> > He (Pinker) tells us himself on page four of my paperback edition that 
>Language "is a complex, specialized skill which ... is qualitatively the same in 
>every individual .."

Holy Cow! Anyone with ears knows this isn't true. Do we accept it just because 
Pinker wrote it? Will someone please take him to task? I would but I can't. I 
already backed him into a corner and when that happens, he just goes silent 
(like some on ATEG). I should say he "backed himself into a corner". He's a 
smart dude but he's not so smart he's untouchable.



________________________________
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, November 18, 2010 12:01:31 PM
Subject: Re: grammar term definitions

Susan,
    To say that Pinker "doesn't dabble much in theory" is strange and certainly 
inaccurate as those who have reviewed The Language Instinct point out: "Pinker 
eloquently explains the details of Chomsky's revolutionary theory..." "The most 
lucid, charming, and wide-ranging popularization of Noam Chomsky's linguistics 
ever written."
     He tells us himself on page four of my paperback edition that Language "is 
a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without 
conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its 
underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct 
from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently."
   All of this is central to Chomsky  and is a theoretical position that has 
been robustly challenged by usage based approaches and by most functionalists. 
It is at least equally possible to say that language is a social semiotic, that 
it develops out of use and is sustained by use, and that it draws on normal 
cognitive processes.
    Whatever theory you choose has enormous implications for teaching.
    Unfortunately, Pinker presents his views as a consensus position rather than 
as prevailing theory. He does use the term "science" quite a bit. "The 
complexity of language, from the scientist's point of view, is part of our 
biological birthright" (p.6). 

This seems to me misleading.

Craig

On 11/17/2010 6:52 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
> This passage does not negate what I have been saying about basic 
> grammar definitions: grammar is a subjective reality.
> 
> I have avoided using the terms hard science and soft science, but I 
> guess these terms cut to the chase.
> 
> Grammar is a human construct. Gravity is not. Grammar has no 
> objective reality to test and discover. I like the work of Steven 
> Pinker a lot more than the philosophers you mentioned. I think 
> Pinker does "hard" science with grammar and doesn't dabble much in 
> theory. I see most theoretical grammarians as trend-setters, and 
> their followers are bandwagon-jumpers. They come in and out of 
> fashion. Right now it is trendy to disparage an 8-parts-of-speech 
> view of the world; those grammarians act like they are Copernicus
> and have discovered that the earth revolves around the sun. Sorry,
> it's not even close to comparable. If it's so damaging to think that
> way, give me a reason. Why are kids poorly served by dividing all
> words into only 8 categories? These are kids who don't know that
> "is" (such a small, preposition-like word) is a powerful verb. You 
> haven't come up with an answer because there is no answer. It's a 
> subjective reality. There is no grammatical reality "hiding a
> number of mysteries."
> 
> Susan
> 
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
> 
>> I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. I wish you had taken 
>> the time to read the few pages that I have written on the 
>> scientific approach. Here is an example of how our languages give 
>> us a view of reality that is not scientific.
>> 
>> The scientist does not necessarily want to study the phenomena of 
>> nature in the same way that language has come to refer to them. A 
>> particularly apt case in point concerns the discovery that heat
>> and work do not refer to anything tangible (Peter Atkins, 2003 
>><file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Bruce/My%20Documents/WebDev05/phil/note/refap03.htm>,
>>,
>>
>> 
pp. 110–112) Before 1798 heat was something like a liquid, which
>> scientists called “caloric,” that could flow from one object to 
>> another. This theory arose despite the fact that heat was “subtle” 
>> (could enter any substance), and was “imponderable” (could not be 
>> weighed). In that year Benjamin Thompson (1753–1814) showed that 
>> heat could be created at will and was inexhaustible. Since it was 
>> generated by friction, it must be related to the motion of 
>> particles. Involved with extensive study using the steam engine 
>> scientists attempted to show how work, measured in ergs, could be 
>> related to heat, measured in calories. Sometime before 1875 James 
>> Joule (1818–1889) found that there was a direct equivalence
>> between the work done (mechanical energy) and the heat generated
>> (heat energy). In fact they are two manifestations of one and the
>> same thing! “Heat” and “work” are really verbs, /i.e./, two ways
>> of transferring energy from one object (location) to another. We
>> speak of an object as “hot,” but the more accurate truth is that
>> the object, if it must be “storing energy,” is doing so by the
>> rapid vibrations of its parts. Heat is the agency of transfer and
>> not an entity being transferred.
>> 
>> I would submit that you comments about gravity might well be
>> hiding something. The way it is able to work at a distance has
>> always been a mystery; assumed to be true for the theory to work
>> and the mathematics to describe it accurately. Some theoreticians
>> posit particles (gravitons) like the photons of light that let it
>> travel through space. Where is the reality here? I think the
>> theories are frameworks that are missing some of the underlying
>> details. One person may want to say reality is out there, another
>> that it is in here. Wherever it is, it is hiding a number of
>> mysteries.
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> --- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: [log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: grammar term 
>> definitions Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:08:54 -0600
>> 
>> Before leaving the subject you want to throw out a 
>> misrepresentation of my position? That sounds like someone who
>> can no longer argue logically and must resort to name-calling.
>> 
>> there is a reality out there that scientists can observe, measure, 
>> standardize, and control.
>> 
>> This is obviously true. Not even worth arguing with you about it. 
>> But if you don't believe it, you may provide an example for me to 
>> knock down.
>> 
>> But the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires
>> a good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. 
>> It's a vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of reasoning
>> are tools of the linguist.
>> 
>> I have no complaint about this. I think you have misread me. 
>> (Let's be clear, an existing scientific framework is "gravity will 
>> work tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that, etc." 
>> Philosophical frameworks are not as easy to agree upon. THAT'S my 
>> complaint about science v. philosophy.)
>> 
>> The positions of both Kuhn and Popper are discussed...
>> 
>> 
>> And as you used their ideas to explain grammar, would you 
>> characterize them as being scientific or philosophical? I'm 
>> guessing it's both (especially scientific when it involves 
>> mathematics), but I'm guessing you relied heavily--very
>> heavily--on philosophy to present their ideas. That's my point.
>> Grammar is an art.
>> 
>> Susan
>> 
>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>> 
>> Before leaving this subject I did want to comment on a Susan's 
>> position on philosophy and Herb's on the history of science.
>> Susan seems to subscribe to the common naive notion (a
>> pre-theoretical phlosophy) that there is a reality out there that
>> scientists can observe, measure, standardize, and control. But the
>> ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires a good
>> amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. It's a
>> vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the phenomena to
>> simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to be seen as an
>> aspect of something greater. Both modes of reasoning are tools of
>> the linguist.
>> 
>> The positions of both Kuhn and Popper are discussed in my Logical 
>> Approach to the /Syntax of English/. The first chapter covers the 
>> approach of science in some detail as the language of science 
>> (mathematics) is also amenable to linguistic investigation. The 
>> section on presentation outlines the characteristics of a 
>> successful theory.
>> 
>> http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> --- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask] 

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/