Colleagues,
Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of patterns (learned from the input we get) is a discussion that has occurred before on this list.
If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)
"we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use"
then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical categories. Such categories are the result of the "patterns" we are exposed to. There are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how such a common sense idea is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.
Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.
1) Bob needs someone to work for.
2) Bob needs someone to work for him.
In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.
What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those interpretations? It is not just the presence or absence of the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have the same meaning.
3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them.
Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no idea how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.
These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input.
Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
There are those who say there is little value in making
these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
I could not agree more -- there is great value in making conscious the knowledge of language that we all have.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/16/2010 7:47 AM >>>
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/
|
