Rbetting, et al,

There's a potential terminological confusion that can occur here,
largely the result of a collision between the "form vs. function"
distinction and the term "form word." Most linguists/grammarians make a
distinction between the kind of word that has a meaning that's easy to
define out of context ("chair") but is not required as part of the basic
grammatical toolkit of English, and words that are very difficult to
define but that are necessary for constructing sentences ("the," "of").
The labels for the two kinds of words vary, though; in some grammars
it's "lexical words vs. form words," in others it may be "content words
vs. structure words" etc. If you run into the term "form word," it's
completely natural to think it's the same "form" as in "form vs.
function," but there's a difference. To avoid confusion, I'm going to
temporarily adopt the otherwise-clumsy terms "Definable" and "Toolkit"
for the two types of words.

The distinction between form and function is one that is most often made
in reference to the Definables. "Iron," in reference to a metal, for
example, is rather easy to define, but it can be used more than one way:

	That skillet is made of iron.
	It's an iron skillet. 

In both cases, Iron is a Definable. Moreover, it's a Definable that for
most purposes is a noun -- it does all the normal noun things except
take a plural, but then, nouns referring to substances usually don't
take plurals anyway. Many of us would prefer to view the "iron" in "iron
skillet" as still being a noun, basically, but one that is acting a bit
*like* an adjective. The alternative is to adopt a homonym argument, and
say that there are two words, spelled and pronounced the same and both
referring to the same metal, but one is a noun and the other an
adjective.

It is possible to take a toolkit word as well and use it in a different
function than its normal one, but -- with one very important exception
-- this is rare. I can, for example, say that there "was much to-ing and
fro-ing going on," or "Be careful when arguing with him, or he'll
however you to death." The important, *common* exception is the one that
occurs when we discuss words *as words*, as when we write things like,
"you have two the-s in a row there." That trick turns everything into a
noun. 

The form/function distinction is basically the old philosophical notion
of essence vs. accidence applied to grammar: we think a word
"essentially" belongs to a category (like "noun"), but can be
conscripted into others temporarily without losing its basic attachment
to its "real" category. Color terms, as Martha and others have pointed
out, are a different kind of case because they can take on *all* the
characteristics of a regular noun and *all* the characteristics of a
regular adjective. I can have an iron skillet, but I can't have an
ironish one -- iron doesn't take some of the normal adjective suffixes.
But there are both reds and reddish things. It's therefore more
difficult to say that red is "essentially" a noun or "essentially" an
adjective; if we have to pick one of those options, it's on the basis of
frequency.

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 rbetting
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: tion & nouns

Herb,
Thank you for your thorough reply to my rather off the cuff remarks.
Actually, I wasn't sure the message would be accepted by the ATEG system
since the past few were not. Your explanation of that string of nouns as
compound is better than viewing them as a noun and its modifiers, and
the
use of intonation to demonstrate same is very useful. In my vocabulary I
use
form words and function words somewhat differently, form words being
inflected, open categories in which we create and then manipulate or
shift
them from one form to the other, while function words are the ones that
don't move much, including preps, conj, particles, determiners and so
on. Of
course, words are all nouns when we speak of them.  No, we don't
manipulate
form words into function words, but we really like to mess with them,
making
them verbs when we want, adjective functioning when we need to. Some
define
colors as homophones, so that we can have different classes of the
'same'
word without a lot of explaining how that can be.
Dick Betting
----- Original Message -----
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: tion & nouns


rbetting,

Some great examples, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
By
"to manipulate form words into other parts of speech," are you referring
to
shifts of closed class items like prepositions or conjunctions to other
parts of speech or was this the sort of rapid compositional error I make
a
lot of, where you meant one of the two verbs, manipulate or form, but
forgot
to delete the other?  If you meant rather that "form" is a noun
modifying
"words", form words, like prepositions, conjunctions, and determiners,
very
rarely shift word class, unlike content words (nouns, adjectives, verbs,
and
most adverbs), which can shift fairly readily.  Form words are more
commonly
called function words.

You answer your own question about calling a modifying noun and
adjective by
calling them "nouns used as modifiers."  That makes the necessary
form/function distinction.  Such a noun is a noun, but it's functioning
as a
modifier.  That doesn't make it an adjective.  Your examples, however,
would
generally be treated as compound nouns, not as phrasal constructions.
Notice that "British English" has two primary stresses, but "stocking
committee planning chart" has only one.  That's a fairly good marker of
the
difference between  a noun phrase and a compound noun.  An interesting
example that shows some variation in how speakers analyze it is whether
one
pronounces TV with the stress pattern of ID or of Stevie.  For speakers
with
the former pattern, TV is an initialism; for the latter it's a compound
or
perhaps simply a new simplex noun.

As to what makes sense to students, I don't think I would raise issues
like
this until some bright student asks why "form" in "form word" is a noun
if
it's modifying another noun.  Then would be a good time to introduce the
form/function distinction.  But I'm not a high school teacher and I'm
reluctant to make pedagogical suggestions to those who know that
age-group
much better than I do.

I fear I missed what you were getting at with your last remark, about
grammar.  Sorry to be dense, but there's a leap here I didn't make as I
read.

Herb,

Comments on noun functions. Does calling nouns used this way adjective
make
sense to students? Our linguistic system likes to be able to manipulate
form
words into other parts of speech, nouns to verbs and so on. One choice
that
appears to be handy is our use of nouns as modifiers, as in "the
stocking
committee planning chart" or "a fan belt compression fitting design
plan."
So we might hear of a "site plan coordination effort currently
underway." I
just read about the " 2007 Devils Lake operation summary report
document."
How's this: "The linear realignment task force control system planning
session." That could apply to grammar study.

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/