Subordinate clause, or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Linguist__

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
My second problem phrase from my analysis of a child with a language disorder.

"And seen a cow said moo."

As with the first problem, the grammar is analysed despite of the error.

My problem is whether to treat the sentence as two clauses coordinated with each other, that is: 'And saw a cow and the cow said, "moo".'

Does this sound like the most plausible way to treat this sentence? If so, is 'moo' the object of 'said', or is there a special subject element for direct speech?

Thank you

EDIT - The title of the thread is mean to be 'Coordinating clause, or not?', sorry.
 
Last edited:

MASM

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Spain
Current Location
Spain
My second problem phrase from my analysis of a child with a language disorder.

"And seen a cow said moo."

As with the first problem, the grammar is analysed despite of the error.

My problem is whether to treat the sentence as two clauses coordinated with each other, that is: 'And saw a cow and the cow said, "moo".'

Does this sound like the most plausible way to treat this sentence? If so, is 'moo' the object of 'said', or is there a special subject element for direct speech?

Thank you

Is "and seen a cow said moo" the original sentence? Because if is like that it can have two interpretation, that someone saw a cow and said moo and that someone saw a cow saying moo (which on the other hand, is it correct to say that a cow said something?, just asking).

I'm not really sure of what you've been asked to do what that of that sentence or whether you can change it in the analysis, but to me "and saw a cow and the cow said "moo" " is less ambiguous and I'd treat "moo" as a direct object. I don't know if that was really your question..:) but I hope it helps anyway..
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
My second problem phrase from my analysis of a child with a language disorder.

"And seen a cow said moo."

As with the first problem, the grammar is analysed despite of the error.

My problem is whether to treat the sentence as two clauses coordinated with each other, that is: 'And saw a cow and the cow said, "moo".'

Does this sound like the most plausible way to treat this sentence? If so, is 'moo' the object of 'said', or is there a special subject element for direct speech?

Thank you

EDIT - The title of the thread is mean to be 'Coordinating clause, or not?', sorry.
What about "(I) saw a cow say moo"? Obviously one can't "see" a cow say anything, one "hears" it, but if the child has a language disorder it seems possible that that is what he wanted to say.
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
I saw [a cow (to) say moo] -- I saw that phenomenon. Subordinate.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
My second problem phrase from my analysis of a child with a language disorder.

"And seen a cow said moo."

As with the first problem, the grammar is analysed despite of the error.

My problem is whether to treat the sentence as two clauses coordinated with each other, that is: 'And saw a cow and the cow said, "moo".'

Does this sound like the most plausible way to treat this sentence? If so, is 'moo' the object of 'said', or is there a special subject element for direct speech?

Thank you

EDIT - The title of the thread is mean to be 'Coordinating clause, or not?', sorry.
Is it really valid to analyse children's speech production using adult grammar?
Surely you'd have to know whether the child meant:
I saw a cow that said moo. or
I saw a cow and it said moo. or
I saw a cow. The cow said moo. or
Something else.

Does the child give other evidence of being able to use subordinate clauses? Has the child reached an age where subordinate clauses are normally used?
You could diagnose this as being "an inability to use appropriate relative pronouns". But you'd be wrong if it reflected an inability to use coordinators or to separate sentences.
 

Linguist__

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
I'll give some context to the speech sample to help clarify it. The child is undertaking 'The Bus Story' test, in which the speech therapist narrates a story to a child about a naughty bus that drives off from it's driver, and ends up getting stuck in mud and needs to be rescued. Pictures are used to guide the narrative. Then, the child tells the story back to the therapist using the pictures as a guide.

The child's sentence is fine in context. I think the original narrative of the section that the child is retelling is

'The bus ran into a field where he saw a cow. Then, the bus jumped over a fence out of the field and the cow said, "moo, I can't believe my eyes."
So, I assume the child is trying to say: "And he (the bus) saw a cow and it (the cow) said, "moo".

I think the best thing to do would be to consider these as two seperate utterances - 'And he saw a cow. And it said, "moo".' Would you agree?

