@Study> In-Reply-To: <000201c81065$de4c68f0$27049643@Study> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 134.53.6.66 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 169.226.1.44 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp.albany.edu id l9HEWot1023410 X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.its.albany.edu[169.226.1.105] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1192631574 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at muohio.edu X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.12 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.12 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=CN_BODY_332 X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.31373 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 Bruce, Those are very complex questions, and I=E2=80=99m wondering about a way= to=20 phrase all this so it might be of use to the group as a whole. I don=E2=80=99t have Halliday=E2=80=99s Intro to functional grammar wi= th me here at=20 work, and I=E2=80=99ll consult it later, but I seem to remember him sayin= g that=20 there is a computerized version of the grammar which works this out in=20 great detail as a system of choices. Systemic functional grammar is=20 systemic, and it is a grammar. It is a =E2=80=9Cnatural=E2=80=9D grammar,= meaning that=20 it attempts to account for the grammar that it finds. It is=20 =E2=80=9Csemantically leaning=E2=80=9D. I think, though please correct me= if I=E2=80=99m wrong,=20 that generative grammar is more biologically leaning, looking to=20 describe the rules for the generation of forms. A functional grammar=20 looks at grammar from the perspective of meaning, and it thinks of=20 meaning as multi-functional, as including, not just a representation of=20 the world, but interaction and the production of text. It also broadens=20 out to field, tenor, and mode, which have definitions that I won=E2=80=99= t trust=20 to memory. Mode includes =E2=80=9Cgenre=E2=80=9D. A good deal of pedagogi= cal interest=20 these days is in genre as a center of concern. =E2=80=9CGenre=E2=80=9D is= looked at as=20 something purposeful, culturally formed, dynamic, staged (not just a=20 single stage). It is wide enough to include things like marriage=20 proposals along with lab reports or academic arguments. So it is typical=20 in a classroom in England or Australia to have students examine=20 advertisements and make observations about the kind of language that=20 shows up and the way it is used, then construct advertisements of their=20 own. Advertisement is a genre and it may have sub-genres. If we extend=20 this genre focus out, it can give us a way to directly link both reading=20 and writing to a deeper understanding of language and how it works in=20 the real world. The theoretical position would be that the forms of=20 language are responsive to context. I am currently working this out in a=20 Reading Literature class, starting with the notion of story and how it=20 works. How is orientation built in? How does a story writer handle=20 point-of-view (which is a technical term in literature)? I can find key=20 paragraphs and bring that right down to the level of the sentence. If=20 McDonald=E2=80=99s is now running a campaign around =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=99m = loving it=E2=80=9D, why is that=20 effective? Is the word =E2=80=9Clove=E2=80=9D usually used that way? How= does present=20 progressive, in this case, connect with the desire to sell hamburgers? Here=E2=80=99s where we might differ in theoretical perspective. You = say the=20 following: =E2=80=9CThe utterance dimensions are quite different from the semantic=20 structure. The semantics has been abstracted, and manipulated by=20 language, to be represented in the utterance.=E2=80=9D I admit I=E2=80=99m not quite sure what that means or how it works ou= t in=20 practice. But because of my current reading in cognitive linguistics and=20 in usage based approaches, I don=E2=80=99t think of grammar =E2=80=9Crule= s=E2=80=9D (syntax=20 rules) as having an autonomous existence that then drives discourse. It=20 may be better to think of grammar =E2=80=9Crules=E2=80=9D as patterns tha= t arise from=20 our being in the world. We can=E2=80=99t understand language without=20 understanding the nature of cognition. The mind, as Lakoff keeps saying,=20 is deeply =E2=80=9Cembodied=E2=80=9D, and language itself is deeply influ= enced by our=20 sensory motor experience of the world. And we can't understand language=20 without thinking of it as having a social dimension. It is not an=20 objective world, but a deeply human world that we experience through=20 language. Here=E2=80=99s another take on it from the perspective of Adele Goldberg= , as=20 summarized by Croft and Cruse (Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge 2004):=20 =E2=80=9Cthe complex event or situation is treated as the primitive unit = of=20 semantic representation, and the definitions of the roles in the event=20 are derived from the situation as a whole.=E2=80=9D As I understand this= , this=20 means that di-transitive constructions (for example, =E2=80=9CSally gave = Mary a=20 ball=E2=80=9D) arise from the nature of the processes, in this case givin= g, not=20 from an abstract set of =E2=80=9Crules=E2=80=9D. She has sub-categories = of=20 ditransitivity, which differ from each other because of the nature of=20 the processes involved. But =E2=80=9Cgiving=E2=80=9D is the prototype.