Deficiencies in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by alienvoord

It is because they are treated differently that they are free to change form according to their position.

That's one step ahead of CGEL. They don't actually come out and say that. Their argument deals with linear versus non-linear ordering; that what we see and hear isn't necessarily what's actually there. (Note that, that speakers are modifying said pronouns is evidence alone to suggest the underlying structure is different from that of single pronouns. CGEL knows that. Furthermore, the fact that they use acceptability terminology in their argument has more to do with benchmarking than so-called elitists' judgments. They should have made that clear. Their "bad", not my bad or your bad or our bad. The reader shouldn't have to interpret the author's meaning.)

Now, it's basic LING 101: Single pronouns and coordinated pronouns are governed by N', but with coordinated pronouns, whatever attaches or "sees" into N' has equal weight on N1 and N2.

Single Pronoun: NP-N'-N (you)
Coordinated Pronoun: NP-N'-N1, N2 (you and me; you and I)

So, given the object "you and me", the verb assigns the same case to both N1 (you) and N2 (me); yet given the object "you and I", the verb appears to assign different cases to "you" and "I". That's a problem for CGEL's framework. (Psst. There's reason they used the example, "my partner and me/I". Possessive pronouns or rather possessive phrases (PossP) are treated differently in case assignment, but nonetheless contrained by the same rules as non-possessive pronouns. They want to show that "my" and "me" are different.)

CGEL did not come right out and say the solution resides in the structural make up of coordinated pronouns. No. They noted the difference in a general way and move away from the issue.

Originally Posted by alienvoord

At most, they try to demonstrate how they might be represented in the syntax.

They do? I must have missed that.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

– 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"?

It's my understaning CGEL is benchmarking there. That is, language change happens gradually, moving from one point of the grammar to another. In morphology, for example, change is clothed as paradigmatic something or other (can you tell it's late? I'm losing my terminology). Anyway, paradigmatic change has known order to it.

Now, with syntax, environment is key to change. If speakers modify object pronouns first, say objects of prepositions (which is why the phrase "between you and I" keeps cropping up in every discussions here and there), then that change will gradually move its way on over to objects of the verb, and eventually it'll cross the border over to subjects of the verb. The subject is the last to undergo the change. Which, I believe, is why CGEL would say "Me and Sam want pizza" is non-standard. It's new for some - far from the benchmark, the Standard for some.
___

Originally Posted by MrP

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".

Objectively speaking, that's a rather subjective view. Or rather, it's an objective view of a subjective issue.

Originally Posted by MrP

(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.)

You lost me...

[MrPedantic]

Thank you, Cas! I'm with you now.

I'm a little puzzled by the CGEL's position on benchmarking, if that's the case. These two structures:

1. preposition + subject pronoun (e.g. "...for you and I")
2. object pronoun + verb (e.g. "Me and Bill did...")

have turned up in written English for several centuries; I don't have the references to hand, but I'm quite sure I've found #2 in C17/C18 drama and the novels of Jane Austen, while #1 occurs here and there in C17 drama.

Do you happen to know what research the CGEL might have based their conclusions on?

MrP

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Objectively speaking, that's a rather subjective view. Or rather, it's an objective view of a subjective issue.

I sense from the Introduction that the authors don't entirely appreciate that the establishing of any definition of "standard English" implies value-judgements of some kind (thus "non-standard" becomes a euphemism for "bad English" – in practice, if not in intent).

It's very different from describing, say, "standard" and "non-standard" variants in the territorial call of Passer domesticus. Since sparrows don't read books about themselves, there isn't a feedback loop: the science doesn't influence its subject-matter.

MrP

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

You lost me...

I've lost me too.

I was pondering the possibility that these objective nominatives represent the development of prepositional or emphatic pronouns in English (cf. "toi", "moi", etc.); but I'm now not quite sure why that should be precluded by the "coordination" theory.

On the other hand, your idea of "raising" would explain why the nominative "me" seems charmingly humble, and the trailing objective "I" annoyingly self-promoting.

MrP

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I'm a little puzzled by the CGEL's position on benchmarking, if that's the case.

Benchmarking in the sense of a standard or point of reference. It's my term.

