Dear All:
At the risk perhaps annoying everyone to one extent or another, I'm going to describe what I see as the social, rather than scientific, reasons behind some of the tensions between the major theoretical camps, with an eye to mitigating them a bit (I say 'annoying' because it's my *interpretation* of the history, and I may be wrong in unamusing ways; I trust the other list members will add their voices).
The Formalist and Functionalists camps operate from different underlying assumptions, both about what are the "core" linguistic phenomena to explain, and about methodological procedures. To give an example of the latter, the Formalist use of Occam's Razor yields a simplicity measure that focuses on the number of primitive elements in the system, and the number of "rules" (with rule being defined as a kind of relationship, rather than a mandate or process). A model with fewer primitives and rules beats one with more, as long as both can explain the same phenomena, and the phenomena to be explained comprise mainly (a) speaker's ability to recognize whether a sentence is grammatical or not, and (b) the process by which they were able to learn to do that given limited input.
Most functionalist approaches, on the other hand, expand the phenomena to be explained to include (c) speakers' choice of structure in context and (d) relation of language to other human cognitive and communicative functions. Since functionalists also view production and interpretation ("Performance") as a primary area of concern, a functionalist simplicity metric has to (or rather, I'd *argue* it has to) take into account not just number of elements and rules, but also the processing load for a range of operations distributed across a range of contexts. It's still Occam's Razor, but it's shaving a different face. Having multiple representations of the same thing, for example, is a bit messy from an abstract standpoint, but if the different representations are each time-savers in a specific context, the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages (or to put it another way, the simplest way to explain why speakers take the same amount of time to do X and Y even though those two tasks are very different is to posit that they're using a different representation for each).
And here's the problem: There's no real way to prove one simplicity metric is better than another, especially if what they're measuring are models of different phenomena. To me, at least, it looks like a classic situation where both sides should just admit there's probably a lot of value in what the others are doing, but that they're more interested in their own thing. We don't, for example, often see sculptors laying into painters for using incompatible forms.
History complicates things, though (and here's where I might start raising hackles). The "Generative Revolution" occurred during a period when American linguistics had gotten rather rigid, and demanded a lock-step adherence to behaviorism. The Generative paradigm didn't just emerge as a theoretic position, it had to establish itself as a kind of alternative power structure, and its proponents, in some cases, used rather blatantly political strategies to accomplish this (and there were blatantly political strategies used by their opponents as well). A number of generativists adopted -- or appear to me to have adopted -- the stance that those not adhering to the model weren't really linguists, or were thinking unclearly, and certainly shouldn't ever be hired (again, the old-school behaviorists sometimes treated early Generativists that way, so there's a lot of blame to go around). Giving books titles like "The Theory of Syntax" didn't help the situation much, since it wouldn't have taken much effort to use "A" instead of "The." The models in the paradigm are usually marvels of internal consistency, but their proponents appeared to demand that everyone agree with all of their underlying assumptions, and some of those assumptions are beyond the reach of empiricism (so are some of functionalism's, of course; the problem isn't the existence of such assumptions, but rather the demand to "convert," and the attitude that refusal represents an inability to perceive Revealed Truth).
Functionalists of my generation thus came of academic age feeling roughly like academic equivalents of medieval heretics, and we've got baggage. I fully realize that claiming every linguist should become a functionalist is committing exactly the same kind of move that give me baggage to begin with, but it's sooooo tempting to take potshots (fill in the image of the peasant from "Monty Python's Holy Grail" shouting "Witness the Oppression!" and waving a hoe). It doesn't do the wider public any good, though, *especially* since a majority of the differences between the paradigms has no real implication for what we need to do in classrooms. I may get arguments on this, but I don't think applying some of Halliday's concepts to create teaching tools would threaten any Formalist -- and as a Functionalist, I use sentence-combining exercises (which are, really, Generative-esque) all the time. I don't really think *anyone* in a K-12 classroom should have to look at my Stratificational diagrams (frankly, even other linguists don't; if you stand far enough back to see the entire diagram, you can't see the nodes anymore).
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition (- and a plea)
Jim,
Ignoring the difference between performance and competence is to me tantamount to denying the reality of the difference between the way the brain works and the way it is put together. And indeed the way it often works in learning is to put together new structures on top of or by displacing the disused ones.
