Janet,

My grammar description in "Understanding English Grammar" is based on 
ten sentence patterns, which are based on verb classes and the kinds 
of completers (complements) those verbs require.  The verb class that 
we call "give-like verbs" consists of those verbs that take an 
indirect object--that is, that include a recipient of the direct 
object, as in your example.

	Joe baked me a cake.
	I gave Joe a birthday present.

In most of these verbs, the indirect object can be shifted from its 
position following the verb and become the object of the preposition 
"to" or "for" following the direct object:

	Joe baked a cake for me.
	I gave a present to Joe.

The verb class hasn't changed; there's still an object and a 
recipient--and I would call that recipient the indirect object no 
matter where it appears, even as the object of a preposition.

N.B.  It's important to note that if the direct object is a personal 
pronoun, the indirect object MUST be shifted to the prepositional 
phrase:

	*I gave Joe it.
	I gave it to Joe.

	*Joe baked me it.
	Joe baked it for me.

As for "retained complement" or "retained object," I agree that it 
goes beyond the kind of terminology that students should be required 
to know. The "retained" label refers to objects that appear in 
passive sentences.  And that condition occurs only when the active 
sentence has more than one object--as in the "give-like" verbs:

	Joe was given a present (by me).
	A present was given Joe.

Sentences that have an object complement in the active,

	We elected Obama president.

will also have a retained complement in the passive:

	Obama was elected president.

In this case, we probably call it a "retained subject complement," 
given that the direct object has become the subject.

I certainly don't think our terminology has to be this detailed for 
students.  Terms that describe the active voice should be sufficient.

