Not that I'm looking for the last word on this, but you asked for it.
I must admit that some of my ideas are not fleshed out enough to leave my own
teaching environment, but my effort with foreign students is to point out the
meanings associated with different structures. I must also admit that the
"function" in functional grammar is still a little vague to me. My
examples were meant to distinguish grammatical function from rhetorical function
(I hope I've used these terms correctly).
1. "Downed in the storm, the oak tree lies on the lawn like a broken
warrior." My perception of this sentence is that the author wants to give
a reason for the oak tree lying on the lawn or possibly a concomitant
(or causative) state. To be explicit the author might have said, "Because
the oak tree has been downed in the storm, it lies on the lawn like a
broken warrior." or better, "The oak tree has been downed in the storm and now
lies on the lawn like a broken warrior." I simply wanted to point out that the
participial phrase serves this adverbial function. I also go with the
traditional view, that the participle modifies the noun phrase in the
grammatical function of a non-restrictive adjective.
2. I apologize for using the technical term "dangling" to refer to the
absence of a clear reference for "gleaming in the sun." Maybe even "clear"
is used here a little loosely. "Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car
was parked on the street in front of our big window." Here
the bright sunlight associates with the big window and seems to be implying that
we are on the inside, out of the sun, looking out at it and this gleaming off
the new car has brought our attention to it. The only sense in which the
participle "dangles" is that this implied relationship to the author is not
clear. I must admit to not being clear -- not using the term in
quotes. The concomitant circumstance of gleaming in the bright sun is kind
of disconnected from the sentence, "The new car, gleaming in the bright
sun, was parked on the street in front of our big
window." Here at least the author's intent seems cl! early to be nothing
more than to give some additional description of the car. When the phrase
comes first in a sentence like, "Gleaming in the sun, the new car was obvious to
every passer-by," at least its adverbial nature, the reason the
author put it up front (in an adverbial position), is easier to see.
Bruce,
My interest is actually a
more pedestrian one; what do I tell students
in an introductory grammar class
about where to draw the lines? The
next edition of my book (if it gets that
far) will force a
re-examination. I decided to go with more traditional view,
that the
structure modifies its implied subject, regardless of where it's
moved.
But I'm not overjoyed with that.
Johanna, of course,
brings up the interesting function of what systemic
functional grammar calls
a "marked theme", and that gives us a way to
discuss why the movement would
take place, as a discourse function.
It's just hard for me to agree that a
past participle headed structure
would be adjectival and a present participle
one would be adverbial in
the same (sentence opening) position, and so on.
I'm looking for a
neat, clean way to consistently describe these. "Downed in
the storm,
the oak tree lies on the ! lawn like a broken warrior." Would that
be
adverbial as well? In the interest of consistency, I think it
would
have to be, but you don't seem ready to say that.
"Dangling" is a technical term in traditional grammar, meaning a
participial
phrase (their term) that doesn't have a noun phrase (my
term) or has a
misleading noun phrase to modify.
"Shouting watch out, the bear
was coming toward us." The examples are
usually comical.
My
own sentence seemd awkward to you, but it wasn't "dangling' in the
usual way
the word is used.
As we say quite often, we need consistency and
clarity and usefulness,
and I don't see that yet in the way you are drawing
the lines. I would
love to have an alternative approach to
consider.
Craig>
Craig,
>
> There are lots of
"gleaming" sentences, so it's not clear to me which one
> (of
>
mine) you thought was awkward. When I ! said "awkward" I was thinking
of:
> "Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car was parked on the street in
front
> of
> our big window."
> I meant the word "dangling" to
refer to its function, which is not clear
> (to
> me). Maybe
in a larger context.
>
> About your sentence:
> "Carrying
packages, limping noticeably from the earlier injury, he worked
>
his
> way carefully up the stairs."
> These phrases seem to be
telling us about the manner of his moving up the
> stairs; hence,
adverbial.
>
> About John McPhee's sentence; it uses the participle
(in my mind) to place
> the
> looking at a certain place and
time. In your alternate version the use
> seems to
> also
allow a purpose interpretation. The restrictive sentence is
clearly
> classifying the people who saw the grizzly. I'm not saying
that the basic
> adjectival structure changes.! Certainly they are
all adjective forms of
> the
> verb. As such they are
modifying the noun phrases. But it is also clear
> (to
> me)
that they are descriptive elaborations that are functioning as
>
sentence
> adverbs -- adverbial adjuncts. The fact that the subject
is not expressed
> in a
> clause is what forces its analysis as an
adjective.
>
> I agree that these grammatical concepts are
advanced. It's a lot like the
> use
> of a participle in a
verb phrase. The author's original intent may have
> been to
>
describe the car when he said:
> "The new car was parked in the
driveway."
> Then someone comes along and says this form is really in
passive voice.