(=E2= =80=9CPrototype=E2=80=9D is an=20 important part of cognitive theory, which grounds meaning in a study of=20 how the mind works. Prototypes are very important for our understanding=20 of categories.) Other ditransitive constructions can be thought of as=20 =E2=80=9Cextensions of the prototype.=E2=80=9D As you can see, this changes radically the notion of =E2=80=9Crules=E2= =80=9D and=20 their role in discourse. It looks at rules as growing out of language=20 use, not as separate from it. These are more like patterns. And any=20 attempt to reduce language down to abstractions from these patterns may=20 give us a false impression of how language works and take us away from=20 the living, dynamic language, not closer to it.=20 =E2=80=9CConstructions=E2=80=9D are themselves meaningful, not merel= y conveyors of=20 meaning. From this perspective, too, grammar is learned, not merely=20 activated. In fact, work is being done to study childhood language=20 acquisition from this perspective, and it seems to hold up very well in=20 practice. Implications for us? There may be good reasons why =E2=80=9Cformal gra= mmar=E2=80=99=20 does not carry over to writing. But at the same time, we may be able to=20 make a great case for the importance of individuals being mentored into=20 language, a great case for language acquisition as a life-long process,=20 a great case for attention to language as deeply tied to the goals of=20 literacy, including reading and writing. Craig Bruce D. Despain wrote: > Craig, > > You will probably see that our positions on functionality are not that=20 > different. The approach is just different. The imaginary context=20 > itself has a structure -- a semantic structure that stretches across=20 > several dimensions. What we utter has to reside in a string -- just=20 > one dimension in time that has a dimension of sound that is analyzed=20 > into multiple dimensions. The utterance dimensions are quite=20 > different from the semantic structure. The semantics has been=20 > abstracted, and manipulated by language, to be represented in the=20 > utterance. There is a lot missing; there is a lot filled in. I am=20 > looking for a set of functions in the mathematical sense that can use=20 > the semantic fields (planes, layers, dimensions) as its domain and map=20 > their values onto a range in the linguistic planes of syntax,=20 > morphology, phonology, orthographics. Would you claim there to be a=20 > linguistic plane of "functional" elements that these semantics get=20 > mapped to? Or would it be better to say that these elements are a=20 > part of the semantics and remain there only to be discerned after the=20 > linguistic elements have been displayed to the mind? > > The "functional" layer, maybe, is a filtering of the already complex=20 > clumping of semantic elements. What is its nature? Perhaps it=20 > doesn't work with elements at all. But science needs an analysis into=20 > parts. Can the context of an utterance be described in terms other=20 > than the terms that describe the rest of the semantic layers? I=20 > wonder if maybe it is "simply" another way of dividing up the layers=20 > of a semantic analysis. The example I gave from Bolinger was meant to=20 > demonstrate just what you were saying about the ubiquitous clumping of=20 > semantic elements in the language (English) idiom. We could say it is=20 > "functional" or we could say it is a "hidden" part of the semantics =20 > -- the semantics of an "extra-linguistic" context -- one that could=20 > be coded in language, if we chose to. The semantics begs for=20 > description (some scientists have used rules of the form used in logic=20 > 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=20 >> conversation, and I'll try to keep on in that tone. >> We certainly do need context to understand a great deal of=20 >> discourse, and I'm not sure why you would present that as an argument=20 >> against the functional. "How cold does it have to get" could mean=20 >> many things, and the only way it can include the idea of shutting a=20 >> window is to put it into an imaginary context. A functional approach=20 >> is not going to say that we can infer context from a form, but the=20 >> opposite--that we need context, and that the formal structures we=20 >> utter are context sensitive. "How cold does it have to get" makes no=20 >> sense out of context, so we infer a context for it. I would see it as=20 >> what usage based construction grammar calls a "schema", a form=20 >> meaning pairing unpredicted by the general rules of a formal syntax=20 >> and one that has blanks to fill in. "How much snow has to pile up=20 >> before you shovel it?" "How much does the garbage have to stink=20 >> before you take it out?" "How many examples do I have to give before=20 >> a concept comes through?" The schema brings with it a kind of=20 >> sarcasm or rudeness that is part of its meaning. Rudeness is part of=20 >> the schema. >> "Schema" are one of the patterns cognitive linguists use to argue=20 >> against the innateness of grammar. They are clearly learned, clearly=20 >> language dependent (and not universal.) If we can learn schema=20 >> rapidly and easily, we have evidence of the ability to learn other=20 >> patterns. >> Many grammatical constructions become lexicalized and then pick up=20 >> meanings somewhat unpredictable from their parts. Any approach to=20 >> grammar will have to accommodate that. Any theory of language should=20 >> accomodate the fact that grammatical constructions are constantly=20 >> coming into being. >> Dividing subject function up into grammatical subject, actor, and=20 >> theme is not at all ambiguous. My experience, in fact, is that much=20 >> of the confusion about subject in most students' minds comes from=20 >> believing that a subject is the first thing and the actor and the=20 >> focus of the proposition; so when those separate functions are=20 >> acknowledged, they have an easier time--a much easier time--with the=20 >> concept. It is a way of making the notion of "subject" more precise.