Craig,
You will probably see that our positions on functionality are not that
different. The approach is just different. The imaginary context itself
has a structure -- a semantic structure that stretches across several
dimensions. What we utter has to reside in a string -- just one dimension
in time that has a dimension of sound that is analyzed into multiple
dimensions. The utterance dimensions are quite different from the semantic
structure. The semantics has been abstracted, and manipulated by language,
to be represented in the utterance. There is a lot missing; there is a lot
filled in. I am looking for a set of functions in the mathematical sense
that can use the semantic fields (planes, layers, dimensions) as its domain
and map their values onto a range in the linguistic planes of syntax,
morphology, phonology, orthographics. Would you claim there to be a
linguistic plane of "functional" elements that these semantics get mapped
to? Or would it be better to say that these elements are a part of the
semantics and remain there only to be discerned after the linguistic
elements have been displayed to the mind?
The "functional" layer, maybe, is a filtering of the already complex
clumping of semantic elements. What is its nature? Perhaps it doesn't work
with elements at all. But science needs an analysis into parts. Can the
context of an utterance be described in terms other than the terms that
describe the rest of the semantic layers? I wonder if maybe it is "simply"
another way of dividing up the layers of a semantic analysis. The example I
gave from Bolinger was meant to demonstrate just what you were saying about
the ubiquitous clumping of semantic elements in the language (English)
idiom. We could say it is "functional" or we could say it is a "hidden"
part of the semantics -- the semantics of an "extra-linguistic" context --
one that could be coded in language, if we chose to. The semantics begs for
description (some scientists have used rules of the form used in logic and
mathematics) and I simply think that the "functional" does too.
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Rules was Those old transitivity blues
> Bruce,
> Thanks for the warm words. I do think this is a good faith conversation,
> and I'll try to keep on in that tone.
> We certainly do need context to understand a great deal of discourse,
> and I'm not sure why you would present that as an argument against the
> functional. "How cold does it have to get" could mean many things, and the
> only way it can include the idea of shutting a window is to put it into an
> imaginary context. A functional approach is not going to say that we can
> infer context from a form, but the opposite--that we need context, and
> that the formal structures we utter are context sensitive. "How cold does
> it have to get" makes no sense out of context, so we infer a context for
> it. I would see it as what usage based construction grammar calls a
> "schema", a form meaning pairing unpredicted by the general rules of a
> formal syntax and one that has blanks to fill in. "How much snow has to
> pile up before you shovel it?" "How much does the garbage have to stink
> before you take it out?" "How many examples do I have to give before a
> concept comes through?" The schema brings with it a kind of sarcasm or
> rudeness that is part of its meaning. Rudeness is part of the schema.
> "Schema" are one of the patterns cognitive linguists use to argue
> against the innateness of grammar. They are clearly learned, clearly
> language dependent (and not universal.) If we can learn schema rapidly and
> easily, we have evidence of the ability to learn other patterns.
> Many grammatical constructions become lexicalized and then pick up
> meanings somewhat unpredictable from their parts. Any approach to grammar
> will have to accommodate that. Any theory of language should accomodate
> the fact that grammatical constructions are constantly coming into being.
> Dividing subject function up into grammatical subject, actor, and theme
> is not at all ambiguous. My experience, in fact, is that much of the
> confusion about subject in most students' minds comes from believing that
> a subject is the first thing and the actor and the focus of the
> proposition; so when those separate functions are acknowledged, they have
> an easier time--a much easier time--with the concept. It is a way of
> making the notion of "subject" more precise. Traditional grammar tries to
> pass it off as innate or intuitive, when the intuitions are quite fuzzy.
> Tag questions work because they allow us to isolate the grammatical
> subject from other competing possibilities, such as coming first or doing
> the deed. A deeper understanding of what we mean by subject carries over
> into reading and writing in a very useful way. We have a way of
> understanding why a writer might choose one form over the other within the
> flow of discourse.
> The desire for a one-to-one mapping between structure and function may
> be a desire for neat and clean categories in a world where those are rare.
> Does the category "hammer" include sledge hammer? How about a rubber
> mallet? Is a nail gun a kind of hammer? In what ways is it a gun? If we
> look closely at the cognitive nature of categories, we find that many
> categories have elements that have only loose family relationships with
> each other. Some elements of the category seem more central than others.
> When I think hammer, I think claw hammer. A nail gun has a trigger and
> shoots things, but so does a hose nozzle. If we look back from the
> functional end, we can see something like "hammering in nails" as a
> function that can be performed in at least two ways, one of them invented
> fairly recently. I use my screw driver to open paint cans, and I have seen
> my wife use one to loosen soil. The other day, I used one to pry open a
> stuck window.
> And a hammer, of course, has a form that fits its function. It's not
> that we had them lying around and then decided to hammer nails with them,
> but the need to have something to hammer nails has influenced the
> development of the hammer (and now the nail gun.) Anyone who hammers as
> awkwardly as I do knows what the claw is for. Mallets are good for
> pounding. The analogy may or may not carry over to language, but from a
> functional perspective, the belief is that it does. Form and function are
> deeply connected.
>
> Craig
>
> Bruce Despain wrote:
>> Craig,
>> I'm sorry for the disagreement, but I don't think it is as serious as
>> you make it out to be. Maybe I made some of my positions out to be
>> stronger than they actually are. However, that said, there are a few
>> comments I would still like to make about your position. What I hope for
>> with the word "function" is that the mathematical sense or formal
>> definition can be made to work with the less formal meanings. What I
>> mean is that "function" ought to be formalized, even from the general
>> metaphorical uses it has. This is not about the word but about the goal
>> of a scientific approach. As the designation of a role, the word ought
>> to refer to something that can be defined in less vague terms, elements
>> with more basic meaning. (You should be very cautious about your quotes.
>> There is a world of difference between a /function/ and "function.") I
>> would like to think that "role" can be defined as a mathematical
>> /relation/, which is like a /function/ but has values that range over
>> "true" and "false" rather than numbers or points on a cline. A subject
>> is one of your ambiguous relations: logical subject, grammatical subject.
>> I think that the tools of linguistics need to be scientifically
>> qualified. GT grammar has to concentrate on the syntactic aspects of
>> grammatical analysis. If that is not enough, if it ignores spelling, if
>> it ignores aspects of meaning, if it ignores word structure, maybe it's
>> time to to develop a formal approach that will describe these other
>> aspects of language. What I hate is to take a tool, like an ax, emphasize
>> its function, find it being used as a hammer, and then claim that these
>> are two aspects of the same tool. It's much better, I think, to point
>> out the structural similarities between a hammer and an ax, and point out
>> how these make it possible for them to exchange roles for certain jobs.
>> Your example of the use of "it" as a place holder for the subject of a
>> passive: I would be very suspect of any syntactic theory that made it
>> "superfluous." If the semantics of the sentence are being described
>> without it, elements at a higher syntactic level, e.g., the declarative
>> sentence, would still have to be demonstrated to be accepted as
>> grammatical, elements which without it could not exist. In my example
>> from a previous post the "shut the window" was an essential part of the
>> meaning of "How cold does it have to get?" The extralinguistic context
>> contributed the imperative portion by supplying "before you shut the
>> window." In this sense, a superfluous element is not one that does not
>> belong to the theory, just one that it doesn't have to be uttered to be
>> understood. To use an example from Bollinger: a lawyer advises a debtor
>> that he doesn't need to pay a particular bill because "the statute of
>> limitations has expired on that bill." He does not mean that the statute
>> is no longer in force, but that the period of time specified in that
>> statute for a bill of that kind has expired. The desire to use words in
>> this kind of "non-superfluous" way is omnipresent in language, especially
>> poetry. It keeps the language mavins and critics of language use very
>> busy. It comes when we ignore the original intent of the ax and change
>> its functionality to a hammer. It may be illogical but we take advantage
>> of the structure we have for a different use. This is called "exaption"
>> in evolutionary biology. I don't mind the fact that we disagree. I
>> highly respect your experience and skills at teaching English writing.
