1. Over the fence is out. Who or what is out? "Over the fence"
Prepositional phrases can be subjects.
2. I was baked a cake. Who or what was baked? "a cake"
What is the function of 'I' ""retained indirect object in the nominative
position"
3. John is easy to please. Who or what is easy? "To please John"
Scott Catledge
The state tests for teachers are often ludicrous. A group of us teachers
met at the break and discussed specific questions that either had no correct
answer or that had more than one correct answer. Several of us wrote down
the problem questions on which all of us agreed were faulty and sent our
State Board requests to review the appropriateness of such a test. I, for
one, received both a refusal to comment on any question and an accusation
of unethical behavior by discussing test questions. My response that any
board member who had such an attitude was not only unethical but unfit to
hold the position; I further suggested that such a strong response itself
strongly suggested a personal financial interest.
They could not blackball me because I was taking the test at the request of
the Director of the private evening business school where I was teaching.
He liked my degrees and teaching experience but he wished for more academic
recognition for his faculty; he wished to one up the competition by stating
that all of his faculty not only held at least a BS but also had passed the
state teaching exam.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 11 Dec 2008 to 12 Dec 2008 (#2008-263)
There are 8 messages totalling 1517 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Clause or Phrase (8)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:11:42 -0800
From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Yeah - I meant 'me.' What I was really trying to get at is whether or
not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
object, since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe baked
me
a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
substantially more complex.
'For me to criticize him would be foolish.' Here 'for me' seems to be
the subject of the infinitive clause. I know that 'for' constructions
introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
prepositions? =20
I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
complement.' I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way beyond
what anyone should be required to know.
My state, Washington has teacher tests. We use Praxis by ETS. Students
are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
take before entering our teacher ed program. Then, if they get an
endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
and the test really asks them questions about grammar.
Examples:
My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
behind our house.
The underlined word in the sentence above is an
example of
(A) a conjunction
(B) a participle
(C) a gerund
(D) an adverb
We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.
The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in
(A) question formation
(B) relative clause formation
(C) passive formation
(D) command formation
Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to use,
because I know they see it on the test.
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Janet,
These are wonderful questions. Much of what I would say Bill covers,
so
I'll add a few sidenotes. I have struggled through the same questions
and feel a little more settled in my thinking.
I think it's so much more important to describe the structure than it
is to put it in the "right" category. So looking closely at these
non-finite structures and saying they usually are missing a subject
(not always) and aren't grounded with finite verbs is probably the most
important thing. My students seem OK with saying we'll call them
clauses, but traditional grammar calls them phrases. I end up doing
somewhat the same thing with "gerund" as a term. I don't like it, but
it's out there, and it helps to at least point out what the word refers
to for the people who use it.
I start out with "the elements of the simple clause", so I cover
postnominal modification with prepositional phrases first and say there
are other word groups in that slot that we'll cover later. That seems
to work for me. I sometimes postpone restrictive and non-restrictive
modification until later as well. Appositional phrases also fit in that
slot, but I don't bring them in right away.
I think you mistakenly ask about "Joe" as indirect object in your
cake
sentence. My guess is you meant "me". I like the multi-functional
analysis of functional gramamr for that one. From that view, the
transitivity system helps us represent the world. The clause gives us
processes and participants and circumstances andestablishes participant
roles. We also have systems in place for construing that event in
different ways. In passives, for example, the direct or indirect object
gets shifted into the grammatical subject slot without changing their
real world roles. ("The cake was baked by Joe. I was baked the cake by
Joe." In both these cases, Joe is obviously still doing the baking.)
This can also give us a way to put different information in the usual
given slot and in the clause ending slot we usually use for new
information. "Who was the cake for?" "The cake was baked for me."=20
"What did Joe bake you?" "Joe baked me a cake." "Who baked the cake?=20
"The cake was baked by Joe." Students seem to enjoy putting a clause
through its various permutations and then reflecting on how that
"construes" the process. We can also say something like "Joe baked all
night", or "Joe baked with great care", not because we have stopped
understanding that "baking" means you bake something and are probably
doing that for some sort of beneficiary, but because those elements are
not always in focus. Even categories like "transitive" and
"intransitive" and "di-transitive" and "complex transitive" can be used
to talk about the verb itself as well as about the structure of a
particular clause. Is "Joe baked all night" intransitive? I think
that's easier to understand if you realize the process hasn't changed,
but certain aspects of it are simply not in focus for the statement.
