Herb,
It would be intyrtesting to look at the issue of foregrounding from the
perspective of different grammars. A functionaiist, for example, might
talk about the different metafunctions interwoven into the sentence. One
describes (represents)the world, which means choosing aspects that get
forgrounded merely by being selected. "He kicked hard", versus "the ball
sailed through the goal posts." Another would be the interactive, or
propositional kinds of meaning. (In those sentences, one makes a
proposition about the way he kicked, the other about what happened to
the ball, and this can be agreed with or disagreed with. The
foregrounding you are talking about involves manipulation of the
relationship.) The third would be the message structure of the text, the
way certain elements become emphatic by virtue of being marked choices
or occuring at normal emphatic slots, like the ends of the intonation
group. "Through the goal post sailed the ball." "As the ball sailed
through the posts, it sailed into history." As opposed to "The ball
sailed into history as it sailed through the posts", which may strike us
as awkwardly formed because the most important news (into history) is in
the middle (unemphatic) position.
To the cognitivists, too, every utterance frames a perspective. I'm not
confident enough to rough that out at this stage. But we certainly talk
about a light "coming on" and a star "coming out" because of the
different ways they are humanly experienced. If someone "goes into" a
room or "comes into" a room, it depends on the placement of the
observor (or camera.)
When we speak of subordination, usually it relates to the propositional
content. But other sorts of choices are interwoven with this and
influence it in various ways.
Craig>
Craig,
>
> You raise the necessary distinction grammatical and functional
> coordination and subordination, that is, between parataxis/hypotaxis, on
> the one hand, and, for want of a better pair of terms,
> foregrounding/backgrounding. Parataxis and hypotaxis refer specifically
> to grammatically marked coordination or subordination, usually by the use
> of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. A major function of
> subordination is to background material, although not all subordinate
> clauses do this. Subordinate clauses present typically, unless specific
> conditions to the contrary are present, content that is presupposed to be
> true. Main clauses, on the other hand, are asserted. In a sentence like
>
> Samantha got a good interest rate after she checked with her credit union.
>
> it's easy to deny that she got a good interest rate; just say, "No, she
> didn't." But to deny that she checked with the credit union, you'd have
> to say more, like, "But she didn't check with her credit union."
>
> In a sentence like
>
> Sammy at five green apples, and he got a belly ache.
>
> we find the same relationship. If you say "No, he didn't" you're denying
> that he got a belly ache, not that he ate the apples. You have to
> specifically mention them to deny that presupposition. Functionally, that
> makes the first clause more like a subordinate, even though it's marked
> grammatically as a coordinate. Yet, so, and for clauses can be either
> presupposed or asserted. In that sense they act more like coordinate
> clauses, although like some and and but clauses they can have either
> pragmatic function.
>
> With adverbial and adjectival subordinate clauses, we're much more likely
> to presupposition. With nominal subordinate clauses the function depends
> on the head word. With think, the that-clause isn't necessarily true:
>
> I think it rained earlier this morning. (But the sprinklers could have
> come on.)
>
> With regret, the clause is presupposed to be true. I can't say
>
> I regret that I missed the meeting.
>
> if I didn't miss the meeting.
>
> The point is that meaning, in the sense of pragmatic function, varies to
> some extent independently of overt subordination or coordination.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig
> Hancock
> Sent: Sat 6/2/2007 8:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Coordinating Conjunctions
>
>> This has been a delightful conversation to pick up on some dozen
> messages in.
> There are two parts to Peter's original question about and, or, for,
> nor, so, yet, and but. Are they conjunctions? John's movability test is
> a good one, and it's one that they will pass. Are they coordinate? In
> other words, do they leave both sides equal? I would say yes for and,
> but, or, nor, but not for so, yet, and--especially--for. So when we
> call them coordinating conjunctions, I like to tell my students that
> they are RECOGNIZED as coordinating conjunctions within a standard
> grammar, which means (if we follow the best rule books) we can start a
> sentence with any of them without making it a fragment. So these are
> different questions, one about meaning, the other about the analysis (a
> little faulty) behind traditional punctuation conventions. You can also
> ask questions about their role in discourse flow.
> With my own students, a very high percentage of run-on sentences fit
> the model of adverb opening second clause. So I think it is important
> to talk about how adverbs are movable (nice test) but also that they do
> not CONJUNCT. Subordinating conjunctions (not the adverbs, like however
> or therefore or now or then)have a conjunctive function, but also
> subordinate one clause to the other. (The subordinated clause has a
> grammatical role in the main clause, more often than not adverbial.)
> You can make a case that "He wanted to please her, for she was the girl
> of his dreams" is very close to "He wanted to please her because she
> was the girl of his dreams." I would like to call both subordinate, but
> traditional grammar (and the punctuation conventions that come with it)
> recognize the "for" as coordinating. "For she was the girl of his
> dreams" would not be a fragment in traditional grammar, but "because
> she was the girl of his dreams" would.
> I do have a roughed out article on this somewhere, one that never got
> past the extensive note stage. It's an intereresting area because it
> highlights some of the different kinds of questions we can ask of
> written language choice. What does it contribute to meaning? How does
> it influence the flow of discourse? What does traditional grammar say
> about it?
>
> Craig
>
>> In a message dated 6/1/07 3:01:05 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps ?oclause; however, clause? is the standard convention, but
>>> we
>>> also
>>> allow ?oS. However, S? if the contrast is stronger.
>>>
>>
>> I've always taught that "clause; conjunctive adverb, clause" is the
>> standard
>> convention, but Ed Schuster, in his wonderful book Breaking the Rules,
>> points
>> out that, in fact, "clause. Conjunctive adverb, clause" is much more
>> common.
>>
>>
>> I wonder why I have been insisting on the semicolon version for all
>> these
>> years . . . and why almost all the handbooks do too. Schuster
>> recognizes
>> Lynn
>> Troyka's as the only one he is aware of that, at least, recognizes the
>> equal
>> correctness of the version with a period before the conjunctive adverb.
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>>
>> 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/
|
