On the effects of over-simplified rules

[woodcutter]

The green option is unlikely, if the need can be dealt with easily and right now. Otherwise where do we disagree? He wanted it, he wants it. Both are temporally correct. He said, and he says, because the verb "say" can be used in an abstract sense. (You couldn't make the same kind of present tense sentence with "whisper" - which shows you how vital the temporal aspect is). Therefore we have a decision to make when choosing our words. Past tense forms will bring formal, polite or unconcerned nuances, because they are less immediate. Only nuances.

[LarryLatham]

OK. I'll have to assume you understand what you said, woodcutter. But it's over my head. Maybe I'm in way over my head here, because I'm finding myself more confused than enlightened by much of what's in this thread.

And perhaps that could serve to enlighten all of us, in a way. Here we are, all teachers, and more than likely those of us active in this discussion are fair to middlin' teachers at that. Some experience under our belts. Yet we are clearly confused by the "rules" we're discussing, because we cannot agree what the differences are or even which speaking alternatives are likely in a given speaking situation. I don't believe that's because some of us are ignorant or dense. I believe it's because, as R. A. Close observed in his book, the rules themselves, those that we and our students have been exposed to, are in some cases severely flawed and should be thrown out. It should not surprise us very much that that is the case, since many of our "rules" were made long ago when it was still fashionable to try to latinize English. These rules have no reason to be cast in stone. They were made up by people who were working with severely limited data: the English that they themselves used. Nowadays, we have corpus data, with powerful computers to sort and display real language input from a great variety of sources. We can often see that yesterday's rules are invalid. But teachers and students want nothing to do with improvements; what is correct is what our teachers told us long ago was correct. Anything else, any other analysis, cannot be true because it conflicts with what we were told growing up. Phew!

And then we still have to contend with those who believe that students should be told "easy" rules (those that seem to work with most language situations, even when we know for sure that some English simply does not follow them) because the "real" (comprehensive) rules would be too difficult. Difficult for whom, I ask!

Lastly, we are compelled to deal with those who are against reduction. They know that English is really very difficult (it has to be because look how long people study it and are still unable to use it effectively), and there must certainly be something wrong with rules which seem to make it easy.

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

Anyway, no "uber-concept" of remoteness is required.

The concept of remoteness is never "required". But the alternative is to end up with twenty or more apparently unrelated 'rules'; remoteness/closeness and past time/not past time, between them cover all uses of the past or present tense.

I agree with much of what you say Larry, but I find that the final reductionism of attempting to find one and only oneconcept reintroduces much of the confusion you wanted to get rid of.

[LarryLatham]

I know you do, Stephen, but I cannot for the life of me see why. It is, for me, the light that brings it all together in a single, sensible concept. Some of your arguments frustrate me because it's obvious they come from a smart and well-informed person. Why, then, don't you see what I see? Why does the beauty of a single, elegant concept elude you? I've been over it and over it so many times because of your opposition, thinking that perhaps I've missed something that you see. But each time I emerge more convinced than ever that Lewis is a brilliant observer of English, and has seen what must be truth. I suppose, however, that he is not the first brilliant mind to come up with ideas that meet great resistance (before they are finally accepted for the illumination they provide). I remain mindful too that all learning is provisional, and allow that someday, someone else will describe English verbs even more clearly than he has. (Who knows, perhaps you will!)

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

t is, for me, the light that brings it all together in a single, sensible concept.

For me it is quite the opposite. It is the gobbledeygook that detracts from the clarity of what comes before.

Why does the beauty of a single, elegant concept elude you?

Because the concept does not fit in with reality, and because when you use the concept to plug one hole, you let the water come pouring into the boat through another.

[LarryLatham]

Then I'd say to you, read The English Verb again. Carefully.

Larry Latham

[fluffyhamster]

Now the pertinent questions here are, 'Are all three colored responses appropriate? In this situation? With the Marine knowing that the survivor still wants the water?' And, 'If so, what are the differences?' Actually, there is a fourth alternative which does not apply here in this situation: "He says he wanted a glass of water." That one does seem to apply to a different situation, which has a different meaning altogether. It can probably be presumed that the water is no longer an issue.

