X-Envelope-to: WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:31:00 PST
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         Lobstrosities Unite <CHRISS%CWU.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: CALLING ALL STUDENTS OF RUSSIAN

>True.  English got along just fine without any formal study of its grammar
>for many, many years.   But I'm a little bit confused by what you mean
>the "rules of linguistics."  I can't quite imagine a language that exists
>without phonological, morphological, and syntactical rules.  I'm talking
>now about the rules acquired effortlessly by all native speakers, not
>prescriptive rules.
>   --Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)

Well, I think I mean those arbitrary descriptions applied to linguistic
functions or systems. Language exists outside any description someone can apply
to it.  You say you can't imagine a language without phonological,
morphological, and syntactical rules.  That's my point.  Language *can* exist
without any of those rules.  However, language can't exist without
phonological, morphological and syntactical systems.  But the systems are not
the rules.  The rules are simply descriptions of the system.

The systems are internalized by the native speaker.  That doesn't mean the
native speaker can tell you why he or she uses this suffix rather than that
one, this case rather than that one or whatever.  They "know" the systems but
not the rules.  However, the speaker can, if he or she chooses and is given the
opportunity, formally learn the rules through grammar classes, spelling
classes, observation, etc.

Now, someone can argue that you can't have a system without rules. What makes a
system a system are the predictable rules that system uses.  I think systems go
beyond that. What makes the rules is the system.  The system is dynamic. The
rules don't change and then change the system.  The system changes and so the
description of that system, i.e., the rules, change.

For the sake of argument, we'll use that big entity called "English" and some
of its subsystems.  English exists outside of any one individual user. Each
user internalizes certain features of English.  At that point, there are two
systems at work: the big "English" and the user's internalized version. Now,
it's easier to change the user's version of English. English teachers do it all
the time through spelling and grammar tests and stuff like that.  They're
trying to teach us the rules of "English" or at least their understanding of
the rules.  However, there comes a point when a usage becomes so widespread and
used that, what started out as maybe one persons usage and changing of their
internal system and spread to a larger group, soon becomes part of "English".

How did I get to system theory?  Anyway, I hope you can see what I'm getting
at. Systems can be described by rules but systems go beyond the rules.  Every
user internalizes a subset of the system we call "English" but even a
description of their system, the rules they apply, cannot adequately describe
even their own system, much less English a whole. The rules are learned and
give us an understanding of the system, but the rules are not the system.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU