Len,
I think your post is a very clear and honest description of the
dilemma conscientious teachers will find themselves in as they try to
single-handedly solve a systemic problem. Ed is doing an exemplary job
of trying to provide systematic solutions, and we are wrestling with the
problem on the New Public Grammar list. We have been trying to answer
the question in terms of ultimate goals first: what should an educated
adult know about grammar (in the context of knowledge about language.)
If we have a clear outcome in mind, then at least a teacher can feel he
or she is leading a student in that direction , or a school system could
put a program into place that portions out the understanding in
reasonable ways. You are beginning with the same observation that
started us off, a clear sense that the current situation is untenable
and a clear determination to not just complain, but do something about
it. By its very nature, it has to be a group project.
If we want our students to write "correctly", then indirect object
is, as John points out, not a place where they make mistakes. I don't
personally like "correctness" as a primary goal, not least of all
because it is self-defeating. I like to use IO choice as a way to teach
rhetorical choice and rhetorical effectiveness. Martha pointed out in
an earlier post that this is not just an empty shift (not two ways of
saying the same thing), but a change in which element (IO or DO) is
given the end of the sentence prominence usually reserved for new
information.
Who did you give your old car to?
I gave my old car to my son
What did you give your son?
I gave my son my old car.
Both options are highly grammatical, but one will be more effective in a
given context and in harmony with the writer's or speaker's sense of
purpose.
I also think it is enormously useful in an overview of grammar to
help students understand that the kind of PROCESS involved is understood
by normal language users as involving certain kinds of participants.
(Giving, sending, showing, telling, building or creating or making,
teaching, and so on.) These involve, not just givers and senders and
showers and tellers and builders and teachers, but receivers or
listeners or beneficiaries or learners and so on. A teacher can't teach
without someone being the recipient of that teaching. If you bake a
cake, you probably do it for someone. A song has both singer and
listener, at least usually. And so on. Ditransitive is a very rough
category which can be broken down into subcategorizes. Sometimes it may
seem like the devil is in the details, but the detail is also what
allows us to see language as a source of rich understanding, to marvel
at the delicacy and complexity of what we already know without knowing
that we know it.
Too often, grammar is taught as a minefield to wend your way
through, about to explode on you when you make the wrong step. It can
also be a sense of pride and joy and wonder. Insofar as we are more
deeply aware of the kinds of meanings syntactically constructed, we are
in a much better position to write purposefully and read thoughtfully.
Anything you do to move your students forward is something you
should feel very good about. Teaching function and paying attention to
rhetorical choice will help them understand that this is not just an
empty subject, not just a minefield of "good habits and bad habits",
not just a catalogue of errors, but a resource for deep understanding.
Craig
Len Wyatt wrote:
>Thanks, Herb. I sent a longer message after replying to this one. I face a
>situation where I think it may be overload to even attempt the distinction.
>You mention undergrad texts -- I am not even there. I would be happy to
>have the kids simply point to the structure. Maybe one or two kids would
>grasp what you are saying, and I can provide them that privately; what
>concerns me is where the classroom instruction begins and ends. I am
>finding the task overwhelming, to tell the truth. I want to do everything,
>but I find myself simply omitting some distinctions in the interest of
>simplicity and survival. Is this worse than doing nothing, that is, no
>grammar? The sad thing is, I could turn away from it with no trouble, and
>not a word would be uttered in protest from any quarter.
>
>The older kids in my Honours class are capable of much more, and I
>frequently explore more complex ideas with them, usually in private or in
>small groups. The majority still have trouble with the basics.
>
>As I have said, I am not all that well-versed in grammar and linguistics
>myself. This makes it not only difficult to teach, but also difficult to
>justify. What grammar I have mastered is of the basic, formal kind, I
>suppose. Finally grasping it did make a difference in the quality of my
>writing at university, and that, I suppose, is the reason I plug away
>teaching it. For me, the usefulness of recognizing a prepositional phrase
>is to avoid subject-verb disagreements and misplaced modifiers that cause
>confusion. Understanding formal patterns allows me to better tailor my
>writing to my audience. I see fairly simple uses for grammar, and I think
>that I can impart at least that much to my students. So far, keeping it
>relatively simple has engaged more of them for longer.
>
>Thanks again,
>Len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>Sent: September 22, 2004 9:23 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Indirect objects
>
>
>Len,
>
>The point you want to get across to your high school students is that there
>is structure and there is function. They are not the same. The NP
>(structure) that takes the IO (function) role can do so either immediately
>after the verb, where, as the Cambridge Grammar puts it, it has the
>properties of a direct object, or after the DO as the object of a
>preposition. The reason that these IOs as PPs are not simply adverbial PPs
>is that they are complements, that is, they can't be deleted. In a VP like
>"direct your questions to the teacher", you can't drop "the teacher" and
>still have a good English sentence. Similarly, in your sentence "I rolled
>the stone to the wall", "to the wall" is a locative complement. "Rolled" is
>a transitive locative verb here and requires two complements, a DO and a
>locative, that is, a place. It's not an IO. But none of this makes sense
>unless you deal separately with structure and function. Any of the
>contemporary undergrad grammar texts will deal with this issue.
>
>Herb
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Indirect objects
>I find all the talk about indirect objects as prepositional phrases (or is
>it vice versa?) confusing. Why can I not simply teach "to Sue" as an
>adverbial prepositional phrase? Also, in the the sentence "I rolled the
>stone to the wall", is "to the wall" an indirect object or an adverbial
>phrase? I have a feeling that the answer I am going to receive is that it
>is both, and that is what I think confuses my high school students. I have
>no trouble explaining that the prepositional phrase provides a similar
>meaning, but why must I call it an indirect object?
>
>Len Wyatt
>
>(who finds trying to bring grammar to high school students a challenging and
>thankless task, but who nonetheless perseveres)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
>Sent: September 22, 2004 2:57 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Indirect objects
>
>
>Oops! I meant to say that when the DO is replaced by "it" the shift is
>required--not the IO.
>
>In other words, if we want to use a pronoun, we are required to put the IO
>in a prepositional phrase. That object of the preposition thus retains its
>status as indirect object.
>
>Sorry for the confusion.
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>Hi Gretchen,
>
>
>If you think of sentence patterns as groups based on verb classes, as Herb
>suggests--that is, those with a recipient function, which I call give-type
>verbs--then there's no problem. Clearly, the two versions belong to the
>same pattern. Even in the case of "Jim threw Sue the ball" you can imagine
>an understood "to"; the "to" meaning is certain there. The added
>preposition simply gives us the option of shifting the IO to the end-focus
>position.
>
>
>Another point to bear in mind is that when the IO is a pronoun, "Jim threw
>it to Sue," the shift is required; we don't say "Jim threw Sue it."
>
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>
>
>I was browsing the web yesterday trying to brainstorm new ways to teach IOs
>and DOs as I want to discuss sentence patterns with my students (with an eye
>to varying them - my kids tend to pick one and stick to it like
>barnacles!!), when I found several sites that contradicted my understanding
>of IOs.
>
>
>
>Repeatedly prepositional phrases were pointed to as examples of IOs as in
>"Jim threw the ball to Sue," where "to Sue" is cited as the IO. I looked it
>up in Cambridge and it seems to say that this is still wrong (which is what
>I remembered). However, I freely admit that I have to have a quiet room and
>at least three intermediate grammar texts to successfully navigate
>Cambridge, so I may not be decoding it correctly.
>
>
>
>Can anyone help me out? Has this changed? Can the IO be a prep. phrase?
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gretchen
>
>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/
>
>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/
|
