I am in strong agreement with Bob; however, Bob and Craig will never
reach an agreement because they so not have a common set of axioms
and postulates to generate an "if..then"
My English teaching was based on the axiom that all students spoke
English (obviously, not in my ESOL classes--but that is another issue).
My basic purpose was to teach students to improve their use of standard
written English and, as a corollary, their use of standard spoken English.
I was careful on pronunciation, even to the point of defending /krik/--a
pronunciation that classes mocked as being "hillbilly." My students
improved their writing and speaking skills. Some even contacted me later
to thank me--a seldom happening unless recommendations are being requested.
I am obviously an old fogy but do not mind being called one.
Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 7 Dec 2008 to 8 Dec 2008 (#2008-258)
There are 24 messages totalling 4162 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct) (12)
2. Graphic Syntax (2)
3. from John Curran. attachment of diagrams? (2)
4. Quick note on education and linguistic theory
5. Testing grammar approaches (2)
6. Mixed construction (was A short note on...) (4)
7. Graphic Syntax--a corrected example
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:36:00 -0600
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom. Whatever we =
mean by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language. Therefore, =
there is something fundamentally wrong in the following formulation.
Craig writes:=20
I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
of these views is available within the literature.
****
Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be taken =
seriously.
Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow:
"Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it follows
that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data
from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
***
Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant =
examples are from their corpus.
[An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written Language, a =
corpus based grammar of English.
The identifying pattern
Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which one =
is/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . .=20
My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league. (conversation)=
The only reliable source of work is the water industry. (newspaper) =
(page 146)
**
My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow Biber =
et al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in actual =
sentences says they answer such questions. On almost every page in Biber =
et al. are descriptions of the structures that are based strictly on =
intuitions.]
Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be treated =
as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the nature and =
properties of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES.
Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote.
(1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else just =
really shows that you really care about them.
If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual =
language use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1) exposed =
to for her to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to know how an =
approach to language which claims our knowledge of language comes from =
"real language" answers that question.
More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence (1) is =
problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that accounts for =
our judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been exposed to mixed =
constructions and were never explicitly taught they are problematic (as =
writing teachers, were we?), how do we recognize them? Under the approach =
Craig says we should consider, our intuitions are based on the language we =
have been exposed to. =20
As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by our =
students that are not in the texts they read. And, just as importantly, =
those strings our students write are not in the texts WE read. Yet, we =
are able to make judgments about those strings all the time. If usage is =
so fundamental to our knowledge of language, what is the nature of the =
language we are exposed to that accounts for our judgments. (Does anyone =
regularly note that sentences like (1) don't occur in writing? How do you =
note the absence of something if your only knowledge is based on what you =
are exposed to?)
Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge about =
language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is no competence=
/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I have proposed, =
assuming innateness and difference between competence and performance, =
that some of the "innovative" structures student write, like sentence (1), =
can be explained. =20
A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of grammar and =
writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of language can't explain =
what our students do and, more importantly, what we as their teachers do =
when we respond to their writing.=20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 05:56:58 -0800
From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax
--0-1611601105-1228744618=:41864
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The main reason I decided not to use Christensen's method is that it seems =
to require more thought from the reader.=A0 My goal in this exercise is to =
reduce the amount of thinking students must do.=A0 Such a reduction, I prop=
ose, makes it easier for them to understand complex text.=A0 Based on a the=
ory of scaffolded instruction, repeated experience with such exercises shou=
ld help students learn to understand similarly complex texts in standard fo=
rmat.
=A0
It would seem useful to contrast the performance of students=A0reading Fran=
cis Christensen's graphic syntax with other methods (including the modified=
Masur method I have presented).=A0 Such=A0an analysis=A0should take into a=
ccount both current performance and changes in performance on text of simil=
ar complexity written in standard format.
=A0
Scott Woods
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 6:35 AM
As regards 'graphic syntax' no one seems to have noticed that they are
trying to do what Francis Christensen demonstrated (pages 9-13 of his
'Notes
Toward a New Rhetoric' [New York, Harper & Row, 1967]) -- as I
described in
my email of a few days ago, and which I use with my students. According to
his method, Carolyn Harnett's sentence ought to appear thus:
1 Poets . . . chunk their poems
2 who write in traditional forms . . . (RC)
3 based on metre and rhyme (VC)
but 3 in a different way from graphic syntax (PP)
4 which chunks . . . (RC)
5 based on grammatical units (VC)
RC: Relative Clause
VC: Verb Cluster
PP: Prepositional Phrase
I prefer to split 'Verb Clusters' into Past Participle Phrase (as both
the
examples here), Present Participle Phrase, and Infinitive Phrase;
Christensen lumps them all together.
Christensen's numbers indicate the hierarchy of grammatical dependence.
Hence my suggestion for students of drawing vertical lines down the page to
correspond.
His other suggested groupings are as follows:
SC: Subordinate Clause. This is an confusion, since Relative Clauses [his
RC] are subordinate clauses. He already has
NC for Noun Cluster. Again possibly confusing, since it looks like Noun
Clause. He uses it for such extensions of meaning as 'a quick shake'
in the
sentence 'He dipped his hands in the bichloride solution and shook them, a
quick shake.'
AC: Adjective Cluster (e.g. for the two phrases attached here: 'They
huddled, wild as deer, deadly as rattlesnakes.')
A + A: Adjective series (e.g. For the three adjectives here: 'They
huddled, gaudy, motionless and alert.')
Abs: Absolute Phrase (e.g. for the two phrases attached here: He stood at
the top of the stairs and watched me, I waiting for him to call me up, he
hesitating to come down.')
I prefer the following:
ADJP (Adjective Phrase) for both his AC and A + A.
NP for Noun Phrase (e.g. the noun phrase in apposition, 'an expert
swimmer'
in 'The scout, an expert swimmer, was soon across the lake.'
ADVC for Adverbial Clause.
ADJC for Adjectival Clause.
ADJ PREP for Adjectival Prepositional Phrase (e.g. 'in the white suit'
in
'The man in the white suit.'
ADV PREP for Adverbial Prepositional Phrase (e.g. 'over the bridge' in
'The
procession was filing over the bridge').
ABS for Absolute Phrase (e.g. 'He stopped at the corner, the rain lashing
at
the windscreen.')
ING for Present Participle Phrases (e.g. The rooks, cawing in comical
surprise, rose clumsily into the air.')
ED for Past Participle Phrases (this included the strong verbs which do not
use 'ed' to indicate the past participle -- e.g. 'thrown out of the
car' in
'The gun, thrown out of the car, had disappeared into the grass.').
When I reverse the process in sentence combining (for all these can be used
to indicate to students how to combine), I also include 'HYPH' for the
collapsing of a sentence into a hyphenated word. For example:
The child delighted them all.
The child loved fun. (HYPH)
Becomes 'The fun-loving child delighted them all.'
One is helped by the fact that many distinguished writers enjoy creating ne=
w
hyphenated words from such combining. For example:
[Gerard Manley Hopkins] 'Some of the pigeons are dull thunder-colour or
black-grape-colour.'
[James Joyce] 'Suddenly the dog made off like a bounding hare, ears flung
back, chasing the shadow of a low-skimming gull.'
[Shakespeare] '. . .who knows
If the scarce-bearded Caesar have not sent
His powerful mandate to you.'
[William Barnes] 'and the sheep, little-kneed, with a quick-dipped nod'
Hopkins, Barnes -- and Barnes' friend, Thomas Hardy -- were all
unconsciously aware that the Anglo-Saxon words of English have rarely been
hyphenated (compare the cognate German language, full of such compounds),
and they started to look for original linkages. This can still provide an
amusing exercise for students: for example, instead of words of Latin
origin, suggest Anglo-Saxon substitutes, thus -- for =BCcollision=B9 a two-=
bang;
=BCauction=B9 a step-buy; =BCfrustration=B9 foot-bind-hood; =BCdentist=B9=
,
tooth-soother; =BCvaccinate=B9, cow-sting.
Edmond Wright
Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
=20
> Poets
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 who write=20
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0in traditional forms
> =A0based on meter and rhyme
> chunk their poems
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 but
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 in a different way
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0from graphic syntax,
>
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
which chunks based on grammatical
> units.
> Both,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 I believe,
> can make text easier to comprehend.
> --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>=20
> From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Graphic Syntax
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 9:51 AM
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Isn't the way much poetry is printed somewhat similar to graphic
syntax?
> It makes poems easier to read, I believe.
> =A0
> Carolyn Hartnett
> Professor Emeritus, College of the Mainland
> 2027 Bay St.
> Texas City, Texas 77590To 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/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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"
>=20
> 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/
=0A=0A=0A
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/
--0-1611601105-1228744618=:41864
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><DIV>The main reason I decided not to use Chr=
istensen's method is that it seems to require more thought from the reader.=
My goal in this exercise is to reduce the amount of thinking student=
s must do. Such a reduction, I propose, makes it easier for them to u=
nderstand complex text. Based on a theory of scaffolded instruction, =
repeated experience with such exercises should help students learn to under=
stand similarly complex texts in standard format.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would seem useful to contrast the performance of students read=
ing Francis Christensen's graphic syntax with other methods (including the =
modified Masur method I have presented). Such an analysis s=
hould take into account both current performance and changes in performance=
on text of similar complexity written in standard format.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Scott Woods<BR><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 12/7/08, Edmond Wright <I><elw33@=
HERMES.CAM.AC.UK></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(=
16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]><BR=
>Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax<BR>To: [log in to unmask]<BR>Date: Sunda=
y, December 7, 2008, 6:35 AM<BR><BR><PRE>As regards 'graphic syntax' no one=
seems to have noticed that they are
trying to do what Francis Christensen demonstrated (pages 9-13 of his
'Notes
Toward a New Rhetoric' [New York, Harper & Row, 1967]) -- as I
described in
my email of a few days ago, and which I use with my students. According to
his method, Carolyn Harnett's sentence ought to appear thus:
1 Poets . . . chunk their poems
2 who write in traditional forms . . . (RC)
3 based on metre and rhyme (VC)
but 3 in a different way from graphic syntax (PP)
4 which chunks . . . (RC)
5 based on grammatical units (VC)
RC: Relative Clause
VC: Verb Cluster
PP: Prepositional Phrase
I prefer to split 'Verb Clusters' into Past Participle Phrase (as both
the
examples here), Present Participle Phrase, and Infinitive Phrase;
Christensen lumps them all together.
Christensen's numbers indicate the hierarchy of grammatical dependence.
Hence my suggestion for students of drawing vertical lines down the page to
correspond.
His other suggested groupings are as follows:
SC: Subordinate Clause. This is an confusion, since Relative Clauses [his
RC] are subordinate clauses. He already has
NC for Noun Cluster. Again possibly confusing, since it looks like Noun
Clause. He uses it for such extensions of meaning as 'a quick shake'
in the
sentence 'He dipped his hands in the bichloride solution and shook them, a
quick shake.'
AC: Adjective Cluster (e.g. for the two phrases attached here: 'They
huddled, wild as deer, deadly as rattlesnakes.')
A + A: Adjective series (e.g. For the three adjectives here: 'They
huddled, gaudy, motionless and alert.')
Abs: Absolute Phrase (e.g. for the two phrases attached here: He stood at
the top of the stairs and watched me, I waiting for him to call me up, he
hesitating to come down.')
I prefer the following:
ADJP (Adjective Phrase) for both his AC and A + A.
NP for Noun Phrase (e.g. the noun phrase in apposition, 'an expert
swimmer'
in 'The scout, an expert swimmer, was soon across the lake.'
ADVC for Adverbial Clause.
ADJC for Adjectival Clause.
ADJ PREP for Adjectival Prepositional Phrase (e.g. 'in the white suit'
in
'The man in the white suit.'
ADV PREP for Adverbial Prepositional Phrase (e.g. 'over the bridge' in
'The
procession was filing over the bridge').
ABS for Absolute Phrase (e.g. 'He stopped at the corner, the rain lashing
at
the windscreen.')
ING for Present Participle Phrases (e.g. The rooks, cawing in comical
surprise, rose clumsily into the air.')
ED for Past Participle Phrases (this included the strong verbs which do not
use 'ed' to indicate the past participle -- e.g. 'thrown out of the
car' in
'The gun, thrown out of the car, had disappeared into the grass.').
