Module H

Contents

	Task 1: Basics		Task 3: Learning to read
	Task 2: Ambiguity and levels of sentence structure		Task 4: Looking at colloquial language

Task 1: Basics

Read through Chapter 8 and the relevant part of the study guide. Remember your report is due in by Friday this week.

Return to Top

Chomsky developed phrase-structure rules and transformational rules of grammar. Phrase-structure rules specify how we can combine words into phrases into sentences and thus may be helpful in deciphering the meaning of sentences (Reed, 1988). Much interesting work has been done with ambiguous sentences; phrase-structure rules can sometimes be used to distinguish the meanings. For example, consider "They are flying planes". One interpretation refers to some people who are engaged in the act of flying planes; flying is part of the verb phrase. The second interpretation refers to some planes that are currently being flown; flying is now an adjective describing the planes. Phrase-structure rules can clarify the two meanings because of the verb-adjective distinction.

Clarifications of 'They are flying planes'

On the other hand, Chomsky's transformational rules specify how simple declarative sentences can be rearranged into questions, negatives and other types of sentences. These rules may also be necessary to distinguish between different meanings of an ambiguous sentence (Reed, 1988). For example, consider "Flying planes can be dangerous". Does this sentence refer to the act of flying being dangerous or to planes that pose a threat to someone? Phrase-structure rules are not helpful in this case because "flying planes" serves as the subject of either interpretation. Chomsky designed his transformational grammar to consist of two levels: "the surface level, directly related to the sentence as it is heard, and the deep level, directly related to the meaning of the sentence" (Reed, 1988, p.207). The only way to resolve the ambiguity of the "flying planes" sentence is to know which of the two deep levels is intended.

Moates & Schumacher (1980) provide a list of ambiguous sentences that you can consider. By doing so, you can accomplish several objectives. First, you can demonstrate the importance of Chomsky's transformational rules. Second, you can demonstrate the importance of context. Many sentences we hear are potentially ambiguous, but the meaning is made clear because of the context surrounding the sentence (Reed, 1988). Third, you may be alerted to think about things that you say and write. Learning to express yourself clearly and unambiguously is a treasured skill. Students are often careless about crafting unambiguous sentences. Finally, you can have some fun interpreting some of the sentences. As you read them, challenge yourself to derive as many different meanings for each sentence as possible. Also think of examples of sentences that could clarify the meaning of each ambiguous sentence. Moates & Schumacher's sentences follow:
 

The simplest kind of ambiguity is lexical ambiguity. This occurs when one word in a sentence yields two or more meanings and hence two or more underlying representations. For example,
1. California is a great state to live in despite its faults.
2. There is a fork in the road ahead.
The two meanings of fault and fork lead to two different interpretations of these sentences. If you keep your mind limber, you will find similar examples almost daily. Consider these:
3. To a waiter: "Do you have frog legs?"
4. Newspaper name: The Chattanooga News-Free Press.
5. One of the more gruesome examples, "He shot off his mouth", is so grisly you can hardly bear it.
The pun is a popular form of lexical ambiguity, though the surface structure for the pun often differs slightly for the two meanings, as shown in these examples by Bennett Cert (1968):
6. And then there was the fellow who inherited 392 clocks and is now winding up the estate.
7. A Texan down on the range is suing for a divorce. He found his dear and an interloper playing.
8. Then there was the seashore eccentric who spent all his time throwing rocks at gulls. He left no tern unstoned.
A second level of ambiguity embraces units larger than the word and permits two or more entirely different interpretations of the same surface structure. For example,
9. The car was stopped by the tree can mean The tree blocked the movement of the car or The car was parked alongside the tree. Similarly, there are two very different underlying representations for
10. The magician made the prince a frog.
Students of ours have found at least eight meanings for
11. Jane reports that her neighbour had her second car stolen. Two of these are a. Jane's neighbour was the victim of car theft for a second time. b. Jane's neighbour arranged the theft of Jane's old family jalopy.
How many meanings do you find for the following sentences?
12. The police were ordered to stop drinking at midnight.
13. She missed the boat.
14. Norman Rockwell painted me on his front porch.
(Moates & Schumacher, 1980, pp.139-140)
 
 

Cerf, B. (1968). Bennett Cert's treasury of atrocious puns. New York: Dell.

Moates, D.R. & Schumacher, G.M. (1980). An introduction to cognitive psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Reed, S.K. (1988). Cognition: Theory and applications (2nd edn). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

The Prize for Paralysing Puns this year falls into the lap of the perpetrator of the following horror:

Waitress: Hawaii, mister? You must be Hungary?

Gent: Yes, Siam. And I can't Rumania long either. Venice lunch ready?

Waitress: I'll Russia table. What'll you Havre? Aix?

Gent: Whatever's ready. But can't Jamaica cook step on the gas?

Waitress: Odessa laugh! But Alaska.

Gent: Don't do me favours. Just put a Cuba sugar in my Java.

Waitress: Don't you be Sicily, big boy. Sweden it yourself. I'm only here to Serbia. Gent: Denmark my check and call the
Bosphorus. I hope he'll Kenya. I don't Bolivia know who I am!

Waitress: Canada noise! I don't Caribbean. You sure Ararat!

Gent: Samoa your wisecracks? What's got India? D'you think this arguing Alps business? Be Nice! Matter of fact, I gotta Smolensk for ya!

Waitress: Attu! Don't Kiev me that Boulogne! Alamein do! Spain in the neck. Pay your Czech and scram, Abyssinia!

This is also from Bennett Cerf (1946) - in this case Try and Stop Me. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Return to Top

Reading is a behaviour we take for granted, yet it is an integral and important aspect of language. Being able to speak but not read would leave us lacking a significant skill that is vital in everyday life. Students probably have been readers so long that they have forgotten their own struggle to read. This lack of understanding creates at least two problems. First, in class it is somewhat difficult for students to comprehend theories of language acquisition. Second, in real life the failure to understand may lead to a lack of empathy for adult nonreaders or one's own children.

Smith suggests we use a customised version of a first-grade reader, to combat students' lack of understanding about the difficulty of learning to read. This reader substitutes unfamiliar symbols for letters of the alphabet (see the print copy of your Workbook). Thus the task is similar to learning to read. Read the material aloud. Usually, reading is clumsy and halting. After this demonstration, the students will be able to discuss or consider the difficulty of reading with new understanding.

I have found that students enjoy this exercise and learn from it. A sizeable number of students also report that it rekindles early memories. Thus it appears that this activity is well worth a few minutes of your time.

See: Smith, R.A. (ed.).(1992). Instructors resource package Weiten's Psychology. Pacific Grow, CA: Brooks Cole. It is reproduced in the print copy of your Workbook.

 Return to Top

Task 4: Looking at Colloquial Language

A few years ago I was teaching a subject called Prison Classification which was essentially a training course which focused on dangerousness and risk in individuals against a counter-theme of individual rehabilitation. The term corrections used in New South Wales suggests that the individual is redeeemable I think. Prisoners in the system are formally classified from time to time and are moved other to prisons on the new classification which are also classified and are secure at an appropriate lecel (lower classifications have fewer guards, less razor wire, more freedom of movement as the prisoner moves toward the release date).

Resulting from classification concerns it occured to me that prisoners, themselves, would have a way of thinking about penology but with further thought I realised that this would be a system much less formal in structure and varied on the basis of location and in fact a localised language. So we started looking at this as a separate language forming and perhaps even a hidden language. The material was collected from prisoners and prison warders. Not everyon in prison in either role realises that they are using a language which is always easily accessible to outsiders. But having said that I suspect that prison language is preety much the same as street language apart from the particular terms reserved for particular matters in particular prisons or Australian prison-type practices.

The full report Anthology of prison slang in Australia is produced here.

• Report
• Bibliography
• Glossary

            Return to Schedule