Susan,
    In a sense we can make a huge number of predictions about grammar; in
fact, we have to as language users, though we may do so somewhat
unconsciously. Without predictable patterning (a connection between
form and meaning), language as we know it would not be possible.
    "She is your friend" differs in meaning from "Is she your friend" in
very predictable ways. So, too "He made the room a mess" means
something very different from "He made the mess a room." The
differences are not in the meanings of the words, but in the
grammatical patterns.
    We can observe those patterns, make predictions on the basis of those
observations, and then test them out. Language may be hard to
understand, but I don't think it's wholly unpredictable or chaotic.
    This is, of course, a whole different enterprise than arguing about
whether adjectives should be used as adverbs (to cite one of your
examples.) I agree that grammar stops being a science when it becomes
narrowly prescriptive.

Craig  >

 Peter, I enjoyed reading about the recognition response experiment.
> However, these kinds of experiments can be done in any field, including
> music and art.  When we call grammar a science, then everything is a
> science.  That's why I don't think it is helpful to water down our
> definitions; we would just have to make up a new word to replace it
> (etymology, another non-scientific field).  We use the term science not
> just because you can design an experiment and get results, but because the
> results will help you make make accurate predictions--the experiment leads
> to fruitful new lines of research.*
>
> Herb:  Unlike Susan, I have no problem considering grammar a science, as
> it has been considered for centuries.
>
> Astrology was considered a science for centuries.  Traditional belief is
> no guaranteer of truth.
>
> However, what has not been so clear in this thread is that doing grammar
> as science has little to do with teaching grammar to students at just
> about any level.
>
> True, which is why grammar is not a science.  Can you imagine a physics
> teacher saying "doing [physics] as science has little to do with teaching
> [physics] to students at just about any level."
>
> Susan
>
> *I hate to argue against my own argument, but I don't believe in free
> will, so I think it is eventually possible that human nature can be
> "reduced" to a science.  But until our computers get that sophisticated, I
> think the current definition of science suffices.
> 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/