@Study>
In-Reply-To: <000201c81065$de4c68f0$27049643@Study>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 134.53.6.66
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 169.226.1.44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp.albany.edu id l9HEWot1023410
X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.its.albany.edu[169.226.1.105]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1192631574
X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at muohio.edu
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.12
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.12 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=CN_BODY_332
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.31373
Rule breakdown below
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332
Bruce,
Those are very complex questions, and I=E2=80=99m wondering about a way=
to=20
phrase all this so it might be of use to the group as a whole.
I don=E2=80=99t have Halliday=E2=80=99s Intro to functional grammar wi=
th me here at=20
work, and I=E2=80=99ll consult it later, but I seem to remember him sayin=
g that=20
there is a computerized version of the grammar which works this out in=20
great detail as a system of choices. Systemic functional grammar is=20
systemic, and it is a grammar. It is a =E2=80=9Cnatural=E2=80=9D grammar,=
meaning that=20
it attempts to account for the grammar that it finds. It is=20
=E2=80=9Csemantically leaning=E2=80=9D. I think, though please correct me=
if I=E2=80=99m wrong,=20
that generative grammar is more biologically leaning, looking to=20
describe the rules for the generation of forms. A functional grammar=20
looks at grammar from the perspective of meaning, and it thinks of=20
meaning as multi-functional, as including, not just a representation of=20
the world, but interaction and the production of text. It also broadens=20
out to field, tenor, and mode, which have definitions that I won=E2=80=99=
t trust=20
to memory. Mode includes =E2=80=9Cgenre=E2=80=9D. A good deal of pedagogi=
cal interest=20
these days is in genre as a center of concern. =E2=80=9CGenre=E2=80=9D is=
looked at as=20
something purposeful, culturally formed, dynamic, staged (not just a=20
single stage). It is wide enough to include things like marriage=20
proposals along with lab reports or academic arguments. So it is typical=20
in a classroom in England or Australia to have students examine=20
advertisements and make observations about the kind of language that=20
shows up and the way it is used, then construct advertisements of their=20
own. Advertisement is a genre and it may have sub-genres. If we extend=20
this genre focus out, it can give us a way to directly link both reading=20
and writing to a deeper understanding of language and how it works in=20
the real world. The theoretical position would be that the forms of=20
language are responsive to context. I am currently working this out in a=20
Reading Literature class, starting with the notion of story and how it=20
works. How is orientation built in? How does a story writer handle=20
point-of-view (which is a technical term in literature)? I can find key=20
paragraphs and bring that right down to the level of the sentence. If=20
McDonald=E2=80=99s is now running a campaign around =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=99m =
loving it=E2=80=9D, why is that=20
effective? Is the word =E2=80=9Clove=E2=80=9D usually used that way? How=
does present=20
progressive, in this case, connect with the desire to sell hamburgers?
Here=E2=80=99s where we might differ in theoretical perspective. You =
say the=20
following:
=E2=80=9CThe utterance dimensions are quite different from the semantic=20
structure. The semantics has been abstracted, and manipulated by=20
language, to be represented in the utterance.=E2=80=9D
I admit I=E2=80=99m not quite sure what that means or how it works ou=
t in=20
practice. But because of my current reading in cognitive linguistics and=20
in usage based approaches, I don=E2=80=99t think of grammar =E2=80=9Crule=
s=E2=80=9D (syntax=20
rules) as having an autonomous existence that then drives discourse. It=20
may be better to think of grammar =E2=80=9Crules=E2=80=9D as patterns tha=
t arise from=20
our being in the world. We can=E2=80=99t understand language without=20
understanding the nature of cognition. The mind, as Lakoff keeps saying,=20
is deeply =E2=80=9Cembodied=E2=80=9D, and language itself is deeply influ=
enced by our=20
sensory motor experience of the world. And we can't understand language=20
without thinking of it as having a social dimension. It is not an=20
objective world, but a deeply human world that we experience through=20
language.
Here=E2=80=99s another take on it from the perspective of Adele Goldberg=
, as=20
summarized by Croft and Cruse (Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge 2004):=20
=E2=80=9Cthe complex event or situation is treated as the primitive unit =
of=20
semantic representation, and the definitions of the roles in the event=20
are derived from the situation as a whole.=E2=80=9D As I understand this=
, this=20
means that di-transitive constructions (for example, =E2=80=9CSally gave =
Mary a=20
ball=E2=80=9D) arise from the nature of the processes, in this case givin=
g, not=20
from an abstract set of =E2=80=9Crules=E2=80=9D. She has sub-categories =
of=20
ditransitivity, which differ from each other because of the nature of=20
the processes involved. But =E2=80=9Cgiving=E2=80=9D is the prototype.(=E2=
=80=9CPrototype=E2=80=9D is an=20
important part of cognitive theory, which grounds meaning in a study of=20
how the mind works. Prototypes are very important for our understanding=20
of categories.) Other ditransitive constructions can be thought of as=20
=E2=80=9Cextensions of the prototype.=E2=80=9D
As you can see, this changes radically the notion of =E2=80=9Crules=E2=
=80=9D and=20
their role in discourse. It looks at rules as growing out of language=20
use, not as separate from it. These are more like patterns. And any=20
attempt to reduce language down to abstractions from these patterns may=20
give us a false impression of how language works and take us away from=20
the living, dynamic language, not closer to it.=20
=E2=80=9CConstructions=E2=80=9D are themselves meaningful, not merel=
y conveyors of=20
meaning.
