I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that’s relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> Colleagues,
>
> Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of patterns
> (learned from the input we get) is a discussion that has
> occurred before on this list.
>
> If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)
>
> "we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and
> reinforced by use"
>
> then the claim is that we do not know very much about
> grammatical categories. Such categories are the result of
> the "patterns" we are exposed to. There are all kinds of
> examples I could cite to show how such a common sense idea is
> problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.
>
> Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.
>
> 1) Bob needs someone to work for.
> 2) Bob needs someone to work for him.
>
> In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.
>
> What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those
> interpretations? It is not just the presence or absence of
> the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have the same meaning.
>
> 3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
> 4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them.
>
> Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I
> have no idea how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.
>
> These sentences suggest ther> from the input.
>
> Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
>
> There are those who say there is little value in making
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>
> I could not agree more -- there is great value in making
> conscious the knowledge of language that we all have.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/16/2010 7:47 AM >>>
> Eduard,
> I agree that we are in rough agreement and
> apologize for making my
> post seem like something else.
> A big question might be whether the "rules" are
> there before use (and
> thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with
> flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would
> embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would
> see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and
> pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also
> possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right,
> deeply tied
> to both cognition and discourse.
> Patterns are sustained to the extent that we
> find them highly
> productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The
> rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed
> to do.
> But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.
> Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions
> it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
> To me, the challenge has always been how to present
> views like this
> on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee
> are doing
> wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the
> list to
> be aware of it.
>
> Craig
>
> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> > Craig,
> >
> > I have no problem with the way you express the matters because
> I don't
> > see too much of a difference between what I state and what you
> state.> True, some elements of a category (word class) are more
> central and
> > reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other
> elements> are borderline or peripheral, and their
> characteristics intersect with
> > or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline
> elements of
> > another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard"
> elements of
> > word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
> > classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
> > evidence that concerns what I stated above.
> >
> > Some people continue to believe that the Latin language
> structure is
> > artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget
> > that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do
> > construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This
> fact is
> > evident from information collected from humans who had never been
> > socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human
> language, and
> > if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they
> > are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured
> > rudiments.
> >
> > If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been
> claiming for
> > more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar
> has been
> > able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with
> what is
> > observable: language is a human construct, and whether we
> > differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the
> bare truth
> > is that without socialization in language no human will speak
> a human
> > language.
> >
> > Eduard
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> > Subject: Re: like
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > > Eduard,
> > > I would express it somewhat differently.
> > > Frequency is often
> > > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible
> for u> her new
> > > job (from teacher to
> > > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me
> that she
> > > might not have said that without the influence of the
> McDonald's ad.
> > > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad
> campaign can
> > > change that.
> > > Rather than intersection of word
> classes, it
> > > might be more of an issue
> > > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more
> central than
> > > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> > > You also have a tendency (from that
> cognitive> > frame of reference) to
> > > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is
> closer than
> > > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions,
> many of
> > > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that
> "like"> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> > >
> > > Craig>
> > >
> > > Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use
> and the
> > > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the
> author, after
> > > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > > and that
> > > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > > but one way in
> > > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > > classes are real,
> > > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > > learns a
> > > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > > nothing more
> > > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > > importance of
> > > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > > fallacy) shows
> > > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax
> in the
> > > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > > language.>
> > > > Eduard
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > > Subject: Re: like
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my
> reaction> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call
> it?" I don't
> > > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the
> meaning of
> > > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > > >>
> > > >> Geoff Layton
> > > >>
> > > >> > Craig,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat
> as an
> > > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Herb
> > > >>
> > > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > > in a
> > > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the
> others." (I
> > > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be
> standard?> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles"
> (or "doesn't
> > > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a
> verb like
> > > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> Craig
> > > >> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html> and select "Join
> > > or leave the list"
> > > >
> > > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > > >
> > >
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > > interface at:
> > >
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > >
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select
> > "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
