Bill,
   In my dealings with traditional school grammar, I don't think the term "finite" generally comes up.  In other words, we can see that this is their thinking, but they haven't theorized it out for themselves. I think you are giving them more credit than they deserve by implying that this is merely a disagreement in how we apply the term.  
    I'm a big fan of Understanding English Grammar, but Martha defines a clause as a group of words that includes a subject and predicate and defines absolute as a noun plus modifier. She does require a main or predicating verb for a predicate, so perhaps she is covered there.  Diana Hacker, in her Writer's Reference, defines subordinate clause as a word group that "contains a subject and predicate, but it functions within a sentence as an adjective, an adverb, or a noun; it cannot stand alone."  The predicate for her is a verb plus its complements and modifiers, which would seem to leave the door open for nonfinite predicates (which have verbs and complements and modifiers.) Her definition echoes the definition I was raised on, that a clause is a group of words with subject and predicate ( in the case of commands, at least, the subject is sometimes implied.)
     In the one hand holding the bat loosely was his good one, "holding the bat loosely" is clearly a restrictive modifier of "the one hand", but I don't think you can make that case for the meaning structure within an absolute.
   His feet planted solidly, legs flexed, hands holding the bat loosely, Paul waited for the payoff pitch.  If these were nonrestrictive modifiers, we would ask for commas, which clearly don't work; if restrictive, they would be telling us which feet, which legs, which hands, and so on, which is clearly not the case. The internal structure is clause like, and traditional grammar obscures that reality.
    I think we certainly should contradict textbooks when they are clearly wrong, especially when we have some hope of making  understanding useful. Nonfinite clause is not a difficult concept.

Craig

Spruiell, William C wrote:
[log in to unmask]">

Craig,

 

The term is partly based on a terminological position that’s common in traditional American school grammars: “It’s not a clause unless it’s finite.” There’s no reason why one can’t adopt alternate definitions, of course, and many of us do (e.g. everyone who uses the term “nonfinite clause”). If you’re a K-12 teacher whose required student texts repeatedly tell students that clauses must be finite, you’d have to stick to “absolute phrase” or spend a lot of time contradicting their textbooks. It’s difficult to overestimate the inertial effects of school grammar books, alas.

 

Bill Spruiell

 

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University  

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: absolute phrases?

 

I don't want to undercut the whole flow of this talk, but is there any compelling reason to think of an absolute as a phrase and not a clause?  For the most part, the only thing missing in comparison to a matrix clause is the finite auxiliary, which simply reduces the structure to a subordinate status.  Also, if we see participle clauses/phrases as adjectival (largely to avoid the dangling modifier, I suspect) wouldn't we do the same when the structure is subject bearing?
    Paul, holding the bat loosely, waited for the pitch.  (standard participial as nonrestrictive modifier.)
    Paul, his hands holding the bat loosely, waited for the pitch. (absolute in the same position.)
    Paul, with his hands holding the bat loosely, waited for the pitch. (same structure, with a prepositional head.)
Certainly holding the bat loosely is a predicate like structure, with a transitive verb, direct object complement, and adverbial modifier.  If we add his hands, are we adding a noun for it to modify or are we adding a subject to that nonfinite predicate?  
    Paul's hands held the bat loosely.  He waited for the pitch.
    Isn't his hands holding the bat loosely a downranked (nonfinite) clause?

Craig

Karl Hagen wrote:

The summary of this article suggests you might get your answer here, although I haven't had time to read it myself:

Ineke Sluiter, "Seven Grammarians on the 'ablativus absolutus'"
in _Historiographia Linguistica_ 27:2/3. 2000. (pp. 379–414)

Summary

In this article, the history of the so-called ablative absolute as a descriptive category is traced from the 3rd to the 20th century. Texts by Sacerdos, Diomedes, Priscian, Alberic of Montecassino, Kühner & Stegmann and Harm Pinkster illustrate how the ablative absolute is recognized long before it get its name, and how its role in grammatical description is invented, changes, and disappears again in accordance with the grammatical systems adopted by the respective grammarians. The ablative absolute starts as a kind of appendix to the doctrine of the parts of speech, is moved from the description of the noun to that of the participle, and eventually just fades away as a descriptive label in its own right in the context of Functional Grammar. Its history cannot, of course, prove that the ‘God’s Truth’ metaphysics of grammar is wrong, but it certainly looks like a series of manifestations of grammatical ‘Hocus Pocus’.


Karl Hagen
Department of English
Mount St. Mary's College


Spruiell, William C wrote:

Nineteenth-century grammars typically classified nouns as being
"subjective" "objective, or "possessive"; the noun at the beginning of
an average absolute phrase isn't either of these, so it got its own
label (typically, nominals that function primarily adverbially, like
"yesterday," would be considered adverbs in these grammars, so they
weren't the same kind of problem for the authors).  Harvey 1869.74-5,
for example, lists "nominative, objective, possessive, and absolute" as
the English noun cases. He used the same trick, however, to deal with
"vocatives" in initial position. His example is, "Your *fathers*, where
are they?"
Now, the practice may well have been borrowed from Latin, but I'd also
want to check to see if the *modern* term for the Latin construction
wasn't based on the same kind of logic. Did Priscian refer to those
constructions as ablative absolutes (or rather, the Latin equivalent),
or did the *label* "ablative absolute" develop in English grammars of
Latin?

