MCT and grammar questions

[Dawn E]

what I'm saying is that there's a time when all of that turns off-and you write. You write the story and you listen to the words in your ear and weigh how they sound and if those words are the ones you want, and convey the meaning you want and the subtext you want. You trust yourself that it's all there in your subconscious and you let it work its magic.

 

 

Perhaps in some way I was an intuitive writer, but I always attributed my ability of not having to think so much about things while I wrote to my intense grammar instruction prior to college. The grammar had become a part of me...second nature almost. Many a night I was up until 4am typing papers due later that morning. I had no time to edit and retype them, obviously, and still my professor continually praised me for all the time I must have spent on editing. Perhaps it didn't make me a better writer...but it definitely made me a more efficient one. :)

 

I don't think this discussion has really been tense, but rather passionate. We all spend time researching and planning our course, and we believe in the path we choose. I'm still a year away from the logic stage, but I am grateful to be able to glean from those of you who are currently in the trenches. I think MCT is brilliant, and, though I used Island as a supplement, I found it to be well worth the expense. I'm looking forward to learning more about the upper levels and being able to see him and the books at convention.

[8filltheheart]

No, not a fight, just that I don't use MCT and technically shouldn't be posting here. *g*

 

I did know that he was a linguist, and I did know that he invented his own language and that the subject coming at the end gives it more weight--but what I'm saying is that there's a time when all of that turns off-and you write. You write the story and you listen to the words in your ear and weigh how they sound and if those words are the ones you want, and convey the meaning you want and the subtext you want. You trust yourself that it's all there in your subconscious and you let it work its magic.

 

I DO think he loved grammar-totally, but you don't start writing a story by deconstructing it. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the argument that learning grammar doesn't make you a better writer.

And, what's with the headaches? Mine's pounding, too, I sympathize.

 

I wonder if I am being misunderstood.

 

I do not believe that simply knowing grammar leads to good writing. I type while multi-tasking and typically with lots of distractions, but I don't think I have ever said that grammar knowledge equals good writing. I simply think that learning grammar shouldn't be ignored b/c we somehow learn it intuitively. Studying grammar is learning how our language functions and is structured. Well, that and grammar is the language in which to evaluate writing on one level.

 

Can someone be good in grammar and a poor writer? Yes. Writing requires a cohesiveness beyond sentence structure. The opposite? Yes. The logical and even creative flow of thoughts can be achieved w/o analyzing every word.

 

However, I think master writers like Tolkien achieve the greatness that they do b/c they are accomplished in both (and actually even more. He was a master in all areas of linguistics so how he structured every sentence was influenced by that knowledge.)

 

I can think of an example that I have learned from MCT that I really had not paid much attention to before now--the deliberate incorporation of poetic devices in prose. While some writer's might be so naturally gifted that that happens w/o knowledge of their existence, I doubt it is the norm. It is probably the studied and skilled use of those techniques that distinguish good writing from great writing.

 

So......do we need to study and learn the language of poetry? Probably not. But, great writers probably do.

[Purple Sage]

We have never had the opportunity to use MTC since we didn't start home schooling until this last year and have used the K12 curriculum.

 

However, after DS1 completing grade 6 in a gifted and talented charter and DS2 completing grade 4 and testing into grade 6, one thing we noticed when they jumped into the grammer, usage and mechanics books that the K12 curriculum uses, was that they DIDN'T KNOW GRAMMAR! I couldn't believe it! Apparently it is supposed to be somewhat intuitive and learned as they learn to write! :confused:

 

Not for us! We got a diagramming workbook and have been supplementing the great GUM book from K12 with extra diagramming every single day (they do one sentence, sometimes easy and sometimes really hard), and their grammar test scores when from appx 60% for both of them to 85 and 90%! I really am a big proponent of diagramming and also believe that it helps them write more easily if they know grammar well. That has been evidenced by how well they are doing with writing after adding the grammar unit.

