Herb,
I agree in principle, but I am not sure that teachers need to know
the linguistic comparisons that you describe. I say that because my
experience has been that most teachers cannot even identify the clauses
in their students' writing. As a result, many teachers cannot deal with
splices, run-ons, or fragments, or with any of the numerous stylistic
questions that can easily be discussed in terms of clauses. For me, in
other words, it is a question of which is more important for the
teachers to know (and be able to use).
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/09/04 02:34PM >>>
Ed,
I agree that for pedagogical purposes in K-12 I would treat it as you
suggest. However, in training language arts teachers, who have already
learned verb classes, they would also need to know that this instance of
"raw" is not like other postposed noun modifiers, that it is not a
constituent of the NP "the fish", and that such postposing can't occur
in, for example a subject NP or a DO NP with a verb that doesn't allow
object complements, as in, "*they raised/pursued/caught the fish raw",
at least not in the usual meanings of those verbs. But I think that's
part of your point: different levels of description for different
levels of sophistication, and teachers need to know more than what they
actually teach. It also means that teachers have to understand that
some of the things they're teaching their students aren't so but it
doesn't matter that they aren't so because by the time the kids learn
that they weren't so they understand why. It's just like teaching high
school physics students that force = mass * acceleration, which any
undergrad physics major can tell you isn't so. But the high school
student doesn't need to know that yet because she's not yet ready to.
Classical mechanics works in the high school classroom. The teacher
does need to know it, though.
Herb
In the KISS framework, "raw" is simply a post-positioned
adjective.
Post-positioned adjectives are relatively rare compared to clauses,
etc., but the concept is very useful if one wants to explain every
word
in any sentence. In effect, the post-positioned adjective is a
reduction
of a subordinate clause that has a predicate adjective for a
complement:
They ate the fish *while it was* raw.
In KISS Grammar, the construction is no big deal, and does not require
any of the metalinguistic terminology that I see posted in some of the
other responses to the question.
For pedagogical purposes, Keep It Simple.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/03/04 05:21PM >>>
How would people parse "They ate the fish raw"?
"Raw" looks like an object complement to me, but in this
pattern (Kolln's Pattern IX) the verb typically acts to bring about
the
connection between direct object and object complement, as in "They
painted the barn red." Is "They ate the fish raw" a variation?
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/
|
