Bob,
    The problem I have with your argument (that there is pedagogical
value in the using "infinitive phrase" is that the Chomsky experiment
demonstrated that all the children successfully taught themselves the
difference within, I believe, one year. Thus there was no teaching or
pedagogy involved. Grammar for non-native speakers, of course, is a
different question. With a Ph.D. in Russian, and minors in French and
Italian literatures, I clearly realize that non-native speakers have to
be taught, directly, some constructions that natives never need to
study. But don't we need to make a distinction between the formal
grammar we teach non-native speakers and the formal grammar that we
teach native speakers?
      Again, the question for me is What should we teach in K-12, for
native speakers? My guess is that if we tested K-12 teachers who teach
English, between 50 and 90% of them would not be able to identify most
clauses in what their students write. If I remember correctly, a few
years ago England attempted to adopt a set of standards that included
the identification of clauses, but the standards were abandoned because
too many teachers claimed that either they could not identify clauses
themselves, or that they did not know how to teach their students to
identify them. As I just noted in my reply to Craig, if students and
teachers cannot identify clauses, then they cannot discuss their
stylistic or logical implications.
      Thus I am wondering if you are suggesting that students (K-12)
should be taught "infinitive clauses." If so, won't that simply add to
their, and their teachers', confusion? Note that my question has nothing
to do with the use of, and debate about, infinitive clauses here on the
KISS list.
Thanks,
Ed



>>> [log in to unmask] 01/07/04 06:22PM >>>
I really appreciate Martha and Johanna's discussion on main,
independent, and matrix clause.  That has been very useful.

There are real problems, even from a teaching perspective, on using
the
term infinitive phrase and non-finite (or non-tensed) clauses.

I recognize there is a (centuries?) long tradition of the term
infinitive phrase, but I suggest there is real pedagogical value in
thinking of them
as clauses.

Carol Chomsky's dissertation investigated kids responses to the
following.

Barbie is blindfolded.  A child is asked, "Is Barbie hard to see or
easy
to see. "

Most kids up to about eight answer:  Barbie is hard to see.

If we assume "hard to see" is a clause, we have a very good
interpretation of the difference between the
child's interpretation of "hard to see" and a competence adult's
interpretation of hard to see.

For the child who describes a blindfolded Barbie as "Barbie is hard to
see," the child is interpreting the clause
(marked by [] and b is the subject of the infinitive and that is a
place
which refers to Barbie.

1) Barbie is hard [b  to see]

Of course, for competent adults the representation is (PRO is a
"silent"
pronoun referring to anyone and b is the place which refers to
Barbie).

2) Barbie is hard [PRO to see b]

In other words, the clause interpretation allows us to say that for a
child who says a blindfolded Barbie is hard to see Barbie is
interpreted as also being the subject of  "to see".  For the competent
adult, Barbie is interpreted as the object of  "to see".

I have never taught little kids, so I have no idea whether this is a
confusion in their writing.  I have taught competent non-native
speakers
who
have the child interpretation as discussed above.

I don't know how to explain the child interpretation (or non-native
speaker interpretation)  without seeing the infinitive construction as
a
clause.

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/