The reform of linguistics

Share on Facebook

Anonymous

#233235 Wed, 07 Jun 06 05:32 AM

Anonymous wrote:

I'm Anon2.

This thread is finally moving into interesting territory for the teaching/learning of English. What Anon1 seems to be implying is that NO categories can be assumed to be cross-linguistically valid. For instance, this comment: "Whereas when you claim that Thai nouns are invariable for number, you are not trying to explain Thai in terms of another language. Oh, other than the concept of noun and the abstract terms invariable and number."

This seems to complicate enormously the task of the learning English for people of other languages, and especially languages like Chinese and Thai for which, it seems, it is not even possible to talk about "nouns".

I do not think that it complicates learning these languages at all. My purpose is to note that whereas superficial knowledge is quite adequate for superficial communication, as Forbes described, it is not sufficient for those interested in deep understanding.

(Or perhaps Anon1 is saying that we can continue to talk about nouns in Chinese or Thai, but they are no more than props for English speakers trying to learn/come to grips with those languages that are not related to the actual linguistic realities).

Yes. I take Japanese as my model language for this. In Japanese, there are far, far more nouns than in English. Yet, very few nouns have exact correlates in English. For example, if you were to ask 100 Japanese speakers, as I have, what the Japanese word for animal is, all of them will automatically give the poor translation of doubutsu. The structure of nouns is very different in Japanese than English, and Chinese is different from both.

It would be useful if Anon1 could come out with his/her own theory for the analysis of Chinese so that we can see what he/she is driving at. It might even be a major contribution to the question of learning foreign languages (such as the acquisition of English by speakers of other languages), because it would allow us to better understand and thus better bridge the learning gap.

It is imperative, in order to learn a langauge well, to think in terms of the language itself, and not in a foreign language, such as one's native language. It is also beneficial to compare languages, in order to gain a much greater perspective. For example: The primary function of langauge is to enable mankind to develop and manipulate its understanding of space and time. However, there are various ways that langauges accomplish this. Without understanding of multiple grammars, it is not even possible to become aware of this, let alone to understand it well. For example, in English, which recognizes 3 dimensions of space, we use 3 terms to locate objects in space; at, on , and in. At is used when the conceptual target is at a point along a line. On is used when the conceptual target is an area, on which the point is located. In is used when the conceptual target is a volume, in which the target is located. Chinese and Japanese do not have any of these words, at, on, or in; nor do they share a concept in common in this respect. Forbes would argue that there are equivalents, and we can rightly consider that there is no difference. I agree that there are equivalents, but they are not identical, and if we do not understand the nature of the situation or the differences therein, we are limited in our ability to understand how objects in space and time relate to each other in Japanese and Chinese.

I think the ball is in Anon1's court.

Not likely. Julielai, whoever she is and whatever authority she has, has already threatened to terminate this thread due to her lack of appreciation of the relevance toward English. As well, Forbes has made it clear that any discussion with him entails convincing him that my arguments are superior to those that he has read elsewhere, which he demands that I challenge head-on. I think that this is not the forum for this topic, no matter how fascinating I consider it.

Anonymous

Nouns, Numbers, Learning English, Translation

julielai

#233241 Wed, 07 Jun 06 05:58 AM

Thanks for identifying yourself, Anon2. That will help clear up the confusion.

I'm not quite following your point. What do you mean by "it is not even possible to talk about 'nouns'"? How do you come to that conclusion?

julielai

Joined on Sun, Oct 24 2004

Planet earth

Senior Member (3,590)

Just another blogger (http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/julie-lai)

Nouns

Anonymous

#233310 Wed, 07 Jun 06 09:22 AM

Julie,

I was noting this comment by Anon1:

"Whereas when you claim that Thai nouns are invariable for number, you are not trying to explain Thai in terms of another language. Oh, other than the concept of noun and the abstract terms invariable and number."

The implication is that using "nouns" to explain Thai is tantamount to explaining Thai in terms of another language -- in other words, English has "nouns" , Thai does not.

So Anon1 is proposing that Thai (and Chinese, and Japanese) should be analysed without talking about nouns. The problem is that while he/she maintains that using the concept of "noun" is incorrect (or not meaningful), he/she hasn't come up with anything to replace it.

It's easy to say that every language is different and that languages deal with reality differently (which sounds like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). My challenge to Anon1 is to come up with something constructive to help us understand the true linguistic structure of Chinese (and Japanese and Thai). So far we have only heard put-downs of other people.

Anon2

Anonymous

Nouns, Numbers

Anonymous

#233336 Wed, 07 Jun 06 09:50 AM

Anon2 again.