From this perspective, too, grammar is learned, not merely=20
activated. In fact, work is being done to study childhood language=20
acquisition from this perspective, and it seems to hold up very well in=20
practice.
Implications for us? There may be good reasons why =E2=80=9Cformal gra=
mmar=E2=80=99=20
does not carry over to writing. But at the same time, we may be able to=20
make a great case for the importance of individuals being mentored into=20
language, a great case for language acquisition as a life-long process,=20
a great case for attention to language as deeply tied to the goals of=20
literacy, including reading and writing.
Craig
Bruce D. Despain wrote:
> Craig,
>
> You will probably see that our positions on functionality are not that=20
> different. The approach is just different. The imaginary context=20
> itself has a structure -- a semantic structure that stretches across=20
> several dimensions. What we utter has to reside in a string -- just=20
> one dimension in time that has a dimension of sound that is analyzed=20
> into multiple dimensions. The utterance dimensions are quite=20
> different from the semantic structure. The semantics has been=20
> abstracted, and manipulated by language, to be represented in the=20
> utterance. There is a lot missing; there is a lot filled in. I am=20
> looking for a set of functions in the mathematical sense that can use=20
> the semantic fields (planes, layers, dimensions) as its domain and map=20
> their values onto a range in the linguistic planes of syntax,=20
> morphology, phonology, orthographics. Would you claim there to be a=20
> linguistic plane of "functional" elements that these semantics get=20
> mapped to? Or would it be better to say that these elements are a=20
> part of the semantics and remain there only to be discerned after the=20
> linguistic elements have been displayed to the mind?
>
> The "functional" layer, maybe, is a filtering of the already complex=20
> clumping of semantic elements. What is its nature? Perhaps it=20
> doesn't work with elements at all. But science needs an analysis into=20
> parts. Can the context of an utterance be described in terms other=20
> than the terms that describe the rest of the semantic layers? I=20
> wonder if maybe it is "simply" another way of dividing up the layers=20
> of a semantic analysis. The example I gave from Bolinger was meant to=20
> demonstrate just what you were saying about the ubiquitous clumping of=20
> semantic elements in the language (English) idiom. We could say it is=20
> "functional" or we could say it is a "hidden" part of the semantics =20
> -- the semantics of an "extra-linguistic" context -- one that could=20
> be coded in language, if we chose to. The semantics begs for=20
> description (some scientists have used rules of the form used in logic=20
> and mathematics) and I simply think that the "functional" does too.
>
> Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Rules was Those old transitivity blues
>
>
>> Bruce,
>> Thanks for the warm words. I do think this is a good faith=20
>> conversation, and I'll try to keep on in that tone.
>> We certainly do need context to understand a great deal of=20
>> discourse, and I'm not sure why you would present that as an argument=20
>> against the functional. "How cold does it have to get" could mean=20
>> many things, and the only way it can include the idea of shutting a=20
>> window is to put it into an imaginary context. A functional approach=20
>> is not going to say that we can infer context from a form, but the=20
>> opposite--that we need context, and that the formal structures we=20
>> utter are context sensitive. "How cold does it have to get" makes no=20
>> sense out of context, so we infer a context for it. I would see it as=20
>> what usage based construction grammar calls a "schema", a form=20
>> meaning pairing unpredicted by the general rules of a formal syntax=20
>> and one that has blanks to fill in. "How much snow has to pile up=20
>> before you shovel it?" "How much does the garbage have to stink=20
>> before you take it out?" "How many examples do I have to give before=20
>> a concept comes through?" The schema brings with it a kind of=20
>> sarcasm or rudeness that is part of its meaning. Rudeness is part of=20
>> the schema.
>> "Schema" are one of the patterns cognitive linguists use to argue=20
>> against the innateness of grammar. They are clearly learned, clearly=20
>> language dependent (and not universal.) If we can learn schema=20
>> rapidly and easily, we have evidence of the ability to learn other=20
>> patterns.
>> Many grammatical constructions become lexicalized and then pick up=20
>> meanings somewhat unpredictable from their parts. Any approach to=20
>> grammar will have to accommodate that. Any theory of language should=20
>> accomodate the fact that grammatical constructions are constantly=20
>> coming into being.
>> Dividing subject function up into grammatical subject, actor, and=20
>> theme is not at all ambiguous. My experience, in fact, is that much=20
>> of the confusion about subject in most students' minds comes from=20
>> believing that a subject is the first thing and the actor and the=20
>> focus of the proposition; so when those separate functions are=20
>> acknowledged, they have an easier time--a much easier time--with the=20
>> concept. It is a way of making the notion of "subject" more precise.=20
>> Traditional grammar tries to pass it off as innate or intuitive, when=20
>> the intuitions are quite fuzzy. Tag questions work because they allow=20
>> us to isolate the grammatical subject from other competing=20
>> possibilities, such as coming first or doing the deed. A deeper=20
>> understanding of what we mean by subject carries over into reading=20
>> and writing in a very useful way. We have a way of understanding why=20
>> a writer might choose one form over the other within the flow of=20
>> discourse.
