The first time you listen to this video, just listen. Don't look. This is to convince yourself that it really is not English (it is purported to be German, but I can't confirm that), because once you do look, you'll only hear English.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
xkcd
One of the funniest comics around has to be xkcd. Today's comic is titled "Simple" and references the simple English Wikipedia (be sure to mouse over to read the hidden text). I haven't done much editing on simple wikipeia, but I do a lot on simple wiktionary. Drop by and help out sometime.
Functions in the CGEL
One of the most useful and yet ignored principles in thinking about grammar is the consistent separation of categories and functions. When you can keep them distinct, analysis become much clearer. One grammar that is scrupulous in making the distinction is the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. It clearly sets out the various categories on pp. 22 & 23, which I've visualized in the first image below.
Unfortunately, there's no clear overview of all the functions. I've tried to bring them together in the following graphic. As usual, if you see anything wrong or missing, please let me know.
Unfortunately, there's no clear overview of all the functions. I've tried to bring them together in the following graphic. As usual, if you see anything wrong or missing, please let me know.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wayback
From 1997 until 2003 I worked at Sakuragaoka Girls' Jr & Sr High School in Kita-ku, Tokyo. During the whole time I was there I put my lesson notes and plans online under the title "An EFL Teacher's Notebook". A number of sites still link to it though the server was taken offline years ago. Anyhow, if you're interested in seeing it, the Internet Archive has a copy of it. Probably best to check out the 2003 version.
Another in our irregular series of word lists. Today, all the irregular verbs that occur more than two times in the Corpus of Current American English. I believe that this list is complete, but if I've overlooked something, please let me know. The words are grouped by endings.
- be
- do
- have
- read
- spread
- lead
- misread
- tread
- reread
- re-read
- plead
- bleed
- breed
- feed
- speed
- shed
- wed
- forbid
- bid
- outbid
- underbid
- rid
- build
- rebuild
- hold
- uphold
- withhold
- behold
- understand
- stand
- misunderstand
- withstand
- spend
- send
- bend
- lend
- unbend
- find
- bind
- wind
- grind
- unwind
- unbind
- lade
- hide
- ride
- slide
- override
- stride
- flee
- see
- oversee
- foresee
- clothe
- lie
- underlie
- make
- take
- undertake
- shake
- mistake
- wake
- overtake
- forsake
- remake
- awake
- partake
- retake
- re-make
- betake
- strike
- come
- become
- overcome
- shine
- shoe
- rise
- arise
- lose
- choose
- write
- bite
- rewrite
- smite
- underwrite
- co-write
- overwrite
- re-write
- leave
- weave
- interweave
- heave
- shave
- give
- drive
- forgive
- dive
- strive
- shrive
- thrive
- prove
- freeze
- dig
- hang
- overhang
- bring
- sing
- string
- swing
- spring
- cling
- fling
- sting
- ring
- sling
- wring
- teach
- beseech
- catch
- break
- speak
- sneak
- stick
- seek
- think
- sink
- drink
- shrink
- stink
- slink
- work
- deal
- steal
- feel
- kneel
- spoil
- fall
- befall
- tell
- sell
- swell
- dwell
- foretell
- resell
- spell
- misspell
- spill
- dream
- swim
- mean
- lean
- begin
- spin
- win
- learn
- born
- burn
- run
- overrun
- outrun
- re-run
- over-run
- undo
- overdo
- outdo
- go
- forego
- forgo
- undergo
- leap
- keep
- sweep
- sleep
- creep
- weep
- hear
- wear
- tear
- bear
- swear
- overhear
- shear
- forbear
- beat
- eat
- bet
- meet
- get
- forget
- let
- set
- upset
- offset
- beset
- reset
- inset
- preset
- off-set
- wet
- fight
- light
- fit
- hit
- split
- slit
- knit
- spit
- sit
- quit
- shoot
- overshoot
- hurt
- cast
- broadcast
- forecast
- recast
- typecast
- telecast
- newscast
- miscast
- rebroadcast
- comcast
- podcast
- webcast
- cablecast
- re-cast
- hoist
- cost
- burst
- thrust
- bust
- cut
- undercut
- shut
- put
- input
- output
- draw
- withdraw
- redraw
- re-draw
- saw
- shew
- strew
- sew
- show
- blow
- mow
- know
- grow
- throw
- overthrow
- overgrow
- outgrow
- regrow
- over-grow
- sow
- lay
- slay
- overlay
- waylay
- underlay
- mislay
- pay
- repay
- underpay
- overpay
- say
- unsay
- gainsay
- fly
- buy
Friday, February 06, 2009
Thesaurusi (or how descriptivist can you go?)
