Well, yes, of course . . . but more typically, it seems that we English
teachers are the ones who are stuck explaining why ">1 acceptable
answer" ≠ "every answer is right." How nice to watch the math folks
take their turn.
Beth
>>> Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> 12/14/2009 12:22 PM >>>
It is in the nature of the decimal number system to have two ways to
represent the same value. It hardly makes every number equal to every
other number. In English we represent the same letter of the alphabet
in either upper or lower case renderings. This hardly makes every
letter equal to every other one. Philosophers often fall into the trap
of using a particular expression to speak of one thing, and then
imperceptibly shifting to speak of something else using the same
expression. It will cause confusion, but as Lincoln is said to have
said, even if you call the tail a leg, a dog still has four legs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dennis Baron's article
Blurred boundaries are always interesting to think about. I remember
an interesting party where math people were arguing about whether .9
repeating was equal to 1. (Divide 1 by 3 and you get .3 repeating.
Multiply that by 3 and you get .9 repeating. Ergo, .9 repeating = 1.)
"But then every number is equal to every other number!" some protested.
It was fun to watch this debate in a non-English discipline.
The idea that grammar is related to our interactions with the world is
also a feature of _Metaphors We Live By_. I hadn't thought about how
corpus research would encourage attention to this area, though. Makes
sense.
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/14/2009 11:01 AM >>>
Beth,
Proponents of construction grammar would say that the practice is
far
more widespread than is generally acknowledged. We are often very
aware
of idioms (fixed expressions that generally have meanings not
predictable from the component parts) in part because the dictionaries
feel a need to list and define them. There are also a huge number of
fixed expressions that are not idiomatic (safe haven, just war, done
deal) and a high number of somewhat schematic expressions, where we
fill in the slots. "We want to thank X for taking the time to Y" where
"Y" is often "be with us this morning/evening/afternoon" and so on. "X
will put Y at risk of Z." The examples are easy to come by.
One factor fueling this attention is the current ease of corpus
studies.
Proponents will say that this argues against seeing a fixed
boundary
between lexicon and grammar. At least some grammar, at this level,
seems built out of our interactions with the world. It becomes part of
the argument that even the most abstract grammatical patterns are tied
to the lexicon and grow out of our experience.
> Craig
Snowclones seem to fit in here (www.snowclones.org). A "snowclone" is
a
> generative cliche--you can take a formula and change out the main
terms
> but it still recognizably fits the formula, like "X put Y in
> his/her/its/their place," or "X is the new black," or "X is a poor
man's
> Y." The term was originally inspired by the phrase, "If Eskimos have
N
> words for snow, X surely have Y words for Z." But the term also
reminds
> me of snow globes . . . originally a snow globe was a snow scene
filled
> with snow, but today you can buy a "snowglobe" that features a beach
scene
> with "sand," a city scene with glitter, etc.
>
> Beth
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/9/2009 12:44 PM >>>
> If you think of grammar as dynamic, then new uses for structures
are
> not surprising. Frequency of use makes them more familiar.
Construction
> grammar pays more attention to these lower level constructions,
which
> sometimes have open slots. For example, X
put Y in
his/her/its/their
> place. We wouldn't continue to use them if we didn't find them
useful.
> a set phrase might seem inappropriate in some contexts. Judge to
> defendant: "Do you have anything to say before I sentence you?"
> Defendant: "Is the Pope Catholic?" She might add a month or two to
the
> sentence.
> It seems to me hard to talk about this without including grammar.
>
> Craig
>
> Robert Yates wrote:
>
> I wish I knew why this is so important to note "is the Pope Catholic"
a
> fixed expression.
>
> I could have made the exchange:
>
> Did the Yankees win the Pennant?
>
> Do the Cubs play in Wrigley Field?
>
> Is New York the largest city in the US?
>
> Does champagne have bubbles?
>
> Is it cold at the North Pole?
>
> Is Rush Limbaugh a big fat idiot?
>
> Did Sarah Palin resign her position as Governor of Alaska?
>
> Substitute any of these examples in the exchanges I noted, and the
> actually meaning of those questions are different because of the
context.
> Language is creative.
>
> Bob Yates
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> ( mailto:[log in to unmask] )
12/08/09
> 12:03 PM >>> Just for fun, I googeled "Is the Pope Catholic?"
and
> got 1,930,000
> hits. It has obviously found wide distribution as a set phrase.
>
> Craig>
> Brian,
>
>
> Thanks for the heads-up on the article. I wonder if that kind of
> article was more likely in the 60's when public knowledge about
> grammar was greater. Thanks for bringing it up. I will definitely
take
> a look at it.
> As for your question: "Robert and Craig, I wonder if you would
both
> agree that grammar is necessary but not, by itself, sufficient to
> produce meaning in language."
> I agree.
> Craig
> There's an argument on how the grammar of "A Modest Proposal" relates
to
>
>
> its rhetoric. This argument appears in Charles Kay Smith's "Towards
a
> Participatory Rhetoric," College English, Nov. 1968, and it's also
> incorporated in Smith's first-year writing textbook, "Styles and
> Structures: Alternative Apporaches to College Writing." Smith
doesn't
> argue that grammar alone tells us us how to read "A Modest
Proposal,"
> but
> he does suggest that the interaction of gramamr (specifically,
sentence
> structure) with diction and rhetoric helps create meaning by
prompting
> readers not to trust the narrator.
>
> For example, Smith observes that there are many sentences in the
essay
> (including the opening sentence) which feature a short main clause
> followed by heavily modifed subordinate clauses. He then points out
that
> those short main clauses feature a lot of abstract and general words
> (e.g., "It is a melancholy object," at the beginning of the opener),
> while
> the subordiante clauses are loaded with concrete, specific words
(e.g.,
> "beggars," "all in rages," "importuning," in the subordinate
clauses).
> The
> grim details in the subordinate clauses give readers reasons to
distrust
> the lofty assurance of the essay's narrator (or "projector") in the
main
> clauses.
>
> I'm probably not doing justice to the argument, but it's worth
reading
> if
> you're not familiar with it--and I think it could be used to support
the
> claim, as summarized by Craig, that 'grammar is inherntly discourse
> oriented, inherently tied to cognition." For me, this claim doesn't
at
> all
> imply that grammar alone determines meaning, but only that grammar
plays
> a
> critical rolein determining meaning. Robert and Craig, I wonder if
you
> would both agree that grammar is necessary but not, by itself,
> sufficient
> to produce meaning in language.
>
> Brian
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> 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 LIS
TSERV 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/
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
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/
|
