Grammar Brouhaha - ETA Queensland

[fluffyhamster]

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=239

I haven't had time to read much of the two papers by Huddleston that are currently available at the ETAQ link in Pullum's LL article, but H's 'A Short Overview of English Syntax' should be worth reading generally (and would become unavailable if ETAQ were to pull it along with the actual paper that is "central" to this "controversy", 'Problems with the Coalface Grammar' - Pullum has provided a "backup" of only the latter).

[woodcutter]

Well, we were only just arguing about conjunctions around here and no one piped up to say that they no longer exist as a classification.

Grammar What can anyone expect? The amazing thing is that the stuff attracts hordes of exact minded bigots.

[Stephen Jones]

The ETAQ document contained some incredibly glaring errors. won't as an adverb for example.

It appears the average twelve-year-old could have done better. That the author of the piece should be a practising English teacher is worrying.

[woodcutter]

"Real" English teachers commonly know very little and teach very little grammar. The surprising part is that this person was writing a guide to grammar for other teachers, and came up with such an, erm, original analysis. Coming up with the "right" analysis, however, is a tricksy task, possibly impossible.

[fluffyhamster]

Update: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=264

[fluffyhamster]

I won't keep on posting LL updates here (go to the LL site yourself to keep up on things if you're that interested!), but I was pleased to see that Geoffrey Pullum has posted a "terse listing" of twenty of the errors (not exhaustive, apparently there are more!) in the first two 'Coalface' articles. Here are the first eight, minus Pullum's corrections, so that you can "test yourself" (refer to LL link below to see if you're on Pullum's wavelength). You then also might like to ponder if 'these blunders could conceivably be dismissed in the way Lenore Ferguson and Gary Collins have tried to dismiss them: as (1) minor errors of typing or formatting, or (2) mere "matters of opinion", or (3) simple terminological differences, or (4) substantive differences between one theory and another.'

1. Won't in The small boy won't eat his lunch called an adverb.

2. Capable of in The small boy is capable of eating his lunch called an adverb.

3. A pair called an adjective.

4. Set of in a set of bowls called an adjective.

5. More and most (in more/most swollen) called adjectives.

6. Your in your folder called a determiner and a pronoun.

7. Sam's in Sam's folder called a possessive pronoun.

8. What in They saw what lay before them and who in the explorer who saw the carnage called conjunctions.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=269

[woodcutter]

I think what it is remarkable is that the author was commissioned to do important things, and is defending the mistakes, when as Stephen suggests, a 12 year old looking up the words in a junior dictionary might do better. The reason this is possible is that the theory of grammar is a controversial mess. I don't think what I was taught in English classes at school made any sense, and I don't believe the teacher understood it, or knew much about grammar. (Though it could be I was stupid - it's hard to tell from here) Most English language "experts" have a superficial knowledge of grammar at best. Anyway, if you ask the real experts, then Mr.Pullum and Mr.Huddlestone's explanations would run like this:

What kind of word is a gronk sir?

A gronk is a word we use to describe a groddle.

I see sir. And what is a groddle?

A groddle is a word that is described by a gronk! Now be quiet and finsh the exercises!

In the LL discussion someone said that SFL will justify the arguments made by the author. Is that so? Is SFL all about taking the broad view based on notional meaning, so that "won't" is a species of adverb? You have to believe the LL experts if they say the 20 mistakes as a whole cannot be justified on the basis of any existing theory, I suppose, it certainly seems like a motley bag of claims. However, and I suspect this is the crucial thing, I bet if you get 20 individuals regarded as grammar experts to debate those twenty points there will be disagreements all over the place.

[woodcutter]

I decided to explore the possibility that I am a low-level nonsense spouting berk by reading the Wikipedia article "English Grammar".

I now know that English has 5 future tenses. Anyone want to edit that?

Anyway, what do you think OP? You are generally in favour of facing up to the confusion, so do you agree with me, or do you want to witch-hunt this foolish grammar dunce woman?

[fluffyhamster]

Hi Woody. Like I said in my OP, I'm a bit busy at the mo, but I can say that calling anything and everything an adverb seems a bit lazy at the very least (it's the preferred label for the grammar wastepaper basket), and I'd prefer to read Huddleston's 'Short Overview of English Syntax' than trust that stuff like the ETAQ papers would be particularly enlightening or dependable; basically, it's hard enough getting to grips with grammar as it is, and things become impossible when you have idiots suggesting all sorts of alternative analyses (with the implication that one seriously has to not only debunk the alternatives but defend one's own framework. If it's debate people want, surely it would be better to tear into the CGELs and offshoots than appear to completely avoid it - and although dautning, this type of grammar can save cobbling together from dozens of lesser works - and how can avoiding it so be at all serious learning?). If we went the ETAQ route, terms and concepts could become so general as to be useless.

And yes, I think a few pitchforks and torches are called for in this instance, if only so other "academics" will be wary of spouting similar or worse in the future (it's probably being a bit hopeful, and a bit vindictive, to imagine the witch will be fully ousted and roasted. Ignominy is probably the best-worst thing that will come of all this).