If we can see the difference that the five syntactic structures make, that I mentioned in my former post, I think we can develop "rules" or principles of pedagogy in grammar, such as: "do not nest structures more than three levels", "do not self-embed structures more than two levels", "do not mix right-branching and left-branching structures of more than one level," etc. If the student does not understand how to recognize the structure, it is not possible to be explicit about the bad (ineffective) syntax. We can only say things like, "That's too complicated," "the reader gets confused," "split this complex sentence up." Or maybe, "the reader's construal capacity is being taxed and your writing is not effective." And maybe that's enough for some.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kenkel, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition (- and a plea)
Craig,
I don't think it is the messenger being attacked. Instead, what is being criticized is yet another instance of hand-waving. Yes, it is a very good thing to bring an article that you think interesting to the attention of the group. I thank you for it because it _really_ is a good thing. But to mention this article - even to summarize it - and then to suggest that ATEG should embrace some kind of (vague) functional orientation as opposed to some kind of (vague) "formalist" orientation is to engage in nothing more than hand-waving. To make this article and your assertions about it meaningful to this list, I think what is needed is to take the time to relate the data and claims of this article to the kinds of language/grammar/writing relevant to the concerns of ATEG members in order to show how insightfully it relates to those concerns. Otherwise, you are only preaching to your own choir, which is not very interesting because choirs don't demand very much.
It may very well be that this article will turn out to be fantastic for the goals of ATEG, but from what you have given us, there is no way of knowing what its relevance is. Also, when you are able to present the data and claims of this article and propose how they are relevant to the concerns of ATEG, then the list can really have something to discuss. And maybe it would provide some help for ALL OF US as we try to move forward - wherever "forward" happens to be.
As for your sense of being offended by the old story of the guy and the lamp post, try to be generous and don't assume that all of the qualities of the character in the story are being attributed to you and your post. It is up to you, but I think a better thing to do would be to take a deep breath and move on.
As for the implications that you draw from this article, I would caution you again that presenting gross misrepresentations of generative/formalist approaches to language helps no one. It is only in these gross misrepresentations of generative grammar where are found claims about "language" being "pre-wired into the brain." Even intro to linguistics texts don't make this claim - at least the ones that I have taught from over the years. Also, I don't think it is fair at all to say that generative grammar sees grammar as "rules." But I would be happy to be helped here by Bruce and Bill if they think they have something to say on this point.
* * * * * *
Before I call it a night, I would like to say something about ATEG , this list, and how we could think of ourselves. I am very uncomfortable with an ATEG that believes it knows God's truth. Anyone not belonging to that particular congregation is going to be pushed out, which is not a good thing. I really believe that we should be cautious about our claims. The phenomenon - language - we work with is not well understood. Moreover, we should remind ourselves that in addition to this task, we have taken on the further, and perhaps ultimately insurmountable tasks of understanding how the domains of language that might concern us are _learned_ and how they might be effectively _taught_.
Can any of us have confidence that we know all of God's truth in this context?
I am just speaking for myself, but I think we could take a lesson from the founder of this group, Ed Vavra. Whatever each of us may think of the strengths and weaknesses of KISS, it is easy to respect Ed's contributions to discussions on this list. To me at least, it is clear that Ed carefully reads the posts he responds to, and his responses are always thoughtful. He is not careless with anyone's posts. Importantly, Ed's posts also remind us why this list exists, and that is to develop our understandings of English grammar so that we can use these understandings to help learners.
Finally, it might be helpful, when any of us think that we have been injured in some way, to think of Ed, of his history here, and of how he has conducted himself. He started this list because he had a commitment to help learners and he believed that he had a set of good ideas on how that goal could be pursued. He hoped that through ATEG, a community of people could develop to further this goal.
Well, it didn't work out the way that Ed would have dictated, if he had been The King of ATEG. There can be no doubt that Ed feels some disappointment, given how much of himself he put into this organization. But Ed continues in good faith, and, very impressive to me, he continues to put his ideas on the line before this group. Of course, in doing so, he may be critical of other proposals, but always in an open, constructive way, and he has never to my knowledge tried to silence other participants, even if they disagreed with him.
Jim Kenkel
Eastern Kentucky University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: child language acquisition
Bob,
I have a copy of the article in PDF format and have been told I can
pass it on. (Requests should come to me off list. We are not set up for
attachments.) I would be happy to send you one. I extend that to
others.
I had to laugh. The first sentence expresses appreciation, and a few
sentences down I'm a drunk too stupid to look for my keys where I
dropped them.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
The gist of the article is that emergent, usage-based models are more
empirically sound.
I hope people can see independently that I have particulars to fill
these general statements. It is easier to talk about those with people
who feel they are valuable than with those who attack your motives and
your intelligence or who feel "this could not possibly be true." Come
to the 4C's conference and join our workshop on the genre/grammar
connection. There's a practical side to it. >
I believe I am accused of favoring a theory that is practical at the
expense of a theory that is true. The literature increasingly seems to
be on the emergent side. The pedagogical implications have yet to be
fully worked out. I would hope that ATEG would be a place where some of
that discussion can happen.
Craig
I appreciate Craig providing us with the abstract from the paper. It
> sounds interesting and I'm in the process of getting it by interlibrary
> loan.
>
> I want to explain why the following statement that does make someone
> like me angry.
