Scott:
I know the theory-wrangling can seem excessive at times. The point I was
trying to make was that this is not the kind of debate that can be
"resolved," but I could see no way to do that other than by charting out
some theoretic positions. However, there is a potential pedagogic
problem with saying simply that "it's doing the same thing, so it is the
same thing": it will get you in trouble with passives. In both "Bjorn
ate the lutfisk" and "The lutfisk was eaten by Bjorn," Bjorn is doing
the same thing - but he's not the subject in the second one.
I have students at the college level who *do* come in thinking that the
noun in the by-phrase in a passive is the subject, so I know this is not
a groundless worry.
Bill Spruiell
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Prepositional phrase as an indirect object/a suggested
resolution
Ed, Bill, et al.,
It may be useful for us to consider this (and every other issue) from
the perspective of the learner; this is, after all, the Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar, and not for the Scholarly Study of it (as
valuable as that is, and as much as we all enjoy it). From the
learner's perspective, the one who got the ball does not change, so it
would be confusing to change the terms used. It is much easier to learn
that the indirect object occurs in a prepositional phrase after the
direct object and plain before it. There is much less teaching
necessary, and much less chance for misunderstanding. If we call them
the same thing, it becomes much easier to see these two things as
basically the same. If we call them different things, grammar suddenly
becomes difficult for many students, and something that stops making
intuitive sense for the rest. As teachers, when we decide how to
describe language (or anything else), we should pick the way which will
make it easier for the learner to understand it and to use that
knowledge.
Scott Woods
"Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Ed,
My impression is that there are two ways to define "indirect
object" and (as is frequently the case with definitions) no universally
accepted way to arrive at a pronouncement about the "right" definition.
From this and previous discussions, I think we are dealing with which
one(s) of the following three claims a given analyst wants to accept:
(1) [Semantic] Indirect Objects are Beneficiaries (to cadge
a term from Fillmore).
(2) [Semantic] Only Beneficiaries that are *required* by the
semantic structure of the verb count as indirect objects.
"Requirement," in this sense, is adduced from the observation that
making a sentence with the verb without an overt Beneficiary sounds
strange unless the Beneficiary is clear from context.
(3) [Structural] Objects have to be bare complements to the
verb. PPs do not, therefore, count as objects.
Playing these off against three example sentences yields
different judgments:
(a) Bjarki gave Bjorn some lutfisk.
(b) Bjarki gave some lutfisk to Bjorn.
(c) Bjarki made some lutfisk for Bjorn.
Those who accept (1) but not (2) or (3) will see an indirect
object in all three sentences (and I would consider "hit the ball to me"
analogous to (c)). Those who accept (2) but not (1) or (3) will see an
indirect object in (a) and (b) only. Those who accept (2) and (3) will
only see an indirect object in (a). Those who accept only (3), eschewing
semantic definitions entirely, will simply talk about complements - some
verbs have one, some verbs have two, and you can call them whatever
makes you happy.
The problem, of course, is that "Indirect Object," as a
grammatical concept, was originally formulated to deal with the
distinction between accusative and dative objects in Latin, but English
doesn't have a dative case, really. Early English grammarians frequently
decided to consider prepositions as being exactly equivalent to case
marking, even to the extent of making case tables with prepositions in
them (accusative: him; dative: to him; ablative: from him). This led
quite naturally to considering both the "bare" complement in (a) and the
"prepositional complement" in (b) as being in the dative case, thus
exactly analogous to their Latin equivalents. I'm not bringing this up
to try to argue that calling the third constituent in (b) is a bad
thing, but rather to argue that the argument itself is irresolvable. It
is quite literally a matter of definition.
Bill Spruiell
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Vavra
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Prepositional phrase as an indirect object
I was recently asked about "to me" in the sentence "Jack hit
the ball to me." Is "to me" an adverbial prepositional phrase, or can it
be considered a prepositional phrase that functions as an indirect
object, i.e., as a noun? My question is--Do members of this list agree
on one or the other explanation, or is their disagreement?
Thanks,
Ed
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/
________________________________
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42297/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/ma
ilbeta> 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/
|