[Capt_Uhura]

I think I see what you're saying Mouse. If I'm reading your post correctly and how you are defining writing, I agree with you. ....I'm thinking of the whole package, both getting the words down, and editing those words as writing. You can have someone w/ no knowledge of grammar, write an award winning story, and have an editor mop up. I'm thinking of writing in terms of my kids. They must be able to both get their thoughts on paper, and then go back and know to put commas around appositive phrases (whether they know the term appositive phrase or not), to combine sentences into compound or complex sentences so that their writing has better flow, know how to punctuate clauses, how to order sentences to convey his meaning, etc.

 

 

Matroyskha:

I'm wondering how much will be changed in Grammar Voyage edition 2?

 

 

To Klein Hexe - :lol: Let's see...what do I have? WWE/WWS, MCT, PWME, Outlining Book 2, LToW, and Killgallon...yep, that about covers it.

[Capt_Uhura]

I can think of an example that I have learned from MCT that I really had not paid much attention to before now--the deliberate incorporation of poetic devices in prose. While some writer's might be so naturally gifted that that happens w/o knowledge of their existence, I doubt it is the norm. It is probably the studied and skilled use of those techniques that distinguish good writing from great writing.

 

So......do we need to study and learn the language of poetry? Probably not. But, great writers probably do.

 

Are you referring to MCTs books on MLK and Lincoln's Ten Sentences books? We discussed the metaphors in the MLK book today. We have thoroughly enjoyed MCTs books on the poetic devices in these speeches. I certainly would have never gone this deep into them nor appreciated the literary devices present w/out MCTs books. I loved the spondees in Lincoln's Ten Sentences!

Edited January 18, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[Corraleno]

You can have someone w/ no knowledge of grammar, write an award winning story, and have an editor mop up.

What does "no knowledge of grammar" mean, exactly? Anyone who can write an award-wining short story would, by definition, have an excellent grasp of English grammar, whether that knowledge was acquired intuitively or through formal training. In fact, even a toddler who is just learning to speak has some knowledge of grammar. I can also say, from personal experience, that it's quite possible for someone without formal grammatical training to write well enough that no editorial "mopping up" is necessary. In fact, as an editor without formal grammatical training, I was often "mopping up" the work of others who did. ;)

 

Jackie

[Matryoshka]

Matroyskha:

I'm wondering how much will be changed in Grammar Voyage edition 2?

 

I'd love to see what they're changing in the elementary grammar books, but I think that ship has sailed for us... I've just finished skimming through GTown with my youngest, and I already own GVoyage and ML1 (which is also being revamped, right?). Guess I'm going to have to wait till ML2 to see the new and improved versions....

 

To Klein Hexe - :lol: Let's see...what do I have? WWE/WWS, MCT, PWME, Outlining Book 2, LToW, and Killgallon...yep, that about covers it.

 

Heh, I've got WWE, MCT, Outlining, Killgallon (both series!) - I'm thinking of buying WWS next year to do inbetween PTown and EVoyage with my youngest. I liked what I saw in the beta test - I hope it'll be out by next year! For writing I also have TWSS, but I never got past the first DVD...

 

I'm pondering LToW again... I was feeling grateful I didn't blow the $$ on it, since we've only even gotten to 2-3 chapters in EV, but I'm thinking of changing the way we do writing assignments and having them choose their own topics every two weeks, and their first question was how to come up with a topic (esp. in literature), which I think is a big part of LToW. Aaah - would it be worth the money or is it going to be too complicated for me to sort through to get that bit of info (esp. for the $$ - why is it so expenisve???) And did I also hear a rumor that they might be revising their product?

 

Sorry, starting to ramble OT... :tongue_smilie:

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Matroyskha:

I'm wondering how much will be changed in Grammar Voyage edition 2?

Did they tell someone that they will be revising Grammar Voyage? When I asked a month ago they said there are no plans on revising Grammar Voyage:confused: They said the current plan was to revise all the Magic Lens volumes. My Grammar Voyage says "2nd Edition" inside it, does yours not?

[swimmermom3]

I can think of an example that I have learned from MCT that I really had not paid much attention to before now--the deliberate incorporation of poetic devices in prose. While some writer's might be so naturally gifted that that happens w/o knowledge of their existence, I doubt it is the norm. It is probably the studied and skilled use of those techniques that distinguish good writing from great writing.

 

So......do we need to study and learn the language of poetry? Probably not. But, great writers probably do.

