Search

Elementary mathematics is deeply rooted in ordinary language, which in some respects anticipates and supports the learning of mathematics, but which in other respects hinders this learning. This paper explores a number of areas of arithmetic and other elementary areas of mathematics, considering for each area whether it helps or hinders the young learner: counting and larger numbers, sets and brackets, algebra and variables, zero and negation, approximation, scales and relationships, and probability. The conclusion is that ordinary language anticipates the mathematics of counting, arithmetic, algebra, variables and brackets, zero and probability; but that negation, approximation and probability are particularly problematic because mathematics demands a different way of thinking, and different mental capacity, compared with ordinary language. School teachers should be aware of the mathematics already built into language so as to build on it; and they should also be able to offer special help in the conflict zones.

This article reviews The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics 978 1 107 11698 6

Cushing argues that government policy in the UK is prescriptive and encourages similar policies at school level (as reported in the press), which in turn encourage the ‘policing’ of language by school teachers. I offer an alternative reading of the evidence in which government policy, as stated in official documents, generally avoids prescriptivism, as do an unknown number of schools and school teachers; where prescriptivism persists it reflects a prescriptive culture in society, not government policy. The conclusion is that government policy is only one influence on teachers’ behaviour, so if government wants to eliminate prescriptivism it needs to take a stronger position than simply avoiding prescriptivism in its own documents. (Education, prescriptivism, policy, Britain)

The paper offers an analysis of pied-piping within the theoretical framework of Word Grammar. This framework combines cognitive linguistics with dependency grammar, so it assumes that the full power of domain-general cognition is available for syntax, and that syntactic structure can be conceived as a network of relations between individual words. In this network, words are related by at least two kinds of link: dependencies and ‘landmark’ links that determine word order. To handle the special characteristics of pied-piping, the analysis also includes a single special relation, ‘pipee’, which links the ‘piper’ (thewh-type word) to the word which replaces it in the landmark structure. The analysis is applied in detail to English, and then compared with previous analyses and extended to accommodate both the pied-piping with inversion found in Meso-American languages, and the boundary markers found in other languages.

It is often asserted that UK school-leavers know less grammatical terminology than in earlier years. However, objective data on this supposed phenomenon are somewhat scarce. The study reported in this paper aimed to see whether and to what extent knowledge about language (KaL) has declined over three decades, and how this might relate to university studies and the English school-leaving examinations known as A-level. We analysed data collected in a test-based survey of UK university undergraduates and compared them with a similar test-based survey conducted in 1986. We also put the studies in context by comparing the performance of UK home students with that of students in and from other countries. In addition, we analysed recent pre- and post-test data on whether courses of instruction in grammar improve undergraduates’ knowledge of grammatical terminology. Our results show a general reduction in school-leavers’ knowledge of grammatical terminology since 1986. Moreover, UK students have a much weaker knowledge than do non-UK students. Studying a foreign language leads to somewhat better levels of KaL, but this is not true for English language A-level. However, our results confirm that university-level instruction does improve awareness of and ability to use grammatical terminology. We end by discussing the value of KaL.

Since its foundation in 1959, the Linguistics Association of Great Britain has established itself as one of the three associations for UK linguistics, alongside the much older Philological Society and its own child, the British Association for Applied Linguistics, though the relations among the associations are not always clear and can be somewhat problematic. The LAGB’s main characteristic has always been its annual or twice-yearly conferences with a focus on language structure, but it also has its own journal and has taken a lead in promoting linguistics to funding and educational authorities. The paper outlines these events and how the LAGB’s internal organisation has evolved to deal with them, and ends with three choices that face the association in its second half-century. 1. T HE E ARLY Y EARS

Serbo-Croat has a complex system of clitics which raise interesting problems for any theory of the interface between syntax and morphology. After summarising the data we review previous analyses (mostly within the generative tradition), all of which are unsatisfactory in various ways. We then explain how Word Grammar handles clitics: as words whose form is an affix rather than the usual ‘word-form’. Like other affixes, clitics need a word to accommodate them, but in the case of clitics this is a special kind of word called a ‘hostword’. We present a detailed analysis of Serbo-Croat clitics within this theory, introducing a new distinction between two cases: where the clitics are attached to the verb or auxiliary, and where they are attached to some dependent of the verb.

Adger (2006) claims that the Minimalist Program provides a suitable theoretical framework for analysing at least one example of inherent variability: the variation betweenwasandwereafteryouandwein the Scottish town of Buckie. Drawing on the feature analysis of pronouns and the assumption that lexical items normally have equal probabilities, his analysis provides two ‘routes’ towe/you was, but only one towe/you were, thereby explaining why the former is on average twice as common as the latter. This comment points out four serious flaws in his argument: it ignores important interactions among sex, age and subject pronoun; hardly any social groups actually show the predicted average 2:1 ratio; there is no general tendency for lexical items to have equal probability of being used; the effects of the subject may be better stated in terms of the lexemesyouandwerather than as semantic features. The conclusion is that inherent variability supports a usage-based theory rather than Minimalism.

