in the field

Borrowing equipment from the department to run experiments in places other than the official experiment room counts as going Into The Field!

Visions of tents being trampled by curious cattle in the early hours of the morning? Of sifting through artefacts in an ancient burial site? Of being speared by offended natives upon failing to use the correct honorifics for their most senior chief?

Sadly, the most demanding thing it means for me is negotiating room bookings on the campus of a different university. And to be honest, the only way in which this counts as demanding is because the room is only bookable for one morning a week, meaning I have to strictly ration myself to three participants per week on this campus ... demanding huh. Oh, and I did my ankle in, catching the bus out there the time before last, if that counts.

However, the rationing notwithstanding, data collection is progressing relatively well - I've nearly reached my quota for the number of participants in the experimental group, and recruitment for the control group will hopefully start in the next week or so. This means, that for the first time ever in nearly three years, something might actually go according to schedule, and I might just be able to start writing up early in the new year. Can't wait!

triplets: third attempt

The first time I tried posting this something went wrong. The second time it published fine, but upon further reading it turned out to be so intensely dull that it even bored me. There's no guarantees that this will be any better, but at least I'll put in a bit more effort this time.

A while back I sneaked in some examples of what's known as syntactic (or structural) ambiguity. That included sentences like, Flying planes can be dangerous. The sentence is ambiguous because it could mean (a) it is sometimes dangerous to fly planes, or (b) when planes are in the process of flying they are sometimes dangerous. The ambiguity in this case doesn't arise from any particular word in the sentence, but rather from the construction as a whole, the way the words are combined.

A different kind of ambiguity is known as lexical ambiguity - when a particular word can have more than one interpretation. A textbook example is the word bank, which might refer to the side of a river, or, perhaps more likely, the financial institution. (Another example would be bat, either the flying creature or the thing you use for playing cricket.)

A question arose in my office the other day as to word-forms which can function as different parts of speech while retaining the same form. (If a real syntactician happened to drop by and read this, s/he might not agree that this is another form of ambiguity; but since I wouldn't have an answer for that, we'll just have to hope that no such creature ever comes this way.)* The kind of word-form I mean would be something like sink, which, when you consider it in isolation, just as I've written it there without any supporting context, could be either a noun (as in, My sink has remained unblocked for months now) or a verb (as in, My blog is starting to sink under the weight of so many ponderous opinions); another example would be elaborate, which could be either a verb (as in, Allow me to elaborate on this point), or an adjective (as in, That was a very long and elaborate sentence I just wrote).

There are lots and lots of words in English which can function as two out of the three main lexical categories, noun, verb, and adjective. But the other week, the challenge was on: how many word-forms are there which can function as all three of these categories? To find such words would take us a large step further in our capability to bamboozle first year syntax and morphology students, as well as whiling away a pleasant couple of hours in the halls of academe, given that we don't really have that much else to spend our time on.

One example of a word-form that can be used as either a noun, a verb, or an adjective is light. Exemplified as follows:

[noun] The light was very bright.
[verb] I'm going to light a fire.
[adj] Our shopping bags were very light this week.

Another example would be cross.

[noun] You either got a tick or a cross.
[verb] The chicken didn't really want to cross the road.
[adj] I'm starting to get quite cross.

There are also items like void and square, which I won't think up any illustrative sentences for just now, as well as a few more which we came up with after the office brainstorming session. I'm insisting on talking about word-forms, incidentally, because I'm not sure you'd want to think of cross 'irritated' and cross 'an X' as being related in any way beyond sharing the sequence of sounds c-r-o-s-s (/kɹɔs/ in IPA) - in other words you're looking for homophones, not necessarily words related in meaning or historical origin. And because you're looking for homophones, it doesn't matter if the word-forms don't share the same spelling: I think course/coarse and plain/plane could also go on the list even though they're not homographs.

So if anyone has time on their hands and diagnostic criteria for lexical classes, do feel free to advance the cause of science by contributing to the collection.


