I agree that it can be useful to distinguish words that modify verbs from words that modify adjectives and adverbs. There's the additional advantage that students can then use the "verb" in "adverb" as a mnemonic for what adverbs modify.
But let us not exaggerate the awfulness of the traditional terminology. When I learned it in school a long time ago, "adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs" seemed quite manageable and even came to have its own little rhythm in the memory, like person, place -- oh God, let's not go there!
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Wed 9/21/2005 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
Bill,
At least it makes useful distinctions and labels them. That's more than
most school grammar does, which is, perhaps, not a very high standard.
Herb
Since I regularly try to convince my students that words that modify or
"go with" adjectives (e.g. very) are largely in a separate category from
those that modify verbs (often) and those that modify sentences
(surprisingly), I've regularly run into a terminological conundrum with
these constructions. My solution has been to appeal to the term I use
for those words like very - since I call them qualifiers, I call clauses
that modify adjectives "qualifier clauses." That's still a rough term,
since it dodges the entire "modifier vs. complement" issue, but it has
worked for me in the past. It lines up well with nominal clauses,
adjectival clauses, and adverbial clauses.
I do, however, make it very clear to the students that that's not a
standard term in the field, and that I'm applying my own label.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English, Central Michigan University
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
Herb,
I can't help thinking of the kind of objection Ed Vavra might raise,
that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by these arguments about
terminology and categories. In this case, though, I think you are
absolutely right, and having separate categories can and should be
justified on the basis of bringing into focus a much clearer view of
language and how it works and operates. Sometimes we are adding
modifying notions to an action or process (He ran slowly through the
park), sometimes intensifying or qualifying (very quiet or somewhat
lazy), sometimes qualifying the propositional notions of our statements
(Perhaps he is angry), and so on.
My experience has been that categories that shed light on real
language are much easier to learn and remember. It's condescending to
think these common sense notions are outside the understanding of a high
school student. And I think it's goofy to think that pointing this out
and doing it well will do the poor kid harm.
Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
Calling the complement clause adverbial simply demonstrates the
emptiness of the term. Adverb is the bag into which we drop whatever we
can't reasonably call something else. It's the junk drawer of grammar.
It's a junk drawer of long standing, but all that means is that we can
use it knowing others have been guilty of equally sloppy analysis long
before us. This is, perhaps, my deepest objection to traditional
grammar, much of which I hold in very high regard, that is insists on
categorizing everything even if a leftover category like adverb can't be
defined as a category. We simply need the added labels and the
understanding of category as prototype that come out of contemporary
grammatical studies.
Of course, there is also a reasonable objection to my position, namely
that the grammar we're talking about is pedagogical and must keep
students' abilities in mind. The notions prototype and fuzzy category
might not sell too well in the high school English classroom, and there
a faux category like adverb might be necessary. After all, high school
physics teachers still swear by f=ma.
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of WANDA VANGOOR
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
We used to call that construction an adverbial objective (and I still
do!). RK diagrams it as an adverb clause modifying the adjective.
House and Harmon examples are "I am afraid that he will refuse this
offer" and "He is certain that he cannot fail."
Wanda Van Goor
Professor
English Department
Prince George's Community College
301 Largo Road
Largo, MD 20774-2199
M3064--Telephone 301-322-0603
301-322-0549
Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 09/20/05 3:50 PM >>>
"I am glad/sorry/happy that you made the trip."
Would everybody agree that "that you made the trip" is an adverb clause
modifying glad/sorry/happy?
"Jim was so elated that he did a little dance."
Would everybody agree that "that he did a little dance" is an adverb
clause modifying "so"?
My sense is that most grammarians today prefer to reserve "adverb" for
modifiers of verbs only. When such modifiers are clauses ("I stayed
home because I was sick"), they are called either "adverb," "adverbial,"
or "subordinate" clauses. But in looking through various books, I do not
find much discussion of clauses such as those above.
A final question: can anyone think of a subordinator OTHER than "that"
that introduces a clause modifying an adjectival subjective complement
such as glad/sorry/happy above?
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/
|
