Thanks to Michael, Johanna, Max and Burkhard -- the discussion of adverbs/adverbials was VERY useful. I can imagine myself using the thread -- probably appropriating it, using my own or borrowed & adapted SFG terms. The discussion was enlightening not only because it was careful and informed but also because it juxtaposed descriptive options -- : complements? adverbs? adverbials? YES. What is important are the underlying principles -- to demonstrate them is to SHOW the wonderfully generative, flexible system of lexico-grammar [I imagine phenomena both formal and functional, with a certain instability built in to the coupling, so that "form-ish-ness" and functionality slide apart and travel to different pairings, forms and functions mating & propagating, expanding and changing the system -- Oh, but that is another contentious issue, I've learned -- what counts as a change in the system.... anyway, rambling stops here] I have one question for Max. You wrote: > So >perhaps Plato was right, that there are but two "parts of speech"--onema >and rhema, nouns and verbs (I don't think I spelled onema correctly). But >if Plato was right (following Fillmore and the functional grammarians, and >contemporary binding and filtering theory) then he should have said that >the two parts of speech are really verbs and adverbs (adverbials?), nouns >in adverbial roles. But the subject is not a noun in adverbial guise: I leaned it against the wall Does it sound sensible to you, making use of Plato's insight, that there are two 'parts of speech' - participants and processes; the participants may be "onema" OR complements, while the processes are rhema ? I hope the discussion continues. Judy At 06:54 AM 3/10/99 -0500, you wrote: >John is here. >John is in the kitchen. >John is in for it. > >When is the exam? >The exam is Thursday. >The exam is next week. > >Complement? Adverb? Adverbial? > >I'm afraid I can't see much of a problem here. > >A. > >First a definition: > >'Complement' is a general term denoting that there is more than just the >verb (or rather the verbal part) in a sentence. Everything that MUST be >added to create a sentence is a complement. With 'shine' only one >complement is necessary, namely the subject, with 'put' three complements >are necessary (subject, object, adverbial of direction). > >There are several types of complements - S,O,A, subject complement, object >complement. Which of these are necessary depends on the individual verb. >See discussion on valences some time ago. > >'Be' is a verb that needs two complements, a subject and a subject >complement or an adverbial. > >Subject complements: > SC >His clothes were / wet /. >You are /teachers/. >The point is /that nobody was aware of what was going on/. >This is /what happened. > >Adverbials (see the above sentences). > >There is a great number of adverbial types: apart from the obvious ones >like place, direction, time, etc. there are many others, most of which have >no traditional name. > >The adverbial slot in a sentence with 'be' is mostly an adverbial of place, >but adverbials of time are not rare (see sentences above). Whether the >meaning of 'be' is a little different with place or time adverbials is of >no avail, because this is regularly the case when the valence changes. A >good example is 'take' - as any dictionary will illustrate. > >Apart from place and time adverbials after 'be', there are also others, e.g. > A >They are/to be married in June/. >He's been /to see his uncle/. > >This is one of the (traditionally) nameless adverbial types. > >B. > >Some problems that have been discussed arise only because 'adverb' and >'adverbial' are often used as synonyms, which, of course, they aren't. > >'Adverb' denotes a word class, like 'noun', 'adjective'. 'Adverbial' refers >to a function in the sentence, like 'subject', 'object'. (In the same way >'verb' and 'verbal part' must be distinguished, or 'noun' and 'subject'...). > >The function of ADVERBIAL can be performed by all sorts of structures: >adverbs of course(here),but also adverb groups (quite nicely), noun >(Thursday), noun group (every morning), prepositional phrase (on the roof), >wh-sentence (where no man has ever been), subclause structure (because he >wasn't home), to-inf sentence (to make her happy), etc. > >On the other hand, ADVERBS can perform a great number of functions, not >just adverbial, e.g. they can be attributes in adjective groups (very >fast), they can be disjuncts (fortunately, the man turned up), conjuncts >(however, this was quite different), and many more. > >Neither the term 'adverb' nor the term 'adverbial' should be seen as a >wastepaper basket term, as some will have it, where you put what you can't >explain. If things can't be explained, it just means that we don't know >enough yet, either as individuals or as linguists. In the latter case more >research is needed, that's all. > >By the way, in the scope and sequence discussion it was said that teachers >cannot be expected to understand linguistic models when they are a little >more adequate than the usual school grammar. Teachers are not that dumb, >good heavens, we are all teachers, one way or another. The problem is that >most teachers have never learned anything else. They were taught school >grammar in school (instead of learning to look at language itself), then >the same at college, and then by the textbooks they use as teachers. By the >time they have taught for a few years, they have internalized the >traditional rules and have learned to negate their brains' protests against >illogical terminology and rules, and after that it is very difficult to >open their eyes and make them look 'naively' at language itself and at the >models they use. And so they teach school grammar again, and the cycle >starts anew. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany >E-mail: [log in to unmask] [h] Fax: +49 7383 2212 >HTTP://WWW.PH-GMUEND.DE/PHG/PHONLINE/Englisch/index.htm > Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake