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
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:47 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Dennis Baron's article
>>
>> As someone who has tried to understand the nature of writing of first
>> year
>> college students and non-native speakers of English, I have tried to
>> understand why both groups produce texts that are difficult to
>> understand.
>>
>> To understand the grammatical choices writers make, we need to situate
>> the
>> place of grammar in a text. The point of my example of the two
>> situations
>> with the question "is the Pope Catholic" is to show the actually meaning
>> of the string cannot be deduced from its grammar. Context crucially
>> determines meaning. This poses, it seems to me, a serious problem for
>> the
>> following claim:
>>
>> As you know, none of the approaches to language that see grammar as
>> inherently discourse oriented claim that all statements have only one
>> possible interpretation.
>>
>> In the two examples I cited, there is no ambiguity in the meaning of
>> either one. A child asking a parent "is the Pope Catholic" is a request
>> for information. A spouse returning from a hard day of work answering
>> whether he/she wants a drink with the response "is the Pope Catholic"
>> clearly is saying "yes" to the offer. Those interpretations have
>> NOTHING
>> to do with the grammar of the string "is the Pope Catholic."
>>
>> I appreciate what Craig writes about Swift.
>>
>> I love Swift's Modest Proposal and have taught it a few times, though
>> not
>> recently. We are perfectly capable of saying one thing and meaning
>> another. The Irish famine was taking the lives of many innocent
>> children,
>> which seemed to Swift to be preventable, so the prospect of eating them
>> (at a profit to the parents) as improvement serves to underscore how
>> horrible the situation was and underscore the need for more reasonable
>> solutions (which he lists as not likely at the end.) I would make the
>> case that the form of presentation (surface meaning too horrible to take
>> seriously) is a brilliant choice on Swift's part. The meaning of the
>> text
>> can't be reduced to a paraphrase of what he "really means" since a much
>> more complex interaction is being orchestrated. He wants us to try out
>> the idea of eating children before we place the status quo one notch
>> below that.
>>
>> ***
>> Craig's analysis says nothing about the grammar choices that Swift
>> uses.
>> I find it curious that someone interested in showing how grammar is
>> inherently discourse oriented does not seem interested in explaining how
>> "We are perfectly capable of saying one thing and meaning another." Of
>> course, we can do that, but that means GRAMMAR alone does not make such
>> an
>> interpretation possible. This is the only point I'm trying to make
>> here.
>>
>> Bob Yates
>>
>> One final point on Herb Stahlke's post. Herb has forgotten more about
>> the
>> nature of language than I will ever know. Herb writes:
>>
>> Let me recommend Mira Ariel's superb /Pragmatics and Grammar/ (Cambridge
>> 2008) for a detailed and thoughtful coverage of issues involved in the
>> relationships between pragmatics and grammar. I won't attempt to repeat
>> her arguments here, but there is substantial evidence of such
>> relationships.
>>
>> I regret that Herb did l not share with us any insight from Ariel's book
>> based on the evidence between pragmatics and grammar on how "is the Pope
>> Catholic" can have such divergent meanings. I have no idea what aspect
>> of grammar, given the fact that grammar is the same in both situations,
>> can be related to both interpretations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Beth Young <[log in to unmask]> 12/7/2009 1:07 PM >>>
>> Thanks to all of you for this discussion, which I understand is
>> well-traveled ground, but which focuses on an issue of perennial
>> interest
>> to me. I find that I keep agreeing with whoever said something last. :)
>>
>> My own graduate training included both rhetoric and linguistics (in the
>> now-defunct "rhetoric, linguistics, and literature" program at Southern
>> Cal). Having some familiarity with both disciplines has been enormously
>> helpful. But still, I'm always looking for more ways to combine them
>> when
>> teaching. Linguistics helps explain how techniques work, but not always
>> when a writer should choose one technique over another. Rhetoric helps
>> explain what a writer should consider, but not always how those
>> considerations illuminate specific linguistic features of a text.
