Bob,

Thank you for your reply.  If meaning is the product of negotiation, then language is used to translate our thoughts to others.  But, if that is so, our thoughts are steeped in ambiguity.  I have heard that Saul Bellow, when asked how he felt about winning the Nobel Prize for literature, replied that he would not know until he sat down and wrote about it.  Thinking is different from having thoughts.  Anyone can have thoughts, but thinking is a process.  I teach college graduates how to approach the GMAT exam on sentence correction.  To find the best expression of an idea, test takers must decide what the writer's intention would have been before they can select the answer that best fulfills that intention.  But, given that we often surprise ourselves with what we say, even we might have to consider what lies behind our remarks.  What I discovered in teaching how to do well on the GMAT was that, to know the best answer, one must take into account grammar, rhetoric, and logic:  how words relate to each other, how words relate to ideas, and how ideas relate to each other.  My concern for those who are so heavily invested in the importance of syntax is that this is only part of the picture.  But, in my relating having, doing, and being to the past, present, and future and to reality, imagination, and conceptualization is that grammar encodes deep thought patterns.  Teachers who belittle grammar instruction have little idea of how important this discipline is to shaping the mind.  For language not only translates our thinking, it structures our thinking.  Those who never master the  variety of grammatical forms available to them are unlikely to see how one circumstance impinges upon another.  Vygotski says that words embody thoughts and that no one can have a thought without using words.  They are the elements of thought.  Maybe deeper than thought is our intention.  Vygotski mentions a playwright who composed an entire drama using the Russian equivalent of "shit."  But, as the two characters in his  play spoke, each line had a different intention.  We can see the same in how people, through performance, interpret poems, plays, and songs.  Words are but place-holders for meaning.  Consider the following poem by George Herbert, "Upon a Child."  I teach it by presenting only one line at a time, leaving the title until the last.  I tell my students that poems have a cumulative meaning and that they generate an emotional and intellectual context that may change the meaning of everything that came before.  So, with each line we discuss what is possible.  As the poem advances, some possibilities seem more probable.  By the end, we know what is actual.  Here is the poem:

Upon a Child

Here a pretty baby lies,
Sung asleep by lullabies;
Pray, be silent and not stir
Th' easy earth that covers her.

Assuming that the words are conveyers of meaning rather than forms of deception, they all mean something different at the end than they did as they moved the poem forward.  One could say that George Herbert uses language to translate his thoughts.  But, I believe that is different from what you meant in the beginning.  Maybe it is to translate his thinking.

All I know is that, when I first read a book on cognitive grammar (often more broadly termed "cognitive linguistics"), I saw that this approach connected grammar to artistic expression and common speech.  I would encourage people to examine all of this further.  Once we do, we can draw a circle that circumscribes our approach to language instruction and find that it includes what all other language teachers are doing and more.  Grammar, rhetoric, and logic--the Trivium, taught in Medieval times--were said to form the Key to Heaven.  I think this is true.  If we treat our subject with depth, we could lead many less disciplined teachers out of the wilderness and we could help  them empower children to gain greater access to the world around them and inside them.

You may choose to say no more about this subject, but I think it is worthy of further exploration.  I know that my exploring has only cracked the surface.  There is more to this than meets the eye.