When I reverse the process in sentence combining (for all these can be used
to indicate to students how to combine), I also include 'HYPH' for the
collapsing of a sentence into a hyphenated word. For example:
The child delighted them all.
The child loved fun. (HYPH)
Becomes 'The fun-loving child delighted them all.'
One is helped by the fact that many distinguished writers enjoy creating ne=
w
hyphenated words from such combining. For example:
[Gerard Manley Hopkins] 'Some of the pigeons are dull thunder-colour or
black-grape-colour.'
[James Joyce] 'Suddenly the dog made off like a bounding hare, ears flung
back, chasing the shadow of a low-skimming gull.'
[Shakespeare] '. . .who knows
If the scarce-bearded Caesar have not sent
His powerful mandate to you.'
[William Barnes] 'and the sheep, little-kneed, with a quick-dipped nod'
Hopkins, Barnes -- and Barnes' friend, Thomas Hardy -- were all
unconsciously aware that the Anglo-Saxon words of English have rarely been
hyphenated (compare the cognate German language, full of such compounds),
and they started to look for original linkages. This can still provide an
amusing exercise for students: for example, instead of words of Latin
origin, suggest Anglo-Saxon substitutes, thus -- for =BCcollision=B9 a two-=
bang;
=BCauction=B9 a step-buy; =BCfrustration=B9 foot-bind-hood; =BCdentist=B9=
,
tooth-soother; =BCvaccinate=B9, cow-sting.
Edmond Wright
Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
=20
> Poets
> who write=20
> &nbs=
p; in traditional forms
> based on meter and rhyme
> chunk their poems
> &nbs=
p; but
> &nbs=
p; in a different way
> &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;from graphic syntax,
>
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
which chunks based on grammatical
> units.
> Both,
> I believe,
> can make text easier to comprehend.
> --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]&g=
t;
wrote:
>=20
> From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Graphic Syntax
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 9:51 AM
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Isn't the way much poetry is printed somewhat similar to graphic
syntax?
> It makes poems easier to read, I believe.
>
> Carolyn Hartnett
> Professor Emeritus, College of the Mainland
> 2027 Bay St.
> Texas City, Texas 77590To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please vis=
it
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/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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"
>=20
> 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/
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>=0A=0A=0A=0A
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1611601105-1228744618=:41864--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:08:42 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:
justify;"><o:p> </o:p><o:p></o:p>Bob,
<br>
</p>
<o:p> </o:p><span style=""> </span>I’m not sure why
you react with so much hostility to an attempt to present an
alternative
point-of-view. You seem more interested in debunking it than you are in
learning about it; perhaps I’m wrong. Other people on list may in fact
be more
interested in it than you are. And I’m not sure why you would
characterize it
as “Craig’s position” when I’m quoting others or
simply assume you know
my
position when you have been exposed to only a small part of it. <br>
<span style=""> </span>What I said, that
you reacted to as a statement against intuition, is the following: <br>
<o:p> <br>
</o:p><br>
Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it
particularly<o:p></o:p><br>
useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone
that<o:p></o:p><br>
people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't
seem<o:p></o:p><br>
grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences
that<o:p></o:p><br>
actually occur.<br>
<span style=""> </span>I didn’t say that we
don’t have intuitions
about language or that intuitions aren’t important. In a usage based
system, the belief is that these grow out of use. <br>
<o:p> </o:p><br>
<span style=""> </span>Langacker calls the above
constraint The
Content Requirement:<br>
<span style=""> </span>“The thrust of the
content requirement is
that the linguistic knowledge we ascribe to speakers should be limited
to elements of form and meaning found in actually occurring
expressions, or which derive from such elements via the basic
psychological phenomena listed in 1.31: association, automatization,
schematization, and categorization. By keeping our feet on the ground,
this restriction assures both naturalness and theoretical austerity.”
(Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction p. 25).<br>
<o:p> </o:p><br>
<span style=""> </span>Here’s a quote from Biber, from the
same
anthology (Kemmer and Barlow) I cited yesterday.<br>
<span style=""> </span>“Studies of use are concerned
with actual
practice, and the extent to which linguistic patterns are common or
rare, rather than focusing exclusively on potential grammaticality. As
such, adequate investigations of language use must be empirical,
analyzing the functions and distribution of language features in
natural discourse contexts.”<br>
<o:p> </o:p><br>
<span style=""> </span>Here he is again (et. Al.) in The Longman
Student Grammar:<br>
“Traditionally, both in theory and in pedagogical practice, grammar
has
been separate from vocabulary, as if they were two totally independent
aspects of language and language learning. This separation is
artificial, as becomes evident to anyone who uses a large corpus for
studying grammar. What becomes clear is that, when they use a language,
people bring together their knowledge of word behavior (lexis) with
their knowledge of grammatical patterns. These two aspects of language
interact in lexico-grammatical patterns.” <span
style=""> </span><br>
<o:p> </o:p><br>
<span style=""> </span>These are not trivial
perspectives, and I
don’t think it serves the list to try to dismiss them summarily.<br>
<o:p> </o:p><br>
Craig<o:p></o:p>
<br>
<o:p> </o:p><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Robert Yates wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom.
Whatever we mean by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language.
Therefore, there is something fundamentally wrong in the following
formulation.
Craig writes:
I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
of these views is available within the literature.
****
Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be taken
seriously.
Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow:
"Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it follows
that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data
from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
***
Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant
examples are from their corpus.
[An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written Language, a
corpus based grammar of English.
The identifying pattern
Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which one
is/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . .
My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league. (conversation)
The only reliable source of work is the water industry. (newspaper) (page
146)
**
My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow Biber et
al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in actual sentences
says they answer such questions. On almost every page in Biber et al. are
descriptions of the structures that are based strictly on intuitions.]
Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be treated as
the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the nature and
properties of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES.
Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote.
(1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else just
really shows that you really care about them.
If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual language
use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1) exposed to for her
to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to know how an approach to
language which claims our knowledge of language comes from "real language"
answers that question.
More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence (1) is
problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that accounts for
our judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been exposed to mixed
constructions and were never explicitly taught they are problematic (as
writing teachers, were we?), how do we recognize them? Under the approach
Craig says we should consider, our intuitions are based on the language we
have been exposed to.
As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by our
students that are not in the texts they read. And, just as importantly,
those strings our students write are not in the texts WE read. Yet, we are
able to make judgments about those strings all the time. If usage is so
fundamental to our knowledge of language, what is the nature of the language
we are exposed to that accounts for our judgments. (Does anyone regularly
note that sentences like (1) don't occur in writing? How do you note the
absence of something if your only knowledge is based on what you are exposed
to?)
Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge about
language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is no
competence/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I have
proposed, assuming innateness and difference between competence and
performance, that some of the "innovative" structures student write, like
sentence (1), can be explained.
A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of grammar and
writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of language can't explain
what our students do and, more importantly, what we as their teachers do
when we respond to their writing.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:09:24 -0600
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
Craig,
I'm not dismissing your alternative view out of hand. I'm trying to
figure out how it applies to REAL problems I confront as a writing
teacher. I don't understand how this view provides any insights into
what my students do, and more importantly, what I do.
I provided you with a REAL example of a mixed construction from a REAL
student text. =20
(1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
just really shows that you really care about them.
Why don't you want to share with the listserv how your perspective
accounts for such a sentence?
Because you haven't done that yet, I will try to figure out what it
means. Consider the Langacker quote as a way to account for sentence
(1).
=E2=80=9CThe thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic kno=
wledge
we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and meaning
found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
naturalness and theoretical austerity.=E2=80=9D=20
It seems to me that Langacker is saying the writer of (1) must have
encountered such a construction in other contexts. Is that correct?=20
The obvious implication is that we as teachers much find out what those
contexts are and figure out ways for students to ignore such examples.=20
Is that correct?
Of course, as teachers, how do WE know there is something inappropriate
with (1) if "the linguistic knowledge we ascribe to speakers [is]
limited to elements of form and meaning found in actually occurring
expressions"? I know I don't read texts that contain mixed
constructions, except for my own student texts. So, where did my
knowledge come from that these structures that I have only encountered
in student writing are inappropriate if my knowledge is based on
actually occurring expressions?
Craig, you want teachers on the list to take an alternative theory of
language that is based on actual language we are exposed to. From a
teaching perspective, I'm trying to do that and I don't like the answer
I come up with for students and the kinds of "innovative" sentences they
write and my own judgments about those sentences. =20
I must be wrong because you are an experienced writing teacher and you
find the perspective useful. Please explain why it is useful for you.
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:05:39 -0500
From: "Kenkel, Jim" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
I read this list but don't often post to it. However, this last contr=
ibution from Craig compels me to respond. Craig's response to Bob Yates's=
post seems to do two things: 1) it repeats the claims that prompted Bob's =
question in the first place about how the theoretical claims of Langacker =
and Biber provide teachers with insight into the language use of student wr=
iters; 2) it seems to seek to marginalize Bob's contribution to the discuss=
ion as being socially innappropriate. What it doesn't do is respond to Bo=
b's carefully and clearly posed question, the answer/s to which would be ce=
rtainly relevant to any teacher who has looked at his or her students' writ=
ing from a language perspective.
It doesn't serve the list to characterize Bob's post as hostile. I susp=
ect that anyone who asks clear questions and receives no answer to them wou=
ld feel some frustration. Given Craig's prominence in discussions on this l=
ist, I was interested to see his response but was disappointed in the lack =
of response to the content of the post. I am interested in how the list ge=
nerally might respond to Bob's question because the answers might prompt me=
to do more reading in cognitive grammar and usage-based grammar to learn w=
hat insights they might offer me as a language teacher and as a writing tea=
cher. At this point, given my interests, I am no closer to knowing how they=
might help me than I was before.
Given the complexity of the concepts of language, language use, and wri=
ting, it is very safe to assume that no one perspective can answer all the =
questions we have. I don't read Bob's post(s) as marginalizing any perspect=
ive. He has only asked if cognitive and usage-based grammars can help with =
issues of recognizing and responding to "error" in student writing. So far=
, the question has not received a response.
Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
U] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct=
)
Bob,
I=92m not sure why you react with so much hostility to an attempt to pr=
esent an alternative point-of-view. You seem more interested in debunking i=
t than you are in learning about it; perhaps I=92m wrong. Other people on l=
ist may in fact be more interested in it than you are. And I=92m not sure w=
hy you would characterize it as =93Craig=92s position=94 when I=92m quoting=
others or simply assume you know my position when you have been exposed to=
only a small part of it.
What I said, that you reacted to as a statement against intuition, is th=
e following:
Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences that
actually occur.
I didn=92t say that we don=92t have intuitions about language or that i=
ntuitions aren=92t important. In a usage based system, the belief is that t=
hese grow out of use.
Langacker calls the above constraint The Content Requirement:
=93The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic knowle=
dge we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and meanin=
g found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such elemen=
ts via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31: association, autom=
atization, schematization, and categorization. By keeping our feet on the g=
round, this restriction assures both naturalness and theoretical austerity.=
=94 (Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction p. 25).
Here=92s a quote from Biber, from the same anthology (Kemmer and Barlow)=
I cited yesterday.
=93Studies of use are concerned with actual practice, and the extent to=
which linguistic patterns are common or rare, rather than focusing exclusi=
vely on potential grammaticality. As such, adequate investigations of langu=
age use must be empirical, analyzing the functions and distribution of lang=
uage features in natural discourse contexts.=94
Here he is again (et. Al.) in The Longman Student Grammar:
=93Traditionally, both in theory and in pedagogical practice, grammar has b=
een separate from vocabulary, as if they were two totally independent aspec=
ts of language and language learning. This separation is artificial, as bec=
omes evident to anyone who uses a large corpus for studying grammar. What b=
ecomes clear is that, when they use a language, people bring together their=
knowledge of word behavior (lexis) with their knowledge of grammatical pat=
terns. These two aspects of language interact in lexico-grammatical pattern=
s.=94
These are not trivial perspectives, and I don=92t think it serves the =
list to try to dismiss them summarily.
Craig
Robert Yates wrote:
This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom. Whatever we mea=
n by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language. Therefore, there=
is something fundamentally wrong in the following formulation.
Craig writes:
I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
of these views is available within the literature.
****
Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be taken ser=
iously.
Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow:
"Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it follows
that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data
from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
***
Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant exampl=
es are from their corpus.
[An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written Language, a c=
orpus based grammar of English.
The identifying pattern
Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which one is=
/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . .
