[log in to unmask]  (Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar) 11-FEB-1999 writes:

Johanna Rubba wrote:

 I know there are also
>discourse-based definitions, which I want to review in Hopper and
>Thompson's 'The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal
>grammar'.)
>
>As to langue/parole, I don't know how clear an understanding we have of
>Saussure's intentions on this -- he didn't publish; his students gathered
>notes from his lectures, published them in French, and they have been
>translated into English. So the messages are indirect. Generativists have
>based their competence/performance distinction on the langue/parole
>distinction.

****** I think that although the Saussurean langue/parole distinction is
a historical antecedent for the generative competence/performance
distinction, generativists base their conclusion on
competence/performance more on the kinds of evidence that Bob Yates
presented in a recent posting - illustrating how lx competence shows up
in the coining of new words, namely,

                withstand -withstood       BUT

                grandstand -*grandstood - grandstanded

 I am not comfortable with this distinction; generative
>linguistics has used it to exclude pragmatics and the ability to use a
>language in socially appropriate fashion from the domain of linguistics;

****** I don't think that this is a fair characterization of generative
grammar. My reading of Chomsky leads me to a different conclusion
(_Rules and Representations_ 1980).  Chomsky describes "knowledge of
language" as having 3 components:  1)grammatical competence, which is
computational; 2) conceptual competence - roughly semantics; 3)
pragmatic competence which "places language in the institutional setting
of its use, relating intentions and purposes to the linguistic means at
hand."
        What I conclude from this is that generative grammar, far from
being too  narrow to be interest to those studying language use, is
absolutely relevant to the study of language use. And therefore, it is
a very relevant framework for those on the SSS committee.


>also to exclude socially motivated variation from serious study.
>I am comfortable with a difference between our latent knowledge of
>language vs. the occasions on which we actually activate and use parts of
>that knowledge in communication. The knowlege we have is potential -- it
>is there, ready to serve. When it is applied in real time and in
>communication other factors do come into play. But I don't see this as
>terribly important in studying language. Generativists have found it
>important because it is a way of enabling a view of language as a 'formal
>system' like mathematics -- I would say  like logic, too, but logic is a
>human-invented system. Mathematics certainly seems to model stuff that
>goes on in the physical universe. But physicists and mathematicians will
>be the first to tell you that the models are incomplete and inconsistent
>in important ways. It has been a way of taking language out of the mind,
>or at least segregating parts of it into modules, and studying them apart
>from other systems of thought and of communication. This approach has its
>benefits, but I believe the drawbacks are very serious. I think it is also
>fruitful to explore the idea that language is bound up with other systems,
>at least as a working hypothesis.
>

*****I don't think that  because generative grammar
assumes a computational component to linguistic competence that it then
follows that grammatical competence is disconnected from other cognitive
capacities.
capacities Modularity does not entail independence from othe

        The recent postings from Judy on SFG and Johanna on Cog G have
been very interesting and I appreciate them. It is clear that the SSS
committee is representataive of a wide range of traditions. Each of
these t raditions makes different assummptions about the nature of
language knowledge, which will of course inform the discussion on how
language re lates to language use/text production and will guide its
recommendations on scope, seequence and standards.
        For this reason, we need to be more aware of where our
differences are and where our common ground is.  These recent exchanges
have been very useful and I think will make the committee's work more
productive.

                Jim Kenkel
                Dept. of English
                Eastern KY U
                Richmond, KY 40475


>~~~~~~~~~


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
>San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
>Tel. (805)-756-2184     Fax: (805)-756-6374                   ~
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]                           ~
>Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm   ~
>Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba                     ~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~