for some reason, my computer sent a post prematurely. I continue it
below.

Bob,
   I want to apologize again for my comment. I didn't mean to imply that
you were promoting your career through adherence to these ideas, and I
certainly take your characterization at face value. Your responses have
sometimes seemed defensive to me, but I have no place to generalize
from there. What does tend to sadden me is that our conversations very
quickly become arguments rather than sharing of perspectives, but
perhaps I'm expecting too much.
   Just a quick response to your statements.
   The view that language, including the grammar, is acquired through use
(usage based) is being developed very carefully by a number of people.
Not too long ago, I shared an article (I know you have it since you
requested a copy) which concluded that recent empirical studies support
a usage based over innate model. It doesn't make much sense for you and
I to argue it out on the basis of our thoughts about it when a
comprehensive research program is underway. But we can certainly offer
alternative perspectives.
   I think there is huge evidence that children do overgeneralize rules or
patterns. "Goed" is something you hear quite often. The individual
variant overrides the general pattern, and the individual learns that
from use as well. This is easier to explain if you think of the lexicon
and the grammar as deeply connected to each other. The -ed pattern is a
newer pattern in English, so the older forms stick with us largely on
the basis of frequency. The verb to be, probably the most frequent of
all verbs, has kept the most forms. New verbs always follow the -ed
pattern.
    In terms of punctuation, certainly, most evolving writers have heard a
great deal more language than they have ever seen, and quite
frequently punctuation practices have some connection to an intonation
pattern, perhaps one that should not expect a reader to anticipate. I
think I have always expressed the view that students need to be
mentored into mainstream practices. We need to make those expectations
clearer and more explicit. I'm a bit confused about the point you are
trying to make. Certainly we would both agree that a conversation with
the student is in order and that we shouldn't just assume that the
student is just being careless or thoughtless.
   I didn't get the same interpretation you did from the student's
statement about Cinderella. In fact, the sentence that follows seems to
back up the idea that it is the story itself that is "crazy." She talks
about the actions of the characters, not the mistakes of the critic. It
seems very much what my students would say: "That story is crazy".
Either way, though, the pattern of postnominal modification is a
meaning pattern, not just a formal one. Again, I'm not sure of the
point that is being made using this as an example.
   By "joint attentional state", I think Tomasello is echoing what most
parents know, that our children learn language when we focus on the
same thing with them and use words that fit our understanding of it. We
hold them on our lap and read to them. We have conversations with them.
"See the truck. That's a dump truck." Children will not learn language
as easily or as readily when no one talks to them or when most talk is
cold or hostile.
   "Intentionality" seems to be a central key to language. Language
requires an acceptance of other minds. And the mind simply loves
patterns. From a usage-based perspective, these are key to both
cognition and language.
   Chomsky, if I am reading him right, seems to say that there are only
"imperfect connections" between semantics and syntax, so syntax should
be understood as a separate system. Then he seems to imply that the
reverse is not quite so true--syntax has a lot to offer semantics, and
in fact is a necessary element. "The requirement that this theory shall
be a completely formal discipline is perfectly compatible with the
desire to formulate it in such a way as to have suggestive and
significant interconnections with a parallel semantic theory"
(Syntactic Structures, p. 103). So perhaps we are not so far off when
the whole theory is put together. I am just much more comfortable
looking at grammar as a functional system, not a formal one, and the
evidence seems increasingly on that side.
   The main implication for language teaching, I think, is that students
need to be mentored into all aspects of language. That means, at least
to me, that both teachers and students need to be far more conscious of
language, language choice, and form/meaning connections. We need to
help students find the patterns that most fully realize their
intentions. I don't believe those patterns are given at birth. wither
way, though, they need to learn to put them into effective practice.
When it comes to sitting down with a struggling student, I suspect you
and I have much in common.
   For the Cinderella essay, step number one would be to ask what she
intended.