> And, it is not because it dismisses another understanding of language.
>
>
> *****
> I know I get people angry when I say this, but a more functional,
> emergent understanding of grammar also gives us a better chance of
> arguing for a much larger place for attention to it in the English
> curriculum.
> For a formal or structural grammar, you need to theorize ways in
> which
> knowledge of the underlying forms can be put to work. In a functional
> model, those connections are already there. As Bill put it in a recent
> post, there is no performance/competence split.
> ****
>
> The first paragraph, "might give us a better chance," reminds me of the
> joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under a lamp post.
> Someone comes up and asks, "What are you doing?" The drunk replies,
> "Looking for my car keys." The stranger asks, "Where did you lose
> them?" The drunk answers, "Over there, but the light is better here."
>
> It may or may not be true that a "functional, emergent understanding"
> is better for understanding the nature of language, but it fits Craig's
> purposes (the light is better there).
>
> As interesting as the paper he cites is, the second paragraph is key.
> If it is true that a functional model makes the connections that are
> already there between formal structures and how they are put to work,
> and such connections made directly are better for teaching grammar and
> not a theory of language that posits a competence-performance
> distinction, then Craig should be able to demonstrate why without
> reference to this paper. In other words, how does positing direct
> connections between formal structures and their use assists writing and
> grammar teachers in the classroom and not proposing a
> competence-performance distinction?
>
> (For examples of how positing a competence-performance distinction can
> assist writing teachers see the papers that Jim Kenkel and I have in the
> Journal of Second Language Writing and the Journal of Basic English.)
>
> I don't get angry when someone suggests a view of language that I have
> might be wrong. I was educated at a university that taught me to always
> consider the data first.
>
> It deeply offends me when someone tells me my views are wrong because
> it doesn't accomplish the goals that person wants to accomplish in the
> way that person wants them accomplished. And, that person proposes a
> solution that is so general that I have no idea what he is talking
> about.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 2/10/2009 1:13 PM >>>
> As one happy result of our online discussion, I have been alerted to a
> very interesting, very current article on these issues.
> “Building Language Competence in First Language
> Acquisitionâ€.European
> Review, Vol 16, No. 4, 445-456. 2008.
> Elena Lieven, the author, is, according to the author note, Director
> of
> the Max Planck Child Study Centre in the School of Psychological
> Sciences at the University of Manchester and was editor of The Journal
> of Child Language from 1996-2005.
>
> The abstract is as follows:
>
> “Most accounts of child language acquisition use as analytic
> tools
> adult-like syntactic categories and grammars with little concern for
> whether they are psychologically real for young children. However,
> when approached from a cognitive and functional theoretical
> perspective, recent research has demonstrated that children do not
> operate initially with such abstract linguistic entities, but instead
> on the basis of distributional learning and item-based, form-meaning
> constructions. Children construct more abstract, linguistic
> representations only on the basis of the language they hear and use
> and they constrain these constructions to their appropriate ranges of
> use only gradually as well—again on the basis of linguistic
> experience in which frequency plays a key role. Results from
> empirical analyses of children’s early multi-word utterances, the
> development of the transitive construction and certain types of
> errors are presented to illustrate this approach.â€
>
> Some of you may find the article useful for the careful and
> thoughtful
> way she presents the dual perspectives of Universal Grammar and the
> alternative (constructive, emergent, usage-based) approach. In all
> three of the empirical studies summarized, the constructivist model
> seems the most in play.
>
> Here’s from the conclusion: “The structure of language emerges
> from
> language use historically and ontogenetically. Children use what they
> hear
> in order to communicate and thus come to share in a language community
> in
> terms of the network of form-meaning mappings that comprises their
> grammar.†She points out that much work needs to be done, including
> a
> focus on the role of “saliency, communicative relevance to the child
> and
> relationships between items in the network of connections…†“My aim
> here
> has been to illustrate ways in which a constructivist accounts would
> approach these issues and to argue that because these accounts are
> more
> psychologically realistic, they are likely to provide a much sounder
> theoretical and empirical basis for further research.â€
>
> I think there are major implications. One, certainly, is that the
> grammar of the language doesn't seem to be already pre-wired into the
> brain. Acquisition depends a great deal on input, on the kinds of
> interactions involved. The other implication is that gramamr is not
> best thought of as a set of abstract, formal "rules". It is, by its
> very nature, functional in orientation, connected to a shared language
> community.
>
> I know I get people angry when I say this, but a more functional,
> emergent understanding of grammar also gives us a better chance of
> arguing for a much larger place for attention to it in the English
> curriculum.
> For a formal or structural grammar, you need to theorize ways in
> which
> knowledge of the underlying forms can be put to work. In a functional
> model, those connections are already there. As Bill put it in a recent
> post, there is no performance/competence split.
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
|
