Just as a humorous aside, in 1962 a student in my English class brought in
his mother's grammar book.  It read as follows
"the book
of the book
to or for the book
the book
from, with, or by the book
O book!"

Few on this list would need an explanation

N. Scott Catledge


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)

There are 11 messages totalling 4357 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. like (3)
  2. Grammar as patterns (6)
  3. A Practical Question (2)

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:26:34 -0500
From:    Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline

Craig,

I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I don't see
too much of a difference between what I state and what you state. True, some
elements of a category (word class) are more central and reflect better the
basic characteristics of that class. Other elements are borderline or
peripheral, and their characteristics intersect with or overlap the
characteristics of peripheral or borderline elements of another class. On
the whole, though, there are "standard" elements of word classes, and there
are "peripheral" elements of such word classes. Denial of such facts,
though, is a denial of the empirical evidence that concerns what I stated
above. 

Some people continue to believe that the Latin language structure is
artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget that
language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do construct language
structure implicitly or explicitly. This fact is evident from information
collected from humans who had never been socialized in language. Those
people don't speak a human language, and if they are beyond the critical
period of language acquisition they are never able to acquire language,
except for a few unstructured rudiments. 

If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been claiming for more
than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar has been able to
provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with what is observable:
language is a human construct, and whether we differentiate between
acquisition and learning or not, the bare truth is that without
socialization in language no human will speak a human language.

Eduard 



----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard,
>     I would express it somewhat differently. 
> Frequency is often
> self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,
> which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
>     I just asked a friend how she likes her new 
> job (from teacher to
> counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me that she
> might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.
> Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can
> change that.
>     Rather than intersection of word classes, it 
> might be more of an issue
> of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than
> others, some more borderline or peripheral.
>     You also have a tendency (from that cognitive 
> frame of reference) to
> see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than
> rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of
> them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that "like"
> brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> 
> Craig>
> 
> Geoff,
> >
> > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use and the
> > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after
> > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself, 
> and that
> > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy, 
> but one way in
> > which language acquires and shows structure. These word 
> classes are real,
> > and understanding them makes a great difference when one 
> learns a
> > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are 
> nothing more
> > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the 
> importance of
> > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a 
> fallacy) shows
> > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the
> > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of 
> language.>
> > Eduard
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > Subject: Re: like
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >>
> >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction
> >> is "what difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't
> >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the meaning of
> >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> >>
> >> Geoff Layton
> >>
> >> > Craig,
> >> >
> >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an
> >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> >> >
> >> > Herb
> >>
> >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like" 
> in a
> >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the others." (I
> >> know; Sesame Street).
> >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be standard?
> >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or "doesn't
> >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a verb like
> >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> >> boundaries around our categories?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 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/

--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline

=3CDIV=3ECraig=2C=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EI have no problem with the way you express the matters because =
I don=27t see too much of a difference between what I state and what you=
 state=2E True=2C some elements of a category (word class) are more cent=
ral and reflect better the basic characteristics of that class=2E Other =
elements are borderline or peripheral=2C and their characteristics inter=
sect with or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline ele=
ments of another class=2E On the whole=2C though=2C there are=26nbsp=3B=22=
standard=22 elements of word classes=2C and there are =22peripheral=22 e=
lements of such word classes=2E Denial of such facts=2C though=2C is a d=
enial of the empirical evidence that concerns what I stated above=2E =3C=
/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3ESome people continue to believe that the Latin language structu=
re is artificially superimposed on the English language=2C but they forg=
et that language is a social phenomenon=2C and that we humans do constru=
ct=26nbsp=3Blanguage structure implicitly or explicitly=2E This fact is =
evident from information collected from humans who had never been social=
ized in language=2E Those people don=27t speak a human language=2C and i=
f they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they are n=
ever able to acquire language=2C except for a few unstructured rudiments=
=2E =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EIf there is an =22universal grammar=22 as Chomsky has been clai=
ming for more than five decades=2C no linguist or other kind of scholar =
has=26nbsp=3Bbeen able to provide evidence for the claim=2E So=2C we rem=
ain with what is observable=3A language is a human construct=2C and whet=
her we differentiate between acquisition and learning or not=2C the bare=
 truth is that without socialization in language no human will speak a h=
uman language=2E=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EEduard =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3EFrom=3A Cra=
ig Hancock =26lt=3Bhancock=40ALBANY=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3EDate=3A Wednesd=
ay=2C September 15=2C 2010 19=3A16=3CBR=3ESubject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3ET=
o=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I would express it somewhat=
 differently=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Frequency is often=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B self=
-reinforcing=2E Frequency makes something more accessible for use=2C=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B which in turn makes it more frequent=2E And so on=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I just asked a friend how she li=
kes her new =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B job (from teacher to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B counse=
lor)=2C and she said =22I=27m liking it=2E=22 It occured to me that she=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B might not have said that without the influence of the McDo=
nald=27s ad=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Progressive is not common with stative ve=
rbs=2C but an ad campaign can=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B change that=2E=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Rather than intersection of word cla=
sses=2C it =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B might be more of an issue=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B of=
 centrality=2E Some elements of the category are more central than=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B others=2C some more borderline or peripheral=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B You also have a tendency (from that cogn=
itive =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B frame of reference) to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B see far mo=
re lower level constructions=2E It=27s much more a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B lexic=
o-grammar than a set of abstract rules=2E (Pattern is closer than=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B rule=2E) A great deal of language includes set constructions=2C=
 many of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B them with their own more local patterns=2E So i=
t could be that =22like=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B brings with it a unique kind =
of grammar=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Craig=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Geoff=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B You probably did not have time to read =22Frequency of Use and =
the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Organization of Language=22 by Joan Bybee=2C=
 in which the author=2C after=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B decades of resear=
ch=2C documents that language organizes itself=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and t=
hat=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B parts of speech or word classes are not an =
idiot=27s fantasy=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B but one way in=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B which language acquires and shows structure=2E These word =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B classes are real=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B and understanding =
them makes a great difference when one =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B learns a=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E That difference goes beyond boundaries=2C =
which are =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B nothing more=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B than po=
ints at which word classes intersect=2E To inflate the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
importance of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B these points of intersection to a=
 generality (which is a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B fallacy) shows=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in t=
he=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B production and conveyance of meaning - the m=
ain functions of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B language=2E=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Ori=
ginal Message -----=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Geoffrey Layton =26=
lt=3Bwritergwl=40HOTMAIL=2ECOM=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Date=3A =
Wednesday=2C September 15=2C 2010 16=3A13=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subje=
ct=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=
=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig - I know we=27ve had this discussion bef=
ore=2C but my reaction=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B is =22what diffe=
rence does it make what we call it=3F=22=26nbsp=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B see how you can have anything except flexible boun=
daries=2C which=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B then leads to the more =
interesting question of the rhetorical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
effect of =22shading=22 into a verb - what happens to the meaning of=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B the sentence=3F Labeling the choices as pr=
eopositions=2C adjectives=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B or verbs real=
ly doesn=27t go very far to answer this question=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Geoff Layton=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=2C=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B My first reaction was that this use of =22like=22 was adjectiva=
l=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B but since you want a traditional t=
reatment I checked the OED=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Online and M=
erriam Webster Dictionary Online=2E Both treat as an=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B adjective=2C although MW doesn=27t have an example with BE=
=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I am curious about how traditional grammar handle=
s =22like=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B sent=
ence like =22One of these things is not like the others=2E=22 (I=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B know=3B Sesame Street)=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B My instinct is to say =22like the others=22 is pre=
positional=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B phrase=2C complement to =22i=
s=22=2C therefore referring back=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B (adjec=
tivally=3F) to =22One of these things=2E=22 Would that be standard=3F=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B If it can be easily replaced by =
=22resembles=22 (or =22doesn=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B resemb=
le=22)=2C does that mean =22be like=22 is shading into a verb like=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B status with =22the others=22 as object=3F Are =
we OK with flexible=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B boundaries around o=
ur categories=3F=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please =
visit the list=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B interface at=3A=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2E=
html=26gt=3B=26gt=3B and select =22Join =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B or leave the li=
st=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or le=
ave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B web=
 interface=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbs=
p=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//l=
istserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B and select =22Join =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave this LIS=
TSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface a=
t=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B http=3A//l=
istserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22=
Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27=
s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)--

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:47:15 -0400
From:    Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like

Eduard,
    I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologize for making my 
post seem like something else.
   A big question might be whether the "rules" are there before use (and 
thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with 
flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would 
embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would 
see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and 
pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also 
possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, deeply tied 
to both cognition and discourse.
    Patterns are sustained to the extent that we find them highly 
productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The 
rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed to do. 
But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible. 
Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions 
it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making 
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
   To me, the challenge has always been how to present views like this 
on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee are doing 
wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the list to 
be aware of it.