The article focuses on inherent variability in syntax and the challenge that it presents for theories of language structure, using illustrative data from the Scottish town of Buckie (Smith, 2000). Inherent variability challenges a linguistic theory at three levels of theoretical adequacy: structural (Does the theory distinguish the relevant structures?), contextual (Does it allow structures to be related directly to their social context?), and behavioural (Does it allow an explanation for the observed frequencies?). The article summarizes the relevant claims of Word Grammar and shows (1) that it has at least as much structural adequacy as any other theory, (2) that it has more contextual adequacy than other theories because it formalizes the theory of Acts of Identity, and (3) that it at least provides a theoretical foundation for future advances towards behavioural adequacy. The article also argues against the minimalist analysis of the was/were alternation in Buckie (Adger, 2006).

In the first half of the twentieth century, English grammar disappeared from the curriculum of most schools in England, but since the 1960s it has gradually been reconceptualised, under the influence of linguistics, and now once again has a central place in the official curriculum. Our aim is not only to document these changes, but also to explain them. We suggest that the decline of grammar in schools was linked to a similar gap in English universities, where there was virtually no serious research or teaching on English grammar. Conversely, the upsurge of academic research since the 1960s has provided a healthy foundation for school-level work and has prevented a simple return to old-fashioned grammar-teaching now that grammar is once again fashionable. We argue that linguists should be more aware of the links between their research and the school curriculum.

The paper focuses on the relation between the determiner (D) and the common noun (N) in a noun phrase (NP). Four facts show that D depends on N: only N is relevant to whether NP can be used as an adjunct; possessive determiners are similar to clearly dependent possessives e.g. in Dutch and German; N decides whether or not D is obligatory; and in English only one D is possible per N. Three other facts show the converse, that N depends on D: in many languages D sometimes fuses with a preceding preposition (e.g. French de le = du; English for each = per); D decides whether or not N is obligatory; the ellipsis of N is a regular example of dependent ellipsis. Therefore D and N are mutually dependent, a relation which requires the structural flexibility offered by Word Grammar. This does not mean that NP has two heads, but rather that either D or N may be the head.

One of the fundamental questions on which we linguists disagree is whether or not our subject is useful for education. On one side is a long tradition, stretching back to the classical world, in which the practical benefits were clear and agreed – for example, the early Stoic grammarians aimed to improve literary style (Robins 1967: 16), and the Latin grammarians wrote pedagogical texts for use in school (ibid.: 54). In modern times this tradition is represented by leading linguists such as Tesnière (1959) and Halliday (1964), whose work has been motivated at least in part by the desire to improve language teaching at school. On the other hand is an equally long philosophical tradition of ‘pure’ scholarship for its own sake, in which the only motivation was a desire to understand language better. Recently this tradition is most clearly represented by two linguists who otherwise have little in common, Sampson (1980) and Chomsky (Olson, Faigley & Chomsky 1991), both of whom have denied that linguistics has, can have or indeed should have any relevance to language teaching.The aim of this paper is to defend the traditional idea that linguistics has an important contribution to make in language teaching, though I shall not of course suggest that every piece of academic research should have a clear pay-off in terms of practical benefits. ‘Blue-skies’ research is just as important in linguistics as in other disciplines. All I shall argue is that our discipline, seen as a whole, has an important interface with education, and that research whose results cross this interface is just as important as that which feeds into, say, neuroscience or child development. Indeed, I shall go further by arguing that academic linguistics is weakened if we ignore the impact of education on language, so information must cross this interface in both directions. If the interface is important even for ‘pure’ research, it follows that we cannot simply name it ‘applied linguistics’ and leave it to those who call themselves applied linguists. My point is that the debate is relevant to all linguists, however ‘pure’, because if education has a profound impact on language, we should know rather better than we do at present exactly what that impact is.

Adjuncts may occur (by ‘adjunct preposing’) before a wh-interrogative clause which is a main clause, but not before one which is subordinate; for example: (i) Tomorrow what shall we do? (ii) I told you (*tomorrow) what we shall do. Why should the possibility of adjunct preposing vary between main and subordinate clauses? The pre-theoretical answer is obvious: the wh-word has the extra function in a subordinate clause of signalling the start of a subordinate clause, so like any other subordinator it must be the first element in its clause. Less obvious is how to capture this insight in a formal grammar, and the paper will show that this challenge favours flexible word-based grammars over the more familiar kind which assign a uniform clause structure. The paper considers and rejects a number of examples of the latter approach, especially that of Rizzi [Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Syntax. A Handbook in Generative Grammer. Klewer, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337]. The proposed solution is based on enriched dependency structure (Word Grammar) which makes head-hood ambiguous in certain constructions. In particular, the head of a wh-interrogative may be its finite verb when it is a main clause but must be the wh-element when it is subordinate.

English gerunds such as (We weretalking about) John having a sabbaticalcombine the internal characteristics ofa clause with the external characteristicsof a noun phrase. Previous analyses havetried to recognise the mixed characterof gerunds by assigning them two separatenodes, one verbal and the other nominal.However, dependency analyses such as WordGrammar allow only one node perword, so they do not allow analyses of thiskind. Two-node analyses are strongevidence against dependency analysis, so itis important to be sure that they areneeded. The present paper presents ananalysis similar to the one recently proposedby Malouf in which the verbal and nominalclassifications are combined on asingle node which inherits both verbaland nominal characteristics; butunlike Malouf's analysis, it does notassume phrase structure. Like his, it exploitsthe logic of multiple default inheritance whichallows a single node to inherit fromtwo supercategories, in this case from both`verb' and `noun'. As Malouf points out,multiple inheritance works because English grammaris organised in such a way thatthe characteristics of these categoriesare orthogonal. In short, a gerund is both a verband a noun, as in traditional analyses. Simplestipulations are needed to allow for`possessive' subjects (e.g., about John'shaving a sabbatical) and a number ofvery specific constructions peculiar to gerunds:no in prohibitions or existentials(e.g., No playing loud music! There's no mistaking that voice), and a very fewconstructions which demand a gerund ratherthan a noun phrase (e.g., It's nouse . . ., They prevented us from ...).

In most standard dialects of English, there is a gap in the paradigm of the verb BE where we expect to find amn't. But how do we know that this gap exists, since learners have no positive evidence that amn't is ungrammatical ? It is even more puzzling since there is no gap when the subject is inverted (aren't I... ?). Familiar explanations for this gap fail; in particular, it cannot be the result of conservative acquisition strategies. The explanation offered here is based crucially on a combination of multiple-default inheritance and function-based morphology, as embodied in word grammar. The gap is due to a Nixon-diamond conflict between two competing values for the same morphological function required by the categories negative and first-person. The inverted form is supplied by stipulation because of the functional pressure to supply a 'casual' form. Various dialect alternatives to the Standard English pattern are also considered. The success of this explanation shows that language must use default inheritance, multiple nonorthogonal inheritance, and morphological functions

The paper rejects the standard view according to which every tensed verb in English agrees with its subject in person and number. It argues that person is irrelevant to all verbs except BE, and that past-tense verbs and modals (other than BE) have no number agreement features. It discusses agreement mismatches which reflect the subject's meaning, but rejects the idea that subject–verb agreement may be a semantic rule; it proposes instead a new feature ‘agreement-number’. This extra number feature applies only to the subject of a tensed verb and by default has the same value as the subject's ordinary number, while also allowing various kinds of mismatch (for I and you, and for cases of ‘semantic’ agreement). It also offers analyses of agreement with non-nominal subjects and dummy there, and shows how the analysis for Standard English generalizes easily to a range of variations found in nonstandard dialects. The theoretical basis for the analysis is Word Grammar, whose main advantage is that features are free to be assigned by rule because they are not used in classification.

The treatment of morphology in Word Grammar has received less attention than syntax and semantics, but the general principles are equally applicable to morphology. We outline a theory of inflectional morphology which uses ideas familiar from the Word-and-Paradigm tradition — Inflection, Lexeme and Stem — in combination with the logic of default inheritance. We apply this theory to a range of different morphological data: agglutinative (Swahili) and fusional, with and without syncretism (English, Welsh). We show that it is possible to analyse each of these types in a natural way without forcing it into an unsuitable mould, and in a discussion of Cree we show how dialect variation can be accommodated. We compare the WG theory with other approaches which are currently popular, especially a-morphous morphology, distributed morphology and network morphology.

This paper contrasts two explanations for Ellegard’s statistical data on the rise of auxiliary DO during the 15th and 16th centuries. One is Kroch’s explanation in terms of a change on the parameter of verb-raising, which is shown to have a number of serious weaknesses. The other is Warner’s explanation in terms of the gradual development of the distinction between auxiliary and full verbs. Though Kroch quotes Ellegard’s figures in support of the Principles-and-Parameters analysis, they actually support Warner’s view much better. The paper also considers developments in the auxiliary system since the 16th century and offers a mixture of cognitive and functional explanations for the changes since the 13th century.

