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
Acquisition”.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.”
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.”
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/
|
