On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Marie-Pierre Jouannaud wrote:

> Susan,
> 
> When you say that grammatical categories are inherently subjective,
> perhaps you mean that the boundaries between them are blurred, so that
> it's sometimes hard to know how to classify a word ("fun", for example)?

No, "fun" seems easy enough when plugged into a sentence.  I'm thinking of "crying" in "She is crying."  


> 
> If you define categories as a cluster of properties (semantic,
> morphological and syntactic), then you can explain that some words display
> all of the characteristics of the category and are thus core members,
> whereas other words display only some of them, and as such are more
> peripheral members. Uncountable nouns, for example, are less prototypical
> than countable nouns because they don't have a plural form. It's the same
> in biology: penguins are birds even though they can't fly, and naked mole
> rats are mammals even though they are cold-blooded.
> 
> Perhaps this is nothing new to you, but I am trying to explain why I don't
> think grammatical categories are especially subjective.
> 
> Marie
> 
> PS: Your reference to "the awkward "he or she"" made me smile, because in
> EFL, we TEACH our students to use "they" in these cases (tag questions:
> Someone knocked, didn't they?)
> 
> 
>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>>> It's the *denial* of subjectivity that inheres in the OctoDogma that's
>>> the objectionable part.
>> 
>> Yes, grammar definitions are incredibly subjective.  That was my point
>> about grammar being a soft science.  There is no objective reality out
>> there to uncover.  We will fight forever about how to categorize.
>> 
>> It is fine for adults who go on to study and teach grammar to contemplate
>> the fight between the OctoDogmarians and, for fun, let's call the
>> opposition the Octogenarians.  I am going to place myself squarely with
>> the OctoDogmarians when I am in my classroom (but you should know that my
>> heart is with the older, smarter crowd).  We OctoDogmarians know there
>> aren't 8, but we teach it to young people because it is practical, and
>> your warning that it is damaging to teach it because it's a kludge is
>> rather circular.  Why is it clumsy and inelegant?  If we don't teach the
>> Eight, what would you have us teach?  How much theory do we want to throw
>> at students?
>> 
>>> There's no real logic to saying that the distinction between "modifies
>>> noun" and "modifies verb" is more important than the distinction between
>>> "modifies verb" and, say,  "modifies whole sentence."
>> 
>> No, the logic is not on the side of this soft science we call grammar.  I
>> don't like some of the dumb stuff I have to teach, such as how to get
>> around the awkward "he or she."  And the reason we need a category that
>> distinguishes between "modifies noun" and "modifies verb" is so I can
>> explain to my students why they shouldn't tell a prospective employer that
>> "they did really good in school."  If you could wave a magic grammar wand
>> and remove the OctoDogma of the educated class, do it.  Until you get
>> around to that, I need definitions that will make sense to my students
>> without bogging them down in theory.  I do love your color-coded idea for
>> the younger grades, but at some point we have to branch out to explain
>> some of the Latin-forced stupidity that is the snobbery with which we
>> live.
>> 
>>> As it's implemented in K-12, the OctoDogma prevents teachers, and
>>> students, from *thinking* about language.
>> 
>> Yes, I agree.  But some other trendy people all point to studies that say
>> grammar study doesn't improve writing.  So any grammar we can sneak into
>> the curriculum must be simple, simple, simple because we don't have much
>> time and little is reinforced from year to year.
>> 
>>> What I can't take is a response that boils down to "I don't care what
>>> you say, I'm going to say my taxonomy is better than anything else and I
>>> don't have to have reasons." What I actually hear most often goes past
>>> that and straight to "N'uh-uh. I'm right."
>> 
>> I agree.  I dislike those who shut down debate and will not defend their
>> positions.  But that is exactly what I have felt from some people (not
>> you) on this list.  What I head most often is putdowns meant to silence,
>> such as  "What a naive argument!" "I have no idea what your background is,
>> but you need to have a wider...bla bla bla. I will now spew names of
>> famous people I have read in an attempt to shut you up."
>> 
>> Thank you for a great post.
>> 
>> Susan
>> 
>> 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/