Perfect agony

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:51 am

Something else just occurred to me: If a speaker begins by saying "The horse's trainer has had winner here" and, halfway through the utterance, decides it would be a good idea to specify a time, then surely they are more likely to simply add "yesterday" at the end rather than rephrase the whole thing. Could this account for how the structure could appear in spoken language?

I would say it completely accounts for the structure in spoken language. Such things happen all the time. Technically its known as "a false start".

Tell your highest level students about false starts if you like but don't teach them as "proper" English.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:20 am

Another common-sense answer , which is so obvious that it's hardly worth mentioning but when has that stopped anybody?... is that you can't guarantee when listening to spoken English that the speaker didn't have a tiny , or .... or - in mind:

The horse's trainer has had a winner here...yesterday.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 pm

Metal - I see you're quoting Swan's examples too. Are you saying you disagree with him when he says "such examples are unusual but not impossible"?

My interest regarding language use are more to do with what is probable than that which possible.

Not what was that someone said about colourless green ideas?

I don't have a problem with The horse's trainer has had a winner here yesterday, and I might well use it if the event is psychologically "close".

It's a free world. You go use what you want to.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:08 pm

lolwhites wrote:
Something else just occurred to me: If a speaker begins by saying "The horse's trainer has had winner here" and, halfway through the utterance, decides it would be a good idea to specify a time, then surely they are more likely to simply add "yesterday" at the end rather than rephrase the whole thing. Could this account for how the structure could appear in spoken language?

If that was the case (see Andrew's comment on false starts), do you think it would be transcribed to the written form in that way? No gaps, "punctuation", for thought, change of tack, added information, etc?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:02 pm

Prosody

Prosody can be defined as the suprasegmental information in speech; that is, information that cannot be localized to a specific sound segment, or information that does not change the segmental identity of speech segments. For example, patterns of variation in fundamental frequency, duration, amplitude or intensity, pauses, and speaking rate have been shown to carry information about such prosodic elements as lexical stress, phrase breaks, and declarative or interrogative sentence form. Prosody consists of a phonological aspect (characterized by discrete, abstract units) and a phonetic aspect (characterized by continuously varying acoustic correlates).

http://cslu.cse.ogi.edu/HLTsurvey/ch1node10.html

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:42 pm

Not [sic] what was that someone said about colourless green ideas?

Except that Colourless green ideas sleep furiously is a made up sentence used to prove a specific point about language, whereas The horse's trainer has had a winner here yesterday is authentic, as are the examples Metamorfose quotes from MacAndrew. You aren't comparing like with like.

I don't think anyone here denies that had is more probable than has had in this context. As I understand it, what we're discussing is how to handle such structures in the classroom, especially given that any student who reads or listens to the news in English has a good chance of coming across it. Is it good practice to simply say "it's wrong, and the journalists who use it are making a mistake", or is it better to say "it's not common and you should avoid using it"? Personally, I'd go along with Swan and MacAndrew.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:11 pm

I'm comparing what is possible with that which is probable. For me, if you agree that "I have broken my leg yesterday" is grammtically correct English, the I would also assume that you think "Me Tarzan, you Metal!" is grammatically correct.

And, if you are prepared to the wave the "authenticity card" over such as "he has had a horse in the race yesterday" , would you do so over these authentic gems?

I'm bored of you.
The record was broke by Jackson.
I could of come with you?
I'm busy this week, I'll see you the next week.

etc.

"it's wrong, and the journalists who use it are making a mistake", or is it better to say "it's not common and you should avoid using it"?

If you can't explain why it is wrong, then go for the easy option and state the latter.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:47 pm

I'm comparing what is possible with that which is probable. For me, if you agree that "I have broken my leg yesterday" is grammtically correct English, the I would also assume that you think "Me Tarzan, you Metal!" is grammatically correct.

And, if you are prepared to the wave the "authenticity card" over such as "he has had a horse in the race yesterday" , would you do so over these authentic gems?

I'm bored of you.
The record was broke by Jackson.
I could of come with you?
I'm busy this week, I'll see you the next week.

Once again, you compare apples with oranges. The examples from Swan and MacAndrew are not just authentic, but appeared in the mainstream media. Yours look like they came from a bunch of teenagers sitting GCSE English, and wouldn't have made it past a trainee proofreader. Are you seriously saying that authenticity is should not be a consideration when deciding what is or isn't good English, or are you just being glib?

If you can't explain why it is wrong, then go for the easy option and state the latter.

The easy option is to say "It's wrong because of what it says in the grammar book", the difficult option is to explain why grammar isn't always black and white. By your logic, Swan took the easy option when he wrote "such structures are unusual, but not impossible (though learners should avoid them)". Why don't you send him an email and put him straight?

Finally, Metal, I asked whether you agreed with Swan or not. You still haven't given a straight answer. Is it yes or no?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:38 pm

Once again, you compare apples with oranges. The examples from Swan and MacAndrew are not just authentic, but appeared in the mainstream media. Yours look like they came from a bunch of teenagers sitting GCSE English, and wouldn't have made it past a trainee proofreader.

You trust the educational background and linguistic abilities of the Press too much.

Are you seriously saying that authenticity is should not be a consideration when deciding what is or isn't good English, or are you just being glib?

There's lots of authentic English out there, but you seem to deny authenticity to " bunch of teenagers sitting GCSE English". Why are there contributions not authentic but your journalists' pals are?

The easy option is to say "It's wrong because of what it says in the grammar book", the difficult option is to explain why grammar isn't always black and white.

It's easy to say it's wrong if you know why we use the present perfect in English. If you're talking about the Spanish present perfect... what the hell? Stick past time adverbs everywhere.

Why don't you send him an email and put him straight?

Should I deny him his opinion?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:26 pm

There's lots of authentic English out there, but you seem to deny authenticity to " bunch of teenagers sitting GCSE English". Why are there contributions not authentic but your journalists' pals are?

That doesn't answer my original question. I don't deny that the teenagers' English isn't authentic, but it needs proofreading. Rather like your "Why are there [sic] contributions not authentic", in fact. In any case, the errors in the exmples you gave were mainly lexical rather then grammatical (e.g. "could of") and have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Stop pussyfooting around and answer the question, Metal. Do you disagree with Swan? Yes or no?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:49 pm

but it needs proofreading. Rather like your "Why are there [sic] contributions not authentic", in fact. In any case, the errors in the exmples you gave were mainly lexical rather then grammatical

Stop pussyfooting around and answer the question, Metal. Do you disagree with Swan? Yes or no?

How can one disagree with someone who says that something is possible without knowing what he means by "possible". What do you think he means?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:32 pm

I suppose disgaree is also "possible", insofar as there's no physical law preventing someone from mistyping.

In your original response to Meta's question, you said it was "an error" and "not proper for any environment", which I think most leaners would understand to mean "not possible". Let's take "possible" to mean the opposite i.e. "proper in some environments"; if so , I consider it "possible" while recognising that the number of "environments" is pretty limited. This seems to be what both Swan and MacAndrew say.

If we accept that definition of "possible", do you agree with Swan?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:41 pm

lolwhites wrote: Let's take "possible" to mean the opposite i.e. "proper in some environments"; if so , I consider it "possible" while recognising that the number of "environments" is pretty limited. This seems to be what both Swan and MacAndrew say.

If we accept that definition of "possible", do you agree with Swan?

No.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:07 pm

Phew! It looks like we may have to agree to disagree then.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:12 am

lolwhites wrote:Phew! It looks like we may have to agree to disagree then.

Fine by me.