To my mind, sentence #2 (the bell-bottom one) is perfectly fine because you
have a subject, and the prepositional form modifies the verb. In the others
the prepositional construction is trying to be the subject.
Jane Saral
Atlanta
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Thank you for posting your response. It is important in a discussion
> about what theory of language is valuable for teaching that we actually
> examine what students do and the responses we would make.
>
> Here is the sentence, written by a real student, that I claim is
> problematic for a usage based theory of grammar.
>
> (1) By taking time out of your day to get something for someone else
> just really shows that you really care about them.
>
> As I consider what Craig wrote, remember that Craig subscribes to the
> following view of language from Langacker, among others.
>
> "The thrust of the content requirement is that the linguistic
> knowledge
> we ascribe to speakers should be limited to elements of form and
> meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions, or which derive from such
> elements via the basic psychological phenomena listed in 1.31:
> association, automatization, schematization, and categorization. By
> keeping our feet on the ground, this restriction assures both
> naturalness and theoretical austerity."
>
> Craig writes:
>
> Like you, I'm sure, I wouldn't respond to the sentence without
> looking at its context in the paper and without some sense of the
> student. Was it just a slip on their part? The two really's also don't
>
> work for me. But if it is worth paying attention to, it is worth
> playing
> with. The student owns the sentence.
>
> If our (teacher) knowledge of language is "limited to form and meaning
> found in actually occurring expressions," on what basis is Craig able to
> ask "Is (1) just a slip"? More importantly, on what basis can we
> conclude it is a "slip" if we our knowledge is limited to actually
> occurring expressions? This is a naturally occurring expression.
>
> ****
> Craig provides the following explanation for why a writer might produce
> (1).
>
> That aside, it seems to me to half way follow a common construct: By
>
> X (participle head), X (noun phrase) Y's (finite verb).
> By sleeping in class, you missed half the lecture.
> By getting angry, Charlie lost all chance for the job.
> Our expectations depend on the familiarity of the construct, not on
> some
> innate grammar that predated our interactions with the world. Since
> it's
> not an entirely fixed construction (it has variable slots),
> construction
> grammar would call it schematic.
>
> Of course, how does he know this is the construct if his knowledge is
> limited to "actually occurring expressions"?
>
> I would suggest his examples are not really close to (1). Is the
> understood subject of "taking time out of the day to get something for
> someone. . . ." the same as the understood subject of "shows that . . .
> . . ."? I don't think so. As a consequence, Craig's explanation
> doesn't seem very explanatory.
>
> The following passage by Craig seems closer to why (1) is problematic.
>
> If the student seems to be comfortable with prescriptive grammar, I
> might point out that a "by" phrase isn't supposed to act as subject.
> But
> that is a different frame of reference.
>
> The problem is that gerund "taking time. . . ." is both the object of
> the preposition "by" and the subject of "shows." This double
> case-marking of the gerund -- object of the preposition and subject of a
> tensed verb -- is what makes (1) problematic.
>
> The following really doesn't explain where (1) comes from if our
> knowledge of language is based on "actually occurring expressions"
>
> If the grammar is innate, shouldn't the student know it already? If
> it's not, then it helps to have someone mentor the student along.
> Either
> they are already comfortable with the construction (and just lapsed in
>
> attention), or we can take our time to model it out.
>
> The analysis I offer to (1) is that the writer already has principles
> (that are innate) about how she is to order information in a sentence to
> meet her textual needs. In this case, it looks like she want to make a
> comment about the topic "taking time . . . " and that comment is that it
> "shows you care about them. Heavy subject noun phrases (in other words
> a lot of words in the subject position of a sentence) are one of the
> markers of maturity in writing. One of the ways for the writer to
> reduce the cognitive overload of (1) is to make the noun phrase an
> object of a preposition.
>
> Jim Kenkel just sent me the following examples of mixed constructions
> from various handbooks.
>
> 2) By wearing bell-bottom pants, love beads, long hair, and tye-died
> T-shirts, many young people expressed their opposition to mainstream
> values. (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 380)
>
> 3) Because of the rebellious atmosphere generated by protests against
> the Vietnam war helps explain the often outrageous fashions of the time.
> (Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 379)
>
> 4) By designing the questionnaire carefully made Valerie's
> psychology study a success.(Longman Handbook, 2000, p. 381)
>
> 5) In the world created by movies and television makes fiction
> seem like reality. (New Century Handbook, 2002, 658)
>
> 6) For most drivers who have a blood alcohol content of >05 percent
> double their risk of causing an accident. (A Pocket Style Manuel, Diane
> Hacker, 1993, p. 9)
>
> Notice how all of them begin with a preposition like (1). Jim notes:
>
> "We know from Perera that complex subject NPs are rare in adult speech
> and rarely appear in writing before age 11-12. We want to claim that
> these innovative constructions make more salient the information units
> and allow for easier, local grammatical processing."
>
> In other words, Jim and I see mixed constructions as being principled
> from the writer's perspective. More importantly, they are NOT the
> result of "form and meaning found in actually occurring expressions."
>
> Of course, there may be other issues in the writing of students that a
> theory of language based on actual usage and without appeal to innate
> principles can help us with. And, I hope we will read some specific
> examples. However, quoting linguists on their theories without applying
> their theories to actual student writing is not very persuasive for me.
>
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/