Herb,
I don't have a problem distinguishing complements from modifiers in
basic sentences. In the diagramming, complements--that is direct
objects, subject and object complements--occupy slots on the main
line. Any structure modifying them is attached below them. The
indirect object is a problem of sorts, suspended as it is below the
verb, on a line resembling that of a prepositional phrase. It looks
as if it should be called an "adverbial"--but we don't call it that.
It's certainly an anomaly, given that the other major slots are all
on the main line. The R&K method, however, clearly accounts for the
structure of the alternative wording of the indirect object, when it
includes the preposition:
John gave Mary a gift.
John gave it to Mary.
As for the that-clause complements that have been under discussion,
We're happy that you could come,
I simply call it a clause modifying an adjective. In Michael's other
sentence type,
It's nice that you could come,
I would call the that-clause a nominal clause functioning as an
appositive (as I think Michael did) and I would diagram it on a
pedestal, with the pedestal base in parentheses, on the main line
next to "it": in other words, picturing its structual relationships:
It, that you could come, is nice. And that's the strength an the
purpose of diagrams--not to read from left to right (we can do that
in the sentence itself) but rather to show how the parts are
structurally related.
But back to the original that-clause, we find verb phrases doing the same job:
We're happy to see you.
I don't diagram encourage students to diagram such sentences. I
don't see a reason to do so. I don't show them diagrammed in my book.
I reserve the diagrams for those places where they are useful--and
this is one of the few where they are not.
I should mention that my source of R&K instruction (House & Harman,
Descriptive English Grammar) has no qualms about diagramming this
that-clause. They call it a noun clause functioning as an "adverbial
objective." That sounds weird, but remember that in traditional
grammar an adverb is anything that modifies a verb, an adjective, or
another adverb. Here we have a clause modifying an adjective, so it
must be an adverbial objective. I should mention that H&H use the
term "adverbial objective" for indirect objects too. It's the term
they use for any noun or noun phrase or noun clause that acts as an
adverb. So "home" and "Monday" are both called adverbial objectives
in
We walked home. I'm leaving Monday.
I diagram those adverbial modifiers, "home" and "Monday," on
horizontal lines below the verb as if they were the objects of
prepositions (as H&H do). Why? Because in some similar cases the
prepositions are there: "I'm leaving on Monday." Incidentally I
don't call them "adverbial objectives"--I'm not that traditional! I
consider them simply nouns in form that are functioning adverbially.
I define "adverbial" as a modifier of the verb; words like "very" I
call qualifiers--one of the structure classes.
I'm off our original subject, but I did want to assure you that my
students do not get confused by the distinction between complements
and modifiers. Modifiers are of three kinds: adjectivals,
adverbials, or sentence modifiers (call them "free modifiers" if you
wish); those terms are functions. As to form, they may be words,
phrases (including verb phrases), or clauses.
I don't expect every sentence to be diagrammable. The R&K diagram is
not generative, as the tree diagram is. It's for descriptive
purposes. And it really works very well for sentence patterns and
for most of their expansions.
We know that many people, including students, are visual learners.
The diagram works for them especially well. And the sentence
patterns work--with their slots described in terms of their basic
forms, such as noun phrase and verb phrase--because they provide the
framework for the basic sentences and their expansions. The patterns
are essentially verb-phrase patterns--so their basic shapes apply not
only to main clauses, but also to all the subordinate clauses and
verb phrases in their various functions.
Martha
>Martha,
>
>While I haven't usually done much with RK diagrams at the UG level, I've
>repeatedly been tempted to, and for the reasons you give. However, the
>distinction between complements and modifiers, a linguistically critical
>and pedagogically productive one, is badly obscured in RK. I've
>suggested a few time before that some of us undertake a serious revision
>of RK diagramming to bring it more in line with modern findings on
>grammar, but I suspect that's not high on anyone's agenda just now.
>Maybe a retirement project.
>
>Herb
>
>
>Herb, Edit, Gini, and all,
>
>Such sentences as the "manifest" one are easily understood in a
>framework of sentence patterns, which is how I help students organize
>the parts of the system. I also use R&K diagramming to illustrate
>the various patterns--and the picture is clear with the three or four
>patterns of transitive verbs (they number four when we separate the
>with complex transitive pattern into those with adjectives and those
>with nominal object complements). The active and passive patterns
>are clearly seen in their diagrams. When the ditransitive pattern,
>which includes the indirect object, is passive, then the direct
>object is retained (sometimes the indirect).