>> The desire for a one-to-one mapping between structure and function=20
>> may be a desire for neat and clean categories in a world where those=20
>> are rare. Does the category "hammer" include sledge hammer? How about=20
>> a rubber mallet? Is a nail gun a kind of hammer? In what ways is it a=20
>> gun? If we look closely at the cognitive nature of categories, we=20
>> find that many categories have elements that have only loose family=20
>> relationships with each other. Some elements of the category seem=20
>> more central than others. When I think hammer, I think claw hammer. A=20
>> nail gun has a trigger and shoots things, but so does a hose nozzle.=20
>> If we look back from the functional end, we can see something like=20
>> "hammering in nails" as a function that can be performed in at least=20
>> two ways, one of them invented fairly recently. I use my screw driver=20
>> to open paint cans, and I have seen my wife use one to loosen soil.=20
>> The other day, I used one to pry open a stuck window.
>> And a hammer, of course, has a form that fits its function. It's=20
>> not that we had them lying around and then decided to hammer nails=20
>> with them, but the need to have something to hammer nails has=20
>> influenced the development of the hammer (and now the nail gun.)=20
>> Anyone who hammers as awkwardly as I do knows what the claw is for.=20
>> Mallets are good for pounding. The analogy may or may not carry over=20
>> to language, but from a functional perspective, the belief is that it=20
>> does. Form and function are deeply connected.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Bruce Despain wrote:
>>> Craig,
>>> I'm sorry for the disagreement, but I don't think it is as serious=20
>>> as you make it out to be. Maybe I made some of my positions out to=20
>>> be stronger than they actually are. However, that said, there are a=20
>>> few comments I would still like to make about your position. What I=20
>>> hope for with the word "function" is that the mathematical sense or=20
>>> formal definition can be made to work with the less formal=20
>>> meanings. What I mean is that "function" ought to be formalized,=20
>>> even from the general metaphorical uses it has. This is not about=20
>>> the word but about the goal of a scientific approach. As the=20
>>> designation of a role, the word ought to refer to something that can=20
>>> be defined in less vague terms, elements with more basic meaning. =20
>>> (You should be very cautious about your quotes. There is a world of=20
>>> difference between a /function/ and "function.") I would like to=20
>>> think that "role" can be defined as a mathematical /relation/, which=20
>>> is like a /function/ but has values that range over "true" and=20
>>> "false" rather than numbers or points on a cline. A subject is one=20
>>> of your ambiguous relations: logical subject, grammatical subject. I=20
>>> think that the tools of linguistics need to be scientifically=20
>>> qualified. GT grammar has to concentrate on the syntactic aspects=20
>>> of grammatical analysis. If that is not enough, if it ignores=20
>>> spelling, if it ignores aspects of meaning, if it ignores word=20
>>> structure, maybe it's time to to develop a formal approach that will=20
>>> describe these other aspects of language. What I hate is to take a=20
>>> tool, like an ax, emphasize its function, find it being used as a=20
>>> hammer, and then claim that these are two aspects of the same tool. =20
>>> It's much better, I think, to point out the structural similarities=20
>>> between a hammer and an ax, and point out how these make it possible=20
>>> for them to exchange roles for certain jobs. Your example of the use=20
>>> of "it" as a place holder for the subject of a passive: I would be=20
>>> very suspect of any syntactic theory that made it "superfluous." If=20
>>> the semantics of the sentence are being described without it,=20
>>> elements at a higher syntactic level, e.g., the declarative=20
>>> sentence, would still have to be demonstrated to be accepted as=20
>>> grammatical, elements which without it could not exist. In my=20
>>> example from a previous post the "shut the window" was an essential=20
>>> part of the meaning of "How cold does it have to get?" The=20
>>> extralinguistic context contributed the imperative portion by=20
>>> supplying "before you shut the window." In this sense, a=20
>>> superfluous element is not one that does not belong to the theory,=20
>>> just one that it doesn't have to be uttered to be understood. To=20
>>> use an example from Bollinger: a lawyer advises a debtor that he=20
>>> doesn't need to pay a particular bill because "the statute of=20
>>> limitations has expired on that bill." He does not mean that the=20
>>> statute is no longer in force, but that the period of time specified=20
>>> in that statute for a bill of that kind has expired. The desire to=20
>>> use words in this kind of "non-superfluous" way is omnipresent in=20
>>> language, especially poetry. It keeps the language mavins and=20
>>> critics of language use very busy. It comes when we ignore the=20
>>> original intent of the ax and change its functionality to a hammer. =20
>>> It may be illogical but we take advantage of the structure we have=20
>>> for a different use. This is called "exaption" in evolutionary=20
>>> biology. I don't mind the fact that we disagree. I highly respect=20
>>> your experience and skills at teaching English writing. I've always=20
>>> admired a good writer and hope someday to do better at explaining my=20
>>> own ideas and understandings. This is, I hope, a good forum for=20
>>> doing so. Bruce
>>>
>>> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/15/07 5:46 AM >>>
>>> Bruce,
>>> The term "function" seems to have a long, venerable history in
>>> linguistics. The OED cites both Bloomfield and C. C. Fries. Halliday
>>> tends to use the term much as many of us use it on list. We can put
>>> words or constructions roughly into classes, which tell us something
>>> about the meaning potential of the word or structure. The word
>>> "function" designates the role of the word or word group within a
>>> particular instance of use. In the previous sentence, "The word
>>> function" is noun phrase acting as subject. (It also acts us agent of
>>> "designates". And it is unmarked theme in the theme/rheme structure o=
f
>>> the clause.) It is not uncommon for a structure to have more than one
>>> function.