=20 >> Traditional grammar tries to pass it off as innate or intuitive, when=20 >> the intuitions are quite fuzzy. Tag questions work because they allow=20 >> us to isolate the grammatical subject from other competing=20 >> possibilities, such as coming first or doing the deed. A deeper=20 >> understanding of what we mean by subject carries over into reading=20 >> and writing in a very useful way. We have a way of understanding why=20 >> a writer might choose one form over the other within the flow of=20 >> discourse. >> The desire for a one-to-one mapping between structure and function=20 >> may be a desire for neat and clean categories in a world where those=20 >> are rare. Does the category "hammer" include sledge hammer? How about=20 >> a rubber mallet? Is a nail gun a kind of hammer? In what ways is it a=20 >> gun? If we look closely at the cognitive nature of categories, we=20 >> find that many categories have elements that have only loose family=20 >> relationships with each other. Some elements of the category seem=20 >> more central than others. When I think hammer, I think claw hammer. A=20 >> nail gun has a trigger and shoots things, but so does a hose nozzle.=20 >> If we look back from the functional end, we can see something like=20 >> "hammering in nails" as a function that can be performed in at least=20 >> two ways, one of them invented fairly recently. I use my screw driver=20 >> to open paint cans, and I have seen my wife use one to loosen soil.=20 >> 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=20 >> not that we had them lying around and then decided to hammer nails=20 >> with them, but the need to have something to hammer nails has=20 >> influenced the development of the hammer (and now the nail gun.)=20 >> Anyone who hammers as awkwardly as I do knows what the claw is for.=20 >> Mallets are good for pounding. The analogy may or may not carry over=20 >> to language, but from a functional perspective, the belief is that it=20 >> 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=20 >>> as you make it out to be. Maybe I made some of my positions out to=20 >>> be stronger than they actually are. However, that said, there are a=20 >>> few comments I would still like to make about your position. What I=20 >>> hope for with the word "function" is that the mathematical sense or=20 >>> formal definition can be made to work with the less formal=20 >>> meanings. What I mean is that "function" ought to be formalized,=20 >>> even from the general metaphorical uses it has. This is not about=20 >>> the word but about the goal of a scientific approach. As the=20 >>> designation of a role, the word ought to refer to something that can=20 >>> be defined in less vague terms, elements with more basic meaning. =20 >>> (You should be very cautious about your quotes. There is a world of=20 >>> difference between a /function/ and "function.") I would like to=20 >>> think that "role" can be defined as a mathematical /relation/, which=20 >>> is like a /function/ but has values that range over "true" and=20 >>> "false" rather than numbers or points on a cline. A subject is one=20 >>> of your ambiguous relations: logical subject, grammatical subject. I=20 >>> think that the tools of linguistics need to be scientifically=20 >>> qualified. GT grammar has to concentrate on the syntactic aspects=20 >>> of grammatical analysis. If that is not enough, if it ignores=20 >>> spelling, if it ignores aspects of meaning, if it ignores word=20 >>> structure, maybe it's time to to develop a formal approach that will=20 >>> describe these other aspects of language. What I hate is to take a=20 >>> tool, like an ax, emphasize its function, find it being used as a=20 >>> hammer, and then claim that these are two aspects of the same tool. =20 >>> It's much better, I think, to point out the structural similarities=20 >>> between a hammer and an ax, and point out how these make it possible=20 >>> for them to exchange roles for certain jobs. Your example of the use=20 >>> of "it" as a place holder for the subject of a passive: I would be=20 >>> very suspect of any syntactic theory that made it "superfluous." If=20 >>> the semantics of the sentence are being described without it,=20 >>> elements at a higher syntactic level, e.g., the declarative=20 >>> sentence, would still have to be demonstrated to be accepted as=20 >>> grammatical, elements which without it could not exist. In my=20 >>> example from a previous post the "shut the window" was an essential=20 >>> part of the meaning of "How cold does it have to get?" The=20 >>> extralinguistic context contributed the imperative portion by=20 >>> supplying "before you shut the window." In this sense, a=20 >>> superfluous element is not one that does not belong to the theory,=20 >>> just one that it doesn't have to be uttered to be understood. To=20 >>> use an example from Bollinger: a lawyer advises a debtor that he=20 >>> doesn't need to pay a particular bill because "the statute of=20 >>> limitations has expired on that bill." He does not mean that the=20 >>> statute is no longer in force, but that the period of time specified=20 >>> in that statute for a bill of that kind has expired. The desire to=20 >>> use words in this kind of "non-superfluous" way is omnipresent in=20 >>> language, especially poetry. It keeps the language mavins and=20 >>> critics of language use very busy. It comes when we ignore the=20 >>> original intent of the ax and change its functionality to a hammer. =20 >>> It may be illogical but we take advantage of the structure we have=20 >>> for a different use. This is called "exaption" in evolutionary=20 >>> biology. I don't mind the fact that we disagree. I highly respect=20 >>> your experience and skills at teaching English writing. I've always=20 >>> admired a good writer and hope someday to do better at explaining my=20 >>> own ideas and understandings. This is, I hope, a good forum for=20 >>> 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 o= f >>> 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=20 >>> use >>> the tools of linguistics. The primary difference is that they see >>> language as innately functional, not just a formal system that can th= en >>> 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 o= f >>> as language. >>> There may in fact be many cases in which the passive is more prima= ry >>> 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=20 >>> "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=20 >>> writer >>> and writing teacher and somewhat a learning specialist by position an= d >>> 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 cal= l >>> any approaches that aren't mathematical less rigorous or scientific. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Craig, >>> > >>> > I think my concern is really quite far from the classroom, for=20 >>> which I >>> > apologize. It's more like a paleontologist using the tools of >>> geology to >>> > solve biological questions. I think the functionalists need to=20 >>> use > some >>> > more tools of linguistics to solve their language questions. I=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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=20 >>> its >>> > predictions cannot be corroborated. My point in segmenting the >>> > differently formulated requests was show the direction toward =20 >>> some > kind >>> > of measure. This is not just by tallying up the units of meaning b= ut >>> > would involve weighing them in context. Let's callibrate the=20 >>> cline and >>> > establish points or regions along it. I don't think the=20 >>> 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=20 >>> > power >>> > to it. Some models are helpful, but others can be disruptive in th= e >>> > acquisition of a skill. I think of the power that certain images >>> have in >>> > teaching music and voice. Educators have learned that certain visu= al >>> > metaphors guide the mind in some mysterious way to produce or=20 >>> reproduce >>> > the sounds desired. I sure wish I knew what the rules were behind=20 >>> > 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=20 >>> get > back >>> > to you. I admit I'm not using the term as a mathematician >=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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=20 >>> doesn't > fit >>> > what we find in the world. I don't think an ecology is less=20 >>> scientific >>> > than classical biology. It just has a different (systemic and >>> > functional) orientation. It asks a different set of questions,=20 >>> 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=20 >>> other, >>> > and the words of politeness won't be superfluous to the human=20 >>> relations >>> > we are fostering though language. The same would be true of passive= s. >>> > You can certainly say that the unmarked or default is the active, b= ut >>> > they do not mean the same thing if you include things like >=20 >>> propositional >>> > focus or textual unity within your definition of meaning. In the >>> > language of cognitive linguistics, different versions will=20 >>> construe the >>> > world differently. In functional grammar, grammatical subject is a >>> > separate function from actor or agent, though they generally=20 >>> co-occur. >>> > When we vary from that co-occurrence, we are simply predicating a >>> > statement about another element. One is not necessarily more primar= y, >>> > 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=20 >>> that >>> > you are supposed to follow, not just patterns that arise from >=20 >>> purposeful >>> > use of language. And when we abstract these rules from context, we=20 >>> pull >>> > further and further away from the living language. If we use the te= rm >>> > "pattern", perhaps we could change that. >>> > I think it might be fine to teach generative grammar in the=20 >>> schools >>> > as a discipline of inquiry, but I don't think it will help us=20 >>> develop a >>> > view of language that will carry over into reading and writing. I >>> > believe both functional and cognitive approaches have much more=20 >>> 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=20 >>> mathematician the >>> >> function is a process that has a domain or set of input values=20 >>> (one or >>> >> more parameters) and a range or output