that of ? those of?

[yamyam]

Hello, teachers!

I've found the following:

1. If you have English as your first language, you have an English grammar in your head. This grammar makes your pronunciation and your word order similar to that of other English speakers. You ...

In my opinion, this "that" indicates "your pronunciation" and "your word order."
If my idea is right, then the "that" should be replaced with "those"?
Or, does that "that" refer to both as a set phrase or something?

I'd appreciate it if you would give me some advice about this.

Thank you very much in advance for your help.

yam;-)

 

[Rover_KE]

Mmm. This is a tricky one, which is why you've had to wait a long time for a reply.

'Those' would just sound wrong to me, but bumping your question to the top might attract a better answer from somebody else.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Those" sounds completely wrong to me too. Mind you, so does "... you have an English grammar in your head".

Yamyam, where did you find that quote?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I also would choose "that". The word "grammar" can refer to a grammar book. The use of "an English grammar" is correct in this context.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

If English is your first language I very much doubt that you have anything resembling a grammar book in your head.

As for English teachers, read this and weep. I particularly enjoyed the last sentence.

 

[MikeNewYork]

IMO, that is because "grammar" is not taught in many schools.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"Those" sounds completely wrong to me too.

Pronunciation and word order are two different things, why 'those' is wrong?
Or should I say 'pronunciation and word order is two different things'?

 

[MikeNewYork]

No, but that is a different structure.

 

[Raymott]

The quote doesn't mention a grammar book, only a grammar.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Check definition 4 here.

 

[Raymott]

Check definition 4 here.

The fact that 'grammar' can mean a grammar book is not even vaguely relevant.
Roman said (quite rightly, but possibly misreading the original) "I very much doubt that you have anything resembling a grammar book in your head." But no one claimed that anyone had a grammar book in their head. For the original claim to mean that, "grammar" would have to mean nothing but a grammar book.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I disagree. I think that is exactly what the OP meant. I also don't agree that it meant "nothing but".

 

[Matthew Wai]

"Those" sounds completely wrong to me too.

'Your diligence and your enthusiasm are comparable to those of the people with achievements.'
Is 'those' wrong here too?

 

[yamyam]

Hello, emsr2d2.

I found this in an exercise book for the entrance examination questions of Japanese universities.
I'll quote a longer passage for your convenience.

Let us look at the components of our linguistic knowledge, and let us assume that our knowledge of a language consists of the following three parts: grammar, vocabulary and rules of usage. This means that if you have English as your first language, you have an English grammar in your head. This grammar makes your pronunciation and your word order similar to that of other English speakers. You also have an English vocabulary at your disposal. We don't always find the right word when we speak, but very often we do. Compare how hard it can be to find the right word when speaking a foreign language. You also have a number of rules of usage at your disposal. These rules tell you when to speak and when to keep quiet, how to address a person, or to ask questions and how to conduct a telephone conversation.

I hope this will be of some help.

yam

 

[emsr2d2]

The longer passage does not lead me to think the writer meant to use "a grammar" to mean "a grammar book". The first mention of "grammar" is in the first sentence, "our knowledge of a language consists of the following three parts: grammar, vocabulary and rules of usage". I think that the next sentence was supposed to mean "If you speak English as your first language, then you have English grammar in your head". This is backed up, for me, by the start of the next sentence "This grammar ...". For me, it is simply being used as the general term "grammar" and I consider that the writer made an error with "an English grammar".

Of course, without asking the author, none of us can be absolutely sure.

I agree with the point that many English speakers certainly don't have the equivalent of a grammar book stored in their head because most of us aren't/weren't actually taught grammar. The majority of BrE speakers can (and do) speak perfectly grammatical English without having the slightest knowledge of any of the grammar terms that they are demonstrating.

A little off-topic but here's an example: A friend of mine, at the age of 40, decided to buy a house in France. She didn't want to buy it and use it without being able to speak to the locals so while the house purchase was going through, she signed up to a series of evening classes to learn French. During the very first class, it became abundantly clear to her, the other students and to the teacher, that it was going to be a fairly long process. The teacher was French, was quite new to teaching, and had not realised that almost no-one in her class had any knowledge of grammar. She started the first class by suggesting that they learn a simple sentence which was, I believe, something like "I am a tall person". She started off by saying "OK, so first we need the first person singular of the verb "to be". Can anyone tell me what that is in French?" No-one could. So she said "OK, someone tell me what it is in English!" One person was able to answer (not my friend). The teacher nearly fell off her chair and the students realised that they were at a huge disadvantage already because they knew neither the terminology nor the meaning of the terminology which was going to be so vital to learn French. I'm very proud of my friend for the fact that she plugged away at it and now speaks very good French. Just don't ask her to explain the grammar of any sentence she uses!

 

[Raymott]

I disagree. I think that is exactly what the OP meant. I also don;t agree that it meant "nothing but".

No, you've possibly misunderstood my point.
You are saying that 'grammar''means ''grammar book'' in the original, and to support your claim, you've found a definition #4 in a dictionary. (Unnecessary, because I think we all know that grammar books can be called 'grammars') But it's a leap from there to say that 'grammar' always means "grammar book". My claim is that for 'grammar' to have to mean "grammar book" in the original, 'grammar' has to mean "grammar book" in all definitions - in this sense your definition is irrelevant.

I don't see why a reasonable person would claim to a have a book in their head, but I can understand a claim to have a grammar there. If the writer was a linguist, he'd be speaking of 'grammars' all the time to mean a pattern of rules - in this case a pattern of neurons and synapses and their activity, etc. rather than something set out like a book. Only a linguistically naive person would assume that we have a book like Swann or Quirk in our heads that we access whenever we think or talk or write. But we nevertheless have a grammar.
By the way, I don't think the OP necessarily has an opinion about this. The OP quoted someone else, and hasn't made reference to this part of the quote. Perhaps you mean the writer of the quote.

Crossed with emsr2d2, who makes similar points.

 

[MikeNewYork]

This is not dissimilar to saying that a very smart person has an encyclopedia in his/her head. It is obviously a metaphor.
In my opinion, the point in post 1 is that NES do not have to use grammar books to choose articles, prepositions, idioms, etc, because they have grammar books in their heads. Anyway, that is my take on the meaning YMMV (your mileage may vary).

 

[Raymott]

That's fine. I believe the writer was probably a linguist - a soft science, to be sure - but speaking quite literally. Without getting into discussions about whether the mind is encompassed by the brain (and therefore within the head), I don't believe we could converse unless we shared a similar grammar, and barring the mind, I can't imagine where else it could exist.
I think you're going too far in saying it's "obviously a metaphor". If he had said "a grammar book", that would be a metaphor.

 

[Rover_KE]

We have strayed too far from the question asked by the OP, whose eyes probably glazed over long ago.

To return to yamyam's question, we are telling him/her that we would say 'that of' rather than 'those of' because it sounds right.

Has anybody a better answer than this?


`

 

[MikeNewYork]

I believe "that" is correct because it refers to the usage of others. That can be legitimately perceived to be a singular thing.