Originally Posted by MrP

These two structures:

1. preposition + subject pronoun (e.g. "...for you and I")
2. object pronoun + verb (e.g. "Me and Bill did...")

have turned up in written English for several centuries; I don't have the references to hand, but I'm quite sure I've found #2 in C17/C18 drama and the novels of Jane Austen, while #1 occurs here and there in C17 drama.

Oh, they exist. No need for examples. CGEL admits they live.

Originally Posted by MrP

Do you happen to know what research the CGEL might have based their conclusions on?

Uhm, well. It's background and history of the issue. The gist: case theory cannot explain said pronominal distribution (See my post above on N'), and neither can analogy. That kind of argument says "my partner and I" is ungrammatical. Is it? No. CGEL, as well as everyone on this board, points that out too. Speakers do in fact use it; so, there must be a rule of some kind governing its usage. Otherwise, language has no rules; Chomsky's basic premise is flawed, and linguists everywhere should find a new job. <Which is where the discussion was headed at one point - and need'nt have gone there.>

CGEL's main point is obvious to them alone: Language is rule governed. In other words, their must be 'a rule' is their thesis statement. Believe it or not, that was their point.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I sense from the Introduction that the authors don't entirely appreciate that the establishing of any definition of "standard English" implies value-judgements of some kind (as does the very act of devoting a lengthy grammar to the form).

I agree. Then again, who wants to get off the fence and define "Standard"? I think they did a good job of skirting the issue, but a poor job of informing their readers, their audience. After all, who reads the book?

Originally Posted by MrP

To some extent, their not-quite-descriptivism simply engenders a more tactful kind of prescriptivism (thus "non-standard" replaces "bad English" – in practice, if not in intent).

Yes. And my point about them leaving the reader championing Prescriptivists and questioning which "new" camp CGEL belongs to.

Originally Posted by MrP

It's very different from describing, say, "standard" and "non-standard" variants in the territorial call of Passer domesticus. Since sparrows don't read books about themselves, there isn't a feedback loop: the science doesn't influence its subject-matter.

Hmm. Place a non-standard male and a standard male in a mating cage with a non-standard female, and the standard male wouldn't stand a chance. Authority is innate. (Psst. That notion is what made Chomsky's work famous - It was at a time when people did in fact still believe that knowledge was passed down from above; during the same era, the idea that God is Dead was surfacing in Literature and linked to critical theory , and that Alice and Wonderland was revived - Who's the authority here?, asked Alice. She was! It was her dream).

If such and such a person today still wants to abide by "between you and me" let'em. After all, they are the authority. It's their language. From then to now, theorists have had to contend with speaker usage, which is probably why judgment calls such as "standard" and "non-standard" admit fuzzy boundaries.

Who's the authority?
The speaker, of course.
But where along the lines of change are that speaker's utterances?
Close to the Standard, far removed from it, an inch away?
It doesn't really matter.
What matters is that s/he is using rules.
Our job, to find those rules, so that we can explain how their authority works.

That's me two cents.

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Oh, they exist. No need for examples. CGEL admits they live.

Sorry, I was a little obscure...

I meant, given that "me and Bill did X" and "for Bill and I" have both been around for centuries, it seems odd that newness should be the grounds for the CGEL's calling the former "non-standard".

MrP

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Who's the authority?
The speaker, of course.

Given that we acquire language, and that our interlocutors must apply the same rules in decoding our utterances (cf. the unsuccessful sparrow), wouldn't it be equally true to say:

"Who's the authority?"
"Other people, of course!"

MrP

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

...wouldn't it be equally true to say:

"Who's the authority?"

"Other people, of course!"

MrP

That's exactly the point. There is more than one authority. Take, for example, rule governed systems such as maths and computer languages. The solution to a problem can be reached in more than one way. Some equations and algorithms are more efficient than others, but that doesn't mean the apparent ineffecient ones are not rule governed or, for that matter, less true or accurate. Where there's a pattern, there's a system (i.e., rules). The way in which speakers apply the rules of their language appears to differ at a deeper, personal, computational level. Who cares who's the authority; as long as the computation is rule governed the authority stands correct.

In biology, a slight "mutation" in a genetic computation and TA-DA! there's a platypus. Deviant, yes, but nonetheless the result of the inner workings of a rule governed system.