Eduard

----- 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/
>