredients of the CV -a different genre- I ask them to assume the >roles of those characters in the story and write their own CVs. Minor >example. >There is another passage in which Crichton discusses a brief history of >genetic engineering techniques; but it is very curious that the narrative >contains the basic steps of a RA introduction as described by Swales -1) >establishing a territory, 2)establishing a niche, 3) occupying a niche. >Again we shift from technothriller to RA intro. >Or the passage in which Dr Wu, the geneticists, explains how the >dinosaurs are cloned can be prefectly rewritten as the Method section of >a RA. Of course there are other "tricks" that can be done this way. > > >> >> I was wondering if you have any Write It Right >> curriculum materials? I'm thinking of the "Draft Units of >> work for: English" -- different grade levels. > >I'm sorry, but I have to be honest, again, and say that I've been working >almost in the dark but with a little bit of intuition. Nevertheless, I >was very fortunate that Bernie Mohan attended my presentation at a >conference in Havana last year and gave me very useful suggestions on how >to deal with this from a theoretical and froma practical point of view. >Thanks to Bernie I knew about and got into contact with the SFL school. >I'm interested in reading the book you mention, but I cannot think of a >way to get a copy -I believe you already know about our problems with >bibliography. > > >> Just imagining for a moment - : >> If you were "translating" a technothriller into a - what? >> a report genre? you might start by identifying the language >> for construing field and tenor in the thriller, then give >> models of the report genre and compare the kind of >> lexicon for construing field in reports to the kind of lexicon for >> construing field in the thriller. > >Well, I've just explained it, you were reading my mind somehow :-) > >> >> I wonder if that would work.... > >So far it has worked with late intermediate and advanced learners -in 3 >different teaching experiences. But, even though I'm becoming familiar >with the SFL approach, I still find my undertaking as a bit empirical and >I'm interested in hearing about similar experiences. > >Best wishes > >Gilberto >> > >> >Gilberto Diaz-Santos >> >Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras >> >Universidad de la Habana >> >Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza >> >C. Habana 10600, CUBA >> >fax: 5 37 335930 >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> Judith Diamondstone >> * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 >> MAILING ADDRESS: >> Graduate School of Education >> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >> 10 Seminary Place >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 >> * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * >> > > Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Sun Nov 9 05:36 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu ([165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA25708 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 05:36:42 GMT Received: (qmail 5602 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 1997 05:35:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 5599 invoked by uid 6539); 9 Nov 1997 05:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 5593 invoked from network); 9 Nov 1997 05:35:00 -0000 Received: from mail.unixg.ubc.ca (137.82.27.14) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 1997 05:35:00 -0000 Received: from BKAULHBX [207.23.94.11] by mail.unixg.ubc.ca with smtp (Exim 1.71 #1) id 0xUQ2F-00057x-00; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:35:48 -0800 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu X-Sender: bmohan@pop.unixg.ubc.ca (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: bmohan@unixg.ubc.ca (B.Mohan) Subject: Style shifiting/genre variation X-Mailer: Message-Id: Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:35:48 -0800 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 151 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 7359 Dear Judy: I would like to bring you (and anybody else interested) up to date on conversations Gilberto and I have had about his study of his English course for computer science and math students at the University of Havana, built around technothrillers, which he presented at ISFC97 in Toronto, and which he is developing further. I will target the questions which intrigued me, as an invitation to other folk to contribute to Gilberto's work, and to help me think a bit further. Gilberto collected a detailed student evaluation of the course which was positive. My general question was WHY students were so positive. In Toronto he showed student interviews on video which are VERY positive. These increased my curiosity. His student evaluation results give a good start on "why". One general explanation to start with is: the students found the content of the course (talking about science and fiction) more interesting than the traditional content of a language course (e.g. verb tenses). In fact, the students say this. In the literature of content-based second language teaching and learning, this is a standard explanation that has been used by a number of scholars justifying content-based approaches. As a very bland standard old explanation, it needs to be pushed further. Gilberto's data allows you to go further. In this was it can mark an advance on the present state of content-based language learning research. (Another parallel explanation is that because the content is science content, exposes students to the language of science. The students say this, but they express themselves in terms of learning vocabulary. However they may be working with other aspects of language as well, and this may appear more clearly in bits of classroom discussion, or other free-flowing kind of data. This vocabulary-learning explanation is inadequate because presumably they could learn vocabulary in a traditional language course, or in their science textbooks if they are written in English). A next level of explanation is that the students show appreciation of the narrative genre in which the science content comes - they explicitly mention novels. Now we have reached a pattern which systemics can help us to see more clearly - SAME CONTENT OR FIELD, BUT DIFFERENT GENRE (plus the variety of discourse features that are involved). However, at this point it is too easy to say: "Students enjoy novels more than textbooks. Novels are fun, textbooks are not. Case closed". There is some truth to this, but it is too superficial. Again, Gilberto's data allows you to go further. Beyond mentioning novels, the students mention that the technothriller novels bring out the consequences of the development of science in ways that their science textbooks often do not. In other words, while the textbook genre highlights (or constructs) certain aspects of the science content, the narrative genre highlights (or constructs) others. Thus the content or field is only the same considered broadly; at a detail level it is not, and the learner engagement with it is probably different. For me, this is an important issue to explore: why do Gilberto's students want to explore science content though genres other than the textbook? Also at ISFC97 in Toronto, Gillian Perret presented an intriguing paper on work with the communication skills of (English-speaking) math students at U. of Technology, Sydney. As I understood it (Gillian, please correct), one finding was that math professors felt that their students read their math textbooks but did not read more informally (e.g. articles in the New Scientist) or find it easy to talk informally about math in free and open-ended discussions. For me, this raised a parallel question: why do these professors want their students to explore math content through genres other than the textbook? I know that there's lots more systemic work out there that bears on these questions. Any comments, particularly about the interaction between field and