I have found that most state tests for students have no real
knowledge
content to them. Even the phrasing of the standards is something like
"Can puncutate sentences," never anything like "can identify a
participle phrase" or "Can differentiate compound sentences from
compound predicates." Even the SAT simply asks students to pick a
version that seems more effective or more correct. It never asks for
terminology. Language, at least for students, is treated like a
behavior.
Are there teacher tests in your state?
Craig
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/
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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:56:10 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Janet,<br>
I wish I could make these decisions easier. I always have
a little
problem with "what we should be required to know", since language is a
rich and interesting subject with great rewards that don't stop coming
once you have passed a sort of minimal certification. But like you, I
have to live in the real world and students rightly are worried about
what they need to know for the test.<br>
It's interesting that the Longman grammar (Biber et. al.) uses
the
category "recipient adverbials" to sort of finesse this problem. "I'll
just write the check for you" is one of their examples, and it could
easily be paraphrased, as they point out, as "I'll just write you the
check." I'm not convinced it's best described as adverbial, since it's
simply another way to make clear the receiver role while manipulating
the structure of the message. To me, it's less a problem of formal
rules and more a question about how meaning is built, thinking of
meaning as representational, interactive, and textual. The "you"
continues to be the receiver. The preposition mostly makes it easy to
manipulate the order for message purposes. <br>
I also like the perspective that grammar builds bottom up, not
top
down. These are functional patterns.<br>
I would have an initial problem with "boy named Joe" as
retained
object, since it almost implies a source sentence that wouldn't be
likely in the context. "His parents named him Joe. I met him in
September." I think "named Joe" or "called Joe" have probably floated
free of those structures. It's usually easy to edit them down to
appositional phrases. "I met a boy, Joe, in September."<br>
Don't past participles somewhat maintain a sense of the passive
in
these clauses? "We pushed the boy into the closet." "The boy pushed
into the closet..." I think the notion that those relationships are
retained is very useful, regardless of how we classify them.<br>
"For me to criticize him would be foolish" is an interesting
sentence. I will mull it over. It occurs to me that constructions like
that are often juxtaposed. "It would be foolish for me to criticize
him." <br>
We have a functional need to talk about processes as the focus
of
expressions. It might not be foolish in general to criticize him, but
just foolish "for me." Maybe I don't have the background or expertise.
From that sort of functional push, it makes sense.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Castilleja, Janet wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yeah - I meant 'me.' What I was really trying to get at is
whether or
not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
object, since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe baked
me
a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
substantially more complex.
'For me to criticize him would be foolish.' Here 'for me' seems to be
the subject of the infinitive clause. I know that 'for' constructions
introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
prepositions?
I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
complement.' I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way beyond
what anyone should be required to know.
My state, Washington has teacher tests. We use Praxis by ETS. Students
are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
take before entering our teacher ed program. Then, if they get an
endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
and the test really asks them questions about grammar.
Examples:
My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
behind our house.
The underlined word in the sentence above is an
example of
(A) a conjunction
(B) a participle
(C) a gerund
(D) an adverb
We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.
The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in
(A) question formation
(B) relative clause formation
(C) passive formation
(D) command formation
Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to use,
because I know they see it on the test.
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:13:03 -0500
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Janet, Craig, et al.
There are a number of traditional grammars that would call the 'me' in
'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect object. In Latin, the pronoun
would be in the dative case, and "indirect object" started out as a
label that meant, basically, "dative object, as opposed to accusative
object."=20
There's a major stress point in the traditional system, though -- the
noun that normally goes with a preposition is usually called "the object
of the preposition," and it can't be *both* an indirect object and the
object of the preposition (keep in mind that the traditional approach
always asks, 'what word does this go with,' so you have to say either
'the verb' or 'the preposition' with one of these). Some earlier
grammars dodged this by considering the prepositions themselves to be
case-markers, but then ran into the fact that English has a LOT more
prepositions than Latin has cases. One group of later grammars ruled out
the version with the preposition as an indirect object. Another group
treated it as an indirect object, but only in cases where the
preposition-ed version could be paraphrased as the prepositionless
version (so no indirect object in 'Joe finished off the lutfisk for
me'). Some early generative approaches considered the prepositionless
version as being made out of the preposition-ed one, so in a sense there
were no ditransitive verbs (I said "early" here because I'm sure about
those; I'm not sure about what the current way to deal with the
construction is).=20
Whatever you do with it, it's a bit of a mess. Since specific grammars,
particularly older ones, usually adopt one approach but don't mention
that there are others, I think it's important for teachers and students
to know there *is* a history of disagreement over this. I end up
imagining someone writing a state test and thinking there is, and has
always been, exactly one approach here, and creating a major problem.
