As in, “You have another think/thing coming”? Google gives 40400 raw hits for “think” and 930,000 for the “thing” version. There is some debate as to which is correct, and it appears to be a matter of personal taste.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patricia Lafayllve
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Listservs? (Was: Traffic Surge)
“Think” decided to take “thing’s” place for reasons unknown, but probably typographical. Mea culpa.
-patty
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patricia Lafayllve
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Listservs? (Was: Traffic Surge)
Here’s a think I love about this list – ask a question and get an answer! Thanks, John.
-patty
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Listservs? (Was: Traffic Surge)
Here is an interesting follow-up to Patty's question about the word "listserv". How do you make "listserv" plural? You don't! Well, at least that is what L-Soft, the holder of the trademark for LISTSERV®, would tell us.
The generic word "listserv" is an eponym, a proper noun that has lost its "properness" over time and has become a generic word. This is similar to all facial tissue being called "kleenex" or asking someone to "xerox" something. This is a very common language process as evidenced by the fact that words like escalator, zipper, yo yo, aspirin, and many more used to be trademarked terms. (There is a legal process that acknowledges the generic use of trademarked terms and actually dissolves the trademark, which is why many trademark holders are passionate about branding!)
LISTSERV® is a registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. So, technically, using the word "listserv" to describe any email-based mailing list is a trademark misuse.
However, the eponym process has taken hold and is unlikely to be shaken off. Even the Chicago Manual of Style recognizes this and suggest "listservs" as the best choice for the plural. This is the plural version I use; while I recognize the validity of the trademark, I find it difficult to avoid the use of the generic term.
If you want to avoid the issue, you can always use standard generic terms like "electronic mailing list," "elist," "email list software," etc.
For L-Soft's position on the use of their trademark, see the following site: http://www.lsoft.com/corporate/trademark.asp
John
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Patricia Lafayllve <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Eduard,
I am a member of many mailing lists and listservs (listserves? What is the correct plural for listserv? I admit I’m just not sure!), and have seen enough of the pattern time and again that I have learned to recognize it early, and then simply ignore the behavior, since nothing any one person can do will change it.
-patty
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Traffic Surge
Patty,
Right to the point.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Lafayllve <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 15:53
Subject: Re: Traffic Surge
To: [log in to unmask]
> It may be time to bring this article to the list:
>
>
>
> http://www.alpharubicon.com/trolls.htm
>
>
>
> It is off the topic of grammar, but timely to the thread below.
>
>
>
> -patty
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carole Hurlbut
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Traffic Surge
>
>
>
> Brad,
>
>
>
> Your last response has no place on a listserv. The insults are a poor
> reflection on our profession.
>
>
>
> Carole
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Brad Johnston <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:34 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Traffic Surge
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> I'm sorry your wife left you for another man, or was it a woman?
> I've heard
> it both ways. But your anger is misdirected at me. I really had
> nothing to
> do with it. I don't even know him, or her, as the case may be.
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: John Eleen <
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:06:34 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Apology for Traffic Surge?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-60047397-1283371594=:36969"
Before you all get too worked up, and since "Traffic Surge" was
--0-60047397-1283371594=:36969
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Patty,
Before you all get too worked up, and since "Traffic Surge" was/is mine, let me
say that I considered apologizing for letting two trolls sucker-punch me and get
me to respond to them. That was a mistake. The last and most offensive post of
mine was a keyboard error. It was meant to go back to the sender, not to the
list.
But I decided that since retort tends to lead to rejoinder in ever widening
circles, I'd better "leave it lay". Then you came to my defense, which I
appreciate. It is no fun to be to object of Paul & John's childish comments,
however valid they think them to be.
Here's what I think they object to. The purposes of my continuing crusade are
two.
One is that it has become clear over time that the linguists on the list tend to
dominate the list in a way that crowds out considerations of grammar and the
problems of teaching grammar. To anyone who doubts this assertion, I suggest you
add up the posts for say the third quarter of this year and get a non-subjective
fix on the extent of the domination. Don't take my word for it; add them up
yourself. The linguists do dominate this listserv. Their goals and interests are
different.
Secondly, there are very real problems in the grammar marketplace that seem to
slip quietly past the professionals on this list.
Last April, a grammar text came on the market which deserves your attention, but
you -- we -- are too busy wondering why the Goths and the Visigoths went to war
over the pronunciation of some long-forgotten word.
Look at this:
The Best Little Grammar Book Ever! 101 Ways to Impress With Your Writing and
Speaking, c.2010. [Paperback]Arlene Miller, author
page 15: Tenses
Present perfect: I have walked to the store every day this week. (It happened in
the past and is likely continuing.)
Present perfect progressive: I have been walking to the store.
Past perfect: I had walked to the store before I met Sue. (It happened in the
past by a certain time at which something else happened.)
Past perfect progressive: I had been walking to the store when I met Sue.
Future perfect tense: I will have walked to the store by six o'clock. (It will
happen in the future before some other future event.)
Future perfect progressive: I will have been walking to the store every day this
week by tomorrow.
page 16: Here are the tenses for the verbto be, using the pronounyou:
Present Perfect/Present Perfect Progressive: you have been/you had been being
Past Perfect/Past Perfect Progressive: you had been/you had been being
Future Perfect/Future Perfect Progressive: you will have been/you will have been
being
~~~~~~
"You will have been being"? Wow! It's no wonder students are confused and hate
grammar. Grammar makes a lot of sense but not if you take to heart what is
written above.
Isn't this what ATEG should be thinking about? Isn't this what grammar teachers
need to know and to convey to their students? If you're a grammar teacher and
you don't know what's the matter with Arlene Miller's grasp of it, above, you
have work to do before you deserve to stand in front of students.
The lack of response to legitimate grammar considerations is why you hear from
me from time to time. It's a mess out there in the Land of Grammar Textbooks and
it's even worse in the Land of Online Grammar Advice -- much worse. Yet
professional grammarians stand aside and let it exist, as above, without
protest.
.brad.01sep10. [log in to unmask]
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/
--0-60047397-1283371594=:36969
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-60047397-1283371594=:36969-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:22:53 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Listservs? (Was: Traffic Surge) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3A9122EFEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3A9122EFEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad, Thank you for an interesting contribution to the discussion. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:07 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Listservs? (Was: Traffic Surge) This is a very common language process as evidenced by the fact that words like escalator, zipper, yo yo, aspirin, and many more used to be trademarked terms. (There is a legal process that acknowledges the generic use of trademarked terms and actually dissolves the trademark, which is why many trademark holders are passionate about branding!) John, This may be more than tangential but note that "yoyo" has, or at least did have, special meaning to forces under siege, who have asked for reinforcements but whose request, however urgent and for whatever reason, cannot by fulfilled. The message back will simply be "YOYO', which everyone on both ends knows means, "we are trying our best to send help but at the moment we cannot, so "you're on your own". Even more remote, during the last days of the siege of Dien Bien Phu in French Indo-China in 1954, French paratroops dropped from as low as 300 feet to try to reinforce the garrison, even though it was clearly a lost cause. Their chutes barely opened before they hit the ground, but the lack of altitude made less of a target for enemy gunners. All perished. A mere decade later, the USA would begin to prove that it was a lesson we did not learn. .brad.01sep10. 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3A9122EFEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brad,
Thank you for an interesting contribution to the discussion.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Listservs? (Was: Traffic Surge)
This is a very common language process as evidenced by the fact that words like escalator, zipper, yo yo, aspirin, and many more used to be trademarked terms. (There is a legal process that acknowledges the generic use of trademarked terms and actually dissolves the trademark, which is why many trademark holders are passionate about branding!)
John,
This may be more than tangential but note that "yoyo" has, or at least did have, special meaning to forces under siege, who have asked for reinforcements but whose request, however urgent and for whatever reason, cannot by fulfilled. The message back will simply be "YOYO', which everyone on both ends knows means, "we are trying our best to send help but at the moment we cannot, so "you're on your own".
Even more remote, during the last days of the siege of Dien Bien Phu in French Indo-China in 1954, French paratroops dropped from as low as 300 feet to try to reinforce the garrison, even though it was clearly a lost cause. Their chutes barely opened before they hit the ground, but the lack of altitude made less of a target for enemy gunners. All perished.
A mere decade later, the USA would begin to prove that it was a lesson we did not learn.
.brad.01sep10.
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3A9122EFEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:07:44 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: think/thing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Without having reviewed any research specific to this question, it strikes
me as a processing error for which psycholinguistics has a strong
explanation.
When we are inserting phonemes in a word string, we sometimes make
retrieval errors. There are substitution errors, anticipation errors,
reversal errors, and so on. This particular error may provide some
evidence that the phoneme /k/ and /g/ are stored in close proximity--or
that similar strings of phonemes like /think/ and /thing/ are stored in
close proximity, thus increasing the chance of mis-retrieval. For those
who don't remember their phonology, the sounds /k/ and /g/ differ from
each other only in the feature "voicing."
When retrieving the word /thing/ it is possible that other sounds in the
environment condition our chances for retrieving the correct phoneme for
the final sound. In the saying provided by Herb, "You have another thing
coming" you will note that immediately following "thing" is a word
beginning with the related phoneme /k/ (coming). Thus, the version "you
have another think coming" can be analyzed as an anticipation error. That
is, in rapidly synthesizing this statement, we anticipate the /k/ of
"coming" and replace /g/ with /k/.
As more than one other person noted, one of the lovable things about this
listserv is the way people contribute answers to questions. Thanks so
much, John, for the information about listserv. You helped to settle a
question that has vexed me for some time.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite 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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:10:10 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: think/thing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael,
I think you're right on several matters and perhaps missed the mark a little on others.
Phonetically, "thing coming" and "think coming" differ in a couple of ways, but the g/k contrast is not one of them. The Musicologist K. J. McElrath wrote of the song: "Gershwin was remarkably successful in his intent to have this
sound like a folk song. This is reinforced by his extensive use of the
pentatonic scale (C-D-E-G-A) in the context of the A minor tonality and
a slow-moving harmonic progression that suggests a “blues.” Because of these factors, this tune has
been a favorite of jazz performers for decades and can be done in a
variety of tempos and styles." The lyricist (Dubose Heyward) wrote the novel (Porgy) on which the
play is based. He would have attempted to write it "in character" (his
attempt at a black southern dialect of the time.) Up north now, "yo" is used to call attention or in ritual
greeting, as in "Yo, 'sup?" for "hello, what's up?" Craig
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 12:09:17 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: think/thing
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
The ADS-L had a lengthy discussion of this expression (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S2=ADS-L&q=another+think+coming&0=S&s=&f=&a=&b=). The earliest citation of "another think coming" goes back to 1919 and is identified as an Americanism corresponding to the British "another guess coming." The "thing" version doesn't appear till later but seems now to have become the more common of the two. There's also a discussion of origins of the phrase at http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/16/messages/198.html.
Your conclusions make a lot of sense.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R. Michael Medley (ck)
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: think/thing
I apologize for not thinking clearly about the /ng/ (the velar nasal) vs /k/ (unvoiced velar stop) contrast in "thing" vs. "think."
I still think it is implausible that this error appears so many times in a Google search because people have intentionally have chosen to use "think." This has almost nothing to do with semantics--but with the nerve impulses that are sent to our fingers almost automatically without our thinking about it. In fact, it is a phenomenon that I would guess more often occurs in writing than in speaking, and therefore involves our knowledge of grapho-phonemic correspondences more than purely phonological issues.
Even in your example (below) a psycholinguistic explanation might be that the appearance of "think" in the conditional clause is reduplicated in the main clause--mainly for phonological processing reasons, despite the shift in category.
"If you think that, you've got another think coming," the nominal use of "think" is set up by the verb of the conditional and contributes to what must have originally been a witty expression.
All in all, one of the conclusions that I draw from my experience with such errors and my understanding of them as psycholinguistic phenomena, is that I should loosen up a little bit when I run across such errors in students' papers. If such errors are rampant, then I need to consider one of two possibilities: (a) this student may have a learning disability of some kind or (b) I need to teach proof-reading techniques, enforce practice of such techniques, and give some incentives for students to proof-read carefully before submitting papers.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle, brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:17:42 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Porgy & Bess wasATEG Digest - 1 Sep 2010 to 2 Sep 2010
(#2010-142)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-284384506
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
--Apple-Mail-2-284384506
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=WINDOWS-1252;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I was a kid in Philadelphia we would sometimes stand outside of a
friend's house and yell, "Yo, Eddie," until the friend came out to
play baseball or football, whichever season was on. So it isn't just
for ritual greetings, Craig, or at least it wasn't some 60 years ago.
Ed S
On Sep 3, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Patricia,
> The song was actually written by Gershwin (the music) in
> deliberate attempt to compose something that would sound like a folk
> song. This is from Wikipedia:
> Musicologist K. J. McElrath wrote of the song:
>
> "Gershwin was remarkably successful in his intent to have this sound
> like a folk song. This is reinforced by his extensive use of the
> pentatonic scale (C-D-E-G-A) in the context of the A minor tonality
> and a slow-moving harmonic progression that suggests a “blues.”
> Because of these factors, this tune has been a favorite of jazz
> performers for decades and can be done in a variety of tempos and
> styles."
>
> The lyricist (Dubose Heyward) wrote the novel (Porgy) on which the
> play is based. He would have attempted to write it "in
> character" (his attempt at a black southern dialect of the time.)
>
> When I was first learning jazz guitar, it was one of the first songs
> I learned, and I have come back to it time and again because it has
> been done so well in so many different ways with so many nuances. As
> i grow as a musician, the song accomodates that very well. Like many
> performers, though, I wouldn't presume to sound like a black woman
> and use what comes natural to me--"yur", which would rhyme (in my
> dialect) with "fur" and "stir".
> Up north now, "yo" is used to call attention or in ritual greeting,
> as in "Yo, 'sup?" for "hello, what's up?"
> Craig
>
> Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if that's not what I call "folk song drift" (there's
>> probably a
>> more formal term for the phenomenon). Every person interprets a
>> song/arranges a song differently, and what I see in folk music is a
>> lot of
>> word replacement/phrase shifting. Sometimes its deliberate and for
>> the
>> best: "Johnny Come Down to Hilo" originally opened with "Never seen
>> the like
>> since I been born, a big buck nigger with his sea boots on."
>> Clearly not
>> appropriate for a modern audience! The Mystic Seaport's chanty men
>> changed
>> the line to "Never seen the like since I was born, an Arkansas
>> farmer with
>> his sea boots on." The meaning is the same, but avoids the
>> inappropriate
>> terminology. Other times it's a matter of the singer remembering a
>> line
>> wrong, or adding a new phrase to an old tune, or even forgetting
>> the lyrics
>> and improvising.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the original line was in Summertime; I know Sarah
>> Vaughan
>> sang: "Oh your Daddy's rich and your Ma's good lookin'", for
>> whatever that's
>> worth.
>>
>> -patty
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> 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/
--Apple-Mail-2-284384506
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Musicologist K. J. McElrath wrote of the song: "Gershwin was remarkably successful in his intent to have this sound like a folk song. This is reinforced by his extensive use of the pentatonic scale (C-D-E-G-A) in the context of the A minor tonality and a slow-moving harmonic progression that suggests a “blues.” Because of these factors, this tune has been a favorite of jazz performers for decades and can be done in a variety of tempos and styles." The lyricist (Dubose Heyward) wrote the novel (Porgy) on which the play is based. He would have attempted to write it "in character" (his attempt at a black southern dialect of the time.) Up north now, "yo" is used to call attention or in ritual greeting, as in "Yo, 'sup?" for "hello, what's up?" Craig
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-2-284384506--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:55:08 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Porgy & Bess wasATEG Digest - 1 Sep 2010 to 2 Sep 2010
(#2010-142)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Musicologist K. J. McElrath wrote of the song: "Gershwin was remarkably successful in his intent to have this
sound like a folk song. This is reinforced by his extensive use of the
pentatonic scale (C-D-E-G-A) in the context of the A minor tonality and
a slow-moving harmonic progression that suggests a “blues.”
Because of these factors, this tune has been a favorite of jazz
performers for decades and can be done in a variety of tempos and
styles." The lyricist (Dubose Heyward) wrote the novel (Porgy) on which
the play is based. He would have attempted to write it "in character"
(his attempt at a black southern dialect of the time.) Up north now, "yo" is used to call attention or in ritual
greeting, as in "Yo, 'sup?" for "hello, what's up?" Craig
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:06:06 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Porgy & Bess wasATEG Digest - 1 Sep 2010 to 2 Sep 2010
(#2010-142)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-287288336
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
--Apple-Mail-3-287288336
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=WINDOWS-1252;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry, I didn't read "call attention" quite that way.
On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Ed,
> That would be the call attention part, which I didn't give an
> example for, but yours works well. I agree that it's cross racial.
> The ritual greeting I THINK is black influenced.
>
> Craig
>
> Edgar Schuster wrote:
>>
>> When I was a kid in Philadelphia we would sometimes stand outside
>> of a friend's house and yell, "Yo, Eddie," until the friend came
>> out to play baseball or football, whichever season was on. So it
>> isn't just for ritual greetings, Craig, or at least it wasn't some
>> 60 years ago.
>>
>> Ed S
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> Patricia,
>>> The song was actually written by Gershwin (the music) in
>>> deliberate attempt to compose something that would sound like a
>>> folk song. This is from Wikipedia:
>>> Musicologist K. J. McElrath wrote of the song:
>>>
>>> "Gershwin was remarkably successful in his intent to have this
>>> sound like a folk song. This is reinforced by his extensive use of
>>> the pentatonic scale (C-D-E-G-A) in the context of the A minor
>>> tonality and a slow-moving harmonic progression that suggests a
>>> “blues.” Because of these factors, this tune has been a favorite
>>> of jazz performers for decades and can be done in a variety of
>>> tempos and styles."
>>>
>>> The lyricist (Dubose Heyward) wrote the novel (Porgy) on which the
>>> play is based. He would have attempted to write it "in
>>> character" (his attempt at a black southern dialect of the time.)
>>>
>>> When I was first learning jazz guitar, it was one of the first
>>> songs I learned, and I have come back to it time and again because
>>> it has been done so well in so many different ways with so many
>>> nuances. As i grow as a musician, the song accomodates that very
>>> well. Like many performers, though, I wouldn't presume to sound
>>> like a black woman and use what comes natural to me--"yur", which
>>> would rhyme (in my dialect) with "fur" and "stir".
>>> Up north now, "yo" is used to call attention or in ritual
>>> greeting, as in "Yo, 'sup?" for "hello, what's up?"
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if that's not what I call "folk song drift" (there's
>>>> probably a
>>>> more formal term for the phenomenon). Every person interprets a
>>>> song/arranges a song differently, and what I see in folk music is
>>>> a lot of
>>>> word replacement/phrase shifting. Sometimes its deliberate and
>>>> for the
>>>> best: "Johnny Come Down to Hilo" originally opened with "Never
>>>> seen the like
>>>> since I been born, a big buck nigger with his sea boots on."
>>>> Clearly not
>>>> appropriate for a modern audience! The Mystic Seaport's chanty
>>>> men changed
>>>> the line to "Never seen the like since I was born, an Arkansas
>>>> farmer with
>>>> his sea boots on." The meaning is the same, but avoids the
>>>> inappropriate
>>>> terminology. Other times it's a matter of the singer remembering
>>>> a line
>>>> wrong, or adding a new phrase to an old tune, or even forgetting
>>>> the lyrics
>>>> and improvising.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what the original line was in Summertime; I know
>>>> Sarah Vaughan
>>>> sang: "Oh your Daddy's rich and your Ma's good lookin'", for
>>>> whatever that's
>>>> worth.
>>>>
>>>> -patty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> 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/
--Apple-Mail-3-287288336
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Musicologist K. J. McElrath wrote of the song: "Gershwin was remarkably successful in his intent to have this sound like a folk song. This is reinforced by his extensive use of the pentatonic scale (C-D-E-G-A) in the context of the A minor tonality and a slow-moving harmonic progression that suggests a “blues.” Because of these factors, this tune has been a favorite of jazz performers for decades and can be done in a variety of tempos and styles." The lyricist (Dubose Heyward) wrote the novel (Porgy) on which the play is based. He would have attempted to write it "in character" (his attempt at a black southern dialect of the time.) Up north now, "yo" is used to call attention or in ritual greeting, as in "Yo, 'sup?" for "hello, what's up?" Craig
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-3-287288336--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 11:14:50 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-781404972-1283537690=:498"
Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used
--0-781404972-1283537690=:498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear List,
Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally? If it
makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the
prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a
direct object?
For instance: in
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-781404972-1283537690=:498--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:43:32 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0015175ca866eac4ee048f5f4f3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I can think of lots of nominal prepositional phrases although some are a bit
forced.
Subject: *Behind the table* is where I looked.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is *after lunch*.
Direct Object: Don't nose about *in my business*.
Object Complement: I bought the best gift *at the party. *(could be
adjectival depending on analysis)
Indirect Object: You might want to give *inside the car* a good cleaning as
well.
Your analysis seems valid to me, Scott.
John
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally? If
> it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for
> the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase
> a direct object?
>
> For instance: in
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175ca866eac4ee048f5f4f3e--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:59:59 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A5EEXCHANGE200_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A5EEXCHANGE200_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Scott,
I've been wrestling with the "told" problem already today, and it's my current hypothesis that "told of" is a phrasal verb, different from "told." Scott, I’ve been wrestling with the “told” problem
already today, and it’s my current hypothesis that “told of”
is a phrasal verb, different from “told.” <he told of the
weather to his friends> would be qualitatively different from <he told
the weather to his friends>. <he told his friends the truth> I believe your
analysis is correct. <he told his friends> is elliptical with an implied direct
object <he told the truth> there doesn’t have to be an
implied indirect object grammatically, though there would always be an audience
rhetorically <he told the truth to his friends> friends is the indirect
object even though it comes in the prepositional phrase afterwards <he told his friends about the truth> perhaps another
phrasal verb? “told about”? <he told his friends that the truth can be found> yes,
there is a nominal clause as the direct object; “he told his friends
[something]” What do you all think? Phrasal verb? I know that the
particles of phrasal verbs are often confused as prepositions. J. Hill From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Woods Dear List, Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used
nominally? If it makes sense to substitute "that,"
"this," "it," or some other pronoun for the
prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a
direct object? For instance: in <he told his friends of the peculiar
weather>, does it make sense to call "friends" the indirect object
and "of the peculiar weather" the direct object? In <he
told his friends the truth> would "friends" be the indirect object
and "truth" the direct object? In <he told his
friends> is "friends" a direct object, or an indirect object
with an implied direct object? In <he told the truth> is there an implied
indirect object, those who were told? In <he told the truth to his
friends> is "truth" the direct object and "friends" the
indirect object in a prepositional phrase? In <he told his friends
about the truth> is "friends" the indirect object and "about
the truth" the direct object? In <he told his friends that the truth
can be found> is "that the truth can be found" a clausal direct
object? How else could these be analyzed? Thanks for your help, Scott Woods 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A5EEXCHANGE200_--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:11:00 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A5FEXCHANGE200_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A5FEXCHANGE200_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
Some of these could be analyzed differently.
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked. This could be a sentence pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place), just in a reversed syntax. "behind the table" would then be an adverbial prepositional phrase.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch. Same as above, with "after lunch" being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question "when."
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business. "In my business" would seem to be an adverbial prep phrase answering the question "where," following the phrasal intransitive verb "nose about."
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be adjectival depending on analysis) there are two kinds of object complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I could see "at the part" as an adverbial, as a peripheral adjectival, or as an essential adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can't see it as a nominal object complement.
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning as well. This may be used in informal speech (I think I've heard this actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of course, it would read "you might want to give THE inside OF the car a good cleaning as well." Point taken in informal speech, though.
Telling my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is one of the few absolutes I have left to give them-I'm loathe to give it up. :)
J. Hill
> wrote:
Dear List,
Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally? If it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a direct object?
For instance: in John, Some
of these could be analyzed differently. Telling
my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is one of the
few absolutes I have left to give them—I’m loathe to give it
up. J J.
Hill > wrote: Dear List, Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used
nominally? If it makes sense to substitute "that,"
"this," "it," or some other pronoun for the
prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a
direct object? For instance: in <he told his friends of the peculiar
weather>, does it make sense to call "friends" the indirect object
and "of the peculiar weather" the direct object? In <he
told his friends the truth> would "friends" be the indirect object
and "truth" the direct object? In <he told his
friends> is "friends" a direct object, or an indirect object
with an implied direct object? In <he told the truth> is there an implied
indirect object, those who were told? In <he told the truth to his
friends> is "truth" the direct object and "friends" the
indirect object in a prepositional phrase? In <he told his friends
about the truth> is "friends" the indirect object and "about
the truth" the direct object? In <he told his friends that the truth
can be found> is "that the truth can be found" a clausal direct
object? How else could these be analyzed? Thanks for your help, Scott Woods 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/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A5FEXCHANGE200_--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:33:54 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I agree many nominal uses of prepositional phrases can be analyzed differently, but what about this one where the subject is a prep phrase?
"In the morning is too late."
Could it fall under Joshua's first explanation below? I have a hard time seeing "too late" as a reversed subject; for one thing, the sentence sounds too unnatural if it were un-reversed as "Too late is in the morning." (Unless it's you-know-who doing the speaking--the short guy with pointy ears.)
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]> 9/3/2010 2:11 PM >>>
John,
Some of these could be analyzed differently.
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked. This could be a sentence pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place), just in a reversed syntax. "behind the table" would then be an adverbial prepositional phrase.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch. Same as above, with "after lunch" being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question "when."
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business. "In my business" would seem to be an adverbial prep phrase answering the question "where," following the phrasal intransitive verb "nose about."
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be adjectival depending on analysis) there are two kinds of object complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I could see "at the part" as an adverbial, as a peripheral adjectival, or as an essential adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can't see it as a nominal object complement.
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning as well. This may be used in informal speech (I think I've heard this actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of course, it would read "you might want to give THE inside OF the car a good cleaning as well." Point taken in informal speech, though.
Telling my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is one of the few absolutes I have left to give them-I'm loathe to give it up. :)
J. Hill
> wrote:
Dear List,
Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally? If it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a direct object?
For instance: in
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-2030008842-1283544611=:34367--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:13:31 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Joshua,
I think you're right--the example I gave does work but is heavily dependent on context, which is sort of like red kryptonite to language. :-)
I shouldn't be making so many pop culture references, but my students were full of them today.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]> 9/3/2010 2:51 PM >>>
"How get you so smart, reading stuff like this?"
Good example. "Too late" would be an adverbial of time or place, making "in the morning" the undeniable subject, and thus a nominal. However, it would seem to me that this would only work in a context that had made "in the morning" (or the time, anyway) the subject of discussion. That is, anything can be nominalized in context.
Possible context:
"When do you plan to go?"
"In the morning..."
"in the morning is too late."
A similar context-nominalization:
"Where do you plan to go?
"Over the hills and through the woods..."
"I'll see your 'over the hills and through the woods' and raise you two 'down the slides and into the Styx.'"
Joshua
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 3:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct object?
I agree many nominal uses of prepositional phrases can be analyzed differently, but what about this one where the subject is a prep phrase?
"In the morning is too late."
Could it fall under Joshua's first explanation below? I have a hard time seeing "too late" as a reversed subject; for one thing, the sentence sounds too unnatural if it were un-reversed as "Too late is in the morning." (Unless it's you-know-who doing the speaking--the short guy with pointy ears.)
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]> 9/3/2010 2:11 PM >>>
John,
Some of these could be analyzed differently.
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked. This could be a sentence pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place), just in a reversed syntax. "behind the table" would then be an adverbial prepositional phrase.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch. Same as above, with "after lunch" being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question "when."
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business. "In my business" would seem to be an adverbial prep phrase answering the question "where," following the phrasal intransitive verb "nose about."
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be adjectival depending on analysis) there are two kinds of object complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I could see "at the part" as an adverbial, as a peripheral adjectival, or as an essential adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can't see it as a nominal object complement.
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning as well. This may be used in informal speech (I think I've heard this actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of course, it would read "you might want to give THE inside OF the car a good cleaning as well." Point taken in informal speech, though.
Telling my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is one of the few absolutes I have left to give them-I'm loathe to give it up. :)
J. Hill
> wrote:
Dear List,
Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally? If it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a direct object?
For instance: in An excellent question! Looking back, I’ve always loved words, wordplay, reading,
writing, breaking words down, and, yes, even diagramming sentences. I taught
myself to read at age four, so it’s hard to remember which came first, the
chicken (reading) or the egg (loving to study all-things-English, including
grammar). Now, as a writer, it’s all about the best way to frame sentences in order
to encapsulate the image, or the meaning, or the tone of voice…and, well,
because I love thinking about grammar. From a creative writing aspect, we might be able to engage
students if we discuss good dialogue. Since people do not speak formal/standardized
English all the time, a writer has to know how an individual character ‘sounds’
and let the character ‘speak’ in his/her own way. If nothing else, I think
using dialogue creation exercises could teach, in a roundabout way, the difference
between formal/informal structures. -patty From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Erin
Karl I joke that it was beat into
me from a young age! From: David Kehe
<[log in to unmask]> 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01CB4B8D.E708B2D0--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:53:25 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: intrinsic motivation for studying grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0016364ed4522b47cd048f61f7ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Great question! For me, the study of grammar arose from a deeply ingrained
character trait (sometimes flaw) -- not liking to lose. When I was in the
7th grade, my middle school's honor society went to a state convention. At
the convention, there were many academic competitions. My English teacher
tapped me to compete in the English competition (side note -- I had studied
very little grammar up to that point, and I think she selected me because of
my writing achievements, which I contribute largely to being an avid
reader). I was very confident going into the competition. Then I got the
test. Every other question pertained to grammar. The basics I knew, but
anything beyond the "8 parts of speech" was a mystery to me.
Needless to say I performed poorly and was quite frustrated. I'll never
forget asking my teacher why she never taught me about a "gryphon phrase"
(gerund). I began to study traditional school grammar independently after
that so I could compete again and do better (which, thankfully for my young
ego, I did).
An important step in my process of falling in love with grammar came when I
had the opportunity to begin studying foreign languages. Knowing English
grammar terminology and concepts (hey, there's that gryphon phrase!) was a
HUGE advantage. I just "got" things much easier because I had a basis of
comparison. That led to my realization that grammar was one part of a larger
field of study -- linguistics. Bring drawn also to the classroom, I quickly
realized that there wasn't much "language" in the language arts. So I began
tying together threads from both linguistics and educational pedagogy.
So, I guess my love of linguistics, grammar, and education springs from a
stubborn streak, but the advantages that grammar knowledge brings became
apparent quickly.
John
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:46 PM, David Kehe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I imagine that most of us on this listserv have an intrinsic interest in
> studying grammar. In other words, we study it just for the joy of it. But
> why? Is it in our DNA to find grammar so interesting? Did someone, for
> example, a former teacher, do something that instilled in us this interest?
>
> I would be interested to hear from any of you why you like grammar so much
> and/or how you came to like it. It seems that if we could figure out what
> makes it so interesting to some, we might be able to come up with ways that
> we could help our students develop an intrinsic motivation for studying it
> too.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Kehe
> Bellingham, WA
>
> 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/
--0016364ed4522b47cd048f61f7ef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Great question! For me, the study of grammar arose from a deeply ingrained character trait (sometimes flaw) -- not liking to lose. When I was in the 7th grade, my middle school's honor society went to a state convention. At the convention, there were many academic competitions. My English teacher tapped me to compete in the English competition (side note -- I had studied very little grammar up to that point, and I think she selected me because of my writing achievements, which I contribute largely to being an avid reader). I was very confident going into the competition. Then I got the test. Every other question pertained to grammar. The basics I knew, but anything beyond the "8 parts of speech" was a mystery to me.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016364ed4522b47cd048f61f7ef--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:23:04 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0015175cd5b6069935048f6261e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good points. Maybe I can do better.
Subject: *Behind the table* is where I looked. This could be a sentence
pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place), just in a reversed
syntax. “behind the table” would then be an adverbial prepositional phrase.
I suppose this depends on whether you base function on a generative concept
of language; I tend to base function on the pattern as it is exists, not the
prototypical form. As your exchange with Larry proves, the form is
context-driven, but I think that is the point. Prepositional phrases can
function nominally if context calls for it. Perhaps a better example would
be "Behind the table is filthy."
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is *after lunch*. Same as
above, with “after lunch” being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering
the question “when.” I don't see how this PP is adverbial. If you changed
the pattern, it could be the subject. If you remove it you get "The best
part of my day is." (?). Isn't this the subject complement?
Direct Object: Don't nose about *in my business*. “In my business” would
seem to be an adverbial prep phrase answering the question “where,”
following the phrasal intransitive verb “nose about.” I think you're right
with that example. But what about "Jane painted in the bathroom." An
adverbial would describe how Jane paints, like "Jane painted with smooth
strokes." But "along the trim" describes *what* she paints, not how she
paints -- isn't that the function of the direct object?
Object Complement: I bought the best gift *at the party. *(could be
adjectival depending on analysis) there are two kinds of object
complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I could see “at the
part” as an adverbial, as a peripheral adjectival, or as an essential
adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can’t see it as a nominal object
complement. Again, I see your point. Maybe a bad example. What about this
one: "Children often consider the scariest time of day during the night."
I'll admit it is a stretch and probably elliptical, but if we take it as it
is, could it be a nominal object complement? Maybe not so I could probably
concede that one.
Indirect Object: You might want to give *inside the car* a good cleaning as
well. This may be used in informal speech (I think I’ve heard this actual
phrase), but in more formal speech, of course, it would read “you might want
to give THE inside OF the car a good cleaning as well.” Point taken in
informal speech, though. I agree that this is informal but not by much. The
dialectologists may know better than I; perhaps it is moving toward
standard.
Telling my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is
one of the few absolutes I have left to give them—I’m loathe to give it up. I
understand completely. I tell my students the same thing and warn them
against those who come bearing a multitude of rules and absolutes. When we
do find a rule that works, we hold on for dear life!
John
P.S. If anyone can't see color in their emails, I apologize now for the mess
above!
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Joshua D. Hill <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> Some of these could be analyzed differently.
>
>
> Subject: *Behind the table* is where I looked. This could be a sentence
> pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place), just in a reversed
> syntax. “behind the table” would then be an adverbial prepositional phrase.
>
> Subject Complement: The best part of my day is *after lunch*. Same as
> above, with “after lunch” being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering
> the question “when.”
> Direct Object: Don't nose about *in my business*. “In my business” would
> seem to be an adverbial prep phrase answering the question “where,”
> following the phrasal intransitive verb “nose about.”
> Object Complement: I bought the best gift *at the party. *(could be
> adjectival depending on analysis) there are two kinds of object
> complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I could see “at the
> part” as an adverbial, as a peripheral adjectival, or as an essential
> adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can’t see it as a nominal object
> complement.
> Indirect Object: You might want to give *inside the car* a good cleaning
> as well. This may be used in informal speech (I think I’ve heard this
> actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of course, it would read “you
> might want to give THE inside OF the car a good cleaning as well.” Point
> taken in informal speech, though.
>
> Telling my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals
> is one of the few absolutes I have left to give them—I’m loathe to give it
> up. J
>
> J. Hill
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
>
>
> Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally? If
> it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for
> the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase
> a direct object?
>
>
>
> For instance: in John, Some
of these could be analyzed differently. Telling
my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is one of the
few absolutes I have left to give them—I’m loathe to give it
up. J J.
Hill > wrote: Dear List, Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used
nominally? If it makes sense to substitute "that,"
"this," "it," or some other pronoun for the
prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a
direct object? For instance: in <he told his friends of the peculiar
weather>, does it make sense to call "friends" the indirect object
and "of the peculiar weather" the direct object? In <he
told his friends the truth> would "friends" be the indirect object
and "truth" the direct object? In <he told his
friends> is "friends" a direct object, or an indirect object
with an implied direct object? In <he told the truth> is there an implied
indirect object, those who were told? In <he told the truth to his
friends> is "truth" the direct object and "friends" the
indirect object in a prepositional phrase? In <he told his friends
about the truth> is "friends" the indirect object and "about
the truth" the direct object? In <he told his friends that the truth
can be found> is "that the truth can be found" a clausal direct
object? How else could these be analyzed? Thanks for your help, Scott Woods 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/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cd5b6069935048f6261e4--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:11:52 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2010-09-03, at 2:14 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:
> Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally?
I suppose it's all a question of terminology, but I don't think it makes sense to say that anything can be used nominally except a noun (or NP, or something in between). For one thing, usually the distribution of things that are said to be functioning nominally is not the same as an the distribution of a noun. A few weeks ago, I pointed out that 'to' infinitives, which are typically said to function nominally, occur in places that no noun can occur (e.g., I hope to improve). This strikes me as strange.
When people say something is functioning/used nominally, usually what they mean is that it's used as a subject or as an object. So why bother throwing the 'nominally' level in there and simply say "function as a subject/object"?
> If it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a direct object?
I don't think it ever does, no. But again, it's really just terminology. I would say that PPs function as various types of complements (including predicate complements).
> For instance: in
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016361e82fcbbd702048f668435--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 07:34:18 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2010-09-03, at 11:19 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:
> I am interested in your analysis of "I hope to improve." If I read your post correctly, you agree that "to improve" is an infinitive phrase functioning as the direct object of the finite verb "hope". You don't want to call it "nominal" though because it couldn't be replaced by a noun? What about a pronoun such as "I hope it"? Pronouns are very "nounish" aren't they?
I would even go further and say that that pronouns are not just nounish; they're full-blown nouns. But I wouldn't analyze 'to improve' as an object in 'I hope to improve' and I find 'I hope it' a pretty questionable construction. But let's grant my example was poorly chosen. What about 'he tends to go', 'decided to go' 'appears to go', 'happened to go' 'she determined to go', or 'they looked to be leaving'?
> It seems to me to be more a matter of what the verb chooses and that there is a distinct class of verbs that force a PP or an infinitive to be the object.
Again, this is a terminological choice. I would prefer to keep 'object' for nouns (NPs) and use 'complement' for PPs, 'to'-infinitives, bare infinitives, 'that'-clauses, etc. One upshot of this choice is that when we have adjectives or nouns followed by 'to'-infinitives (e.g., I had a plan to go), we don't want to be calling 'to go' an object of the noun 'plan'. And yet the relationship between 'plan' and 'to go' is basically the same as it is when 'plan' is a verb. By calling 'to go' a complement, you capture both situations nicely.
A comedy of errors can be amusing, but by definition it's full of misapprehensions. Why needlessly complicate things?
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 06:51:08 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Six quotes from the AP wire
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-943091562-1283608268=:93036"
--0-943091562-1283608268=:93036
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
These five sentences are from recent Associated Press articles. I have
underlined one past tense verb in each sentence. If any of the five underlined
words are not past tense verbs, will someone please tell me which ones are not
past tense verbs and and why.
1.) She photographed Bernard on patrol earlier, and subsequently covered the
memorial service held by his fellow Marines after his death.
2.) Later, when she learned he died, Jacobson thought about the pictures she
took.
3.) Sen. Coburn sought approval to require that any amendment considered by the
Senate must be offered 72 hours in advance and with a full cost report.
4.) Applications for new building permits - a gauge of future activity - rose
more than economists predicted.
5.) The gain represented strength in all areas of the country, though the rise
was slightly lower than economists expected.
.brad.04sept10. [log in to unmask]
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/
--0-943091562-1283608268=:93036
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
3.) Sen. Coburn sought approval to require that any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in advance and with a full cost report. 4.) Applications for new building permits - a gauge of future activity - rose more than economists predicted. 5.) The gain represented strength in all areas of the country, though the rise was slightly lower than economists expected. .brad.04sept10. [log in to unmask]
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-943091562-1283608268=:93036--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:15:40 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
One suspicion I've harbored for years about the constructions like "I hope to improve," "tends to go," "decided to go," "appears to go," etc., is that the main verb is actually the infinitive and the first verb we see is actually a different kind of modal auxiliary verb. Here's my line of thinking:
- like modals, the verbs "hope, tend, decided, appears" give information about the mood in which we should take the verb/actions "improve, go."
- when normal modals are used in a verb phrase, they dictate that the verb coming after them must be in the base, or infinitive, form. Normally, this infinitive form elides the "to" (thus, "must go," "can eat"), but a different kind of modal might modify the type of infinitive needed. More specifically, if "hope," etc., above are another class of modals, it could be a more open set than the normal list of 8-10. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the full form of the infinitive may be needed.
- in these constructions, thinking of the infinitive as a nominal instead of the actual main verb of the sentence doesn't seem to fit my natural sense of the sentence (something naturally open to interpretation). That is, I see "I hope to improve" more as a version of "I improve" than as a version of "I hope something." Maybe that's because verb phrases used as nominals will always inhabit that gray area between nouns and verbs, but I still see "improving" as the main point of the verb phrase.