genre? >Gilberto, I'm very interested in what you are doing with >your students. Can you say more about how you have proceeded >so far? > >I was wondering if you have any Write It Right >curriculum materials? I'm thinking of the "Draft Units of >work for: English" -- different grade levels. They do a nice >job of introducing various genres, such as detective fiction, >film review, etc. I don't know of any curricular materials >that "translate" from popular genres to more academic ones. >But the Write It Right materials suggest ways to do that.... > >Just imagining for a moment - : >If you were "translating" a technothriller into a - what? >a report genre? you might start by identifying the language >for construing field and tenor in the thriller, then give > models of the report genre and compare the kind of >lexicon for construing field in reports to the kind of lexicon for >construing field in the thriller. Identify the kinds of resources that >seem specific to the thriller genre &, on the basis of the language >identified in the thriller, generate a report-appropriate version >of that language. You could do the same for evaluative language. >Then you could go on to identifying and comparing generic structures > - identify the stages of a report, say what the purpose of the >stage is, and let students select report-appropriate language likely >to be included in each stage. All you have left is texture :-) >-- thematizing & cohesion. > >I wonder if that would work.... > >Judith > > >At 12:58 PM 11/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Hello there! >>I've seen that the hot topic these days is nominalizations, however I >>want to take advantage of the active state of the list and hear something >>on style shifting/genre variation. >>My main motivation to send this msg has to do with an article I've just >>read in a back issue of College English -please don't be suprised about >>this, bibliographic resources are scarce on this side of the planet and >>sometimes we are fortunate to have friends abroad who retire and donate >>portions of their libraries-. The point is that I am teaching my math & >>cs students the different academic genres. I depart from popular fiction >>novels featuring high-tech plots and use the field content -whatever the >>topic may be- to teach the academic genres through a >>variation/transformation of the technothriller genre. This has proved >>quite successful and less painful for student though mastering these >>genres takes time and effort. >>Could you please mention some references I could consult or mention any >>personal experience you might have on this? >>Thanks in advance! >>Gilberto >> >>Gilberto Diaz-Santos >>Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras >>Universidad de la Habana >>Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza >>C. Habana 10600, CUBA >>fax: 5 37 335930 >> >> >> > > >Judith Diamondstone > * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 >MAILING ADDRESS: >Graduate School of Education >Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >10 Seminary Place >New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 > * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * > > > -- Bernard Mohan Ph.D., Professor Dept of Language Education, Faculty of Education University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: (604) 822-5788 Fax: (604) 822-3154 From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Fri Nov 7 05:10 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22788 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:10:23 GMT Received: (qmail 7718 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 1997 05:09:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 7715 invoked by uid 6539); 7 Nov 1997 05:09:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 7709 invoked from network); 7 Nov 1997 05:09:23 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 7 Nov 1997 05:09:23 -0000 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA22424 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:10:09 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:10:09 -0500 Message-Id: <199711070510.AAA22424@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: reflections on the ideal handbook Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3538 After reading and responding to Carolyn's handbook chapter (I tried to be appreciative but critical), I began to think more specifically about what my version of an ideal handbook for NA teachers would look like. Carolyn's handbook and her Composition Chronicle article both show how well she understands the importance of contextualization when introducing SFG. The sucess of any introductory SFG text, it seems obvious now, depends on adequately contextualized explanations and examples. We can't SHOW the functionality of the grammar otherwise. The crux of the project lies in determining what "adequately contextualized ...." entails, presumably for each different audience. As I mentioned to someone else today, I keep asking myself how much of linguistics prospective LA teachers need. I think Carolyn rightly foregrounds WHAT IT IS THAT STUDENTS NEED TO KNOW. Linguistic explanation has to succeed on these terms, too. But what teachers need to know to teach and what students need to know to make decisions in writing, in my judgment as an NA teacher educator, should absolutely govern linguistic explanation. I try to mine SFG literature for strategies for teaching teachers how to look at student texts and how to talk about what they see to their students, in such a way that their students can use the metalanguage to make sense in their writing. I can imagine a handbook, informed by SFG, that foregrounds ideas for teaching the text-context relations that govern language use - teaching ideas, like Geoff's many-ways-to-ask-for-a-drink simulation, drawing attention to features that vary under different contextual pressures, and then moving into a discussion of all the resources available in speech that are not available in writing, what the resources of written language are and how they can be deployed to make SOME OF the different kinds of meanings made conversationally, what the linguistic differences might be. A different sort of activity may be required for introducing possibilities for construing the field of discourse, but for the "interpersonal" and "textual" systems, this seems like a useful approach. The grammar itself would be presented AFTER each teaching idea. Some of the theory of course would have to introduce the handbook. But a presentation of the specifics would be streamlined, tailored to what is pedaogically functional, treated as secondary to teaching ideas. The Write it Right curricular materials that I have seen are great (I haven't seen accompanying handbooks for the teacher) but geared to younger students. The Write it Right "Exploring Literacy..." is very good with explanations, but the activities are too text-only-based for my taste. Also, the texts are not challenging for the upper grades. I haven't seen any curricular materials that include simulations of different situational constraints. [Geoff, are you working on that?] Are there other handbooks or sets of curricular materials that anyone would recommend I look at? (I don't need references to the standard introductory texts to SFG). This turned into a long message! I hope others who read Carolyn's handbook excerpt will have something to say on the discussion list in addition to whatever response they provide Carolyn. Judith Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Fri Nov 7 05:20 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA22815 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:20:35 GMT Received: (qmail 7904 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 1997 05:19:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 7901 invoked by uid 6539); 7 Nov 1997 05:19:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 7895 invoked from network); 7 Nov 1997 05:19:35 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 7 Nov 1997 