In Japanese, there are far, far more nouns than in English. Yet, very few nouns have exact correlates in English.

I'm not sure what to make of this. The fact that they don't correlate doesn't necessarily mean that the category "noun" is irrelevant. No one expects nouns to have "exact correlates" across languages. Even in English it is possible to express the same idea in alternative ways, i.e., as nouns or verbs (e.g., "to dream", "to have a dream"). Knowing how to manipulate these things is part of knowing (or learning) a language.

if you were to ask 100 Japanese speakers, as I have, what the Japanese word for animal is, all of them will automatically give the poor translation of doubutsu. The structure of nouns is very different in Japanese than English

While dobutsu (動物) may be considered a poor translation, I understand it was originally coined as the equivalent of English "animal". The fact that it does not precisely correspond semantically to the English word "animal" does not alter this. I am wondering what word (sorry, combination of monosyllables) you would like to replace it with.

I am becoming more and more mystified what Anon1 is driving at. As I said, I think this is highly relevant to English because Anon1's claim that other languages can't be analysed in terms of English also cuts the other way. For people coming from other languages, knowing the difference between their own language and English in a principled and structured way would be invaluable in arriving at a deeper understanding of English.

Anon1, you've made a lot of patronising comments about other people. Give us the chance to share in this deep understanding that you keep hinting at.

Anonymous

Nouns, Verbs, Difference Between, Translation

julielai

#233455 Wed, 07 Jun 06 02:39 PM

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. Anon1 was focusing more on corresponding nouns across languages, while Anon2 was focusing on the existence of corresponding word classes in different languages, such as nouns. Am I right?

I'm here to maintain peace and to keep the thread from going off-track. As long as it is heading towards the right direction (with no personal remarks), I'll be the first one to want to keep this going. Big Smile [:D]

julielai

Nouns

Anonymous

#233706 Thu, 08 Jun 06 07:00 AM

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that they don't correlate doesn't necessarily mean that the category "noun" is irrelevant.

That is not the point of the example. You seem to be reading far too much into my words. I did not claim that the category is irrelevant.

No one expects nouns to have "exact correlates" across languages.

I think that you are generalizing, and that your generalization is incorrect. Based on my experience, I believe that most people think that there are exact correlates across languages. On what basis do you believe that your generalization is more accurate than mine?

In my experience with this word, and many more like it, Japanese people tend to believe that the English word animal is an extremely good equivalent, which it is not for most people. In fact, it is typically a very poor equivalent. Perhaps the fact that it is better than any other simple word is sufficient for you. That is fine with me. I do not consider this ideal, from my perspective. You are free to feel however you do.

I am wondering what word (sorry, combination of monosyllables) you would like to replace it with.

I take it that you think that your monosyllable joke is cute. Or, are you under the impression that Japanese words are monosyllabic? For the most part, there is no good equivalent in Japanese for the English word animal. It would take a number of words to convey the same meaning. Do you know the characters for doubutsu, or did you find them on the Internet? Incidentally, the Chinese meaning for these characters is a much closer equivalent to the English. Of course, the word has quite a spread of connotations in English.

Your rendition of my meaning is inaccurate. I did not make this claim. What I claimed was such analysis, although useful, is only limitedly useful. I claimed that such translation leads to approximations only, which are less that could be obtained by those so interested. You claim that this analysis also cuts the other way. I am glad that you recognize the obvious.

You do not seem to be stating any of your opinions. Feel free.

Anonymous

Nouns, Numbers, Jokes, Translation

Anonymous

#233713 Thu, 08 Jun 06 07:20 AM

Julielai wrote:
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. Anon1 was focusing more on corresponding nouns across languages, while Anon2 was focusing on the existence of corresponding word classes in different languages, such as nouns. Am I right?

It seems so. I am focusing on the correspondence across languages, whereas Anon2 seems to be under the impression that I deny any validity or utility to the grammatical categories just because I think that they are not perfect correlates.

Anonymous

Nouns

Anonymous

#233891 Thu, 08 Jun 06 02:11 PM

That is not the point of the example. You seem to be reading far too much into my words.

To tell you the truth, I have great difficulty figuring out what your point is. Mainly because you keep taunting other people but refuse to take a position yourself.

Let me take this paragraph apart:

1. Japanese people tend to believe 'animal' is an extremely good equivalent for 動物. (OK, I'll agree with this).
2. For most people, 'animal' is not a good equivalent of 動物. (Er, presumably 'most people' are not Japanese).
3. Fact: 'animal' is typically a very poor equivalent for 動物. (I can see that it's not the only equivalent. As for whether it's a 'very poor equivalent', I find this a rather strong claim that needs a little more to back it up than Anon1's say-so).
4. Fact: 'animal' is a better equivalent for 動物 than any other simple word. (Er, this seems to contradict what you said in point 3...unless you feel that a circumlocution would be better.)

