Bob Yates said,
>we discuss such sentences in a student text. If someone wants, I will discuss it in a further post.
I'd be interested in reading that post, Bob.
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?
Near the other end of the spectrum, the concept that "language structures our thinking" has to be distinguished from "language is identical to thinking." Perhaps non-human animal thinking exists but is less structured or differently structured than the thinking of language users. I assume that the structure of my own thinking would change if I could no longer form or receive words and sentences in my mind.
Brian
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Metaphors we don't live by
Colleagues,
I started my first reply on the metaphor string to suggest that there is
an alternative view from the one that language “structures our thinking.”
I believe that language and thought are completely separate.
(Actually, this is not a very bizarre idea. Imagine that you lost your
ability to say anything. Would you say you are incapable of thought? I
have several cats. They are unable to use language but it is clear they
“think.” They know that certain sounds mean they will be fed and they
are learning a quick “no” means to stop what they are doing.)
I used the example of syntactic ambiguity to question the claim that
language structures are thinking. If that is the case, then it would
seem whenever we utter an ambiguous sentence, we are having both
thoughts at the same time. I don’t think that is the case. I cited the
example of a real headline:
Puberty in girls begins earlier than thought
I just don’t think the writer of that headline had both meanings in mind
when that headline was composed. As best as I can tell from the
following by Gregg Heacock, that is the implication of the following:
"But, in my relating having, doing, and being to the past, present, and
future and to reality, imagination, and conceptualization is that
grammar encodes deep thought patterns. Teachers who belittle grammar
instruction have little idea of how important this discipline is to
shaping the mind. For language not only translates our thinking, it
structures our thinking."
******
Craig Hancock is right about how, in normal conversations, we resolve
utterance that are ambiguous by reliance on context. He writes:
“I don't see any reason to infer . . . that language and thought are
"separate systems." "She was a lightweight" can mean so many things in
so many contexts. It can be a literal observation about weight or a
metaphoric observation about power or ability. Any sensible theory of
language needs to deal with this.”
Descriptions of language deal with how particular utterances can be
ambiguous, but NO theory about the grammar of language can figure out
all of the possible contexts for determining the meaning of a particular
utterance. I think the passage above acknowledges that language must
necessarily be different from thought if context is crucial for
determining what a speaker means.
Consider the following two exchanges and the “meaning” of the string “Is
the Pope Catholic?”
Exchange I
A visiting Indian student to her American friend: Is the Pope Catholic?
Exchange II
Wife to husband returning home late from work: Would you like a drink?
Husband: Is the Pope Catholic?
In exchange I, the string “Is the Pope Catholic” is a real question; in
exchange II, the string means “yes.” Craig is right that context
determines these two meanings. That the exact same string of words can
have two separate meanings seems to me that “language” and “thought” are
very separate systems. Perhaps, he can provide an example that they
must be intimately connected.
(For the best explanation I know to understand why those meanings are
different, see the work of Sperber and Wilson, Relevance Theory, which
is an elaboration of Paul Grice’s Cooperative Principle.)
This discussion has implications for how we view our students’ writing.
If we find an ambiguous sentence in a student text or a sentence that
makes no sense, do we think the student’s thought is confused or do we
think the student has not recognized in another context the utterance
has a different meaning?
This post is long. In a paper by Jim Kenkel and me that will be
appearing in Written Communication in October, we discuss such sentence
in a student text. If someone wants, I will discuss it in a further
post.
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/
|