05:19:35 -0000 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA23849 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:20:23 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:20:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199711070520.AAA23849@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: "Rhetorical Grmmar" Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 716 I wonder what others who are familiar with Martha Kolln's (1996) _Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects_ (Boston/ Sydney: Allyn & Bacon) think of it. For those unfamiliar, it's based on SFG notions, but devoted primarily to explaining linguistic FORMS. The first three chapters are the most overall SFG-based and, in my opinion, quite excellent. (She doesn't cite any SFG/SFL literature. Is there a story....?) Any other perspectives? Judith Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Fri Nov 7 07:16 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23432 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:16:02 GMT Received: (qmail 11476 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 1997 07:15:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 11472 invoked by uid 6539); 7 Nov 1997 07:15:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 11460 invoked from network); 7 Nov 1997 07:15:00 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 7 Nov 1997 07:15:00 -0000 Received: from gselpc16.rutgers.edu (erastus.rutgers.edu [165.230.194.156]) by erebus.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA07743 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:15:48 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:15:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199711070715.CAA07743@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: Re: Style shifting/genre variation Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3049 Gilberto, I'm very interested in what you are doing with your students. Can you say more about how you have proceeded so far? I was wondering if you have any Write It Right curriculum materials? I'm thinking of the "Draft Units of work for: English" -- different grade levels. They do a nice job of introducing various genres, such as detective fiction, film review, etc. I don't know of any curricular materials that "translate" from popular genres to more academic ones. But the Write It Right materials suggest ways to do that.... Just imagining for a moment - : If you were "translating" a technothriller into a - what? a report genre? you might start by identifying the language for construing field and tenor in the thriller, then give models of the report genre and compare the kind of lexicon for construing field in reports to the kind of lexicon for construing field in the thriller. Identify the kinds of resources that seem specific to the thriller genre &, on the basis of the language identified in the thriller, generate a report-appropriate version of that language. You could do the same for evaluative language. Then you could go on to identifying and comparing generic structures - identify the stages of a report, say what the purpose of the stage is, and let students select report-appropriate language likely to be included in each stage. All you have left is texture :-) -- thematizing & cohesion. I wonder if that would work.... Judith At 12:58 PM 11/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hello there! >I've seen that the hot topic these days is nominalizations, however I >want to take advantage of the active state of the list and hear something >on style shifting/genre variation. >My main motivation to send this msg has to do with an article I've just >read in a back issue of College English -please don't be suprised about >this, bibliographic resources are scarce on this side of the planet and >sometimes we are fortunate to have friends abroad who retire and donate >portions of their libraries-. The point is that I am teaching my math & >cs students the different academic genres. I depart from popular fiction >novels featuring high-tech plots and use the field content -whatever the >topic may be- to teach the academic genres through a >variation/transformation of the technothriller genre. This has proved >quite successful and less painful for student though mastering these >genres takes time and effort. >Could you please mention some references I could consult or mention any >personal experience you might have on this? >Thanks in advance! >Gilberto > >Gilberto Diaz-Santos >Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras >Universidad de la Habana >Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza >C. Habana 10600, CUBA >fax: 5 37 335930 > > > Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Wed Nov 12 14:17 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA28859 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:17:39 GMT Received: (qmail 11966 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 1997 14:15:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 11947 invoked by uid 6539); 12 Nov 1997 14:15:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 11836 invoked from network); 12 Nov 1997 14:15:15 -0000 Received: from fax.ceniai.inf.cu (169.158.128.146) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 12 Nov 1997 14:15:14 -0000 Received: from ceniai.inf.cu by fax.ceniai.inf.cu with esmtp (Smail3.2) id m0xVdaA-000MN7C; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:15:50 -0500 (CST) Received: from comuh.uh.cu by ceniai.inf.cu with UUCP (Smail3.2) id m0xVdbo-000ApgC; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:17:32 -0500 (CST) Received: by comuh.uh.cu (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA17758; Wed, 12 Nov 97 08:46:38 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:46:37 -0500 (EST) From: Gilberto Diaz-Santos To: SFL list Subject: More than genre variation Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 62 Status: RO Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 3632 Hello! Thank you very much for all your useful comments, suggestions and references. I find the discussion so interesting -and thrilling- that I wanted to add another two bits, since I find that the approach we are undertaking is a little bit more than exploring genre variation/style shifting. There are other points which I believe systemicists will find of interest. In these technothrillers -first in "Sphere" and then in "J.Park"- Crichton brings together a number of people from the academia -as students they all surely passed their ESL or WAC courses with flying colors :-) -however in their interaction they DO encounter serious communication problems, maily due to 1) the difference in their science backgrounds/field, and 2) the TENOR of the situations in which they try to give an explanation to thescientific problems they are facing -different degrees of power among the interactants, first they most of them get together and low affective involvement. Even when the mathematicians in both stories do a great job in trying to explain to the other scientists highly technical concepts and mathematical theories in everyday language -the dimension of mathematical technicality under discussion constantly varies from end to end of the field continuum- they somehow fail to deliver their message because of their abrasive personalities -jeez! this Ian Malcomlm has never heard of hedging!. So the point I'd like to raise is that most content-based language programs -at least in my country- are organized around disciplines and in a way the students become familiar with the shoptalk of their fields, say like a mathematician reading the Notices or presenting at the annual AMS meeting. But what if this mathematician is involved in some kind of community work and has to speak about his science to lay persons. The fact that I have a mathematician friend who teaches a history course at her university in Mass but once a year goes to her niece's primary school in NY and facinates kids with mathematical ideas persuades me that future professionals in ESL/EFL