The "infinitive with understood subject" (For NP to V") presents even
more of a terminological muddle. From what I've seen, one approach is to
just call the whole thing a specialized kind of infinitive construction,
treating the For....to... sequence as a kind of discontinuous marker, a
bit analogous to either...or; others give one label to the 'for' part
and another to the 'to' part. I cheat, and call the part introduced by
"for" 'subject-ish'.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 12:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Yeah - I meant 'me.' What I was really trying to get at is whether or
not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
object, since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe baked
me
a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
substantially more complex.
'For me to criticize him would be foolish.' Here 'for me' seems to be
the subject of the infinitive clause. I know that 'for' constructions
introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
prepositions? =20
I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
complement.' I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way beyond
what anyone should be required to know.
My state, Washington has teacher tests. We use Praxis by ETS. Students
are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
take before entering our teacher ed program. Then, if they get an
endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
and the test really asks them questions about grammar.
Examples:
My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
behind our house.
The underlined word in the sentence above is an
example of
(A) a conjunction
(B) a participle
(C) a gerund
(D) an adverb
We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.
The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in
(A) question formation
(B) relative clause formation
(C) passive formation
(D) command formation
Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to use,
because I know they see it on the test.
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Janet,
These are wonderful questions. Much of what I would say Bill covers,
so
I'll add a few sidenotes. I have struggled through the same questions
and feel a little more settled in my thinking.
I think it's so much more important to describe the structure than it
is to put it in the "right" category. So looking closely at these
non-finite structures and saying they usually are missing a subject
(not always) and aren't grounded with finite verbs is probably the most
important thing. My students seem OK with saying we'll call them
clauses, but traditional grammar calls them phrases. I end up doing
somewhat the same thing with "gerund" as a term. I don't like it, but
it's out there, and it helps to at least point out what the word refers
to for the people who use it.
I start out with "the elements of the simple clause", so I cover
postnominal modification with prepositional phrases first and say there
are other word groups in that slot that we'll cover later. That seems
to work for me. I sometimes postpone restrictive and non-restrictive
modification until later as well. Appositional phrases also fit in that
slot, but I don't bring them in right away.
I think you mistakenly ask about "Joe" as indirect object in your
cake
sentence. My guess is you meant "me". I like the multi-functional
analysis of functional gramamr for that one. From that view, the
transitivity system helps us represent the world. The clause gives us
processes and participants and circumstances andestablishes participant
roles. We also have systems in place for construing that event in
different ways. In passives, for example, the direct or indirect object
gets shifted into the grammatical subject slot without changing their
real world roles. ("The cake was baked by Joe. I was baked the cake by
Joe." In both these cases, Joe is obviously still doing the baking.)
This can also give us a way to put different information in the usual
given slot and in the clause ending slot we usually use for new
information. "Who was the cake for?" "The cake was baked for me."=20
"What did Joe bake you?" "Joe baked me a cake." "Who baked the cake?=20
"The cake was baked by Joe." Students seem to enjoy putting a clause
through its various permutations and then reflecting on how that
"construes" the process. We can also say something like "Joe baked all
night", or "Joe baked with great care", not because we have stopped
understanding that "baking" means you bake something and are probably
doing that for some sort of beneficiary, but because those elements are
not always in focus. Even categories like "transitive" and
"intransitive" and "di-transitive" and "complex transitive" can be used
to talk about the verb itself as well as about the structure of a
particular clause. Is "Joe baked all night" intransitive? I think
that's easier to understand if you realize the process hasn't changed,
but certain aspects of it are simply not in focus for the statement.
