A Grammar FAQ of
Sorts
So What am I supposed
to get out of this course?
E360K provides a
basis for understanding the linguistic structure and something of the
sociolinguistic uses of the English language. Its purpose is not only to
provide students with an understanding of the "nuts and bolts" of
English, but also to provide an understanding of English as a particular
instance of a human language.
We are all born with
the neurological wiring, or capacity, to learn language, and infants spend a
good portion of their first two years learning the structure of the
language--or languages--they hear spoken around them. This is a complex--and
marvelous--process that we all went through, and it is learning that takes
place unconsciously; in other words it does not require formal instruction. Do
you ever see toddlers memorizing lists of irregular verbs? By the time a child
is ready to enter kindergarten, she already "knows" in the
unconscious sense just about all of the linguistic structure she will need to
make sense in her native language(s).
For example, if she
is a native speaker of English, she has learned (without learning any of the
grammatical terms for these things) that articles and adjectives precede the
nouns they modify:
1. The cat sat on a
mat.
2. Big cats sit on
small mats.
The learns too that
prepositions precede the nouns (or noun phrases) they govern:
3. on the mat
She would also
recognize structures like these as "not English" even though they are
possible in some of the world's languages:
4. *Cat the sat mat a
on.
5. *Cats big sit mats
small on.
By contrast, a child
growing up in, for example, a Japanese-speaking family would recognize
structures like these, with modifiers and postpositions (the equivalents of
prepositions) following nouns as proper to her native language (with the words
themselves in Japanese, of course):
5. cat the
6. mat on
The point is not just
that these structuresand the rules that form them‹are unconscious, they are
also systematic. If you are a native speaker of a language like English, then
prepositions, for example, precede the nouns they govern. Similarly, all verbs
in an English sentence carry information about tense (or the time in which an
action occurred).
We recognize a
sentence like 7 as an English sentence because the verb was is marked as a past
form. Sentence 8, however, does not seem like a complete English sentence
because it has no verb marked for tense:
7. The runners were
racing to cross the finish line.
8. *The runners
racing to cross the finish line.
Systematic rules are
part of a tacit understanding that allows speakers of a language to
communicate. Speakers of English, for example, couldn't communicate if the
choice of whether to put modifiers before nouns or after them were completely
haphazard; in many cases, it would be impossible to identify the relationship
between the two elements.
So why study this
stuff if I know it already?
One goal of this
class is to make conscious at least some of the grammatical rules English
speakers learned unconsciously as infants and share in common as speakers of
English. This is part of knowing about ourselves and those with whom we speak;
such knowledge is (or should be) part of our intellectual foundation as
educated people. Consider an analogous example: as human beings, we all possess
livers, and most of us could lead quite happy and productive lives without
knowing anything about how our livers work; but the knowledge you gain about
how the liver works in a biology class is part of more general knowledge about
what it is to be a human being. Knowledge about how language, or a particular
language, works is even more central to knowing what it is to be human, because
humans are the only species that acquire a full language naturally.
But I'm going to be a
teacher, and I don't expect to teach this stuff!
As a teacher-to-be,
you will study a number of subjects that you won't be teaching or that you
won't be teaching in quite the same way you learned these subjects in college.
For example, if you take an upper-division course on English literature, you
will learn a number of terms, concepts, and ways of interpreting texts that you
won't necessarily apply directly in your classroom, but they will provide an
intellectual background for your teaching.
Perhaps the most
important thing I hope you will gain from this class is respect for the
complexity of the process by which you--and all of your future
students--learned language. We will only cover a small part of the grammar
speakers of English acquire as infants in the course of a single semester, but
I hope what we do cover leaves you with a sense of the intricacy of the grammar
you already have in your brain.
I also hope you will
come out of this class with concepts and terminology that will allow you to
talk and write about language precisely, rather than simply reacting to it
impressionistically. For example, consider the first line from William Butler
Yeats' poem "Sailing to Byzantium":
That is no country
for old men.
The speaker is an old
man preparing to leave his life and taking comfort in his art as providing a
kind of immortality. The choice of the initial word is significant. It's a
demonstrative pronoun showing what a linguist would call "remote
deixis." It points to something known to the speaker and his listener that
is in the distance--in this case, the life of those who are still young and
vital, and it shows that the speaker already considers himself as standing apart
from their world. Compare an alternative version with this,
a demonstrative pronoun that conveys "near deixis," or points
to something near at hand:
This is no country
for old men.
The speaker of this
sentence is still very much part of this world. You don't get that sense of a
barrier between him and the world of the young.
I don't think you'll
be using terms like "remote deixis" in talking with your students
about literature, but knowing the concepts and knowing that they present
contrasting impressions might help you to draw your students' attention to the
poet's choice of words.
But I'm not going to
teach English!
Knowing the structure
of your native language--or of any language--is valuable as knowledge for its
own sake. It's also a good demonstration of the complex nature of the learning
we all accomplish in our first few years of life. Finally, learning how to
explain and demonstrate your knowledge of a linguistic structure is valuable
training for a lot of other fields that depend on one's learning basic
knowledge, the evidence for it, and learning how to demonstrate one's analysis
or conclusions within a system of evidence and argumentation.
If babies acquire
grammar naturally, why do you keep harping on arguments and evidence in class
assignments?
Good question--as I
said, we're trying to make explicit some of the rules that native speakers of
English acquire naturally, but demonstrating how those rules work is not a
natural process. It's very much a matter of presenting arguments. Grammar (or
linguistics) is not a field of givens to be memorized, but a field that studies
linguistic structures and deduces and argues for rules governing those
structures.
But why don't we
discuss how to use semicolons and correct usage?
This isn't a class on
usage, punctuation, or style. We will discuss varying levels of usage:
non-standard, colloquial, informal standard, and formal standard, since these
are part of the culture in which the English language is used, and since our
perceptions about what is "correct" in a particular situation reveal
a great deal about our culture. It is easier, however, to understand rules of
prescriptive grammar or usage if you understand the structure of English. Take,
for example, that semicolon. It should be used to join complete sentences that
express closely related ideas. It's a very powerful mark of punctuation; you
could say that it screams emphatically,
"The second sentence is closely connected to the first!" That's a stylistic matter. It helps, however,
to understand what an English sentence is when you are figuring out where to
use a semicolon.
No comments:
Post a Comment