My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league. (conversation)
The only reliable source of work is the water industry. (newspaper) (page=
146)
**
My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow Biber e=
t al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in actual senten=
ces says they answer such questions. On almost every page in Biber et al. =
are descriptions of the structures that are based strictly on intuitions.]
Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be treated as=
the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the nature and propert=
ies of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES.
Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote.
(1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else just =
really shows that you really care about them.
If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual languag=
e use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1) exposed to for =
her to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to know how an approach =
to language which claims our knowledge of language comes from "real languag=
e" answers that question.
More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence (1) is =
problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that accounts for o=
ur judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been exposed to mixed con=
structions and were never explicitly taught they are problematic (as writin=
g teachers, were we?), how do we recognize them? Under the approach Craig =
says we should consider, our intuitions are based on the language we have b=
een exposed to.
As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by our stu=
dents that are not in the texts they read. And, just as importantly, those=
strings our students write are not in the texts WE read. Yet, we are able=
to make judgments about those strings all the time. If usage is so funda=
mental to our knowledge of language, what is the nature of the language we =
are exposed to that accounts for our judgments. (Does anyone regularly not=
e that sentences like (1) don't occur in writing? How do you note the abse=
nce of something if your only knowledge is based on what you are exposed to=
?)
Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge about =
language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is no competence=
/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I have proposed, assumin=
g innateness and difference between competence and performance, that some o=
f the "innovative" structures student write, like sentence (1), can be expl=
ained.
A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of grammar and =
writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of language can't explain =
what our students do and, more importantly, what we as their teachers do wh=
en we respond to their writing.
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:47:42 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
Jim,
That's a very polite and thoughtful post. I have responded to Bob's=20
post (after you sent this), and I hope it meets your objections. I would=20
be happy to clarify as best I can if you still have questions. I'd like=20
to say, also, that I don't want to pretend to be a principal=20
spokesperson for cognitive grammar. I have found it very interesting and=20
am trying to pass on a developing understanding. A delay in responding=20
may just be my concern with representing views that are not only my own.
My original post was aimed more at the shape actual explorations of=20
language might take in a public school curriculum. I wasn't aiming at=20
responding to error, but am happy to include it.
Craig
=20
Kenkel, Jim wrote:
> I read this list but don't often post to it. However, this last c=
ontribution from Craig compels me to respond. Craig's response to Bob Y=
ates's post seems to do two things: 1) it repeats the claims that prompte=
d Bob's question in the first place about how the theoretical claims of =
Langacker and Biber provide teachers with insight into the language use o=
f student writers; 2) it seems to seek to marginalize Bob's contribution =
to the discussion as being socially innappropriate. What it doesn't do =
is respond to Bob's carefully and clearly posed question, the answer/s to=
which would be certainly relevant to any teacher who has looked at his o=
r her students' writing from a language perspective.
>
> It doesn't serve the list to characterize Bob's post as hostile. I =
suspect that anyone who asks clear questions and receives no answer to th=
em would feel some frustration. Given Craig's prominence in discussions o=
n this list, I was interested to see his response but was disappointed in=
the lack of response to the content of the post. I am interested in how=
the list generally might respond to Bob's question because the answers m=
ight prompt me to do more reading in cognitive grammar and usage-based gr=
ammar to learn what insights they might offer me as a language teacher an=
d as a writing teacher. At this point, given my interests, I am no closer=
to knowing how they might help me than I was before.
>
> Given the complexity of the concepts of language, language use, and=
writing, it is very safe to assume that no one perspective can answer al=
l the questions we have. I don't read Bob's post(s) as marginalizing any =
perspective. He has only asked if cognitive and usage-based grammars can =
help with issues of recognizing and responding to "error" in student wri=
ting. So far, the question has not received a response.
>
> Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
O.EDU] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Cor=
rect)
>
> Bob,
> I=92m not sure why you react with so much hostility to an attempt t=
o present an alternative point-of-view. You seem more interested in debun=
king it than you are in learning about it; perhaps I=92m wrong. Other peo=
ple on list may in fact be more interested in it than you are. And I=92m =
not sure why you would characterize it as =93Craig=92s position=94 when I=
=92m quoting others or simply assume you know my position when you have b=
een exposed to only a small part of it.
> What I said, that you reacted to as a statement against intuition, i=
s the following:
>
>
> Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
> useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
> people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
> grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences that
> actually occur.
> I didn=92t say that we don=92t have intuitions about language or th=
at intuitions aren=92t important. In a usage based system, the belief is =
that these grow out of use.
>
> Langacker calls the above constraint The Content Requirement:
> =93The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic kn=
owledge we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and =
meaning found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from suc=
h elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31: associat=
ion, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By keeping our f=
eet on the ground, this restriction assures both naturalness and theoreti=
cal austerity.=94 (Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction p. 25).
>
> Here=92s a quote from Biber, from the same anthology (Kemmer and Bar=
low) I cited yesterday.
> =93Studies of use are concerned with actual practice, and the exten=
t to which linguistic patterns are common or rare, rather than focusing e=
xclusively on potential grammaticality. As such, adequate investigations =
of language use must be empirical, analyzing the functions and distributi=
on of language features in natural discourse contexts.=94
>
> Here he is again (et. Al.) in The Longman Student Grammar:
> =93Traditionally, both in theory and in pedagogical practice, grammar h=
as been separate from vocabulary, as if they were two totally independent=
aspects of language and language learning. This separation is artificial=
, as becomes evident to anyone who uses a large corpus for studying gramm=
ar. What becomes clear is that, when they use a language, people bring to=
gether their knowledge of word behavior (lexis) with their knowledge of g=
rammatical patterns. These two aspects of language interact in lexico-gra=
mmatical patterns.=94
>
> These are not trivial perspectives, and I don=92t think it serves =
the list to try to dismiss them summarily.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Robert Yates wrote:
>
> This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom. Whatever we=
mean by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language. Therefore,=
there is something fundamentally wrong in the following formulation.
>
> Craig writes:
>
> I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
> different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
> of these views is available within the literature.
>
> ****
> Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be taken=
seriously.
> Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow:
>
> "Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it follo=
ws
> that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data
> from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
> cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
> to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
> Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
> ***
>
> Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant ex=
amples are from their corpus.
>
> [An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written Language,=
a corpus based grammar of English.
>
> The identifying pattern
> Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which on=
e is/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . .
>
> My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league. (conversat=
ion)
> The only reliable source of work is the water industry. (newspaper) (=
page 146)
> **
> My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow Bib=
er et al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in actual =
sentences says they answer such questions. On almost every page in Biber=
et al. are descriptions of the structures that are based strictly on int=
uitions.]
>
> Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be treate=
d as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the nature and p=
roperties of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSES.
>
> Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote.
>
> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else j=
ust really shows that you really care about them.
>
> If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual lan=
guage use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1) exposed t=
o for her to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to know how an a=
pproach to language which claims our knowledge of language comes from "re=
al language" answers that question.
>
> More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence (1)=
is problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that accounts=
for our judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been exposed to m=
ixed constructions and were never explicitly taught they are problematic =
(as writing teachers, were we?), how do we recognize them? Under the app=
roach Craig says we should consider, our intuitions are based on the lang=
uage we have been exposed to.
>
> As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by our=
students that are not in the texts they read. And, just as importantly,=
those strings our students write are not in the texts WE read. Yet, we =
are able to make judgments about those strings all the time. If usage i=
s so fundamental to our knowledge of language, what is the nature of the =
language we are exposed to that accounts for our judgments. (Does anyone=
regularly note that sentences like (1) don't occur in writing? How do y=
ou note the absence of something if your only knowledge is based on what =
you are exposed to?)
>
> Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge ab=
out language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is no comp=
etence/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I have proposed,=
assuming innateness and difference between competence and performance, t=
hat some of the "innovative" structures student write, like sentence (1),=
can be explained.
>
> A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of grammar =
and writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of language can't ex=
plain what our students do and, more importantly, what we as their teache=
rs do when we respond to their writing.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri.
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interf=
ace 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 interf=
ace 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 interf=
ace at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> =20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:21:53 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
Jim,
Bob just pointed out that my reply to him was off list. I'm copying=20
it in here, along with the post to me that I was responding to (below.) =20
I hope that makes sense.
Craig
Bob,
Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without=20
looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the=20
student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't=20
work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth playing=20
with. The student owns the sentence.
That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By=20
X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on some=20
innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since it's=20
not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots), construction=20
grammar would call it schematic.
If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I=20
might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject. But=20
that is a different frame of reference.
If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If=20
it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along. Either=20
they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in=20
attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
Learning a language requires "a prodigious amount of learning", and=20
this is one example.
Craig
=20
Robert Yates wrote:
Craig,
I'm not dismissing your alternative view out of hand. I'm trying to
figure out how it applies to REAL problems I confront as a writing
teacher. I don't understand how this view provides any insights into
what my students do, and more importantly, what I do.
I provided you with a REAL example of a mixed construction from a REAL
student text.=20
(1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
just really shows that you really care about them.
Why don't you want to share with the listserv how your perspective
accounts for such a sentence?
Because you haven't done that yet, I will try to figure out what it
means. Consider the Langacker quote as a way to account for sentence
(1).
=93The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic knowledge
we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and meaning
found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
naturalness and theoretical austerity.=94
It seems to me that Langacker is saying the writer of (1) must have
encountered such a construction in other contexts. Is that correct? The=20
obvious implication is that we as teachers much find out what those
contexts are and figure out ways for students to ignore such examples.=20
Is that correct?
Of course, as teachers, how do WE know there is something inappropriate
with (1) if "the linguistic knowledge we ascribe to speakers [is]
limited to elements of form and meaning found in actually occurring
expressions"? I know I don't read texts that contain mixed
constructions, except for my own student texts. So, where did my
knowledge come from that these structures that I have only encountered
in student writing are inappropriate if my knowledge is based on
actually occurring expressions?
Craig, you want teachers on the list to take an alternative theory of
language that is based on actual language we are exposed to. From a
teaching perspective, I'm trying to do that and I don't like the answer
I come up with for students and the kinds of "innovative" sentences they
write and my own judgments about those sentences.=20
I must be wrong because you are an experienced writing teacher and you
find the perspective useful. Please explain why it is useful for you.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
Craig Hancock wrote:
> Jim,
>
> That's a very polite and thoughtful post. I have responded to Bob's=20
> post (after you sent this), and I hope it meets your objections. I=20
> would be happy to clarify as best I can if you still have questions.=20
> I'd like to say, also, that I don't want to pretend to be a principal=20
> spokesperson for cognitive grammar. I have found it very interesting=20
> and am trying to pass on a developing understanding. A delay in=20
> responding may just be my concern with representing views that are not=20
> only my own.
> My original post was aimed more at the shape actual explorations of=20
> language might take in a public school curriculum. I wasn't aiming at=20
> responding to error, but am happy to include it.
>
> Craig
> =20
> Kenkel, Jim wrote:
>> I read this list but don't often post to it. However, this last=20
>> contribution from Craig compels me to respond. Craig's response to=20
>> Bob Yates's post seems to do two things: 1) it repeats the claims=20
>> that prompted Bob's question in the first place about how the=20
>> theoretical claims of Langacker and Biber provide teachers with=20
>> insight into the language use of student writers; 2) it seems to seek=20
>> to marginalize Bob's contribution to the discussion as being =20
>> socially innappropriate. What it doesn't do is respond to Bob's=20
>> carefully and clearly posed question, the answer/s to which would be=20
>> certainly relevant to any teacher who has looked at his or her=20
>> students' writing from a language perspective.
>>
>> It doesn't serve the list to characterize Bob's post as hostile. =20
>> I suspect that anyone who asks clear questions and receives no answer=20
>> to them would feel some frustration. Given Craig's prominence in=20
>> discussions on this list, I was interested to see his response but=20
>> was disappointed in the lack of response to the content of the post. =20
>> I am interested in how the list generally might respond to Bob's=20
>> question because the answers might prompt me to do more reading in=20
>> cognitive grammar and usage-based grammar to learn what insights they=20
>> might offer me as a language teacher and as a writing teacher. At=20
>> this point, given my interests, I am no closer to knowing how they=20
>> might help me than I was before.
