And it would make no sense to say: If you're lucky enough not to have
your whole house blow away, that is.
Marcia Alessi
On Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 11:49 AM, Kathleen M. Ward wrote:
> I think the problem is that "That is" would be widely interpreted,
> not as part of the sentence, but as a "discourse connective" of some
> sort, rather like "however." It does not seem to be a subject and
> verb here. It's clearer if you put (and I think you should put) a
> comma after the phrase.
>
> That is, if you're lucky enough not to have your whole house blow away.
>
> And "f you're lucky enough not to have your whole house blow away"
> is certainly a fragment--an embedded question clause.
>
>
>
>> A student wrote this in an essay.
>>
>> "It's important to prepare your house for a hurricane, so you won't
>> come
>> home to a mess when you return. That is if you're lucky enough to
>> not have
>> your whole house blown away."
>> "
>> Another teacher looking at my papers pointed out to me that the second
>> sentence is a fragment. I agreed at first, but then I wondered why.
>>
>> "That is if you're lucky enough to not have your whole house blown
>> away."
>>
>> "That" = subject.
>> "is" = verb
>> "if............... blown away" = noun clause???
>>
>> I thought of these examples, but they seem different somehow. Are
>> these
>> fragments too?
>>
>>
>> That is why I quit my job.
>> That is when you know you are in trouble.
>> That is whom I voted for.
>> That is who got my vote.
>>
>> "If" can introduce a noun clause but there is not a "that" beginning
>> the
>> main clause usually.
>>
>> I wondered if my house would be blown away.
>> That will tell me if my house is still standing.
>>
>> If it's a fragment, should it be connected to the preceding one with
>> a comma
>> between.
>> Is it considered as aside. How is it labeled? I don't know how to
>> explain
>> this. Is there a name for that type of clause? What does "that" refer
>> to in
>> the independent clause?
>>
>> It's important to prepare your house for a hurricane, so you won't
>> come home
>> to a mess when you return, that is if you're lucky enough to not have
>> your
>> whole house blown away.
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Christine Reintjes Martin
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: success of linguistic grammars?]
>>> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:07:19 -0500
>>>
>>> Christine,
>>> I was forwarding the message from Joan Livingston-Webber, so your
>>> response is to her post about her classroom practices.
>>> (I would be proud to call them my own, but that would be misleading.)
>>> She has been having trouble reading ATEG posts when they come
>>> directly
>>> to her computer.
>>> You're absolutely right. We need to be very careful not to
>>> oversimplify.
>>> A good friend and colleague had an interesting way to say this
>>> in a
>>> talk yesterday: "It would be OK to tell students it's OK to be
>>> themselves if we could change the world for that to be true." In
>>> reality, the task is far more complex than that. Our students need to
>>> negotiate their way in a world that will be both open and hostile,
>>> and
>>> sometimes the openness will be illusory, and sometimes the hostility
>>> will at least have the advantage of being clear. And sometimes we
>>> need
>>> to listen to them to perceive these differences.
>>> It doesn't do any good to tell students you like them (or accept
>>> them) if you are setting them up for failure.
>>> As progressive educators, we sometimes do more harm than good by
>>> our
>>> discomfort with clear standards.
>>> The natural language of our students is a wonderful starting point
>>> for growth, but it will not be a starting point for growth if we
>>> don't
>>> demand (expect) significant development. In general, they are
>>> capable of
>>> far more than we are asking of them, and most students want to be
>>> pushed
>>> when that comes from a respect for their capabilities.
>>> If Smitherman is right (I think she is), syntactic features are
>>> minor, and the major difference is what she calls a communicative
>>> style,
>>> which can almost be paraphrased as a different way of being in a
>>> communal world. Gates uses this also to argue for African-American
>>> literature being judged from within that community. It has an organic
>>> connection to that community that would be lost when judged from
>>> different standards.
>>> If the only differences were surface feature differences, then
>>> dialect would little matter.
>>> Perhaps one of the reasons this becomes so political is that there
>>> are enormous political implications. An articulate populace is more
>>> likely to defend its own interests.
