Thanks for the clarification on "gerundive", Herb. I still find it an
infelicitous term. All the more so if it comes from a term for a Latin
construction we don't have.
I don't, in principle, oppose the use of the term "gerund". We can call
it a function if we don't want to use it as the name of a form. And,
along this thread, I don't worry as much about the terminology problems
as others do. Where there are differences between different analyses of
grammar, I explain to my students the form and function of whatever we
are looking at, and usually tell them that different schools of thought
use different terms if that is the case. I really don't believe this
happens all that awfully much. I warn them from the git-go that there
are some English constructions that are anaylzed in different ways by
different people (indeed, a major part of my teaching is pointing out
when and where traditional and linguistic grammars use different
terminology). They need to develop a solid understanding of what a
construction is made of (my "participial" and Ed's "gerundive" phrase,
which some people call a clause) consists of the -ing form (present
participle) of a verb plus its modifiers and complements, acting as a
chunk within a sentence. Its function is to modify a part of the rest
of the sentence. If students understand this, they should be able to
recognize such a chunk when it appears, regardless of what it is called.
This is not an impossible understanding to master. How well it is
mastered has more to do with the student's previous training and current
ability and motivation to learn about grammar. We are in a dire
situation right now with respect to these factors -- my students have to
master an impossible amount of material in ten weeks. They are daunted
and often unmotivated, though many are motivated at least by fear (not
ideal!). Something else I tell them is that they need to have the
willingness to add to the basic knowledge-base they attain in my class
on their own. We talk about why they are where they are with respect to
knowledge about grammar. Most of my students get A's and B's in my
courses. This, of course, does not mean that they remember the material
beyond the exam. It's likely that many of them don't. But if they have
gotten it once, they can return and review when they need it. Many of my
students tell me that they will keep our textbook as a reference for
their own future use.
This is not an ideal situation for the K-12 curriculum, of course, but I
doubt that any one group is going to come up with a full terminology.
Let's get a few out there and talk about them. I have not had time yet
to look at the curriculum proposed by ... was it Bill McCleary? (I'm
sorry, I stored it away for future examination).
If anyone would like to check out my current terminology and
definitions, a good deal is set out on my website at the following URL:
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html
You'll see, for example, that I define a clause strictly as a
construction that has both a subject and predicate. So I would not call
"playing in the park" a clause.
***************************************************
Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~ E-mail: [log in to unmask]
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/
|