What do you all think about this possibility?
J. Hill
On 2010-09-03, at 11:19 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:
> I am interested in your analysis of "I hope to improve." If I read your post correctly, you agree that "to improve" is an infinitive phrase functioning as the direct object of the finite verb "hope". You don't want to call it "nominal" though because it couldn't be replaced by a noun? What about a pronoun such as "I hope it"? Pronouns are very "nounish" aren't they?
I would even go further and say that that pronouns are not just nounish; they're full-blown nouns. But I wouldn't analyze 'to improve' as an object in 'I hope to improve' and I find 'I hope it' a pretty questionable construction. But let's grant my example was poorly chosen. What about 'he tends to go', 'decided to go' 'appears to go', 'happened to go' 'she determined to go', or 'they looked to be leaving'?
> It seems to me to be more a matter of what the verb chooses and that there is a distinct class of verbs that force a PP or an infinitive to be the object.
Again, this is a terminological choice. I would prefer to keep 'object' for nouns (NPs) and use 'complement' for PPs, 'to'-infinitives, bare infinitives, 'that'-clauses, etc. One upshot of this choice is that when we have adjectives or nouns followed by 'to'-infinitives (e.g., I had a plan to go), we don't want to be calling 'to go' an object of the noun 'plan'. And yet the relationship between 'plan' and 'to go' is basically the same as it is when 'plan' is a verb. By calling 'to go' a complement, you capture both situations nicely.
A comedy of errors can be amusing, but by definition it's full of misapprehensions. Why needlessly complicate things?
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:15:48 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Richard Firsten
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Richard Firsten has answerd grammar questions in TESOL's "Grammatically speaking" column for over 8 years and now he's retired and passing the column off to T. Leo Schmitt. Over the years I have been a regular critic of Fristen's analyses. I've responded on my blog to Fristen's last ever explanation, which was really no explanation at all. It may be ungracious of me, but I'm glad to see the end of him. I do hope that Schmitt will do a better job.
Best,
Brett
blog:
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--=-UUETVElf5317nJ42ePJv--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 16:47:34 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Nominal prepositional phrases
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Martha,
I used to have my own version of the absolute (PP are either
adjectival or adverbial) until you offered me the below example--I
think at one of our fine ATEG conferences. Now I hear them all the
time. "Out of bounds" is highly relevant on a golf course. Once I
heard "Where is the out of bounds?" Here's one I heard just yesterday:
"They kept me up until after midnight," where "after midnight seems to
be object of "until."
Of course, the language is under no obligation to behave according to
our expectations. The longer I study it, the more I enjoy finding out I
was wrong.
Craig>
Here's my favorite:
> Over the fence is out of bounds.
> It's not original with me. I saw it mentioned a long time ago.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 19:45:49 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Without adopting a particular theory, I suspect the choice of analysis depends in part on the presence or absence of "to." Many English verbs take infinitives without" to," verbs like "let," "make," and perception verbs like "see," "hear," "watch," etc. And, of course, the nine modal auxiliaries notably take infinitives without "to." There are a few verbs that behave both ways, like "need" and "ought." We can say "You need not do that" and "You ought not leave yet" but also "You need to do that" and "You ought to leave now," which is why "need" and "ought" are often called "semi-modals." So whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct object?
Importance: Low
On 2010-09-04, at 3:15 PM, J. Hill wrote:
> One suspicion I've harbored for years about the constructions like "I hope to improve," "tends to go," "decided to go," "appears to go," etc., is that the main verb is actually the infinitive and the first verb we see is actually a different kind of modal auxiliary verb. Here's my line of thinking:
>
> - like modals, the verbs "hope, tend, decided, appears" give information about the mood in which we should take the verb/actions "improve, go."
> - when normal modals are used in a verb phrase, they dictate that the verb coming after them must be in the base, or infinitive, form. Normally, this infinitive form elides the "to" (thus, "must go," "can eat"), but a different kind of modal might modify the type of infinitive needed. More specifically, if "hope," etc., above are another class of modals, it could be a more open set than the normal list of 8-10. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the full form of the infinitive may be needed.
> - in these constructions, thinking of the infinitive as a nominal instead of the actual main verb of the sentence doesn't seem to fit my natural sense of the sentence (something naturally open to interpretation). That is, I see "I hope to improve" more as a version of "I improve" than as a version of "I hope something." Maybe that's because verb phrases used as nominals will always inhabit that gray area between nouns and verbs, but I still see "improving" as the main point of the verb phrase.
>
> What do you all think about this possibility?
The same thing has occurred to me, and I find it an appealing notion. But I would say you need to be clear about what system you're working in. Syntactically, I think the analysis has serious problems. (In fact, syntactically, I would go so far as to say that auxiliaries typically function as the head of their own VP.) Semantically, I think the idea stands on firmer ground, but then I know very little about semantics, so I'm just speculating.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 21:10:40 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "MARLOW, DAVID" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Nominal prepositional phrases & intrinsic motivation for
studying grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_9F9A328AF5FCD9439AE2D1E9FFAEF70902444BBCC0UPITSCMSUSCUP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_9F9A328AF5FCD9439AE2D1E9FFAEF70902444BBCC0UPITSCMSUSCUP_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here's a quote I intend to share with my grammar class next week:
Of course, the language is under no obligation to behave according to
our expectations. The longer I study it, the more I enjoy finding out I
was wrong.
& this also relates to why I am interested in the study of grammar (Yes, I'm blending threads)...
My first real memories of studying grammar emerge from my 10th grade English class where I failed the Final Exam (the only "F" my parents had ever seen on a report card & I was 5th of 5 kids, so this was a big deal...)
I hated grammar in 10th grade because:
1) We studied unrelated sentences in a linear fashion with no relevance to real-world communication
2) There was always one and only one correct answer
3) The teacher was always right
4) The teacher explained away any idiosyncrasies with "It is _______, because I say it is"
I continued to hate grammar through several 200, 600 & 700 level classes (though I had some great teachers that planted seeds for later growth & development) & nearly turned down my first teaching job because I was expected to teach "Modern English Grammar"...
My hatred has turned to fascination as I have explored how I can make the study of grammar (both the formal rules and the more heart-connected dialectal forms) immediately applicable to my students... I try to confront the apprehension/dislike my students often express with the challenge of solving a puzzle & using the puzzle as a real-world tool...
(I too would like to see your riddles & puzzles, Joshua!)
Best,
D
David W. Marlow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Linguistics and ESOL
Vice President/President Elect - Carolina TESOL
Founder, South Carolina Language & Life Project
University of South Carolina - Upstate
800 University Way
Spartanburg, SC 29303
864.503.5849
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 4:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Nominal prepositional phrases
Martha,
I used to have my own version of the absolute (PP are either
adjectival or adverbial) until you offered me the below example--I
think at one of our fine ATEG conferences. Now I hear them all the
time. "Out of bounds" is highly relevant on a golf course. Once I
heard "Where is the out of bounds?" Here's one I heard just yesterday:
"They kept me up until after midnight," where "after midnight seems to
be object of "until."
Of course, the language is under no obligation to behave according to
our expectations. The longer I study it, the more I enjoy finding out I
was wrong.
Craig>
Here's my favorite:
> Over the fence is out of bounds.
> It's not original with me. I saw it mentioned a long time ago.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
> 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/
--_000_9F9A328AF5FCD9439AE2D1E9FFAEF70902444BBCC0UPITSCMSUSCUP_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here's a quote I intend to
share with my grammar class next week: Of course, the language is under
no obligation to behave according to our expectations. The longer I
study it, the more I enjoy finding out I was wrong. & this also relates to why I am interested in the study
of grammar (Yes, I’m blending threads)… My first real memories of studying grammar emerge from my
10th grade English class where I failed the Final Exam (the only “F”
my parents had ever seen on a report card & I was 5th of 5 kids,
so this was a big deal…) I hated grammar in 10th grade because: 1) We
studied unrelated sentences in a linear fashion with no relevance to real-world
communication 2) There
was always one and only one correct answer 3) The
teacher was always right 4) The
teacher explained away any idiosyncrasies with “It is _______, because I
say it is” I continued to hate grammar through several 200, 600
& 700 level classes (though I had some great teachers that planted seeds
for later growth & development) & nearly turned down my first teaching job
because I was expected to teach “Modern English Grammar”… My hatred has turned to fascination as I have explored
how I can make the study of grammar (both the formal rules and the more
heart-connected dialectal forms) immediately applicable to my students… I
try to confront the apprehension/dislike my students often express with the
challenge of solving a puzzle & using the puzzle as a real-world tool…
(I too would like to see your riddles & puzzles,
Joshua!) Best, D David W. Marlow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Linguistics and ESOL Vice President/President Elect - Carolina TESOL Founder, South Carolina Language & Life Project University of South Carolina – Upstate 800 University Way Spartanburg, SC 29303 864.503.5849 -----Original Message----- Martha, I used to have my own version of the
absolute (PP are either adjectival or adverbial) until you offered me the below
example--I think at one of our fine ATEG conferences. Now I hear
them all the time. "Out of bounds" is highly relevant on a
golf course. Once I heard "Where is the out of bounds?" Here's one
I heard just yesterday: "They kept me up until after midnight," where
"after midnight seems to be object of "until." Of course, the language is under no
obligation to behave according to our expectations. The longer I study it, the more I enjoy
finding out I was wrong. Craig> Here's my favorite: > Over the fence is out of bounds. > It's not original with me. I saw it mentioned
a long time ago. > > Martha > > > > 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_9F9A328AF5FCD9439AE2D1E9FFAEF70902444BBCC0UPITSCMSUSCUP_--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:16:44 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: On English modals
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Despite what Herb says, "Without adopting a particular theory" the following is very much a statement from a particular theory:
. . . . whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
Of course, if you think there are grammatical categories, based on formal properties, then defining modals in English is relatively simple.
Property 1: Modals never take do support.
1a) He can speak English.
b) *He does not can speak English
c) He cannot speak English
So need and ought are modals.
2) He ought not to speak English
3) He need not speak English
(I recognize that need as main verb does take do-support
4) He doesn't need to speak English.
Property 2: Modals never take the agreement s.
5) *He cans speak English.
See 1(a).
6) *He oughts to speak English.
7) *He needs speak English.
Property 3: Modals have tense, so they never occur in tenseless position.
This property is related to not taking the agreement-s.
You can say the following and I'm not sure how big the meaning difference is.
8) I am able to speak English.
9) I can speak English.
Note that 10 is possible, but 11 isn't.
10) I want to be able to speak English.
11) *I want to can speak English.
(You can make the same point with "must" and "have to."
I have no idea what "semantic explanation" explains why 10 is possible but 11 isn't.
Property 4: Only one modal can occur in a verb phrase.
There are some dialects of English that permit double modals, but they are not widespread.
12a) He should ought to speak English.
b) He might could speak English.
All speakers of English allow.
13a) He can hope to go.
b) It can tend to swerve.
c) It can appear to reflect light.
etc.
If modals are a category with a set of formal properties, deciding what is or isn't a modal is not that difficult.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 09/04/10 6:48 PM >>>
Without adopting a particular theory, I suspect the choice of analysis depends in part on the presence or absence of "to." Many English verbs take infinitives without" to," verbs like "let," "make," and perception verbs like "see," "hear," "watch," etc. And, of course, the nine modal auxiliaries notably take infinitives without "to." There are a few verbs that behave both ways, like "need" and "ought." We can say "You need not do that" and "You ought not leave yet" but also "You need to do that" and "You ought to leave now," which is why "need" and "ought" are often called "semi-modals." So whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct object?
Importance: Low
On 2010-09-04, at 3:15 PM, J. Hill wrote:
> One suspicion I've harbored for years about the constructions like "I hope to improve," "tends to go," "decided to go," "appears to go," etc., is that the main verb is actually the infinitive and the first verb we see is actually a different kind of modal auxiliary verb. Here's my line of thinking:
>
> - like modals, the verbs "hope, tend, decided, appears" give information about the mood in which we should take the verb/actions "improve, go."
> - when normal modals are used in a verb phrase, they dictate that the verb coming after them must be in the base, or infinitive, form. Normally, this infinitive form elides the "to" (thus, "must go," "can eat"), but a different kind of modal might modify the type of infinitive needed. More specifically, if "hope," etc., above are another class of modals, it could be a more open set than the normal list of 8-10. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the full form of the infinitive may be needed.
> - in these constructions, thinking of the infinitive as a nominal instead of the actual main verb of the sentence doesn't seem to fit my natural sense of the sentence (something naturally open to interpretation). That is, I see "I hope to improve" more as a version of "I improve" than as a version of "I hope something." Maybe that's because verb phrases used as nominals will always inhabit that gray area between nouns and verbs, but I still see "improving" as the main point of the verb phrase.
>
> What do you all think about this possibility?
The same thing has occurred to me, and I find it an appealing notion. But I would say you need to be clear about what system you're working in. Syntactically, I think the analysis has serious problems. (In fact, syntactically, I would go so far as to say that auxiliaries typically function as the head of their own VP.) Semantically, I think the idea stands on firmer ground, but then I know very little about semantics, so I'm just speculating.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 23:48:28 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: On English modals
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Rodney Huddleston did a paper in a volume that I lent out and never got back and I'm blanking on the title--something like Studies in English? Anyway the paper was an analysis of traits of English verbs, and his major point was that categories like modal are a lot fuzzier than we generally believe them to be. The basic nine modals (can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must) all behave alike in a lot of ways, although will/would is more consistent under sequence of tenses than, say, may/might or shall/should. "Must" is distinct in being a past form of "mote," an older modal that died out around the 16th c., and is a preterit present that has no modern past form since it is itself past in form. "Need" and "ought" share fewer properties of modals, and "let" and "make" still fewer although like modals they take the bare infinitive. The problem here lies with too strict an adherence to the notion "category," not with the facts of English. Categories are sets of properties, but the properties get defined on particular words and are not fully the same from word to word, so we're probably talking about arch-types here. The basic nine modals come close to forming an arch-typal category, but don't quite make it.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 11:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: On English modals
Despite what Herb says, "Without adopting a particular theory" the following is very much a statement from a particular theory:
. . . . whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
Of course, if you think there are grammatical categories, based on formal properties, then defining modals in English is relatively simple.
Property 1: Modals never take do support.
1a) He can speak English.
b) *He does not can speak English
c) He cannot speak English
So need and ought are modals.
2) He ought not to speak English
3) He need not speak English
(I recognize that need as main verb does take do-support
4) He doesn't need to speak English.
Property 2: Modals never take the agreement s.
5) *He cans speak English.
See 1(a).
6) *He oughts to speak English.
7) *He needs speak English.
Property 3: Modals have tense, so they never occur in tenseless position.
This property is related to not taking the agreement-s.
You can say the following and I'm not sure how big the meaning difference is.
8) I am able to speak English.
9) I can speak English.
Note that 10 is possible, but 11 isn't.
10) I want to be able to speak English.
11) *I want to can speak English.
(You can make the same point with "must" and "have to."
I have no idea what "semantic explanation" explains why 10 is possible but 11 isn't.
Property 4: Only one modal can occur in a verb phrase.
There are some dialects of English that permit double modals, but they are not widespread.
12a) He should ought to speak English.
b) He might could speak English.
All speakers of English allow.
13a) He can hope to go.
b) It can tend to swerve.
c) It can appear to reflect light.
etc.
If modals are a category with a set of formal properties, deciding what is or isn't a modal is not that difficult.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 09/04/10 6:48 PM >>>
Without adopting a particular theory, I suspect the choice of analysis depends in part on the presence or absence of "to." Many English verbs take infinitives without" to," verbs like "let," "make," and perception verbs like "see," "hear," "watch," etc. And, of course, the nine modal auxiliaries notably take infinitives without "to." There are a few verbs that behave both ways, like "need" and "ought." We can say "You need not do that" and "You ought not leave yet" but also "You need to do that" and "You ought to leave now," which is why "need" and "ought" are often called "semi-modals." So whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct object?
Importance: Low
On 2010-09-04, at 3:15 PM, J. Hill wrote:
> One suspicion I've harbored for years about the constructions like "I hope to improve," "tends to go," "decided to go," "appears to go," etc., is that the main verb is actually the infinitive and the first verb we see is actually a different kind of modal auxiliary verb. Here's my line of thinking:
>
> - like modals, the verbs "hope, tend, decided, appears" give information about the mood in which we should take the verb/actions "improve, go."
> - when normal modals are used in a verb phrase, they dictate that the verb coming after them must be in the base, or infinitive, form. Normally, this infinitive form elides the "to" (thus, "must go," "can eat"), but a different kind of modal might modify the type of infinitive needed. More specifically, if "hope," etc., above are another class of modals, it could be a more open set than the normal list of 8-10. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the full form of the infinitive may be needed.
> - in these constructions, thinking of the infinitive as a nominal instead of the actual main verb of the sentence doesn't seem to fit my natural sense of the sentence (something naturally open to interpretation). That is, I see "I hope to improve" more as a version of "I improve" than as a version of "I hope something." Maybe that's because verb phrases used as nominals will always inhabit that gray area between nouns and verbs, but I still see "improving" as the main point of the verb phrase.
>
> What do you all think about this possibility?
The same thing has occurred to me, and I find it an appealing notion. But I would say you need to be clear about what system you're working in. Syntactically, I think the analysis has serious problems. (In fact, syntactically, I would go so far as to say that auxiliaries typically function as the head of their own VP.) Semantically, I think the idea stands on firmer ground, but then I know very little about semantics, so I'm just speculating.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 09:26:30 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: On English modals
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
For an interesting recent discussion of this, see Joan Bybee's
"Language, Usage, and Cognition" (Cambridge, 2010.) I apologize if I'm
oversimplifying as I try to give this a non-technical spin.
1) Eight of the nine principal modals (with the exception of "will")
were preterite-present verbs: verbs that evolved present tense
meanings for past tense forms, then developed a new (added -d) past
tense form to compensate, though some of this occurs outside the
historical record.
2) Within Old English, all of these verbs could be used as the main
finite verb of a clause OR as an auxiliary with another main verb.
Over time, their use as main verb became less frequent, then
disappeared, although it is important to note that this occurred more
rapidly for some verbs than for others. "Shall," for example,
grammaticalized much more rapidly than "will."
3) The use of modal auxiliaries in English "increased gradually in
frequency from the Old English period right up to the present....By
the middle of the sixteenth century, about one third of all finite
clauses had a modal in them" (Bybee, 123).>
4) She traces the path of "am going to" as it grammaticalizes toward a
modal function within the modern record.
Stage one: I am going to the park. (movement toward goal.)
Stage two: I am going to marry the girl next door. (Expression of
intention.)
Stage three: It is going to rain (epistemic prediction, somewhat
interchangeable with "will").
If we look at this as an historical process (what linguists call a
diachronic view), it makes sense that these are not going to be
discreet categories. Even our undisputed current modals would not fit
the category in their early manifestations. They, in effect, grew into
it. The language seems to be evolving greater reliance on modals over
time, with new words and phrases being pulled into use for those ends.
Craig
Rodney Huddleston did a paper in a volume that I lent out and never got
> back and I'm blanking on the title--something like Studies in English?
> Anyway the paper was an analysis of traits of English verbs, and his major
> point was that categories like modal are a lot fuzzier than we generally
> believe them to be. The basic nine modals (can, could, may, might, will,
> would, shall, should, must) all behave alike in a lot of ways, although
> will/would is more consistent under sequence of tenses than, say,
> may/might or shall/should. "Must" is distinct in being a past form of
> "mote," an older modal that died out around the 16th c., and is a preterit
> present that has no modern past form since it is itself past in form.
> "Need" and "ought" share fewer properties of modals, and "let" and "make"
> still fewer although like modals they take the bare infinitive. The
> problem here lies with too strict an adherence to the notion "category,"
> not with the facts of English. Categories are sets of properties, but the
> properties get defined on particular words and are not fully the same from
> word to word, so we're probably talking about arch-types here. The basic
> nine modals come close to forming an arch-typal category, but don't quite
> make it.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 11:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: On English modals
>
> Despite what Herb says, "Without adopting a particular theory" the
> following is very much a statement from a particular theory:
>
> . . . . whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it
> occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
>
> Of course, if you think there are grammatical categories, based on formal
> properties, then defining modals in English is relatively simple.
>
> Property 1: Modals never take do support.
>
> 1a) He can speak English.
> b) *He does not can speak English
> c) He cannot speak English
>
> So need and ought are modals.
>
> 2) He ought not to speak English
> 3) He need not speak English
>
> (I recognize that need as main verb does take do-support
> 4) He doesn't need to speak English.
>
> Property 2: Modals never take the agreement s.
>
> 5) *He cans speak English.
>
> See 1(a).
>
> 6) *He oughts to speak English.
> 7) *He needs speak English.
>
> Property 3: Modals have tense, so they never occur in tenseless position.
>
> This property is related to not taking the agreement-s.
>
> You can say the following and I'm not sure how big the meaning difference
> is.
>
> 8) I am able to speak English.
> 9) I can speak English.
>
> Note that 10 is possible, but 11 isn't.
>
> 10) I want to be able to speak English.
> 11) *I want to can speak English.
>
> (You can make the same point with "must" and "have to."
>
> I have no idea what "semantic explanation" explains why 10 is possible but
> 11 isn't.
>
> Property 4: Only one modal can occur in a verb phrase.
>
> There are some dialects of English that permit double modals, but they are
> not widespread.
>
> 12a) He should ought to speak English.
> b) He might could speak English.
>
> All speakers of English allow.
>
> 13a) He can hope to go.
> b) It can tend to swerve.
> c) It can appear to reflect light.
>
> etc.
>
> If modals are a category with a set of formal properties, deciding what
> is or isn't a modal is not that difficult.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 09/04/10 6:48 PM >>>
> Without adopting a particular theory, I suspect the choice of analysis
> depends in part on the presence or absence of "to." Many English verbs
> take infinitives without" to," verbs like "let," "make," and perception
> verbs like "see," "hear," "watch," etc. And, of course, the nine modal
> auxiliaries notably take infinitives without "to." There are a few verbs
> that behave both ways, like "need" and "ought." We can say "You need not
> do that" and "You ought not leave yet" but also "You need to do that" and
> "You ought to leave now," which is why "need" and "ought" are often called
> "semi-modals." So whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on
> whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic
> function.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 3:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
> object?
> Importance: Low
>
> On 2010-09-04, at 3:15 PM, J. Hill wrote:
>
>> One suspicion I've harbored for years about the constructions like "I
>> hope to improve," "tends to go," "decided to go," "appears to go," etc.,
>> is that the main verb is actually the infinitive and the first verb we
>> see is actually a different kind of modal auxiliary verb. Here's my
>> line of thinking:
>>
>> - like modals, the verbs "hope, tend, decided, appears" give information
>> about the mood in which we should take the verb/actions "improve, go."
>> - when normal modals are used in a verb phrase, they dictate that the
>> verb coming after them must be in the base, or infinitive, form.
>> Normally, this infinitive form elides the "to" (thus, "must go," "can
>> eat"), but a different kind of modal might modify the type of infinitive
>> needed. More specifically, if "hope," etc., above are another class of
>> modals, it could be a more open set than the normal list of 8-10.
>> Therefore, to avoid confusion, the full form of the infinitive may be
>> needed.
>> - in these constructions, thinking of the infinitive as a nominal
>> instead of the actual main verb of the sentence doesn't seem to fit my
>> natural sense of the sentence (something naturally open to
>> interpretation). That is, I see "I hope to improve" more as a version
>> of "I improve" than as a version of "I hope something." Maybe that's
>> because verb phrases used as nominals will always inhabit that gray area
>> between nouns and verbs, but I still see "improving" as the main point
>> of the verb phrase.
>>
>> What do you all think about this possibility?
>
> The same thing has occurred to me, and I find it an appealing notion. But
> I would say you need to be clear about what system you're working in.
> Syntactically, I think the analysis has serious problems. (In fact,
> syntactically, I would go so far as to say that auxiliaries typically
> function as the head of their own VP.) Semantically, I think the idea
> stands on firmer ground, but then I know very little about semantics, so
> I'm just speculating.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto,
> Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:50:35 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 4 Sep 2010 to 5 Sep 2010 (#2010-145)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is the type of intelligent, informative, discussion for which I joined
ATEG. After the crude, malicious, and irrelevant comments by one poster, I
was debating whether to cancel my list subscription. You have renewed my
faith in ATEG--and have sent me to WorldCat to get another article to read.
N. Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 12:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 4 Sep 2010 to 5 Sep 2010 (#2010-145)
There is 1 message totalling 252 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. On English modals
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 09:26:30 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: On English modals
For an interesting recent discussion of this, see Joan Bybee's
"Language, Usage, and Cognition" (Cambridge, 2010.) I apologize if I'm
oversimplifying as I try to give this a non-technical spin.
1) Eight of the nine principal modals (with the exception of "will")
were preterite-present verbs: verbs that evolved present tense
meanings for past tense forms, then developed a new (added -d) past
tense form to compensate, though some of this occurs outside the
historical record.
2) Within Old English, all of these verbs could be used as the main
finite verb of a clause OR as an auxiliary with another main verb.
Over time, their use as main verb became less frequent, then
disappeared, although it is important to note that this occurred more
rapidly for some verbs than for others. "Shall," for example,
grammaticalized much more rapidly than "will."
3) The use of modal auxiliaries in English "increased gradually in
frequency from the Old English period right up to the present....By
the middle of the sixteenth century, about one third of all finite
clauses had a modal in them" (Bybee, 123).>
4) She traces the path of "am going to" as it grammaticalizes toward a
modal function within the modern record.
Stage one: I am going to the park. (movement toward goal.)
Stage two: I am going to marry the girl next door. (Expression of
intention.)
Stage three: It is going to rain (epistemic prediction, somewhat
interchangeable with "will").
If we look at this as an historical process (what linguists call a
diachronic view), it makes sense that these are not going to be
discreet categories. Even our undisputed current modals would not fit
the category in their early manifestations. They, in effect, grew into
it. The language seems to be evolving greater reliance on modals over
time, with new words and phrases being pulled into use for those ends.
Craig
Rodney Huddleston did a paper in a volume that I lent out and never got
> back and I'm blanking on the title--something like Studies in English?
> Anyway the paper was an analysis of traits of English verbs, and his major
> point was that categories like modal are a lot fuzzier than we generally
> believe them to be. The basic nine modals (can, could, may, might, will,
> would, shall, should, must) all behave alike in a lot of ways, although
> will/would is more consistent under sequence of tenses than, say,
> may/might or shall/should. "Must" is distinct in being a past form of
> "mote," an older modal that died out around the 16th c., and is a preterit
> present that has no modern past form since it is itself past in form.
> "Need" and "ought" share fewer properties of modals, and "let" and "make"
> still fewer although like modals they take the bare infinitive. The
> problem here lies with too strict an adherence to the notion "category,"
> not with the facts of English. Categories are sets of properties, but the
> properties get defined on particular words and are not fully the same from
> word to word, so we're probably talking about arch-types here. The basic
> nine modals come close to forming an arch-typal category, but don't quite
> make it.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 11:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: On English modals
>
> Despite what Herb says, "Without adopting a particular theory" the
> following is very much a statement from a particular theory:
>
> . . . . whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on whether it
> occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic function.
>
> Of course, if you think there are grammatical categories, based on formal
> properties, then defining modals in English is relatively simple.
>
> Property 1: Modals never take do support.
>
> 1a) He can speak English.
> b) *He does not can speak English
> c) He cannot speak English
>
> So need and ought are modals.
>
> 2) He ought not to speak English
> 3) He need not speak English
>
> (I recognize that need as main verb does take do-support
> 4) He doesn't need to speak English.
>
> Property 2: Modals never take the agreement s.
>
> 5) *He cans speak English.
>
> See 1(a).
>
> 6) *He oughts to speak English.
> 7) *He needs speak English.
>
> Property 3: Modals have tense, so they never occur in tenseless position.
>
> This property is related to not taking the agreement-s.
>
> You can say the following and I'm not sure how big the meaning difference
> is.
>
> 8) I am able to speak English.
> 9) I can speak English.
>
> Note that 10 is possible, but 11 isn't.
>
> 10) I want to be able to speak English.
> 11) *I want to can speak English.
>
> (You can make the same point with "must" and "have to."
>
> I have no idea what "semantic explanation" explains why 10 is possible but
> 11 isn't.
>
> Property 4: Only one modal can occur in a verb phrase.
>
> There are some dialects of English that permit double modals, but they are
> not widespread.
>
> 12a) He should ought to speak English.
> b) He might could speak English.
>
> All speakers of English allow.
>
> 13a) He can hope to go.
> b) It can tend to swerve.
> c) It can appear to reflect light.
>
> etc.
>
> If modals are a category with a set of formal properties, deciding what
> is or isn't a modal is not that difficult.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 09/04/10 6:48 PM >>>
> Without adopting a particular theory, I suspect the choice of analysis
> depends in part on the presence or absence of "to." Many English verbs
> take infinitives without" to," verbs like "let," "make," and perception
> verbs like "see," "hear," "watch," etc. And, of course, the nine modal
> auxiliaries notably take infinitives without "to." There are a few verbs
> that behave both ways, like "need" and "ought." We can say "You need not
> do that" and "You ought not leave yet" but also "You need to do that" and
> "You ought to leave now," which is why "need" and "ought" are often called
> "semi-modals." So whether a verb is modal or not doesn't depend simply on
> whether it occurs without "to" or not. It is very much a semantic
> function.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 3:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
> object?
> Importance: Low
>
> On 2010-09-04, at 3:15 PM, J. Hill wrote:
>
>> One suspicion I've harbored for years about the constructions like "I
>> hope to improve," "tends to go," "decided to go," "appears to go," etc.,
>> is that the main verb is actually the infinitive and the first verb we
>> see is actually a different kind of modal auxiliary verb. Here's my
>> line of thinking:
>>
>> - like modals, the verbs "hope, tend, decided, appears" give information
>> about the mood in which we should take the verb/actions "improve, go."
>> - when normal modals are used in a verb phrase, they dictate that the
>> verb coming after them must be in the base, or infinitive, form.
>> Normally, this infinitive form elides the "to" (thus, "must go," "can
>> eat"), but a different kind of modal might modify the type of infinitive
>> needed. More specifically, if "hope," etc., above are another class of
>> modals, it could be a more open set than the normal list of 8-10.
>> Therefore, to avoid confusion, the full form of the infinitive may be
>> needed.
>> - in these constructions, thinking of the infinitive as a nominal
>> instead of the actual main verb of the sentence doesn't seem to fit my
>> natural sense of the sentence (something naturally open to
>> interpretation). That is, I see "I hope to improve" more as a version
>> of "I improve" than as a version of "I hope something." Maybe that's
>> because verb phrases used as nominals will always inhabit that gray area
>> between nouns and verbs, but I still see "improving" as the main point
>> of the verb phrase.
>>
>> What do you all think about this possibility?
>
> The same thing has occurred to me, and I find it an appealing notion. But
> I would say you need to be clear about what system you're working in.
> Syntactically, I think the analysis has serious problems. (In fact,
> syntactically, I would go so far as to say that auxiliaries typically
> function as the head of their own VP.) Semantically, I think the idea
> stands on firmer ground, but then I know very little about semantics, so
> I'm just speculating.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto,
> Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 4 Sep 2010 to 5 Sep 2010 (#2010-145)
*********************************************************
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/
========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:17:29 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: "be abundant in"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--001485e988e4208ae9048f9b4b8a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I just read that "tomatoes are abundant in antioxidants." Curiously we could
also say that "antioxidants are abundant in tomatoes" and describe the same
factual condition.
There are some "symmetric" predicates (such as "be married to") that allow a
switch of subject and object: If X is married to Y, then Y is married to X.
But in these the predicate retains the same meaning. With "be abundant in,"
the symmetry relies on different synonyms: [be abundant in = contain many]
vs. [be abundant in = widely populate]. I wonder if there are any other
predicates that allow a subject/object reversal and retain meaning courtesy
of a synonym shift.
Dick Veit
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/
--001485e988e4208ae9048f9b4b8a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I just read that "tomatoes are abundant in antioxidants." Curiously we could also say that "antioxidants are abundant in tomatoes" and describe the same factual condition.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--001485e988e4208ae9048f9b4b8a--
========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:55:39 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "be abundant in"
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2010-09-06, at 2:17 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:
> I just read that "tomatoes are abundant in antioxidants." Curiously we could also say that "antioxidants are abundant in tomatoes" and describe the same factual condition.
>
> There are some "symmetric" predicates (such as "be married to") that allow a switch of subject and object: If X is married to Y, then Y is married to X. But in these the predicate retains the same meaning. With "be abundant in," the symmetry relies on different synonyms: [be abundant in = contain many] vs. [be abundant in = widely populate]. I wonder if there are any other predicates that allow a subject/object reversal and retain meaning courtesy of a synonym shift.
"Comprise" comes to mind. From the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
1 (also be comprised of) comprise something
to have somebody/something as parts or members
SYNONYM consist of
The collection comprises 327 paintings.
The committee is comprised of representatives from both the public and private sectors.
2 comprise something
to be the parts or members that form something
SYNONYM make something up
Older people comprise a large proportion of those living in poverty.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:14:11 -0600
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Webmail bdespain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "be abundant in"
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--00151751222042260e048fab2c69
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I heard one the other night and thought perhaps the speaker had misspoken.
He said the tackler had disengaged the runner from the ball, but I would
have thought it was the other way round: the tackler disengaged the ball
from the runner. Maybe such conceptual errors are sometimes the origin of
this kind of symmetry.
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> On 2010-09-06, at 2:17 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> wrote:
>
> > I just read that "tomatoes are abundant in antioxidants." Curiously we
> could also say that "antioxidants are abundant in tomatoes" and describe the
> same factual condition.
> >
> > There are some "symmetric" predicates (such as "be married to") that
> allow a switch of subject and object: If X is married to Y, then Y is
> married to X. But in these the predicate retains the same meaning. With "be
> abundant in," the symmetry relies on different synonyms: [be abundant in > contain many] vs. [be abundant in = widely populate]. I wonder if there are
> any other predicates that allow a subject/object reversal and retain meaning
> courtesy of a synonym shift.
>
> "Comprise" comes to mind. From the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
>
> 1 (also be comprised of) comprise something
> to have somebody/something as parts or members
> SYNONYM consist of
> The collection comprises 327 paintings.
> The committee is comprised of representatives from both the public and
> private sectors.
>
> 2 comprise something
> to be the parts or members that form something
> SYNONYM make something up
> Older people comprise a large proportion of those living in poverty.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
--00151751222042260e048fab2c69
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I heard one the other night and thought perhaps the speaker had misspoken. He said the tackler had disengaged the runner from the ball, but I would have thought it was the other way round: the tackler disengaged the ball from the runner. Maybe such conceptual errors are sometimes the origin of this kind of symmetry.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--00151751222042260e048fab2c69--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:40:52 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: have + infinitive
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-398658525-1283881252=:91812"
Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal
--0-398658525-1283881252=:91812
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear List,
Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction with
the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
< I ought to eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
Thanks,
Scott Woods
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/
--0-398658525-1283881252=:91812
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-398658525-1283881252=:91812--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:07:22 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2010-09-07, at 1:40 PM, Scott wrote:
> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>
> < I ought to eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
I think that semantically, yes, it has an intuitive appeal. Syntactically, though, I think it's much harder to support. For one thing, the subject will agree with the first verb to the left, not the infinitive. In fact, the subject of the infinitive may not even be the subject of the first verb.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:09:07 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0015175cb5802eda00048fb0f870
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
You're right, Scott. "Have to," "used to" and "ought to" (aka *hafta*, *
useta*, *oughta*) are sometimes called quasimodals. (I don't think that was
Victor Hugo's idea, but I could be wrong).
Dick
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction
> with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>
> < I ought to eat> go> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Woods
>
> 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/
--0015175cb5802eda00048fb0f870
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You're right, Scott. "Have to," "used to" and "ought to" (aka hafta, useta, oughta) are sometimes called quasimodals. (I don't think that was Victor Hugo's idea, but I could be wrong).
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cb5802eda00048fb0f870--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:03:43 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2010-09-07, at 4:07 PM, I wrote:
> On 2010-09-07, at 1:40 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> > Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
> >
> > < I ought to eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
>
> I think that semantically, yes, it has an intuitive appeal. Syntactically, though, I think it's much harder to support. For one thing, the subject will agree with the first verb to the left, not the infinitive. In fact, the subject of the infinitive may not even be the subject of the first verb.
Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention. I somehow got it into my head that this was a statement about and verb + to-infinitive. Obviously, that's not the case.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:10:22 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I think other candidates would be "be supposed to" and "be able to."
Like "have to", they can shift tense.
"He is able to go." "He can go."
"He has to go." "He must go." "He is supposed to go."
Unlike the more prototypical models, you can combine them routinely.
"He might have been able to go." "He should have been able to go." It
would seem ungrammatical to say "might can" or "should can", but the
periphrastic forms aren't so fully constrained.
Craig>
You're right, Scott. "Have to," "used to" and "ought to" (aka *hafta*, *
> useta*, *oughta*) are sometimes called quasimodals. (I don't think that
> was
> Victor Hugo's idea, but I could be wrong).
>
> Dick
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction
>> with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>>
>> < I ought to eat> > go> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same
>> thing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott Woods
>>
>> 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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:06:03 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Schlitz, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: ATEG list question: grammar in a computer lab?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dear Colleagues,
I was assigned to teach my English Grammar course (text: Morenberg's Doing Grammar 4th ed) in a computer lab this semester. While in the past I've found no need for my grammar students to use computers during class, since we do have computers this term, I'm greatly interested in any ideas others may have for leveraging computers/internet access during class.
Thanks very much for any ideas you can offer.
Stephanie
--------
Stephanie A. Schlitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics and English
106B Bakeless Hall
Bloomsburg 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:18:54 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG list question: grammar in a computer lab?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Stephanie,
I think you have all my "grammar voyeur" ideas . . . those would work well as in-class activities, I think. Have students search (individually or in groups) and make a contest to see who can find the most examples of passive voice, sentence adverbs, or whatever you're studying.
You could also have students research "peeve" sites and then you could check to see what credible reference works say about those peeves. Or you could have students explore/compare different reference sites during class & report to the whole group: Merriam Webster's regular dictionary compared to its open dictionary, or different dictionary sites, or some of the other sites that students may not know about: visual thesaurus, wordnik, etc.
Stephen Colbert's website has a "word generator" that is fun for a morphology activity--you put a base word in, and it adds a bunch of crazy suffixes.
A computer classroom is also a great setup for anything requiring writing or rewriting. e.g., Take punctuation out of a sentence--leave that unpunctuated sentence on the screen--switch computers and try to put the punctuation back in to the sentence on that computer.
David West Brown has written what looks like a fabulous book filled with grammar activities & lessons. I'll bet that some of these could be adapted to your situation. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-Switching, and Academic Writing. Heinemann, 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0-325-02188-1
I hope that you'll share your successes with us as the semester continues!
Beth
>>> "Schlitz, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]> 09/07/10 8:24 PM >>>
Dear Colleagues,
I was assigned to teach my English Grammar course (text: Morenberg's Doing Grammar 4th ed) in a computer lab this semester. While in the past I've found no need for my grammar students to use computers during class, since we do have computers this term, I'm greatly interested in any ideas others may have for leveraging computers/internet access during class.
Thanks very much for any ideas you can offer.
Stephanie
--------
Stephanie A. Schlitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics and English
106B Bakeless Hall
Bloomsburg 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:08:55 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG list question: grammar in a computer lab?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:52:17 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Scott,
Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest categorial distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about. Since I'm at least partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking in terms of grammaticalization. This is a process that's been getting quite a lot of attention in the field for about thirty years now. Typically a content word begins to generalize or perhaps bleach semantically, like "come" or "go" forms in lots of languages that come to be used to mark future or "have" forms that come to mark perfect. Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these. The core modals in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs in Old English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more lexical content to become grammatical markers. As these grammaticalization processes take place, words commonly also change phonologically. OE "lic," which meant "body," has grammaticalized to PDE "like" and "-ly."
I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization process. The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that "have taken" and "has taken" don't show. However, that devoicing doesn't yet occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa." The full contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the subject of the infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same. We say, "When do you wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?" The latter has to have a full double /t/: "Whom do you want t@ go?" The fact that these expressions have started grammaticalizing doesn't tell us where they'll end up or if they'll end up in the same place. Maybe "hafta," etc. will become increasingly modal-like, but it appears to be following a different diachronic trajectory from "ought" and "need." I don't bet on horses and I don't predict linguistic change.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: have + infinitive
Dear List,
Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
< I ought to eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
Thanks,
Scott Woods
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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:02:16 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,
I find this sort of lens very interesting, very useful. It gives us
a view of language as very dynamic, very much emergent, and what we are
dealing with is more PATTERN than rule. Frequency is, in fact, one of
the most important mechanisms for change. Elements that chunck lose
analysability. "Am going to," for example, becomes a single construction
in its more grammatical uses.