Craig

Colleagues:
>
> I’ve been busy the past couple of days.  Here some of my thoughts on
> comments on this thread.
>
> Of course, names have consequences, but I wonder if it is as simple as
> the following:
>
> Dick Veit writes:
> “Juliet claimed that "that which we call a rose by any other name would
> smell as sweet." That's one of many things she got wrong. Would it
> really smell as sweet to us if the plant were called the "skunk cabbage
> weed"? Advertisers and politicians devote untold effort to naming
> products and programs because they believe names matter.”
>
> I once ate a restaurant in San Francisco called “The Stinking Rose.”
> (That is a another name for garlic.) The food was quite good.
>
> ****
> Brian is right about the following.  There has to be some links between
> thought and language.
>
> Brian O’Sullivan
> “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?”
>
> I appreciate his clarification.
>
> ***
> I know it was meant to be off list, but I need to comment on the
> following.
>
> Craig writes:
> “Bob is arguing out of a generative perspective (at a time in which many
> are jumping that ship.) He feels threatened by contrary thinking.   I'm
> happy to see you quoting Tomasello. "Joint attentional state" is very
> useful and can be extended as a pedagogical (mentoring) metaphor. If I
> remember right, he uses "intention reading" and "pattern finding" as
> important cognitive processes.”
> ***
>
> I’m a nobody, so I have no idea why Craig wrote what he did.  I am
> tenured at a regional university with a 4/4 teaching load.  Like most
> college professors at my level, I don’t get any rewards for having the
> views on language that I have.  Being right or wrong about anything I
> write does not advance or retard my “career.”
>
> I teach writing to native and non-native speakers of English, courses in
> second language acquisition and teaching, and courses on the nature of
> language.  I feel that I have to share with students my best
> understanding of those subjects.  When I encounter ideas that challenge
> my own ideas, I study them. This means not only do I read about them,
> question those who present ideas that challenge my own ideas, but I have
> an obligation to my students to try to figure out how those ideas
> provide better insights into writing and second language acquisition
> than my own insights.
>
> Let’s consider the issue of “pattern finding” as an important part
> of
> learning a language. It offers a good explanation for the problem
> irregular forms pose to learners. If the regular form of the past tense
> and past participle is made by adding “ed,” then it makes sense these
> forms for go is goed and have goed, for come is comed and have comed,
> for buy is buyed and have buyed, etc.  Likewise, the pattern for forming
> the reflexive pronoun in English appears to be the possessive determiner
> plus self: my + self; your + self (or selves); our + selves.  Then it
> makes sense to have dialects in English with hisself and theirselves,
> but never *usselves or *meself.
>
> Pattern finding (without reference to any grammatical structure) doesn’t
> seem to account for the following facts about English. Notice 1 and 2
> have different meanings with the presence of absence of pronouns.
>
> 1) Mary is looking for someone to work for.
> 2) Mary is looking for someone to work for her.
>
> Note that 3 and 4 have the same meaning.
>
> 3) These are the letters Mary threw out without reading.
> 4) These are the letters Mary threw out without reading them.
>
> These facts about language suggests that “pattern finding” is an
> incomplete explanation for our knowledge of language.
>
> More significantly for those who read this list, it doesn’t seem to
> provide an explanation for some of the strings developing writeproduce.
> In 90 essays, written by both native and non-native speakers,
> Jim Kenkel and I found sentences like 5 and 6 with the rather
> non-standard punctuation.
>
> 5) The reason that is; is because I usually wait till the last minute
> and try to figure out what I am buying for everybody.
> 6) The reasons for my point are, someone will get hurt for a lie, . . .
>
> If we assume the writers’ model for punctuation is based on reading
> texts that follow standard rules of punctuation, then we need to ask:
> what “pattern” is motivating this non-standard punctuation?  Perhaps,
> these writers have developed different principles for such punctuation
> that are independent from the “patterns” they have been exposed to.
> If
> that is the case, then assumptions about writers’ internal knowledge
> about language that is not completely based on just language the writer
> has been exposed to might be useful.
>
> ****************
> I want to return to the discussion about the relationship of language
> and thought.
>
> I don’t think the actual language the student who wrote (7) (a sentence
> Jim Kenkel and I analyze in a forthcoming paper) reflects what the
> student meant.
>
> 7) Schectman talks about a Cinderella story that is pretty crazy. Step
> sisters treat their sister really bad after her mom dies and their dad
> marries their mom.
>
> If we make the assumption that the language this writer uses is directly
> related to the writer’s thought, then this writer is saying the Grimm
> brothers’ Cinderella story is “pretty crazy.” I don’t believe that
> is
> what the writer is trying to convey.  Rather, the writer is saying a
> particular psycho-analytic interpretation by Schechtman is “pretty
> crazy.”
>
> Our interpretation is based on the assumption of Relevance Theory (a
> neo-Gricean perspective on interpretation) that a speaker/writer, in
> demanding that a listener/reader interpret an utterance also
> communicates the belief that the interpretation will have some effects
> on the listener/reader’s cognitive environment. The listener/reader must
> select a context in which relevant effects are most readily available.
> It would be “pretty crazy” for a reader to assume that the writer is
> saying the Cinderella story is “pretty crazy.”
>
> If the writer’s language does not really reflect the writer’s thought,
> the correction to (7) is different than if the writer meant that the
> Grimm’s version of Cinderalla is “pretty crazy.” This point is why I
> begin this particular thread in the first place.
>
> For the past several years on this list, Craig has told us there are
> other assumptions about language (other than the assumption that
> language is innate) that are more insightful in understanding language
> and student writing. He has shared with us the major proponents of these
> ideas, but he has never applied those assumptions to the kinds of issues
> writing teachers need to consider. I’m confident that someday he will
> actually discuss  examples from his students’ writing from those other
> perspectives and show how they are more insightful than the perspective
> I have offered.
>
> 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/