Herb,  

I guess that problem with embedded clauses (sentences) is why the transformational component was added.  (Maybe complexity ought to be a condition on their applicability.)  Then when there are problems with things like the semantics and the cultural context we caould add these other elements, as soon as we can figure out how to model them mathematically.  I understand (that what) the claim is is that GT-grammar doesn't really go beyond "syntax" in the strictest sense of the word.  Its infinite capacity is certainly not exploited in the practical and all too real world.  Maybe such caveats could be given safely.  Sort of like saying we'll teach you Arithmetic, but you can't solve some problems with it that you will be able to work out using Algebra and Calculus. 

I agree that it is probably simpler in the lower grades to give sentence and phrase patterns that students can learn to recognize in sentences.  We naturally introduce these by example and not with rules that describe them (generatively), which would possibly come later.  Yet, it seems that students who have had success in their mathematical studies might profit from using one of those languages as appropriate.  Then, I suppose, modeling would have to be added to the curriculum somewhere.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 02/28/01 08:05AM >>>
Bruce,

You've got it right.  A generative grammar defines formally the
infinite set of sentences that is a language, in the same sense
that the formula n=2m-1 defines the infinite set of odd integers.
There are a number of important and troublesome assumptions built
into the decision to use a generative definition.  The first and
largest is the notion that a language is a set of sentences, a
statement that excludes all behavior and culture from the domain
of linguistics.  A lot of us would reject this notion for a
variety of reasons and to a variety of extents.  A second is that
the set of sentences is infinite.  This assumption is necessarily
true from a mathematical perspective, but it imposes the formal
possibility of sentences in the set that cannot in fact occur in
normal language usage, including some, but not all,
center-embedded sentences like "The policeman the boy the dog bit
called came.  That said, generative grammar has contributed
important insights to our knowledge of what language is and how it
works.  It is, however, a highly formal, rigorous, and abstract
side of the study of grammar that shouldn't be inflicted on the
innocent and unsuspecting.  You have to want to do linguistics
that way, and if you do, you'll likely find much in it that is
satisfying and rewarding.

Herb Stahlke

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/