Bybee seems to be saying in her fine book that some of these patterns
of change are the same across languages, which would seem to imply at
least mild (or tentative) predictability. This would be, not because the
grammar is innate, but because the domain general processes are the same
across the human family. Commonly, constructions meaning "movement
toward goal" take on meanings of intention and then prediction. This is
partly, as Bybee sees it, because of a mechanism by which the
inferential meaning in a context becomes part of the expressed meaning
over time. Verbs of "knowing" become expressions of "ability" (as has
happened with "can). Having power ("maeg") infers permission. And so on.
We also have functional pressure as well. All these elements in
question are what Langacker would call "grounding elements." What we
want to know of an event is whether or not it happens, is happening, has
happened, will happen, is over with, sometimes in relation to other
events. We make predictions about things that haven't happened yet and
want to hedge our degree of certainty (could, might, will). We hedge
certainty about present and past realities as well. We also want to be
able to add "deontic" ("root") (social context) meanings: whether
something is obligatory or desirable or permitted, for example (should,
ought to, must, may). Some of these, of course, have a range of meanings
and shift in and out of those categories. Even if they exhibit formal
differences that would argue for different classifications, they may be
very much alike in terms of their contribution to discourse--may, in
fact, be part of a range of options to accomplish that grounding work.
If our reliance on these has been growing over time (percentage of
clauses with modals steadily increasing), it stands to reason that we
would continue to develop options to get it done, some of them carefully
nuanced.
That's a view of the language incorporating cognitive and functional
concerns.
Craig
STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest categorial distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about. Since I'm at least partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking in terms of grammaticalization. This is a process that's been getting quite a lot of attention in the field for about thirty years now. Typically a content word begins to generalize or perhaps bleach semantically, like "come" or "go" forms in lots of languages that come to be used to mark future or "have" forms that come to mark perfect. Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these. The core modals in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs in Old English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more lexical content to become grammatical markers. As these grammaticalization processes take place, words commonly also change phonologically. OE "lic," which meant "body," has grammaticalized to PDE "like" and "-ly."
>
> I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization process. The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that "have taken" and "has taken" don't show. However, that devoicing doesn't yet occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa." The full contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the subject of the infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same. We say, "When do you wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?" The latter has to have a full double /t/: "Whom do you want t@ go?" The fact that these expressions have started grammaticalizing doesn't tell us where they'll end up or if they'll end up in the same place. Maybe "hafta," etc. will become increasingly modal-like, but it appears to be following a different diachronic trajectory from "ought" and "need." I don't bet on horses and I don't predict linguistic change.
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN 47306
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: have + infinitive
>
> Dear List,
>
> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>
> < I ought to eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Woods
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:20:04 -0600
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Kathleen Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello,
(My first time venturing onto the list.)
As I read your comments on "am going to," I recalled listening to a
song my daughter had on the radio by the Black Eyed Peas. It's a
great example of the evolution of language: (Imma Be = I am going to
be)
Black Eyed Peas: Imma Be Lyrics
Imma be on the next level
Imma be rockin' over that bass treble
Imma be chillin' with my mutha mutha crew
Imma be makin' all them deals you wanna do
Imma be up in them A-list flicks
Doin' one-handed flips, and Imma be sippin' on drinks
'Cause Imma be shakin' my hips
You gon' be lickin' your lips
etc., etc.
Best,
Kathy
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:02:16 -0400
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Herb,
> I find this sort of lens very interesting, very useful. It gives
>us a view of language as very dynamic, very much emergent, and what
>we are dealing with is more PATTERN than rule. Frequency is, in fact,
>one of the most important mechanisms for change. Elements that chunck
>lose analysability. "Am going to," for example, becomes a single
>construction in its more grammatical uses.
> Bybee seems to be saying in her fine book that some of these
>patterns of change are the same across languages, which would seem to
>imply at least mild (or tentative) predictability. This would be, not
>because the grammar is innate, but because the domain general
>processes are the same across the human family. Commonly,
>constructions meaning "movement toward goal" take on meanings of
>intention and then prediction. This is partly, as Bybee sees it,
> because of a mechanism by which the inferential meaning in a context
>becomes part of the expressed meaning over time. Verbs of "knowing"
>become expressions of "ability" (as has happened with "can). Having
>power ("maeg") infers permission. And so on.
> We also have functional pressure as well. All these elements in
>question are what Langacker would call "grounding elements." What we
>want to know of an event is whether or not it happens, is happening,
>has happened, will happen, is over with, sometimes in relation to
>other events. We make predictions about things that haven't happened
>yet and want to hedge our degree of certainty (could, might, will).
>We hedge certainty about present and past realities as well. We also
>want to be able to add "deontic" ("root") (social context) meanings:
>whether something is obligatory or desirable or permitted, for
>example (should, ought to, must, may). Some of these, of course, have
>a range of meanings and shift in and out of those categories. Even if
>they exhibit formal differences that would argue for different
>classifications, they may be very much alike in terms of their
>contribution to discourse--may, in fact, be part of a range of
>options to accomplish that grounding work.
> If our reliance on these has been growing over time (percentage
>of clauses with modals steadily increasing), it stands to reason that
>we would continue to develop options to get it done, some of them
>carefully nuanced.
> That's a view of the language incorporating cognitive and
>functional concerns.
>
> Craig
>
>
> STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest
>>categorial distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about.
>> Since I'm at least partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking
>>in terms of grammaticalization. This is a process that's been
>>getting quite a lot of attention in the field for about thirty years
>>now. Typically a content word begins to generalize or perhaps bleach
>>semantically, like "come" or "go" forms in lots of languages that
>>come to be used to mark future or "have" forms that come to mark
>>perfect. Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these. The core modals
>>in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs in Old
>>English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more
>>lexical content to become grammatical markers. As these
>>grammaticalization processes take place, words commonly also change
>>phonologically. OE "lic," which meant "body," has grammaticalized to
>>PDE "like" and "-ly."
>>
>> I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization
>>process. The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that
>>"have taken" and "has taken" don't show. However, that devoicing
>>doesn't yet occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa."
>> The full contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the
>>subject of the infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same. We
>>say, "When do you wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?" The
>>latter has to have a full double /t/: "Whom do you want t@ go?" The
>>fact that these expressions have started grammaticalizing doesn't
>>tell us where they'll end up or if they'll end up in the same place.
>> Maybe "hafta," etc. will become increasingly modal-like, but it
>>appears to be following a different diachronic trajectory from
>>"ought" and "need." I don't bet on horses and I don't predict
>>linguistic change.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>[[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: have + infinitive
>>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal
>>construction with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>>
>> < I ought to eat> >must go> all seem like very similar ways of saying the
>>same thing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott Woods
>>
>> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:17:40 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0016363b90d49d74a7048fc3885b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Kathleen, I love it! I'm always interested in authentic language usage that
supports linguistic concepts. Song lyrics work so well because they closely
resemble spoken language. I'm going to add this to my list for grammar log
source material. In the grammar log, students analyze language samples and
identify how the sample differs from Standard English, what rules govern the
differences, what elements are appropriate for what audience, etc.
Imma be bringing the Black Eyed Peas to class with me tomorrow!
John
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Kathleen Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello,
> (My first time venturing onto the list.)
> As I read your comments on "am going to," I recalled listening to a song my
> daughter had on the radio by the Black Eyed Peas. It's a great example of
> the evolution of language: (Imma Be = I am going to be)
>
> Black Eyed Peas: Imma Be Lyrics
> Imma be on the next level
> Imma be rockin' over that bass treble
> Imma be chillin' with my mutha mutha crew
> Imma be makin' all them deals you wanna do
>
> Imma be up in them A-list flicks
> Doin' one-handed flips, and Imma be sippin' on drinks
> 'Cause Imma be shakin' my hips
> You gon' be lickin' your lips
>
> etc., etc.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:02:16 -0400
> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Herb,
>> I find this sort of lens very interesting, very useful. It gives us a
>> view of language as very dynamic, very much emergent, and what we are
>> dealing with is more PATTERN than rule. Frequency is, in fact, one of the
>> most important mechanisms for change. Elements that chunck lose
>> analysability. "Am going to," for example, becomes a single construction in
>> its more grammatical uses.
>> Bybee seems to be saying in her fine book that some of these patterns of
>> change are the same across languages, which would seem to imply at least
>> mild (or tentative) predictability. This would be, not because the grammar
>> is innate, but because the domain general processes are the same across the
>> human family. Commonly, constructions meaning "movement toward goal" take on
>> meanings of intention and then prediction. This is partly, as Bybee sees it,
>> because of a mechanism by which the inferential meaning in a context becomes
>> part of the expressed meaning over time. Verbs of "knowing" become
>> expressions of "ability" (as has happened with "can). Having power ("maeg")
>> infers permission. And so on.
>> We also have functional pressure as well. All these elements in question
>> are what Langacker would call "grounding elements." What we want to know of
>> an event is whether or not it happens, is happening, has happened, will
>> happen, is over with, sometimes in relation to other events. We make
>> predictions about things that haven't happened yet and want to hedge our
>> degree of certainty (could, might, will). We hedge certainty about present
>> and past realities as well. We also want to be able to add "deontic"
>> ("root") (social context) meanings: whether something is obligatory or
>> desirable or permitted, for example (should, ought to, must, may). Some of
>> these, of course, have a range of meanings and shift in and out of those
>> categories. Even if they exhibit formal differences that would argue for
>> different classifications, they may be very much alike in terms of their
>> contribution to discourse--may, in fact, be part of a range of options to
>> accomplish that grounding work.
>> If our reliance on these has been growing over time (percentage of
>> clauses with modals steadily increasing), it stands to reason that we would
>> continue to develop options to get it done, some of them carefully nuanced.
>> That's a view of the language incorporating cognitive and functional
>> concerns.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest categorial
>>> distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about. Since I'm at least
>>> partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking in terms of
>>> grammaticalization. This is a process that's been getting quite a lot of
>>> attention in the field for about thirty years now. Typically a content word
>>> begins to generalize or perhaps bleach semantically, like "come" or "go"
>>> forms in lots of languages that come to be used to mark future or "have"
>>> forms that come to mark perfect. Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these.
>>> The core modals in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs
>>> in Old English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more
>>> lexical content to become grammatical markers. As these grammaticalization
>>> processes take place, words commonly also change phonologically. OE "lic,"
>>> which meant "body," has grammaticalized to PDE "like" and "-ly."
>>>
>>> I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization
>>> process. The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that "have
>>> taken" and "has taken" don't show. However, that devoicing doesn't yet
>>> occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa." The full
>>> contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the subject of the
>>> infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same. We say, "When do you
>>> wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?" The latter has to have a full
>>> double /t/: "Whom do you want t@ go?" The fact that these expressions
>>> have started grammaticalizing doesn't tell us where they'll end up or if
>>> they'll end up in the same place. Maybe "hafta," etc. will become
>>> increasingly modal-like, but it appears to be following a different
>>> diachronic trajectory from "ought" and "need." I don't bet on horses and I
>>> don't predict linguistic change.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>>> Emeritus Professor of English
>>> Ball State University
>>> Muncie, IN 47306
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods [
>>> [log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: have + infinitive
>>>
>>> Dear List,
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction
>>> with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>>>
>>> < I ought to eat> >> go> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott Woods
>>>
>>> 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/
--0016363b90d49d74a7048fc3885b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kathleen, I love it! I'm always interested in authentic language usage that supports linguistic concepts. Song lyrics work so well because they closely resemble spoken language. I'm going to add this to my list for grammar log source material. In the grammar log, students analyze language samples and identify how the sample differs from Standard English, what rules govern the differences, what elements are appropriate for what audience, etc.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A71EXCHANGE200_--
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:35:49 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
'Imma' has been around for some time. This summer, I stumbled upon an instance from 1968: Art Blakey Quintet's A Night At Birdland, Vol. 2 [Live], the end of track 4, Now's The Time: "Yes, sir, Imma stay with the youngsters. When these get too old, Imma get some younger ones."
For the clip and more discussion, see Language Log: A perfect tense that expresses action completed at the present time; in English it is formed by using the present tense of have with a past participle A tense that expresses an unbroken action continuing at the present time, started in the recent past. In English it is formed by using have been with a present participle.
A tense which represents actions that occurred before other actions in the past; the pluperfect tense. A tense that expresses an unbroken action continuing up to a certain time in the past. In English it is formed by using had been with a present participle.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1028197406-1283997197=:30360--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:11:45 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Forthcoming Books
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0016369f9ff8eff889048fd86775
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might find interesting.
*
A Dictionary of English Affixes* by Gabriele Stein (ISBN 9783895863875)
*The Spelling Patterns of English* by Andrew G. Rollings (ISBN 3895867586)
*The Progressive in the History of English* by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN
389586742X)
John
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/
--0016369f9ff8eff889048fd86775
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might find interesting.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016369f9ff8eff889048fd86775--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:58:44 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Forthcoming Books
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626581B3DFSEMAILfacult_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626581B3DFSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
Thanks for the info. These need to be in our library here at EKU.
Appalachian speakers say "I'm wanting a hamburger" rather than "I want a hamburger." An unusual use of the progressive.
Marshall
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Forthcoming Books
Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might find interesting.
A Dictionary of English Affixes by Gabriele Stein (ISBN 9783895863875)
The Spelling Patterns of English by Andrew G. Rollings (ISBN 3895867586)
The Progressive in the History of English by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN 389586742X)
John
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/
--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626581B3DFSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John, Thanks for the info. These need to be in our library here at EKU. Appalachian speakers say “I’m wanting a hamburger” rather than “I
want a hamburger.” An unusual use of the progressive. Marshall From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Dews-Alexander Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might find
interesting. Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626581B3DFSEMAILfacult_--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:37:32 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Herb et al.
"Who do you wanna go?" doesn't strike me as out of bounds, particularly with
contrastive stress on the "who" ("Wait a minute, WHO do you wanna go?"). But
then, I've been teaching grammar, and thus have had ample opportunity to
mess with my language system. I did a quick search and found the following
blog post, which is partly on that subject:
http://quote.ucsd.edu/blogs/phonoloblog/2004/12/20/who-do-you-wanna-win/
The point still remains, of course, that it's a lot, lot *easier* to do this
with 'hafta'/'hazta', or maybe it's more accurate to say it's more difficult
to use an *un*-fused "have to."
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan 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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:58:39 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG list question: grammar in a computer lab?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0016361e82fc2dfcad048fd9e60c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As others have already mentioned, the computer lab is the perfect place for
exercises with the OED. The OED website has age-appropriate activities
available for download on the official website:
http://www.oed.com/learning/
John
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Stephanie,
> My university has a subscription to the OED, so we are able to access
> it free from university computers (or by going through the library site.)
> Tracing the history of a word (or construction) is fun for students and
> leads to predictable and unpredictable insights.
> The Urban slang dictionary is lots of fun.
> One teacher using my book asked if I would be open to an online
> discussion, and I was happy to say yes. For a two or three day window (I
> forget how long), they had a "talk to the writer of the book" thread. I
> suspect many authors would be happy to say yes to that.
>
> Craig
>
>
> Beth Young wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> I think you have all my "grammar voyeur" ideas . . . those would work well as in-class activities, I think. Have students search (individually or in groups) and make a contest to see who can find the most examples of passive voice, sentence adverbs, or whatever you're studying.
>
> You could also have students research "peeve" sites and then you could check to see what credible reference works say about those peeves. Or you could have students explore/compare different reference sites during class & report to the whole group: Merriam Webster's regular dictionary compared to its open dictionary, or different dictionary sites, or some of the other sites that students may not know about: visual thesaurus, wordnik, etc.
>
> Stephen Colbert's website has a "word generator" that is fun for a morphology activity--you put a base word in, and it adds a bunch of crazy suffixes.
>
> A computer classroom is also a great setup for anything requiring writing or rewriting. e.g., Take punctuation out of a sentence--leave that unpunctuated sentence on the screen--switch computers and try to put the punctuation back in to the sentence on that computer.
>
> David West Brown has written what looks like a fabulous book filled with grammar activities & lessons. I'll bet that some of these could be adapted to your situation. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-Switching, and Academic Writing. Heinemann, 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0-325-02188-1
>
> I hope that you'll share your successes with us as the semester continues!
>
> Beth
>
>
>
> "Schlitz, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> 09/07/10 8:24 PM >>>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I was assigned to teach my English Grammar course (text: Morenberg's Doing Grammar 4th ed) in a computer lab this semester. While in the past I've found no need for my grammar students to use computers during class, since we do have computers this term, I'm greatly interested in any ideas others may have for leveraging computers/internet access during class.
>
> Thanks very much for any ideas you can offer.
>
> Stephanie
> --------
> Stephanie A. Schlitz, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Linguistics and English
> 106B Bakeless Hall
> Bloomsburg 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
--0016361e82fc2dfcad048fd9e60c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As others have already mentioned, the computer lab is the perfect place for exercises with the OED. The OED website has age-appropriate activities available for download on the official website:
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016361e82fc2dfcad048fd9e60c--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:05:00 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Bill,
Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised that counterexamples exist. The grammaticalization of "want to" to "wanna" suggests that this would happen. I'm sort of relieved to find that it does. I can't say that I've heard such sentences myself, but I also may not have been listening for them.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Spruiell
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: have + infinitive
Herb et al.
"Who do you wanna go?" doesn't strike me as out of bounds, particularly with contrastive stress on the "who" ("Wait a minute, WHO do you wanna go?"). But then, I've been teaching grammar, and thus have had ample opportunity to mess with my language system. I did a quick search and found the following blog post, which is partly on that subject:
http://quote.ucsd.edu/blogs/phonoloblog/2004/12/20/who-do-you-wanna-win/
The point still remains, of course, that it's a lot, lot *easier* to do this with 'hafta'/'hazta', or maybe it's more accurate to say it's more difficult to use an *un*-fused "have to."
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan 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/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:06:46 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003D_01CB50C7.7EEB87B0"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01CB50C7.7EEB87B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
While I appreciate notices, my curiosity is piqued by The Progressive in the
History of English by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo--a nine-year-old
dissertation/six-
year-old book listed as "forthcoming." I had missed the original
publication
but intend to buy the new (price permitting). Is it a revised version (with
the old ISBN?) or a reprinting? In either case it seems worth having.
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
There are 5 messages totalling 602 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Forthcoming Books (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:11:45 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Forthcoming Books
--0016369f9ff8eff889048fd86775
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might find interesting.
*
A Dictionary of English Affixes* by Gabriele Stein (ISBN 9783895863875)
*The Spelling Patterns of English* by Andrew G. Rollings (ISBN 3895867586)
*The Progressive in the History of English* by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN
389586742X)
John
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/
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01CB50C7.7EEB87B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While I appreciate notices, my curiosity is piqued by The Progressive in the History of English
by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo--a nine-year-old dissertation/six- year-old book listed as "forthcoming."
I had missed the original publication but intend to buy the new (price permitting). Is
it a revised version (with the old ISBN?) or a reprinting? In either case
it seems worth having. -----Original Message----- There are 5 messages totalling 602 lines in this
issue. Topics of the day: 1. Forthcoming Books (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:11:45 -0500 From: John Dews-Alexander
<[log in to unmask]> Subject: Forthcoming Books --0016369f9ff8eff889048fd86775 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might
find interesting. * A Dictionary of English Affixes* by Gabriele Stein
(ISBN 9783895863875) *The Spelling Patterns of English* by Andrew G.
Rollings (ISBN 3895867586) *The Progressive in the History of English* by Paloma
Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN 389586742X) John
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01CB50C7.7EEB87B0--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:17:45 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
In-Reply-To: While I appreciate notices, my curiosity is piqued by The Progressive in the History of English
by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo--a nine-year-old dissertation/six- year-old book listed as "forthcoming."
I had missed the original publication but intend to buy the new (price permitting). Is
it a revised version (with the old ISBN?) or a reprinting? In either case
it seems worth having. Scott
Catledge -----Original Message----- There are 5 messages totalling 602 lines in this
issue. Topics of the day: 1. Forthcoming Books (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:11:45 -0500 From: John Dews-Alexander
<[log in to unmask]> Subject: Forthcoming Books --0016369f9ff8eff889048fd86775 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might
find interesting. * A Dictionary of English Affixes* by Gabriele Stein
(ISBN 9783895863875) *The Spelling Patterns of English* by Andrew G.
Rollings (ISBN 3895867586) *The Progressive in the History of English* by Paloma
Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN 389586742X) John
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016367d5c8ed00838048feaee53--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:37:35 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: riddles and puzzles
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for sharing these ideas--I'm sure I'll be borrowing from them. :)
Beth
>>> "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]> 09/08/10 3:30 PM >>>
In response to questions about the "riddles and puzzles" I use in my advanced grammar class, here are a few examples:
- I give groups of students two sets of ten sentences (20 slips of paper). One set is in the ten sentence patterns and is numbered accordingly. The other set is unnumbered. Before these college students get any instruction about sentence/clause patterns, I have them match the "like" sentences and then try to come up with a formula that explains the likenesses between each pair of matched sentences. Usually, working together, 3/4 of the students are able to come up with the ten sentence patterns on their own (from the given examples).
- I repeat this exercise with the ten sentence patterns represented in relative and subordinate clauses (pulled out of their contexts). This reinforced the sentence patterns while introducing the common link between different types of clauses. I usually put a relative clause and a subordinate clause together in the same sentence pattern.
- Some years ago, I created a Grammar Game which is modeled roughly on "Go Fish." A game can be played by 2-4 pairs of students. Each team draws ten random pieces from the bag. These pieces include an assortment of noun phrases, verb phrases, whole clauses, different kinds of phrases, conjunctions, adverbs, etc. Each team is also given a card that describes the type of sentence they should attempt to build (e.g. "Compound Pattern VII + Pattern III, with one participle phrase). A point value is on the card, corresponding roughly to the difficulty (probability) of putting together that particular construction. To play, each team asks another team for a specific piece (e.g. "Do you have any "be" verbs?"). If no, then the asking team draws from the bag. If yes, the asking team gets the piece, and the "robbed" team draws from the bag. After five times around, if at least one team has accomplished its sentence, then the team(s) submit their boards for inspection by the rest. Add-ons over and above the prescribed sentence have set values that can be added to the value already set by the team's card.
- Though not so much a puzzle, it's also a helpful generative exercise to give students a list of regular and phrasal prepositions, then have them create (in teams) the longest version of "There's a hole in the bottom of the sea" that they can. Then make them sing it.
- for participle phrases, I show them a picture that suggests a number of actions. First, I ask them to make a list of the actions that can be said to be occurring in the picture. Then we turn those verbs into participles. Then we arrange participles under their corresponding nouns and add detail onto the tails of the participles. The result is a participle phrase poem describing the picture. Again, a more generative exercise.
- for restrictive and non-restrictive elements, give the students a paragraph with several modifiers underlined or highlighted. Have them cover those modifiers with strips of paper and read the sentences (and paragraph). If the result is general hilarity, because cutting out the modifier changed the meaning of the sentence, then the modifier was probably restrictive and needs no commas. If no hilarity, have them put commas. (E.g. "Dogs who are neutered tend to get fat"). For a physical exercise, have them squat to read the non-restrictive modifiers and stand while reading the rest of the sentence (while following that intonation pattern also with their voices).
Some of these things would not be appropriate (in my opinion) for younger students, or students who need to use Standard Edited English more than they need to be able to talk about it. I pity the K-12 student who is trained to use "seven of the ten different sentence patterns" in each paragraph he writes, as was one poor soul who took my college composition course years ago.
Just a few things I've tried over the last few years.
Joshua Hill
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/
========================================================================Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:04:59 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 9 Sep 2010 to 10 Sep 2010 (#2010-150)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In any case, for me the book seems worth pursuing and I appreciate your
bringing it to my attention. I also get LINCOLM catalogs but missed
that entry.
I liked Joshua's idea. I liked it so much that I used it in my 7th grade
English class in Apopka in 1961. The only drawback was the high coast of
the poster board that I used--a $300 a month salary did not go very far so
I never was that extravagant again. The A students in my class composed
compound-complex sentences. One imaginative student used a nominative
absolute--(I gave her an extra A for that but warned students that her
example was an exception).
TO graduate from Mississippi Southern College in the '50s and early '60's
one had to pass the Junior English exam, which consisted of writing a theme
in a one-hour time period on a topic assigned at the actual time of the
test. Students were expected to use compound and complex sentence
structure: those writing in all simple (one main clause-no subordinate)
sentences failed the test and had to retake it. Beginning the Junior year
the test could be taken each quarter in which you were enrolled. One
student completed coursework for his MA in history (and his thesis) but
dropped out of school without his BS because he could not pass the test--and
he had no literacy problems or learning disabilities: he just could not
write themes (he had taken his lowerclass coursework at a prominent
university that did not require themes).
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 9 Sep 2010 to 10 Sep 2010 (#2010-150)
There are 3 messages totalling 780 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149) (2)
2. riddles and puzzles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:06:46 -0400
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
While I appreciate notices, my curiosity is piqued by The Progressive in the
History of English by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo--a nine-year-old
dissertation/six-year-old book listed as "forthcoming." I had missed the
original publication but intend to buy the new (price permitting). Is it a
revised version (with the old ISBN?) or a reprinting? In either case it
seems worth having.
Scott Catledge
1. Forthcoming Books (2)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:11:45 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Forthcoming Books
Here are a few forthcoming books that ATEGers might find interesting.
A Dictionary of English Affixes* by Gabriele Stein (ISBN 9783895863875)
*The Spelling Patterns of English* by Andrew G. Rollings (ISBN 3895867586)
*The Progressive in the History of English* by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN
389586742X)
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:17:45 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
--0016367d5c8ed00838048feaee53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Scott, thanks for the additional information. I wasn't familiar with
Nunez-Pertejo's work but now see what you mean.
The full title of the book is *The Progressive in the History of English
with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period: A Corpus-Based
Study*.
I was skimming a LINCOM publication when the titles caught my eye. LINCOM
publications aren't available via Amazon.com in the U.S., but they are
available in European versions. When I look up the ISBN listed for the text
at amazon.de, I find that the book has a copyright of 2004.
So, it is likely that I was duped by tricky semantics! The "forthcoming"
item would appear to be nothing more than the 2011 catalog, which contains
new and existing books. The other two books I noted may also be existing and
not "forthcoming."
Thanks for pointing that out!
John
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:37:35 -0400
From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: riddles and puzzles
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for sharing these ideas--I'm sure I'll be borrowing from them. :)
Beth
>>> "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]> 09/08/10 3:30 PM >>>
In response to questions about the "riddles and puzzles" I use in my advanced grammar class, here are a few examples:
- I give groups of students two sets of ten sentences (20 slips of paper). One set is in the ten sentence patterns and is numbered accordingly. The other set is unnumbered. Before these college students get any instruction about sentence/clause patterns, I have them match the "like" sentences and then try to come up with a formula that explains the likenesses between each pair of matched sentences. Usually, working together, 3/4 of the students are able to come up with the ten sentence patterns on their own (from the given examples).
- I repeat this exercise with the ten sentence patterns represented in relative and subordinate clauses (pulled out of their contexts). This reinforced the sentence patterns while introducing the common link between different types of clauses. I usually put a relative clause and a subordinate clause together in the same sentence pattern.
- Some years ago, I created a Grammar Game which is modeled roughly on "Go Fish." A game can be played by 2-4 pairs of students. Each team draws ten random pieces from the bag. These pieces include an assortment of noun phrases, verb phrases, whole clauses, different kinds of phrases, conjunctions, adverbs, etc. Each team is also given a card that describes the type of sentence they should attempt to build (e.g. "Compound Pattern VII + Pattern III, with one participle phrase). A point value is on the card, corresponding roughly to the difficulty (probability) of putting together that particular construction. To play, each team asks another team for a specific piece (e.g. "Do you have any "be" verbs?"). If no, then the asking team draws from the bag. If yes, the asking team gets the piece, and the "robbed" team draws from the bag. After five times around, if at least one team has accomplished its sentence, then the team(s) submit their boards for inspection by the rest. Add-ons over and above the prescribed sentence have set values that can be added to the value already set by the team's card.
- Though not so much a puzzle, it's also a helpful generative exercise to give students a list of regular and phrasal prepositions, then have them create (in teams) the longest version of "There's a hole in the bottom of the sea" that they can. Then make them sing it.
- for participle phrases, I show them a picture that suggests a number of actions. First, I ask them to make a list of the actions that can be said to be occurring in the picture. Then we turn those verbs into participles. Then we arrange participles under their corresponding nouns and add detail onto the tails of the participles. The result is a participle phrase poem describing the picture. Again, a more generative exercise.
- for restrictive and non-restrictive elements, give the students a paragraph with several modifiers underlined or highlighted. Have them cover those modifiers with strips of paper and read the sentences (and paragraph). If the result is general hilarity, because cutting out the modifier changed the meaning of the sentence, then the modifier was probably restrictive and needs no commas. If no hilarity, have them put commas. (E.g. "Dogs who are neutered tend to get fat"). For a physical exercise, have them squat to read the non-restrictive modifiers and stand while reading the rest of the sentence (while following that intonation pattern also with their voices).
Some of these things would not be appropriate (in my opinion) for younger students, or students who need to use Standard Edited English more than they need to be able to talk about it. I pity the K-12 student who is trained to use "seven of the ten different sentence patterns" in each paragraph he writes, as was one poor soul who took my college composition course years ago.
Just a few things I've tried over the last few years.
Joshua Hill
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 9 Sep 2010 to 10 Sep 2010 (#2010-150)
**********************************************************
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/
========================================================================Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:21:53 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error:
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-2042073513-1284380513=:48799--
========================================================================Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:22:35 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A personal note
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1603157600-1284387755=:57232"
~~~~~
Reply:
It indicates to m
--0-1603157600-1284387755=:57232
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Inbound message:
~~~~~
Reply:
It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought about it, so he
doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues for teaching
grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-popular preference
for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing, all the while not
correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine mechanics become
proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their trades? It makes
no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their trade without
learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and you just go out
there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last year but if you
approach your game with confidence, you can beat him." Yeah, right.
.brad.mon.13sept10.This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to
protect the guilty) with a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name
deleted to protect the co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
"I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She had been
ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't heard much from
them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got wonderful care."
What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads" in the first two
sentences, and yet none in the last.
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/
--0-1603157600-1284387755=:57232
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1603157600-1284387755=:57232--
========================================================================Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:45:15 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A personal note
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_nos8xH+ZgwrPBb4FEpDqYQ)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_nos8xH+ZgwrPBb4FEpDqYQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Brad,
After reading a lot of your messages in which you argue for a certain perspective on "had" and so on, I believe that you don't understand English tense and aspect. You might want to take some courses in linguistics on these matters. I suggest morphology, syntax, and comparative linguistics. Such courses might provide you with the missing links that make your perspective on tense and aspect so limited and distorted.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
Subject: A personal note
To: [log in to unmask]
> Inbound message:
>
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Reply:
>
> It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought
> about it, so he
> doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues
> for teaching
> grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-
> popular preference
> for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing, all
> the while not
> correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
>
> Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine
> mechanics become
> proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their
> trades? It makes
> no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
> trade without
> learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and
> you just go out
> there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last year
> but if you
> approach your game with confidence, you can beat him." Yeah, right.
>
> .brad.mon.13sept10.This from an old friend, a graduate of (name
> deleted to
> protect the guilty) with a degree in English, and a former
> editor of the (name
> deleted to protect the co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
>
> "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She
> had been
> ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't
> heard much from
> them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
> wonderful care."
>
> What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads"
> in the first two
> sentences, and yet none in the last.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_nos8xH+ZgwrPBb4FEpDqYQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_nos8xH+ZgwrPBb4FEpDqYQ)--
========================================================================Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:30:19 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Missing links
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1303146604-1284427819=:9747"
--0-1303146604-1284427819=:9747
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you, Ed, for your interest but you'll need to be more specific than just
saying I don't know what I'm talking about. In what ways do you perceive that my
view is "distorted" and that I do not understand English tense and aspect?
The impetus for my comments was this passage: "I just got a call from Sam saying
Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years, which he said
explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a nursing home where
Sam says she got wonderful care."
You think Sally "had died last week"? Is that it? And you like, "she had been
ill"?
If so, you'd have to like, "She had died in a nursing home where Sam says she
got wonderful care."
What time zone are you in that you are talking shop at 8:45 p.m., EDT?
.brad.mon.13sept10.
________________________________
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 8:45:15 PM
Subject: Re: A personal note
Brad,
After reading a lot of your messages in which you argue for a certain
perspective on "had" and so on, I believe that you don't understand English
tense and aspect. You might want to take some courses in linguistics on these
matters. I suggest morphology, syntax, and comparative linguistics. Such courses
might provide you with the missing links that make your perspective on tense and
aspect so limited and distorted.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
Subject: A personal note
To: [log in to unmask]
Inbound message:
~~~~~
Reply:
It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought about it, so he
doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues for teaching
grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-popular preference
for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing, all the while not
correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine mechanics become
proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their trades? It makes
no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their trade without
learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and you just go
out there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last year but if
you approach your game with confidence, you can beat him." Yeah, right.
.brad.mon.13sept10.
This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to protect the guilty) with
a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name deleted to protect the
co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
"I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She had
been ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't heard much
from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
wonderful care."
What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads" in the first two
sentences, and yet none in the last.
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/
--0-1303146604-1284427819=:9747
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The impetus for my comments was this passage: "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got wonderful care." You think Sally "had died last week"? Is that it? And you like, "she had been ill"? If so, you'd have to like, "She had died in a nursing home where Sam says she got wonderful care." What time zone are you in that you are talking shop at 8:45 p.m., EDT? .brad.mon.13sept10.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1303146604-1284427819=:9747--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:27:31 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Missing links
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_hlrVLjmgYnP3WZRWlplUbA)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_hlrVLjmgYnP3WZRWlplUbA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Brad,
I don't have time for small talk. Take the courses, and then you will "come home" on tense and aspect in general, which, by the way, are universal features of human language. Do a comparative study on tense and aspect in most of the European languages. You will realize then that it is your limited experience with language that makes you hold such a narrow understanding of the relation between tense and aspect on the time axis from the perspective of the agent and that of the observer. As in everything else, provincialism does not help.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 20:33
Subject: Missing links
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thank you, Ed, for your interest but you'll need to be more
> specific than just
> saying I don't know what I'm talking about. In what ways do you
> perceive that my
> view is "distorted" and that I do not understand English tense
> and aspect?
>
> The impetus for my comments was this passage: "I just got a call
> from Sam saying
> Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years,
> which he said
> explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a
> nursing home where
> Sam says she got wonderful care."
>
> You think Sally "had died last week"? Is that it? And you like,
> "she had been
> ill"?
>
> If so, you'd have to like, "She had died in a nursing home where
> Sam says she
> got wonderful care."
>
> What time zone are you in that you are talking shop at 8:45
> p.m., EDT?
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 8:45:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A personal note
>
>
> Brad,
>
> After reading a lot of your messages in which you argue for a
> certain
> perspective on "had" and so on, I believe that you don't
> understand English
> tense and aspect. You might want to take some courses in
> linguistics on these
> matters. I suggest morphology, syntax, and comparative
> linguistics. Such courses
> might provide you with the missing links that make your
> perspective on tense and
> aspect so limited and distorted.
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
> Subject: A personal note
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Inbound message:
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Reply:
>
> It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought
> about it, so he
> doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues
> for teaching
> grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-
> popular preference
> for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing,
> all the while not
> correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
>
> Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine
> mechanics become
> proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their
> trades? It makes
> no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
> trade without
> learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and
> you just go
> out there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last
> year but if
> you approach your game with confidence, you can beat him."
> Yeah, right.
>
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to protect
> the guilty) with
> a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name deleted to
> protect the
> co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
>
> "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She
> had
> been ill for several years, which he said explains why we
> haven't heard much
> from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
> wonderful care."
>
> What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads"
> in the first two
> sentences, and yet none in the last.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_hlrVLjmgYnP3WZRWlplUbA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_hlrVLjmgYnP3WZRWlplUbA)--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:58:22 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Missing links
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1613355774-1284465502=:20050"
--0-1613355774-1284465502=:20050
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you, Ed, for your continued interest in my welfare but please tell me,
what good is all your tedious study if you cannot answer my simple questions
regarding ordinary usage?
I'm sure the former editor of the WSJ would be fascinated to know your views on
the "relation between tense and aspect on the time axis from the perspective of
the agent and that of the observer", regarding the death of Sam's wife Sally
(not their real names, n.t.s.) ... at least to know whether she "died" or "had
died". It's clear she's gone but how should her untimely departure be described
by an expert such as yourself?
.brad.tue.14sept10.
________________________________
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 7:27:31 AM
Subject: Re: Missing links
Brad,
I don't have time for small talk. Take the courses, and then you will "come
home" on tense and aspect in general, which, by the way, are universal features
of human language. Do a comparative study on tense and aspect in most of the
European languages. You will realize then that it is your limited
experience with language that makes you hold such a narrow understanding of the
relation between tense and aspect on the time axis from the perspective of
the agent and that of the observer. As in everything else, provincialism does
not help.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 20:33
Subject: Missing links
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thank you, Ed, for your interest but you'll need to be more
> specific than just
> saying I don't know what I'm talking about. In what ways do you
> perceive that my
> view is "distorted" and that I do not understand English tense
> and aspect?
>
> The impetus for my comments was this passage: "I just got a call
> from Sam saying
> Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years,
> which he said
> explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a
> nursing home where
> Sam says she got wonderful care."
>
> You think Sally "had died last week"? Is that it? And you like,
> "she had been
> ill"?
>
> If so, you'd have to like, "She had died in a nursing home where
> Sam says she
> got wonderful care."
>
> What time zone are you in that you are talking shop at 8:45
> p.m., EDT?
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 8:45:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A personal note
>
>
> Brad,
>
> After reading a lot of your messages in which you argue for a
> certain
> perspective on "had" and so on, I believe that you don't
> understand English
> tense and aspect. You might want to take some courses in
> linguistics on these
> matters. I suggest morphology, syntax, and comparative
> linguistics. Such courses
> might provide you with the missing links that make your
> perspective on tense and
> aspect so limited and distorted.
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
> Subject: A personal note
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Inbound message:
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Reply:
>
> It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought
> about it, so he
> doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues
> for teaching
> grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-
> popular preference
> for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing,
> all the while not
> correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
>
> Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine
> mechanics become
> proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their
> trades? It makes
> no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
> trade without
> learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and
> you just go
> out there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last
> year but if
> you approach your game with confidence, you can beat him."
> Yeah, right.
>
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to protect
> the guilty) with
> a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name deleted to
> protect the
> co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
>
> "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She
> had
> been ill for several years, which he said explains why we
> haven't heard much
> from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
> wonderful care."
>
> What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads"
> in the first two
> sentences, and yet none in the last.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--0-1613355774-1284465502=:20050
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1613355774-1284465502=:20050--
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:51:46 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: like
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:07:31 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: like
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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:08:19 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_8ff6ad42-c7c5-447c-b9bf-e5a9dc061287_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_8ff6ad42-c7c5-447c-b9bf-e5a9dc061287_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/
--_8ff6ad42-c7c5-447c-b9bf-e5a9dc061287_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_8ff6ad42-c7c5-447c-b9bf-e5a9dc061287_--
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:22:11 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0016364ed7f2635a24049052edc9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Geoff, I bet Craig agrees with you in many ways since his own grammar text
is meaning-focused.
Since we have so many grammatical perspectives represented within ATEG, it
is often fun to see how different schools of thought handle the same
construction. I doubt Craig would call himself a traditional grammarian, but
he was curious about how traditional, pedagogical grammar might treat his
cited example. Since I tend to be more of a structuralist, I am often
curious about cognitive perspectives, which Craig and others often supply.
John
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 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/
--0016364ed7f2635a24049052edc9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Geoff, I bet Craig agrees with you in many ways since his own grammar text is meaning-focused.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016364ed7f2635a24049052edc9--
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:30:44 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Craig et al.
It's possible that the traditional like-as-adjective interpretation was
driven partly by traditional grammars' implicit rejection of the idea that
prepositional phrases could act as subject complements. "A cantaloupe is a
muskmelon" and "A cantaloupe is like a muskmelon" seem roughly similar,
suggesting "like a muskmelon" is in about the same relation to "is" as is "a
muskmelon." But if PPs can't be subject complements, and especially if the
terms you're actually using are "predicate noun" and "predicate adjective,"
you can't view "like" as a preposition without creating a contradiction.
I'm wanting to treat it as prepositional, but that's partly because I'm
happy with the notion of PPs as SCs. Adverb placement seems to go well with
that interpretation, too:
A cantaloupe is, unsurprisingly, like a muskmelon.
