|
 |
Grammar of form vs Grammar of function | ||
Tags: Usefulness | Grammar | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6011 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes  Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 1 of 6 02 March 2010 at 11:55pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
There's a lot of people who love grammar, and there's a lot of people who hate it -- here, and all across the learner community.
Why? Because most grammars are wrong. The first reason most grammars are wrong is that they are usually prescriptive (tell people how they should speak) rather than descriptive (telling us how people really do speak). This has been discussed plenty before, so I won't go into it again here. What doesn't get discussed much is the difference between grammars of form and grammars of function, so I'd like to go into that here, but first I'd like to point out that you're unlikely to see a really grammar of function, because even those that claim to be are normally grammars of form with notes on function. Anyway, I'll start at the start. Most western grammar study is descended from the works of Roman scholars as is based on their work in attempting to describe Greek[1]. Romans seem to have been pretty obsessed with form to the point where the word "formal" quickly came to mean something so much more than "adj. pertaining or relating to form". It's no real surprise then that their grammatical terms slant towards describing form. "Preposition", for example, means little more than something which goes before. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using a word that describes form. The problem comes when you try to use the terms in other languages, where the form or structure is different. For instance, I've read books that say in Hindi, prepositions come after the noun. It's a little illogical. I've seen the term postpositional prepositions, which paradoxically means something like the thing that comes before that comes after. Alternatively, I started reading a book by an Indian that used the term "postposition", which is perfectly logically correct, and relatively clear. Now, even when we have a descriptive term relating to function, the term often becomes linked to a form, because most forms actually realise more than one function[2]. Take for example "genitive", which essentially means "that which classifies". In compound nouns like "bread board" and "bread knife", the noun "bread" merely classifies the board or knife, it doesn't directly describe the nature of the knife -- that's what adjectives are for. However, the Romans also used the genitive form to realise a possessive function -- a knife belonging to a man called Bread would be said exactly the same as "bread knife". When people try to say what the genitive is in English, they say it's apostrophe-S -- Bread's knife -- but this is a form that only ever realises a possessive function, never a "true" genitive like "bread knife". So what triggered off this post today? This post in [URL=http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19089&PN=1&TPN=9]another thread[/quote]:
Splog's teachers confused function and form and made the classic mistake of mangling the language they were teaching to try to fit Latin[3]. Subjunctive is a structural term, a term of form. It means that which is in the subordinate clause of a subordinating conjunction. I think that might need some explanation. Most of you know what a conjuction is: and, but, that etc. The clauses on either side of some conjunctions can be switched without changing the meaning: I am Scottish and I live in Scotland. <-> I live in Scotland and I am Scottish. I am going to have something eat or I am going to go to bed. <-> I am going to go to bed or I am going to have something to eat. Some conjunctions can be replaced with a full stop and both clauses remain true as independent sentences: I live in Scotland because I'm Scottish -> I live in Scotland. I am Scottish. If a conjunction can do either (or both) of those, it is a coordinating conjunction. Otherwise it's a subordinating junction because one clause is totally dependent on the other. I will go if you tell me to cannot be split without changing the meaning completely (I will go. You tell me to.) or losing all sense entirely (You tell me to if I will go.). As I was saying, the subjunctive is a term of pure form -- there is no function described in it. And worse, it's not even 100% accurate because the declarative (which is a term of function) often appears in subordinate clauses too! The Romance subjunctive, like all grammatical forms expresses a spectrum of functions, in broad terms: uncertainty/doubt, potential, hypothetical. But none of these functions is "subjunctive". Also, crucially, the subjunctive form does not express these meanings in isolation -- we use the rest of the sentence to differentiate the functions. If we look at Splog's example again: "If I had a million pounds, I could buy a mansion" What we have here is an hypothetical sentence. This function is realised as: <conditional clause> if <subordinate clause in the past tense>. Some languages have similar constructions, but also using the subjunctive mood in the if-clause. The subjunctive form is only one of several elements and it isn't necessary in all languages. The subjunctive mood is a structural element -- it is grammar of form. It is the conjugation of a verb to denote highlight uncertainty or untruth. In English we do not conjugate our verbs for this. We express doubts explicitly in other means. The reason a lot of people don't like grammar is that in trying to stick with terms that do not describe the language, grammars become obsessed with trying to make complicated explanations for unnecessary terms and spend a long time trying to describe distinctions that simply don't exist. What we end up doing is creating a series of long patterns and examples that each fill the width of an A5 page and presenting them as distinct "rules" of form. What we should be doing is focusing on all the small rules of form and their basic functions, and highlighting the interactions between functions that produce meaning. [1] I used to think it was designed to describe Latin, but I was set straight here. [2] For the benefit of non-natives: this is a technical use of the word "realise", unrelated to the normal meaning of "to come to know something suddenly". It is more in line with the original Latin meaning of "to make real". [3] A vice that affected teachers of many languages until recently. English was badly afflicted. 7 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Kugel Senior Member United States Joined 6538 days ago 497 posts - 555 votes Speaks: English* | Message 2 of 6 03 March 2010 at 12:59am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I'm beginning to realize, although I certainly don't know for sure, that getting a firm grasp of the different types of