In the rest of the paragraph there is (1) one sentence in which you suggest that you do not regard the situation as ideal, and (2) three whole sentences telling me how I "perhaps" think and that you regard yourself as quite aloof to what I think, anyway.

As usual, you do not suggest what your point is in citing this kind of example. If you are referring to the propensity for the Japanese to adhere to "fixed" or "set" translations when translating into (or from) English, I totally agree with you. However, you are far from the first person to notice this, and in any case, I can't see what it has to do with your point about nouns made earlier on.

Or, are you under the impression that Japanese words are monosyllabic?...Do you know the characters for doubutsu, or did you find them on the Internet?

Why do you persist in talking to other people as though you regard them as ignoramuses? Do you realise that you come across as a complete and utter snob?

Incidentally, the Chinese meaning for these characters is a much closer equivalent to the English.

In what way is the Chinese meaning for these characters a closer equivalent to English? The characters are the same and meanings are the same. The "word" is also the same (dongwu 动物).

As far as I can see, the difference does not lie, as you say, in the "meaning" of the characters. It lies in the place of 動物 in the larger picture of each language's vocabulary. 'Dong' and 'wu' ('move' and 'thing' in a rough translation) are everyday morphemes/words in Chinese; putting them together creates a relatively transparent, easily apprehended, 'living' combination, whereas in Japanese exactly the same characters in exactly the same combination belong to the non-everyday, less homely stratum of the Japanese vocabulary formed of borrowed vocabulary elements and is a more 'ossified' combination as a result.

I am perfectly happy to accept all of this. It is common knowledge. I am also quite happy to accept that this results in a greater awareness in Chinese of the 'individual life of morphemes', as it were. Words are not set in stone; people are aware of their constituent meanings and there is more freedom to combine them in new or novel ways.

This does not alter the fact that 'dongwu' functions as a single lexical and grammatical unit in Chinese. It is a noun that can act as a subject or an object of a sentence, or modify other nouns. It is quite possible for the characters 動物 to accidentally come together in a sentence without actually forming the unit 'dongwu' (animal). For instance, a rather unnatural example (sorry, I can't think of anything better at the moment) might be: 小朋友，別挪動物品，好嗎 'Xiao pengyou, bie nuodong wupin, hao ma?' ('Little friend, don't move the goods, OK?'), where 挪動 'nuodong' means 'move, shift' and 物品 'wupin' means 'goods'. As far as I can see, there is no reference to animals in this sentence, and no Chinese would for a moment think that there was.

What I have been asking Anon1 to do -- in fact, very persistently asking Anon1 to do -- is tell us how he/she would deal with this kind of phenomenon. If he/she does not want to recognise "words", how does he/she plan to deal with combinations like 'dongwu', 'nuodong', and 'wupin', not to mention many more difficult and abstruse examples? I am waiting for him/her to come up with a new linguistic analysis of Chinese that answers these questions without resorting to "words" (or something effectively similar).

If Anon1 is unable to come up with anything better than a vague and contemptuous dismissal, then I suggest we should forget it. Anon1 keeps telling us we are all wrong; I, for one, would be happier than anyone if he/she could prove it.

Anonymous

Nouns, Regards, Vocabulary, Morphemes, Paragraphs, Translation

Forbes

#233992 Thu, 08 Jun 06 11:21 PM

Forbes wrote:

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to get at it. If you are teaching someone Thai and you say "Thai nouns have no plural" you may give the impression that Thai has no means of expressing number, which is not the case.

I agree that many students of language do not know what the word plural refers to, or the word tense for that matter, and can therefore come to the clearly errant conclusion that you claim is possible. Therefore, I will reiterate my statement that you are correct in that if your only purpose is a superficial ability to converse in a language it is reasonable for some people, such as yourself, to simplify as much as possible all statements of grammar. However, if this is indeed your goal, to simplify grammar for those who do not understand such simple concepts as plural and tense, then why would you introduce the complexities that you are, even if it were not for the fact that they are not linguistically meaningful?

If on the other hand you say "Thai nouns are invariable for number"

Please explain how this is easier to understand for a person who does even understand what the word plural means.

Similarly, if you say "Thai only has a present tense" you give the impression that in Thai you cannot talk about the future or the past. If you say "Thai nouns have no plural" or "Thai only has a present tense" then you are trying to explain Thai in terms of a language where number is expressed by varying the noun and verbs have different forms for different tenses.