I have found that most state tests for students have no real
knowledge
content to them. Even the phrasing of the standards is something like
"Can puncutate sentences," never anything like "can identify a
participle phrase" or "Can differentiate compound sentences from
compound predicates." Even the SAT simply asks students to pick a
version that seems more effective or more correct. It never asks for
terminology. Language, at least for students, is treated like a
behavior.
Are there teacher tests in your state?
Craig
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/
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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:46:38 -0600
From: richard betting <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Janet, Craig, et al. continued
One of the reasons I tend to believe in the innateness of some =20=
grammatical structures is that children can understand the kinds of =20
sentences that have been used in recent posts. For example, a first =20
grader will understand this exchange: "If you continue to behave =20
badly, you will not get a present" leads, later in the day, to "That =20
you won't get a present is very obvious." Another example results in =20=
the prepositional phrase as subject. "He said that he would leave at =20
nine" might lead to "For him to leave at nine means that we'll have to =20=
finish our project quickly." I got those kinds of sentences and =20
explanations from my study of generative grammar forty years ago. =20
Transformations. The second called the T For To transform.
A comment and a question. The naming of parts: are word groups =20=
phrases or clauses, participial phrases or clauses and should we call =20=
them one- or two-object verbs? Are these transitive or intransitive =20
structures, finite or non-finite verbs, and are these adjective, =20
qualifying, complementary or appositional clauses or phrases? Are they =20=
complex transitive, di- or bi-transitive? Will R & K diagrams help =20
explain them and will students be able to distinguish form from =20
function? Are participles and infinitives parts of speech? Why or why =20=
not? How many parts of speech are there, anyway? And finally, what is =20=
the relationship between the naming of parts and improvement in =20
student speaking and writing? Do teachers consciously and =20
consistently make those connections between theory and practice? Are =20
students being asked to write and speak and are they creating =20
portfolios of written work to demonstrate their competence? And are =20
they participating in the assessment process?
I would bet that the majority of middle school/high school English =20
teachers would not be able to define and explain the terms that have =20
been discussed, to say nothing of doing so from the perspective of =20
more than one grammatical approach. That is not to criticize the =20
teachers themselves so much as to ask about the educational process =20
shat enabled them to get where they are without an adequate knowledge =20=
of the English language that they spend so much time teaching. In =20
order to have an ADEQUATE (minimal) background in English, what =20
courses should/must all language arts teachers have? Could we agree on =20=
the required courses? Do current textbooks (for teachers) meet the =20
content requirement we might create? Is anyone still working on scope =20=
and sequence?
Is the current discussion helping create a consensus on these and =20
other issues that we should be helping decide? Unfortunately, perhaps, =20=
the end result seems to be that each person will create his/her own =20
curriculum. If English teachers don=92t take the opportunity now, =20
someone else will, as NoChild evolves and insupportable standards =20
(like the naming of grammar parts) are created. So much to do, so =20
little time.
On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
> Janet, Craig, et al.
>
> There are a number of traditional grammars that would call the 'me' in
> 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect object. In Latin, the pronoun
> would be in the dative case, and "indirect object" started out as a
> label that meant, basically, "dative object, as opposed to accusative
> object."
>
> There's a major stress point in the traditional system, though -- the
> noun that normally goes with a preposition is usually called "the =20
> object
> of the preposition," and it can't be *both* an indirect object and the
> object of the preposition (keep in mind that the traditional approach
> always asks, 'what word does this go with,' so you have to say either
> 'the verb' or 'the preposition' with one of these). Some earlier
> grammars dodged this by considering the prepositions themselves to be
> case-markers, but then ran into the fact that English has a LOT more
> prepositions than Latin has cases. One group of later grammars ruled =20=
> out
> the version with the preposition as an indirect object. Another group
> treated it as an indirect object, but only in cases where the
> preposition-ed version could be paraphrased as the prepositionless
> version (so no indirect object in 'Joe finished off the lutfisk for
> me'). Some early generative approaches considered the prepositionless
> version as being made out of the preposition-ed one, so in a sense =20
> there
> were no ditransitive verbs (I said "early" here because I'm sure about
> those; I'm not sure about what the current way to deal with the
> construction is).
