John,
The definition of "sentence" is an interesting question, but I'm
not sure that it is all that important. We may be close to agreement
about the definition of clause, depending on how you define "VP." Is an
infinitive a VP? Pedagogically, I still find the definition of clause as
an S/V/C pattern to be much more effective. When students start to
analyze their own writing, they will frequently find sentences such as
"We saw the man who stole the ice cream." If their definition of clause
is simply SV & VP do they not get confused by the subject of "stole"?
Many of my students, following the grammar they have been taught in
school, tell me that "man" is the subject of "stole." But if they look
at clauses as S/V/C patterns, they can quickly learn that the complement
of one verb can NEVER be the subject of another (finite) verb. Thus,
"man" cannot be the subject. That leaves them with "who" as the only
possibility.
I think I understand what you mean by no end of sentence marker in
speech, but what I have in mind here is related to the question you
asked about the "leap" from oral to written. Much of the time, we do not
speak in full sentences. The context simply implies the "sentence"
meaning, as in my response about classified ads. For many students,
therefore, and especially for those who have not been read to frequently
(and/or who do not read on their own), there is a gap that they must
overcome (by leaping) from the oral context that they are accustomed to
onto the normal full-sentence style of written prose. In part, that gap
is visible to some of us writing teachers who see students who
frequently write for themselves, i.e., they have little, if any sense of
writing as a transactive actitivty. This recently was very evident in
some of my students papers. They decided to write about their "rooms,"
but there was no sense of saying anything about their rooms to any
reader(s).
As you noted, "The pragmatics of a writing channel and its formal
conventions combine to disallow fragments except for rhetorical effect
or in quotes of speech where context is established." I'm simply
suggesting that, for many students, there is little or no distinction
between a "writing" and an "oral" channel.
I might also note here that several of my remedial students write
those tremendously long "sentences" that are created by combining
relatively simple main clauses with "and." Hunt claimed that this was
characteristic of third and fourth graders' writing, but I'm seeing it
at the college level. In this course, we are spending one day out of
every three with the students analyzing their own latest drafts for
prepositional phrases, S/V/C patterns, and clauses. I'm already seeing
some sense of understanding on the part of some of the students. For
example, one student regularly uses the fragment pattern, "Blue, which
is my favorite color." (Bob Yates, by the way, has some interesting
material on this pattern.) In the class, as the students look for S/V/C
patterns, this student and the student who was working in a group with
him noted that "which" is the subject of "is." This student seems to
have had some semi-effective instruction in grammar. But then, in
analyzing his own writing, he noted that he has a double subject, and
realized that he needed to delete the "which." When he noted the same
problem pattern later in his paper, he made the correction without
prompting from me. We have not gotten to the questions of clause length,
style, and subordination yet. (We have had only three classes on this.)
I'm looking forward to seeing if I can enable these students to
recognize the clause structure in their own writing (in the course of 14
or 15 class periods), and then also see for themselves that some of them
are writing strings of simple "and" clauses, etc.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/11/04 09:36AM >>>
Ed,
A clause is a subject NP + a VP. My definition of sentence in writing
is
operational, but, because it must take into account things like
conjunctions, semi-colons, ellisions, etc., it is too lengthy to get
into
here. What I meant in my post was that students don't always sense the
need
for an end-of-sentence signal (vs. an end-of-clause signal) because
there is
no end-of-sentence marker in speech.
Your obesrvation that "my conclusion at the time was that most of the
run-ons and splices occurred where adults might well use a colon,
semicolon,
or dash." was very helpful to me: The sensing of a relationship
between the
two clauses + a lack of knowledge about how to signal that
relationship
properly in writing combine to produce a CS or RO. I'm going to start
looking at the CS's and RO's that students produce from exactly that
perspective--thanks!
I also concur that main clauses (vs. non-main clauses, however one
chooses
to label them) are psychologically real. I'm not sure, however, that
I
understand what you mean by the "leap" from oral to written. Sentences
in
writing are in context also. The pragmatics of a writing channel and
its
formal conventions combine to disallow fragments except for rhetorical
effect or in quotes of speech where context is established.
I have, BTW, been using the concept of chunking for many years to help
students understand the underlying logic of how things work. I was
pleasantly surprised over a year ago to discover that you also use it
to
good effect in KISS.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Vavra [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Boundaries
John,
You've presented an interesting perspective on an important
question, but I have trouble with your distinction between clause and
sentence. There have been discussions of this on this list before,
but
I still hold that main clauses (which may or may not be the equivalent
of a sentence) are pyschologically real, and in fact, the essential
unit
of communication. I base this on a psycholinguistic model. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/ENL111/Syntax/PLModel/Int000.htm
I hope to see more responses to your question, but I also have to
wonder if we can simply make a leap from oral to written language.
Psychologically, oral sentences appear in context. When my wife says
"Bread," she may mean "Bring home bread," or "Do you want some bread."
Both of the latter are clauses, but they are so only because of
context.
Writing does not quite work that way.
I wish, by the way, that more people were helping with KISS
grammar, for this would be an excellent research study. I say KISS, of
course, because KISS has a set, standard definition of clause, etc.
I'm
just thinking of some students' papers that I read yesterday. They
were
filled with splices, run-ons, and fragments. It would take some time
and
thought to analyze those errors and explore their causes, but it would
probably be time well-spent.
Ed
P.S. I have another explanation of these errors on the web, based on
an
analysis of 31 samples of seventh graders writing. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/ED498/R/1986/W7/W7Stats_Sum.htm
My conclusion at the time was that most of the run-ons and splices
occurred where adults might well use a colon, semicolon, or dash. In
other words, the students sensed a logical relationship in the ideas
expressed in the main clauses, but had not been taught how to
punctuate
the sentences.
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/09/04 05:40PM >>>
Does anybody find fault with the following line of reason?
-- Speakers signal clausal boundaries by intonation and (sometimes)
pauses.
-- Sentence boundaries are clausal boundaries by definition, and are
signaled in the same manner.
-- So sentences are not psychologically real for speakers--only
clauses
are.
If the above is true, then the intransigence of comma splices and even
run-ons is much easier to understand.
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/
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/
|
