.... and let's not forget that Chomsky's view of language, and his
followers' views of language acquisition, are not the only views
out there. The debate about how much is hardwired specifically
for language and how much language is acquired through 'general cognitive
abilities' is still hot. As to deep structure ... the number of levels
and their status in the grammar seems to change along with Chomsky's
dogma every five years or so.
 
There are non-derivational theories of language, which don't propose
transformations of the sort generative linguistics (the paradigm
including Chomsky's approach and offshoots from it) proposes.
Functionalist and cognitivist theories of language propose a much tighter
connection between meaning and form; discourse linguistics claims that
meaning derives from whole texts, not the assembly of individual
meaningful parts.
 
I think that if there is a future in applying linguistic theory to the
teaching of grammar in schools, it is going to come from the connection
between form and meaning/function. I think that is a more profitable road
to go down than an approach which baldly states that grammar and meaning
are separate components of language. And I'm biased, but I also think
that approach explains more!
 
Happy New Year, everyone!
Johanna
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~