Craig

Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> Craig,
>  
> I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I don't 
> see too much of a difference between what I state and what you state. 
> True, some elements of a category (word class) are more central and 
> reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other elements 
> are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics intersect with 
> or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline elements of 
> another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" elements of 
> word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word 
> classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical 
> evidence that concerns what I stated above.
>  
> Some people continue to believe that the Latin language structure is 
> artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget 
> that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do 
> construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This fact is 
> evident from information collected from humans who had never been 
> socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human language, and 
> if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they 
> are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured 
> rudiments.
>  
> If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been claiming for 
> more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar has been 
> able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with what is 
> observable: language is a human construct, and whether we 
> differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the bare truth 
> is that without socialization in language no human will speak a human 
> language.
>  
> Eduard
>  
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> Subject: Re: like
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Eduard,
> >     I would express it somewhat differently.
> > Frequency is often
> > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,
> > which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
> >     I just asked a friend how she likes her new
> > job (from teacher to
> > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me that she
> > might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.
> > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can
> > change that.
> >     Rather than intersection of word classes, it
> > might be more of an issue
> > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than
> > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> >     You also have a tendency (from that cognitive
> > frame of reference) to
> > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than
> > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of
> > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that "like"
> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> >
> > Craig>
> >
> > Geoff,
> > >
> > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use and the
> > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after
> > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > and that
> > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > but one way in
> > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > classes are real,
> > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > learns a
> > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > nothing more
> > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > importance of
> > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > fallacy) shows
> > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the
> > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > language.>
> > > Eduard
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > Subject: Re: like
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction
> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't
> > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the meaning of
> > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > >>
> > >> Geoff Layton
> > >>
> > >> > Craig,
> > >> >
> > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an
> > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > >> >
> > >> > Herb
> > >>
> > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > in a
> > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the others." (I
> > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be standard?
> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or "doesn't
> > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a verb like
> > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> 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/
>

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/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:10:42 -0500
From:    Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar as patterns

Colleagues,

Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of  patterns (learned from the =
input we get) is a discussion that has occurred before on this list.=20

If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)

"we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced =
by use"

then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical =
categories.  Such categories are the result of the "patterns" we are =
exposed to.  There are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how such =
a common sense idea is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of =
sentences.

Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.

1) Bob needs someone to work for.
2)  Bob needs someone to work for him.

In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.

What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those interpretations?  It =
is not just the presence or absence of the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have =
the same meaning.

3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them.=20

Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no =
idea how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.=20

These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim that our =
knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input.

Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.

There are those who say there is little value in making
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.

I could not agree more -- there is great value in making conscious the =
knowledge of language that we all have.=20

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/16/2010 7:47 AM >>>
Eduard,
    I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologize for making my
post seem like something else.
   A big question might be whether the "rules" are there before use (and
thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with
flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would
embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would
see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and
pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also
possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, deeply tied
to both cognition and discourse.
    Patterns are sustained to the extent that we find them highly
productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The
rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed to do.
But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.
Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions
it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
   To me, the challenge has always been how to present views like this
on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee are doing
wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the list to
be aware of it.

Craig

Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I don't
> see too much of a difference between what I state and what you state.
> True, some elements of a category (word class) are more central and
> reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other elements
> are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics intersect with
> or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline elements of
> another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" elements of
> word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
> classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
> evidence that concerns what I stated above.
>
> Some people continue to believe that the Latin language structure is
> artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget
> that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do
> construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This fact is
> evident from information collected from humans who had never been
> socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human language, and
> if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they
> are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured
> rudiments.
>
> If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been claiming for
> more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar has been
> able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with what is
> observable: language is a human construct, and whether we
> differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the bare truth
> is that without socialization in language no human will speak a human
> language.
>
> Eduard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> Subject: Re: like
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Eduard,
> >     I would express it somewhat differently.
> > Frequency is often
> > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,
> > which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
> >     I just asked a friend how she likes her new
> > job (from teacher to
> > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me that she
> > might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.
> > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can
> > change that.
> >     Rather than intersection of word classes, it
> > might be more of an issue
> > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than
> > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> >     You also have a tendency (from that cognitive
> > frame of reference) to
> > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than
> > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of
> > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that "like"
> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> >
> > Craig>
> >
> > Geoff,
> > >
> > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use and the
> > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after
> > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > and that
> > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > but one way in
> > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > classes are real,
> > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > learns a
> > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > nothing more
> > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > importance of
> > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > fallacy) shows
> > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the
> > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > language.>
> > > Eduard
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > Subject: Re: like
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction
> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't
> > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the meaning of
> > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > >>
> > >> Geoff Layton
> > >>
> > >> > Craig,
> > >> >
> > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an
> > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > >> >
> > >> > Herb
> > >>
> > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > in a
> > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the others." (I
> > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be standard?
> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or "doesn't
> > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a verb like
> > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> 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/=20
> > >>
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
> >
> 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
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20
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/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:13:25 -0500
From:    Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline

Craig,

I believe, like you do, that the notion of "flexible, dynamic patterns
sustained and reinforced by use" makes more sense. But that is just a facet
of the immensely complex system which is human language in its various forms
(languages, dialects, etc.).

Separating content from form is another absurdity that some people promote,
forgetting that these two aspects of language support each other, and cannot
be dissociated. We need to think more about Marshall McLuhan's statement
that "the medium is the message." I found this explanation of the statement
in Wikipedia:

"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

The axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in language
because meaning is encoded into the form through morphological and syntactic
devices which quite often seem to even transcend the "mechanics" of the
language. This becomes apparent when you notice the "simple" devices that
seem to have such an impact on communication - presuppositions, entailment,
conversational implicature, and of course, Grice's maxims. 

I know, Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to encode meaning,
but that was pure nonsense ("I think that we are forced to conclude that
grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning..." - Syntactic Structures,
p. 17), and later he was forced to revise his claim because he could not go
beyond "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Syntactic Structures - p
15). I am sure that with time he "understood" that  language is nothing like
his sentence, and that humans don't speak like that when they
communicate.What is funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all
this time grammar to convey meaningful messages to his audiences. 

This reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to "show" that we
cannot communicate through language while he was attempting to communicate
this notion to me through his paper. He was using (without understanding)
the some stuff fromLeech (conceptual and associative meaning), Van Orman
Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and radical translation), Davidson (radical
interpretation), and Chomsky (grammar as autonomous and independent of
meaning) to "prove" his  "point." 
 
Eduard 



Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard,
>     I agree that we are in rough agreement and 
> apologize for making my 
> post seem like something else.
>    A big question might be whether the "rules" are 
> there before use (and 
> thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing 
> with 
> flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I 
> would 
> embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people 
> would 
> see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and 
> pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is 
> also 
> possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, 
> deeply tied 
> to both cognition and discourse.
>     Patterns are sustained to the extent that we 
> find them highly 
> productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. 
> The 
> rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed 
> to do. 
> But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is 
> possible. 
> Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the 
> contributions 
> it is making. There are those who say there is little value in 
> making 
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>    To me, the challenge has always been how to present 
> views like this 
> on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee 
> are doing 
> wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the 
> list to 
> be aware of it.
> 
> Craig
> 
> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> > Craig,
> >  
> > I have no problem with the way you express the matters because 
> I don't 
> > see too much of a difference between what I state and what you 
> state. 
> > True, some elements of a category (word class) are more 
> central and 
> > reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other 
> elements 
> > are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics 
> intersect with 
> > or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline 
> elements of 
> > another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" 
> elements of 
> > word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word 
> > classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the 
> empirical 
> > evidence that concerns what I stated above.
> >  
> > Some people continue to believe that the Latin language 
> structure is 
> > artificially superimposed on the English language, but they 
> forget 
> > that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do 
> > construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This 
> fact is 
> > evident from information collected from humans who had never 
> been 
> > socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human 
> language, and 
> > if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition 
> they 
> > are never able to acquire language, except for a few 
> unstructured 
> > rudiments.
> >  
> > If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been 
> claiming for 
> > more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar 
> has been 
> > able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with 
> what is 
> > observable: language is a human construct, and whether we 
> > differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the 
> bare truth 
> > is that without socialization in language no human will speak 
> a human 
> > language.
> >  
> > Eduard
> >  
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> > Subject: Re: like
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > > Eduard,
> > >     I would express it somewhat differently.
> > > Frequency is often
> > > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible 
> for use,
> > > which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
> > >     I just asked a friend how she likes 
> her new
> > > job (from teacher to
> > > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me 
> that she
> > > might not have said that without the influence of the 
> McDonald's ad.
> > > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad 
> campaign can
> > > change that.
> > >     Rather than intersection of word 
> classes, it
> > > might be more of an issue
> > > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more 
> central than
> > > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> > >     You also have a tendency (from that 
> cognitive> > frame of reference) to
> > > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is 
> closer than
> > > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, 
> many of
> > > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that 
> "like"> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> > >
> > > Craig>
> > >
> > > Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use 
> and the
> > > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the 
> author, after
> > > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > > and that
> > > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > > but one way in
> > > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > > classes are real,
> > > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > > learns a
> > > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > > nothing more
> > > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > > importance of
> > > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > > fallacy) shows
> > > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax 
> in the
> > > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > > language.>
> > > > Eduard
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > > Subject: Re: like
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my 
> reaction> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call 
> it?"  I don't
> > > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the 
> meaning of
> > > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > > >>
> > > >> Geoff Layton
> > > >>
> > > >> > Craig,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat 
> as an
> > > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Herb
> > > >>
> > > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > > in a
> > > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the 
> others." (I
> > > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be 
> standard?> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" 
> (or "doesn't
> > > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a 
> verb like
> > > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> 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/
> >
> 
> 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/

--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline

=3CDIV=3ECraig=2C=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EI believe=2C like you do=2C that the notion of =22flexible=2C d=
ynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use=22 makes more sense=2E B=
ut that is just a facet of the immensely complex system which is human l=
anguage in its various forms (languages=2C dialects=2C etc=2E)=2E=3C/DIV=
=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3ESeparating content from form is another absurdity that some peo=
ple promote=2C forgetting that these two aspects of language support eac=
h other=2C and cannot be dissociated=2E We need to think more about Mars=
hall McLuhan=27s statement that =22the medium is the message=2E=22 I fou=
nd this explanation of the statement in Wikipedia=3A=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=3CSTRONG=3E=22The medium is the message=3C/STRONG=3E is a phra=
se coined by =3CA title=3D=22Marshall McLuhan=22 href=3D=22/wiki/Marshal=
l=5FMcLuhan=22=3EMarshall McLuhan=3C/A=3E meaning that the form of a =3C=
A title=3DMedium href=3D=22/wiki/Medium=22=3Emedium=3C/A=3E embeds itsel=
f in the =3CA title=3DMessage href=3D=22/wiki/Message=22=3Emessage=3C/A=3E=
=2C creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how=
 the message is perceived=2E=22=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EThe axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in=
 language because meaning is encoded into the form=26nbsp=3Bthrough morp=
hological and syntactic devices which quite often seem to even transcend=
 the =22mechanics=22 of the language=2E This becomes apparent when you n=
otice=26nbsp=3Bthe =22simple=22 devices=26nbsp=3Bthat seem to have such =
an impact on communication -=26nbsp=3Bpresuppositions=2C entailment=2C=26=
nbsp=3Bconversational implicature=2C and of course=2C Grice=27s maxims=2E=
=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EI know=2C Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to en=
code meaning=2C but that=26nbsp=3Bwas pure nonsense=26nbsp=3B(=22I think=
 that we are forced to=26nbsp=3Bconclude that=26nbsp=3B grammar is auton=
omous and independent of meaning=2E=2E=2E=22 - Syntactic Structures=2C p=
=2E=26nbsp=3B17)=2C and later he was forced to revise=26nbsp=3Bhis claim=
 because he could not go beyond =22Colorless green ideas sleep furiously=
=22 (Syntactic Structures - p 15)=2E I am sure that with=26nbsp=3Btime h=
e =22understood=22 that=26nbsp=3B language is nothing like his sentence=2C=
 and that humans don=27t speak like that when they communicate=2EWhat is=
 funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all this time gramm=
ar to convey meaningful messages=26nbsp=3Bto his audiences=2E =3C/DIV=3E=

=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EThis reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to =22=
show=22 that we cannot communicate through language while he was attempt=
ing to communicate this notion to me through his paper=2E He was using (=
without understanding) the=26nbsp=3Bsome stuff fromLeech (conceptual and=
 associative meaning)=2C Van Orman Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and r=
adical translation)=2C Davidson (radical interpretation)=2C and Chomsky =
(grammar as autonomous and independent of meaning) to=26nbsp=3B=22prove=22=
 his=26nbsp=3B =22point=2E=22 =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EEduard =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EOriginal Message -----=3CBR=3EFrom=3A Craig Hancock =26lt=3Bhan=
cock=40ALBANY=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3EDate=3A Thursday=2C September 16=2C 2=
010 7=3A50=3CBR=3ESubject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3ETo=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EM=
UOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=
=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I agree that we are in rough agreement and =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B apologize for making my =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B post seem like somethi=
ng else=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B A big question might be =
whether the =22rules=22 are =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B there before use (and =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are deal=
ing =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B with =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B flexible=2C dynamic patterns =
sustained and reinforced by use=2E I =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B would =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B embrace the latter=2C sometimes called =22usage-based=2E=22 Some pe=
ople =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B would =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B see grammatical forms as me=
aning-neutral (semantically and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B pragmatically)=2C with =
meanings added through the lexicon=2E It is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B also =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right=2C =
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B deeply tied =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B to both cognition and disc=
ourse=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Patterns are sus=
tained to the extent that we =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B find them highly =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B productive=2E From this view=2C form ENABLES rather than constrain=
s=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B The =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B rules of prescriptive grammar=
 tell us what we are not supposed =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B to do=2E =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B But without the natural grammar=2C no substantial meaning is =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B possible=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Frequency of a construct can also =
make us unaware of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B contributions =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B i=
t is making=2E There are those who say there is little value in =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B making =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B these conscious=2E I would disagree wit=
h that as well=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B To me=2C the chal=
lenge has always been how to present =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B views like this =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B on the list as perspective=2C not as argument=2E People li=
ke Bybee =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B are doing =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B wonderful work alon=
g these lines=2C and it would be good for the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B list to =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B be aware of it=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Craig=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard Hanganu wrote=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B Craig=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B I have no problem with the way you express the matters because =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B I don=27t =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B see too much of a differ=
ence between what I state and what you =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B state=2E =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B True=2C some elements of a category (word class) are m=
ore =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B reflect bette=
r the basic characteristics of that class=2E Other =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elem=
ents =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B are borderline or peripheral=2C and their=
 characteristics =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B intersect with =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B elements of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B another class=2E On the whole=
=2C though=2C there are =22standard=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elements of =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B word classes=2C and there are =22peripheral=22 ele=
ments of such word =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B classes=2E Denial of such f=
acts=2C though=2C is a denial of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B empirical =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B evidence that concerns what I stated above=2E=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Some people continue =
to believe that the Latin language =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B structure is =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B artificially superimposed on the English language=2C b=
ut they =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B forget =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B that language =
is a social phenomenon=2C and that we humans do =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 construct language structure implicitly or explicitly=2E This =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B fact is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B evident from information collect=
ed from humans who had never =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B been =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B socialized in language=2E Those people don=27t speak a human =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B language=2C and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B if they are beyond th=
e critical period of language acquisition =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B they =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B are never able to acquire language=2C except for a few=
 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B unstructured =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B rudiments=2E=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B If there is a=
n =22universal grammar=22 as Chomsky has been =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B claiming =
for =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B more than five decades=2C no linguist or o=
ther kind of scholar =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B has been =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 able to provide evidence for the claim=2E So=2C we remain with =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B what is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B observable=3A language is a h=
uman construct=2C and whether we =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B differentiate=
 between acquisition and learning or not=2C the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B bare tr=
uth =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B is that without socialization in language =
no human will speak =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B a human =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B l=
anguage=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message ---=
--=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Craig Hancock =26lt=3Bhancock=40ALBA=
NY=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Date=3A Wednesday=2C September=
 15=2C 2010 19=3A16=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I would express it som=
ewhat differently=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Frequency is ofte=
n=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B self-reinforcing=2E Frequency makes =
something more accessible =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B for use=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B which in turn makes it more frequent=2E And so on=2E=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I =
just asked a friend how she likes =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B her new=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B job (from teacher to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 counselor)=2C and she said =22I=27m liking it=2E=22 It occured to me =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B that she=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might not have =
said that without the influence of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B McDonald=27s ad=2E=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Progressive is not common with stativ=
e verbs=2C but an ad =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B campaign can=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B change that=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Rather than intersection of word =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B classes=2C it=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might be more of a=
n issue=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B of centrality=2E Some elements=
 of the category are more =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B others=2C some more borderline or peripheral=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B You a=
lso have a tendency (from that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B cognitive=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 frame of reference) to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B see far more l=
ower level constructions=2E It=27s much more a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules=2E (Pattern is =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B closer than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B rule=2E) A gr=
eat deal of language includes set constructions=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B many=
 of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B them with their own more local pat=
terns=2E So it could be that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22like=22=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 brings with it a unique kind of grammar=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Geoff=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Y=
ou probably did not have time to read =22Frequency of Use =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 and the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Organization of Lang=
uage=22 by Joan Bybee=2C in which the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B author=2C after=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B decades of research=2C document=
s that language organizes itself=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B an=
d that=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B parts of speech or wor=
d classes are not an idiot=27s fantasy=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B but one way in=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B which lang=
uage acquires and shows structure=2E These word=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B classes are real=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 and understanding them makes a great difference when one=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B learns a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B l=
anguage=2E That difference goes beyond boundaries=2C which are=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B nothing more=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B than points at which word classes intersect=2E To inflate the=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B importance of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B these points of intersection to a generality (which is a=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B fallacy) shows=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B lack of understanding of the role of morphology and sy=
ntax =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Geoffrey Layton =26lt=3Bwriterg=
wl=40HOTMAIL=2ECOM=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Da=
te=3A Wednesday=2C September 15=2C 2010 16=3A13=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig - I know we=27ve h=
ad this discussion before=2C but my =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B reaction=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B is =22what difference does it make what we call =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B it=3F=22=26nbsp=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B see how you can have anything except flexible boun=
daries=2C which=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B then =
leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B effect of =22shading=22 into a verb =
- what happens to the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B meaning of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B the sentence=3F Labeling the choices as preop=
ositions=2C adjectives=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
 or verbs really doesn=27t go very far to answer this question=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Geoff Layton=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 Craig=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B My first react=
ion was that this use of =22like=22 was adjectival=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B but since you want a traditional treatme=
nt I checked the OED=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online=2E Both treat =3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B as an=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B adjective=2C=
 although MW doesn=27t have an example with BE=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I am c=
urious about how traditional grammar handles =22like=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B in a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
 sentence like =22One of these things is not like the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B o=
thers=2E=22 (I=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B know=3B=
 Sesame Street)=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B My instinct is to say =22like the others=22 is prepositional=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B phrase=2C complement to =22i=
s=22=2C therefore referring back=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B=26gt=3B (adjectivally=3F) to =22One of these things=2E=22 Would that=
 be =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B standard=3F=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B If it can be easily replaced by =22resembles=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B (or=
 =22doesn=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B resembl=
e=22)=2C does that mean =22be like=22 is shading into a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 verb like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B status wit=
h =22the others=22 as object=3F Are we OK with flexible=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B boundaries around our categories=3F=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B list=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B in=
terface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=
=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A=
//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B=26gt=3B and selec=
t =22Join=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or=
 leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B web interface=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26n=
bsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2E=
muohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B and select =22Join=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s=
 web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B and select =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s =
web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit th=
e list=27s =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A=
 http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
and select =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at ht=
tp=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s we=
b =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)--

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:27 -0500
From:    Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline

Bob,

Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim that
our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input."
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the best way
to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be later
formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in the proverbial
anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him
through the keyhole. There is always something that we forgot to say, always
something left uncovered, something  we misunderstood, and something we
never learned.

Are we communicating?

