Colleagues:

I’ve been busy the past couple of days.  Here some of my thoughts on
comments on this thread.

Of course, names have consequences, but I wonder if it is as simple as
the following:

Dick Veit writes:
“Juliet claimed that "that which we call a rose by any other name would
smell as sweet." That's one of many things she got wrong. Would it
really smell as sweet to us if the plant were called the "skunk cabbage
weed"? Advertisers and politicians devote untold effort to naming
products and programs because they believe names matter.”

I once ate a restaurant in San Francisco called “The Stinking Rose.”
(That is a another name for garlic.) The food was quite good. 

****
Brian is right about the following.  There has to be some links between
thought and language.

Brian O’Sullivan
“Meanwhile, can you clarify what you mean by "completely separate"? To
me, "completely separate" sounds like it means independent, parallel,
without links, even isolated--as if what we say bears no relation to
what we think. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. Would
"linked but distinct" be an accurate paraphrase of what you have in
mind?”

I appreciate his clarification.

***
I know it was meant to be off list, but I need to comment on the
following.

Craig writes:
“Bob is arguing out of a generative perspective (at a time in which many
are jumping that ship.) He feels threatened by contrary thinking.   I'm
happy to see you quoting Tomasello. "Joint attentional state" is very
useful and can be extended as a pedagogical (mentoring) metaphor. If I
remember right, he uses "intention reading" and "pattern finding" as
important cognitive processes.”
***

I’m a nobody, so I have no idea why Craig wrote what he did.  I am
tenured at a regional university with a 4/4 teaching load.  Like most
college professors at my level, I don’t get any rewards for having the
views on language that I have.  Being right or wrong about anything I
write does not advance or retard my “career.”  

I teach writing to native and non-native speakers of English, courses in
second language acquisition and teaching, and courses on the nature of
language.  I feel that I have to share with students my best
understanding of those subjects.  When I encounter ideas that challenge
my own ideas, I study them. This means not only do I read about them,
question those who present ideas that challenge my own ideas, but I have
an obligation to my students to try to figure out how those ideas
provide better insights into writing and second language acquisition
than my own insights.

Let’s consider the issue of “pattern finding” as an important part of
learning a language. It offers a good explanation for the problem
irregular forms pose to learners. If the regular form of the past tense
and past participle is made by adding “ed,” then it makes sense these
forms for go is goed and have goed, for come is comed and have comed,
for buy is buyed and have buyed, etc.  Likewise, the pattern for forming
the reflexive pronoun in English appears to be the possessive determiner
plus self: my + self; your + self (or selves); our + selves.  Then it
makes sense to have dialects in English with hisself and theirselves,
but never *usselves or *meself.

Pattern finding (without reference to any grammatical structure) doesn’t
seem to account for the following facts about English. Notice 1 and 2
have different meanings with the presence of absence of pronouns.

1) Mary is looking for someone to work for.
2) Mary is looking for someone to work for her.

Note that 3 and 4 have the same meaning.

3) These are the letters Mary threw out without reading.
4) These are the letters Mary threw out without reading them.

These facts about language suggests that “pattern finding” is an
incomplete explanation for our knowledge of language.

More significantly for those who read this list, it doesn’t seem to
provide an explanation for some of the strings developing writeproduce.  In 90 essays, written by both native and non-native speakers,
Jim Kenkel and I found sentences like 5 and 6 with the rather
non-standard punctuation.

5) The reason that is; is because I usually wait till the last minute
and try to figure out what I am buying for everybody. 
6) The reasons for my point are, someone will get hurt for a lie, . . . 

If we assume the writers’ model for punctuation is based on reading
texts that follow standard rules of punctuation, then we need to ask:
what “pattern” is motivating this non-standard punctuation?  Perhaps,
these writers have developed different principles for such punctuation
that are independent from the “patterns” they have been exposed to.  If
that is the case, then assumptions about writers’ internal knowledge
about language that is not completely based on just language the writer
has been exposed to might be useful.

****************
I want to return to the discussion about the relationship of language
and thought. 

I don’t think the actual language the student who wrote (7) (a sentence
Jim Kenkel and I analyze in a forthcoming paper) reflects what the
student meant.

7) Schectman talks about a Cinderella story that is pretty crazy. Step
sisters treat their sister really bad after her mom dies and their dad
marries their mom.  

If we make the assumption that the language this writer uses is directly
related to the writer’s thought, then this writer is saying the Grimm
brothers’ Cinderella story is “pretty crazy.” I don’t believe that is
what the writer is trying to convey.  Rather, the writer is saying a
particular psycho-analytic interpretation by Schechtman is “pretty
crazy.”  

Our interpretation is based on the assumption of Relevance Theory (a
neo-Gricean perspective on interpretation) that a speaker/writer, in
demanding that a listener/reader interpret an utterance also
communicates the belief that the interpretation will have some effects
on the listener/reader’s cognitive environment. The listener/reader must
select a context in which relevant effects are most readily available.
It would be “pretty crazy” for a reader to assume that the writer is
saying the Cinderella story is “pretty crazy.”

If the writer’s language does not really reflect the writer’s thought,
the correction to (7) is different than if the writer meant that the
Grimm’s version of Cinderalla is “pretty crazy.” This point is why I
begin this particular thread in the first place.

For the past several years on this list, Craig has told us there are
other assumptions about language (other than the assumption that
language is innate) that are more insightful in understanding language
and student writing. He has shared with us the major proponents of these
ideas, but he has never applied those assumptions to the kinds of issues
writing teachers need to consider. I’m confident that someday he will
actually discuss  examples from his students’ writing from those other
perspectives and show how they are more insightful than the perspective
I have offered. 

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/