But if "ain't" is a contraction of "am not" that has generalized to all other present forms of "be," then its behavior would be identical with that of "be." How would traditional terminology treat "be" in "Isn't he home yet?" Perhaps I'm showing my own uncertainty as to whether traditional grammarians would call the main verb the auxiliary+verb, just the lexical verb whatever its form, or just the tensed auxiliary.
Have and be are anomalous among English verbs in that they behave both as auxiliaries and as lexical verbs, although "have" shows more variation across dialects in this behavior.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: 2009-06-02 16:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Just a terminology side-note --
I, and I think a lot of other linguists, would count the "ain't" of "He
ain't hungry yet" as an auxiliary (since it appears initially in the
yes/no question equivalent, "Ain't he done yet?"), but traditional
terminology would treat it as the main verb, since adopting the
auxiliary analysis entails accepting that there *is* no main verb in
this kind of construction.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've heard it only as an auxiliary. "We ain't any" for "We don't have
any" just doesn't work.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: 2009-06-02 15:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
I've likely used all those myself. Thanks for the examples. I was
trying to use "ain't" where has/have are main nouns, rather than helping
verbs. Maybe it can be used to replace main have/has also?
Larry
Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> 06/02/09 2:17 PM >>>
I'm not Herb, but what about "He ain't been there." "She ain't got
none." "It ain't been so long since the last storm."
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels & ain't
Herb,
Can you give examples of people who use 'ain't' for a contraction of
'has/have not.' I might not be thinking it through, but I cannot think
of any such instances myself.
Just curious.
Larry
____________________________
Larry Beason, Associate Professor
Director of Composition
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Office: 251-460-7861
FAX: 251-461-1517
>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 6/1/2009 8:30 PM >>>
Peter,
That's exactly what happened with "ain't." Up into the 16th c. it was
the standard contraction of "am not," a string for which we now have no
contraction. In some dialects of English, "ain't" came to be used with
all persons, and so 18th c. prescriptive grammarians rejected "ain't"
completely, in any usage. The result is that today, English speakers
don't even consider "ain't" to be a legitimate possibility for "am not."
Those who use it use it not only for all persons but also as a
contraction of "has/have not." So the answer to your question is yes.
Prescriptive rules can bring about linguistic change.
Oddly, the form persisted among the nobility. Dorothy Sayers, who's
very careful with her representation of dialect and register, has Lord
Peter Wimsey using "I ain't" regularly. The nobility, who didn't bother
to read the 18th c. self-help literature on how to sound like the
nobility, didn't give up the contraction. While it was still current in
the early 20th c., as the Sayers novels demonstrate, the use of "ain't"
for "am not" has now disappeared among the nobility as well.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: 2009-06-01 20:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Here's a scary thought. If enough teachers have taught these
"training wheel rules" to enough generations of students, who are now
out there teaching them to others and editing books and periodicals
and even the NY Times, so that most people in America believe that
starting a sentence with "because" or "there" or "and" is just plain
wrong, could what started as "training wheels" actually become
descriptions of how the language is used? Despite what a handful of
brilliant ATEG members think, can what started as "training wheels"
actually become "the rules" if enough people think they are the
rules? And then we ATEG-ers become the reactionaries trying to resist
"change" in the language? Really scary. [Note that, as if to prove
I'm not influenced by training wheels, I just started a sentence with
"and."]
Peter Adams
On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:
> I have the same concern about the training wheels never coming off.
> I will never forget suggesting to the senior high school teachers in
> one of the best public schools in the state of New Jersey that it
> was OK to start a sentence with "and" or "but," only to discover
> that the department chair had just sent out a memo urging every
> English teacher to be on guard against this sinful practice and join
> him in wiping it off the face of the Earth. If college English
> teachers frequently find their students believing such things as
> never use the passive, never begin sentences with "there," never use
> "I" in formal writing, and such, it would seem the training has
> lasted for 12 years.
> As for "formal" writing, what is it? and where is it published? And
> what chance is there that more than (fill in the number) percent of
> our students are ever going to have to write it?
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>> Herb, Peter, et al.:
>>
>> I'm just kibitzing with a couple of points (and whole-heartedly agree
>> with Herb's points about the value of this thread) --
>>
>> (1) I think Peter's point about training wheels being useful only
>> insofar as the students *know* they're there and they will come off
>> eventually is a crucial one. Simplifications used in textbooks should
>> always be accompanied by some comment, however brief, that the actual
>> situation is more complex, and that discussion of that will occur at
>> some later point. From what I've seen of K-12 textbooks, this kind of
>> comment is almost never added, and I have gotten the impression at
>> times
>> that the publishers of the texts didn't actually know that the
>> material
>> *was* a simplification (like an inset box in one text I've examined
>> that
>> made the point that (a) dialects are very different and quaint
>> kinds of
>> speech, like one hears in Scotland, and (b) dialects are dying out;
>> it
>> was accompanied by a picture of a child in a kilt, playing bagpipes).
>> Students are hardly ever shocked to discover that there's more
>> complexity to a subject than they are being asked to deal with right
>> now. They *are* annoyed when they've been presented with something
>> as an
>> absolute fact about English and then hear someone tell them it's
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> (2) I always want to add a third domain to the two Peter mentioned.
