I'm coming late to a very rich and interesting discussion, so I'll
just add a few observations.
1) Unfortunately, the term "gerund" in traditional grammar doesn't usually
distinguish noun phrase structures ("her incessant shouting")from very
clause like structures (non-finite)("keeping our options open") that find
their way into typical noun phrase roles. If you want to distinguish form
from function, then it makes sense to admit that the internal structure of
these is often very predicate like. The same structure can function as
predicate in one sentence, adjectivally in another sentence, as subject
(and so on) in the next.
"We are keeping our options open."
"Paul, keeping his options open, refused to endorse either candidate."
"This" or "Keeping his options open" "might harm him in the long run."
2) There is a very set slot for nouns as modifiers in a noun phrase, and
the order is enormously important (which is not true for true adjectives.)
A "phrase structure tree diagram" means what it means because of the order
of the words, all nouns, whereas "a cold and lonely kitten" can be a
"lonely and cold kitten" without the same kind of change in meaning. A
table lamp is not the same as a lamp table. A grammar book is not the same
as a book grammar. Whether or not we use terms like noun modifier or
attributive adjective, we should pay attention to the fact that much noun
phrase modification (including the attributive) helps us determine which
one(s) we are talking about.
3) Most grammar instruction would improve enormously if we admitted that
nouns are often defined referentially (as naming something in the world),
but that discourse requires us to talk about processes (events,
happenings)as if they were things. The language builds in this kind of
flexibility.
If you think of grammar as a formal system and think of the main tasks
at hand as classifying different sentence parts and/or avoiding error,
then we are met with difficulties like this that are hard to explain.
If we think of the grammar as functionally driven, then we can see why
the language itself is hard to pin down in purely formal terms.
Those of you who know me by now probably expect this kind of functional
perspective. I don't want to present it as an argument, just as an
internally consistent way of looking at grammar that is highly
explanatory. Why should whole processes find their way into noun phrase
slots? Quite often because what we see, hear, say, know, understand,
believe and want to talk about are whole processes, not just things.
"Learning English makes things easier." The sentence is about a
process, not a thing. "English" is direct object of "learning."
"Learning" remains transitive. But the two words together form the
subject.
Craig
>
I find the term "adjectival" helpful for things that are prototypcially
> another form, but function as an adjective in a given context... (also
> nominal, verbial & adverbial).
>
> In class, I get to this explanation through looking at word shifts in
> cases like book, table, walk & drive. Disucssing words on a continuum of
> form & function seems to make it easier for students to understand & apply
> their understanding...
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
> David W. Marlow, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of Linguistics and ESOL
> Vice President/President Elect - Carolina TESOL
>
> University of South Carolina – Upstate
> 800 University Way
> Spartanburg, SC 29303
> 864.503.5849
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 7:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gerunds and Participles
>
> On 2009-12-27, at 10:37 PM, Peter Adams wrote:
>
>> When you (and others on the list) say noun is a category of word and
>> that nouns can function as modifiers, I suspect you are talking about
>> uses like "stone" or "computer" in the following sentences:
>>
>> A stone wall separated my house from my neighbors'.
>> I took a computer course at my local community college.
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
>> But why isn't it just as accurate and perhaps more intuitive to students
>> to call "stone" and "computer" adjectives in these sentences.
>
> For the following reasons:
> -When dictionaries lists words like 'computer', 'stone', 'lamp',
> 'toaster', 'tooth', etc., they list them as nouns, not as adjectives, and
> yet it is the rare noun that cannot come before and modify another noun.
> This then should be seen as a property of nouns.
> -Adjectives appear before nouns functioning as attributive modifiers, but
> they have other functions...
> -He became happy (predicate complement)
> -He walked away satisfied (adjunct)
> -It was silky smooth (adj modifier (rare))
> -I saw something interesting (post-noun modifier)
> ...so when you say something functions as an adjective, why should that
> mean attributive modifier?
> -Adjectives are typically gradeable (more ~, most ~) and can be modified
> by 'very', but you can't say:
> -The very stone wall
> -the most computer course
> -Adjectives can function as complement to 'seem', but you don't say:
> -The course seemed computer
> -The wall seemed stone (this seems marginally acceptable)
> -A variety of word categories function as attributive modifiers...
> -A dripping faucet (verb)
> -A computer course (noun)
> -A happy girl (adj)
> -An around-the-world trip (preposition (less common))
> ...so it strikes me as more educationally sound to explain this fact,
> pointing out the strengths and weaknesses, and its limitations than simply
> saying that these things are adjectives.
>
>> I'm also wondering, Brett, if you would say nouns can be used as verbs
>> as well as modifiers, as with "book" and "table" in the following.
>>
>> We booked a reservation at the Tremont Hotel.
>> Senator Baucus tabled the motion for a public option.
>
> No, clearly 'book' and 'table' exist as both nouns and verbs. The point is
> not that all words belong only to a single category, but rather that each
> category has a wider range of functions than is commonly attributed to it.
> Here, they are not nouns because nouns don't have past tense forms.
> Contrast this with 'computer' above which would be expected to have a
> gradable form if it existed as an adjective.
>
>> And would you say the verbs "walk" and "drive" being used as direct
>> objects in the following sentences?
>>
>> I shoveled the walk on Saturday.
>> We took a drive on Sunday.
>
> Again, no. These clearly exist as both nouns and verbs.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
|