>>> I don't think it is accurate to say that the functionalists don't=20
>>> use
>>> the tools of linguistics. The primary difference is that they see
>>> language as innately functional, not just a formal system that can th=
en
>>> be put to use in functional ways. Generative grammar is often
>>> criticized from the functional side for calling everything that doesn=
't
>>> fit neatly into its theory peripheral or unimportant. It becomes so
>>> abstract that it no longer seems to represent what many of us think o=
f
>>> as language.
>>> There may in fact be many cases in which the passive is more prima=
ry
>>> than the active. There is no doubt a good reason why (according to
>>> Biber et al) passives are eight times more likely to show up in
>>> academic discourse. From a functional perpsective, active and passive
>>> give us alternative choices, and each gives us a different meaning.
>>> Someone asks "Who gave the book to Charlie?" You may likely reply=20
>>> "It
>>> was given by his wife." This allows us to put given information ("It"=
)
>>> first and new information in clause ending prominence. Whether or not
>>> this is thought of as superfluous is a theoretical position, not a
>>> scientific one. I find myself much more attracted to the theory that
>>> explores how these structures function in the world. If we theorize
>>> about them out of context, we may end up with a distorted theory.
>>> At some point, of course, we need to agree to disagree. I am a=20
>>> writer
>>> and writing teacher and somewhat a learning specialist by position an=
d
>>> you are a mathematician, so that may explain a great detail. I like
>>> math and always did well in it, but I do not think it is a good model
>>> for the complexities of language. And I think it is misleading to cal=
l
>>> any approaches that aren't mathematical less rigorous or scientific.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Craig,
>>> >
>>> > I think my concern is really quite far from the classroom, for=20
>>> which I
>>> > apologize. It's more like a paleontologist using the tools of
>>> geology to
>>> > solve biological questions. I think the functionalists need to=20
>>> use > some
>>> > more tools of linguistics to solve their language questions. I=20
>>> see no
>>> > sense debating the cline of polite requests, whether the points are
>>> > continuous of discontinuous, or adjusted up or down by context, if
>>> we have
>>> > no way to measure where the points are. Wouldn't it be helpful to=20
>>> have
>>> > measures? Technology can help science to collect and analyze their
>>> data.
>>> > The theory can only take us so far. What? It might be refuted if=20
>>> its
>>> > predictions cannot be corroborated. My point in segmenting the
>>> > differently formulated requests was show the direction toward =20
>>> some > kind
>>> > of measure. This is not just by tallying up the units of meaning b=
ut
>>> > would involve weighing them in context. Let's callibrate the=20
>>> cline and
>>> > establish points or regions along it. I don't think the=20
>>> instruments > for
>>> > doing such a thing are developed. Like a paleontologist we're just
>>> > waiting for the next discovery.
>>> >
>>> > If the theory helps to teach the concepts that need teaching, more=20
>>> > power
>>> > to it. Some models are helpful, but others can be disruptive in th=
e
>>> > acquisition of a skill. I think of the power that certain images
>>> have in
>>> > teaching music and voice. Educators have learned that certain visu=
al
>>> > metaphors guide the mind in some mysterious way to produce or=20
>>> reproduce
>>> > the sounds desired. I sure wish I knew what the rules were behind=20
>>> > these
>>> > secrets (in the brain, in the mind).
>>> >
>>> > Bruce
>>> >
>>> >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/12/07 1:59 PM >>>
>>> >
>>> > Bruce,
>>> > I'll check out definitions for "functional" in Halliday and=20
>>> get > back
>>> > to you. I admit I'm not using the term as a mathematician >=20
>>> would--perhaps
>>> > more like a biologist, as in "what is the function of the placenta
>>> > within the reproductive system." I don't think mathematical models=20
>>> work
>>> > well for language--once you strip it of its semantic and discourse
>>> > content and context, you end up with a view of language that=20
>>> doesn't > fit
>>> > what we find in the world. I don't think an ecology is less=20
>>> scientific
>>> > than classical biology. It just has a different (systemic and
>>> > functional) orientation. It asks a different set of questions,=20
>>> ones > that
>>> > may yet save the world.
>>> > Ordering or requesting politely might be thought of as different
>>> > points on a cline. One is not necessarily more primary than the=20
>>> other,
>>> > and the words of politeness won't be superfluous to the human=20
>>> relations
>>> > we are fostering though language. The same would be true of passive=
s.
>>> > You can certainly say that the unmarked or default is the active, b=
ut
>>> > they do not mean the same thing if you include things like >=20
>>> propositional
>>> > focus or textual unity within your definition of meaning. In the
>>> > language of cognitive linguistics, different versions will=20
>>> construe the
>>> > world differently. In functional grammar, grammatical subject is a
>>> > separate function from actor or agent, though they generally=20
>>> co-occur.
>>> > When we vary from that co-occurrence, we are simply predicating a
>>> > statement about another element. One is not necessarily more primar=
y,
>>> > and the extra words are not superfluous, but highly functional.
>>> > I don't mean to imply that generative grammar presents rules as
>>> > regulative. I do think most people believe grammar rules are rules=20
>>> that
>>> > you are supposed to follow, not just patterns that arise from >=20
>>> purposeful
>>> > use of language. And when we abstract these rules from context, we=20
>>> pull
>>> > further and further away from the living language. If we use the te=
rm
>>> > "pattern", perhaps we could change that.
