ATEG Archives

September 2004

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:23:28 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (91 lines)
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/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2