>>
>> Given the complexity of the concepts of language, language use,=20
>> and writing, it is very safe to assume that no one perspective can=20
>> answer all the questions we have. I don't read Bob's post(s) as=20
>> marginalizing any perspective. He has only asked if cognitive and=20
>> usage-based grammars can help with issues of recognizing and=20
>> responding to "error" in student writing. So far, the question has=20
>> not received a response.
>>
>> Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar=20
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock=20
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:08 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE:=20
>> Correct)
>>
>> Bob,
>> I=92m not sure why you react with so much hostility to an attempt=20
>> to present an alternative point-of-view. You seem more interested in=20
>> debunking it than you are in learning about it; perhaps I=92m wrong.=20
>> Other people on list may in fact be more interested in it than you=20
>> are. And I=92m not sure why you would characterize it as =93Craig=92s=20
>> position=94 when I=92m quoting others or simply assume you know my=20
>> position when you have been exposed to only a small part of it.
>> What I said, that you reacted to as a statement against intuition,=20
>> is the following:
>>
>>
>> Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
>> useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
>> people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
>> grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences tha=
t
>> actually occur.
>> I didn=92t say that we don=92t have intuitions about language or t=
hat=20
>> intuitions aren=92t important. In a usage based system, the belief is=20
>> that these grow out of use.
>>
>> Langacker calls the above constraint The Content Requirement:
>> =93The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic=20
>> knowledge we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of=20
>> form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions, or which=20
>> derive from such elements via the basic psychological phenomena=20
>> listed in 1.31: association, automatization, schematization, and=20
>> categorization. By keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction=20
>> assures both naturalness and theoretical austerity.=94 (Cognitive=20
>> Grammar: a basic introduction p. 25).
>>
>> Here=92s a quote from Biber, from the same anthology (Kemmer and=20
>> Barlow) I cited yesterday.
>> =93Studies of use are concerned with actual practice, and the=20
>> extent to which linguistic patterns are common or rare, rather than=20
>> focusing exclusively on potential grammaticality. As such, adequate=20
>> investigations of language use must be empirical, analyzing the=20
>> functions and distribution of language features in natural discourse=20
>> contexts.=94
>>
>> Here he is again (et. Al.) in The Longman Student Grammar:
>> =93Traditionally, both in theory and in pedagogical practice, grammar=20
>> has been separate from vocabulary, as if they were two totally=20
>> independent aspects of language and language learning. This=20
>> separation is artificial, as becomes evident to anyone who uses a=20
>> large corpus for studying grammar. What becomes clear is that, when=20
>> they use a language, people bring together their knowledge of word=20
>> behavior (lexis) with their knowledge of grammatical patterns. These=20
>> two aspects of language interact in lexico-grammatical patterns.=94
>>
>> These are not trivial perspectives, and I don=92t think it serves=
=20
>> the list to try to dismiss them summarily.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Yates wrote:
>>
>> This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom. Whatever=20
>> we mean by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language. =20
>> Therefore, there is something fundamentally wrong in the following=20
>> formulation.
>>
>> Craig writes:
>>
>> I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
>> different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
>> of these views is available within the literature.
>>
>> ****
>> Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be=20
>> taken seriously.
>> Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow:
>>
>> "Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it=20
>> follows
>> that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data
>> from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
>> cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
>> to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
>> Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
>> ***
>>
>> Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant=20
>> examples are from their corpus.
>>
>> [An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written=20
>> Language, a corpus based grammar of English.
>>
>> The identifying pattern
>> Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which=20
>> one is/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . .
>>
>> My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league.=20
>> (conversation)
>> The only reliable source of work is the water industry. (newspaper) =20
>> (page 146)
>> **
>> My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow=20
>> Biber et al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in=20
>> actual sentences says they answer such questions. On almost every=20
>> page in Biber et al. are descriptions of the structures that are=20
>> based strictly on intuitions.]
>>
>> Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be=20
>> treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the=20
>> nature and properties of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL=20
>> PURPOSES.
>>
>> Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote.
>>
>> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else=20
>> just really shows that you really care about them.
>>
>> If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual=20
>> language use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1)=20
>> exposed to for her to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to=20
>> know how an approach to language which claims our knowledge of=20
>> language comes from "real language" answers that question.
>>
>> More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence=20
>> (1) is problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that=20
>> accounts for our judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been=20
>> exposed to mixed constructions and were never explicitly taught they=20
>> are problematic (as writing teachers, were we?), how do we recognize=20
>> them? Under the approach Craig says we should consider, our=20
>> intuitions are based on the language we have been exposed to.
>>
>> As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by=20
>> our students that are not in the texts they read. And, just as=20
>> importantly, those strings our students write are not in the texts WE=20
>> read. Yet, we are able to make judgments about those strings all the=20
>> time. If usage is so fundamental to our knowledge of language, what=20
>> is the nature of the language we are exposed to that accounts for our=20
>> judgments. (Does anyone regularly note that sentences like (1) don't=20
>> occur in writing? How do you note the absence of something if your=20
>> only knowledge is based on what you are exposed to?)
>>
>> Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge=20
>> about language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is=20
>> no competence/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I=20
>> have proposed, assuming innateness and difference between competence=20
>> and performance, that some of the "innovative" structures student=20
>> write, like sentence (1), can be explained.
>>
>> A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of=20
>> grammar and writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of=20
>> language can't explain what our students do and, more importantly,=20
>> what we as their teachers do when we respond to their writing.
>>
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri.
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
>> 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=20
>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and=20
>> 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=20
>> 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/
>>
>>
>> =20
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:31:26 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
Just one correction. The construct should read by X (participle head), Y=20
(noun phrase) Z's or Z'd (finite verb phrase.)
Craig
Craig Hancock wrote:
> Jim,
> Bob just pointed out that my reply to him was off list. I'm copying=20
> it in here, along with the post to me that I was responding to=20
> (below.) I hope that makes sense.
> Craig
> Bob,
> Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without=20
> looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the=20
> student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't=20
> work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth=20
> playing with. The student owns the sentence.
> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By=20
> X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
> By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
> By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
> Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on=20
> some innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world.=20
> Since it's not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),=20
> construction grammar would call it schematic.
> If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I=20
> might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.=20
> But that is a different frame of reference.
> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If=20
> it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.=20
> Either they are already comfortable with the construction (and just=20
> lapsed in attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
> Learning a language requires "a prodigious amount of learning", and=20
> this is one example.
>
> Craig
> =20
> Robert Yates wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I'm not dismissing your alternative view out of hand. I'm trying to
> figure out how it applies to REAL problems I confront as a writing
> teacher. I don't understand how this view provides any insights into
> what my students do, and more importantly, what I do.
>
> I provided you with a REAL example of a mixed construction from a REAL
> student text. (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for=20
> someone else
> just really shows that you really care about them.
>
> Why don't you want to share with the listserv how your perspective
> accounts for such a sentence?
>
> Because you haven't done that yet, I will try to figure out what it
> means. Consider the Langacker quote as a way to account for sentence
> (1).
>
> =93The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic knowled=
ge
> we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and meanin=
g
> found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
> elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
> association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
> keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
> naturalness and theoretical austerity.=94
> It seems to me that Langacker is saying the writer of (1) must have
> encountered such a construction in other contexts. Is that correct?=20
> The obvious implication is that we as teachers much find out what those
> contexts are and figure out ways for students to ignore such examples.=20
> Is that correct?
>
> Of course, as teachers, how do WE know there is something inappropriate
> with (1) if "the linguistic knowledge we ascribe to speakers [is]
> limited to elements of form and meaning found in actually occurring
> expressions"? I know I don't read texts that contain mixed
> constructions, except for my own student texts. So, where did my
> knowledge come from that these structures that I have only encountered
> in student writing are inappropriate if my knowledge is based on
> actually occurring expressions?
>
> Craig, you want teachers on the list to take an alternative theory of
> language that is based on actual language we are exposed to. From a
> teaching perspective, I'm trying to do that and I don't like the answer
> I come up with for students and the kinds of "innovative" sentences the=
y
> write and my own judgments about those sentences. I must be wrong=20
> because you are an experienced writing teacher and you
> find the perspective useful. Please explain why it is useful for you.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>
> Craig Hancock wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> That's a very polite and thoughtful post. I have responded to Bob's=20
>> post (after you sent this), and I hope it meets your objections. I=20
>> would be happy to clarify as best I can if you still have questions.=20
>> I'd like to say, also, that I don't want to pretend to be a principal=20
>> spokesperson for cognitive grammar. I have found it very interesting=20
>> and am trying to pass on a developing understanding. A delay in=20
>> responding may just be my concern with representing views that are=20
>> not only my own.
>> My original post was aimed more at the shape actual explorations of=20
>> language might take in a public school curriculum. I wasn't aiming at=20
>> responding to error, but am happy to include it.
>>
>> Craig
>> =20
>> Kenkel, Jim wrote:
>>> I read this list but don't often post to it. However, this=20
>>> last contribution from Craig compels me to respond. Craig's=20
>>> response to Bob Yates's post seems to do two things: 1) it repeats=20
>>> the claims that prompted Bob's question in the first place about how=20
>>> the theoretical claims of Langacker and Biber provide teachers with=20
>>> insight into the language use of student writers; 2) it seems to=20
>>> seek to marginalize Bob's contribution to the discussion as being =20
>>> socially innappropriate. What it doesn't do is respond to Bob's=20
>>> carefully and clearly posed question, the answer/s to which would be=20
>>> certainly relevant to any teacher who has looked at his or her=20
>>> students' writing from a language perspective.
>>>
>>> It doesn't serve the list to characterize Bob's post as hostile. =20
>>> I suspect that anyone who asks clear questions and receives no=20
>>> answer to them would feel some frustration. Given Craig's prominence=20
>>> in discussions on this list, I was interested to see his response=20
>>> but was disappointed in the lack of response to the content of the=20
>>> post. I am interested in how the list generally might respond to=20
>>> Bob's question because the answers might prompt me to do more=20
>>> reading in cognitive grammar and usage-based grammar to learn what=20
>>> insights they might offer me as a language teacher and as a writing=20
>>> teacher. At this point, given my interests, I am no closer to=20
>>> knowing how they might help me than I was before.
>>>
>>> Given the complexity of the concepts of language, language use,=20
>>> and writing, it is very safe to assume that no one perspective can=20
>>> answer all the questions we have. I don't read Bob's post(s) as=20
>>> marginalizing any perspective. He has only asked if cognitive and=20
>>> usage-based grammars can help with issues of recognizing and=20
>>> responding to "error" in student writing. So far, the question has=20
>>> not received a response.
>>>
>>> Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar=20
>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock=20
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:08 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE:=20
>>> Correct)
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>> I=92m not sure why you react with so much hostility to an attempt=
=20
>>> to present an alternative point-of-view. You seem more interested in=20
>>> debunking it than you are in learning about it; perhaps I=92m wrong.=20
>>> Other people on list may in fact be more interested in it than you=20
>>> are. And I=92m not sure why you would characterize it as =93Craig=92s=
=20
>>> position=94 when I=92m quoting others or simply assume you know my=20
>>> position when you have been exposed to only a small part of it.
>>> What I said, that you reacted to as a statement against=20
>>> intuition, is the following:
>>>
>>>
>>> Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
>>> useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
>>> people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
>>> grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences th=
at
>>> actually occur.
>>> I didn=92t say that we don=92t have intuitions about language or=20
>>> that intuitions aren=92t important. In a usage based system, the=20
>>> belief is that these grow out of use.
>>>
>>> Langacker calls the above constraint The Content Requirement:
>>> =93The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic=20
>>> knowledge we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of=20
>>> form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions, or which=20
>>> derive from such elements via the basic psychological phenomena=20
>>> listed in 1.31: association, automatization, schematization, and=20
>>> categorization. By keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction=20
>>> assures both naturalness and theoretical austerity.=94 (Cognitive=20
>>> Grammar: a basic introduction p. 25).
>>>
>>> Here=92s a quote from Biber, from the same anthology (Kemmer and=20
>>> Barlow) I cited yesterday.
