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.

[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/


  

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/