Yes, we've already discussed the issues with calling the passive voice
"passive." I'm not sure if we mentioned this, but many folks think it means
"past tense" since those words seem similar.
I've always wondered why "expletive" was the word used for the "it/there"
issue we're now discussing. However, it gives people in my class an
opportunity to chuckle at the dual definitions and me to make a point about
jargon.
Linda
Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com <http://www.comerfordconsulting.com/>
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Expletives
In my (admittedly rather long) list of "grammar naming conventions I'd like
to change," expletive ranks fairly far up. For one thing, "expletive" has a
widely-known meaning in everyday discourse, and that meaning is completely
unlike its meaning as a grammar term, so students are understandably
confused by the term. For another, the usual discussion of
(grammar-)expletives says that their meaningless, and like Herb, Craig, and
others, I don't think a word choice can count as meaningless, although some
are difficult to pin down in terms of standard dictionary entries. With
there-constructions, it's particularly easy to isolate a kind of meaning:
A fly is in my soup.
There's a fly in my soup.
The first is a comment about the fly. The second is a comment about the
situation. The first is rare, probably because one is much more likely to be
interested in the fact that the fly is in one's soup than one is to be
interested in the fly itself. From that standpoint, "there" is not an empty
form; its meaning has expanded beyond location, but it hasn't diffused
enough to count as "meaningless."
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Expletives
Linda,
I'm with both Craig and Robert on this. I like to look at a language as an
ecology, rather as in zoology. There is nothing in that ecology that
doesn't have its niche, its role that nothing else can do quite as well. So
English has developed expletives and existential for good reason, usually to
allow the speaker to place new information in focus position. Since English
is one of those languages that doesn't allow null subjects, it has to fill
the subject position with something, and expletive "it" and "there" do the
job well. Existentials also allow us to avoid indefinite subjects, which
tend not to be comfortable in English. "A new new message is in your
mailbox" doesn't work as well as "There's a new message in your mailbox."
Existential and extraposed sentences are great ways to introduce new
information, which typically requires the indefinite.
That said, both constructions get overused and reduce the effectiveness of
one's writing, and you're right to alert your students to that risk.
However, banning constructions like these or the passive, or artificially
restricting "that" and "which," are rather like using broad spectrum weed
killer on your front yard ecology.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: 2008-03-10 09:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Expletives
Linda,
My cat-skinning sentence is better understood as "existential"--my
error--similar to "It is raining" or "There is plenty of food." We seem to
have a resistance to "be" as intransitive. "More than one good way to skin a
cat exists" would be an alternative.
I think if I were trying to improve writing in a one-day workshop,
wordiness is something I would target. But we do have to be careful about
it. There are very good functional reasons for extraposition. And I would
caution against revising sentences outside the context of their place in a
text and outside the discourse context. Robert's points seem largely on
target.
The larger point I was hoping to make is that we we need a functional
understanding of language, not just a formal one. We also need goals that
are larger than reducing wordiness. Less wordy texts are often clearer
because we have (to quote the late great Don Murray) "gotten the static
out". But that raises clarity to a goal and makes cutting words a means and
not an end.
The operative question might be "What knowledge about language helps a
writer accomplish his or her own goals." We have to yank the attention away
from "what forms are correct."
Craig
Linda Comerford wrote:
Craig,
Regarding one of my pet peeves, "it" and "there" expletives, I'm wondering
if you would accept "Loving you is easy" as a more streamlined way of
saying, "It is easy to love you"? I'm fine with your cat-skinning "there"
expletive.
As I believe you can see from my posts, I try to give those in my one-day
classes information to help them make informed decisions about their writing
afterwards. If I received 50 cents every time I see folks write sentences
like, "There are many reasons why the cafeteria should remain open beyond
2:00," in my 20+ year career, I'd be rich! To me, such sentences are the
equivalent of starting a sentence in a presentation with "uh" or "um." My
theory about expletives is that they start so many sentences because their
writers often don't know where they want their sentences to go. Writing is
discovery, so those lead-in words give them time to get to their point. But
if they keep the expletive, they often delay the subject until the middle of
the sentence where their readers are more likely to miss it. Instead, I
offer them the option to start with the subject as in this re-write: "The
cafeteria should remain open beyond 2:00 for many reasons." Writers and
readers alike appreciate such streamlined clarity.
That's when my "save 50 cents a word" editorial tip comes into play. My
participants not only resonate to it but remember it. I've encountered
folks from one of my classes over 10 years ago tell me they draft without
regard to wordiness but then revise with that 50-cent idea in mind. Maybe
with inflation I should up it to $1.00....
Linda
Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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/
|