value. The transformation=20 >>> is a >>> >> mapping or relation (one to one, one to many, many to one) of one=20 >>> 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=20 >>> often be >>> >> considered a pattern. It is the analysis of patterns that allow=20 >>> us to >>> >> describe them by rule. Generative rules (now called Backus-Naur >>> >> form) were developed with this in mind. Rules in this sense are n= ot >>> >> 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=20 >>> giving >>> >> birth to ideas.) >>> >> >>> >> To beat a dead horse: the normal way to request behavior of anothe= r >>> >> person is with an imperative ("Shut the window"), but we can use t= he >>> >> yes-no interrogative to inquire about a person's disposition to=20 >>> 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 t= o >>> >> get?" If the syntactic description of the sentence is limited to=20 >>> such >>> >> sentence types, it is easy to see that Halladay needed another lev= el >>> >> (meta-) on which to express the actual intent of the question apar= t >>> >> from its form. Hence, at this level (interactive) the three=20 >>> 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=20 >>> more >>> >> complex constructions are composed. Couldn't these be considered >>> >> primary? If it takes me more words (syntactically) to say somethi= ng >>> >> one way, perhaps that would be a rough indication of the number of >>> >> meaning elements it could be broken down into. The active sentenc= e >>> >> usually has one less word than the passive, which uses a form of=20 >>> "be" >>> >> with the passive participle. If we're counting morphemes, we woul= d >>> >> have to consider the participle ending as another element. The >>> >> passive seems to be less primary from an analytic point of view. =20 >>> The >>> >> same argument makes sentences with a progressive aspect less prima= ry >>> >> 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=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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=20 >>> bringing in >>> >> all the apparatus that has historically come with it. It may be=20 >>> better >>> >> to talk about alternative options, perhaps ones that complement ea= ch >>> >> 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=20 >>> in the >>> >> system. We can also request or offer goods and services, and we ha= ve >>> >> ways to carry that out. >>> >> Halliday describes three different metafunctions, one being >>> >> interpersonal and interactive, another being representational,=20 >>> and the >>> >> other being largely textual. So you might say that a passive=20 >>> sentence >>> >> has been "transformed" from an active one, but a functional analys= is >>> >> would emphasize that a different entity has been moved into >>=20 >>> grammatical >>> >> subject role to ground the proposition, while the role of doer of=20 >>> 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=20 >>> misleading to >>> >> think of one as more primary than the other, even if more common. >>> >> We can certainly divide verbs into physical (material) and ment= al >>> >> (cognitive), and we do mix those types up in a sort of metaphor=20 >>> 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=20 >>> terms. >>> >> "The fields never knew such cold as they knew that winter." What=20 >>> kind >>> >> of >>> >> "knowing" is that? Any description of creativity ought to foregrou= nd >>> >> the >>> >> metaphoric nature of language. >>> >> I mainly worry that people think of rules as "governing"=20 >>> 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 ru= le >>> >> when you wear a tie, for whatever reason. I don't think the=20 >>> comparison >>> >> holds too far (language is not just fashion), but "rule" and=20 >>> "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=20 >>> >> > words >>> >> > just provide us another way to talk about rules. The rule is=20 >>> there >>> >> to >>> >> > *describe* something that is regular, expected, recognized, and >>> >> > conventional. Language needs a certain amount of=20 >>> conventionality to >>> >> > convey understanding. Does a new construction arise to carriy=20 >>> out a >>> >> > new function or an old function in a new way? Maybe the answer=20 >>> >> > would >>> >> > tell us to what extent function is driving language or whether >>> >> > language is driving function. Consider the rhetorical=20 >>> question, for >>> >> > example. This phenomenon takes a syntactic structure normally=20 >>> used >>> >> to >>> >> > seek new information and applies it to make an assertion. We=20 >>> could >>> >> > describe this phenomenon by rule in the form of a (dreaded?) >>> >> > "transformation" (a sense different from >>> >> > "generative-transformational"). The language user transforms th= e >>> >> > function of a yes-no question to that of a declarative sentence >>> >> simply >>> >> > by placing it in a rhetorical context. To compare the=20 >>> functions of >>> >> > "kick" and "admire" as transitive verbs is not as useful as >>=20 >>> > comparing >>> >> > them, maybe, at the level of action, one being physical and the >>> >> > other mental. To find a syntactic correlate to this contrast ma= y >>> >> give >>> >> > us a clue to where a creative act of functional transform might = be >>> >> > found. Perhaps something like these metaphors: "John kicked=20 >>> around >>> >> > and then admired football." (zeugma) "Mary admired John, but=20 >>> 