at a zero-to-eighteen-month level of a typical development (article use)

[jutfrank]

Re: at a zero to eighteen month level of a typical development (article use)

I think jutfrank was asking about why he chose "that" rather than "it" or "this".

Actually, Alexey86 did give the kind of answer I was looking for. I just wanted to check I understood how he was thinking about the use of the indefinite article in that context.

What does "that" have to do with the level example?

Nothing. Let's not talk about that, please. I want to focus on the use of articles before level. Bear with me ...

Okay, my next question to you is this: Would you say that in That's a nice Ferrari, the NP a nice Ferrari signifies one example of a nice Ferrari among many possible nice Ferraris? (In other words, one member of the subset nice Ferraris of the set Ferraris?)

 

[Alexey86]

Re: at a zero to eighteen month level of a typical development (article use)

Would you say that in That's a nice Ferrari, the NP a nice Ferrari signifies one example of a nice Ferrari among many possible nice Ferraris? (In other words, one member of the subset nice Ferraris of the set Ferraris?)

Yes.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: at a zero to eighteen month level of a typical development (article use)

Yes.

Okay. So following that thought, regarding my sentence He's at an intermediate level, would you say that an intermediate level picks out one example of an intermediate level among many possible intermediate levels? (In other words one member of the subset 'intermediate levels' of of the set 'levels'?) If not, then what does the article do there?

 

[Alexey86]

Re: at a zero to eighteen month level of a typical development (article use)

If not, then what does the article do there?

Here's is an explanation from Wordreference.com (https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/i-am-at-an-the-intermediate.2418077/):

1) I am at the intermediate level. Let's say we are talking in the context of a number of defined levels - in this case three: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. You are at the level which is defined as intermediate, so you are at a definite level, so you need the definite article - the article which refers to something already defined or definite.

2) I am at an intermediate level. Let's say we're not talking about a defined number of levels. We're just describing any one of an infinite number of levels, e.g. novice, relative beginner, basic competence, fairly experienced, intermediate, very experienced, quite advanced, very advanced, highly proficient, expert etc. There is no defined list of abilities, you can make up as many levels of ability as you want. It's your own description, not one from a previously defined list.

That's exactly what I was talking about in #5. To me, "0 to 18 month level of typical development" is not a loose, subjective description, but a well-defined level of the developmental classification scheme equated with another well-defined level (Level one of the VB-MAPP). That's why I would use the.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: at a zero to eighteen month level of a typical development (article use)

That's why I would use the.

Okay. I was trying to help you answer the question of why a native would use a.

Never mind. Let's end this thread here.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

If your child or client is functioning within level one of the VB-MAPP (The Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program),
that would be equivalent to functioning at a zero-to-eighteen-month level of a typical development.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRXLQ4MWnnQ (1.14 - 1.27)

Why was a used?

You might be able to make a case for saying the level, but it's not natural. It's not the development because it's not talking about one particular one.

There is only one zero-to-eighteen-month development level and one kind of typical development. I mean development can be either typical or atypical. It's a binary opposition. Of course, there might be variations in development, but every one of them would fall into one or the other kind, wouldn't they?

I'm also not sure how to write the level's name correctly:
a zero to eighteen month level
a zero-to-eighteen-month level
a 0-18 month level
a 0-to-18 month level
a 0 to 18 month level

The writer wrote it correctly: a zero-to-eighteen-month level. That's what kind of level it is.

We use hyphens to build compound adjectives. To decide whether hyphens are needed, try it without the hypens:

- Is it a zero level? No.
- Is it a to level? No.
- Is it an eighteen level? No.
- Is it a month level? No.

None of those make sense on their own. To make sense, they need to be combined. We do that with hyphens: a zero-to-eighteen-month level.

Here are other examples.

- a thirty-year-old woman: She's not a thirty woman, a year woman, or an old woman. So we need the hyphens to build a compound adjective.

- home-brewed beer: It is a brewed beer, but it's not a home beer. So we need the hyphen.

- an all-night party: It is a night party, but it's not an all party. So: hyphenate.

 

[Alexey86]

The writer wrote it correctly: a zero-to-eighteen-month level. That's what kind of level it is.

Thank you. "The writer" is me. I wasn't sure how to write it correctly because "at a 0 to 18 month level" was in the auto-generated subtitles.

Getting back to my main question, I'd like to illustrate the difference between "a nice Ferrari" and "a zero-to-eighteen-month level of typical development" in terms of the set-subset-element relationships:

I hope these figures clearly show why "a zero-to-eighteen level" confuses me: there is only one such level (= the only element in the subset), while the possible number of nice Ferraris is more than one. I see only one way for this subset to consist of many elements - to consider each possible variation of its indicators (intellectual, emotional, etc.) an element. Let's call these indicators 'x', 'y', 'z'. Suppose each of them allows for the following variations: x=8-10, y=10-12, z=6-8. That means we can consider, for example, [x=8, y=10, z=6] and [x=9, y=11, z=7] two variations of this level or two elements of the set. Now, the second figure looks this way:

Each little circle is "a zero-to-eighteen month level of typical development". Is that what the speaker means by using "a"?

