Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Grammar
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGrammar
 Post Reply Post Reply
Poll Question: ?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
8 [72.73%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [27.27%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Grammar
    Posted: October 27 2010 at 14:11
I'll not make explicit what is meant by grammar. Linguists, at least, can't agree on any pre-theoretical definition - as implied by the humorous title Thirty Million Theories Of Grammar (McCawley, 1982).

One theory of grammar was labelled nothing less than Space Grammar (now Cognitive Grammar). In the ground breaking monograph Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol.1 (1987) the linguist and founder of Cognitive Grammar, Ronald W. Langacker, writes:

"I Initially called this framework space grammar. Why is not important -[...] But despite its obvious appropriateness, a number of people have reacted negatively to the apparent frivolity of the term, perhaps with some reason. A theory called space grammar can obviously not be taken seriously, but one called cognitive grammar is potentially of great intellectual significance." (Langacker 1987, pp. vi)

I really like the term Space Grammar and like the fact that Langacker maintains the appropriateness of the terminology without wanting to give reasons. 

Anyway - as I hope to have implied - grammar is entertaining and thought-provoking. If you think otherwise, you are just misinformed and have been subjected to the distorted view of grammar brought about by proponents of what one might label "dusty schoolroom grammar".


Edited by Paravion - October 27 2010 at 14:44
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 16:16
I don't quite follow your query, and the book in question has no preview pages to read.  It would help if you explained what his theory of grammar is, and why you're drawn to it.
Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 17:18
^
There are two books 'in question'.
McCawley's book is a critical review of various branches of chomskyan formalist linguistics. I don't link to it because I think people ought to read it in order to participate in this thread. Really, the link has no real purpose and could just as well not have been here.   

Langacker proposes an exiting view of language and grammar that is fundamentally different from the 'mainstream' formalist paradigm associated primarily with Noam Chomsky. Chomskyan linguistics classifies language as a self-contained system wherein the grammar is perceived as a device which generates, or defines, the set of well-formed sentences which constitute the language. In this view, grammar is independent of usage and meaning as well as other parts of cognition.  

Cognitive Grammar assumes that language forms an integral part of human cognition and that linguistic analysis is relative to what is known about human cognitive abilities. One of the basic assumptions underlying CG is that language essentially and inherently is symbolic in nature (i.e. linguistic expressions consist of a phonological structure that is symbolically related to a semantic structure) [better stop here]

Cognitive Grammar attracts me because it draws very much on common sense and isn't as counter-intuitive as various formalist approaches. It reflects to a much larger extend the 'true nature' of language - I think. 

But - this isn't intended as a theoretical discussion. As much as I'm interested in linguistic theory, I'm also interested in what people think about grammar in general and pre-theoretically. So this thread is about various views and perceptions of grammar, language, linguists, words etc.  where no knowledge of linguistic theory is needed.


Edited by Paravion - October 27 2010 at 17:22
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 17:26
Im so happy to have practicly and gammaticly some of the easyest languages to learn, obtain
 
Grammar and dyslectic does not go hand in hand easly (but that did not stopped me for having english on universaty level, with lexicology and phonetics)


Edited by aginor - October 27 2010 at 18:08
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 17:53
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

Im so happy to have practicly and gammaticly some of the easyest languages to learn, obtain
 
Grammar and dyslectic does not go hand in hand easly (but that did not stoped me for having english on universaty level, with lexicology and phonetics)

Well, I'm very glad it didn't ''stoped'' you. 
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:02
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

Im so happy to have practicly and gammaticly some of the easyest languages to learn, obtain
 
Grammar and dyslectic does not go hand in hand easly (but that did not stoped me for having english on universaty level, with lexicology and phonetics)

Well, I'm very glad it didn't ''stoped'' you. 

Sorry.....I can't help myself.LOL

Ask for your money back!
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:08
i can't "stoped" loughing myself
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:08
Ermmmm . . . . 
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:18
@aginor It is bad to make fun of someones English who is not a native speaker so sorry for that.
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:29

no worry, I almost fell of my chair loughing of my own spelling

I have so much selfironi that I can lough of myself (which means Im no sosiopat)
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:33
I'm sorry too. I'm a jerk. 
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2010 at 18:40
As a dyslexic I don't see the connection between dyslexia and grammar. Not that I'd ever claim perfect grammar, or even the want for perfect grammar - infinitives are to be infinitely split and apostrophe's are to be as itinerant as the would want to be. Though dyslexia comes in many forms, I don't believe that misuse of grammar is one of the defining characteristics, at least not for me - I generally know when the grammar is wrong as soon as I think the sentence, before it hits the page, but if it sounds right, the sentence flows and the meaning is not lost, then down it goes regardless; whereas a mispelt word will still look right, even after it is written down, read back and thought about - I still can't tie my shoelaces and loosey lefty / righty tighty is of no help what so ever when left and right are abstract concepts that leave me confused and none the wiser. At least the spell-checker hasn't learnt too many incorrect spellings yet and seldom lets me down, unless I forget to switch it to British English. Just don't complain of my dic-tion - I pronounce it al-u-min-ium because there's an "i" next to the "u" and "m".
 