?A cantaloupe is like, unsurprisingly, a muskmelon.
The cantaloupe is actually like a watermelon.
?The cantalouple is like actually a watermelon
The cantaloupe is, unsurprisingly, on the table.
?The cantaloupe is on, unsurprisingly, the table.
(That third one works if you put "Dude,..." at the beginning -- but that's,
like, actually a different 'like').
--- Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
On 9/15/10 3:07 PM, "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: like
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:45:49 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_4OV5gSOlG1v21DGL67eIvw)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_4OV5gSOlG1v21DGL67eIvw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
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/
--Boundary_(ID_4OV5gSOlG1v21DGL67eIvw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_4OV5gSOlG1v21DGL67eIvw)--
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:26:06 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bill et. al.,
The next question might be whether in sentences like "One X like the
others is Y" (Or "A dog like Charlie's is hard to find") traditional
grammar would treat "like the others" as prepositional phrase. If so,
then I'd very much agree that it should be pp in the predicate slot as
well. I have no problem with adverbial complements for "be" or with pp
in that role.
If, on the other hand, it's adjective in both, would "like the others"
be adjective complement? "One of these things is not like" certainly
seems to be missing something.
Craig>
Craig et al.
>
> It's possible that the traditional like-as-adjective interpretation was
> driven partly by traditional grammars' implicit rejection of the idea that
> prepositional phrases could act as subject complements. "A cantaloupe is a
> muskmelon" and "A cantaloupe is like a muskmelon" seem roughly similar,
> suggesting "like a muskmelon" is in about the same relation to "is" as is
> "a
> muskmelon." But if PPs can't be subject complements, and especially if the
> terms you're actually using are "predicate noun" and "predicate
> adjective,"
> you can't view "like" as a preposition without creating a contradiction.
>
> I'm wanting to treat it as prepositional, but that's partly because I'm
> happy with the notion of PPs as SCs. Adverb placement seems to go well
> with
> that interpretation, too:
>
> A cantaloupe is, unsurprisingly, like a muskmelon.
> ?A cantaloupe is like, unsurprisingly, a muskmelon.
>
> The cantaloupe is actually like a watermelon.
> ?The cantalouple is like actually a watermelon
>
> The cantaloupe is, unsurprisingly, on the table.
> ?The cantaloupe is on, unsurprisingly, the table.
>
> (That third one works if you put "Dude,..." at the beginning -- but
> that's,
> like, actually a different 'like').
>
> --- Bill Spruiell
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
> On 9/15/10 3:07 PM, "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:52 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: like
>>
>> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:58:53 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Herb,
One reason for asking the question is that I was reading the OED entry
(for other reasons)and didn't see it listed as preposition. Yet it
shows up on preposition lists.
Craig>
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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: like
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:12:27 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:26:34 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
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/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:47:15 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:10:42 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar as patterns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:13:25 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Craig,
I believe, like you do, that the notion of "flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use" makes more sense. But that is just a facet of the immensely complex system which is human language in its various forms (languages, dialects, etc.).
Separating content from form is another absurdity that some people promote, forgetting that these two aspects of language support each other, and cannot be dissociated. We need to think more about Marshall McLuhan's statement that "the medium is the message." I found this explanation of the statement in Wikipedia:
"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."
The axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in language because meaning is encoded into the form through morphological and syntactic devices which quite often seem to even transcend the "mechanics" of the language. This becomes apparent when you notice the "simple" devices that seem to have such an impact on communication - presuppositions, entailment, conversational implicature, and of course, Grice's maxims.
I know, Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to encode meaning, but that was pure nonsense ("I think that we are forced to conclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning..." - Syntactic Structures, p. 17), and later he was forced to revise his claim because he could not go beyond "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Syntactic Structures - p 15). I am sure that with time he "understood" that language is nothing like his sentence, and that humans don't speak like that when they communicate.What is funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all this time grammar to convey meaningful messages to his audiences.
This reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to "show" that we cannot communicate through language while he was attempting to communicate this notion to me through his paper. He was using (without understanding) the some stuff fromLeech (conceptual and associative meaning), Van Orman Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and radical translation), Davidson (radical interpretation), and Chomsky (grammar as autonomous and independent of meaning) to "prove" his "point."
Eduard
Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:27 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
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/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:30:35 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A Practical Question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. 'In answering
the title's question, "Why Me?" the author....'
He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
title and if so, where.
I feel like it needs a comma but I don't want to put one in. What do you
folks think?
Janet
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/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:21:06 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:57:41 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A Practical Question
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet,
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be
inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefer
that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive)
bumps up against the rule that says a question mark shouldn’t be directly
followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here’s the sentence: The album’s
first single “Do You Realize??” features a lush arrangement. Is it better to
set off “Do You Realize??” with commas? Leave out the commas? Recast the
sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of *CMOS* recommends using a comma even after a
question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The
album’s first single, “Do You Realize??,” features a lush arrangement. Of
course, if you find that punctuation clump ugly, you’re free to recast the
sentence.
John
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Castilleja, Janet <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. ‘In answering the
> title’s question, “Why Me?” the author….’
>
>
>
> He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
> title and if so, where.
>
>
>
> I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put one in. What do you
> folks think?
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet, Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive) bumps up against the rule that says a question
mark shouldn’t be directly followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here’s the
sentence: The album’s first single “Do You Realize??” features
a lush arrangement. Is it better to set off “Do You Realize??” with commas? Leave
out the commas? Recast the sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of CMOS recommends using a comma even after a question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The album’s
first single, “Do You Realize??,” features a lush arrangement. Of course, if you
find that punctuation clump ugly, you’re free to recast the sentence.
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:09 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3367496470_314417"
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3367496470_314417
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Bob,
I know weąre rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe weąre
following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot help but
point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences used
in the related older postings arenąt the same; and all this without positing
a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... youąre implying that modern
pattern-based approaches donąt use abstract grammatical categories, but they
do (at least, in a sense thatąs relevant here).
I donąt know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns
have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldnąt be a pattern
anyway; itąd be an instance. A category that can be realized as a range of
lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts as a grammatical
category, Iąd think. It may not be only a grammatical category, but thatąs a
different ‹ important, but different -- issue.
Hereąs a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it runs
the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies for
deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we know
we donąt know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that
could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work
for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you wonąt get what
you want a good deal of the time ‹ but itąs darn creative. If we assume (1),
and If it turns out that whatąs actually produced isnąt the kind of thing
weąd get from farming all the a priori possibilities, it makes sense that
something must be constraining those possibilities (and thus thereąs a clear
need for a UG). Strategy (2), in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism,
as a limiter. Itąs a bit like deciding that if youąve been using onions in a
recipe, and youąre out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than
chocolate as a stand-in. You wonąt get noticed as a breakthrough chef, but
your diner wonąt go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strategy
(1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were approaches
based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didnąt do (1),
but didnąt try to do things with language either ‹ that their use of
language was rather like Pavlovąs dogsą use of drool. No one likes the
strategy (0) approaches, really (unless theyąve been trained to). I donąt
think weąre at a point where we can say children definitely use a particular
strategy to construct language, but Iąd argue we can say that we canąt rule
out strategy (1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research
devoted to each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
>
> Robert Yates wrote:
>>
>> 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]>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--B_3367496470_314417--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:05:28 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bob tells me this message came through to him as blank. Was that true
for everyone? At any rate, I'm resending it below, using this reply to
my own message as a mechanism. It's not the most articulate response I
have ever given, but I'll resend as is.
Craig>
Bob,
> Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
> I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence one, tonic
> prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
> From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can work
> for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve
> ways to articulate that relationship.
> I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious knowledge
> that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
> that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
> knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
> about it) are deeply interwoven.
>
> Craig
>
> Robert Yates wrote: 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 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 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 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/
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:24:08 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that’s relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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 ther> 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 u> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
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/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:07:50 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_HItlriXDnAjAP3Q+aw1PpQ)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_HItlriXDnAjAP3Q+aw1PpQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Bob,
You still show a few examples of contractions. I wonder if you could now generalize the "contraction patterns" you showed in order to establish a generalization - rule or formula that functions across the language. Such a rule would indicate to me that contraction patterns are not just limited cases, but are part of a general formula similar to "in order to generate the simple past of a regular verb add -d or -ed to the root of a regular verb."
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 21:27
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post.
> I wish he
> had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he
> is correct
> on the following:
>
> Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based
> approaches don’t use
> abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
> that’s relevant here).
>
> ***
> If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories,
> then we
> have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
> The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
> grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree
> on that.
>
> Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require
> speech for
> the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
> "pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
> pronoun.
>
> Finally, a response to Eduard.
>
> It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not
> always the
> best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that
> could be
> later formulated or distilled into rules.
>
> ****
> I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are
> exceptions.We all know a lot of exceptions then.
>
> Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
>
> In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is
> possible to
> contract them to wanna (2)
>
> 1) I want to have a beer.
> 2) I wanna have a beer.
>
> So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are
> next to
> each other, it is possible to contract them.
>
> That works for (3)
>
> 3) Who do you want to speak to?
> 4) Who do you wanna speak to?
>
> However, most people can't contract (5).
>
> 5) Who do you want to speak first?
> 6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
>
> Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not
> possibleand/or at least odd?
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> >>> Eduard Hanganu 09/16/10 11:07
> AM >>>
> Bob,
>
> Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
> that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive
> from the
> input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not
> alwaysthe best way to investigate language or to reach
> conclusions that could
> be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that,
> like in
> the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
> elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
> that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered,
> something we
> misunderstood, and something we never learned.
>
> Are we communicating?
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Yates
> Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
> Subject: Grammar as patterns
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > 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 ther> 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 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
> > > 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 u> 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
> > > > > 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/
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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/
>
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_HItlriXDnAjAP3Q+aw1PpQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_HItlriXDnAjAP3Q+aw1PpQ)--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:35:59 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It's valuable to the learning experience even of those who have studied
and pondered on grammar for over three score years to have a debate with
strong feelings without questioning the marital status of a commenter or
the sexual preference of ones spouse.
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
There are 11 messages totalling 4357 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. like (3)
2. Grammar as patterns (6)
3. A Practical Question (2)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:26:34 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
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/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:47:15 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:10:42 -0500
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar as patterns
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:13:25 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Craig,
I believe, like you do, that the notion of "flexible, dynamic patterns
sustained and reinforced by use" makes more sense. But that is just a facet
of the immensely complex system which is human language in its various forms
(languages, dialects, etc.).
Separating content from form is another absurdity that some people promote,
forgetting that these two aspects of language support each other, and cannot
be dissociated. We need to think more about Marshall McLuhan's statement
that "the medium is the message." I found this explanation of the statement
in Wikipedia:
"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."
The axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in language
because meaning is encoded into the form through morphological and syntactic
devices which quite often seem to even transcend the "mechanics" of the
language. This becomes apparent when you notice the "simple" devices that
seem to have such an impact on communication - presuppositions, entailment,
conversational implicature, and of course, Grice's maxims.
I know, Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to encode meaning,
but that was pure nonsense ("I think that we are forced to conclude that
grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning..." - Syntactic Structures,
p. 17), and later he was forced to revise his claim because he could not go
beyond "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Syntactic Structures - p
15). I am sure that with time he "understood" that language is nothing like
his sentence, and that humans don't speak like that when they
communicate.What is funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all
this time grammar to convey meaningful messages to his audiences.
This reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to "show" that we
cannot communicate through language while he was attempting to communicate
this notion to me through his paper. He was using (without understanding)
the some stuff fromLeech (conceptual and associative meaning), Van Orman
Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and radical translation), Davidson (radical
interpretation), and Chomsky (grammar as autonomous and independent of
meaning) to "prove" his "point."
Eduard
Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:27 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim that
our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input."
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the best way
to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be later
formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in the proverbial
anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him
through the keyhole. There is always something that we forgot to say, always
something left uncovered, something we misunderstood, and something we
never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
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/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:30:35 -0700
From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A Practical Question
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. 'In answering
the title's question, "Why Me?" the author....'
He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
title and if so, where.
I feel like it needs a comma but I don't want to put one in. What do you
folks think?
Janet
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/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:21:06 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:57:41 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A Practical Question
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet,
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be
inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefer
that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive)
bumps up against the rule that says a question mark shouldn’t be directly
followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here’s the sentence: The album’s
first single “Do You Realize??” features a lush arrangement. Is it better to
set off “Do You Realize??” with commas? Leave out the commas? Recast the
sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of *CMOS* recommends using a comma even after a
question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The
album’s first single, “Do You Realize??,” features a lush arrangement. Of
course, if you find that punctuation clump ugly, you’re free to recast the
sentence.
John
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Castilleja, Janet <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. ‘In answering the
> title’s question, “Why Me?” the author….’
>
>
>
> He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
> title and if so, where.
>
>
>
> I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put one in. What do you
> folks think?
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet, Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive) bumps up against the rule that says a question
mark shouldn’t be directly followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here’s the
sentence: The album’s first single “Do You Realize??” features
a lush arrangement. Is it better to set off “Do You Realize??” with commas? Leave
out the commas? Recast the sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of CMOS recommends using a comma even after a question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The album’s
first single, “Do You Realize??,” features a lush arrangement. Of course, if you
find that punctuation clump ugly, you’re free to recast the sentence.
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:09 -0400
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3367496470_314417
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Bob,
I know weąre rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe weąre
following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot help but
point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences used
in the related older postings arenąt the same; and all this without
positing
a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... youąre implying that
modern
pattern-based approaches donąt use abstract grammatical categories, but
they
do (at least, in a sense thatąs relevant here).
I donąt know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns
have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldnąt be a
pattern
anyway; itąd be an instance. A category that can be realized as a range of
lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts as a grammatical
category, Iąd think. It may not be only a grammatical category, but
thatąs a
different ‹ important, but different -- issue.
Hereąs a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it
runs
the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies for
deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we know
we donąt know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that
could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work
for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you wonąt get what
you want a good deal of the time ‹ but itąs darn creative. If we assume
(1),
and If it turns out that whatąs actually produced isnąt the kind of
thing
weąd get from farming all the a priori possibilities, it makes sense that
something must be constraining those possibilities (and thus thereąs a
clear
need for a UG). Strategy (2), in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism,
as a limiter. Itąs a bit like deciding that if youąve been using onions
in a
recipe, and youąre out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than
chocolate as a stand-in. You wonąt get noticed as a breakthrough chef,
but
your diner wonąt go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strategy
(1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were approaches
based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didnąt do
(1),
but didnąt try to do things with language either ‹ that their use of
language was rather like Pavlovąs dogsą use of drool. No one likes the
strategy (0) approaches, really (unless theyąve been trained to). I
donąt
think weąre at a point where we can say children definitely use a
particular
strategy to construct language, but Iąd argue we can say that we canąt
rule
out strategy (1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research
devoted to each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
>
> Robert Yates wrote:
>>
>> 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]>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--B_3367496470_314417--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:05:28 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Bob tells me this message came through to him as blank. Was that true
for everyone? At any rate, I'm resending it below, using this reply to
my own message as a mechanism. It's not the most articulate response I
have ever given, but I'll resend as is.
Craig>
Bob,
> Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
> I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence one, tonic
> prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
> From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can work
> for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve
> ways to articulate that relationship.
> I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious knowledge
> that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
> that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
> knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
> about it) are deeply interwoven.
>
> Craig
>
> Robert Yates wrote: 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 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 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 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/
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:24:08 -0500
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that’s relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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 ther> 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 u> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
***********************************************************
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/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:40:46 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just as a humorous aside, in 1962 a student in my English class brought in
his mother's grammar book. It read as follows
"the book
of the book
to or for the book
the book
from, with, or by the book
O book!"
Few on this list would need an explanation
N. Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
There are 11 messages totalling 4357 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. like (3)
2. Grammar as patterns (6)
3. A Practical Question (2)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:26:34 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
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/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:47:15 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:10:42 -0500
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar as patterns
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:13:25 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Craig,
I believe, like you do, that the notion of "flexible, dynamic patterns
sustained and reinforced by use" makes more sense. But that is just a facet
of the immensely complex system which is human language in its various forms
(languages, dialects, etc.).
Separating content from form is another absurdity that some people promote,
forgetting that these two aspects of language support each other, and cannot
be dissociated. We need to think more about Marshall McLuhan's statement
that "the medium is the message." I found this explanation of the statement
in Wikipedia:
"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."
The axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in language
because meaning is encoded into the form through morphological and syntactic
devices which quite often seem to even transcend the "mechanics" of the
language. This becomes apparent when you notice the "simple" devices that
seem to have such an impact on communication - presuppositions, entailment,
conversational implicature, and of course, Grice's maxims.
I know, Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to encode meaning,
but that was pure nonsense ("I think that we are forced to conclude that
grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning..." - Syntactic Structures,
p. 17), and later he was forced to revise his claim because he could not go
beyond "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Syntactic Structures - p
15). I am sure that with time he "understood" that language is nothing like
his sentence, and that humans don't speak like that when they
communicate.What is funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all
this time grammar to convey meaningful messages to his audiences.
This reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to "show" that we
cannot communicate through language while he was attempting to communicate
this notion to me through his paper. He was using (without understanding)
the some stuff fromLeech (conceptual and associative meaning), Van Orman
Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and radical translation), Davidson (radical
interpretation), and Chomsky (grammar as autonomous and independent of
meaning) to "prove" his "point."
Eduard
Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:27 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim that
our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input."
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the best way
to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be later
formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in the proverbial
anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him
through the keyhole. There is always something that we forgot to say, always
something left uncovered, something we misunderstood, and something we
never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
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/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:30:35 -0700
From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A Practical Question
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. 'In answering
the title's question, "Why Me?" the author....'
He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
title and if so, where.
I feel like it needs a comma but I don't want to put one in. What do you
folks think?
Janet
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/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:21:06 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:57:41 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A Practical Question
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet,
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be
inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefer
that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive)
bumps up against the rule that says a question mark shouldn’t be directly
followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here’s the sentence: The album’s
first single “Do You Realize??” features a lush arrangement. Is it better to
set off “Do You Realize??” with commas? Leave out the commas? Recast the
sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of *CMOS* recommends using a comma even after a
question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The
album’s first single, “Do You Realize??,” features a lush arrangement. Of
course, if you find that punctuation clump ugly, you’re free to recast the
sentence.
John
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Castilleja, Janet <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. ‘In answering the
> title’s question, “Why Me?” the author….’
>
>
>
> He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
> title and if so, where.
>
>
>
> I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put one in. What do you
> folks think?
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet, Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive) bumps up against the rule that says a question
mark shouldn’t be directly followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here’s the
sentence: The album’s first single “Do You Realize??” features
a lush arrangement. Is it better to set off “Do You Realize??” with commas? Leave
out the commas? Recast the sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of CMOS recommends using a comma even after a question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The album’s
first single, “Do You Realize??,” features a lush arrangement. Of course, if you
find that punctuation clump ugly, you’re free to recast the sentence.
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:09 -0400
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3367496470_314417
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Bob,
I know weąre rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe weąre
following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot help but
point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences used
in the related older postings arenąt the same; and all this without
positing
a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... youąre implying that
modern
pattern-based approaches donąt use abstract grammatical categories, but
they
do (at least, in a sense thatąs relevant here).
I donąt know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns
have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldnąt be a
pattern
anyway; itąd be an instance. A category that can be realized as a range of
lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts as a grammatical
category, Iąd think. It may not be only a grammatical category, but
thatąs a
different ‹ important, but different -- issue.
Hereąs a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it
runs
the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies for
deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we know
we donąt know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that
could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work
for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you wonąt get what
you want a good deal of the time ‹ but itąs darn creative. If we assume
(1),
and If it turns out that whatąs actually produced isnąt the kind of
thing
weąd get from farming all the a priori possibilities, it makes sense that
something must be constraining those possibilities (and thus thereąs a
clear
need for a UG). Strategy (2), in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism,
as a limiter. Itąs a bit like deciding that if youąve been using onions
in a
recipe, and youąre out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than
chocolate as a stand-in. You wonąt get noticed as a breakthrough chef,
but
your diner wonąt go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strategy
(1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were approaches
based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didnąt do
(1),
but didnąt try to do things with language either ‹ that their use of
language was rather like Pavlovąs dogsą use of drool. No one likes the
strategy (0) approaches, really (unless theyąve been trained to). I
donąt
think weąre at a point where we can say children definitely use a
particular
strategy to construct language, but Iąd argue we can say that we canąt
rule
out strategy (1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research
devoted to each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
>
> Robert Yates wrote:
>>
>> 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]>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--B_3367496470_314417--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:05:28 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Bob tells me this message came through to him as blank. Was that true
for everyone? At any rate, I'm resending it below, using this reply to
my own message as a mechanism. It's not the most articulate response I
have ever given, but I'll resend as is.
Craig>
Bob,
> Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
> I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence one, tonic
> prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
> From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can work
> for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve
> ways to articulate that relationship.
> I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious knowledge
> that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
> that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
> knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
> about it) are deeply interwoven.
>
> Craig
>
> Robert Yates wrote: 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 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 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 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/
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:24:08 -0500
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that’s relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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 ther> 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 u> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
***********************************************************
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/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:38:34 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:28:56 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
In-Reply-To: <15B165C9463049A6A83B6C6DFDE4CC9F@leordinateur>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
When I was a Peace Corps Volunteer teaching high school English in Nigeria in the early 60s, I found school grammars of Yoruba that were set up on just such a Latinate model, and, believe me, Yoruba is nothing like Latin.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 7:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
Just as a humorous aside, in 1962 a student in my English class brought in
his mother's grammar book. It read as follows
"the book
of the book
to or for the book
the book
from, with, or by the book
O book!"
Few on this list would need an explanation
N. Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
There are 11 messages totalling 4357 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. like (3)
2. Grammar as patterns (6)
3. A Practical Question (2)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:26:34 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
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/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
=3CDIV=3ECraig=2C=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EI have no problem with the way you express the matters because =
I don=27t see too much of a difference between what I state and what you=
state=2E True=2C some elements of a category (word class) are more cent=
ral and reflect better the basic characteristics of that class=2E Other =
elements are borderline or peripheral=2C and their characteristics inter=
sect with or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline ele=
ments of another class=2E On the whole=2C though=2C there are=26nbsp=3B=22=
standard=22 elements of word classes=2C and there are =22peripheral=22 e=
lements of such word classes=2E Denial of such facts=2C though=2C is a d=
enial of the empirical evidence that concerns what I stated above=2E =3C=
/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3ESome people continue to believe that the Latin language structu=
re is artificially superimposed on the English language=2C but they forg=
et that language is a social phenomenon=2C and that we humans do constru=
ct=26nbsp=3Blanguage structure implicitly or explicitly=2E This fact is =
evident from information collected from humans who had never been social=
ized in language=2E Those people don=27t speak a human language=2C and i=
f they are beyond the critical period of language acquisition they are n=
ever able to acquire language=2C except for a few unstructured rudiments=
=2E =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EIf there is an =22universal grammar=22 as Chomsky has been clai=
ming for more than five decades=2C no linguist or other kind of scholar =
has=26nbsp=3Bbeen able to provide evidence for the claim=2E So=2C we rem=
ain with what is observable=3A language is a human construct=2C and whet=
her we differentiate between acquisition and learning or not=2C the bare=
truth is that without socialization in language no human will speak a h=
uman language=2E=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EEduard =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3EFrom=3A Cra=
ig Hancock =26lt=3Bhancock=40ALBANY=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3EDate=3A Wednesd=
ay=2C September 15=2C 2010 19=3A16=3CBR=3ESubject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3ET=
o=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I would express it somewhat=
differently=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Frequency is often=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B self=
-reinforcing=2E Frequency makes something more accessible for use=2C=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B which in turn makes it more frequent=2E And so on=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I just asked a friend how she li=
kes her new =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B job (from teacher to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B counse=
lor)=2C and she said =22I=27m liking it=2E=22 It occured to me that she=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B might not have said that without the influence of the McDo=
nald=27s ad=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Progressive is not common with stative ve=
rbs=2C but an ad campaign can=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B change that=2E=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Rather than intersection of word cla=
sses=2C it =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B might be more of an issue=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B of=
centrality=2E Some elements of the category are more central than=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B others=2C some more borderline or peripheral=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B You also have a tendency (from that cogn=
itive =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B frame of reference) to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B see far mo=
re lower level constructions=2E It=27s much more a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B lexic=
o-grammar than a set of abstract rules=2E (Pattern is closer than=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B rule=2E) A great deal of language includes set constructions=2C=
many of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B them with their own more local patterns=2E So i=
t could be that =22like=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B brings with it a unique kind =
of grammar=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Craig=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Geoff=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B You probably did not have time to read =22Frequency of Use and =
the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Organization of Language=22 by Joan Bybee=2C=
in which the author=2C after=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B decades of resear=
ch=2C documents that language organizes itself=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and t=
hat=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B parts of speech or word classes are not an =
idiot=27s fantasy=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B but one way in=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B which language acquires and shows structure=2E These word =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B classes are real=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B and understanding =
them makes a great difference when one =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B learns a=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E That difference goes beyond boundaries=2C =
which are =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B nothing more=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B than po=
ints at which word classes intersect=2E To inflate the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
importance of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B these points of intersection to a=
generality (which is a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B fallacy) shows=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in t=
he=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B production and conveyance of meaning - the m=
ain functions of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B language=2E=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Ori=
ginal Message -----=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Geoffrey Layton =26=
lt=3Bwritergwl=40HOTMAIL=2ECOM=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Date=3A =
Wednesday=2C September 15=2C 2010 16=3A13=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subje=
ct=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=
=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig - I know we=27ve had this discussion bef=
ore=2C but my reaction=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B is =22what diffe=
rence does it make what we call it=3F=22=26nbsp=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B see how you can have anything except flexible boun=
daries=2C which=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B then leads to the more =
interesting question of the rhetorical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
effect of =22shading=22 into a verb - what happens to the meaning of=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B the sentence=3F Labeling the choices as pr=
eopositions=2C adjectives=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B or verbs real=
ly doesn=27t go very far to answer this question=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Geoff Layton=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=2C=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B My first reaction was that this use of =22like=22 was adjectiva=
l=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B but since you want a traditional t=
reatment I checked the OED=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Online and M=
erriam Webster Dictionary Online=2E Both treat as an=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B adjective=2C although MW doesn=27t have an example with BE=
=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I am curious about how traditional grammar handle=
s =22like=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B sent=
ence like =22One of these things is not like the others=2E=22 (I=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B know=3B Sesame Street)=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B My instinct is to say =22like the others=22 is pre=
positional=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B phrase=2C complement to =22i=
s=22=2C therefore referring back=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B (adjec=
tivally=3F) to =22One of these things=2E=22 Would that be standard=3F=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B If it can be easily replaced by =
=22resembles=22 (or =22doesn=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B resemb=
le=22)=2C does that mean =22be like=22 is shading into a verb like=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B status with =22the others=22 as object=3F Are =
we OK with flexible=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B boundaries around o=
ur categories=3F=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please =
visit the list=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B interface at=3A=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2E=
html=26gt=3B=26gt=3B and select =22Join =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B or leave the li=
st=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or le=
ave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B web=
interface=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbs=
p=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//l=
istserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B and select =22Join =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave this LIS=
TSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface a=
t=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B http=3A//l=
istserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22=
Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27=
s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E
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/
--Boundary_(ID_iJnNXn17APzjFTDzsTtWBA)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:47:15 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:10:42 -0500
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar as patterns
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.=20
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.=20
Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no =
idea how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.=20
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.=20
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/=20
> > >>
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at:
> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
> >
> 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
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:13:25 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: like
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Craig,
I believe, like you do, that the notion of "flexible, dynamic patterns
sustained and reinforced by use" makes more sense. But that is just a facet
of the immensely complex system which is human language in its various forms
(languages, dialects, etc.).
Separating content from form is another absurdity that some people promote,
forgetting that these two aspects of language support each other, and cannot
be dissociated. We need to think more about Marshall McLuhan's statement
that "the medium is the message." I found this explanation of the statement
in Wikipedia:
"The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning
that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic
relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."
The axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in language
because meaning is encoded into the form through morphological and syntactic
devices which quite often seem to even transcend the "mechanics" of the
language. This becomes apparent when you notice the "simple" devices that
seem to have such an impact on communication - presuppositions, entailment,
conversational implicature, and of course, Grice's maxims.
I know, Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to encode meaning,
but that was pure nonsense ("I think that we are forced to conclude that
grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning..." - Syntactic Structures,
p. 17), and later he was forced to revise his claim because he could not go
beyond "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Syntactic Structures - p
15). I am sure that with time he "understood" that language is nothing like
his sentence, and that humans don't speak like that when they
communicate.What is funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all
this time grammar to convey meaningful messages to his audiences.
This reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to "show" that we
cannot communicate through language while he was attempting to communicate
this notion to me through his paper. He was using (without understanding)
the some stuff fromLeech (conceptual and associative meaning), Van Orman
Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and radical translation), Davidson (radical
interpretation), and Chomsky (grammar as autonomous and independent of
meaning) to "prove" his "point."
Eduard
Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
=3CDIV=3ECraig=2C=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EI believe=2C like you do=2C that the notion of =22flexible=2C d=
ynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use=22 makes more sense=2E B=
ut that is just a facet of the immensely complex system which is human l=
anguage in its various forms (languages=2C dialects=2C etc=2E)=2E=3C/DIV=
=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3ESeparating content from form is another absurdity that some peo=
ple promote=2C forgetting that these two aspects of language support eac=
h other=2C and cannot be dissociated=2E We need to think more about Mars=
hall McLuhan=27s statement that =22the medium is the message=2E=22 I fou=
nd this explanation of the statement in Wikipedia=3A=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=3CSTRONG=3E=22The medium is the message=3C/STRONG=3E is a phra=
se coined by =3CA title=3D=22Marshall McLuhan=22 href=3D=22/wiki/Marshal=
l=5FMcLuhan=22=3EMarshall McLuhan=3C/A=3E meaning that the form of a =3C=
A title=3DMedium href=3D=22/wiki/Medium=22=3Emedium=3C/A=3E embeds itsel=
f in the =3CA title=3DMessage href=3D=22/wiki/Message=22=3Emessage=3C/A=3E=
=2C creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how=
the message is perceived=2E=22=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EThe axiomatic truth is that there is no meaning without form in=
language because meaning is encoded into the form=26nbsp=3Bthrough morp=
hological and syntactic devices which quite often seem to even transcend=
the =22mechanics=22 of the language=2E This becomes apparent when you n=
otice=26nbsp=3Bthe =22simple=22 devices=26nbsp=3Bthat seem to have such =
an impact on communication -=26nbsp=3Bpresuppositions=2C entailment=2C=26=
nbsp=3Bconversational implicature=2C and of course=2C Grice=27s maxims=2E=
=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EI know=2C Chomsky (again) claimed that form does not need to en=
code meaning=2C but that=26nbsp=3Bwas pure nonsense=26nbsp=3B(=22I think=
that we are forced to=26nbsp=3Bconclude that=26nbsp=3B grammar is auton=
omous and independent of meaning=2E=2E=2E=22 - Syntactic Structures=2C p=
=2E=26nbsp=3B17)=2C and later he was forced to revise=26nbsp=3Bhis claim=
because he could not go beyond =22Colorless green ideas sleep furiously=
=22 (Syntactic Structures - p 15)=2E I am sure that with=26nbsp=3Btime h=
e =22understood=22 that=26nbsp=3B language is nothing like his sentence=2C=
and that humans don=27t speak like that when they communicate=2EWhat is=
funny is that he was contradicting himself by using all this time gramm=
ar to convey meaningful messages=26nbsp=3Bto his audiences=2E =3C/DIV=3E=
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EThis reminds me of one of my students who once attempted to =22=
show=22 that we cannot communicate through language while he was attempt=
ing to communicate this notion to me through his paper=2E He was using (=
without understanding) the=26nbsp=3Bsome stuff fromLeech (conceptual and=
associative meaning)=2C Van Orman Quine (indeterminacy of meaning and r=
adical translation)=2C Davidson (radical interpretation)=2C and Chomsky =
(grammar as autonomous and independent of meaning) to=26nbsp=3B=22prove=22=
his=26nbsp=3B =22point=2E=22 =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EEduard =3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EOriginal Message -----=3CBR=3EFrom=3A Craig Hancock =26lt=3Bhan=
cock=40ALBANY=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3EDate=3A Thursday=2C September 16=2C 2=
010 7=3A50=3CBR=3ESubject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3ETo=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EM=
UOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=
=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I agree that we are in rough agreement and =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B apologize for making my =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B post seem like somethi=
ng else=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B A big question might be =
whether the =22rules=22 are =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B there before use (and =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B thus predetermine it to large extent) or whether we are deal=
ing =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B with =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B flexible=2C dynamic patterns =
sustained and reinforced by use=2E I =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B would =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B embrace the latter=2C sometimes called =22usage-based=2E=22 Some pe=
ople =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B would =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B see grammatical forms as me=
aning-neutral (semantically and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B pragmatically)=2C with =
meanings added through the lexicon=2E It is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B also =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B possible to see that they are meaningful in their own right=2C =
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B deeply tied =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B to both cognition and disc=
ourse=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Patterns are sus=
tained to the extent that we =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B find them highly =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B productive=2E From this view=2C form ENABLES rather than constrain=
s=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B The =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B rules of prescriptive grammar=
tell us what we are not supposed =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B to do=2E =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B But without the natural grammar=2C no substantial meaning is =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B possible=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Frequency of a construct can also =
make us unaware of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B contributions =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B i=
t is making=2E There are those who say there is little value in =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B making =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B these conscious=2E I would disagree wit=
h that as well=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B To me=2C the chal=
lenge has always been how to present =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B views like this =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B on the list as perspective=2C not as argument=2E People li=
ke Bybee =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B are doing =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B wonderful work alon=
g these lines=2C and it would be good for the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B list to =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B be aware of it=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Craig=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard Hanganu wrote=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B Craig=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B I have no problem with the way you express the matters because =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B I don=27t =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B see too much of a differ=
ence between what I state and what you =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B state=2E =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B True=2C some elements of a category (word class) are m=
ore =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B reflect bette=
r the basic characteristics of that class=2E Other =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elem=
ents =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B are borderline or peripheral=2C and their=
characteristics =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B intersect with =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B elements of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B another class=2E On the whole=
=2C though=2C there are =22standard=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elements of =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B word classes=2C and there are =22peripheral=22 ele=
ments of such word =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B classes=2E Denial of such f=
acts=2C though=2C is a denial of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B empirical =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B evidence that concerns what I stated above=2E=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Some people continue =
to believe that the Latin language =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B structure is =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B artificially superimposed on the English language=2C b=
ut they =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B forget =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B that language =
is a social phenomenon=2C and that we humans do =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
construct language structure implicitly or explicitly=2E This =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B fact is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B evident from information collect=
ed from humans who had never =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B been =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B socialized in language=2E Those people don=27t speak a human =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B language=2C and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B if they are beyond th=
e critical period of language acquisition =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B they =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B are never able to acquire language=2C except for a few=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B unstructured =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B rudiments=2E=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B If there is a=
n =22universal grammar=22 as Chomsky has been =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B claiming =
for =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B more than five decades=2C no linguist or o=
ther kind of scholar =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B has been =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
able to provide evidence for the claim=2E So=2C we remain with =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B what is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B observable=3A language is a h=
uman construct=2C and whether we =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B differentiate=
between acquisition and learning or not=2C the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B bare tr=
uth =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B is that without socialization in language =
no human will speak =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B a human =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B l=
anguage=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message ---=
--=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Craig Hancock =26lt=3Bhancock=40ALBA=
NY=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Date=3A Wednesday=2C September=
15=2C 2010 19=3A16=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I would express it som=
ewhat differently=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Frequency is ofte=
n=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B self-reinforcing=2E Frequency makes =
something more accessible =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B for use=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B which in turn makes it more frequent=2E And so on=2E=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I =
just asked a friend how she likes =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B her new=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B job (from teacher to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
counselor)=2C and she said =22I=27m liking it=2E=22 It occured to me =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B that she=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might not have =
said that without the influence of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B McDonald=27s ad=2E=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Progressive is not common with stativ=
e verbs=2C but an ad =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B campaign can=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B change that=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Rather than intersection of word =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B classes=2C it=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might be more of a=
n issue=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B of centrality=2E Some elements=
of the category are more =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B others=2C some more borderline or peripheral=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B You a=
lso have a tendency (from that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B cognitive=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
frame of reference) to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B see far more l=
ower level constructions=2E It=27s much more a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules=2E (Pattern is =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B closer than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B rule=2E) A gr=
eat deal of language includes set constructions=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B many=
of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B them with their own more local pat=
terns=2E So it could be that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22like=22=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
brings with it a unique kind of grammar=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Geoff=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Y=
ou probably did not have time to read =22Frequency of Use =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
and the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Organization of Lang=
uage=22 by Joan Bybee=2C in which the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B author=2C after=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B decades of research=2C document=
s that language organizes itself=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B an=
d that=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B parts of speech or wor=
d classes are not an idiot=27s fantasy=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B but one way in=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B which lang=
uage acquires and shows structure=2E These word=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B classes are real=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
and understanding them makes a great difference when one=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B learns a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B l=
anguage=2E That difference goes beyond boundaries=2C which are=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B nothing more=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B than points at which word classes intersect=2E To inflate the=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B importance of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B these points of intersection to a generality (which is a=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B fallacy) shows=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B lack of understanding of the role of morphology and sy=
ntax =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Geoffrey Layton =26lt=3Bwriterg=
wl=40HOTMAIL=2ECOM=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Da=
te=3A Wednesday=2C September 15=2C 2010 16=3A13=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig - I know we=27ve h=
ad this discussion before=2C but my =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B reaction=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B is =22what difference does it make what we call =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B it=3F=22=26nbsp=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B see how you can have anything except flexible boun=
daries=2C which=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B then =
leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B effect of =22shading=22 into a verb =
- what happens to the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B meaning of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B the sentence=3F Labeling the choices as preop=
ositions=2C adjectives=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
or verbs really doesn=27t go very far to answer this question=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Geoff Layton=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
Craig=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B My first react=
ion was that this use of =22like=22 was adjectival=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B but since you want a traditional treatme=
nt I checked the OED=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online=2E Both treat =3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B as an=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B adjective=2C=
although MW doesn=27t have an example with BE=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I am c=
urious about how traditional grammar handles =22like=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B in a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
sentence like =22One of these things is not like the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B o=
thers=2E=22 (I=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B know=3B=
Sesame Street)=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B My instinct is to say =22like the others=22 is prepositional=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B phrase=2C complement to =22i=
s=22=2C therefore referring back=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B=26gt=3B (adjectivally=3F) to =22One of these things=2E=22 Would that=
be =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B standard=3F=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B If it can be easily replaced by =22resembles=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B (or=
=22doesn=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B resembl=
e=22)=2C does that mean =22be like=22 is shading into a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
verb like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B status wit=
h =22the others=22 as object=3F Are we OK with flexible=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B boundaries around our categories=3F=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B list=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B in=
terface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=
=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A=
//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B=26gt=3B and selec=
t =22Join=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or=
leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B web interface=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26n=
bsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2E=
muohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B and select =22Join=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s=
web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B and select =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s =
web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit th=
e list=27s =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A=
http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
and select =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at ht=
tp=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s we=
b =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E
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/
--Boundary_(ID_XvF2Fn7egqdcXTi0JfgLaA)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:27 -0500
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim that
our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input."