courses should be taught a language that everybody can understand and, at the same time, the forms that they will encounter/use as members of a particular discourse community. This means that we have to prepare students to interact with lay persons/ colleagues from other areas with whom a lot of technical meaning will have to be negotiated through everyday language. Finally I'd like to refer to something Jay mentioned in his message -he knows of a postmodernist teacher teaching a sort of course similar to mine-. Well, that reminded me of something I recently read on postmodernist college students which in a way parallels to the philosophy we are underatking at UH. the author of this book suggests educators to consider judicious chosen guises of postmodernism in which education might take a lesson from Madison Ave. "Intead of filling the [Coca Cola] bottle with heaps of high fructose conr syrup and other gunk," this author says, "you actually put something good for people in the bottle." So, I believe that the sci-tech bestseller could be a good tsrting point to seriously involve students in language learning and in using language to discuss the ethical issues raised in these storiers and sometimes skirted in classrooms. AsI like to put it, the technothriller/EST approach is a good way to recycle pulp fiction. Best Gilberto Gilberto Diaz-Santos Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras Universidad de la Habana Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza C. Habana 10600, CUBA fax: 5 37 335930 From mcenery@comp.lancs.ac.uk Wed Nov 12 13:16 GMT 1997 Received: from milou.comp.lancs.ac.uk (milou.comp.lancs.ac.uk [194.80.34.7]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA25678 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:07:28 GMT Received: from austin.comp.lancs.ac.uk by milou.comp.lancs.ac.uk; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:58:09 GMT Received: by austin.comp.lancs.ac.uk; Wed, 12 Nov 97 13:01:34 GMT From: "Dr Tony McEnery" Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 13:01:34 GMT Message-Id: <12536.9711121301@austin.comp.lancs.ac.uk> To: DG-LIST@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU, M5675@eurokom.ie, acl@cs.columbia.edu, aisb@cogs.susx.ac.uk, arpanet-bboard@mc.lcs.mit.edu, arpanet-bboards@mc.lcs.mit.edu, bulg.gm@applelink.apple.com, colibri@let.ruu.nl, comp-ai@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, comp.at.nat-lang@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, ectl-sub@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca, eiaamme@msmail.lancs.ac.uk, elsnet-list@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, empiricists@csli.stanford.edu, fj-ai@etl.go.jp, humanist@brownvm.brown.edu, ikbsbb@inf.rl.ac.uk, ir-l%uccmvsa.BITNET@earn-relay.ac.uk, jqrqc@cunyvm.cuny.edu, linguist@tamvm1.tamu.edu, ln%frmop11.BITNET@earn-relay.ac.uk, ln-fr%frmop11.BITNET@earn-relay.ac.uk, nl-kr@snyside.sunnyside.com, nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu, nlpeople@dai.ed.ac.uk, nlpeople@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, salt@cstr.ed.ac.uk, sidsepln@es.ehu.si, siggen@black.bgu.ac.il Subject: Discourse, Anaphora and Reference Resolution 2 - CALL FOR PAPERS Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3203 X-Lines: 81 Status: RO CALL FOR PAPERS DAARRC2 - Discourse, Anaphora and Reference Resolution Colloquium Lancaster University, 1 - 4th August , 1998 Invited Speakers - Branimir Boguraev "Anaphora in Computational Linguistics" Prof. Michael Hoey "Looking at the Text Linguistics of Certain Words" Prof. Pieter Seuren "A Discourse-Semantic Account of Donkey Anaphora" Anaphora and problems of reference resolution have received a great deal of attention from workers in linguistics, computational linguistics, artificial intelligence and information retrieval for a number of decades. Such problems have proved a major challenge for all of these fields, and a great many differing theories and solutions have been proposed and implemented with varying degrees of success. This colloquium aims to fill a need for researchers in this field to meet. Our hope is that this meeting will allow all of the different strands of work to be identified, with a view to producing an up-to-date review of the field. To this end, a coloquium will take place from the 1st to the 4th of August, 1998 at Lancaster University, UK, organized jointly by the Department of Linguistics, Lancaster University and the Institute for English Studies, Lodz University, Poland. This colloquium is a follow up to the highly succesful DAARC colloquium held at Lancaster in 1996. Our aim this time is specifically geared towards encouraging a cross-fertilization of ideas between theoretical linguistics, corpus linguistics and computational linguistics. Papers are requested for presentation on all aspects of anaphora and reference resolution. The following research areas are of particular interest, but do not constitute an exhaustive list: corpus-based studies of anaphora in natural language, statistical approaches to reference resolution, cognitive and psychological perspectives, discourse and text-processing perspectives, information retrieval and other computer applications, pragmatics and anaphor resolution, and linguistic-theoretical approaches. Papers reporting work in any language are welcome. The official language of the conference, for purposes of publication and presentation, is English. Research may be work in progress, or work that has already been completed. Abstracts may be sent either electronically, by email or fax, or by traditional surface mail. Email submission of abstracts is, however, strongly encouraged. Details below. Abstracts should arrive at Lancaster by 1st February, 1998, and notification of acceptance will be sent by 14th February, 1998. Draft versions of full papers should arrive by 30th June, 1998. The proceedings will be published in time for the colloquium. ============================================================================= The DAARC2 Organizing committee Simon Botley, Lodz University, Poland Tony McEnery, Lancaster University, UK Ruslan Mitkov, Wolverhampton University, UK Pieter Seuren, Nijmegen University, Netherlands Andrew Wilson, Chemnitz University, Germany Surface mail submissions: DAARC2, Department of Linguistics and MEL, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA14YT EMAIL: eiamme@msmail.lancaster.ac.uk FAX: +44 1524 843 085 From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Tue Nov 11 00:00 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA03411 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00:06 GMT Received: (qmail 18599 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 1997 23:59:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 18596 invoked by uid 6539); 10 Nov 1997 23:59:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 18589 invoked from network); 10 Nov 1997 23:58:51 -0000 Received: from fax.ceniai.inf.cu (169.158.128.146) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 10 Nov 1997 23:58:51 -0000 Received: from ceniai.inf.cu by fax.ceniai.inf.cu with esmtp (Smail3.2) id m0xV3k3-000MNrC; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:59:39 -0500 (CST) Received: from comuh.uh.cu by ceniai.inf.cu with UUCP (Smail3.2) id m0xV3lc-000ApZC; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:01:16 -0500 (CST) Received: by comuh.uh.cu (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA23334; Mon, 10 Nov 97 08:31:01 -0500 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:31:01 -0500 (EST) From: Gilberto Diaz-Santos To: SFL list Subject: your message... (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 120 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 4209 Gilberto Diaz-Santos Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras Universidad de la Habana Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza C. Habana 10600, CUBA fax: 5 37 335930 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:22:41 -0500 From: Judy Diamondstone To: gilbert@comuh.uh.cu