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/
|