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the best way
to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be later
formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in the proverbial
anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him
through the keyhole. There is always something that we forgot to say, always
something left uncovered, something we misunderstood, and something we
never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
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/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
=3CDIV=3EBob=2C=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EOf course=2C it is true=26nbsp=3Bthat =22there is something inc=
omplete in a claim that our knowledge of language is based on patterns w=
e perceive from the input=2E=22 It is also true that using exceptions as=
examples is not always the best way to investigate language or to reach=
conclusions that could be later formulated=26nbsp=3Bor distilled into r=
ules=2E The fact is that=2C like in the proverbial anecdote=2C we are tr=
ying to draw the picture of an elephant looking at him through the keyho=
le=2E There is always something that we forgot to say=2C always somethin=
g left uncovered=2C something=26nbsp=3B we misunderstood=2C and somethin=
g we never learned=2E=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EAre we communicating=3F=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EEduard =3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3EFrom=
=3A Robert Yates =26lt=3Bryates=40UCMO=2EEDU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3EDate=3A Thur=
sday=2C September 16=2C 2010 9=3A16=3CBR=3ESubject=3A Grammar as pattern=
s=3CBR=3ETo=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Co=
lleagues=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Whether grammar is a set of=
rules or a set of=26nbsp=3B patterns =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B (learned from the=
input we get) is a discussion that has =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B occurred before=
on this list=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B If I understand the f=
ollowing correctly=2C (Craig writes=3A)=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=22we are dealing with flexible=2C dynamic patterns sustained and =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B reinforced by use=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B then t=
he claim is that we do not know very much about =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B grammat=
ical categories=2E=26nbsp=3B Such categories are the result of =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B the =22patterns=22 we are exposed to=2E=26nbsp=3B There are all ki=
nds of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B examples I could cite to show how such a common =
sense idea is =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B problematic=2C but let=27s consider two p=
airs of sentences=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Sentences 1 and 2 =
clearly have different meanings=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 1) B=
ob needs someone to work for=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 2)=26nbsp=3B Bob needs s=
omeone to work for him=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B In 1=2C Bob w=
ants to be the worker=2C and in 2=2C Bob is an employer=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B What is the =22pattern=22 we acquired that lead to tho=
se =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interpretations=3F=26nbsp=3B It is not just the pres=
ence or absence of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B the pronoun=2E Sentences 3 and 4 hav=
e the same meaning=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 3) These are the =
letters Bob threw away without reading=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B 4) There are t=
he letters Bob threw away without reading them=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories=2C=
I =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B have no idea how to explain the meanings of sentence=
s 1-4=2E =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B These sentences suggest there=
is something incomplete in a claim =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B that our knowledge =
of language is based on patterns we perceive =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B from the i=
nput=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Finally=2C Craig and I fundamen=
tally agree on one point=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B There are t=
hose who say there is little value in making=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B these consc=
ious=2E I would disagree with that as well=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B I could not agree more -- there is great value in making =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B conscious the knowledge of language that we all have=2E =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Bob Yates=2C University of Central Missouri=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig Hancock =26lt=3B=
hancock=40ALBANY=2EEDU=26gt=3B 9/16/2010 7=3A47 AM =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=26gt=
=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbs=
p=3B I agree that we are in rough agreement and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B apologi=
ze for making my=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B post seem like something else=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B A big question might be whether the =22rul=
es=22 are =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B there before use (and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B thus pr=
edetermine it to large extent) or whether we are dealing with=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B flexible=2C dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced by use=2E I =
would=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B embrace the latter=2C sometimes called =22usage-ba=
sed=2E=22 Some people would=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B see grammatical forms as mea=
ning-neutral (semantically and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B pragmatically)=2C with me=
anings added through the lexicon=2E It is also=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B possible =
to see that they are meaningful in their own right=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B d=
eeply tied=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B to both cognition and discourse=2E=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Patterns are sustained to the exten=
t that we =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B find them highly=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B productive=2E=
From this view=2C form ENABLES rather than constrains=2E The=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B rules of prescriptive grammar tell us what we are not supposed =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B to do=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B But without the natural grammar=2C=
no substantial meaning is possible=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Frequency of a co=
nstruct can also make us unaware of the contributions=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B it=
is making=2E There are those who say there is little value in making=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B these conscious=2E I would disagree with that as well=2E=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B To me=2C the challenge has always bee=
n how to present =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B views like this=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B on the=
list as perspective=2C not as argument=2E People like Bybee =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B are doing=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B wonderful work along these lines=2C and =
it would be good for the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B list to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B be awa=
re of it=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B Eduard Hanganu wrote=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=2C=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I have no problem with t=
he way you express the matters because =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B see too much of a difference between what I state and =
what you =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B state=2E=26gt=3B True=2C some elements of a ca=
tegory (word class) are more =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B reflect better the basic characteristics of that class=2E Othe=
r =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elements=26gt=3B are borderline or peripheral=2C and =
their =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B characteristics intersect with=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B or overlap the characteristics of peripheral or borderline =3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B elements of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B another class=2E On the wh=
ole=2C though=2C there are =22standard=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B elements of=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B word classes=2C and there are =22peripheral=22 el=
ements of such word=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B classes=2E Denial of such f=
acts=2C though=2C is a denial of the empirical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
evidence that concerns what I stated above=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Some people continue to believe that the Latin la=
nguage =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B structure is=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B artificial=
ly superimposed on the English language=2C but they forget=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B that language is a social phenomenon=2C and that we humans do=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B construct language structure implicitly or explic=
itly=2E This =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B fact is=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B evident f=
rom information collected from humans who had never been=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B socialized in language=2E Those people don=27t speak a human =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B language=2C and=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B if they are beyon=
d the critical period of language acquisition they=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B are never able to acquire language=2C except for a few unstructured=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B rudiments=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B If there is an =22universal grammar=22 as Chomsky has been=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B claiming for=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B more than five d=
ecades=2C no linguist or other kind of scholar =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B has been=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B able to provide evidence for the claim=2E So=2C=
we remain with =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B what is=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B observ=
able=3A language is a human construct=2C and whether we=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B differentiate between acquisition and learning or not=2C the =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B bare truth=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B is that without social=
ization in language no human will speak =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B a human=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message -----=3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Craig Hancock =26lt=3Bhancock=40ALBANY=2EE=
DU=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Date=3A Wednesday=2C September 15=2C=
2010 19=3A16=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I would express it som=
ewhat differently=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Frequency is ofte=
n=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B self-reinforcing=2E Frequency makes =
something more accessible =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B for use=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B which in turn makes it more frequent=2E And so on=2E=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B I =
just asked a friend how she likes =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B her new=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B job (from teacher to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
counselor)=2C and she said =22I=27m liking it=2E=22 It occured to me =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B that she=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might not have =
said that without the influence of the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B McDonald=27s ad=2E=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Progressive is not common with stativ=
e verbs=2C but an ad =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B campaign can=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B change that=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B Rather than intersection of word =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B classes=2C it=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B might be more of a=
n issue=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B of centrality=2E Some elements=
of the category are more =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B central than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B others=2C some more borderline or peripheral=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B You a=
lso have a tendency (from that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B cognitive=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
frame of reference) to=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B see far more l=
ower level constructions=2E It=27s much more a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules=2E (Pattern is =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B closer than=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B rule=2E) A gr=
eat deal of language includes set constructions=2C =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B many=
of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B them with their own more local pat=
terns=2E So it could be that =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22like=22=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
brings with it a unique kind of grammar=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Craig=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Geoff=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Y=
ou probably did not have time to read =22Frequency of Use =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
and the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Organization of Lang=
uage=22 by Joan Bybee=2C in which the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B author=2C after=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B decades of research=2C document=
s that language organizes itself=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B an=
d that=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B parts of speech or wor=
d classes are not an idiot=27s fantasy=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B but one way in=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B which lang=
uage acquires and shows structure=2E These word=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B classes are real=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
and understanding them makes a great difference when one=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B learns a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B l=
anguage=2E That difference goes beyond boundaries=2C which are=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B nothing more=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B than points at which word classes intersect=2E To inflate the=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B importance of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B these points of intersection to a generality (which is a=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B fallacy) shows=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B lack of understanding of the role of morphology and sy=
ntax =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in the=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =
production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B language=2E=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B Eduard=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B ----- Original Message -----=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B From=3A Geoffrey Layton =26lt=3Bwriterg=
wl=40HOTMAIL=2ECOM=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Da=
te=3A Wednesday=2C September 15=2C 2010 16=3A13=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig - I know we=27ve =
had this discussion before=2C but my =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B reaction=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B is =22what difference does it make what we call =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B it=3F=22=26nbsp=3B I don=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B see how you can have anything except flexible boun=
daries=2C which=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B then =
leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B effect of =22shading=22 into a verb =
- what happens to the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B meaning of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B the sentence=3F Labeling the choices as preop=
ositions=2C adjectives=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
or verbs really doesn=27t go very far to answer this question=2E=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Geoff Layton=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
Craig=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B My first react=
ion was that this use of =22like=22 was adjectival=2C=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B but since you want a traditional treatme=
nt I checked the OED=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =
Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online=2E Both treat =3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B as an=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B adjective=2C=
although MW doesn=27t have an example with BE=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B I am c=
urious about how traditional grammar handles =22like=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B in a=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=
sentence like =22One of these things is not like the =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B o=
thers=2E=22 (I=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B know=3B=
Sesame Street)=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B My instinct is to say =22like the others=22 is prepositional=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B phrase=2C complement to =22i=
s=22=2C therefore referring back=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B=26gt=3B (adjectivally=3F) to =22One of these things=2E=22 Would that=
be =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B standard=3F=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=
=3B If it can be easily replaced by =22resembles=22 =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B (or=
=22doesn=27t=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B resembl=
e=22)=2C does that mean =22be like=22 is shading into a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
verb like=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B status wit=
h =22the others=22 as object=3F Are we OK with flexible=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B boundaries around our categories=3F=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Craig=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the =3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B list=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B in=
terface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ate=
g=2Ehtml=26gt=3B=26gt=3B and select =22Join=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26=
gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s =
web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please=
visit the list=27s=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B web interface=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuo=
hio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml=26gt=3B and select =22Join=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web =
site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B To =
join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26g=
t=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =
http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site=
at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B =26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the lis=
t=27s web=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B interface at=3A http=3A//listserv=2Em=
uohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =26gt=3B =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/ =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =26gt=3B=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave=
this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B in=
terface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml =3CB=
R=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please vis=
it the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =26=
nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B=26nbsp=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/a=
rchives/ateg=2Ehtml=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=
=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A/=
/ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E
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/
--Boundary_(ID_OSbCmsKgA3ZDO+r4x8HP4A)--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:30:35 -0700
From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A Practical Question
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
=20
Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. 'In answering
the title's question, "Why Me?" the author....'
=20
He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
title and if so, where.
=20
I feel like it needs a comma but I don't want to put one in. What do you
folks think?
=20
Janet
=20
=20
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/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Our school librarian asked me o look at this =
sentence.
‘In answering the title’s question, “Why =
Me?” the
author….’ He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could =
put a
comma after the title and if so, where. I feel like it needs a comma but I don’t want =
to put
one in. What do you folks think? Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CB55BC.7F44F352--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:21:06 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:57:41 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A Practical Question
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet,
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be
inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefe=
r
that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
Q. When the appositive rule (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive=
)
bumps up against the rule that says a question mark shouldn=92t be directly
followed by a comma, which rule prevails? Here=92s the sentence: The album=
=92s
first single =93Do You Realize??=94 features a lush arrangement. Is it bett=
er to
set off =93Do You Realize??=94 with commas? Leave out the commas? Recast th=
e
sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Thanks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of *CMOS* recommends using a comma even after a
question mark if it would normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The
album=92s first single, =93Do You Realize??,=94 features a lush arrangement=
. Of
course, if you find that punctuation clump ugly, you=92re free to recast th=
e
sentence.
John
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Castilleja, Janet <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentence. =91In answering t=
he
> title=92s question, =93Why Me?=94 the author=85.=92
>
>
>
> He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could put a comma after the
> title and if so, where.
>
>
>
> I feel like it needs a comma but I don=92t want to put one in. What do yo=
u
> folks think?
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Janet, Q. When the appositive ru=
le (commas setting off a nonrestrictive appositive) bumps up against the ru=
le that says a question
mark shouldn=92t be directly followed by a comma, which rule prevails? H=
ere=92s the
sentence: The album=92s first single =93Do You Realize??=94 features
a lush arrangement. Is it better to set off =93Do You Realize??=94 with=
commas? Leave
out the commas? Recast the sentence (which is what I wound up doing)? Th=
anks for your thoughts.
A. The sixteenth edition of <=
i>CMOS recommends using a comma even after a question mark if it would =
normally be required (6.119). End of dilemma: The album=92s
first single, =93Do You Realize??,=94 features a lush arrangement. Of co=
urse, if you
find that punctuation clump ugly, you=92re free to recast the sentence.
Hi =A0 Our school librarian asked me o look at this sentenc=
e.=A0
=91In answering the title=92s question, =93Why Me?=94=A0 the
author=85.=92 =A0 He wanted to if In a sentence like this, he could pu=
t a
comma after the title and if so, where. =A0 I feel like it needs a comma but I don=92t want to p=
ut
one in. What do you folks think? =A0 Janet =A0 =A0
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cd6aa1793630490643027--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:09 -0400
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3367496470_314417
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Bob,
I know we=B9re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we=B9re
following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot help bu=
t
point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences used
in the related older postings aren=B9t the same; and all this without
positin=
g
a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you=B9re implying that
moder=
n
pattern-based approaches don=B9t use abstract grammatical categories, but
the=
y
do (at least, in a sense that=B9s relevant here).
I don=B9t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns
have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn=B9t be a
pattern
anyway; it=B9d be an instance. A category that can be realized as a range of
lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts as a grammatical
category, I=B9d think. It may not be only a grammatical category, but
that=B9s =
a
different =8B important, but different -- issue.
Here=B9s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it
run=
s
the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies for
deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we know
we don=B9t know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that
could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work
for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won=B9t get what
you want a good deal of the time =8B but it=B9s darn creative. If we assume
(1)=
,
and If it turns out that what=B9s actually produced isn=B9t the kind of
thing
we=B9d get from farming all the a priori possibilities, it makes sense that
something must be constraining those possibilities (and thus there=B9s a
clea=
r
need for a UG). Strategy (2), in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism,
as a limiter. It=B9s a bit like deciding that if you=B9ve been using onions
in =
a
recipe, and you=B9re out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than
chocolate as a stand-in. You won=B9t get noticed as a breakthrough chef,
but
your diner won=B9t go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strateg=
y
(1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were approaches
based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn=B9t do
(1),
but didn=B9t try to do things with language either =8B that their use of
language was rather like Pavlov=B9s dogs=B9 use of drool. No one likes the
strategy (0) approaches, really (unless they=B9ve been trained to). I
don=B9t
think we=B9re at a point where we can say children definitely use a
particula=
r
strategy to construct language, but I=B9d argue we can say that we can=B9t
rule
out strategy (1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research
devoted to each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
=20
>=20
> Robert Yates wrote:
>> =20
>> Colleagues,
>>=20
>> Whether grammar is a set of rules or a set of patterns (learned from th=
e
>> input we get) is a discussion that has occurred before on this list.
>>=20
>> If I understand the following correctly, (Craig writes:)
>>=20
>> "we are dealing with flexible, dynamic patterns sustained and reinforced=
by
>> use"
>>=20
>> then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical catego=
ries.
>> Such categories are the result of the "patterns" we are exposed to. The=
re
>> are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how such a common sense i=
dea
>> is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of sentences.
>>=20
>> Sentences 1 and 2 clearly have different meanings.
>>=20
>> 1) Bob needs someone to work for.
>> 2) Bob needs someone to work for him.
>>=20
>> In 1, Bob wants to be the worker, and in 2, Bob is an employer.
>>=20
>> What is the "pattern" we acquired that lead to those interpretations? I=
t is
>> not just the presence or absence of the pronoun. Sentences 3 and 4 have =
the
>> same meaning.
>>=20
>> 3) These are the letters Bob threw away without reading.
>> 4) There are the letters Bob threw away without reading them.
>>=20
>> Without making reference to abstract grammatical categories, I have no i=
dea
>> how to explain the meanings of sentences 1-4.
>>=20
>> These sentences suggest there is something incomplete in a claim that ou=
r
>> knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the input.
>>=20
>> Finally, Craig and I fundamentally agree on one point.
>>=20
>> There are those who say there is little value in making
>> these conscious. I would disagree with that as well.
>>=20
>> I could not agree more -- there is great value in making conscious the
>> knowledge of language that we all have.
>>=20
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>=20
>> =20
>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--B_3367496470_314417--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:05:28 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
Bob tells me this message came through to him as blank. Was that true
for everyone? At any rate, I'm resending it below, using this reply to
my own message as a mechanism. It's not the most articulate response I
have ever given, but I'll resend as is.
Craig>
Bob,
> Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
> I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence one, tonic
> prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
> From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can work
> for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve
> ways to articulate that relationship.
> I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious knowledge
> that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
> that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
> knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
> about it) are deeply interwoven.
>
> Craig
>
> Robert Yates wrote: 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 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 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 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/
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:24:08 -0500
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you=E2=80=99re implying that modern pattern-based approaches do=
n=E2=80=99t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that=E2=80=99s relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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 ther> 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 u> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 15 Sep 2010 to 16 Sep 2010 (#2010-155)
***********************************************************
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/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:58:31 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bob,
I'll try to address your sentence-set directly (that's the next customary move in our listserv debate pattern, isn't it? Or is that the part where I argue against a point you *didn't* make, and then look sheepish? I'll probably manage that next).
(1)a I want to have a beer.
(1)b I wanna have a beer.
(2)a Who do you want to speak to?
(2)b Who do you wanna speak to?
(3)a Who do you want to speak first?
(3)b ?Who do you wanna speak first?
I'm using an '?' rather than '*' on 3b mainly because (as I mentioned earlier) I think some people do say 'wanna' there, but for purposes of argument I'll accept it's out-of-bounds. I also drop the 't' in words like 'sentence', so it might be a more general dialect thing, rather than contraction. Now, I'd accept that there are different sets of analogous sentences for (1)/(2) vs. (3) -- we'd both say, I think, there's some kind of difference here. You're viewing the difference as primarily structural, in that (if I understand correctly), there's a kind of gap or null element in (3) intervening between 'want' and 'to' at some abstract level, and this intervening element blocks contraction. Sentences like (3) are thus in some sense similar to (4), below, but with a gap instead of the 'him':
(4) I persuaded him to speak first.
Sentences like (1) are analogous to (5a-b)
(5a) I must speak first.
(5b) I have to speak first.
Like you, I'd say that (3) is partly similar to (4), and (1) to (5), but I would constitute the difference differently. Speakers work with patterns/constructions, and they are able to recognize that a given sequence of words can sometimes be a realization of more than one type, just as they can recognize that a phonetic form like [lid] can be a realization of more than one lexical item. 'Must' in (5a) is a fixed unit, and even 'have to' in 5b is more of a fused sequence than is "persuaded ___ to" in (4), but that is a reflex of the fact that the semantics of mandatives involve an additional participant, which usually goes in object position.
This sounds like it's cycling back to your gap explanation, but there's a slight difference: I want to view the "semantic/pragmatic" motivation as primary (there's usually an object *because of* what the construction is used for), and I'd like to take into account frequency patterns in actual usage as motivators of further usage. Mandative constructions frequently have something between the verb and the 'to', and the exact word acting as that something can vary a good bit. It's comparatively rare to have an adverb getting in between the two parts of a quasimodal sequence, although "I want only to do what's right" and the like may count as examples of such.
So, when 'want' is being used in a mandative, it's functioning as part of a construction associated with a large number of similar cases in which a variable element immediately follows 'want' and the 'to' comes later. When it's being used as part of a quasimodal in a non-mandative construction, it's associated with a large number of similar cases in which the 'to' immediately follows it (if you don't like association with instances, think of it as a difference in how likely you are to be right if you predict that element following 'want' is 'to', depending on how you're using it). Listeners can distinguish the cases because they're not strings encountered in a vacuum; they're part of an interaction in which conversants do things with language. Phonological fusion effects, such as contraction, are influenced by frequency patterns. Mandative-want has a different frequency profile than quasimodal-want, and the speaker isn't (usually) confused about whether s/he's producing one or the other. A speaker using mandative-want is much less likely to contract it, because it's acting more like 'persuade', and s/he's used to it not always having the same thing after it.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Robert Yates
Sent: Thu 9/16/2010 10:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you're implying that modern pattern-based approaches don't use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that's relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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 ther> 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 u> 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:47:33 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626665A72FSEMAILfacult_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626665A72FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paula,
I apologize for not writing to you sooner, but the person who was the first to reply to my call for a reviewer of DOING GRAMMAR has not returned my e-mail messages.
So if you are still interested in reviewing the book for our journal, let me hear from you.
Marshall Myers
Book Review Editor
ATEG
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula R. Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
I am very interested.
My department was recently eliminated, and I am currently without a job.
pw
"A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle; it gains a greater brilliance."
====
________________________________
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:57:33 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
To: [log in to unmask]
I would be very interested.
Rebecca
________________________________
From: Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: I Need a Book Reviewer
Fellow Members,
Max Morenberg's DOING GRAMMAR has just been published in the fourth edition.
Is there somebody out there who hasn't reviewed a book for the JOURNAL who'd like to write a 250 word review of this book?
I'd appreciate anybody who could do it.
I can loan the boo to the reviewer.
Marshall Myers
Book Review Editor
Dept. of English
Eastern Kentucky University
521 Lancaster Ave.
Richmond, KY 40475
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/
--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626665A72FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paula, I apologize for not writing to you sooner, but the person who
was the first to reply to my call for a reviewer of DOING GRAMMAR has not
returned my e-mail messages. So if you are still interested in reviewing the book for our
journal, let me hear from you. Marshall Myers Book Review Editor ATEG From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula
R. Wood I am very interested. pw Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:57:33 +0000 From: Myers, Marshall
<[log in to unmask]> Fellow
Members, Max
Morenberg’s DOING GRAMMAR has just been published in the fourth edition. Is
there somebody out there who hasn’t reviewed a book for the JOURNAL who’d like
to write a 250 word review of this book? I’d
appreciate anybody who could do it. I
can loan the boo to the reviewer. Marshall
Myers Book
Review Editor Dept.
of English Eastern
Kentucky University 521
Lancaster Ave. Richmond,
KY 40475 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494441626665A72FSEMAILfacult_--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:54:26 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am interested in whether the following would be thought of as
consensus positions among those of you on list (self-proclaimed as
interested in the teaching of English grammar). I am certainly open to a
list discussion, but those of you who would feel more comfortable just
saying yes/no (or maybe) and/or those of you who would prefer to be
anonymous can also feel free to email me directly and save wear and tear
on the list. If the response is strong, I'll pass on the results. Unlike
some surveys in our recent history, I don't presuppose a right answer
and am happy to listen to nuanced responses. It's not a trick quiz.
1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens
naturally, without direct instruction.
2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it
happens without direct instruction.
3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most
part it happens without direct instruction.
4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it
happens without direct instruction.
5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it
happens without direct instruction.
6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct
instruction.
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:54:51 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Susan Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--------MB_8CD27BC761FFE2F_DA8_1FD02_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com"
----------MB_8CD27BC761FFE2F_DA8_1FD02_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I would love ot review your book. Just let me know what you need me to do.
Susan Jacobs
-----Original Message-----
From: Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, Sep 21, 2010 10:47 am
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
Paula,
I apologize for not writing to you sooner, but the person who was the first to reply to my call for a reviewer of DOING GRAMMAR has not returned my e-mail messages.
So if you are still interested in reviewing the book for our journal, let me hear from you.
Marshall Myers
Book Review Editor
ATEG
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula R. Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
I am very interested.
My department was recently eliminated, and I am currently without a job.
pw
"A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle; it gains a greater brilliance."
====
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:57:33 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
To: [log in to unmask]
I would be very interested.
Rebecca
From: Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: I Need a Book Reviewer
Fellow Members,
Max Morenberg’s DOING GRAMMAR has just been published in the fourth edition.
Is there somebody out there who hasn’t reviewed a book for the JOURNAL who’d like to write a 250 word review of this book?
I’d appreciate anybody who could do it.
I can loan the boo to the reviewer.
Marshall Myers
Book Review Editor
Dept. of English
Eastern Kentucky University
521 Lancaster Ave.
Richmond, KY 40475
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/
----------MB_8CD27BC761FFE2F_DA8_1FD02_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
----------MB_8CD27BC761FFE2F_DA8_1FD02_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:58:48 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Craig,
I'm putting my answers below, but I'm (predictably) going to quibble on the
wording in a couple of places, and I'm not up on reading-pedagogy, so I'm
probably doing the old politician's trick of taking what I think is the case
and assuming it's the consensus.
--- Bill Spruiell
> 1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens
> naturally, without direct instruction.
I think a lot of researchers would ask what "easy" means here. Children
acquire language largely unconsciously, but they practice a *lot*. They
don't make judgments about difficulty the way older kids and adults do, and
as adults, we don't remember what language-learning was like when we were
very young (except for some flashbulb memories, etc.). So, kids might
perceive the process as extremely hard -- but how would we know? They
certainly seem frustrated sometimes. When we say it's easy for them, what
we're really saying is something like, "Wow -- they're picking that up FAST.
It must be easy for them." And most of us haven't been in a 24-hour-a-day
foreign-language immersion program for two years, so we don't have a good
sense of how much *we'd* pick up in that time. Yes on the "naturally";
yes-ish on the "without direct instruction." There's lots of modeling in the
input, but that's indirect instruction by most standards.
> 2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
Yes on the first part. On the second part, whether being interactively read
with counts as direct instruction (e.g., caregiver with picture book reading
with child) would be important for characterizing a consensus position.
> 3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most
> part it happens without direct instruction.
Yes on first part, no on second except for people who spend lots of time
reading material written in standard English and trying to interact.
> 4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
Yes on first, second variable depending on what counts as "direct
instruction." Discussions *about* reading count?
> 5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
Yes on the first. Usual issue with "direct instruction" on the second.
> 6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct
> instruction.
Depends on what it is about language that you're learning. Learning to
associate particular types of languages with different situations that you
interact in every day is -- if not easy -- fairly automatic. Becoming
*aware* of your own language use is much harder. Structurally analyzing
language requires direct instruction.
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:38:53 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--00c09f9b0752dad4620490ca2d8f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Craig:
1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens naturally,
> without direct instruction.
>
I agree with the intent if not the phrasing. A "native speaker" presumably
already *knows *the language. How about "Children effortlessly learn any
language to which they are exposed. It happens naturally, without direct
instruction."
>
> 2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
>
> 3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most
> part it happens without direct instruction.
>
I'm not sure what you mean. Children of parents who speak standard English
learn it effortlessly. It is hard for students who have not been exposed to
standard English outside the classroom to learn it inside the classroom--but
that takes direct instruction, so it must not be what you mean.
>
> 4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
>
> 5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it happens
> without direct instruction.
>
> 6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct
> instruction.
>
Learning *about *language involves conscious knowledge and requires effort
and direct instruction (or, in some cases, original research). Language
knowledge per se (i.e., internalized knowledge that enables us to speak and
understand language) is unconscious and effortlessly acquired. The conscious
mind has no direct access to unconscious knowledge so acquiring conscious
knowledge requires effort.
Perhaps you might replace "is easy" and "is hard" with "requires no effort"
and "requires effort."
Dick
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/
--00c09f9b0752dad4620490ca2d8f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig:
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--00c09f9b0752dad4620490ca2d8f--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:07:01 +0000
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_IdO/Qu5jWtzYsSYGl4VaMg)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_IdO/Qu5jWtzYsSYGl4VaMg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Good afternoon to all... I suppose I'm more interested in the frame of these questions than the answers, which would probably be reiterations of categorical positions published ad nauseum.
So, what went wrong in number 6 that someone, after climbing these scaffolds of language acquisition and usage to points of complexity, finally needed a helping hand? No direct instruction suddenly until then? Seems to me the learning enough for 6 is done directly via 1 through 5.
I'll respectfully argue two points only, from here in the (gasp!) High School English class, 11th grade:
4) a. Successful student readers read consistently at a variety of levels (scholarly texts and otherwise, big L and little l). They are instructed directly by those texts, if by nothing else. Let's explore and expand what "direct" instruction really means. Beyond that, each class discussion we have builds comprehension beyond a given text and toward the next one read. Is the community of practice not an active agent of direct instruction? Ask Vigotsky.
b. Successful student readers do bring intuitive strategies to a text; none, however, acquire and build a metalanguage about those strategies (or those we as teachers make available) on their own. They're able to read and comprehend complex texts because they've made the conscious effort or have been taught how to.
5) a) The least successful student writers don't read much, nor do they purpose of their own volition to write much. What would be assessed as "effective writing" for them?
b) Just let them write... If this is true, I suppose we can eliminate all the college courses titled "Writing Effective Prose," "Comp 101," etc., since students will safely get to senior year one way or another... Let Elbow and Hillocks read and grade their papers when they get there.
c) I teach essential grammar skills in a secondary language arts "lit" class, and I've seen and measured, formatively and authentically, how those skills help improve my students' reading and writing over time. I guess that's about as directly as I can put it.
Sincerely,
John
1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens naturally, without direct instruction.
2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct instruction.
> 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/
>
John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School
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/
--Boundary_(ID_IdO/Qu5jWtzYsSYGl4VaMg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_IdO/Qu5jWtzYsSYGl4VaMg)--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:33:21 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Yes to number 1
For numbers 2, 3, and 5, I'd say that some people learn to do these
things without direct instruction. And how "hard" it is depends on
the individual. (My dear wife learned how to read at about the age of
four, without any instruction.)
Item 4: Where/When does "direct instruction" in reading complex texts
occur? It only happened to me once, as a college senior in a course
called Colloquium. An instructor sat at either end of a long table,
with four students on each side. They would ask questions such as,
"Point out something PARTICULARLY subtle about this book," and call
on each student in turn. And then they cut us down, regardless of
what we said. I'd call this rather indirect instruction, though I
learned more about how to read complex texts from this course than
from any other.
I don't much care for six. Learning WHAT about language, and how
deeply?
On Sep 21, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> I am interested in whether the following would be thought of as
> consensus positions among those of you on list (self-proclaimed as
> interested in the teaching of English grammar). I am certainly open
> to a list discussion, but those of you who would feel more
> comfortable just saying yes/no (or maybe) and/or those of you who
> would prefer to be anonymous can also feel free to email me directly
> and save wear and tear on the list. If the response is strong, I'll
> pass on the results. Unlike some surveys in our recent history, I
> don't presuppose a right answer and am happy to listen to nuanced
> responses. It's not a trick quiz.
>
> 1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens
> naturally, without direct instruction.
>
> 2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part
> it happens without direct instruction.
>
> 3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the
> most part it happens without direct instruction.
>
> 4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
>
> 5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it
> happens without direct instruction.
>
> 6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without
> direct instruction.
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:06:32 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error:
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-274117051-1285113992=:32389--
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:36:35 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens naturally, without direct instruction.
Yes, three-year olds do it, and can often learn two languages at the same time (and keep them separate).
> 2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
Some people are born able and motivated to do this; others not only need direct instruction, but also direct motivation.
> 3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
Verbal and as a first language is easy. But written and as a second language is often hard; some people have innate abilities with either or both and others struggle.
> 4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
Some people have innate abilities but cannot explain how they know what they know. Direct instruction helps them as well as those who do not even have innate abilities.
> 5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
Same as #4, and there are many students who THINK they have innate abilities in writing effectively but do not. It is harder to prove to them that they are not good writers than it is to prove to others that they have difficulty reading complex texts. Students can be objectively tested to prove that they are missing things in a complex text, but no objective test has been designed to prove to students that their writing is awkward and uninspired.
> 6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct instruction.
Very true for most students because those who can do it innately don't often know what it is that they are doing so well. This is true of all subject areas. You can be a good comedian and not know why and thus will never be a great one because you can't improve on your innate ability. Grammar helps mediocre writers become better writers.
Susan
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:40:38 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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=======================================================================Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:52:17 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a good faith
summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if I am
leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and I’ll try
to include those in a blanket response.
1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion that
people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they are
growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be wrong to
assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from the
outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or interaction might
be part of it.
2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels of
literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability and
motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and engagement
with complex texts or ‘being interactively read to.” In those cases, it
would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but perhaps the
result of being in the right kind of language environment.
3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that it
comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire language,
but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard for those
students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they seem to
require some attention and instruction.
4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading and
conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One person off
list mentioned that he has developed much more effective strategies for
reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been given them
earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often “instructed
directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree, but it’s
a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up intuitively?
The lack of input from elementary school teachers may be worth noting.
It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then doing
reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to focus on
literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus whole
language debate?
5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires direct
instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One respondent
says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually doesn’t.
Another says that students often overvalue their writing and need a
wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what they are
writing would create an environment in which they might learn to write
without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is that
writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language” as
somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct instruction
is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on their own.)
There was some questioning of the value of learning about language
outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be easy,
but much of it is hard.
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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:06:52 +0000
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
On #1, I think there is quite a bit of brain research that shows that children learn language much better/faster when they hear what I think is called reduced speech. We don't show a child a ball and say, "This is an orange and red ball with white stripes." We say,"ball." This is really direct instruction. I was also thinking this morning about how long it takes for children to get many sounds in the language right, even when they hear them over and over. (not unlike adults learning a new language) I have also noticed with my two granddaughters that they often do not say a word until they are sure they can say it, so they seem to have some self-monitoring going on.
Edith Wollin
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a good faith
summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if I am
leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
I have received some posts that didn't go out to the list, and I'll try
to include those in a blanket response.
1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion that
people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they are
growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be wrong to
assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from the
outside. It's also not clear what kind of modeling or interaction might
be part of it.
2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels of
literacy is rare. There's not a clear consensus on how "direct
instruction" might influence that. A few people mention ability and
motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and engagement
with complex texts or 'being interactively read to." In those cases, it
would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but perhaps the
result of being in the right kind of language environment.
3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that it
comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire language,
but not so easily to those who don't. Standard English is hard for those
students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they seem to
require some attention and instruction.
4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading and
conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One person off
list mentioned that he has developed much more effective strategies for
reading complex texts "later in life" and wishes he had been given them
earlier. I like John's observation, that readers are often "instructed
directly by the texts" they are reading. I'm not sure I agree, but it's
a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up intuitively?
The lack of input from elementary school teachers may be worth noting.
It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then doing
reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to focus on
literary texts. What's the current status of the phonics versus whole
language debate?
5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires direct
instruction, especially for those who don't do it well. One respondent
says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually doesn't.
Another says that students often overvalue their writing and need a
wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what they are
writing would create an environment in which they might learn to write
without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is that
writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
interpreted. For those who interpreted "leaning about language" as
somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct instruction
is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on their own.)
There was some questioning of the value of learning about language
outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be easy,
but much of it is hard.
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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:25:02 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_TrDzlqmWBolZgLfUNiBx0A)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_TrDzlqmWBolZgLfUNiBx0A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Craig,
I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up. They are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup.
Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you people need to read something recent before you think through the same questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new millenium in language:
1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
and,
"Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing (acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit instruction into the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.
You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or ‘being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
--Boundary_(ID_TrDzlqmWBolZgLfUNiBx0A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_TrDzlqmWBolZgLfUNiBx0A)--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:03:28 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Edith,
That sounds like a good description of what I did routinely with my
own children--taking time to name things. One variant would be sitting
with a picture book and naming the various things in the pictures.
I think we also socialize our children into language in other ways.
We ask them to say please and thank you, to say they are sorry when they
have done something wrong, to "ask nicely," and so on.
If language is a "social semiotic," then we learn about the world and
learn the language that goes with that at the same time.
Craig
Wollin, Edith wrote:
> On #1, I think there is quite a bit of brain research that shows that children learn language much better/faster when they hear what I think is called reduced speech. We don't show a child a ball and say, "This is an orange and red ball with white stripes." We say,"ball." This is really direct instruction. I was also thinking this morning about how long it takes for children to get many sounds in the language right, even when they hear them over and over. (not unlike adults learning a new language) I have also noticed with my two granddaughters that they often do not say a word until they are sure they can say it, so they seem to have some self-monitoring going on.
> Edith Wollin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
>
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn't go out to the list, and I'll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from the
> outside. It's also not clear what kind of modeling or interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels of
> literacy is rare. There's not a clear consensus on how "direct
> instruction" might influence that. A few people mention ability and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and engagement
> with complex texts or 'being interactively read to." In those cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire language,
> but not so easily to those who don't. Standard English is hard for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective strategies for
> reading complex texts "later in life" and wishes he had been given them
> earlier. I like John's observation, that readers are often "instructed
> directly by the texts" they are reading. I'm not sure I agree, but it's
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up intuitively?
> The lack of input from elementary school teachers may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to focus on
> literary texts. What's the current status of the phonics versus whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires direct
> instruction, especially for those who don't do it well. One respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually doesn't.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted "leaning about language" as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:13:07 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eduard,
I'm not trying to sum up the conversation to this point as if it
were somehow conclusive. I actually thought of it as a kind of
research--not into language acquisition, but into the general views
about language acquisition that people on the list bring to our teaching
or our language discussions. I am trying to act as moderator, which
means I'm being a little careful not to argue too stridently for a position.
I agree that there is a new perspective developing through
usage-based approaches, and the people developing it are looking closely
at what actually happens. If they are right, there are implications for
teaching that grow out of that.
But maybe you could address that question. If language, including
grammar, is not innate, but learned interactively, how should that
affect our teaching?
Craig
Eduard Hanganu wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome
> where people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams,
> stories, and all kinds of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all
> these language opinions based on personal FEELINGS. But this is not
> RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth three coffee beans because
> there is no empirical evidence to back them up. They are what people
> get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the day
> will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup.
>
> Research is something completely different. Most of those who
> participated in your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic
> Structures." But things have moved on. There is new reading. The
> "language organ" or Universal Grammar was an interesting idea fifty
> years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you people need to
> read something recent before you think through the same questions.
> There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool
> denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
>
> I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into
> the new millenium in language:
>
> 1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
> 2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
>
> and,
>
> "Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for
> language learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
>
> You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A
> language." Any language, or just English? Considering the provincial
> perspective that dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than
> obvious that "A language" was referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about
> learning French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same
> responses apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing (acquisition)" one
> of the above languages without any explicit instruction into the
> language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
>
> Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People
> canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the
> language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the
> Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even
> intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive
> explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and
> other European languages.
>
> You people need to get off your native dream horses, read
> some language research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the
> whole matter. Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
>
> Eduard
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
> Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> > good faith
> > summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> > I am
> > leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
> >
> > I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> > I’ll try
> > to include those in a blanket response.
> >
> > 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> > that
> > people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> > are
> > growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> > wrong to
> > assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> > the
> > outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> > interaction might
> > be part of it.
> >
> > 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> > of
> > literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> > instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> > and
> > motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> > engagement
> > with complex texts or ‘being interactively read to.” In those
> > cases, it
> > would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> > perhaps the
> > result of being in the right kind of language environment.
> >
> > 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> > it
> > comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> > language,
> > but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> > for those
> > students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> > seem to
> > require some attention and instruction.
> >
> > 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> > instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> > and
> > conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> > person off
> > list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> > strategies for
> > reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> > given them
> > earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> > “instructed
> > directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> > but it’s
> > a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> > intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> > may be worth noting.
> > It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> > doing
> > reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> > focus on
> > literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> > whole
> > language debate?
> >
> > 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> > direct
> > instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> > respondent
> > says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> > doesn’t.
> > Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> > need a
> > wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> > they are
> > writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> > write
> > without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> > that
> > writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
> >
> > 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> > interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> > as
> > somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> > instruction
> > is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> > their own.)
> > There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> > language
> > outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> > easy,
> > but much of it is hard.
> >
> > 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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:59 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eduard,
I have read Sampson's book, and there is less there than you think.
Reread the chapter when he goes in search of input that children get to
"learn" that (1) is not possible, but (2) is.
1) * Is the woman who my neighbor is from France?
2) Is the woman who is my neighbor from France?
He can find only one example.
I don't know Polish, but I do know German. When I was learning German,
I was in Germany and talking with my four year old German niece (my wife
is German). At four, my German niece had all the grammatical genders
like a native speaker and had the case and gender inflections correct.
She had verb second in main clauses and SOV order in sub In fact, I
even heard her use the subjunctive for reported speech. I was learning
this explicitly and was never native-like. It is possible for a four
year old to be smarter than someone in his early thirties, I guess, but
in most domains that is clearly not the case. Of course, the innatist
hypothesis explains why this four year old was better than a
thirty-something, but I wonder how the "new millennium" theory would
account for this.
I question the statement about German. When you look at the "ask the
grammar expert" sites on German, the issues are not ones that show wide
variation. They are like the questions of using the subjunctive in
English or the who/whom distinction.
(By the way, I suspect the issue in Polish, as it is for other Slavic
languages, is the learning of the standard language.)
The native speaker "myth" is the result of people who are studying
world Englishes. And, it is clear there are variety of English that
have forms not found in the major countries where English is the first
language of most people. So, what? There is an internal language and
an external language. Everyone of us has a grammar for English and no
one individual grammar has to be like everyone else's. However, there
are vast areas of grammar that we all have the same principles.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 9/23/2010 6:25 AM >>>
Craig,
I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where
people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories,
and all kinds of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these
language opinions based on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH.
Your conclusions are not worth three coffee beans because there is no
empirical evidence to back them up. They are what people get when they
turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the day will run from the
designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup.
Research is something completely different. Most of those who
participated in your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic
Structures." But things have moved on. There is new reading. The
"language organ" or Universal Grammar was an interesting idea fifty
years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you people need to
read something recent before you think through the same questions. There
is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool denied
and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into
the new millenium in language:
1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
and,
"Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for
language learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A
language." Any language, or just English? Considering the provincial
perspective that dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious
that "A language" was referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning
French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses
apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing (acquisition)" one of the
above languages without any explicit instruction into the language do as
well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People
canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the
language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish
language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate
levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction.