> She
> adds another adverbial phrase telling the
agent and voila:
> "The new car was parked in the driveway by its proud
owner."
> Yet both interpretations are possible. ! ; (1: location of
car; 2: endpoint
> of an
> activity) That was my only
point. It's like looking at a Neckar cube.
> If you
> stare at
the "far" corner, it flips to become the near one. Then, if you
>
just
> lighten or make the hidden lines into dashes, you will be able to
bring
> out one
> interpretation making it dominate over the
other.
>
> Bruce
>
>>>> "Craig Hancock"
<
[log in to unmask]> 07/27/06 10:56 AM >>>
>
>>
Bruce,
> Opening the sentence with a participial word
group is actually very
> common. I'm not sure why my gleaming sentence
seems awkward. It's
> certainly not dangling, since the new car is doing
the gleaming.
>
> "Carrying packages, limping noticeably from the
earlier injury, he worked
> his way carefully up the
stairs."
>
> Here's an example from John McPhee: "Coming dow! n a
long, deep, green pool,
> we looked toward the riffle at the lower end and
saw an approaching
> grizzly."
> Here's my alternate
version:
> "The two men in the lead canoe, coming down a long, deep, green
pool,
> looked toward the riffle at the lower end and saw an approaching
grizzly."
>
> Restrictive version: Anyone coming down the long, deep
pool saw the
> grizzly.
>
> To me, it's easiest to say that
these nonrestrictive structures are
> movable than it is to say the the
funtion shifts, especially for begining
> students. I also think we should
be consistent with present and past
> participle. I'm not sure why a
sentence opening past participle clause
> would be adjectival, but a
present participle structure in the same
> position would be adverbial.
The main difference is in passive versus
> progressive in the
verb.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
Craig,
>>
>> The illusion remains. I have no trouble
with your analysis, but the
>> position
>> still changes the
function.
>>
>> "The new car, which was gleaming in the bright
sun, was parked on the
>> street in
>> front of our big
window."
>>
>> This is a non-restrictive relative clause --
clearly descriptive.
>>
>> "The new car, gleaming in the
bright sun, was parked on the street in
>> front of
>> our big
window."
>>
>>
>> No change.
>>
>>
"Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car was parked on the street in
>>
front
>> of
>> our big window."
>>
>> This
seems awkward to me. I'm not sure what it is saying. Perhaps
this
>> gleaming bit is what brought the car to our attention, so that
is why
>> the
>> phrase
>&g! t; starts the
sentence. The context that motivates this position is not
>>
easy
>> for
>> me to see. Maybe the partially dangling
phrase is closer to what is
>> meant:
>>
>> "Gleaming
in the bright sun, I could see the new car parked on the
>>
street
>> in
>> front of our big
window."
>>
>> Some very good authors like to dangle modifiers
like this. But it is
>> now
>> clearly adverbial, giving
the cause, even though it has a
>> non-restrictive
>>
descriptive relationship to the new car.
>>
>> Your other
sentence makes the participle phrase identify the trees,
>> telling
us
>> which ones (clearly adjectival):
>>
>>
"Trees downed in the storm will be removed by the town."
>>
>>
But then when you put the phrase in front, it modifies an already
>>
identified
>> tree in that non-restrictive
sense:
>>
>> "Downed in the storm, the old oak tree lies like
a broken warrior on the
>> lawn."
>>
>>
>>
This was my only point, that the adjunct position is primarily
>>
adverbial.
>> The
>> phrase seems to be giving us the reason
that the tree is in a supine
>> position
>> (lying on the
lawn).
>>
>>
Bruce
>>
>>
>>>>> "Craig Hancock"
<
[log in to unmask]> 07/27/06 6:16 AM >>>
>>
>>
Bruce,
>> I think traditional grammar tended toward the
adjectival because of
>> the
>> "dangling modifier" usage
problem, perhaps also becasue they seem so
>> often like reduced
relative clauses. "The new car, which was gleaming in
>> the bright
sun, was parked on the street in front of our big window."
! >> "The
new car, gleaming in the bright sun, was parked..." If you grant
>>
that as adjectival, then shouldn't it stay adjectival even if it
moves?
>> "gleaming in the bright sun, the new
car..."
>> I find it easiest in an introductory
grammar class to pretty much
>> take
>> adverbial out of the
mix, but that certainly oversimplifies.>
>>
Because of restrictive modification, I think any description would
>>
have
>> to include adjectival as a function category. "Trees downed in
the
>> storm will be removed by the town." That's a past participal
head, but
>> it seems clearly adjectival to me. "Downed in the storm,
the old oak
>> tree lies like a broken warrior on the lawn." By
extension, even though
>> it's movable, wouldn't that be adjectival as
well?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
Craig,
>>>
>! >> I have come to think about adjectival
phrases as serving either to
>>> identify or
>>>
classify the noun they modify. My habit also is to place
that
>>> troublesome
>>> adverbial that moves about so
in the terminology of Jesperson in the
>>> class
>>>
of
>>> adjuncts. These adverbial adjuncts can take the form of
adverbial
>>> clauses. My
>>> habit also is to see
adjectival phrases in the adjunct position as
>>>
primarily
>>> adverbial. They do not identify the noun modify,
nor do they classify.
