>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> <[log in to unmask]>
>Poster: EDWARD VAVRA <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Max Morenberg's response to Ed Vavra (Form/Function) -Reply
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Max,
> I'm glad you joined in the discussion, but you seem
>to have made my point. Although you claim that the
>form/function distinction is important to understanding
>grammar, you discussed the three sentences, from
>what I can see, entirely in terms of function. Your
>explanation included more detail than I think most
>students need (or want), but you agree that IS
>PLAYING is the main verb in the first sentence and
>that in the second, ENJOYS is the main verb and
>PLAYING is the direct object. In the third sentence, my
>students would explain PLAYING as a gerundive
>modifying "Bob", rather than as a complement to a
>predicate noun (complement to a predicate noun???)
>
> You seem to be implying that there is something
>else that they need to know, but that they need not
>apply. Will that not simply add to their confusion? You
>yourself note that it will take a "long explanation"?
>What bothers me is that most students are graduating
>from high school unable to identify a verb [period].
>Why do they need concepts such as tense, mood,
>number, etc. if they can't isolate a verb in the first
>place?
>Ed
>
>>>> "James M. Dubinsky" <[log in to unmask]>
>01/27/98 10:15pm >>>
>This message was originally submitted by
>[log in to unmask] to the ATEG in
>response to a posting by Ed Vavra
>([log in to unmask] to the
>
>>Bob Yates wrote:
>>Let me give an example of why the form/function
>>distinction is important.
>>
>>One defines a verb as a word that shows action.
>And,
>>the "main verb" of a sentence is what the "subject" is
>>doing or has done?
>>
>> So what is the "main verb" of the following
>>sentences?
>>
>> Bob is playing on the computer.
>> Bob enjoys playing on the computer.
>> Bob is happy playing on the computer.
>>
>>Playing is the most "action" word in all three, right?
>>
>>The only way to figure out what is the "main verb" is
>to
>>talk about form and function.
>>
>>
>>----------------------
>>I guess I'm slow, but I don't understand the
>>explanation. In all three sentences, the form of
>>"playing" is identical; only the function differs. Why
>>then, must one discuss the form?
>
>I apologize for jumping into the middle of this
>discussion. We've recently
>changed from MSMail to Eudora. And in the
>changeover, I've missed some
>mail. I'll stay our to the form/function argument (since
>it would take a
>long explanation). But I will say that the difference
>between form and
>function is an important one--central to grammatical
>analysis. Read
>Kenneth Pike and the tagmemic linguists on this
>issue.
>
>I don't understand the definition of main verbs in the
>three senteces cited
>by Bob Yates. In the first sentence IS PLAYING is the
>main verb
>constituent. PLAYING, the present participial form is is
>the head of the
>main verb constituent. IS marks the present
>progressive. In the second
>sentence, PLAYING is a gerund. ENJOYS is the only
>finite verb form in the
>sentence. The gerund phrase PLAYING ON THE
>COMPUTER functions as the
>object of the verb ENJOYS. In the third setence, IS is
>the main verb of
>the sentence. The gerund phrase PLAYING ON THE
>COMPUTER functions as the
>complement to the predicate noun HAPPY.
>
>Again, I apologize if all this wasn't at issue. I was
>confuses about where
>the argument was going.
>
>Max Morenberg
>Miami University
>Oxford, OH 45056
>[log in to unmask]
Ed, by and large, I agree with you. The only point I disagree on is the
identification of the Form. I guess I didn't say what the form was, but
when I identified gerunds, I should also have said they are verb phrases.
I didn't proofread that message very well, either. (I must have been half
asleep). But if I could, I'd like to back up a bit. The third sentence
has a present participial phrase (a verb phrase) PLAYING ON THE COMPUTER
that functions as the complement to the predicate adjective HAPPY.
But I agree that all this is irrelevant to the arguments you bring up. The
important question is how much grammar and how to get it across to
students. I have no quick answer, but I do believe strongly that if
students understand that grammar has system to it, half the battle is won.
One major point is that grammar has structures and relationships (forms and
functions). The structures are modules that change relationships according
to where they occur in relationship to other modules. For instance a noun
phrase (a structure) may function as a subject, a direct object, a
predicate noun, an object of a preposition, or an object complement.
Seen in this way, sentences are built in a Lego Block manner. And verbs
control which Lego Blocks can occur with them. So, it seems to me, you
have to teach verb types as well as structures and functions.
I guess the questions that you and Johanna are asking are how many Lego
Blocks and how many of their relationships do you have to understand in
order to understand grammar. I don't honestly know. I try to get my
(college) junior-level grammar students to be able to parse the sentences
on a page of NEWSWEEK or the local paper after a semester. I also try to
get them to understand that you have to know grammar in order to understand
literary style.
I wouldn't begin to tell high school and junior high teachers how much they
should ask of their students. When I taught high school in the mid 60s, I
used Paul Roberts' books, and the students seemed to learn a lot of
grammar.
I hope you keep the discussion going, Ed.
Max Morenberg
Miami University
[log in to unmask]
|
