The reason language does not fit into the system that describes it is that it is independent of that system. As to the relevance syntax, this doesn’t deny it. It just doesn’t deify it. Certainly, the terminology provides a tool to facilitate a categorical analysis. Unfortunately, our present approach, which is reliant on students understanding that terminology, seems to have become a barrier to their learning how words relate to the world around them.
Craig has already shared some of what Bybee has to say on the subject. Her evolutionary approach connects to a neurological understanding of how language comes to the brain. Reading Language, Usage, and Cognition has encouraged me to explore this subject further. As I see what science tells us about language and what language tells us about the brain, I see a new approach to teaching students about language that might that could reach more students than the approaches we have used in the past.
These readings affirm that the evolution of language follows from our own evolution. Jonathan Haidt,, in The Righteous Mind, adopts an evolutionary perspective when showing how our value system has increased our ability to survive. Citing research by Michael Tomasello, he writes “human condition veered away from that of other primates when our ancestors developed shared intentionality.”
Marco Iacoboni credits mirror neurons for this advance. Brain experiments based on monkey-see, monkey-do have shown that when an advanced primate observes a simple grasping action performed by another, the motor cells firing in the one performing the action correspond with motor cells firing in the one observing that action. And, when that action is related to a goal related to survival, the intensity of the firing increases. Mirror neurons that fire in this manner are located in Broca’s area of the brain, the brain’s center for language. This suggests that language is a way of encoding shared intentions.
Just as George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have pointed out in the book Philosophy in the Flesh, language reflects our embodied mind. Science writers Sandra Blakeslee and her son Matthew Blakeslee make the implications of this most vivid in their book The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: “Meaning is rooted in agency (the ability to act and to choose), and agency depends on embodiment.” They mention that people without sight or hearing are still able to function in the world because their sense of self and ours is connected to “numerous, flexible, morphable body maps” that give “rise to the solid-feeling subjective sense of ‘me-ness’ and to [our] ability to comprehend and navigate the world around [us].”
To explain the importance of this, they provide the following example: “If you were to carry around a young mammal such as a kitten during its critical early months of brain development, allowing it to see everything in its environment but never permitting it to move around on its own, the unlucky creature would turn out effectively blind for life. While it would still be able to perceive levels of light, color, and shadow –– the most basic, hardwired abilities of the visual system –– its depth perception and object recognition would be abysmal. Its eyes and optic nerves would be perfectly normal and intact, yet its higher visual system would be next to useless.”
Our approach to teaching language has students seated, not actively engaging the world around them, and we wonder why they have failed to learn how to write.
Actively engaging the world is essential for learning to take place. Sandra and Matthew Blakeslee tell their readers: “Your mind operates via prediction. Perception is not a process of passive absorption, but of active construction. When you see, hear, or feel something, the incoming information is always fragmentary and ambiguous. As it percolates up the cortical hierarchy, each area asks: ‘Is this what I expect? Is this what I predict? Does this conform to what I already know is the case?’ So your brain is constantly comparing incoming information to what it already knows or expects or believes.”
It is this same built-in process of prediction that allows students to become fluent readers.
Of course, prediction is facilitated by memory, which brings us back to Joan Bybee and the evolution of language. In her chapter on “Chunking and degrees of autonomy,” she writes, “When two or more words are often used together, they also develop a sequential relation . . . The strength of the sequential relations is determined by the frequency with which the two words appear together.” This can result in “phonetic reduction, the development of autonomy in cases of extremely high frequency, and the changes in meaning brought about by use of language in context.” By “autonomy,” Bybee is referring to how words take on new meanings that depart from what the meant before. They are bent toward social purposes. Thus “unbelievable” no longer means “impossible to believe,” any more than “fantastic” relates to “fantasy.”
This also relates to the process of chunking. Bybee quotes Allan Newell, author of Unified Theories of Cognition, on the subject: “A chunk is a unit of memory organization, formed by bringing together a set of already formed chunks in memory and welding them together into a larger unit. Chunking implies the ability to build up such structure recursively, thus leading to a hierarchical organization of memory. Chunking appears to be a ubiquitous feature of human memory.”
Syntactical connections are weakened and lexical meanings are strained to provide an opening that invites new meaning to fill the void.
Thus, phrasal verbs become chunks that we are able to predict without confusion. “Running up a hill” does not lead to our not understanding that “running up a bill” is quite another matter. All of this is accomplished by our nervous system and how it operates.
But, this also explains why Langston Hughes’ line “I’m gonna write me some music . . .” invites us to understand the use of “me” in ways that go beyond syntactic categories we are used to. Usage precedes our categorical description of that usage.
As heady as all of this sounds, when I talked to a neighbor
of mine who had just graduated from college and told him I was working on an
instructional approach to grammar that would focus on how our brains work. It would be about what science tells us about
language and what language tells us about the brain. He thought this was a great approach. He felt that everyone wants to learn about
the brains and how to use it more effectively; whereas, no one wants to learn
about grammar and how to use it more effectively. He thought that, if teachers could show
students how learning grammar taps into what they want to know about using
their brains to increase their autonomy, mastery, and sense of purpose, this
would change the present paradigm, which leaves students feeling criticized
rather than empowered.
Please forgive the length. I have been reading to prepare myself for making a presentation at the ATEG Conference in September. You have provided me my first opportunity to put those ideas forward in a meaningful context.
Thanks Craig, for the specific titles. I'll be looking them up.To join or leave this 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'm already persuaded that language is a complex adaptive system. There's value in teaching the more formal/systematic aspects, imo, but ultimately that won't be enough to explain how language works. I wish more students learned more about language throughout their schooling (as I'm sure we all do!)BethFrom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Hancock, Craig G [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Relevance of Syntax & Semantics: "I'm gonna write me some music about"To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"Beth,If we think of the patterns of language as closer to biology than to physics, then we would expect that elements of language may be on their way toward different group status as they expand or shift their patterns of use. Phrasal verbs, for example, evolve their phrasal status over time, which means that there is an inevitable in-between time when they would are hard to classify.If you read nothing else by Bybee, I would recommend Language, Usage, and Cognition (Cambridge Univ Press, 2010), which makes a great case for language as a "complex adaptive system." If we think of language--especially the grammar--as a formal system, then the kind of test you mention (verb expansion formula) is more relvant. If it's a "complex adaptive system," then formal tests can ber an awkward lens. Bybee uses sand dunes as an analogy--language gives us "considerable variation among individual instances, as well as gradience and change over time" (Bybee p.1). "A theory of language could reasonably be focused on the dynamic processes that create languages and give them both their structure and their variance" (same page).For a relevant Bybee article, I would also recommend "Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization" which appears in the second volume of The New Psychology of Language (Michael Tomasello ed. Larence Birnbaum 2003). As Bybee points out, the kind of phonetic reduction we get with 'gonna' and oughtta' is typical of grammaticalization. We don't say "I'm gonna New York" for "I'm going to New York," but we do say "I'm gonna take the train to New York" or "It's gonna rain." We only use it for expressions of intention and prediction, which are modal in function. This would be a good formal argument for "going to" functioning as a constituent group when modal functions are carried out, but not for physical movement: going plus to New York.This is a large shift away from the formal approaches to language that have been the norm for the last century. It certainly changes the conversation about what it's useful to know.
CraigFrom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Beth Young <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Relevance of Syntax & Semantics: "I'm gonna write me some music about"I noticed this discussion and found it to be very interesting!To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Gregg, I would have analyzed the "me" as an indirect object, but that doesn't answer the question of why "me" instead of "myself," or why there's an indirect object in the first place. Perhaps the "me" instead of "myself" makes the sentence less formal and more intimate.
-- write me some music = I will do the writing for my own satisfaction and I don't care what anyone thinks about it
-- write myself some music = I will write music that I will use somehow
It reminds me of ain't--which we often use to convey a tone of, "no matter what anyone thinks, I'm just giving you the plain truth," e.g., "politics ain't beanbag."
The "gonna write" is an interesting puzzle, too. I can see how it acts like a modal, like "ought to" and "have to" (and I'm looking forward to reading Joan Bybee's articles, thanks Craig). Since that analysis doesn't fit the normal verb expansion formula T (modal) (have + -en) (be + -ing) MV, in my classes, we'd normally analyze "I am going to write" as having the verb "am going" and "to write . . . " as an adverbial infinitive phrase, but the modal explanation goes farther to explain meaning.
More and more I find myself reiterating to my students that the grammar I'm teaching = our attempt to describe what we do with language, but that there will always be aspects that don't fit neatly into the system.