Over the past month or so there has been an influx of new editors at the Simple English Wiktionary (and you're more than welcome to join us). One of them saw fit to add an entry for thesaurusi, after all, there was one on the English Wiktionary. I headed over there and sure enough, there it was.
You see how it got there don't you? If you look up thesaurus in a dictionary, it tells you that there are two possible plurals +es or +i. Now if you've never noticed that some English nouns that end in -us form their plurals by dropping the -us and replacing it with -i, it would make sense just to stick an -i on the end and voila!
I referred the obvious mistake for deletion, but lo and behold, thesaurusi is actually out there, and not just in the nescient scribblings of some teenage facebook adict.
You see how it got there don't you? If you look up thesaurus in a dictionary, it tells you that there are two possible plurals +es or +i. Now if you've never noticed that some English nouns that end in -us form their plurals by dropping the -us and replacing it with -i, it would make sense just to stick an -i on the end and voila!
I referred the obvious mistake for deletion, but lo and behold, thesaurusi is actually out there, and not just in the nescient scribblings of some teenage facebook adict.
- 1965, Pierre A. Rinfret, “Changing Population and Changing Demand”, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, page 75:
- In the closing weeks of 1959 and the early weeks of 1960, book dealers must have had a bonanza in selling thesaurusi.
- 1999, Lynn Tooma et al., Exploring the Bible, ISBN 0884894649, page 49:
- Gather a variety of dictionaries and thesaurusi written for middle-school students as well as adults.
- 2004, Vincent Mary, “MeSH and Specialized Terminologies”, in MedInfo 2004, ISBN 1586034448, page 530:
- UMLS is an integration of several thesaurusi.
"(rare, considered nonstandard) Misconstruction of thesauruses, plural form of thesaurus."At the SEWikt, we've put a redirect to thesauri and left it at that. But don't be surprised if one dark night, just when you least expect it, you stumble across alumnusi, stimulusi, fungusi, nucleusi, cactusi or one of their ilk and you find yourself running screaming down the street, your descriptivist sensibilities flapping behind you in tatters.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Countability and unmarked plurals
Recently, I've run into a few situations that have called for some clarification of what it means for a noun to be countable. You may be curious about just where I run into these things. Do people buttonhole me at parties? Grill me at conferences? Stop me on the street? Sadly, no. Most often these issues come up during some sort of net-mediated interactions.
Anyhow, one particularly observant and self-aware correspondent writes:
Another issue is that most nouns have both countable and uncountable senses, though typically one sense dominates. Almost all "uncountable" nouns have a plural sense indicating types (e.g., Belgium produces many fine beers.)
There are few nouns that are singular only. I once believed that equipment was one, but I was mistaken. The following are a few that I can think of, but feel free to prove me wrong:
Finally, it's interesting to note that even among languages that make a countable/uncountable distinction, there is little agreement on what is counted (again, examples may be from the CGEL or perhaps from Pinker's The Stuff of Thought).
Anyhow, one particularly observant and self-aware correspondent writes:
"One of the thrills of creating material for students is discovering new areas of my own lack of knowledge. When designing a worksheet on countable and uncountable terms, my examples didn't really work out right.Of course, he's quite right that countability of nouns is best looked at by considering the determiners they will allow rather than their morphology. Nouns like sheep simply have a plural form that is identical in shape to their singular form. These are often referred to as unmarked plurals. An analogy with verbs would be something like put, for which the plain form, plain present tense, past tense, and past participle all share a shape. Most verbs have past tense forms and past participle forms that share a shape (shape here encompasses both spelling and pronunciation).
I had neatly laid out three zones on the sheet: countable, uncountable and those that can be either (like paper and hair), and assigned examples of each from the students' vocabulary lists.
The nouns 'sheep' and 'fish' are not given 's' or 'es' when applied to plural use (in North American English), so I've simply referred to them as 'uncountable' in the past, and placed them into the uncountable zone. But almost instantly, I realized they didn't fit the patterns I was trying to illustrate.
There might be 'many sheep' in the field, but there darn sure aren't 'very much sheep', to my ear anyhow. There are 'a few fish' in the tank, but not 'a little fish'. These seem to act stubbornly as countable categories.
Which tells me that some noun categories are countable, but their labels (like fish and sheep) just don't get a plural form adjustment.
What are the correct terms and categories for these items? What else am I missing?"
Another issue is that most nouns have both countable and uncountable senses, though typically one sense dominates. Almost all "uncountable" nouns have a plural sense indicating types (e.g., Belgium produces many fine beers.)
