Driving home from downtown last night, I heard some "serial music" on the radio. The vocalist must have repeated "Hold that tiger" at least 20 times, and the same melody was repeated many more times. It wasn't a contemporary music station, though: it was blues or jazz. By the way, I don't see how anyone who has ever done informant work or worked "in the field" with a totally unfamiliar foreign language could ever think of linguistics as anything but a science. Ed S On Dec 12, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: > Our tastes in music, apparently, aren’t that far apart. I’m partial > to Berg and especially his violin concerto with its musical excursus > on “Es ist genug.” > > Herb > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:02 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > Well, I think there's a connection with higher mathematics, perhaps, > but then I think that higher math is probably a kind of language, too. > > Regarding serial music, the best of it is more inspired than > traditional views seem to suggest; the mathematics connection has > often been used to denigrate it and suggest it is "unartistic," > which is far from true (I'm thinking of the music of Webern and > Boulez, in particular, which I find quite inspired and not at all > "clinical"). I admit that it is an acquired taste, however. > Perhaps the same could be said of some modern literature ... ? > > 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: Sat, December 11, 2010 11:37:33 AM > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > I had a music composition grad student working for me for a while, > and he insisted that music was mathematics. But then he composed > nothing but serial music, so perhaps he had a point. Pythagoras, by > the way, would have agreed with you—and my grad student. > > Herb > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:30 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > I've always thought of grammar as something akin to Music Theory, > which is also a flexible system and is used to describe rather than > proscribe what is done in composing and performing music. There's > an aura of science about it (music theory, that is), but it really > isn't a science as far as I can tell. I think there are some > similarities to higher mathematics, but I don't know enough about > that to make the analogy. > > Any thoughts on this idea? > > 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: Sat, December 11, 2010 8:49:26 AM > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > Like others who have commented on parts of speech, I've always > taught them as prototypes. Rodney Huddleston has written on the > properties of auxiliary verbs and shows, with a detailed chart, how > different modals, for example, differ significantly in their > properties. Certainly one starts with the prototypical definition > and then adds complexity as students mature. Confusion begins when > people think the prototype defines the entire class. The natural > world, of which language is a part and that we use science to study, > is rarely that simple. > > Herb > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Marie-Pierre Jouannaud > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:42 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science > > Thank you Beth. This is a wonderful article! > > Marie > > > 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/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and > select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and > select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/