Nancy,
The phrase "the town where I was born" can be read as "the town in
which I was born." Now the clause has an adverbial prepositional
phrase--and the diagram would show that phrase in the same place as
the "where" is shown: i.e., modifying the verb "was born."
In a sense, both which and where are pronominal, in that they refer
to the noun town. If you do the substitution with "in which," you
obviously have a pronominal--a relative pronoun that functions as the
object of a preposition (a nominal function) in its own clause. I
put where on an "adverb" line (i.e., diagonally below the verb)--as a
"there" substitute of sorts. But you could certainly put it on a
prepositional phrase line, leaving the preposition spot empty. I
think that's what your students want to do, right? They can think of
it as "the town (at) where I was born."
When I was in ninth grade, a teacher pointed out to me that I didn't
need "at" when I asked "where"; I had asked her "Where is it at?"
"Where at" is a fairly common usage--so why not "at where"?
The where and when and why relative clauses are not very
common--especially why--because they modify only nouns of place and
time and, in the case of why, the noun reason (that's the only one I
can think of-- although I guess there might be others, synonyms for
reason).
Tell your students to keep questioning. The form/function distinction
does indeed give them a way to think.
Martha
>Everything that has been posted about this topic over the past few
>days underscores the importance of talking about language in terms
>of function and not form.
>
>This point was driven home to me this week as I talked with my
>students about adjective clauses that begin with words normally
>thought of as adverbs: "where," "when," and "why." I think a good
>case can be made for regarding them as functioning pronominally (is
>that a word?) in these particular constructions.
>
>With most adjective/relative clauses, the relative pronoun refers to
>a specific noun in another clause. Thus, in the sentence "She is the
>woman whom I met at a party," a traditional diagram would show a
>dotted line connecting "whom" in the relative clause to "woman" in
>the main clause. The reader, upon seeing the clause "whom I met at a
>party," thinks "woman I met at a party."
>
>It stands to reason, then, that "where," "when," and "why" function
>more like pronominals than like adverbs in cases where the adjective
>clause starts with one of those words.
>
>I am a huge fan of Martha Kolln's Understanding English Grammar.
>Martha, in your diagrams of such clauses (adjective clauses launched
>by an adverb), you show the adverb on a straight line under the verb
>of the adjective clause. But could we not treat the "where," "when,"
>or "why" as if it were the object of a prepositional phrase with an
>elliptical preposition? The prepositional phrase as a unit functions
>adverbially in its own clause, but the word itself functions
>nominally in its relation to the other clause-as a replacement for
>the word to which we say it is connected.
>
>Take this sentence, for example:
>
>This is the house where I was born.
>
>The dotted line connecting the adjective clause "where I was born"
>to the main clause would connect "where" to "house." "Where" acts
>just like a pronoun; that is, when we read that adjective clause,
>the meaning conveyed is "I was born [in] house" or "I was born [in]
>where."
>
>My students were inclined to treat these words as objects of
>prepositional phrases with elliptical prepositions because earlier
>in the text, they were taught that words like "yesterday" and
>"tomorrow" and "Friday" are diagrammed as objects of prepositional
>phrases with elliptical prepositions. And I have implored them so
>often to think in terms of a word's function and not its form that
>they were comfortable seeing "when," "where," and "why" functioning
>pronominally in these particular cases.
>
>When they are trying to figure out how a phrase or clause is related
>to the rest of a sentence, my students get the best results when
>they ask themselves "What question does this word/phrase/clause
>answer?" If we ask ourselves what question "where" answers in its
>own clause (not what question does the entire clause answer-that
>would be "which house?"), we would answer "where I was born." But
>the answer to the question "where was I born?" is "in house," not
>simply "house."
>
>I'm not sure I'm being clear here. I should have learned by now not
>to post to this very intelligent group late at night! But the bottom
>line is this: I am much more concerned that my students are thinking
>about and recognizing the relationships among words, phrases, and
>clauses than I am that they be able to put words in form classes-a
>frustrating if not completely futile exercise. I am convinced that
>as they get better at recognizing the functions of words in a
>construction, they become clearer thinkers and more precise writers.
>
>Nancy
>
>
>Nancy L. Tuten, PhD
>Professor of English
>Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program
>Columbia College
>Columbia, South Carolina
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>803-786-3706
>
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet
>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:30 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [BULK] A new question was The necessity for
>classification was: Those old transitivity blues was Help for a
>puzzled teacher
>
>One of my former students sent me an email asking this question: I
>have a grammar question I have yet to find an answer to, and I
>thought, "Who better to ask than Janet?" So, regarding the use of
>the word 'wondering', I would like to know if I should use a
>question mark at the end of a sentence such as: "I was wondering if
>you are going to the store?" or "I wonder why it rains?" My first
>inclination is that these are statements, not questions. However, I
>have run into question marks at the end of such sentences frequently
>of late. I must know the truth!
>
>I believe I would treat this as reported speech not requiring a
>question mark. What do others think?
>
>Janet Castilleja
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ronald Sheen
>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:20 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [BULK] The necessity for classification was: Those old
>transitivity blues was Help for a puzzled teacher
>Importance: Low
>
>Craig writes:
>When classification becomes an end in itself, the living,
>dynamic language gets left behind.
>
>This may be so in the case of purely linguistic analysis. However,
>I do not agree that this reflects the recent comments related to the
>ESL context. Therein, assuming that one is adopting an explicit
>approach to explaining the difference between phrasal and
>prepositional verbs, first, one has to have a means of classifying
>the two, and second, one has to provide the students with a clear
>way of distinguishing them.
>
>Ron Sheen
>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/