You don't know what you got/have got until it's gone.

[jutfrank]

How can we possibly know that it's 'there' in the mind?

There are some academics who can research this. Cognitive scientists, psychologists, linguists, for example.

A perhaps not dissimilar situation is noted by Palmer (1970.40) when he says:

In children's speech I have attested [betnt hi]. Such a form is based on the assumption that BETTER is not only an auxiliary verb. but also one which has a negative as well al a positive forn (which is, of course, not true of adult speech).

The structure 'd better is not fully there in the mind for such young people.

Right. I think that supports the idea that the language structure grows developmentally in childhood.

 

[5jj]

There are some academics who can research this. Cognitive scientists, psychologists, linguists, for example.

I know of spectrogram-aided linguists who can show whether there is a /v/ in an individuals's pronunctiation of I('Ive) got. I don't know of any who can prove that it's there when it's not. Do you?

Right. I think that supports the idea that the language structure grows developmentally in childhood.

OK, but it does not prove that the /d/ of 'd better is 'there' in the minds of young children who have never heard it in their lives.

 

[jutfrank]

I know of spectrogram-aided linguists who can show whether there is a /v/ in an indivuduals's pronunctiation of I('Ive) got. I don't jnow of any who can prove that it's there when it's not. Do you?

It's a mainstream idea in linguistics that certain structural elements need not be pronounced. Take zeros, for example.

Zero (linguistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not really sure I understand what your point of view is. How would explain any kind ellipsis? Is it not just the speaker's choice not to articulate something that's structurally there?

A: I can't see it.
B: I can.

Do you really mean to say that for speaker B the verb phrase see it isn't there?

Ok, but it does not prove that the /d/ of 'd better is 'there' in the minds of young cildren who have never heard it in their lives.

No, I think it isn't there for these children.

 

[5jj]

It's a mainstream idea in linguistics that certain structural elements need not be pronounced.

What as that got to do with whether of not a sound is physically produced?

How would explain any kind ellipsis? Is it not just the speaker's choice not to articulate something that's structurally there?

A: I can't see it.
B: I can.

Do you really mean to say that for speaker B the verb phrase see it isn't there?

No. That is a different situation from that with 'd better.

 

[jutfrank]

what as that got to do with whjere of not a sound is physically produced?

Everything. The whole idea of zeros is that they are not physically produced. I think we may be completely misunderstanding each other somewhere.

No. That is a different situation from that with 'd better.

I don't understand. Could you explain what you mean? What's your view on this?

 

[5jj]

If there is a misunderstanding, it's probably in here:

You don't know what you got until it's gone.

I wouldn't call that a 'structure' in itself. It's just a way of representing in writing that the speaker has elided the verb have so that it's unuttered. It's still 'there', structurally speaking

I would say that with some speakers it is not there at all.

It's there structurally, but not phonologically.

I simply don't understand that.

Jutfrank, would you say that someone thinks the auxiliary verb without uttering it even if he or she never knew it should be there in the first place?

Yes. I'd say the structure is fully 'there' in the mind, whether it's uttered or not. The structural forms of grammar are essentially mental structures, not phonological ones. The language system grows in the mind and is merely articulated by the speech organs. To be quite honest, I can't really see how any other view is coherent.

If the makers of the old "Got milk?" commercials knew that they were eliding "have you," what about the children who responded "I do(n't)" rather than "I have(n't)"?

Good question, and one that raises a point I was considering mentioning. I'm not familiar with this particular commercial so it's hard to comment, but I suppose I'd say that the children are in error, and that they've misunderstood the elision as (Do you) got milk?, where got alone is interpreted as stative.

How can we possibly know that it's 'there' in the mind? It seems to be that it's fairly clear that it's not 'there' on the Got milk? example something you seem to think of as a misunderstood elision, jutfrank.

A perhaps not dissimilar situation is noted by Palmer (1970.40) when he says:

In children's speech I have attested [betnt hi]. Such a form is based on the assumption that BETTER is not only an auxiliary verb. but also one which has a negative as well al a positive forn (which is, of course, not true of adult speech).

The structure 'd better is not fully there in the mind for such young people.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, that's a bit clearer now. Thank you.

 

[5jj]

@jutfrank

It seens to me, from the posts I have copied above, that you believe that in such forms as you ('ve) got and you ('d) better, the forms I have put in brackets are fully 'there' in the mind, whether [...] uttered or not.

 

[jutfrank]

In adults and competent users, yes. I'm not counting those children who would say things like We better go, bettern't we?

 

[emsr2d2]

I split such usage into two categories - "Didn't know" and "Couldn't be bothered". The first category covers children who are speaking English based purely on listening (ie they've picked errors up from their parents) and the second covers people who know better but speak lazily.