* Slogan spotted proudly displayed on a removals van: We drop everything for you! I won't hazard a guess as to what kind of ambiguity that is.

non-essential

Various people have been commenting on the British Airways action against Nadia Eweida, an employee who refused to cover up the cross she was wearing.

The Barnabas Fund is one group who have pointed out the inconsistency in BA's policy - they disallow visible crosses since there's no biblical requirement to wear one, whereas hijabs are acceptable, even though not all Muslims themselves are agreed as to whether it should actually be compulsory.

The Barnabas article also gives examples of crosses as targets for violence and destruction in some parts of the world, saying that 'those who persecute Christians are very aware of the significance of the cross as symbolising the Christian faith,' and that 'in the Christian faith the cross is a symbol of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and his resurrection, to take away the sins of the world, that is, a symbol of the most central doctrines of Christianity.'

This might well have something to do with my personal background, but, although the cross is indeed a symbol of Christ's sacrificial death, I don't think I'd feel very comfortable wearing a physical representation of it. Crucifixes are out of the question for other reasons, but I've always understood crosses to somehow trivialise what actually took place at Calvary, and, in spite of the Barnabas claim that they symbolise his resurrection as well as his death, they seem to focus too much attention on the Redeemer's state of humiliation, without being able to convey either the success of his work on the cross or what you might call the glory of his humiliation, even at its lowest point.

The obvious response to what I've just said would be that we're meant to boast in the cross, and little silver crosses around your neck (and large wooden crosses inside churches) are one way of doing that. But there's a quote at the back of my mind by some Reformed writer to the effect that you wouldn't want to wear something that symbolised the Saviour's greatest shame and disgrace, and the cruelty and wickedness of the people responsible for killing him - like celebrating the pistol that was used to murder one of your closest family members. It's not his sufferings in themselves that constitute his atoning sacrifice, it's what he was doing when he suffered, which is what you run the risk of overlooking, I think, when a cross is the symbol for your Christianity.

Having said all that, in the situation with BA and their employee, I think I'd still want to come down on the side of the employee - if Sikhs and Muslims are able to override the dress code in order to express their religious identity, it doesn't make sense not to allow different (and admittedly mainstream) varieties of Christians the same leeway, even if it's not a freedom I'd want to take advantage of personally. Is that a consistent position to hold?

updates

The sidebar now contains links to a judiciously selected subset of the blogs I read. Not that the others aren't worthy of selection, I hasten to add for those authors who may be reading, they're just a bit more private. Or else they're linked by the ones I've listed. Let me know if I've missed anyone out.

this week

Visitors, conferences, data collection ... I've a couple of things up my sleeve which I want to say but time is not on my side ... also managed to wrench my ankle, merely by elegantly tripping over my own feet ... Will keep you posted on all the exciting developments as and when they occur.

snippets from gurnall

The Christian in Complete Armour is a huge volume and looks so daunting that it never used to cross my mind to open it.

The first time I did open it was due to it being the only book left in someone's bookshelf as they packed up their flat in a flitting. They probably planned to use it to squash a bulging suitcase shut later, or something. When I did have a look though, I thought it was really excellent - it was directly relevant to what I needed to read at the time, and sprinkled throughout with so many brief everyday metaphors, to do with kitchens and gardening and nurseries and things, which meant that its major metaphor - the Christian's armour and warfare, based on Ephesians 6 - didn't get too wearisome.

The only problem is that I've never subsequently been able to remember whereabouts I was reading that was so helpful. It was only a few pages I got through, and there were something like two books of 400 pages combined in the single volume my friend had.

Anyway, I was dipping into it again the other day (another friend's copy this time) and found something which reminded me of the piece by Dickson which I quoted before:

"Sincerity shows itself in the Christian's plainheartedness to confess all his sins freely, without extorting, and nakedly, without extenuation or reservation - when there is no false box in the cabinet of the soul to lock up a darling sin in."

He went on to say a few pages later, "It is not possible that a Christian should walk loosely all day, and be free and familiar with God at night." He spoke a lot about taking care to prepare for going to pray, reminding yourself what you're about to do before you actually get down to it, as well as trying to make sure you keep up an atmosphere of prayerfulness all day long, as much as possible. "He that watcheth his heart all day, is most likely to find it at hand and in time for prayer at night. Whereas, loose walking breeds lazy praying."

I have the feeling that the complete work might be available in separate volumes? which would make it easier to handle. These quotes came from p293, 296 and 362 of the single big volume.

for sinners only

From Owen on Psalm 130.

The proposal of repentance is a thing fitted and suited, in its own nature, to beget thoughts in the mind of a sinner that there is forgiveness with God. Repenting is for sinners only. 'I came not,' saith our Saviour, 'to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.' It is for them, and them only. ...

O sinners, come and deal with God by repentance! Doth it not openly speak forgiveness in God? and, if it were otherwise, could men possibly be more frustrated or deceived? would not the institution of repentance be a lie? Such a delusion may proceed from Satan, but not from him who is the fountain of goodness, holiness, and truth.

His call to repentance is a full demonstration of his readiness to forgive. ... God deceives none: whoever comes to him on his proposal of repentance shall find forgiveness. It is said of some, indeed, that he 'will laugh at their calamity, and mock when their fear cometh.' ... But who are they? Only such as refuse his call to repentance.

From John Owen, Practical Exposition of Psalm 130, p203. What he's saying here is more or less an expanded version of what it says in the Shorter Catechism - repentance involves among other things, some glimpse or apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. Your conscience could tell you that you should turn from your sins, but it's another thing to realise that there's the possibility of turning from them to God. But the gospel call on sinners to repent is itself an assurance that salvation is available, that sinners can be reconciled to God, that 'there is forgiveness with him,' as Psalm 130 says.

thundering nonsense

Remember the scandal that erupted a few days ago about the conditions the prisoners were being kept in, in Pentonville? In the Times, the 'Thunderer' column was devoted to ridiculing the notion that we should be bothered at criminals living in cells without pillows and with rats and cockroaches for company.

It's so long since I've read the Times on a regular basis that I've forgotten whether the Thunderer is deliberately provocative and actually specialises in saying absurd things with extravagant pomposity and bullishness ... one can only hope so, because the alternative is that someone out there really thinks it doesn't matter how you treat criminals, just because they've committed a crime.

Having mentioned Josephine Butler the other day, this column gave me the perfect opportunity to talk about another brave woman, one of my childhood heroes, the prison reformer Elizabeth Fry.

Elizabeth Fry was a Quaker who was appalled by the grim conditions of the prisons in her time, and set about trying to help women prisoners in particular. People were imprisoned for offences which would now be considered fairly minor, if I remember rightly, and imprisonment was a fairly desperate fate in those days. Babies born to the women in prison might die of cold, they only had straw for bedding, there were lice everywhere, and they might even have needed to persuade other people to buy them food to eat (fraid I don't have the book to hand to check up, so feel free to correct any of this if it's wrong!).

One incident in particular which stuck in my mind (I hope I'm remembering it accurately) was when she and her friends got themselves organised and made little linen bonnets for all the women in the particular prison that they were working in - and then the women were able to shave their heads, to get rid of the lice, and wear the caps while their hair grew back. It was such a necessary practical measure, yet at the same time you can see the concern to allow these people to retain some dignity, and treat them with courtesy as far as possible.

Josephine Butler thought it was wrong to treat anyone like scum even if they were prostitutes: Elizabeth Fry thought it was wrong to allow her fellow human beings to wallow in misery and degradation even if they were convicted criminals. The self-congratulatory attitude that says certain types of people deserve whatever comes to them, no matter how horrible and demoralising it might be, is an attitude which fails to recognise that it wouldn't be in the power of any of us, really, not to end up doing the same kinds of thing (and how would you like it if you had to share with cockroaches!); and it fails to recognise that even when people have done something so bad in society that society needs to take steps to punish them, there's such a thing as doing it humanely and with a view to making them see the benefits of behaving in a moral and civilised way, as well as the bad consequences of behaving badly.

The Times article which made me so cross is here and there are a couple of articles on Elizabeth Fry here and here.