We can reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases. Why?
- Thread starter Steven D
- Start date
- Status
Francois said:
No, there are no practical differences. It's good that you asked that.
8) At this point the discussion is more about terminology. I'm not really arguing, but just stating it as I understand it. :wink: The idea I had in mind at first was to talk about which form would be more likely to appear in certain types of discourse, both spoken and written.
Maybe the discussion will take a turn in that direction.
:shock: 8) :idea:
W
wunaide
Guest
In the example, after eating dinner, eating is most definitely a verb. Moreover it is not part of a postmodifying structure (see below).
Every VG that is not part of a postmodifying struture is known as a Process. Every clause has one and only one Process, and every Process is part of one and ony one clause. Postmodifying structures (see below) are referred to as embedded clauses, but they are not "true" clauses, because they are only part of a nominal group (eg see below - beer that's cold etc ) and the VGs they contain do not refer to the actions or relationships that the text is immediately concerned with.
Verb Groups (eg: go, went, had gone, was to have been going, eating, had eaten, ate, will be eating, would have been going to be eating, say, would say, had thought, is, was, would be, has, had been, had had, had been having, there is, there will be...etc etc etc etc etc etc) are used in English in one of two ways.
1. As Processes
2. As part of modifying structures (embedded clauses)
Examples of clauses containing VGs as Processes:
(the following examples include Dependent, Independent and Nonfinite Clauses)
after eating dinner/when i go to town/ I am here/ we would have to go there/sit down here/ because there are two of them/there is never enough time/ having realised the implications of this/
these are the chairs/ i don't drink beer
Processes are VGs that are of immediate relevance to the action, the events, the relationships or the situation the text is concerned with.
Examples of VGs as part of modifying structures
the chairs that they sat on/the one you like most/beer that's not cold
Examples of Clauses with VG in the post modifier
These are the chairs that they sat on.
Choose the one you like most.
I don't drink beer that's not cold.
It is of great help to students to be shown how to distinguish between VGs that act as Processes and those that act merely as part of a postmodifying structures. This can be acheived by firstly asking them to identify all VGs in text, then to identify which are Process and which are not (ie which are merely part of Nominal Groups. They can then proceed by identifying clause boundaries, and then further to discriminate between Independent and Dependent Clauses, and to recognise and understand how they are connected.
A typical analysis would go like this:
Example:This is the table that we had been going to buy on that trip to China when John was writing that new book of his that sold so well.
1. Identify Verb Groups:
This is the table we had been going to buy on that trip to China when John was writing that new book of his that sold so well.
2. Identify which are Processes and which (merely) modify.
.........Proc..............................Modifying
This is the table we had been going to buy on that trip
..................................Process................................................Mod.
to China when John was writing that new book of his that sold so well.
3. Identify Clause Boundaries and clause types.
INDEPENDENT CLAUSE ( includes <<Postmodification>> of table)
|||This is the table <<we had been going to buy on that trip
to China>> ||
DEPENDENT CLAUSE (includes postmod of "book of his")
|| when John was writing <<that new book of his that sold so well>>.|||
Systematic analysis of text in this way (these are just the first few steps) gives students of all levels the tools to analyse and come to understand the fundamental structure of English. I know because this is what I do.
There is nothing fundamentally "wrong" with traditional grammatical approaches. It's just that they are really quite meaningless where English teaching is concerned. English , indeed any language is not the sum total of millions of individual fragments as traditional grammatical approaches so wrongly imply. Rather languages are comprised of discrete functional units of meaning, and it is these for which students are searching in their endeavours.
W
wunaide
Guest
sorry, a slip:
3. Identify Clause Boundaries and clause types.
SHOULD READ
INDEPENDENT CLAUSE ( includes <<Postmodification>> of table)
|||This is the table <<we had been going to buy on that trip
to China>> ||
DEPENDENT CLAUSE (includes postmod of "that new book of his")
|| when John was writing that new book of his <<that sold so well>>.|||
3. Identify Clause Boundaries and clause types.
SHOULD READ
INDEPENDENT CLAUSE ( includes <<Postmodification>> of table)
|||This is the table <<we had been going to buy on that trip
to China>> ||
DEPENDENT CLAUSE (includes postmod of "that new book of his")
|| when John was writing that new book of his <<that sold so well>>.|||
W
wunaide
Guest
X Mode said:Francois said:
No, there are no practical differences. It's good that you asked that.