>>> > I think it might be fine to teach generative grammar in the=20
>>> schools
>>> > as a discipline of inquiry, but I don't think it will help us=20
>>> develop a
>>> > view of language that will carry over into reading and writing. I
>>> > believe both functional and cognitive approaches have much more=20
>>> promise
>>> > for that.
>>> >
>>> > Craig
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Bruce Despain wrote:
>>> >> Craig,
>>> >>
>>> >> With my experience in math, I have a difficulty with the word
>>> >> "function" similarly as you do with "rule." For the=20
>>> mathematician the
>>> >> function is a process that has a domain or set of input values=20
>>> (one or
>>> >> more parameters) and a range or output value. The transformation=20
>>> is a
>>> >> mapping or relation (one to one, one to many, many to one) of one=20
>>> set
>>> >> of values onto another. This way of picturing the relationship as=
a
>>> >> process is a convenience for understanding the model. In this way
>>> >> rules and patterns are simply two ways of viewing the same
>>> >> phenomena. The rules as functions output a value, which can=20
>>> often be
>>> >> considered a pattern. It is the analysis of patterns that allow=20
>>> us to
>>> >> describe them by rule. Generative rules (now called Backus-Naur
>>> >> form) were developed with this in mind. Rules in this sense are n=
ot
>>> >> regulative, except to the person who wants a description of the
>>> >> structure. They show how to go about building it so as to get the
>>> >> best results. (The are not generative either, in the sense of=20
>>> giving
>>> >> birth to ideas.)
>>> >>
>>> >> To beat a dead horse: the normal way to request behavior of anothe=
r
>>> >> person is with an imperative ("Shut the window"), but we can use t=
he
>>> >> yes-no interrogative to inquire about a person's disposition to=20
>>> behave
>>> >> in a certain way: "Will you shut the window?" or a declarative "It=
's
>>> >> cold in here" or even a wh-interrogative, "How cold does it have t=
o
>>> >> get?" If the syntactic description of the sentence is limited to=20
>>> such
>>> >> sentence types, it is easy to see that Halladay needed another lev=
el
>>> >> (meta-) on which to express the actual intent of the question apar=
t
>>> >> from its form. Hence, at this level (interactive) the three=20
>>> sentences
>>> >> that are used for the same purpose are of the same type.
>>> >> If we subscribe to the compositionality of language meaning, there
>>> >> would certainly be more elementary units of meaning of which the=20
>>> more
>>> >> complex constructions are composed. Couldn't these be considered
>>> >> primary? If it takes me more words (syntactically) to say somethi=
ng
>>> >> one way, perhaps that would be a rough indication of the number of
>>> >> meaning elements it could be broken down into. The active sentenc=
e
>>> >> usually has one less word than the passive, which uses a form of=20
>>> "be"
>>> >> with the passive participle. If we're counting morphemes, we woul=
d
>>> >> have to consider the participle ending as another element. The
>>> >> passive seems to be less primary from an analytic point of view. =20
>>> The
>>> >> same argument makes sentences with a progressive aspect less prima=
ry
>>> >> than corresponding ones with a simple finite verb. They are
>>> >> structurally more complex and seem also to contain additional
>>> >> meaningful units. Perhaps if we are allowed to cut away the
>>> >> superfluous content of the above syntactically different=20
>>> sentences, we
>>> >> can be left with a core set of meanings at the interactive level. =
A
>>> >> transformation would seem to be an appropriate model for stating=20
>>> such
>>> >> a relationship.
>>> >>
>>> >> My intent was to make a point that has less to do with pedagogy,
>>> >> perhaps, than formal models. Yet, we must admit that kids today=20
>>> have
>>> >> been given the opportunity to learn a good deal of these concepts =
in
>>> >> their math classes. Maybe pedagogy needs to relate to this kind
>>> >> of educational curriculum to some extent. Many branches of
>>> >> linguistics are trying to bridge this abysmal gap between the
>>> >> humanities and science. I think some of it ought to trickle down =
to
>>> >> the lower grades. Maybe we should teach using the mathematical
>>> >> approach to functions and rules. If not literally, perhaps only
>>> >> metaphorically.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bruce
>>> >>
>>> >> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 9:40 AM >>>
>>> >> Bruce,
>>> >> It may be hard to use the term "transformation" without=20
>>> bringing in
>>> >> all the apparatus that has historically come with it. It may be=20
>>> better
>>> >> to talk about alternative options, perhaps ones that complement ea=
ch
>>> >> other and stand at more or less equal status. So a question is not=
a
>>> >> transformed statement, but just an alternative choice--offering
>>> >> information or requesting information as both necessary options=20
>>> in the
>>> >> system. We can also request or offer goods and services, and we ha=
ve
>>> >> ways to carry that out.
>>> >> Halliday describes three different metafunctions, one being
>>> >> interpersonal and interactive, another being representational,=20
>>> and the
>>> >> other being largely textual. So you might say that a passive=20
>>> sentence
>>> >> has been "transformed" from an active one, but a functional analys=
is
>>> >> would emphasize that a different entity has been moved into >>=20
>>> grammatical
>>> >> subject role to ground the proposition, while the role of doer of=20
>>> the
>>> >> action (representation) has been left out or shifted into the
>>> >> predicate.
>>> >> This may happen for textual reasons, perhaps to keep a topic in
>>> >> extended
>>> >> focus. If you treat this systematically, then one is not a
>>> >> transformation of the other, just ways to accommodate different
>>> >> functions within the structure of the clause. It may be=20
>>> misleading to
>>> >> think of one as more primary than the other, even if more common.
