Craig Hancock wrote: > Herb, Peter, Bill, Ron, > > With apologies if this seems too theoretical for most people’s tastes. > I have been thinking about these things for several months now and > have mostly held back while the thoughts come into focus. > > The problem I currently have with trying to find a classification for > “think about” is that I am starting to believe we make these > categories more important (more governing) than they actually are. We > tend to feel as if words have to act certain ways because of the > grammar, rather than believing that the grammar itself arises out of > our use of words. (Or that it is a dynamic relationship, a > lexico-grammar, word-grammar, cline.) When classification becomes an > end in itself, the living, dynamic language gets left behind. > > Another way to think about it is that the process of thinking is often > conceived of (and articulated) as “about” something, and over time > “think” and “about” come together often enough to start feeling like a > single phrase rather than a verb plus prepositional phrase with a > variable object. > > > I often think about blank. > > I often think about blank > > From this way of thinking, the verb will begin to pull the preposition > into its orbit, helped by two forces—one is repetition (the words > coming together so often)--and the other is congruency with our > experience of the world, our conception of what thinking is like. In > other words, we continue to use it because it is practical to use it, > highly “functional.” And this becomes patterned. > > From a rule based approach, we have to say that “all grammars leak”, > but that may be because they try to treat the language as frozen and > not dynamic. If we see the creation of phrasal verbs as a dynamic > process, then it is easy to treat in-between examples as part of that > process of change—of grammatical structures being lexicalized and > lexical terms being pulled into the grammar. From a usage based > perspective, leaking is likely. Just like words, the grammar is always > coming into being. > > This gives us an approach to grammar that pulls us into meaning and > one that frames meaning itself as contextual and dynamic. > > Craig > > > > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >> Ron, >> >> Let's start with easiest of your questions, how to use information like >> this in teaching. The fact is that I wouldn't present a seven-fold >> classification of anything grammatical in an ESL context. I might be >> forced to do something like that if I were teaching Chinese nominal >> classifiers, of which there are dozens, or Bantu noun classes, which can >> exceed a couple dozen, but fortunately English doesn't do such things. >> What's important in developing both fluency and register control in >> non-native speakers is that they learn to shift particles when doing so >> is pragmatically motivated, that they learn to use a passive when that >> structure is pragmatically motivated. And this they will learn much >> better from usage and practice than from grammar drill. >> >> I think perhaps you confused Bill and me in the latter part of your >> post. Actually, the classification I posted is from Sidney Greenbaum's >> Oxford English Grammar (OUP, 1996), so I can't take credit for it. >> Transitivity does have degrees. Intransitives take only a subject, >> (mono)transitives take a subject and a direct object, and ditransitives >> (SG's "doubly transitives") take a direct object and an indirect object, >> which may or may not require a preposition. Indirect object, bear in >> mind, is a function, not a structure, and it can show up as either a >> bare NP or as the object of a preposition. I suspect SG uses >> "monotransitivity" in a excess of clarity, the result of which isn't >> necessarily what the writer hopes for. >> >> Actually, SG doesn't distinguish between "look at" and "look after". In >> his discussion of prepositional verbs (p. 282), he uses "look at" as an >> example of a monotransitive prepositional verb. >> Back to the question of goals for a moment. SG was writing a reference >> grammar, and so his goal was to provide as complete and thorough a >> classification of English structures as he could. Hence his seven >> classes of phrasal/prepositional verbs. What the ESL teacher does with >> this classification is subject to different, pedagogical goals, and I >> hope that teacher would keep SG's treatment well away from his students, >> while being informed by it as he or she prepares lesson plans. >> >> Herb >> >> One of the great advantages of this List (and particularly if one has >> the >> intellectual courage to state what one knows about grammar with the >> attendant possibility of being proven to be wrong and the even worse >> possibility of realising that one has been teaching something to >> students >> which is possibly incorrect) is the potential it has to make one >> re-examine >> one's own assumptions about some point of grammar. >> >> Herb's comments on the complexities of phrasal verbs and Bill's list of >> three examples are cases in point. This query, then, is just to clarify >> things in their posts and particularly in the context of ESL. >> >> Bill's list of three is as follows: >> >> I looked [up the chimney] prepositional phrase >> I [looked up] the word phrasal verb >> I looked [up] adverbial particle. >> >> Just to avoid ambiguity, I would modify the second two as follows: >> >> I [looked up] the word. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as 'the >> word' is the direct object of the resultant phrasal verb, 'look up' is a >> >> transitive phrasal >> verb. >> >> I looked [up]. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as there is no >> direct >> object, 'look up' is an intransitive phrasal verb. >> >> Would Bill agree with this modification? >> >> Herb's list of seven really puts the cat amonst the pigeons of my >> assumptions about transitivity. Here's Bill's list: >> >> 1. intransitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "give in" (surrender) >> 2. transitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "find" something "out" (discover) >> 3. monotransitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "look after" (take care of) >> 4. doubly transitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "blame" something "on" >> someone >> 5. copular prepositional verbs, e.g. "serve as" >> 6. monotransitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "look up to" >> (respect) >> 7. doubly transitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "put" something >> "down to" (attribute to) >> >> My problem is with 3 This is the first time that I have encountered the >> term 'monotransitive' so perhaps Bill can explain the significance of >> the addition of 'mono-'. >> >> In the case of 3, why is Bill implicitly differentiating 'look at' and >> 'look after'? I ask this because I am assuming that he is not >> claiming that 'look at' is a monotransitive prepositional verb. In >> the case of ESL, I >> think it preferable to consider them both intransitive in order not to >> muddy the transitive waters too much. >> >> 6 & 7 are also problematic in ESL terms for the same reason but perhaps >> we can come to those later. >> >> 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/