Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Approaches to English Grammar

Fall 2006

Answers for Yule, Explaining English Grammar. Chapter 1

1. What is the difference between a typical part of speech, say a noun, and a phrase? Why is this difference important in describing grammar?

Parts of speech, like nouns, are only really useful at the surface level. Parts of speech are limited to single words and this is simply too obvious. It allows for a surface-level description, but little else. If we really want to look at grammar and how language works we have to take it down a peg and look at larger units because these larger units are the units upon which grammar , and by extension language, tends to operate. There is a veritable plethora of empirical evidence which shows that elements in sentences from units or constituents. We will call these units `phrases` because that is the familiar/traditional term. It is at the phrase level that languages, like English, function. All nouns for example are really noun phrases in different levels of representation. Look at the example below.

The man with the big face bit the screaming elephant.

Here it does not really help us to talk about the word `man` as a noun or even as the subject. `Man` is merely part of the entire noun phrase `the man with the big face` and this entire unit functions as the subject. The entire phrase functions very similarly to the single word `man`. We can prove this through replacement tests. We can replace the whole phrase with a single pronoun; `he` as in, He bit the screaming elephant. We can replace the other noun phrase at the end with another pronoun as in He bit it. This clearly shows us that phrases are where grammar really happens. As I mentioned in class last night, phrases are essential for the efficient working of memory systems in the brain. Without the essential use of phrases in language we would be limited to simple short utterances.

It is also important to remember that replacement is a regular and very standard grammatical operation, but like all other areas of language it can only be achieved with a certain amount of constraint. If we look at the example above: He bit it. We realize that because the lengthy noun phrases have been replaced we are left with a highly underspecified utterance which may or may not be unacceptable in certain contexts. Remember, we said that grammar is a secondary system in language the whole point of which is to make the language a speaker creates better suited to a specific context. This means that grammar allows a speaker, on the one hand, to put together more complex utterances by using grammar to fuse together more lexical items which allows the speaker to create infinitely fine shades of meaning, but, on the other hand, grammar also allows a speaker to simplify their utterances, which is just as important.

2. Why do we mark pieces of language as being ungrammatical in a certain context as opposed to be generally ungrammatical?

It is Yule`s view, and I agree, that meaning is only made real, or even made at all clear, through its interaction with the contexts that are surrounding or are associated with a given utterance. What grammar really does is provide a bridge which helps make the meaning of utterances better fit the situation while simultaneously creating a linguistic context which subsequent utterances should follow. Taking this into account, we see that we cannot begin to talk about the relative grammaticality or lack of grammaticality of an utterance unless we analyze it against the surrounding context as well as the previous linguistic context. Taking this one step further, this means that we not only have to make use of context when analyzing grammar but that we have to teach grammar thinking about context. Our judgements about utterances or written sentences must also be related to the context. Instead of saying that something is `wrong`’we say that it is `unacceptable in that context`. It is also important to note that there are degrees of unacceptability. Some things are perfectly grammatical and they even fit the context, but are put in a way that native speakers might never use. This is how we want to think about grammar and talk to our students about grammar.

3. Why do we want to avoid making judgements on what is better in language? How should we talk about the relative grammaticality of certain pieces of language? Why?

Making definitive right and wrong judgements about grammar in relation to a specific structure we encounter somewhere is too constraining and does not reflect the way that language works. Language is, above all, flexible. Based on the context, much more is possible in language than textbooks and overly prescriptive teachers would ever allow. I think that it is important than we give the students the feeling that language is not a boring highly constrained thing that is either correct or incorrect, but rather is a living entity which can be and should be played with to a degree. It will help student autonomy and lower their affective filters if we present a positive, creative view of language which encourages the students to be less inhibited and generally creative with the language they have, but within certain constraints, of course. A simple rule of thumb that should work is to allow the students freedom in interpreting the authentic language that they might encounter in texts and on tapes and the like. Try not to make such strong value judgements about what you know to be an authentic text. You should, however, be somewhat strict about the language that your students produce. The bottom line is that grammar is a flexible ever changing entity. Variation is the basis of language it is not merely a rare occurrence. People are constantly creating new utterances and texts which do not just conform to accepted rules but which constantly bend and extend the accepted system of usage. Now, in order to get your students to the point where they can bend the rules they need to know the rules in the first place. They need to master the core before they can extend their usage out to the periferies.