Whereas when you claim that Thai nouns are invariable for number, you are not trying to explain Thai in terms of another language. Oh, other than the concept of noun and the abstract terms invariable and number.

No native speaker of Thai who does not know any other language has any notion of "tense" or "singular and plural" though s/he is quite capable of talking about how many people came to dinner yesterday.

I think that he would learn the concepts of singular and plural more easily than invariable and number. Don't you?

In your comments you are assuming that I am imagining a real life situation where I am taking a class. Rather, I am assuming a hypothetical person I am addressing who has the same level of education as I have, but who has not considered the phenomenon of language and knows only English. I really only want to make the point that a given phenonemon can be looked at from different angles, just as a glass with water halfway up can be described as half full or half empty.

If one speaks about a language having failed to develop a feature one is in danger of suggesting a language is defective.

Ah, a preacher. Wow, who has heard this story but a million times? I think that I understand now. I said that there are differences in number and tense, and you assume that I am claiming qualitative differences and defectiveness. What wild speculation on your part. Let us not enter into this danger that you so fear.

You are reading into my comment something that is not there. I said “If one speaks…one is in danger…” I chose my words carefully; they are not directed at you.

All languages are complete at any moment of their history and adequate for the needs of their speakers.

While at the same time being very different. You and I are both complete in our ability to relate to the world, but we are very different.

That is a deep philosophical question.

It is of course possible to teach a language without explaining grammatical categories in the abstract. However, if we are talking about something like classifiers, it is still necessary in some way to get across to the pupil the idea of "classifiedness" if teaching Thai, but quite unnecessary when teaching someone English.

I am not sure of your point. You seem to be saying that because the notion of classifier is more central to certain Asian langauges, and that because it is more peripheral in English, we SHOULD claim that it does not exist AT ALL in English, for fear that the pupil (whatever you mean by this) will jump to some completely uncalled for conclusion about the poverty of Thai. This seems to be our differences, and if it is we should recognize this and move on. You seem to care about the education of pupils, whatever that means, and I seem to care about the education of serious-minded adults.

Once again you are reading things that are not there.

I feel I must try and make my point about classifiers.

I first make the following points with which you cannot disagree:

My dictionary (a large one) does not define classifier
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language does not contain the word classifier in the index
At no point in my education, considered by English standards to be a good one, did any teacher ever mention the word classifier

So far so good.

Now of none of that is conclusive.

Let me explain why I think that the statement: “English does not have classifiers” is correct.

It is true that in English one can say “a bunch of grapes” or “a head of lettuce”, but these expressions refer to grapes and lettuce in a particular form and I can still refer to them them in that form without using the words “bunch” and “head”. Equally, use of the phrases is incorrect in certain situations so that one cannot for example say “there is a bunch of grapes in the bowl” when the bowl contains a few grapes that have been plucked from the bunch.

This contrasts with Thai where in certain situations, for example when using demonstratives or counting things, classifiers MUST be used. In Thai and Malay (I cannot speak for any other languages from direct knowledge) classifiers correspond to loose semantic categories and will indicate something like “rod-like object” “flat round object” “human being other than monk or king” “animal with tail”. There is no way that English grammar can be said to function like that.

If one is trying to explain classifiers to my hypothetical seeker of knowledge one may start by bringing in phrases such as “a bunch of grapes” and “a head of lettuce” just to give him something to “get a handle on”, but the fact that these phrases may be useful to help explain the concept of a classifier does not mean that they are instances of English using classifiers.

Saying that English does not have classifiers is not the same as saying that English speakers do not or cannot classify things when they feel they need or want to.

If I made the point about classifiers it was because someone tried to say that English uses classifiers at the same time they were arguing that Chinese was monosyllabic and that any notion to the contrary was motivated by the imposition on Chinese of alien concepts.

You misunderstand me. Anyway, what is your point? If you made your point, rather than tell us what you were trying to demonstrate, you here tell us that you were forced to say it because blah, blah. What, specifically, is the relaitionship between my argument and your need to make your point. Is it true that your main goal is to teach in as simple as possible terms to young people who have little sophistication, which is my interpretation of your word pupils? If so, then we are not on the same page, as I am making points for those who I expect to have some understanding of language and linguistics and interest in deep levels.

You (at least I think it was you) said that the notion that Chinese is polysyllabic comes from trying to impose alien concepts on Chinese.

I say that the notion that English has classifiers comes from trying to impose alien concepts on English.

I am amused that someone (and it may not be you) should complain about alien notions being applied to their own language and then promptly apply alien notions to another language.

Forbes wrote:

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to get at it.

If I made the p