Johanna,
      We basically agree on the definitions of clauses, but you
underestimate the importance of the differences that you note in the
textbooks. As you said, "This might be confusing for people who have a
very
poor background in grammar. Unfortunately, a lot of teachers are in
this position." Some teachers think that "main," "subordinate,"
"independent," and "dependent" refer to four types of clauses. You also
underestimate the importance of that difference in assessment
situations. If we are going to test for something other than
correctness, how will we phrase the questions? If the terminology is not
standard, will it be fair to ask students to identify the "subordinate"
clause in a sentence? What then happens to the student who studied not
"subordinate," but rather "dependent" clauses? Can we fairly expect that
student to make the needed adjustments under the high pressure of an
assessment exam?
   You may, of course, say that we do not need to ask about specific
types of constructions. But if that is the case, what will the questions
be?
Ed

P.S. I'm happy to see that you will be looking at the grammar textbooks
in K-12. I've addressed part of the question at:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/ED498/Essay009_Def_Clause.htm



>>> [log in to unmask] 04/18/05 6:51 PM >>>
Ed,

I take it you are describing K-12 texts.

You obsess on the relatively minor nomenclature issues with clauses. I
think everyone is smart enough to realize that terminology might vary
slightly from text to text. In any case, independent clause is clear,
and can contrast with either dependent or subordinate clause.
Subordinate and dependent clauses are the same thing, so people only
have to note that there are two terms for the same concept. They are
clauses which fail sentencehood tests.

The area that I agree is somewhat messy is "main clause". Of course,
this only comes up when discussing complex sentences. A simple
sentence
that meets sentencehood criteria is an independent clause.

In any case, I think there is one right answer to how to define "main
clause", and if not all people are using the term this way, they need
to
get the little bit of educaiton in grammar that will make it clear. A
complex sentence is one that has one or more subordinate clauses
embedded in it. Subordinate clauses play roles in a predicate such as
adverbial, nominal (direct object or subject), or as subject
complements
after a linking verb. In noun phrases, they are adjectival modifiers
of
the main noun in the phrase.

When we analyze a sentence, we analyze it as it is; we do not pull out
parts and analyze them as though they were standing alone. THIS IS A
CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE OF PARSING. Let's say we have a sentence like the
following:

Paul will wash the dishes *after he has finished his homework*.

The material between * * is an adverbial subordinate clause. It
modifies
the verb; it is, immediately, a modifier within the predicate. The
predicate, in turn, is part of the main clause, which is the whole
sentence. If we divide that sentence into subject and predicate (the
two
criterial elements of clausehood),  we get this:

Paul -|-  will wash the dishes *after he has finished his homework*.
-|- shows the subject/predicate break.

"Paul will wash the dishes" is not a constituent of this sentence; it
is
not a unit. Therefore, as far as this sentence goes, it is not a
clause.
The predicate of a sentence contains the verb _and ALL OF its
complements and modifiers_.  The fact that it could stand alone as an
independent clause without the "after" clause is _completely
irrelevant
to analyzing this sentence_.

Same with a subject-complement clause:

The best time to buy a watch is *when your old one wears out*.

"The best time to buy a watch is" is not a clause IN THIS SENTENCE.

If certain textbooks don't define "main clause" in this way, how
serious
is that? If a teacher really understands grammar, she or he can deal
with variations in terminology between texts, as I do by simply
warning
my students that other texts do it another way, but we will stick to
one
way in our class. This might be confusing for people who have a very
poor background in grammar. Unfortunately, a lot of teachers are in
this
position. They can't be expected to teach grammar by the seat of their
pants or by studying the students' texts alone.  Plainly and simply,
they have to get the needed training. As far as students who have
never
had grammar, if the teacher they currently have sticks with the
definition in the text they are using, that should work for that
class.
The teacher should warn the class that, if they take grammar again
using
a different book, they may find slightly different terminology. If
that
is such a huge problem, it is because they have not really
internalized
the structure of sentences in the first grammar course, which means
that
course failed the students.

As to having to start with simple sentences when working with my
students, that is because they have not had any grammar training worth
mentioning. Do you start math education with calculus? A general
principle of teaching is to start with simpler cases and work your way
up to more-complex cases. I believe this is an especially perspicuous
way of teaching grammar, since it corresponds to syntactic structure
itself: syntactic structure is built from smaller elements joining
together to make ever larger elements. If we don't get to very complex
sentences in my class, it is because of time constraints on the
sentence
structure topic.

You might respond that all of this depends on MY definition of clause
and of sentence. Well, I will have an opportunity to look at numerous
grammars used from 3rd through 8th grades as I grade student papers
this
quarter, and I will make a point to check some high school texts, too.
I
will report whether I find major differences in the way terms are
defined.

***************************************************
Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~  E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
***************************************************

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/