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

-----Original Message---
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 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/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:18:10 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Washington Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following Web site contains a listing of expectations for grammar teaching in the Washington public school system: http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculuminstruct/writing/frameworks/conventions.aspx While I am happy to see grammar instruction making a comeback anywhere, I am concerned about the content of the list that is posted. I think ATEG should get involved here. If you agree with me that there are problems with the list, I would suggest either of two options (and am certainly open to more): 1) Send an e-mail to the contact person for the site, whose address is provided therein, expressing your concerns. 2) Reply back to this listserv or to me privately ([log in to unmask]). I will compile everybody's concerns and send them to the contact person, noting that they are from concerned ATEG members. As the pendulum swings back toward grammar instruction in K-12, I think ATEG should provide some leadership. If we haven't done so already, perhaps those of you with more knowledge in the area than I could come up with our own list of grade-appropriate instructional targets / objectives and make it available through NCTE to all of the public school districts. We tend on rare occasion to be a rather contentious group, but maybe just this once . . . . Any thoughts would be appreciated. John 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/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:48:50 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edward Vavra <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Washington Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline John, I've been waiting to see the response to your post, and I'm disappointed that thus far I haven't seen any. I share your concern about the expectations in the Washington public school system, but those expectations are not very different from other sets of expectations that I have seen. Unfortunately, I have never seen this group clearly address the question of what should be taught in K-12. A month or so ago, Michael posted that question on this list, asking for some discussion, but his post was likewise met with dead silence. Perhaps some ATEG members are working on this off list, but I would have to wonder why the question cannot be addressed on the list. From my perspective, a major problem with the Washington list is that it reflects no understanding of natural language development or of the causes of various errors. The problem is not an easy one to tackle, but if you are interested, you can explore (or join in with) my own efforts. Perhaps the best place to start would be with the Guide to Using the KISS Grammar Workbooks at: http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/Guide_Book1.htm Ed Vavra >>> [log in to unmask] 03/28/05 8:18 AM >>> The following Web site contains a listing of expectations for grammar teaching in the Washington public school system: http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculuminstruct/writing/frameworks/conventions.aspx While I am happy to see grammar instruction making a comeback anywhere, I am concerned about the content of the list that is posted. I think ATEG should get involved here. If you agree with me that there are problems with the list, I would suggest either of two options (and am certainly open to more): 1) Send an e-mail to the contact person for the site, whose address is provided therein, expressing your concerns. 2) Reply back to this listserv or to me privately ([log in to unmask]). I will compile everybody's concerns and send them to the contact person, noting that they are from concerned ATEG members. As the pendulum swings back toward grammar instruction in K-12, I think ATEG should provide some leadership. If we haven't done so already, perhaps those of you with more knowledge in the area than I could come up with our own list of grade-appropriate instructional targets / objectives and make it available through NCTE to all of the public school districts. We tend on rare occasion to be a rather contentious group, but maybe just this once . . . . Any thoughts would be appreciated. John 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/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:43:31 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]> Organization: Cal Poly State University Subject: Re: Washington MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, Many of us are working on reframing grammar instruction in the public=20 schools. The ATEG project that resulted in Grammar Alive! was, I=20 believe, a major first step; the book has a much more=20 scientifically-informed approach to grammar with some teaching tips. It=20 was snapped up at the first conference at which it was sold; I don't=20 know how sales have been since, but its popularity reflects teachers'=20 desperation for guidance in grammar instruction. Further steps are=20 needed, but this is not going to be an overnight enterprise. Many of us=20 are individually involved either at teacher ed level or in the schools=20 (Rebecca Wheeler and her students, for example). State standards such as the ones for Washington are generally formulated=20 in the course of a very large state project involving commissions=20 comprising teachers and other experts, apppointed by the state's=20 department of education; unfortunately, where English is concerned, it=20 is rare that linguists are appointed to such commissions. Linguists just=20 do not have sufficient visibility at the level at which these projects=20 happen; since English teachers are already there and already have an=20 ideology about grammar, that's what gets into the standards. There is no=20 perceived gap or perceived problem. Influencing these would take a lot more than messages to the contact=20 person for the website. What would be required is contact at the top=20 levels of such ed. depts., coming from authorities that they would take=20 seriously. When California came out with its new language arts curriculum in the=20 mid-90's, I wrote a long letter to our state sec. of ed., and even=20 though I am a teacher trainer in the state college system, I heard=20 nothing back. I planned to contact the head of the commission that=20 formulated the standards, but, sadly, was distracted by the workload of=20 my relatively new teaching position at Cal Poly, and never got around to=20 it. The appropriate contact people are those: the ones who put the=20 commissions together, and the state officials whose final seal of=20 approval goes on the standards documents, and legislatures that=20 incorporate them into state law, in states where such things are done by=20 legislation. Another important thing to keep in mind is that the standards name=20 particular skill objectives (e.g., "no double negatives"), but they do=20 not dictate HOW those are to be achieved. Certainly, we want kids to be=20 able to write academic prose without double negatives. It is unfortunate=20 that the standards state it so negatively, but the teacher is the one=20 who will present the lessons to the students, and the teacher is the one=20 who creates the in-classroom mindset. The kids rarely see the standards=20 themselves, I believe. So working with teachers through Grammar Alive!,=20 in language arts journals (where the Wheeler & Swords approach has been=20 published, and will be in more detail in a forthcoming book), and=20 presenting alternative mindsets and approaches in teacher ed (which is=20 going to happen in any class taught by a linguist) is absolutely=20 essential to changing the grammar mindset. A curriculum with materials=20 is needed, and, frankly, I have no doubt that one will eventually=20 emerge, whether ATEG does it, another group, or several individuals=20 working together. I am a member of a group with such a goal -- to=20 formulate a scientifically-based language arts curriculum for the=20 schools -- but it is in the very earliest stages and is working on=20 teacher ed. first. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics English Department, California Polytechnic State University One Grand Avenue =95 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. (805)-756-2184 =95 Fax: (805)-756-6374 =95 Dept. Phone. 756-2596 =95 E-mail: [log in to unmask] =95 Home page:=20 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/