Let's take "wanna" as an example. I tell my students that a child who has never seen "want to" written down and whose parents (and other surrounding adults/kids) have consistently used "wanna" instead will also use "wanna" and will have no idea that it's casual English. They will, no doubt, believe that it's an actual word and have never been told anything different. A 35-year-old accountant, who's been through the education system and is likely to have had at least a basic grounding in grammar/spelling, knows that it should be "want to" but chooses to use "wanna" in casual speech. They would be unlikely to use it in formal writing or speech.

The first category would include learners of English who have only learnt by ear and have been exposed only to "wanna", and to illiterate adults who have also never had "wanna" corrected in their speech. (I'm not using "illiterate" to mean "uneducated", by the way, as some people have been known to do. I mean people who genuinely cannot read or write.)

 

[probus]

In adults and competent users, yes. I'm not counting those children who would say things like We better go, bettern't we?

I find betteren't utterly charming. As Steven Pinker says in his book The Language Instict "Every two-year-old is a linguistic genius."

 

[jutfrank]

A 35-year-old accountant, who's been through the education system and is likely to have had at least a basic grounding in grammar/spelling, knows that it should be "want to" but chooses to use "wanna" in casual speech.

I don't think I follow. The written form 'wanna' is just a way to represent how 'want to' is often pronounced in connected speech.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think I follow. The written form 'wanna' is just a way to represent how 'want to' is often pronounced in connected speech.

That's my point. You and I both know that "want to" is the "correct" form but some people say it as "wanna". However, a child who has only ever heard "wanna" and has never even heard "want to" (or at least the two have never been connected), won't know that "want to" even exists. Therefore, for them, "wanna" is a perfectly good word in both spoken and written English and is a correct standalone word with no known alternative. They are unaware of the existence of "want to" so they're not using an alternative to it - they're using the only form they know.

 

[5jj]

In adults and competent users, yes. I'm not counting those children who would say things like We better go, bettern't we?

That's a pretty big chunk of the population you are cutting out. I assume that any speakers for whom you can't prove that such forms as you ('ve) got and you ('d) better, the forms are not fully 'there' in the mind, whether [...] uttered or not fall ino the 'not competent' category if they are adult.

 

[jutfrank]

That's a pretty big chunk of the population you are cutting out.

I don't think it's a big chunk, proportionally speaking.

I assume that any speakers for whom you can't prove that such forms as you ('ve) got and you ('d) better, the forms are not fully 'there' in the mind, whether [...] uttered or not fall ino the 'not competent' category if they are adult.

It's not up to me to 'prove' anything. I'm neither a linguist nor a scientist, but just an amateur interested in language. There's a wealth of academic literature on the topic going back decades, if you look for it. Really, there's nothing greatly controversial about what I'm saying. If you're looking for some academic papers on theoretical linguistics, I'd suggest you start with some of the great linguists and champions of generative grammar—Chomsky, Fodor, Jackendoff, to name the first three that come instantly to mind.

This discussion might be more productive if you can tell me more clearly which theoretical standpoint you're adopting because I'm not sure where you're coming from. Where do you think the structure of language comes from in the first place? What do you think it is that syntacticians actually study?

 

[5jj]

Really, there's nothing greatly controversial about what I'm saying.

This discussion might be more productive if you can tell me more clearly which theoretical standpoint you're adopting because I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I have told you my problem:

As I wrote earlier, It seems to me that you believe that in such forms as you ('ve) got and you ('d) better, the forms I have put in brackets are fully 'there' in the mind, whether [...] uttered or not.

What evidence have you for this?

 

[jutfrank]

What evidence have you for this?

What sort of evidence are you looking for? Are you just asking why I think so? Or are you asking me to provide some sort of data?

Imagine a speaker were to say, for instance:

We better go, hadn't we?

Would you count this as evidence that there's an elision of the auxiliary /d/? Or are you looking for other kinds of evidence?

 

[jutfrank]

Could you explain what you mean? What's your view on this?

This discussion might be more productive if you can tell me more clearly which theoretical standpoint you're adopting because I'm not sure where you're coming from. Where do you think the structure of language comes from in the first place? What do you think it is that syntacticians actually study?

It might help me explain what I mean if I know which standpoint you're coming from, 5jj.

A: Do you understand?
B: Yes. Got it.

In what way is it possible to explain the grammar of the blue utterance without the need for ellipsis? I take from your comments that you're saying that there isn't any, right? You mean to say that language consists only of phonological form and nothing else. Is that right? If not, please help me out a little here.

 

[5jj]

I shall take my leave and dream sweet dreams of getting a straight answer to a question one day.

 

[jutfrank]

I've tried my best to respond to you here, 5jj. I honestly still have very little idea what you're asking or why. Never mind.