I can imagine all three of the colored responses in this situation. All three could imply that the water is wanted now. But the three responses are obviously not identical. And the difference, it seems to me, depends on what, exactly, is uppermost in the speaker's mind at the precise moment of utterance. If he is focused on the survivor's present needs, he is likely to select the red response. If he notes the "did" in the flyboy's question and focuses on the fact that whatever the survivor said, he said it before now, then he is likely to select the blue response. If, however, his mind is on his own use of the word "said" in "He said...", and realizes that he now has cast the die for a remote reporting of what the survivor said (before now) he is likely to opt for remote all the way, and the green response.

The salient point is that all are possible, all are correct, and all are meaningful, but do not have exactly the same identical meaning. All three do, however, have the same pragmatic effect.

Great post there, Larry, and a masterful demonstration of the use of the colour font functions!

Did I envisage your fourth alternative when I said the following a couple of pages back? Consider also that "is" is probably the more likely (re. tomorrow), and that "was" would sound odd following "says": ?He says he was coming tomorrow.(...)

Anyway, the key thing to me is that the pragmatic effect of the three forms under discussion is the same, and to do more than simply present those forms as meaningless alternatives does run the risk of confusing students and making them look for more meaning in an utterance than the speaker probably intended (or than they themselves have to convey when reporting), if they indeed do begin to question what 'Form B is "more remote" than Form A" actually means (like I have of SJ's allusions to the theory), which it is a fair bet the students almost certainly will.

(If you are the type of teacher who encourages "discussion" - nice big fat juicy lecturing opportunities? - of at least the length of this thread in your classes, you might scoff at my concerns here and keep on insisting that "any difference in form, however small, implies a difference in meaning". With all due respect to Mr Lewis, he may have written a thought-provoking theoretical grammar, but he has still [in my opinion] to produce a thorough pedagogical one. His theories seem to hold the promise of simplifying and "unifying" what can often seem disparate, but in this instance - the area of reported speech - I am still not convinced much light is being shed by invoking his ideas).

He says he's coming - He says he wants some water
He said he's coming - He said he wants some water
He said he was coming - He said he wanted some water
?He says he was coming - ?He says he wanted some water

Perhaps if somebody can explain how the fourth sentences above mean what they mean (perhaps using, or not using, remoteness theory) in contrast to especially the third, the pennies will drop for me?

[Stephen Jones]

I have read it very carefully I can assure you, but on this particular matter the more I read it the wronger I think it is.

Above all it is the whole idea that language rules are like the laws of physics that I disagree with.

Language is much more like biology; it has evolved and it is messy, and although the factors involved are simpler than they appear on the surface they are not at all elegant. Language has more than its fair share of panda's thumbs, peacock's tails, human appendices, and junk DNA.

[Stephen Jones]

The difference between your third and fourth sets of sentences is crystal clear. I am at work at the moment so I will leave you a few hours to work them out, (like any good pedagog

I'll post tonight if you give up.

[fluffyhamster]

He says he's coming - He says he wants some water
He said he's coming - He said he wants some water
He said he was coming - He said he wanted some water
?He says he was coming - ?He says he wanted some water

Perhaps if somebody can explain how the fourth sentences above mean what they mean (perhaps using, or not using, remoteness theory) in contrast to especially the third, the pennies will drop for me?

I think I just worked it out for myself! The fact that there is a "mismatch" in the tense of the reporting verb and what "was" said signals unequivocally that "wanted" is indeed what he just said, in definite and deliberate contrast to "want". I'm not sure about "was coming", because "was going to" is a competing form for a start...

[fluffyhamster]

Oh, just saw your post above mine there, SJ! We look forward to your "cystal clear" insights!

[Andrew Patterson]

I accept that what the reporter judges is upermost in the speaker's mind, or the reporter's own opinion on the level of importance will affect the decision to backshift or not, but what are we to make of cases where backshifting is not possible?

To be or not to be.
Hamlet said to be or not to be.

A little expanded:
"Hamlet said to be or not to be. That was the question," sounds a bit odd.

Likewise, with the subjunctive. Often the preparatory phrase can be backshifted but the subjunctive itself cannot be:

"I demand that something be done about this"
Can be reported as,
"He/she demands that something be done about this," or
"He/she demanded that something be done about this."

OK, so here we have an idea of the level of importance.

But, "I would rather you didn't do that," can only be reported as,
"He/she would rather you didn't do that."

So my question is this:
Are we to think that the speaker's attitude is more or less invariable with regard to this statement, or mearly that we cannot add an opinion as to their attitude over what is expressed in the statement?

