Joanna,

I'm wondering how using "linguistic" definitions works with words  
like snow or red.

Snow would seem to be a noun since it takes a plural form (the snows  
of 1978) and possessive (the snow's surface was icy).
But it also takes -ed (it snowed all night) and -ing (is it still  
snowing).
So does snow fit the linguistic definition for a noun or a verb or  
both.  If both, why not say it can be both and its word class depends  
on context?

Similarly with red or other colors:
Red satisfies the linguistic definition for nouns (it takes a plural  
form: the reds in Carpaccio's paintings, and it has a possessive  
form: red's complementary color is purple)
But it also satisfied the definition for an adjective (it has a  
comparative and superlative: redder, reddest)
So does red fit the linguistic definition for a noun or an adjective  
or both.  If both, why not say it can be both and its word class  
depends on context?  And then, why not say that most words belong to  
several word classes and that their class can only be determined in  
context?

Peter Adams
Community College Baltimore County

On Feb 22, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote:

> When it comes to form vs. function, I teach the linguistic  
> definitions for the various parts of speech (that is, dependent on  
> whether or not a word takes certain suffixes or can appear in  
> certain phrase slots). I teach phrases and sentences as consisting  
> of function slots into which various categories of word, phrase,  
> and clause can be "plugged." I draw boxes with various slot roles,  
> such as "head" and "modifier" for phrases, and "subject",  
> "predicate", "direct object," etc. for predicate- and sentence- 
> level slots. Thus, a word, phrase, or clause can be plugged into  
> the "subject" slot; many items, from nouns to prepositional phrases  
> to clauses, can be plugged into the "adverbial" slot.  A book  
> manuscript I have with such boxes is praised by students for being,  
> in general, accessible and clear in its explanations.
>
> I teach at the college level (but mostly to students who have had  
> little to no grammar instruction), and this seems to work for most  
> students. I would guess that it might work for well-prepared  
> students from middle school on, but it is hard for me to judge. My  
> friend in seventh grade is doing math I did in 11th grade ... she  
> goes to an affluent school, though.
>
> An obstacle for many students is the conflation of form and  
> function that takes place in earlier grades. Even those who have  
> had minimal grammar usually remember the rote definitions for noun,  
> verb, and adjective, and many think that anything that modifies a  
> noun is an adjective. This makes it harder for them to adjust to a  
> new (but more accurate) system of definitions later.
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
> Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Dept.
> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> URL: cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/