 

The ability to recognize and enjoy the poetic devices in prose is one of the gifts MCT has given our family. To some extent, the capacity was there before but MCT heightens one's awareness. Capt. Uhura's mention of MLK speech is a perfect example. Yesterday, NPR replayed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. I have never listened so closely to the marvelous metaphors and the the use of alliteration in his speech. Dd asked if we could take a side-trip and study it over the next week. I have not taught the speech before so this will be a new adventure.

 

Are you referring to MCTs books on MLK and Lincoln's Ten Sentences books? We discussed the metaphors in the MLK book today. We have thoroughly enjoyed MCTs books on the poetic devices in these speeches. I certainly would have never gone this deep into them nor appreciated the literary devices present w/out MCTs books. I loved the spondees in Lincoln's Ten Sentences!

 

I wish I had those books in hand now for our study this week. I was saving them for modern history next year.

[swimmermom3]

I'd love to see what they're changing in the elementary grammar books, but I think that ship has sailed for us... I've just finished skimming through GTown with my youngest, and I already own GVoyage and ML1 (which is also being revamped, right?). Guess I'm going to have to wait till ML2 to see the new and improved versions....

 

 

 

Heh, I've got WWE, MCT, Outlining, Killgallon (both series!) - I'm thinking of buying WWS next year to do inbetween PTown and EVoyage with my youngest. I liked what I saw in the beta test - I hope it'll be out by next year! For writing I also have TWSS, but I never got past the first DVD...

 

I'm pondering LToW again... I was feeling grateful I didn't blow the $$ on it, since we've only even gotten to 2-3 chapters in EV, but I'm thinking of changing the way we do writing assignments and having them choose their own topics every two weeks, and their first question was how to come up with a topic (esp. in literature), which I think is a big part of LToW. Aaah - would it be worth the money or is it going to be too complicated for me to sort through to get that bit of info (esp. for the $$ - why is it so expenisve???) And did I also hear a rumor that they might be revising their product?

 

Sorry, starting to ramble OT... :tongue_smilie:

 

We don't really want to get into listing all of the LA programs we've owned, do we? It would be unfair to SWB and other board members to crash the board just because of a small obsession, don't you think?:D:D:D

[catz]

Wow - interesting thread. As a MCT user I just felt I should throw in my 2 cents. :001_smile:

 

I've posted on other threads of the downsides of MCT - I can totally see that it won't work for everyone. If your child needs repetition and reinforcement, MCT is not the curriculum for you. If you have a child that likes to be presented with one concept at a time, this also probably not be your curriculum of choice. If you want a hands off approach, MCT also might not be right for you.

 

I've talked to a few people who've used the materials over a a couple month's time and I wonder how that can work? Maybe it does for some, but we've taken a full 9 mo academic year to go through Island level and we are taking the same amount of time for Town. Sometimes our LA block just involves us analyzing a few sentences up on a white board over 30 minutes. But that's where the understanding comes.

 

I have a highly to profoundly gifted child. And no other curriculum has come closer to the way he thinks. He's very much a whole picture learner. I feel like MCT really gets that. That being said, we invent more to do. We do more writing applying MCT concepts, we play with the vocab words, we read more poetry. We stop and discuss something from MCT in the middle of reading a good book. My son tests very high on standardized tests and reads and writes well above grade level. Maybe he'd be doing the same if we weren't doing MCT. But, all of us have benefited from the fun MCT brings to language.

 

I love it for my oldest and it is our sole curriculum. My first grader is well above grade level too, but I think I'm still going to wait until 3rd grade to introduce Island to her (again - she loved listening last year). I thought Island might be too low for my 3rd grader last year, but it was great. It's open ended enough to build from, his retention has been great, and it was very enjoyable for him. He had NO previous grammar exposure, but is very much a natural writer.

[justamouse]

IMO, the books are very complementary but not redundant. Killgallon is a worktext written for students, which uses writing (sample sentences from literature) to teach grammar. Image Grammar (the actual book, not the workbooks) is more of a teacher's manual, and it's about using grammar to teach better writing. What they have in common (something they also share with MCT) is that the examples they use are drawn from literature, and the literary effects of the mechanics are explicitly taught.

