Re: [xmca] Syllogism and interlanguage: Some definitions

From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack who-is-at>
Date: Mon Dec 31 2007 - 08:05:55 PST

  Yes, we disagree on a lot; perhaps too much to clutter up the list with. (Our BIGGEST theoretical disagreement is that you apparently subscribe to the "words and rules" model of language.)
  But here are some questions of fact we can probably agree on (and some of them you will need to get straight for your dissertation.)
  a) S. Pit Corder was not a constrastive analyst. He was (as I said!) the founder of the interlanguage hypothesis and error analysis. See his 1981 book which contains his earliest essays (the earliest ones extant).
  b) The "wud" test is actually the "wug" test. See Jean Aitchison "Words in the mind" or Eve Clark. (when I had this argument with Jean Aitchison, she admitted that children acquire phonaesthesia at about the same time they acquire the "wug" rule, but phonaesthesia is neither a "word" nor a "rule")
  c) You are right--I mixed up Herbert Seliger and Larry Selinker (I've done some work on Seliger's HIGs and LIGS problem). It's Selinker who did fossilization, and he's a "words and rules" man like you. Seliger's an interactionist like me. Seliger's also worked on fossilization, though; especially first language attrition.
  d) The comparison between Halliday and Vygotsky that you want is in the work of Gordon Wells (see "Dialogic Inquiry") and of course in the work of Halliday himself (see "On Grammar", Volume One of his Collected Works, p. 354.)
  If you think about it objectively, you will see that the expression "have got" for "have" is gratuitously complex, and there is no reason to teach it to foreign language learners. The British seem to do perfectly well without it!
  David Kellogg
  Seoul National University of Education

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Dec 31 08:07 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 10:13:50 PST