The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European
languages.
You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language
research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter.
Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or â€being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:54:38 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3368105678_512138"
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3368105678_512138
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Eduard:
A few points --
(1) Arguments about universal grammar, etc. have bearing really on Craigąs
first question, not the other five. Unless Standard English is the childąs
first language (and it pretty much never is), łschool English˛ is an
additional code, and even ardent innatists (or, particularly, ardent
innatists) would not argue itąs acquired/learned the same way. And no one
claims literacy and composition skills are innate; the arguments are over
conscious attention and the effects of intervention.
(2) Craig has already made this next point, I think, but it bears repeating:
asking what people think the consensus about X is is different from asking
what X is.
(3) I take your real objection to be something along the lines of, łif this
is the consensus on (1), the consensus is wrong.˛ I happen to agree with
most of Sampsonąs positions, and I can bore you half to death kvetching
about Chomsky. But to characterize his position as łdead˛ or simply passé
is to adopt one of his more annoying rhetorical practices. There is current
research on the specific-innatist side, and current research on the
emergentist side. I happen to think evidence the latter is stronger, but
then I would, wouldnąt I? We all have to acknowledge the possibility of
bias.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
On 9/23/10 7:25 AM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people
> come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds
> of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based
> on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth
> three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up.
> They are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine
> how the day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of
> that cup.
>
> Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in
> your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have
> moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was
> an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But
> you people need to read something recent before you think through the same
> questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his
> scool denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
>
> I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new
> millenium in language:
>
> 1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
> 2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
>
> and,
>
> "Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language
> learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
>
> You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any
> language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that
> dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was
> referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German,
> Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple
> "stealing (acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit
> instruction into the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
>
> Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot
> learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high
> morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the
> native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without
> hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French,
> Spanish, and other European languages.
>
> You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language
> research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is
> a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
>
> Eduard
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
> Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> > I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
>> > good faith
>> > summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
>> > I am
>> > leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>> >
>> > I have received some posts that didnąt go out to the list, and
>> > Iąll try
>> > to include those in a blanket response.
>> >
>> > 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
>> > that
>> > people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
>> > are
>> > growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
>> > wrong to
>> > assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
>> > the
>> > outside. Itąs also not clear what kind of modeling or
>> > interaction might
>> > be part of it.
>> >
>> > 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
>> > of
>> > literacy is rare. Thereąs not a clear consensus on how łdirect
>> > instruction˛ might influence that. A few people mention ability
>> > and
>> > motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
>> > engagement
>> > with complex texts or Śbeing interactively read to.˛ In those
>> > cases, it
>> > would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
>> > perhaps the
>> > result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>> >
>> > 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
>> > it
>> > comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
>> > language,
>> > but not so easily to those who donąt. Standard English is hard
>> > for those
>> > students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
>> > seem to
>> > require some attention and instruction.
>> >
>> > 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
>> > instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
>> > and
>> > conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
>> > person off
>> > list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
>> > strategies for
>> > reading complex texts łlater in life˛ and wishes he had been
>> > given them
>> > earlier. I like Johnąs observation, that readers are often
>> > łinstructed
>> > directly by the texts˛ they are reading. Iąm not sure I agree,
>> > but itąs
>> > a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
>> > intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
>> > may be worth noting.
>> > It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
>> > doing
>> > reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
>> > focus on
>> > literary texts. Whatąs the current status of the phonics versus
>> > whole
>> > language debate?
>> >
>> > 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
>> > direct
>> > instruction, especially for those who donąt do it well. One
>> > respondent
>> > says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
>> > doesnąt.
>> > Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
>> > need a
>> > wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
>> > they are
>> > writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
>> > write
>> > without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
>> > that
>> > writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>> >
>> > 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
>> > interpreted. For those who interpreted łleaning about language˛
>> > as
>> > somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
>> > instruction
>> > is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
>> > their own.)
>> > There was some questioning of the value of learning about
>> > language
>> > outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
>> > easy,
>> > but much of it is hard.
>> >
>> > 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/
--B_3368105678_512138
Content-type: text/html;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--B_3368105678_512138--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:04:16 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0015175cb1d46df3430490f4713f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Eduard,
Are you saying a Polish child whose parents constantly speak Polish around
her but lack the time or inclination to give her "hard and extensive
explicit instruction" will grow up unable to speak Polish? And you say this
is true of most European languages? But not English? Are there millions of
Europeans who cannot converse apart from muttering a few phrases? I'm trying
to imagine medieval Europe with a largely impoverished and illiterate
population and presumably few with the time or qualifications to give this
hard and extensive instruction. It's a wonder that those languages survived.
I also like this list in that the dialogue is generally polite and free of
snide remarks and biting sarcasm. On the other hand my research shows that
simple exposure to your messages enables one to become fluent in sarcasm
without any hard or extensive instruction at all.
Dick
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where
> people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and
> all kinds of fiction....
> Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot
> learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language.
> The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language
> prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the
> language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies
> to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.
>
> You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language
> research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky
> is a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
>
> Eduard
>
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/
--0015175cb1d46df3430490f4713f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eduard,
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0015175cb1d46df3430490f4713f--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:25:12 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3F0130A4EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3F0130A4EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Apropos the current thread, the following was posted today on the American Dialect Society list.
Herb
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society <[log in to unmask]GA.EDU Apropos the current thread, the following was posted today on the American Dialect Society list. Herb ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Craig, I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up. They are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup. Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you people need to read something recent before you think through the same questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED. I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new millenium in language: 1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies. 2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson. and, "Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language learning," by Ewa Dabrowska. You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing (acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit instruction into the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!" Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages. You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky! Eduard 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3F0130A4EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:26:55 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1558917041-1285320415=:74434"
As a gardner who grows his own chiles, I
--0-1558917041-1285320415=:74434
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Are insects "animals?"Â
As a gardner who grows his own chiles, I have to disagree with the hypothesis --
not to mention the use of my name in front of it! I have observed otherwise.
With tongue firmly "planted" in cheek,
Paul
 "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable
fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
________________________________
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, September 23, 2010 11:25:12 PM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Apropos the current thread, the following was posted today on the American
Dialect Society list.
Â
Herb
Â
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: Â Â Â American Dialect Society <[log in to unmask]>
Poster: Â Â Â "Joel S. Berson" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Â Â Â Refutation of Chomsky?*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not language that distinguishes humans from all other animals.
“Philosophers have often looked for the defining
feature of humans — language, rationality,
culture and so on. I’d stick with this: Man is
the only animal that likes Tabasco
sauce.”[1].  (I would add primatologists and linguists.)
"There's not a single animal that likes hot peppers."[2][3]
[1] Â Paul Bloom, a Yale psychologist
[2] Â Paul Rozin, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist.
[3] Â Animals of certain classes. Â Birds have no
problem with capsican. Â [Gorman,.]
In "A Perk of Our Evolution: Pleasure in Pain of
Chilies," by James Gorman, "Science Times," The
New York Times, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2010, Page D1.
http://tinyurl.com/28zupcv
Perhaps we can call this the "Paul Hypothesis."
* If this is not one of Chomsky's theses, but
that of other linguists, I apologize to him and to the members of this list.
Joel
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Â
From:Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Â
Craig,
Â
I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people
come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds of
fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based on
personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth
three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up. They
are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the
day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup.
Â
Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in
your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have
moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was
an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you
people need to read something recent before you think through the same
questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool
denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
Â
I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new
millenium in language:
Â
1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
Â
and,
Â
"Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language
learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
Â
You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any
language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that dominates
this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was referring to
ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian,
etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing
(acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit instruction into
the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
Â
Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot
learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language.
The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language
prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the
language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to
German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.
Â
You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language
research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is a
past thing! Long live Chomsky!
Â
Eduard Â
Â
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Â I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or â€being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> Craig
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> Â Â Â Â 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/
--0-1558917041-1285320415=:74434
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Apropos the current thread, the following was posted today on the American Dialect Society list. Herb ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Craig, I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up. They are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup. Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you people need to read something recent before you think through the same questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED. I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new millenium in language: 1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies. 2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson. and, "Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language learning," by Ewa Dabrowska. You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing (acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit instruction into the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!" Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages. You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky! Eduard 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/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1558917041-1285320415=:74434--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:05:58 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:18:02 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--00c09f972a7d52303904910135b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts sharply with the
message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list, but members
should know what to expect if they reply to him.
Dick
Richard,
I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You are a piece
of CRAP.
Eduard
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dick,
> I agree very much that we have to locate abilities within the child that
> account for the acquisition of language. The difference of opinion seems to
> be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child can acquire
> language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes. Either way, it
> is a remarkable task.
> Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and "pattern finding" as central.
> Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language without
> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we might be picking up
> might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning pairings, which
> allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in uniquely
> human ways. How do we account for the ability to construct texts, which some
> of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a language
> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year olds win Pulitzer
> Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want to posit the
> possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and Standard English
> correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> I just question the assumption--I don't mean that all generativists
> believe that--that literacy is just something that happens more or less
> according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> environment.
>
> 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/
--00c09f972a7d52303904910135b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts sharply with the message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list, but members should know what to expect if they reply to him.
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--00c09f972a7d52303904910135b4--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:41:34 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_UZpSPVTVGv7EhLgv7aC9lg)"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_UZpSPVTVGv7EhLgv7aC9lg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Richard,
I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings:
_______________
See what I mean?
The bastard back-doored you.
He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better.
You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing.
"Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades.
Let it go!
_________________
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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/
--Boundary_(ID_UZpSPVTVGv7EhLgv7aC9lg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
See what I mean? The bastard back-doored you. He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better. You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing. "Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades. Let it go!
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_UZpSPVTVGv7EhLgv7aC9lg)--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:26:43 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
See
what I mean? The
bastard back-doored you. He
thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better. You'll
never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he
will keep doing. "Members
should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as
well, in spades. Let
it go! Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:41:32 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3F0130AEEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3F0130AEEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Richard,
I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings:
_______________
See what I mean?
The bastard back-doored you.
He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better.
You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing.
"Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades.
Let it go!
_________________
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask] I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Richard, I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings: _______________ See what I mean? The bastard back-doored you. He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better. You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing. "Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades. Let it go! _________________ Eduard 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C3F0130AEEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:27:34 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: William Spruiell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3368186854_88500"
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3368186854_88500
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
And notice that you can take a filling that has chili pepper in it, and
stuff a chili pepper with it. Chilis are recursive!
---- Bill Spruiell
On 9/24/10 2:41 PM, "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
>
>
>
>
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/
--B_3368186854_88500
Content-type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--B_3368186854_88500--
========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:41:52 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Richard, I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings: _______________ See what I mean? The bastard back-doored you. He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better. You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing. "Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades. Let it go! _________________ Eduard 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/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1911044093-1285368112=:447--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:22:17 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA07EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA07EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul,
Easy for you to say. Your name's on the Capsicum Innateness Hypothesis.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 6:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
My new campaign slogan:
"Hot peppers, Yes; Invective, No!"
Paul
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
________________________________
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 2:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Richard,
I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings:
_______________
See what I mean?
The bastard back-doored you.
He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better.
You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing.
"Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades.
Let it go!
_________________
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask] Paul, Easy for you to say. Your name’s on the Capsicum Innateness Hypothesis. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger My new campaign slogan: Paul "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Richard, I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings: _______________ See what I mean? The bastard back-doored you. He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better. You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing. "Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades. Let it go! _________________ Eduard 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA07EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:25:40 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA0AEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA0AEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah, chiles rellenos. One of my favorites.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Spruiell
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
And notice that you can take a filling that has chili pepper in it, and stuff a chili pepper with it. Chilis are recursive!
---- Bill Spruiell
On 9/24/10 2:41 PM, "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask] Ah, chiles rellenos. One of my favorites. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Spruiell I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers. 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA0AEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 07:36:16 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar/explicit literacy instruction
Comments: To: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1957300145-1285425376=:48769"
I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
--0-1957300145-1285425376=:48769
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig,
I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
For paragraph structure, I have students read paragraphs that have been
indented, following Christensen, to show their levels of generality. I point
out how one sentence leads to another, and have students explain to their
partner the relationship of each sentence to the others. I also italicize
antecedent structures and bold all consequent structures. This allows students
to see how one sentence in discourse refers to another. Following this, I
present the same paragraphs in scrambled order, initially including the bolding
and italicizing. Students unscramble the paragraphs, usually working with a
partner initially, later working independently and comparing, discussing, and
defending their order. This forces them to think very hard about the structure
of paragraphs, something that takes explicit instruction and practice. When
they write their own paragraphs, I have them italicize and bold the antecedents
and consequents to show the connections in their own writing. I also have them
highlight each sentence to show its function: blue for openers, green for topic
sentences and conclusions, yellow for the next level of generality, and pink for
detail sentences. Students can look at their own paragraphs and see how they
are organized and cohere. This also reduces the amount of time I have to take
on each paper; if students have done the careful work of structuring their work
and have shown me how it is orgainized, I can read for other features and give
other feedback.
Scott Woods
________________________________
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now teaching a
class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program first year, who all scored
below college level on reading and writing assessments. In previous years, they
would have been funneled into a non-credit course. This year, they are taking
analytical writing (3 credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit support
course. I'm teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they are taking a five
hour version of a three hour class. But what's most relevant, I think, is that I
am making literacy the direct focus of the course. They are reading and writing
literacy narratives, approaching academic discourse dialogically (using They
Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I guess (not totally new to me) is
whether making literacy itself more explicit will be helpful in achieving
literacy goals. The students, by the way, are encouraged to define their own
goals. Since many have more than one language in their lives, being bilingual is
sometimes an important part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about
his history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as educators,
and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without taking
things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have much at stake.
That seems to me part of literacy as well.
Craig
Eduard Hanganu wrote:
>
>Richard,
>
>I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind
>personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings:
>
>_______________
>
>See what I mean?
>
>The bastard back-doored you.
>
>He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better.
>
>You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he
>will keep doing.
>
>"Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as
>well, in spades.
>
>Let it go!
>
>_________________
>
>I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
>Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
>> sharply with the
>> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
>> but members
>> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>>
>> Dick
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
>> are a piece
>> of CRAP.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > Dick,
>> > I agree very much that we have to locate
>> abilities within the child that
>> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
>> opinion seems to
>> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
>> can acquire
>> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
>> Either way, it
>> > is a remarkable task.
>> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
>> "pattern finding" as central.
>> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
>> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
>> might be picking up
>> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
>> pairings, which
>> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
>> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
>> construct texts, which some
>> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
>> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
>> olds win Pulitzer
>> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
>> to posit the
>> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
>> Standard English
>> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
>> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
>> that all generativists
>> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
>> more or less
>> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
>> > environment.
>> >
>> > 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/
--0-1957300145-1285425376=:48769
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
See what I mean? The bastard back-doored you. He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better. You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing. "Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades. Let it go! _________________ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1957300145-1285425376=:48769--
========================================================================Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:21:34 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar/explicit literacy instruction
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-113532547
--Apple-Mail-1-113532547
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Every fall I start my 11th graders with a review of conjunctions with the purpose of getting them to punctuate compound sentences properly. I have experienced limited success with improving run-ons. Because they have overcompensated by putting a comma before every "and," I have asked them to underline what is being compounded in the sentence. This year after using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided to use the sentences from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK). Boy, did I experience an eye-opener! Their success rate when way down. Plus they didn't comment on the interesting news story. To see if this is a literacy issue, I will try a little experiment. I will read the story out loud and have a class discussion about the news story and what it means. Only then will I give them the worksheet on conjunctions.
Susan
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
>
> For paragraph structure, I have students read paragraphs that have been indented, following Christensen, to show their levels of generality. I point out how one sentence leads to another, and have students explain to their partner the relationship of each sentence to the others. I also italicize antecedent structures and bold all consequent structures. This allows students to see how one sentence in discourse refers to another. Following this, I present the same paragraphs in scrambled order, initially including the bolding and italicizing. Students unscramble the paragraphs, usually working with a partner initially, later working independently and comparing, discussing, and defending their order. This forces them to think very hard about the structure of paragraphs, something that takes explicit instruction and practice. When they write their own paragraphs, I have them italicize and bold the antecedents and consequents to show the connections in their own writing. I also have them highlight each sentence to show its function: blue for openers, green for topic sentences and conclusions, yellow for the next level of generality, and pink for detail sentences. Students can look at their own paragraphs and see how they are organized and cohere. This also reduces the amount of time I have to take on each paper; if students have done the careful work of structuring their work and have shown me how it is orgainized, I can read for other features and give other feedback.
>
> Scott Woods
>
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
> Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
>
>
> One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program first year, who all scored below college level on reading and writing assessments. In previous years, they would have been funneled into a non-credit course. This year, they are taking analytical writing (3 credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit support course. I'm teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they are taking a five hour version of a three hour class. But what's most relevant, I think, is that I am making literacy the direct focus of the course. They are reading and writing literacy narratives, approaching academic discourse dialogically (using They Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I guess (not totally new to me) is whether making literacy itself more explicit will be helpful in achieving literacy goals. The students, by the way, are encouraged to define their own goals. Since many have more than one language in their lives, being bilingual is sometimes an important part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about his history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
> I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
> It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Eduard Hanganu wrote:
>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I cannot say that I have not been warned about your warm and kind personality and about your forgiving nature. Here is a sample of such warnings:
>>
>> _______________
>>
>> See what I mean?
>>
>> The bastard back-doored you.
>>
>> He thinks it makes him look good but reasonable people will know better.
>>
>> You'll never get the last word on Veit. That's just what he does and what he will keep doing.
>>
>> "Members should know what to expect if they reply to him", goes for him as well, in spades.
>>
>> Let it go!
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
>> Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> > Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
>> > sharply with the
>> > message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
>> > but members
>> > should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>> >
>> > Dick
>> >
>> > Richard,
>> >
>> > I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
>> > are a piece
>> > of CRAP.
>> >
>> > Eduard
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
>> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dick,
>> > > I agree very much that we have to locate
>> > abilities within the child that
>> > > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
>> > opinion seems to
>> > > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
>> > can acquire
>> > > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
>> > Either way, it
>> > > is a remarkable task.
>> > > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
>> > "pattern finding" as central.
>> > > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
>> > without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
>> > might be picking up
>> > > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
>> > pairings, which
>> > > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
>> > uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
>> > construct texts, which some
>> > > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
>> > language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
>> > olds win Pulitzer
>> > > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
>> > to posit the
>> > > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
>> > Standard English
>> > > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
>> > > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
>> > that all generativists
>> > > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
>> > more or less
>> > > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
>> > > environment.
>> > >
>> > > 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/
--Apple-Mail-1-113532547
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-1-113532547--
========================================================================Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 12:06:16 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Looking for quote
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Hi, all
I'm searching for a quote, I think it's from _Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing_. It's something to the effect that it's very difficult to teach students to be good writers, and it's much easier to teach them punctuation rules.
Does that ring any bells?
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
========================================================================Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:24:43 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: explicit literacy instruction
Comments: cc: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, Scott, for sharing the specific ideas on teaching about the
structure of paragraphs. I like the idea of using an array of graphic
devices (like type faces, levels of indentation, and color). I had
already planned to use the color coding method to help some high school
ESL students understand the basic "topic sentence + support" structure of
a paragraph.
Another idea that I came up with was to use the following visual analogy.
If you go to the Virtual Museum of Iraq website (and there are doubtless
other similar museum sites, but I'm working mostly with Iraqi students),
you will see the opportunity to enter several different rooms. Once you
enter a room, you see several objects. If you look at the objects from a
distance, you can't see them well at all. If you click on the object, you
move in closer to it. You click again on one of the links that come up
and you have a chance to explore the object in much greater detail. The
point I'm trying to make is that exploring an 'item' up close in all its
detail is what the supporting sentences of the paragraph should do.
Looking at the object from a short distance away is what the topic
sentence does. And choosing ONE object to focus on in the whole room is
the function of a paragraph (rather than writing about everything in the
room in generalities).
A couple of learners in this class apparently have a high visual/spatial
intelligence and are very interested in art. I thought this might be a
way to bridge from their visual/spatial intelligence to concepts of
paragraph structure.
Scott Woods wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
>
> For paragraph structure, I have students read paragraphs that have been
> indented, following Christensen, to show their levels of generality. I
> point
> out how one sentence leads to another, and have students explain to their
> partner the relationship of each sentence to the others. I also italicize
> antecedent structures and bold all consequent structures. This allows
> students
> to see how one sentence in discourse refers to another. Following this, I
> present the same paragraphs in scrambled order, initially including the
> bolding
> and italicizing. Students unscramble the paragraphs, usually working with
> a
> partner initially, later working independently and comparing, discussing,
> and
> defending their order. This forces them to think very hard about the
> structure
> of paragraphs, something that takes explicit instruction and practice.
> When
> they write their own paragraphs, I have them italicize and bold the
> antecedents
> and consequents to show the connections in their own writing. I also have
> them
> highlight each sentence to show its function: blue for openers, green for
> topic
> sentences and conclusions, yellow for the next level of generality, and
> pink for
> detail sentences. Students can look at their own paragraphs and see how
> they
> are organized and cohere. This also reduces the amount of time I have to
> take
> on each paper; if students have done the careful work of structuring their
> work
> and have shown me how it is orgainized, I can read for other features and
> give
> other feedback.
>
>
> Scott Woods
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite 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/
========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:07:52 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar/explicit literacy instruction
Comments: cc: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Since I seem to be in pedagogical mode these days, I find that I am
connecting more with the posts like this one from Susan van Druten.
> This year after
> using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided to use the sentences
> from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK). Boy, did I experience an
> eye-opener! Their success rate when way down.
Is this is literacy issue or not? I suspect that it is a pedagogical
issue. When we teach students 'grammar' using very simple sentences, then
we can expect them to get lost and not perform well when all of sudden
they are presented with the complexity of real-world texts. How can this
chasm between exercises with simple sentences and a complex text be
bridged? I tend to bridge it by working with sentences that the students
actually produced, assuming that those are more complex than sentences in
the exercises. They have ownership of these sentences, and they don't
really feel any ownership of either the simple sentences of the exercise
or the complex sentences of the authentic text.
Having said that, I want to affirm that I do favor the use of authentic
texts. I would suggest using more syntactically complex texts from the
start, providing scaffolding as necessary for learners to see how the
grammar (also punctuation, etc.) is working (or not working) in those
texts. The teacher can present the text using color coding and different
fonts to focus attention on the desired linguistic elements of the text.
I think that systemic functional grammar has the potential for guiding
teachers to work with authentic texts, and that's why I am a fan of
Coffin, Donohue and North's EXPLORING ENGLISH GRAMMAR. They provide a
healthy role model for how to examine grammar in the context of authentic
texts.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
Susan van Druten wrote:
> Every fall I start my 11th graders with a review of conjunctions with the
> purpose of getting them to punctuate compound sentences properly. I have
> experienced limited success with improving run-ons. Because they have
> overcompensated by putting a comma before every "and," I have asked them
> to underline what is being compounded in the sentence. This year after
> using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided to use the sentences
> from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK). Boy, did I experience an
> eye-opener! Their success rate when way down. Plus they didn't comment
> on the interesting news story. To see if this is a literacy issue, I will
> try a little experiment. I will read the story out loud and have a class
> discussion about the news story and what it means. Only then will I give
> them the worksheet on conjunctions.
>
> Susan
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
>>
>> For paragraph structure, I have students read paragraphs that have been
>> indented, following Christensen, to show their levels of generality. I
>> point out how one sentence leads to another, and have students explain
>> to their partner the relationship of each sentence to the others. I also
>> italicize antecedent structures and bold all consequent structures. This
>> allows students to see how one sentence in discourse refers to another.
>> Following this, I present the same paragraphs in scrambled order,
>> initially including the bolding and italicizing. Students unscramble
>> the paragraphs, usually working with a partner initially, later working
>> independently and comparing, discussing, and defending their order.
>> This forces them to think very hard about the structure of paragraphs,
>> something that takes explicit instruction and practice. When they write
>> their own paragraphs, I have them italicize and bold the antecedents and
>> consequents to show the connections in their own writing. I also have
>> them highlight each sentence to show its function: blue for openers,
>> green for topic sentences and conclusions, yellow for the next level of
>> generality, and pink for detail sentences. Students can look at their
>> own paragraphs and see how they are organized and cohere. This also
>> reduces the amount of time I have to take on each paper; if students
>> have done the careful work of structuring their work and have shown me
>> how it is orgainized, I can read for other features and give other
>> feedback.
>>
>> Scott Woods
>>
>> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
>>
>>
>> One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now
>> teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program
>> first year, who all scored below college level on reading and
>> writing assessments. In previous years, they would have been
>> funneled into a non-credit course. This year, they are taking
>> analytical writing (3 credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit
>> support course. I'm teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they
>> are taking a five hour version of a three hour class. But what's
>> most relevant, I think, is that I am making literacy the direct
>> focus of the course. They are reading and writing literacy
>> narratives, approaching academic discourse dialogically (using They
>> Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I guess (not totally new
>> to me) is whether making literacy itself more explicit will be
>> helpful in achieving literacy goals. The students, by the way, are
>> encouraged to define their own goals. Since many have more than one
>> language in their lives, being bilingual is sometimes an important
>> part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about his
>> history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
>> I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as
>> educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
>> It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without
>> taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have
>> much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
>>
>> Craig
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle,
brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across
cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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/
========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:25:04 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: explicit literacy instruction
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1699854387-1285611904=:63638"
I will get the text you recommend and see if there are perf
--0-1699854387-1285611904=:63638
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Michael,
I will get the text you recommend and see if there are perfect tense errors to
add to my collection, which is now over 110.
Would you like to let your students see if they can beat me to the punch?
My long-standing challenge is that I can find at least one 'had' error on any
English grammar website or in any English grammar textbook you can name. The
chances are good that I will be able to add Coffin, Donohue and North's
EXPLORING ENGLISH GRAMMAR to my list, since I have not yet found an
error-free source. But I'm still looking. There must be one somewhere.
.brad.27sept10.
________________________________
From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: September 27, 2010
Subject: explicit literacy instruction
I think that systemic functional grammar has the potential for guiding teachers
to work with authentic texts, and that's why I am a fan of Coffin, Donohue and
North's EXPLORING ENGLISH GRAMMAR. They provide a
healthy role model for how to examine grammar in the context of authentic texts.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite 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/
--0-1699854387-1285611904=:63638
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1699854387-1285611904=:63638--
========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:36:36 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar/explicit literacy instruction
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:09:15 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar/explicit literacy instruction
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
When I was teaching undergrad grammar courses, one of the reasons I used Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar is that it was thoroughly corpus-based. The only examples students read in the text were real-world, and they had problems with them more than once. I also used newspaper, magazine, and internet text for analysis. One always revealing exercise was identifying and counting uses of passive voice in a newspaper article, and then examining what made those uses appropriate. One of the tasks I would set for homework later in the course was a grammatical analysis of some grammatical aspects of a poem. Here they ran into real problems. Part of it was, I think, that they had not been trained to look at poetry in that way, but part of it was also that I'd occasionally throw at them an Early Modern English poem, 16th or 17th c. The syntax of those was frequently complex and used unusual word orders, and that gave them fits. Those always led to productive classroom discussions.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R. Michael Medley (ck)
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar/explicit literacy instruction
Since I seem to be in pedagogical mode these days, I find that I am connecting more with the posts like this one from Susan van Druten.
> This year after
> using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided to use the
> sentences from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK). Boy, did I
> experience an eye-opener! Their success rate when way down.
Is this is literacy issue or not? I suspect that it is a pedagogical issue. When we teach students 'grammar' using very simple sentences, then we can expect them to get lost and not perform well when all of sudden they are presented with the complexity of real-world texts. How can this chasm between exercises with simple sentences and a complex text be bridged? I tend to bridge it by working with sentences that the students actually produced, assuming that those are more complex than sentences in the exercises. They have ownership of these sentences, and they don't really feel any ownership of either the simple sentences of the exercise or the complex sentences of the authentic text.
Having said that, I want to affirm that I do favor the use of authentic texts. I would suggest using more syntactically complex texts from the start, providing scaffolding as necessary for learners to see how the grammar (also punctuation, etc.) is working (or not working) in those texts. The teacher can present the text using color coding and different fonts to focus attention on the desired linguistic elements of the text.
I think that systemic functional grammar has the potential for guiding teachers to work with authentic texts, and that's why I am a fan of Coffin, Donohue and North's EXPLORING ENGLISH GRAMMAR. They provide a healthy role model for how to examine grammar in the context of authentic texts.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
Susan van Druten wrote:
> Every fall I start my 11th graders with a review of conjunctions with
> the purpose of getting them to punctuate compound sentences properly.
> I have experienced limited success with improving run-ons. Because
> they have overcompensated by putting a comma before every "and," I
> have asked them to underline what is being compounded in the sentence.
> This year after using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided
> to use the sentences from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK).
> Boy, did I experience an eye-opener! Their success rate when way
> down. Plus they didn't comment on the interesting news story. To see
> if this is a literacy issue, I will try a little experiment. I will
> read the story out loud and have a class discussion about the news
> story and what it means. Only then will I give them the worksheet on conjunctions.
>
> Susan
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
>>
>> For paragraph structure, I have students read paragraphs that have
>> been indented, following Christensen, to show their levels of
>> generality. I point out how one sentence leads to another, and have
>> students explain to their partner the relationship of each sentence
>> to the others. I also italicize antecedent structures and bold all
>> consequent structures. This allows students to see how one sentence in discourse refers to another.
>> Following this, I present the same paragraphs in scrambled order,
>> initially including the bolding and italicizing. Students unscramble
>> the paragraphs, usually working with a partner initially, later
>> working independently and comparing, discussing, and defending their order.
>> This forces them to think very hard about the structure of
>> paragraphs, something that takes explicit instruction and practice.
>> When they write their own paragraphs, I have them italicize and bold
>> the antecedents and consequents to show the connections in their own
>> writing. I also have them highlight each sentence to show its
>> function: blue for openers, green for topic sentences and
>> conclusions, yellow for the next level of generality, and pink for
>> detail sentences. Students can look at their own paragraphs and see
>> how they are organized and cohere. This also reduces the amount of
>> time I have to take on each paper; if students have done the careful
>> work of structuring their work and have shown me how it is
>> orgainized, I can read for other features and give other feedback.
>>
>> Scott Woods
>>
>> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
>>
>>
>> One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now
>> teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program
>> first year, who all scored below college level on reading and writing
>> assessments. In previous years, they would have been funneled into a
>> non-credit course. This year, they are taking analytical writing (3
>> credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit support course. I'm
>> teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they are taking a five hour
>> version of a three hour class. But what's most relevant, I think, is
>> that I am making literacy the direct focus of the course. They are
>> reading and writing literacy narratives, approaching academic
>> discourse dialogically (using They Say/ I Say as a core text). The
>> experiment, I guess (not totally new to me) is whether making
>> literacy itself more explicit will be helpful in achieving literacy
>> goals. The students, by the way, are encouraged to define their own
>> goals. Since many have more than one language in their lives, being
>> bilingual is sometimes an important part of that. One student just
>> handed a paper to me about his history as a rap artist, about how he
>> has developed his craft.
>> I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as
>> educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
>> It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without
>> taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have
>> much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
>>
>> Craig
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle, brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:19:05 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: what is a paragraph?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig,
Having done a study of paragraph components in a variety of real-world
texts as part of a graduate seminar on English prose style, I couldn't
agree more with you that not all paragraphs fit the "topic sentence +
supporting sentences" pattern. However, it is a basic pattern, and the
students I am working with at the moment cannot tell a paragraph from a
list of sentences.
The point I was making with the post was that visual metaphors can be
helpful devices in getting students to understand such concepts as focus,
details, general statement, etc. I am in the midst of a research project
that explores how grammar structures can be presented to second language
learners and practiced through visual, musical, kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal pathways.
I have read some of the cautions about this kind of project from Howard
Gardner and others, but I think that the correlations below, represent
reasonable attempts at integrating grammar instruction with the theory of
multiple intelligences:
Musical – rhythm, stress, pitch, intonation contours that go with
particular grammatical structures; elements of the grammar that permit us
to talk about music, e.g. mental & verbal processes
Visual/Spatial – gestures, body language, facial expressions [kinesics],
and distance/orientation in relations to particular grammar structures;
elements of the grammar that permit us to talk about space, line, color,
arrangement, e.g. existential & relational processes
Kinesthetic – kinesics (above) and pronunciation – i.e. fine motor control
of the pronunciation of all grammatical elements; the differentiation of
stressed content words and unstressed function words; elements of the
grammar that permit us to talk about the body and movement, e.g. material
processes
Interpersonal – all the elements of grammar that participate prominently
in realizing Halliday’s interpersonal functions-e.g. mood, modality,
pronoun system, verbal & mental processes, epistemic phrases, etc.
Intrapersonal – all elements of the grammar that allow us to reflect on
what’s going on inside of us; self-regulation of what we speak/write
through monitoring and evaluation based on our internal sense of the
standards; elements of grammar that permit us to talk about our interior
(e.g. mental & verbal processes)
I would welcome comments and insights from readers on these correlations
and the role of each of the mentioned intelligences in creating a
full-bodied understanding of grammar-in-use.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
> I think that topic and support (your previous post) is a very useful
> distinction when it is happening within a text, but I'm not sure it
> fits all--or even most--texts. One of the things I find in looking at
> real world paragraphs is that they don't fit the prescriptive patterns
> that show up in traditional writing books, topic and support being one
> of them. Whatever utility they have for writing doesn't carry over to
> much real world reading. I also think we do harm when we don't offer
> these as ONE way to write. SFL patterns would be a very different
> lens.
>
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle,
brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across
cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:04:00 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: what is a paragraph?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:29:44 -0500
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: what is a paragraph?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I really want to track down that Alexie article (coming from someone who
also read Superman and feel that comics add more to literacy education
than we might think).
Here are few of old (except for Duncan) but relevant articles on
questioning what a paragraph is, though I imagine they're well known to
many on the list. The Stern article has one of my all-time favorite
titles for a scholarly essay. It alone makes you question how we
traditionally define a paragraph by making it a matter of timing, rather
than textual cohesion per se.
Larry Beason
Braddock, Richard. "The Frequency and Placement of Topic Sentences in
Expository Prose." Research in the Teaching of English 8 (1974):
287-31.
Duncan, Mike. “Whatever Happened to the Paragraph?” College
English 69 (May 2007): 470-95.
D'Angelo, Frank. "The Topic Sentence Revisited." CCC 37 (Dec. 1986):
431-42.
Stern, Arthur A. "When is a Paragraph?" CCC 27 (1976): 253-57.
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/28/2010 11:04 AM >>>
Michael,
Have you read Sherman Alexie's "The Joy of Reading and Writing:
Superman and Me"? He says he learned to read from a Superman comic book,
even developing the idea of a paragraph early on as "a fence that held
words. The words inside a paragraph worked together for a common
purpose. They had some reason for being inside the same fence." He then
begins to think of "everything" in terms of paragraphs. "Our reservation
was a small paragraph within the United States. My family's house was a
paragraph..." In the superman comic book (before he could read the
words) "Each panel, complete with picture, dialogue, and narrative was a
three dimensional paragraph." Every time I have taught that essay,
including in my current semester, it has engendered a very rich
discussion, sometimes freeing students up from too narrow an idea of
what a paragraph is supposed to be. Words in a paragraph have "common
purpose." Paragraphing (blocking parts of the whole into component
sections) is being presented as natural to the workings of the human
mind. An essay is a unity of parts, or ought to be, in part because the
human mind maps the world that way.
What I like about the SFL metafunctions--representing the world,
interacting with other people, and constructing texts--is that they work
at all levels. These larger purposes are being carried out in and
through the clause structure. That's where the rubber meets the road.
As someone who plays/writes music, I am especially interested in
what you are doing with music. I like to listen to how good singers
(our best ) play with phrasing, often working within a tension between
music and speech. I think the open form poem often does that as well.
We fulfill or delay or deny expectations. I'm not sure I have the right
words for it yet. I also have a friend very conscious of how some
students, especially those in tech fields, are more visually oriented
than the typical English major. Too often, our ideas of literacy are
tied to "literary" texts.
These seem like very rich and interesting approaches. Do you have
anything written up yet?
Craig
R. Michael Medley (ck) wrote:
Craig,
Having done a study of paragraph components in a variety of real-world
texts as part of a graduate seminar on English prose style, I couldn't
agree more with you that not all paragraphs fit the "topic sentence +
supporting sentences" pattern. However, it is a basic pattern, and
the
students I am working with at the moment cannot tell a paragraph from
a
list of sentences.
The point I was making with the post was that visual metaphors can be
helpful devices in getting students to understand such concepts as
focus,
details, general statement, etc. I am in the midst of a research
project
that explores how grammar structures can be presented to second
language
learners and practiced through visual, musical, kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal pathways.
I have read some of the cautions about this kind of project from
Howard
Gardner and others, but I think that the correlations below, represent
reasonable attempts at integrating grammar instruction with the theory
of
multiple intelligences:
Musical – rhythm, stress, pitch, intonation contours that go with
particular grammatical structures; elements of the grammar that permit
us
to talk about music, e.g. mental & verbal processes
Visual/Spatial – gestures, body language, facial expressions
[kinesics],
and distance/orientation in relations to particular grammar
structures;
elements of the grammar that permit us to talk about space, line,
color,
arrangement, e.g. existential & relational processes
Kinesthetic – kinesics (above) and pronunciation – i.e. fine motor
control
of the pronunciation of all grammatical elements; the differentiation
of
stressed content words and unstressed function words; elements of the
grammar that permit us to talk about the body and movement, e.g.
material
processes
Interpersonal – all the elements of grammar that participate
prominently
in realizing Halliday’s interpersonal functions-e.g. mood, modality,
pronoun system, verbal & mental processes, epistemic phrases, etc.
Intrapersonal – all elements of the grammar that allow us to reflect
on
what’s going on inside of us; self-regulation of what we speak/write
through monitoring and evaluation based on our internal sense of the
standards; elements of grammar that permit us to talk about our
interior
(e.g. mental & verbal processes)
I would welcome comments and insights from readers on these
correlations
and the role of each of the mentioned intelligences in creating a
full-bodied understanding of grammar-in-use.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
I think that topic and support (your previous post) is a very useful
distinction when it is happening within a text, but I'm not sure it
fits all--or even most--texts. One of the things I find in looking at
real world paragraphs is that they don't fit the prescriptive patterns
that show up in traditional writing books, topic and support being one
of them. Whatever utility they have for writing doesn't carry over to
much real world reading. I also think we do harm when we don't offer
these as ONE way to write. SFL patterns would be a very different
lens.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle,
brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across
cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland 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/
========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:32:16 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Dan Everett on language
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
For an interesting podcast interview with Dan Everett on the nature
of language, see www.philosphybites.com.
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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:29:44 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Julia Suarez <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Text book query
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------010901090602060600090009"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010901090602060600090009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Grammarians,
My name is Julie Suarez Hayes. I am an assistant professor of
English and the Writing Center Coordinator at Hartwick College in
Oneonta, New York.
I teach a course entitled The Anatomy of English and have been using
Marilyn Silva's /Grammar in Many Voices. /I am very pleased with the
book, but it has been out of print for some time now and each semester
my students must hunt up used copies. I realize that our supply of this
text is limited, and I am trying to find a suitable replacement. Can
anyone suggest a comparable text? Since I have just been informed that
we must make textbook decisions for spring term by Oct. 25 (!) I'm
feeling pressed and need to examine some other books soon.
I welcome any suggestions!
Many thanks for your consideration,
Julie Suarez Hayes
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/
--------------010901090602060600090009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mulnx12.mcs.muohio.edu id o8THTlgS021024
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--------------010901090602060600090009--
========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:55:51 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Dan Roth <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Text book query
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Julie:
I am happy to make some recommendations, but it would be helpful if we
had some more info on your needs: what is the background & skill level
of your students? what are the pedagogical goals for the class? what
content areas are you looking to cover?
Also, many bookstores (at least in the US) will photo-copy
out-of-print texts for classes like yours. They just need to get
copyright permissions and possibly pay royalties.
--Dan Roth
The University of San Francisco
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Julia Suarez <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Grammarians,
>
> My name is Julie Suarez Hayes. I am an assistant professor of English
> and the Writing Center Coordinator at Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York.
> I teach a course entitled The Anatomy of English and have been using
> Marilyn Silva's Grammar in Many Voices. I am very pleased with the book, but
> it has been out of print for some time now and each semester my students
> must hunt up used copies. I realize that our supply of this text is
> limited, and I am trying to find a suitable replacement. Can anyone
> suggest a comparable text? Since I have just been informed that we must
> make textbook decisions for spring term by Oct. 25 (!) I'm feeling pressed
> and need to examine some other books soon.