Thank you for your respectful reply,

Gregg
---- Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> I appreciate Gregg's response.  I  do not want to carry this on endlessly, but I want to make what is at stake here.
> 
> Gregg is making the claim that language is necessarily tied to our thoughts.  It is for this reason he concludes his post with the following:
> 
> It is important that we, as grammarians, explore these deep issues.  They are not unconnected to the surface matters that many teachers believe not to be so important.  Both are intimately connected.
> 
> ***
> There is another view on this matter.  That language translates our thoughts; thoughts and language are two very different systems.  It is for this reason that I brought up syntactic ambiguity.  
> 
> This was an actual headline:
> 
> Puberty begins earlier than thought in young girls
> 
> I don't think the writer of that headline meant it to be ambiguous. The intended meaning is that puberty is beginning earlier than researchers had previously believed.  If language is inherently tied to thought, then why is the other meaning "young girls begin puberty before they can think" possible in that sentence?  If language is a separate system from thought, such ambiguity can be explained.
> 
> That is my only point and now I will not try to respond to a final reply.
> 
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> 
> 
> >>> Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> 06/09/09 5:17 PM >>>
> Bob,
> 
> Meaning, like life, is a negotiation.  Our thought process helps us through this.  While aspects of that process are unconscious, they can easily be encoded in language.  Because language makes a claim upon the world, each claim evokes a challenge based on acceptability, relevance, or grounds.  These challenges may be scripted respectively as: "Oh, yeah?"; "So what!"; and "Yes, but . . ."
> 
> The statement, "I shot an elephant in my pajamas," evokes the "Yes, but . . ." as in "Yes, most likely this means I was wearing my pajamas, but it could mean that the elephant was wearing them."  Upton suggests that ambiguity is inherent in all metaphors and that they gain their richness from the negotiation this requires on the part of the reader.  Grammatical ambiguities are best resolved before they appear in print unless they are meaningful ambiguities.  The joke above awards the person who is able to think outside the box, for that person has an appreciation the ridiculous that is at home with the Marx brothers.  Getting a joke means "you belong."  The ad "Get Fresh with Marie Callender" contains a similar joke.  Because we so often get few strokes for being clever, we tend to repeat such ads in our mind as an affirmation of our intelligence. And, if we really want to congratulate ourselves on our intelligence, we can go to a Marie Callender Restaurant to buy that fresh pie.  And, there are other times when expression can offer two different notions of what is happening as in "I am sitting down."  In Spanish, the act of moving into a sitting position is written differently from maintain a sitting position.  Our language makes no such distinction.  This is where we consider whether to elaborate--to make explicit what might be understood implicitly.  If that is what you mean by language being different from thought, I would agree.  But they are organically connected like the force that through the green fuse drives the flower.  We are like bears dancing in chains.  When we struggle with the words the thoughts gain beauty in their expression.
> 
> I hope this acknowledges what you are saying while advancing the notions that drive Lakoff and Johnson have catalogued with hundreds of pages of examples (enough to require graduate students to help fill in the canvas for them).  PHILOSOPHY IN THE FLESH is certainly worth your attention.
> 
> It is important that we, as grammarians, explore these deep issues.  They are not unconnected to the surface matters that many teachers believe not to be so important.  Both are intimately connected.
> 
> I hope that, as you carry on your dialogue on this matter you have raised, that you will take these thoughts into account as well as the replies of others.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Gregg
> ---- Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> > Craig,
> > 
> > I presented the pajamas example to question the following claim:
> > 
> > >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/09/09 1:25 PM >>>
> > [This is part of the first paragraph in Lakoff and Johnson]
> > 
> > "We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is
> > persuasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and
> > action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think
> > and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature."
> > 
> >    The book is very, very rich with examples, and I think it would be
> > worthwhile even for people who might fall short of embracing the views
> > expressed in this opening. If nothing else, I think you have to admit
> > that metaphor goes under the radar most of the time, is deeply
> > pervasive, and often is very revealing of the orientation of the
> > speaker.
> > ****
> > I have no idea whether the above is right.  
> > 
> > The line that I quoted on the first page is:
> > 
> > Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in
> > thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what
> > that system is like.
> > 
> > That statement suggests that Lakoff and Johnson are saying that language reveals our conceptual system.
> > 
> > The point about the pajamas example is that if language really reveals our conception of the world than anyone who utters "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" would seem to have both its meanings available when the utterance is being made. 
> > 
> > I don't think that is the case.  Thought and language are two separate systems.
> > 
> > ****
> > Craig ends his post:
> > 
> >    You and I are likely to disagree on the more fundamental questions, but
> > would it be fair to say that Lakoff and Johnson are a useful read? Do
> > you agree that metaphor is often an important conceptual tool, not just
> > an expressive one?
> > 
> > I don't think metaphor is a great conceptual tool.  Language, especially metaphorical language, does not prevent us from thinking new thoughts.
> > 
> > Of course, from a writing perspective, it is important to recognize mixed metaphors.
> > 
> > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> > 
> > My complete post
> > 
> >  Sometimes Craig makes assertions that need more support than he provides
> > > in his posts.
> > >
> > >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/09/09 11:03 AM >>>
> > > Susan,
> > >    You should read "Metaphors We Live By" (there are other follow up
> > > books)if you haven't already. They are a core aspect of language and
> > > cognition, well documented, well researched.
> > >    If you find my views pointless, it might be better not to respond.
> > >
> > > *****
> > > I have no idea how "core" metaphors are in language.  They don't seem to
> > > explain anything about the formal aspects of the tense-aspect system, the
> > > basic structure of phrases and clauses, the pronominal system, etc.
> > >
> > > However, let's consider the following sentence on the bottom of page 1 in
> > > Metaphors We Live By.
> > >
> > > Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in
> > > thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what
> > > that system is like.
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Pinker, in the Language Instinct, does a good job of suggesting that
> > > thinking and the language we use to express those thoughts are necessarily
> > > different systems.  Consider the problem of syntactic ambiguity: the basis
> > > of this famous joke by Groucho Marx.
> > >
> > > Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas.  How it got there, I have no
> > > idea.
> > >
> > > If we take the statement by Lakoff and Johnson seriously, then whenever a
> > > person thinks about what they were wearing when they shoot an animal is
> > > necessarily confusable with where the animal was.  Really? A person can't
> > > keep those two ideas separate.
> > >
> > > Of course, if we have to translate our thoughts to a formal system, the
> > > ambiguity that is the basis of Marx's joke makes sense.
> > >
> > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> > >
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> > > at:
> > >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > >
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > 
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > 
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > 
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > 
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/