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/