English Syntax: There Was Much Weebles in Too Many Soup - Coursework Example

There Was Much Weebles in Too Many Soup I. Introduction The totally ungrammatical is a bit of an exaggeration, but it shows dramatically the problems that second language English speakers can have with singular and plurals, especially when using inherently plural nouns. The first half of the sentence uses the singular form of a verb from Old Saxon, close to Danish and HochDoitch (High German) with the plural modifier, also from Old Saxon, “much” with an imaginary noun that is obviously pluralized with the “s”. It should read” there were many weebles… The second part of the sentence uses “too many” which modifies an uncountable singular noun, “soup”. So it requires “much”. Soup is only countable in containers or by volume, such as bowls, pots or liters (of)(Pelletier 1975). Yet, a pot of soup can hold many bowls of soup, which can confuse anyone who learns English by studying it, especially if they are from cultures where numbering and/or vocabulary is very different. Most native speakers know the correct usage of these types of nouns, but cannot explain why (Bex & Watts, 1999, p. 41). They learned by usage and did not get the rules until much later, and may not remember them. There is no rule which covers all, mostly because of the origins of these nouns and the development of new usages for some over time. There are even some which in one usage will be always plural, but singular in others, such as “people” in its ordinary usage or a “people” (or peoples) in the sociological sense as in tribes. So the pluralization northern Tibetan “people” is “peoples”. Much of the usage of all of these problematic plurals is a matter of perception, and even with very advanced second language speakers and some first language speakers. Most native speakers understand how to use inherently plural nouns and the complementary and modifying words from simple long exposure over years of use within their culture or the cultural group within the culture (Hays, 2008). However, speakers from a different subculture within the larger linguistic group may perceive some nouns differently (Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C., 2008). In the states of the southern United States, there is some confusion among native speakers concerning the colloquial use of “you all”, generally pronounced as “y’all”. While this is colloquial and not considered formal grammatical use, it stems from the original use of the pronoun “you”, which is correct in the singular, but originally add “all” for the plural. However, after centuries of usage, amalgamation into other cultural groups, many people do not know that “Y’all come back now!” is only correct if speaking to more than one person. It is often used both ways. Singular and Plural Nouns Rules of Use In English nouns are either singular, meaning only one, or plural, meaning more than one, but it is not always easy to tell which is which. This is because nouns can look differently than what they are, and the rules for identifying singular and plural state are based upon the language of origin of the word. Since English vocabulary comes from many other languages, and adds words adopted from them all the time there are many rules. English nouns can be: 1. Singular in form, plural in number. 2. Singular in form, either number. 3. Singular in form, singular in number. 4. Plural in form, singular in number 5. Plural in form, plural in number. 6. Plural in form, either number. (Ahranjani, 2010) This means that English nouns are very flexible, but this makes them also very complex. Understanding this set of variations is not gained by memorizing rules, but rather by using the language and allowing the brain to learn. We have an inbuilt neural capacity for inference of rules, which is why we try so hard to make a rule for everything. However, we often know things but cannot explain them. One of the easiest ways to the nuances of English is by watching movies and talking about them to friends. They generally model common usage, and that is what these rules are built upon. There are also to kinds of nouns: concrete (table) and abstract (sadness). Concrete nouns are something we can see, hear, touch, smell, taste or otherwise establish as real with our senses. Usually, to make a regular noun, that is one which follows the general rules, we add “s” to the word. So table becomes tables. Sometimes with certain endings we add “es” as with “box”, which becomes “boxes” However; there are many more rules for those nouns that came from languages other than the Saxon types that were spoken in Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the German states (Mugglestone, 2006, p. 34). Some of these words from other languages use different rules for pluralization, but even that is not always so. There is only one way to know for sure, and that is to memorize them all. People who speak a few other languages often find it easier to understand problems with the grammar of words usage in English, because they know the rules of several languages. In addition to these problems, there are some nouns that never change form between singular and plural, so the other connected words, such as the modifiers or the verbs, are the only way to know. Some nouns are always singular (software) and some are always plural (Chierchia, 1994, p. 308). The words used to refer to these are uncountable or mass or collective. This is because it is very difficult to separate individual parts so they can be counted. Water, for example, is a molecule of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, so if we are talking of chemistry, it is possible to create on water molecule. However, in daily life, water is thought of as always plural, though its form is singular. To make things even more confusing, water, like many collective nouns, has another use in English that is countable: the water or waters of a spa or a region which has therapeutic waters in different sources. Basically, the language most commonly used tends to grow fast, and so all these new meanings and usages will appear. With common use, we remember them and judge which one is in use by the context. When we use nouns, other words used with them must match. For example the determiner or article must match the number of the noun. For singular nouns