propositions(and the other types of sentences, but mainly propositions) is essential for language learning, whether it's for teaching or learning. One really needs a "road map" of all the types of sentences, and grammar manuals typically fail at this. Philosophy textbooks and its branch of logic, well, typically don't. Edited by Kugel on 03 March 2010 at 7:02am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6703 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 3 of 6 03 March 2010 at 2:57am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I spend quite a lot of time trying to grasp the grammatical structures of different languages, and I have chosen generally to use the same grammatical terms across languages because that helps me to make comparisons. But it is pretty clear the the original meanings of the have little to do with the realities they describe, and it is also important to note that a certain term in one language rarely cover exactly the same sentence structures in different languages. In some languages there are traditional terms for certain things, but I have absolutely no qualms about using other terms or other structuring principles than those used by native grammarians if they are more clear to [UI]me. For instance the Germans use the word "Konjuntiv" for more or less the same thing as the Romance and Anglosaxon grammarians call "subjunctive" - and this thing (whatever it is) is not confined to subordinate or attached phrases.
But having a set of names isn't enough. For some reason Germans grammarians generally use the order Nominative, Genitive, Dative and Accusative. However I learnt to use the order Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative and Ablative while learning Latin, and it is easier for my simple mind always to stick to that order. Ironically I felt totally vindicated when I first met Russian, where the Accusative shares its forms with either the Nominative or the Genitive, and therefore it must logically be put between those two cases - anything else is simply wrong. Even grammarians describing their own language can't be trusted in matters of disposition or nomenclature - some times bad old habits seem to be more important than facts. I'm generally wary of semantical descriptions of grammatical categories. When I'm presented with verbose and philosophical descriptions of what it is to be an object or a preposition I tend to get fairly impatient (<-- euphemism!). I prefer being presented with 100 categorized examples of what for instance an object is supposed to be, including examples witrh different case markers, different placements, preemptive marking with unstressed pronouns and similar things, .. only with such a collection at hand is it meaningful to ask yourself whether any kind of description can fit it all. And mostly you will find that vague, general definitions just make things more muddy and complicated. I most definitely prefer definitions that refer to concrete things which I can see or hear with my own eyes and ears. It is important to mention that even formal grammar is essentially meaningful. I know of course that some people like to see morphology and to some extent syntax as basically detached from meaning (this includes some theoricians from a particularly sick period in the history of transformational grammar). In fact I find it very hard to think of any example for something grammatical that doesn't have a meaning. If it hasn't got one then it is in my mind a phonetical or phonological regularity and not not something that belongs to grammar. One example of this could be the use of Eclipsis or Lenition in Irish (two distinct sets of transformations of initial consonants), which can be described as a grammatical phenomenon because it is caused by the use of certain preceding words in certain standardized contexts. But for me only the choice of these particles and other preceding words is grammatically relevant - the propensity to cause eclipsis/lenition is a just phonological feature of these particlar words whenever they for some reason are used. And ultimately the grammatical constructions that implies the use of these words are semantically motivated. Do native language users think in terms of formal grammar when they speak? Of course not. Descriptive grammar is a tool that helps you to form rules based on things those native say or write, so that you can learn to do it just as well as them. For some this process should ideally be totally instinctive and inconscient, but I have never really understood why. For me the training in using grammatical analysis is one of the few things that adults can do better that babies, and we should not hesitate to use it. Edited by Iversen on 04 March 2010 at 2:14am 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| BartoG Diglot Senior Member United States confession Joined 5447 days ago 292 posts - 818 votes Speaks: English*, French Studies: Italian, Spanish, Latin, Uzbek | Message 4 of 6 03 March 2010 at 9:13am | IP Logged | |||||
|
For functional grammar, the only widely available resource is the phrasebook, and that's often inaccurate and always incomplete. That said, I love phrasebooks because you can flip through them and see all the different sentence structures in play. Unfortunately, when you pick up a formal grammar in order to analyze how the phrases go together, you often end up more confused, not less.