>> I've always admired a good writer and hope someday to do better at
>> explaining my own ideas and understandings. This is, I hope, a good
>> forum for doing so. Bruce
>>
>> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/15/07 5:46 AM >>>
>> Bruce,
>> The term "function" seems to have a long, venerable history in
>> linguistics. The OED cites both Bloomfield and C. C. Fries. Halliday
>> tends to use the term much as many of us use it on list. We can put
>> words or constructions roughly into classes, which tell us something
>> about the meaning potential of the word or structure. The word
>> "function" designates the role of the word or word group within a
>> particular instance of use. In the previous sentence, "The word
>> function" is noun phrase acting as subject. (It also acts us agent of
>> "designates". And it is unmarked theme in the theme/rheme structure of
>> the clause.) It is not uncommon for a structure to have more than one
>> function.
>> I don't think it is accurate to say that the functionalists don't use
>> the tools of linguistics. The primary difference is that they see
>> language as innately functional, not just a formal system that can then
>> be put to use in functional ways. Generative grammar is often
>> criticized from the functional side for calling everything that doesn't
>> fit neatly into its theory peripheral or unimportant. It becomes so
>> abstract that it no longer seems to represent what many of us think of
>> as language.
>> There may in fact be many cases in which the passive is more primary
>> than the active. There is no doubt a good reason why (according to
>> Biber et al) passives are eight times more likely to show up in
>> academic discourse. From a functional perpsective, active and passive
>> give us alternative choices, and each gives us a different meaning.
>> Someone asks "Who gave the book to Charlie?" You may likely reply "It
>> was given by his wife." This allows us to put given information ("It")
>> first and new information in clause ending prominence. Whether or not
>> this is thought of as superfluous is a theoretical position, not a
>> scientific one. I find myself much more attracted to the theory that
>> explores how these structures function in the world. If we theorize
>> about them out of context, we may end up with a distorted theory.
>> At some point, of course, we need to agree to disagree. I am a writer
>> and writing teacher and somewhat a learning specialist by position and
>> you are a mathematician, so that may explain a great detail. I like
>> math and always did well in it, but I do not think it is a good model
>> for the complexities of language. And I think it is misleading to call
>> any approaches that aren't mathematical less rigorous or scientific.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig,
>> >
>> > I think my concern is really quite far from the classroom, for which I
>> > apologize. It's more like a paleontologist using the tools of
>> geology to
>> > solve biological questions. I think the functionalists need to use
>> > some
>> > more tools of linguistics to solve their language questions. I see no
>> > sense debating the cline of polite requests, whether the points are
>> > continuous of discontinuous, or adjusted up or down by context, if
>> we have
>> > no way to measure where the points are. Wouldn't it be helpful to have
>> > measures? Technology can help science to collect and analyze their
>> data.
>> > The theory can only take us so far. What? It might be refuted if its
>> > predictions cannot be corroborated. My point in segmenting the
>> > differently formulated requests was show the direction toward some
>> > kind
>> > of measure. This is not just by tallying up the units of meaning but
>> > would involve weighing them in context. Let's callibrate the cline and
>> > establish points or regions along it. I don't think the instruments
>> > for
>> > doing such a thing are developed. Like a paleontologist we're just
>> > waiting for the next discovery.
>> >
>> > If the theory helps to teach the concepts that need teaching, more
>> > power
>> > to it. Some models are helpful, but others can be disruptive in the
>> > acquisition of a skill. I think of the power that certain images
>> have in
>> > teaching music and voice. Educators have learned that certain visual
>> > metaphors guide the mind in some mysterious way to produce or reproduce
>> > the sounds desired. I sure wish I knew what the rules were behind
>> > these
>> > secrets (in the brain, in the mind).
