Grammar-writing group (2) – general properties

It’s yellow everywhere in Canberra – it’s Wattle Day. Meanwhile, inside the honeycomb Coombs building at ANU, the grammar-writing group wrestled with Ulrike Mosel’s article, ‘Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars’, in Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing (Eds. Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, Nicholas Evans, Mouton de Gruyter, 2006, pp.41-68).
The name ‘Grammaticography’, while way way behind in the ‘most elegant word of the day’ competition, leads into the nice comparison made by Mosel between preparing dictionaries and preparing grammars. Front matter, macro structure, microstructure and all. It also led to us thinking about the growing fuzziness of the boundary between lexicon and grammar- all those Advanced Learners Grammars with heaps of information about subcategorisation, or the OED with its definitions of suffixes, all those grammars with information about the meanings of words.
One thing that grammars have over most dictionaries however, is the notion of publishing an accompanying set of texts. Falsifiability has traditionally been more of a concern for grammarians than for lexicographers. We all agree it’s a good thing to publish glossed texts so that readers can check out the hypotheses proposed in the grammar, and expressed by the glossing. The classic example is Jeffrey Heath’s careful analysis of R. M.W. Dixon’s Dyirbal texts (HEATH, J. 1979. Is Dyirbal ergative?. Linguistics 17, 401-463) to argue against DIxon’s claim about Dyirbal being syntactically Ergative. Can anyone think of further examples?

We were all taken with the importance of considering who is going to read the grammar. This inevitably leads to the question of whether to write a comprehension/decoding/semasiological grammar, like most reference grammars, or a production/encoding/onamasiological grammar, like many learners’ grammars.
It also leads to the question of how much effort one should put into justifying categories, hypotheses and assumptions. One of the group had endured a referee’s report saying his grammar was too argumentative. Just give us the conclusions and get on with it! Assuming that we DO need some justification – what should we justify – all categories? All points which previous authors have offered alternative accounts of? And where? Footnotes, marginalia, separate chapters, boxes in 10 point type.
And it leads to the question of how to represent variation in grammars – differences relating to time (earlier stages of the language), to geography (dialect), and to register (where does recipe syntax go?).

3 thoughts on “Grammar-writing group (2) – general properties”

  1. Assuming that we DO need some justification – what should we justify – all categories? All points which previous authors have offered alternative accounts of? And where? Footnotes, marginalia, separate chapters, boxes in 10 point type.
    The medium is the message, Jane. You are letting constraints of print (layout, font size) constrain your thinking here — what about a hypertext grammar with pathways off to annotations (and annotations on annotations) that the reader can choose to follow if they wish to. Couple this with a semantic map and you have a grammar exploration space that breaks open the limitations of the linear print medium that lurks behind your questions.

  2. Thanks Peter – you’re quite right! Linking via Hypertext (on whatever principles, semantic net etc) does solve some of these problems. And I’ve been unfair to the grammar-writing group in not mentioning the hypertext visionaries who had diachronic grammars linking to synchronic grammars linking to theoretical discussions etc and etc.
    BUT we couldn’t think of a substantial reference grammar that uses hypertext – other than pilots, fragments, proof-of-concept stuff..
    Thoughts anyone?

  3. I have another example of the usefulness of texts in grammars, but it’s more to do with working with community members belonging to that language group.
    At Ngukurr, I used Heath’s grammars a lot. Ngandi is now barely spoken, so the texts in his Ngandi grammar are fantastic and can be adapted into nice resources for community members. What is especially great, is that when you go back to Heath’s archived field recordings, the spoken texts are there in pristine form, that is, the spoken text and written text correlate perfectly. (I’ve heard other spoken texts vary from the published text because the field worker has interrupted the speaker for clarification etc. this makes it harder to create a nice resource for community use.)
    So at Ngukurr, we digitised a whole bunch of Heath’s recordings of the texts he put in his grammar and they are good learning tools and fantastic cultural resources for communities. And I use grammar texts heaps to find example sentences while teaching Own Language literacy – which is great because these language have no flash dictionaries full of example sentences.
    I heart grammar texts.
    Oh! Another good thing about grammar texts is they have a context and identified speaker, which doesn’t always happen with dictionary example sentences, and so they have more significance to community members… who can then debate the speaker’s reputation/competence/dialect etc…. hehe…

Here at Endangered Languages and Cultures, we fully welcome your opinion, questions and comments on any post, and all posts will have an active comments form. However if you have never commented before, your comment may take some time before it is approved. Subsequent comments from you should appear immediately.

We will not edit any comments unless asked to, or unless there have been html coding errors, broken links, or formatting errors. We still reserve the right to censor any comment that the administrators deem to be unnecessarily derogatory or offensive, libellous or unhelpful, and we have an active spam filter that may reject your comment if it contains too many links or otherwise fits the description of spam. If this happens erroneously, email the author of the post and let them know. And note that given the huge amount of spam that all WordPress blogs receive on a daily basis (hundreds) it is not possible to sift through them all and find the ham.

In addition to the above, we ask that you please observe the Gricean maxims:

*Be relevant: That is, stay reasonably on topic.

*Be truthful: This goes without saying; don’t give us any nonsense.

*Be concise: Say as much as you need to without being unnecessarily long-winded.

*Be perspicuous: This last one needs no explanation.

We permit comments and trackbacks on our articles. Anyone may comment. Comments are subject to moderation, filtering, spell checking, editing, and removal without cause or justification.

All comments are reviewed by comment spamming software and by the site administrators and may be removed without cause at any time. All information provided is volunteered by you. Any website address provided in the URL will be linked to from your name, if you wish to include such information. We do not collect and save information provided when commenting such as email address and will not use this information except where indicated. This site and its representatives will not be held responsible for errors in any comment submissions.

Again, we repeat: We reserve all rights of refusal and deletion of any and all comments and trackbacks.

Leave a Comment