>>
>> I'm definitely planning to add M Ariel's book to my reading list
>> (thanks,
>> Herb). Craig, you offered a copy of the Goodman/Fries presentation to
>> Bob, but if it is not too much trouble for you to share it, I'd also
>> love
>> to see a copy. ( [log in to unmask] )
>>
>> re: A Modest Proposal: Many students find it very difficult to recognize
>> satire. I an exercise in one of my classes that involves reading
>> "Nation's Educators Alarmed By Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes"
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30157 , an Onion article. It's
>> very
>> common for students to respond with angry denunciations of the NEA, or
>> even with comments like, "The NEA's reaction seems unfeeling, but really
>> we do need to worry about language deterioration." It's possible to
>> identify certain features of the article that are more obviously satiric
>> ("The boy's mother opened the door to his room one morning to wake him
>> up
>> for school," Brodhagen said, "and she screamed in horror at what she
>> saw:
>> Dangling, right there in front of her, was a participle"), but of course
>> the rhetorical context plays a large role, too, in our understanding of
>> the text. Sometimes, even when I tell students it's satire and remind
>> them of A Modest Proposal, they still misunderstand--they think the
>> Onion
>> article is making fun of depressed teens (which is like thinking that
>> Swift is criticizing poor children).
>>
>> Beth
>>
>>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/7/2009 12:28 PM >>>
>> Bob,
>> I know you have raised this objection before, and I am always a bit
>> baffled by it. As you know, none of the approaches to language that see
>> grammar as inherently discourse oriented claim that all statements have
>> only one possible interpretation.
>> I was quite taken, as I said a few posts back, with the presentation
>> by
>> Ken Goodman and Peter Fries at NCTE about ambiguity and redundancy.
>> Peter has graciously sent me a copy and would probably be happy to send
>> you one as well. Ambiguity is a natural and inevitable part of
>> language. Any theory of language needs to account for it. The miracle
>> is that we do understand each other from time to time, and the grammar
>> is a key component of that. There are approaches to language that see
>> interactive components and textual components in the grammar as ways to
>> build these kinds of meaning. If more than one possible meaning means
>> there's no relationship between form and meaning, then the lexicon
>> would be non-functional as well.
>> I love Swift's Modest Proposal and have taught it a few times, though
>> not recently. We are perfectly capable of saying one thing and meaning
>> another. The Irish famine was taking the lives of many innocent
>> children, which seemed to Swift to be preventable, so the prospect of
>> eating them (at a profit to the parents) as improvement serves to
>> underscore how horrible the situation was and underscore the need for
>> more reasonable solutions (which he lists as not likely at the end.) I
>> would make the case that the form of presentation (surface meaning too
>> horrible to take seriously) is a brilliant choice on Swift's part. The
>> meaning of the text can't be reduced to a paraphrase of what he "really
>> means" since a much more complex interaction is being orchestrated. He
>> wants us to try out the idea of eating children before we place the
>> status quo one notch below that.
>> You say that "no school of linguistics that I know of has a goal of
>> identifying what makes a text effective." I think some of the more
>> recent grammars are making inroads into that area, and certainly there
>> are components of it already available (in genre analysis, for example,
>> or descriptions of cohesion.) My point, I think, is that we need to
>> connect knowledge about language to the question of what makes a text
>> effective. Until we do that, linguistics will be only marginally
>> relevant to English as a discipline.
>> Current studies show (or purport to show) that studying grammar in
>> isolation doesn't improve writing. A discourse oriented grammar (by
>> definition, not in isolation) might give us different results. You and
>> I will probably continue to be on opposite sides in that debate.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Robert Yates wrote:
>>
>> Craig has claimed for a long period of time the following:
>>
>> "Some more recent approaches to language emphasize that grammar is
>> inherently discourse oriented, inherently tied to cognition."
>>
>> This puts much too much emphasis on the notion that the meaning of a
>> text
>> is in the grammar.
>>
>> Let's consider two examples of the same string of words meaning very
>> different things.
>>
>> 1) Child to parent: Is the Pope Catholic?
>>
>> 2) Husband to wife who has just come home after working for 10 hours:
>> Would you like a drink?
>> Wife: Is the Pope Catholic?
>>
>> I know of NO theory of grammar that can explain why the very same string
>> of words "is the Pope Catholic" can mean very different things. If
>> grammar is inherently discourse oriented and inherently about meaning,
>> that should not be the case.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Let's consider a real text. This text was written in 1729 and is
>> reprinted regularly in first year writing texts.
