Bob,
Let me recommend Mira Ariel's superb /Pragmatics and Grammar/ (Cambridge 2008) for a detailed and thoughtful coverage of issues involved in the relationships between pragmatics and grammar. I won't attempt to repeat her arguments here, but there is substantial evidence of such relationships. By the way, your "Is the pope Catholic?" example is analogous to the "Call me a taxi" problem, which has a clear pragmatic solution.
Ariel's book is a great read.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 6, 2009 10:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dennis Baron's article
Craig has claimed for a long period of time the following:
"Some more recent approaches to language emphasize that grammar is
inherently discourse oriented, inherently tied to cognition."
This puts much too much emphasis on the notion that the meaning of a text is in the grammar.
Let's consider two examples of the same string of words meaning very different things.
1) Child to parent: Is the Pope Catholic?
2) Husband to wife who has just come home after working for 10 hours: Would you like a drink?
Wife: Is the Pope Catholic?
I know of NO theory of grammar that can explain why the very same string of words "is the Pope Catholic" can mean very different things. If grammar is inherently discourse oriented and inherently about meaning, that should not be the case.
****
Let's consider a real text. This text was written in 1729 and is reprinted regularly in first year writing texts.
Here is an important passage for that text: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.
I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.
I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.
***
I have no idea what aspect of grammar in this famous text is tied to cognition, so I won't begin any such analysis. Likewise, I have no idea what aspect(s) of grammar in this famous text reveal(s) the meaning Swift is trying to convey.
If we need to appeal to extra-grammatical principles to understand the meaning of this text, wouldn't that be true for all texts?
***
One more observation about Craig's last post. He asserts:
I don't think linguistics as generally taught has given us a way of
understanding the nature of effective texts.
***
He is absolutely right, of course because no school of linguistics I know has a goal of identifying what makes a text effective. Given the fact that people have been reading Swift's A Modest Proposal for about three hundred years, a lot of people seem to consider it effective. Perhaps, Craig can suggest the grammar in this passage that makes it effective.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/06/09 4:53 PM >>>
> Bill, Herb, David,
I think David's program goes nicely beyond the status quo, and he does
so by evoking NCTE's own statement of goals, so there is much hope for
wide acceptance.
NCTE has officially stated that students "have a right to their own
language" and most people would agree that they have a right to be
given access to Standard English. David's program sounds like it would
address both goals. I would go even further than that in saying that it
sets up the goals as complementary--"contrastive analysis" being one
way in which students can gain a solid understanding of the standard
while exploring the rule-based nature of non-mainstream dialects. It is
not an either/or choice, as it is sometimes understood to be.
Here's one way I see the solution as going beyond anything like a
consensus from linguistics. What English teachers need to do is help
students read critically and write effectively. The whole issue of
dialect versus Standard, as important as it is, doesn't touch that
issue if language is thought of PRIMARILY as a set of forms that may or
may not be acceptable in various contexts.
I don't think linguistics as generally taught has given us a way of
understanding the nature of effective texts. The fact that dialects are
rule-based, in other words, doesn't give us a way of dealing with the
fact that our students need to write narratives and arguments and so
on, that they need to read complex texts by dealing, not just with some
sort of loosely connected CONTENT, but with words and an arrangement of
words. If knowledge about language cannot be brought to bear on these
larger questions of literacy, then the two disciplines will continue to
be at odds.
Some more recent approaches to language emphasize that grammar is
inherently discourse oriented, inherently tied to cognition. What we
know and the words we learn as we come to know it are theorized in
dynamic relation to each other. Students may have problems learning
science, for example, in part because the disciplines of science are
giving us new kinds of texts, new ways of using language. These are
extraordinarily important areas of inquiry, but people teaching English
are not trained enough in language to carry it out and most American
linguists, to this point at least, haven't taken an interest.
We need a way to look at grammar when grammar is working well. Whether
it is "correct" or "standard" or "non-mainstream" or the like is only
indirectly related to effectiveness. If a study of language doesn't
help with reading and writing on a level beyond correctness, there's
not much to say in its favor. We will continue with the status quo,
expecting students' language to develop naturally (while our attention
is on other things) and correcting it at point of need with as little
meta-language as possible.
Why do so many of our students fail? Can we demystify literacy for
ourselves and for them in such a way that we can turn some of those
failures around?
Craig
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/
|