>>> What we have going, of course, is the wonderful realization that
>>> being bi-dialectical is not only possible, but deeply enriching.
>>> Consciousness of double consciousness dates all the way back to W.
>>> E. B.
>>> Dubois and probably began when the first two slaves decided they
>>> would
>>> say one thing to each other and another to the master. We now
>>> recognize
>>> that the truest histories of pre civil war America are in the slave
>>> narratives. We may once have wanted to suppress them, but now they
>>> are
>>> priceless treasures we work hard to unearth.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Christine
>>> Christine Reintjes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Craig,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "No one in my classes thinks or leaves thinking that all dialects
>>>> are
>>>> socially or politically equal."
>>>>
>>>> I hope this is true of my classes also. I'm aware that this is the
>>>> first
>>>> thing the gets distorted when there are discussions about the
>>>> "inherent"
>>>> equality of dialects.
>>>>
>>>> I use the example of the fact that so many English computer terms
>>>> have
>>>> become part of the vocabulary of many other languages. Why did this
>>>> happen?
>>>> Why not Arabic or Inuit? I ask them where did these specailized
>>>> words
>>>> come
>>>> from within English since they obviously weren't around 100 years
>>>> ago.
>>>> Anyway, I try to discuss how dialects develop differently depending
>>>> on
>>>> how
>>>> they are used and the social and political pressures at work.
>>>>
>>>> Who are these people going around saying all dialects are
>>>> politically and
>>>> socially equal?? I've never heard anyone say that, but people do
>>>> react
>>>> as if
>>>> that is what is being put forth.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Christine Reintjes Martin
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: Re: success of linguistic grammars?]
>>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:21:23 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> Joan Livingston-Webber asked me to forward this thoughtful
>>>>> message to
>>>>> the group.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: success of linguistic grammars?
>>>>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:57:18 -0600
>>>>> From: Joan Livingston-Webber <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> References: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I teach two courses to English Ed majors - English in its Social
>>>>> and
>>>>> Historical
>>>>> Contexts (or sociolinquistics with accompanying narratives - or
>>>>> that's
>>>>> basically how I do it) and Grammar Methods, which includes lg
>>>>> acquisition
>>>>> and methods of teaching grammar, including how to make sense of
>>>>> handbooks
>>>>> (specifically, Hacker) as well as readings by Weaver, Wheeler, E.
>>>>> Schuster,
>>>>> and
>>>>> others. No one in my classes thinks or leaves thinking that all
>>>>> dialects
>>>>> are
>>>>> socially or politically equal. Indeed, one point to make is that
>>>>> if
>>>>> they
>>>>> were,
>>>>> we wouldn't need a course one of whose purposes is to demonstrate
>>>>> the
>>>>> systematicity of varieties. That students learn in linguistics
>>>>> courses
>>>>> that
>>>>> all dialeacts are equal is some kind of urban myth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think it's vital - essential - for ed majors to understand the
>>>>> equivalence
>>>>> in formalness of varieties, since if they go into teaching with an
>>>>> elitist
>>>>> attitude, that attitude will interfere with their effectiveness.
>>>>> The
>>>>> sociolinguistics course is designed to teach certain analytic
>>>>> tools,
>>>>> certain information and facts - as much by discovery as possible -
>>>>> but one
>>>>> end
>>>>> of it all is persuasive, to let the "facts" students discover
>>>>> using the
>>>>> tools
>>>>> convince tham that variation is not an evil or careless or lazy or
>>>>> the
>>>>> product
>>>>> of inadequate cognition.
>>>>>
>>>>>> From that point, then, a methods course on effective ways to teach
>>>>>> grammar
>>>>>
>>>>> makes sense and that is the second course I teach to ed majors.