 

I would say that Image Grammar applies and extends the principles taught in the Killgallon books. Where Killgallon concentrates primarily on the sentence (as most grammar books do), Image Grammar goes beyond the sentence and talks about components of good writing as a whole: rhythm, mood, structure, transitions, etc. My favorite section is on "Special Effects," and my favorite part of the section is called "Creating Special Effects with a Greek Influence." Here is the first paragraph:

 

Now, tell me you don't need this book! :D

 

Jackie

 

Clearly you are evil. Because what I *really* need is another LA book on my shelf. Yes, that is sarcastic. I collect LA books like Imelda Marcos collected shoes.

 

I wonder if I am being misunderstood.

 

I do not believe that simply knowing grammar leads to good writing. I type while multi-tasking and typically with lots of distractions, but I don't think I have ever said that grammar knowledge equals good writing. I simply think that learning grammar shouldn't be ignored b/c we somehow learn it intuitively. Studying grammar is learning how our language functions and is structured. Well, that and grammar is the language in which to evaluate writing on one level.

 

Can someone be good in grammar and a poor writer? Yes. Writing requires a cohesiveness beyond sentence structure. The opposite? Yes. The logical and even creative flow of thoughts can be achieved w/o analyzing every word.

 

However, I think master writers like Tolkien achieve the greatness that they do b/c they are accomplished in both (and actually even more. He was a master in all areas of linguistics so how he structured every sentence was influenced by that knowledge.)

 

I can think of an example that I have learned from MCT that I really had not paid much attention to before now--the deliberate incorporation of poetic devices in prose. While some writer's might be so naturally gifted that that happens w/o knowledge of their existence, I doubt it is the norm. It is probably the studied and skilled use of those techniques that distinguish good writing from great writing.

 

So......do we need to study and learn the language of poetry? Probably not. But, great writers probably do.

 

I agree. :001_smile: I don't think great writers are made to study poetry-I think they love it and it's a joy to them. The rest can be highly individual. I Do know incredible editors who can't write. They just aren't good at the storytelling aspect (obviously there are many other forms of writing) but you will beg borrow and steal to have them edit your book because they can deconstruct like no one's business. And they love reading and books, they just can't (prefer not to) write.

 

I'm not arguing with you, really, I was just using your posts to hammer out in my head what I thought and why. There should be all of these LA programs, and hopefully, through the years, we'll have even more. Because each parent needs to do two things-teach the child where the child is at, and be able to use the curriculum where THEY are. And each child/parent are highly individual so one size does NOT fit all.

 

The longer I do this the more I've come to realize there is not Better/Best curric-there is what the parent needs and what suits the child.

 

What does "no knowledge of grammar" mean, exactly? Anyone who can write an award-wining short story would, by definition, have an excellent grasp of English grammar, whether that knowledge was acquired intuitively or through formal training. In fact, even a toddler who is just learning to speak has some knowledge of grammar. I can also say, from personal experience, that it's quite possible for someone without formal grammatical training to write well enough that no editorial "mopping up" is necessary. In fact, as an editor without formal grammatical training, I was often "mopping up" the work of others who did. ;)

 

Jackie

 

Yep. A toddler won't know WHY "I seen the cat." is wrong, but they will. (As long as proper speech has been modeled.)

 

We don't really want to get into listing all of the LA programs we've owned, do we? It would be unfair to SWB and other board members to crash the board just because of a small obsession, don't you think?:D:D:D

 

At least I'm not alone...

[Capt_Uhura]

 

I'm pondering LToW again... I was feeling grateful I didn't blow the $$ on it, since we've only even gotten to 2-3 chapters in EV, but I'm thinking of changing the way we do writing assignments and having them choose their own topics every two weeks, and their first question was how to come up with a topic (esp. in literature), which I think is a big part of LToW. Aaah - would it be worth the money or is it going to be too complicated for me to sort through to get that bit of info (esp. for the $$ - why is it so expenisve???) And did I also hear a rumor that they might be revising their product?

 

Sorry, starting to ramble OT... :tongue_smilie:

 

If you buy LToW, don't buy until the 2nd edition comes out. I read that it's supposed to be out some time in February.