>>> They
>>> simply describe, much
like an apositive. Perhaps making them adjuncts
>>> simultaneously
of the sentence and of the noun phrase would satisfy
>>>
both
>>> camps.
>>> Maybe its like one of those optical
illusions: you stare at it long
>>&g! t; enough
>>>
and
>>> it switches from one analysis/interpretation to the
other.
>>>
>>>
Bruce
>>>
>>>>>> "Craig Hancock"
<
[log in to unmask]> 07/26/06 2:13 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
Martha,
>>> I have always had a problem with
drawing the line between adverbial
>>> and
>>>
adjectival with these structures.
>>> I stood by
the bar and drank my beer. While standing by the bar, I
>>> drank my
beer. Standing by the bar, I drank my beer. What makes this
>>> more
adverbial than another example, say "Whistling a sad, old tune,
I
>>> walked through the darkest moments of my day?" Are you saying
the
>>> writer signals this by leaving off the comma? How about "I
walked
>>> whistling a sad, old tune through the darkest moments of
my day?"
>>> It seems almost any participial
phrase/clause will seem adverbial if
>>> we
>>> look at
it long enough, the exception being a restrictive modifier
>>>
immediately following the noun phrase it modifies. "People
whistling
>>> tunes often get through trouble." Something like that.
"People standing
>>> by the bar were drinking
beer."
>>> "Selling real estate, I made my
fortune." Does that change it?
>>>
>
>>>
Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>>Content-Type:
text/html;
>>>>>
charset=us-ascii
>>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
>>>>>Content-Description:
HTML
>>>>>
>>>> Hi
Maureen,
>>>>
>>>> I would agree with Bruce that
in (1) and (3) the -ing phrases (called
>>>> clauses by most
linguists) are manner adverbials. In other
words,
>>>> they are participles (or, in my lingo, participial
phrases)
>>>> functioning
adverbially.
>>>>
>>>> In traditional grammar, as
you know, the word participle--in addition
>>>> to its use as the
name of the -ing or -en form (present participle,
>>>> past
participle)--is used to designate those forms used
adjectivally.
>>>> But clearly, those forms can also function
adverbially. Here are
>>>> some other
examples:
>>>>
>>>> I made
my fortune selling real estate.
>>>> I
drank my beer standing at the bar.
>>>>
The kids came running out of the house.
>>>>
>>>>
I suspect that in order to lim! it the term participle to
its
>>>> adjectival function, the traditional grammarian would
claim that
>>>> these -ings are actually "gerunds"--the objects
of understood
>>>> prepositions. As objects, then, they
would be considered verbs
>>>> functioning as nouns. (That,
to me, is one of many examples of
>>>> insisting on Latin's
vocabulary, on making do, whether or not it
>>>> applies
accurately to English.)
>>>>
>>>> The term
"participle" is one of those problem terms that Ed Vavra
>>>>
talks about. And he's right. I would like to see us all agree
that
>>>> the word "participle" is the name of a form--perhaps
two forms:
>>>> present participle and past participle (the
latter of which, by the
>>>> way, I tell my students to think of
as "passive" rather than "past").
>>>&g! t; Then when we discuss
the word's function, we use terms like
>>>> "adverbial" or
"adjectival" or "nominal."
>>>>
>>>>
Interestingly, that's what we do with the other
"verbal"--the
>>>> infinitive. We have no separate term
(akin to gerund) for the
>>>> infinitive's functions. We
simply say, the infinitive is "taking the
>>>> place of " a noun
or adjective or adverb--thus, nominal or
>>>> adjectival or
adverbial. So I'm proposing, if and when we come
up
>>>> with agreed-upon terminology, that we treat
"participle" in the
>>>> same way. In other words, if
we want to keep the traditional
>>>> category "verbal," it would
have only two members, participle &
>>>> infinitive.
But, in fact, we probably don't want to keep it.
We
>>>> simply recognize that the verb forms, participle and
infinitive, have
>>>> three functions when they are not main
verbs. (Just as we recognize
>>>> the fact that nouns, too,
can function as adjectivals and
adverbials.)
>>>>
>>>> Back to Maureen's second
example:
>>>>
>>>> I have
trouble dancing in the dark.
>>>>
>>>> Quirk et
al. have some similar examples:
>>>>
>>>> Here's
what they say: "The -ing clause [again, I prefer "phrase"
for
>>>> non-finite verbs rather than
"clause"]
>>>> functions as appositive postmodification in
examples like
>>>>
>>>>
I'm looking for a job driving cars.