There are few nouns that are singular only. I once believed that equipment was one, but I was mistaken. The following are a few that I can think of, but feel free to prove me wrong:
- crockery, footwear, perseverance, nonsense
- italics, linguistics, mumps, news
- belongings, clothes, genitals, pants, remains
- cattle, police, vermin
Finally, it's interesting to note that even among languages that make a countable/uncountable distinction, there is little agreement on what is counted (again, examples may be from the CGEL or perhaps from Pinker's The Stuff of Thought).
- spaghetti: countable in Italian but not in English
- hair: countable in French but not in English
- peas: now countable in English, but previously uncountable pease
- opinions, advice
- stories, fiction
- facts, knowledge
- holes, space
- songs, music
- naps, sleep
- lies, bullshit
Friday, January 30, 2009
A word for having a word for...
Geoff Pullum has just pointed out that "the general reading public loves the idea that your lexicon measures your life." In other words, he means that they think a language without a particular word for x (hand for example as distinct from arm) is somehow impoverished. As I read this, it struck me that English, mean and ineffectual language that it is, actually has no word for this idea. So, as my humble way to enrich the language I offer the following:
- alexemic: The state of lacking a word for a particular notion.
- lexemic: The state of having a word for a particular notion.
- lexemifilia: The fetish belief that a single word ought to exist for any given concept
- English, though lexemic with respect to hand is alexemic with respect to warm water where Japanese is exactly the opposite.
- A: Did you see the article in today's paper saying language X had no word for snow?
B: Yeah, another journalist suffering from lexemifilia.
- gouth
- perd
- dern
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Two third of a plural
Yesterday, one of my colleagues sent me the following query:
In contrast, the COCA has a ratio closer to 1:100.
When you look at three quarter(s), however, the google.co.in ratio is approaching normal (1:60), so it seems as though it may be a particular fraction rather than fractions in general.
The only other related oddity that comes to mind is half, which is rather unlike all the other fractions, but it's weird in other ways. I don't have a good explanation for the lack of plural marking, but it is certainly non-standard here in Canada. The only use I can think of that might be OK would be as a modifier (e.g., a two-third majority), but even that strains credulity.
"I have a grammar question for you. Today, my ESL 300 students (from India in particular) were confused about this sentence that I had asked them to edit.I've never come across such a notion, but a quick search of google.co.in for two third(s) of finds about 20,000 for the singular vs about 157,000 for the plural, a ratio of 1:8. Singulars appear even in headlines in newspapers, so it may actually be a feature of Indian English.
Two third of the respondents worked or had worked at properties that had websites.
They were convinced that two thirds did not need an 's'. Are there any rules for this? Or, do you think this relates to differences between Indian English and NAE? I know we would say one third, but I told them that two thirds definitely needs an 's.' Do you know why?"
In contrast, the COCA has a ratio closer to 1:100.
When you look at three quarter(s), however, the google.co.in ratio is approaching normal (1:60), so it seems as though it may be a particular fraction rather than fractions in general.
The only other related oddity that comes to mind is half, which is rather unlike all the other fractions, but it's weird in other ways. I don't have a good explanation for the lack of plural marking, but it is certainly non-standard here in Canada. The only use I can think of that might be OK would be as a modifier (e.g., a two-third majority), but even that strains credulity.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
English 'Activity' in Japan
I don't know how many people would give a damn about the English language education in Japan - but Brett's post prompted me to jot down the following. After all, I happen to be in Japan, and have been in the industry for a while now.
What has been going on is rather wierd. I shouldn't bore you with details, but let me start with the year 1991, when there was a suggestion to the effect that primary schools should embrace some form of 'special activity' involving a foreign language, such as English conversation. Funny wording, I know - but that's what was suggested: 'special (foreign language) activity'. Judging from what has actually been done, the 'activity' seems to refer loosely to some English-speaking person getting kids to sing, draw, say some words, etc. with no organising principles.
In a country where foreign language education (specifically, the English language education) formally starts at secondary school, this suggestion was new. In the following year, 1992, the (then) Ministry of Education started experimenting with English language 'activities' at primary schools. They did it for one school hour per week.
If you know anything about learning a foreign language, that's not much - especially when what is done is 'activity' rather than actual learning. Years later, researchers found that there were no differences whatsoever between those kids who did this English activity at primary school and those who did not, when they reached secondary school. Surprise, surprise. Those kids just wasted time there ...