Eduard 

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]

> Colleagues,
> 
> Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of  patterns 
> (learned from the input we get) is a discussion that has 
> occurred before on this list. 
> 
> If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)
> 
> "we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and 
> reinforced by use"
> 
> then the claim is that we do not know very much about 
> grammatical categories.  Such categories are the result of 
> the "patterns" we are exposed to.  There are all kinds of 
> examples I could cite to show how such a common sense idea is 
> problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.
> 
> Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.
> 
> 1) Bob needs someone to work for.
> 2)  Bob needs someone to work for him.
> 
> In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.
> 
> What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those 
> interpretations?  It is not just the presence or absence of 
> the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have the same meaning.
> 
> 3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
> 4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them. 
> 
> Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I 
> have no idea how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4. 
> 
> These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim 
> that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive 
> from the input.
> 
> Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
> 
> There are those who say there is little value in making
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
> 
> I could not agree more -- there is great value in making 
> conscious the knowledge of language that we all have. 
> 
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> 
> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/16/2010 7:47 AM >>>
> Eduard,
>     I agree that we are in rough agreement and 
> apologize for making my
> post seem like something else.
>    A big question might be whether the "rules" are 
> there before use (and
> thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with
> flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would
> embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would
> see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and
> pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also
> possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, 
> deeply tied
> to both cognition and discourse.
>     Patterns are sustained to the extent that we 
> find them highly
> productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The
> rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed 
> to do.
> But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.
> Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions
> it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>    To me, the challenge has always been how to present 
> views like this
> on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee 
> are doing
> wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the 
> list to
> be aware of it.
> 
> Craig
> 
> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> > Craig,
> >
> > I have no problem with the way you express the matters because 
> I don't
> > see too much of a difference between what I state and what you 
> state.> True, some elements of a category (word class) are more 
> central and
> > reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other 
> elements> are borderline or peripheral, and their 
> characteristics intersect with
> > or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline 
> elements of
> > another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" 
> elements of
> > word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
> > classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
> > evidence that concerns what I stated above.
> >
> > Some people continue to believe that the Latin language 
> structure is
> > artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget
> > that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do
> > construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This 
> fact is
> > evident from information collected from humans who had never been
> > socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human 
> language, and
> > if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they
> > are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured
> > rudiments.
> >
> > If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been 
> claiming for
> > more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar 
> has been
> > able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with 
> what is
> > observable: language is a human construct, and whether we
> > differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the 
> bare truth
> > is that without socialization in language no human will speak 
> a human
> > language.
> >
> > Eduard
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> > Subject: Re: like
> > To: [log in to unmask] 
> >
> > > Eduard,
> > >     I would express it somewhat differently.
> > > Frequency is often
> > > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible 
> for use,
> > > which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
> > >     I just asked a friend how she likes 
> her new
> > > job (from teacher to
> > > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me 
> that she
> > > might not have said that without the influence of the 
> McDonald's ad.
> > > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad 
> campaign can
> > > change that.
> > >     Rather than intersection of word 
> classes, it
> > > might be more of an issue
> > > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more 
> central than
> > > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> > >     You also have a tendency (from that 
> cognitive> > frame of reference) to
> > > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is 
> closer than
> > > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, 
> many of
> > > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that 
> "like"> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> > >
> > > Craig>
> > >
> > > Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use 
> and the
> > > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the 
> author, after
> > > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > > and that
> > > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > > but one way in
> > > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > > classes are real,
> > > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > > learns a
> > > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > > nothing more
> > > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > > importance of
> > > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > > fallacy) shows
> > > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax 
> in the
> > > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > > language.>
> > > > Eduard
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > > Subject: Re: like
> > > > To: [log in to unmask] 
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my 
> reaction> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call 
> it?"  I don't
> > > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the 
> meaning of
> > > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > > >>
> > > >> Geoff Layton
> > > >>
> > > >> > Craig,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat 
> as an
> > > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Herb
> > > >>
> > > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > > in a
> > > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the 
> others." (I
> > > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be 
> standard?> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" 
> (or "doesn't
> > > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a 
> verb like
> > > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> 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/ 
> >
> 
> 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/

--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline

=3CDIV=3EBob=2C=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EOf course=2C it is true=26nbsp=3Bthat =22there is something inc=
omplete in a claim that our knowledge of language is based on patterns w=
e perceive from the input=2E=22 It is also true that using exceptions as=
 examples is not always the best way to investigate language or to reach=
 conclusions that could be later formulated=26nbsp=3Bor distilled into r=
ules=2E The fact is that=2C like in the proverbial anecdote=2C we are tr=
ying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him through the keyho=
le=2E There is always something that we forgot to say=2C always somethin=
g left uncovered=2C something=26nbsp=3B we misunderstood=2C and somethin=
g we never learned=2E=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EAre we communicating=3F=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EEduard =3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3EFrom=
=3A Robert Yates =26lt=3Bryates=40UCMO=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3EDate=3A Thur=
sday=2C September 16=2C 2010 9=3A16=3CBR=3ESubject=3A Grammar as pattern=
s=3CBR=3ETo=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Co=
lleagues=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Whether grammar is a set of=
 rules or a set of=26nbsp=3B patterns =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B (learned from the=
 input we get) is a discussion that has =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B occurred before=
 on this list=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B If I understand the f=
ollowing correctly=2C (Craig writes=3A)=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =22we are dealing with flexible=2C dynamic patterns sustained and =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B reinforced by use=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B then t=
he claim is that we do not know very much about =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B grammat=
ical categories=2E=26nbsp=3B Such categories are the result of =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B the =22patterns=22 we are exposed to=2E=26nbsp=3B There are all ki=
nds of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B examples I could cite to show how such a common =
sense idea is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B problematic=2C but let=27s consider two p=
airs of sentences=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Sentences 1 and 2 =
clearly have different meanings=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 1) B=
ob needs someone to work for=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 2)=26nbsp=3B Bob needs s=
omeone to work for him=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B In 1=2C Bob w=
ants to be the worker=2C and in 2=2C Bob is an employer=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B What is the =22pattern=22 we acquired that lead to tho=
se =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interpretations=3F=26nbsp=3B It is not just the pres=
ence or absence of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B the pronoun=2E Sentences 3 and 4 hav=
e the same meaning=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 3) These are the =
letters Bob threw away without reading=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 4) There are t=
he letters Bob threw away without reading them=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories=2C=
 I =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B have no idea how to explain the meanings of sentence=
s 1-4=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B These sentences suggest there=
 is something incomplete in a claim =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B that our knowledge =
of language is based on patterns we perceive =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B from the i=
nput=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Finally=2C Craig and I fundamen=
tally agree on one point=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B There are t=
hose who say there is little value in making=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B these consc=
ious=2E I would disagree with that as well=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B I could not agree more -- there is great value in making =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B conscious the knowledge of language that we all have=2E =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Bob Yates=2C University of Central Missouri=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig Hancock =26lt=3B=
hancock=40ALBANY=2EEDU=26gt=3B 9/16/2010 7=3A47 AM =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26gt=
=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbs=
p=3B I agree that we are in rough agreement and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B apologi=
ze for making my=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B post seem like something else=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B A big question might be whether the =22rul=
es=22 are =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B there before use (and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B thus pr=
edetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B flexible=2C dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use=2E I =
would=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B embrace the latter=2C sometimes called =22usage-ba=
sed=2E=22 Some people would=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B see grammatical forms as mea=
ning-neutral (semantically and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B pragmatically)=2C with me=
anings added through the lexicon=2E It is also=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B possible =
to see that they are meaningful in their own right=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B d=
eeply tied=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B to both cognition and discourse=2E=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Patterns are sustained to the exten=
t that we =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B find them highly=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B productive=2E=
 From this view=2C form ENABLES rather than constrains=2E The=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B to do=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B But without the natural grammar=2C=
 no substantial meaning is possible=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Frequency of a co=
nstruct can also make us unaware of the contributions=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B it=
 is making=2E There are those who say there is little value in making=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B these conscious=2E I would disagree with that as well=2E=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B To me=2C the challenge has always bee=
n how to present =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B views like this=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B on the=
 list as perspective=2C not as argument=2E People like Bybee =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B are doing=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B wonderful work along these lines=2C and =
it would be good for the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B list to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B be awa=
re of it=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B Eduard Hanganu wrote=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=2C=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I have no problem with t=
he way you express the matters because =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B see too much of a difference between what I state and =
what you =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B state=2E=26gt=3B True=2C some elements of a ca=
tegory (word class) are more =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B reflect better the basic characteristics of that class=2E Othe=
r =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elements=26gt=3B are borderline or peripheral=2C and =
their =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B characteristics intersect with=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B elements of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B another class=2E On the wh=
ole=2C though=2C there are =22standard=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elements of=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B word classes=2C and there are =22peripheral=22 el=
ements of such word=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B classes=2E Denial of such f=
acts=2C though=2C is a denial of the empirical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
evidence that concerns what I stated above=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Some people continue to believe that the Latin la=
nguage =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B structure is=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B artificial=
ly superimposed on the English language=2C but they forget=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B that language is a social phenomenon=2C and that we humans do=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B construct language structure implicitly or explic=
itly=2E This =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B fact is=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B evident f=
rom information collected from humans who had never been=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B socialized in language=2E Those people don=27t speak a human =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B language=2C and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B if they are beyon=
d the critical period of language acquisition they=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B are never able to acquire language=2C except for a few unstructured=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B rudiments=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B If there is an =22universal grammar=22 as Chomsky has been=
 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B claiming for=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B more than five d=
ecades=2C no linguist or other kind of scholar =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B has been=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B able to provide evidence for the claim=2E So=2C=
 we remain with =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B what is=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B observ=
able=3A language is a human construct=2C and whether we=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B differentiate between acquisition and learning or not=2C the =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B bare truth=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B is that without social=
ization in language no human will speak =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B a human=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message -----=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Craig Hancock =26lt=3Bhancock=40ALBANY=2EE=
DU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Date=3A Wednesday=2C September 15=2C=
 2010 19=3A16=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I would express it som=
ewhat differently=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Frequency is ofte=
n=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B self-reinforcing=2E Frequency makes =
something more accessible =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B for use=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B which in turn makes it more frequent=2E And so on=2E=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I =
just asked a friend how she likes =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B her new=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B job (from teacher to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 counselor)=2C and she said =22I=27m liking it=2E=22 It occured to me =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B that she=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might not have =
said that without the influence of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B McDonald=27s ad=2E=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Progressive is not common with stativ=
e verbs=2C but an ad =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B campaign can=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B change that=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Rather than intersection of word =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B classes=2C it=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might be more of a=
n issue=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B of centrality=2E Some elements=
 of the category are more =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B others=2C some more borderline or peripheral=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B You a=
lso have a tendency (from that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B cognitive=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 frame of reference) to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B see far more l=
ower level constructions=2E It=27s much more a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules=2E (Pattern is =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B closer than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B rule=2E) A gr=
eat deal of language includes set constructions=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B many=
 of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B them with their own more local pat=
terns=2E So it could be that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22like=22=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 brings with it a unique kind of grammar=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Geoff=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Y=
ou probably did not have time to read =22Frequency of Use =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 and the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Organization of Lang=
uage=22 by Joan Bybee=2C in which the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B author=2C after=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B decades of research=2C document=
s that language organizes itself=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B an=
d that=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B parts of speech or wor=
d classes are not an idiot=27s fantasy=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B but one way in=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B which lang=
uage acquires and shows structure=2E These word=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B classes are real=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 and understanding them makes a great difference when one=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B learns a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B l=
anguage=2E That difference goes beyond boundaries=2C which are=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B nothing more=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B than points at which word classes intersect=2E To inflate the=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B importance of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B these points of intersection to a generality (which is a=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B fallacy) shows=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B lack of understanding of the role of morphology and sy=
ntax =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Geoffrey Layton =26lt=3Bwriterg=
wl=40HOTMAIL=2ECOM=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Da=
te=3A Wednesday=2C September 15=2C 2010 16=3A13=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig - I know we=27ve =
had this discussion before=2C but my =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B reaction=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B is =22what difference does it make what we call =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B it=3F=22=26nbsp=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B see how you can have anything except flexible boun=
daries=2C which=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B then =
leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B effect of =22shading=22 into a verb =
- what happens to the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B meaning of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B the sentence=3F Labeling the choices as preop=
ositions=2C adjectives=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
 or verbs really doesn=27t go very far to answer this question=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Geoff Layton=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 Craig=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B My first react=
ion was that this use of =22like=22 was adjectival=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B but since you want a traditional treatme=
nt I checked the OED=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online=2E Both treat =3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B as an=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B adjective=2C=
 although MW doesn=27t have an example with BE=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I am c=
urious about how traditional grammar handles =22like=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B in a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
 sentence like =22One of these things is not like the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B o=
thers=2E=22 (I=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B know=3B=
 Sesame Street)=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B My instinct is to say =22like the others=22 is prepositional=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B phrase=2C complement to =22i=
s=22=2C therefore referring back=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B=26gt=3B (adjectivally=3F) to =22One of these things=2E=22 Would that=
 be =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B standard=3F=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B If it can be easily replaced by =22resembles=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B (or=
 =22doesn=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B resembl=
e=22)=2C does that mean =22be like=22 is shading into a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 verb like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B status wit=
h =22the others=22 as object=3F Are we OK with flexible=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B boundaries around our categories=3F=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B list=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B in=
terface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ate=
g=2Ehtml=26gt=3B=26gt=3B and select =22Join=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s =
web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please=
 visit the list=27s=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B web interface=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuo=
hio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B and select =22Join=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B =26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
 =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web =
site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B To =
join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site=
 at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the lis=
t=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A http=3A//listserv=2Em=
uohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave=
 this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in=
terface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please vis=
it the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/a=
rchives/ateg=2Ehtml=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=
=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A/=
/ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)--

