Phil,
I have no problem with the notion that noun is more general than
"thing". And I could also accept the notion that nounness is an
abstract quality inherent in all entities. This is, of course, a long
way away from the person, place, and thing definition we are trying to
replace. Does that mean that nominalization makes something an entity?
When I talk, for example, about "the intonation group not formed by
restrictive postnominal modifiers," am I in fact recognizing an entity
that could be there, but is not? If we decided to give that missing
entity a name, would we be creating language? Is it just the noun, or
the whole noun phrase, that designates an entity? What do we do with
clauses that act in noun roles? Are they entities as well? I think we
would both say "yes" to all, but that means we understand the range of
the concept by thinking of all that it applies to.
Where we differ, I think, might be in the way we allow that culture has
a role in the creation of these entities. "Democracy", for example,
would not be in the world without people and is capable of disappearing
from our cultural life if we are not careful. It probably means
different things to different people, and what it means is something
worth caring deeply about. It's an "entity" that language supports and
sustains. I don't think my children will be honest if I don't use the
word "honest" with them and try to shape their understanding of it over
time. It is not a simple entity at all, and I have to admit that my own
understanding of it is subject to change.
I remember laughing at an HBO sitcom when two "survivors" came to the
same dinner party--one from the holocaust, the other from the TV show
"Survivor"--and argued about who had suffered the most. The end result,
of course, is that the TV show "survivor" was comically vain and
trivial. The holocaust survivor was deeply frustrated that his frame of
reference was not at all understood. He didn't have the words for it.
Certainly the concept "survivor" was culturally changed by the
holocaust, and that cultural understanding is endangered when the
cultural references are lost (no longer shared).
I think we have much to gain by recognizing that language is not just a
neutral conveyor of meaning. Nouns don't just name things that are
clearly concrete and there is nothing like a simple one to one
relationship between words and "things". Even a word like
"traditional" in a frame like "grammar" is proving so hard to pin down.
We have to decide what we mean by it before we can take a position.
When we do, we may be creating/recognizing an entity that wouldn't
exist any other way. And that entity will exist within our shared
understanding. We may need to promote it before it can move out into
the wider world.
Craig
It simply doesn't matter that a word can be used as two parts of speech.
> There is absolutely no requirement that it not do so and no problem
> inherent in it. When the sequence of five sounds or letters "pencil" is
> used as an entity, it is a noun, when it is used as a process (as a cute
> way of saying "write") it is a verb. The choice of the five sounds or
> letters in "pencil" versus the sounds in "write" is immaterial. One could
> choose either "write" or "pencil" or any combination that was socially
> "agreed upon." Some string of string of sounds or letters does not have
> to remain one and only part of speech in eternity.
>
> Secondly things are nouns but nouns are not things in the same way that
> dogs are not pure ecxamples of canines. There is no example of a canine
> (e.g. something that is canine alone without also being of one of the
> genii of canine) though there are genii of canine but there are examples
> of dogs. Noun is at the level of the species. Nounness is an abstract
> quality inherent (yes physically present like canineness) in all entities.
> The same for verbs, adjectives, and so on. When pencil is used as a verb
> it is a verb, no problem whatsoever.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 4:41 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>
>>Phil,
>> Perhaps things are nouns, but that doesn't mean nouns are things or
>>that a word that's a noun isn't also a verb or adjective. If you look
>>at any dictionary, the point has to come home. If I "pencil something
>>in," I am scheduling it tentatively. It's clearly a verb. If I put
>>something in a pencil box, it is telling me the purpose of the box.
>>Modifying.
>> There are many words that seem almost equally noun and verb, like
>>"contact" and "flow."
>> How about "True justice is a comforting illusion?" "A just truth is an
>>illusory comfort?" Where are the things in those statements?
>> When we take abstract entities and treat them as things, we are not
>>necessarily going to meet them in the world as we would, say, a pencil,
>>or the other examples you give.
>> Is attack a verb? Noun? Battle? Hope? Dream? Desire? Act?
>> "He quietly quieted the least quiet class, restoring the quiet." Is
>>quiet a condition? A thing?
