Noam Chomsky proposed his Language Acquisition Device to explain human language learning. It is true that people acquire languages most flexibly till 14 years old. It is true that people could not merely memorize language: there has to be a logical capacity. It is true that the brainwork necessary for language involves more than one brain area.
However, I cannot develop any fondness for the term ‘device’. Devices collocate near things that could be operated externally, from the outside. Such governance over speech could not be the human ideal. I prefer the human language faculty. I intend my language parameters for independent variables.
Flexible habits the learner can manage and control autonomously are much better than reflexes.
The book and the grammar method have not been sponsored or corroborated by an American or other authority, organization, as well as any individual. The content as well as choice on appended material are the responsibility of the author, Teresa Pelka.
The book and the grammar method have not solicited and will not ever require any experimentation. The method reflects on the author’s own language acquisition and learning, along with known and legal studies. The bibliography comes with Part Four of the series.
Books by Teresa Pelka may be viewed at
Copyright © Teresa Pelka, 2010
All rights reserved. The author reserves the right of translation.
Library of Congress registration TX 7-648-439
The claim excludes public domain material, photographs.
Appendix 3 contains typescripts of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights: Dunlap, Carter and Wheeler prints, respectively. The book has voluntary extra practice.
Regarding the feminist controversy over Aristotle’s works, the author ― a woman herself ― does not endorse all translations, renditions, as well as misconceptions about the philosopher. Aristotle lived circa 384 BC – 322 BC. There are no autographs, that is, original manuscripts of his work preserved. The existent versions are used in this book series selectively and for thought exercise strictly.
The author may not provide for sustained validity of the website or email addresses enclosed with the work.
Human history has not been much reasonable. Common sense joined revolutionary terms about 1765. :)
Off the record — whether to make a bit of a revolution or not — shows that we can talk about grammar in everyday language.
As for Mr. Clemens, I gotta tell you, there ain’t much fairness in this world. Mr. Clemens had a nick — Mark Twain — he could write his yarn a human way, and came out real neat in the end. Me, I may just forget any other names about me when Ms. Smith asks grammar, and well, I gotta do the schoolspeak when my written work gets back in — let us say — more than one color, which ain’t so neat. Here’s the place I can reckon and talk human, you understand.
Meet Bob, Jemma, and other characters with the grammar grapevine.
Anticipation may kill grammar work. Students usually think what there is to come next — the picture may be as a Star Wars text flow to end in another galaxy. ;)
Integrative visualization can save the long day: the learner may have some breath from the small print, and symbols can give a finite shape to the potentially unending grammatical script. :)
Grammar resources will offer lists of verbs we should not use with the Progressive. The rules do not provide any rationale, and lists can be long.
If we tell young people always to say I love, we tell them always to say I hate, too.
I am hating you may sound milder.
It can be more to the fact, especially with young people.
Maybe there would not be ‘stative verbs’. There would be stative verb use. The latter can get along with human cognitive variables.
We can stay generally ON our cognitive maps, or delineate a time span IN which we perceive.
I hate you. [ON] It is permanent.
I am hating you. [IN] It is now only. :)
There has been much talk on American English in ancestral terms – researchers would analyze individual speech sounds and derive them with particularity suggestive of the Pygmalion: … and your father was a watchmaker. ;)
Other analysts would say that language and thought are separate phenomena. Well, have to be them the United States that American English comes from. :)
The book offers voluntary extra practice on historic American documents and the civics.
Students may find typescripts easier to comprehend.
The grammar course makes observations on natural language learning. We seek to draw conclusions also from mistakes.
At some stage of language learning, children may show relativity in interpreting language. We could think about an utterance like ‘Jill promised Jim to smile’. If we ask a child to draw a smile on either Jill’s picture or Jim’s picture, the child may draw the smile on Jim’s picture.
At the very same stage of language progression, children may have no problems with language structures such as the Passive. Could the interpretation of the Infinitive be showing imminent tactics for hypothetical time?
The Infinitive may use an auxiliary time plane and keep its main reference. Please see here for our invented word, bimo.
We have such auxiliary planes with Modal verbs, too.
We may compare the Conditional structures. We can say, if you bimo, you will thimo.
We can see language form as taking us one step ‘forward’, when we view the Modal will as a present form. For example, She will be reading now.
Naturally, Part Two has it step-by-step. We can generalize linguistic relativity and fare with time frames.
The advantage is in Modal economy. The graph below allows saving on hundreds of pages of verbal illustration.
We can integrate the stative verb use.
We can see Feelings (!)
Further travel has nodi of time. In Latin, a nodus was a node.
You MUST book your seats in the Lisner Auditorium. The American Air Force jazz ensemble may perform live.
We learn to ‘jump’ target time.
You WILL HAVE TO book your seats in the Lisner Auditorium. The American Air Force jazz ensemble may perform live.
And well, in our story, both Jim and Jill may smile. :)
Cognitive mapping is not the same as keeping maps. Our cognitive mapping shows especially when we are in areas we do not know and still find our way — looking to the sun, or remembering the directions we have taken from a place we know. Naturally, people can speak American in Berlin, Paris, as well as Washington: the language faculty is not dependent on geography.
All Englishes have four aspects: Simple, Progressive, Perfect, and Perfect Progressive. We can visualize them using the prepositions ON, IN, TO, and AT, along with a generalized image of an area, as in the slide below.
Looking to traditional grammar books and the multitude of — often conflicting — definitions and rules they give, cognitive mapping becomes simply common sense.
I am an English philology M.A. specialized in American English and psycholinguistics. I do have successful teaching experience.
‘Travelers in Grammar’ is a generative grammar course. Generative grammars show how to build language skills on one’s own, rather than practice memorized formulas.
The name ‘generative’ comes from the notion of generating language and speech, that is, producing written and spoken language independently.We find language regularities for this. We do not make rules.
Grammar without rules is impossible, a critic could say. I can say that all rules have to agree with the language reality. Let us look to this reality.
Even just naming the tenses happens to be intuitive in grammar books. We may get the Future Simple OR the Simple Future, for example. Progressive or Perfect ‘Futures’ do not come as often or easy. All along, the student does not get guidance on cognitive reference. Language reference may come in 1000+ definitions.
It does not look or sound funny to me, when I see a person who wants to learn and says, because the future simple or simple future … (after a while) … the book says …
Obviously, my point is not about putting human thought to a strict order. I represent the relationship between time and Aspect in a dynamic theme.
There is a way to take, if we want to get there. This way is made of logical planes.
If we look up the word plane in a dictionary, we may get a geometric notion. An intellectual plane is a capacity for brainwork, however. Our logical planes are to show such a capacity to make cognitive reference in language structures. The way can be worth it, if we think about Modal verbs and the rules telling to remember to say this, but never to say that. Let us see.
Generative grammars do not mechanically produce all ‘possible’ language structures. Generative grammars can help us think about language economy.
A traditional grammar book may say we construe the Modal should to ask if something should have been done. We yet do not ask if something mustn’t have happened. Our generative grammar does not tell to memorize which Modal verbs get along with what syntax. We think what logical planes we need.
The graph below comes from Part Two. We may view Integrative Visualization and relax. :)
Naturally, we do not have to imagine any planes in our heads. If a human being can make a wheel, it does not mean the person has wheels in his or her head.
We take our resolves intellectually. :)
See Form Relativity.
Somebody could say that virtual words like bimo or phimo are not serious grammar. Seriousness depends on the attitude, I could say. We may learn, keeping a mild sense of humor: grammar is serious only when it works.
In all languages, children invent words to practice language form solely. Feel welcome to the gumption set over the grapevine. It is natural and effective grammar.