You are absolutely right, of course, that the more experience students have with grammatical concepts and explorations, the easier it becomes.  And language acquisition without social intercourse simply does not occur.  That being said, however, once a language is acquired, its functioning is relegated to very poorly understood processes well beyond the reach of one's conscious brain.  Students have to learn how to access their language competency (insofar as we know how to teach it) and the underlying principles that govern its functioning (insofar as we understand them ourselves).  Some students find the subject matter easy; others struggle with it.  However, factors other than it resisting being brought to conscious attention are at play. 

By the way, no apology is necessary.  I appreciate the suggestion of the word "routinize," one that I would never have thought to use left to my own devices.

I, too, am a musician, albeit far from an accomplished one.  I struggle constantly on keyboard and guitar to get things "under my fingers," so I know exactly what you are referring to with this analogy. 

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

    I agree that frequency (maintaining and strengthening) matters a great deal. We can think of things like contractions as arising out of frequency (when processing is easier.) Language arises out of social interaction. School often asks students to use language in new ways. Is that a matter of using old language in new ways or does language itself have to grow and expand to meet the new challenges?

    When I wrote about resisting being brought to conscious attention, I was simply describing what I observe when I teach a grammar class, as I have done every year for quite some time. Some students seem to get it right away, but others have a hard time slowing things down and recognizing the meaningful relationships that happen in and through the grammar.  This certainly seems to me much more difficult when you are working with students who have not done this before in any kind of meaningful way. At some point in their lives, they learned this, but it’s hard to bring to light. (Once they do, by the way, they seem to enjoy it very much. The most  common comment I get from student evaluations is that the course is far more interesting and valuable than they had thought it would be.)

    I apologize if any of this seemed like a criticism, but I had no way of knowing whether you felt any attachment to the content of the sentence.

   As a somewhat skilled guitarist, I am much more aware of what I am currently trying to routinize versus what has become somewhat second nature. I have much more accessible memories of learning, for example, what constitutes a diminished chord and what finger shapes would allow me to produce it and what contexts it might sound appropriate. Much of language is obviously acquired when we are quite young. In that sense, it can be thought of as “deep,” which is, in itself, metaphoric.

    I don’t think language is simply a biological unfolding, though we are obviously equipped to acquire it.  Social interaction is so important. And our students need to learn how to put language to work in ways they are not yet comfortable with.  What role does consciousness play in helping that happen? Too often, educators have used the idea that language simply happens to diminish the value of conscious attention. I would at least like to make it a much more open question. It seems, in fact, the most important question we can ask. Does understanding language help us understand what students need to learn? Is it useful for them to understand how language works as well? That means, of course, bringing some “deep” processes to conscious light. It might also mean helping them use language in ways they have not yet routinized.

    

 

Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 12:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Question

 

Thanks guys--as usual, you nailed it with excellent analyses and great examples.

Craig, I would beg to differ with you a bit on the side issue you raised.  Neurons communicate via electro-chemical energy (neurotransmitters and action potentials).  Neuronal pathways that are used repeatedly are maintained and strengthened; those that aren't are either pruned or "overwritten."  I have no problem metaphorically calling the former process "routinization."  However, I think the metaphor that I used is more reflective of the actual process. 

I most certainly am not saying that "[t]he mind allows itself to be burned by language."  The brain neither allows nor forbids being routinized.  Allowing and forbidding are conscious-brain concepts that make no sense when applied to the inner workings of the brain.  And "burned" is, of course, a metaphor, as you pointed out.  I am using an agentless passive construction here for a reason.

I also have to take issue with saying that language "resists being brought to conscious attention . . ."  The vastly complex neuronal circuitry that comprises language can neither resist nor facilitate moving itself to conscious attention.   Neuroscientists estimate that the conscious brain occupies and is aware of 8% of the brain's inner workings.  The vast majority of what transpires in the brain happens beyond awareness.  For native speakers, most of what goes on during communication takes place in that 92% area--much like riding a bicycle or skilled piano playing. 

To me, Craig, you keep trying to anthropomorphize the natural functioning of the brain. 

 

 

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Sort of like "here" and "there" or "up" and "down"? Perhaps serving somewhat like an appositive to an implied adverb...

"... their language is burned there, deep into the circuitry of their brains..."
"The dog buried the bone here, deep in the ground."
"The eagle climbed up and up, high into the sky."
"The clouds hung down, low on the horizon.

---

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 23:01:20 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Question
To: [log in to unmask]

 

Or maybe just a place adverbial?

 

The dog buried the bone deep in the ground.

The eagle climbed high into the sky.
The clouds hung low on the horizon.

On Mar 27, 2016, at 9:01 PM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

What we may have here is a stranded object complement in an agentless passive clause.
X burned language deep into my memory.
Language is burned deep into my memory (by X).
Bruce gives some helpful examples of verbs that routinely take adjective object complements. 
The kids painted the wall black. (complex transitive, with "black" as object complement.) The wall was painted black by the kids. (passive version.) The wall was painted black. (Agentless passive. Black feels like a stranded adjective.)
"Deep," though, seems to show up in non-passive clauses. "Still waters run deep." "Her remarks cut deep." (Perhaps I was cut deep by her remarks?)
The big question might be what burns language deep into our memories. Is that an accurate or helpful metaphor for the process? The mind allows itself to be burned by language? 
To me, it makes more sense to say that much of language has become routinized. There is an evolutionary advantage to routinization in so many human activities. The language has been learned, becomes routinized, and then resists being brought to conscious attention, especially when the value of conscious attention has been denigrated and people have very little experience with it. 

---

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Crow <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 5:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A Question

 

The following sentence bothers me:

As a result, most of what native speakers “know” about their language is burned deep into the circuitry of their brains.

What I cannot seem to come to grips with is the word "deep."  It is, to me, obviously an adverb, so it should be "deeply."  However, when I make that substitution, my internal grammar checker informs me that that's wrong.  What's going on here?

Thanks!

John

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/