Deficiencies in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by alienvoord

I don't know what you mean. I don't see how Gentner's false conclusion has any bearing on whether Chomsky's conclusions are false or not.

But you might be interested to know that some linguists reject Gentner's conclusion because, in their opinion, "Recursion is not the unique core property of the human language faculty anyway."

I didn't offer recursion as a theory; Chomsky did, or some believe he did.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by alienvoord

The CGEL's idea, and also Chomsky's idea, has everything to do with syntax...

Exactly my point. The CGEL's solution to 3b and 4b has everything to do with syntax, when in reality, the distributional facts admit quite clearly that the reason speakers use I as an object and me as a subject has nothing to do with syntax proper.

The solution resides in processes already at play elsewhere in the grammar. In phonology, for example, segments are weakend or strengthened according to their relative position; in morphology, pronouns could be constrained by similar processes: objects are strengthed (me > I) or weakened (I > me) according to their relative position, irrespective of government (CGEL's argument) or case assignment (Prescriptivists' argument). That's not something I came up with; it's what the data admits.

In short,

1. The solution is not in the syntax proper. It's at the interface.
2. CGEL's argument fails to make a basic, LING 101 observation on the distributional facts of I and me. That is, a framework explains the data; it's not the other way around.
3. Their argument add insult to injury by denouncing one structural argument for another. Ahem...

[Casiopea]

MrP's fine points revisited:

Originally Posted by MrP

This passage is curious for three reasons:

1. It implies that the rule in operation in 4b is similar to the rule in operation in 3b;

Actually... I got a different reading:

[That contraction works in 4a and doesn't work in 4b] "shows us not only that a rule of English could apply differently to pronouns [i.e., 4a] and coordinated pronouns [i.e., 4b], but that one rule actually does.[Notably, contraction in 4a.] If that is so, [if a rule can distinguish the two] then a rule [not a similar rule] could likewise distinguish between 3a and 3b."

In other words, if 3a and 3b shared the same structure, we would expect them to undergo one and the same rule. They don't. And so the conclusion CGEL makes is that coordinated pronouns everywhere, not just in 4b and 3b, are structured differently. <a bloody mute point, if you ask me>

Originally Posted by MrP

(In passing, I would say that the CGEL's assertions about contraction in 4b are untrue: a speaker of Standard English would also say I don't know if she and you'r' eligible, where 'r' is a schwa.)

Agreed. Reduction is operating at a different level.

Originally Posted by MrP

This is an "argument based on analogy between one area of grammar and another" (case in coordinated object pronouns vs contraction in coordinated pronouns).

Again, I got a different reading. I got,

"Another kind of illegitimate argument is based on analogy between [case assignment; e.g., 3a and 4a] and [contituent structure; e.g., 3b and 4b. Notably, NP-N'-N1, N2]."

"Prescriptivists commonly take it for granted that [constituent structure] is irrelevant to case assignment."

Originally Posted by MrP

However, the CGEL has already described argument by analogy as "illegitimate", and indeed repeats the assertion – "The argument from analogy is illegitimate" – immediately after arguing from analogy.

I definitely got that reading.

[MrPedantic]

Hello AV,

Originally Posted by alienvoord

How can you say that for sure?

It's simply an assumption:

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

From observation...

of a very small sample; including one ex-colleague who compulsively between-you-and-I'd while tut-tutting over other people's initial Ands and Buts; and a pair of radio presenters, whose conversation went something like:

"...And if you look on the website, you can find a picture of me and Danny."
"Me and Danny?"
"Sorry, that should have been Danny and me."
"That should have been Danny and I."
"Yes, I know...but it doesn't sound right..."
"It may not sound right. But it is right."

______________

But as you imply, an assumption isn't good enough. I therefore withdraw it unreservedly, while repeating my pious hope that the neurolinguists' electrodes will one day be able to tell us whether the variant is a natural or self-imposed rule, for those who use it.

MrP

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Actually... I got a different reading:

...

Yes, I see what you mean. I think my original point may have been something as unsophisticated as "one rule relates to roles, and the other to sounds".

__________

There is one aspect of these rogue pronominal nominatives that intrigues me: why are they so irritating? Even that fellow Pinker admits that he can't stand them, somewhere in The Language Instinct.

Is it the trailing "I", self-importantly preening itself in prime position at the end of the clause? (The initial "Me" in "Me and Sam went for a pizza" is much more modest.) Or is it because it's intended somehow as a gracious compliment to the other coordinated party?