>
> Whatever you do with it, it's a bit of a mess. Since specific =20
> grammars,
> particularly older ones, usually adopt one approach but don't mention
> that there are others, I think it's important for teachers and =20
> students
> to know there *is* a history of disagreement over this. I end up
> imagining someone writing a state test and thinking there is, and has
> always been, exactly one approach here, and creating a major problem.
>
> The "infinitive with understood subject" (For NP to V") presents even
> more of a terminological muddle. =46rom what I've seen, one approach =20=
> is to
> just call the whole thing a specialized kind of infinitive =20
> construction,
> treating the For....to... sequence as a kind of discontinuous =20
> marker, a
> bit analogous to either...or; others give one label to the 'for' part
> and another to the 'to' part. I cheat, and call the part introduced by
> "for" 'subject-ish'.
>
> Bill Spruiell
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 12:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
>
> Yeah - I meant 'me.' What I was really trying to get at is whether or
> not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
> object, since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe =20
> baked
> me
> a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
> sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
> substantially more complex.
>
> 'For me to criticize him would be foolish.' Here 'for me' seems to =20=
> be
> the subject of the infinitive clause. I know that 'for' constructions
> introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
> prepositions?
>
> I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
> complement.' I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way =20
> beyond
> what anyone should be required to know.
>
> My state, Washington has teacher tests. We use Praxis by ETS. =20
> Students
> are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
> take before entering our teacher ed program. Then, if they get an
> endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
> test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
> and the test really asks them questions about grammar.
>
> Examples:
> My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
> behind our house.
>
> The underlined word in the sentence above is an
> example of
>
> (A) a conjunction
>
> (B) a participle
>
> (C) a gerund
>
> (D) an adverb
>
> We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.
>
> The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in
>
> (A) question formation
>
> (B) relative clause formation
>
> (C) passive formation
>
> (D) command formation
>
> Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to =20
> use,
> because I know they see it on the test.
>
> Janet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
>
> Janet,
> These are wonderful questions. Much of what I would say Bill covers,
> so
> I'll add a few sidenotes. I have struggled through the same questions
> and feel a little more settled in my thinking.
> I think it's so much more important to describe the structure than =20=
> it
> is to put it in the "right" category. So looking closely at these
> non-finite structures and saying they usually are missing a subject
> (not always) and aren't grounded with finite verbs is probably the =20
> most
> important thing. My students seem OK with saying we'll call them
> clauses, but traditional grammar calls them phrases. I end up doing
> somewhat the same thing with "gerund" as a term. I don't like it, but
> it's out there, and it helps to at least point out what the word =20
> refers
> to for the people who use it.
> I start out with "the elements of the simple clause", so I cover
> postnominal modification with prepositional phrases first and say =20
> there
> are other word groups in that slot that we'll cover later. That seems
> to work for me. I sometimes postpone restrictive and non-restrictive
> modification until later as well. Appositional phrases also fit in =20
> that
> slot, but I don't bring them in right away.
> I think you mistakenly ask about "Joe" as indirect object in your
> cake
> sentence. My guess is you meant "me". I like the multi-functional
> analysis of functional gramamr for that one. =46rom that view, the
> transitivity system helps us represent the world. The clause gives us
> processes and participants and circumstances andestablishes =20
> participant
> roles. We also have systems in place for construing that event in
> different ways. In passives, for example, the direct or indirect =20
> object
> gets shifted into the grammatical subject slot without changing their
> real world roles. ("The cake was baked by Joe. I was baked the cake by
> Joe." In both these cases, Joe is obviously still doing the baking.)
> This can also give us a way to put different information in the usual
> given slot and in the clause ending slot we usually use for new
> information. "Who was the cake for?" "The cake was baked for me."
> "What did Joe bake you?" "Joe baked me a cake." "Who baked the cake?
> "The cake was baked by Joe." Students seem to enjoy putting a clause
> through its various permutations and then reflecting on how that
> "construes" the process. We can also say something like "Joe baked all
> night", or "Joe baked with great care", not because we have stopped
> understanding that "baking" means you bake something and are probably
> doing that for some sort of beneficiary, but because those elements =20=
> are
> not always in focus. Even categories like "transitive" and
> "intransitive" and "di-transitive" and "complex transitive" can be =20
> used
> to talk about the verb itself as well as about the structure of a
> particular clause. Is "Joe baked all night" intransitive? I think
> that's easier to understand if you realize the process hasn't changed,
> but certain aspects of it are simply not in focus for the statement.