Subject: your message... Gilberto, Do please forward this to the discussion list: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu I know it's a nuisance, but you have to type in the address. It's pretty clear from you message that that's where you intended to send it. I just replied similarly to a message from Bernie! Judy At 04:45 PM 11/7/97 -0500, you wrote: > >hello Judy! >Thanx for your reply, which I'll comment right now. > >On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Judy Diamondstone wrote: > >> Gilberto, I'm very interested in what you are doing with >> your students. Can you say more about how you have proceeded >> so far? > >Well, I'm basically using some passages from Jurassic Park where I >identify some elements in the narration which are suitable for genre >variation. For instance, the description of technothriller characters are >more concerned with porfessional background than with physical >characteristics. So we depart from a description such as "Ian Malcolm was >a professor of Dynamical Systems at the University of Texas-Austing and >one of the foremost researchers...." and after teaching my students the >basic ingredients of the CV -a different genre- I ask them to assume the >roles of those characters in the story and write their own CVs. Minor >example. >There is another passage in which Crichton discusses a brief history of >genetic engineering techniques; but it is very curious that the narrative >contains the basic steps of a RA introduction as described by Swales -1) >establishing a territory, 2)establishing a niche, 3) occupying a niche. >Again we shift from technothriller to RA intro. >Or the passage in which Dr Wu, the geneticists, explains how the >dinosaurs are cloned can be prefectly rewritten as the Method section of >a RA. Of course there are other "tricks" that can be done this way. > > >> >> I was wondering if you have any Write It Right >> curriculum materials? I'm thinking of the "Draft Units of >> work for: English" -- different grade levels. > >I'm sorry, but I have to be honest, again, and say that I've been working >almost in the dark but with a little bit of intuition. Nevertheless, I >was very fortunate that Bernie Mohan attended my presentation at a >conference in Havana last year and gave me very useful suggestions on how >to deal with this from a theoretical and froma practical point of view. >Thanks to Bernie I knew about and got into contact with the SFL school. >I'm interested in reading the book you mention, but I cannot think of a >way to get a copy -I believe you already know about our problems with >bibliography. > > >> Just imagining for a moment - : >> If you were "translating" a technothriller into a - what? >> a report genre? you might start by identifying the language >> for construing field and tenor in the thriller, then give >> models of the report genre and compare the kind of >> lexicon for construing field in reports to the kind of lexicon for >> construing field in the thriller. > >Well, I've just explained it, you were reading my mind somehow :-) > >> >> I wonder if that would work.... > >So far it has worked with late intermediate and advanced learners -in 3 >different teaching experiences. But, even though I'm becoming familiar >with the SFL approach, I still find my undertaking as a bit empirical and >I'm interested in hearing about similar experiences. > >Best wishes > >Gilberto >> > >> >Gilberto Diaz-Santos >> >Fac. Lenguas Extranjeras >> >Universidad de la Habana >> >Ave 19 de Mayo y Ayestaran, Plaza >> >C. Habana 10600, CUBA >> >fax: 5 37 335930 >> > >> > >> > Judith Diamondstone * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 MAILING ADDRESS: Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE * From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Thu Nov 13 23:17 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA02165 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:17:31 GMT Received: (qmail 23386 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 1997 23:16:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 23383 invoked by uid 6539); 13 Nov 1997 23:16:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 23377 invoked from network); 13 Nov 1997 23:16:25 -0000 Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu (128.228.1.2) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 13 Nov 1997 23:16:25 -0000 Received: from jlemke.dh.i-2000.com by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4) with TCP; Thu, 13 Nov 97 18:17:31 EST Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971113180444.007d5950@cunyvm.cuny.edu> X-Sender: jllbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:04:44 -0500 To: SFL Education Group From: Jay Lemke Subject: sci-fi and genre Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 104 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 5390 I continue to be very much engaged by Gilberto's accounts of the issues and methods in his course on genre variation for science and science fiction. The person I recalled in Australia doing a course on science issues for educators and non-scientists through science fiction is: GOUGHAC@BRT.DEAKIN.EDU.AU ; Noel Gough, Deakin University I am sure Noel would be very happy to hear about your work, Gilberto! Meanwhile, two points, from connections with other issues currently on my own mind: RE: The 'abrasive' personal tenor of the techno-explanations in Crichton's work. Crichton is himself of course trained as a scientist (a biochemist or molecular biologist, I think). He is, in my humble opinion, a really terrible writer in terms of literary style and delineation of character, worse even than most of the other sci-fi authors I read. He is, however, very imaginative and a reasonably good story-teller simply in terms of plot. There is an important and often unrecognized feature shared by sci-fi genres and more subtly by scientific registers, especially the informal ones: they function to reinforce the masculinity of the protagonists. They create an image of the scientifically informed hero as prototypically masculine, and they support, in real life, the ability of male scientists to consider their work "man's work" in the pervasive gendering ideologies of eurocultures. I think this tendency is quite strong in Crichton's work, though it is typical of the genre. It is not surprising that sci-fi works mainly appeal to a readership of adolescent boys, both those looking for a technological base for their fantasies of masculine powerfulness, and those looking to confirm their interests in science as appropriately masculine. I believe this is an especially paramount issue in the U.S., where anti-intellectualism has often taken the form of efforts to label those inclined to science and mathematics, especially with a theoretical bent, as anything from 'dreamers' to 'nerds' to 'deviants' -- none of these being compatible with our norms of true masculinity. (Engineers do not have this problem, and some non-US cultures do not separate technology from pure science as the US does). There is a strong strain for instance in popular culture presentations of scientifically intelligent men to make them sexually 'neuter', especially before a period of reaction (whose history would be interesting to study) in which I believe there has been a strong effort to reverse this, especially in sci-fi written by scientists or those very friendly to science (as opposed to more mainstream popular culture portrayals). These issues have, I think, important educational implications. Jean Lave and Valerie Walkerdine, from very different theoretical perspectives, have both noted how critical it is for social learning that students be able to identify positively with the image a discipline creates (or which society creates for it) of what kind of person it is who excels, or just likes, the field. Gender plays a crucial role in this, clearly. So of course does the more general social ideology which reflects the conflict of interests between the managerial and the technical-professional fractions of the dominant