BethFrom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Gregg Heacock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 4:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Relevance of Syntax & Semantics: "I'm gonna write me some music about"Hi Herbert,I am pleased that you noticed my posting. Actually, there were two. The first followed Craig Hancock's response to Glenda Conway's query regarding lines from Langston Hughes' "Daybreak in Alabama": ". . . I'm gonna write me some music about/ Daybreak in Alabama . . . ."That exchange, privately responded to by two ATEG members, never received a public response. Then, Marshall Myers engaged in a separate exchange with Glenda, a former student of his. She replied that "gonna write" would be said as "fixin' to write" where she comes from.I will list both of my responses ahead of the exchanges that prompted them. I am interested in hearing your response.Thanks for asking,Gregg*************************First responseOn July 1, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Gregg Heacock wrote:Glenda,Craig has referred to Joan Bybee, who has pointed out how language most commonly used gets bent toward a social purpose, one that binds the speaker to the listener together as members of a common culture. Given that, you might also look at other parts of that first line: ". . . I'm gonna write me some music . . ." What would you say about the word "me"? Is it an indirect object as in "I'm gonna get me some food"? Or, does it add something to the art of writing that intensifies the depth of the experience contained in the writing itself as it might be shared with others? When language gets bent toward social purposes, ambiguities arise that bind us ever more tightly in a culture. This, in turn, helps us survive. If evolution is about the survival of the fittest, then language evolves so that we might evolve, as well, by ascending to greater heights through the vitality of our culture. I think Langston Hughes was writing about that, as well.Gregg*************On July 1, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Craig G. Hancock wrote:Glenda,This "be going to" construction has been written about very thoughtfully by Joan Bybee. It has gramamticalized fairly recently (since Shakespeare's time) from a construction for expressing movement toward a place, to a construction expressing intention, to a construction that expresses epistemic prediction. ("I am going to New York. I am going to write a novel. It is going to rain hard.) In those last two manifestations, it can act as a substitute for "will." The best way to analyze your example, i think, is as modal auxiliary for "write." When the construction is followed by a noun ("I am going to the store"), "to the store" functions as a prepositional phrase.It's interesting to know that all our modals have gramamticalized from lexical verbs, most of that during the period for which we have written records. Bybee uses this as a key part of her argument for seeing language as "a complex adaptive system."Unlike "will," be going to can also convey past intention. ("I was going to pay my bills, but I ran out of money."Lanston Hughes' work makes for great classroom study since he uses nonstandard forms so thoughtfully and wisely.Craig*************On July 1, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Glenda Conway wrote:Subject: "I'm gonna write"--verb + infinitive or verb + auxiliary?
Greetings—
Today, in my Advanced English Grammar class, I showed Langston Hughes’s “Daybreak in Alabama” as an example of a poem with two sentences.
I realized while showing the poem that I was not sure how to divide the slots of the first main clause, which is
…I’m gonna write me some music aboutDaybreak in Alabama….
Shall I think of “I’m gonna write” as being equivalent to “I will write,” thus considering “[a]m gonna” as an auxiliary to “write”?
Or shall I think of “I’m gonna write” as being equivalent to “I am going to write,” thus considering “to write…” an adverbial infinitive phrase?
I would love to read some discussion on this clause and to be able to share it with my students afterward.
Thanks,
Glenda Conway*************************Second responseOn July 5, 2014, at 7:39 AM Gregg Heacock wrote:Hi Glenda,Though terminology associated with grammar and syntax is useful in grouping words associated with the concept of making something happen, I think such categorization is most productive if it leads to an analysis of steps taken in making things happen. Actions break down into steps. Conditionals are considerations of circumstances required or desired to take action. Our ability, intent, and obligation are also factored in. The question arises, though, in terms of focus. If you are going to get married, "married" is the focus. The same would be so if you were fixin' to get married. But, what if you are preparing to get married? When does our focus shift from the goal to the steps taken to achieve that goal?The same question arises when a student writes, "I started to climb the fence." How does "started" differ from the act of climbing? John R. Searle writes that the grammar of action breaks down into many steps. But, in these, action begins with the general intent to act, followed by a direct intent that initiates the action, itself. I think that young writers have an unconscious awareness of that second intention that shows up in their writing as "started to." The question is: What does that signify to the reader.The other question is this: When does a term like "fixin' to" achieve a cultural buy-in to what is being said because it asserts a shared belief: "Around here we like take our own good time when doin' somethin' so it don't cause no problems." Our brains love this stuff, especially that "around here" that we now hear in commercials selling solid principles of financial planning. When words acquire strong emotional overtones, they have been bent to a social purpose that changes their meaning and significance to an audience.I would say, Glenda, in connecting with Marshall as you have, you have introduced personal information (speaking of social purpose) that adds greatly to the discussion you initiated some time ago. Let me go back to the beginning to ask about the use of "me" in Langston Hughes' line "I'm gonna write me some music . . ." Is it like: "I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter"? Is it like: "I'm gonna write it myself"? Or, is it something else? And, if so, what grammatical, syntactical term would be used to categorize it? This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know.Perhaps someone out there can help me.Thanks,Gregg*************On Jul 4, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Glenda Conway wrote:To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"Hi Marshall!Where I live, the wording is "I'm fixin' to. We like to take our own good time when doing so won't cause a disaster.Are you retired? Where are you living?It's so good to hear you here.Glenda*************On Jul 4, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Marshall Myers wrote:Glenda,
Old classmate here!
“Going to” is many times regarded as a two-word modal auxiliary like the related “can,” may,” might” and others.
“I’m going to go”“I may go.”
Marshall Myers*************************Herbert, I am curious to hear your response. –– GreggVisit 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/