Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h6K1OV708476; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <26439E2B.01C6D770.0AB94E44@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2438] Re: Syntax X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 5421 Lines: 51 A Chomskian argument, that I buy, is structuralist. In other words, language has a deep structure and a surface structure. The deep structure is the syntax that gives meaning to a sentence and surface structure is all the possible manifestations of that deep structure. Chomsky argued that when a child acquires language, he does not acquire every single instance of possible linguistic manifestations of a phrase and learns them all. Rather, the brain acquires one syntactic manifestation and interprets others as being connected to the original one. So, assuming that the child learned "The bathroom is there", he can relate this sentence to other sentences that explore bathroom and location. Also, as you suggest, there is an issue of context and the above sentence could also refer to plumer's section of home depot. However, chomsky argues that there is an essential syntax that allow us to associate linguistic structures to a basic one. Chomsky argues that this capacity to develop a deep structure is innate, while Piaget argues that it is learned. It has been a while since a read this stuff, so linguistic theory may have changed, so correct me if I am wrong or imprecise. I hope that this makes sense, Andres In a message dated 7/19/2003 5:59:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, afrench@sccd.ctc.edu writes: > > > Andrea and Jennifer agree that the sentence, "A book picks the blue gopher," has no meaning. What is it that leads them to that conclusion? Is it the vocabulary, the syntax, or their own experience and knowledge. While I would say at first reading that this sentence has no meaning, upon further thinking, I would say that it has no meaning FOR ME AT THIS TIME AND IN THIS CONTEXT, and probably for most others. However, I could imagine a headline of some sports newsletter that claims there is a book just out that picks (i.e., chooses) a certain golfer (a.k.a. "the Blue Gopher") to win next year's Masters' Golf Championship. [This isn't that far-fetched as anyone who is familiar with sports knows that golfer Greg Norman is known as the "Shark," that Duke University has the "Blue Demons" mascot, and the University of Minnesota has the "gopher."] Does syntax create meaning, or just facilitate the conveying of meaning from the writer/speaker to the reader/listener? The second! > example, "Bathroom please where," also depends on context and the communicators' experiences to be successfully understood. Certainly, most of us would interpret that to mean the speaker is looking for the nearest restroom. However, the speaker could be in a home improvement store and looking for bathroom accessories. Better syntax and vocabulary choice would reduce possible confusion in such a context. > > Again, what is the relationship between syntax and meaning? > > Indeed, what is syntax? Excuse me for being a trifle picky, but if Andrea is correct that the phrase, "bathroon please where" has syntax, but later claims that normal speech does not have syntax because we rarely speak in full sentences and paragraphs, then I am a little confused as to what has and doesn't have syntax. > > I raise these points just for purposes of clarification. I enjoy these discussions and want to learn and understand as much as possible. > > Allan French > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: AWilder106@aol.com [mailto:AWilder106@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:28 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2429] Re: Syntax > > > Jennifer, > > On your second example--the syntax is there and the word meanings also--it makes sense. On the first--obviously you have to have words that make sense, these don't. I was making a narrower point (but I am also working on the one you present)--that you have to have syntax, it holds the language together. Specific languages have specific grammars. > > Syntax is like having a dictionary, suddenly you are manipulating classes of words WHICH REFER TO EACH OTHER, like a dictionary does. You have kicked language up to a whole new level away from simple naming. Once you move away from naming you are into meaning. > > It certainly helps readers when they hear speech with syntax, which doesn't happen in the normal course of talking, we don't speak normally in full sentences and paragraphs, we speak in phrases, we make gestures, and so on. > > So READING ALOUD has to be an important resource for a teacher--tapes are fine. The kind of book reading we call "reading" depends on the student having a grasp of this kind of expression. Not only does it enhance predictability and accustom the student to speech patterns, it enhances the areas of the brain that handle language. > > Good readers read a lot, that's how they get to be good. It's like practicing any skill, you do it a lot and then you get better at it. > > You can't sound out all the words, some are sight words. How about sounding out "the?" Can't be done. > > People need a reason for reading, motivation. Often adult students have been so damaged by lousy teaching that to enter an adult classroom requires extraordinary courage. > > Thanks for your email and thanks to George for opening up this topic. Teachers are ham strung if they teach by recipe, what happens when there is no cookbook? That's the problem > with cookie cutter appraoches. > > Andrea go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:42 EST