>> >
>> > Bruce
>> >
>> >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/12/07 1:59 PM >>>
>> >
>> > Bruce,
>> > I'll check out definitions for "functional" in Halliday and get
>> > back
>> > to you. I admit I'm not using the term as a mathematician
>> > would--perhaps
>> > more like a biologist, as in "what is the function of the placenta
>> > within the reproductive system." I don't think mathematical models work
>> > well for language--once you strip it of its semantic and discourse
>> > content and context, you end up with a view of language that doesn't
>> > fit
>> > what we find in the world. I don't think an ecology is less scientific
>> > than classical biology. It just has a different (systemic and
>> > functional) orientation. It asks a different set of questions, ones
>> > that
>> > may yet save the world.
>> > Ordering or requesting politely might be thought of as different
>> > points on a cline. One is not necessarily more primary than the other,
>> > and the words of politeness won't be superfluous to the human relations
>> > we are fostering though language. The same would be true of passives.
>> > You can certainly say that the unmarked or default is the active, but
>> > they do not mean the same thing if you include things like
>> > propositional
>> > focus or textual unity within your definition of meaning. In the
>> > language of cognitive linguistics, different versions will construe the
>> > world differently. In functional grammar, grammatical subject is a
>> > separate function from actor or agent, though they generally co-occur.
>> > When we vary from that co-occurrence, we are simply predicating a
>> > statement about another element. One is not necessarily more primary,
>> > and the extra words are not superfluous, but highly functional.
>> > I don't mean to imply that generative grammar presents rules as
>> > regulative. I do think most people believe grammar rules are rules that
>> > you are supposed to follow, not just patterns that arise from
>> > purposeful
>> > use of language. And when we abstract these rules from context, we pull
>> > further and further away from the living language. If we use the term
>> > "pattern", perhaps we could change that.
>> > I think it might be fine to teach generative grammar in the schools
>> > as a discipline of inquiry, but I don't think it will help us develop a
>> > view of language that will carry over into reading and writing. I
>> > believe both functional and cognitive approaches have much more promise
>> > for that.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> >
>> > Bruce Despain wrote:
>> >> Craig,
>> >>
>> >> With my experience in math, I have a difficulty with the word
>> >> "function" similarly as you do with "rule." For the mathematician the
>> >> function is a process that has a domain or set of input values (one or
>> >> more parameters) and a range or output value. The transformation is a
>> >> mapping or relation (one to one, one to many, many to one) of one set
>> >> of values onto another. This way of picturing the relationship as a
>> >> process is a convenience for understanding the model. In this way
>> >> rules and patterns are simply two ways of viewing the same
>> >> phenomena. The rules as functions output a value, which can often be
>> >> considered a pattern. It is the analysis of patterns that allow us to
>> >> describe them by rule. Generative rules (now called Backus-Naur
>> >> form) were developed with this in mind. Rules in this sense are not
>> >> regulative, except to the person who wants a description of the
>> >> structure. They show how to go about building it so as to get the
>> >> best results. (The are not generative either, in the sense of giving
>> >> birth to ideas.)
>> >>
>> >> To beat a dead horse: the normal way to request behavior of another
>> >> person is with an imperative ("Shut the window"), but we can use the
>> >> yes-no interrogative to inquire about a person's disposition to behave
>> >> in a certain way: "Will you shut the window?" or a declarative "It's
>> >> cold in here" or even a wh-interrogative, "How cold does it have to
>> >> get?" If the syntactic description of the sentence is limited to such
>> >> sentence types, it is easy to see that Halladay needed another level
>> >> (meta-) on which to express the actual intent of the question apart
>> >> from its form. Hence, at this level (interactive) the three sentences
>> >> that are used for the same purpose are of the same type.
