Phil,
Not to deep-six the discussion, but there is a fatal flaw in your idea of
nounness. We can see in the progress of science how language has misled
investigators in many places. One example is "heat" as a noun. For many years
investigators tried to find the element that was flowing from one object to
another. It could never be found. It does not exist. (Now science speaks of
"entropy".) People had reified the concept. Let's not do this to our students,
if we can avoid it.
Bruce
>>> "Phil Bralich" <[log in to unmask]> 08/24/06 9:40 AM >>>
This is a problem that has been discussed by Plato, Aristotle, Paramenides,
Spinoza, Hegel and Kant to name just a few. It is discussed under a vareity of
names so it may difficult to recognize at first, for Hegel the Begriff, for
Plato the Logos, and for most English speaking philopshers the Concept or the
Idea of Ideas. In this the issue of the degree to which words and language
interact with the actual objects that they refer to. That is too say, this is
an issue of some complexity. However, for our purposes the issue is more rooted
in the specifics of grammar teaching than in the wider world of philosophy but
we beg these issues at this point. The word "dog" is an element of language and
exists in the head as part of a system of signs. However, the meaning of dog
(even its nounness) is dependent on the actually occuring animal for learning
and for periodic review. For example, we must know that a dog has hair, claws,
four legs, and so forth. The word is dependent on this knowledge of the real
world. Also and more generally but no less true, it is a mammal, a living
being, an entity, and finally a noun. This quality can no more be completely
severed from the dog as the sequence of three sounds d - o - g can be completely
severed from the existing animal. You, like Paramenides, separate the word the
thing a bit too much. I am much more with Plato, Kant, and Hegel in believing
the relation between the word dog and the concept dog are quite dependent. And
thereby I believe that noun is a quality of the animal itself -- more general
than entity or mammal but still a quality of the animal itself.
Phil Bralich
>2. Phil Bralich claims all entities or things are nouns. A noun is a
>class of word; classes of words are elements of language; language is a
>mental phenomenon. Nouns exist only in the minds of human beings. You
>cannot point to something in the world, like a rock, and say it is a
>noun. Word meanings are concepts, not things outside the mind. When we
>are exposed to the world, we make a mental record of our experience; we
>see things like rocks and form a concept of rocks. We learn to
>associate a word ("rock") with the concept. Then we classify words
>into categories based on certain _perceived_ features of the things and
>on discourse needs. The prototypical entity likely to be named by a
>noun is (a) concrete (b) clearly differentiated from other entities (c)
>time-stable, that is, it does not change its essence or properties very
>fast; (d) it is internally differentiated, that is, it has parts that
>are different from each other; (e) it is countable.
>
>The fewer of these properties an entity is perceived to have, the less
>likely it is to be named by a noun. Also, the fewer of these properties
>it has, the fewer noun inflection "privileges" it will have, such as
>being able to be pluralized.
>
>Perception and cultural conditioning are extremely important. Not all
>languages assign the same phenomena to the noun and verb classes.
>
>In response to Craig and others, I believe it is very helpful to teach
>students how to use inflectional tests like adding plural -s to
>identify a word's class. It's like a basic definition in mathematics --
>not sexy, but part of the basic equipment. Much more can be said about
>nouns, of course, and should, according to the students' level.
>
>I spoke in another message of the difference between class and
>function. "Nominal" is the function that clauses play when they are
>subjects or direct objects; in fact, "nominal" is the superordinate
>term for structures that play roles like subject, direct object, and so
>on. "Nominal" is a discourse function for referring and for supplying
>something to which we can assign a predicate (say something about).
>
>My own textbook takes a thoroughgoing cognitive/functional approach
>(along with structural descriptions) to English grammar. If all goes
>well, it will be out by summer of '07 or a little later.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
|
