On 2010-06-13, at 9:47 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:

> If language is learned from input and pattern matching, what do students have access to for the awkward constructions (Craig's label) or the innovations.  If you think about it, they should have read a number of examples of people integrating others' ideas into a text.  Because Craig's perspective denies innate principles, those awkward constructions have to leave us teachers perplexed.  And, if grammar is tied to cognition and discourse, why should students be redundant in attributing claims to other people?  Why isn't it sufficient for them to do it once?

In this particular example, at least, I see nothing perplexing. It seems to me that students are simply overgeneralizing from other patterns or picking up only part of the pattern. Moreover, the relevant input certainly goes far beyond 'according', and likely includes:

According to x, y says...
"I think", he says, ...
"My opinion", he says, ...
According to consensus, he says...
In the acknowledgements, he says 
In addition, he says, ...
For example, he says, ...
Myself, I think...
etc.

There's no claim in any theory of language acquisition that I know of that input will be correctly processed, in particular when it comes to the meaning of individual lexical items. I remember vividly finding out when I was 22 that my understanding of the word 'pedantic' was wrong. I had assumed that 'ped' was from 'pedis' for foot rather than from 'paidagogia' for teaching, and I thought that the word was similar to 'plodding'. Someone who drags their feet on an issue was 'pedantic' I thought.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/