Martha, and company,
It's interesting that we don't say "the manner how it was done,"
which might be another argument for thinking of these as nominal. In
this case, we are stuck with "in which." "The manner in which it was
done surprised everyone."
I haven't thought it all through, but I'm wondering if it would be
useful to look at the similarity to the fronting that occurs with "wh"
questions and with content clauses.
"Where were you born?" "When were you born?" "Why were you born?" "How
were you born?"
"I know where you were born". "I know when you were born." "I know why
you were born." "I know how you were born."
In both these cases, the wh element gives us a rhetorical focus for the
precise nature of the requested information or the known information.
I know the town where your were born, the day when you were born, the
reason why you were born, the manner in which you were born.
In these cases also, the where, when, why, and in which stand in for
the information designated as important, as in relevance. Pronouns tend
to do this in relative clauses. But in these cases, we are looking for a
nominal form for an adverbial function. (where, when, why, and how. a
place, a date, a reason, a manner).
Nancy's students ought to write articles. These are very interesting
questions.
Craig
Martha Kolln wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> The phrase "the town where I was born" can be read as "the town_ in
> which_ I was born." Now the clause has an adverbial prepositional
> phrase--and the diagram would show that phrase in the same place as
> the "where" is shown: i.e., modifying the verb "was born."
>
> In a sense, both/ which/ and/ where/ are pronominal, in that they
> refer to the noun/ town/. If you do the substitution with "in which,"
> you obviously have a pronominal--a relative pronoun that functions as
> the object of a preposition (a nominal function) in its own clause. I
> put/ where/ on an "adverb" line (i.e., diagonally below the verb)--as
> a "there" substitute of sorts. But you could certainly put it on a
> prepositional phrase line, leaving the preposition spot empty. I
> think that's what your students want to do, right? They can think of
> it as "the town (at) where I was born."
>
> When I was in ninth grade, a teacher pointed out to me that I didn't
> need "at" when I asked "where"; I had asked her "Where is it at?"
> "Where at" is a fairly common usage--so why not "at where"?
>
> The/ where/ and/ when/ and / why/ relative clauses are not very
> common--especially/ why/--because they modify only nouns of place and
> time and, in the case of/ why/, the noun/ reason/ (that's the only one
> I can think of-- although I guess there might be others, synonyms for/
> reason/).
>
> Tell your students to keep questioning. The form/function distinction
> does indeed give them a way to think.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
>
>> Everything that has been posted about this topic over the past few
>> days underscores the importance of talking about language in terms of
>> function and not form.
>>
>> This point was driven home to me this week as I talked with my
>> students about adjective clauses that begin with words normally
>> thought of as adverbs: "where," "when," and "why." I think a good
>> case can be made for regarding them as functioning pronominally (is
>> that a word?) in these particular constructions.
>>
>> With most adjective/relative clauses, the relative pronoun refers to
>> a specific noun in another clause. Thus, in the sentence "She is the
>> woman whom I met at a party," a traditional diagram would show a
>> dotted line connecting "whom" in the relative clause to "woman" in
>> the main clause. The reader, upon seeing the clause "whom I met at a
>> party," thinks "woman I met at a party."
>>
>> It stands to reason, then, that "where," "when," and "why" function
>> more like pronominals than like adverbs in cases where the adjective
>> clause starts with one of those words.
>>
>> I am a huge fan of Martha Kolln's/ Understanding English Grammar/.
>> Martha, in your diagrams of such clauses (adjective clauses launched
>> by an adverb), you show the adverb on a straight line under the verb
>> of the adjective clause. But could we not treat the "where," "when,"
>> or "why" as if it were the object of a prepositional phrase with an
>> elliptical preposition? The prepositional phrase as a unit functions
>> adverbially in its own clause, but the word itself functions
>> nominally in its relation to the other clause-as a replacement for
>> the word to which we say it is connected.
>>
>> Take this sentence, for example:
>>
>> This is the house where I was born.
>>
>> The dotted line connecting the adjective clause "where I was born" to
>> the main clause would connect "where" to "house." "Where" acts just
>> like a pronoun; that is, when we read that adjective clause, the
>> meaning conveyed is "I was born [in] house" or "I was born [in] where."
>>
>> My students were inclined to treat these words as objects of
>> prepositional phrases with elliptical prepositions because earlier in
>> the text, they were taught that words like "yesterday" and "tomorrow"
>> and "Friday" are diagrammed as objects of prepositional phrases with
>> elliptical prepositions. And I have implored them so often to think
>> in terms of a word's function and not its form that they were
>> comfortable seeing "when," "where," and "why" functioning
>> pronominally in these particular cases.
>>
>> When they are trying to figure out how a phrase or clause is related
>> to the rest of a sentence, my students get the best results when they
>> ask themselves "What question does this word/phrase/clause answer?"
>> If we ask ourselves what question "where" answers in its own clause
>> (not what question does the entire clause answer-that would be "which
>> house?"), we would answer "where I was born." But the answer to the
>> question "where was I born?" is "in house," not simply "house."
>>
>> I'm not sure I'm being clear here. I should have learned by now not
>> to post to this very intelligent group late at night! But the bottom
>> line is this: I am much more concerned that my students are thinking
>> about and recognizing the relationships among words, phrases, and
>> clauses than I am that they be able to put words in form classes-a
>> frustrating if not completely futile exercise. I am convinced that as
>> they get better at recognizing the functions of words in a
>> construction, they become clearer thinkers and more precise writers.
>>
>> Nancy
>>
>>
>> Nancy L. Tuten, PhD
>> Professor of English
>> Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program
>> Columbia College
>> Columbia, South Carolina
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> 803-786-3706
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]* On Behalf Of* Castilleja, Janet
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:30 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: [BULK] A new question was The necessity for
>> classification was: Those old transitivity blues was Help for a
>> puzzled teacher
>>
>> One of my former students sent me an email asking this question: I
>> have a grammar question I have yet to find an answer to, and I
>> thought, "Who better to ask than Janet?" So, regarding the use of the
>> word 'wondering', I would like to know if I should use a question
>> mark at the end of a sentence such as: "I was wondering if you are
>> going to the store?" or "I wonder why it rains?" My first inclination
>> is that these are statements, not questions. However, I have run into
>> question marks at the end of such sentences frequently of late. I
>> must know the truth!
>>
>> I believe I would treat this as reported speech not requiring a
>> question mark. What do others think?
>>
>> Janet Castilleja
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]* On Behalf Of* Ronald Sheen
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:20 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [BULK] The necessity for classification was: Those old
>> transitivity blues was Help for a puzzled teacher
>> *Importance:* Low
>>
>> Craig writes:
>> When classification becomes an end in itself, the living,
>> dynamic language gets left behind.
>>
>> This may be so in the case of purely linguistic analysis. However, I
>> do not agree that this reflects the recent comments related to the
>> ESL context. Therein, assuming that one is adopting an explicit
>> approach to explaining the difference between phrasal and
>> prepositional verbs, first, one has to have a means of classifying
>> the two, and second, one has to provide the students with a clear way
>> of distinguishing them.
>>
>> Ron Sheen
>> 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/
>
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/
|