> I have found that most state tests for students have no real
> knowledge
> content to them. Even the phrasing of the standards is something like
> "Can puncutate sentences," never anything like "can identify a
> participle phrase" or "Can differentiate compound sentences from
> compound predicates." Even the SAT simply asks students to pick a
> version that seems more effective or more correct. It never asks for
> terminology. Language, at least for students, is treated like a
> behavior.
> Are there teacher tests in your state?
>
> Craig
>
> How would you analyze this: Once upon a time, there was a prince =20
> 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 =20
>> 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 =20=
>> 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 =20
>> 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/
>
> 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 =20
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:28:05 -0600
From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
At 03:46 PM 12/12/2008, richard betting wrote: . . .
>I would bet that the majority of middle school/high school English
>teachers would not be able to define and explain the terms that have
>been discussed, to say nothing of doing so from the perspective of
>more than one grammatical approach. That is not to criticize the
>teachers themselves so much as to ask about the educational process
>shat enabled them to get where they are without an adequate knowledge
>of the English language that they spend so much time teaching. In
>order to have an ADEQUATE (minimal) background in English, what
>courses should/must all language arts teachers have? Could we agree on
>the required courses? Do current textbooks (for teachers) meet the
>content requirement we might create? Is anyone still working on scope
>and sequence? . . .
DD: Very salient questions and comment. I teach Latin. [ Don't get
caught in the Latin lists' cross fire on Grammar, Translating,
Understanding, reading in Latin, Speaking, language learning in
general, or whatever*.] I suspect that the pre college level English
teachers are not teaching or talking much about grammar. The students
I get learn the parts of speech (et al.) from me, using Dr. John
Traupman's, "Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency," mostly. What
they do in English class, I wot not. Well, it appears to have naught
to do with formal definitions or rules of grammar. Being a Nosey
Parker, I have very discretely probed. "Parse" is an unknown
word. I sort of gather from comments on this list that there are
still some English Grammarian troglodytes that care. Consensus on
texts we probably could have. Would they have a ghost of a chance of
being adopted for teacher certification courses? That I misdoubt.
Onward comrades, it is a glorious battle we wage. "Thump! Thump!
Thump!" Do I hear the classic cue to the audience of impending doom?
*Well the ones on Graffitti are fun.
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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:54:29 -0500
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
Janet,
My grammar description in "Understanding English Grammar" is based on
ten sentence patterns, which are based on verb classes and the kinds
of completers (complements) those verbs require. The verb class that
we call "give-like verbs" consists of those verbs that take an
indirect object--that is, that include a recipient of the direct
object, as in your example.
Joe baked me a cake.
I gave Joe a birthday present.
In most of these verbs, the indirect object can be shifted from its
position following the verb and become the object of the preposition
"to" or "for" following the direct object:
Joe baked a cake for me.
I gave a present to Joe.
The verb class hasn't changed; there's still an object and a
recipient--and I would call that recipient the indirect object no
matter where it appears, even as the object of a preposition.
N.B. It's important to note that if the direct object is a personal
pronoun, the indirect object MUST be shifted to the prepositional
phrase:
*I gave Joe it.
I gave it to Joe.
*Joe baked me it.
Joe baked it for me.
As for "retained complement" or "retained object," I agree that it
goes beyond the kind of terminology that students should be required
to know. The "retained" label refers to objects that appear in
passive sentences. And that condition occurs only when the active
sentence has more than one object--as in the "give-like" verbs:
Joe was given a present (by me).
A present was given Joe.
Sentences that have an object complement in the active,
We elected Obama president.
will also have a retained complement in the passive:
Obama was elected president.
In this case, we probably call it a "retained subject complement,"
given that the direct object has become the subject.
I certainly don't think our terminology has to be this detailed for
students. Terms that describe the active voice should be sufficient.