>> >> If we subscribe to the compositionality of language meaning, there
>> >> would certainly be more elementary units of meaning of which the more
>> >> complex constructions are composed. Couldn't these be considered
>> >> primary? If it takes me more words (syntactically) to say something
>> >> one way, perhaps that would be a rough indication of the number of
>> >> meaning elements it could be broken down into. The active sentence
>> >> usually has one less word than the passive, which uses a form of "be"
>> >> with the passive participle. If we're counting morphemes, we would
>> >> have to consider the participle ending as another element. The
>> >> passive seems to be less primary from an analytic point of view. The
>> >> same argument makes sentences with a progressive aspect less primary
>> >> than corresponding ones with a simple finite verb. They are
>> >> structurally more complex and seem also to contain additional
>> >> meaningful units. Perhaps if we are allowed to cut away the
>> >> superfluous content of the above syntactically different sentences, we
>> >> can be left with a core set of meanings at the interactive level. A
>> >> transformation would seem to be an appropriate model for stating such
>> >> a relationship.
>> >>
>> >> My intent was to make a point that has less to do with pedagogy,
>> >> perhaps, than formal models. Yet, we must admit that kids today have
>> >> been given the opportunity to learn a good deal of these concepts in
>> >> their math classes. Maybe pedagogy needs to relate to this kind
>> >> of educational curriculum to some extent. Many branches of
>> >> linguistics are trying to bridge this abysmal gap between the
>> >> humanities and science. I think some of it ought to trickle down to
>> >> the lower grades. Maybe we should teach using the mathematical
>> >> approach to functions and rules. If not literally, perhaps only
>> >> metaphorically.
>> >>
>> >> Bruce
>> >>
>> >> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 9:40 AM >>>
>> >> Bruce,
>> >> It may be hard to use the term "transformation" without bringing in
>> >> all the apparatus that has historically come with it. It may be better
>> >> to talk about alternative options, perhaps ones that complement each
>> >> other and stand at more or less equal status. So a question is not a
>> >> transformed statement, but just an alternative choice--offering
>> >> information or requesting information as both necessary options in the
>> >> system. We can also request or offer goods and services, and we have
>> >> ways to carry that out.
>> >> Halliday describes three different metafunctions, one being
>> >> interpersonal and interactive, another being representational, and the
>> >> other being largely textual. So you might say that a passive sentence
>> >> has been "transformed" from an active one, but a functional analysis
>> >> would emphasize that a different entity has been moved into
>> >> grammatical
>> >> subject role to ground the proposition, while the role of doer of the
>> >> action (representation) has been left out or shifted into the
>> >> predicate.
>> >> This may happen for textual reasons, perhaps to keep a topic in
>> >> extended
>> >> focus. If you treat this systematically, then one is not a
>> >> transformation of the other, just ways to accommodate different
>> >> functions within the structure of the clause. It may be misleading to
>> >> think of one as more primary than the other, even if more common.
>> >> We can certainly divide verbs into physical (material) and mental
>> >> (cognitive), and we do mix those types up in a sort of metaphor all
>> >> the
>> >> time. When the wind "howls", we are granting it a speech act. When I
>> >> "fall" for someone, I'm describing emotional change in physical terms.
>> >> "The fields never knew such cold as they knew that winter." What kind
>> >> of
>> >> "knowing" is that? Any description of creativity ought to foreground
>> >> the
>> >> metaphoric nature of language.
>> >> I mainly worry that people think of rules as "governing" rather
>> >> than
>> >> as conventional. It is not a "rule" that college students dress
>> >> informally, but it is certainly a pattern. You haven't broken a rule
>> >> when you wear a tie, for whatever reason. I don't think the comparison
>> >> holds too far (language is not just fashion), but "rule" and "pattern"
>> >> can be very different in people's minds.
>> >>
>> >> Craig
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bruce Despain wrote:
>> >> > Craig,
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it might be a good exercise for you to respond sometime
>> >> > without using the word "function" or "functional." Don't these
>> >> > words
>> >> > just provide us another way to talk about rules. The rule is there
>> >> to
>> >> > *describe* something that is regular, expected, recognized, and
>> >> > conventional. Language needs a certain amount of conventionality to
>> >> > convey understanding. Does a new construction arise to carriy out a
>> >> > new function or an old function in a new way? Maybe the answer
>> >> > would
>> >> > tell us to what extent function is driving language or whether
>> >> > language is driving function. Consider the rhetorical question, for
>> >> > example. This phenomenon takes a syntactic structure normally used
>> >> to
>> >> > seek new information and applies it to make an assertion. We could
>> >> > describe this phenomenon by rule in the form of a (dreaded?)