>> There are, of course, different ways to answer these questions, but we
>>owe it to our students to let them experience the flexibility and
>>richness of language is in its full blossom.
>> When we nominalize, we bring something into focus, often a topical
>> one,
>>and many times those are processes, not things, even in their noun
>>form. I can mistake a mistake, act an act, give an apology, or simply
>>apologize. If these are things, then they are not things in the same
>>way a pencil is a thing.
>>
>>Craig
>> >
>>
>>
>>It is unquestionably real that a thing is a noun. You can no more say it
>>> is not a noun as to say it is not an entity. It is an entity it is a
>>> noun. The fact that entity and noun are more general than pencil
>>> doesn't
>>> make them false distinctions.
>>>
>>> If it helps think of parts of speech as the species of the words.
>>> pencil,
>>> table, and chair are of the species noun. You can argue that a
>>> particular
>>> dog is not an example of the species canine only superficially.
>>> Likewise
>>> it is only superficially that you can say that a particular example of
>>> a
>>> pencil is not a noun.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:08 AM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely. That's a key. That's what I tell all my students. "If
>>>>you're not confused, then why am I here?" But they shouldn't be
>>>>confused and then learn about something that isn't even real. This is
>>>>what happens when we tell students that 'pencil' is a noun. It is not.
>>>>It is simply a symbolic representation of an entity that could be
>>>>classified as a noun if that happens to be the context in which we are
>>>>using the word.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not against teaching nouns and verbs. Would I have taught my
>>>>5-year-old them if it was something I thought was wrong? I'm simply
>>>>opposed to the implication that we should have a list of words and then
>>>>try to identify them as nouns or verbs without any context. We cannot
>>>>all agree that 'pencil' is a noun for any grade level because then we
>>>>ingrain in them that academically, 'pencil' is a noun. If ever asked,
>>>>they will say 'pencil' is a noun. However, they would easily say the
>>>>sentence, "I will pencil it in." Ask them what 'pencil' is in that
>>>>sentence. The good students will say it is a verb, but a large portion
>>>>of seniors or elementary school teachers will say it is a noun. That's
>>>>wrong. We shouldn't teach what is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>So, why would we do that? We would do that because it is easier to say
>>>>"'Pencil' is a noun" than it is to say "In some situations, pencil is a
>>>>noun and in others it is a verb and even an adjective and possibly an
>>>>adverb" and then, of course, young students will be confused. As you
>>>>said, though, "We EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little
>>>>bit more." I think of those English teachers giving lists of words
>>>>identified as nouns as C students who just wants to get by with doing a
>>>>little less.
>>>>
>>>>Phil Bralich wrote:
>>>>> You're overthinking it a bit. The parts of speech have a validity
>>>>> independent of the meanings of independent words which is why we can
>>>>> classify them the way we do. Nouns are the easiest to demonstrate
>>>>> this. A noun is merely another word for an entity, something which
>>>>> exists in time and space. At this point the wiseacre in the back of
>>>>> the room pipes up with, "what about ghost?he, he he." And you say,
>>>>> yes, "the ghost that I saw in the park last night" is an entity in
>>>>> time
>>>>> and space, as are abstract ideas such as, "I had an IDEA in the park
>>>>> last night."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nouns and verbs are confusing for elementary school students but so
>>>>> are
>>>>> numbers and letters and addition and subtraction and everything else
>>>>> that is being presented to him. We don't excuse ourselves from the
>>>>> difficult task of teaching just because children are confused. We
>>>>> EXPECT them to be confused and then we teach a little bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Bralich
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: James Bear <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Aug 21, 2006 5:00 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would guess that elementary teachers don't respond because nouns,
>>>>>> verbs, and so forth are confusing for an elementary student. They
>>>>>> already know most of the rules for the language whether they can
>>>>>> verbalize them or not. And so when we declare dolls, pencils, and
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> forth nouns, they suddenly declare that these words are nouns. But
>>>>>> darnit, words are not nouns. Words are symbolic references to
>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>> 'Pencil' is not a noun. 'Pencil' is a symbolic representation of
>>>>>> something. But the word is not the thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 5-year-old knew, when I said, "What's a pencil?" that the correct
>>>>>> answer was noun. Because it is in context. He might be able to
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> the leap if I gave him a a list of words (if he knew his letters
>>>>>> yet)
>>>>>> that 'pencil' was a noun. But it is a leap without context and
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> possibly a damaging leap because it limits his focus. Nothing
>>>>>> infuriates me more than a group of students who see a word like
>>>>>> 'pencil'
>>>>>> in a sentence such as "I will pencil it in" and then they tell me it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a noun. Seniors in high school will do this. My 5-year-old who
>>>>>> couldn't tell you the difference between an 's' and an 'f'
>>>>>> understands
>>>>>> parts of speech better than my seniors who come in out of a
>>>>>> traditional
