Craig,
Thank you. Here is an insight that I believe you may have triggered in me (probably not original to me). There are different levels of function. In writing my grammar have had the tendancy to look at everything in the light of syntactic function. Yet this may well simply be the same thing you are looking at from the discourse point of view. Look at one possible model for levels of language analysis:
morpheme - word (lexeme) - phrase - clause - sentence - paragraph - discourse
My concentration was mainly the case where the elements on one level relate to other elements on the same level. You appear to be taking everything and wanting to relate it to the discourse. All of these relationships can be viewed as functions. The past-participle is a formative (morpheme) for voice (verb phrase) and for adjectival modification (adjective phrase). Its interpretation depends not just on the clause, where the syntax differs, but sometimes on the sentence (your example), where the syntax is nearly the same, and sometimes on the paragraph (Johanna's example).
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 2/9/2005 7:35:25 AM >>>
I didn't see this as a change in position for you so much as a development. I agree that you are being true to your training and background. This may simply mean that approaching the same problem from different directions ultimately gets us to the same place. Even if syntax has a reality outside of context, what many of us are interested in is how it functions in discourse and how we can use that understanding to fine-tune nuances of meaning, including fine-tuning the connection between our own intentions as writers and what a reader might understand. Ambiguity is inherent within the system, and it is a very important concern to the writer, sometimes to avoid it (to avoid misunderstanding) and other times to exploit it (because of the potential for simultaneous or multiple meanings.) That past participle forms can float between adjective and passive verb depending on context gives us a wonderful way to see this dynamic in practice.
We can get caught up in defending different positions without seeing the great potential for harmony. It's nice to be in agreement.
Craig
Bruce Despain wrote:
Craig,
Thank you for your clarifyiing comments. By the way, I wasn't aware that I was questioning my own position. I still maintain that there is a distinction between syntax (itself, i.e., formal) and the functional perspective (in the extreme). The context is very important for seeing the dynamic meaning (function) of the past participle (passive voice). Yours and Johanna's examples were excellent. In her case "surrounded" could easily have been parsed as being static in isolation: Before they could muster all their men, the castle was surrounded by the enemy horde. By putting it in the dynamic context, the passive voice interpretation is favored. In your example (When the bubble is lined up between two marks etched in the glass tube of a level, you have aligned yourself with the forces that hold the universe together. ) the context came later and required a backtracking to re-interpret the "lined up" as passive voice. For me the syntactic structures at first seemed to be identical no matter which interpretation you might give to it. The syntactic function would also be the same, until you decide that the passive voice is syntactic after all. That's where I went wrong.
For any that might be interested: My original response on the ambiguity was that maybe English had no passive voice in the syntactic sense. The progressive and the perfect aspects require morphological analysis in the verb phrase. Presumably this is the case as well with the passive voice: The castle is being surrounded, and The castle has been surrounded. (Both of these favor a dynamic interpretation.) The derivational morphology required to form an adjective from a verb is identical, but the adjective phrase is a part of the predicate phrase. The syntactic function of the verb phrase and the predicate phrase are nearly identical, just the extent to which they allow or require modification by an adverbial. The agent phrase, however, if connected tightly to the verb also makes a strong case for the passive voice as distinct from the adjective. Such a phrase would probably get lost in adjective derivation. Only free adverbs are structured with the copula and adjective phrase in the predicate phrase. When the agent phrase is not present, then either interpretation is possible. This corresponds to either parse being possible. There is indeed a correspondence between dynamic interpretation and passive voice (with the verb phrase) as there also is between static interpretation and the derived adjective (in the predicate phrase). [There may be other labels for these structures; these are the only ones I've seen.]
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 2/7/2005 11:11:47 AM >>>
Bruce,
You and I have been on different sides of this discusision before (generally repsectfully, I might add) so it's interesting to see you question your own position.
From a functional perspective (I won't say functional grammar, since that's a loaded term for many people), you can look at syntax as a way to carry out certain purposes. If in fact we want to express the passive (or focus a statement on the receiver of the action rather than the doer of the deed), the language offers us this option or opportunity. If what's important is the current state of the building (demolished), then the language allows that as well. Syntax doesn't become unimportant at all--on the contrary. To be an effective writer, you need to work in harmony with that syntax, consciously or unconsciously, and to work with developing writers, it certainly helps to have ways to bning these decisions into focus.
If grammar is simply correcting syntax apart from its context, then we will continue to see a great deal of tension between writing teachers and grammarians. If grammar allows us to focus on nuances of meaning, or on the way sentences worj in harmony with other sentences and in harmony with the writer's evolving sense of purpose, then the tension dissolves.
Ambiguity is also inherently a part of language, and we can intend one thing and "say" another, quite easily.
