I have two things to comment on in this message, so forgive its length.
#1 Participle/adjective 'chains'
This is a case where I really wish I had a copy of QUIGLS** on my shelf. I
have a feeling they must address this issue.
**Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik Comprehensive Grammar of English.
There seems to be some interesting stuff going on with placement after the
verb -- it seems to depend somewhat on what kind of verb you've got:
-My friends returned to camp bleeding and limping.
-My friends returned to camp exhausted and sleepy.
-*The campers devoured the meal hungry and thirsty.
-The campers devoured the meal, slurping and smacking their lips.
I don't feel good about the last sentence without the comma.
Why do participles seem 'verbier' than other single-word noun modifiers?
In Cognitive Grammar (a fancy newish theory of grammar), the reason would
be something called 'scanning'. A participle's meaning consists of a
'frame-by-frame' scan of the process the verb portrays (even 'smiling' has
a hint of duration about it -- for me at least). This is not true of
adjectives or past participles, which designate states, whether or not
they are the result of a process. (Consider not only words like 'insulted'
but also words like 'long-legged', 'bearded' or 'red-headed', which are
not derived from verbs at all). States don't involve frame-by-frame
scanning.
As to Burkhard Leuschner's analysis of a participle as a 'very short
sentence', he seems to be appealing to a transformationalist analysis
under which participles have to be viewed as the product of some kind of
ellipsis operation which deletes the rest of the sentence. This isn't the
only view of grammar that is out there. Transformationalist views have
varied widely, going as far as saying that even pre-noun adjectives are
derived from clauses. There are also now theories which argue that there
are no 'deep structures', and that, whatever the history of a construction
like 'bleeding and limping' might be, it is no more or less than it is 'on
the surface'. The fact that they can be paraphrased as clauses doesn't
distinguish them from adjectives within noun phrases, which can be
paraphrased with relative clauses or separate sentences, for that matter.
As to these having nothing to do with modifying, I have to dispute that
on its face. After all, we know which noun phrase in the sentence to
relate the participles to, that is, we know which ones they modify. Maybe
Burkhard has a different definition of modification.
#2-----------On grammar teaching--------------------
Don't worry, Ed; the games may begin. You wrote:
" In order to develop some suggestions about grammar in the curriculum (scope
and sequence), what questions do we want to ask, and how is the best way
to get the answers?"
Here are some questions and position statements:
#1 What is the purpose of teaching grammar?
#2 To what extent can we teach grammar in context, and is that the best
way to teach it; what does 'teaching grammar in context' mean? My opinion
is that this means that the discourse or text-level functions of the
various elements of English have to be included in grammar instruction, so
that students understand what grammar is good for in our language.
#3 As for scope and sequence, these have to be based on valid research
about children's productive as well as passive knowledge through the
school years. The reason I haven't said much about this yet is that I
haven't read some of the literature Ed cites. I am trying to find his web
address so that I can copy his bibliography and get going on reading it.
I did propose in a recent e-mail that we not start explicit grammar
instruction before grade 4. I haven't had a response to that proposal. As
far as how we get the info we need to formulate 'psychologically correct'
scope and sequence, we have to read what has been done, and perhaps do
more research such as Ed and others have done. A great deal is already
known about birth-age 5; this can already inform teaching. For instance,
native speakers of standard English have already learned all inflectional
morphology before school age, but there is still a lot of derivational
morphology to learn. It makes sense to work with derivational morphology
in school. But lessons on items such as 'forms of 'be'' or plurals in
nouns only need to be taught to students of other dialect/language
backgrounds. So perhaps another bit of info we need is: How many native
speakers of nonstandard dialects are in the 'typical' school classroom?
#4 The correctness issue and language attiudes: I also firmly believe that
we have to take a more objective stance on 'correctness', emphasizing that
it is relative to the social situation; that the grammar of spoken English
or of the various nonstandard dialects of English isn't 'bad grammar', but
'different grammar'. This is not only true, but adopting this frame of
mind seems to _increase_ student interest in grammar and motivation to
learn formal standard grammar, not the opposite. Another way to look at
this is to say that I see grammar teaching as part of a larger 'language
awareness' curriculum that doesn't compartmentalize or neglect social
issues as they relate to language. So I would recommend framing
instruction, not in terms of 'errors' like double negatives and how to
correct them, but in comparative terms: what are the ways
various forms of English negate? Which is used most widely in academic and
business contexts?
#5 We need to do some information-gathering on what is out there
now in the way of scope, sequence, and standards in major textbook
packages and state standards documents. That way we have something to
respond to.
I'm sure I could go on, but I have probably already lost half of the ATEG
list. Anyway, this should be something to start on. Especially for SSS
people (ATEG's scope/sequence/standards committee).
We of SSS should also begin thinking about how to go about our business:
setting questions, as Ed says; perhaps divvying them up among subgroups
within SSS; setting timelines for gathering results of subgroup work; etc.
I know Martha is the facilitator for the group, but I don't think that
precludes SSS members from starting to brainstorm on the list, do you?
Martha does read the list, and can include what happens on it in her
mailings to SSS members who might not use e-mail.
I hereby issue a call to develop a list of questions we have to answer as
we cogitate upon a scope/sequence/standards document. SSS people, you're
responsible for helping come up with this list. I'm sure SSS people would
welcome ideas from non-SSS people.
Thanks for hanging in through the long message. We should probably
separate the 'teaching grammar' topic from now on, give it its own thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~
E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~
Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