>>>>>> grammar regiment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And so, why would an elementary teacher not participate? Well,
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> because she (look at my stereotype...) knows that when she teaches
>>>>>> her
>>>>>> traditional grammar that her students simply aren't getting anything
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of it even if they do memorize lists of words. What if she would
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> something to that effect to a list such as this? I've been watching
>>>>>> this list long enough to know what the responses would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eduard C. Hanganu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the problems I see in the ATEG forum is that there is very
>>>>>>> little participation from the ranks of public school teachers, and
>>>>>>> especially from the primary grades. Most of the discussions seem to
>>>>>>> occur at a college level. In order for the ATEG group to develop a
>>>>>>> practical grammar which would indeed benefit students there must be
>>>>>>> input from educators who teach at such basic levels. We need to
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> how they approach the teaching of grammar for their students, and
>>>>>>> what the needs and expectations are at different levels in public
>>>>>>> school.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> I was writing in the context of the Scope and Sequence program,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the goal is to provide developmentally appropriate grammar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instruction =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that build as students are ready to master new concepts,
>>>>>>>> principles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> analyses, etc. Whether you want to call this one or several
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grammars =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As a university-level
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> teacher, =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not K-12, I see my role as a step or two removed. I can provide
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> content =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and can assist with the development of content, but I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pretend =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to any expertise in K12 curriculum and pedagogy. That I'll
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gratefully =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> leave to those on the list who are specialized in these areas.
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduard =
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C. Hanganu
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sun 8/20/2006 7:35 AM
>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Herb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you. There is much more to be said about grammar than
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> did, but I was referring to basic guiding principles, and not to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> details. Still I am getting a little confused: do you want to
>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> grammar encyclopaedia, or a practical grammar? And if you want to
>>>>>>>> write a practical grammar ( which is my assumption) for which
>>>>>>>> grade
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (s)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are you going to write that grammar? It appears to me that we will
>>>>>>>> necessarily have to write grammarS, not just a grammar, each
>>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>>> to some school level. One thing is to teach grammar to the
>>>>>>>> elementary
>>>>>>>> school students, another to teach grammar to college students.
>>>>>>>> Each
>>>>>>>> such level would require a grammar specifically written for its
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eduard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eduard,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quite a lot, in fact, as I suggested in my posting to Phil. Part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> problem in this discourse is that I come from a background in
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> traditional grammar includes Jespersen, Poutsma, Kruizinga, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the great 19th and 20th c. scholars of English grammar.=20
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Traditional
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> school grammar, like what is found in the Warriner's series, for
>>>>>>>>> example, a series that was used widely in American high schools
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> quite a long time, is in part of reduction of this combined with
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> variety of stylistic prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> negative reaction Fries had, because I go back to Jespersen on a
>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> matters. However, I agree with Fries as to the sometimes
>>>>>>>>> mindless
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in which traditional grammar has been reduced to a few inflexible
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> concepts, and maxims.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Sebastian Bear
>>>>>> Montpelier Public School
>>>>>> www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.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"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>James Sebastian Bear
>>>>Montpelier Public School
>>>>www.montpelier.k12.nd.us/classroom.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"
>>>>
>>>>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/
|
