I'd just like to add a brief comment to this discussion. At times it feels
to me that some posters are overly defensive if their theoretical or
practical views of grammar are questioned. Sometimes other posters do seem a
bit hostile or aggressive in their questions (or demands) for information or
rebuttal. Of course, there are other times when the vast majority of the
list may feel swept up in the middle of a conversation (debate?) between two
or three people. However, reading through these threads (sometimes forcing
myself to trudge through them), always proves valuable to me. Above all
else, I appreciate the civility and thoughtfulness with which the most
active members of this listserv conduct themselves.
I have no idea where some of you get the time to draft such informative
posts. My bet is that you borrow that time from your probably already small
bank of free time! Thank you for the time you take to participate here!
Also, I'd like to say that I am certainly one of the members of this
listserv who greatly appreciates hearing from proponents of ALL theory
camps. Even some of us who have formal linguistic training are not familiar
with many of these theories.
Thanks again for the insights!
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Thank you for posting your response. It is important in a discussion
> about what theory of language is valuable for teaching that we actually
> examine what students do and the responses we would make.
>
> Here is the sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is
> problematic for a usage based theory of grammar.
>
> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
> just really shows that you really care about them.
>
> As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig subscribes to the
> following view of language from Langacker, among others.
>
> "The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic
> knowledge
> we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and
> meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
> elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
> association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
> keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
> naturalness and theoretical austerity."
>
> Craig writes:
>
> Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without
> looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the
> student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't
>
> work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth
> playing
> with. The student owns the sentence.
>
> If our (teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is Craig able to
> ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis can we
> conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited to actually
> occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring expression.
>
> ****
> Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might produce
> (1).
>
> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By
>
> X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
> By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
> By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
> Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on
> some
> innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since
> it's
> not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),
> construction
> grammar would call it schematic.
>
> Of course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge is
> limited to "actually occurring expressions"?
>
> I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is the
> understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get something for
> someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of "shows that . . .
> . . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's explanation
> doesn't seem very explanatory.
>
> The following passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.
>
> If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I
> might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.
> But
> that is a different frame of reference.
>
> The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both the object of
> the preposition "by" and the subject of "shows." This double
> case-marking of the gerund -- object of the preposition and subject of a
> tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.
>
> The following really doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our
> knowledge of language is based on "actually occurring expressions"
>
> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If
> it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.
> Either
> they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in
>
> attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
>
> The analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles
> (that are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to
> meet her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a
> comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is that it
> "shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases (in other words
> a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are one of the
> markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer to
> reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase an
> object of a preposition.
>
> Jim Kenkel just sent me the following examples of mixed constructions
> from various handbooks.
>
> 2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads, long hair, and tye-died
> T-shirts, many young people expressed their opposition to mainstream
> values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)
>
> 3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests against
> the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of the time.
> (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)
>
> 4) By designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's
> psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)
>
> 5) In the world created by movies and television makes fiction
> seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002, 658)
>
> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol content of >05 percent
> double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel, Diane
> Hacker, 1993, p. 9)
>
> Notice how all of them begin with a preposition like (1). Jim notes:
>
> "We know from Perera that complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech
> and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim that
> these innovative constructions make more salient the information units
> and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."
>
> In other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled
> from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT the
> result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions."
>
> Of course, there may be other issues in the writing of students that a
> theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to innate
> principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some specific
> examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories without applying
> their theories to actual student writing is not very persuasive for me.
>
>
> 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/