I thought about this discussion in my writing class today and wished they had the background to bring it fully into view. A student picked out this sentence from an essay by Scott Sanders on "the inheritance of tools": When the bubble is lined up between two marks etched in the glass tube of a level, you have aligned yourself with the forces that hold the universe together. Is the verb in the "when" clause passive? By itself, I would say no, but the active nature of the main clause (you have aligned yourself...) makes it retroactively active. It is something that you have done, not just something that happened to the bubble. To me, the writing is brilliant precisely because these syntactic decisions work in harmony with each other. He goes back and forth between stative (the joints are square and the members upright) to dynamic and active (When you miter the corners of a picture frame.) If there is a value in corners being square, then there is also a value in taking the patient care required to accomplish this.
Perhaps syntax has a reality outside of context; I'm rather tired of the argument. Most important, I think, is a recognition that syntactic adjustments adjust nuances of meaning, and in the hands of a careful writer, they are made within context. Looked at this way, grammar is deeply compatible with meaning centered approaches to writing. And it deserves far more attention within the curriculum.
Craig
Bruce Despain wrote:
Johanna, Craig, Carol, et al.,
Of interest to me in this discussion is how the syntax has taken a back seat in explaining our interpretation of the past participle in English. We must indeed take the context into consideration. So, in this case, is seems clear enough that we can be distracted, if not misled, by looking at the syntax. Maybe we should be more careful in making general, too sweeping statements about how learning syntax will help our students write better. The anecdotal evidence seems to come down on both sides.
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 2/7/2005 6:50:09 AM >>>
Johanna,
I don't know about others, but I found these explanations
particularly helpful. I think I'll steal some of it for class (in the
best traditions of ATEG.) Thanks for taking the time.
Johanna Rubba wrote:
> Carol,
>
> The ambiguity of sentences like "The curtains were closed" is
> well-known. The subject-complement reading is stative: the curtains
> are in a closed state. The act of closing them took place at an
> unspecified time prior to the arrival of the person viewing the scene.
> This sense evokes a static picture in one's mind; there is no movement
> of the curtains, no change from an open to a closed position. The
> listener or reader doesn't even necessarily think about the closing
> action.
>
> The passive versions are processual: they evoke a picture (maybe even
> a movie) of the whole action, from start to finish.
>
> Note that passive sentences rarely occur in real texts with a "by"
> phrase identifying the agent of the action. The context sorts out
> which reading is most plausible. Consider:
>
> Thanks to high-powered explosives, the huge building was demolished
> within seconds. (underwent the process of demolition from start to
> finish)
>
> I didn't walk fast enough; by the time I got there, the building was
> already totally demolished. (was in the resulting state of demolition)
>
> With verbs like "admire", which are not particulary dynamic, it can be
> really hard to decide which reading is most plausible, and in most
> cases, it probably doesn't matter.
>
> But maybe using verbs of dynamic action will help. Another good
> example is "surround". Compare:
>
> 1. The castle was surrounded by a moat.
> 2. The castle was rapidly surrounded by the enemy hoard.
>
> The "moat" of #1 is clearly not an agent in any sense, and the scene
> is static. In #2, there is clearly action; we visualize the army
> starting their maneuver and follow the action through to its conclusion.
>
> Using adverbials can really help the students see the difference
> between the readings: words like "gradually", "rapidly", "suddenly" --
> which signal a change over time -- aid the passive reading, while
> time-point adverbials like "by the time I ..." or "already" aid the
> stative reading.
>
> The example sentence "When I arrived, the curtains were always closed
> by the attendant on duty" does not sound right to me. It seems a more
> accurate expression would be "When I arrived, the curtains would
> always be closed by the attendant". Using paraphrase ("in a closed
> state") and visualization can help a great deal. I use this with my
> college students. For example, in explaining the difference between a
> present and past participle, I ask them merely to form an image in
> response to a phrase that I say, e.g.:
>
> 1. A falling tree vs.
> 2. A fallen tree
>
> After saying #1 and before saying #2, I ask them what they saw with
> their mind's eye: Was the tree moving? Did they see it hit the ground?
> Did they see it start to fall? Did they see it lying on the ground
> after the fall? Most students answer yes, no, no, no.
>
> For #2, I ask the same questions, but the answers are then no, no, no,
> yes.
>
> Students already know the subtle meaning differences between verb
> forms, but the knowledge is subconscious. You have to use tricks like
> paraphrase and visualization to bring the knowledge to consciousness.
> Then they can apply the terminology to it.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue * San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184 * Fax: (805)-756-6374 * Dept. Phone. 756-2596
> * E-mail: [log in to unmask] * Home page:
> http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
|
