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 h6LHiI707417; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4B73F518F0F98A4EA67DDAA3DB84941A2E1517@SCCDMAIL.SCCD.CTC.EDU> 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: "French, Allan" <afrench@sccd.ctc.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2448] Re: Syntax X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3774 Lines: 35 Andrea's is an interesting response to Chomsky, as attributed by Andres. My own question is: Where does meaning come from? Is it the intention of the conveyor of the written or spoken words, the words themselves and the syntax of their organization (something objective to be understood by all), or the interpretation of the reader or listener? Andres wrote that, according to Chomsky, "the deep structure [of language] is the syntax that gives meaning to a sentence ... " Now, if that is indeed the case, how do we ever misunderstand each other? But that is not Andrea's response. She states that "Chomsky knows zip about speech and language evolution, his is a linguist and spends his time on grammar." She continues by saying that he isn't interested in teaching. While I find her retort interesting and something that I might say myself, given the topic of syntax and meaning I must ask: What does Andrea mean by that statement? Does she really want us to believe that Chomsky has absolutely no knowledge of speech, since zip means "nothing at all"? Or is she using a common rhetorical device of exaggeration and the employment of "cool" language (such as "zip") to get our attention to her point. The second half of her response would seem to mean that his total ignorance is due to his focus on a different specialization. I hope that is not what she meant to imply, because that would render all of our statements outside of our expertise as suspect. The broader implication is that we should not look at an argument itself, but consider the type of person who made the argument. If syntax gives meaning to a sentence, then I am troubled by her response. This may very well be unfair to Andrea, and if it is, it begs the question of where meaning comes from, and the role syntax plays it making meaning. Going back to the phrase, "bathroom please where," we understand it, not because of syntax (be it clear or scrambled), but from our experiences with people whose obviously don't know English like a native speaker and who use the single word "bathroom" with a quizzical or distressed look on the face. We guess that they mean "where can I find a bathroom?" and most of the time we guess correctly. If syntax gives meaning, and there is limited syntax in normal speech, how do we understand normal speech? I am not an expert in these matters, but the logic of the various claims kind of escapes me. As far as how this relates to teaching and EFF, I would say that I tell my students to become clearer in their own thinking (something that I as a teacher try hard to help out with, using both patience and persistence), that vocabulary and grammar are just tools for getting ideas across, and that we need to use context and our own experiences to undertand what we read and hear, not just rely on some dictionary definition of a word, nor on some objective syntactically-derived meaning. Allan French -----Original Message----- From: AWilder106@aol.com [mailto:AWilder106@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 6:44 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2441] Re: Syntax Andres. This is brief. Chomsky knows zip about speech and language evolution, he is a linguist and spends his time on grammar. I am interested in teaching adults (he isn't) and in what language is. So with some other types of researchers I have come down to syntax. Language/speech are interactive, developing through human interaction. The capacity for speech is innate, but if a person doesn't hear language by 7 years it won't develop. Piaget was interested in the development of "scientific" thinking, you know, holding one thing constant and manipulating the variables. Look at all his observations and experiments and you will see this. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:42 EST