One of the reasons this discussion has generated more heat than light - at least in my view - is a persistent mischaracterization of "innateness," a mischaracterization curiously resistant to change. I have written this in an earlier post to this thread but I will repeat here that it is _not_ part of the "innateness" claim, as I understand it, that _grammar_ is innate.There is no claim that any of our knowledge of English grammar is independent of our experience in the world. Moreover, from an "innateness" perspective, it would not be claimed that the grammatical structures characteristic of higher literacy - the kinds of structures often very useful for "making meaning" in an extended discourse - are "acquired," if "acquired" means learned with minimal input and minimal attention. For example, children learn readily with little input that in English direct objects follow verbs, so we have "John stubbed his toe" but not "*John his toe stubbed." However, learning how to move direct objects away from the verb and to the front of the sentence (i.e. preposing) is a different matter. Birner and Ward in their 1998 book, _Information Status and Non-Canonical Word Order in English_ cite this example of preposing, taken from the _Philadephia Inquirer_:
I work on the 6th floor of a building. I know some of he elevator riders well. Others I have only that nodding acquaintance with and some are total strangers.
In this example, "others" has been preposed (i.e., moved to the left) from its position as object of the preposition "with." I don't believe anyone, and that would include "innatists," would claim that such constructions are learned automatically and without interaction with the world around us. (Anyone believing that such a claim were true would have a hard time explaining all the "grammar" problems that occur in high school and college writing classes.) The Chomskyan position on structures like this is that while the principles constraining the movement of constituents are part of Universal Grammar, the _use_ of movement of this type would have to be learned, either implicitly as a consequence of _a lot_ of experience or through some kind of direct noticing of its possibility/utility - i.e., some kind of instruction. A Chomskyan perspective, I think, would suggest that this kind of structure is, in a way, an "imperfection" of the grammar. "Imperfect" in the sense that it breaks down the close relationship between "with" and "others," thereby increasing the "effort" needed to interpret that relationship. On the other hand, it is just this 'imperfection" which allows the possibility of constructing a coherent information flow through the discourse. Inexperienced writers, or learners, hesitate to use such structures because they feel "weird" due to the breaking up of the relationship of preposition and object. Many learners need practice and instruction to feel comfortable with the grammaticality of such constructions and to recognize their communicative efficiency.
The moral of this story is that _even_ "innatist" perspectives incorporate functional effects/motivations into their grammatical accounts and therefore are not irrelevant to the discussion of how writers "make meaning" and how learners might be helped with their meaning-making from instruction reflecting innatist/generative principles.
To sum up, no innatist perspective would argue, as Craig seems to think that "innatists" do, that "simple exposure" can "explain why or how we acquire [language]. To argue otherwise is to present a parody of the innatist claim and to hold up that parody as the reason for suggesting that the perspective has little to offer in this discussion.
A movement away from this kind of rhetoric can only help the discussion here.
Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)
Bob,
First you claim you are not being hostile and then you come back with
this sort of "gotcha" response. I have no doubt that the complexity of
the "by" phrase is part of the equation. I don't see at all why your
possibilities trump mine or why you think this is some sort of contest,
or even why you believe you have somehow won.
Cognitive grammar may be easy to disdain if you try to reduce it to
some sort of shallow position. You should learn about it first and then
measure it later. It is not very likely that will happen because you
clearly are satisfied with a formal approach and not at all open to
other possibilities, which you seem poised to attack, not curious about
understanding. My main concern about that is that it will shut off talk
on list and deny us the chance to explore alternative approaches.
People have taken the time to privately tell me they want me to
continue. If that's not a widespread view, I'll stop.
Simple exposure to language is not enough to explain why or how we
acquire it. Here's Langacker's words, which I suggest once again that
you take the time to read on your own.
"Compared with formal approaches, cognitive linguistics stands out by
resisting the imposition of boundaries between language and other
psychological phenomena. Insofar as possible, linguistic structure is
seen as drawing on other, more basic systems and abilities (e.g.
perception, memory, categorization) from which it cannot be segregated.