 

LToW will definitely help them come up with a topic.

[Capt_Uhura]

What does "no knowledge of grammar" mean, exactly? Anyone who can write an award-wining short story would, by definition, have an excellent grasp of English grammar, whether that knowledge was acquired intuitively or through formal training. In fact, even a toddler who is just learning to speak has some knowledge of grammar. I can also say, from personal experience, that it's quite possible for someone without formal grammatical training to write well enough that no editorial "mopping up" is necessary. In fact, as an editor without formal grammatical training, I was often "mopping up" the work of others who did. ;)

 

Jackie

 

:iagree:

I bow to you all who know way more about writing than I ever will. I just recall reading an excerpt from some book that became a best seller .... the original before the editor got to it. It was horrid. No one would want to read it. But with careful editing by someone, it became a bestseller. The wonderful story was there from the beginning but it was not pleasurable to read. I can't recall where I saw it or what the point was. :lol:

 

As a scientist who has submitted many papers for peer review, other scientists love to pick apart your paper. Dh just rejected a paper b/c it was boring to read. The science was sound but he deemed it boooorriiinnggg. I had a collaboration with a Japanese colleague. They could NEVER get a paper publish in a major US journal b/c of their grammar. I started editing all of their papers and lo and behold, they were accepted! 8-) But a creative writer I am not so I should stay out of these threads. 8-) DS10 told me about an hour ago that he really wants to do more creative writing. He doesn't like expository writing. Looks like I'll be buying Image Grammar tomorrow as I'll definitely need help to guide him in creative writing.

 

I once got called into my supervisor's office. I had been commended for having the first ever Animal Research Proposal to be accepted on the first submission. The director of our Animal Care and Use committee said not only was the science sound and all of my bases covered, she couldn't find a single grammar error in it. She routinely rejected proposals that were written poorly w/ incorrect grammar. She wanted clear, concise, unambiguous language and punctuation.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[Capt_Uhura]

The ability to recognize and enjoy the poetic devices in prose is one of the gifts MCT has given our family. To some extent, the capacity was there before but MCT heightens one's awareness. Capt. Uhura's mention of MLK speech is a perfect example. Yesterday, NPR replayed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. I have never listened so closely to the marvelous metaphors and the the use of alliteration in his speech. Dd asked if we could take a side-trip and study it over the next week. I have not taught the speech before so this will be a new adventure.

 

I wish I had those books in hand now for our study this week. I was saving them for modern history next year.

 

OH there is so much in there, you can do them again next year! We've been doing portions at a time, especially since my boys are young. Just going through the metaphors had my spine tingling. My 5th grader was just transfixed. Very powerful.....

[Guest]

However, I think master writers like Tolkien achieve the greatness that they do b/c they are accomplished in both (and actually even more. He was a master in all areas of linguistics so how he structured every sentence was influenced by that knowledge.)

 

I can think of an example that I have learned from MCT that I really had not paid much attention to before now--the deliberate incorporation of poetic devices in prose. While some writer's might be so naturally gifted that that happens w/o knowledge of their existence, I doubt it is the norm. It is probably the studied and skilled use of those techniques that distinguish good writing from great writing.

 

You might be surprised at how many writers have been stunned when critics pointed out repeated images or metaphorical turns in their books which they, the writers, had not been aware of. I think some of them are born thinking that way, and others work more deliberately to cultivate it.

 

Some people do think metaphorically from a young age. I know because I have seen it in dd, who at age six described prosciutto as "pages in a book of ham" and produced many other such phrases that I adore; and also because in reading the biographies, letters, and journals of a number of writers, I've come across similar habits of mind. For those of us who don't think that way (and I'm one of them), it's hard to imagine that such literary turns of mind can be hard-wired, so to speak.

