Thanks, Herb. I sent a longer message after replying to this one. I face a
situation where I think it may be overload to even attempt the distinction.
You mention undergrad texts -- I am not even there. I would be happy to
have the kids simply point to the structure. Maybe one or two kids would
grasp what you are saying, and I can provide them that privately; what
concerns me is where the classroom instruction begins and ends. I am
finding the task overwhelming, to tell the truth. I want to do everything,
but I find myself simply omitting some distinctions in the interest of
simplicity and survival. Is this worse than doing nothing, that is, no
grammar? The sad thing is, I could turn away from it with no trouble, and
not a word would be uttered in protest from any quarter.
The older kids in my Honours class are capable of much more, and I
frequently explore more complex ideas with them, usually in private or in
small groups. The majority still have trouble with the basics.
As I have said, I am not all that well-versed in grammar and linguistics
myself. This makes it not only difficult to teach, but also difficult to
justify. What grammar I have mastered is of the basic, formal kind, I
suppose. Finally grasping it did make a difference in the quality of my
writing at university, and that, I suppose, is the reason I plug away
teaching it. For me, the usefulness of recognizing a prepositional phrase
is to avoid subject-verb disagreements and misplaced modifiers that cause
confusion. Understanding formal patterns allows me to better tailor my
writing to my audience. I see fairly simple uses for grammar, and I think
that I can impart at least that much to my students. So far, keeping it
relatively simple has engaged more of them for longer.
Thanks again,
Len
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: September 22, 2004 9:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Indirect objects
Len,
The point you want to get across to your high school students is that there
is structure and there is function. They are not the same. The NP
(structure) that takes the IO (function) role can do so either immediately
after the verb, where, as the Cambridge Grammar puts it, it has the
properties of a direct object, or after the DO as the object of a
preposition. The reason that these IOs as PPs are not simply adverbial PPs
is that they are complements, that is, they can't be deleted. In a VP like
"direct your questions to the teacher", you can't drop "the teacher" and
still have a good English sentence. Similarly, in your sentence "I rolled
the stone to the wall", "to the wall" is a locative complement. "Rolled" is
a transitive locative verb here and requires two complements, a DO and a
locative, that is, a place. It's not an IO. But none of this makes sense
unless you deal separately with structure and function. Any of the
contemporary undergrad grammar texts will deal with this issue.
Herb
Subject: Re: Indirect objects
I find all the talk about indirect objects as prepositional phrases (or is
it vice versa?) confusing. Why can I not simply teach "to Sue" as an
adverbial prepositional phrase? Also, in the the sentence "I rolled the
stone to the wall", is "to the wall" an indirect object or an adverbial
phrase? I have a feeling that the answer I am going to receive is that it
is both, and that is what I think confuses my high school students. I have
no trouble explaining that the prepositional phrase provides a similar
meaning, but why must I call it an indirect object?
Len Wyatt
(who finds trying to bring grammar to high school students a challenging and
thankless task, but who nonetheless perseveres)
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
Sent: September 22, 2004 2:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Indirect objects
Oops! I meant to say that when the DO is replaced by "it" the shift is
required--not the IO.
In other words, if we want to use a pronoun, we are required to put the IO
in a prepositional phrase. That object of the preposition thus retains its
status as indirect object.
Sorry for the confusion.
Martha
Hi Gretchen,
If you think of sentence patterns as groups based on verb classes, as Herb
suggests--that is, those with a recipient function, which I call give-type
verbs--then there's no problem. Clearly, the two versions belong to the
same pattern. Even in the case of "Jim threw Sue the ball" you can imagine
an understood "to"; the "to" meaning is certain there. The added
preposition simply gives us the option of shifting the IO to the end-focus
position.
Another point to bear in mind is that when the IO is a pronoun, "Jim threw
it to Sue," the shift is required; we don't say "Jim threw Sue it."
Martha
Hi,
I was browsing the web yesterday trying to brainstorm new ways to teach IOs
and DOs as I want to discuss sentence patterns with my students (with an eye
to varying them - my kids tend to pick one and stick to it like
barnacles!!), when I found several sites that contradicted my understanding
of IOs.
Repeatedly prepositional phrases were pointed to as examples of IOs as in
"Jim threw the ball to Sue," where "to Sue" is cited as the IO. I looked it
up in Cambridge and it seems to say that this is still wrong (which is what
I remembered). However, I freely admit that I have to have a quiet room and
at least three intermediate grammar texts to successfully navigate
Cambridge, so I may not be decoding it correctly.
Can anyone help me out? Has this changed? Can the IO be a prep. phrase?
Thanks,
Gretchen
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/
|