I took a linguistics course in grad school where we spent about a month tossing sentences up on the board and trying to figure out why they worked the way they did and what the deep structure was, etc. It was extremely useful for me, but only because I already knew enough French to follow not just what was going on but also how one sentence differed from another. That said, it would be nice to see a grammar book that did not say, "Here are some rules, let's make some sentences," but that said rather "Here are some sentences, let's make some rules." Then you would see some sentences that used almost the same patterns, but not exactly, and you would get an explanation of how each sentence worked and why the patterns varied where they varied. One of the problems with a "functional" grammar is that there are so many functions out there. Let's say you want a loaf of bread. There's demanding a loaf of bread: Gimme a loaf of bread. There's asking neutrally: Can I have a loaf of bread? or May I have a loaf of bread? There's asking really politely: Would you please give me a loaf of bread? or Would you be so kind as to give me a loaf of bread? Conversely, there's the problem of common forms having multiple meanings that Cainntear already pointed out:
I'm not 100% sure on this. Unquestionably, there are some places where yes, the same form is used for different functions. But I wonder to what extent the distinctions are artificial and only felt after a rule has been learned. For example, does a five year-old French child differentiate between doubt, intent and emotional judgment but know that you use the subjunctive for all three, or does she simply sense that you use form 2 instead of form 1 for the whole mishmash of possible counter-factuals moderated by speaker perception? This would make a big difference for creating a functional grammar for native speakers, at least. It could also make a big difference for non-natives in deciding how to frame the different functions. I'd love to have a functional grammar for some of the languages I'm studying. But I'd sure hate to have to make one for my native language or for French, the only other language I've taught. That said, if given the task I think I know what I'd do: I'd take a bunch of sentences from phrasebooks and I would say, as I said before, "Here are some sentences, let's make some rules." It would be, as all phrasebooks are, woefully incomplete. But at least it would be a start in learning how to put together sentences to get things done in life, not just on homework sheets. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6703 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 5 of 6 03 March 2010 at 9:43am | IP Logged | |||||
Let me guess ... I think that a French child learns that form 2 occurs after a number of specific words, it must be avoided after certain other words and in general terms it has to with volition, doubt etc. BUT (s)he doesn't see a "missing word" sentence as those in language tests and decide which form is used. The process must begin with the urge to say something that expresses volition, doubt etc., and then (s)he chooses a construction that does exactly that, and which may or may not entail the use of a subjunctive form. In French the scope for free choice of indicative or subjunctive is rather limited - most constructions have have one and only one of these. And if there is a choice then you could choose either to say that the construction and the mode are chosen independently, but also that there really are two different constructions - but the outcome is the same. However the grammarian who describes French doesn't first choose what to express -(s)he will make a collection of examples and supplement these with material elicited from native speakers, and on this basis (s) he will invent a set of rules and distinctions that describe the material. And the language learner can learn either 10000 examples OR reduce the amount of work by learning a smaller number of examples plus some af the rules devised by the grammarian. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5430 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 6 of 6 05 March 2010 at 3:19pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I don't have the time to make a more lengthy contribution, but I do want to add another element to this debate. Whether we use a functional or a formal perspective in a descriptive grammar, we must at some point confront the issue of the nature of our sample utterances.
The first big distinction in my mind is between spoken and written language. And then we can distinguish language registers that can range from slang or colloquial to literary or academic, etc. I would also add dialectal differences. These distinctions--that I don't have time to explicit--here are important because current research shows that there is much variation in actual usage along these lines. The written is more standardized or uniform for obvious reasons. The spoken language is more varied because of its very nature. For example, any analysis of the so-called subjunctive mood in French shows much more variation in spoken than written French. If my memory serves me well, we also remark an important correlation between use of the subjunctive and years of formal education. This probably because much of the subjunctive has a literary flavour about it. Again, if I remember correctly, the subjunctive is something acquired by children in later stages of the acquisition process. 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
