This is a long post that offers definitions and explanations as well as
broad notes on teaching and strategies for getting new curricula into schools.
Geoff Layton wrote:
> Johanna -
>
> The problem I've run into - and members of this list have also identified -
> is that difficulties in identifying dependent and independent clauses (the
> great clause hunts) are based more on the lack of the standard definition,
> rather than on prior grammar grounding. To generalize, trying to match any
> construction or part of speech based upon its definition in the grammar
> books are bound to fail because the definitions are so lacking. Therefore,
> students must be provided with more reliable methods for clause analysis.
>
> Geoff Layton
Here is my scheme for clause/sentence discussion: A clause is a
structure that has a subject and predicate that go together meaningfully
(the predicate is about the subject; the subject is an argument of the
predicate, and passes standard subject tests). A finite clause is a
clause that has a tense marker (it has an identifiable past or present
inflection or future-marking 'will'). A nonfinite clause is not so marked.
A sentence consists of at least one finite, independent clause. An
independent clause is one that does not play a grammatical role in
another clause. A dependent clause is one that does play a grammatical
role in another clause or phrase (subject, direct object, adverbial,
adjectival within a noun phrase). A subordinate clause is the same thing
as a dependent clause--it plays a grammatical role within another clause
or phrase.
As to Ed's problem with 'main clause' vs. 'independent clause', to me,
'main clause' is a term that is defined against 'subordinate clause',
and should only be used when a complex clause is being discussed--in
other words, the term only makes sense when discussing sentences that
have subordinate clauses as well. In that case, the main clause is the
one in which you find the head (modified element, either verb or whole
sentence) which the subordinate clause(s) modify(ies).
An independent clause is a sentence, whether simple or complex; it is
the whole sentence, not just part of it. In other words, it could be
either a simple sentence (a single, tensed clause with no subordinate
clauses) or a complex sentence. The reason I include complex sentences
is that they have the requirements of an independent clause: a subject
and a finite predicate. It is irrelevant that they might have finite
(dependent) clauses within them, because you are judging only the
'uppermost' clause--the clause that holds the heads for any subordinate
clauses that are present.
Under this scheme, 'dependent' and 'subordinate' clauses are the same
thing, while 'main' and 'independent' clauses or not. This can be
confusing, I realize. But I think it is neat (in the sense of
'efficient, organized', not 'cool') to make the finer distinctions.
A sentence can have more than one main clause: A sentence could have a
subordinate clause which has another subordinate clause in it:
A. "He forgave me after I explained that I didn't mean to give offense."
"I didn't mean to give offense is subordinate to "I explained"; "after I
explained that I didn't mean to give offense" is subordinate to "he
forgave me". Since I have distinguished main from subordinate clauses,
it does not matter that "after I explained that I didn't mean to give
offense" is not an independent clause.
Is "He forgave me" an independent clause? It can be if we decide to
create this as a separate sentence. It is not an independent clause if
we are judging sentence A as a whole. The independent clause in this
case is the whole sentence. When you are doing grammatical analysis, you
are analyzing a particular structure as a whole. This is important to
keep in mind. Not proceeding in this way may be what leads to confusion
between 'main' and 'independent' clause.
Now this is pretty complicated, and a student would obviously have to be
comfortable with concepts like finiteness, grammatical roles, etc. in
order to follow it. The scheme would have to be introduced bit by bit,
preferably with some space in between during which something else is
discussed, to leave time for the underlying concepts to sink in and be
reinforced by discussion of other grammatical structures. This is why
you would want to build a fundament of more-basic concepts before
working with complex sentences.
Overall, grammar education is not going to work well if it isn't
ongoing, starting in the earlier grades and continuing throughout K-12
education, as math and science do. This is the only way students will
become comfortable enough with terminology and analysis techniques to
advance to the understanding of complex structures. Because this rarely
happens now, it is extremely difficult to teach grammar successfully in
a single course in 11th grade or junior year of college. There is too
short a time within which the spiral of concepts is compressed; students
don't have enough time to fully internalize a concept before having to
move on.
How do we get consensus on my definitions? Well, we probably can't get
nationwide or worldwide consensus. What we can do is publish books with
different explanations and see which ones work best or sell most. We can
publish frameworks documents or documents like 'Grammar Alive' that
qualified groups of people have reached consensus on, and put them to
the test in classrooms and on the market. A lot of us are doing this as
individuals by writing and classroom-testing our own books; obviously,
lots of grammar books are on the market at the college level. The
problem with lower levels is cracking the big textbook publishers. This
can only be done when we have some books that have been tested and shown
to work in K-12 classrooms. We have to create the market before most
publishers will risk publishing innovative books. (This is what
publishers tell me.) Of course, we can also work from the top down by
working with state education departments on curriculum frameworks and
then have the states demand that publishers provide appropriate texts.
California has done this already, making numerous major publishers
correlate their K-12 language arts books with the new state academic
standards (although these are sadly out of sync with linguistic views of
grammar). CA has clout, of course, because of its huge market. So the
thing to do is target big states like CA, NY, TX, and the rest of the
country won't have much choice but to buy the texts that are there.
I wonder if Ed is happier with a post like this. Other list members can
say what they think of my scheme, and if they like it, adopt it in their
own teaching. Or they can refine it, or say it's crap and suggest
something else for me and others to judge. If teachers find the
explanation adequate and clearer than others, they can try it out in
their classrooms and report to us how it worked. Isn't this the way
things should (and sometimes do) proceed? Definitions are formed by
consensus, whether implicit or explicit, of the community of users of
the terms. The workable definitions will endure. Definitions can also be
dictated by an expert group (e.g., physicians tell us how to define
technically 'clavicle' or 'infectious disease').
I, too, find it disingenuous of Ed to post a question when his agenda is
not simply to obtain an answer to the question. It may give a dramatic
demonstration of his complaint, but it's not a way to make a good
impression. At least tell us "I would like to conduct an experiment.
I'll tell you my purpose later. You can help me out by telling me how
you would analyze the following sentence."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: 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/
|
