Editorial: “Grammar wars” – Beyond a truce

Any special issue of a journal is an acknowledgement of a conversation that needs to be had. The conversation in this double issue of English Teaching: Practice and Critique has had a multiplicity of prompts, some of which I will refer to in this introduction, others of which will be referred to by the contributors to this issue (Part 1). In respect of this journal as a forum, the conversation will spill over into Volume 5, Number 1 (May, 2006). This editorial should be thought of as a work in progress; contributions to Part 2 have yet to arrive in my email basket and cannot be referred to here. Some of my own prompts in initiating this conversation have their origins close to home – in my experiences as a teacher, teacher educator and researcher in the New Zealand context. It is a context that has had its own share of social upheaval and educational “reform” in the last twenty years (Locke, 2000, 2001 and 2004). In the larger context of struggles over administrative, curriculum and assessment policy and practice, questions of “grammar” and “language” have not been prominent on the radar screen

Towards a rationale for research into grammar teaching in schools

This article hopes to bring new insights to the debate about the effect of grammar knowledge on language use, especially writing. It raises the question of the need to look more closely at the following three questions: (1) What is the aim of grammar teaching?; (2) How capable are students of conceptualising about language and how is their metalinguistic activity shown in their language use?; and finally, (3) Which approach is most suitable for students to be able to develop their own knowledge, with emphasis on the role of interaction in the classroom? The article concludes with ten key points which provide a basic outline for progressing in grammar teaching research

Language and scientific explanation: Where does semantics fit in?

This book discusses the two main construals of the explanatory goals of semantic theories. The first, externalist conception, understands semantic theories in terms of a hermeneutic and interpretive explanatory project. The second, internalist conception, understands semantic theories in terms of the psychological mechanisms in virtue of which meanings are generated. It is argued that a fruitful scientific explanation is one that aims to uncover the underlying mechanisms in virtue of which the observable phenomena are made possible, and that a scientific semantics should be doing just that. If this is the case, then a scientific semantics is unlikely to be externalist, for reasons having to do with the subject matter and form of externalist theories. It is argued that semantics construed hermeneutically is nevertheless a valuable explanatory project

Grammar, Ontology, and the Unity of Meaning

Words have meaning. Sentences also have meaning, but their meaning is different in kind from any collection of the meanings of the words they contain. I discuss two puzzles related to this difference. The first is how the meanings of the parts of a sentence combine to give rise to a unified sentential meaning, as opposed to a mere collection of disparate meanings (UP1). The second is why the formal ontology of linguistic meaning changes when grammatical structure is built up (UP2). For example, the meaning of a sentence is a proposition evaluable for truth and falsity. In contrast, a collection of the meanings of its parts does not constitute a proposition and is not evaluable for truth. These two puzzles are closely related, since change in formal ontology is the clearest sign of the unity of meaning. The most popular strategy for answering them is taking the meanings of the parts as abstractions from primitive sentence meanings. However, I argue that, given plausible psychological constraints, sentence meanings cannot be taken as explanatory primitives. Drawing on recent work in Generative Grammar and its philosophy, I suggest that the key to both unity questions is to distinguish strictly between lexical and grammatical meaning. The latter is irreducible and determines how lexical content is used in referential acts. I argue that these referential properties determine a formal ontology, which explains why and how formal ontology changes when grammatical structure is built up (UP2). As for UP1, I suggest that, strictly speaking, lexical meanings never combine. Instead, whenever grammar specifies a formal ontology for the lexical meanings entering a grammatical derivation, further lexical (or phrasal) meanings can only specify aspects of this recursive grammatical process. In this way, contemporary grammatical theory can be used to address old philosophical problems

Language and value : the place of evaluation in linguistic theory

It is a central claim of modern linguistic theory that linguists do not prescribe, but describe language as it is, without pronouncing on correctness or judging one variety better than another. This attempt to exclude evaluation is motivated by a desire to be ' politically correct', which hinders objective analysis of language, and by an ill-advised imitation of the natural sciences, which obstructs the discipline's progress towards becoming a science in its own right. It involves linguists, as users of a valued variety, in self-deception and disingenuousness, distances them from the concerns of the ordinary language user, and betrays a failure to understand the involvement of social values in language, the nature of language itself, and the limits of linguistic science. On a wider scale, linguistics reflects society's devaluing and mechanisation of language. Despite growing concern expressed in the literature, and the incoherence that becomes apparent when linguists attempt to address social problems using a theory that regards language as an autonomous object, newcomers to the discipline continue to be taught that anti-prescriptivism is the natural corollary of a scientific approach to language. This thesis suggests that the way out of these difficulties is to rethink the meaning of ' theory' in linguistics. If we take the reflexivity of language seriously, building on M.A.K. Halliday's notion of 'linguistics as metaphor', we are reminded that a linguistic theory is made of language. Metalanguage must use the experiential and interpersonal meaning-making resources of everyday language. It follows that a linguistic theory cannot escape being evaluative, because evaluation is an inherent part of interpersonal meaning. If we fail to notice our own metalinguistic evaluation, this is because language disguises its evaluative meanings, or perhaps we are just not used to thinking of them as part of the grammar. To achieve clarity about the involvement of value in language, we need to turn our metalanguage back on itself - 'using the grammar to think with about the grammar' . Some ways of doing this are demonstrated here, turning the resources of systemic functional linguistics on linguists' own language. The circularity of this process should be seen not as a drawback but as a salutary reminder that linguistics is an interpretive rather than a discovery process. This knowledge should help us revalue language and make a place for evaluation in linguistic theory, paving the way for a socially responsible and productive linguistics

Juri Apresjan and the Development of Semantics and Lexicography

The major aim of this article is to highlight Juri Apresjan's impact on the develop-ment of linguistic semantics and theoretical lexicography. In order to achieve this goal, a number of issues of paramount importance, which have always been in the focus of attention in Apresjan's publications, have to be discussed: (a) the notion of "naïve picture of the world", i.e. language-spe-cific folk categorization encoded in the lexical and grammatical semantics of a particular language, as opposed to the supposedly universal and language-independent system of scientific concepts; (b) basic properties of the formal metalanguage of semantic desciption, its explanatory power and applicability in dictionary-making; and (c) representation of synonymy in a bilingual and a mono-lingual dictionary of synonyms designed within the framework of systematic lexicography. In addition, considerable attention has been given to two basic categories of systematic lexicography, "lexicographic portrait" and "lexicographic type", as well as the zonal structure of dictionary arti-cles. Keywords: bilingual dictionary, commonsense (everyday) knowledge, definition, dictionary of synonyms, expert knowledge, integrated lexico-graphic description, lexicographic portrait, lexicographic type, meta-language, naïve picture of the world, scientific picture of the world, synonym series, systematic lexicography, translation dictionary, zonal structure (of a dictionary entry

MediaWiki Grammar Recovery

The paper describes in detail the recovery effort of one of the official MediaWiki grammars. Over two hundred grammar transformation steps are reported and annotated, leading to delivery of a level 2 grammar, semi-automatically extracted from a community created semi-formal text using at least five different syntactic notations, several non-enforced naming conventions, multiple misspellings, obsolete parsing technology idiosyncrasies and other problems commonly encountered in grammars that were not engineered properly. Having a quality grammar will allow to test and validate it further, without alienating the community with a separately developed grammar.Comment: 47 page