>>>>
We can offer you a career counselling
delinquents.
>>>> &n! bsp; There is plenty
of work shoveling snow."
>>>>
>>>> To call the
-ing constructions appositives is to say that driving
>>>> cars
is the job, counselling is the career, and shoveling snow is
the
>>>> work--just as Maureen's dancing is the
trouble.
>>>>
>>>> To call "dancing in the dark" a
complement, as Bruce does, is perhaps
>>>> even more accurate
because, clearly, the "trouble" is not complete
>>>> without
it. And while restrictive appositives are perhaps
necesaary
>>>> for clarity of meaning, they are usually not
necessary for
>>>> grammaticality, as in this case. I
define a complement as a
>>>> requirement for grammaticality (a
completer), while an appositive is
>>>>
optional.
>>>>
>>>>
Martha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maureen,
>>>>>
>>>>>My
vote is for explanation B, but I am uncomfortable talking
about
>>>>>"understood" prepositions. Certainly we
interpret the gerund in
>>>>>these situations as we would
prepositional phrases, but we don't
>>>>>need to have the
prepostions there to get that understanding.
>>>>>Nouns, which
gerunds are, often serve in the function of adverbs,
>>>>>like
"home" as a locative and "Wednesday" as a temporal
adverbial.
>>>>>True, sometimes it helps to point out that
they are like
>>>>>prepostional phrases: "at home" and "on
Wednesday." The fact that
>>>>>the gerund has an
understood subj! ect ("I") has to do with its
verbal
>>>>>derivation.
>>>>>
>>>>>One
of the strengths of a transformational approach in
descriptive
>>>>>linguistics is that the gerund's relationship
to the subject can
>>>>>be explicated. The gerund is
describing a state in (1), an activity
>>>>>in (2) and
(3).
>>>>>
>>>>>I was smiling::I spent the
morning in this state.
>>>>>I might dance in the dark::I have
trouble with this.
>>>>>I built a shed::I spent the weekend in
this activity.
>>>>>
>>>>>In (1) and (3) the
constructions are manner adverbial, whereas in
>>>>>(2) the
construction is a complement to the phrasal verb (idiom)
"to
>>>>>have trouble with." That the gerund is likely a
complement can be
>>>>>seen in the const! ruction: "The
trouble with dancing in the dark is
>>>>>that I can't see my
feet."
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope this
helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
"Maureen Kunz" <
[log in to unmask]> 07/25/06 5:00 PM
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To ATEG
folks-
>>>>> I have joined
this listserve at the suggestion of NCTE in
>>>>>order to seek
advice about the following grammar issue. As a
brash
>>>>>newcomer, I will dive right in. I beg the
indulgence of veterans
>>>>>for any lapses of local culture or
etiquette.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are 3 model
sentences:
>>>>>#1. I spent the morning
smiling.
>>>>>#2. I have trouble dancing in the
dark.
>>>>>#3. I spent the weekend building a
shed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
What are those "ing" words? They're not gerunds used
as
>>>>>direct objects; "morning," "trouble," and "weekend"
seem to be the
>>>>>direct
objects.
>>>>>-Possible explanation A: Participles
that are oddly placed?
>>>>>(smiling I, dancing I, building
I)
>>>>>-Possible explanation B: Are they gerunds in
understood
>>>>>prepositional phrases that serve as adverbs to
modify the
verb?
>>>>>
I spent the morning [in]
smiling
>>>>>
I have trouble [with] dancing in the
dark.
>>>>>
I spent the weekend [in] building a
shed.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Possible explanation
C: Some sort of obscure direct object?
>>>>>(Doesn't
really fit the definition or word order - IO before
DO).
>>>>>-Possible explanation D; A Latinate
structure. For example,
>>>>>ablative absolute in Latin
becomes a nominative absolute in English.
>>>>>Although the
Latin specifications for an ablative absolute seem
to
>>>>>fit, the English versions provided on the web don't
fit the
model.
>>>>>
>>>>>
With sincere thanks for any light you can shine on this
mystery,
>>>>>
Maureen
>>>>>
>>>>>To join or leave this
LISTSER! V 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/>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>NOTICE:
This email message is for the sole use of the
>>>>>
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and
>>>>> privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use,
>>>>> disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the
>>>>> intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply email
>>>>> and des!
troy all copies of the original
message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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/>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
NOTICE: This email message is for ! the sole use of the
>>>
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>>>
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>>
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the
>>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email
>>> and destroy all copies of the original
message.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
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/>>
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
>> intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>> privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>> disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>> intended
recipient, please contact the se! nder by reply email
>> and
destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
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/>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
> intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply email
> and destroy all copies of
the original message.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
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"
>
> Visi! t 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.htmland
select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/