Craig,
Your argument seems very reasonable to me, a rhetorician who teaches an undergraduate course in rhetorical grammar. It’s focused on using language more effectively, by studying rhetorical situations and genres people use to communicate. If anyone’s interested, I’m happy to share my syllabus and assignments. It’s not a new concept, by any means, but there aren’t many people teaching this type of course.
Gwen
Gwen Gray Schwartz
Director of Written and Oral Communication
Associate Professor of English-Writing
University of Mount Union
Alliance, OH 44601
330-823-3188
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Hancock, Craig G
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Herb,
Is that the same Langacker (Ronald) tied into Cognitive Grammar? I’m curious about how much of that found its way into an intro text forty years ago.
I’m re-reading some of the articles in the grammar wars and feeling sad at all the lost opportunities. If formal grammar doesn’t measurably improve writing in the short term, why not question the grammar and not just assume that formal grammar is the only possibility? If linguists have not given us a view of language that helps us in reading and writing, why don’t we develop a view that does? Someone could say that formal biology doesn’t help us improve human health—one group studies the human body as a mechanical structure and the other group works on diet and exercise—but to conclude from that that the worlds cannot intersect in useful ways would seem comic to us today. If biology doesn’t help us cure polio, then change the biology. (I don’t mean to imply that we don’t have heroic exceptions.)
If we wanted to commit to it, it would happen. Too many people are vested into positions that make it very difficult.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Craig,
You've diagnosed the problem well. Every once in a while I remember the statement Jerry Saddock made in his review of Langacker's intro to linguistics text in IJAL about 40 years ago. He said something to the effect that (I can't quote it directly anymore)
it's too bad linguists, unlike physicists, don't have an agreed upon set of lies to tell beginning students. His point was that they teach intro students Newtonian physics, knowing that it's fundamentally wrong but that by the time students understand why
it's wrong they'll also understand why they were taught it first. Linguistics isn't yet enough of a science to have reached that point, with the consequence that what linguists regard as hypotheses to be tested and falsified language arts teachers read as
established truth, and when the truth continues to change under their feet they blame the linguists for never making up their minds. I've become much less picky about what terminology is taught as long as some grammatical content and analysis is being taught
with it.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Hancock, Craig G [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Herb,
Even if we could embrace and support each other, the task is daunting. But it becomes even more difficult when we see ourselves as members of enemy camps.
Traditional grammar has been criticized for decades within the field of English largely on the basis of the contention that it has not been proven to improve reading and writing, to the point where knowledge about grammar is undervalued and deeply limited. It has been under attack from linguists for not being an accurate description of the language, and many educators have used that to support anti-grammar positions. Linguistics itself is a highly contentious field, something it has often hidden from the rest of the world by presenting one perspective or another as the right one.
The result? Very little knowledge about language is taught in the schools. And linguistics, a field that studies, arguably, what is most fundamental to making us human, what is a fundamentally important part of all human enterprise and interaction, doesn't have anywhere near the importance it should have in the academy.
We have much to gain by working together.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Craig,
You've put your finger unerringly on the reason why all attempts at agreeing on common grammatical nomenclature fail, as they have consistently on this list.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Hancock, Craig G [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Herb,
You describe the complexity very well. I think the way i was taught this stuff probably influences my thinking about it. "Present participle" and "past participle" were described as principal parts of the verb. In those days, of course, we also learned to describe some forms as complex "tenses" (like present progressive or present perfect) that are now thought of as a combination of tense and aspect. Past participle gives us passive voice as well. And somehow those verb related forms can find their way into other contexts and have evolved meanings that connect to their roots in the verb system, but are not limited to that.
We have the irony that present participle (-ing form) is a single form that can be used in a number of different ways. Past participle (-en forms, including all the variants) includes a range of forms with a smaller range of use.
You need a way to describe it that pays respect to the complexity that's already there and also respects the rtange of ways to talk about it. I find when I'm teaching grammar as a system, I have to include the competing terms as part of the description. We need to produce students who can enter into a wide range of conversations.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Craig,
There is, however,. a tradition in English linguistics and English grammar to use the term -en form. It certainly links the modern strong and weak forms with their Old English and Proto-Germanic reflexes. Of course, the past participle forms remain messy.
Weak verbs, that is, verbs using the dental preterit, like "want/wanted" or "think/thought" have only two principal parts, since the preterit (past) and the participle are identical. Weak verbs, as "think/thought" shows, are not the same as regular verbs.
Strong verbs, those verbs that do not use the dental preterit but rather change vowels, add -en, etc., frequently have three principal parts, as with "give/gave/given" or "swim/swam/swum," but may also have just two, usually collapsing the preterit and participle,
as in "sit/sat/sat." Historically, strong verbs have been undergoing two broad sorts of change. "Help" has become a weak verb, but we all know the KJV line from the Magnificat "He hath holpen his servant Israel," showing that strong forms still persisted
in Early Modern English.
I think we're stuck with -en form and a certain amount of complexity because the English verb systems still displays that complexity.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Hancock, Craig G [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Herb,
I like very much the idea of using "-ing form" as a term, in part because it clearly designates a form and then leaves separate the description of its functions. The argument for "present participle" might be that it is (was?) in widespread use, but you immediately have to explain that it is independent of tense and present time.
What would you do with what has historically been called "past participle?" In most cases, it's formally identical to past tense form, in some cases not. It's hard to call it an -ed or -en form in the same simple way.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
Why not just "-ing form" then, since the varied uses are functionally defined.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Hancock, Craig G [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
For intensifiers, we also have "f...ing crazy" and the like. I was watching the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction last night, on a cable channel, and almost everyone was described as "f---ing" something.
If we had "blazing hot sun" as a noun ohrase, then "blazing" could be an intensifier OR act separately as a modifer, which we could make clear by adding a comma (blazing, hot sun) or intoning accordingly. I could also imagine a filem director saying "We need a blazing sun for this next shot," in which case "blazing" would be narrowing the category down.
When the -ing form acts like a noun in a noun phrase that it does not head, I think it tends to have a "kind of" meaning, as in "parking lot." We can also have "parking customer," which would be much more transitory. "He put on his smoking jacket." "He coughed from the smoke pouring from the smoking jacket." Both "smoking"'s are acting as modifiers in their noun phrases, but they offer a different kind of meaning built entirely out of the grammar.
If we were going to call the -ing form any one thing, I think "present participal" is the best. We can then say that it shows up in a number of different contexts and can act differently within those contexts and can act ambigiously because of that. I don't see any value in calling it a gerund in the above instances.
I think we all miss the talk. I'm glad to be reminded about how thoughtful it can be. I hope my own rambling hasn't changed that.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Geoffrey Layton [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
I hate to correct you, but the term is "smokin' hot!"
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:02:21 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar question/adverb or adjective
To: [log in to unmask]
I can think of some people who are smoking hot.
And speaking of degree modifiers, I wonder what the origin is of "brand" in "brand new." Are there other degree adverbs that modify only one particular adjective?
Nice to have this list back from hiatus.
Dick
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:10 PM, Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear List,
In the sentence "The sun is usually blazing hot," how would you analyze "blazing"?
Thanks,
Scott
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/
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/
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/