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:30:35 -0700
From:    "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A Practical Question

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

=20

Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.  'In answering
the title's question, "Why Me?"  the author....'

=20

He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
title and if so, where.

=20

I feel like it needs a comma but I don't want to put one in. What do you
folks think?

=20

Janet

=20

=20


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/

------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Hi<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Our school librarian asked me o look at this =
sentence.&nbsp;
&#8216;In answering the title&#8217;s question, &#8220;Why =
Me?&#8221;&nbsp; the
author&#8230;.&#8217;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could =
put a
comma after the title and if so, where.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>I feel like it needs a comma but I don&#8217;t want =
to put
one in. What do you folks think?<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal>Janet<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352--

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:21:06 -0400
From:    Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bob,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Glad to have that fundamental agreement.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; I think this is less of a problem in speech.&nbsp; In sentence
one, tonic
prominence falls on "for."&nbsp; In sentence two, it falls on "him." <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can
work
for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve ways
to articulate that relationship.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious
knowledge
that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
about it) are deeply interwoven. <br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
Robert Yates wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Colleagues,

Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of  patterns (learned from the
input we get) is a discussion that has occurred before on this list. 

If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)

"we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by
use"

then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical
categories.  Such categories are the result of the "patterns" we are exposed
to.  There are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how such a common
sense idea is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.

Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.

1) Bob needs someone to work for.
2)  Bob needs someone to work for him.

In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.

What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those interpretations?  It is
not just the presence or absence of the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have the
same meaning.

3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them. 

Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no idea
how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4. 

These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim that our
knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input.

Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.

There are those who say there is little value in making
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.

I could not agree more -- there is great value in making conscious the
knowledge of language that we all have. 

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Craig Hancock <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">&lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;</a> 9/16/2010
7:47 AM &gt;&gt;&gt;
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->Eduard,
    I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologize for making my
post seem like something else.
   A big question might be whether the "rules" are there before use (and
thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with
flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would
embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would
see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and
pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also
possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, deeply tied
to both cognition and discourse.
    Patterns are sustained to the extent that we find them highly
productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The
rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed to do.
But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.
Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions
it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
   To me, the challenge has always been how to present views like this
on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee are doing
wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the list to
be aware of it.

Craig

Eduard Hanganu wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Craig,

I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I don't
see too much of a difference between what I state and what you state.
True, some elements of a category (word class) are more central and
reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other elements
are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics intersect with
or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline elements of
another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" elements of
word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
evidence that concerns what I stated above.

Some people continue to believe that the Latin language structure is
artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget
that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do
construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This fact is
evident from information collected from humans who had never been
socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human language, and
if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they
are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured
rudiments.

If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been claiming for
more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar has been
able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with what is
observable: language is a human construct, and whether we
differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the bare truth
is that without socialization in language no human will speak a human
language.

Eduard



----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">&lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;</a>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
Subject: Re: like
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a> 

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Eduard,
    I would express it somewhat differently.
Frequency is often
self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,
which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
    I just asked a friend how she likes her new
job (from teacher to
counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me that she
might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.
Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can
change that.
    Rather than intersection of word classes, it
might be more of an issue
of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than
others, some more borderline or peripheral.
    You also have a tendency (from that cognitive
frame of reference) to
see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than
rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of
them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that "like"
brings with it a unique kind of grammar.

Craig&gt;

Geoff,
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of
Use and the
Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after
decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">and that
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's
fantasy,
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">but one way in
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">which language acquires and shows structure. These word
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">classes are real,
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">and understanding them makes a great difference when
one
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">learns a
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which
are
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">nothing more
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate
the
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">importance of
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">these points of intersection to a generality (which is
a
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">fallacy) shows
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">lack of understanding of the role of morphology and
syntax in the
production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">language.&gt;
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Eduard

----- Original Message -----
From: Geoffrey Layton <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">&lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;</a>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
Subject: Re: like
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a> 

        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but
my reaction
is "what difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't
see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the meaning of
the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.

Geoff Layton

          </pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">Craig,

My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
            </pre>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">but since you want a traditional treatment I checked
the OED
Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an
adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
          </pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">Herb
            </pre>
          </blockquote>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">I am curious about how traditional grammar handles
"like"
            </pre>
          </blockquote>
        </blockquote>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">in a
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">sentence like "One of these things is not like the
others." (I
know; Sesame Street).
          </pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">My instinct is to say "like the others" is
prepositional
            </pre>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
(adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be standard?
          </pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or
"doesn't
            </pre>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into
a verb like
status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
boundaries around our categories?
          </pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">
            </pre>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">Craig
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:

          </pre>
        </blockquote>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>&gt;&gt; and select "Join
or leave the list"
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">Visit ATEG's web site at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> 

          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">web interface
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">at:

        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>&gt; and select "Join
or leave the list"
      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Visit ATEG's web site at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> 

        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web
interface at:
     <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a> 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> 

      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select
"Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> 

    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
     <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a> 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
     <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>


  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:57:41 -0500
From:    John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A Practical Question

--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Janet,

"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be
inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefe=
r
that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:

In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....

In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.

From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :

Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive=
)
bumps up against the rule that says a question mark shouldn=92t be directly
followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here=92s the sentence: The album=
=92s
first single =93Do You Realize??=94 features a lush arrangement. Is it bett=
er to
set off =93Do You Realize??=94 with commas? Leave out the commas? Recast th=
e
sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.

