Bill, I'd probably quibble with a couple my examples too, but I think the point stands. However, you point to another important observation, that the assertional or presuppositional character of a clause isn't determined by syntactic structure, although syntax can certainly enhance it. In I think that taxes are too low. "that taxes are too low" is clearly the noun clause DO of "think". That is, it is grammatically an embedded, subordinate clause. However, the pragmatic function of the higher clause "I think S" is not to assert what I am doing but to hedge the assertion that taxes are too low. In this sense it is sort of adverbial, although I prefer that term for things that modify verbs, sentences, or adjectives. Rather, it's function is at discourse level. But the sentence is a case in which the assertion is in a subordinate clause and the main clause modifies the assertion. Herb Subject: Re: A logical thought Herb, I agree, although I would quibble (trivially, in the final analysis) with a couple of the sentences -- I think "No it doesn't" might well work as a contradiction for the extraposed clause example you give, and I can't quite get "wonder that" to work right in my head. Of course, that might just be because I'm short on coffee right now. Not only is there probably a scale, but we might consider particular constructions as potentially occupying more than one spot on it. Depending on what you choose to contradict, it could be argued that "I think" constitutes a matrix clause or that it is acting more like an adverbial element: [I think that] taxes are too low. No they aren't! I think [that taxes are too low]. No you don't! I decided that taxes are too low. ?No they aren't! I decided that taxes are too low No you didn't! The kind of dual contradictablity of "I think" constructions may be tied to their status as projecting verbs, using Halliday's term -- these are, for example, the ones that allow postposition in direct quotes and, in some cases, indirect ones: Taxes are too low, I think. Taxes were too low, he thought, and therefore he took action. There's something interesting in the fact that the postposed ones are always that-less, but I can't quite figure out where I want to go with that. It may be that we assign double structures to these constructions, and then focus on one or another of them in context. Contradicting the putative matrix foregrounds its interpretation *as* a matrix, while contradicting the putative complement clause establishes it as the main assertion. In speech, of course, intonation could similarly tilt the structure one way or another. Some other constructions, such as "The fact is, X" seem to act even more strongly as if what looks like a matrix clause is actually a complex adverbial element (in that example, roughly like "Actually..."; the evidence includes the ability of speakers to leave off the "the" and to double the copula without anyone other than intrusive linguists noticing). Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: A logical thought Bill, That's an interesting proposal. How about considering the test to reveal a scale rather than a dichotomy. Extraposed clauses like It appears that Bush stole the Florida vote. Allow "No, he didn't", and "No, it doesn't" would be odd. In I think Bush stole the Florida vote. "No, he didn't" works well and "No, you don't" doesn't deny the complement at all. Of course, the head verb and the conjunction factor in too, as in I wonder if Bush stole the Florida vote. I wonder that Bush stole the Florida vote. With "if", no presupposition is made. With "that", the presupposition is that he stole it, and "No, he didn't" doesn't work as well. Then with The fact that Bush stole the Florida vote meant that the 2004 election would be at risk too. "No, he didn't" doesn't work at all. I suspect that this continuum could be extended and fleshed out further, both with more structures and perhaps with more tests. Herb Herb, It occurs to me that not only do activities like the ones you described perform the function of uniting grammar (broadly construed) with wider issues of language awareness, they also provide an additional way to get at a kind of heuristic students can use: "If it's a statement that you've punctuated as a sentence, and you can't possibly contradict it, it's a fragment." I'm fairly sure this won't yield false negatives, but I'm still trying to sort out whether it can yield false positives. From informally polling native English-speaking students, I've noticed some potential variation -- for some reason, fewer people object to contradicting material in a because-clause than in a when-clause: Bjorn was in the kitchen when Brunnhild murdered Bjarki. *No she didn't! Bjorn was rather put out because Brunnhild murdered Bjarki ?No she didn't That second one doesn't sound very good to me, but a number of my students were not bothered by it. However, moving the subordinate clause to the beginning caused everyone to reject the contradiction. Something is going on with end-rheme, I think, but I haven't dived into the research on this at all (yet). So, I'm not sure the proposed heuristic would enable students to find *all* fragments (and it does not give students any way of thinking about intended fragments), but it should work for a large number of cases. Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University. 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/