tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post2170234338265123906..comments2024-03-23T01:31:13.502+01:00Comments on Jabal al-Lughat: Linguistics for high schools: what would a syllabus look like?Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-65442588743490249922014-12-21T20:02:56.182+01:002014-12-21T20:02:56.182+01:00Well, it seems that we're in agreement. If som...Well, it seems that we're in agreement. If somebody chose to study linguistics as an optional subject (e.g. as a UK A-level subject), I'd certainly be all for including phonology, morphology and syntax. I'd probably choose something like Dixon's Basic Linguistic Theory as a starting point or something in the functionalist tradition over anything in the Pinker vein but that's really more a matter of degree - I've recommended Pinker to people as a quick and easy intro to some of the key issues. My post was written in response to Liberman's and Hudson's suggestions that grammar theory should be taught as part of the general curriculum. <br /><br />I would probably include more on contact linguistics and acquisition than is habitual in intro courses and I would definitely make sure they use a corpus from the very start as well as other online tools like WALS and Ethnologue. I've taught an intro to language where the students started by eliciting some speech samples using pictures (similar to the Edinburgh corpus) and it was very successful.<br /><br />Perhaps the thing is to come up with some sample linguistics curricula for different purposes and share them online. I've always wanted to come up with some but have been too busy.Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-74632953535958112892014-12-21T17:23:22.807+01:002014-12-21T17:23:22.807+01:00If that's what you intend as your main point, ...If that's what you intend as your main point, then I'm rather more in sympathy with it. Apart from the barest minimum necessary to let people function in society, learning should be voluntary; people forced into classes don't learn much themselves, and get in the way of others learning. Even in the 1990s you could at least still leave school at 16, which is one reason why I picked "high school" for this post's title. However, I see that that's regrettably no longer an option in the UK, unless you do an apprenticeship or a job instead. Fortunately, though, you do still at least get to choose which subjects to take from 16 on, so anyone still doing linguistics after that has only themselves to blame. I would certainly like to see more linguistics in schools, but not more innocent victims, of linguistics or of chemistry.<br /><br />As for being bored, I meant if I were the student, not if I were the teacher. I used to hate it when teachers insisted on repeating the same small set of points over and over, and tried to impose a particular value system as the right answer.Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-86071904288627569092014-12-21T11:53:16.450+01:002014-12-21T11:53:16.450+01:00I suspect that if you could cover the richness of ...I suspect that if you could cover the richness of language hidden in my five points in a month or a semester, you'd barely scratch the surface. So the difference between yours and mine curricular proclivities lies in what we consider linguistics more than in how long you would need to cover it.<br /><br />But that wasn't really the point of the post. I personally love teaching phonology, morphology and syntax. They're a lot of fun, particularly if you can do them from a typological perspective. I was even one of the markers in a UK linguistic Olympiad. My point is that most people don't. And it historically hasn't made any difference whether they got exposed to diagramming or not. I'm one of several generations who did hard core dependency syntax in primary school. Yet, very few grew up to be linguists, skilled stylists or polyglots. At best they knew what an adverb was (just about). What the outcome of generations of teaching this (fun for some, torture for most) subject was a general prescriptivist bent that marginalised those speaking other dialects whatever their other merits were. So I would have much rather seen a single semester on pragmatics, bilingualism and sociolinguistics than years on syntax and morphology.<br /><br />If you would personally be bored, then I'd suggest you don't do it. The job of the teacher is not be entertained but be of use to the students.<br /><br />Also, you mistake the formulation of my 5 points for their substance. I did formulate them in opposition to the mainstream but only because it was in the context of an argument. They can be approached entirely positively. You don't see construction grammarians, functionalists, or modern typologists constantly refer to generativists. The more than rules and words point can be approached very easily without relying on any knowledge of the previous paradigm. <br /><br />But even that wasn't the main point. The main point was my discomfort with linguists pushing their subject on innocent victims for no other reason than feeling left out. Not because of personal dislike - I go to linguistics conferences on my vacation - but because I have empathy for those who would hate it as much as I hated chemistry and what's worse, learn as little from it.Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-48069978396915200292014-12-20T13:17:00.261+01:002014-12-20T13:17:00.261+01:00Dominik: Thanks for giving your perspective, but a...Dominik: Thanks for giving your perspective, but as you may have guessed, I wouldn't agree. With certain important reservations and modifications, I'd say those five principles could make a fine curriculum for a month, maybe a term if you stretched them a bit. Longer than that, and I'd find myself desperately bored with them. All of these principles are basically reactions against traditional views, and as such make sense only to the extent that those traditional views are maintained. 5 in particular is utterly irrelevant unless the students have already studied, in some depth, the idea that language does basically consist of words and rules. Likewise, 4 - while true - simply begs the question of what a dictionary is for. As for those reservations I mentioned earlier, let's just say that the "just" in 2 changes it from trivially true to profoundly problematic.Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-36849444755039564712014-12-20T10:59:52.023+01:002014-12-20T10:59:52.023+01:00I've discussed this some time ago on http://me...I've discussed this some time ago on http://metaphorhacker.net/2014/01/5-things-everybody-should-know-about-language-outline-of-linguistics-contribution-to-the-liberal-arts-curriculum/. <br /><br />In short, I don't think IPA, morphology or syntax are nearly as important as knowing about the rich interaction between culture, power and language.Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-73768845517284363922014-12-17T18:37:52.558+01:002014-12-17T18:37:52.558+01:00Further discussion at All Things Linguistic.Further discussion at <a href="http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/105390077873/linguistics-for-high-schools-what-would-a" rel="nofollow">All Things Linguistic</a>.Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-7401868046737505572014-11-09T18:02:43.764+01:002014-11-09T18:02:43.764+01:00Yes yes yes!!!