My main question was, in the sentence. 'And he saw a cow and it said, "moo"', is 'and it said...' a coordinating clause, and if so, is 'moo' the object of 'said'. MASM sort of answered this, but wasn't sure about the context, so maybe this post helps that.:)
 

MASM

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Spain
Current Location
Spain
I'll give some context to the speech sample to help clarify it. The child is undertaking 'The Bus Story' test, in which the speech therapist narrates a story to a child about a naughty bus that drives off from it's driver, and ends up getting stuck in mud and needs to be rescued. Pictures are used to guide the narrative. Then, the child tells the story back to the therapist using the pictures as a guide.

The child's sentence is fine in context. I think the original narrative of the section that the child is retelling is

So, I assume the child is trying to say: "And he (the bus) saw a cow and it (the cow) said, "moo".

I think the best thing to do would be to consider these as two seperate utterances - 'And he saw a cow. And it said, "moo".' Would you agree?

My main question was, in the sentence. 'And he saw a cow and it said, "moo"', is 'and it said...' a coordinating clause, and if so, is 'moo' the object of 'said'. MASM sort of answered this, but wasn't sure about the context, so maybe this post helps that.:)

I wasn't sure if you needed to analyse the original sentence or not. "And seen a cow said moo." I also assume that the child was trying to say that he saw a cow that was saying moo. If you analyse "And seen a cow said moo." a cow said moo" is a direct object of "seen".

Your other sentence 'And he saw a cow. And it said, "moo". is definitely a coordinating clause being "a cow" direct object and "moo" another direct object of "saw" and "said" respectively. I don't know if I have explained mysef very well :-D. xxx
 

mmasny

Key Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
I have a question after reading all this.
Would you find this sentence acceptable:
I saw that a cow said moo.

The literal Polish translation is perfectly correct in Polish (especially when the 'saw' is stressed). I am not sure if I ever saw 'see that' in English, but now I'm not sure either why it should be incorrect.

If it's correct I think it could be closest to what the child had it mind. He/she could have just omitted the 'that'.

PS: OK, after thinking a little bit I'm sure it's correct :) But I still can be wrong :)
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I have a question after reading all this.
Would you find this sentence acceptable:
I saw that a cow said moo.

The literal Polish translation is perfectly correct in Polish (especially when the 'saw' is stressed). I am not sure if I ever saw 'see that' in English, but now I'm not sure either why it should be incorrect.

If it's correct I think it could be closest to what the child had it mind. He/she could have just omitted the 'that'.

PS: OK, after thinking a little bit I'm sure it's correct :) But I still can be wrong :)
It's a correct sentence, but English-speaking children of an age where this narrative would be used don't go around saying "I saw that a cow said moo" or even "He (the bus) saw that a cow said moo."
So I think you're right when you say you could be wrong.
 

mmasny

Key Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
It's a correct sentence, but English-speaking children of an age where this narrative would be used don't go around saying "I saw that a cow said moo" or even "He (the bus) saw that a cow said moo."
So I think you're right when you say you could be wrong.
Why not? Do you mean that a child of this age can't use complex sentences? I don't know much about this matter but I have a bunch of younger brothers and sisters and observed that they did it sometimes (even on the stage of baby talk). I just think that the child could have meant "I saw (that) a cow said moo" saying "I seen a cow said moo." Does it seem impossible too you? To me, it seems most probable.

By the way, is the omission of 'that' correct in this sentence?
 

Linguist__

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Regarding acquisition of grammar, children have acquired all the grammar they will ever know by the age of 4;06 (four years, six months). This is normally developing children.

As for subordinate and coordinate clauses, children have acquired these by about 3;00 - 3;06, but will still be making errors in these up until around 5;00.

The definition of 'acquired' means that they comprehend it, and are able to use it when given the oppurtunity.

Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1989). Grammatical analysis of language disability. (2nd ed.). London: Cole & Whurr

I think that the child definately meant 'And it saw a cow. And the cow said, "moo".' If the child was more like his peers in grammatical ability, he would have used a more appropriate sentence like the sentence you have said, mmansy.
 

mmasny

Key Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
It seems it's impossible that I accept this truth :) I'm still convinced I'm right, but it happens to me often and no one should worry about it except me ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top