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 th= is >>> >> one. >>> >> > I like the idea that the language is both "complex" and=20 >>> "subtle", >>> >> > which implies that it's a functional complexity. We bring new >>> >> > constructions into play precisely because they allow us to=20 >>> carry out >>> >> the >>> >> > various functions of language, and any attempt to describe it=20 >>> ought >>> >> to >>> >> > pay deep respect to that. They come into being because we find=20 >>> 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=20 >>> these >>> >> > similarities, when we classify sentences or constructions, we=20 >>> are >> > not >>> >> > necessarily discovering some sort of internal rules that they ar= e >>> >> > "following." The patterns are enormously important, and they do=20 >>> tend >>> >> to >>> >> > function below consciousness for very good (functional)=20 >>> reasons. But >>> >> > classifying the sentences or ascertaining the "rules" they=20 >>> represent >>> >> may >>> >> > be very misleading. Both "kick" and "admire" take direct=20 >>> objects, >> > not >>> >> > because they are transitive, but because we understand kicking=20 >>> as a >>> >> > process that involves something to be kicked and admiring as a >>> >> process >>> >> > that requires something to be admired. The differences between=20 >>> being >>> >> > kicked and being admired may be more important than the >> >=20 >>> similarities. >>> >> > Transitivity arises because it is congruent with our=20 >>> 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 functiona= l >>> >> > pressures, the context it arises from. >>> >> > When we write, we are not constructing forms; we are=20 >>> 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=20 >>> >> > 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=20 >>> since >>> >> Early >>> >> > > Modern English and has given us the very complex and subtle=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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 puzzl= ed >>> >> 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 a= nd >>> >> have >>> >> > > mostly held back while the thoughts come into focus. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > The problem I currently have with tying to find a classificati= on >>> >> for >>> >> > > "think about" is that I am starting to believe we make these >>> >> categories >>> >> > > more important (more governing) than they actually are. We=20 >>> 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=20 >>> words. >>> >> (Or >>> >> > > that it is a dynamic relationship, a lexico-grammar,=20 >>> word-grammar, >>> >> > > cline.) When classification becomes an end in itself, the=20 >>> 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=20 >>> time >>> >> > > "think" and "about" come together often enough to start feelin= g >>> like >>> >> a >>> >> > > single phrase rather than a verb plus prepositional phrase=20 >>> 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=20 >>> words >>> >> coming >>> >> > > >>> >> > > together so often)--and the other is congruency with our >> >=20 >>> > experience >>> >> of >>> >> > > the world, our conception of what thinking is like. In other=20 >>> >> > > 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 froz= en >>> >> 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 meanin= g >>> >> 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 >> >=20 >>> >> 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=20 >>> >> > >> 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 suc= h >>> >> things. >>> >> > >> What's important in developing both fluency and register=20 >>> control >>> >> in >>> >> > >> non-native speakers is that they learn to shift particles whe= n >>> >> doing >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > so >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> is pragmatically motivated, that they learn to use a passive=20 >>> when >>> >> that >>> >> > >> structure is pragmatically motivated. And this they will lea= rn >>> >> much >>> >> > >> better from usage and practice than from grammar drill. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I think perhaps you confused Bill and me in the latter part o= f >>> >> your >>> >> > >> post. Actually, the classification I posted is from Sidney >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > Greenbaum's >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> Oxford English Grammar (OUP, 1996), so I can't take credit=20 >>> 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=20 >>> indirect >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > object, >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> which may or may not require a preposition. Indirect=20 >>> object, >> > >> bear >>> >> in >>> >> > >> mind, is a function, not a structure, and it can show up as=20 >>> >> > >> either >>> >> a >>> >> > >> bare NP or as the object of a preposition. I suspect SG uses >>> >> > >> "monotransitivity" in a excess of clarity, the result of whic= h >>> >> 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=20 >>> "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=20 >>> thorough >> > >> a >>> >> > >> classification of English structures as he could. Hence his=20 >>> >> > >> seven >>> >> > >> classes of phrasal/prepositional verbs. What the ESL=20 >>> teacher >> > >> does >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > with >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> this classification is subject to different, pedagogical >>> goals, and >>> >> I >>> >> > >> hope that teacher would keep SG's treatment well away from hi= s >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > students, >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> while being informed by it as he or she prepares lesson plans. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Herb >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> One of the great advantages of this List (and particularly=20 >>> if one >>> >> has >>> >> > >> the >>> >> > >> intellectual courage to state what one knows about grammar wi= th >>> >> the >>> >> > >> attendant possibility of being proven to be wrong and the eve= n >>> >> worse >>> >> > >> possibility of realising that one has been teaching=20 >>> something to >>> >> > >> students >>> >> > >> which is possibly incorrect) is the potential it has to make=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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 >>=20 >>> > >> follows: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I [looked up] the word. As 'up' is an adverbial particle=20 >>> and >> > >> as >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > 'the >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> word' is the direct object of the resultant phrasal verb, 'lo= ok >>> >> up' is >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > a >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> transitive phrasal >>> >> > >> verb. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I looked [up]. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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" (ta= ke >>> >> care >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > of) >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> 4. doubly transitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "blame"=20 >>> something >>> >> "on" >>> >> > >> someone >>> >> > >> 5. copular prepositional verbs, e.g. "serve as" >>> >> > >> 6. monotransitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "look=20 >>> 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 >> >=20 >>> >> significance >>> >> of >>> >> > >> the addition of 'mono-'. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> In the case of 3, why is Bill implicitly differentiating 'loo= k >>> >> at' and >>> >> > >> 'look >>> >> > >> after'? I ask this because I am assuming that he is not >>=20 >>> > >> claiming >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > that >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> 'look at' is a monotransitive prepositional verb. In the=20 >>> case of >>> >> ESL, >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > I >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> think it preferable to consider them both intransitive in ord= er >>> >> not to >>> >> > >> muddy the transitive waters too much. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> 6 & 7 are also problematic in ESL terms for the same reason b= ut >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > perhaps >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> we can come to those later. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Ron Sheen >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's=20 >>> 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=20 >>> 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 w= eb >>> >> > > 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 w= eb >>> >> > 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/ >>> >> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------= ---=20 >>> >>> >> > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >>> >> > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged >> >=20 >>> information. >>> >> > Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is >>> >> > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please=20 >>> contact >> > the >>> >> > sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original >>=20 >>> > 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/ >>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------= ---=20 >>> >>> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >>> >> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged=20 >>> information. >>> >> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is >>> >> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact=20 >>> the >>> >> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original=20 >>> 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/ >>> > >>> >=20 >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------= - >>> > 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=20 >>> > email >>> > and destroy all copies of the original message. >>> > >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20 >>> 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/ >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------= ---=20 >>> >>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended=20 >>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged=20 >>> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or=20 >>> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,=20 >>> please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of=20 >>> the original message. >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20 >> 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=20 > 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/