Now this is where things get weird. Instead of coming up with a better idea, the Ministry then came back with a booklet entitled 'Practical Handbook for Elementary School English Activities', primarily aimed at non-Japanese teachers, which declared that 'the aim of English Activity is not language acquisition'. It then went on to describe some of the things you, as a teacher, could do in the classroom. Yes, this truly is a totally confused, and confusing, piece of literature (which, by the way, was priced at 100 yen a copy). This was in 2001.
I guess the confusion comes from the fact that they wanted to compile an official-looking manual for teaching English at primary schools, but then, faced with solid evidence that it didn't work, they added some sentences and paragraphs here and there saying 'Well, they may not learn anything, but that's not the point.' Or maybe whoever wrote it was just plain incompetent. Either way, that's my tax money being spent right there. Hey.
Well, people are not stupid; there has been a lot of debate. At the Ministry, too, there is a committee consisting of 21 people to discuss this - er, by the way, twenty out of these 21 people are those who are 'in accord with the government's directions'. What kind of totalitarian regime is this?
But the facts are so against these 20 plus one people that they couldn't come up with a report that would have enabled the Ministry to formally announce that they were introducing the scheme. This was in 2005.
Then in 2006, the Ministry issued a formal statement called 'On English Education at Primary Schools' (this time, they somehow chose the word 'education'). There was nothing in the statement about making English a formal part of primary school education; I guess they couldn't put it there. But the media jumped to it, loudly screaming, 'English classes to be introduced in primary schools!'
What the Ministry - the government - has wanted to do all along is very clear. They want one school hour per week at every primary school taught by a non-Japanese, English-speaking, teacher. They know that there are no educational merits. And they know that they cannot implement it. Their document clearly states that there are 121 ALTs - that is, officially hired English-speaking teachers - in Japan; and there are about 23,000 primary schools.
It is in this context that they sort of turned around and said, 'Hey, English classes ought to be conducted in English in high schools!'
I have just stated facts. I do not wish to speculate. But as I say, people are not stupid, and I just hear them. When America started bombing Iraq, I heard a rough-looking worker saying to his mate, 'It's all too clear, you know. It's about oil.' It wasn't just him; it was like a shared understanding.
This time, the shared understanding may be summarised in four words: 'more jobs for Americans'. I find myself unable to brushing it off outright. But I do not wish to speculate; I would like to remain hopeful. If, and I repeat IF, Japan has democracy that works, people's voices will be heard, and what is best for the kids will be done. But then, don't get me started on how big that 'if' is ...
What has been going on is rather wierd. I shouldn't bore you with details, but let me start with the year 1991, when there was a suggestion to the effect that primary schools should embrace some form of 'special activity' involving a foreign language, such as English conversation. Funny wording, I know - but that's what was suggested: 'special (foreign language) activity'. Judging from what has actually been done, the 'activity' seems to refer loosely to some English-speaking person getting kids to sing, draw, say some words, etc. with no organising principles.
In a country where foreign language education (specifically, the English language education) formally starts at secondary school, this suggestion was new. In the following year, 1992, the (then) Ministry of Education started experimenting with English language 'activities' at primary schools. They did it for one school hour per week.
If you know anything about learning a foreign language, that's not much - especially when what is done is 'activity' rather than actual learning. Years later, researchers found that there were no differences whatsoever between those kids who did this English activity at primary school and those who did not, when they reached secondary school. Surprise, surprise. Those kids just wasted time there ...
Now this is where things get weird. Instead of coming up with a better idea, the Ministry then came back with a booklet entitled 'Practical Handbook for Elementary School English Activities', primarily aimed at non-Japanese teachers, which declared that 'the aim of English Activity is not language acquisition'. It then went on to describe some of the things you, as a teacher, could do in the classroom. Yes, this truly is a totally confused, and confusing, piece of literature (which, by the way, was priced at 100 yen a copy). This was in 2001.
I guess the confusion comes from the fact that they wanted to compile an official-looking manual for teaching English at primary schools, but then, faced with solid evidence that it didn't work, they added some sentences and paragraphs here and there saying 'Well, they may not learn anything, but that's not the point.' Or maybe whoever wrote it was just plain incompetent. Either way, that's my tax money being spent right there. Hey.
Well, people are not stupid; there has been a lot of debate. At the Ministry, too, there is a committee consisting of 21 people to discuss this - er, by the way, twenty out of these 21 people are those who are 'in accord with the government's directions'. What kind of totalitarian regime is this?
But the facts are so against these 20 plus one people that they couldn't come up with a report that would have enabled the Ministry to formally announce that they were introducing the scheme. This was in 2005.
Then in 2006, the Ministry issued a formal statement called 'On English Education at Primary Schools' (this time, they somehow chose the word 'education'). There was nothing in the statement about making English a formal part of primary school education; I guess they couldn't put it there. But the media jumped to it, loudly screaming, 'English classes to be introduced in primary schools!'