 

I'm sure that as a professional linguist Tolkien was exceptionally aware of grammar, but for me that inversion in the first sentence of The Hobbit -- "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit" -- signals that we are entering the world of myth or fairy tale. Similar opening sentence structures can be found in plenty of fairy tales and myths, and most readers who have a grounding in that literature, as kids schooled the classical way do, probably recognize that signal even if it's an unconscious recognition. The sentence also puts the unfamiliar and intriguing word, hobbit, at the end, and generally in lists the most important items come either at the beginning or the end. Here "hobbit" occupies the end position to further emphasize the fantastical nature of the world we're entering. So while many of you might get to the same point through formal grammar analysis, I get there through a more stylistic lens and a largely unconscious mental register of generic conventions that just gets built up through extensive reading. We all have that; but I find my inventory popping up as if of its own accord as I read. I don't try to do it.

 

When the discussion moved away from grammar in the sense of vocabulary and diagramming and rules, and turned to discussing the metaphors and repeated turns of phrase in the MLK speech, that's closer to how I work and it's one thing I really like about MCT (well of course I would, wouldn't I?). The awareness of style and rhetoric it encourages are important for producing sensitive, active readers as well as for building up a mental repertoire of writerly strategies.

 

Many people will be drawn to this aspect of language and rhetorical analysis and find their inspiration and models there rather than in a background of formal grammar study. Again, this does NOT mean grammar isn't important or that a lot of grammar can be learned through more informal methods.

 

Someone back in this thread or a similar one on grammar mentioned an analogy between math and grammar, in that the nuts and bolts of grammar are as necessary to understanding language as understanding "how numbers work" is to math. All analogies fall apart at some point, but at that risk, from what I've read (because I'm not a mathematician) there is "math" and there is "computation." Some people are whizzes at one but not the other. I love a story about a professor at Oxford, one of those who had discovered equations for something I don't even know how to describe, standing lost in front of the blackboard at 9 x 7. His students, fond of finding humor in his lack of computation ability, called out, "Sixty-one!' "Sixty-seven!" The professor said, "Come, come, gentlemen; it cannot be both."

 

This is a silly anecdote to say that this professor probably had a quite enormous understanding of how numbers worked, but not in the sense that we typically imagine. A surprising number of prize-winning mathematicians flunked school math all the way through high school and only came into their mathematical own in college (of course others were brilliant all the way through). So while some people are going to approach, understand, and conceive of language in grammatical terms, some will find other types of reading, seeing, or knowing the primary (note not exclusive) key to their own understanding. Neither way is inherently better than the other, and some of both is obviously good. If you have a child who struggles and struggles with a formal, workbook grammar program, who finds it confusing, boring, deadening to a love of language, hard to remember, etc., you may find it easier to accomplish the ends -- an appreciative and aware reader, a competent and clear writer -- through other means.

[swimmermom3]

You might be surprised at how many writers have been stunned when critics pointed out repeated images or metaphorical turns in their books which they, the writers, had not been aware of. I think some of them are born thinking that way, and others work more deliberately to cultivate it.

 

Some people do think metaphorically from a young age. I know because I have seen it in dd, who at age six described prosciutto as "pages in a book of ham" and produced many other such phrases that I adore; and also because in reading the biographies, letters, and journals of a number of writers, I've come across similar habits of mind. For those of us who don't think that way (and I'm one of them), it's hard to imagine that such literary turns of mind can be hard-wired, so to speak.

 

I'm sure that as a professional linguist Tolkien was exceptionally aware of grammar, but for me that inversion in the first sentence of The Hobbit -- "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit" -- signals that we are entering the world of myth or fairy tale. Similar opening sentence structures can be found in plenty of fairy tales and myths, and most readers who have a grounding in that literature, as kids schooled the classical way do, probably recognize that signal even if it's an unconscious recognition. The sentence also puts the unfamiliar and intriguing word, hobbit, at the end, and generally in lists the most important items come either at the beginning or the end. Here "hobbit" occupies the end position to further emphasize the fantastical nature of the world we're entering. So while many of you might get to the same point through formal grammar analysis, I get there through a more stylistic lens and a largely unconscious mental register of generic conventions that just gets built up through extensive reading. We all have that; but I find my inventory popping up as if of its own accord as I read. I don't try to do it.

 

When the discussion moved away from grammar in the sense of vocabulary and diagramming and rules, and turned to discussing the metaphors and repeated turns of phrase in the MLK speech, that's closer to how I work and it's one thing I really like about MCT (well of course I would, wouldn't I?). The awareness of style and rhetoric it encourages are important for producing sensitive, active readers as well as for building up a mental repertoire of writerly strategies.

