Thank you very much for your answer.
Could you say then that you have 3 different elements: Vb + Particle +
Object, just like you have Vb + DO + IO in your other example?
I guess my question boils down to this: does the (verb + particle) have to
be a constituent?
Marie-Pierre Jouannaud
At 11:11 14/01/04 -0500, vous avez écrit:
>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/
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/
|