>>> >> We can certainly divide verbs into physical (material) and ment=
al
>>> >> (cognitive), and we do mix those types up in a sort of metaphor=20
>>> all >> the
>>> >> time. When the wind "howls", we are granting it a speech act. When=
I
>>> >> "fall" for someone, I'm describing emotional change in physical=20
>>> terms.
>>> >> "The fields never knew such cold as they knew that winter." What=20
>>> kind
>>> >> of
>>> >> "knowing" is that? Any description of creativity ought to foregrou=
nd
>>> >> the
>>> >> metaphoric nature of language.
>>> >> I mainly worry that people think of rules as "governing"=20
>>> rather >> than
>>> >> as conventional. It is not a "rule" that college students dress
>>> >> informally, but it is certainly a pattern. You haven't broken a ru=
le
>>> >> when you wear a tie, for whatever reason. I don't think the=20
>>> comparison
>>> >> holds too far (language is not just fashion), but "rule" and=20
>>> "pattern"
>>> >> can be very different in people's minds.
>>> >>
>>> >> Craig
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Bruce Despain wrote:
>>> >> > Craig,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I think it might be a good exercise for you to respond sometime
>>> >> > without using the word "function" or "functional." Don't these=20
>>> >> > words
>>> >> > just provide us another way to talk about rules. The rule is=20
>>> there
>>> >> to
>>> >> > *describe* something that is regular, expected, recognized, and
>>> >> > conventional. Language needs a certain amount of=20
>>> conventionality to
>>> >> > convey understanding. Does a new construction arise to carriy=20
>>> out a
>>> >> > new function or an old function in a new way? Maybe the answer=20
>>> >> > would
>>> >> > tell us to what extent function is driving language or whether
>>> >> > language is driving function. Consider the rhetorical=20
>>> question, for
>>> >> > example. This phenomenon takes a syntactic structure normally=20
>>> used
>>> >> to
>>> >> > seek new information and applies it to make an assertion. We=20
>>> could
>>> >> > describe this phenomenon by rule in the form of a (dreaded?)
>>> >> > "transformation" (a sense different from
>>> >> > "generative-transformational"). The language user transforms th=
e
>>> >> > function of a yes-no question to that of a declarative sentence
>>> >> simply
>>> >> > by placing it in a rhetorical context. To compare the=20
>>> functions of
>>> >> > "kick" and "admire" as transitive verbs is not as useful as >>=20
>>> > comparing
>>> >> > them, maybe, at the level of action, one being physical and the
>>> >> > other mental. To find a syntactic correlate to this contrast ma=
y
>>> >> give
>>> >> > us a clue to where a creative act of functional transform might =
be
>>> >> > found. Perhaps something like these metaphors: "John kicked=20
>>> around
>>> >> > and then admired football." (zeugma) "Mary admired John, but=20
>>> kicked
>>> >> > him out of her life." We respect the "functional pressures" of
>>> >> syntax
>>> >> > but utilize their force to make our expressions more powerful. =
Is
>>> >> > this something like you have in mind?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Bruce
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 7:54 AM >>>
>>> >> > Herb,
>>> >> > I enjoyed both posts very much and will respond to both in th=
is
>>> >> one.
>>> >> > I like the idea that the language is both "complex" and=20
>>> "subtle",
>>> >> > which implies that it's a functional complexity. We bring new
>>> >> > constructions into play precisely because they allow us to=20
>>> carry out
>>> >> the
>>> >> > various functions of language, and any attempt to describe it=20
>>> ought
>>> >> to
>>> >> > pay deep respect to that. They come into being because we find=20
>>> them
>>> >> > useful and they become routinized (and intuitive) over time.
>>> >> > I'm beginning to think that we use the term "rules" far too
>>> >> readily
>>> >> > and widely. What we are describing may in fact be a useful
>>> >> construction
>>> >> > or a functional pattern, not a "rule" in the way we usually
>>> >> understand
>>> >> > rules. Language may be better understood bottom up than top down.
>>> >> > It does make sense to look for patterns, but when we find=20
>>> these
>>> >> > similarities, when we classify sentences or constructions, we=20
>>> are >> > not
>>> >> > necessarily discovering some sort of internal rules that they ar=
e
>>> >> > "following." The patterns are enormously important, and they do=20
>>> tend
>>> >> to
>>> >> > function below consciousness for very good (functional)=20
>>> reasons. But
>>> >> > classifying the sentences or ascertaining the "rules" they=20
>>> represent
>>> >> may
>>> >> > be very misleading. Both "kick" and "admire" take direct=20
>>> objects, >> > not
>>> >> > because they are transitive, but because we understand kicking=20
>>> as a
>>> >> > process that involves something to be kicked and admiring as a
>>> >> process
>>> >> > that requires something to be admired. The differences between=20
>>> being
>>> >> > kicked and being admired may be more important than the >> >=20
>>> similarities.
>>> >> > Transitivity arises because it is congruent with our=20
>>> understanding >> > of
>>> >> > the world. When the patterns don't fit our purposes, we bend and
>>> >> shape
>>> >> > them, we blur the edges.
>>> >> > This may be why studying formal grammar doesn't seem to carry
>>> >> over,
>>> >> > at least not quickly or easily. We need to respect the functiona=
l
>>> >> > pressures, the context it arises from.
