James W. Ney

The Modals in English: a Floating Semantic Feature Analysis

out by a study of the modals in English. Thus, for instance, W. Freeman Twaddell (1960:11) sees the difference between can and may as the differences between absolute, unrestricted modality (can--here [-contingency]) and contingent, inconclusive modality (may―here [+contingency]). Obviously, however, this distinction is neutralized if in fact the use of can and may are interchangeable in sentences requesting permission. 1 If this is true, then in Can I leave the room now ? can is marked [+contingency] since it is equivalent in meaning to may in the similar sentence May I leave the room now? Joos (1968:179) calls attention to this phenomenon involving can and may in the following terms:

Collaborative learning in university grammar courses

An innovative collaborative learning model, used for the teaching of modern English grammar classes, combined elements from peer teaching and cooperative learning. This model is innovative for higher education since it involved students and instructor co-laboring to master knowledge as a socially held phenomenon without any authoritarian leveling. It involved: 1) Student lectures explaining assigned readings from the text(s); 2) Daily quizzes of the material from the assigned reading; and 3) Student grading of the daily quizzes and exams with the instructor checking for accuracy. Student attitudinal surveys revealed positive perceptions of students on the whole toward the conduct of the class. An even greater positive aspect of the collaborative learning model used here is the attainment of a high level of mastery of the subject matter and almost perfect classroom attendance.

Necessity, Hypothesis and Prohibition in the English Modals Must and Should

This system, developed by Hofmann and expanded by Jenkins and others, seems to be accurate for the examples that are given, but there are numerous counterexamples. For instance, the following should have the root meaning of must, necessity, but they seem to have the epistemic meaning, logical entailment or hypothesis. (1) Since the line cannot pass through any other point, it must bisect the angle equally. (hypothesis) (2) The fault must lie in ourselves. (hypothesis)

Error Analysis, Theories of Language, and the Teaching of Writing.

Teachers of writing have currently been showing an interest in error analysis, a device that has been used informally for some time but has received serious attention from linguists and language teaching methodologists only recently. This interest in error analysis seems strange because this type of analysis possesses many of the characteristics of structuralism and few (if any) of the characteristics of tranformationalism. As a result, the objections to error analysis are partly theoretical in nature. Because the number of sentences in a language is infinite, the number of different kinds of errors that students can make is infinite or, at least, indefinitely large. Because of this, the chance of a student producing a particular sentence exhibiting a particular error is very small. This is the principal reason behind the creation of vague, general, and subsequently rather meaningless categories in the taxonomies that are used in error analysis. For this reason, it would seem to be appropriate for teachers to abandon error analysis and lead students through the use of creative language exercises into the writing of creative sentences.

Is transformational theory unassailable

Abstract Bennison Gray, in a recent survey of book-length works which purport to demolish transformational theory, concludes that transformational theory at the present is unassailable. The reason for this is that Gray sees two constructs as being the sine qua non of transformational theory. The first of these requires a “deep structure” for each sentence in a language which relates form and meaning exactly. The second of these centers on the well-known idealization construct of Chomskyan methodology. If the crux of transformational theory can be encapsulated by these two constructs, then, Gray may have made his point. But, if it cannot, then, there is reason to question his conclusion since transformationalists such as Chomsky have not set these principles as the sine qua non of transformational theory. The present paper examines transformational theory, discussing various propositions which may be central to the existence of the theory in an attempt to determine the truth or falsity of Grays assertion. In doing this, three types of constructs, which appear to be important within the theory, are discussed: (1) those which have proved to be false in the past and which have been discarded by the transformational theorists themselves, (2) those which appear to be false from the viewpoint of critics of various aspects of transformational theory; and (3) those constructs which are axiomatic in nature and which are adopted or discarded as a matter of preference. Among the first type are those which required belief in kernel sentences or the “evaluation metric.” Among the second type is one that has as its primary substance the fact that children learn language from an essentially “degenerate corpus” (Chomsky 1965). Also among this type are the assumptions within transformational grammar which require separate listings for polysemous forms. Among the third type are those which form the very basis of the theory such as the espousal of rationalist philosophy as a basis for linguistic study. Whether any of these positions are crucial to the existence of transformational theory cannot be determined unless transformational theory is clearly delineated and some method is provided for determining which constructs are crucial and which are not. In any case, a single journal article is not able to do this. It can, however, answer the question “Is transformational theory unassailable?”, and suggest directions which can be pursued in search of better solutions, a task that Gray would deem unnecessary in the light of his conclusions.