[fluffyhamster]

Are we to think that the speaker's attitude is more or less invariable with regard to this statement, or mearly that we cannot add an opinion as to their attitude over what is expressed in the statement?

I suspect that more "echoing" ("direct-speech style" of reporting) of the actual words goes on than we realize (or that, at the other extreme, the meaning is generally paraphrased), and that asking students to laboriously apply backshifting rules to exact wordings, before and after, is more than a little silly.

Regarding our opinions versus the original speakers, I guess we represent the words (if not always the spirit of what) they say whilst feeling free to add comments of our own after the reported phrase.

Getting back to my last few posts, and expanding a little on them, it seems then that in the first and second examples, the choice of tense in the reporting verb is irrelevant and overridden by the "present need"; the third are ambiguous out of context (Is he still coming? Does he still need water?), an ambiguity that is only resolved through the "mismatch" of the fourth tense-wise. (That being said, I'm still not sure that even the fourth example is totally unambiguous; this is always going to be a problem when playing isolated, decontextualized sentences off against each other).

Is remoteness still to be considered a factor in reported speech, then, or can and does it ultimately reduce down to temporal (tense) distinctions and contrasts? (I suppose one could argue remoteness is still "necessarily" involved in temporal distinctions, but that seems to me to be like laying an extra coating of icing onto an already decorated Christmas cake. End result? Sick as a dog!).

[Atréju]

Marlon Brando: (whispering) "The horror! ... The horror...!"

[LarryLatham]

With all due respect to Mr Lewis, he may have written a thought-provoking theoretical grammar, but he has still [in my opinion] to produce a thorough pedagogical one. His theories seem to hold the promise of simplifying and "unifying" what can often seem disparate, but in this instance - the area of reported speech - I am still not convinced much light is being shed by invoking his ideas).

Mr. Lewis quite plainly states, without equivocation, right in the beginning of his book on the first page, that The English Verb is not for students, and is not intended to be a pedagogic grammar. It is for educating teachers, so that they will be well equipped with the knowledge they need to work confidently with students. You all know that students can sometimes ask probing questions, and the teacher who does not have a very clear concept of how (verbs, in this case) work in English (sadly, in my experience, this includes quite a few teachers, I'm afraid), will be at a severe disadvantage. You are right, Fluffy, in asserting that Michael Lewis has not yet written a suitable grammar for the classroom. Perhaps he has decided to leave that to someone else. (Maybe you! It is certainly sorely needed.) That doesn't seem to be his interest. But Wow!, what a great start he has given us in helping us to be more knowledgeable ourselves as teachers. I can't really speak for anyone else, but I can definitely say that I am a better teacher, and feel much more confident in the front of a classroom full of smart students, as a result of reading and understanding what Lewis has to say. I have no fear of any question thay may proffer.

Language is much more like biology; it has evolved and it is messy, and although the factors involved are simpler than they appear on the surface they are not at all elegant. Language has more than its fair share of panda's thumbs, peacock's tails, human appendices, and junk DNA.

I can't really disagree with you too much, here, Stephen. But I would like to point out that a good bit of the messyness (which I believe still is much the lesser part) of English has come about because of teachers like you and me who, through the decades, have insisted that certain forms are "correct" and must be preserved, in the face of changing times and changing usage within the speaking community. Let's not forget that English has been a living, changing language for centuries, and many of our "exceptions" are actually modified hold-overs from Middle English, or even earlier. If the evolution of the language had been allowed to proceed without interference from well-meaning mavens (like teachers, among others), there would almost certainly be fewer exceptions in the grammar now that we'd have to deal with in our classrooms.

As for the rest, I'll have to salute and admire you'all's devotion to the task of trying so hard to figure out the exact changes of meaning involved in these slightly different sentences in 'reported speech'. But at the same time, while I share your conviction that there must be some difference in meaning, perhaps we are beating a dead horse in terms of usefulness in the classroom. I share Michael Lewis' opinion (surprise! ) that all the fuss about 'reported speech' is too much fuss about nothing. Michael Swan also says that there seems to be no need to make much of reported speech as far as its grammar is concerned. Verb choice in reported speech can be done naturally, he (Swan) says, according to what image resides in the speaker's mind at the moment of conception.

Again, I feel compelled to point out that the "rules" seem to be getting in the way here. They are in sore need of overhaul.

Larry Latham