|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thelmadatter
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Posts: 1212
Location: in el Distrito Federal x fin!
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: obscure (maybe) grammar question |
 |
|
OK, Im lazy... I figure its easier to ask here than to comb through my grammar references  My initial quick search turned up nothing. Its probably in a footnote somewhere!
Im teaching clause structure (dependent and independent) with the goal of preventing run-on sentences for my native Spanish-speaking students. I identify coordinating conjuctions, subordinating conjunctions and transitions. However, one of my students asks me about the following constructions.
John was late, which is why the boss fired him.
John was late. That is why the boss fired him.
OK - the student stumped the teacher (gotta love the smart ones!)
"...,which is why..." is not a coordinating conjunction (despite the comma before it). It is not a subordinating conjunction that I know about. It is not a transition because it doesnt require a semi-colon to conjoin the two clauses. "That is why ..." might be a transition.
"..., which is why ..." is covered in the text for another class, but it is called an adjective clause (?????)! I need to include it into my handouts, but I don't know what to call it. I'd hate to call it something like "a weird construction that doesn't fit the other categories" Might seem a bit daft. (I love that word.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Roger
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Posts: 9138
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Would it help you if I called that "...which is..." part a "relative clause"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dyak
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 630
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thelmadatter wrote: |
John was late, which is why the boss fired him.
John was late. That is why the boss fired him. |
I would guide students away from the grammar of the sentence and more towards the implied meaning.
'John was late, which is why the boss fired him.' To me this suggests that maybe there were other reasons why John could've been fired.
But...
'John was late. That is why the boss fired him.' The speaker is certain that being late was the reason John was fired.
I can't see the point in drenching these sentences in grammatical terminology, it's counter-productive as it puts off students from actually using them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gordon
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 5309
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dyak wrote: |
| thelmadatter wrote: |
John was late, which is why the boss fired him.
John was late. That is why the boss fired him. |
I would guide students away from the grammar of the sentence and more towards the implied meaning.
'John was late, which is why the boss fired him.' To me this suggests that maybe there were other reasons why John could've been fired.
But...
'John was late. That is why the boss fired him.' The speaker is certain that being late was the reason John was fired.
I can't see the point in drenching these sentences in grammatical terminology, it's counter-productive as it puts off students from actually using them. |
I see the two sentences as having identical meanings. Certainty is implied in both examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
High Plains Drifter
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 127
Location: Way Out There
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dyak wrote: |
| thelmadatter wrote: |
John was late, which is why the boss fired him.
John was late. That is why the boss fired him. |
I would guide students away from the grammar of the sentence and more towards the implied meaning.
'John was late, which is why the boss fired him.' To me this suggests that maybe there were other reasons why John could've been fired.
But...
'John was late. That is why the boss fired him.' The speaker is certain that being late was the reason John was fired.
I can't see the point in drenching these sentences in grammatical terminology, it's counter-productive as it puts off students from actually using them. |
These sentences are absolutely identical in meaning, and dyak's saying that the first "suggests that maybe there were other reasons why John could've [sic] been fired" makes no sense at all. Moreover, recommending guiding students away from grammar and saying that grammatical terminology is counter-productive and puts off students is the sort of nonsense you hear from "teachers" who don't understand grammar. In what other field can you claim to be a teacher without understanding what you teach and then claim it doesn't matter anyway because it confuses students? Can you imagine a math teacher saying that numbers don't matter?
Having said that, I will now attempt to solve thelmadatter's riddle. First of all, for dyak's benefit, here's some help with terminology:
adjective clause = relative clause
adjective clause pronoun = relative pronoun
nonrestrictive = nonessential = nonidentifying
"John was late, which is why the boss fired him."
is actually a combination of
"John was late." and "That John was late is why the boss fired him."
The subject of the second sentence is the noun phrase "That John was late". In other words, it isn't just one noun or noun phrase in the first sentence that is the subject of the second, but the entire sentence. When "That John was late" is replaced by the relative clause "which", it does what all relative clauses do: it comes immediately after whatever it modifies in the independent clause. In this case it is the entire independent clause. So why the comma? Because the relative clause is nonrestrictive--it's additional information which isn't required for identification. The fact that �that� cannot be used instead of �which� proves that the clause is nonrestrictive.
This may seem a little arcane, but sometimes, when smart students ask tough questions, it's better to admit you don't know and promise to try to find out than to say it doesn't matter (or worse yet, make up something that doesn't make sense).
Last edited by High Plains Drifter on Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dyak
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 630
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| High Plains Drifter wrote: |
| These sentences are absolutely identical in meaning, and dyak's saying that the first "suggests that maybe there were other reasons why John could've [sic] been fired" makes no sense at all. |
Ok, after thinking again, I agree.
| High Plains Drifter wrote: |
| Moreover, recommending guiding students away from grammar and saying that grammatical terminology is counter-productive and puts off students is the sort of nonsense you hear from "teachers" who don't understand grammar. |
This i find patronising; implying i don't understand grammar from one mistake is absurd. Correction is a fundamental part of learning grammar, even that of your own language.
| High Plains Drifter wrote: |
| Having said that, I will now attempt to solve thelmadatter's riddle. First of all, for dyak's benefit, here's some help with terminology: |
Uh, this is even more patronising, so glad you're not my teacher.
| High Plains Drifter wrote: |
adjective clause =relative clause
adjective clause pronoun = relative pronoun
nonrestrictive = nonessential = nonidentifying |
and
| High Plains Drifter wrote: |
"John was late." and "That John was late is why the boss fired him."
The subject of the second sentence is the noun phrase "That John was late". In other words, it isn't just one noun or noun phrase in the first sentence that is the subject of the second, but the entire sentence. When "That John was late" is replaced by the relative clause "which", it does what all relative clauses do: it comes immediately after whatever it modifies in the independent clause. In this case it is the entire independent clause. So why the comma? Because the relative clause is nonrestrictive--it's additional information which isn't required for identification. The fact that �that� cannot be used instead of �which� proves that the clause is nonrestrictive. |
Yes, it is arcane. I can't see myself standing there and spouting the above. I would only use it to clear the room of students.
I've seen students produce both of the above examples without knowing the terminology or the explanation. I think it's an area of language that can be acquired naturally, through reading and writing, and is only spoilt by exposure and terminology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelmadatter
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Posts: 1212
Location: in el Distrito Federal x fin!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: mmmm |
|
|
HPD - interesting explanation I can see now why Focus on Grammar Advanced calls the ..., which is why... construction an adjective clause ... "which" is a relative pronoun.
I agree that HPD was a bit condescending to dyak, but dyak, grammar is not useless. My students wonder why a sentence like "John was late, that is why he was fired." is a run-on sentence. After all, that is pretty much what they do in Spanish. Of course, part of the problem is that "that" as a relative pronoun ("que" in Spanish) and "that" as a full pronoun ("este/esta/esto" in Spanish) are homonyms.
Run-on sentences are a problem, and to avoid them, they need to know what independent and dependent clauses are. I teach that generally traditional English academic composition prefers one independent clause with 1-2 dependent clauses (if a sentence is going to have more than one clause, of course). Once they know what independent/dependent clauses are, the rule is fairly simple and straightforward. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