A. The sixteenth edition of *CMOS* recommends using a comma even after a
question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The
album=92s first single, =93Do You Realize??,=94 features a lush arrangement=
. Of
course, if you find that punctuation clump ugly, you=92re free to recast th=
e
sentence.
John

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Castilleja, Janet <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Hi
>
>
>
> Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.  =91In answering t=
he
> title=92s question, =93Why Me?=94  the author=85.=92
>
>
>
> He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
> title and if so, where.
>
>
>
> I feel like it needs a comma but I don=92t want to put one in. What do yo=
u
> folks think?
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
>  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/

--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Janet,<br><br>&quot;Why Me?&quot; seems like a non-essential appositive =
to me. I&#39;d certainly be inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many=
 American style guides prefer that commas be placed inside quotation marks,=
 it would read like this:<br>

<br>In answering the title&#39;s question, &quot;Why Me?,&quot; the author.=
...<br><br>In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.<br><b=
r>From <a href=3D"http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_quest=
ions01.html">http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions0=
1.html</a> :<br>

<br><p class=3D"Q"><span class=3D"Q_label">Q.</span> When the appositive ru=
le (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive) bumps up against the ru=
le that says a question
   mark shouldn=92t be directly followed by a comma, which rule prevails? H=
ere=92s the
   sentence: The album=92s first single =93Do You Realize??=94 features
   a lush arrangement.  Is it better to set off =93Do You Realize??=94 with=
 commas? Leave
   out the commas? Recast the sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Th=
anks for your thoughts.
</p>
<p class=3D"A"><span class=3D"Q_label">A.</span> The sixteenth edition of <=
i>CMOS</i> recommends using a comma even after a question mark if it would =
normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The album=92s
   first single, =93Do You Realize??,=94 features a lush arrangement. Of co=
urse, if you
   find that punctuation clump ugly, you=92re free to recast the sentence.
</p>John<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM=
, Castilleja, Janet <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Castilleja_j@he=
ritage.edu">[log in to unmask]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px =
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">










<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-US">

<div>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentenc=
e.=A0
=91In answering the title=92s question, =93Why Me?=94=A0 the
author=85.=92</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could pu=
t a
comma after the title and if so, where.</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I feel like it needs a comma but I don=92t want to p=
ut
one in. What do you folks think?</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Janet</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p>

</div>

</div>


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list&#39;s web interf=
ace at:
     <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select &quot;Join or leave the list&quot;
<p>
Visit ATEG&#39;s web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://ateg.org/</a>
</p></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027--

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:09 -0400
From:    William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3367496470_314417
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable


Bob,

I know we=B9re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we=B9re
following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot help bu=
t
point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences used
in the related older postings aren=B9t the same; and all this without
positin=
g
a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you=B9re implying that
moder=
n
pattern-based approaches don=B9t use abstract grammatical categories, but
the=
y
do (at least, in a sense that=B9s relevant here).

I don=B9t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns
have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn=B9t be a
pattern
anyway; it=B9d be an instance. A category that can be realized as a range of
lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts as a grammatical
category, I=B9d think. It may not be only a grammatical category, but
that=B9s =
a
different =8B important, but different -- issue.

Here=B9s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it
run=
s
the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies for
deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we know
we don=B9t know well yet:

(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that
could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work
for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.

Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won=B9t get what
you want a good deal of the time =8B but it=B9s darn creative. If we assume
(1)=
,
and If it turns out that what=B9s actually produced isn=B9t the kind of
thing
we=B9d get from farming all the a priori possibilities, it makes sense that
something must be constraining those possibilities (and thus there=B9s a
clea=
r
need for a UG). Strategy (2), in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism,
as a limiter. It=B9s a bit like deciding that if you=B9ve been using onions
in =
a
recipe, and you=B9re out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than
chocolate as a stand-in.  You won=B9t get noticed as a breakthrough chef,
but
your diner won=B9t go out of business.

Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strateg=
y
(1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were approaches
based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn=B9t do
(1),
but didn=B9t try to do things with language either =8B that their use of
language was rather like Pavlov=B9s dogs=B9 use of drool. No one likes the
strategy (0) approaches, really (unless they=B9ve been trained to). I
don=B9t
think we=B9re at a point where we can say children definitely use a
particula=
r
strategy to construct language, but I=B9d argue we can say that we can=B9t
rule
out strategy (1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research
devoted to each.

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
=20


>=20
> Robert Yates wrote:
>> =20
>> Colleagues,
>>=20
>> Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of  patterns (learned from th=
e
>> input we get) is a discussion that has occurred before on this list.
>>=20
>> If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)
>>=20
>> "we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced=
 by
>> use"
>>=20
>> then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical catego=
ries.
>> Such categories are the result of the "patterns" we are exposed to.  The=
re
>> are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how such a common sense i=
dea
>> is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.
>>=20
>> Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.
>>=20
>> 1) Bob needs someone to work for.
>> 2)  Bob needs someone to work for him.
>>=20
>> In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.
>>=20
>> What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those interpretations?  I=
t is
>> not just the presence or absence of the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have =
the
>> same meaning.
>>=20
>> 3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
>> 4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them.
>>=20
>> Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no i=
dea
>> how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.
>>=20
>> These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim that ou=
r
>> knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input.
>>=20
>> Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
>>=20
>> There are those who say there is little value in making
>> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>>=20
>> I could not agree more -- there is great value in making conscious the
>> knowledge of language that we all have.
>>=20
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>=20
>>  =20
>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  9/16/=
2010
>>>>> 7:47 AM >>>
>>>>>        =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Eduard,
>>>>     I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologize for making my
>>>> post seem like something else.
>>>>    A big question might be whether the "rules" are there before use (a=
nd
>>>> thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with
>>>> flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would
>>>> embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would
>>>> see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and
>>>> pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also
>>>> possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, deeply ti=
ed
>>>> to both cognition and discourse.
>>>>     Patterns are sustained to the extent that we find them highly
>>>> productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The
>>>> rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed to do.
>>>> But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.
>>>> Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions
>>>> it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making
>>>> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>>>>    To me, the challenge has always been how to present views like this
>>>> on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee are doi=
ng
>>>> wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the list to
>>>> be aware of it.
>>>>=20
>>>> Craig
>>>>=20
>>>> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
>>>>  =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I don'=
t
>>>>> see too much of a difference between what I state and what you state.
>>>>> True, some elements of a category (word class) are more central and
>>>>> reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other element=
s
>>>>> are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics intersect wit=
h
>>>>> or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline elements o=
f
>>>>> another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" elements of
>>>>> word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
>>>>> classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
>>>>> evidence that concerns what I stated above.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Some people continue to believe that the Latin language structure is
>>>>> artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget
>>>>> that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do
>>>>> construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This fact is
>>>>> evident from information collected from humans who had never been
>>>>> socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human language, an=
d
>>>>> if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they
>>>>> are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured
>>>>> rudiments.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been claiming for
>>>>> more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar has been
>>>>> able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with what is
>>>>> observable: language is a human construct, and whether we
>>>>> differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the bare truth
>>>>> is that without socialization in language no human will speak a human
>>>>> language.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
>>>>> Subject: Re: like
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>=20
>>>>>    =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>     I would express it somewhat differently.
>>>>>> Frequency is often
>>>>>> self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,
>>>>>> which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
>>>>>>     I just asked a friend how she likes her new
>>>>>> job (from teacher to
>>>>>> counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me that she
>>>>>> might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.
>>>>>> Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can
>>>>>> change that.
>>>>>>     Rather than intersection of word classes, it
>>>>>> might be more of an issue
>>>>>> of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than
>>>>>> others, some more borderline or peripheral.
>>>>>>     You also have a tendency (from that cognitive
>>>>>> frame of reference) to
>>>>>> see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
>>>>>> lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than
>>>>>> rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of
>>>>>> them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that "like"
>>>>>> brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Craig>
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Geoff,
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use and the
>>>>>>> Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after
>>>>>>> decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> and that
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> but one way in
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> which language acquires and shows structure. These word
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> classes are real,
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> and understanding them makes a great difference when one
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> learns a
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> nothing more
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> importance of
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> fallacy) shows
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the
>>>>>>> production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> language.>
>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: like
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>        =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction
>>>>>>> is "what difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't
>>>>>>> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
>>>>>>> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
>>>>>>> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the meaning of
>>>>>>> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
>>>>>>> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>          =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Craig,
>>>=20
>>> My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
>>>            =20
>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
>>>>>>> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an
>>>>>>> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
>>>>>>>          =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Herb
>>>            =20
>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
>>>            =20
>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> sentence like "One of these things is not like the others." (I
>>> know; Sesame Street).
>>>          =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
>>>            =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
>>> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be standard?
>>>          =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or "doesn't
>>>            =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a verb like
>>> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
>>> boundaries around our categories?
>>>          =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>=20
>>>            =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Craig
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>>=20
>>>          =20
>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>> and select "Join
>>>>>>> or leave the list"
>>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>=20
>>>>          =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>        =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> web interface
>>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> at:
>>>>=20
>>>>        =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html> and select "Join
>>>>>>> or leave the list"
>>>>>>>      =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>=20
>>>>>        =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> 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"
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>=20
>>>>>      =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and selec=
t
>>>>> "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>=20
>>>>>    =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web inte=
rface
>>>>> at:
>>>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>=20
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web inte=
rface
>>>>> at:
>>>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>  =20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web inte=
rface
>>>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>>>>> leave the list"
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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/