What the Ministry - the government - has wanted to do all along is very clear. They want one school hour per week at every primary school taught by a non-Japanese, English-speaking, teacher. They know that there are no educational merits. And they know that they cannot implement it. Their document clearly states that there are 121 ALTs - that is, officially hired English-speaking teachers - in Japan; and there are about 23,000 primary schools.
It is in this context that they sort of turned around and said, 'Hey, English classes ought to be conducted in English in high schools!'
I have just stated facts. I do not wish to speculate. But as I say, people are not stupid, and I just hear them. When America started bombing Iraq, I heard a rough-looking worker saying to his mate, 'It's all too clear, you know. It's about oil.' It wasn't just him; it was like a shared understanding.
This time, the shared understanding may be summarised in four words: 'more jobs for Americans'. I find myself unable to brushing it off outright. But I do not wish to speculate; I would like to remain hopeful. If, and I repeat IF, Japan has democracy that works, people's voices will be heard, and what is best for the kids will be done. But then, don't get me started on how big that 'if' is ...
Sunday, January 11, 2009
A country called Turkey
In today's Family Circus, Billy is wondering about a country called Chicken.
The word Turkey in English actually predates turkey, the name of the bird, by about 200 years. The country name comes from medieval Latin Turkia and has been used in English since the mid 1300s. The word turkey, however, wasn't used in English until the mid 1500s.
In fact, the bird is actually named after the country, and not because of any stupid or insulting characteristics, but because it was thought to have come from Madagascar via Turkey. Coincidentally, this is the same kind of process that gives Turkish its word for the same bird: hindi. In that case, the Spanish had brought the bird from the Americas, but at the time, Europeans believed that the Americas was actually India. So the Turks named the bird after the country that they thought it came from, Hindi (Hindistan).
Incidentally, turkey appears not to have picked up its negative meanings until about 1927.
What's up with white in Japanese?
Starting a few days ago hundreds of people have been searching the net for the Japanese word for white and finding their way to a few postings I made back in 2007. I'm very curious about what has spawned this peak in interest, so if anybody knows, please fill me in. If you're still looking, the noun is 白 (shiro), and the adjective is 白い (shiroi).
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Teaching English in English in Asia
This past summer, we ran a special TEFL program for a group of Korean high school English teachers. The impetus was the Korean government's mandate that English classes there be taught in English. Now it appears that the government of Japan is following suit.
Interestingly, over the holidays we were talking to my niece who is in her first year of junior high school in Japan. She said that her English teacher is an American woman. She was clear that this teacher was not an assistant, but actually her teacher. I found that surprising because she attends a regular public school. When I was teaching in Japan, I also taught the core English classes for the jr 1 students, but it was a big deal. Nobody had heard of a non-Japanese teacher doing this, and we had a bit more flexibility because it was a private school. How times change!
Interestingly, over the holidays we were talking to my niece who is in her first year of junior high school in Japan. She said that her English teacher is an American woman. She was clear that this teacher was not an assistant, but actually her teacher. I found that surprising because she attends a regular public school. When I was teaching in Japan, I also taught the core English classes for the jr 1 students, but it was a big deal. Nobody had heard of a non-Japanese teacher doing this, and we had a bit more flexibility because it was a private school. How times change!
Friday, January 02, 2009
Words for smells
I've mentioned Russel Smith's writing before. My aunt found his column in yesterday's Globe and Mail interesting enough to forward me a link, and indeed there are some keen observations there, but I'm not very confident of his basic premise:
"The only words for smells we have are comparisons.Compare our words for other perceptions: We have basic words for colours which are not dependent on the knowledge of specific substances or objects for their understanding. Red, for example. It is not a simile or a metaphor. All it means is red. Similarly with touch: we have smooth, rough, spiky, soft. With smell we must say rose, sweat, tarragon, concrete, wet dog.
We simply have no words for smells. We simply have no words for smells. Acrid, I suppose, comes close to being an abstract word for a smell, but it's more like a kind of smell than a specific one: It's more about an unpleasant burning sensation caused by a smell. We have lots of modifiers like that: Smells are pungent or heady or nauseating. But those words aren't specific smells in themselves.
We have poetic approaches too. Writers will say a warm smell, for example, but their synesthesiacal attempts just underline the paucity of available vocabulary."