class. People do not write or learn in an ideological vacuum. What we value, what we can identify with, has much to do with how well we write or learn particular registers and genres. I think that Gilberto's approach in many ways broadens the range of appeal of technoscience registers, but we should still be mindful of the inevitable social biases built into every register and genre. The contradictions indexed by such stylistic features as a protagonist's 'abrasiveness' may perhaps be understood in this way in terms of these larger contradictions. RE: The limits of scientific popularization. Gilberto has also indicated very helpfully not only the value of learning across genre differences, but the need for more effective communication of technical insights to a wider public. There are many genres of scientific popularization (journalism, television directed to younger audiences, sci-fi, etc.) At a recent conference I commented on a paper that began to look at TV science for young people as a multimedia genre in historical context. And I have just read a very incisive argument by Ruqaiya Hasan (to be published as a focus paper in _Linguistics and Education_ probably early next year) which suggests that there is nevertheless something irreducible about technical registers which _cannot_ be translated into everyday language. So I find myself caught between two social facts: (a) technical registers and genres are often exclusive, hoarding valuable knowledge for an elite; and (b) efforts to transpose technical insights into more comprehensible everyday language may necessarily distort or diminish this knowledge and its value. I do not think we should be paralyzed by the complexity of this problem; Gilberto and others have certainly shown how much good can be done despite the obstacles. But I also think that those of us who advocate cross-register and cross-genre 'translation' as a tool for learning and a contribution to democratization need to struggle with all aspects of this complexity. JAY. --------------------------- JAY L. LEMKE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU --------------------------- From sys-func-owner@uts.edu.au Fri Nov 14 04:41 GMT 1997 Received: from solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au (solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au [138.25.16.3]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA07571 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:41:31 GMT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5/1.3.antispam) id PAA18643 for sys-func-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:37:03 +1100 (EADT) Received: from sam.comms.unsw.EDU.AU (sam.comms.unsw.EDU.AU [149.171.96.20]) by solarnum.itd.uts.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5/1.3.antispam) with ESMTP id PAA18526 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:36:53 +1100 (EADT) Received: from [129.94.12.17] ([129.94.12.17] (may be forged)) by sam.comms.unsw.EDU.AU (8.8.6/8.7.5.kenso-central) with SMTP id PAA14093 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:36:50 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199711140436.PAA14093@sam.comms.unsw.EDU.AU> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:39:11 +1000 To: sys-func@uts.edu.au From: w.armour@unsw.edu.au (William Armour) X-Sender: s9000212@pop3.unsw.edu.au Subject: A systemic-functional approach to language teaching X-Mailer: Eudora-JE(1.3.8-JE13) Sender: owner-sys-func@uts.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: w.armour@unsw.edu.au (William Armour) X-Info: To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe' to sys-func-request@uts.edu.au Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2001 X-Lines: 47 Status: RO Dear Colleagues, I am preparing a paper looking at how a language teacher has used a model dialogue (in a Japanese language classroom) and for some background reading I am looking at Robin Melrose's book "The Communicative Syllabus". I am seeking feedback about Melrose's ideas from colleagues who have read his book and/or those who are putting theory into practice. Since I am not purely devoted to SFL (only dabbling) I find Melrose pretty heavy going especially when he redesigns Martin's work (and others) with which I am not that familar (perhaps Jim could help me ?) One aspect of Melrose's work which I have found interesting is his idea of the 'interaction sequence' redesigned from the work of Cook (1985). I would like some comment from you regarding this idea, that is Melrose defines interaction sequence as "a locus of interaction, a point at which interpersonal negotiation may take place, at which changes in the context of situation may be observed". To my mind at least there is also the issue of how social reality is constructed. Is social reality merely a sequence of contexts of situation stuck together and how are they linked ?If cohesion exists in a text, does cohesion exist in social reality ? It is the ontology of the string of contexts of situation that has begun to fascinate me in my study of model conversations esp. those that appear in L2 textbooks. What goes on before, during and after a particular model conversation presented in a textbook and hoiw the learner copes with it. If any of you could enlighten me with your thoughts, I would appreciate it very much. Regards William Armour Home e-mail: spencer@rainbow.net.au * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * William Armour School of Asian Business and Language Studies Faculty of Commerce and Economics University of New South Wales Sydney, 2052 Australia Ph. 61(2) 385-4641 ____________________ I am a Eudora-J user. I can read your Japanese language message. From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Fri Nov 14 05:28 GMT 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id FAA08319 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:28:26 GMT Received: (qmail 16688 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 1997 05:25:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 16684 invoked by uid 6539); 14 Nov 1997 05:25:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16669 invoked from network); 14 Nov 1997 05:25:26 -0000 Received: from extra.ucc.su.oz.au (129.78.64.4) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 14 Nov 1997 05:25:26 -0000 Received: from extro.su.OZ.AU (jmartin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17337; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:26:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost by extro.su.OZ.AU (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02510; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:26:05 +1100 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:26:05 +1100 (EST) From: James Robert Martin To: Jay Lemke cc: SFL Education Group Subject: Re: sci-fi and genre In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971113180444.007d5950@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 117 Status: RO Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 6012 Gillian Fuller has done some relevant work on popular science writing.. especially S J Gould... see her forthcoming paper in Martin & Veel Reading Science forthcoming Routledge. Her argument is basically that Gould's discourse talks from one of Snow's two cultures to the other... bridging from elitist science to elitist humanities... not too democratic! Jim Martin On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jay Lemke wrote: > > I continue to be very much engaged by Gilberto's accounts of the issues and > methods in his course on genre variation for science and science fiction. > > The person I recalled in Australia doing a course on science issues for > educators and non-scientists through science fiction is: > GOUGHAC@BRT.DEAKIN.EDU.AU ; Noel Gough, Deakin University > > I am sure Noel would be very happy to hear about your work, Gilberto! > > Meanwhile, two points, from connections with other issues currently on my > own mind: > > RE: The 'abrasive' personal tenor of the techno-explanations in Crichton's > work. > > Crichton is himself of course trained as a scientist (a biochemist or > molecular biologist, I think). He is, in my humble opinion, a really > terrible writer in terms of literary style and delineation of character, > worse even than most of the other sci-fi authors I read. He is, however, > very imaginative and a reasonably good story-teller simply in terms of plot. > > There is an important and often unrecognized feature shared by sci-fi > genres and more subtly by scientific registers, especially the informal > ones: they function to reinforce the masculinity of the protagonists. They > create an image of the scientifically informed hero as prototypically > masculine, and they support, in real life, the ability of male scientists > to consider their work "man's work" in the pervasive gendering ideologies > of eurocultures. I think this tendency is quite strong in Crichton's work, > though it is typical of the genre. It is not surprising that sci-fi works > mainly appeal to a readership of adolescent boys, both those looking for a > technological base for their fantasies of masculine powerfulness, and those > looking to confirm their interests in science as appropriately masculine. > > I believe this is an especially paramount issue in the U.S., where > anti-intellectualism has often taken the form of efforts to label those > inclined to science and mathematics, especially with a theoretical bent, as > anything from 'dreamers' to 'nerds' to 'deviants' -- none of these being > compatible with our norms of true masculinity. (Engineers do not have this > problem, and some non-US cultures do not separate technology from pure > science as the US does). There is a strong strain for instance in popular > culture presentations of scientifically intelligent men to make them > sexually 'neuter', especially before a period of reaction (whose history > would be interesting to study) in which I believe there has been a strong > effort to reverse this, especially in sci-fi written by scientists or those > very friendly to science (as opposed to more mainstream popular culture > portrayals). > > These issues have, I think, important educational implications. Jean Lave > and Valerie Walkerdine, from very different theoretical perspectives, have > both noted how critical it is for social learning that students be able to > identify positively with the image a discipline creates (or which society > creates for it) of what kind of person it is who excels, or just likes, the > field. Gender plays a crucial role in this, clearly. So of course does the > more general social ideology which reflects the conflict of interests > between the managerial and the technical-professional fractions of the > dominant class. > > People do not write or learn in an ideological vacuum. What we value, what > we can identify with, has much to do with how well we write or learn > particular registers and genres. I think that Gilberto's approach in many > ways broadens the range of appeal of technoscience registers, but we should > still be mindful of the inevitable social biases built into every register > and genre. > > The contradictions indexed by such stylistic features as a protagonist's > 'abrasiveness' may perhaps be understood in this way in terms of these > larger contradictions. > > RE: The limits of scientific popularization. > > Gilberto has also indicated very helpfully not only the value of learning > across genre differences, but the need for more effective communication of > technical insights to a wider public. There are many genres of scientific > popularization (journalism, television directed to younger audiences, sci-fi, > etc.) At a recent conference I commented on a paper that began to look at > TV science for young people as a multimedia genre in historical context. > And I have just read a very incisive argument by Ruqaiya Hasan (to be > published as a focus paper in _Linguistics and Education_ probably early > next year) which suggests that there is nevertheless something irreducible > about technical registers which _cannot_ be translated into everyday > language. So I find myself caught between two social facts: (a) technical > registers and genres are often exclusive, hoarding valuable knowledge for > an elite; and (b) efforts to transpose technical insights into more > comprehensible everyday language may necessarily distort or diminish this > knowledge and its value. > > I do not think we should be paralyzed by the complexity of this problem; > Gilberto and others have certainly shown how much good can be done despite > the obstacles. But I also think that those of us who advocate > cross-register and cross-genre 'translation' as a tool for learning and a > contribution to democratization need to struggle with all aspects of this > complexity. > > JAY. > > > > --------------------------- > JAY L. LEMKE > > CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK > JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU > --------------------------- > From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Fri Oct 24 01:48 BST 1997 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11346 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:48:48 +0100 Received: (qmail 1808 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 1997 00:47:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 1805 invoked by uid 6539); 24 Oct 1997 00:47:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 1799 invoked from network); 24 Oct 1997 00:47:52 -0000 Received: from mailhost.unimas.my (root@161.142.88.209) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 24 Oct 1997 00:47:52 -0000 Received: from peter ([161.142.89.136]) by mailhost.unimas.my (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA14478 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:02:50 +0800 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:02:50 +0800 Message-Id: <199710240102.JAA14478@mailhost.unimas.my> X-Sender: pcullip@161.142.88.209 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Peter F Cullip Subject: Teaching GM Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Lines: 29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1154 Geoff and others I certainly agree that the job of `consciousness-raising' by asking the sorts of questions you suggest is central to the teaching process. However, I worry that students may in fact need, or at least expect or want, more in the way of direct help (and it may even be de-contextualised in relation to the text which motivated it) in assisting them to master GM. It seems to me that one of the main things they need to be able to do in learning to write expository texts for example, is to to learn to use GM to manipulate Theme and New, and to impersonalise and objectify their writing. Such `exercises' as I mentioned in my first (or second?) message may help towards this end. Teaching them , directly, to use the technology of GM, is I feel just as valuable as consciousness-raising in relation to purposes, mode, etc. My experience tells me that when many students realise the `trick' (as some of them have called it) to writing like an adult, they want to experiment and put their new found knowledge to work immediately. What do you, and others, think? Please tell me if I'm not being explicit enough. Regards Peter C From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Sun Mar 1 21:54 GMT 1998 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA20299 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 21:54:17 GMT Received: (qmail 25537 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 1998 21:52:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 25534 invoked by uid 6539); 1 Mar 1998 21:52:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 25528 invoked from network); 1 Mar 1998 21:52:38 -0000 Received: from erebus.rutgers.edu (@165.230.116.132) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 1998 21:52:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 9076 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 1998 21:54:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 9069 invoked from network); 1 Mar 1998 21:53:59 -0000 Received: from erastus.rutgers.edu (HELO colossus.rutgers.edu) (165.230.194.156) by erebus.