If there is a choice of grammar, then I prefer the one where it reflects speech and continuously evolves as language ought. Where there are no mistakes as long as the meaning is understood or can be deduced from the context. If that has a special name and a book written in its honour then whoopee. I'll call it "Nut Screws Washers and bolts" and live off the royalty cheques.
What?
Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2010 at 04:44
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

Im so happy to have practicly and gammaticly some of the easyest languages to learn, obtain
 
Grammar and dyslectic does not go hand in hand easly (but that did not stopped me for having english on universaty level, with lexicology and phonetics)
Norwegian may seem easy to you because it's your native language (I presume). You may be referring to the spelling which has been made very easy in Norwegian because language politics has determined a very high degree of correspondence between sound and letters. 

It's a myth that there exists some kind of complexity hierarchy among languages. Norwegian is easier for me to learn than Vietnamese. Not because Norwegian is inherently easier, but  because Danish is my native language and very closely related to Norwegian. That should be obvious. 

Way back, there was a wide-spread assumption that languages of 'primitive' cultures were equally primitive and without the profound complexities of the highly 'sophisticated' European languages like Greek and Latin. That has been proven false. Every language has (almost) an equal amount of complexity  - it's just that there are many kinds of complexity - and if a language isn't as inflective as Latin, it doesn't mean that it's less complex.          

@Dean. 
I think you are right about dyslexia and grammar. I don't know much about dyslexia, but I've never heard that it should have an effect on ones grammatical competence with regards to ones native language. Maybe it's different when considering second language acquisition, where you have to be aware of the grammatical 'rules'. 
You seem to ascribe a prescriptive nature to grammar. That's an unfortunate misconception. Grammar is not to be perceived as some mysterious 'god given' law that dictates how one ought to speak and not to speak. 
Quote If there is a choice of grammar, then I prefer the one where it reflects speech and continuously evolves as language ought.
There is! A grammar is a description of language on the morphological and syntactic level. It classifies and describes the set of acceptable word-formations and sentences. It has no normative force, unless you - for some reason - ascribe it to it. Lingusitics has spawned many different theories of grammar. They differ among various parameters concerning assumptions about language's 'true nature'.  What concerns the dichotomy prescriptive/descriptive, there is agreement. All grammars are descriptive and thus meet your requirements. The terminology wrong, correct, mistake etc. is non-existent in linguistics.      
Quote Nut Screws Washers and bolts
Smile  
Made me think of some of funny titles, that should serve to prove that linguistics is not as dry and boring as one might thing.

Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? (Dixon, 1982) About languages with no or few adjectives. 

The Basic Variety or: Couldn't natural languages be much simpler? (Klein, 1997) About the abstractness on chomskyan linguistics. 

How to Talk: Some Simple Ways (Austin, 1953)

How to do Things with Words (Austin, 1962) - About speech act theory or 'ordinary language theory' - as it was called back then.


Edited by Paravion - October 28 2010 at 04:50
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2010 at 06:40
I loved my Grammers, but they've both passed away. Tongue
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2010 at 07:04
Originally posted by Paravion Paravion wrote:

@Dean. 
I think you are right about dyslexia and grammar. I don't know much about dyslexia, but I've never heard that it should have an effect on ones grammatical competence with regards to ones native language. Maybe it's different when considering second language acquisition, where you have to be aware of the grammatical 'rules'. 
You seem to ascribe a prescriptive nature to grammar. That's an unfortunate misconception. Grammar is not to be perceived as some mysterious 'god given' law that dictates how one ought to speak and not to speak. 
Quote If there is a choice of grammar, then I prefer the one where it reflects speech and continuously evolves as language ought.
There is! A grammar is a description of language on the morphological and syntactic level. It classifies and describes the set of acceptable word-formations and sentences. It has no normative force, unless you - for some reason - ascribe it to it. Lingusitics has spawned many different theories of grammar. They differ among various parameters concerning assumptions about language's 'true nature'.  What concerns the dichotomy prescriptive/descriptive, there is agreement. All grammars are descriptive and thus meet your requirements. The terminology wrong, correct, mistake etc. is non-existent in linguistics.      
I was taught grammar at a time when (as far as the British education system was concerned) there were rules, when there was a right and a wrong way, when mistakes were picked-up and commented upon and "bad grammar" was frowned upon. Even the school level I attended was called a "Grammar School" dating from a time when that was deemed important and necessary. So my view of the academic linguistics is somewhat out-dated and not a misconception as such - that's what we were taught.
 