I don't totally buy his absolutist claim that "the only words for smells we have are comparisons," at least not if we allow that there are truly words for other senses, but there might be something to this. The normal human eye has only three different types of photoreceptor cells that respond to different colours. These are the cones responding to short (blue), medium (green) and long (yellow-red) light. The tongue similarly has only four different types of taste buds that respond to five different kinds of flavours, though this isn't the simply one-to-one correspondence that exists in the eye.
I have not been able to turn up any such limit or classification for olfactory receptor neurons. And it makes sense that things with a limited pallet have specific labels but that those with more diverse basic components be described in other ways.
I'm less sanguine about Smith's analysis of touch. It seems to me that the textures he lists are kinds of texture rather than a specific ones. And he has carefully avoided discussing sound.
Anyhow, what about his claim that we have no words for smell? I propose at least three: sweet, sour, and bitter.
These are activated by G-channel receptors, which exist both in the mouth and in the nose. It is well acknowledged that our sense of taste is largely influenced by our sense of smell. So I'm not sure that we can clearly say that these are primarily tastes and only synesthesiacally smells.
But even allowing that they are only tastes, the word sweet meant "pleasing to the senses, mind or feelings" in Old English, and bitter comes to us from biting. These are the poetic approaches that Smith dismisses. Here his argument breaks down; either you accept that words based on the poetic approach qualify for both taste and smell, thus accepting words like: acrid, pungent, sharp, green, and fresh or you reject the poetic approach for taste and say that we don't really have sense words there either. Similarly, if salty qualifies as a taste, why would we not accept words like musty, fruity, flowery, oily, and metallic as smells?
But perhaps the most basic problem with the proposal is the idea that a word for something is somehow more genuine than a metaphor or paraphrastic description and that a language that is missing a particular word for a given concept is somehow impoverished thereby. Geoff Pullum exasperates: "Everybody thinks that the key thing about a language is which words it has." No! "Natural languages are much better thought of as systems of conditions on the structure of expressions (words, phrases, sentences). Some of the well-established conditions apply to word-sized units (it really is well established that dog denotes Canis domesticus, and that the is the only acceptable form for the definite article), but the constraints do not entail a roof on the number of words or prescribe which ones are genuinely in the language."
Friday, December 26, 2008
A couple things
To be honest, I hadn't been aware of a couple + plural noun until Warren Clements complained about it. But where he simply said "ick!" and moved on, I got to wondering: how common is this form and what might be influencing it.
First things first: do people really use it? Apparently they do. In the COCA, the frequency distribution looks like this:
Note that there are even some instances in newspapers and academic writing. And the usage seems to be picking up steam. Here's the frequency over the last 18 years.
The OED's earliest citation is from 1925, so it does seem to be an innovation, but based on what?
The pattern that jumps first to mind is a few + plural noun. But it's not exactly the same, and here we have to back up a few steps.
Quantificational nouns such as a lot, a bunch, and a majority are often followed by a prepositional phrase, headed by of, that the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) calls the oblique. For example, in the noun phrase a bunch of guys, the prepositional phrase of guys is the oblique. The oblique can be partitive or non-partitive. Where the reference is to a part of a larger group (e.g., a bunch of the guys) it is partitive but where the reference is to a whole group (e.g., a bunch of guys), it is non-partitive.
Here's how a few differs from a couple. You can have a few of the things (partitive) but not a few of things (non-partitive). Moreover, a few presents one more pattern: a few things (without of; a few is a dependent of things). This suggests that a few is not a quantificational noun at all, but rather a determinative (cf., many of the things, many things, & *many of things). To summarise:
Now, for most people (including me and Warren Clements), a couple is clearly a quantificational noun like a bunch. It can work in both partitive and non-partitive constructions, but you can't have a couple guys. For some people, though, we've seen that it can be a dependent of the following noun (i.e., a couple guys). For these people, then, it seems that a couple might be a determinative.
The question is, for those people, is the non-partitive construction also grammatical? It's so common that I imagine it must be, but I have no way of being sure.
Next, are there any other words that act like this? A dozen works very like few, as do numbers like hundred, thousand, million, etc. On the other hand, a myriad is exactly like a couple: for most people it's a quantificational noun, but for a few, it acts like a determinative. The following examples are from the OED.
First things first: do people really use it? Apparently they do. In the COCA, the frequency distribution looks like this:
Note that there are even some instances in newspapers and academic writing. And the usage seems to be picking up steam. Here's the frequency over the last 18 years.
The OED's earliest citation is from 1925, so it does seem to be an innovation, but based on what?The pattern that jumps first to mind is a few + plural noun. But it's not exactly the same, and here we have to back up a few steps.