>>> =93Studies of use are concerned with actual practice, and the=20
>>> extent to which linguistic patterns are common or rare, rather than=20
>>> focusing exclusively on potential grammaticality. As such, adequate=20
>>> investigations of language use must be empirical, analyzing the=20
>>> functions and distribution of language features in natural discourse=20
>>> contexts.=94
>>>
>>> Here he is again (et. Al.) in The Longman Student Grammar:
>>> =93Traditionally, both in theory and in pedagogical practice, grammar=
=20
>>> has been separate from vocabulary, as if they were two totally=20
>>> independent aspects of language and language learning. This=20
>>> separation is artificial, as becomes evident to anyone who uses a=20
>>> large corpus for studying grammar. What becomes clear is that, when=20
>>> they use a language, people bring together their knowledge of word=20
>>> behavior (lexis) with their knowledge of grammatical patterns. These=20
>>> two aspects of language interact in lexico-grammatical patterns.=94
>>>
>>> These are not trivial perspectives, and I don=92t think it serve=
s=20
>>> the list to try to dismiss them summarily.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Yates wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom. Whatever=20
>>> we mean by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language. =20
>>> Therefore, there is something fundamentally wrong in the following=20
>>> formulation.
>>>
>>> Craig writes:
>>>
>>> I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for
>>> different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation
>>> of these views is available within the literature.
>>>
>>> ****
>>> Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be=20
>>> taken seriously.
>>> Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow:
>>>
>>> "Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it=20
>>> follows
>>> that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of dat=
a
>>> from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data
>>> cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as
>>> to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and
>>> Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.)
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant=20
>>> examples are from their corpus.
>>>
>>> [An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written=20
>>> Language, a corpus based grammar of English.
>>>
>>> The identifying pattern
>>> Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which=20
>>> one is/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . .
>>>
>>> My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league.=20
>>> (conversation)
>>> The only reliable source of work is the water industry.=20
>>> (newspaper) (page 146)
>>> **
>>> My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow=20
>>> Biber et al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in=20
>>> actual sentences says they answer such questions. On almost every=20
>>> page in Biber et al. are descriptions of the structures that are=20
>>> based strictly on intuitions.]
>>>
>>> Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be=20
>>> treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the=20
>>> nature and properties of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL=20
>>> PURPOSES.
>>>
>>> Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote.
>>>
>>> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone=20
>>> else just really shows that you really care about them.
>>>
>>> If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual=20
>>> language use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1)=20
>>> exposed to for her to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to=20
>>> know how an approach to language which claims our knowledge of=20
>>> language comes from "real language" answers that question.
>>>
>>> More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence=20
>>> (1) is problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that=20
>>> accounts for our judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been=20
>>> exposed to mixed constructions and were never explicitly taught they=20
>>> are problematic (as writing teachers, were we?), how do we recognize=20
>>> them? Under the approach Craig says we should consider, our=20
>>> intuitions are based on the language we have been exposed to.
>>>
>>> As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by=20
>>> our students that are not in the texts they read. And, just as=20
>>> importantly, those strings our students write are not in the texts=20
>>> WE read. Yet, we are able to make judgments about those strings all=20
>>> the time. If usage is so fundamental to our knowledge of language,=20
>>> what is the nature of the language we are exposed to that accounts=20
>>> for our judgments. (Does anyone regularly note that sentences like=20
>>> (1) don't occur in writing? How do you note the absence of=20
>>> something if your only knowledge is based on what you are exposed to?=
)
>>>
>>> Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge=20
>>> about language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is=20
>>> no competence/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I=20
>>> have proposed, assuming innateness and difference between competence=20
>>> and performance, that some of the "innovative" structures student=20
>>> write, like sentence (1), can be explained.
>>>
>>> A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of=20
>>> grammar and writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of=20
>>> language can't explain what our students do and, more importantly,=20
>>> what we as their teachers do when we respond to their writing.
>>>
>>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri.
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
>>> 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=20
>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and=20
>>> 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=20
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>> =20
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
>> 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=20
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:22:23 -0800
From: Michael Kischner <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: from John Curran. attachment of diagrams?
------=_Part_71320_27670848.1228764143675
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
John,
I just tried sending this listserv an email into which I had successfully
pasted a simple Reed-Kellogg diagram I'd created in Word. A message came
back saying my message had been rejected because the ATEG server does not
accept images, period.
Michael Kischner
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM, John Curran
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>
> I spent a couple of hours this morning drawing Kellogg Reed and Systemic
> Functional Linguistics diagrams. I had discovered a software program,
> SenDraw, made available by University of Central Florida.
>
> Unfortunately the resulting scan was rejected by the ATEG server. Does
> anybody know how I can copy such a scan to an email for the ATEG forum?
>
>
>
> John
> 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/
------=_Part_71320_27670848.1228764143675
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
John,<br><br>I just tried sending this listserv an email into which I had
successfully pasted a simple Reed-Kellogg diagram I'd created in
Word. A message came back saying my message had been rejected because
the ATEG server does not accept images, period.<br>
<br>Michael Kischner<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at
8:20 PM, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
target="_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Arial;">I spent a couple of hours this morning drawing Kellogg Reed and
Systemic Functional Linguistics diagrams. I had discovered a software
program,
SenDraw, made available by University
of Central Florida.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Arial;">Unfortunately the resulting scan was rejected by the ATEG
server. Does anybody know how I can copy such a scan to an email for the
ATEG
forum?</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Arial;">
John</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
<a href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href="http://ateg.org/"
target="_blank">http://ateg.org/</a>
</p></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_Part_71320_27670848.1228764143675--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:16:47 -0500
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: from John Curran. attachment of diagrams?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95971.E5D55C17
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I suspect listservs default to "no images" as a way of cutting down on
processor load. I can think of a solution, but it's clunky, and you have
to have personal web pages to make it work: post the diagram on your
website, and link to it in the listserv message. A major downside,
though, is that somehow, by some bizarre alchemy of factors, at least
fifty random people will land on that page via a Google search, and
several of them will send you very puzzled emails.
=20
- Bill Spruiell
=20
=20
=20
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kischner
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: from John Curran. attachment of diagrams?
=20
John,
I just tried sending this listserv an email into which I had
successfully pasted a simple Reed-Kellogg diagram I'd created in Word.
A message came back saying my message had been rejected because the ATEG
server does not accept images, period.
Michael Kischner
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM, John Curran <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
=20
I spent a couple of hours this morning drawing Kellogg Reed and Systemic
Functional Linguistics diagrams. I had discovered a software program,
SenDraw, made available by University of Central Florida.
Unfortunately the resulting scan was rejected by the ATEG server. Does
anybody know how I can copy such a scan to an email for the ATEG forum?
=20
John
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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/
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95971.E5D55C17
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I suspect listservs default to “no images” as =
a way of cutting
down on processor load. I can think of a solution, but it’s =
clunky, and you
have to have personal web pages to make it work: post the diagram on =
your
website, and link to it in the listserv message. A major downside, =
though, is
that somehow, by some bizarre alchemy of factors, at least fifty random =
people
will land on that page via a Google search, and several of them will =
send you
very puzzled emails.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>– Bill Spruiell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly =
for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On =
Behalf Of </b>Michael
Kischner<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 08, 2008 2:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: from John Curran. attachment of =
diagrams?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>John,<br>
<br>
I just tried sending this listserv an email into which I had =
successfully
pasted a simple Reed-Kellogg diagram I'd created in Word. A =
message came
back saying my message had been rejected because the ATEG server does =
not
accept images, period.<br>
<br>
Michael Kischner<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM, John Curran <<a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" =
target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span>=
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I =
spent a
couple of hours this morning drawing Kellogg Reed and Systemic =
Functional
Linguistics diagrams. I had discovered a software program, SenDraw, made
available by University of Central Florida.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Unfortunately=
the resulting scan was rejected by the ATEG server. Does anybody know =
how I can
copy such a scan to an email for the ATEG forum?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span>=
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> &=
nbsp;
John</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit =
the list's
web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and =
select
"Join or leave the list" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><br>
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" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95971.E5D55C17--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:10:03 -0600
From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Quick note on education and linguistic theory
At 07:27 PM 12/7/2008, Craig Hancock wrote:
> > Bill,
> I appreciate your attempt to douse the fire. The case for cognitive
>grammar is available to anyone interested, and I hope there are many
>on the list.
> As you say, generative grammar was never intended to be a pedagogical
>grammar. Other grammars, if they prove to be more accurate descriptions
>of the language, may also have the benefit of giving us a case for
>placing grammar much closer to the center of the English curriculum.. . .
DD: I am sorry, but Ii am not an English grammarian. I am interested
in what this list discusses, but way behind on commonly understood
terms. Is there some source I could buy that explains the various
terms re Generative, Cognitive, and the Others?
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:17:26 -0600
From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Testing grammar approaches
At 07:31 PM 12/7/2008, Dee Allen-Kirkhouse wrote: . . .
>I am in the process of doing a research project in which I asked all the
>seniors in the high school to write an essay at the beginning of the school
>year. I analyzed those essays for the ability to use punctuation
>effectively and to write sentences of varying complexity. Every teacher in
>our department approaches grammar instruction in his/her own way. Seniors
>in my classes are being taught grammar systematically using both their
>assigned reading and their own sentences for analysis. Many teachers in my
>department don't teach grammar beyond the Daily Language Practice provided
>by the publishers of the literature textbook. The practice is basically a
>proofreading exercise. At the end of the school year, seniors will again
>take an assessment test. I will compare the results of the two writing
>samples. I want to know if my systematic approach produces more
>sophisticated writers by the end of the year.
DD: As a psychometrician, retired, I think your approach is sound. I
have minor quibbles on the testing method, but better scientific
research than is normally reported in the literature. Please keep me
posted as to how it goes, frustrations, et al.Great to see someone
approach it in a scientific manner.
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:30:36 -0600
From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
At 09:44 PM 12/7/2008, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: . . .
>I tend, as I've said before, to disagree with post-generative
>grammarians on innateness and to lean more towards Geoffrey
>Sampson's arguments in his book Educating Eve, but even Sampson
>acknowledged that while he had developed a strong rationale for a
>cognitive-based grammar there was no proof either way. These are
>not hypotheses that are in any way rigorous enough to be falsified. . . .
DD: Goodness gracious. There are people on this list that understand
scientific theory. I agree! Make the possible to be falsified
hypothesis and check out if it can be. { AND report back to the
community of your results.}
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:00:34 -0600
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
Craig,
Thank you for posting your response. It is important in a discussion
about what theory of language is valuable for teaching that we actually
examine what students do and the responses we would make.
Here is the sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is
problematic for a usage based theory of grammar.
(1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
just really shows that you really care about them.
As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig subscribes to the
following view of language from Langacker, among others.
=E2=80=9CThe thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic
knowledge
we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and
meaning
found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
naturalness and theoretical austerity.=E2=80=9D
Craig writes:
Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without=20
looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the=20
student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't
work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth
playing=20
with. The student owns the sentence.
If our (teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and meaning
found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is Craig able to
ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis can we
conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited to actually
occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring expression.
****
Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might produce
(1).
That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By
X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on
some=20
innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since
it's=20
not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),
construction=20
grammar would call it schematic.
Of course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge is
limited to "actually occurring expressions"? =20
I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is the
understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get something for
someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of "shows that . . .
. . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's explanation
doesn't seem very explanatory.
The following passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.
If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I=20
might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.
But=20
that is a different frame of reference.
The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both the object of
the preposition "by" and the subject of "shows." This double
case-marking of the gerund -- object of the preposition and subject of a
tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.
The following really doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our
knowledge of language is based on "actually occurring expressions"
If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If=20
it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.
Either=20
they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in
attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
The analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles
(that are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to
meet her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a
comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is that it
"shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases (in other words
a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are one of the
markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer to
reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase an
object of a preposition. =20
Jim Kenkel just sent me the following examples of mixed constructions
from various handbooks.
2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads, long hair, and tye-died
T-shirts, many young people expressed their opposition to mainstream
values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)
3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests against
the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of the time.
(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)
4) By designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's
psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)
5) In the world created by movies and television makes fiction
seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002, 658)
6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol content of >05 percent
double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel, Diane
Hacker, 1993, p. 9)
Notice how all of them begin with a preposition like (1). Jim notes:
"We know from Perera that complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech
and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim that
these innovative constructions make more salient the information units
and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."
In other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled
from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT the
result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions." =20
Of course, there may be other issues in the writing of students that a
theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to innate
principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some specific
examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories without applying
their theories to actual student writing is not very persuasive for me.=20
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri =20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:14:29 -0700
From: Lorraine Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Testing grammar approaches
I too would be interested in knowing what you find.