 

Many people will be drawn to this aspect of language and rhetorical analysis and find their inspiration and models there rather than in a background of formal grammar study. Again, this does NOT mean grammar isn't important or that a lot of grammar can be learned through more informal methods.

 

Someone back in this thread or a similar one on grammar mentioned an analogy between math and grammar, in that the nuts and bolts of grammar are as necessary to understanding language as understanding "how numbers work" is to math. All analogies fall apart at some point, but at that risk, from what I've read (because I'm not a mathematician) there is "math" and there is "computation." Some people are whizzes at one but not the other. I love a story about a professor at Oxford, one of those who had discovered equations for something I don't even know how to describe, standing lost in front of the blackboard at 9 x 7. His students, fond of finding humor in his lack of computation ability, called out, "Sixty-one!' "Sixty-seven!" The professor said, "Come, come, gentlemen; it cannot be both."

 

This is a silly anecdote to say that this professor probably had a quite enormous understanding of how numbers worked, but not in the sense that we typically imagine. A surprising number of prize-winning mathematicians flunked school math all the way through high school and only came into their mathematical own in college (of course others were brilliant all the way through). So while some people are going to approach, understand, and conceive of language in grammatical terms, some will find other types of reading, seeing, or knowing the primary (note not exclusive) key to their own understanding. Neither way is inherently better than the other, and some of both is obviously good. If you have a child who struggles and struggles with a formal, workbook grammar program, who finds it confusing, boring, deadening to a love of language, hard to remember, etc., you may find it easier to accomplish the ends -- an appreciative and aware reader, a competent and clear writer -- through other means.

 

Karen, what a wonderful post! Perhaps it is time to move a portion of this conversation to another thread that talks about those "other means?"

[radiobrain]

This is the thread that keeps on giving! :D

[swimmermom3]

This is the thread that keeps on giving! :D

 

That's right, Korin.:D Any chance you would be willing to hop on over and share your experience in "teaching outside the box?" Not that you would ever teach language arts outside the box, eh?":lol:

[justamouse]

You might be surprised at how many writers have been stunned when critics pointed out repeated images or metaphorical turns in their books which they, the writers, had not been aware of. I think some of them are born thinking that way, and others work more deliberately to cultivate it.

 

Some people do think metaphorically from a young age. I know because I have seen it in dd, who at age six described prosciutto as "pages in a book of ham" and produced many other such phrases that I adore; and also because in reading the biographies, letters, and journals of a number of writers, I've come across similar habits of mind. For those of us who don't think that way (and I'm one of them), it's hard to imagine that such literary turns of mind can be hard-wired, so to speak.

 

I'm sure that as a professional linguist Tolkien was exceptionally aware of grammar, but for me that inversion in the first sentence of The Hobbit -- "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit" -- signals that we are entering the world of myth or fairy tale. Similar opening sentence structures can be found in plenty of fairy tales and myths, and most readers who have a grounding in that literature, as kids schooled the classical way do, probably recognize that signal even if it's an unconscious recognition. The sentence also puts the unfamiliar and intriguing word, hobbit, at the end, and generally in lists the most important items come either at the beginning or the end. Here "hobbit" occupies the end position to further emphasize the fantastical nature of the world we're entering. So while many of you might get to the same point through formal grammar analysis, I get there through a more stylistic lens and a largely unconscious mental register of generic conventions that just gets built up through extensive reading. We all have that; but I find my inventory popping up as if of its own accord as I read. I don't try to do it.

 

 

 

I would be the former. I remember in art school making a piece and the instructor coming over and giving me a critique and me standing there amazed, not yet able to analyze what my subconscious spit out, just going with the flow. Writing is the same with me and I've been a voracious reader since I was a child.

 

Getting reviews is almost like getting undressed in public-I have *no* idea what symbolism a reviewer will see in my writing. I do not consciously put alliteration in there, though it's in there. My works that have been taught were enlightening to me as to the students because I did not consciously put these things in-and most writers I know are the same.

 

I just posted a thread on the general board on this article

 

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Elements-of-Clunk/125757/

 

He's writing on common grammar problems he sees in his student's writing.