Quantificational nouns such as a lot, a bunch, and a majority are often followed by a prepositional phrase, headed by of, that the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) calls the oblique. For example, in the noun phrase a bunch of guys, the prepositional phrase of guys is the oblique. The oblique can be partitive or non-partitive. Where the reference is to a part of a larger group (e.g., a bunch of the guys) it is partitive but where the reference is to a whole group (e.g., a bunch of guys), it is non-partitive.
Here's how a few differs from a couple. You can have a few of the things (partitive) but not a few of things (non-partitive). Moreover, a few presents one more pattern: a few things (without of; a few is a dependent of things). This suggests that a few is not a quantificational noun at all, but rather a determinative (cf., many of the things, many things, & *many of things). To summarise:
| Quantificational noun | Determinative | |
| Partitive | a bunch of the guys | a few of the guys |
| Non-partitive | a bunch of guys | *a few of guys |
| Dependent (no of) | *a bunch guys | a few guys |
The question is, for those people, is the non-partitive construction also grammatical? It's so common that I imagine it must be, but I have no way of being sure.
Next, are there any other words that act like this? A dozen works very like few, as do numbers like hundred, thousand, million, etc. On the other hand, a myriad is exactly like a couple: for most people it's a quantificational noun, but for a few, it acts like a determinative. The following examples are from the OED.
1845 H. B. HIRST Poems 65 From every rocklet running, flow a myriad murmuring springs.Finally, I wonder what modifiers can work for each of these: a loud bunch of the guys, a very few of the words, a comparatively few people, a __ couple things, a __ myriad pieces of software.1886 W. W. STORY Fiammetta 189 The crickets were trilling a myriad infinitesimal bells in the grasses.1915 St. Nicholas June 709/2 There are a myriad worlds.1955 L. DE WOHL Spear (1957) III. vi. 220 There was a small thunderstorm..into which the people read a myriad signs and portents.1981 Harvard Jrnl. Asiatic Stud. 41 355 She would make me miserable a thousand, a myriad times.1992 N. STEPHENSON Snow Crash iii. 24 He is actually staring at the graphic representations..of a myriad different pieces of software.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The problems with video conferencing
Phil Smith believes that video conferencing will never work. In a letter to the editors of NewScientist magazine, dated 03 December 2008, he gives his reason: "We know that non-verbal communication is the majority of any communication in the flesh." Now Smith may be correct about the need for business partners to meet in the flesh. I really don't know. But he's certainly wrong about the importance of non-verbal communication in most situations.
Smith's misconception is likely based on research published by Albert Mehrabian in the 1950s. He found that messages about attitude are conveyed in the following proportions: Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking
On his website, Mehrabian says, "Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable."
Smith's misconception is likely based on research published by Albert Mehrabian in the 1950s. He found that messages about attitude are conveyed in the following proportions: Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking
On his website, Mehrabian says, "Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable."
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Another Peevologist
Warren Clements, a member of The Globe and Mail’s editorial board, had nothing better to write about this week, so he decided to whinge about expressions that irk him. How original! How charming!
Well, I'm afraid, Mr. Clements, that your column has problems, not issues.
You write, "The whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole." According to Merriam Webester's Online: "Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 (the one you disagree with) is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up."
And that of disappearing from a couple of? Isn't one of your bugbears wordiness? Omit needless words and all that? If we can make do without the of, all the better, wouldn't you say?
Home in on indeed appears to predate hone in on, but only by nine years (the earliest home in on citation in the OED is 1956). Both are newish and both require a metaphorical leap, so it's hard to see how you can be so certain that one is right and one wrong.
Finally, you nominate win big as a bugbear, do you? Just what we need: another petty pet hate. So kind of you to share. Perhaps you might take a lesson from Jan Freeman over at the other Globe. Her columns are replete with research; they educate the reader.
Well, I'm afraid, Mr. Clements, that your column has problems, not issues.
You write, "The whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole." According to Merriam Webester's Online: "Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 (the one you disagree with) is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up."
And that of disappearing from a couple of? Isn't one of your bugbears wordiness? Omit needless words and all that? If we can make do without the of, all the better, wouldn't you say?
Home in on indeed appears to predate hone in on, but only by nine years (the earliest home in on citation in the OED is 1956). Both are newish and both require a metaphorical leap, so it's hard to see how you can be so certain that one is right and one wrong.
Finally, you nominate win big as a bugbear, do you? Just what we need: another petty pet hate. So kind of you to share. Perhaps you might take a lesson from Jan Freeman over at the other Globe. Her columns are replete with research; they educate the reader.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
CEFRL vs. CLBs
I recently coauthored a report for a project (CIITE) funded by Ontario's Ministry of Citizenship & Immigration through CON*NECT. We were assigned to benchmark one of the college's programs against the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB). In other words, we have been visiting classes, looking at textbooks, and talking to students and faculty to determine the level of English required to be successful in the program. The CLB are like a scale, if you will, that we've been using to weigh the language requirements.