Martha
>Yeah - I meant 'me.' What I was really trying to get at is whether or
>not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
>object, since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe baked
>me
>a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
>sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
>substantially more complex.
>
>'For me to criticize him would be foolish.' Here 'for me' seems to be
>the subject of the infinitive clause. I know that 'for' constructions
>introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
>prepositions?
>
>I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
>complement.' I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way beyond
>what anyone should be required to know.
>
>My state, Washington has teacher tests. We use Praxis by ETS. Students
>are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
>take before entering our teacher ed program. Then, if they get an
>endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
>test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
>and the test really asks them questions about grammar.
>
>Examples:
>My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
>behind our house.
>
>The underlined word in the sentence above is an
>example of
>
>(A) a conjunction
>
>(B) a participle
>
>(C) a gerund
>
>(D) an adverb
>
>We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.
>
>The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in
>
>(A) question formation
>
>(B) relative clause formation
>
>(C) passive formation
>
>(D) command formation
>
>Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to use,
>because I know they see it on the test.
>
>Janet
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
>
>Janet,
> These are wonderful questions. Much of what I would say Bill covers,
>so
>I'll add a few sidenotes. I have struggled through the same questions
>and feel a little more settled in my thinking.
> I think it's so much more important to describe the structure than it
>is to put it in the "right" category. So looking closely at these
>non-finite structures and saying they usually are missing a subject
>(not always) and aren't grounded with finite verbs is probably the most
>important thing. My students seem OK with saying we'll call them
>clauses, but traditional grammar calls them phrases. I end up doing
>somewhat the same thing with "gerund" as a term. I don't like it, but
>it's out there, and it helps to at least point out what the word refers
>to for the people who use it.
> I start out with "the elements of the simple clause", so I cover
>postnominal modification with prepositional phrases first and say there
>are other word groups in that slot that we'll cover later. That seems
>to work for me. I sometimes postpone restrictive and non-restrictive
>modification until later as well. Appositional phrases also fit in that
>slot, but I don't bring them in right away.
> I think you mistakenly ask about "Joe" as indirect object in your
>cake
>sentence. My guess is you meant "me". I like the multi-functional
>analysis of functional gramamr for that one. From that view, the
>transitivity system helps us represent the world. The clause gives us
>processes and participants and circumstances andestablishes participant
>roles. We also have systems in place for construing that event in
>different ways. In passives, for example, the direct or indirect object
>gets shifted into the grammatical subject slot without changing their
>real world roles. ("The cake was baked by Joe. I was baked the cake by
>Joe." In both these cases, Joe is obviously still doing the baking.)
>This can also give us a way to put different information in the usual
>given slot and in the clause ending slot we usually use for new
>information. "Who was the cake for?" "The cake was baked for me."
>"What did Joe bake you?" "Joe baked me a cake." "Who baked the cake?
>"The cake was baked by Joe." Students seem to enjoy putting a clause
>through its various permutations and then reflecting on how that
>"construes" the process. We can also say something like "Joe baked all
>night", or "Joe baked with great care", not because we have stopped
>understanding that "baking" means you bake something and are probably
>doing that for some sort of beneficiary, but because those elements are
>not always in focus. Even categories like "transitive" and
>"intransitive" and "di-transitive" and "complex transitive" can be used
>to talk about the verb itself as well as about the structure of a
>particular clause. Is "Joe baked all night" intransitive? I think
>that's easier to understand if you realize the process hasn't changed,
>but certain aspects of it are simply not in focus for the statement.
> I have found that most state tests for students have no real
>knowledge
>content to them. Even the phrasing of the standards is something like
>"Can puncutate sentences," never anything like "can identify a
>participle phrase" or "Can differentiate compound sentences from
>compound predicates." Even the SAT simply asks students to pick a
>version that seems more effective or more correct. It never asks for
>terminology. Language, at least for students, is treated like a
>behavior.
> Are there teacher tests in your state?
>
>Craig
>
> 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/
>
>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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:58:37 -0800
From: Dee Allen-Kirkhouse <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
I'll weigh in on the comment about middle/high school teachers and grammar.