 

[jutfrank]

I hope these figures clearly show why "a zero-to-eighteen level" confuses me: there is only one such level (= the only element in the subset), while the possible number of nice Ferraris is more than one.

Yes, it's clear to me how you're confused—you're understanding things in the wrong way. Your 'levels' diagram is not right. The smallest subset should be labelled '0-18 month levels of typical development'. We're talking about only one member of this subset. The idea that you can't seem to accept is that there is more than one member of this subset. It seems to you to be a set with only one member. That's why you want to use the, and that's where you're stuck.

I see only one way for this subset to consist of many elements

Yes. That's exactly the problem.

Each little circle is "a zero-to-eighteen month level of typical development". Is that what the speaker means by using "a"?

I can't say for sure what was going through her mind but I really don't think so. I'm reasonably confident that her conception was as I've explained previously, though to be honest I don't think it was very clear in her mind to begin with. That's why I think trying to understand this example is close to useless.

Are we going to go round in circles on this? Are you trying to convince yourself that what she said was simply a mistake?

(By the way, you have the Ferrari diagram wrong too. I mean, your diagram is one valid way of interpreting the sentence but it doesn't show what I meant. The point of my my original (unfinished) line of questioning was to show you a different way of looking at indefinite article usage.)

 

[Alexey86]

Are we going to go round in circles on this? Are you trying to convince yourself that what she said was simply a mistake?

I'm not trying to prove her wrong. I'm explaining why I, personally, would use the if I were the speaker: 'a' just wouldn't come to mind because of the way I see the set-subset-element relationships, which needs to be corrected.

The smallest subset should be labelled '0-18 month levels of typical development'.

I really don't understand how there can be more than one such level. There're many levels within the scope of typical development: 0-18 month level, 0-6 month, 9-12 month, etc., etc. But each possible level seems unique to me. How should I think about these levels so that I can see their multiplicity?

(By the way, you have the Ferrari diagram wrong too. I mean, your diagram is one valid way of interpreting the sentence but it doesn't show what I meant. The point of my my original (unfinished) line of questioning was to show you a different way of looking at indefinite article usage.)

Sorry, I deviated from your line of questioning. I'm on the track again. What way are you talking about?

 

[jutfrank]

I really don't understand how there can be more than one such level. There're many levels within the scope of typical development: 0-18 month level, 0-6 month, 9-12 month, etc., etc. But each possible level seems unique to me. How should I think about these levels so that I can see their multiplicity?

Well, the way that I'm trying to suggest to you involves abandoning the idea of classification. Forget about sets and subsets, and levels within levels. That way of thinking is leading you into a logical regress. Instead of thinking about levels within levels, try thinking of different instantiations of one level. This involves thinking less mathematically and more imaginatively.

There is only one 0-18 month level but there are many instances of it.

My point with the Ferrari was also to show that there are very natural and very normal ways of using indefinite noun phrases that do not involve thinking in terms of classification. Like I said, your diagram does not represent the thought I had in mind concerning the Ferrari. I was using the descriptor nice as a predicate, not as a type. I didn't mean to say that there are nice Ferraris and non-nice Ferraris. My utterance was equivalent in meaning to That Ferrari is nice.

 

[Alexey86]

Well, the way that I'm trying to suggest to you involves abandoning the idea of classification.

May I ask you how many article errors you usually notice in my texts? I'm asking because I've always used the classifying approach so far.

try thinking of different instantiations of one level. This involves thinking less mathematically and more imaginatively.

Is the following comparison correct?
1) Water boils at a 100-degree temperature = a temperature of 100 degrees = an instance of temperature equal to 100 degrees.
2) This child is at a 0-18-month level of typical development = a level of development typical for a 0-18-month child = an instance of a developmental level typical for a 0-18-month child.

I was using the descriptor nice as a predicate, not as a type.

Why do you think nice as a predicate can't be typifying?

I didn't mean to say that there are nice Ferraris and non-nice Ferraris. My utterance was equivalent in meaning to That Ferrari is nice.

Do you mean That's a nice Ferrari and That Ferrari is nice are equal in meaning? To me, these two answer different questions: What object is that? vs What Ferrari is that?

 

[jutfrank]

May I ask you how many article errors you usually notice in my texts? I'm asking because I've always used the classifying approach so far.

Very few, if any.

Is the following comparison correct?
1) Water boils at a 100-degree temperature = a temperature of 100 degrees = an instance of temperature equal to 100 degrees.
2) This child is at a 0-18-month level of typical development = a level of development typical for a 0-18-month child = an instance of a developmental level typical for a 0-18-month child.

Number 2 works (similarly to what we've been discussing. 2 doesn't sound natural so I don't want to comment on it.

Why do you think nice as a predicate can't be typifying?

It's not that I think it, I know it. I know it because I said it and I know what I meant.

Do you mean That's a nice Ferrari and That Ferrari is nice are equal in meaning?

Yes, that's exactly my point. At least, that's what I meant.

To me, these two answer different questions: What object is that? vs What Ferrari is that?

Don't think of my utterance as answering any questions. I meant it merely as a comment to show my appreciation of the Ferrari. It wasn't meant to impart any information, which I think is how you're interpreting it.

 

[Alexey86]

Very few, if any.

Isn't that strange, given the imperfection of my approach?

Number 2 works (similarly to what we've been discussing. 2 doesn't sound natural so I don't want to comment on it.

I'm trying the way of thinking you suggest. Am I on the right track?

It's not that I think it, I know it. I know it because I said it and I know what I meant.

I didn't mean to contrast your thoughts with your knowledge. That's just a common expression.

Don't think of my utterance as answering any questions. I meant it merely as a comment to show my appreciation of the Ferrari. It wasn't meant to impart any information, which I think is how you're interpreting it.

OK, I see two possible readings of That's a nice Ferrari:
1) That object is a nice Ferarri.
2) That Ferarri is a nice Ferrari.

Pragmatically, the latter is equal in meaning to That Ferarri is nice. But logically, they are not the same. That Ferrari is nice doesn't establish a set, while That's a nice Ferrari does because the indefinite article implies the possibility of more than one nice Ferrari. So, it's not you, it's the indefinite article that imparts this additional set-related information in your utterance despite the fact it was never your intention.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . OK, I see two possible readings of That's a nice Ferrari:
1) That object is a nice Ferarri.
2) That Ferarri is a nice Ferrari.

Actually, there are three possible readings. Neither 1 nor 2 expresses the real intent of "That's a nice Ferrari." You're being much too literal. It's not comparing (1) it to other objects or (2) other Ferraris.

It's a simple expression of appreciation. It just means is that you like that Ferrari.

 

[Alexey86]

It's a simple expression of appreciation. It just means is that you like that Ferrari.

Articles always have their specific functions and do their specific job whenever we use them. The indefinite article's job is to establish a set of more than one possible object with a given characteristic (nice, American, yellow, etc.). Don't you agree with that?

 

[Alexey86]

Common sense trumps logic 99% of the time

Unfortunately, common sense is too vague a concept for me to use.

 

[GoesStation]

Unfortunately, common sense is too vague a concept for me to use.

You will never truly master a language by learning rules and applying logic. Those methods can get you most of the way to mastery, but in the end, you have to allow yourself to absorb it through exposure. Clinging to a rule- and logic-based approach will impede your learning and prevent you from achieving true fluency.

 

[Alexey86]

So I've noticed.

I haven't seen a grammar guide saying "Forget logic when you're choosing what article to use because common sense trumps logic in 99% of the time "

 

[jutfrank]

Isn't that strange, given the imperfection of my approach?

I don't think so, no. I don't think I would say you're approach is 'imperfect' but rather that perhaps it's a little less sophisticated than it could be. That is, just because you don't make mistakes doesn't mean you're highly competent at using articles in lots of different ways.

I'm trying the way of thinking you suggest. Am I on the right track?

I do think so, yes, but I'm not completely sure. My first thought upon considering what you said was that you're thinking in the right way but the example you chose was poor.

I didn't mean to contrast your thoughts with your knowledge. That's just a common expression.

Okay, but it sounded tantamount to asking me how I know what I mean.

OK, I see two possible readings of That's a nice Ferrari:
1) That object is a nice Ferarri.
2) That Ferarri is a nice Ferrari.

Pragmatically, the latter is equal in meaning to That Ferarri is nice.

Okay. Pragmatically, we can only imagine what these utterances could mean (speaker meaning). But yes, I'd agree that a speaker could mean the same thing with both utterances. The latter does sound odd, though, doesn't it? It doesn't sound naturalistic, at all. When I read it out loud, I imagine it being said by a robot. For that reason, it's a poor example to analyse with pragmatics, in my opinion.

But logically, they are not the same. That Ferrari is nice doesn't establish a set, while That's a nice Ferrari does because the indefinite article implies the possibility of more than one nice Ferrari.

Okay, yes. Logically, yes.

So, it's not you, it's the indefinite article that imparts this additional set-related information in your utterance despite the fact it was never your intention.

Okay, yes. That was kind of my point. The error on your part then would be to interpret the utterance logically rather than pragmatically. Of course, in real life there would be lots of prosodic clues to guide you to do this. The utterance That's a nice Ferrari would have a different pronunciation depending on which interpretation the speaker wanted his listener to understand.

It's extremely important to remember the crucial difference between speaker meaning and logical meaning. The past 70 years of the philosophy of language have taught us that logical analysis doesn't get you very far in understanding meaning and use.

 

[Alexey86]

I do think so, yes, but I'm not completely sure. My first thought upon considering what you said was that you're thinking in the right way but the example you chose was poor.

What example would be more suitable for analysis?