>
> I welcome any suggestions!
>
> Many thanks for your consideration,
>
> Julie Suarez Hayes
>
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:11:19 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Text book query
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you, Dan, for your courteous reply.
(Yes, I realize I mistyped entitled for titled as one member of this list serve was quick to point out.)
This is my first post and I am a bit hesitant to enter the fray.
I realize I gave you little to go on and will supply more details when I am back in my office tomorrow.
Meanwhile, best wishes.
Julie
Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dan Roth
Sent: Wed 9/29/2010 5:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Text book query
Julie:
I am happy to make some recommendations, but it would be helpful if we
had some more info on your needs: what is the background & skill level
of your students? what are the pedagogical goals for the class? what
content areas are you looking to cover?
Also, many bookstores (at least in the US) will photo-copy
out-of-print texts for classes like yours. They just need to get
copyright permissions and possibly pay royalties.
--Dan Roth
The University of San Francisco
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Julia Suarez <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Grammarians,
>
> My name is Julie Suarez Hayes. I am an assistant professor of English
> and the Writing Center Coordinator at Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York.
> I teach a course entitled The Anatomy of English and have been using
> Marilyn Silva's Grammar in Many Voices. I am very pleased with the book, but
> it has been out of print for some time now and each semester my students
> must hunt up used copies. I realize that our supply of this text is
> limited, and I am trying to find a suitable replacement. Can anyone
> suggest a comparable text? Since I have just been informed that we must
> make textbook decisions for spring term by Oct. 25 (!) I'm feeling pressed
> and need to examine some other books soon.
>
> I welcome any suggestions!
>
> Many thanks for your consideration,
>
> Julie Suarez Hayes
>
>
> 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/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:03:50 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Textbook suggestion
Comments: To: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA79EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA79EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Julia,
I'm retired now, for three years, but I've used a variety of texts in undergraduate grammar courses. I used Silva's text a long time ago, when it first came out, but that was about the time I was tiring of textbook approaches to the class. That said, I like Craig Hancock's Meaning-Centered Grammar very much, in both its coverage and its orientation. It takes a successfully discourse-based view of grammar and seems to me particularly relatable to college writing and to reading literature. Before I used Silva, I used Morenberg's Doing Grammar for a number of years. I found that one of the most successful textbooks I've used. It's quite systematic and rigorous, and the approach is strongly syntactic, although it pays a lot of attention to grammatical function in ways that few texts, besides Craig's, succeed in doing. I had students coming back years later to ask about trees that they'd drawn using Morenberg's approach, and it was obvious they'd learned how to work out in some detail the structure of some pretty complex sentences.
My own approach, in my last few years of teaching, was to use a standard reference grammar. My choice among them was Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar. My reason for making this fairly radical switch was that I thought my students, who would go on to become professional users of English, needed a reference work they were familiar with that covered the English language in considerable detail. I was looking to their professional futures, and I explained that to them. The reasons I chose Greenbaum included the fact that it was comprehensive but still manageable, unlike the dated but invaluable seven volume Jespersen A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, or the modern, encyclopedic grammars by Quirk et al. and by Huddleston and Pullum (Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.) It was also available in hardback for around $50, used copies for less, much less expensive than the more compendious grammars. Another reason I chose it was that it presented students exclusively with actually English examples, drawn from some of the large corpora available in the late 90s. Finally, the chapters had a useful outline structure, and I trained my students in "top-down" reading, starting with the chapter intro, going on to the intros to the subheads, and then either directing them to or letting them choose subheads that they would read in more detail. I wanted them to learn to use a reference grammar and to recognize that it was not a book one read from beginning to end. I'll have to admit that my approach was only partially successful. Some students took to it readily, and others had a very hard time with a work that wasn't straightforwardly pedagogical and that they didn't read straight through-and one that they really couldn't read straight through with much benefit. I structured the course around the major topics of the book, and brought in other real texts from newspapers, the internet, and from English literature of various periods. One of our final tasks was a grammatical analysis of a 17th c. sonnet by Sir Philip Sydney. They found that they could not read the sonnet with full comprehension without doing some grammatical analysis. If I were to go back now and teach the course, I think I would still do something similar, but I would also focus their attention more precisely on certain sections of the grammar so that they would get a better feel for how to work with the finer details of English grammar while still gaining a broader overview.
I'm not sure if this is helpful. A lot of us, myself included at other periods of my career, have preferred textbook treatments for good reasons. Not having to come up with all one's own exercises and assignments is just one of those.
All the best!
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
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/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA79EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Julia, I’m retired now, for three years, but I’ve used a variety of texts in undergraduate grammar courses. I used Silva’s text a long time ago, when it first came out, but that was about the time I was tiring of textbook approaches to the class. That said, I like Craig Hancock’s Meaning-Centered Grammar very much, in both its coverage and its orientation. It takes a successfully discourse-based view of grammar and seems to me particularly relatable to college writing and to reading literature. Before I used Silva, I used Morenberg’s Doing Grammar for a number of years. I found that one of the most successful textbooks I’ve used. It’s quite systematic and rigorous, and the approach is strongly syntactic, although it pays a lot of attention to grammatical function in ways that few texts, besides Craig’s, succeed in doing. I had students coming back years later to ask about trees that they’d drawn using Morenberg’s approach, and it was obvious they’d learned how to work out in some detail the structure of some pretty complex sentences. My own approach, in my last few years of teaching, was to use a standard reference grammar. My choice among them was Greenbaum’s Oxford English Grammar. My reason for making this fairly radical switch was that I thought my students, who would go on to become professional users of English, needed a reference work they were familiar with that covered the English language in considerable detail. I was looking to their professional futures, and I explained that to them. The reasons I chose Greenbaum included the fact that it was comprehensive but still manageable, unlike the dated but invaluable seven volume Jespersen A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, or the modern, encyclopedic grammars by Quirk et al. and by Huddleston and Pullum (Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.) It was also available in hardback for around $50, used copies for less, much less expensive than the more compendious grammars. Another reason I chose it was that it presented students exclusively with actually English examples, drawn from some of the large corpora available in the late 90s. Finally, the chapters had a useful outline structure, and I trained my students in “top-down” reading, starting with the chapter intro, going on to the intros to the subheads, and then either directing them to or letting them choose subheads that they would read in more detail. I wanted them to learn to use a reference grammar and to recognize that it was not a book one read from beginning to end. I’ll have to admit that my approach was only partially successful. Some students took to it readily, and others had a very hard time with a work that wasn’t straightforwardly pedagogical and that they didn’t read straight through—and one that they really couldn’t read straight through with much benefit. I structured the course around the major topics of the book, and brought in other real texts from newspapers, the internet, and from English literature of various periods. One of our final tasks was a grammatical analysis of a 17th c. sonnet by Sir Philip Sydney. They found that they could not read the sonnet with full comprehension without doing some grammatical analysis. If I were to go back now and teach the course, I think I would still do something similar, but I would also focus their attention more precisely on certain sections of the grammar so that they would get a better feel for how to work with the finer details of English grammar while still gaining a broader overview. I’m not sure if this is helpful. A lot of us, myself included at other periods of my career, have preferred textbook treatments for good reasons. Not having to come up with all one’s own exercises and assignments is just one of those. All the best! Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C43D3CA79EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:23:26 -0700
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: The Goebbels Experiment, HMR Productions
Comments: To: Bart Ruspoli <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1117405050-1285860206=:85503"
Were you able to put the narration of The Goebbels E
--0-1117405050-1285860206=:85503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mr. Ruspoli,
Were you able to put the narration of The Goebbels Experiment into your computer
and then highlight all the times the word "had" appears, you would find that
there are way too many times the word "had" occurs in front of a past tense
verb, a place the word "had" does not belong.
For example, "Berliners had demonstrated a courage and manliness during the
bombing raids that few had thought they possessed".
.brad.30sept10.
"There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb
cannot do for itself."
~~~~~~~~
HMR Productions
2nd Floor, 10-11 Percy Street, London W1T 1DN
Managing Director
Bart Ruspoli : [log in to unmask]
Head of Production
Fred Hutton-Mills : [log in to unmask]
General enquiries : [log in to unmask]
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/
--0-1117405050-1285860206=:85503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1117405050-1285860206=:85503--
The song was actually written by Gershwin (the music) in deliberate
attempt to compose something that would sound like a folk song. This is
from Wikipedia:
When I was first learning jazz guitar, it was one of the first songs I
learned, and I have come back to it time and again because it has been
done so well in so many different ways with so many nuances. As i grow
as a musician, the song accomodates that very well. Like many
performers, though, I wouldn't presume to sound like a black woman and
use what comes natural to me--"yur", which would rhyme (in my dialect)
with "fur" and "stir".
Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
I wonder if that's not what I call "folk song drift" (there's probably a
more formal term for the phenomenon). Every person interprets a
song/arranges a song differently, and what I see in folk music is a lot of
word replacement/phrase shifting. Sometimes its deliberate and for the
best: "Johnny Come Down to Hilo" originally opened with "Never seen the like
since I been born, a big buck nigger with his sea boots on." Clearly not
appropriate for a modern audience! The Mystic Seaport's chanty men changed
the line to "Never seen the like since I was born, an Arkansas farmer with
his sea boots on." The meaning is the same, but avoids the inappropriate
terminology. Other times it's a matter of the singer remembering a line
wrong, or adding a new phrase to an old tune, or even forgetting the lyrics
and improvising.
I'm not sure what the original line was in Summertime; I know Sarah Vaughan
sang: "Oh your Daddy's rich and your Ma's good lookin'", for whatever that's
worth.
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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"
The song was actually written by Gershwin (the music) in deliberate attempt to compose something that would sound like a folk song. This is from Wikipedia:
When I was first learning jazz guitar, it was one of the first songs I learned, and I have come back to it time and again because it has been done so well in so many different ways with so many nuances. As i grow as a musician, the song accomodates that very well. Like many performers, though, I wouldn't presume to sound like a black woman and use what comes natural to me--"yur", which would rhyme (in my dialect) with "fur" and "stir".
Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
I wonder if that's not what I call "folk song drift" (there's probably a
more formal term for the phenomenon). Every person interprets a
song/arranges a song differently, and what I see in folk music is a lot of
word replacement/phrase shifting. Sometimes its deliberate and for the
best: "Johnny Come Down to Hilo" originally opened with "Never seen the like
since I been born, a big buck nigger with his sea boots on." Clearly not
appropriate for a modern audience! The Mystic Seaport's chanty men changed
the line to "Never seen the like since I was born, an Arkansas farmer with
his sea boots on." The meaning is the same, but avoids the inappropriate
terminology. Other times it's a matter of the singer remembering a line
wrong, or adding a new phrase to an old tune, or even forgetting the lyrics
and improvising.
I'm not sure what the original line was in Summertime; I know Sarah Vaughan
sang: "Oh your Daddy's rich and your Ma's good lookin'", for whatever that's
worth.
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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"
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"
That would be the call attention part, which I didn't give an
example for, but yours works well. I agree that it's cross racial. The
ritual greeting I THINK is black influenced.
Craig
Edgar Schuster wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
The song was actually written by Gershwin (the music) in deliberate
attempt to compose something that would sound like a folk song. This is
from Wikipedia:
When I was first learning jazz guitar, it was one of the first songs I
learned, and I have come back to it time and again because it has been
done so well in so many different ways with so many nuances. As i grow
as a musician, the song accomodates that very well. Like many
performers, though, I wouldn't presume to sound like a black woman and
use what comes natural to me--"yur", which would rhyme (in my dialect)
with "fur" and "stir".
Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
I wonder if that's not what I call "folk song drift" (there's probably a
more formal term for the phenomenon). Every person interprets a
song/arranges a song differently, and what I see in folk music is a lot of
word replacement/phrase shifting. Sometimes its deliberate and for the
best: "Johnny Come Down to Hilo" originally opened with "Never seen the like
since I been born, a big buck nigger with his sea boots on." Clearly not
appropriate for a modern audience! The Mystic Seaport's chanty men changed
the line to "Never seen the like since I was born, an Arkansas farmer with
his sea boots on." The meaning is the same, but avoids the inappropriate
terminology. Other times it's a matter of the singer remembering a line
wrong, or adding a new phrase to an old tune, or even forgetting the lyrics
and improvising.
I'm not sure what the original line was in Summertime; I know Sarah Vaughan
sang: "Oh your Daddy's rich and your Ma's good lookin'", for whatever that's
worth.
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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"
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"
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"
That would be the call attention part, which I didn't give an example for, but yours works well. I agree that it's cross racial. The ritual greeting I THINK is black influenced.
Craig
Edgar Schuster wrote: [log in to unmask]" type="cite">
The song was actually written by Gershwin (the music) in deliberate attempt to compose something that would sound like a folk song. This is from Wikipedia:
When I was first learning jazz guitar, it was one of the first songs I learned, and I have come back to it time and again because it has been done so well in so many different ways with so many nuances. As i grow as a musician, the song accomodates that very well. Like many performers, though, I wouldn't presume to sound like a black woman and use what comes natural to me--"yur", which would rhyme (in my dialect) with "fur" and "stir".
Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
I wonder if that's not what I call "folk song drift" (there's probably a
more formal term for the phenomenon). Every person interprets a
song/arranges a song differently, and what I see in folk music is a lot of
word replacement/phrase shifting. Sometimes its deliberate and for the
best: "Johnny Come Down to Hilo" originally opened with "Never seen the like
since I been born, a big buck nigger with his sea boots on." Clearly not
appropriate for a modern audience! The Mystic Seaport's chanty men changed
the line to "Never seen the like since I was born, an Arkansas farmer with
his sea boots on." The meaning is the same, but avoids the inappropriate
terminology. Other times it's a matter of the singer remembering a line
wrong, or adding a new phrase to an old tune, or even forgetting the lyrics
and improvising.
I'm not sure what the original line was in Summertime; I know Sarah Vaughan
sang: "Oh your Daddy's rich and your Ma's good lookin'", for whatever that's
worth.
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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"
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"
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"
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"
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch.
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business.
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be adjectival depending on analysis)
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning as well.
Your analysis seems valid to me, Scott.
John
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"
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: nominal use of prepositional phrases? prep phrase as direct
object?
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked.
This could be a sentence pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place),
just in a reversed syntax. “behind the table” would then be
an adverbial prepositional phrase.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch. Same as above, with “after lunch”
being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question “when.”
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business.
“In my business” would seem to be an adverbial prep phrase
answering the question “where,” following the phrasal intransitive
verb “nose about.”
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be
adjectival depending on analysis) there are
two kinds of object complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I
could see “at the part” as an adverbial, as a peripheral
adjectival, or as an essential adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can’t
see it as a nominal object complement.
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning
as well. This may be used in informal speech
(I think I’ve heard this actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of
course, it would read “you might want to give THE inside OF the car a
good cleaning as well.” Point taken in informal speech, though.
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"
My mother taught 8th grade language arts for 34 years. She always felt grammar was important to teach. When we moved to Alaska in 1981 her dept chairs refused to buy her grammar materials (the whole "research proves you don't have to teach grammar" thing). She went home and began writing her own out of necessity.
Fast forward to today. We now sell her curriculum to public, charter, private, and home schools. We even have a college edition! It really has become a passion for me.
I bucked the idea for years that I would follow in Mom's footsteps. Well ... here I am! I own the company now and make my living running our company. The international headquarters is my
basement!
Erin
Analytical Grammar
From: David Kehe <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 3:46:24 PM
Subject: intrinsic motivation for studying grammar
I imagine that most of us on this listserv have an intrinsic interest in studying grammar. In other words, we study it just for the joy of it. But why? Is it in our DNA to find grammar so interesting? Did someone, for example, a former teacher, do something that instilled in us this interest?
I would be interested to hear from any of you why you like grammar so much and/or how you came to like it. It seems that if we could figure out what makes it so interesting to some, we might be able to come up with ways that we could help our students develop an intrinsic motivation for studying it too.
Thanks,
David Kehe
Bellingham, WA
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/
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: intrinsic motivation for studying grammar
My mother taught 8th grade language arts for 34 years. She always felt
grammar was important to teach. When we moved to Alaska in 1981 her dept
chairs refused to buy her grammar materials (the whole "research proves you
don't have to teach grammar" thing). She went home and began writing
her own out of necessity.
Fast forward to today. We now sell her curriculum to public, charter,
private, and home schools. We even have a college edition! It
really has become a passion for me.
I bucked the idea for years that I would follow in Mom's footsteps. Well
... here I am! I own the company now and make my living running our
company. The international headquarters is my basement!
Erin
Analytical Grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 3:46:24 PM
Subject: intrinsic motivation for studying grammar
I imagine that most of us on this listserv have an intrinsic interest in
studying grammar. In other words, we study it just for the joy of
it. But why? Is it in our DNA to find grammar so interesting?
Did someone, for example, a former teacher, do something that instilled in us
this interest?
I would be interested to hear from any of you why you like grammar so much
and/or how you came to like it. It seems that if we could figure out what
makes it so interesting to some, we might be able to come up with ways that we
could help our students develop an intrinsic motivation for studying it too.
Thanks,
David Kehe
Bellingham, WA
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/
Needless to say I performed poorly and was quite frustrated. I'll never forget asking my teacher why she never taught me about a "gryphon phrase" (gerund). I began to study traditional school grammar independently after that so I could compete again and do better (which, thankfully for my young ego, I did).
An important step in my process of falling in love with grammar came when I had the opportunity to begin studying foreign languages. Knowing English grammar terminology and concepts (hey, there's that gryphon phrase!) was a HUGE advantage. I just "got" things much easier because I had a basis of comparison. That led to my realization that grammar was one part of a larger field of study -- linguistics. Bring drawn also to the classroom, I quickly realized that there wasn't much "language" in the language arts. So I began tying together threads from both linguistics and educational pedagogy.
So, I guess my love of linguistics, grammar, and education springs from a stubborn streak, but the advantages that grammar knowledge brings became apparent quickly.
John
I imagine that most of us on this listserv have an intrinsic interest in studying grammar. In other words, we study it just for the joy of it. But why? Is it in our DNA to find grammar so interesting? Did someone, for example, a former teacher, do something that instilled in us this interest?
I would be interested to hear from any of you why you like grammar so much and/or how you came to like it. It seems that if we could figure out what makes it so interesting to some, we might be able to come up with ways that we could help our students develop an intrinsic motivation for studying it too.
Thanks,
David Kehe
Bellingham, WA
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"
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked.
This could be a sentence pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place),
just in a reversed syntax. “behind the table” would then be
an adverbial prepositional phrase. I suppose this depends on whether you base function on a generative concept of language; I tend to base function on the pattern as it is exists, not the prototypical form. As your exchange with Larry proves, the form is context-driven, but I think that is the point. Prepositional phrases can function nominally if context calls for it. Perhaps a better example would be "Behind the table is filthy."
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch. Same as above, with “after lunch”
being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question “when.” I don't see how this PP is adverbial. If you changed the pattern, it could be the subject. If you remove it you get "The best part of my day is." (?). Isn't this the subject complement?
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business.
“In my business” would seem to be an adverbial prep phrase
answering the question “where,” following the phrasal intransitive
verb “nose about.” I think you're right with that example. But what about "Jane painted in the bathroom." An adverbial would describe how Jane paints, like "Jane painted with smooth strokes." But "along the trim" describes what she paints, not how she paints -- isn't that the function of the direct object?
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be
adjectival depending on analysis) there are
two kinds of object complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I
could see “at the part” as an adverbial, as a peripheral
adjectival, or as an essential adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can’t
see it as a nominal object complement. Again, I see your point. Maybe a bad example. What about this one: "Children often consider the scariest time of day during the night." I'll admit it is a stretch and probably elliptical, but if we take it as it is, could it be a nominal object complement? Maybe not so I could probably concede that one.
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning
as well. This may be used in informal speech
(I think I’ve heard this actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of
course, it would read “you might want to give THE inside OF the car a
good cleaning as well.” Point taken in informal speech, though. I agree that this is informal but not by much. The dialectologists may know better than I; perhaps it is moving toward standard.
Telling
my students that prepositional phrases are never used as nominals is one of the
few absolutes I have left to give them—I’m loathe to give it
up. I understand completely. I tell my students the same thing and warn them against those who come bearing a multitude of rules and absolutes. When we do find a rule that works, we hold on for dear life!
John
P.S. If anyone can't see color in their emails, I apologize now for the mess above!
Subject: Behind the table is where I looked.
This could be a sentence pattern 1 (Subject, being verb, adverb of Time/place),
just in a reversed syntax. “behind the table” would then be
an adverbial prepositional phrase.
Subject Complement: The best part of my day is after lunch. Same as above, with “after lunch”
being the adverbial prepositional phrase answering the question “when.”
Direct Object: Don't nose about in my business.
“In my business” would seem to be an adverbial prep phrase
answering the question “where,” following the phrasal intransitive
verb “nose about.”
Object Complement: I bought the best gift at the party. (could be
adjectival depending on analysis) there are
two kinds of object complements, one adjectival and the other nominal. I
could see “at the part” as an adverbial, as a peripheral
adjectival, or as an essential adjectival for a pattern 9 sentence, but I can’t
see it as a nominal object complement.
Indirect Object: You might want to give inside the car a good cleaning
as well. This may be used in informal speech
(I think I’ve heard this actual phrase), but in more formal speech, of
course, it would read “you might want to give THE inside OF the car a
good cleaning as well.” Point taken in informal speech, though.
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"
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"
I agree that much of this query, indeed much of grammar, is a matter of terminology. In the matter of form versus function, I find the "nominal" category valuable. I can distinguish between something that is a "noun" or "noun phrase" in form and something that is "nominal" in function. Of course, my method of teaching form and function is based on working with high school students and a goofy analogy. It's long and a bit silly so I'll spare all of the details (I'll try to write it up eventually for interested teachers), but it revolves around a costume party to which all of the prototypical parts of speech are invited. It's a bit of a comedy of errors and they're all switching costumes from time to time. Sometimes a verb phrase ends up with a nominal costume on, which means it can masquerade its way into different functions. Knowing "nominal" as a general term for all of the prototypical noun functions makes the analogy easier for me.
I am interested in your analysis of "I hope to improve." If I read your post correctly, you agree that "to improve" is an infinitive phrase functioning as the direct object of the finite verb "hope". You don't want to call it "nominal" though because it couldn't be replaced by a noun? What about a pronoun such as "I hope it"? Pronouns are very "nounish" aren't they?
It seems to me to be more a matter of what the verb chooses and that there is a distinct class of verbs that force a PP or an infinitive to be the object. Some verbs allow an "actor" + infinitive (I use "actor" as the "subject" of the infinitive). Some do not. Some don't care.
I invite you to sit. (actor required)
He neglected to pay. (no actor allowed)
I expected to win. OR I expected him to win. (actor or no actor allowed)
Verbs affect sentence patterns in a number of ways and choose what follows quite regularly. I'm not sure I'm ready to allow that to sway what I consider prototypically nominal in function.
John
> Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally?
When people say something is functioning/used nominally, usually what they mean is that it's used as a subject or as an object. So why bother throwing the 'nominally' level in there and simply say "function as a subject/object"?
> If it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a direct object?
> For instance: in <he told his friends of the peculiar weather>, does it make sense to call "friends" the indirect object and "of the peculiar weather" the direct object?
> In <he told his friends the truth> would "friends" be the indirect object and "truth" the direct object?
> In <he told his friends> is "friends" a direct object, or an indirect object with an implied direct object?
A direct object.
> In <he told the truth> is there an implied indirect object, those who were told?
> In <he told the truth to his friends> is "truth" the direct object and "friends" the indirect object in a prepositional phrase?
> In <he told his friends about the truth> is "friends" the indirect object and "about the truth" the direct object?
> In <he told his friends that the truth can be found> is "that the truth can be found" a clausal direct object?
The particular type of complement is not the same in all of the above, but I believe all can be usefully called complements.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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"
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"
Martha
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 4:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Nominal prepositional phrases
There are some "symmetric" predicates (such as "be married to") that allow a switch of subject and object: If X is married to Y, then Y is married to X. But in these the predicate retains the same meaning. With "be abundant in," the symmetry relies on different synonyms: [be abundant in = contain many] vs. [be abundant in = widely populate]. I wonder if there are any other predicates that allow a subject/object reversal and retain meaning courtesy of a synonym shift.
Dick Veit
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"
> I just read that "tomatoes are abundant in antioxidants." Curiously we could also say that "antioxidants are abundant in tomatoes" and describe the same factual condition.
>
> There are some "symmetric" predicates (such as "be married to") that allow a switch of subject and object: If X is married to Y, then Y is married to X. But in these the predicate retains the same meaning. With "be abundant in," the symmetry relies on different synonyms: [be abundant in = contain many] vs. [be abundant in = widely populate]. I wonder if there are any other predicates that allow a subject/object reversal and retain meaning courtesy of a synonym shift.
1 (also be comprised of) comprise something
to have somebody/something as parts or members
SYNONYM consist of
The collection comprises 327 paintings.
The committee is comprised of representatives from both the public and private sectors.
2 comprise something
to be the parts or members that form something
SYNONYM make something up
Older people comprise a large proportion of those living in poverty.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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"
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"
Dick
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"
My university has a subscription to the OED, so we are able to
access it free from university computers (or by going through the
library site.) Tracing the history of a word (or construction) is fun
for students and leads to predictable and unpredictable insights.
The Urban slang dictionary is lots of fun.
One teacher using my book asked if I would be open to an online
discussion, and I was happy to say yes. For a two or three day window
(I forget how long), they had a "talk to the writer of the book"
thread. I suspect many authors would be happy to say yes to that.
Craig
Beth Young wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Hi Stephanie,
I think you have all my "grammar voyeur" ideas . . . those would work well as in-class activities, I think. Have students search (individually or in groups) and make a contest to see who can find the most examples of passive voice, sentence adverbs, or whatever you're studying.
You could also have students research "peeve" sites and then you could check to see what credible reference works say about those peeves. Or you could have students explore/compare different reference sites during class & report to the whole group: Merriam Webster's regular dictionary compared to its open dictionary, or different dictionary sites, or some of the other sites that students may not know about: visual thesaurus, wordnik, etc.
Stephen Colbert's website has a "word generator" that is fun for a morphology activity--you put a base word in, and it adds a bunch of crazy suffixes.
A computer classroom is also a great setup for anything requiring writing or rewriting. e.g., Take punctuation out of a sentence--leave that unpunctuated sentence on the screen--switch computers and try to put the punctuation back in to the sentence on that computer.
David West Brown has written what looks like a fabulous book filled with grammar activities & lessons. I'll bet that some of these could be adapted to your situation. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-Switching, and Academic Writing. Heinemann, 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0-325-02188-1
I hope that you'll share your successes with us as the semester continues!
Beth
"Schlitz, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]> 09/07/10 8:24 PM >>>
Dear Colleagues,
I was assigned to teach my English Grammar course (text: Morenberg's Doing Grammar 4th ed) in a computer lab this semester. While in the past I've found no need for my grammar students to use computers during class, since we do have computers this term, I'm greatly interested in any ideas others may have for leveraging computers/internet access during class.
Thanks very much for any ideas you can offer.
Stephanie
--------
Stephanie A. Schlitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics and English
106B Bakeless Hall
Bloomsburg 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/
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"
Imma be bringing the Black Eyed Peas to class with me tomorrow!
John
Hello,
(My first time venturing onto the list.)
As I read your comments on "am going to," I recalled listening to a song my daughter had on the radio by the Black Eyed Peas. It's a great example of the evolution of language: (Imma Be = I am going to be)
Black Eyed Peas: Imma Be Lyrics
Imma be on the next level
Imma be rockin' over that bass treble
Imma be chillin' with my mutha mutha crew
Imma be makin' all them deals you wanna do
Imma be up in them A-list flicks
Doin' one-handed flips, and Imma be sippin' on drinks
'Cause Imma be shakin' my hips
You gon' be lickin' your lips
etc., etc.
Best,
Kathy
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:02:16 -0400
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Herb,
I find this sort of lens very interesting, very useful. It gives us a view of language as very dynamic, very much emergent, and what we are dealing with is more PATTERN than rule. Frequency is, in fact, one of the most important mechanisms for change. Elements that chunck lose analysability. "Am going to," for example, becomes a single construction in its more grammatical uses.
Bybee seems to be saying in her fine book that some of these patterns of change are the same across languages, which would seem to imply at least mild (or tentative) predictability. This would be, not because the grammar is innate, but because the domain general processes are the same across the human family. Commonly, constructions meaning "movement toward goal" take on meanings of intention and then prediction. This is partly, as Bybee sees it, because of a mechanism by which the inferential meaning in a context becomes part of the expressed meaning over time. Verbs of "knowing" become expressions of "ability" (as has happened with "can). Having power ("maeg") infers permission. And so on.
We also have functional pressure as well. All these elements in question are what Langacker would call "grounding elements." What we want to know of an event is whether or not it happens, is happening, has happened, will happen, is over with, sometimes in relation to other events. We make predictions about things that haven't happened yet and want to hedge our degree of certainty (could, might, will). We hedge certainty about present and past realities as well. We also want to be able to add "deontic" ("root") (social context) meanings: whether something is obligatory or desirable or permitted, for example (should, ought to, must, may). Some of these, of course, have a range of meanings and shift in and out of those categories. Even if they exhibit formal differences that would argue for different classifications, they may be very much alike in terms of their contribution to discourse--may, in fact, be part of a range of options to accomplish that grounding work.
If our reliance on these has been growing over time (percentage of clauses with modals steadily increasing), it stands to reason that we would continue to develop options to get it done, some of them carefully nuanced.
That's a view of the language incorporating cognitive and functional concerns.
Craig
STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
Scott,
Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest categorial distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about. Since I'm at least partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking in terms of grammaticalization. This is a process that's been getting quite a lot of attention in the field for about thirty years now. Typically a content word begins to generalize or perhaps bleach semantically, like "come" or "go" forms in lots of languages that come to be used to mark future or "have" forms that come to mark perfect. Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these. The core modals in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs in Old English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more lexical content to become grammatical markers. As these grammaticalization processes take place, words commonly also change phonologically. OE "lic," which meant "body," has grammaticalized to PDE "like" and "-ly."
I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization process. The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that "have taken" and "has taken" don't show. However, that devoicing doesn't yet occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa." The full contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the subject of the infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same. We say, "When do you wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?" The latter has to have a full double /t/: "Whom do you want t@ go?" The fact that these expressions have started grammaticalizing doesn't tell us where they'll end up or if they'll end up in the same place. Maybe "hafta," etc. will become increasingly modal-like, but it appears to be following a different diachronic trajectory from "ought" and "need." I don't bet on horses and I don't predict linguistic change.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:27:16 -0400
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Joshua D. Hill" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: riddles and puzzles
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A71EXCHANGE200_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A71EXCHANGE200_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In response to questions about the "riddles and puzzles" I use in my advanced grammar class, here are a few examples:
- I give groups of students two sets of ten sentences (20 slips of paper). One set is in the ten sentence patterns and is numbered accordingly. The other set is unnumbered. Before these college students get any instruction about sentence/clause patterns, I have them match the "like" sentences and then try to come up with a formula that explains the likenesses between each pair of matched sentences. Usually, working together, 3/4 of the students are able to come up with the ten sentence patterns on their own (from the given examples).
- I repeat this exercise with the ten sentence patterns represented in relative and subordinate clauses (pulled out of their contexts). This reinforced the sentence patterns while introducing the common link between different types of clauses. I usually put a relative clause and a subordinate clause together in the same sentence pattern.
- Some years ago, I created a Grammar Game which is modeled roughly on "Go Fish." A game can be played by 2-4 pairs of students. Each team draws ten random pieces from the bag. These pieces include an assortment of noun phrases, verb phrases, whole clauses, different kinds of phrases, conjunctions, adverbs, etc. Each team is also given a card that describes the type of sentence they should attempt to build (e.g. "Compound Pattern VII + Pattern III, with one participle phrase). A point value is on the card, corresponding roughly to the difficulty (probability) of putting together that particular construction. To play, each team asks another team for a specific piece (e.g. "Do you have any "be" verbs?"). If no, then the asking team draws from the bag. If yes, the asking team gets the piece, and the "robbed" team draws from the bag. After five times around, if at least one team has accomplished its sentence, then the team(s) submit their boards for inspection by the rest. Add-ons over and above the prescribed sentence have set values that can be added to the value already set by the team's card.
- Though not so much a puzzle, it's also a helpful generative exercise to give students a list of regular and phrasal prepositions, then have them create (in teams) the longest version of "There's a hole in the bottom of the sea" that they can. Then make them sing it.
- for participle phrases, I show them a picture that suggests a number of actions. First, I ask them to make a list of the actions that can be said to be occurring in the picture. Then we turn those verbs into participles. Then we arrange participles under their corresponding nouns and add detail onto the tails of the participles. The result is a participle phrase poem describing the picture. Again, a more generative exercise.
- for restrictive and non-restrictive elements, give the students a paragraph with several modifiers underlined or highlighted. Have them cover those modifiers with strips of paper and read the sentences (and paragraph). If the result is general hilarity, because cutting out the modifier changed the meaning of the sentence, then the modifier was probably restrictive and needs no commas. If no hilarity, have them put commas. (E.g. "Dogs who are neutered tend to get fat"). For a physical exercise, have them squat to read the non-restrictive modifiers and stand while reading the rest of the sentence (while following that intonation pattern also with their voices).
Some of these things would not be appropriate (in my opinion) for younger students, or students who need to use Standard Edited English more than they need to be able to talk about it. I pity the K-12 student who is trained to use "seven of the ten different sentence patterns" in each paragraph he writes, as was one poor soul who took my college composition course years ago.
Just a few things I've tried over the last few years.
Joshua Hill
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/
--_000_E52FF74A6CEAF1408CE5EB93450EF68C01085E5F1A71EXCHANGE200_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
who are neutered tend to get fat"). For a physical exercise,
have them squat to read the non-restrictive modifiers and stand while reading the rest of the sentence (while following that intonation pattern also with their voices).
From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, September 8, 2010 8:18:54 AM
Subject: Re: ATEG list question: grammar in a computer lab?
Hi Stephanie,
I think you have all my "grammar voyeur" ideas . . . those would work well as in-class activities, I think. Have students search (individually or in groups) and make a contest to see who can find the most examples of passive voice, sentence adverbs, or whatever you're studying.
You could also have students research "peeve" sites and then you could check to see what credible reference works say about those peeves. Or you could have students explore/compare different reference sites during class & report to the whole group:
Merriam Webster's regular dictionary compared to its open dictionary, or different dictionary sites, or some of the other sites that students may not know about: visual thesaurus, wordnik, etc.
Stephen Colbert's website has a "word generator" that is fun for a morphology activity--you put a base word in, and it adds a bunch of crazy suffixes.
A computer classroom is also a great setup for anything requiring writing or rewriting. e.g., Take punctuation out of a sentence--leave that unpunctuated sentence on the screen--switch computers and try to put the punctuation back in to the sentence on that computer.
David West Brown has written what looks like a fabulous book filled with grammar activities & lessons. I'll bet that some of these could be adapted to your situation. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-Switching, and Academic Writing. Heinemann, 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0-325-02188-1
I
hope that you'll share your successes with us as the semester continues!
Beth
>>> "Schlitz, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]> 09/07/10 8:24 PM >>>
Dear Colleagues,
I was assigned to teach my English Grammar course (text: Morenberg's Doing Grammar 4th ed) in a computer lab this semester. While in the past I've found no need for my grammar students to use computers during class, since we do have computers this term, I'm greatly interested in any ideas others may have for leveraging computers/internet access during class.
Thanks very much for any ideas you can offer.
Stephanie
--------
Stephanie A. Schlitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics and English
106B Bakeless Hall
Bloomsburg 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"
A Dictionary of English Affixes by Gabriele Stein (ISBN 9783895863875)
The Spelling Patterns of English by Andrew G. Rollings (ISBN 3895867586)
The Progressive in the History of English by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN 389586742X)
John
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"
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Forthcoming Books
A Dictionary of English Affixes by Gabriele Stein (ISBN 9783895863875)
The Spelling Patterns of English by Andrew G. Rollings (ISBN 3895867586)
The Progressive in the History of English by Paloma Nunez-Pertejo (ISBN
389586742X)
John
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"
http://www.oed.com/learning/
John
My university has a subscription to the OED, so we are able to
access it free from university computers (or by going through the
library site.) Tracing the history of a word (or construction) is fun
for students and leads to predictable and unpredictable insights.
The Urban slang dictionary is lots of fun.
One teacher using my book asked if I would be open to an online
discussion, and I was happy to say yes. For a two or three day window
(I forget how long), they had a "talk to the writer of the book"
thread. I suspect many authors would be happy to say yes to that.
Craig
Beth Young wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
I think you have all my "grammar voyeur" ideas . . . those would work well as in-class activities, I think. Have students search (individually or in groups) and make a contest to see who can find the most examples of passive voice, sentence adverbs, or whatever you're studying.
You could also have students research "peeve" sites and then you could check to see what credible reference works say about those peeves. Or you could have students explore/compare different reference sites during class & report to the whole group: Merriam Webster's regular dictionary compared to its open dictionary, or different dictionary sites, or some of the other sites that students may not know about: visual thesaurus, wordnik, etc.
Stephen Colbert's website has a "word generator" that is fun for a morphology activity--you put a base word in, and it adds a bunch of crazy suffixes.
A computer classroom is also a great setup for anything requiring writing or rewriting. e.g., Take punctuation out of a sentence--leave that unpunctuated sentence on the screen--switch computers and try to put the punctuation back in to the sentence on that computer.
David West Brown has written what looks like a fabulous book filled with grammar activities & lessons. I'll bet that some of these could be adapted to your situation. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-Switching, and Academic Writing. Heinemann, 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0-325-02188-1
I hope that you'll share your successes with us as the semester continues!
Beth
"Schlitz, Stephanie" <[log in to unmask]> 09/07/10 8:24 PM >>>
Dear Colleagues,
I was assigned to teach my English Grammar course (text: Morenberg's Doing Grammar 4th ed) in a computer lab this semester. While in the past I've found no need for my grammar students to use computers during class, since we do have computers this term, I'm greatly interested in any ideas others may have for leveraging computers/internet access during class.
Thanks very much for any ideas you can offer.
Stephanie
--------
Stephanie A. Schlitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics and English
106B Bakeless Hall
Bloomsburg 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/
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"
From:
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
The full title of the book is The Progressive in the History of English with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period: A Corpus-Based Study.
I was skimming a LINCOM publication when the titles caught my eye. LINCOM publications aren't available via Amazon.com in the U.S., but they are available in European versions. When I look up the ISBN listed for the text at amazon.de, I find that the book has a copyright of 2004.
So, it is likely that I was duped by tricky semantics! The "forthcoming" item would appear to be nothing more than the 2011 catalog, which contains new and existing books. The other two books I noted may also be existing and not "forthcoming."
Thanks for pointing that out!
John
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 8 Sep 2010 to 9 Sep 2010 (#2010-149)
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"
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"
This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to protect the guilty) with a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name deleted to protect the co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
"I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got wonderful care."
What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads" in the first two sentences, and yet none in the last.
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"
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
Subject: A personal note
To: [log in to unmask]
> Inbound message:
>
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Reply:
>
> It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought
> about it, so he
> doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues
> for teaching
> grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-
> popular preference
> for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing, all
> the while not
> correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
>
> Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine
> mechanics become
> proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their
> trades? It makes
> no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
> trade without
> learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and
> you just go out
> there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last year
> but if you
> approach your game with confidence, you can beat him." Yeah, right.
>
> .brad.mon.13sept10.This from an old friend, a graduate of (name
> deleted to
> protect the guilty) with a degree in English, and a former
> editor of the (name
> deleted to protect the co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
>
> "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She
> had been
> ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't
> heard much from
> them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
> wonderful care."
>
> What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads"
> in the first two
> sentences, and yet none in the last.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 8:45:15 PM
Subject: Re: A personal note
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
Subject: A personal note
To: [log in to unmask]
Inbound message:
~~~~~
Reply:
It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought about it, so he doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues for teaching grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-popular preference for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing, all the while not correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine mechanics become proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their trades? It makes no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
trade without learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and you just go out there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last year but if you approach your game with confidence, you can beat him." Yeah, right.
.brad.mon.13sept10.
"I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years, which he said explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
wonderful care."
What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads" in the first two sentences, and yet none in the last.
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"
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 20:33
Subject: Missing links
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thank you, Ed, for your interest but you'll need to be more
> specific than just
> saying I don't know what I'm talking about. In what ways do you
> perceive that my
> view is "distorted" and that I do not understand English tense
> and aspect?
>
> The impetus for my comments was this passage: "I just got a call
> from Sam saying
> Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years,
> which he said
> explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a
> nursing home where
> Sam says she got wonderful care."
>
> You think Sally "had died last week"? Is that it? And you like,
> "she had been
> ill"?
