Bob and Craig,

I find myself increasingly ambivalent in the debate between theories of language.  I cut my linguistic teeth on Aspects, got involved in a minor way with the Generative Semantics vs. Autonomous Syntax debate of the early 70s, and in the end decided I liked field work and phonology better-not surprisingly, I suppose, since that's what I did my dissertation on.  I find both broad categories of theory glaringly underdetermined by data.  In other words, there is no way to clearly falsify either approach.  Cognitive learning theory has for a long time made allowance for the production and comprehension of structures that go beyond input data, so I don't see that as a serious flaw in what's broadly called functionalism.  There is no question that formal syntactic theories make powerful predictions about the structure of sentences and the nature of syntactic systems.  That they don't deal with discourse structure is not a flaw as much as a definition of the scope of syntactic theory.  I've used both formal syntactic and functional explanations in the classroom, and they've both added clarity-and sometimes subtracted clarity.  A work like Mark Baker's _The Atoms of Language_ is a fascinating and seductive exposition of Universal Grammar, and Geoffrey Sampson's Educating Eve is a trenchant critique of Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition Device.

I would say that, in contemporary usage, I'm agnostic as to the debate, but I'm definitely not.  I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I'm indifferent and that I draw from both as I need them and find them useful and interesting.

Herb


________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: common core standards

Bob

Would your analysis explain my contention that because a native speaker would never say, "I put the pen the table" or "I put the pen on" (but would say, "I put my clothes on" ), then we really don't have to spend too much time (no time?) teaching prepositions or their direct objects?  Or, similarly, the latest revision (by Colomb and Williams) of Turabian's "Student's Guide to Writing College Papers" defines prepositions as simply, "Easier to list (in, on, up, over, of, at, by, etc."  And regarding your innovative structures (and I love the way you describe them so positively - not as "error" but "innovation"!), are these examples of writers struggling to find ways to use innate grammar to create meaning that they're in the process of discovering? And does this imply that grammar should be taught in a way that helps students create meaning and that "innovative structures" are simply part of that process?

Geoff Layton

PS: I still remember fondly your enthusiastic guided tour of Kansas City - my first ATEG experience!



> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:23:13 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> SubjeTo 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/