Craig,

I believe, like you do, that the notion of "flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use" makes more sense. But that is just a facet of the immensely complex system which is human language in its various forms (languages, dialects, etc.).

Separating content from form is another absurdity that some people promote, forgetting that these two aspects of language support each other, and cannot be dissociated. We need to think more about Marshall McLuhan's statement that "the medium is the message." I found this explanation of the statement in Wikipedia:

"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

The axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in language because meaning is encoded into the form through morphological and syntactic devices which quite often seem to even transcend the "mechanics" of the language. This becomes apparent when you notice the "simple" devices that seem to have such an impact on communication - presuppositions, entailment, conversational implicature, and of course, Grice's maxims. 

I know, Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to encode meaning, but that was pure nonsense ("I think that we are forced to conclude that  grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning..." - Syntactic Structures, p. 17), and later he was forced to revise his claim because he could not go beyond "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Syntactic Structures - p 15). I am sure that with time he "understood" that  language is nothing like his sentence, and that humans don't speak like that when they communicate.What is funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all this time grammar to convey meaningful messages to his audiences. 

This reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to "show" that we cannot communicate through language while he was attempting to communicate this notion to me through his paper. He was using (without understanding) the some stuff fromLeech (conceptual and associative meaning), Van Orman Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and radical translation), Davidson (radical interpretation), and Chomsky (grammar as autonomous and independent of meaning) to "prove" his  "point." 
 
Eduard 



Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard,
>     I agree that we are in rough agreement and 
> apologize for making my 
> post seem like something else.
>    A big question might be whether the "rules" are 
> there before use (and 
> thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing 
> with 
> flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use. I 
> would 
> embrace the latter, sometimes called "usage-based." Some people 
> would 
> see grammatical forms as meaning-neutral (semantically and 
> pragmatically), with meanings added through the lexicon. It is 
> also 
> possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right, 
> deeply tied 
> to both cognition and discourse.
>     Patterns are sustained to the extent that we 
> find them highly 
> productive. From this view, form ENABLES rather than constrains. 
> The 
> rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed 
> to do. 
> But without the natural grammar, no substantial meaning is 
> possible. 
> Frequency of a construct can also make us unaware of the 
> contributions 
> it is making. There are those who say there is little value in 
> making 
> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>    To me, the challenge has always been how to present 
> views like this 
> on the list as perspective, not as argument. People like Bybee 
> are doing 
> wonderful work along these lines, and it would be good for the 
> list to 
> be aware of it.
> 
> Craig
> 
> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> > Craig,
> >  
> > I have no problem with the way you express the matters because 
> I don't 
> > see too much of a difference between what I state and what you 
> state. 
> > True, some elements of a category (word class) are more 
> central and 
> > reflect better the basic characteristics of that class. Other 
> elements 
> > are borderline or peripheral, and their characteristics 
> intersect with 
> > or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline 
> elements of 
> > another class. On the whole, though, there are "standard" 
> elements of 
> > word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word 
> > classes. Denial of such facts, though, is a denial of the 
> empirical 
> > evidence that concerns what I stated above.
> >  
> > Some people continue to believe that the Latin language 
> structure is 
> > artificially superimposed on the English language, but they 
> forget 
> > that language is a social phenomenon, and that we humans do 
> > construct language structure implicitly or explicitly. This 
> fact is 
> > evident from information collected from humans who had never 
> been 
> > socialized in language. Those people don't speak a human 
> language, and 
> > if they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition 
> they 
> > are never able to acquire language, except for a few 
> unstructured 
> > rudiments.
> >  
> > If there is an "universal grammar" as Chomsky has been 
> claiming for 
> > more than five decades, no linguist or other kind of scholar 
> has been 
> > able to provide evidence for the claim. So, we remain with 
> what is 
> > observable: language is a human construct, and whether we 
> > differentiate between acquisition and learning or not, the 
> bare truth 
> > is that without socialization in language no human will speak 
> a human 
> > language.
> >  
> > Eduard
> >  
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 19:16
> > Subject: Re: like
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > > Eduard,
> > >     I would express it somewhat differently.
> > > Frequency is often
> > > self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible 
> for use,
> > > which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
> > >     I just asked a friend how she likes 
> her new
> > > job (from teacher to
> > > counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me 
> that she
> > > might not have said that without the influence of the 
> McDonald's ad.
> > > Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad 
> campaign can
> > > change that.
> > >     Rather than intersection of word 
> classes, it
> > > might be more of an issue
> > > of centrality. Some elements of the category are more 
> central than
> > > others, some more borderline or peripheral.
> > >     You also have a tendency (from that 
> cognitive> > frame of reference) to
> > > see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
> > > lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is 
> closer than
> > > rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, 
> many of
> > > them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that 
> "like"> > brings with it a unique kind of grammar.
> > >
> > > Craig>
> > >
> > > Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use 
> and the
> > > > Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the 
> author, after
> > > > decades of research, documents that language organizes itself,
> > > and that
> > > > parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy,
> > > but one way in
> > > > which language acquires and shows structure. These word
> > > classes are real,
> > > > and understanding them makes a great difference when one
> > > learns a
> > > > language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are
> > > nothing more
> > > > than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the
> > > importance of
> > > > these points of intersection to a generality (which is a
> > > fallacy) shows
> > > > lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax 
> in the
> > > > production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of
> > > language.>
> > > > Eduard
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> > > > Subject: Re: like
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my 
> reaction> > >> is "what difference does it make what we call 
> it?"  I don't
> > > >> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
> > > >> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
> > > >> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the 
> meaning of
> > > >> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
> > > >> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
> > > >>
> > > >> Geoff Layton
> > > >>
> > > >> > Craig,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
> > > >> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
> > > >> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat 
> as an
> > > >> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Herb
> > > >>
> > > >> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like"
> > > in a
> > > >> sentence like "One of these things is not like the 
> others." (I
> > > >> know; Sesame Street).
> > > >> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
> > > >> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
> > > >> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be 
> standard?> > >> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" 
> (or "doesn't
> > > >> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a 
> verb like
> > > >> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
> > > >> boundaries around our categories?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> Craig
> > > >> 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/
> 

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/