The problem is that the scale has never been properly calibrated and that the program we're benchmarking doesn't fit on it anyhow. To quote from the materials that were provided to us by the project office,
And yet clearly, a common framework of reference for language is a good thing. Still from Vandergrift,
The problem is that the scale has never been properly calibrated and that the program we're benchmarking doesn't fit on it anyhow. To quote from the materials that were provided to us by the project office,
"The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 was not intended to describe the language used in academic programs; rather it focuses on describing the skills and capabilities of the learner. This was problematic as researchers had to navigate through a document that was not designed for the direct purpose in which it was being used."But it's not just an issue of focus on the learner versus focus on the language. Last month I attended a presentation by Larry Vandergrift which brought to my attention a report that he had written in 2006 comparing various language frameworks. According to him,
“Since they [the CLB] were created for adult immigrants who are developing language skills for entry into the Canadian workforce, the CLB are not suitable to school contexts without significant adaptation.”Vandergrift further observes that, “the benchmarks (levels) have not been empirically validated to ensure the fit of each descriptor with its level”. This certainly reflects our experience in trying to interpret the documents.
And yet clearly, a common framework of reference for language is a good thing. Still from Vandergrift,
"A common framework of reference for languages could provide the provinces and territories with a transparent and coherent system for describing language proficiency. In addition to providing a measure for calibrating language proficiency for educational systems across Canada, a common framework of reference for languages could foster a common understanding of what functional proficiency means. It could facilitate cooperation among ministries of education, provide a basis for mutual recognition of language qualifications, and track learner progress over time and in different jurisdictions. Such a framework could be used by each province and territory as a point of reference for language teaching and assessment, without imposing a particular curriculum, teaching methodology or standard for achievement. A common framework could provide a bridge between formal education systems, employers and cultural institutions across Canada and beyond into the international arena. "So what does he recommend? The Common European Framework of References for language, which is what I've been saying since I first saw the CLB. The heartening part of this is that a number of jurisdictions within Canada have already gone in that direction. Hopefully CIITE will see the wisdom of following suit.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Canadians so dumb we don't even use nouns
Luan Ngo had yesterday's Letter of the Day in the Toronto Star. Ngo berates Canadians for our ignorance of our parliamentary system, and I'm afraid I can't really disagree. But then things get weird:
"Rather than being articulate and passionate debaters, these callers sound like a bunch of bubbling baboons. What is more concerning than the lack of nouns and pronouns in their sentences is how many people believe that our political system mirrors that of the U.S."Is this an utter lack or just a mild deficiency? Is it a mere application of William Strunk's exhortation to omit needless words, or have we gone beyond this to omitting needful words as well? Or perhaps we've used the nouns, but just not IN sentences, something like this:
The has no trying to usurp (coalition, right, power).I couldn't turn up any transcripts of recent radio phone in shows, so I went to the Toronto Sun's Letters to the editor, but even there there seemed to be nouns in all the right places.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Complete list of irregular English plurals
Continuing our irregular series of lists, you can find here all the irregular English plurals that occur in the COCA more than 5 times. It's just shy of 1,650 words, but about 20% of them are different kinds of men, women, and children (e.g., madmen, charwomen, foster-children).
Note 1: The list is unedited, but I believe I've set it so that you can edit it if you sign in with a Google account. Please feel free to remove any obvious problems.
Note 2: The list ignores any irregulars such as bass that end with s. Feel free to add.
The top 50 are listed below:
Note 1: The list is unedited, but I believe I've set it so that you can edit it if you sign in with a Google account. Please feel free to remove any obvious problems.
Note 2: The list ignores any irregulars such as bass that end with s. Feel free to add.
The top 50 are listed below:
- children
- women
- men
- police
- feet
- teeth
- personnel
- criteria
- gentlemen
- cattle
- bacteria
- sox
- grandchildren
- fishermen
- phenomena
- mice
- clergy
- businessmen
- curricula
- alumni
- policemen
- freshmen
- stimuli
- geese
- larvae
- algae
- tsunami
- congressmen
- fungi
- memorabilia
- gunmen
- coli
- schoolchildren
- nuclei
- brethren
- servicemen
- spectra
- firemen
- sushi
- craftsmen
- countrymen
- linemen
- strata
- salesmen
- nebulae
- spokesmen
- salespeople
- paparazzi
- horsemen
- sportsmen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)