Jim, yours was a super argument and very gratifying reading. Would you please let me know where the paper you referred to: `Robert DeBeaugrande, in his 1984 paper, "Forward to the basics," suggests a number of criteria for writing learner grammars' was published? Sophie Johnson at ENGLISH GRAMMAR TUTOR http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/ [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenkel, Jim <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:28 AM Subject: constructions and learnability > I apologize if this posting has gone out to the list twice. Jim Kenkel > > *************************************** > > I thank Johanna for her helpful reply and for providing the information from > Goldberg's site. > > The description/definition of a construction from Goldberg seems > to have weaker criteria than Croft applies. Although Goldberg's notion of > "predictability" is easier to follow than Croft's notion of "wholeness," I > still have reservations. My biggest difficulty with "go Xing" as a > "construction" was that I didn't see it as a "whole." Its interpretation > depends crucially on analysis into semantic categories, as the discussion > has made clear. I suppose that Croft's goal is to minimize syntactic > analysis, but explaining the interpretation and acquisition of these > structures does involve hypothesizing distinct semantic categories and then > labeling them. Thus, it seems to me that these expressions also have a > level of predictability to them. The learner, with little exposure, by > applying his semantic analysis of 'activity types' into 'leisure activities' > and 'non-leisure activities,' which presumably reflects our cognitive > organization, can predict the meaning of a whole class of expressions - > which can't be done with "kick the bucket" type expressions. Is it unfair > to ask if the "semantics is unpredictable," why does everyone agree so > readily on the intepretation of these expressions? > > Constructions are claimed to be learned as complex lexical items > - all of a piece. However, it seems that some kind of formal analysis is > necessary for the acquisition of at least some lexical items - for instance, > compounds. Pinker points out the children produce both 'mouse catcher' and > mice catcher' but don't produce 'rats catcher,' saying only 'rat catcher.' > > > Describing reflexive structures as 'constructions' is much more > problematic. I don't think that it is plausible that the interpretation of > the reflexive sentences we've been considering can be accounted for without > considerable formal analysis. > > If through frequent exposure to sentences like > > 1. Mary wants to help herself > > the learner figures out that 'herself' is coreferential with the first > noun phrase/person/"grounded thing" mentioned, how would that learner not > misinterpret this sentence without access to some kind of formal analysis: > > 2. Alice wonders who Mary wants to help herself. > > To my mind, construction grammar's challenge is to explain how the > learner knows that, in spite of surface distributions, 'Mary wants to help > herself' is one kind of construction in the first sentence but is a > different construction in the second case - and how this is done without > some kind of formal analysis. Moreover, in the learning account sketched by > Johanna, what kind of input would the learner get which tells her that > contraryto surface distributions, 'herself' receives different > interpretations in the two sentences? Is this something learners are taught > in school? Wouldn't we expect some people to misinterpret the antecedent of > 'herself.' Although some may find the sentence to be inelegant, they don't > misinterpret the coreference. > > Johanna asks about the importance of 'learnability' to discussions > on this list. I think that important goals of the ATEG list are to try to > understand something of the nature of language and to relate that > understanding to problems of language use for students. Linguists have > observed not only that much of our knowledge of language is both very > complex but that it is also not consciously learned. We might say that much > of our complex linguistic knowledge comes for free. The accounts of > learning attributed to "construction grammar" place a heavy burden on the > learner without providing an account of how learners get the needed negative > input or corrections from others. I don't know how such an approach would > explain the acquisition of reflexives, for instance. > > Grammatical descriptions which aren't constrained by plausible > accounts of language acquisition are more likely to be artifacts of the > grammarian's taxonomy than reflections of the grammar which the learner has > tacit knowledge of. I think that presenting these kinds of descriptions to > learners adds to their burden, a situation a teacher would like to avoid. At > this summer's ATEG conference, Bob Yates and I argued this point with > regard to "sentence patterns." We claimed that what students "know" is > argument structures of verbs. This is what they learned when they acquired > the language. Sentence patterns are taxonomical artifacts but are not > reflective of the learner's grammar and therefore present the students with > an unnecessary learning burden. > > A second goal of teaching grammar to native speakers is to help > them apply their conscious knowledge of grammar to problems of language use. > Robert DeBeaugrande, in his 1984 paper, "Forward to the basics," suggests a > number of criteria for writing learner grammars. One of these is that > grammatical accounts should mesh with what learners know. For the reasons > given above, I am not convinced that anyone "knows" that "Mary want to help > herself" is a construction in the sense discussed here. I don't know how > conceiving of the whole grammar as "constructions" would help learners > trying to apply their conscious knowledge of grammar to challenges of > language use. > > I am not claiming that all aspects of language are learned in the > same way. I think that the 'go Xing' are not learned the same way as > reflexives. I know that issues of acquisition and learnability are > controversial, but I believe that we need to keep these issues in mind when > we offer grammatical descriptions to our students. > > Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University > > 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/