Lorraine
>>> "DD Farms" <[log in to unmask]> 12/8/2008 1:17 PM >>>
At 07:31 PM 12/7/2008, Dee Allen-Kirkhouse wrote: . . .
>I am in the process of doing a research project in which I asked all the
>seniors in the high school to write an essay at the beginning of the =
school
>year. I analyzed those essays for the ability to use punctuation
>effectively and to write sentences of varying complexity. Every teacher =
in
>our department approaches grammar instruction in his/her own way. =
Seniors
>in my classes are being taught grammar systematically using both their
>assigned reading and their own sentences for analysis. Many teachers in =
my
>department don't teach grammar beyond the Daily Language Practice =
provided
>by the publishers of the literature textbook. The practice is basically =
a
>proofreading exercise. At the end of the school year, seniors will again
>take an assessment test. I will compare the results of the two writing
>samples. I want to know if my systematic approach produces more
>sophisticated writers by the end of the year.
DD: As a psychometrician, retired, I think your approach is sound. I=20
have minor quibbles on the testing method, but better scientific=20
research than is normally reported in the literature. Please keep me=20
posted as to how it goes, frustrations, et al.Great to see someone=20
approach it in a scientific manner.=20
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:35:58 -0500
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
Bob,
I suspect we *do* encounter a lot of those mixed constructions -- we
just don't encounter them in writing. I know I've heard quite a few on
news broadcasts and the like. They don't follow the rules we apply to
edited writing, and in your view, they're probably performance errors
and quite separate from what might count as evidence for linguistic
competence. If they're recorded verbatim on speech transcripts, they
make the speaker look awful. But...people do say those things.
As for why that kind of mixed construction exists, I will hazard some
guesses (not to be interpreted as mutually exclusive):
1. Backgrounding. The speaker wants to focus on what results from a
cause (rather than what causes the results). Moving things into
prepositional phrases backgrounds them to some extent (according to this
view, "I gave Grandma a book" presents Grandma as more foregrounded than
does "I gave a book to Grandma"). Of course packaging an event as a noun
(the gerund) backgrounds the internal parts of the event as well, but
redundant marking isn't exactly unheard-of in language.
2. Purpose-marking: "By" is frequently used to mark the means of
accomplishing something (if taken broadly, this even works on passives).
Its use here is marking the first part as the means by which the result
(the main clause) is brought about. The speaker is going in to the
sentence aware that s/he wants to talk about purposes and results, and
deploys the "by" in roughly the same way that someone ordering a
hamburger reaches for the ketchup packets. This one might actually be
testable in a sense -- if I'm right, you shouldn't get quite as many of
these mixed constructions with 'by' if the main clause has a word like
"accidentally" in it.=20
3. Processing constraints. Starting from this perspective envisions the
construction as something that may have started as a frequent slip of
the tongue that then became routinized for some speakers. These gerund
phrases are "heavy," and by the time a speaker gets to the end of one of
them, s/he may have already lost the first part from short-term memory
(i.e., it's the same phenomenon that causes glitches in long-distance
subject/verb agreement). Again, though, if the same general pattern is
repeated -- regardless of the source -- it can come to be perceived as
stable. The same process that leads some of my students to perceive "for
all intensive purposes" and "would of gone" as a normal expression can
apply to whole schemata.
Of course, the construction prohibited in writing because its parts
don't fit together the way formal grammar requires. Using "by" to mark a
purpose as in #2 doesn't mysteriously cause it to stop acting as a
preposition, and the rules we bring to bear in edited writing treat that
as a point that can't be ignored. When I see such constructions in
print, they certainly annoy me. And probably like you, I have students
who are absolutely baffled about why such a sentence is annoying me.=20
We have other constructions which logically *should* be ungrammatical,
but aren't -- "I'm here, aren't I?" "The more, the merrier." Our
*perception* of what counts as ungrammatical in an utterance is -- at
least in SOME cases -- influenced by whether we're used to hearing
things like it or not. This may be why a number of my students
confidently tell me that "Seldom did we encounter other people" is
ungrammatical -- they don't read formal prose much. Note that you don't
have to agree that all grammaticality judgments are "constructed" to
accept that a subset of the judgments made by ordinary speakers are (my
position would be that the subset is the whole, but that's far from a
neutral stance).=20
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:42:30 -0500
From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
------=_Part_44211_11356253.1228776151018
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
To my mind, sentence #2 (the bell-bottom one) is perfectly fine because you
have a subject, and the prepositional form modifies the verb. In the others
the prepositional construction is trying to be the subject.
Jane Saral
Atlanta
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Thank you for posting your response. It is important in a discussion
> about what theory of language is valuable for teaching that we actually
> examine what students do and the responses we would make.
>
> Here is the sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is
> problematic for a usage based theory of grammar.
>
> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
> just really shows that you really care about them.
>
> As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig subscribes to the
> following view of language from Langacker, among others.
>
> "The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic
> knowledge
> we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and
> meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
> elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
> association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
> keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
> naturalness and theoretical austerity."
>
> Craig writes:
>
> Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without
> looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the
> student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't
>
> work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth
> playing
> with. The student owns the sentence.
>
> If our (teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is Craig able to
> ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis can we
> conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited to actually
> occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring expression.
>
> ****
> Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might produce
> (1).
>
> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By
>
> X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
> By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
> By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
> Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on
> some
> innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since
> it's
> not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),
> construction
> grammar would call it schematic.
>
> Of course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge is
> limited to "actually occurring expressions"?
>
> I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is the
> understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get something for
> someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of "shows that . . .
> . . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's explanation
> doesn't seem very explanatory.
>
> The following passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.
>
> If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I
> might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.
> But
> that is a different frame of reference.
>
> The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both the object of
> the preposition "by" and the subject of "shows." This double
> case-marking of the gerund -- object of the preposition and subject of a
> tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.
>
> The following really doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our
> knowledge of language is based on "actually occurring expressions"
>
> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If
> it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.
> Either
> they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in
>
> attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
>
> The analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles
> (that are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to
> meet her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a
> comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is that it
> "shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases (in other words
> a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are one of the
> markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer to
> reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase an
> object of a preposition.
>
> Jim Kenkel just sent me the following examples of mixed constructions
> from various handbooks.
>
> 2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads, long hair, and tye-died
> T-shirts, many young people expressed their opposition to mainstream
> values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)
>
> 3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests against
> the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of the time.
> (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)
>
> 4) By designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's
> psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)
>
> 5) In the world created by movies and television makes fiction
> seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002, 658)
>
> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol content of >05 percent
> double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel, Diane
> Hacker, 1993, p. 9)
>
> Notice how all of them begin with a preposition like (1). Jim notes:
>
> "We know from Perera that complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech
> and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim that
> these innovative constructions make more salient the information units
> and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."
>
> In other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled
> from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT the
> result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions."
>
> Of course, there may be other issues in the writing of students that a
> theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to innate
> principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some specific
> examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories without applying
> their theories to actual student writing is not very persuasive for me.
>
>
> 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/
------=_Part_44211_11356253.1228776151018
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>To my mind, sentence #2 (the bell-bottom one) is perfectly fine
because you have a subject, and the prepositional form modifies the
verb. In the others the prepositional construction is trying
to be the subject.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jane Saral</div>
<div>Atlanta<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Robert Yates <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px
0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Craig,<br><br>Thank you for posting
your response. It is important in a discussion<br>about what theory of
language is valuable for teaching that we actually<br>
examine what students do and the responses we would make.<br><br>Here is the
sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is<br>problematic for a
usage based theory of grammar.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>(1) By taking time out of your day to get
something for someone else<br>just really shows that you really care about
them.<br><br></div>As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig
subscribes to the<br>
following view of language from Langacker, among others.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>"The thrust of the content requirement is that the
linguistic<br>knowledge<br>we ascribe to speakers should be limited to
elements of form and<br>meaning<br>found in actually occurring expressions,
or which derive from such<br>
elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in
1.31:<br>association, automatization, schematization, and categorization.
By<br>keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures
both<br>naturalness and theoretical austerity."<br>
<br></div>
<div class="Ih2E3d">Craig writes:<br><br> Like you, I'm sure, I
wouldn't respond to the sentence without<br>looking at its context in
the paper and without some sense of the<br>student. Was it just a slip on
their part? The two really's also don't<br>
<br>work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is
worth<br>playing<br>with. The student owns the sentence.<br><br></div>If our
(teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and
meaning<br>found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is
Craig able to<br>
ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis
can we<br>conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited
to actually<br>occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring
expression.<br>
<br>****<br>Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might
produce<br>(1).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow
a common construct: By<br><br>X (participle head), X (noun phrase)
Y's (finite verb).<br> By sleeping in class, you missed half the
lecture.<br>
By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.<br>Our
expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not
on<br>some<br>innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world.
Since<br>it's<br>
not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable
slots),<br>construction<br>grammar would call it schematic.<br><br></div>Of
course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge
is<br>limited to "actually occurring expressions"?<br>
<br>I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is
the<br>understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get
something for<br>someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of
"shows that . . .<br>
. . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's
explanation<br>doesn't seem very explanatory.<br><br>The following
passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br> If the student seems to be comfortable with
prescriptive grammar, I<br>might point out that a "by" phrase
isn't supposed to act as subject.<br>But<br>that is a different frame of
reference.<br>
<br></div>The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both
the object of<br>the preposition "by" and the subject of
"shows." This double<br>case-marking of the gerund -- object
of the preposition and subject of a<br>
tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.<br><br>The following really
doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our<br>knowledge of language is
based on "actually occurring expressions"<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the
student know it already? If<br>it's not, then it helps to have someone
mentor the student along.<br>Either<br>they are already comfortable with the
construction (and just lapsed in<br>
<br>attention), or we can take our time to model it out.<br><br></div>The
analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles<br>(that
are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to<br>meet
her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a<br>
comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is
that it<br>"shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases
(in other words<br>a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are
one of the<br>
markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer
to<br>reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase
an<br>object of a preposition.<br><br>Jim Kenkel just sent me the following
examples of mixed constructions<br>
from various handbooks.<br><br>2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads,
long hair, and tye-died<br>T-shirts, many young people expressed their
opposition to mainstream<br>values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)<br><br>
3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests
against<br>the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of
the time.<br>(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)<br><br> 4) By
designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's<br>
psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)<br><br> 5)
In the world created by movies and television makes
fiction<br>seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002,
658)<br><br> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol
content of >05 percent<br>
double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel,
Diane<br>Hacker, 1993, p. 9)<br><br>Notice how all of them begin with a
preposition like (1). Jim notes:<br><br>"We know from Perera that
complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech<br>
and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim
that<br>these innovative constructions make more salient the information
units<br>and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."<br><br>In
other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled<br>
from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT
the<br>result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring
expressions."<br><br>Of course, there may be other issues in the
writing of students that a<br>
theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to
innate<br>principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some
specific<br>examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories
without applying<br>their theories to actual student writing is not very
persuasive for me.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br>Bob Yates, University of Central
Missouri<br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web interface at:<br> <a
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web
site at <a href="http://ateg.org/"
target="_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_Part_44211_11356253.1228776151018--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:57:10 -0600
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
Bill,
Your speculation on why they occur are all plausible. I would just =
observe that your explanations require appeals to various language =
principles interacting with each other. Such observations don't seem to =
match with a claim that our knowledge of language is strictly based on =
exposure to the language.
Of course, you may be right here.=20
"I suspect we *do* encounter a lot of those mixed constructions -- we
just don't encounter them in writing. I know I've heard quite a few on
news broadcasts and the like. "
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Biber et al. in the =
Grammar of Spoken and Written English do not index "mixed construction" =
and all of the references to "by" makes no mention of them. If they are =
frequent in the spoken language, this absence is strange. =20
This is not the case elsewhere. For example, Biber et al. mention =
prefaces.
(1) This woman, she's ninety.
It notes that prefaces occur in conversation and not in academic writing. =
(p. 964).
So, Biber et al. do note structures that occur only in the spoken =
language.
**
Let's clear up something about "my view" of such forms in developing =
writing.
Bill writes: ". . . in your view, they're probably performance errors
and quite separate from what might count as evidence for linguistic
competence."