[woodcutter]

But my point isn't that this woman has valid views. My point is that simply relying on Pullum and Huddlestone means that you have a structural grammar with no fundamental explanatory power, just an extended version of my clumsy satire above, and an unclear relation to the (probably flawed) Chomskian exercise in explaining everything and anything. I feel that is why so many wild alternative basic views exist. (the upshot being that the supposed experts are confusing, and if they chase sinners who confuse the public not much good will come of it. Pullum is always asking on the LL why nobody seems to treat him like the great authority by the way - maybe he could empathize a bit sometimes)

As to word classes, they are not necessarily always worth so much effort. Is a conjunction in the class of "conjunction" or some broader class? Does it matter all that much? Is it possible for everyone agree about it, and do we all have to use the same generalizations that the great Rodney.H uses? You have to rewrite this stuff for every language after all. It makes no difference what class you assign things to until you start to make statements about what those classes can do, and as I tried to say above, nobody is going to understand a word of what you say unless you give a notional grounding to certain words.

[fluffyhamster]

An accurate and consistent description of grammatical structure may not explain much, but such a start helps, provides a basis, Woody. As for the relevance (or rather, irrelevance) of Chomsky to "questions" of basic grammar, I've only just noticed an article that Mark Liberman posted a few days after Pullum's original 'brouhaha' piece, that starts by questioning philosopher of biology John S. Wilkins' typifying the ETAQ mess as a case of grammar nazi nutters verus progressive Chomskian TGers or somesuch (WTF?!):
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=247

Anyway, the interesting Comments section includes 'a clear explanation of LL's attitude towards Chomskian linguistics' (i.e. is Chomsky still influential? Was he all that ever? And how revolutionary were his ideas really?) by Arnold Zwicky.

[woodcutter]

As to the link, of course, as I said, the Queensland thing just seems a ragbag. The point with Chomsky is whether a Pullum/Huddlestone written mass produced grammar book is just an idiots guide written over the top of the tortured Chomsky like explanations you really need to totally understand the parsing of a sentence. (and you probably won't be able to understand).

The other day someone was asking about gerunds, so I went off to Wiki to check I was up to speed and it tells us there that Pullum and Huddlestone do not bother with the difference between present partciples and gerunds (which seems in line with their general principle of making traditional thorny problems simply invisible). I have no special problem with that, but it seems to me that most material people will look at will contradict that. So I am led to quote H and P as if they are some kind of unofficial English academy, and most people are just going to say Huddlestone? Who he? just as some posters here once did when I quoted him to counter Lewis.

I don't think H and P are an academy - I do think (despite the structuralism) they are certainly worth listening to, more than some fusty grammar page someone might drag up from any old place and quote. That is why there ought to be an academy, and proper debate, along modern lines, within that academy.

[fluffyhamster]

The point with Chomsky is whether a Pullum/Huddlestone written mass produced grammar book is just an idiots guide written over the top of the tortured Chomsky like explanations you really need to totally understand the parsing of a sentence. (and you probably won't be able to understand).

Zwicky had this to say about Chomsky: The idea that a description of a language should be formalized was a prominent part of the post-Bloomfieldian program. Chomsky's contributions here were (a) to focus on the formalization itself and not on the methods by which rules can be discovered, and (b) to locate the issue of formalization within systems of formal logic and abstract automata.

The explanations won't make much sense unless you are an automaton (or a transformational-generative linguist LOL) who doesn't mind digesting a fair bit of unfunctional tripe, as long as there are rules making it "grammatical"; that is, most humans would go for at most a CGEL-level explanation. Not being a linguist, I can't say to what extent the CGEL is really based on work in theoretical linguistics, which basically means that I can't and don't take away much more from it than its functional explnantions (when these are accessible), and to be honest, I haven't yet looked in any depth at much more than its stuff dealing with question types. All that being said, I find Chomsky by way of the likes of R.A. Jacobs accessible enough and interesting, and it would make life easier if meaning could be derived from algorithms and principles scrupulously applied and never broken (or rather, disproved or indeed unapplied and/or replaced by other processes in a genuine process of production).

As for gerunds versus participles, it's not just H&P who conflate the two (do they also call it the -ing form?), and probably most teachers would find something like -ing form "helpful" (meaning, they'd prefer not to think beyond that unless absolutely forced to). I have to assume that H&P have better reasons than your average ESL grammar ("grammar"). Maybe you could provide us with some particularly thorny examples, Woody?

I do sometimes wish though that H&P (especially Huddleston) could express themselves in a more accessible way - H has received some pretty negative reviews on Amazon from those "average readers" whose heads he clearly talked above...I think he could've tried to approach grammar in different ways in his different books - as it is, he seems to have been rather repeating himself, making the same points, over the years (a bit like many of us on Dave's, then!), and some of his points would be best reserved for linguiticy tomes rather than inserted into a practical grammar. He certainly isn't an easy read, a trait which seems to be shared among British linguists (see also for example Matthews, or Lyons). It helped that Pullum joined forces with him, because the CGEL is accessible in parts, and their partnership soon produced the Student spin-off (which although still a bit daunting, doesn't quite go off at what might be perceived as tangents).

About the Academy though, just think, if we had something like that, not only would there be no "need" for H&P, but ETAQ would be out of a job too. The question then would still however be, who's goint to be on the panel? Probably not Dr Ferguson (who she LOL).

[woodcutter]

Which non-British mainstream grammarian is an easier read then? Barring the language loggers, I mean, who are doing important work outside of the mainstream university channels which are so silted with jargon, ponderousness and abstruse concepts as to be unreachable to most souls, as is the case in most disciplines in our jargon-goes-up-IQ-goes-down society. Would it be possible to be a mainstream grammarian and be an easier read, I wonder?

[fluffyhamster]

No relatively recent non-British grammar(ian)s (i.e. (those who've written) a grammar proper, not just books about grammar) spring to mind...