>> Grammar-as-a-discipline, like chemistry or biology, focuses on the
>> architecture of part of our experienced reality. Grammar-for-
>> composition
>> focuses on expression; interpretation is automatically included the
>> minute audience awareness becomes a topic, but it's not the primary
>> focus. As future citizens, and consumers, students also benefit from
>> examining how language is *on* them. It's possible to study
>> traditional
>> formal grammar and have a large amount of practice with composition
>> without ever really noticing how "virtually" is used as a weasel
>> word,
>> or how a politician is using a passive construction in a way that
>> happens to omit the agent when referring to a major problem. A
>> consciousness of grammar during "reception" is vital, even if it's
>> unconnected to a current writing task.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> 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 STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of
>> how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of
>> Goal Two:
>>
>> This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?
>>
>> But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing
>> and
>> language arts teachers. How much students should know about
>> language is
>> directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US
>> history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much
>> students should know about grammar does fall much more directly
>> into the
>> domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher.
>> Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half
>> century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem
>> aside,
>> linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language
>> arts
>> teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and
>> sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
>>
>> I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor,
>> is one
>> of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in
>> quite a
>> while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge,
>> experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long
>> felt towards good K12 teachers.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
[[log in to unmask]
>> ]
>> Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
>> resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much
>> grammar
>> should students know.
>>
>> It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
>> grammar instruction:
>>
>> Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
>> conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
>>
>> Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
>> language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
>> students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
>> they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
>> humanity: our language?)
>>
>> Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
>> question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
>> agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
>> it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
>> to reach that goal.
>>
>> And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
>> complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
>> so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
>>
>> I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
>> question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
>> questions are.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
>>> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
>>> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
>>> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
>>> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward
>>> grammar
>>> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
>>> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
>>> grammar in
>>> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
>>> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
>>> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
>>> difficult
>>> to displace.
>>> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we
>>> observe
>>> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
>>> itself
>>> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
>>> to come
>>> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an
>>> observation
>>> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
>>> it.
>>> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
>>> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
>>> we
>>> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
>>> dynamic than
>>> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
>>> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
>>> purposefully.
>>> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
>>> understanding
>>> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
>>> about
>>> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
>>> educated
>>> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
>>> of the
>>> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
>>> and it
>>> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
>>> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
>>> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
>>> about
>>> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
>>> in
>>> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
>>> effectively or "correctly". >
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Susan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>>>> anger." I
>>>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I
>>>> called
>>>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>>>> them--but I
>>>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think
>>>> you're
>>>> picking up from me.
>>>>
>>>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called
>>>> "training
>>>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>>>> differently,
>>>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>>>> has
>>>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>>>> training
>>>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>>>> skills
>>>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>>>> wheels
>>>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>>>> can do
>>>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>>>> teachers
>>>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>>>> OK, but
>>>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>>>> sentences
>>>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>>>> some
>>>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>>>> what it
>>>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>>>> These
>>>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>>>> getting
>>>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>>>> wheels
>>>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers
>>>> use
>>>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>>>> "avoid
>>>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>>>> made-up
>>>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>>>> sentence
>>>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of
>>>> effective
>>>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>>>> from; the
>>>> latter is not even a norm.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>>>> characterizing your
>>>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>>>> always
>>>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>>>> right, you
>>>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>>>> sentence
>>>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>>>> to try
>>>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>>>> become
>>>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>>>> using a
>>>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>>>> writers";
>>>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>>>> that I
>>>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>>>> which would
>>>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>>>> is
>>>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>>>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having
>>>> students
>>>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>>>> scaffolding.
>>>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>>>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>>>
>>>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>>>> he
>>>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>>>> now
>>>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>>>> statement,
>>>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>>>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>>>> this
>>>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>>>> be.
>>>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor of English
>>>> Director of the Writing Center
>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>>>> Montgomery Hall 50
>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>>>> 20686
>>>> 240-895-4242
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>>>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>>>> as an
>>>> example of the important educational techniques called
>>>> "scaffolding." In
>>>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>>>> finally
>>>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are
>>>> helpful.
>>>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing
>>>> if a
>>>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>>>> trying to
>>>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>>>> any
>>>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>>>> under
>>>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks
>>>> his
>>>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>>>> will
>>>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>>>> internalized
>>>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>>>> but still
>>>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>>>> then I'm
>>>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>>>> beginning with
>>>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>>>> you have
>>>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>>>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>>>> don't
>>>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>>>> bike with
>>>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>>>> off
>>>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>>>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>>>> sentence
>>>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>>>> Don't
>>>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>>>> advocated
>>>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>>>> those
>>>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>>>> a row
>>>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>>>> If there
>>>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>>>> "there
>>>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>>>> what
>>>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>>>> allows
>>>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Susan van
>>>> Druten
>>>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: training wheels
>>>>
>>>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>>>
>>>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>>>> So...let'e
>>>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>>>> starts
>>>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>>>> spigots.
>>>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>>>> texts
>>>> do you find harmful?
>>>>
>>>> Have at it.
>>>>
>>>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.
>>>> Our
>>>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>>>> its
>>>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
>>>> this
>>>> listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>>>
>>>> Hurts, donut?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I just wanted to say that I find your contribu
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/
|