I'm interested in trying to understand why developing writers do what they =
do. I take a developmental perspective on such constructions. From the =
developing writer's perspective, I don't think these are performance =
errors. Rather, they represent something about such writer's competence. =
I think teaching needs to begin with where the student is, so a perspectiv=
e that tries to understand the writer's principles is much more useful =
pedagogically than a perspective that says this is what the writer should =
be doing.
One of the problems I have with systemic functional linguistics is that it =
really doesn't provide any insights into why developing writers do what =
they do. Halliday is quite clear his perspective of language is not about =
what a language user knows. Likewise, the belief that our knowledge of =
language is based solely on the language we have been exposed to doesn't =
offer much of an explanation except to speculate perhaps these structures =
are in the oral language and just haven't been noticed.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri =20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:47:16 -0800
From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
Just out of curiosity, did Chomsky ever actually say that grammar was
innate? Or did he say the potential to acquire grammar was innate?
Wouldn't that be a very different thing?
Janet Castilleja
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
Bill,
Your speculation on why they occur are all plausible. I would just
observe that your explanations require appeals to various language
principles interacting with each other. Such observations don't seem to
match with a claim that our knowledge of language is strictly based on
exposure to the language.
Of course, you may be right here.=20
"I suspect we *do* encounter a lot of those mixed constructions -- we
just don't encounter them in writing. I know I've heard quite a few on
news broadcasts and the like. "
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Biber et al. in the
Grammar of Spoken and Written English do not index "mixed construction"
and all of the references to "by" makes no mention of them. If they are
frequent in the spoken language, this absence is strange. =20
This is not the case elsewhere. For example, Biber et al. mention
prefaces.
(1) This woman, she's ninety.
It notes that prefaces occur in conversation and not in academic
writing. (p. 964).
So, Biber et al. do note structures that occur only in the spoken
language.
**
Let's clear up something about "my view" of such forms in developing
writing.
Bill writes: ". . . in your view, they're probably performance errors
and quite separate from what might count as evidence for linguistic
competence."
I'm interested in trying to understand why developing writers do what
they do. I take a developmental perspective on such constructions.
From the developing writer's perspective, I don't think these are
performance errors. Rather, they represent something about such
writer's competence. I think teaching needs to begin with where the
student is, so a perspective that tries to understand the writer's
principles is much more useful pedagogically than a perspective that
says this is what the writer should be doing.
One of the problems I have with systemic functional linguistics is that
it really doesn't provide any insights into why developing writers do
what they do. Halliday is quite clear his perspective of language is not
about what a language user knows. Likewise, the belief that our
knowledge of language is based solely on the language we have been
exposed to doesn't offer much of an explanation except to speculate
perhaps these structures are in the oral language and just haven't been
noticed.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri =20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:39:29 -0600
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
------=_Part_46892_7356625.1228783170041
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I'd just like to add a brief comment to this discussion. At times it feels
to me that some posters are overly defensive if their theoretical or
practical views of grammar are questioned. Sometimes other posters do seem a
bit hostile or aggressive in their questions (or demands) for information or
rebuttal. Of course, there are other times when the vast majority of the
list may feel swept up in the middle of a conversation (debate?) between two
or three people. However, reading through these threads (sometimes forcing
myself to trudge through them), always proves valuable to me. Above all
else, I appreciate the civility and thoughtfulness with which the most
active members of this listserv conduct themselves.
I have no idea where some of you get the time to draft such informative
posts. My bet is that you borrow that time from your probably already small
bank of free time! Thank you for the time you take to participate here!
Also, I'd like to say that I am certainly one of the members of this
listserv who greatly appreciates hearing from proponents of ALL theory
camps. Even some of us who have formal linguistic training are not familiar
with many of these theories.
Thanks again for the insights!
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Thank you for posting your response. It is important in a discussion
> about what theory of language is valuable for teaching that we actually
> examine what students do and the responses we would make.
>
> Here is the sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is
> problematic for a usage based theory of grammar.
>
> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
> just really shows that you really care about them.
>
> As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig subscribes to the
> following view of language from Langacker, among others.
>
> "The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic
> knowledge
> we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and
> meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
> elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
> association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
> keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
> naturalness and theoretical austerity."
>
> Craig writes:
>
> Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without
> looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the
> student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't
>
> work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth
> playing
> with. The student owns the sentence.
>
> If our (teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is Craig able to
> ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis can we
> conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited to actually
> occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring expression.
>
> ****
> Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might produce
> (1).
>
> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By
>
> X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
> By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
> By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
> Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on
> some
> innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since
> it's
> not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),
> construction
> grammar would call it schematic.
>
> Of course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge is
> limited to "actually occurring expressions"?
>
> I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is the
> understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get something for
> someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of "shows that . . .
> . . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's explanation
> doesn't seem very explanatory.
>
> The following passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.
>
> If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I
> might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.
> But
> that is a different frame of reference.
>
> The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both the object of
> the preposition "by" and the subject of "shows." This double
> case-marking of the gerund -- object of the preposition and subject of a
> tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.
>
> The following really doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our
> knowledge of language is based on "actually occurring expressions"
>
> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If
> it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.
> Either
> they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in
>
> attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
>
> The analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles
> (that are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to
> meet her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a
> comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is that it
> "shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases (in other words
> a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are one of the
> markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer to
> reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase an
> object of a preposition.
>
> Jim Kenkel just sent me the following examples of mixed constructions
> from various handbooks.
>
> 2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads, long hair, and tye-died
> T-shirts, many young people expressed their opposition to mainstream
> values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)
>
> 3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests against
> the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of the time.
> (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)
>
> 4) By designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's
> psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)
>
> 5) In the world created by movies and television makes fiction
> seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002, 658)
>
> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol content of >05 percent
> double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel, Diane
> Hacker, 1993, p. 9)
>
> Notice how all of them begin with a preposition like (1). Jim notes:
>
> "We know from Perera that complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech
> and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim that
> these innovative constructions make more salient the information units
> and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."
>
> In other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled
> from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT the
> result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions."
>
> Of course, there may be other issues in the writing of students that a
> theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to innate
> principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some specific
> examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories without applying
> their theories to actual student writing is not very persuasive for me.
>
>
> 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/
------=_Part_46892_7356625.1228783170041
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>I'd just like to add a brief comment to this discussion. At times
it feels to me that some posters are overly defensive if their theoretical
or practical views of grammar are questioned. Sometimes other posters do
seem a bit hostile or aggressive in their questions (or demands) for
information or rebuttal. Of course, there are other times when the vast
majority of the list may feel swept up in the middle of a conversation
(debate?) between two or three people. However, reading through these
threads (sometimes forcing myself to trudge through them), always proves
valuable to me. Above all else, I appreciate the civility and thoughtfulness
with which the most active members of this listserv conduct themselves.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have no idea where some of you get the time to draft such informative
posts. My bet is that you borrow that time from your probably already small
bank of free time! Thank you for the time you take to participate
here!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, I'd like to say that I am certainly one of the members of
this listserv who greatly appreciates hearing from proponents of ALL theory
camps. Even some of us who have formal linguistic training are not familiar
with many of these theories. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks again for the insights!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>John Alexander</div>
<div>Austin, Texas<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Robert Yates <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px
0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Craig,<br><br>Thank you for posting
your response. It is important in a discussion<br>about what theory of
language is valuable for teaching that we actually<br>
examine what students do and the responses we would make.<br><br>Here is the
sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is<br>problematic for a
usage based theory of grammar.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>(1) By taking time out of your day to get
something for someone else<br>just really shows that you really care about
them.<br><br></div>As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig
subscribes to the<br>
following view of language from Langacker, among others.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>"The thrust of the content requirement is that the
linguistic<br>knowledge<br>we ascribe to speakers should be limited to
elements of form and<br>meaning<br>found in actually occurring expressions,
or which derive from such<br>
elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in
1.31:<br>association, automatization, schematization, and categorization.
By<br>keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures
both<br>naturalness and theoretical austerity."<br>
<br></div>
<div class="Ih2E3d">Craig writes:<br><br> Like you, I'm sure, I
wouldn't respond to the sentence without<br>looking at its context in
the paper and without some sense of the<br>student. Was it just a slip on
their part? The two really's also don't<br>
<br>work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is
worth<br>playing<br>with. The student owns the sentence.<br><br></div>If our
(teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and
meaning<br>found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is
Craig able to<br>
ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis
can we<br>conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited
to actually<br>occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring
expression.<br>
<br>****<br>Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might
produce<br>(1).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow
a common construct: By<br><br>X (participle head), X (noun phrase)
Y's (finite verb).<br> By sleeping in class, you missed half the
lecture.<br>
By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.<br>Our
expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not
on<br>some<br>innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world.
Since<br>it's<br>
not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable
slots),<br>construction<br>grammar would call it schematic.<br><br></div>Of
course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge
is<br>limited to "actually occurring expressions"?<br>
<br>I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is
the<br>understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get
something for<br>someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of
"shows that . . .<br>
. . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's
explanation<br>doesn't seem very explanatory.<br><br>The following
passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br> If the student seems to be comfortable with
prescriptive grammar, I<br>might point out that a "by" phrase
isn't supposed to act as subject.<br>But<br>that is a different frame of
reference.<br>
<br></div>The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both
the object of<br>the preposition "by" and the subject of
"shows." This double<br>case-marking of the gerund -- object
of the preposition and subject of a<br>
tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.<br><br>The following really
doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our<br>knowledge of language is
based on "actually occurring expressions"<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the
student know it already? If<br>it's not, then it helps to have someone
mentor the student along.<br>Either<br>they are already comfortable with the
construction (and just lapsed in<br>
<br>attention), or we can take our time to model it out.<br><br></div>The
analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles<br>(that
are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to<br>meet
her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a<br>
comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is
that it<br>"shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases
(in other words<br>a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are
one of the<br>
markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer
to<br>reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase
an<br>object of a preposition.<br><br>Jim Kenkel just sent me the following
examples of mixed constructions<br>
from various handbooks.<br><br>2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads,
long hair, and tye-died<br>T-shirts, many young people expressed their
opposition to mainstream<br>values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)<br><br>
3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests
against<br>the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of
the time.<br>(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)<br><br> 4) By
designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's<br>
psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)<br><br> 5)
In the world created by movies and television makes
fiction<br>seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002,
658)<br><br> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol
content of >05 percent<br>
double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel,
Diane<br>Hacker, 1993, p. 9)<br><br>Notice how all of them begin with a
preposition like (1). Jim notes:<br><br>"We know from Perera that
complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech<br>
and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim
that<br>these innovative constructions make more salient the information
units<br>and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."<br><br>In
other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled<br>
from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT
the<br>result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring
expressions."<br><br>Of course, there may be other issues in the
writing of students that a<br>
theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to
innate<br>principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some
specific<br>examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories
without applying<br>their theories to actual student writing is not very
persuasive for me.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br>Bob Yates, University of Central
Missouri<br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web interface at:<br> <a
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web
site at <a href="http://ateg.org/"
target="_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_Part_46892_7356625.1228783170041--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:45:57 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
DD,
And when we depart from scientific method, we get into the area of belief. =
I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that I find a cognitive approach more b=
elievable than an innatist approach, but we're a long ways from being able =
to treat that issue scientifically.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of DD Farms
Sent: 2008-12-08 15:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct=
)
At 09:44 PM 12/7/2008, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: . . .
>I tend, as I've said before, to disagree with post-generative=20
>grammarians on innateness and to lean more towards Geoffrey=20
>Sampson's arguments in his book Educating Eve, but even Sampson=20
>acknowledged that while he had developed a strong rationale for a=20
>cognitive-based grammar there was no proof either way. These are=20
>not hypotheses that are in any way rigorous enough to be falsified. . . .
