grammar, control

CSGnet Archive CSG1992
1

[Avery Andrews (920511.2048)]
(Bill Powers 920502.1200)

Observations of grammatical errors and subsequent corrections are
useful (people do this sort of thing, and I'm pretty sure that both
Bruce Nevin and Penni Sibun know more about it than I do), but I don't
think they are a substitute for ordinary grammatical observations, for
the reason that you can't apply the Test, and systematically create
disturbances for them to neutralize. All you see is them changing
their mind about what to say and backtracking a bit, and there's
really only an inference that control is what is involved, and you
don't have much of an angle on what they're controlling for either
(sounding cultured? like a real person? or what?)

Extended work on an individual's language is also problematic from the
point of view of both practicality and ethics--to record really large
samples of someone's ordinary use of language would pretty well
trash their privacy, and those of the people they were talking to.
I suspect that it wouldn't be worth it, either, on the basis
that an individuals `internalized grammar' is a selection from what's
floating around in the speech community, & there wouldn't be much
significance to which bits happened to fetch up together and any
particular person's brain.

Of course the standard generative grammarians `can you say this: ...'
method also has pretty strong limitations.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
   (currently andrews@csli.anu.edu)

2

[Avery Andrews (920511.2048)]
   (Bill Powers 920502.1200)

   Observations of grammatical errors and subsequent corrections are
   useful (people do this sort of thing, and I'm pretty sure that both
   Bruce Nevin and Penni Sibun know more about it than I do), but I don't
   think they are a substitute for ordinary grammatical observations, for
   the reason that you can't apply the Test, and systematically create
   disturbances for them to neutralize. All you see is them changing
   their mind about what to say and backtracking a bit, and there's
   really only an inference that control is what is involved, and you
   don't have much of an angle on what they're controlling for either
   (sounding cultured? like a real person? or what?)

the way to study this is to get lotsa data and look for patterns. you
can't claim to know what's going on in any particular case, but out of
the regularities you can develop a set of hypotheses about types of
errors and conditions under which they occur.

   Extended work on an individual's language is also problematic from the
   point of view of both practicality and ethics--to record really large

also, because language use just isn't a thing-in-isolation; it's a
social phenomenon, so you're missing the same things the gb'ers miss
if youu focus on one person.

        --penni