Book suggestions

[Ellen Contini-Morava]

I don't teach Intro to Linguistics but I throw some linguistics into my 
lower-level undergrad Language & Culture course.  Even learning 
phonetics can have practical applications (such as knowing what you're 
trying to do when pronouncing a foreign language), and students are 
usually fascinated with things like clicks and tone-based drum 
communication.  And it's not impossible to describe traditional 
linguistic concepts in an accessible way.  Since Johanna mentioned that

> the linguistics approach is *alien* to them (and I mean that in the 
> Martian sense)

let me recommend one of my favorite explanations of the phonemic 
principle by the late, great Charles Hockett:  "How to learn Martian".  
Originally published in /Astounding Science Fiction/, 1955, and 
reprinted in /The View From Language/.Athens, GA:University of Georgia 
Press 1977.

Happy new year,

Ellen


On 12/27/2010 3:56 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote:
> Well, I was being a little hyperbolic when I said ninth grade. 12th 
> grade might be more appropriate. The class is aimed at sophomores, who 
> have only one year of college under their belts. And I have to 
> emphasize again how the lack of instruction regarding language 
> structure in the K-12 system leaves our students severely 
> underprepared for examining language -- for stepping outside of it, so 
> to speak. Also, most of my students are humanities majors, and 
> (unfortunately) not experienced at reading scientific prose. When I 
> teach a senior seminar, I give them texts that are much closer to what 
> we would write for fellow academics or intellectuals; by then, they 
> can cope.
>
> When I first began teaching the grad course in linguistics that our 
> literature MA students have to take, I used O'Grady et al.'s 
> _Contemporary Linguistics_. They hated it. They just found it too 
> hard. I was shocked, but how was I to respond? "You just better learn 
> how to read this stuff, period," and have them do lousy in the course 
> time after time? No, I changed the text.
>
> This doesn't mean I dumb down my material. I do choose my words 
> carefully when I write (or speak) about linguistics for 
> undergraduates, but I don't cheat the actual subject matter -- I keep 
> it to the correct level, in this case, introductory prose, and strive 
> to explain complex phenomena in language they can read easily. I do, 
> of course, introduce and define linguistic terms and take the theory 
> discussion to the level appropriate for the class and its purpose.
>
> I wrote a short textbook on English grammar a number of years ago, and 
> used it for a number of years in my Structure of English course. 
> Students praised it highly, both for its accessibility and for the 
> value of the information. In other words, the prose didn't get in the 
> way of their learning what I wanted them to learn. You can see a 
> sample of my approach at this website, which is extracted from the 
> textbook:
>
> http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html
>
> The first page is a bit simple in prose, but if you go further,  
> you'll see that successive pages are written in plain prose, but 
> nonetheless convey the basic information I want to get across. 
> Unfortunately, upon reading through it today, I realize I have to do 
> some major editing to bring the page up to a better description of 
> syntax.
>
> Lastly, I just want to state my position one more time. I have one 
> chance to educate a tiny portion of the general public out of the 
> Stone Age concepts most people entertain with regard to language. I 
> can't, in ten weeks, make up for the lousy education they have had up 
> to the point when they walk into my classroom. What I can do, and have 
> done very successfully in my senior seminar, is open their eyes to the 
> way language really works, not just in structure, but in society. My 
> students often report that they are starting to have arguments with 
> their friends and family about the popular myths people believe about 
> language; they are starting to educate those around them. What could 
> be more satisfying, within the constraints of my job?
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
> Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Dept.
> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu
> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>
>


On 12/27/2010 3:56 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote:
> Well, I was being a little hyperbolic when I said ninth grade. 12th 
> grade might be more appropriate. The class is aimed at sophomores, who 
> have only one year of college under their belts. And I have to 
> emphasize again how the lack of instruction regarding language 
> structure in the K-12 system leaves our students severely 
> underprepared for examining language -- for stepping outside of it, so 
> to speak. Also, most of my students are humanities majors, and 
> (unfortunately) not experienced at reading scientific prose. When I 
> teach a senior seminar, I give them texts that are much closer to what 
> we would write for fellow academics or intellectuals; by then, they 
> can cope.
>
> When I first began teaching the grad course in linguistics that our 
> literature MA students have to take, I used O'Grady et al.'s 
> _Contemporary Linguistics_. They hated it. They just found it too 
> hard. I was shocked, but how was I to respond? "You just better learn 
> how to read this stuff, period," and have them do lousy in the course 
> time after time? No, I changed the text.
>
> This doesn't mean I dumb down my material. I do choose my words 
> carefully when I write (or speak) about linguistics for 
> undergraduates, but I don't cheat the actual subject matter -- I keep 
> it to the correct level, in this case, introductory prose, and strive 
> to explain complex phenomena in language they can read easily. I do, 
> of course, introduce and define linguistic terms and take the theory 
> discussion to the level appropriate for the class and its purpose.
>
> I wrote a short textbook on English grammar a number of years ago, and 
> used it for a number of years in my Structure of English course. 
> Students praised it highly, both for its accessibility and for the 
> value of the information. In other words, the prose didn't get in the 
> way of their learning what I wanted them to learn. You can see a 
> sample of my approach at this website, which is extracted from the 
> textbook:
>
> http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html
>
> The first page is a bit simple in prose, but if you go further,  
> you'll see that successive pages are written in plain prose, but 
> nonetheless convey the basic information I want to get across. 
> Unfortunately, upon reading through it today, I realize I have to do 
> some major editing to bring the page up to a better description of 
> syntax.
>
> Lastly, I just want to state my position one more time. I have one 
> chance to educate a tiny portion of the general public out of the 
> Stone Age concepts most people entertain with regard to language. I 
> can't, in ten weeks, make up for the lousy education they have had up 
> to the point when they walk into my classroom. What I can do, and have 
> done very successfully in my senior seminar, is open their eyes to the 
> way language really works, not just in structure, but in society. My 
> students often report that they are starting to have arguments with 
> their friends and family about the popular myths people believe about 
> language; they are starting to educate those around them. What could 
> be more satisfying, within the constraints of my job?
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
> Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Dept.
> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu
> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>
>