>
> If so, you'd have to like, "She had died in a nursing home where
> Sam says she
> got wonderful care."
>
> What time zone are you in that you are talking shop at 8:45
> p.m., EDT?
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 8:45:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A personal note
>
>
> Brad,
>
> After reading a lot of your messages in which you argue for a
> certain
> perspective on "had" and so on, I believe that you don't
> understand English
> tense and aspect. You might want to take some courses in
> linguistics on these
> matters. I suggest morphology, syntax, and comparative
> linguistics. Such courses
> might provide you with the missing links that make your
> perspective on tense and
> aspect so limited and distorted.
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
> Subject: A personal note
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Inbound message:
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Reply:
>
> It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought
> about it, so he
> doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues
> for teaching
> grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-
> popular preference
> for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing,
> all the while not
> correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
>
> Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine
> mechanics become
> proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their
> trades? It makes
> no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
> trade without
> learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and
> you just go
> out there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last
> year but if
> you approach your game with confidence, you can beat him."
> Yeah, right.
>
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to protect
> the guilty) with
> a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name deleted to
> protect the
> co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
>
> "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She
> had
> been ill for several years, which he said explains why we
> haven't heard much
> from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
> wonderful care."
>
> What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads"
> in the first two
> sentences, and yet none in the last.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 7:27:31 AM
Subject: Re: Missing links
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 20:33
Subject: Missing links
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thank you, Ed, for your interest but you'll need to be more
> specific than just
> saying I don't know what I'm talking about. In what ways do you
> perceive that my
> view is "distorted" and that I do not understand English tense
> and aspect?
>
> The impetus for my comments was this passage: "I just got a call
> from Sam saying
> Sally had died last week. She had been ill for several years,
> which he said
> explains why we haven't heard much from them. She died in a
> nursing home where
> Sam says she got wonderful care."
>
> You think Sally "had died last week"? Is that it? And you like,
> "she had been
> ill"?
>
> If so, you'd have to like, "She had died in a nursing home where
> Sam says she
> got wonderful care."
>
> What time zone are you in that you are talking shop at 8:45
> p.m., EDT?
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 8:45:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A personal note
>
>
> Brad,
>
> After reading a lot of your messages in which you argue for a
> certain
> perspective on "had" and so on, I believe that you don't
> understand English
> tense and aspect. You might want to take some courses in
> linguistics on these
> matters. I suggest morphology, syntax, and comparative
>
linguistics. Such courses
> might provide you with the missing links that make your
> perspective on tense and
> aspect so limited and distorted.
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:26
> Subject: A personal note
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Inbound message:
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Reply:
>
> It indicates to me that he wasn't taught it and hasn't thought
> about it, so he
> doesn't (read: can't) follow a consistent pattern. This argues
> for teaching
> grammar as a separate discipline, as opposed to the currently-
> popular preference
> for nudging students toward good grammar in their writing,
> all the while not
>
correcting errors, which to some is "playing gotcha".
>
> Can quarterbacks and surgeons and chefs and small-engine
> mechanics become
> proficient without instruction and drill in the basics of their
> trades? It makes
> no sense to me to imagine that writers can become good at their
> trade without
> learning the basics. "Here's the ball and here's the club and
> you just go
> out there and see if you can hit it. He won the Masters last
> year but if
> you approach your game with confidence, you can beat him."
> Yeah, right.
>
> .brad.mon.13sept10.
>
> This from an old friend, a graduate of (name deleted to protect
> the guilty) with
> a degree in English, and a former editor of the (name deleted to
> protect the
>
co-conspirator). Ignore the content.
>
> "I just got a call from Sam saying Sally had died last week. She
> had
> been ill for several years, which he said explains why we
> haven't heard much
> from them. She died in a nursing home where Sam says she got
> wonderful care."
>
> What's interesting to me is that there are two erroneous "hads"
> in the first two
> sentences, and yet none in the last.
>
>
>
>
> 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"
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"
Since we have so many grammatical perspectives represented within ATEG, it is often fun to see how different schools of thought handle the same construction. I doubt Craig would call himself a traditional grammarian, but he was curious about how traditional, pedagogical grammar might treat his cited example. Since I tend to be more of a structuralist, I am often curious about cognitive perspectives, which Craig and others often supply.
John
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"
----- 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/
>
----- 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/
>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence one, tonic
prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can work
for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve ways
to articulate that relationship.
I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious knowledge
that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
about it) are deeply interwoven.
Craig
Robert Yates wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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/
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"
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefer that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
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"
Bob,
I know we’re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we’re following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot help but point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences used in the related older postings aren’t the same; and all this without positing a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense that’s relevant here).
I don’t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn’t be a pattern anyway; it’d be an instance. A category that can be realized as a range of lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts as a grammatical category, I’d think. It may not be only a grammatical category, but that’s a different — important, but different -- issue.
Here’s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it runs the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies for deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we know we don’t know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won’t get what you want a good deal of the time — but it’s darn creative. If we assume (1), and If it turns out that what’s actually produced isn’t the kind of thing we’d get from farming all the a priori possibilities, it makes sense that something must be constraining those possibilities (and thus there’s a clear need for a UG). Strategy (2), in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism, as a limiter. It’s a bit like deciding that if you’ve been using onions in a recipe, and you’re out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than chocolate as a stand-in. You won’t get noticed as a breakthrough chef, but your diner won’t go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strategy (1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were approaches based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn’t do (1), but didn’t try to do things with language either — that their use of language was rather like Pavlov’s dogs’ use of drool. No one likes the strategy (0) approaches, really (unless they’ve been trained to). I don’t think we’re at a point where we can say children definitely use a particular strategy to construct language, but I’d argue we can say that we can’t rule out strategy (1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research devoted to each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
Robert Yates wrote:
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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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/
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"
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 21:27
Subject: Re: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post.
> I wish he
> had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he
> is correct
> on the following:
>
> Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based
> approaches don’t use
> abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
> that’s relevant here).
>
> ***
> If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories,
> then we
> have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
> The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
> grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree
> on that.
>
> Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require
> speech for
> the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
> "pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
> pronoun.
>
> Finally, a response to Eduard.
>
> It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not
> always the
> best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that
> could be
> later formulated or distilled into rules.
>
> ****
> I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are
> exceptions.We all know a lot of exceptions then.
>
> Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
>
> In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is
> possible to
> contract them to wanna (2)
>
> 1) I want to have a beer.
> 2) I wanna have a beer.
>
> So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are
> next to
> each other, it is possible to contract them.
>
> That works for (3)
>
> 3) Who do you want to speak to?
> 4) Who do you wanna speak to?
>
> However, most people can't contract (5).
>
> 5) Who do you want to speak first?
> 6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
>
> Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not
> possibleand/or at least odd?
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> >>> Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>09/16/10 11:07
> AM >>>
> Bob,
>
> Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
> that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive
> from the
> input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not
> alwaysthe best way to investigate language or to reach
> conclusions that could
> be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that,
> like in
> the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
> elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
> that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered,
> something we
> misunderstood, and something we never learned.
>
> Are we communicating?
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
> Subject: Grammar as patterns
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > 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 ther> 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 u> 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/
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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/
>
> 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/
>
----- 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/
>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence
one, tonic
prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can
work
for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve ways
to articulate that relationship.
I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious
knowledge
that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
about it) are deeply interwoven.
Craig
Robert Yates wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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/
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"
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefer that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
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"
Bob,
I know we’re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we’re following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot
help but point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences
used in the related older postings aren’t the same; and all this
without positing a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you’re
implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use abstract
grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense that’s relevant
here).
I don’t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn’t
be a pattern anyway; it’d be an instance. A category that can be
realized as a range of lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts
as a grammatical category, I’d think. It may not be only a
grammatical category, but that’s a different — important, but
different -- issue.
Here’s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it runs the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies
for deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we
know we don’t know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won’t get what you want a good deal of the time — but it’s darn creative.
If we assume (1), and If it turns out that what’s actually produced
isn’t the kind of thing we’d get from farming all the a
priori possibilities, it makes sense that something must be constraining those
possibilities (and thus there’s a clear need for a UG). Strategy (2),
in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism, as a limiter. It’s a
bit like deciding that if you’ve been using onions in a recipe, and
you’re out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than chocolate
as a stand-in. You won’t get noticed as a breakthrough chef, but
your diner won’t go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strategy (1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were
approaches based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn’t
do (1), but didn’t try to do things with language either
— that their use of language was rather like Pavlov’s dogs’ use
of drool. No one likes the strategy (0) approaches, really (unless
they’ve been trained to). I don’t think we’re at a point where we
can say children definitely use a particular strategy to construct language,
but I’d argue we can say that we can’t rule out strategy
(1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research devoted to
each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
Robert Yates wrote:
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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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/
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"
----- 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/
>
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:50
Subject: Re: like
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/
>
Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence
one, tonic
prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can
work
for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve ways
to articulate that relationship.
I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious
knowledge
that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
about it) are deeply interwoven.
Craig
Robert Yates wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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/
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"
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive to me. I'd certainly be inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many American style guides prefer that commas be placed inside quotation marks, it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author....
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
From http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html :
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"
Bob,
I know we’re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we’re following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot
help but point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences
used in the related older postings aren’t the same; and all this
without positing a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you’re
implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use abstract
grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense that’s relevant
here).
I don’t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patterns have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn’t
be a pattern anyway; it’d be an instance. A category that can be
realized as a range of lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts
as a grammatical category, I’d think. It may not be only a
grammatical category, but that’s a different — important, but
different -- issue.
Here’s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although it runs the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies
for deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we
know we don’t know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that could be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work for a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
of one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won’t get what you want a good deal of the time — but it’s darn creative.
If we assume (1), and If it turns out that what’s actually produced
isn’t the kind of thing we’d get from farming all the a
priori possibilities, it makes sense that something must be constraining those
possibilities (and thus there’s a clear need for a UG). Strategy (2),
in effect, uses caution, or maybe pragmatism, as a limiter. It’s a
bit like deciding that if you’ve been using onions in a recipe, and
you’re out of onions today, maybe leeks would work better than chocolate
as a stand-in. You won’t get noticed as a breakthrough chef, but
your diner won’t go out of business.
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strategy (1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were
approaches based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn’t
do (1), but didn’t try to do things with language either
— that their use of language was rather like Pavlov’s dogs’ use
of drool. No one likes the strategy (0) approaches, really (unless
they’ve been trained to). I don’t think we’re at a point where we
can say children definitely use a particular strategy to construct language,
but I’d argue we can say that we can’t rule out strategy
(1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research devoted to
each.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
Robert Yates wrote:
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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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/
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"
   I think this may be just a difference in the way we are using the
term "innate," and I think "input." The input for a statement like "I
am looking for someone to work for" would have been a huge number of
statements about "looking for" things and many statements about
"working for" someone or having someone "work for" me.
   You say the following:
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
   Â
Modern pattern based approaches simply believe those patterns arise out
of language use using normal cognitive processes. See, for example,
Adele Goldberg's work, especially "Constructions at Work" (that may not
be the full title.)
    Because we have a huge number of fairly local constructions (like
"look for", meaning "search") to account for, it ends up being less
category bound and more like a lexico-grammar. It is more fluid and
flexible, but patterns are very much a part of it, even highly abstract
patterns like ditransitivity. The difference would be believing those
patterns are innate or believing those patterns are built from the
ground up and sustained by use. "Innate" doesn't just mean "in the
mind," but in the mind prior to exposure to language, at least as I
understand it. .
Craig
Robert Yates wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
I'm not quite sure how to respond to Bill Spruiell's post. I wish he
had provided some real language examples. Of course, if he is correct
on the following:
Still... you’re implying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use
abstract grammatical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense
that’s relevant here).
***
If modern pattern-based approaches need grammatical categories, then we
have no fundamental difference on whether language is innate or not.
The only question is to figure out what are the nature of the abstract
grammatical categories. I'm not quite sure all would agree on that.
Craig response is on speech, but the examples don't require speech for
the judgments involved and his response still doesn't explain the
"pattern" for the sentences that mean the same with or without a
pronoun.
Finally, a response to Eduard.
It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always the
best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could be
later formulated or distilled into rules.
****
I can only assume that this is a claim that my examples are exceptions.
We all know a lot of exceptions then.
Let's consider the following about the wanna contraction.
In (1), because want and to are next to each other, it is possible to
contract them to wanna (2)
1) I want to have a beer.
2) I wanna have a beer.
So, the "pattern" appears straightforward: when want and to are next to
each other, it is possible to contract them.
That works for (3)
3) Who do you want to speak to?
4) Who do you wanna speak to?
However, most people can't contract (5).
5) Who do you want to speak first?
6) *Who do you wanna speak first?
Given 1 and 3, what is the "pattern" that explains why 6 is not possible
and/or at least odd?
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> 09/16/10 11:07 AM >>>
Bob,
Of course, it is true that "there is something incomplete in a claim
that our knowledge of language is based on patterns we perceive from the
input." It is also true that using exceptions as examples is not always
the best way to investigate language or to reach conclusions that could
be later formulated or distilled into rules. The fact is that, like in
the proverbial anecdote, we are trying to draw the picture of an
elephant looking at him through the keyhole. There is always something
that we forgot to say, always something left uncovered, something we
misunderstood, and something we never learned.
Are we communicating?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:16
Subject: Grammar as patterns
To: [log in to unmask]
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 ther> 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 u> 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/
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/
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"
Glad to have that fundamental agreement.
I think this is less of a problem in speech. In sentence
one, tonic
prominence falls on "for." In sentence two, it falls on "him."
From our interactions with the world, we learn that people can
work
for people and people can have people work for them, and we evolve ways
to articulate that relationship.
I think we would both agree that there is an unconscious
knowledge
that allows us to understand/interpret these constructions. I believe
that the knowledge about the world, the ways in which we perceive that
knowledge, and the ways we have evolved to construe that (or talk/ask
about it) are deeply interwoven.
Craig
Robert Yates wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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/
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"
"Why Me?" seems like a non-essential appositive =
to me. I'd certainly be inclined to insert a comma after it. Since many=
American style guides prefer that commas be placed inside quotation marks,=
it would read like this:
In answering the title's question, "Why Me?," the author.=
...
In fact, Chicago Style recently dealt with this situation.
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"
Bob,
I know we’re rehashing some familiar positions here, or maybe we̵=
7;re following rules, or a pre-existing pattern (a point which, I cannot
hel=
p but point out, we can probably recognize even though the actual sentences
=
used in the related older postings aren’t the same; and all this
witho=
ut positing a Universal Listserv Argument Grammar). Still... you’re
im=
plying that modern pattern-based approaches don’t use abstract
grammat=
ical categories, but they do (at least, in a sense that’s relevant
her=
e).
I don’t know offhand of any pattern grammar that posits that all patt=
erns have specific individual words in all the slots. That wouldn’t
be=
a pattern anyway; it’d be an instance. A category that can be
realize=
d as a range of lexical items that occur in specific configurations counts
a=
s a grammatical category, I’d think. It may not be only a
gramm=
atical category, but that’s a different — important, but
differe=
nt -- issue.
Here’s a different way to get at the point of disagreement, although =
it runs the risk of setting up a straw man. Suppose we have two strategies
f=
or deciding what to try to accomplish something specific in a language we
kn=
ow we don’t know well yet:
(1) Come up with a list off all possible configurations (or rules) that cou=
ld be made with the categories you know so far, and randomly test-fire
them.=
(2) Take a couple of configurations (or rules) that you already know work f=
or a related purpose, and start by test-firing one or two tweaked versions
o=
f one of them.
Strategy (1) is likely to give you tons of false hits; you won’t get =
what you want a good deal of the time — but it’s darn creative.
=
If we assume (1), and If it turns out that what’s actually produced
Some approaches to grammar are based on supposing that children use strateg=
y (1) and others assume that children use strategy (2). There were
approache=
s based on a kind of strategy (0), which claimed that children didn’t
=
do (1), but didn’t try to do things with language either
—=
; that their use of language was rather like Pavlov’s dogs’ use
=
of drool. No one likes the strategy (0) approaches, really (unless
they̵=
7;ve been trained to). I don’t think we’re at a point where we
c=
an say children definitely use a particular strategy to construct language,
=
but I’d argue we can say that we can’t rule out strategy
=
(1) or strategy (2), and thus benefit from strands of research devoted to
ea=
ch.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
Robert Yates wrote:
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 reinforc=
ed by use"
then the claim is that we do not know very much about grammatical categorie=
s. Such categories are the result of the "patterns" we are
e=
xposed to. There are all kinds of examples I could cite to show how
su=
ch a common sense idea is problematic, but let's consider two pairs of
sente=
nces.
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 interpretati=
ons? 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 k=
nowledge 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 know=
ledge of language that we all have.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 9/16/2010 7:47 AM
>>>=
Eduard,
I agree that we are in rough agreement and apologiz=
e 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 w=
ould
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
Patterns are sustained to the extent that we find t=
hem 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
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" element=
s of
word classes, and there are "peripheral" elements of such word
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 f=
or
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]> <mailto:[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 s=
he
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&quo=
t;
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
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]> [log in to unmask]"><mailto:[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<=
BR>
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<=
BR>
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
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://list=
serv.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/
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&qu=
ot;
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
My department was recently eliminated, and I am currently without a job.
"A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle; it gains
a greater brilliance."
====
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
To: [log in to unmask]
I would
be very interested.
Rebecca
Sent:
Friday,
August 27, 2010 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
I
Need a Book Reviewer
From: Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, Sep 21, 2010 10:47 am
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
My department was recently eliminated, and I am currently without a job.
"A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle; it gains a greater brilliance."
====
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I Need a Book Reviewer
To: [log in to unmask]
I would be very interested.
Rebecca
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: I Need a Book Reviewer
1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens naturally, without direct instruction.
2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct instruction.
Perhaps you might replace "is easy" and "is hard" with "requires no effort" and "requires effort."
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"
4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
> 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/
>
John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School
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"
1) Acquiring a language is easy for a native speaker. It happens naturally, without direct instruction.
2) Achieving high levels of literacy is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
3) Acquiring the language of Standard English is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
4) Learning to read complex texts is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
5) Learning to write effectively is hard, but for the most part it happens without direct instruction.
6) Learning about language is hard. It does not happen without direct instruction.
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"
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or ‘being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
>
A few points --
(1) Arguments about universal grammar, etc. have bearing really on Craig’s first question, not the other five. Unless Standard English is the child’s first language (and it pretty much never is), “school English” is an additional code, and even ardent innatists (or, particularly, ardent innatists) would not argue it’s acquired/learned the same way. And no one claims literacy and composition skills are innate; the arguments are over conscious attention and the effects of intervention.
(2) Craig has already made this next point, I think, but it bears repeating: asking what people think the consensus about X is is different from asking what X is.
(3) I take your real objection to be something along the lines of, “if this is the consensus on (1), the consensus is wrong.” I happen to agree with most of Sampson’s positions, and I can bore you half to death kvetching about Chomsky. But to characterize his position as “dead” or simply passé is to adopt one of his more annoying rhetorical practices. There is current research on the specific-innatist side, and current research on the emergentist side. I happen to think evidence the latter is stronger, but then I would, wouldn’t I? We all have to acknowledge the possibility of bias.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
On 9/23/10 7:25 AM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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"
I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds of fiction. It is very entertaining to read all these language opinions based on personal FEELINGS. But this is not RESEARCH. Your conclusions are not worth three coffee beans because there is no empirical evidence to back them up. They are what people get when they turn the coffee cup over and try to divine how the day will run from the designs the dried dregs left on the inside of that cup.
Research is something completely different. Most of those who participated in your "poll" seem to be still rereading "Syntactic Structures." But things have moved on. There is new reading. The "language organ" or Universal Grammar was an interesting idea fifty years ago, along with the native speaker myth. But you people need to read something recent before you think through the same questions. There is new research that seems to affirm what Chomsky and his scool denied and still denies - the fact that language is LEARNED.
I recommend the following texts for those who have not come yet into the new millenium in language:
1. "The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality," by Alan Davies.
2. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," bgy Geofffrey Sampson.
and,
"Could a Chomskyan child learn Polish? The logical argument for language learning," by Ewa Dabrowska.
You first post appared to consider language acquisition of "A language." Any language, or just English? Considering the provincial perspective that dominates this e-mail list, it seems more than obvious that "A language" was referring to ENGLISH ONLY. But how about learning French, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, etc.? Do the same responses apply to them too? Can a simple "stealing (acquisition)" one of the above languages without any explicit instruction into the language do as well? My answer, is categoric "NO!"
Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.
You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky!
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or ‘being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
Are you saying a Polish child whose parents constantly speak Polish
around her but lack the time or inclination to give her "hard and
extensive explicit instruction" will grow up unable to speak Polish? And
you say this is true of most European languages? But not English? Are
there millions of Europeans who cannot converse apart from muttering a
few phrases? I'm trying to imagine medieval Europe with a largely
impoverished and illiterate population and presumably few with the time
or qualifications to give this hard and extensive instruction. It's a
wonder that those languages survived.
I also like this list in that the dialogue is generally polite and
free of snide remarks and biting sarcasm. On the other hand my research
shows that simple exposure to your messages enables one to become
fluent in sarcasm without any hard or extensive instruction at all.
Dick
I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where
people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams,
stories, and all kinds of fiction....
Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.
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"
Sender: American Dialect Society <[log in to unmask]>
Poster: "Joel S. Berson" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Refutation of Chomsky?*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not language that distinguishes humans from all other animals.
“Philosophers have often looked for the defining
feature of humans — language, rationality,
culture and so on. I’d stick with this: Man is
the only animal that likes Tabasco
sauce.”[1]. (I would add primatologists and linguists.)
"There's not a single animal that likes hot peppers."[2][3]
[1] Paul Bloom, a Yale psychologist
[2] Paul Rozin, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist.
[3] Animals of certain classes. Birds have no
problem with capsican. [Gorman,.]
In "A Perk of Our Evolution: Pleasure in Pain of
Chilies," by James Gorman, "Science Times," The
New York Times, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2010, Page D1.
http://tinyurl.com/28zupcv
Perhaps we can call this the "Paul Hypothesis."
* If this is not one of Chomsky's theses, but
that of other linguists, I apologize to him and to the members of this list.
Joel
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or ‘being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t. Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
>
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, September 23, 2010 11:25:12 PM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Sender: American Dialect Society <[log in to unmask]>
Poster: "Joel S. Berson" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Refutation of Chomsky?*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not language that distinguishes humans from all other animals.
“Philosophers have often looked for the defining
feature of humans — language, rationality,
culture and so on. I’d stick with this: Man is
the only animal that likes Tabasco
sauce.”[1]. (I would add primatologists and linguists.)
"There's not a
single animal that likes hot peppers."[2][3]
[1] Paul Bloom, a Yale psychologist
[2] Paul Rozin, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist.
[3] Animals of certain classes. Birds have no
problem with capsican. [Gorman,.]
In "A Perk of Our Evolution: Pleasure in Pain of
Chilies," by James Gorman, "Science Times," The
New York Times, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2010, Page D1.
http://tinyurl.com/28zupcv
Perhaps we can call this the "Paul Hypothesis."
* If this is not one of Chomsky's theses, but
that of other linguists, I apologize to him and to the members of this list.
Joel
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57
Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a
> good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if
> I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn’t go out to the list, and
> I’ll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion
> that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they
> are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be
> wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way
from
> the
> outside. It’s also not clear what kind of modeling or
> interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels
> of
> literacy is rare. There’s not a clear consensus on how “direct
> instruction” might influence that. A few people mention ability
> and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and
> engagement
> with complex texts or â€being interactively read to.” In those
> cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but
> perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that
> it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire
> language,
> but not so easily to those who don’t.
Standard English is hard
> for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they
> seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading
> and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One
> person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective
> strategies for
> reading complex texts “later in life” and wishes he had been
> given them
> earlier. I like John’s observation, that readers are often
> “instructed
> directly by the texts” they are reading. I’m not sure I agree,
> but it’s
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up
> intuitively?The lack of input from elementary school teachers
> may
be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then
> doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to
> focus on
> literary texts. What’s the current status of the phonics versus
> whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires
> direct
> instruction, especially for those who don’t do it well. One
> respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually
> doesn’t.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and
> need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what
> they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to
> write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is
> that
> writing seems to require
more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted “leaning about language”
> as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct
> instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on
> their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about
> language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be
> easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> 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/
>
I agree very much that we have to locate abilities within the child
that account for the acquisition of language. The difference of opinion
seems to be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
can acquire language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
Either way, it is a remarkable task.
Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and "pattern finding" as
central. Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
without accepting the existence of other minds. And what we might be
picking up might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
pairings, which allow us to interact with each other and construe the
world in uniquely human ways. How do we account for the ability to
construct texts, which some of us learn to do well and others seem to
do poorly? Is that a language acquisition process as well? Why don't
more five year olds win Pulitzer Prizes? (I don't mean that at all
sarcastically. I just want to posit the possibility that a lot more
than additional vocabulary and Standard English correction is ahead of
the child entering school.)
I just question the assumption--I don't mean that all generativists
believe that--that literacy is just something that happens more or less
according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
environment.
Craig
Dick Veit wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">Eduard,
Are you saying a Polish child whose parents constantly speak Polish
around her but lack the time or inclination to give her "hard and
extensive explicit instruction" will grow up unable to speak Polish?
And you say this is true of most European languages? But not English?
Are there millions of Europeans who cannot converse apart from
muttering a few phrases? I'm trying to imagine medieval Europe with a
largely impoverished and illiterate population and presumably few with
the time or qualifications to give this hard and extensive instruction.
It's a wonder that those languages survived.
I also like this list in that the dialogue is generally polite and free
of snide remarks and biting sarcasm. On the other hand my research
shows that simple exposure to your messages enables one to become
fluent in sarcasm without any hard or extensive instruction at all.
Dick
I
like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where
people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams,
stories, and all kinds of fiction....
Dabrowska
makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn
Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language.
The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language
prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in
the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same
applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.
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"
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"
Dick
I agree very much that we have to locate abilities within the child
that account for the acquisition of language. The difference of opinion
seems to be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
can acquire language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
Either way, it is a remarkable task.
Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and "pattern finding" as
central. Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
without accepting the existence of other minds. And what we might be
picking up might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
pairings, which allow us to interact with each other and construe the
world in uniquely human ways. How do we account for the ability to
construct texts, which some of us learn to do well and others seem to
do poorly? Is that a language acquisition process as well? Why don't
more five year olds win Pulitzer Prizes? (I don't mean that at all
sarcastically. I just want to posit the possibility that a lot more
than additional vocabulary and Standard English correction is ahead of
the child entering school.)
I just question the assumption--I don't mean that all generativists
believe that--that literacy is just something that happens more or less
according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
environment.
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"
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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/
>
One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now
teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program first
year, who all scored below college level on reading and writing
assessments. In previous years, they would have been funneled into a
non-credit course. This year, they are taking analytical writing (3
credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit support course. I'm
teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they are taking a five hour
version of a three hour class. But what's most relevant, I think, is
that I am making literacy the direct focus of the course. They are
reading and writing literacy narratives, approaching academic discourse
dialogically (using They Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I
guess (not totally new to me) is whether making literacy itself more
explicit will be helpful in achieving literacy goals. The students, by
the way, are encouraged to define their own goals. Since many have more
than one language in their lives, being bilingual is sometimes an
important part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about his
history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as
educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without
taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have
much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
Craig
Eduard Hanganu wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the
child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn
language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world
in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that
a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine
language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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"
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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/
>
And notice that you can take a filling that has chili pepper in it, and stuff a chili pepper with it. Chilis are recursive!
---- Bill Spruiell
On 9/24/10 2:41 PM, "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I would much rather discuss the innateness of liking hot peppers.
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"
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
"Hot peppers, Yes; Invective, No!"
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 2:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to
locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us
learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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/
>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 6:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
"Hot peppers, Yes; Invective, No!"
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 2:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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/
>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
And notice that you can take a filling that has chili pepper in it, and stuff a chili pepper with it. Chilis are recursive!
---- Bill Spruiell
On 9/24/10 2:41 PM, "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program first year, who all scored below college level on reading and writing assessments. In previous years, they would have been funneled into a non-credit course. This year, they are taking analytical writing (3 credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit support course. I'm teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they are taking a five hour version of a three hour class. But what's most relevant, I think, is that I am making literacy the direct focus
of the course. They are reading and writing literacy narratives, approaching academic discourse dialogically (using They Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I guess (not totally new to me) is whether making literacy itself more explicit will be helpful in achieving literacy goals. The students, by the way, are encouraged to define their own goals. Since many have more than one language in their lives, being bilingual is sometimes an important part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about his history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
Craig
Eduard Hanganu wrote:
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05
AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
>
> might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a
fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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"
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"
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program first year, who all scored below college level on reading and writing assessments. In previous years, they would have been funneled into a non-credit course. This year, they are taking analytical writing (3 credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit support course. I'm teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they are taking a five hour version of a three hour class. But what's most relevant, I think, is that I am making literacy the direct focus of the course. They are reading and writing literacy narratives, approaching academic discourse dialogically (using They Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I guess (not totally new to me) is whether making literacy itself more explicit will be helpful in achieving literacy goals. The students, by the way, are encouraged to define their own goals. Since many have more than one language in their lives, being bilingual is sometimes an important part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about his history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
Craig
Eduard Hanganu wrote:
I will take the warnings very seriously, Mister Hyde.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:24
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
> Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts
> sharply with the
> message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list,
> but members
> should know what to expect if they reply to him.
>
> Dick
>
> Richard,
>
> I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You
> are a piece
> of CRAP.
>
> Eduard
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dick,
> > I agree very much that we have to locate
> abilities within the child that
> > account for the acquisition of language. The difference of
> opinion seems to
> > be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child
> can acquire
> > language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes.
> Either way, it
> > is a remarkable task.
> > Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and
> "pattern finding" as central.
> > Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language
> without> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we
> might be picking up
> > might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning
> pairings, which
> > allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in
> uniquely> human ways. How do we account for the ability to
> construct texts, which some
> > of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a
> language> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year
> olds win Pulitzer
> > Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want
> to posit the
> > possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and
> Standard English
> > correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
> > I just question the assumption--I don't mean
> that all generativists
> > believe that--that literacy is just something that happens
> more or less
> > according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> > environment.
> >
> > 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"
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"
From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: September 27, 2010
Subject: explicit literacy instruction
I think that systemic functional grammar has the potential for guiding teachers to work with authentic texts, and that's why I am a fan of Coffin, Donohue and North's EXPLORING ENGLISH GRAMMAR. They provide a
healthy role model for how to examine grammar in the context of authentic texts.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite 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"
Thanks for the heads-up on Exploring English Grammar. I like what I
was able to find about it and have just ordered a copy.
I agree that real world sentences are important. If you don't look
at sentences in context, it's difficult to understand their
contribution to an unfolding discourse. And if all you have is formal
pattern, there is no way to see its contribution to discourse as
anything more than accidental. Systemic Functional Linguistics is very
useful for bridging those worlds, though it can be hard to get students
up and running with it in a short period of time.
I think that topic and support (your previous post) is a very useful
distinction when it is happening within a text, but I'm not sure it
fits all--or even most--texts. One of the things I find in looking at
real world paragraphs is that they don't fit the prescriptive patterns
that show up in traditional writing books, topic and support being one
of them. Whatever utility they have for writing doesn't carry over to
much real world reading. I also think we do harm when we don't offer
these as ONE way to write. SFL patterns would be a very different lens.
Craig
R. Michael Medley (ck) wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
Since I seem to be in pedagogical mode these days, I find that I am
connecting more with the posts like this one from Susan van Druten.
This year after
using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided to use the sentences
from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK). Boy, did I experience an
eye-opener! Their success rate when way down.
Is this is literacy issue or not? I suspect that it is a pedagogical
issue. When we teach students 'grammar' using very simple sentences, then
we can expect them to get lost and not perform well when all of sudden
they are presented with the complexity of real-world texts. How can this
chasm between exercises with simple sentences and a complex text be
bridged? I tend to bridge it by working with sentences that the students
actually produced, assuming that those are more complex than sentences in
the exercises. They have ownership of these sentences, and they don't
really feel any ownership of either the simple sentences of the exercise
or the complex sentences of the authentic text.
Having said that, I want to affirm that I do favor the use of authentic
texts. I would suggest using more syntactically complex texts from the
start, providing scaffolding as necessary for learners to see how the
grammar (also punctuation, etc.) is working (or not working) in those
texts. The teacher can present the text using color coding and different
fonts to focus attention on the desired linguistic elements of the text.
I think that systemic functional grammar has the potential for guiding
teachers to work with authentic texts, and that's why I am a fan of
Coffin, Donohue and North's EXPLORING ENGLISH GRAMMAR. They provide a
healthy role model for how to examine grammar in the context of authentic
texts.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
Susan van Druten wrote:
Every fall I start my 11th graders with a review of conjunctions with the
purpose of getting them to punctuate compound sentences properly. I have
experienced limited success with improving run-ons. Because they have
overcompensated by putting a comma before every "and," I have asked them
to underline what is being compounded in the sentence. This year after
using the low-interest but easy sentences, I decided to use the sentences
from interesting news stories (thanks to FARK). Boy, did I experience an
eye-opener! Their success rate when way down. Plus they didn't comment
on the interesting news story. To see if this is a literacy issue, I will
try a little experiment. I will read the story out loud and have a class
discussion about the news story and what it means. Only then will I give
them the worksheet on conjunctions.
Susan
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
Craig,
I use several methods to teach advanced literacy explicitly.
For paragraph structure, I have students read paragraphs that have been
indented, following Christensen, to show their levels of generality. I
point out how one sentence leads to another, and have students explain
to their partner the relationship of each sentence to the others. I also
italicize antecedent structures and bold all consequent structures. This
allows students to see how one sentence in discourse refers to another.
Following this, I present the same paragraphs in scrambled order,
initially including the bolding and italicizing. Students unscramble
the paragraphs, usually working with a partner initially, later working
independently and comparing, discussing, and defending their order.
This forces them to think very hard about the structure of paragraphs,
something that takes explicit instruction and practice. When they write
their own paragraphs, I have them italicize and bold the antecedents and
consequents to show the connections in their own writing. I also have
them highlight each sentence to show its function: blue for openers,
green for topic sentences and conclusions, yellow for the next level of
generality, and pink for detail sentences. Students can look at their
own paragraphs and see how they are organized and cohere. This also
reduces the amount of time I have to take on each paper; if students
have done the careful work of structuring their work and have shown me
how it is orgainized, I can read for other features and give other
feedback.
Scott Woods
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 9:26:43 AM
Subject: Re: how heavy a lift is grammar
One reason I raised questions about literacy is that I am now
teaching a class of twenty-two students, all opportunity program
first year, who all scored below college level on reading and
writing assessments. In previous years, they would have been
funneled into a non-credit course. This year, they are taking
analytical writing (3 credit, writing intensive) AND a non-credit
support course. I'm teaching both. It's my design. In effect, they
are taking a five hour version of a three hour class. But what's
most relevant, I think, is that I am making literacy the direct
focus of the course. They are reading and writing literacy
narratives, approaching academic discourse dialogically (using They
Say/ I Say as a core text). The experiment, I guess (not totally new
to me) is whether making literacy itself more explicit will be
helpful in achieving literacy goals. The students, by the way, are
encouraged to define their own goals. Since many have more than one
language in their lives, being bilingual is sometimes an important
part of that. One student just handed a paper to me about his
history as a rap artist, about how he has developed his craft.
I was/am generally curious about how we understand literacy as
educators, and whether we simply expect it to happen on its own.
It is obviously difficult to enter into public discourse without
taking things personally, maybe even more so for those of us who have
much at stake. That seems to me part of literacy as well.
Craig
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle,
brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across
cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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"
Have you read Sherman Alexie's "The Joy of Reading and Writing:
Superman and Me"? He says he learned to read from a Superman comic
book, even developing the idea of a paragraph early on as "a fence that
held words. The words inside a paragraph worked together for a common
purpose. They had some reason for being inside the same fence." He then
begins to think of "everything" in terms of paragraphs. "Our
reservation was a small paragraph within the United States. My family's
house was a paragraph..." In the superman comic book (before he could
read the words) "Each panel, complete with picture, dialogue, and
narrative was a three dimensional paragraph." Every time I have taught
that essay, including in my current semester, it has engendered a very
rich discussion, sometimes freeing students up from too narrow an idea
of what a paragraph is supposed to be. Words in a paragraph have
"common purpose." Paragraphing (blocking parts of the whole into
component sections) is being presented as natural to the workings of
the human mind. An essay is a unity of parts, or ought to be, in part
because the human mind maps the world that way.
What I like about the SFL metafunctions--representing the world,
interacting with other people, and constructing texts--is that they
work at all levels. These larger purposes are being carried out in and
through the clause structure. That's where the rubber meets the road.
As someone who plays/writes music, I am especially interested in
what you are doing with music. I like to listen to how good singers
(our best ) play with phrasing, often working within a tension between
music and speech. I think the open form poem often does that as well.
We fulfill or delay or deny expectations. I'm not sure I have the right
words for it yet. I also have a friend very conscious of how some
students, especially those in tech fields, are more visually oriented
than the typical English major. Too often, our ideas of literacy are
tied to "literary" texts.
These seem like very rich and interesting approaches. Do you have
anything written up yet?
Craig
R. Michael Medley (ck) wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
Craig,
Having done a study of paragraph components in a variety of real-world
texts as part of a graduate seminar on English prose style, I couldn't
agree more with you that not all paragraphs fit the "topic sentence +
supporting sentences" pattern. However, it is a basic pattern, and the
students I am working with at the moment cannot tell a paragraph from a
list of sentences.
The point I was making with the post was that visual metaphors can be
helpful devices in getting students to understand such concepts as focus,
details, general statement, etc. I am in the midst of a research project
that explores how grammar structures can be presented to second language
learners and practiced through visual, musical, kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal pathways.
I have read some of the cautions about this kind of project from Howard
Gardner and others, but I think that the correlations below, represent
reasonable attempts at integrating grammar instruction with the theory of
multiple intelligences:
Musical – rhythm, stress, pitch, intonation contours that go with
particular grammatical structures; elements of the grammar that permit us
to talk about music, e.g. mental & verbal processes
Visual/Spatial – gestures, body language, facial expressions [kinesics],
and distance/orientation in relations to particular grammar structures;
elements of the grammar that permit us to talk about space, line, color,
arrangement, e.g. existential & relational processes
Kinesthetic – kinesics (above) and pronunciation – i.e. fine motor control
of the pronunciation of all grammatical elements; the differentiation of
stressed content words and unstressed function words; elements of the
grammar that permit us to talk about the body and movement, e.g. material
processes
Interpersonal – all the elements of grammar that participate prominently
in realizing Halliday’s interpersonal functions-e.g. mood, modality,
pronoun system, verbal & mental processes, epistemic phrases, etc.
Intrapersonal – all elements of the grammar that allow us to reflect on
what’s going on inside of us; self-regulation of what we speak/write
through monitoring and evaluation based on our internal sense of the
standards; elements of grammar that permit us to talk about our interior
(e.g. mental & verbal processes)
I would welcome comments and insights from readers on these correlations
and the role of each of the mentioned intelligences in creating a
full-bodied understanding of grammar-in-use.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
I think that topic and support (your previous post) is a very useful
distinction when it is happening within a text, but I'm not sure it
fits all--or even most--texts. One of the things I find in looking at
real world paragraphs is that they don't fit the prescriptive patterns
that show up in traditional writing books, topic and support being one
of them. Whatever utility they have for writing doesn't carry over to
much real world reading. I also think we do harm when we don't offer
these as ONE way to write. SFL patterns would be a very different
lens.
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
1200 Park Road Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Ph: 540-432-4051 Fax: 540-432-4444
************************************
"Understanding and shared meaning, when it occurs, is a small miracle,
brought about by the leap of faith that we call 'communication across
cultures.'" --Claire Kramsch
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"
   My name is Julie Suarez Hayes. I am an assistant professor of
English and the Writing Center Coordinator at Hartwick College in
Oneonta, New York.
   I teach a course entitled The Anatomy of English and have been
using Marilyn Silva's Grammar in Many Voices. I am very
pleased with the book, but it has been out of print for some time now
and each semester my students must hunt up used copies. I realize that
our supply of this text is limited, and I am trying to find a suitable
replacement. Can anyone suggest a comparable text? Since I have just
been informed that we must make textbook decisions for spring term by
Oct. 25 (!) I'm feeling pressed and need to examine some other books
soon.
   I welcome any suggestions!
   Many thanks for your consideration,
     Julie Suarez Hayes
  Â
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"
Bart Ruspoli : [log in to unmask]
Head of Production
Fred Hutton-Mills : [log in to unmask]
General enquiries : [log in to unmask]
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"