>> >> > "transformation" (a sense different from
>> >> > "generative-transformational"). The language user transforms the
>> >> > function of a yes-no question to that of a declarative sentence
>> >> simply
>> >> > by placing it in a rhetorical context. To compare the functions of
>> >> > "kick" and "admire" as transitive verbs is not as useful as
>> >> > comparing
>> >> > them, maybe, at the level of action, one being physical and the
>> >> > other mental. To find a syntactic correlate to this contrast may
>> >> give
>> >> > us a clue to where a creative act of functional transform might be
>> >> > found. Perhaps something like these metaphors: "John kicked around
>> >> > and then admired football." (zeugma) "Mary admired John, but kicked
>> >> > him out of her life." We respect the "functional pressures" of
>> >> syntax
>> >> > but utilize their force to make our expressions more powerful. Is
>> >> > this something like you have in mind?
>> >> >
>> >> > Bruce
>> >> >
>> >> > >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 7:54 AM >>>
>> >> > Herb,
>> >> > I enjoyed both posts very much and will respond to both in this
>> >> one.
>> >> > I like the idea that the language is both "complex" and "subtle",
>> >> > which implies that it's a functional complexity. We bring new
>> >> > constructions into play precisely because they allow us to carry out
>> >> the
>> >> > various functions of language, and any attempt to describe it ought
>> >> to
>> >> > pay deep respect to that. They come into being because we find them
>> >> > useful and they become routinized (and intuitive) over time.
>> >> > I'm beginning to think that we use the term "rules" far too
>> >> readily
>> >> > and widely. What we are describing may in fact be a useful
>> >> construction
>> >> > or a functional pattern, not a "rule" in the way we usually
>> >> understand
>> >> > rules. Language may be better understood bottom up than top down.
>> >> > It does make sense to look for patterns, but when we find these
>> >> > similarities, when we classify sentences or constructions, we are
>> >> > not
>> >> > necessarily discovering some sort of internal rules that they are
>> >> > "following." The patterns are enormously important, and they do tend
>> >> to
>> >> > function below consciousness for very good (functional) reasons. But
>> >> > classifying the sentences or ascertaining the "rules" they represent
>> >> may
>> >> > be very misleading. Both "kick" and "admire" take direct objects,
>> >> > not
>> >> > because they are transitive, but because we understand kicking as a
>> >> > process that involves something to be kicked and admiring as a
>> >> process
>> >> > that requires something to be admired. The differences between being
>> >> > kicked and being admired may be more important than the
>> >> > similarities.
>> >> > Transitivity arises because it is congruent with our understanding
>> >> > of
>> >> > the world. When the patterns don't fit our purposes, we bend and
>> >> shape
>> >> > them, we blur the edges.
>> >> > This may be why studying formal grammar doesn't seem to carry
>> >> over,
>> >> > at least not quickly or easily. We need to respect the functional
>> >> > pressures, the context it arises from.
>> >> > When we write, we are not constructing forms; we are constructing
>> >> > meanings. Meaning is not simply poured into neutral forms. The
>> >> > constructions themselves are meaningful, arising out of that
>> >> > meaning-making history over time.
>> >> > I know that probably puts me at odds with many people on the
>> >> > list.
>> >> > But that's where my current thinking is headed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Craig
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> >> > > Craig,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > What you describe as the verb pulling the preposition into its
>> >> orbit is
>> >> > > precisely the sort of historical change that's been going on since
>> >> Early
>> >> > > Modern English and has given us the very complex and subtle system
>> >> of
>> >> > > multi-word verbs we have in English today. So we have
>> >> constructions in
>> >> > > which about behaves in some ways as a preposition and in other
>> >> ways as a
>> >> > > part of the verb. And we just have to live with that fact.