And why do the alleged descriptivists of the CGEL spurn humble pizza-loving subjective Me as "unquestionably non-standard", while promoting breezy confidence-imparting objective I to "standard for some"?

They say it's because the latter "is not generally thought by ordinary speakers to be non-standard", and "passes unnoticed in broadcast speech all the time" (which presents an interesting picture of the populace at large having general thoughts about things they haven't noticed); but I would have imagined the same was true of subjective Me.

MrP

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrP

Is it the trailing "I", self-importantly preening itself in prime position at the end of the clause? (The initial "Me" in "Me and Sam went for a pizza" is much more modest.) Or is it because it's intended somehow as a gracious compliment to the other coordinated party?

I'd say shades of all three, giving (Dare I speak it?) what appears to be a "linear" Royal Order to pronouns,

Ex: ...a picture of me and Danny. <viewed as equal>
Ex: ...a picture of Danny and me. <placed in a position of importance>
Ex: ...a picture of Danny and I. <viewed as equally important>

No wonder many a descriptivist finds said pronominal distribution irritating: the framework they're working within is rather confining. The basic premise, Language is hierarchical in structure. Which means, said Language theory cannot, as of yet, rightfully accommodate a solution involving a linear analysis. Oh! The heresy!

That's as irritating as irritating gets - ask any descriptivist.

[alienvoord]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

I didn't offer recursion as a theory; Chomsky did, or some believe he did.

Yes, my point was... I can't even remember what my point was.

But I still don't know what you mean by this.

If these scientists have made a leap in their conclusions, it is no bigger a leap than Chomsky has made.

[alienvoord]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Exactly my point. The CGEL's solution to 3b and 4b has everything to do with syntax, when in reality, the distributional facts admit quite clearly that the reason speakers use I as an object and me as a subject has nothing to do with syntax proper.

The solution resides in processes already at play elsewhere in the grammar. In phonology, for example, segments are weakend or strengthened according to their relative position; in morphology, pronouns could be constrained by similar processes: objects are strengthed (me > I) or weakened (I > me) according to their relative position, irrespective of government (CGEL's argument) or case assignment (Prescriptivists' argument). That's not something I came up with; it's what the data admits.

As I see it, the CGEL is arguing is that coordinated pronouns are treated differently. This seems completely consistent with your argument that they are strengthened or weakened (altho I'm not sure exactly that means) according to their position. It is because they are treated differently that they are free to change form according to their position.

Assuming that these kinds of utterances are not ungrammatical, then all parts of the grammar have to allow them, including the syntax. I do agree, though, that CGEL doesn't explain them. At most, they try to demonstrate how they might be represented in the syntax.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

I'd say shades of all three, giving (Dare I speak it?) what appears to be a "linear" Royal Order to pronouns,

Ex: ...a picture of me and Danny. <viewed as equal>
Ex: ...a picture of Danny and me. <placed in a position of importance>
Ex: ...a picture of Danny and I. <viewed as equally important>

No wonder many a descriptivist finds said pronominal distribution irritating: the framework they're working within is rather confining. The basic premise, Language is hierarchical in structure. Which means, said Language theory cannot, as of yet, rightfully accommodate a solution involving a linear analysis.

I'm not sure I entirely follow, Cas – would that explain why

1. Me and Sam went for pizza.

is "non-standard", in the CGEL's view, while

2. The pizza was shared between Sam and I.

is "standard for some"?

___

Personally, knowing what people are like in Cambridge, I suspect that the wives and husbands of those CGEL folk tend to use trailing objective subjectives, but not initial subjective objectives – and the CGEL folk in question couldn't bring themselves to tell their wives and husbands they were "non-standard". So, for the sake of domestic harmony, they settled on "standard for some".

(Tangent: I note that both this discrepancy and the "coordination is different" approach preclude the theory that these rogue uses signal the emergence of emphatic pronouns of some kind in Modern English.)

MrP

[BobK]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

(Tangent: I note that both this discrepancy and the "coordination is different" approach preclude the theory that these rogue uses signal the emergence of emphatic pronouns of some kind in Modern English.)
MrP

:Hmm: That's a good one. I'll mull it over, and start a new thread if I come up with anything worth pos[i]ting.

b

ps
If anyone else wants to start one, please do. (It just might get lost in this thread; I'm on the verge of a New Year's Resolution to unsubscribe!)