>
>I know that my use of traditional diagrams puts me in the traditional
>school, but I defend that use on the basis of its ability to
>illustrate so well the sentence patterns and their various slots.
>There's a page in my Sentence Pattern chapter showing the ten
>patterns and their diagrams; I tell my students they should consider
>that page their closet organizer--the hooks and hangers and shelves
>for organizing all the details of basic sentences. That page gets
>well used.
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>
>
>>In undergrad grammar classes I've used both my analysis and Edith's. I
>>have no idea how the brain handles sentences like these or any other
>>sort, but I have found that my students pick up the surface
>relationship
>>more readily than the transformational. However, once they've seen the
>>surface, I then ask them to create the corresponding active and look at
>>the differences between active and passive. The term "retained object
>>complement" sort of works, but until I take them through the whole
>>process they have a hard time seeing why a subject complement would be
>>an object complement. I will admit to having struggled with how to
>each
>>this one.
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>
>>Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
>>
>>I agree with Herb's analysis until he gets to the last half of the last
>>sentence. As I look at the sentence, manifest is not the complement of
>>the subject, but the retained object complement of the sentence,
>>retained from its active voice form. The insights of TG grammar are
>>really helpful, I think, in understanding the surface structure of
>>passive transformations. As I think about what this sentence means, it
>>seems to me that the language part of the brain is understanding this
>>sentence in that passive transformational way and not seeing it as some
>>new surface structure. To understand it as Herb suggests, we would have
>>to assume another English sentence pattern in which we had a subject, a
>>passive verb, and subject complement, making it basically the same as a
>>subject linking verb subject complement pattern. I don't think that is
>>how the sentence works. I think that makes the same mistake as was made
>>in calling "He went to the store" and "He was hit by the car." the same
>>pattern of subject verb. Clearly, the relation between the subject and
> >verb is quite different in those two sentences and they should not be
>>seen as the same pattern. I think the same logic applies to "The word
>of
>>the Lord was made manifest" and "The word was manifest."
>>
>>Edith Wollin
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:48 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
>>
>>Here's how I'd treat it. Your sentence is the passive of "[Someone]
>>made the word of the Lord manifest on earth". In the active sentence,
> >"manifest" is the object complement of the complex transitive verb
>>"made". In the passive sentence that you provided, the active object
>>has become subject, the complement "manifest" is now about the subject
>>and so has become a subject complement.
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
>>
>>Need to know the function of "manifest" in the following sentence.
>>Several arguments are ensuing here at our high school.
>>
>>The word of the Lord was made manifest on earth.
>>
>>Thanks for your input!
>>
>>Gini Grossenbacher/English Department
>>Sheldon High School/Elk Grove CA
>>
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>>> "Complement" is a more general term than what Michael needs to
>explain
>>
>>> these examples. Complement slots are filled by many phrase types;
>the
>>> type of complement that occurs in a phrase is controlled by the
>phrase
>>
>>> head -- in this case words like "happy". Verbs of different sorts
>>> admit different complements: noun phrases, adverb phrases, etc. But
>>> some verbs allow only certain complements: transitive verbs allow a
>>> direct-object noun phrase, while intransitives do not allow any
>>> noun-phrase complements (with certain exceptions -- verbs like
>"sing"
>>> and "dance" can take noun phrases as long as they name a song or
>>> dance).
>>>
>>> I agree that the "that" clauses in these cases are complements of
>the
>>> adjective, but I also agree that they are adverbial, because they
>>> answer the question "why", which is one of the "symptoms" of the
>>> adverbial function. Adjectives admit prepositional-phrase
>complements,
>>
>>> as in "proud of the new baby", and the "that" clauses discussed in
>>> Michael's examples (adverbial clauses functioning as complement of
>the
>>
>>> adjective). Off the top of my head, I don't know whether they allow
>>> any other types.
>>>
>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics Linguistics
>Minor
>>> Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University,
>>> San Luis Obispo
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>> Tel.: 805.756.2184
>>> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>>> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>>> URL: 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/
>>
>>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/
>
>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/
|
