Thanks to Michael, Johanna, Max and Burkhard -- the
discussion of adverbs/adverbials was VERY useful. I can
imagine myself using the thread -- probably appropriating
it, using my own or borrowed & adapted SFG terms.
The discussion was enlightening not only because it
was careful and informed but also because it juxtaposed
descriptive options -- : complements? adverbs? adverbials? YES.
What is important are the underlying principles -- to demonstrate
them is to SHOW the wonderfully generative, flexible system of
lexico-grammar [I imagine phenomena both formal and functional,
with a certain instability built in to the coupling, so that
"form-ish-ness" and functionality slide apart and travel to
different pairings, forms and functions mating & propagating,
expanding and changing the system -- Oh, but that is another
contentious issue, I've learned -- what counts as a change in
the system.... anyway, rambling stops here]
I have one question for Max. You wrote:
> So
>perhaps Plato was right, that there are but two "parts of speech"--onema
>and rhema, nouns and verbs (I don't think I spelled onema correctly). But
>if Plato was right (following Fillmore and the functional grammarians, and
>contemporary binding and filtering theory) then he should have said that
>the two parts of speech are really verbs and adverbs (adverbials?), nouns
>in adverbial roles.
But the subject is not a noun in adverbial guise:
I leaned it against the wall
Does it sound sensible to you, making use of Plato's insight, that
there are two 'parts of speech' - participants and processes; the
participants may be "onema" OR complements, while the processes are rhema
?
I hope the discussion continues.
Judy
At 06:54 AM 3/10/99 -0500, you wrote:
>John is here.
>John is in the kitchen.
>John is in for it.
>
>When is the exam?
>The exam is Thursday.
>The exam is next week.
>
>Complement? Adverb? Adverbial?
>
>I'm afraid I can't see much of a problem here.
>
>A.
>
>First a definition:
>
>'Complement' is a general term denoting that there is more than just the
>verb (or rather the verbal part) in a sentence. Everything that MUST be
>added to create a sentence is a complement. With 'shine' only one
>complement is necessary, namely the subject, with 'put' three complements
>are necessary (subject, object, adverbial of direction).
>
>There are several types of complements - S,O,A, subject complement, object
>complement. Which of these are necessary depends on the individual verb.
>See discussion on valences some time ago.
>
>'Be' is a verb that needs two complements, a subject and a subject
>complement or an adverbial.
>
>Subject complements:
> SC
>His clothes were / wet /.
>You are /teachers/.
>The point is /that nobody was aware of what was going on/.
>This is /what happened.
>
>Adverbials (see the above sentences).
>
>There is a great number of adverbial types: apart from the obvious ones
>like place, direction, time, etc. there are many others, most of which have
>no traditional name.
>
>The adverbial slot in a sentence with 'be' is mostly an adverbial of place,
>but adverbials of time are not rare (see sentences above). Whether the
>meaning of 'be' is a little different with place or time adverbials is of
>no avail, because this is regularly the case when the valence changes. A
>good example is 'take' - as any dictionary will illustrate.
>
>Apart from place and time adverbials after 'be', there are also others, e.g.
> A
>They are/to be married in June/.
>He's been /to see his uncle/.
>
>This is one of the (traditionally) nameless adverbial types.
>
>B.
>
>Some problems that have been discussed arise only because 'adverb' and
>'adverbial' are often used as synonyms, which, of course, they aren't.
>
>'Adverb' denotes a word class, like 'noun', 'adjective'. 'Adverbial' refers
>to a function in the sentence, like 'subject', 'object'. (In the same way
>'verb' and 'verbal part' must be distinguished, or 'noun' and 'subject'...).
>
>The function of ADVERBIAL can be performed by all sorts of structures:
>adverbs of course(here),but also adverb groups (quite nicely), noun
>(Thursday), noun group (every morning), prepositional phrase (on the roof),
>wh-sentence (where no man has ever been), subclause structure (because he
>wasn't home), to-inf sentence (to make her happy), etc.
>
>On the other hand, ADVERBS can perform a great number of functions, not
>just adverbial, e.g. they can be attributes in adjective groups (very
>fast), they can be disjuncts (fortunately, the man turned up), conjuncts
>(however, this was quite different), and many more.
>
>Neither the term 'adverb' nor the term 'adverbial' should be seen as a
>wastepaper basket term, as some will have it, where you put what you can't
>explain. If things can't be explained, it just means that we don't know
>enough yet, either as individuals or as linguists. In the latter case more
>research is needed, that's all.
>
>By the way, in the scope and sequence discussion it was said that teachers
>cannot be expected to understand linguistic models when they are a little
>more adequate than the usual school grammar. Teachers are not that dumb,
>good heavens, we are all teachers, one way or another. The problem is that
>most teachers have never learned anything else. They were taught school
>grammar in school (instead of learning to look at language itself), then
>the same at college, and then by the textbooks they use as teachers. By the
>time they have taught for a few years, they have internalized the
>traditional rules and have learned to negate their brains' protests against
>illogical terminology and rules, and after that it is very difficult to
>open their eyes and make them look 'naively' at language itself and at the
>models they use. And so they teach school grammar again, and the cycle
>starts anew.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany
>E-mail: [log in to unmask] [h] Fax: +49 7383 2212
>HTTP://WWW.PH-GMUEND.DE/PHG/PHONLINE/Englisch/index.htm
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake
|
