Blurred boundaries are always interesting to think about.  I remember an interesting party where math people were arguing about whether .9 repeating was equal to 1.  (Divide 1 by 3 and you get .3 repeating.  Multiply that by 3 and you get .9 repeating.  Ergo, .9 repeating = 1.)  "But then every number is equal to every other number!" some protested.  It was fun to watch this debate in a non-English discipline.

The idea that grammar is related to our interactions with the world is also a feature of _Metaphors We Live By_.  I hadn't thought about how corpus research would encourage attention to this area, though.  Makes sense.

>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/14/2009 11:01 AM >>>
Beth,
   Proponents of construction grammar would say that the practice is far
more widespread than is generally acknowledged. We are often very aware
of idioms (fixed expressions that generally have meanings not
predictable from the component parts) in part because the dictionaries
feel a need to list and define them. There are also a huge number of
fixed expressions that are not idiomatic (safe haven, just war, done
deal) and a high number of somewhat schematic expressions, where we
fill in the slots. "We want to thank X for taking the time to Y" where
"Y" is often "be with us this morning/evening/afternoon" and so on. "X
will put Y at risk of Z." The examples are easy to come by.
   One factor fueling this attention is the current ease of corpus studies.
   Proponents will say that this argues against seeing a fixed boundary
between lexicon and grammar. At least some grammar, at this level,
seems built out of our interactions with the world. It becomes part of
the argument that even the most abstract grammatical patterns are tied
to the lexicon and grow out of our experience.

> Craig


Snowclones seem to fit in here (www.snowclones.org).  A "snowclone" is a
> generative cliche--you can take a formula and change out the main terms
> but it still recognizably fits the formula, like "X put Y in
> his/her/its/their place,"  or "X is the new black," or "X is a poor man's
> Y."  The term was originally inspired by the phrase, "If Eskimos have N
> words for snow, X surely have Y words for Z."  But the term also reminds
> me of snow globes . . . originally a snow globe was a snow scene filled
> with snow, but today you can buy a "snowglobe" that features a beach scene
> with "sand," a city scene with glitter, etc.
>
> Beth
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/9/2009 12:44 PM >>>
>    If you think of grammar as dynamic, then new uses for structures are
> not surprising. Frequency of use makes them more familiar. Construction
> grammar pays more attention to these lower level constructions, which
> sometimes have open slots.  For example, X put Y in his/her/its/their
> place. We wouldn't continue to use them if we didn't find them useful.
>    a set phrase might seem inappropriate in some contexts.  Judge to
> defendant: "Do you have anything to say before I sentence you?"
> Defendant: "Is the Pope Catholic?" She might add a month or two to the
> sentence.
>    It seems to me hard to talk about this without including grammar.
>
> Craig
>
> Robert Yates wrote:
>
> I wish I knew why this is so important to note "is the Pope Catholic" a
> fixed expression.
>
> I could have made the exchange:
>
> Did the Yankees win the Pennant?
>
> Do the Cubs play in Wrigley Field?
>
> Is New York the largest city in the US?
>
> Does champagne have bubbles?
>
> Is it cold at the North Pole?
>
> Is Rush Limbaugh a big fat idiot?
>
> Did Sarah Palin resign her position as Governor of Alaska?
>
> Substitute any of these examples in the exchanges I noted, and the
> actually meaning of those questions are different because of the context.
> Language is creative.
>
> Bob Yates
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> ( mailto:[log in to unmask] ) 12/08/09
> 12:03 PM >>>        Just for fun, I googeled "Is the Pope Catholic?" and
> got 1,930,000
> hits. It has obviously found wide distribution as a set phrase.
>
> Craig>
> Brian,
>
>
> Thanks for the heads-up on the article. I wonder if that kind of
> article was more likely in the 60's when public knowledge about
> grammar was greater. Thanks for bringing it up. I will definitely take
> a look at it.
>     As for your question: "Robert and Craig, I wonder if you would both
> agree that grammar is necessary but not, by itself, sufficient to
> produce meaning in language."
>     I agree.
>     Craig
> There's an argument on how the grammar of "A Modest Proposal" relates to
>
>
> its rhetoric. This argument appears in Charles Kay Smith's "Towards a
> Participatory Rhetoric," College English, Nov. 1968, and it's also
> incorporated in Smith's first-year writing textbook, "Styles and
> Structures: Alternative Apporaches to College Writing." Smith doesn't
> argue that grammar alone tells us us how to read "A Modest Proposal,"
> but
> he does suggest that the interaction of gramamr (specifically, sentence
> structure) with diction and rhetoric helps create meaning by prompting
> readers not to trust the narrator.
>
> For example, Smith observes that there are many sentences in the essay
> (including the opening sentence) which feature a short main clause
> followed by heavily modifed subordinate clauses. He then points out that
> those short main clauses feature a lot of abstract and general words
> (e.g., "It is a melancholy object," at the beginning of the opener),
> while
> the subordiante clauses are loaded with concrete, specific words (e.g.,
> "beggars," "all in rages," "importuning," in the subordinate clauses).
> The
> grim details in the subordinate clauses give readers reasons to distrust
> the lofty assurance of the essay's narrator (or "projector") in the main
> clauses.
>
> I'm probably not doing justice to the argument, but it's worth reading
> if
> you're not familiar with it--and I think it could be used to support the
> claim, as summarized by Craig, that 'grammar is inherntly discourse
> oriented, inherently tied to cognition." For me, this claim doesn't at
> all
> imply that grammar alone determines meaning, but only that grammar plays
> a
> critical rolein determining meaning. Robert and Craig, I wonder if you
> would both agree that grammar is necessary but not, by itself,
> sufficient
> to produce meaning in language.
>
> Brian
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> 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/