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/
|
