Grammar Experience

Reading the international experience of Farisak provided an interesting take on English.

When I went to private high-school, grammar and usage were heavily stressed in the English curriculum. English rules came somewhat easier for me, yet, because my parents spoke good English and fluently, learning was probably more familiar, and thus, easier.

It is funny to realize how Williams distinguishes grammar from usage in Preparing to Teach Writing on page 171. Thus, using grammar to refer to something other than, say Subject Verb Object constructions is a usage problem. In my opinion, if how the grammar is used is not taught, then grammar is not taught. Semantics aside, my guess is that English is so hard to learn, other than all the exceptions, because people speak one way and write another. The only way I can imagine someone writing with so many usage errors is if that individual speaks with those same errors. About the only major usage problem difficult for me to grasp was between the words “lie” and “lay.”

Traditional grammar sounds most familiar as speaking this way was common for me. Tenses pose a significant problem for people who are not familiar with English though. I remember during one Spanish class, nearly every word would translate nicely or loosely into some English translation, all except the future tense. While the future verb form was there, figuring out what it actually means does not “click,” since, as Williams notes on page 195, no future tense technically exists in English. Foreign students and students who do not know how to use the structure of that particular language have a significant barrier to overcome.

Phase structure grammar appears similar to traditional grammar, only more descriptive and less prescriptive as the text notes, giving phase structure language a more universal approach to language than traditional grammar.

From what I understand about transformation grammar, Chomsky appears to be saying language is relative. However, he might be onto something by saying a surface form and underlying form exist. The fact that passive voice takes longer to process in speech or by understanding may explain why writing discourages passive voice. Apparently, thinking is not fun to process. . . . More often than not, I believe most problems are due to performance, rather than competence. A person could speak like a drunk just because they were tired.

Cognitive grammar describes the fascinating way thoughts apply to language. The divergence of language structure appears inevitable as human minds collectively interact. The brain cannot be described as simple on/off switches or even the sequences of switches that interpret a picture the same way computer transistors produce a screen. Even looking at patterns in waves is challenging to interpret or predict. Thoughts can be controlled or let loose sporadically at will, that is why I believe no permanent and complete linguistic structure can be formulated and understood to explain all of the continually diverging languages, at least by our finite minds anyway. Neural networks do not work that way, and they separate us from being a machine.


"Big ideas first, dots and lines later." Posted by D.W. Sipes

I must dissent a little on that. A musician does not play music without first hearing or seeing the notes, nor does a artist paint without knowing colors. Graphs with dots and lines are used to formulate ideas all the time in mathematics, and characters form words which writers use for ideas all the time. Hence, dots and lines first, and ideas will follow.

Either experience makes these concepts possible, or these concepts make experience possible. (Immanuel Kant)--Datalinks