the determiners would be “a” (a boy), “an” (an album) or “the” boy. The same follows with demonstrative pronouns, as in “this” boy, “that” boy or “these” or “those” boys. However, “water” in its usual uncountable sense cannot have a determiner or article. The confusing part is that when using the demonstrative pronouns, only the singular forms can be used with the inherently plural (or mass) water, such as “this water” and “that water”. As with determiners and demonstrative pronouns, modifiers must match the number of the noun they change. So this becomes even more complex when words are added in order to make an uncountable noun countable. So some way of measuring, or counting, is provided. Using the example of “water” if we add “glasses of” to water we can say, “There was one glass of water,” or. “There were two glasses of water”. However, when one uses a less tangible modifier, such as “amount” or “some” or “much” it seems odd, and some people have a hard time remembering this, because it does not feel right. The constructions would be: “a small amount of water”; “some water”; much water”. However, if using “little” one can choose, “a little water” or “little water”, and the meanings are subtly different. The first has the sense of a small amount, while the second use seems more negative. If the noun is changed to “excitement”, another uncountable noun, the meanings seem very different: “There was a little excitement about the game,” versus “there was little excitement about the game. The second form implies “too little”. It gets even more complicated when we consider that Cocchiarella (2009) makes an excellent case for using the singular form for mass nouns, because we consider the noun as represented by its smallest unit, even though it is uncountable. He argues that when referring to water as an indeterminate number of the individuated unit of the water molecule we must use the singular, since we cannot quantify the mass. Pelletier (1975) argues against this rationale by insisting that there is not always the existence of a count noun representing the minimal unit of the mass noun. For example, the verb matching the subject of a clause or a sentence must match the number of the subject. So a singular noun subject must be followed by a singular form of the verb, as in “The boy smiles.” In order to identify if the correct number is used, one can simply mentally substitute the pronoun for the subject and see if it matches. (He smiles.) If boy is pluralized the sentence becomes “The boys smile.” (They smile) Pluralizing Inherently Plural or Mass Nouns The only way to know if an inherently plural, uncountable noun, can be used is to try it in a different context and pluralized. Looking the word up in a dictionary might work, but only if the extra sense of the word has been in use more than a year and has been accepted by the major dictionaries as having become part of the language. Everyone who uses English to publish or broadcast their own creation, as in writing a story or report or give a speech or interview over radio or television changes the language by sharing new uses publicly. If the audience reads or hears it, and shares it, then drops it when interest wanes it stays obscure. If the audience adopts the new meaning and start to use and share it`, then it has a good chance to make it into a major dictionary. So, new meanings and uses crop up all the time. One of the more humorous examples of this concerns “mouse” the animal versus “mouse” for a computer. There is no problem with the singular versions. However, the plural of computer mouse is “mouses”, not “mice”. This is just the way some people with a sense of humor using the word kept using it in public, so this convention is now formalized in dictionaries. Problems of Number with Second Language English Speakers Some of the major problems second language speakers have with English is caused by differences among languages in use of number, vocabulary and the actual lexicon. For example, in Chinese there is no change in the words used, though there might be a reordering if a change of meaning is needed. Collective words do not exist, as making new characters is very difficult, considering that these already number about 10,000. Chinese uses “measure words” to denote number and to denote tense. Use of measure words changes “The boy go tomorrow” (The boy will go tomorrow.), to the boys are going today or “The boys went yesterday.” However, the only words that change at all are “today: and “one”, which change to “tomorrow” and “some”. All Chinese words are one syllable, and in order to avoid making new characters, Chinese speakers simply describe the function of things for which there are no words. So a circuit breaker is written as “an emergency stop light shining on off switch. This is changes for different application of a circuit breaker, so there are literally dozens of different sets of descriptions that mean circuit breaker. In addition to grammatical problems, there are simple problems as just described where the words simply do not exist. Understanding of number, and the differences of countability and uncountability may also be cultural in the differences of the perception of things or actions. These differences affect all language pairs. For example, there are more than 60 ways to say “to go” in Russian, depending upon all the elements of the context (Wade 2009). If one goes alone the word is different from one going with a friend. If one plans to return it is different from going to stay. It was the size of the country that prompted these differences, because travel was often an ordeal. In some cultures, many natural things, such as sun, animals and trees are imbued with spiritualism different from English. It may have historical origin yet still be in use after much change. This can make a huge difference in how people perceive things and the word symbols for them will sometimes show this either by form or lack of existence. Understanding the more objective treatment of these things in English may present an impossibility, as the difference in the internalized understanding cannot be changed, because it is hidden. Native speakers of Inuit have trouble with nouns, since no such constructions exist in their language. There are more than 60 ways to describe the state of snow using a gerund-like word, but