| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peeping Tom
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: Linguistic Anomaly - There isn't vs. There is not |
 |
|
Usually, "isn't" is considered a contracted form of "is not," but while teaching the idiomatic existential phrase "there isn't," a few students would use the uncontracted from "there is not," which sounded unnatural every time. I was wondering if anyone had a good linguistic explanation for this phenomenon (or a refutation).
E.g.
There is no chair in the bedroom.
There isn't a chair in the bedroom.
*There is not a chair in the bedroom. (<=Though this is, in theory, grammatically correct, it doesn't sound natural.)
Last edited by Peeping Tom on Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The issue probably lies in your exposure.
Semantically all remain viable.
However, general semantics says that we should [mostly or totally] eliminate be verbs as they all decay into fundamentalisms and fallacy. I generally avoid be verbs in writing, conversation and lecture, but that wouldn't work with low-fluency students. You might reference E-Prime (E') or French's E-Choice (which allows sparce use of be verbs, especially in the negative).
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
The issue probably lies in your exposure.
Semantically all remain viable.
However, general semantics says that we should [mostly or totally] eliminate be verbs as they all decay into fundamentalisms and fallacy. I generally avoid be verbs in writing, conversation and lecture, but that wouldn't work with low-fluency students. You might reference E-Prime (E') or French's E-Choice (which allows sparce use of be verbs, especially in the negative).
Namaste. |
Wow, people are that upset about being authoritative in their statements? I was just going to say that just as,
*There is not a chair in the bedroom.
Doesn't sound natural, neither does
There isn't a chair in the bedroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am guessing as this answer comes from my instinct, but hear me out.
There is no cat in the classroom!
To me this sentence simply says something isn't in that place.
There is not a spaceship in the classroom!
To me the sentence emphasizes the negation of the claim itself-- eg. because it's ridiculous-- and not the simple fact that the spaceship isn't presently there right now.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Linguistic Anomaly - There isn't vs. There is not |
|
|
| Peeping Tom wrote: |
Usually, "isn't" is considered a contracted form of "is not," but while teaching the idiomatic existential phrase "there isn't," a few students would use the uncontracted from "there is not," which sounded unnatural every time. I was wondering if anyone had a good linguistic explanation for this phenomenon (or a refutation).
E.g.
There is no chair in the bedroom.
There isn't a chair in the bedroom.
*There is not a chair in the bedroom. (<=Though this is, in theory, grammatically correct, it doesn't not sound natural.) |
They are all natural and fine, it just depends on context ie what has come before...
You said there was a chair in the classroom but...there is no chair in the classroom
Is there a chair in the classroom? No...there isn`t a chair in the classroom
There IS a chair in the classroom. No...there is NOT a chair in the classroom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peeping Tom
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: Re: Linguistic Anomaly - There isn't vs. There is not |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
They are all natural and fine, it just depends on context ie what has come before...
You said there was a chair in the classroom but...there is no chair in the classroom
Is there a chair in the classroom? No...there isn`t a chair in the classroom
There IS a chair in the classroom. No...there is NOT a chair in the classroom |
I agree with what you're saying about "not" being fine in the context you showed (when it's used for emphasis), but what about as a simple answer to the question "Is there a chair in the classroom?"
I've had a few students give answers using "is not" instead of "isn't," and I instinctively correct them - saying they should say "isn't." And that's when I think, "wait, why is "isn't" ok but not "is not"?"
So, let me rephrase...
In phrases of the type in the OP where "not" is not meant to be used for emphasis, does "is not" sound natural or unnatural? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I still think it's fine for answering "Is there a chair in the classroom" with "No, there is not a chair in the classroom" and the reason it feels awkward is because it's hardly heard anymore as we move towards efficiency and contraction all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
They sound like interesting reads Herme's. Cheers. I ordered Kodish & Kodish book. Still, I would have thought that most people recognise that language is limited in what it can convey. With that in the back of your mind it doesn't neccesarily mean that language is dominating your notions of reality. Is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
They sound like interesting reads Herme's. Cheers. I ordered Kodish & Kodish book. Still, I would have thought that most people recognise that language is limited in what it can convey. With that in the back of your mind it doesn't neccesarily mean that language is dominating your notions of reality. Is it? |
Textural deconstructionists will say that language is the way we slice up reality, thus our language does in a very real way limit the thoughts we are able to express... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Textural deconstructionists will say that language is the way we slice up reality, thus our language does in a very real way limit the thoughts we are able to express... |
That wouldn't be limited to 'textural deconstructionists'. Neuro-linguistics also shows us that our internal and external language shapes our experience of realities. That wouldn't just limit our ability to express thoughts, but to have them in the first place. This creates different brain-maps.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| They sound like interesting reads Herme's. Cheers. I ordered Kodish & Kodish book. Still, I would have thought that most people recognise that language is limited in what it can convey. With that in the back of your mind it doesn't neccesarily mean that language is dominating your notions of reality. Is it? |
Most people never realize what they think is, isn't.
They mistake etic (local, personal) reality for emic (infinite, non-local) reality.
Developmental psychology tracks the progress in growth through etic perception, but peters out when it tries to track experience of the emic.
Adding more uncertainty to your external and internal languages has drastic affects on your experience of realities.
Try here for a short primer on E' written by RAW himself.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Textural deconstructionists will say that language is the way we slice up reality, thus our language does in a very real way limit the thoughts we are able to express... |
That wouldn't be limited to 'textural deconstructionists'. Neuro-linguistics also shows us that our internal and external language shapes our experience of realities. That wouldn't just limit our ability to express thoughts, but to have them in the first place. This creates different brain-maps.
Namaste. |
True. I expressed that loosely. It's not the the ability to express thoughts but the actual thoughts themselves that are delineated by language.
Example, japanese have one word that covers the two colors we call blue and green. It drives me nuts trying to figure out how that works, but it's true. Thier language doesn't allow them to slice up the color spectrum as finely as ours...and that's just a small practical example. It gets deep when considering how big existential concepts that shape our world and how we live in it are also affected/shaped by our language... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| It gets deep when considering how big existential concepts that shape our world and how we live in it are also affected/shaped by our language... |
And thus the fun of general semantics. 
Did you read that E' link above?
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Linguistic Anomaly - There isn't vs. There is not |
|
|
| Peeping Tom wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
They are all natural and fine, it just depends on context ie what has come before...
You said there was a chair in the classroom but...there is no chair in the classroom
Is there a chair in the classroom? No...there isn`t a chair in the classroom
There IS a chair in the classroom. No...there is NOT a chair in the classroom |
I agree with what you're saying about "not" being fine in the context you showed (when it's used for emphasis), but what about as a simple answer to the question "Is there a chair in the classroom?"
I've had a few students give answers using "is not" instead of "isn't," and I instinctively correct them - saying they should say "isn't." And that's when I think, "wait, why is "isn't" ok but not "is not"?"
So, let me rephrase...
In phrases of the type in the OP where "not" is not meant to be used for emphasis, does "is not" sound natural or unnatural? |
It's nothing more than the difference between grammar and usage. Just tell them that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
