That's right, Bob.  Sentence patterns without an understanding of the types
of verbs in the sentences are not of much value.  That's why a full
discussion of sentence patterns always includes the verb.  Because this is
so important, I devote significant time to examination of the verb in
English.  Except for the ESL student, however, the verb is not terribly
complex.  We have to differentiate among intransitive, transitive, and
linking.  We also, have to know how to deal with number.  Tense is far
simpler than the traditionalist would have us believe.  The basic formula
[Tense (+ Modal) (+ HAVE + EN) (+BE + ING) + Main Verb] permits us to see
tense the way it actually happens as a grammatical function.  Beyond that,
it moves off into semantics.

The real value of sentence patterns is to make it possible for us to examine
the sentence in terms of its constituent structures starting with subject
and predicate in an unelaborated clause.  The sentence pattern allows us to
look at the constituents holistically (subject + predicate = clause) or to
analyze the constituent [Noun Phrase = (Determiner) (+Premodifier) + Noun
Head (+ Postmodifier)].   Instead of prescribing what is right and wrong in
grammar, the sentence pattern teaches the student to describe what actually
happens in grammar.  An added benefit is that this method allows us to do
the describing with fewer terms than traditional grammar requires.

Don't get me wrong.  As grammar teachers, we are still prescriptivists.  We
are supposed to be the experts in standard written and spoken English.  To
the extent that students' native dialects differ from standard English and
to the extent that students have misunderstood the rules for edited standard
English, we have the responsibility to prescribe.   Students must learn
standard English as a complement to their own dialects.  We can teach them
to put the comma after "-ly" words at the beginnings of sentences because
these are normally adverbs that have floated out of their normal sentence
order positions and need to be marked as such (e.g., "Modifiers are usually
near the words they modify."  Vs  "Usually, modifiers are near the words
they modify.")


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Yates" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Grammar Book + Patterns


> I have never understood the attraction of describing possible English
> sentence patterns.  Those patterns suggest that one can simply
> substitute words into those relevant slots to get a sentence.
>
> Yet, those slots crucially depend on the verb.  Isn't it more useful to
> talk about types of verbs based on their complements?
>
> Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University