Some days I feel as if I am banging my head against the wall when I try to
convince my colleagues that it is essential to teach grammar to our high
school students. Students are hungry for grammar. In the end-of-the year
reflective essays, students in my classes often write about how much they
learned about English grammar and how that knowledge has made them more
aware of their writing choices. A frequent lament from students is that
they never learned grammar. I'm pretty sure that other teachers teach
grammar, but as we discussed at this summer's ATEG conference, the
teacher-preparation programs are not teaching teachers how to teach grammar
or even how to talk about it. One of my colleagues says students don't
need to know grammar. He grades with a red pen and points out errors in
student writing but doesn't help them to recognize the errors and correct
them. (Students tell me that he calls me the Grammar Queen behind my
back---as if that is a bad thing.)
Last year, my department chair asked me to do a mini-lesson on teaching
grammar. When I wrote a routine exercise on the board and asked my
colleagues to identify various elements of the sentence, most of them
didn't have an answer. As I began talking about the subject and predicate,
I saw some of their eyes widen in panic. They literally had no idea what I
was talking about. When I explained about the different types of verbs,
using Martha's sentence patterns as a guideline, I totally lost them. I
had approached my mini-lesson with the assumption that my fellow English
teachers understood grammar, but I was obviously mistaken. They know
literature, but grammar is a foreign concept. Those of us who grew up in
the pre-Chomsky era learned how to diagram a sentence. It opened our eyes
to the various ways we could arrange words for greater effect. I cringe
when I see some of the sentences my students write using text-shorthand.
We certainly have our work cut out for us.
Dee
> [Original Message]
> From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 12/12/2008 6:31:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
>
> At 03:46 PM 12/12/2008, richard betting wrote: . . .
> >I would bet that the majority of middle school/high school English
> >teachers would not be able to define and explain the terms that have
> >been discussed, to say nothing of doing so from the perspective of
> >more than one grammatical approach. That is not to criticize the
> >teachers themselves so much as to ask about the educational process
> >shat enabled them to get where they are without an adequate knowledge
> >of the English language that they spend so much time teaching. In
> >order to have an ADEQUATE (minimal) background in English, what
> >courses should/must all language arts teachers have? Could we agree on
> >the required courses? Do current textbooks (for teachers) meet the
> >content requirement we might create? Is anyone still working on scope
> >and sequence? . . .
>
> DD: Very salient questions and comment. I teach Latin. [ Don't get
> caught in the Latin lists' cross fire on Grammar, Translating,
> Understanding, reading in Latin, Speaking, language learning in
> general, or whatever*.] I suspect that the pre college level English
> teachers are not teaching or talking much about grammar. The students
> I get learn the parts of speech (et al.) from me, using Dr. John
> Traupman's, "Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency," mostly. What
> they do in English class, I wot not. Well, it appears to have naught
> to do with formal definitions or rules of grammar. Being a Nosey
> Parker, I have very discretely probed. "Parse" is an unknown
> word. I sort of gather from comments on this list that there are
> still some English Grammarian troglodytes that care. Consensus on
> texts we probably could have. Would they have a ghost of a chance of
> being adopted for teacher certification courses? That I misdoubt.
> Onward comrades, it is a glorious battle we wage. "Thump! Thump!
> Thump!" Do I hear the classic cue to the audience of impending doom?
> *Well the ones on Graffitti are fun.
>
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:44:15 +0900
From: John Curran <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
The boy was very happy that his mother did not see him being such a pig.
I have had no time to read the learned and voluminous observations on this
but as a common classroom teacher I must contribute:
Swan (Practical English Usage) describes the above as a "that clause"
modifying an adjective. (The conjunction "that" has little or no meaning).
Kolln & Funk (p. 259 6th.Edition) to paraphrase: this clause is a
complement completing the idea expressed by the adjective. Overall this is a
pattern II sentence.
There appear to be many opinions but the Kolln & Funk explanation is the one
I will use with my students.
Clarification from Martha please - "being such a pig" is this an object
complement relevant to 'him'?
Can someone put this all in the form of a KR diagram? There must be a young
whizz kid somewhere!
Craig may I ask you - can you complete the analysis from SFL perspective?
The boy was very happy that his
mother did not see him being such a pig.
Carrier relational Attribute conj.
Theme process
John
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 11 Dec 2008 to 12 Dec 2008 (#2008-263)
***********************************************************
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/
|