Recent work in a variety of different theoretical traditions has tended to emphasize the close match between syntax and semantics (Dixon 1991; Langacker 1987, 1990, 1995; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991, 1992; Wierzbicka 1988). It is very easy to be left with the impression that, if only we could analyse the relevant syntactic and semantic structures correctly, this match would be total. The following are fairly typical statements:The picture that emerges is that a verb's behavior arises from the interaction of its meaning and general principles of grammar. Thus the lexical knowledge of a speaker of a language must include knowledge of the meaning of individual verbs, the meaning components that determine the syntactic behavior of verbs, and the general principles that determine behavior from verb meaning. (Levin 1993: 11)

Does English have morphological case (as opposed to abstract Case)? Evidence is presented which suggests that it may be a completely case-less language like Chinese, contrary to the widely held view that the distinct pronoun forms and the ‘genitive’ 's involve morphological case. The existence of case in English has recently been accepted almost without question, but the question at least deserves serious discussion as it is easy to find alternative analyses. According to the analysis offered here, I and me are both personal pronouns whereas my, mine and 's are possessive pronouns; and the difference between I and me, like the one between my and mine, is handled by a very specific and local lexical rule which is sensitive to the syntactic structure but does not involve case.

1 This article describes a method for calculating the ‘dependency distance’ 2 between the words in a text – i.e. the number of words that separate each 3 word from the word on which it depends syntactically – and reports the 4 results of applying this method to a Chinese treebank. This study shows that 5 Chinese dependencies tend strongly to be governor-final and that the mean 6 dependency distance of words is much higher for Chinese than for other 7 languages that have been studied including English, German and Japanese. 8 It is unclear whether this difference means that Chinese is syntacticallymore 9 difficult to process. 10

Une etude comparative de deux corpus de taille importante (l'un en anglais americain ecrit, l'autre en anglais britannique ecrit, contenant un million de mots chacun) revele quelques regularites statistiques : pres de 37% des occurrences lexicales appartiennent a la classe nominale ; le pourcentage des noms par classes de mots (nom commun, nom propre, pronom), la distribution des noms par type d'ecrit ( allant de l'editorial jusqu'a l'ecrit humoristique) presentent la meme constance dans les deux corpus. Cette regularite est confirmee par une etude statistique etendue sur six autres corpus de langues differentes

UK CONTRIBUTORS: David Crystal, University of North Wales Gerald Gazdar, University of Sussex Daniel Abondolo, University of London Dick Allwright, University of Lancaster David C. Bennett, University of London Theodora Bynon, University of London Ronald Carter, University of Nottingham Jenny Cheshire, University of London Robert Coleman, University of Cambridge Greville G. Corbett, University of Surrey Alan Cruttenden, University of Manchester Paul Fletcher, University of Reading Roger Fowler, University of East Anglia W. J. Hardcastle Martin Harris, University of Essex Susan Hockey, University of Oxford Ewan Klein, University of Edinburgh Geoffrey Leech, University of Lancaster Giulio Lepschy, University of Reading William Marslen-Wilson, University of London Marilyn Martin-Jones, University of Lancaster P. H. Matthews, University of Cambridge Peter Muhlhausler, University of Oxford Peter Roach, University of Leeds Robert H. Robins, University of London Suzanne Romaine, University of Oxford David Short, University of London Marcel A. A. Tatham, University of Essex.

The most serious recent work on the theory of coordination has probably been done in terms of three theories of grammatical structure: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG–see especially Gazdar, 1981; Gazdaret al., 1982; 1985; Saget al., 1985; Schachter & Mordechay, 1983), Categorial Grammar (CG–see especially Steedman, 1985; Dowty, 1985) and Transformational Grammar (TG–notably Williams, 1978, 1981; Neijt, 1979; van Oirsouw, 1985, 1987). Each of these approaches is different in important respects: for instance, according to whether or not they allow deletion rules, and according to the kinds of information which they allow to be encoded in syntactic features. However, behind these differences lies an important similarity: in each case the theory concerned makes two assumptions about grammatical structure in general (i.e. about all structures, including coordinate ones):I The basic syntagmatic relations in sentence-structure are part-whole relations (consituent structure) and temporal order; note that this is true whether or not syntactic structure is seen as a ‘projection’ of lexical properties, since these lexical properies are themselves defined in terms of constituent structure and temporal order.

This paper will be concerned with the analysis of sentences like those in (1), which I think are all uncontroversial examples of the construction that is generally called ‘gapping’.

There are a large number of ‘adjectives’ in English that consist of a noun to which is suffixed -ed and which may be preceded by a modifier such as an adjective or a numeral (e.g. bearded, blue-eyed, three-legged). They have been treated at length in this journal (Hirtle, 1970), and I should like to continue the discussion of them by highlighting some problems raised by Hirtle, disagreeing with his main conclusion, and adding a few more problems of my own.