Indirectly Speaking / What is lexico-grammar and why does it matter?
Mike Guest Special to The Daily Yomiuri
We've all been there before. A student comes up after class and asks something like, Why can you say both, "I'm glad you liked it" and, "I'm happy you liked it" but while you can say, "I had a happy holiday," you can't say, "I had a glad holiday"? What's the difference between the two words?." How would you, as a teacher, respond?
One of the most interesting things about being on an English teachers' online mailing list are the many tricky and enlightening questions that Japanese and native English teachers alike bring up about English usage.
Question: Why can we say, "I am sure that..." and, "I am certain that," with "sure" and "certain" being semantic equivalents but we can't say, "It is sure that...," although, "It is certain that..." is perfectly acceptable?
Native speakers of a language often aren't aware of oddities and intricacies found in everyday usage, although they can instinctively sense when something is wrong. But second language learners are often actively aware--and they no doubt find these dilemmas frustrating and confusing.
Question: Why can't we say, "You should die" when we are talking about logical expectation? After all, when we expect a train to arrive on time it is perfectly acceptable to say, "It should arrive in 10 minutes"?
If we correct students' English when they produce errors such as, "It is sure that," "You should die" or "I had a glad time" we can reasonably expect that questions like those above will be forthcoming, And it is always better if we are able to offer up some explanation as to how the language works rather than simply telling learners that a certain utterance is wrong or right.
Question: "Absolutely" and "definitely" seem like equivalents, right? For example: "Are you coming to the party tonight?"--"Yes. Absolutely!" "Yes. Definitely!" Both are fine. Yet there is a clear difference between, "I was definitely ignored" and "I was absolutely ignored." Why?
There is a tendency for many to think of and try to explain these dilemmas as grammar problems but that would not be entirely correct or helpful--a misdiagnosis. They may look to a certain extent like semantic problems but that would also be somewhat inaccurate, because as near-synonyms it is often impossible to distinguish them in terms of "meaning" alone. Saying that they have different meanings doesn't quite frame the problem accurately.
In order to analyze such problems correctly we have to get away from the view that words have meanings (some words have functions, at other times meaning exists only in multiword units, such as set phrases) and instead think of meanings as having words. After all, meaning is realized, not only vertically (from idea or thing to words) but also horizontally, as multiword "chunks," or through morphology and syntax. In short, this is what distinguished lexis from mere vocabulary. And making certain lexical choices informs our grammatical choices, which in turn reval!idate the lexis. The process is dynamic, not static.
We would also do well to rid ourselves of the notion that grammar simply serves to organize individual words into meaningful units. Rather, grammar is a realization of encoded meaning, and one can never completely separate grammar from the lexical choices that inform it. Therefore, the language dilemmas I raised earlier would best be understood as lexico-grammatical problems.
If the above sounds a bit obtuse, let me provide two examples to illustrate what I mean. An utterance like, "I've been learning English since two years ago" would not be considered acceptable by many (although apparently not all) native English speakers. But why? The lexical choice of "since" implies time continuity from a set starting point (we might refer to this as a lexical property of "since"), leading the listener to believe that the remainder of the phrase will convey a clear starting point, for example, "2005." But instead, by choosing the lexical item "ago" the speaker has implied that the action has been completed--a lexical property of "ago." This appears contradictory and can therefore be disorienting to listeners or readers. In short, intended meanings inform grammar and not the other way around.
A similar disorientation can arise in the (mis)usage of "less" and "fewer." Although they are semantic equivalents--both expressing the notion of reduction--they are not lexically equivalent, and this affects the grammatical choices one can make with these terms. "Less" implies (or reinforces) an uncountable item, As a result, we could say that noncountability is a lexical property of this word, which thereby informs the grammar. As a result, the usage of "less" with a countable noun ("I have less CDs than my brother") is jarring. In this case, a well-formed string, true to its semantic intention, has not been created. Grammar has not served semantics. This becomes even more pronounced in the opposite direction ("I have fewer time than before").
So, making certain lexical choices implies employing certain grammatical patterns and relations. In this way, one can see that language is not just a matter of slotting vocabulary into preset grammatical templates but is more a system of interlocking relations between the two, where lexis and grammar carry out a variety of functions, all of which ultimately serve our desire to express meanings clearly and accurately.
With this in mind, let's deal with the question that opened the column. If "glad" and "happy" are near synonyms with similar grammatical potential, why can't we say, "I had a glad holiday"? The answer lies in the lexical properties of the two words, which affect their range of usage and grammatical possibilities. "Happy" can be attributed to people ("You seem happy") and to modify a variety of nouns ("a happy memory"). But "glad," while attributive, does not have a range that allows it to be used with inanimate objects. As a result, "glad" cannot modify a noun ("a glad memory"), archaic terms like "glad tidings" aside.
Here, we see lexis determining grammar in order to provide semantic clarity (astute readers will note a similar relationship between this and the case of "It is sure" and "It is certain"). Again, this is quite different from the traditional notion of slotting vocabulary as end strings into set grammatical templates.
Theory related to lexico-grammar is complex and can involve delving into some very dense academia (the "London School" of Firth, Halliday, and Sinclair offer the best reference points). And while one would not want to offer detailed academic explanations of these problems to any but the most advanced learners, a fundamental understanding of common lexico-grammatical relations can help teachers identify, address, and fix student errors more accurately and thoroughly. It also helps teachers look good when the inevitable "Why?" and "What's the difference?" questions come their way.
As for the other questions I have raised today... well, now that you have a better understanding of lexico-grammar, I'll let you work out the explanations by yourself.
Guest is an associate professor of English at Miyazaki University. He can be reached at mikeguest59@yahoo.ca.