>>>>> One
>>>>> reason
>>>>> I
>>>>> have recently found this listserv and several other resources is
>>>>> that
>>>>> I am
>>>>> not
>>>>> at all satisfied with what Craig (I think) called "point of
>>>>> contact"
>>>>> as the
>>>>> interpretation of "in context." I teach and have tried to find
>>>>> models for
>>>>> using grammatical concepts for insights into literature, into
>>>>> other documents, into local variation. I have serious reservations
>>>>> about "using" lit to teach grammar. I don't want to end up turning
>>>>> kids off
>>>>> to
>>>>> literature. I look for ways to use grammatical concepts to open up
>>>>> literature. What I've been seeing is that the trend is to say that
>>>>> grammar
>>>>> (of
>>>>> whatever ilk) should be taught in 4-7 or so - and then move on.
>>>>> What
>>>>> I am
>>>>> looking for is partly, I think, where that moving on goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me describe an example of the kinds of things I encounter: an
>>>>> ed
>>>>> major
>>>>> doing pre-student-teaching field observations called me a couple
>>>>> years ago.
>>>>> He
>>>>> was in a one-semester course called Remedial Writing (grade 8).
>>>>> The
>>>>> students
>>>>> were going through Warriner's. The class spent one week on each
>>>>> chapter,
>>>>> and
>>>>> every Friday, they took a quiz involving labeling things in
>>>>> sentences
>>>>> and
>>>>> underlining elements of sentences, given the labels. Deadly.
>>>>> Neither a
>>>>> grammar course nor a writing course. My student was to take the
>>>>> week on
>>>>> Positive, Comparative, and Superlative Adjectives. The teacher
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> care if
>>>>> he deviated from the worksheet method, but the students had to
>>>>> take the
>>>>> Friday
>>>>> quiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end, he assigned his students a short essay (itself
>>>>> contextless
>>>>> except
>>>>> for the course) comparing any two things. They were to exaggerate
>>>>> as
>>>>> much
>>>>> as
>>>>> they could. They wrote comparisons of football and basketball, two
>>>>> kinds
>>>>> of
>>>>> off-road vehicles, two kinds of guns, two kinds of music - that
>>>>> kind of
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> They used this writing to learn to identify the elements. My
>>>>> student's
>>>>> report:
>>>>> they had more fun. The comparisons were really outrageous. One
>>>>> guy
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> even sleep. They did about the same on the quiz as they had been
>>>>> doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think my conscious grammatical knowledge has always helped open
>>>>> literature to
>>>>> me. I don't understand how students with no knowledge of
>>>>> grammatical
>>>>> concepts
>>>>> can read sophisticated texts. David Mulroy's discussion of the
>>>>> subject of
>>>>> the
>>>>> first sentence of the Declaration of Independence hits the nail on
>>>>> the
>>>>> head.
>>>>> How can someone follow the meaning of one of Virgina Woolf's long
>>>>> cumulative
>>>>> sentences without understanding how final modifiers relate to the
>>>>> base
>>>>> clause?
>>>>> To me, it sounds like reading without grammatical concepts is like
>>>>> looking
>>>>> at a
>>>>> vista color blind. Yes, there's a great deal the same, but given a
>>>>> choice,
>>>>> technicolor is richer and reveals details otherwise invisible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I teach grammar methods (to secondary ed majors) means I
>>>>> need
>>>>> to be
>>>>> able to demonstrate some of the ends for teaching grammar at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting Craig Hancock :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joan,
>>>>>> I'm writing this to ATEG, but sending it directly to you as
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> just to see if the problem is in my computer or in how it comes
>>>>>> out of
>>>>>> the List when redirected. I'll be happy to send you the last
>>>>>> post as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> I do think Black English is not so embattled as it once was,
>>>>>> though
>>>>>> the good guys did not win the public battle that erupted post
>>>>>> Oakland.
>>>>>> Perhaps one reason for the concern on the part of Black students
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> their sense that progressive educators are very happy to let
>>>>>> Black kids
>>>>>> be themselves, but that this may doom them to living a marginal
>>>>>> life.
