Bob:

I.
>>>>>>>>>>
In my last post, I noted that double negatives in a clause do not mean the
same
as a strictly positive statement.  (a) is a less positive statement than
(b).  This
is true regardless of the context either sentence might occur in.

a) The bombing in Afghanistan has not been ineffective.
b) The bombing in Afghanistan has been effective.

..... The claim can be easily falsifiable: provide a set of
sentences like (a) and (b) and show that the (a) sentence with the two
negatives
are at least as positive or more positive than the (a) sentence.  I don't
think
such a set of sentences exists.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Response:
After U.S. bombing and destroying all of the Taliban hiding places, a
special operations force captures Bin Laden and all his operatives,
displaying them with hands up and frightened faces to the international news
media.
The next day, Rumsfield tells the nation:

 a)   The bombing in Afgh. has not been ineffective.
 b)     The bombing in Afgh. has been effective.

Sentence a) is AT LEAST as positive in this context as b)  -- if anything,
the understatement is more forceful. You will say that "AHA! You admit it's
an understatement. It wouldn't be if you couldn't see the difference between
a) and b) out of context." I answer: Of course I see the formal distinction.
The MEANING it has varies by context. The semantic value has a pragmatic
dimension that has to be recognized to fully understand how language WORKS.
Traditionally, interest in the pragmatic dimension has been relegated to a
separate discipline. There are some who see the disciplinary rift as
problematic. Others don't. Some choose to work interdisciplinarily or across
disciplines. There are various ways of getting at what language is & how it
works. Systemics is just ONE of those ways...

II.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"If students are not sure whether a group of words is a complete sentence or
not,
they can put a phrase such as the following in front of it: "They refused to
believe the idea that . . . . "
            If the resulting sentence makes sense, the group of words is a
complete
sentence.  Otherwise, it's a fragment.  Every time.
....
I don't know how someone committed to studying language only in context
would
recognize ungrammatical sentences at all.  Ungrammatical sentences do not
get
tagged in any obvious way by those who utter or write them.  The example in
the
teaching tip is obviously constructed without context.  In fact, I don't
think
anyone in a normal context has ever uttered that ungrammatical string.  That
we all
recognize that sentence as ungrammatical says something about our underlying
competence of what are grammatical and ungrammatical strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Response:

"Otherwise, it's a fragment. Every time."
This example seems to demonstrate pretty clearly that not all fragments are
"ungrammatical." There is nothing ungrammatical about the wording of the
example -- it is, in fact, rhetorically effective, even though "They refused
to believe the idea that every time" is NOT a sentence.

III>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is my answer to the unanswered questioned above.  Studying language
without
context can reveal important knowledge that all native speakers have about
language.  Making up sentences and judging whether they are possible or not
possible is an important part of the data for determining this knowledge.
Finally,
and especially relevant for the goals of ATEG, the kinds of tests such an
enterprise creates actually has value in teaching students about their own
knowledge of English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Response:
I agree with part of this. I certainly see the value in showing students how
to test an arrangement of words for its grammaticality (there are various
probes that apply). I also see the value in knowing how to probe an
utterance for whether it counts as a sentence in standard written english.
But I also see the value in knowing how to probe verb forms (processes) to
see what sorts of other linguistic entities might accompany them (is the
active participant of this verb phrase necessarily a conscious participant?)
and knowing how to probe an utterance for its meaning under various
contextual conditions.

In fact, I am sympathetic with the SFL position that a test of
grammaticality entails probes "under, above, and across" the language
system, although I am just learning how to do that myself, but that's not
what I want to argue here. What I want to argue is a point that we in fact
agree on. You wrote:  "Before I am misunderstood, I am not saying it [formal
analysis] is the ONLY way language must be studied." That's the point. There
are multiple 'ways in" to understanding language.

The work that the scope and sequence committee has done to develop
recommendations for the teaching of grammar takes a wonderful step towards
showing language as a complex system & resource for meaning. I had an
article accepted a while back that raises questions I faced as a teacher of
a preservice course in language to English teachers.  It needs some
revision, and since it recognizes the progress being made through ATEG on
language education, I would like to make use of some of the recent
discussion here.  I will be contacting privately anyone whose words I might
want to use to ask their permission, but if you object blanket-fashion to
the use of any of your contributions, please do email me off the list.

I hope to read more and to catch up on previous discussions.

Judy

Judy

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/