Why Some Beliefs of the Transformational Linguists Are Unbelievable.

Abstract On occasion, transformational linguists write about the psychological reality of the rules that they produce for their grammers. Assuming such rules have psychological reality, some curious facets of the theory come to light. In particular, the well-known and accepted series of rules which constitute the lexicalist hypothesis would require belief in the fact that the human brain stores such obviously related pairs as careful/carefully as separate entities and does not relate them. Similarly, the transformationalists position would require that lexical units manifesting varying degrees of polysemy would also be stored separately. This would then make it impossible to derive ambiguous strings since the individual lexical units are subcategorized in such a way that their distribution is mutually exclusive. Both of these beliefs seem to be incorrect since, on the one hand, the brain must store and then produce items such as careful/carefully in a maximally efficient manner and, on the other hand, it can obviously produce intentionally ambiguous strings such as puns. At both of these points, then, the rules produced by a transformational grammar cannot be psychologically real.

The cyclic and non-cyclic distinction and the verbs of sense in English

Abstract The now-form of the verbs of sense or sensation is different from the now-form of most other verbs in the English language. For instance, the now-form of the verb, think, requires the progressive tense marker whereas the now-form of the verb, see, requires the simple present tense marker. Thus, the patterning of the verbs of sense with the differing tenses in English appears to be easily explicable at first glance, but on examination, it turns out to be fairly complex. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that the action underlying cyclic verbs such as look at, which describes an action that must be terminated before it can be repeated, and is different from the action underlying non-cyclic verbs such as see, which can be maintained indefinitely without any necessary termination. From this, it is possible to show that the tense-aspect markings inherent in the higher verb or underlying tense-aspect markings affect the grammaticality judgments rendering grammatical forms which in other environments would be ungrammatical. Information from this analysis can best be incorporated in a theory of grammar with the use of Weinreichs transfer features which are assigned to the underlying feature matrices to predict the occurrence of all the other surface forms.

An alternative to Chomsky's radical nativism

Abstract In recent years, a number of prominent psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget have expressed opposition to Chomskyan nativism as an explanation of how human beings learn languages. On close examination, it is found that Chomskys argumentation that led him to formulate his peculiar version of the nativistic hypothesis is deficient at a number of points: (1) his argumentation from the syntax of natural languages is incorrect, (2) his argument from the ‘degenerate’ data available to the child learning a language is based on insufficient data, and (3) his argument requires belief in the largely unsupportable hypothesis of Lamarckian evolution. As a result, an alternative is suggested based on the works of Piagetian and neo-Piagetian scholars and the two-stage hypothesis of Gallagher.

What was transformational grammar

Abstract Transformational generative linguistics or grammar is in a period of decline, but the answer to the question ‘What was transformational grammar?’ is still in doubt. The reason for this lies partly in the fact that most attempts at finding defining characteristics for the theory are unsatisfactory. Newmeyer attempts to define the theory in terms of the autonomous syntax position, a position held by the structuralists such as C. C. Fries. Another reason lies in the rather cavalier treatment of data by the generativists. Still another reason lies in the suspect conclusions of the researchers. It is no wonder, then, that the theory is in a period of decline.

The non-existence of autonomous syntax

Abstract Chomskys claims on the autonomy of syntax are obviously absurd since it can quite easily be shown that semantic features play a role in the functioning of syntactic rules. The relationship between semantics and syntax not only includes the usual conceptions of ‘rule of grammar’ but it also includes rules which show how native speakers express intended meaning through optional assignment of semantic features. However, research shows that the relationship between semantic features and syntactic rules is not simple. Sometimes, low level phenomena obscure this relationship by taking precedence over it.