If you are referring to my contributions, this is in no way concerned with mere terminological differences, and there are enormous practical implications.
Anybody who claims that this is a mere disagreement over terminology, and I've heard this specious claim before, has either not taken the time or has no inclination to consider a functional (as opposed to a traditional) approach. I feel I am at an advantage where any comparisons between the two are concerned, having been well schooled in the fragmentary, unsystematic and pedagogically ineffective traditional grammatical description of English.
Good health.
wunaide said:X Mode said:Francois said:
No, there are no practical differences. It's good that you asked that.
If you are referring to my contributions, this is in no way concerned with mere terminological differences, and there are enormous practical implications.
Anybody who claims that this is a mere disagreement over terminology, and I've heard this specious claim before, has either not taken the time or has no inclination to consider a functional (as opposed to a traditional) approach. I feel I am at an advantage where any comparisons between the two are concerned, having been well schooled in the fragmentary, unsystematic and pedagogically ineffective traditional grammatical description of English.
Good health.
I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is you are getting at.
mm...... To continue:
It seems to me that your comments have been aimed at using different terminology to refer to the grammar forms of which we speak. You call a clause what others would call a phrase. I think that just has to do with terminology. Do you think calling "after eating his dinner" a clause instead of a phrase will make a difference in how effective English language learning and teaching will be?
As I said before, my original idea was to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would you happen to have anything to say about that? :?: :idea:
:mrgreen: :shock:
Or maybe I should use the word "text" instead of "discourse".
Good health,
Casiopea said:X Mode said:After he ate - Drop the subject, and make the verb -ing.
But, then, that rule (i.e., drop the subject and make the verb -ing), would make it ating:
After he ate,... => After ating, ...
All the best,
That's a good point, but -ing forms only exist with the present form of a verb. I guess I didn't say that because I mgiht have thought everyone would know that.
going, - not wenting
drinking - not dranking
:shock: 8)wunaide said:Could you give an example of the kind of practical implications you're talking about? Is this about style? How would you illustrate, briefly and effectively, the advantages of the "method" you describe, to a non-expert audience?X Mode said:Francois said:
No, there are no practical differences. It's good that you asked that.
If you are referring to my contributions, this is in no way concerned with mere terminological differences, and there are enormous practical implications.
Anybody who claims that this is a mere disagreement over terminology, and I've heard this specious claim before, has either not taken the time or has no inclination to consider a functional (as opposed to a traditional) approach. I feel I am at an advantage where any comparisons between the two are concerned, having been well schooled in the fragmentary, unsystematic and pedagogically ineffective traditional grammatical description of English.
Good health.
These are genuine questions, I'm not challenging you
FRC
X Mode said:That's a good point, but -ing forms only exist with the present form of a verb.
Actually, -ing forms have two functions:
1) as a present participle (i.e., an adjective or a part of a verb)
2) as a gerund (i.e., a noun)
By the way, I understand the usage of 'reduce' now. It means, shorten (i.e., shorten the clause), right? OK.
Change a clause into a phrase when the TIME referred to is obvious from the rest of the sentence. For example,
EX: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Since the person who ate and the person who stepped outside are one and the same (i.e., he / he), reducing the independent clause to a phrase is matter of deleting the redundant item, right? Let's look at how "After he ate,...", a clause, becomes "After eating,...", a phrase:
Step 1. INPUT: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Step 2. DELETE SUBJECT: After____ate, he stepped outside.
Note, since all verbs require a subject--overt or covert--, we're going to have to change the form of the verb 'ate' so that it doesn't require a subject. That is we are going to have to take away its tense: ate => eating; having eaten
Step 3. WORD CHANGE: After eating, he stepped outside.
Step 4. OUTPUT: After eating, he stepped outside.
