ESLs & Grammar

Let me just add that language is a finite resource that we use to discuss infinite possibilities. "Parsing, for all its importance, is only the first step in understanding a sentence." The tools [actual rules as opposed to grammar book rules] that we ENLs have at our disposal are exceedingly large in number.

ESLs often tend to get hung up on the structural aspects of language. They mistakenly believe that studying grammar in isolation will help them become competent users of English. Studies show that this is not the case.

ESLs tend to memorize, but language is not memorization, because if one has to look to a 'rule' to guide language, that person will invariably miss the nuances.

"As far as grammar learning goes, the child must be a naturalist, passively observing the speech of others, rather than an experimentalist, manipulating stimuli and recording the results. The implications are profound. Languages are infinite, childhoods finite."

Now I'm not saying that ESLs have to avoid 'rules'. What ESLs must keep firmly in mind is that these rules focus on the normal and the neutral. Life is much wider than the normal and the neutral.

{All quoted material from The Language Instinct by S Pinker}

More to follow

CJ:

(I don't recall this passage from The Language Instinct, but it was years ago.)

Small points, though:

1. As long as the "memorization" Pinker refers to is the memorization of rules of grammar (whether they are the 'real ones' or not), then I can go along with the claims.
Nevertheless, the mastery of language requires more memorization than any other human activity when we consider individual lexical items alone, not to mention all the idiomatic combinations.

JTT: So this has been the problem all along. You must learn to read more carefully, Jim.

{All quoted material from The Language Instinct by S Pinker}

Mr Pinker didn't refer to "memorization", at least not in this thread. That portion can be attributed to moi.


=============================

CJ:

2. The naturalist vs. experimentalist argument is a bit suspect. I think children learning language do a lot of experimentation. It's just that they don't do it consciously, the way a scientist might plan an experiment for months before gathering the data, analyzing the data, and so on. They do it by observing the immediate results of what they say. That's experimentation (on-the-fly). It's possible that Pinker means to use these words (naturalist, experimentalist) in a way which is specific to linguistics and which I am not familiar with.


JTT: I don't want to derail this thread on this topic but since you've raised it, Jim. No, he means it in exactly the same manner you do.

"But parents are remarkably unconcerned about their children's grammar; they care about truthfulness and good behavior. Roger Brown divided the sentences of [three children] into grammatical and ungrammatical lists. For each sentence he checked whether the parent had at the time expressed approval (like "yes, that's good") or disapproval. The proportion was the same for grammatical sentences and ungrammatical ones, which means that the parent's response had given the child no information about grammar.

Brown also checked whether children might learn about the state of their grammars by noticing whether they are being understood."

There was no correlation found.

"Indeed, when fussy parents or meddling experimenters do provide children with feedback, the children tune it out."

{Again, all quoted material is from The Language Instinct}

"As far as grammar learning goes, the child must be a naturalist, passively observing the speech of others, rather than an experimentalist, manipulating stimuli and recording the results. The implications are profound. Languages are infinite, childhoods finite."

Fascinating. Pinker's rhetoric is masterly. Let us savour it as it deserves to be savoured.

First, 'the child'. I don't know how many thousands of millions of children there are in the world, of however many races and cultures and creeds; but apparently they can all now be included in 'the child'. (Well, that makes things easier, anyway. Only one pair of ears to box.)

Then, we have 'must'. This billion-fold child 'must' be something. We don't know why he 'must' be something. He just 'must'. (And quite right too. We don't want any of that liberal, schoolteacherly, 'free creative spirit' guff here.)

Then we have two metaphors: on the one hand, the child is a 'naturalist'; on the other, he isn't an 'experimentalist'.

What do we mean by a 'naturalist', I wonder? Darwin? Linnaeus? Gilbert White? Not that it matters. Presumably all the millions of 'naturalists' in the world are exactly the same, like our billion-fold 'child'. And so what does this composite 'naturalist' do? He 'passively observes'. (As opposed to 'actively observes', presumably.) Sums it up pretty neatly, in my opinion. Sucks to you, Mr Darwin. And you too, Mr White.

Ditto for 'experimentalist', mutatis mutandis. (And what a keen-eyed picture of an 'experimentalist' that is. Pin-sharp as the picture on the cover of a 'Jekyll and Hyde'. Look at those coloured bottles with steam coming out. How do they do that??)

Now we get to the 'implications'.

And what would those be, Steven?
'Profound, of course...'
And would that be because they're your implications, Steven?
'Naturally...'
I suppose you couldn't be a little more specific?
'They're all there in my references. Look them up yourself if you don't believe me. But you're wasting your time. They're profound. That's all you need to know.'
Okay, okay...

Well, maybe we all ought to pause for a moment in wonderment at this point and feel profound in unison.

{Nice perm, Steven.}

OK. That's done. Now what do we have?

An apophthegm, no less. So would that be Nietzsche? Schopenhauer? Marcus Aurelius?

It's damn good, whoever it is. In fact, it's so good, we're going to have to take it in two stages. OK...hold your breath:

1. 'Languages are infinite.'

Whoa. 'Infinite.' That's almost as impressive a word as 'profound'. And what would that mean, by the way, Steven? 'Oh well, you know...Kind of, there's a lot to them, really, languages...You can say a lot with a language, you know.'

Well, I'm impressed. Let's take a look at part 2:

2. '...childhoods finite.'

Hmm. I think that must be impressive too, if only because it's antithetical.
'Antithetical?'
Yes, you know: 'infinite' is the antithesis of 'finite', and 'languages' is the antithesis of –
'Yes?'
Well, childhoods, I suppose.
'I see. And what does it mean?'
Well, I suppose it means childhoods are finite, so to speak.
'In other words, kids grow up?'
Well, yes, that would be it.
'So Mr Pinker means: 'You can say quite a lot of things, with a language, really; but kids grow up.'
Yes, I suppose that would be another way of putting it.
'I have rarely heard such – a profound statement.'

---

I have to say, I love this stuff, JT. 'Language scientists' – mm mm. Takes me back to when we used to study 'Janet and John', in kindergarten. Any more where that came from?

MrP

Brown also checked whether children might learn about the state of their grammars by noticing whether they are being understood." There was no correlation found.

Of course children have no interest in learning about the state of their grammars.
But natural selection will soon make extinct any genetic line in which children don't notice whether they are being understood.

CJ

I find this passage puzzling:

The proportion was the same for grammatical sentences and ungrammatical ones, which means that the parent's response had given the child no information about grammar.

This implies that there were three categories of sentence:

1. Grammatical ones, where the parent expressed approval.
2. Ungrammatical ones, where the parent expressed disapproval.
3. Sentences where neither approval nor disapproval was expressed.

Perhaps the full text provides more information. But it seems to me that these three categories might naturally reflect:

1. Sentences that were grammatical in a surprising way; perhaps the child used a complex structure, or an unusual word ('there's a clever boy!'; 'that's a big word! wherever did you learn that?').

2. Sentences that were outlandishly ungrammatical, and thus more noticeable, in the stream of childish prattle (parents tend only to half-listen to their offspring, till something striking pops up).

3. Sentences that were either a little ungrammatical or unexceptionally grammatical.

If that's the case, then, on the contrary, a great deal of information was given to the child:

1. That's good!
2. That's bad!
3. That's normal!

In other words, the approval for category 3 was tacit.

MrP