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/