--B_3367496470_314417
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Grammar as patterns</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
STYLE=3D=
'font-size:11pt'><BR>
Bob,<BR>
<BR>
I know we&#8217;re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we&#821=
7;re following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot
hel=
p but point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences
=
used in the related older postings aren&#8217;t the same; and all this
witho=
ut positing a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you&#8217;re
im=
plying that modern pattern-based approaches don&#8217;t use abstract
grammat=
ical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense that&#8217;s relevant
her=
e). <BR>
<BR>
I don&#8217;t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patt=
erns have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn&#8217;t
be=
 a pattern anyway; it&#8217;d be an instance. A category that can be
realize=
d as a range of lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts
a=
s a grammatical category, I&#8217;d think. It may not be <I>only</I> a
gramm=
atical category, but that&#8217;s a different &#8212; important, but
differe=
nt -- issue. <BR>
<BR>
Here&#8217;s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although =
it runs the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies
f=
or deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we
kn=
ow we don&#8217;t know well yet:<BR>
<BR>
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that cou=
ld be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.=
<BR>
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work f=
or a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
o=
f one of them.<BR>
<BR>
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won&#8217;t get =
what you want a good deal of the time &#8212; but it&#8217;s darn creative.
=
If we assume (1), and If it turns out that what&#8217;s actually produced
<B=
>isn&#8217;t</B> the kind of thing we&#8217;d get from farming all the a
pri=
ori possibilities, it makes sense that something must be constraining those
=
possibilities (and thus there&#8217;s a clear need for a UG). Strategy (2),
=
in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism, as a limiter. It&#8217;s a
bit=
 like deciding that if you&#8217;ve been using onions in a recipe, and
you&#=
8217;re out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than chocolate
as=
 a stand-in. &nbsp;You won&#8217;t get noticed as a breakthrough chef, but
y=
our diner won&#8217;t go out of business.<BR>
<BR>
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strateg=
y (1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were
approache=
s based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn&#8217;t
=
do (1), but didn&#8217;t <I>try to do things</I> with language either
&#8212=
; that their use of language was rather like Pavlov&#8217;s dogs&#8217; use
=
of drool. No one likes the strategy (0) approaches, really (unless
they&#821=
7;ve been trained to). I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;re at a point where we
c=
an say children definitely use a particular strategy to construct language,
=
but I&#8217;d argue we can say that we can&#8217;t rule <B>out</B> strategy
=
(1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research devoted to
ea=
ch.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Spruiell<BR>
Dept. of English<BR>
Central Michigan University<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'><BR>
Robert Yates wrote: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Colleagues,<BR>
<BR>
Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of &nbsp;patterns (learned from =
the input we get) is a discussion that has occurred before on this list.
<BR=
>
<BR>
If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)<BR>
<BR>
&quot;we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforc=
ed by use&quot;<BR>
<BR>
then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical categorie=
s. &nbsp;Such categories are the result of the &quot;patterns&quot; we are
e=
xposed to. &nbsp;There are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how
su=
ch a common sense idea is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of
sente=
nces.<BR>
<BR>
Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.<BR>
<BR>
1) Bob needs someone to work for.<BR>
2) &nbsp;Bob needs someone to work for him.<BR>
<BR>
In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.<BR>
<BR>
What is the &quot;pattern&quot; we acquired that lead to those interpretati=
ons? &nbsp;It is not just the presence or absence of the pronoun. Sentences
=
3 and 4 have the same meaning.<BR>
<BR>
3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.<BR>
4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them. <BR>
<BR>
Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no idea=
 how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4. <BR>
<BR>
These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim that our k=
nowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input.<BR>
<BR>
Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.<BR>
<BR>
There are those who say there is little value in making<BR>
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.<BR>
<BR>
I could not agree more -- there is great value in making conscious the know=
ledge of language that we all have. <BR>
<BR>
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Craig Hancock &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt; <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
">&lt;mailto:[log in to unmask]&gt;</a> &nbsp;9/16/2010 7:47 AM
&gt;&gt;&gt;=
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Eduard,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologiz=
e for making my<BR>
post seem like something else.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A big question might be whether the &quot;rules&quot; are=
 there before use (and<BR>
thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with<BR>
flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would<BR>
embrace the latter, sometimes called &quot;usage-based.&quot; Some people w=
ould<BR>
see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and<BR>
pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also<BR>
possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, deeply tied<BR=
>
to both cognition and discourse.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Patterns are sustained to the extent that we find t=
hem highly<BR>
productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The<BR>
rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed to do.<BR>
But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.<BR>
Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions<BR>
it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making<BR>
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To me, the challenge has always been how to present views=
 like this<BR>
on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee are doing<BR=
>
wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the list to<BR>
be aware of it.<BR>
<BR>
Craig<BR>
<BR>
Eduard Hanganu wrote:<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Craig,<BR>
<BR>
I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I don't<BR>
see too much of a difference between what I state and what you state.<BR>
True, some elements of a category (word class) are more central and<BR>
reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other elements<BR>
are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics intersect with<BR>
or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline elements of<BR>
another class. On the whole, though, there are &quot;standard&quot; element=
s of<BR>
word classes, and there are &quot;peripheral&quot; elements of such word<BR=
>
classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical<BR>
evidence that concerns what I stated above.<BR>
<BR>
Some people continue to believe that the Latin language structure is<BR>
artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget<BR>
that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do<BR>
construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This fact is<BR>
evident from information collected from humans who had never been<BR>
socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human language, and<BR>
if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they<BR>
are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured<BR>
rudiments.<BR>
<BR>
If there is an &quot;universal grammar&quot; as Chomsky has been claiming f=
or<BR>
more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar has been<BR>
able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with what is<BR>
observable: language is a human construct, and whether we<BR>
differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the bare truth<BR>
is that without socialization in language no human will speak a human<BR>
language.<BR>
<BR>
Eduard<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Craig Hancock &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt; <a
href=3D"mailto:hancock@ALBA=
NY.EDU">&lt;mailto:[log in to unmask]&gt;</a> <BR>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16<BR>
Subject: Re: like<BR>
To: [log in to unmask] <BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Eduard,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I would express it somewhat differently.<BR>
Frequency is often<BR>
self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,<BR>
which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I just asked a friend how she likes her new<BR>
job (from teacher to<BR>
counselor), and she said &quot;I'm liking it.&quot; It occured to me that s=
he<BR>
might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.<BR>
Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can<BR>
change that.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather than intersection of word classes, it<BR>
might be more of an issue<BR>
of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than<BR>
others, some more borderline or peripheral.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You also have a tendency (from that cognitive<BR>
frame of reference) to<BR>
see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a<BR>
lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than<BR>
rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of<BR>
them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that &quot;like&quo=
t;<BR>
brings with it a unique kind of grammar.<BR>
<BR>
Craig&gt;<BR>
<BR>
Geoff,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
You probably did not have time to read &quot;Frequency of Use and the<BR>
Organization of Language&quot; by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after<BR=
>
decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
and that<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
but one way in<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
which language acquires and shows structure. These word<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
classes are real,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
and understanding them makes a great difference when one<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
learns a<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
nothing more<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
importance of<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
these points of intersection to a generality (which is a<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
fallacy) shows<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the<BR>
production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
language.&gt;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Eduard<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Geoffrey Layton &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt; <a
href=3D"mailto:writerg=
[log in to unmask]">&lt;mailto:[log in to unmask]&gt;</a> <BR>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13<BR>
Subject: Re: like<BR>
To: [log in to unmask] <BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction<BR>
is &quot;what difference does it make what we call it?&quot; &nbsp;I don't<=
BR>
see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which<BR>
then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical<BR>
effect of &quot;shading&quot; into a verb - what happens to the meaning of<=
BR>
the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives<BR>
or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.<BR>
<BR>
Geoff Layton<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Craig,<BR>
<BR>
My first reaction was that this use of &quot;like&quot; was adjectival,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCK=
QUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED<BR>
Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an<BR>
adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Herb<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCK=
QUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
I am curious about how traditional grammar handles &quot;like&quot;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCK=
QUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
in a<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
sentence like &quot;One of these things is not like the others.&quot; (I<BR=
>
know; Sesame Street).<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
My instinct is to say &quot;like the others&quot; is prepositional<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
phrase, complement to &quot;is&quot;, therefore referring back<BR>
(adjectivally?) to &quot;One of these things.&quot; Would that be standard?=
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
If it can be easily replaced by &quot;resembles&quot; (or &quot;doesn't<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
resemble&quot;), does that mean &quot;be like&quot; is shading into a verb =
like<BR>
status with &quot;the others&quot; as object? Are we OK with flexible<BR>
boundaries around our categories?<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
Craig<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<BR>
interface at:<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCK=
QUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verda=
na, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
<a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html&gt;&gt;">http://list=
serv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html&gt;&gt;</a> and select &quot;Join<BR>
or leave the list&quot;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdan=
a, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
<B=
R>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCK=
QUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
web interface<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
at:<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCK=
QUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Verdana, H=
elvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
<a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html&gt;">http://listserv=
.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html&gt;</a> and select &quot;Join<BR>
or leave the list&quot;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri,
Ver=
dana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
<B=
R>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<BR>
interface at:<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/=
ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> <BR>
and select &quot;Join or leave the list&quot;<BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
<B=
R>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<BR>
interface at: <a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http:=
//listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select<BR>
&quot;Join or leave the list&quot;<BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
<B=
R>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/=
ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> <BR>
and select &quot;Join or leave the list&quot;<BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><BR=
>
<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/=
ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><BR>
and select &quot;Join or leave the list&quot;<BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><BR=
>
<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at: <a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.=
muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select &quot;Join or leave the
list&qu=
ot; <BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><BR=
>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--B_3367496470_314417--

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:05:28 -0400
From:    Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns

    Bob tells me this message came through to him as blank. Was that true
for everyone? At any rate, I'm resending it below, using this reply to
my own message as a mechanism. It's not the most articulate response I
have  ever given, but I'll resend as is.