4. Why do we want to describe language functionally as opposed to structurally? What are the limitations on structural descriptions?

Structural descriptions only talk about the elements in the utterances or written sentences. They are essentially descriptive and vacuously so. They do not talk at all about the functions of the message. If we try to analyze utterances based on structure alone then we cannot make assessments of how successfully the language put together by the speaker or writer is. It is a vacuous, and at times dangerous endeavour Generally, a function is the underlying reason why someone is speaking or writing. By looking at functions we are establishing links to meaning. We can only judge the success or failure of a structure in relation to its intended goal. Therefore, we need to look at grammatical assessment and teaching, for that matter, as the interplay between functions and structures. Here is a simple example;

Silence is requested.

From a functional point of view this kind of structure would only be allowed in certain situations, like as a sign hanging in a library (an unseen force - the library authorities and all people present at any given time). And it is used functionally to stop noise from being produced before the act. What about this.

Be quiet!

This is used functionally only once the noise has been/is being made by a visible and present force. It is not used well as a preventative measure against noise and can, therefore, only be used is a small range of situations.

The difference between these two utterances, is not merely formality as a structural analysis would tell us, but temporal and causal as revealed only when functional concerns are considered.

5. How can we use the concepts of animate - inanimate to explain the difference between `I am bored` and `I am boring`?

In order to understand the difference between the sentences

(A) I am bored.

and

(B) I am boring.

We need to introduce the terms animate/inanimate and source/experiencer. In sentence A, someone or something (something animate) is bored. That is, they are experiencing boredom. Therefore, only animate objects can be experiencers in this or indeed any situation. We cannot say that a book was bored, but a book can be boring. The source in such situations can be either animate or inanimate as in the following examples: The film was boring. Jim was really boring. In these sentences the film and Jim are the sources of the boredom. The experiencer is not directly mentioned. The experiencer is implied. Since only animate objects can be experiencers, we assume the implied experiencer is a human who has seen the film or talked to Jim.

Thus, the use of a labelling system, functional in nature, can make such descriptions easier and more meaningful.

Aa. Experiencer (Animate) CAUSED BY Source(Animate/Inanimate)

Ba. Source CAUSES Experience

Fun and easy!

6. How can linguistic distance be used to explain the meaning difference in the following sentences: I`m going home. and I`m going to Moscow.? Can you think of any other examples?

Linguistic distance is a really simple idea. It states that the spacial (in writing) or temporal (in speaking) distance between elements (Subject-object, subject-verb, verb-object) in an utterance relates directly to conceptual distance in meaning. Here are some really simple examples

Betty is in town.

Betty was in town.

Betty used to be in town.

As the distance in the sentences between the subject Betty and the object `town` increases so does the conceptual distance. The meaning intends more distance. If Betty is in town she is close (spatially and temporally. If she was in town she was here recently, not really close, but not too far (spatially and temporally). If she used to be in town, then we have much more distance in time and probably space since she left town. She is long gone and, potentially at least, very far away. Linguistic distance is something that plays an important, although not often perceived role in English and all languages due to their common linear formation. This simple phenomonen can be used to explain tenses, prepositions, and many other grammatical phenomena as we shall see in this course.

7. Information structure can be a very useful tool in talking about certain grammatical structures. Look at the text below and fill in the blanks.

            Walking down the street yesterday, I saw ______ very strange man. ___________ was walking backwards and _____________ dancing. ____________ also wore very strange clothes. After I passed ____________ I wondered how anyone could be so strange.

The basic idea behind information structure is that utterances cannot be looked at separately. What comes before, especially in relation to what the reader or hearer already knows plays a large role in shaping grammar. When things are first mentioned in a conversation they are always marked grammatically the same way. Once the listener becomes familiar with that information, it is coded differently. This does not occur sporadically. It is a systematic process that is also very productive and is based on the common knowledge of the speaker/writer and listener/reader. We will explore this way of analysing language and teaching language more as in the subsequent chapters of tis Yule book and elsewhere in this course.