Thank you Beth. This is a wonderful article!
Marie
> The issue of how many parts of speech there are reminds me of this Web of
> Language column by Dennis Baron, in which he points out that France
> recognizes fewer continents than we do. I had no idea! The column is
> tangential to this discussion, but worth a read to see how the French
> schoolteacher sets him straight: http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/14332
>
> Beth
>
>>>> Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> 12/10/10 5:22 AM >>>
> Susan,
>
> Perhaps the question "How many parts of speech are there?" is not the
> right question.
>
> It's like asking "How many colors does a rainbow have?". Just because
> you learn in school that there are 7 doesn't mean that it is in fact the
> case. There is no right answer to this question, but it doesn't mean
> that optics is not a science.
>
> What if words are like colors, on a spectrum? Some points are more
> salient: typical nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc... But there are plenty
> of in-between cases. Only you don't want to go into all those details at
> the beginning levels, so you present a simplified account. (That's why
> you won't find definitions that will satisfy everybody: if you only
> describe the prototypical cases, less central elements will be excluded
> form your definition; but if you try to include them in you definition,
> it will become too complex/vague to be useful.)
>
> Do you agree that words cannot in principle be divided into discrete
> categories?
> Do you agree that the fact that they cannot be divided into discrete
> categories doesn't imply that linguistics is not a science?
>
> Marie
>
>
>> I think you have made a nice distinction between hard and social
>> science. With the social sciences the value of an explanation can be
>> relative: how many parts of speech are there? But science doesn't care
>> whether an explanation is more useful; it is either a correct
>> explanation or a wrong one.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Susan,
>>> I think "a good scientist is as certain as the current evidence
>>> allows" is something I can live with. I don't think you stop being
>>> skeptical because the evidence backs a position up, but that's not a
>>> big issue.
>>> Whether we think of it as science or not, knowledge accumulates
>>> within
>>> a discipline like linguistics in large part because of the shared
>>> exploration of people in the discipline. Either it deepens our
>>> understanding of language (satisfies us in that way) or it fails to do
>>> so. I would hate to think that knowledge about language is just up to
>>> the individual and that everyone's views are equal. Perhaps that's not
>>> what you are advocating. To me, it's not just science, but the study
>>> of language that shouldn't be thought of as a free for all. Some
>>> explanations are decidedly more useful than others. We have to move
>>> toward that goal somewhat collegially.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
>>>>
>>>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a
>>>>> good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
>>>>> especially his/her own.
>>>>>
>>>> No, this is not accurate. A good scientist is as certain as the
>>>> current
>>>> evidence allows. She is not more skeptical of her own position simply
>>>> because it is her own. It only became her own position BECAUSE of the
>>>> amount of evidence she has found in its favor.
>>>>
>>>> What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's theory. She
>>>> should
>>>> work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it. However, in
>>>> the
>>>> end, we are human and a good scientist knows this and so relies on
>>>> peer
>>>> review BECAUSE she knows she might be partial to her own theory--even
>>>> though she thought she did her best to disprove it. If her theory
>>>> passes
>>>> peer review, then she can be as confident of her theory as anyone else
>>>> and
>>>> need not be any more skeptical of it than anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which all ideas
>>>> have equal certainty and skepticism. I know you know that is not a
>>>> true
>>>> representation. Yet there are degrees of skepticism that you seem to
>>>> hang
>>>> on to. These are the same degrees of skepticism that Intelligent
>>>> Design
>>>> proponents rely on. They revel in giving science this wimpiness that
>>>> seem
>>>> to applaud. Watch out for what you advocate. It can come back to
>>>> haunt
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to
>>>>> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other
>>>>> interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and
>>>>> subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right;
>>>>> positions are subject to peer review.
>>>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
>>>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a
>>>>> good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
>>>>> especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems overwhelming, as it
>>>>> is for evolution and global warming, a good scientist presents those
>>>>> as the best current explanation of the evidence, not as a final and
>>>>> definitive answer. This may seem wimpy to some, but it is a
>>>>> cornerstone of what good science is all about.
>>>>> When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within the
>>>>> academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the
>>>>> Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new way of
>>>>> seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have
>>>>> reviewed the current literature and understand it before they offer
>>>>> something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that
>>>>> view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should be, is
>>>>> not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing
>>>>> the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed
>>>>> facts.
>>>>> I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I
>>>>> find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think
>>>>> it's important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for
>>>>> us to discuss issues in a useful way.
>>>>> It is helpful to know what most experts currently believe about a
>>>>> topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list
>>>>>>
>>>>> and YOU
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who
>>>>>>
>>>>> called me a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No
>>>>>>
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your
>>>>>>
>>>>> definition
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are
>>>>>>
>>>>> looking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in
>>>>>>
>>>>> any
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> decent grammar text".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition:
>>>>>>
>>>>> The past
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the
>>>>>>
>>>>> primary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense
>>>>>>
>>>>> system. The
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior
>>>>>>
>>>>> to a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> second past event."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're
>>>>>>
>>>>> getting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what
>>>>>>
>>>>> the past
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to
>>>>>>
>>>>> locate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went
>>>>>>
>>>>> to the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect
>>>>>>
>>>>> functions to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second
>>>>>>
>>>>> event,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to
>>>>>>
>>>>> adjust
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change
>>>>>>
>>>>> it. It
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past
>>>>>>
>>>>> perfect
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or
>>>>>>
>>>>> can we
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> what this is all about.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .brad.06dec10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen
>>>>>>
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with
>>>>>>
>>>>> Eduard. For
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the
>>>>>>
>>>>> only
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the
>>>>>>
>>>>> list,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private
>>>>>>
>>>>> to the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> entire list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected
>>>>>>
>>>>> your
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away
>>>>>>
>>>>> from it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you
>>>>>>
>>>>> demonstrate by
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> English grammar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be
>>>>>>
>>>>> shunned, and I
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to
>>>>>>
>>>>> my idiot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> filter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
|