My pleasure is to play with words - I like punning, and I like it that language has a flexibility of structure that means I can play around with word sequencing and still be understood, so like Yoda can you talk and sense does it make ... though geeky does your sound make. I don't know if you have that flexibility in other languages - my experience only runs to school French Lessons - were "rules" were hammered into us with far more rigidity than any English lesson "Please conjugate the future subjunctive tense of the verb Connaître" ... "Erm, what's 'subjunctive' Miss?" and the headscratchingly annoying concept of Gender that made life so damn complicated without adding anything useful or necessary.
What?
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2010 at 07:11
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

no worry, I almost fell of my chair loughing of my own spelling

I have so much selfironi that I can lough of myself (which means Im no sosiopat)

You sound like Krazy Kat.
Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2010 at 09:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Paravion Paravion wrote:

@Dean. 
I think you are right about dyslexia and grammar. I don't know much about dyslexia, but I've never heard that it should have an effect on ones grammatical competence with regards to ones native language. Maybe it's different when considering second language acquisition, where you have to be aware of the grammatical 'rules'. 
You seem to ascribe a prescriptive nature to grammar. That's an unfortunate misconception. Grammar is not to be perceived as some mysterious 'god given' law that dictates how one ought to speak and not to speak. 
Quote If there is a choice of grammar, then I prefer the one where it reflects speech and continuously evolves as language ought.
There is! A grammar is a description of language on the morphological and syntactic level. It classifies and describes the set of acceptable word-formations and sentences. It has no normative force, unless you - for some reason - ascribe it to it. Lingusitics has spawned many different theories of grammar. They differ among various parameters concerning assumptions about language's 'true nature'.  What concerns the dichotomy prescriptive/descriptive, there is agreement. All grammars are descriptive and thus meet your requirements. The terminology wrong, correct, mistake etc. is non-existent in linguistics.      
I was taught grammar at a time when (as far as the British education system was concerned) there were rules, when there was a right and a wrong way, when mistakes were picked-up and commented upon and "bad grammar" was frowned upon. Even the school level I attended was called a "Grammar School" dating from a time when that was deemed important and necessary. So my view of the academic linguistics is somewhat out-dated and not a misconception as such - that's what we were taught.
 
My pleasure is to play with words - I like punning, and I like it that language has a flexibility of structure that means I can play around with word sequencing and still be understood, so like Yoda can you talk and sense does it make ... though geeky does your sound make. I don't know if you have that flexibility in other languages - my experience only runs to school French Lessons - were "rules" were hammered into us with far more rigidity than any English lesson "Please conjugate the future subjunctive tense of the verb Connaître" ... "Erm, what's 'subjunctive' Miss?" and the headscratchingly annoying concept of Gender that made life so damn complicated without adding anything useful or necessary.
Misconception may sound harsh, but wasn't meant that way. Even linguistic theories dating back from the 20ies and 30ies explicitly denied a prescriptive approach. American structuralism - the then dominant school - was extremely behaviouristic in method and theory. Language was mere behaviour to be observed and described in a purely objective manner without any preconceptions about what language and grammar might be or not not be - naïve inductivisme at it's best. It was en effective method that revealed much insight into languages of native Americans. So it's not a new thing to have a descriptive view of grammar. 

This claim of misconception was aimed at the education system, not only in England, but also the system I've been exposed to in Denmark in the 90ies.  I'll not deny that prescriptivism can be effective and even necessary in order to learn foreign languages. But the thing is that this prescriptive approach somehow gets to represent some truth about the nature of languages and thus spawn a very common and unfortunate misconception that there actually are some fixed and naturally 'correct' and 'incorrect' occurrences of language. Given my interest in language, I think that is a shame. Linguistic insights have never played much role in the education system when foreign languages are concerned. That's the problem.    

Quote I like it that language has a flexibility of structure that means I can play around with word sequencing and still be understood, so like Yoda can you talk and sense does it make ... though geeky does your sound make. I don't know if you have that flexibility in other languages
Some languages, primarily case-languages, have very free word order. 
In English there is substantial semantic difference between:

a)The boy kissed the girl
b)The girl kissed the boy  

In that in a) the boy is the actor in b) the girl is the actor. 
In German - a case language - you mark the participants in the event designated by the verb with a case morpheme (An article). 

c) Der Junge hat das Mädchen gekïusst  
d) Das Mädchen hat der Junge geküsst.

This pair describe the exact same event. In both cases the boy is the kisser and the girl is the kissed. The definite article "der" designates the nominative case which in German is used to mark the actor (subject) of the sentence. Latin and Russian have very free word order as well. English, French and Danish (an many others) haven't.
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.