Janet,

 

Those are classic definitional problems - in the sense that to the
extent there's a "right" answer, it's based primarily on whether there's
any consensus at all, rather than on something more measurable. Because
I try to mesh with traditional American K-12 grammar terminology in my
classes for cases in which it's not too inaccurate, I tend to go with
calling those participial phrases modifying nouns, and I'd call "Joe" an
object of the verb "name" (I have trouble calling it an indirect object
if there's no direct object there, but that's just me; I'd be much
happier just talking about one-object and two-object patterns). 

 

The issue with high-stakes testing you bring up is an enormous one, and
I suspect it's made even more serious by the fact that the test-makers'
choice of terminology may not be made explicit in many cases. Some of my
state's standards seem to read roughly as, "Children at the end of year
Y should know the grammar terminology that children at the end of year Y
should know." I get the feeling that some of the vagueness may be an
attempt to dodge debates that wouldn't ever end, but if the kids are
getting tested on specifics, all that's happened is that a de facto
terminology system has been imposed without anyone discussing it. I
don't particularly mind the idea of widescale tests for assessment; I
loathe the idea of widespread *bad* tests for assessment, and that seems
to be what we're frequently stuck with. 

 

The phrase/clause thing  is messy. Since I'm teaching college classes, I
go ahead and bring it up *as* an example of a labeling problem. As far
as I can tell, there's a split between British and American terminology
that dates to about the last third of the nineteenth century. Before
that, people weren't talking in a very organized way about word groups;
the Latinate model of focusing on individual words, and of viewing all
grammar as relations between (not among!) individual words, was still in
play. In the U.S., consensus developed around the notion that a clause
had to have a finite verb, and since subject/verb agreement is one of
the markers of finiteness, the clause therefore has to have a subject
(nominative, not just "agenty") as well. The British seem to have
focused more on whether or not the unit had an event-like structure,
with a process and things that filled roles in the process, so
"non-finite clause" isn't oxymoronic in British practice (some of the
British work also calls NPs, VPs, etc. "groups" and reserves "phrase"
for (arguably) exocentric units like PPs).  Quirk et al. appear to have
one foot solidly in the British tradition, but take care not to get
stuck in it.

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Clause or Phrase

 

How would you analyze this:  Once upon a time, there was a prince named
Joe.

 

Do you analyze a prince named Joe as a noun phrase with a participle
phrase modifying the noun head, or as a participle clause?  I've always
called these non-finite constructions reduced clauses or participle
clauses, but I have run into a problem.  In my grammar class for
pre-service teachers, I start with noun phrases.  When I teach noun
modification, I want to teach students about post-modification, but they
really don't know anything about finite and non-finite verbs yet, nor do
they know much about clauses.  So this semester, I decided I would just
call them participle phrases which modify nouns.  But then I was in
trouble when we got to clauses because I wanted to call then reduced or
non-finite clauses.  By that time, the students knew enough to say "Hey
wait a minute!  Didn't you just tell us those were phrases?"  At least I
know they were listening in October.

 

Also, do you call 'Joe' a retained object complement, or is there a
better way to label this?

 

How about this:  Joe baked a cake for me.  Can I just go ahead and call
'Joe' an indirect object? It means exactly the same this as Joe baked me
a cake.

 

This is an on-going problem for me, because, even though I try to teach
them a pretty straight forward descriptive-structural-functional view of
syntax (Quirk et al is my bible), with a little discussion of
prescriptivism thrown in so they'll know what to expect when they get
into the schools, I find that frequently there is more than one way to
analyze a given structure.  This disturbs my students.  They want to
know the 'right' way, and it better be the way that it is gong to show
up on the subject area test they have to take.  Do you think there is
any consensus on the 'best' grammar approach to teach pre-service
teachers?  This is not a trivial issue, since they have high-stakes
tests (for themselves and their students) principals and parents in
their futures.

 

Comments?

 

Janet Castilleja

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/