>>
>> Here is an important passage for that text:
>> http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
>> I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in
>> London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most
>> delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted,
>> baked,
>> or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee
>> or a ragout.
>>
>> I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the
>> hundred
>> and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be
>> reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is
>> more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is,
>> that
>> these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not
>> much
>> regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve
>> four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be
>> offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the
>> kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the
>> last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child
>> will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the
>> family
>> dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and
>> seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the
>> fourth day, especially in winter.
>>
>> I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12
>> pounds,
>> and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.
>>
>> I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for
>> landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem
>> to
>> have the best title to the children.
>>
>> ***
>> I have no idea what aspect of grammar in this famous text is tied to
>> cognition, so I won't begin any such analysis. Likewise, I have no idea
>> what aspect(s) of grammar in this famous text reveal(s) the meaning
>> Swift
>> is trying to convey.
>>
>> If we need to appeal to extra-grammatical principles to understand the
>> meaning of this text, wouldn't that be true for all texts?
>>
>> ***
>> One more observation about Craig's last post. He asserts:
>>
>> I don't think linguistics as generally taught has given us a way of
>> understanding the nature of effective texts.
>> ***
>>
>> He is absolutely right, of course because no school of linguistics I
>> know
>> has a goal of identifying what makes a text effective. Given the fact
>> that people have been reading Swift's A Modest Proposal for about three
>> hundred years, a lot of people seem to consider it effective. Perhaps,
>> Craig can suggest the grammar in this passage that makes it effective.
>>
>>
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> ( mailto:[log in to unmask] )
>> 12/06/09
>> 4:53 PM >>> Bill, Herb, David,
>> I think David's program goes nicely beyond the status quo, and he
>> does
>> so by evoking NCTE's own statement of goals, so there is much hope for
>> wide acceptance.
>> NCTE has officially stated that students "have a right to their own
>> language" and most people would agree that they have a right to be
>> given access to Standard English. David's program sounds like it would
>> address both goals. I would go even further than that in saying that it
>> sets up the goals as complementary--"contrastive analysis" being one
>> way in which students can gain a solid understanding of the standard
>> while exploring the rule-based nature of non-mainstream dialects. It is
>> not an either/or choice, as it is sometimes understood to be.
>> Here's one way I see the solution as going beyond anything like a
>> consensus from linguistics. What English teachers need to do is help
>> students read critically and write effectively. The whole issue of
>> dialect versus Standard, as important as it is, doesn't touch that
>> issue if language is thought of PRIMARILY as a set of forms that may or
>> may not be acceptable in various contexts.
>> I don't think linguistics as generally taught has given us a way of
>> understanding the nature of effective texts. The fact that dialects are
>> rule-based, in other words, doesn't give us a way of dealing with the
>> fact that our students need to write narratives and arguments and so
>> on, that they need to read complex texts by dealing, not just with some
>> sort of loosely connected CONTENT, but with words and an arrangement of
>> words. If knowledge about language cannot be brought to bear on these
>> larger questions of literacy, then the two disciplines will continue to
>> be at odds.
>> Some more recent approaches to language emphasize that grammar is
>> inherently discourse oriented, inherently tied to cognition. What we
>> know and the words we learn as we come to know it are theorized in
>> dynamic relation to each other. Students may have problems learning
>> science, for example, in part because the disciplines of science are
>> giving us new kinds of texts, new ways of using language. These are
>> extraordinarily important areas of inquiry, but people teaching English
>> are not trained enough in language to carry it out and most American
>> linguists, to this point at least, haven't taken an interest.
>> We need a way to look at grammar when grammar is working well.
>> Whether
>> it is "correct" or "standard" or "non-mainstream" or the like is only
>> indirectly related to effectiveness. If a study of language doesn't
>> help with reading and writing on a level beyond correctness, there's
>> not much to say in its favor. We will continue with the status quo,
>> expecting students' language to develop naturally (while our attention
>> is on other things) and correcting it at point of need with as little
>> meta-language as possible.
>> Why do so many of our students fail? Can we demystify literacy for
>> ourselves and for them in such a way that we can turn some of those
>> failures around?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface
>> at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland 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/
>>
>> 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/
|