Craig>


         Bob,
>      Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
>     I think this is less of a problem in speech.  In sentence one, tonic
> prominence falls on "for."  In sentence two, it falls on "him."
>     From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can work
> for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve
> ways to articulate that relationship.
>     I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious knowledge
> that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
> that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
> knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
> about it) are deeply interwoven.
>
>  Craig
>
>  Robert Yates wrote:    Colleagues,  Whether grammar is a set of rules or
> a set of  patterns (learned from the input we get) is a discussion that
> has occurred before on this list.   If I understand the following
> correctly, (Craig writes:)  "we are dealing with flexible, dynamic
> patterns sustained and reinforced by use"  then the claim is that we do
> not know very much about grammatical categories.  Such categories are the
> result of the "patterns" we are exposed to.  There are all kinds of
> examples I could cite to show how such a common sense idea is
> problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.  Sentences 1 and
> 2 clearly have different meanings.  1) Bob needs someone to work for. 2)
> Bob needs someone to work for him.  In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and
> in 2, Bob is an employer.  What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to
> those interpretations?  It is not just the presence or absence of the
> pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have the same meaning.  3) These are the
> letters Bob threw away without reading. 4) There are the letters Bob
> threw away without reading them.   Without making reference to abstract
> grammatical categories, I have no idea how to explain the meanings of
> sentences 1-4.   These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in
> a claim that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive
> from the input.  Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
> There are those who say there is little value in making these conscious.
> I would disagree with that as well.  I could not agree more -- there is
> great value in making conscious the knowledge of language that we all
> have.   Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>    Craig Hancock  9/16/2010 7:47 AM >>>                           Eduard,
>     I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologize for making my
> post seem like something else.    A big question might be whether the
> "rules" are there before use (and thus predetermine it to large extent)
> or whether we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and
> reinforced by use. I would embrace the latter, sometimes called
> "usage-based." Some people would see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral
> (semantically and pragmatically), with meanings added through the
> lexicon. It is also possible to see that they are meaningful in their own
> right, deeply tied to both cognition and discourse.     Patterns are
> sustained to the extent that we find them highly productive. From this
> view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The rules of prescriptive
> grammar tell us what we are not supposed to do. But without the natural
> grammar, no substantial meaning is possible. Frequency of a construct can
> also make us unaware of the contributions it is making. There are those
> who say there is little value in making these conscious. I would disagree
> with that as well.    To me, the challenge has always been how to present
> views like this on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like
> Bybee are doing wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good
> for the list to be aware of it.  Craig  Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> Craig,  I have no problem with the way you express the matters because I
> don't see too much of a difference between what I state and what you
> state. True, some elements of a category (word class) are more central
> and reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other
> elements are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics
> intersect with or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline
> elements of another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard"
> elements of word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such
> word classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
> evidence that concerns what I stated above.  Some people continue to
> believe that the Latin language structure is artificially superimposed on
> the English language, but they forget that language is a social
> phenomenon, and that we humans do construct language structure implicitly
> or explicitly. This fact is evident from information collected from
> humans who had never been socialized in language. Those people don't
> speak a human language, and if they are beyond the critical period of
> language acquisition they are never able to acquire language, except for
> a few unstructured rudiments.  If there is an "universal grammar" as
> Chomsky has been claiming for more than five decades, no linguist or
> other kind of scholar has been able to provide evidence for the claim.
> So, we remain with what is observable: language is a human construct, and
> whether we differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the
> bare truth is that without socialization in language no human will speak
> a human language.  Eduard    ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig
> Hancock  Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16 Subject: Re: like To:
> [log in to unmask]                   Eduard,     I would express it
> somewhat differently. Frequency is often self-reinforcing. Frequency
> makes something more accessible for use, which in turn makes it more
> frequent. And so on.     I just asked a friend how she likes her new job
> (from teacher to counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to
> me that she might not have said that without the influence of the
> McDonald's ad. Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad
> campaign can change that.     Rather than intersection of word classes,
> it might be more of an issue of centrality. Some elements of the category
> are more central than others, some more borderline or peripheral.     You
> also have a tendency (from that cognitive frame of reference) to see far
> more lower level constructions. It's much more a lexico-grammar than a
> set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than rule.) A great deal of
> language includes set constructions, many of them with their own more
> local patterns. So it could be that "like" brings with it a unique kind
> of grammar.  Craig>  Geoff,                       You probably did not
> have time to read "Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language" by
> Joan Bybee, in which the author, after decades of research, documents
> that language organizes itself,                       and that
>            parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
>                    but one way in                       which language
> acquires and shows structure. These word                       classes
> are real,                       and understanding them makes a great
> difference when one                       learns a
> language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
>         nothing more                       than points at which word
> classes intersect. To inflate the                       importance of
>                   these points of intersection to a generality (which is
> a                       fallacy) shows                       lack of
> understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the production and
> conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> language.>                       Eduard  ----- Original Message -----
> From: Geoffrey Layton  Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13 Subject:
> Re: like To: [log in to unmask]                               Craig
> - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction is "what
> difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't see how you can have
> anything except flexible boundaries, which then leads to the more
> interesting question of the rhetorical effect of "shading" into a verb -
> what happens to the meaning of the sentence? Labeling the choices as
> preopositions, adjectives or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer
> this question.  Geoff Layton                                    Craig,
> My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
>                       but since you want a traditional treatment I
> checked the OED Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat
> as an adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
>                       Herb
> I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
>                               in a
> sentence like "One of these things is not like the others." (I know;
> Sesame Street).                                   My instinct is to say
> "like the others" is prepositional
> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back (adjectivally?) to
> "One of these things." Would that be standard?
>        If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or "doesn't
>                         resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading
> into a verb like status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with
> flexible boundaries around our categories?
>                                       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/
> 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/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:24:08 -0500
From:    Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns

I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post.  I wish he
had provided some real language examples.  Of course, if he is correct
on the following:

 Still... you=E2=80=99re implying that modern pattern-based approaches do=
n=E2=80=99t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that=E2=80=99s relevant here).

***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories.  I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.

Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.

Finally, a response to Eduard.

 It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.

****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.

Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.

In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)

1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.

So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.

That works for (3)

3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?

However, most people can't contract (5).

5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?

Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,

Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something  we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.

Are we communicating?

Eduard

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]

> Colleagues,
>
> Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of  patterns
> (learned from the input we get) is a discussion that has
> occurred before on this list.
>
> If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)
>
> "we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and
> reinforced by use"
>
> then the claim is that we do not know very much about
> grammatical categories.  Such categories are the result of
> the "patterns" we are exposed to.  There are all kinds of
> examples I could cite to show how such a common sense idea is
> problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.
>
> Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.
>
> 1) Bob needs someone to work for.
> 2)  Bob needs someone to work for him.
>
> In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.
>
> What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those
> interpretations?  It is not just the presence or absence of
> the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have the same meaning.
>
> 3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
> 4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them.
>
> Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I
> have no idea how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.
>
> These sentences suggest ther> from the input.
>
> Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
>
> There are those who say there is little value in making
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>
> I could not agree more -- there is great value in making
> conscious the knowledge of language that we all have.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/16/2010 7:47 AM >>>
> Eduard,
>     I agree that we are in rough agreement and
> apologize for making my
> post seem like something else.
>    A big question might be whether the "rules" are
> there before use (and
> thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with
> flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I would
> embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people would
> see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and
> pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is also
> possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right,
> deeply tied
> to both cognition and discourse.
>     Patterns are sustained to the extent that we
> find them highly
> productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. The
> rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed
> to do.
> But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is possible.
> Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the contributions
> it is making. There are those who say there is little value in making
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>    To me, the challenge has always been how to present
> views like this
> on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee
> are doing
> wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the
> list to
> be aware of it.
>
> Craig
>
> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> > Craig,
> >
> > I have no problem with the way you express the matters because
> I don't
> > see too much of a difference between what I state and what you
> state.> True, some elements of a category (word class) are more
> central and
> > reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other
> elements> are borderline or peripheral, and their
> characteristics intersect with
> > or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline
> elements of
> > another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard"
> elements of
> > word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
> > classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the empirical
> > evidence that concerns what I stated above.
> >
> > Some people continue to believe that the Latin language
> structure is
> > artificially superimposed on the English language, but they forget
> > that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do
> > construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This
> fact is
> > evident from information collected from humans who had never been
> > socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human
> language, and
> > if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they
> > are never able to acquire language, except for a few unstructured
> > rudiments.
> >
> > If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been
> claiming for
> > more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar
> has been
> > able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with
> what is
> > observable: language is a human construct, and whether we
> > differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the
> bare truth
> > is that without socialization in language no human will speak
> a human
> > language.
> >
> > Eduard
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> > Subject: Re: like
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > > Eduard,
> > >     I would express it somewhat differently.
> > > Frequency is often
> > > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible
> for u> her new
> > > job (from teacher to
> > > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me
> that she
> > > might not have said that without the influence of the
> McDonald's ad.
> > > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad
> campaign can
> > > change that.
> > >     Rather than intersection of word
> classes, it
> > > might be more of an issue
> > > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more
> central than
> > > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> > >     You also have a tendency (from that
> cognitive> > frame of reference) to
> > > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is
> closer than
> > > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions,
> many of
> > > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that
> "like"> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> > >
> > > Craig>
> > >
> > > Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use
> and the
> > > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the
> author, after
> > > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > > and that
> > > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > > but one way in
> > > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > > classes are real,
> > > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > > learns a
> > > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > > nothing more
> > > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > > importance of
> > > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > > fallacy) shows
> > > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax
> in the
> > > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > > language.>
> > > > Eduard
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > > Subject: Re: like
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my
> reaction> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call
> it?"  I don't
> > > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the
> meaning of
> > > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > > >>
> > > >> Geoff Layton
> > > >>
> > > >> > Craig,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat
> as an
> > > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Herb
> > > >>
> > > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > > in a
> > > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the
> others." (I
> > > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be
> standard?> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles"
> (or "doesn't
> > > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a
> verb like
> > > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
>
> 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/

------------------------------

End of ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
***********************************************************

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/