Herb,
It seems to me now that the "generative-transformational approach" could
account for these constructions more accurately than traditional grammars
and Reed-Kellogg diagrams. The different versions of the "floating"
quantifiers, as you called them, can be considered surface representations
of the same deep structure that contains the quantifiers in the NP.
-José
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on "they each"
José,
I was referring to, and probably interpreting loosely, Bruce's comments.
But look at the following examples.
1.a. All (of) the contestants should have crossed the finish line.
1.b. Both (of) the contestants should have crossed the finish line.
1.c. Each of the contestants should have crossed the finish line.
2.a. The contestants all should have crossed the finish line.
2.b. The contestants both should have crossed the finish line.
2.c. The contestants each should have crossed the finish line.
3.a. The contestants should all have crossed the finish line.
3.b. The contestants should both have crossed the finish line.
3.c. The contestants should each have crossed the finish line.
4.a. The contestants should have all crossed the finish line.
4.b. The contestants should have both crossed the finish line.
4.c. The contestants should have each crossed the finish line.
Other quantifiers like much, many, every, etc. don't behave this way. The
quantifiers in 2, 3, and 4 are all in what are considered, in traditional
grammar, to be adverbial positions. One could put "certainly", for example
in any of those positions and have a grammatical sentence. I'm not claiming
that quantifiers in these positions are adverbs. They still quantify the
NP, that is, have the subject NP in their scope. But traditional grammars
and Reed-Kellogg diagrams would treat them as adverbs. Actually, I'm not
certain that RK would, and maybe someone who uses that system could clarify
the question.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of José Antonio
Santos
Sent: Mon 2/26/2007 9:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on "they each"
Herb,
Could you give some examples of these quantifiers as adverbs outside of the
NP?
-José
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on "they each"
Here we have an interesting instance of the difference between how a sound
traditional grammar describes a phenomenon and how a contemporary
descriptive grammar does it. Because of the positions quantifiers like
"each", "all", and "both" can be found in, they are classified as pronouns
if they head the phrase and are modified by a partitive expression (of +
NP), as adjectives if before the head noun, and as adverbs if outside of the
NP. In current descriptive practice, the adjective/adverb distinction
involved is described by means of "quantifier floating", that is, the
generalization that these quantifiers can, for pragmatically conditioned
reasons, be moved outside the NP to positions later in the sentence,
positions that are more typically adverbial, even though they still function
semantically as quantifiers on the subject noun. A nice case of the
structure/function problem.
Herb
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on "they each"
Perhaps the student is troubled by the fact that each is often construed as
a singular pronoun meaning each one. I believe there is a certain amount of
pressure for (over)correction from the pronoun usage that is often put
(erroneously) into a plural construction.
*"Each one of the numerous people present need to contribute to the
fundraising event."
or
*"Each of the numerous people present need to contribute to the fundraising
event."
for
"Each one of the numerous people present needs to contribute to the
fundraising event."
(The error wanting correction seems to be due to the proximity between the
verb and the plural partitive phrase modification.) In this sense there
would be an inherent contradiction in the quoted sentence being construed as
a blend between
"They need to contribute to the fundraising event."
"Each one needs to contribute to the fundraising event."
Putting them both together suggests a conflict between whether the verb
ought to be singular or plural. Of course, each in the quoted sentence is
serving as an adverb, so that the question of number does not arise. It
seems that such usage has been in the language since at least the 12th
century. In connection with the adverbial use of both each and all is the
optional placement in sentence adverb position after the verb, which could
even then be usurped by the pronoun!
"They need each to contribute to the fundraising event."
"They need, each one, to contribute to the fundraising event."
Bruce
>>> "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> 02/26/07 6:15 AM >>>
Sometimes questions of correctness ignore differences in meaning, which, I
think, is partly what Scott is getting at. Suppose the context is
But does every person in the room have to contribute?
The answer
They each have to contribute.
would focus on the individuation of the action, which is the question at
issue.
They all have to contribute.
would seem to say the same thing, but it doesn't as clearly individuate the
responsibility to contribute.
Usually when English allows a distinction like the each/all in this
sentence, there are cases where the distinction becomes useful. The
difference may only be a matter of degree, but clarity may depend on just
that matter of degree.
Unfortunately, statements of correctness too often ignore such subtleties.
Herb
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on "they each"
I don't think this is less a matter of correctness than meaning. Contrast
the following: "They all need to contribute to the fundraising event for
matching funds to be available." "They each need to contribute to the
fundraising event for their own private reasons." Either sentence seems
acceptable in the appropriate context. Often, writers and speakers will
include words which are not necessary, but which are not in any way
incorrect or ungrammatical. These may, at times, be stylistically
undesirable, and careful writers, editors, and teachers are alert to their
presence, but they can be useful to create a more precise or nuanced shade
of meaning. For instance, using both "they" and "each" can emphasize the
individual nature of the members of a group.
Scott Woods
Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I would say that "they all" is correct. If the writer is referring to each
member, then the "they" is unnecessary.
José Antonio Santos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Is the use of "they each" correct, or should it always be "they all?"
Example:
"They each need to contribute to the fundraising event."
-José
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/
_____
Sucker-punch
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49981/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbe
ta/features_spam.html> spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49981/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbe
ta/features_spam.html> Yahoo! Mail Beta. 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/
_____
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. 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/
_____
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
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/
|