DD: Goodness gracious. There are people on this list that understand=20
scientific theory. I agree! Make the possible to be falsified=20
hypothesis and check out if it can be. { AND report back to the=20
community of your results.}
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:09:09 -0500
From: "Kenkel, Jim" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
My understanding of Chomskyan linguistic theory is that it does _not_ claim=
that grammar is innate. What is innate - what Chomsky calls Universal Gra=
mmar (UG) - is a set of principles that constrain the development of an act=
ual grammar. The development occurs over time as the innate principles int=
eract with the linguistic input the child hears in his or her environment.=
=20
I don't believe that a Chomskyan theory of language would claim that =
the grammatical structures characteristic of higher levels of literacy - th=
e kinds of structures that interest writing teachers - are learned automati=
cally. Any writing teacher knows that they obviously are not. For one thin=
g, within such a theory, many of these constructions are not _direct_ refle=
ctions of Universal Grammar principles. For instance, I don't know of any =
postulated UG principle that would lead directly to sentences where the com=
plement of a verb is moved away from the verb and preposed to the front of =
the sentence. It is my understanding that a Chomskyan theory would claim th=
at such constructions are responses to communicative pressures such as the =
need to maintain topic continuity in a developing discourse. Although the g=
rammar permits such movement of elements to unusual positions in the senten=
ce, language learners/students need experience and some practice before the=
y feel comfortable with these kinds of sentences - in this case because UG =
does stipulate that verbs and their complements are adjacent. Also complica=
ting matters here is that such constructions are generally more frequently=
encountered in middle grades of schooling when written texts begin to cont=
ain more "sophisticated" language. By age 12, assuming some version of a Cr=
itical Period hypothesis, children are probably beyond the period where the=
y acquire language with minimal input or attention.=20
If anyone on the list has objections, clarifications, etc., feel free=
to come in.
Jim Kenkel, Eastern KY University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
U] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
Just out of curiosity, did Chomsky ever actually say that grammar was
innate? Or did he say the potential to acquire grammar was innate?
Wouldn't that be a very different thing?
Janet Castilleja
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...)
Bill,
Your speculation on why they occur are all plausible. I would just
observe that your explanations require appeals to various language
principles interacting with each other. Such observations don't seem to
match with a claim that our knowledge of language is strictly based on
exposure to the language.
Of course, you may be right here.
"I suspect we *do* encounter a lot of those mixed constructions -- we
just don't encounter them in writing. I know I've heard quite a few on
news broadcasts and the like. "
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Biber et al. in the
Grammar of Spoken and Written English do not index "mixed construction"
and all of the references to "by" makes no mention of them. If they are
frequent in the spoken language, this absence is strange.
This is not the case elsewhere. For example, Biber et al. mention
prefaces.
(1) This woman, she's ninety.
It notes that prefaces occur in conversation and not in academic
writing. (p. 964).
So, Biber et al. do note structures that occur only in the spoken
language.
**
Let's clear up something about "my view" of such forms in developing
writing.
Bill writes: ". . . in your view, they're probably performance errors
and quite separate from what might count as evidence for linguistic
competence."
I'm interested in trying to understand why developing writers do what
they do. I take a developmental perspective on such constructions.
From the developing writer's perspective, I don't think these are
performance errors. Rather, they represent something about such
writer's competence. I think teaching needs to begin with where the
student is, so a perspective that tries to understand the writer's
principles is much more useful pedagogically than a perspective that
says this is what the writer should be doing.
One of the problems I have with systemic functional linguistics is that
it really doesn't provide any insights into why developing writers do
what they do. Halliday is quite clear his perspective of language is not
about what a language user knows. Likewise, the belief that our
knowledge of language is based solely on the language we have been
exposed to doesn't offer much of an explanation except to speculate
perhaps these structures are in the oral language and just haven't been
noticed.
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:52:12 -0500
From: Natalie Gerber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax
Edmond,
=20
Thank you for pointing out a valuable resource, which is indeed new to =
me. I look forward to reading it. I don't believe this method will =
describe all free-verse, perhaps I should say, organic-verse or =
experimental poets, since they strain against syntactic groupings, but =
it certainly goes far toward making precise judgments possible, and =
describes much free-verse poetry. You may already know this, but I =
thought I'd mention that the groupings you identify below are also =
relevant to generative metrical accounts of poems written in meter. =
Placement of the caesura in relation to complete, or athwart, syntactic =
entities is one way of creating cola and rhythmical complexity within =
conventional metrical verse. I believe Bruce Hayes has done interesting =
work with this in relation to several meters.
=20
May I ask at what level are the students with whom you use this method?=20
=20
Natalie=20
=20
=20
=20
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Edmond =
Wright
Sent: Sun 12/7/2008 8:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax
As regards 'graphic syntax' no one seems to have noticed that they are
trying to do what Francis Christensen demonstrated (pages 9-13 of his =
'Notes
Toward a New Rhetoric' [New York, Harper & Row, 1967]) -- as I described =
in
my email of a few days ago, and which I use with my students. According =
to
his method, Carolyn Harnett's sentence ought to appear thus:
1 Poets . . . chunk their poems
2 who write in traditional forms . . . (RC)
3 based on metre and rhyme (VC)
but 3 in a different way from graphic syntax (PP)
4 which chunks . . . (RC)
5 based on grammatical units (VC)
RC: Relative Clause
VC: Verb Cluster
PP: Prepositional Phrase
I prefer to split 'Verb Clusters' into Past Participle Phrase (as both =
the
examples here), Present Participle Phrase, and Infinitive Phrase;
Christensen lumps them all together.
Christensen's numbers indicate the hierarchy of grammatical dependence.
Hence my suggestion for students of drawing vertical lines down the page =
to
correspond.
His other suggested groupings are as follows:
SC: Subordinate Clause. This is an confusion, since Relative Clauses =
[his
RC] are subordinate clauses. He already has
NC for Noun Cluster. Again possibly confusing, since it looks like Noun
Clause. He uses it for such extensions of meaning as 'a quick shake' in =
the
sentence 'He dipped his hands in the bichloride solution and shook them, =
a
quick shake.'
AC: Adjective Cluster (e.g. for the two phrases attached here: 'They
huddled, wild as deer, deadly as rattlesnakes.')
A + A: Adjective series (e.g. For the three adjectives here: 'They
huddled, gaudy, motionless and alert.')
Abs: Absolute Phrase (e.g. for the two phrases attached here: He stood =
at
the top of the stairs and watched me, I waiting for him to call me up, =
he
hesitating to come down.')
I prefer the following:
ADJP (Adjective Phrase) for both his AC and A + A.
NP for Noun Phrase (e.g. the noun phrase in apposition, 'an expert =
swimmer'
in 'The scout, an expert swimmer, was soon across the lake.'
ADVC for Adverbial Clause.
ADJC for Adjectival Clause.
ADJ PREP for Adjectival Prepositional Phrase (e.g. 'in the white suit' =
in
'The man in the white suit.'
ADV PREP for Adverbial Prepositional Phrase (e.g. 'over the bridge' in =
'The
procession was filing over the bridge').
ABS for Absolute Phrase (e.g. 'He stopped at the corner, the rain =
lashing at
the windscreen.')
ING for Present Participle Phrases (e.g. The rooks, cawing in comical
surprise, rose clumsily into the air.')
ED for Past Participle Phrases (this included the strong verbs which do =
not
use 'ed' to indicate the past participle -- e.g. 'thrown out of the car' =
in
'The gun, thrown out of the car, had disappeared into the grass.').
When I reverse the process in sentence combining (for all these can be =
used
to indicate to students how to combine), I also include 'HYPH' for the
collapsing of a sentence into a hyphenated word. For example:
The child delighted them all.
The child loved fun. (HYPH)
Becomes 'The fun-loving child delighted them all.'
One is helped by the fact that many distinguished writers enjoy creating =
new
hyphenated words from such combining. For example:
[Gerard Manley Hopkins] 'Some of the pigeons are dull thunder-colour or
black-grape-colour.'
[James Joyce] 'Suddenly the dog made off like a bounding hare, ears =
flung
back, chasing the shadow of a low-skimming gull.'
[Shakespeare] '. . .who knows
If the scarce-bearded Caesar have not sent
His powerful mandate to you.'
[William Barnes] 'and the sheep, little-kneed, with a quick-dipped nod'
Hopkins, Barnes -- and Barnes' friend, Thomas Hardy -- were all
unconsciously aware that the Anglo-Saxon words of English have rarely =
been
hyphenated (compare the cognate German language, full of such =
compounds),
and they started to look for original linkages. This can still provide =
an
amusing exercise for students: for example, instead of words of Latin
origin, suggest Anglo-Saxon substitutes, thus -- for OEcollision=B9 a =
two-bang;
OEauction=B9 a step-buy; OEfrustration=B9 foot-bind-hood; =
OEdentist=B9,
tooth-soother; OEvaccinate=B9, cow-sting.
Edmond Wright
Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
> Poets
> who write
> in traditional forms
> based on meter and rhyme
> chunk their poems
> but
> in a different way
> from graphic syntax,
> which chunks based on =
grammatical
> units.
> Both,
> I believe,
> can make text easier to comprehend.
> --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]> =
wrote:
>
> From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Graphic Syntax
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 9:51 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isn't the way much poetry is printed somewhat similar to graphic =
syntax?
> It makes poems easier to read, I believe.
> =20
> Carolyn Hartnett
> Professor Emeritus, College of the Mainland
> 2027 Bay St.
> Texas City, Texas 77590To 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:58:37 -0500
From: Natalie Gerber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax--a corrected example
Craig,
=20
Thanks for your kind note. I've been finding surprising and wonderful =
references recently to poets' conscious cultivation of tone units even =
in the late 19th century. If you know of any sources that might be of =
interest, please let me know. I hope to embark on a project considering =
the role of intonation in verse, with Williams and Frost (a surprising =
but articulate exponent on the topic) as anchors.
=20
On a different note, there are wonderful letters between Robert Creeley =
and Williams in which Creeley tries to pin Williams down to what he =
means by the various ways he discusses breath units. I think Creeley is =
an important link between Williams and Olson, and Creeley believed that =
what he and the Black Mountain poets were doing was deeply indebted to =
Williams but not consciously imitative of him.=20
=20
I would have emailed you off the list if I had your address. If you'd =
like to continue the conversation, please send it or email me directly =
at [log in to unmask]
=20
Natalie
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig =
Hancock
Sent: Sun 12/7/2008 9:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax--a corrected example
Natalie,
I think you're right on target with this. There are ways in which
syntax and intonation coincide in a sort of "default" pattern, but the
voice can override that. You can think of them as separate systems that
nevertheless have to work together. I think Williams was trying to work
out that tension, or at least create a music out of that tension.
"Immediacy" might be a good word. Olson describes it as an
attentiveness to the "breathing" of the poet, but I think that was a
distraction. "Tone group" or "intonation group" might be better.
Pound called it listening to "the musical phrase" and not the =
metronome.
It's interesting that poets were/are trying to work it out without an
underlying understanding of language.
Craig
This is a fascinating exchange for me. I've spent a great deal of time
> studying William Carlos Williams' triadic-line verse and arguing that =
it
> approximates the chunking of intonational phrasing in English as a =
means
> of conveying the spontaneity and affect of immediate speech acts. In =
other
> words, in his best poems, the "graphic syntax" doesn't coincide with
> syntactic units at all, but breaks them in ways that mimic a speaker's
> idiosyncratic sense of the significance of their speech. Complete
> syntactic units would be a kind of default--what occurs often at the
> beginning and end of the poems--to indicate neutral feeling or =
statements.
>
> I think other poets, like cummings, Apollinaire, Pound, or Olson, use =
the
> resources of the page and of typography to different ends that I'm
> intrigued by but haven't thought enough about. I quite like Paul's =
playful
> imitation of cummings.
>
> Natalie
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Paul =
E.
> Doniger
> Sent: Sat 12/6/2008 2:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax--a corrected example
>
>
> It
> all deep end
> -zzz
> Up
> on
> the poet('s OR s')
> S-
> -tile (or sty els)
> of
> Right
> Ink
> !
>
> (wink, wink to mr. cummings),
>
> Paul D.
>
> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an =
improbable
> fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 12:13:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Graphic Syntax--a corrected example
>
>
>
>
> Poets
> who write
> in traditional forms
> based on meter and rhyme
> chunk their poems
> but
> in a different way
> from graphic syntax,
> which chunks
> based on =
grammatical
> units.
> Both,
> I believe,
> can make text easier to comprehend.
>
> My students report
> that they can understand difficult texts better
>
> --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]> =
wrote:
>
>
> From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Graphic Syntax
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 9:51 AM
>
>
> Isn't the way much poetry is printed somewhat similar to graphic =
syntax?
> It makes poems easier to read, I believe.
>
> Carolyn Hartnett
> Professor Emeritus, College of the Mainland
> 2027 Bay St.
> Texas City, Texas 77590
> 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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 7 Dec 2008 to 8 Dec 2008 (#2008-258)
*********************************************************
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/
|