Please note that, Present participles are NOT "present" and past parciples are not "past." The structure of 4. is Preposition+Gerund:
4. After eating,....
If 'eating' were functioning as part of a verb in 4., it would need a verb to be part of (i.e., is; was).
All the best,
Casiopea said:X Mode said:That's a good point, but -ing forms only exist with the present form of a verb.
Actually, -ing forms have two functions:
1) as a present participle (i.e., an adjective or a part of a verb)
2) as a gerund (i.e., a noun)
By the way, I understand the usage of 'reduce' now. It means, shorten (i.e., shorten the clause), right? OK.
Change a clause into a phrase when the TIME referred to is obvious from the rest of the sentence. For example,
EX: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Since the person who ate and the person who stepped outside are one and the same (i.e., he / he), reducing the independent clause to a phrase is matter of deleting the redundant item, right? Let's look at how "After he ate,...", a clause, becomes "After eating,...", a phrase:
Step 1. INPUT: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Step 2. DELETE SUBJECT: After____ate, he stepped outside.
Note, since all verbs require a subject--overt or covert--, we're going to have to change the form of the verb 'ate' so that it doesn't require a subject. That is we are going to have to take away its tense: ate => eating; having eaten
Step 3. WORD CHANGE: After eating, he stepped outside.
Step 4. OUTPUT: After eating, he stepped outside.
Please note that, Present participles are NOT "present" and past parciples are not "past." The structure of 4. is Preposition+Gerund:
4. After eating,....
If 'eating' were functioning as part of a verb in 4., it would need a verb to be part of (i.e., is; was).
All the best,
Okay, I see. The grammar is clear. However:
As I said before, my original idea was to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would you happen to have anything to say about that?
:shock: X Mode said:Okay, I see. The grammar is clear. However:
As I said before, my original idea was to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would you happen to have anything to say about that?
In a nutshell, the reduced form is more efficient. Simplifying (i.e., reducing) the structure of the clause serves to alleviate (i.e., reduce) semantic redundancy.
An adverb(ial) clause is not as efficient as an adverb(ial) phrase, especially when it houses the same TIME and subject as the independent clause:
Same TIME: past tense
Dependent Clause: After he ate,
Independent Clause: he stepped outside.
Same Subject: 'he'
Dependent Clause: After he ate,
Independent Clause: he stepped outside.
EX: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Semantically redundant: Too many words share the same meaning (i.e., 'he' and past tense morphology.
Repair Strategy: get rid of the redundant items! 8)
INPUT: After he ate ,....
DISCARD REDUNDANT ITEMS: After EAT
Note that, 'he' and past tense morphology are discarded because the meaning they express is housed elsewhere in the structure, notably in the independent clause. Bare bones EAT is not discarded because EAT and STEP express different meanings. Note also, Tense makes a clause a Clause, so when we remove tense from 'ate', the dependent clause that houses it becomes a non-clause.
CHANGE 'EAT' INTO A NOUN: After eating
Note that, EAT, having been stripped of its tense, is morphologically naked, sort to speak, so we need to dress it up. Given that it sits in a position which requires nominal morphology (i.e., the object of a preposition), it's made into a noun, a gerund: eating.
OUTPUT: After eating,....
In short, a phrase is more efficient than a dependent clause because the dependent clause, in housing a subject and a verb, shares too many items with the independent clause, thereby allowing for potential redundancy.
Rule: If redundant, reduce. 8)
The rule does not produce a more efficient form if, when reducing a clause to a phrase, the result alters the meaning of the INPUT.
All the best,
In a nutshell, the reduced form is more efficient. Simplifying (i.e., reducing) the structure of the clause serves to alleviate (i.e., reduce) semantic redundancy. <<
I don't think it's a question of using words economically or redundancy in this case. I don't consider one form better than the other.
:shock: 8)
I don't think it's a question of using words economically or redundancy in this case. I don't consider one form better than the other.
:shock: 8)I posted this discussion to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would anyone happen to have anything to say about that?
:?: :idea: :?: :idea:
:shock: :shock: 8)
:?: :idea: :?: :idea:
:shock: :shock: 8)- Status