Jeanne,
"I think children learn best what they can believe in" is a wonderful
thought, wonderfully expressed, a great counter to the idea that we
should simplify, even at the cost of distortion, in our teaching.
Would "they" sometimes stand in for a bare common noun, admittedly a
plural one? "Dogs are loyal to loving owners. They..."
I agree that "person, place, or thing" is harmfully simplistic. Do you
simply ignore semantic definition or do you work on a more nuanced one?
If we grant something the status of "thing" is there a cognitive
dimension to that?
Craig>
Bruce,
> Thank you for your thoughtful response and for pointing out my omission.
> A proper noun certainly can be defined as the name of a person, place, or
> thing. You say that the word name can be used to include classes of
> objects, or, if I understand what you are saying, objects that can be
> referred to by pronouns. This is something I need to think more about.
> First of all, pronouns, despite the definition which I will not repeat,
> can replace noun phrases or determiner phrases, but not common nouns.
> Therefore, thinking from the pronoun to the noun will yield an NP or DP,
> or a proper noun, but not a bare common noun which is the subject of the
> overgeneralized definition: person, place, or thing.
>
> I suppose it is not the error in the definition itself which bothers me,
> it is the parroting of it by people who are supposed to be educated, and
> the requirement that young children learn it because it is simple. I
> think children learn best what they can believe in, and they could be
> practicing more productive analysis than The Noun Game as described in the
> Dennis Baron article. It seems to me that instead of being encouraged to
> use their own knowledge to develop a useful description of language, they
> are being taught conformity and graded on it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 6:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
>
> Jean,
>
> I think the problem with your true/false question is that if it must be
> false, most statements made in human langugae must also be false. The
> assertion would be false simply because it is too general and needs to be
> made more precise. You give an example of why it is not precise enough to
> characterize common nouns. Any alternative assertion based on the
> examples you have used for your definition, which leave the student to
> make the generalization, will exclude proper nouns, examples of which are
> missing. If definition by example is to be preferred over against
> generalization, then you will also have to give examples of the various
> kinds of proper nouns.
>
> "A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing" seems to be vague enough
> with "name" to include the names of classes of objects (common nouns) and
> the names of particular objects (proper nouns). If it is too vague so as
> to include references to objects made by pronouns, then, the problem is in
> the normal interpretation of English words and sentences. The ancient
> Greeks overcame this kind of problem in their Euclidean system of geometry
> by setting up definitions that would be based ultimately on a small set of
> undefined terms. Lines and points, as defined by them, do not exist in the
> real world. They are theoretical constructs learned by metaphor. Grammar
> needs to be approached with this kind of rigor. If the discussion is about
> fifth grade concepts, then maybe geometry and undefined terms is too much
> to ask.
>
> Bruce
>
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:49:39 -0500
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
|
