In his recent posting, Ed Vavra disagrees with my extended description of
the absolute phrase--that is, a noun phrase with a postnoun modifier, which
is often a participle or participial phrase, but not always.  It's
sometimes a prepositional phrase or an adjective or adjective phrase.

That's the form of the absolute phrase.  In function, I call it a sentence
modifier. It's sometimes called a free modifier.  Quirk et al. include
absolutes (which they call clauses, by the way, not phrases) in a category
they call nonfinite adverbial clauses.  Every traditional description of
the absolute (aka noun absolute and nominative absolute, its Latin name)
makes clear that it plays no "noun" role in the sentence, even though in
form it's a noun phrase.  As Quirk et al. put it, they are called absolute
because "they are not explicitly bound to the matix clause syntactically."

Ed concludes that in the sentence THEY SAW THE SOLDIERS MARCHING, the noun
phrase SOLDIERS MARCHING is a noun absolute.  I certainly agree with him
that SOLDIERS MARCHING does have a tighter connection than that of simple
modification.  MARCHING is not simply a participle as modifier.  But it's
certainly not an absolute.

Ed's problem with this sentence stems from a gap in his KISS grammar
description: he omits the subject/verb/direct object/object complement
pattern.  His only pattern with two complements is that of S/V/indirect
obj/direct obj.

In my grammar text Understanding English Grammar (with co-author Bob Funk),
two of the ten patterns describe sentences with object complements, those
in which the obj.comps are noun phrases and those in which they are
adjectives--i.e., nominals and adjectivals.  Quirk et al. call these
patterns Complex Transitive.  Here are some of their examples:
        The music drives me mad.
        They named the ship Zeus
        I heard someone shouting. (cf. They saw the soldiers marching)

The object complement both modifies (or renames) the direct object and
completes the verb/object connection.

The relationship between the direct object and the obj. comp. is the same
as the relationship between the subject and the subjective complement in
linking-verb sentences.  In other words, the direct object and obj. comp.
are separate slots in the sentence pattern, not a single noun phrase, as
Ed's explanation has it.  You can easily demonstrate this by turning the
sentence into the passive voice:

        The soldiers were seen marching.
        The ship was named Zeus
        I am driven mad.

The original obj. compl. becomes a subj. comp. when the original object
becomes the subject.

It's interesting that Ed's grammar includes a discussion of "retained
predicate nouns"--that is, the passive version of the pattern, but not the
active.  He suggests that students should understand that sentences with
retained objects or predicate nouns are passive, but he doesn't discuss the
underlying active patterns.  (Note: The original direct object in a
S/V/IO/DO sentence is a retained object when the sentence is made passive
and the passive subject is the original indirect object:  Joe gave Mary a
present/Mary was given a present.)

I agree with Ed that our grammar descriptions should be kept simple (That's
what KISS means, right?  Keep it simple, stupid!)  But when simplicity and
accuracy compete, accuracy ought to win.

To consider every noun modified by a participle a noun absolute completely
misconstrues the unique "free" modifier function of the absolute.  And even
though Ed claims that the only postnoun modifiers in absolute phrases are
participles, his own material includes the following absolute example:
       HANDS BEHIND HIS BACK, DAD WATCHED AS FRED RODE HIS BIKE DOWN THE STREET.
Ed explains that this absolute, Hands behind his back, is an elliptical
construction, with BEING understood--so that it's really a participle as
postnoun modifier, not a prepositional phrase.  But surely that explanation
holds for most noun modifiers and combined sentences of many kinds--that
is, there's an underlying sentence, the deep structure.

Quirk et al. say that the modifiers in the absolutes may be -ing, -ed, or
verbless:
        -ing: No further discussion arising, the meeting was brought to a close.
        -ed: Lunch finished, the guests retired to the lounge.
        verbless: Christmas then only days away, the family was pent up
with    excitement.

They also say that apart from a few sterotyped phrases, absolutes are
formal and infrequent.  Here are the sterotyped phrases they list: present
company excepted, all told, weather/time permitting, God willing.


The absolute construction is not a common one.  I rarely use them, myself,
except in straight description, which I mainly use in fiction (I'm working
on a mystery novel!).  In my own grammar textbooks, I commend them to
writers, but I don't think I use them anywhere in the books.  In his book
Image Grammar, Harry Noden presents the absolute as one of his five "brush
strokes"--structures that he recommends to enhance student writing, but I
didn't see a single one in his whole book.  They are wonderful structures
in fiction writing and in poetry.  They send a clear message to the reader,
that this sentence has been crafted with special care.  So, yes, by all
means let's do teach our students about them for their creative writing.
But in most cases I don't think we need to teach them to middle school
students--even though they may use them from time to time.  The upper
grades are soon enough.

Happy New Year, one and all.

Martha Kolln

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/