>>> >> > When we write, we are not constructing forms; we are=20
>>> constructing
>>> >> > meanings. Meaning is not simply poured into neutral forms. The
>>> >> > constructions themselves are meaningful, arising out of that
>>> >> > meaning-making history over time.
>>> >> > I know that probably puts me at odds with many people on the=20
>>> >> > list.
>>> >> > But that's where my current thinking is headed.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Craig
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>> >> > > Craig,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > What you describe as the verb pulling the preposition into its
>>> >> orbit is
>>> >> > > precisely the sort of historical change that's been going on=20
>>> since
>>> >> Early
>>> >> > > Modern English and has given us the very complex and subtle=20
>>> system
>>> >> of
>>> >> > > multi-word verbs we have in English today. So we have
>>> >> constructions in
>>> >> > > which about behaves in some ways as a preposition and in other
>>> >> ways as a
>>> >> > > part of the verb. And we just have to live with that fact.
>>> >> Language
>>> >> > > continually defies our attempts to codify it, which is what=20
>>> makes
>>> >> it so
>>> >> > > endlessly fascinating to study.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Herb
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> >> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01 AM
>>> >> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> > > Subject: Re: Those old transitivity blues was Help for a puzzl=
ed
>>> >> teacher
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Herb, Peter, Bill, Ron,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > With apologies if they seems too theoretical for most people's
>>> >> tastes. I
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > have been thinking about these things for several months now a=
nd
>>> >> have
>>> >> > > mostly held back while the thoughts come into focus.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > The problem I currently have with tying to find a classificati=
on
>>> >> for
>>> >> > > "think about" is that I am starting to believe we make these
>>> >> categories
>>> >> > > more important (more governing) than they actually are. We=20
>>> tend to
>>> >> feel
>>> >> > > as if words have to act certain ways because of the grammar,
>>> >> rather than
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > believing that the grammar itself arises out of our use of=20
>>> words.
>>> >> (Or
>>> >> > > that it is a dynamic relationship, a lexico-grammar,=20
>>> word-grammar,
>>> >> > > cline.) When classification becomes an end in itself, the=20
>>> living,
>>> >> > > dynamic language gets left behind.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Another way to think about it is that the process of thinking =
is
>>> >> often
>>> >> > > conceived of (and articulated) as "about" something, and over=20
>>> time
>>> >> > > "think" and "about" come together often enough to start feelin=
g
>>> like
>>> >> a
>>> >> > > single phrase rather than a verb plus prepositional phrase=20
>>> with a
>>> >> > > variable object.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I often think about blank.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I often think about blank
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > From this way of thinking, the verb will begin to pull the
>>> >> preposition
>>> >> > > into its orbit, helped by two forces-one is repetition (the=20
>>> words
>>> >> coming
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > together so often)--and the other is congruency with our >> >=20
>>> > experience
>>> >> of
>>> >> > > the world, our conception of what thinking is like. In other=20
>>> >> > > words,
>>> >> we
>>> >> > > continue to use it because it is practical to use it, highly
>>> >> > > "functional." And this becomes patterned.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > From a rule based approach, we have to say that "all grammars
>>> >> leak",
>>> >> > > but that may be because they try to treat the language as froz=
en
>>> >> and not
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > dynamic. If we see the creation of phrasal verbs as a dynamic
>>> >> process,
>>> >> > > then it is easy to treat in-between examples as part of that
>>> >> process of
>>> >> > > change-of grammatical structures being lexicalized and lexical
>>> >> terms
>>> >> > > being pulled into the grammar. From a usage based perspective,
>>> >> leaking
>>> >> > > is likely. Just like words, the grammar is always coming into
>>> >> being.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > This gives us an approach to grammar that pulls us into meanin=
g
>>> >> and one
>>> >> > > that frames meaning itself as contextual and dynamic.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Craig
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> Ron,
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Let's start with easiest of your questions, how to use >> >=20
>>> >> information
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > like
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> this in teaching. The fact is that I wouldn't present a
>>> >> seven-fold
>>> >> > >> classification of anything grammatical in an ESL context. I=20
>>> >> > >> might
>>> >> be
>>> >> > >> forced to do something like that if I were teaching Chinese
>>> >> nominal
>>> >> > >> classifiers, of which there are dozens, or Bantu noun classes=
,
>>> >> which
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > can
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> exceed a couple dozen, but fortunately English doesn't do suc=
h
>>> >> things.
>>> >> > >> What's important in developing both fluency and register=20
>>> control
>>> >> in
>>> >> > >> non-native speakers is that they learn to shift particles whe=
n
>>> >> doing
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > so
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> is pragmatically motivated, that they learn to use a passive=20
>>> when
>>> >> that
>>> >> > >> structure is pragmatically motivated. And this they will lea=
rn
>>> >> much
>>> >> > >> better from usage and practice than from grammar drill.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> I think perhaps you confused Bill and me in the latter part o=
f
>>> >> your
>>> >> > >> post. Actually, the classification I posted is from Sidney
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > Greenbaum's
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> Oxford English Grammar (OUP, 1996), so I can't take credit=20
>>> for >> > >> it.