Martha



>Yeah - I meant 'me.'  What I was really trying to get at is whether or
>not people ever call 'for me' in 'Joe baked a cake for me' an indirect
>object,  since it seems to be doing the same thing as 'me' in 'Joe baked
>me
>a cake.' I had learned that prepositional phrases can't be major
>sentence elements like subjects and objects, but that seems to be
>substantially more complex.
>
>'For me to criticize him would be foolish.'   Here 'for me' seems to be
>the subject of the infinitive clause.  I know that 'for' constructions
>introduce some non-finite structures, but can we still call them
>prepositions? 
>
>I also wondered whether people use the term 'retained object
>complement.'  I like it, but I think my students feel it goes way beyond
>what anyone should be required to know.
>
>My state, Washington has teacher tests.  We use Praxis by ETS. Students
>are required to take a basic skills test, which we require students to
>take before entering our teacher ed program.  Then, if they get an
>endorsement such as ESOL or bilingual education, they have to take a
>test for that. These are the tests that my students are preparing for,
>and the test really asks them questions about grammar.
>
>Examples:
>My sister and I always loved sledding down the hill
>behind our house.
>
>The underlined word in the sentence above is an
>example of
>
>(A) a conjunction
>
>(B) a participle
>
>(C) a gerund
>
>(D) an adverb
>
>We went to a restaurant, and dinner was cook very bad.
>
>The underlined words in the sentence are an example of an error in
>
>(A)	question formation
>
>(B)	relative clause formation
>
>(C)	passive formation
>
>(D)	command formation
>
>Now I'm careful to use words like 'gerund,' which I didn't used to use,
>because I know they see it on the test.
>
>Janet
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase
>
>Janet,
>    These are wonderful questions. Much of what I would say Bill covers,
>so
>I'll add a few sidenotes. I have struggled through the same questions
>and feel a little more settled in my thinking.
>    I think it's so much more important to describe the structure than it
>is to put it in the "right" category. So looking closely at these
>non-finite structures and saying they usually are missing a subject
>(not always) and aren't grounded with finite verbs is probably the most
>important thing. My students seem OK with saying we'll call them
>clauses, but traditional grammar calls them phrases. I end up doing
>somewhat the same thing with "gerund" as a term. I don't like it, but
>it's out there, and it helps to at least point out what the word refers
>to for the people who use it.
>    I start out with "the elements of the simple clause", so I cover
>postnominal modification with prepositional phrases first and say there
>are other word groups in that slot that we'll cover later. That seems
>to work for me. I sometimes postpone restrictive and non-restrictive
>modification until later as well. Appositional phrases also fit in that
>slot, but I don't bring them in right away.
>    I think you mistakenly ask about "Joe" as indirect object in your
>cake
>sentence. My guess is you meant "me". I like the multi-functional
>analysis of functional gramamr for that one. From that view, the
>transitivity system helps us represent the world. The clause gives us
>processes and participants and circumstances andestablishes participant
>roles. We also have systems in place for construing that event in
>different ways. In passives, for example, the direct or indirect object
>gets shifted into the grammatical subject slot without changing their
>real world roles. ("The cake was baked by Joe. I was baked the cake by
>Joe." In both these cases, Joe is obviously still doing the baking.)
>This can also give us a way to put different information in the usual
>given slot and in the clause ending slot we usually use for new
>information. "Who was the cake for?" "The cake was baked for me."
>"What did Joe bake you?"  "Joe baked me a cake."  "Who baked the cake?
>"The cake was baked by Joe."  Students seem to enjoy putting a clause
>through its various permutations and then reflecting on how that
>"construes" the process. We can also say something like "Joe baked all
>night", or "Joe baked with great care", not because we have stopped
>understanding that "baking" means you bake something and are probably
>doing that for some sort of beneficiary, but because those elements are
>not always in focus. Even categories like "transitive" and
>"intransitive" and "di-transitive" and "complex transitive" can be used
>to talk about the verb itself as well as about the structure of a
>particular clause. Is "Joe baked all night" intransitive? I think
>that's easier to understand if you realize the process hasn't changed,
>but certain aspects of it are simply not in focus for the statement.
>    I have found that most state tests for students have no real
>knowledge
>content to them. Even the phrasing of the standards is something like
>"Can puncutate sentences," never anything like "can identify a
>participle phrase" or "Can differentiate compound sentences from
>compound predicates." Even the SAT simply asks students to pick a
>version that seems more effective or more correct. It never asks for
>terminology. Language, at least for students, is treated like a
>behavior.
>    Are there teacher tests in your state?
>
>Craig
>
>  How would you analyze this:  Once upon a time, there was a prince named
>>  Joe.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Do you analyze a prince named Joe as a noun phrase with a participle
>>  phrase modifying the noun head, or as a participle clause?  I've
>always
>>  called these non-finite constructions reduced clauses or participle
>>  clauses, but I have run into a problem.  In my grammar class for
>>  pre-service teachers, I start with noun phrases.  When I teach noun
>>  modification, I want to teach students about post-modification, but
>they
>>  really don't know anything about finite and non-finite verbs yet, nor
>do
>>  they know much about clauses.  So this semester, I decided I would
>just
>>  call them participle phrases which modify nouns.  But then I was in
>  > trouble when we got to clauses because I wanted to call then reduced
>or
>>  non-finite clauses.  By that time, the students knew enough to say
>"Hey
>>  wait a minute!  Didn't you just tell us those were phrases?"  At least
>I
>>  know they were listening in October.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Also, do you call 'Joe' a retained object complement, or is there a
>>  better way to label this?
>>
>>
>>
>>  How about this:  Joe baked a cake for me.  Can I just go ahead and
>call
>>  'Joe' an indirect object? It means exactly the same this as Joe baked
>me
>>  a cake.
>>
>>
>>
>>  This is an on-going problem for me, because, even though I try to
>teach
>>  them a pretty straight forward descriptive-structural-functional view
>of
>>  syntax (Quirk et al is my bible), with a little discussion of
>>  prescriptivism thrown in so they'll know what to expect when they get
>>  into the schools, I find that frequently there is more than one way to
>>  analyze a given structure.  This disturbs my students.  They want to
>>  know the 'right' way, and it better be the way that it is gong to show
>>  up on the subject area test they have to take.  Do you think there is
>>  any consensus on the 'best' grammar approach to teach pre-service
>>  teachers?  This is not a trivial issue, since they have high-stakes
>>  tests (for themselves and their students) principals and parents in
>>  their futures.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Comments?
>>
>>
>>
>>  Janet Castilleja
>>
>>
>>  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/