Rather than constituting a distinct, self-contained entity (a separate
"module" or "mental faculty"), language is viewed as an integral facet
of cognition." (From his Basic Introduction, p. 8)
One major tenet of cognitive grammar is that grammar itself is
meaningful. It is also motivated. So we don't simply "imitate" the
forms we are exposed to, and we have no reason (motivation) to pick up
dysfunctional patterns.
Where you and I agree, I think, (we should do that more, by the way),
is that language users will use structures awkwardly when they are
first using them. The role of the teacher can help them along in part
by encouraging new attempts and not just jumping on error. I'm baffled
by why you would criticize my description of how that might happen in a
highly hypothetical case or why you seem to think this is cause for a
criticism of a cognitive approach.
The fact that complex noun phrases don't show up until 11 or 12 may be
easier to explain from a cognitive or functional position than it would
from an innatist view. Functional grammar, in fact, makes a great deal
of that. They are certainly far more prevalent in writing than they are
in speech, very important in the technical disciplines, and they make
large cognitive demands on the language user.
But please don't respond to this as if you are proving me wrong. It
doesn't make for a particularly productive interchange.
Cognitive gramamr is not going to go away, even if I explain it
awkwardly or if you explain why you have reservations about it.
It seems to me that new paradigms are now available, and we have almost
no discussion about them. That's where I see the real danger. We should
all try to be open-minded.
Craig
> Craig,
>
> Thank you for posting your response. It is important in a discussion
> about what theory of language is valuable for teaching that we actually
> examine what students do and the responses we would make.
>
> Here is the sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is
> problematic for a usage based theory of grammar.
>
> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
> just really shows that you really care about them.
>
> As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig subscribes to the
> following view of language from Langacker, among others.
>
> “The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic
> knowledge
> we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and
> meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
> elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
> association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
> keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
> naturalness and theoretical austerity.”
>
> Craig writes:
>
> Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without
> looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the
> student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't
>
> work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth
> playing
> with. The student owns the sentence.
>
> If our (teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is Craig able to
> ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis can we
> conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited to actually
> occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring expression.
>
> ****
> Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might produce
> (1).
>
> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By
>
> X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
> By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
> By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
> Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on
> some
> innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since
> it's
> not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),
> construction
> grammar would call it schematic.
>
> Of course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge is
> limited to "actually occurring expressions"?
>
> I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is the
> understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get something for
> someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of "shows that . . .
> . . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's explanation
> doesn't seem very explanatory.
>
> The following passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.
>
> If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I
> might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.
> But
> that is a different frame of reference.
>
> The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both the object of
> the preposition "by" and the subject of "shows." This double
> case-marking of the gerund -- object of the preposition and subject of a
> tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.
>
> The following really doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our
> knowledge of language is based on "actually occurring expressions"
>
> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If
> it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.
> Either
> they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in
>
> attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
>
> The analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles
> (that are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to
> meet her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a
> comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is that it
> "shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases (in other words
> a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are one of the
> markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer to
> reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase an
> object of a preposition.
>
> Jim Kenkel just sent me the following examples of mixed constructions
> from various handbooks.
>
> 2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads, long hair, and tye-died
> T-shirts, many young people expressed their opposition to mainstream
> values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)
>
> 3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests against
> the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of the time.
> (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)
>
> 4) By designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's
> psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)
>
> 5) In the world created by movies and television makes fiction
> seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002, 658)
>
> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol content of >05 percent
> double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel, Diane
> Hacker, 1993, p. 9)
>
> Notice how all of them begin with a preposition like (1). Jim notes:
>
> "We know from Perera that complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech
> and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim that
> these innovative constructions make more salient the information units
> and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."
>
> In other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled
> from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT the
> result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions."
>
> Of course, there may be other issues in the writing of students that a
> theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to innate
> principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some specific
> examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories without applying
> their theories to actual student writing is not very persuasive for me.
>
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/
|