there is no word for snow. For the northeastern first nation peoples (pluralized mass noun, since there are several tribes to which this refers) of Canada, the language teachers take their students into the wild to listen to nature, such as listening to the corn, or the fire and trees. I once tried listening to corn, but I fell asleep. There is a great deal more to say about this not so simple subject, but that could fill up a book or two. This essay simply presented the major problems with usage of singular and plural nouns. The use of these is not as simple as native speakers often think. One may try to memorize all the possible differences, but new changes will still make problems. Also, merely memorizing does not guarantee the ability to use that which is memorized. Some rules can be memorized, but there will be many times when no rules apply (Nelson, 1995, p. 225). Of course each instance of language use has a rule if the usage is well described. However, there are so many different rules that for some it seems that rules do not apply. Can one call such a thing as what applies to a dozen words of more than 100, 000 a rule? Even the experts do not agree upon all the rules. Using this example below, this author would take issue with the verity of numbers two, four and six, because they are awkward in speech. So, as an educated speaker of English I would not use these constructions. These are technically correct for most authorities, but are falling into disuse, and will likely go the way of the Dodo eventually. Collective Nouns A collective noun refers to a group of people or animals. Examples include family, group, committee, class, team, herd, and audience. When they are subjects of sentences, do their verbs end in s? The answer is ... IT DEPENDS. What it depends on is the way the collective noun is being used. When the writer is referring to the group acting together as a unit, the singular (s-ending) verb is used. When the writer is expressing actions of individuals within a group, the plural (non-s-ending) verb is used. Sometimes the distinction can be subtle. Here are some examples: 1. The team is ready to perform. (a statement about the team as a unit) 2. The team are not all prepared. (a statement about some individual members) 3. The couple rents a cabin each summer. (as a unit) 4. The couple argue every day. (as individuals) 5. The group presents a gift to the town each year. (as a unit) 6. The group chat informally until the meeting begins. (as individuals) Popular use governs descriptive grammar. So it is the right of individual speakers to disagree on usage. It is also the responsibility of educated speakers to offer alternative for usage with which they have issues. On this basis, the state of the rules of usage for inherently plural uncountable nouns is in flux, and may never have hard and fast rules, because it is so closely tied to perception. Speakers of any language try to follow the agreed upon set of rules for syntax and word usage in order to maintain clear communication. However, as long as the language lives, it will change, and that change does not come down from the expert, but rather float up from the grass roots speakers. In the final analysis, any living language will change, and mass media instant communications, plus the vast territory within which to publish on the Web has made it impossible to keep up with change, even when ordinary people, such as bloggers, social network members and amateur writers, play a great part. Now things change so fast that there is barely time to recognize the change and to value it before it is overshadowed by more change. Living languages change daily, but the references are mostly updated annually if that. English is the most useful language in the world, because it is so flexible. Anything that can be expressed in language alone can be expressed in English. So its speakers should not be blindly following prescriptive rules but creating new meaning using the established rules of the language. Language changes and it is the speakers that change it. Popular use governs descriptive grammar. So it is the right of individual speakers to disagree on usage. It is also the responsibility of educated speakers to offer alternative for usage with which they have issues. On this basis, the state of the rules of usage for inherently plural uncountable nouns is in flux, and may never have hard and fast rules, because it is so closely tied to perception. Speakers of any language try to follow the agreed upon set of rules for syntax and word usage in order to maintain clear communication. However, as long as the language lives, it will change, and that change does not come down from the expert, but rather float up from the grass roots speakers. References Ahranjani, A. K. (2010). Number system of the head noun in English and Persian languages. International Journal of Academic Research, 2(4), 399-407. Bex, T., & Watts, R. J. (1999). Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge.Retrieved from http://www.questia.com Cocchiarella, N. (2009). Mass nouns in a logic of classes as many. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(3), 343-361. doi:10.1007/s10992-008-9096-0 Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). In Pearson A. a. B. (Ed.), Gardiner, H. W., & kosmitzki, C. (2005).  lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development (4th ed.). USA: Pearson. Hays, P. A. (2008). Addressing cultural complexities in practice. New York: American Psychological Association. Mugglestone, L. (Ed.). (2006). The Oxford History of the English Language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com Nelson, G. (2001). English: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com Nelson, K. (1995). CHAPTER EIGHT: The Dual Category Problem the Acquisition of Action Words. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond Names for Things: Young Childrens Acquisition of Verbs (pp. 223-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5(4), 451–465 (reprinted in: Pelletier, F. J. (1979) Mass terms: Some philosophical problems, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–14).Young, D. J. (1984). Introducing English Grammar. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com Wade, T. (2009). Using Russian vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Read More