>> >> Language
>> >> > > continually defies our attempts to codify it, which is what makes
>> >> it so
>> >> > > endlessly fascinating to study.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Herb
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01 AM
>> >> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> >> > > Subject: Re: Those old transitivity blues was Help for a puzzled
>> >> teacher
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Herb, Peter, Bill, Ron,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > With apologies if they seems too theoretical for most people's
>> >> tastes. I
>> >> > >
>> >> > > have been thinking about these things for several months now and
>> >> have
>> >> > > mostly held back while the thoughts come into focus.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The problem I currently have with tying to find a classification
>> >> for
>> >> > > "think about" is that I am starting to believe we make these
>> >> categories
>> >> > > more important (more governing) than they actually are. We tend to
>> >> feel
>> >> > > as if words have to act certain ways because of the grammar,
>> >> rather than
>> >> > >
>> >> > > believing that the grammar itself arises out of our use of words.
>> >> (Or
>> >> > > that it is a dynamic relationship, a lexico-grammar, word-grammar,
>> >> > > cline.) When classification becomes an end in itself, the living,
>> >> > > dynamic language gets left behind.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Another way to think about it is that the process of thinking is
>> >> often
>> >> > > conceived of (and articulated) as "about" something, and over time
>> >> > > "think" and "about" come together often enough to start feeling
>> like
>> >> a
>> >> > > single phrase rather than a verb plus prepositional phrase with a
>> >> > > variable object.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I often think about blank.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I often think about blank
>> >> > >
>> >> > > From this way of thinking, the verb will begin to pull the
>> >> preposition
>> >> > > into its orbit, helped by two forces-one is repetition (the words
>> >> coming
>> >> > >
>> >> > > together so often)--and the other is congruency with our
>> >> > > experience
>> >> of
>> >> > > the world, our conception of what thinking is like. In other
>> >> > > words,
>> >> we
>> >> > > continue to use it because it is practical to use it, highly
>> >> > > "functional." And this becomes patterned.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > From a rule based approach, we have to say that "all grammars
>> >> leak",
>> >> > > but that may be because they try to treat the language as frozen
>> >> and not
>> >> > >
>> >> > > dynamic. If we see the creation of phrasal verbs as a dynamic
>> >> process,
>> >> > > then it is easy to treat in-between examples as part of that
>> >> process of
>> >> > > change-of grammatical structures being lexicalized and lexical
>> >> terms
>> >> > > being pulled into the grammar. From a usage based perspective,
>> >> leaking
>> >> > > is likely. Just like words, the grammar is always coming into
>> >> being.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This gives us an approach to grammar that pulls us into meaning
>> >> and one
>> >> > > that frames meaning itself as contextual and dynamic.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Craig
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Ron,
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Let's start with easiest of your questions, how to use
>> >> > >> information
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > like
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> this in teaching. The fact is that I wouldn't present a
>> >> seven-fold
>> >> > >> classification of anything grammatical in an ESL context. I
>> >> > >> might
>> >> be
>> >> > >> forced to do something like that if I were teaching Chinese
>> >> nominal
>> >> > >> classifiers, of which there are dozens, or Bantu noun classes,
>> >> which
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > can
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> exceed a couple dozen, but fortunately English doesn't do such
>> >> things.
>> >> > >> What's important in developing both fluency and register control
>> >> in
>> >> > >> non-native speakers is that they learn to shift particles when
>> >> doing
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > so
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> is pragmatically motivated, that they learn to use a passive when
>> >> that
>> >> > >> structure is pragmatically motivated. And this they will learn
>> >> much
>> >> > >> better from usage and practice than from grammar drill.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I think perhaps you confused Bill and me in the latter part of
>> >> your
>> >> > >> post. Actually, the classification I posted is from Sidney
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > Greenbaum's
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Oxford English Grammar (OUP, 1996), so I can't take credit for
>> >> > >> it.
