Bob,
It seems to me you have ignored the possibility that a theory of
language would include discourse. If you deal with a sentence in
isolation, you can't fully predict its effectiveness when combined
with other sentences within a complex text. I don't think anyone would
disagree with that. It explains, in fact, why formal grammar does not
carry over easily into real world reading and writing.
It might be like saying no theory of biology can explain why one person
is healthier than another. To me, it would seem a weakness in the
theory if it can't.
I'm no expert on the genre of jokes, but it seems to me that many fit
the pattern of this joke: an ambiguous sentence (perhaps not noticeably
ambiguous) is followed by a sentence that uses that ambiguity in a
surprising way.
Speaker One: "I knew a man with a wooden leg named Mr. Smith."
Speaker Two: "What does he call the other leg?"
If that's the case, then the ambiguity of the first sentence is
absolutely essential for the joke. Taking the ambiguity out would ruin
the joke. "One morning I shot an elephant while he was in my pajamas.
What he was doing in my pajamas I never knew."
Another way of saying it is that a theory of discourse (in this case
the discourse of jokes) would HAVE to include grammar to be an adequate
theory. Without attention to grammar (as one source of ambiguity), you
can't fully explain the effectiveness of the joke.
Perhaps that would be a point we could agree on. Is knowledge of
grammar useful in assessing the effectiveness of a text? I would say
yes.
Craig
Bill,
>
> To the degree that a text can be misunderstood, we could consider such a
> text not nearly as effective as one that is less likely to be
> misunderstood. I'm not quite sure that any theory of language can be
> founded on that principle.
>
> A formal theory of language provides an explanation for why the following
> sentence is ambiguous.
>
> 1) One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
>
> So, does this ambiguity mean this is not an effective text?
>
> Yet, if this sentence is followed by (2), is it now effective?
>
> (2) How he got into my pajamas I'll never know.
>
> As a text, those two sentences are relatively famous. I have no idea what
> theory of language tries to explain why those two sentences together
> appear to be an effective text, but sentence (1) is not effective.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 05/12/11 5:14 PM >>>
> [Advance warning: this is just the usual me-arguing-with-Bob thing]
>
> Bob,
>
> The point I was making was that verb tense ties in to coherence; I was
> using the fact that randomization ruins coherence as *evidence* of that
> connection (which it is). You had opened your post with the statement, "I
> know of no theory of language which lays out the principles of an
> 'effective text'." I considered as my rhetorical task to establish that
> (a) you don't need a definition of ultimate effectiveness as a
> prerequisite to saying that some texts are more effective than others, (b)
> grammatical choices can move things on the effectiveness scale, and (c)
> plenty of theories do talk about how such choices affect effectiveness.
>
> The argument is only a red herring if (1) saying that effectiveness and
> coherence are related has no bearing on this argument, or (2) you think I
> was saying that beginning writers randomize their choices. As for (1), do
> you think that? As for (2), where did I say that? I said randomization
> would hurt coherence, which it will. It's a basic transitive chain -- if
> verb tense choice affects coherence (and randomization effects act as
> proof of that), and coherence affects effectiveness (I'm relying on
> general consensus for that one), then verb tense affects effectiveness, at
> least to some extent.
>
> In short, I wasn't saying that beginning writers randomize anything. And I
> wasn't saying that you don't talk about verb tense selection. What I do
> think is that when *you* talk about tense selection across a paragraph,
> you probably believe you're talking about a fundamentally different domain
> than when you talk about subject-verb agreement in a clause, and that the
> phrase "grammatical theory" is something you believe applies to the latter
> domain only. That's the part I think is a definition issue.
>
>
> --- Bill Spruiell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: study shows effectiveness of grammar: was transformational
> versus traditional
>
> I love red-herrings in arguments about what developing writers do. Bill
> writes:
>
> Randomizing verb tense choice in an essay will make it ineffective.
> Ignoring context established earlier in the text will quite likely result
> in bad pronoun choices, and hence an ineffective text, etc. The work on
> genre that Craig mentions has extensively developed descriptions of
> correlations between particular linguistic choices at specific points in
> a text and whether the text is considered a good example of science
> writing, or a good example of a narrative. You may or may not view that
> kind of correlation as being within the domain of "grammar" -- but that's
> a definitional issue, and one that I doubt educators are quite so
> invested in.
>
> * * *
> We have to be very careful about the implications of correlations of
> particular grammar forms in a particular genre. As someone who teaches
> ESL such correlations help make decisions about what needs to be taught if
> students are expected to write such texts.
>
> However, let's use an example from Biber et al. They found in fiction
> that passive with the by-preposition phrase occurred about 500 times for
> every one million words while in academic writing such passives occurred
> 1500 times for every one million words. (p. 938)
>
> Does this mean that if I write fiction (their category) and have NO
> passives with by-prepositional phrases I have composed an ineffective
> text? Likewise if my academic text has only 850 passives for every 1
> million words, is my text ineffective?
>
> ***
> Here is the red-herring:
>
> Randomizing verb tense choice in an essay will make it ineffective.
>
> Perhaps, I'm fortunate, but my students don't randomize verb tense
> choices. Perhaps from a mature writing perspective, the non-target-like
> verb choices in my students' texts may appear random, but I don't think
> they are. To consider them as random is committing what Robert
> Bleyv-Roman calls the "comparative fallacy."
>
> As their instructor, I think is my responsibility is to figure out what
> their principle(s) of tense choice is and show why that principle is
> inappropriate for the kind of academic text they are trying to write.
>
> Again, Jim Kenkel and I have several papers looking at both native and
> non-native speaker writing from this perspective.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/
>
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/
|
