Dear fellow teachers,
Everybody knows, you say, that a noun is the name of a person, place, or
thing. Everybody has been told that many times. Does that make it true?
These words we call common nouns-what do they name? Chair, table, car, dog,
tree. What have I told you? What have I referred to? Which chair? What
did I name?
All right, now, what is a noun? A noun refers to a class of things, places,
or ideas with common characteristics. That is why it is called a common
noun. Chairs are things to sit on. Tables hold food or work. Cars:
generally four-wheeled carriages with motors.
So if you want to talk about a particular chair, how do you do it? You
refer to the situation. It can be that chair over there, or the chair that
I am sitting in or the comfortable leather chair at Grandma's house. Now I
have named three chairs. Did the noun supply the name? What would happen
if we changed the noun? If we say "that dog over there" we look for
something entirely different. When we see it, we know which dog. If there
are three dogs over there, we need more information. The noun only told us
it was a member of the class we call "dog".
I like to include a true-false section on exams. One of the statements is,
"A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing." If you say this is
false, you get it right.
Jean Waldman
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
The issue of how many parts of speech there are reminds me of this Web of
Language column by Dennis Baron, in which he points out that France
recognizes fewer continents than we do. I had no idea! The column is
tangential to this discussion, but worth a read to see how the French
schoolteacher sets him straight: http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/14332
Beth
>>> Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]>
>>> 12/10/10 5:22 AM >>>
Susan,
Perhaps the question "How many parts of speech are there?" is not the right
question.
It's like asking "How many colors does a rainbow have?". Just because you
learn in school that there are 7 doesn't mean that it is in fact the case.
There is no right answer to this question, but it doesn't mean that optics
is not a science.
What if words are like colors, on a spectrum? Some points are more
salient: typical nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc... But there are plenty of
in-between cases. Only you don't want to go into all those details at the
beginning levels, so you present a simplified account. (That's why you won't
find definitions that will satisfy everybody: if you only describe the
prototypical cases, less central elements will be excluded form your
definition; but if you try to include them in you definition, it will become
too complex/vague to be useful.)
Do you agree that words cannot in principle be divided into discrete
categories?
Do you agree that the fact that they cannot be divided into discrete
categories doesn't imply that linguistics is not a science?
Marie
> I think you have made a nice distinction between hard and social science.
With the social sciences the value of an explanation can be relative: how
many parts of speech are there? But science doesn't care whether an
explanation is more useful; it is either a correct explanation or a wrong
one.
>
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>
>> Susan,
>> I think "a good scientist is as certain as the current evidence
>> allows" is something I can live with. I don't think you stop being
>> skeptical because the evidence backs a position up, but that's not a
>> big issue.
>> Whether we think of it as science or not, knowledge accumulates
>> within a discipline like linguistics in large part because of the
>> shared exploration of people in the discipline. Either it deepens our
>> understanding of language (satisfies us in that way) or it fails to
>> do so. I would hate to think that knowledge about language is just up
>> to the individual and that everyone's views are equal. Perhaps that's
>> not what you are advocating. To me, it's not just science, but the
>> study of language that shouldn't be thought of as a free for all.
>> Some explanations are decidedly more useful than others. We have to
>> move toward that goal somewhat collegially.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
>>>
>>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
>>>> opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions,
>>>> perhaps especially his/her own.
>>>>
>>> No, this is not accurate. A good scientist is as certain as the
>>> current evidence allows. She is not more skeptical of her own
>>> position simply because it is her own. It only became her own
>>> position BECAUSE of the amount of evidence she has found in its favor.
>>>
>>> What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's theory. She
>>> should work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it.
>>> However, in the end, we are human and a good scientist knows this
>>> and so relies on peer review BECAUSE she knows she might be partial
>>> to her own theory--even though she thought she did her best to
>>> disprove it. If her theory passes peer review, then she can be as
>>> confident of her theory as anyone else and need not be any more
skeptical of it than anyone else.
>>>
>>> You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which all
>>> ideas have equal certainty and skepticism. I know you know that is
>>> not a true representation. Yet there are degrees of skepticism that
>>> you seem to hang on to. These are the same degrees of skepticism
>>> that Intelligent Design proponents rely on. They revel in giving
science this wimpiness that seem
>>> to applaud. Watch out for what you advocate. It can come back to
haunt
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to
>>>> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other
>>>> interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and
>>>> subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right;
>>>> positions are subject to peer review.
>>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive)
>>>> as "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
>>>> opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions,
>>>> perhaps especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems
>>>> overwhelming, as it is for evolution and global warming, a good
>>>> scientist presents those as the best current explanation of the
>>>> evidence, not as a final and definitive answer. This may seem wimpy
>>>> to some, but it is a cornerstone of what good science is all about.
>>>> When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within
>>>> the academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the
>>>> Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new way
>>>> of seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have
>>>> reviewed the current literature and understand it before they offer
>>>> something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that
>>>> view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should be, is
>>>> not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing
>>>> the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed
>>>> facts.
>>>> I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I
>>>> find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think
>>>> it's important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for
>>>> us to discuss issues in a useful way.
>>>> It is helpful to know what most experts currently believe about
>>>> a topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list
>>>>>
>>>> and YOU
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who
>>>>>
>>>> called me a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No
>>>>>
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your
>>>>>
>>>> definition
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are
>>>>>
>>>> looking
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in
>>>>>
>>>> any
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> decent grammar text".
>>>>>
>>>>> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition:
>>>>>
>>>> The past
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the
>>>>>
>>>> primary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense
>>>>>
>>>> system. The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior
>>>>>
>>>> to a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> second past event."
>>>>>
>>>>> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're
>>>>>
>>>> getting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what
>>>>>
>>>> the past
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to
>>>>>
>>>> locate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went
>>>>>
>>>> to the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect
>>>>>
>>>> functions to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second
>>>>>
>>>> event,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to
>>>>>
>>>> adjust
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change
>>>>>
>>>> it. It
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past
>>>>>
>>>> perfect
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event".
>>>>>
>>>> Is it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or
>>>>>
>>>> can we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar.
>>>>>
>>>> That's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> what this is all about.)
>>>>>
>>>>> .brad.06dec10.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen
>>>>>
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
>>>>>
>>>>> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
>>>>>
>>>>> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with
>>>>>
>>>> Eduard. For
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the
>>>>>
>>>> only
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the
>>>>>
>>>> list,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private
>>>>>
>>>> to the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> entire list.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected
>>>>>
>>>> your
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away
>>>>>
>>>> from it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you
>>>>>
>>>> demonstrate by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> English grammar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be
>>>>>
>>>> shunned, and I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to
>>>>>
>>>> my idiot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> filter.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
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/
|
