Just one correction. The construct should read by X (participle head), Y (noun phrase) Z's or Z'd (finite verb phrase.) Craig Craig Hancock wrote: > Jim, > Bob just pointed out that my reply to him was off list. I'm copying > it in here, along with the post to me that I was responding to > (below.) I hope that makes sense. > Craig > Bob, > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > Learning a language requires "a prodigious amount of learning", and > this is one example. > > Craig > > Robert Yates wrote: > Craig, > > I'm not dismissing your alternative view out of hand. I'm trying to > figure out how it applies to REAL problems I confront as a writing > teacher. I don't understand how this view provides any insights into > what my students do, and more importantly, what I do. > > I provided you with a REAL example of a mixed construction from a REAL > student text. (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for > someone else > just really shows that you really care about them. > > Why don't you want to share with the listserv how your perspective > accounts for such a sentence? > > Because you haven't done that yet, I will try to figure out what it > means. Consider the Langacker quote as a way to account for sentence > (1). > > “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.” > It seems to me that Langacker is saying the writer of (1) must have > encountered such a construction in other contexts. Is that correct? > The obvious implication is that we as teachers much find out what those > contexts are and figure out ways for students to ignore such examples. > Is that correct? > > Of course, as teachers, how do WE know there is something inappropriate > with (1) if "the linguistic knowledge we ascribe to speakers [is] > limited to elements of form and meaning found in actually occurring > expressions"? I know I don't read texts that contain mixed > constructions, except for my own student texts. So, where did my > knowledge come from that these structures that I have only encountered > in student writing are inappropriate if my knowledge is based on > actually occurring expressions? > > Craig, you want teachers on the list to take an alternative theory of > language that is based on actual language we are exposed to. From a > teaching perspective, I'm trying to do that and I don't like the answer > I come up with for students and the kinds of "innovative" sentences they > write and my own judgments about those sentences. I must be wrong > because you are an experienced writing teacher and you > find the perspective useful. Please explain why it is useful for you. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > > > > Craig Hancock wrote: >> Jim, >> >> That's a very polite and thoughtful post. I have responded to Bob's >> post (after you sent this), and I hope it meets your objections. I >> would be happy to clarify as best I can if you still have questions. >> I'd like to say, also, that I don't want to pretend to be a principal >> spokesperson for cognitive grammar. I have found it very interesting >> and am trying to pass on a developing understanding. A delay in >> responding may just be my concern with representing views that are >> not only my own. >> My original post was aimed more at the shape actual explorations of >> language might take in a public school curriculum. I wasn't aiming at >> responding to error, but am happy to include it. >> >> Craig >> >> Kenkel, Jim wrote: >>> I read this list but don't often post to it. However, this >>> last contribution from Craig compels me to respond. Craig's >>> response to Bob Yates's post seems to do two things: 1) it repeats >>> the claims that prompted Bob's question in the first place about how >>> the theoretical claims of Langacker and Biber provide teachers with >>> insight into the language use of student writers; 2) it seems to >>> seek to marginalize Bob's contribution to the discussion as being >>> socially innappropriate. What it doesn't do is respond to Bob's >>> carefully and clearly posed question, the answer/s to which would be >>> certainly relevant to any teacher who has looked at his or her >>> students' writing from a language perspective. >>> >>> It doesn't serve the list to characterize Bob's post as hostile. >>> I suspect that anyone who asks clear questions and receives no >>> answer to them would feel some frustration. Given Craig's prominence >>> in discussions on this list, I was interested to see his response >>> but was disappointed in the lack of response to the content of the >>> post. I am interested in how the list generally might respond to >>> Bob's question because the answers might prompt me to do more >>> reading in cognitive grammar and usage-based grammar to learn what >>> insights they might offer me as a language teacher and as a writing >>> teacher. At this point, given my interests, I am no closer to >>> knowing how they might help me than I was before. >>> >>> Given the complexity of the concepts of language, language use, >>> and writing, it is very safe to assume that no one perspective can >>> answer all the questions we have. I don't read Bob's post(s) as >>> marginalizing any perspective. He has only asked if cognitive and >>> usage-based grammars can help with issues of recognizing and >>> responding to "error" in student writing. So far, the question has >>> not received a response. >>> >>> Jim Kenkel, Eastern Kentucky University >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >>> [[log in to unmask]] >>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:08 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: >>> Correct) >>> >>> Bob, >>> I’m not sure why you react with so much hostility to an attempt >>> to present an alternative point-of-view. You seem more interested in >>> debunking it than you are in learning about it; perhaps I’m wrong. >>> Other people on list may in fact be more interested in it than you >>> are. And I’m not sure why you would characterize it as “Craig’s >>> position” when I’m quoting others or simply assume you know my >>> position when you have been exposed to only a small part of it. >>> What I said, that you reacted to as a statement against >>> intuition, is the following: >>> >>> >>> Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly >>> useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that >>> people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem >>> grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences that >>> actually occur. >>> I didn’t say that we don’t have intuitions about language or >>> that intuitions aren’t important. In a usage based system, the >>> belief is that these grow out of use. >>> >>> Langacker calls the above constraint The Content Requirement: >>> “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.” (Cognitive >>> Grammar: a basic introduction p. 25). >>> >>> Here’s a quote from Biber, from the same anthology (Kemmer and >>> Barlow) I cited yesterday. >>> “Studies of use are concerned with actual practice, and the >>> extent to which linguistic patterns are common or rare, rather than >>> focusing exclusively on potential grammaticality. As such, adequate >>> investigations of language use must be empirical, analyzing the >>> functions and distribution of language features in natural discourse >>> contexts.” >>> >>> Here he is again (et. Al.) in The Longman Student Grammar: >>> “Traditionally, both in theory and in pedagogical practice, grammar >>> has been separate from vocabulary, as if they were two totally >>> independent aspects of language and language learning. This >>> separation is artificial, as becomes evident to anyone who uses a >>> large corpus for studying grammar. What becomes clear is that, when >>> they use a language, people bring together their knowledge of word >>> behavior (lexis) with their knowledge of grammatical patterns. These >>> two aspects of language interact in lexico-grammatical patterns.” >>> >>> These are not trivial perspectives, and I don’t think it serves >>> the list to try to dismiss them summarily. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Yates wrote: >>> >>> This is a list about the role of grammar in the classroom. Whatever >>> we mean by grammar must be grounded in some theory of language. >>> Therefore, there is something fundamentally wrong in the following >>> formulation. >>> >>> Craig writes: >>> >>> I don't think it is useful to the list to have an argument for >>> different approaches, especially since a more articulate presentation >>> of these views is available within the literature. >>> >>> **** >>> Let's consider what Craig says is a view of language that must be >>> taken seriously. >>> Craig quotes Kemmer and Barlow: >>> >>> "Because the linguistic system is so closely tied to usage, it >>> follows >>> that theories of language should be grounded in an observation of data >>> from actual uses of language....Intuitions about constructed data >>> cannot be treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as >>> to the nature and properties of the linguistic system." (Kemmer and >>> Barlow, from the introduction to the same text.) >>> *** >>> >>> Even corpus linguists have to use intuitions to decide what relevant >>> examples are from their corpus. >>> >>> [An example from Biber et al.'s Grammar of Spoken and Written >>> Language, a corpus based grammar of English. >>> >>> The identifying pattern >>> Clauses following the identifying pattern answer the question 'Which >>> one is/was X?' The copular verb is invariably be. . . . >>> >>> My headmistress was the president of the Shakespeare league. >>> (conversation) >>> The only reliable source of work is the water industry. >>> (newspaper) (page 146) >>> ** >>> My observation: Only intuitions about those example sentences allow >>> Biber et al. to say such a pattern answers the question. NOTHING in >>> actual sentences says they answer such questions. On almost every >>> page in Biber et al. are descriptions of the structures that are >>> based strictly on intuitions.] >>> >>> Let's take seriously the notion that "constructed data cannot be >>> treated as the sole, or even primary, source of evidence as to the >>> nature and properties of the linguistic system" FOR PEDAGOGICAL >>> PURPOSES. >>> >>> Consider the sentence from a real essay a student wrote. >>> >>> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone >>> else just really shows that you really care about them. >>> >>> If the source of knowledge about the language system is from actual >>> language use, what language sources was the writer of sentence (1) >>> exposed to for her to produce such a sentence? I sure would like to >>> know how an approach to language which claims our knowledge of >>> language comes from "real language" answers that question. >>> >>> More importantly, as writing teachers, how do we KNOW that sentence >>> (1) is problematic. What kinds of language were WE exposed to that >>> accounts for our judgment about sentence (1)? If we have never been >>> exposed to mixed constructions and were never explicitly taught they >>> are problematic (as writing teachers, were we?), how do we recognize >>> them? Under the approach Craig says we should consider, our >>> intuitions are based on the language we have been exposed to. >>> >>> As teachers of grammar and writing, we encounter strings written by >>> our students that are not in the texts they read. And, just as >>> importantly, those strings our students write are not in the texts >>> WE read. Yet, we are able to make judgments about those strings all >>> the time. If usage is so fundamental to our knowledge of language, >>> what is the nature of the language we are exposed to that accounts >>> for our judgments. (Does anyone regularly note that sentences like >>> (1) don't occur in writing? How do you note the absence of >>> something if your only knowledge is based on what you are exposed to?) >>> >>> Of course, it is always possible that we possess no innate knowledge >>> about language, as Herb points out. And, it possible that there is >>> no competence/performance distinction. However, Jim Kenkel and I >>> have proposed, assuming innateness and difference between competence >>> and performance, that some of the "innovative" structures student >>> write, like sentence (1), can be explained. >>> >>> A theory of language is fundamental for what we as teachers of >>> grammar and writing do. What Craig is proposing as a theory of >>> language can't explain what our students do and, more importantly, >>> what we as their teachers do when we respond to their writing. >>> >>> 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/ >>> >>> 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/