>> >> > >> Transitivity does have degrees. Intransitives take only a
>> >> subject,
>> >> > >> (mono)transitives take a subject and a direct object, and
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > ditransitives
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> (SG's "doubly transitives") take a direct object and an indirect
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > object,
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> which may or may not require a preposition. Indirect object,
>> >> > >> bear
>> >> in
>> >> > >> mind, is a function, not a structure, and it can show up as
>> >> > >> either
>> >> a
>> >> > >> bare NP or as the object of a preposition. I suspect SG uses
>> >> > >> "monotransitivity" in a excess of clarity, the result of which
>> >> isn't
>> >> > >> necessarily what the writer hopes for.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Actually, SG doesn't distinguish between "look at" and "look
>> >> after".
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > In
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> his discussion of prepositional verbs (p. 282), he uses "look at"
>> >> as
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > an
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> example of a monotransitive prepositional verb.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Back to the question of goals for a moment. SG was writing a
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > reference
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> grammar, and so his goal was to provide as complete and thorough
>> >> > >> a
>> >> > >> classification of English structures as he could. Hence his
>> >> > >> seven
>> >> > >> classes of phrasal/prepositional verbs. What the ESL teacher
>> >> > >> does
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > with
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> this classification is subject to different, pedagogical
>> goals, and
>> >> I
>> >> > >> hope that teacher would keep SG's treatment well away from his
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > students,
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> while being informed by it as he or she prepares lesson plans.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Herb
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> One of the great advantages of this List (and particularly if one
>> >> has
>> >> > >> the
>> >> > >> intellectual courage to state what one knows about grammar with
>> >> the
>> >> > >> attendant possibility of being proven to be wrong and the even
>> >> worse
>> >> > >> possibility of realising that one has been teaching something to
>> >> > >> students
>> >> > >> which is possibly incorrect) is the potential it has to make one
>> >> > >> re-examine
>> >> > >> one's own assumptions about some point of grammar.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Herb's comments on the complexities of phrasal verbs and Bill's
>> >> list
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> three examples are cases in point. This query, then, is just to
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > clarify
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> things in their posts and particularly in the context of ESL.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Bill's list of three is as follows:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I looked [up the chimney] prepositional phrase
>> >> > >> I [looked up] the word phrasal verb
>> >> > >> I looked [up] adverbial particle.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Just to avoid ambiguity, I would modify the second two as
>> >> > >> follows:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I [looked up] the word. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and
>> >> > >> as
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > 'the
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> word' is the direct object of the resultant phrasal verb, 'look
>> >> up' is
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > a
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> transitive phrasal
>> >> > >> verb.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I looked [up]. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as there is
>> >> no
>> >> > >> direct
>> >> > >> object, 'look up' is an intransitive phrasal verb.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Would Bill agree with this modification?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Herb's list of seven really puts the cat amonst the pigeons of my
>> >> > >> assumptions about transitivity. Here's Bill's list:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 1. intransitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "give in" (surrender)
>> >> > >> 2. transitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "find" something "out"
>> >> (discover)
>> >> > >> 3. monotransitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "look after" (take
>> >> care
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > of)
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> 4. doubly transitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "blame" something
>> >> "on"
>> >> > >> someone
>> >> > >> 5. copular prepositional verbs, e.g. "serve as"
>> >> > >> 6. monotransitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "look up to"
>> >> > >> (respect)
>> >> > >> 7. doubly transitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "put"
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > something
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> "down to" (attribute to)
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> My problem is with 3 This is the first time that I have
>> >> encountered
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > the
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> term 'monotransitive' so perhaps Bill can explain the
>> >> > >> significance
>> >> of
>> >> > >> the addition of 'mono-'.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> In the case of 3, why is Bill implicitly differentiating 'look
>> >> at' and
>> >> > >> 'look
>> >> > >> after'? I ask this because I am assuming that he is not
>> >> > >> claiming
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > that
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> 'look at' is a monotransitive prepositional verb. In the case of
>> >> ESL,
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > I
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> think it preferable to consider them both intransitive in order
>> >> not to
>> >> > >> muddy the transitive waters too much.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 6 & 7 are also problematic in ESL terms for the same reason but
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > perhaps
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> we can come to those later.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Ron Sheen
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 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/
>> >> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > 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/
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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/
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/
>
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/
|