@:
(Oct. 30, 2007)
Mike Guest Special to The Daily Yomiuri
We've all been there before. A student comes up after class and asks something like, Why can you say both, "I'm glad you liked it" and, "I'm happy you liked it" but while you can say, "I had a happy holiday," you can't say, "I had a glad holiday"? What's the difference between the two words?." How would you, as a teacher, respond?
One of the most interesting things about being on an English teachers' online mailing list are the many tricky and enlightening questions that Japanese and native English teachers alike bring up about English usage.
Question: Why can we say, "I am sure that..." and, "I am certain that," with "sure" and "certain" being semantic equivalents but we can't say, "It is sure that...," although, "It is certain that..." is perfectly acceptable?
Native speakers of a language often aren't aware of oddities and intricacies found in everyday usage, although they can instinctively sense when something is wrong. But second language learners are often actively aware--and they no doubt find these dilemmas frustrating and confusing.
Question: Why can't we say, "You should die" when we are talking about logical expectation? After all, when we expect a train to arrive on time it is perfectly acceptable to say, "It should arrive in 10 minutes"?
If we correct students' English when they produce errors such as, "It is sure that," "You should die" or "I had a glad time" we can reasonably expect that questions like those above will be forthcoming, And it is always better if we are able to offer up some explanation as to how the language works rather than simply telling learners that a certain utterance is wrong or right.
Question: "Absolutely" and "definitely" seem like equivalents, right? For example: "Are you coming to the party tonight?"--"Yes. Absolutely!" "Yes. Definitely!" Both are fine. Yet there is a clear difference between, "I was definitely ignored" and "I was absolutely ignored." Why?
There is a tendency for many to think of and try to explain these dilemmas as grammar problems but that would not be entirely correct or helpful--a misdiagnosis. They may look to a certain extent like semantic problems but that would also be somewhat inaccurate, because as near-synonyms it is often impossible to distinguish them in terms of "meaning" alone. Saying that they have different meanings doesn't quite frame the problem accurately.
In order to analyze such problems correctly we have to get away from the view that words have meanings (some words have functions, at other times meaning exists only in multiword units, such as set phrases) and instead think of meanings as having words. After all, meaning is realized, not only vertically (from idea or thing to words) but also horizontally, as multiword "chunks," or through morphology and syntax. In short, this is what distinguished lexis from mere vocabulary. And making certain lexical choices informs our grammatical choices, which in turn reval!idate the lexis. The process is dynamic, not static.
We would also do well to rid ourselves of the notion that grammar simply serves to organize individual words into meaningful units. Rather, grammar is a realization of encoded meaning, and one can never completely separate grammar from the lexical choices that inform it. Therefore, the language dilemmas I raised earlier would best be understood as lexico-grammatical problems.
If the above sounds a bit obtuse, let me provide two examples to illustrate what I mean. An utterance like, "I've been learning English since two years ago" would not be considered acceptable by many (although apparently not all) native English speakers. But why? The lexical choice of "since" implies time continuity from a set starting point (we might refer to this as a lexical property of "since"), leading the listener to believe that the remainder of the phrase will convey a clear starting point, for example, "2005." But instead, by choosing the lexical item "ago" the speaker has implied that the action has been completed--a lexical property of "ago." This appears contradictory and can therefore be disorienting to listeners or readers. In short, intended meanings inform grammar and not the other way around.
A similar disorientation can arise in the (mis)usage of "less" and "fewer." Although they are semantic equivalents--both expressing the notion of reduction--they are not lexically equivalent, and this affects the grammatical choices one can make with these terms. "Less" implies (or reinforces) an uncountable item, As a result, we could say that noncountability is a lexical property of this word, which thereby informs the grammar. As a result, the usage of "less" with a countable noun ("I have less CDs than my brother") is jarring. In this case, a well-formed string, true to its semantic intention, has not been created. Grammar has not served semantics. This becomes even more pronounced in the opposite direction ("I have fewer time than before").
So, making certain lexical choices implies employing certain grammatical patterns and relations. In this way, one can see that language is not just a matter of slotting vocabulary into preset grammatical templates but is more a system of interlocking relations between the two, where lexis and grammar carry out a variety of functions, all of which ultimately serve our desire to express meanings clearly and accurately.
With this in mind, let's deal with the question that opened the column. If "glad" and "happy" are near synonyms with similar grammatical potential, why can't we say, "I had a glad holiday"? The answer lies in the lexical properties of the two words, which affect their range of usage and grammatical possibilities. "Happy" can be attributed to people ("You seem happy") and to modify a variety of nouns ("a happy memory"). But "glad," while attributive, does not have a range that allows it to be used with inanimate objects. As a result, "glad" cannot modify a noun ("a glad memory"), archaic terms like "glad tidings" aside.
Here, we see lexis determining grammar in order to provide semantic clarity (astute readers will note a similar relationship between this and the case of "It is sure" and "It is certain"). Again, this is quite different from the traditional notion of slotting vocabulary as end strings into set grammatical templates.
Theory related to lexico-grammar is complex and can involve delving into some very dense academia (the "London School" of Firth, Halliday, and Sinclair offer the best reference points). And while one would not want to offer detailed academic explanations of these problems to any but the most advanced learners, a fundamental understanding of common lexico-grammatical relations can help teachers identify, address, and fix student errors more accurately and thoroughly. It also helps teachers look good when the inevitable "Why?" and "What's the difference?" questions come their way.
As for the other questions I have raised today... well, now that you have a better understanding of lexico-grammar, I'll let you work out the explanations by yourself.
Guest is an associate professor of English at Miyazaki University. He can be reached at mikeguest59@yahoo.ca.
@:
(Oct. 30, 2007)