>>>>>> At any rate, they have far more at stake here than we do, and
>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>> up to us to tell them what the proper way of understanding all
>>>>>> this is,
>>>>>> but to help them evolve or develop their own complex positions. It
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>> a great classroom topic precisely because it will elicit
>>>>>> passionate
>>>>>> responses from a number of perspectives. That is to say, in a
>>>>>> typical
>>>>>> college classroom with a number of language minority students (my
>>>>>> usual
>>>>>> class), pretty much all sensible positions (and a few not so
>>>>>> sensible
>>>>>> ones) will be presented. The right answer (on how to negotiate
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> language worlds) may be different for every student.
>>>>>> A question like "Do you believe in Black English" is just not
>>>>>> answerable in a yes/no way, and we can't let ourselves get forced
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> saying how we feel these students should conduct their lives.
>>>>>> I'm sure
>>>>>> your "yes" wasn't intended that way, but that may, in fact, be
>>>>>> what was
>>>>>> heard from their side. (Been there, done that.) It may not be the
>>>>>> students who have changed, but us or their trust in us?
>>>>>> Both the prescriptive and "progressive" positions are
>>>>>> suspect. I
>>>>>> haven't met a Black parent yet who didn't want his/her child
>>>>>> fluent in
>>>>>> mainstream English. They are rightly suspicious when they hear
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> say that Black English is OK.
>>>>>> Progressive educators have been happy to teach the primary
>>>>>> tenets of
>>>>>> sociolinguistics, but have adamantly opposed the teaching of
>>>>>> grammar.
>>>>>> Being for or against may make little difference if the
>>>>>> students are
>>>>>> ill served.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joan Livingston-Webber wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a very hard time reading messages from ATEG - "it" (ATEG?)
>>>>>> tells
>>>>>> me
>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> reader can't read mime. I get a lot of code. SOmetimes I get
>>>>>>> word
>>>>>> wrap
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> sometimes not. The archives aren't much better. I've thought of
>>>>>>> unsubscribing, but I find what I can pick up of the conversations
>>>>>> between
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>> and Herb especially so tantalizing that I try to read them,
>>>>>>> though I
>>>>>> know I
>>>>>>> miss a lot. I am unable to follow exchanges of short dialogue,
>>>>>> since I
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> frustrated in searching for the bits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did want to reply to Craig's saying a few days ago that
>>>>>>> linguistic
>>>>>> grammars
>>>>>>> haven't made a dent in prescriptive attitudes. (My one-line
>>>>>> summary of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> longer statement, which I can't copy because of all the
>>>>>>> intervening
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> never sure I've gotten a good sense of the whole; I hope my
>>>>>>> comment
>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>> already made elsewhere.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I first taught linguistics to ed students at Indiana in the late
>>>>>> 70's as
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> intern. I taught it at IUPUI in the early 80's, at Western
>>>>>> Illinois in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> late 80's and late 90's, at U of NE at Omaha in the mid 80's. I
>>>>>> continue
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> teach it, though the courses have changed substantially in some
>>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The students I have now are not nearly as resistent to the idea
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> dialects
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> rule-governed systems as they use to be. I used to have Black
>>>>>> students
>>>>>> come
>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> to me after class and ask if I "believed in" Black English," as
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> a statement of faith. Some of those students dropped the course
>>>>>> when I
>>>>>> said
>>>>>>> yes. Now, I may have a small group of students who want to
>>>>>>> challenge
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> conclusions that dialectal rules of phonology, morphology, and
>>>>>>> syntax
>>>>>> lead
>>>>>> us -
>>>>>>> that all varieties are systematic. But I have not had a Black
>>>>>>> student
>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>> deny the existence of Black English since about 1982. That kind
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> denial
>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> doesn't show up anymore. That seems to me to indicate substantial
>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joan Livingston-Webber
>>>>>>> Department of ENglish and Journalism
>>>>>>> Western Illinois University
>>>>>>> Better a pack of greyhounds than a pack of
>>>>>> camels
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joan Livingston-Webber
>>>>> Department of ENglish and Journalism
>>>>> Western Illinois University
>>>>> Better a pack of greyhounds than a pack of
>>>>> camels
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at
>>>> Tech
>>>> Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
>> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>>
>> 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/
|
