Jeanne, "I think children learn best what they can believe in" is a wonderful thought, wonderfully expressed, a great counter to the idea that we should simplify, even at the cost of distortion, in our teaching. Would "they" sometimes stand in for a bare common noun, admittedly a plural one? "Dogs are loyal to loving owners. They..." I agree that "person, place, or thing" is harmfully simplistic. Do you simply ignore semantic definition or do you work on a more nuanced one? If we grant something the status of "thing" is there a cognitive dimension to that? Craig> Bruce, > Thank you for your thoughtful response and for pointing out my omission. > A proper noun certainly can be defined as the name of a person, place, or > thing. You say that the word name can be used to include classes of > objects, or, if I understand what you are saying, objects that can be > referred to by pronouns. This is something I need to think more about. > First of all, pronouns, despite the definition which I will not repeat, > can replace noun phrases or determiner phrases, but not common nouns. > Therefore, thinking from the pronoun to the noun will yield an NP or DP, > or a proper noun, but not a bare common noun which is the subject of the > overgeneralized definition: person, place, or thing. > > I suppose it is not the error in the definition itself which bothers me, > it is the parroting of it by people who are supposed to be educated, and > the requirement that young children learn it because it is simple. I > think children learn best what they can believe in, and they could be > practicing more productive analysis than The Noun Game as described in the > Dennis Baron article. It seems to me that instead of being encouraged to > use their own knowledge to develop a useful description of language, they > are being taught conformity and graded on it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain > Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 6:44 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > Jean, > > I think the problem with your true/false question is that if it must be > false, most statements made in human langugae must also be false. The > assertion would be false simply because it is too general and needs to be > made more precise. You give an example of why it is not precise enough to > characterize common nouns. Any alternative assertion based on the > examples you have used for your definition, which leave the student to > make the generalization, will exclude proper nouns, examples of which are > missing. If definition by example is to be preferred over against > generalization, then you will also have to give examples of the various > kinds of proper nouns. > > "A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing" seems to be vague enough > with "name" to include the names of classes of objects (common nouns) and > the names of particular objects (proper nouns). If it is too vague so as > to include references to objects made by pronouns, then, the problem is in > the normal interpretation of English words and sentences. The ancient > Greeks overcame this kind of problem in their Euclidean system of geometry > by setting up definitions that would be based ultimately on a small set of > undefined terms. Lines and points, as defined by them, do not exist in the > real world. They are theoretical constructs learned by metaphor. Grammar > needs to be approached with this kind of rigor. If the discussion is about > fifth grade concepts, then maybe geometry and undefined terms is too much > to ask. > > Bruce > > --- [log in to unmask] wrote: > > From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:49:39 -0500 > > Dear fellow teachers, > > Everybody knows, you say, that a noun is the name of a person, place, or > thing. Everybody has been told that many times. Does that make it true? > These words we call common nouns-what do they name? Chair, table, car, > dog, tree. What have I told you? What have I referred to? Which chair? > What did I name? > All right, now, what is a noun? A noun refers to a class of things, > places, or ideas with common characteristics. That is why it is called a > common noun. Chairs are things to sit on. Tables hold food or work. > Cars: > generally four-wheeled carriages with motors. > So if you want to talk about a particular chair, how do you do it? You > refer to the situation. It can be that chair over there, or the chair > that I am sitting in or the comfortable leather chair at Grandma's house. > Now I have named three chairs. Did the noun supply the name? What would > happen if we changed the noun? If we say "that dog over there" we look > for something entirely different. When we see it, we know which dog. If > there are three dogs over there, we need more information. The noun only > told us it was a member of the class we call "dog". > I like to include a true-false section on exams. One of the statements > is, "A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing." If you say this is > false, you get it right. > Jean Waldman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:02 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > The issue of how many parts of speech there are reminds me of this Web of > Language column by Dennis Baron, in which he points out that France > recognizes fewer continents than we do. I had no idea! The column is > tangential to this discussion, but worth a read to see how the French > schoolteacher sets him straight: http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/14332 > > Beth > >>>> Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]> >>>> 12/10/10 5:22 AM >>> > Susan, > > Perhaps the question "How many parts of speech are there?" is not the > right > question. > > It's like asking "How many colors does a rainbow have?". Just because you > learn in school that there are 7 doesn't mean that it is in fact the case. > There is no right answer to this question, but it doesn't mean that optics > is not a science. > > What if words are like colors, on a spectrum? Some points are more > salient: typical nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc... But there are plenty of > in-between cases. Only you don't want to go into all those details at the > beginning levels, so you present a simplified account. (That's why you > won't > find definitions that will satisfy everybody: if you only describe the > prototypical cases, less central elements will be excluded form your > definition; but if you try to include them in you definition, it will > become > too complex/vague to be useful.) > > Do you agree that words cannot in principle be divided into discrete > categories? > Do you agree that the fact that they cannot be divided into discrete > categories doesn't imply that linguistics is not a science? > > Marie > > >> I think you have made a nice distinction between hard and social >> science. > With the social sciences the value of an explanation can be relative: how > many parts of speech are there? But science doesn't care whether an > explanation is more useful; it is either a correct explanation or a wrong > one. >> >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >>> Susan, >>> I think "a good scientist is as certain as the current evidence >>> allows" is something I can live with. I don't think you stop being >>> skeptical because the evidence backs a position up, but that's not a >>> big issue. >>> Whether we think of it as science or not, knowledge accumulates >>> within a discipline like linguistics in large part because of the >>> shared exploration of people in the discipline. Either it deepens our >>> understanding of language (satisfies us in that way) or it fails to >>> do so. I would hate to think that knowledge about language is just up >>> to the individual and that everyone's views are equal. Perhaps that's >>> not what you are advocating. To me, it's not just science, but the >>> study of language that shouldn't be thought of as a free for all. >>> Some explanations are decidedly more useful than others. We have to >>> move toward that goal somewhat collegially. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as >>>> >>>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the >>>>> opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, >>>>> perhaps especially his/her own. >>>>> >>>> No, this is not accurate. A good scientist is as certain as the >>>> current evidence allows. She is not more skeptical of her own >>>> position simply because it is her own. It only became her own >>>> position BECAUSE of the amount of evidence she has found in its favor. >>>> >>>> What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's theory. She >>>> should work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it. >>>> However, in the end, we are human and a good scientist knows this >>>> and so relies on peer review BECAUSE she knows she might be partial >>>> to her own theory--even though she thought she did her best to >>>> disprove it. If her theory passes peer review, then she can be as >>>> confident of her theory as anyone else and need not be any more > skeptical of it than anyone else. >>>> >>>> You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which all >>>> ideas have equal certainty and skepticism. I know you know that is >>>> not a true representation. Yet there are degrees of skepticism that >>>> you seem to hang on to. These are the same degrees of skepticism >>>> that Intelligent Design proponents rely on. They revel in giving > science this wimpiness that seem >>>> to applaud. Watch out for what you advocate. It can come back to > haunt >>>> you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to >>>>> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other >>>>> interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and >>>>> subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right; >>>>> positions are subject to peer review. >>>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) >>>>> as "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the >>>>> opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, >>>>> perhaps especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems >>>>> overwhelming, as it is for evolution and global warming, a good >>>>> scientist presents those as the best current explanation of the >>>>> evidence, not as a final and definitive answer. This may seem wimpy >>>>> to some, but it is a cornerstone of what good science is all about. >>>>> When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within >>>>> the academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the >>>>> Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new way >>>>> of seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have >>>>> reviewed the current literature and understand it before they offer >>>>> something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that >>>>> view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should be, is >>>>> not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing >>>>> the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed >>>>> facts. >>>>> I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I >>>>> find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think >>>>> it's important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for >>>>> us to discuss issues in a useful way. >>>>> It is helpful to know what most experts currently believe about >>>>> a topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Karl, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list >>>>>> >>>>> and YOU >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who >>>>>> >>>>> called me a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No >>>>>> >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your >>>>>> >>>>> definition >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are >>>>>> >>>>> looking >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in >>>>>> >>>>> any >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> decent grammar text". >>>>>> >>>>>> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition: >>>>>> >>>>> The past >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the >>>>>> >>>>> primary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense >>>>>> >>>>> system. The >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior >>>>>> >>>>> to a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> second past event." >>>>>> >>>>>> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're >>>>>> >>>>> getting >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what >>>>>> >>>>> the past >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to >>>>>> >>>>> locate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went >>>>>> >>>>> to the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect >>>>>> >>>>> functions to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second >>>>>> >>>>> event, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to >>>>>> >>>>> adjust >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change >>>>>> >>>>> it. It >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past >>>>>> >>>>> perfect >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event". >>>>>> >>>>> Is it >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or >>>>>> >>>>> can we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar. >>>>>> >>>>> That's >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> what this is all about.) >>>>>> >>>>>> .brad.06dec10. >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen >>>>>> >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs >>>>>> >>>>>> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with >>>>>> >>>>> Eduard. For >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the >>>>>> >>>>> only >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> one who knows the truth about the perfect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the >>>>>> >>>>> list, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private >>>>>> >>>>> to the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> entire list. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected >>>>>> >>>>> your >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away >>>>>> >>>>> from it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> distinction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you >>>>>> >>>>> demonstrate by >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge >>>>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> English grammar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be >>>>>> >>>>> shunned, and I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> deeply regret my folly in writing to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to >>>>>> >>>>> my idiot >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> filter. >>>>>> >>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's >>>>>> >>>>> web >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> select "Join or leave the list" >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >>>>> select "Join or leave the list" >>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface > at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/