This is largely a matter of pragmatics. Pronouns typically are old, topical information, and so they are unstressed. We put focal, newer information at the end of sentence, and so the pronoun has to come before the stressed particle. If, on the other hand, the pronoun is strongly stressed, then it can come after the particle. And for the same reasons. These are the same factors that lead, for example, to extraposition, the fact that we say
I called back every person who'd left a message.
but
I called them all back.
Or
I gave to each of the children a box containing three different Lego sets.
but
I gave a Lego set to each of the children.
Sentences like the following a little awkward, and sometimes just don't work, because they violate pragmatic constraints.
I called every person who'd left a message back.
I gave a box containing three different Lego sets to each of the children.
John Robert Ross wrote a nice little paper on this about 30 years ago, titled "Near to vee", in which he argues that order of constituents after the verb is a function of their information weight, although he put it a little differently.
Herb
What I find difficult to understand about phrasal verbs is the fact that
the 2 elements (the verb itself and the particle), although they form a
kind of integrated unit (so much so that it's often hard to derive the
meaning of the whole from the meaning of the parts), have to be separate
whenever the object is expressed by a pronoun:
Look it up, put it off, etc...
Is this a problem for anyone else?
Marie-Pierre Jouannaud
At 09:29 14/01/04 -0500, vous avez écrit:
>Ed,
> Certainly one argument for teaching phrasal verbs as a category is
> that it would help students read a good dictionary, since dictionaries
> use the category all the time. I often use the dictionary as a source
> when teaching phrasal verbs, trying to make the point that dictionary
> makers have to make these kinds of constituency decisions all the
> time. My Random House Webster's College Dictionary (hardcover) lists 19
> non-idiomatic phrasal verbs for "put", including "put about", "put
> across", "put down" (one most students would recognize immediately), "put
> up with", "put on" (it gives four definitions for this, including some
> that would be in the natural vocabulary of most middle school kids), "put
> in for", and the like.
> With middle school kids, it might be interesting to give them a list
> like this and ask them "Which are the ones you would actually use?" At
> the college level, at least, I find that a good interactive way to help
> build the concept.
> I also like to use closely paired sentences. "The skater turned on
> the ice." "The skater turned on the light." He ran up a bill." "He ran
> up a hill." In the second sentence, if "turning" is a verb and "on the
> light" is a prepositional phrase, then the bulb is being ground into
> fragments. (Unless of course there's a spotlight on the ice, which
> changes the meaning back to one similar to sentence one.)
> I don't think grammarians differ about the constituency. The
> controversy focuses more on whether we should continue to call "on" a
> preposition even when it's part of the verb phrase, as it clearly is in
> "He ran up a bill." I don't think any grammarian would advocate that
> "down my cousin" is a prepositional phrase in the sentence "She keeps
> putting down my cousin." We need to recognize the category of phrasal
> verb, as every good dictionary does, because two or three or more words
> in combination often act like single words.
> At the college level, I have a colleague who uses phrasal verbs in an
> introductory linguistics survey course as a way to teach the notion of
> constituency. You can come up with very clear examples of meaning
> changing depending on whether the word in question is part of the verb
> phrase or part of a prepositional phrase.
> "She put on the whole class." If we think of "on the whole class"
> as a prepositional phrase here, then the meaning changes drastically.
> "On" doesn't just modify "put", but combines with it to create something
> like a two part word. I will try that with my eighth grade son and see if
> he can understand that point. I will be very surprised if he doesn't.
> There are, of course, lots of sentences in which the choice is not
> very clear. I think it's much more important for students to recognize
> the category (and get the obvious ones right) than it is for them to
> always agree on how to apply it in all instances. When we disagree about
> analysis, we are also offering different interpretations of the
> sentence. To partially answer John's question, this doesn't take us away
> from the work of critical reading, but brings the building of meaning
> into much clearer focus. It takes us right into the heart of language.
>
>Craig
>
>Edward Vavra wrote:
>>
>> No, I did. But the last part of your message suggests that what
>>you suggested is a bit much for K-12 students. You did not suggest what
>>you would teach students in K-12. In the KISS approach, students would
>>have no trouble with "look up" "Up" would simply be consdiered as an
>>adverb. From my perspective, you are making grammar too technical, and
>>then saying that KISS won't be adequate because it does not address the
>>technical questions that you want to have addressed. But my question
>>still is What would you teach students in K-6 about, for example, verbs
>>and prepositions. If I understood you correctly, you are acknowledging
>>that KISS does present students with the constituency problem. Does "on"
>>form a constituent with the verb, or with the following "your hat." I
>>would suggest that, not only for third graders, but even for most
>>adults, that is the primary concern.
>> And, once again I would suggest that unless we can develop a
>>basic, consistent approach to grammatical terminology, most teachers,
>>students, and parents will never really care about discussions of, for
>>example, "intransitive prepositions." Most teachers hate grammar because
>>it is too confusing. If, however, we could develop a basic grammar that
>>would be less confusing and more meaningful, I don't think there would
>>be much problem in getting into the kinds of questions you discuss, even
>>perhaps in tenth grade. Currently, I do not see us, as a profession,
>>getting anywhere near that point because members of this list want to
>>discuss technical points and, it appears to me, object to simplified
>>presentations, even though those simplified presentations may be
>>essential groundwork for understanding the more complex issues. Again, I
>>may be wrong. But the question is, if not the KISS Approach, then what
>>would you teach?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] 01/13/04
>>>>>03:19PM >>>
>>Edward Vavra wrote:
>>> I would suggest that the discussion between Herb and Karl may
>>help me explain my position to Kirsten. Herb and Karl have different
>>views of how to explain "on" in "put on." In itself, that does not bother
>>me, but I do think that they both should address the question of what
>>should be taught to primary and middle school students. Perhaps you
>>didn't read the last part of my message. To join or leave this LISTSERV
>>list, please visit the list's web interface
>>at:
>><http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>http://listserv.muohio.edu/
>>archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web
>>site at <http://ateg.org/>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>http://listserv.muohio.edu/
>>archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web
>>site at <http://ateg.org/>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/
|