your caretaker calling you by your...Yes yes yes!!!<br /><br /><i>your caretaker calling you by your full name instead of your first name when they're about to rebuke you</i><br /><br />Incidentally, that's a specifically... if not American, then still English thing.David Marjanovićnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-17680396059826179742014-11-06T23:47:47.359+01:002014-11-06T23:47:47.359+01:00" But it would be hard work - I suspect all b..." But it would be hard work - I suspect all but the most enthusiastic teachers would balk at having to brush up on grammars of all major immigrant languages of their region plus the local indigenous language before they can even start designing the course!"<br /><br />Ah, but you underestimate just how ground level these students would be. What the teacher really needs is the linguistics chops. That and maybe the ability to coach some sport on the side. such are the realities of teaching at that level.<br /><br />For a teacher with a linguistics background the language familiarity would come faster than for the students, a la Ichabod Crane. And that's only the first semester. It would become easier and easier each time around.<br /><br />The other advantage of the model is that it can be tailored to local communities. You can align the assortment of languages with what is present in the community, or really more to the point, what you can count on the students to have some interest in, to see as decently relevant.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187836541591828806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-67539908828562221702014-11-04T19:50:37.108+01:002014-11-04T19:50:37.108+01:00A Facebook discussion of this also contributed a l...A Facebook discussion of this also contributed a lot of good suggestions - thanks everybody! Here are a few especially useful links from that:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/english/as-and-a-level/english-language-a-2700/subject-content" rel="nofollow">English Language A-level</a> (a British high school qualification)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/vce/studies/englishlanguage/englangindex.aspx" rel="nofollow">VCE English Language</a> (an Australian high school qualification)<br /><br /><a href="http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=2644138" rel="nofollow">Review of <i>Linguistics at School</i></a> (a book on - you'll be surprised to hear - teaching linguistics at schools)Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-54923769373650424952014-11-04T19:44:38.811+01:002014-11-04T19:44:38.811+01:00Mark: Great list!
Tom: A promising sign?
Jim: I ...Mark: Great list!<br /><br />Tom: A promising sign?<br /><br />Jim: I like the sound of that methodology, and I think the students would love it. But it would be hard work - I suspect all but the most enthusiastic teachers would balk at having to brush up on grammars of all major immigrant languages of their region plus the local indigenous language before they can even start designing the course!Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-81801167382573863612014-11-04T00:17:12.532+01:002014-11-04T00:17:12.532+01:00This is a good framework. I have given this some t...This is a good framework. I have given this some thought myself, since I used to teach French at the secondary level. I always thought high school linguistics would be a good idea with implications for the teaching of history especially. There's a reason that most f the English names for Plains tribes happen to come from Absaaloke (the Crow and the US were allies.)<br /><br />You have outlined the teaching objectives and the next step is to decide on methods. I think you need to teach all the aspects you list from looking at actual languages (the way they were identified in the first place!)<br /><br />The first step is baby steps through some easy IE stuff, since the kids are English speakers and have had some exposure to Spanish, and maybe French.<br /><br />With high school kids you do that with languages they care about. Here in the Seattle-Tacoma area that would be comparing Khmer, Vietnamese, Thai (actually Lao)mostly and Samoan, since these are the heritage languages students have access to. This immediately gives you historical linguistics, and in this case the whole controversy over genetic affiliations, and from that you could teach how to evaluate these arguments when you see them.<br /><br />The next layer is to compare all this with Lushootseed, since it is initially intimidating, very different from English, and the local indigenous language anyway.<br /><br />So right off, you have had to plow through a lot of phonetics, a lot of phonology - with actual cases to show how systems of related languages differ and diverge - and a huge load of morphology. In this selection of languages you get various kinds of verbal aspect systems, and you get an ergative case system, a trigger alignment system and word order systems.<br /><br />for the cherry on top, some kids take Chinese courses, so you can talk about adstrate and substratum effects.<br />Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187836541591828806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-13560004617143736672014-11-03T14:16:48.409+01:002014-11-03T14:16:48.409+01:00I agree with teaching the IPA, not least because i...I agree with teaching the IPA, not least because it would in time become an accessible altenative to the horrendous 'imitated' pronunciations given in phrasebooks and so many otherwise top-range dictionaries, such as Chambers English Dictionary. (I have to confess that I was reading Daniel Jones on English pronunciation by the time I was 12, so I'm no doubt partial!)<br /> It's interesting that University Challenge has been setting questions involving IPA and phonetics in recent contests.Tom Dawkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13402151588395967365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13177437.post-39017847125504206912014-11-02T20:37:16.579+01:002014-11-02T20:37:16.579+01:00You need more pragmatics.
Markedness: how saying...You need more pragmatics. <br /><br />Markedness: how saying something in a special way also means something special — cf. your caretaker calling you by your full name instead of your first name when they're about to rebuke you. <br /><br />Some version of Grice's maxims: that we expect each other's contributions to be relevant and informative, and that if they fail on either count there are social implications. <br /><br />Speech acts: that you have to look at what people do with words to understand why they say what they say. E.g. we all comment on the weather not because that's so fantastically interesting but because we want to show that we value being together — we use language not for exchanging information but for building social relations. <br /><br />Text and context: that what we say is always underpinned by context and common ground, and that this is why something like 'it's hot in here' can come to be interpreted as 'please close the window'.markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202024581059703492noreply@blogger.com