 

This quote applies to this thread.

 

I have no doubt as to the root of the problem: Students haven't spent much time reading. Punctuation, including the use of apostrophes and hyphens, is governed by a fairly complicated series of rules and conventions, learned for the most part not in the classroom but by encountering and subliminally absorbing them again and again. Students have a lot of conversations and texting sessions, but that's no help. You need to read a lot of edited and published prose.

Unfamiliarity with written English has brought about the other mistakes and changes as well. They may not appear at first to have much in common, but note: All except Nos. 2 and 8 lengthen the sentence they're in. This is the opposite of the way language usually changes. "God be with you" becomes "goodbye"; "base ball" becomes "base-ball" and then "baseball"; "disrespect" becomes "diss." Two hundred years ago, Jane Austen wrote, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." A copy editor today would cut both commas.

 

 

Standard written English is a whole other language from its spoken (and texted) counterpart, with conventions not just of punctuation but also of many shortcuts to meaning—streamlined words and phrases, ellipses (omitted word or words), idioms, figures of speech—that have developed over many years. You learn them by reading. And if you haven't read much, when you set pen to paper yourself, you take things more slowly and apply a literal-minded logic, as you would in finding your way through a dark house.

 

Edited January 19, 2011 by justamouse

[Capt_Uhura]

If you have a child who struggles and struggles with a formal, workbook grammar program, who finds it confusing, boring, deadening to a love of language, hard to remember, etc., you may find it easier to accomplish the ends -- an appreciative and aware reader, a competent and clear writer -- through other means.

 

Yep! My DS just found the program we were using boring. I think that affects retention. In comes MCT and a whole new world opened for all us!

 

I tell my DS all the time that many great mathematicians (I read that Einstein's wife had to check all his calculations) were not good at arithmetic. He really shines with beginning algebra but memorizing those times tables..... or doing mental math quickly in his head.....

[Capt_Uhura]

So true. High school teachers remark about how little kids read today. They only read the Cliff's Notes for classic works. In the video, the American student said he just doesn't have time to read the full works w/ being captain of the football team, president of some club, a part time job and a girlfriend. Thank goodness for Cliff's Notes.

 

I dumped workbooks like Wordly Wise b/c I just didn't see that much bang for the buck (ie time required and taken away from other more pressing subjects). I think vocabulary comes mostly from reading widely. The way vocabulary is presented in MCT CE, that has really transferred over to my boys spoken language as well as written language. We enjoyed catching all the CE words in Wind in the Willows yesterday.

[wapiti]

I have an admission to make. I hated studying literature in high school due to the extent to which the teacher discussed symbolism. It seemed so strained and pointless to me then (and still does). I constantly wondered whether the author really intended many of the things we discussed. I have long assumed I'm just not an English-y or art-y type of person, though now I wonder whether another manner of instruction would have been more encouraging and/or enlightening. (I do love writing, though definitely not in a flowery, English-major kinda way.) How can I apply this thought to teaching dd writing? If dd thinks like I do, would MCT be a better fit than something more traditional? Can I get away with buying just the MCT writing materials, and doing our own grammar (we've been doing other stuff for grammar - including, but not limited to, Basic Language Principles with a Latin Background - and our Latin is pretty heavy on the grammar, though I need to add in some things here and there that are more specific to English). I guess I better go find some older MCT threads on how this program may be used, teacher manuals, etc... :auto:

[Guest]

I just got the latest Teaching Company catalog, and I thought many of you might be interested to see a new course called Analysis and Critique: How to Engage and Write About Anything.

 

Actually, the title is a bit of a reach, because what's covered is primarily literary; there's nothing about how to write in other fields. But it looks as though it has a lot that would resonate with what people like about MCT.

[Guest]

I

I just posted a thread on the general board on this article

 

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Elements-of-Clunk/125757/

 

He's writing on common grammar problems he sees in his student's writing.

 

This quote applies to this thread.

 

Thanks for the link. The quote about groping around in a dark house is a stunning image.

[justamouse]

Thanks for the link. The quote about groping around in a dark house is a stunning image.

 

I thought the same myself. Perfect and stunning.