This message  was originally submitted  by [log in to unmask]  to the ATEG
list \-------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
I agree with Edith, and I have never been able to
understand those in our group who fuss over the
function/form distinction. Yes, I realize that the
distinction is important in linguistics. But most of us
are not teaching linguistics; we are trying to teach
grammar to students (K-college). In my experience,
any attempt at the function/form distinction simply
adds to students' confusion. (And I admit that my own
approach uses the distinction at times; when it does,
students have trouble.)
     By the way, whom are we trying to teach? Above I
wrote (K-college) because I couldn't think of a better
term. I don't think grammar should be taught in
kindergarten, but don't have a term that excludes the
lower grades. Can't use "public schools and colleges"
because some of us teach in private. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Ed V.
 
 
This  message was  originally submitted  by Edith
Wollin
([log in to unmask])  to the ATEG
list:
 
 
I don't see anything in Leuschner's response that
helps explain why the
whom in the first sentence cannot be omitted while the
one in the second
sentence can.  Whereas, if we say that if it functions
as a noun, it is a
noun, we get an explanation.
 
 
> This message  was originally submitted  by
> [log in to unmask] to the
ATEG list
>
> >"I don't know who(m) I saw last night".
> >"I like the girl who(m) i saw last night.
> >
> >ok, the above two, to my feeble understanding,
both contain relative
> >clauses which are,
> >1-defining
> >2-and both have the relative pronoun as object
>
> The thing is not to mix up function and form.
'Relative clause' is more
on
> the function side, so we'd better not call the clause
in the first
sentence
> a 'relative clause' (I know that some grammars do).
To call it 'noun
> clause' (as other grammars do), is not very logical
either. The term
refers
> neither to the form of the clause nor to its function. It
refers to the
> fact that occasionally a noun can be found in the
same place: 'I don't
know
> JACK.' Not very helpful, and it has confused me
through all my student
> life.
>
> Why not apply regular logical thinking to language. It
makes things so
much
> easier.
>
> Looking at texts we find that there are a great
number of different
> sentence types.
>
> E.g.
>      Many Americans can speak Spanish. This is the
most basic type,
usually
> called statement.
>      Can  many Americans speak Spanish?  Usually
called question.
>      Many Americans can not speak Spanish.
Negative sentence.
>      What many Americans can speak. This sentence
type usually has no
> single name, but a different name in each function.
>
> I suggest the term 'wh-sentence'. A term which
refers to the form. A
> wh-sentence is one where one (or more) functional
slots are filled by a
> wh-pronoun, which goes to the front of the sentence
(many Americans can
> speak what --> what many Americans can speak).
>
> Wh-sentences come in statement form (What many
Americans can speak.) or
in
> question form (What can many Americans speak?)
>
> Wh-statements can be used widely, in many
different functions.
>
> They can be used on their own, e.g. in headlines
(How Lincoln grew a
> beard).
>
> They can fill the last slot in a paragraph (a paragraph
about dogs, say,
is
> summarized by 'Which is why I hate dogs.')
>
> They can be put in any sentence slot, i.e. they can
function as subjects,
> subject complements, objects, object complements,
adverbials - did I
forget
> a function? In 'What you see  IS  what you get' the
first wh-sentence
> functions as subject, the second as subject
complement. In 'I don't know
> ...' above it is the object slot which the who-sentence
fills.
>
> They can fill a functional slot in sentence parts - that
is they can be
> noun attributes, in this case they are traditionally
called '(defining)
> relative clauses'.
>
> They can function as appositives (My wife, who
comes from H., is asleep
at
> the moment). In this function they are traditionally
called 'non-defining
> relative clauses'.
>
> There are still other functions in which
wh-statements can be used. But
> this should do for illustration.
>
> To distinguish clearly between form and function and
use appropriate
> terminology makes grammar fascinating, even to
students, while the
> traditional absurdly illogical chaos makes it a hated
subject. Which
> certainly does not do justice to the importance that
language has for us
> humans.
>
> B. Leuschner
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule
Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
[h]    Fax: +49 7383 2212
>