a joke about two pere ubuists

[Cyrus]

Abdiel OAbdiel wrote:

>This is all very interesting. David and Cyrus have
>both suggested that a standard is valid or required
>when teaching a language. It is not. In fact,
>depending on the student, it can be a hindrance. My
>wife knows English grammar. She knows more English
>grammar than most native speakers of English do. Her
>English is still poor. Ugh! UG? 
>  
>
 From your post I get the impression you'd  prefer individualized 
teaching. I'm all for it. Can it be done, though?

[...]

>In Education And Experience Dewey says, "There is no
>such thing as educational value in the abstract." 
>Americans are practical people. Practical people are
>suspicious of theory, of knowledge "for its own sake."
> A pragmatic student wants to why she should learn
>something new.  She wants to be prepared to handle new
>situations and new problems-not only those for which
>there are tried-and-true rules of thumb. She wants to
>be able to judge whether what he is being taught is
>practical. Practice not based on sound theory is
>likely to be bumbling, hampered by all sorts of
>nonsense. Grammar provides us with a theory about how
>language works. It can help us understand how sounds
>combine into words, and words into sentences, to
>express an infinite number variety of facts, thoughts,
>observations, opinions, feelings, and, so on. A
>knowledge of grammar can help us use language with
>some sense of what we are doing and why. As Cyrus
>noted, modern grammar, like modern musical theory and
>modern mathematics,  modern physics, has gone through
>changes. MalignD suggests we bone up. As Paul M's
>comments on the Webster's controversy imply people who
>studied grammar years ago may find the latest theories
>of grammar newfangled to a fault. Grammarians, as Paul
>noted, can be prescriptive, descriptive, generative,
>and even proscriptive. They can also be historical,
>social, and classic. Grammar changes. Language
>changes. Change is not the same as corruption. 
>Grammar changes. 
>
I'm with you. Just a note on practical students: I think one of the aims 
of education should be to cultivate in the student a desire to learn, 
even if it's "for its own sake". That's the true meaning of "love" in 
Plato. On the other hand, of course, it should be flexible enough to not 
discourage students who can't or don't wish to do that. Oh, man, this is 
a huge issue.

[...]

>Consider this: 
>
>L1 speakers of Greek add the article "the" where it
>doesn't belong. For example, they put it in front of
>proper nouns. So, they call me, "The Abdiel" and not
>Abdiel. 
>
>L1 speakers of Korean omit the article "the" when they
>shouldn't. 
>For example, they don't put it in front of nouns. So,
>they say, "car  in street" and not the car is in the
>street." 
>
>The questions that L2 speakers can produce will humble
>a grammarian in a New York minute. Is it practical, is
>it good theory, good pedagogy, to diagram these
>sentences with linguist's charts and sentence trees? 
>
>
>He has the flu. 
>He has cancer. 
>We watched an eclipse of the sun. 
>We watched an eclipse of Jupiter. 
>We are having pork chops for dinner.
>We are having the pork chops for dinner. 
>He is going to Ethiopia. 
>He is going to the Congo. 
>I like rice and beans. 
>I like the rice and beans. 
>
Well, being Greek, and having been to Korea, I know what you're talking 
about. However, such "mistakes" are usually taken as an indication that 
the individual making them hasn't learned English very well. Yes, L2 
speakers do come up with questions that are very hard to answer, but 
that's only because their native languages have their own sets of rules, 
which can be very different from those of the English language. For 
example, being Greek, and having learned English as a Foreign Language, 
I find the use or omission of the article "the" in the sentences quite 
logical. However, according to modern linguistics, the purpose of 
language is to get the message through. That is usually achieved, 
despite mistakes and variations.

Cyrus