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 1998 21:53:59 -0000 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: 1 Mar 1998 21:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19980301215400.9075.qmail@erebus.rutgers.edu> X-Sender: diamonju@erebus.rutgers.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu From: Judy Diamondstone Subject: Starting up again. Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 66 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2627 Greetings to everyone, I heard "off stage" some response to Gilberto's lesson plan, including his response to me: >As you said this unit emphasis is on reading comprehension and only the >last activity focuses on genre variation. In fact, the whole project is >made up of 10 units and the number of activities related with genre >variation increases as we advance in the course. I also heard from Mary Beth: >About Gilberto's lesson plan, I would have liked to hear his rationale >for each activity. I wanted to understand how it all came together and >what Gilberto hoped to accomplish with each activity. and from Ruqaiya: >I hope you get some good reaction on Gilberto's material: is it the >notion of activity as used in the classroom work that will be >discussed? I would like to take up these comments here. First - the presentation of curriculum. As Mary Beth said, the "why" of the unit Gilberto posted was not made explicit in the unit itself. As a teacher educator, the "why" of a lesson seems the most important piece of it to communicate to prospective teachers. In previous postings Gilberto had explained his rationale(s) - he uses the technothriller genre to introduce features of academic genres, through various manipulations of the text. (I hope/assume he would explain in an official version of the curriculum how particular lessons realize the purposes he had in mind.) Thus, Gilberto did not set out to teach SFL. He set out to teach different academic genres, using the technothriller and genre/SFL theory as "tools" - the first as primary data of interest to the students, the second as an orienting tool - pointing attention to particular features of the text. If I understand correctly (I may not) some of you from Australia do set out to teach SFL, at least to teachers. Now I assume there may be many "whys" behind an SFL-based pedagogy - e.g., for learners to walk away with a theory of language; with interpretive strategies; with more strategic ways of using language... (though if we set out to teach SFL, the goal is obviously weighted towards a theory of language). I assume that different pedagogical goals invite different kinds of ACTIVITIES and specifically, that primarily text-based activities ought to be embedded in more interactive, learner-centered (sorry, Jim) activities if the goal is not PRIMARILY to teach a theory of language. And I would like to hear other's views. Judy Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 From owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Sun Mar 1 22:42 GMT 1998 Received: from smithers.rutgers.edu (smithers.rutgers.edu [165.230.4.69]) by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA20672 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:42:03 GMT Received: (qmail 27205 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 1998 22:40:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 27202 invoked by uid 6539); 1 Mar 1998 22:40:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 27196 invoked from network); 1 Mar 1998 22:40:26 -0000 Received: from extra.ucc.su.oz.au (129.78.64.4) by smithers.rutgers.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 1998 22:40:26 -0000 Received: from extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (jmartin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA25830; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:41:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost by extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22818; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:41:45 +1100 Delivered-To: sfl_education-og@email.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:41:45 +1100 (EST) From: James Robert Martin To: Judy Diamondstone cc: sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Starting up again. In-Reply-To: <19980301215400.9075.qmail@erebus.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sfl_education@email.rutgers.edu Precedence: bulk X-Lines: 85 Status: RO Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 3401 Judy Actually our pedagogy is a wave of open and closed framing, open and closed classification... in Bernstein's terms... so there would certainly be learner centred phases with weak framing and weak classification... say when the class is building up field with the teacher, drawing on everyone's input, by way of getting a genre institutionally situated. What I have objected to in progressivism is making weak classification and framing dogma.. as if there is only one kind of real natural learning, which strikes me as romantic, gendered, classed, ethnicised, childist tripe. cheers, Jim On 1 Mar 1998, Judy Diamondstone wrote: > Greetings to everyone, > > I heard "off stage" some response to Gilberto's lesson plan, including his > response to me: > > >As you said this unit emphasis is on reading comprehension and only the > >last activity focuses on genre variation. In fact, the whole project is > >made up of 10 units and the number of activities related with genre > >variation increases as we advance in the course. > > I also heard from Mary Beth: > > >About Gilberto's lesson plan, I would have liked to hear his rationale > >for each activity. I wanted to understand how it all came together and > >what Gilberto hoped to accomplish with each activity. > > and from Ruqaiya: > > >I hope you get some good reaction on Gilberto's material: is it the > >notion of activity as used in the classroom work that will be > >discussed? > > I would like to take up these comments here. > > First - the presentation of curriculum. As Mary Beth said, > the "why" of the unit Gilberto posted was not made explicit > in the unit itself. As a teacher educator, the "why" of > a lesson seems the most important piece of it to communicate > to prospective teachers. In previous postings Gilberto had > explained his rationale(s) - he uses the technothriller genre > to introduce features of academic genres, through various > manipulations of the text. (I hope/assume he would explain > in an official version of the curriculum how particular lessons > realize the purposes he had in mind.) Thus, Gilberto did not set > out to teach SFL. He set out to teach different academic genres, > using the technothriller and genre/SFL theory as "tools" - the > first as primary data of interest to the students, the second as > an orienting tool - pointing attention to particular features of > the text. > > If I understand correctly (I may not) some of you from Australia do > set out to teach SFL, at least to teachers. Now I assume there may be > many "whys" behind an SFL-based pedagogy - e.g., for learners to walk > away with a theory of language; with interpretive strategies; with > more strategic ways of using language... (though > if we set out to teach SFL, the goal is obviously weighted towards > a theory of language). I assume that different pedagogical > goals invite different kinds of ACTIVITIES and specifically, that > primarily text-based activities ought to be embedded in more interactive, > learner-centered (sorry, Jim) activities if the goal is not PRIMARILY > to teach a theory of language. > > And I would like to hear other's views. > > Judy > > > > > Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 > Graduate School of Education > Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey > 10 Seminary Place > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 > > >