>>> >> > >> Transitivity does have degrees. Intransitives take only a
>>> >> subject,
>>> >> > >> (mono)transitives take a subject and a direct object, and
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > ditransitives
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> (SG's "doubly transitives") take a direct object and an=20
>>> indirect
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > object,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> which may or may not require a preposition. Indirect=20
>>> object, >> > >> bear
>>> >> in
>>> >> > >> mind, is a function, not a structure, and it can show up as=20
>>> >> > >> either
>>> >> a
>>> >> > >> bare NP or as the object of a preposition. I suspect SG uses
>>> >> > >> "monotransitivity" in a excess of clarity, the result of whic=
h
>>> >> isn't
>>> >> > >> necessarily what the writer hopes for.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Actually, SG doesn't distinguish between "look at" and "look
>>> >> after".
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > In
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> his discussion of prepositional verbs (p. 282), he uses=20
>>> "look at"
>>> >> as
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > an
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> example of a monotransitive prepositional verb.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Back to the question of goals for a moment. SG was writing a
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > reference
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> grammar, and so his goal was to provide as complete and=20
>>> thorough >> > >> a
>>> >> > >> classification of English structures as he could. Hence his=20
>>> >> > >> seven
>>> >> > >> classes of phrasal/prepositional verbs. What the ESL=20
>>> teacher >> > >> does
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > with
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> this classification is subject to different, pedagogical
>>> goals, and
>>> >> I
>>> >> > >> hope that teacher would keep SG's treatment well away from hi=
s
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > students,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> while being informed by it as he or she prepares lesson plans.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Herb
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> One of the great advantages of this List (and particularly=20
>>> if one
>>> >> has
>>> >> > >> the
>>> >> > >> intellectual courage to state what one knows about grammar wi=
th
>>> >> the
>>> >> > >> attendant possibility of being proven to be wrong and the eve=
n
>>> >> worse
>>> >> > >> possibility of realising that one has been teaching=20
>>> something to
>>> >> > >> students
>>> >> > >> which is possibly incorrect) is the potential it has to make=20
>>> one
>>> >> > >> re-examine
>>> >> > >> one's own assumptions about some point of grammar.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Herb's comments on the complexities of phrasal verbs and Bill=
's
>>> >> list
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > of
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> three examples are cases in point. This query, then, is=20
>>> just to
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > clarify
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> things in their posts and particularly in the context of ESL.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Bill's list of three is as follows:
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> I looked [up the chimney] prepositional phrase
>>> >> > >> I [looked up] the word phrasal verb
>>> >> > >> I looked [up] adverbial particle.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Just to avoid ambiguity, I would modify the second two as >>=20
>>> > >> follows:
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> I [looked up] the word. As 'up' is an adverbial particle=20
>>> and >> > >> as
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > 'the
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> word' is the direct object of the resultant phrasal verb, 'lo=
ok
>>> >> up' is
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> transitive phrasal
>>> >> > >> verb.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> I looked [up]. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as=20
>>> there is
>>> >> no
>>> >> > >> direct
>>> >> > >> object, 'look up' is an intransitive phrasal verb.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Would Bill agree with this modification?
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Herb's list of seven really puts the cat amonst the pigeons=20
>>> of my
>>> >> > >> assumptions about transitivity. Here's Bill's list:
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> 1. intransitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "give in" (surrender)
>>> >> > >> 2. transitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "find" something "out"
>>> >> (discover)
>>> >> > >> 3. monotransitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "look after" (ta=
ke
>>> >> care
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > of)
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> 4. doubly transitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "blame"=20
>>> something
>>> >> "on"
>>> >> > >> someone
>>> >> > >> 5. copular prepositional verbs, e.g. "serve as"
>>> >> > >> 6. monotransitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "look=20
>>> up to"
>>> >> > >> (respect)
>>> >> > >> 7. doubly transitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "put"
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > something
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> "down to" (attribute to)
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> My problem is with 3 This is the first time that I have
>>> >> encountered
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > the
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> term 'monotransitive' so perhaps Bill can explain the >> >=20
>>> >> significance
>>> >> of
>>> >> > >> the addition of 'mono-'.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> In the case of 3, why is Bill implicitly differentiating 'loo=
k
>>> >> at' and
>>> >> > >> 'look
>>> >> > >> after'? I ask this because I am assuming that he is not >>=20
>>> > >> claiming
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > that
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> 'look at' is a monotransitive prepositional verb. In the=20
>>> case of
>>> >> ESL,
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > I
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> think it preferable to consider them both intransitive in ord=
er
>>> >> not to
>>> >> > >> muddy the transitive waters too much.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> 6 & 7 are also problematic in ESL terms for the same reason b=
ut
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > > perhaps
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> we can come to those later.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Ron Sheen
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's=20
>>> 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=20
>>> 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 w=
eb
>>> >> > > 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 w=
eb
>>> >> > 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/
>>> >> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=20
>>>
>>> >> > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>>> >> > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged >> >=20
>>> information.
>>> >> > Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
>>> >> > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please=20
>>> contact >> > the
>>> >> > sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original >>=20
>>> > message.
>>> >>
>>> >> 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/
>>> >>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=20
>>>
>>> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>>> >> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged=20
>>> information.
>>> >> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
>>> >> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact=20
>>> the
>>> >> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original=20
>>> message.
>>> >
>>> > 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/
>>> >
>>> >=20
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
>>> > 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=20
>>> > email
>>> > and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>> >
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
>>> 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/
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=20
>>>
>>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended=20
>>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged=20
>>> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or=20
>>> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,=20
>>> please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of=20
>>> the original message.
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
>> 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=20
> 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/
|
