|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:57 am Post subject: a preposition question |
 |
|
A student questioned the following sentence, saying that "on" must be used before "the day."
My parents gave me some sound advice the day I turned sixteen and got my license.
My question is twofold - exactly what role is "the day" serving in this sentence and does it really have to be "on the day"?
Thanks for replies.
* I'm currently (albeit slowly) making my way through Micheal Swan's
Practical English Usage and Ron Cowan's The Teacher's Grammar of English, both of which are proving to be invaluable reference guides. If you know of any other must have reference books, please let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hawkeye Pierce
Joined: 22 Jan 2010
Location: Uijeongbu
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:39 am Post subject: Re: a preposition question |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
My parents gave me some sound advice the day I turned sixteen and got my license.
My question is twofold - exactly what role is "the day" serving in this sentence and does it really have to be "on the day"?
|
Without the ellipsis, the full sentence would read:
My parents gave me some sound advice on the day that I turned sixteen and got my license.
"the day" is the object of the preposition.
"that I turned sixteen and got my license." is an appositive noun clause referring back to "day".
Does the ellipsis need to be included? It depends how formal the grammar rules are that you are following. By strict prescriptive rules, I think it does. By descriptive grammar rules, anything goes!
If you were not taught how to diagram a sentence in grade school, (I had about 4 years of it) you might try Understanding English Grammar Through Traditional Sentence Diagraming by Cindy Vtito:
http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Diagram-Understanding-Traditional-Diagraming/dp/1551117789
It teaches students how to apply logical rules and analyze sentence structure, but it's a good reference for teachers as well when asked puzzling questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
HP...very nice explanation
RaeWon...in the sentence you give...the ellipsis seems stylistically intentional.
Both 'on' and 'that' being ellipsed in the same complex sentence lends to the credibility that the ellipsis was intentional.
Your student made a very good observation noting the absence of 'of' from the prepositional phrase.
It may be a good idea to teach a lesson on the usage of ellipsis and demonstrate how commonly it is used...especially in clauses.
Omiting words to induce a comfort level of informality for the target reader/(listener) is a useful tool.
As HP stressed...it depends on the level of formality the author is trying to achieve...in your example...less than prescriptive formality was probably the goal.
Last edited by The Cosmic Hum on Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to both of you for such great answers.
I'm going to try and get a copy of the book by Cindy Vtito that you mentioned.
Have a great day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeinkorea
Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Location: somewhere in China
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is my guess.
We can say "on" a day, like "on Friday" or "on the 4th". We can also add the word "time" to words. For example, "It's dinner time"
"the day" is similar to "time" . We could replace it and get the following:
"My parents gave me some sound advice the time I turned sixteen and got my license. "
In this case, can we say "on the time"? I wouldn't. How about a harder test, "at the time"? Even though it might sound acceptable following rules, it just doesn't sound natural. This leads me to reject using "on" in this case from the original sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a matter of style.
I don't think there is any prescriptive rule regarding this.
If there is, I'd like to see it.
It's correct either way, but it sounds clunky to my ear to include "on", though it may be grammatically correct.
Modern usage and all that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hawkeye Pierce
Joined: 22 Jan 2010
Location: Uijeongbu
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
Thanks to both of you for such great answers.
I'm going to try and get a copy of the book by Cindy Vtito that you mentioned.
Have a great day! |
Remember that there are two different schools of grammar: descriptive and prescriptive.
Prescriptive school grammar rules are like the Jedi Knights of the English language. They have kept order in the language for hundreds of years. Essentially, the language is reduced to its component parts, the parts of speech, nouns, verbs, etc., and then formal rules dictate how they are arranged logically. The language becomes like a geometry proof. Apply the rules to come to the proper result. Although it sounds formal, following prescriptive rules insures that the writer is understood throughout the English speaking world.
The descriptive school is based upon how people talk. The spoken language is the language according to this philosophy. So according to this school, if people drop prepositions when talking, it is acceptable to omit them when writing. For something to be acceptable descriptively, it need only be proven that people somewhere in the English speaking world people talk a certain way. The problem is that it lacks structure, and to lower level ESL students it can be confusing. This is especially true in Korea where the sentence structure is so different. They really need to rely on a logical structure until they are more advanced.
I explain to my students that there are the formal rules for the language, but not everyone follows the rules when speaking. In their own language, this usually is the case as well. However, we should know both the formal rules and the informal usage. There is a certain static tension between the two schools. Without structure, the language will eventually evolve into the Tower of Babel. Too much structure is unnatural; we don't normally say, �It is I�. So we need both schools.
I do recommend that my students write formally because it is easier to be understood. I have a South African friend I met online. He writes with perfect formal English and he is always understood. When I read modern British English, I sometimes need to reread sentences three or more times because a word has been omitted. Modern British English is not Tolkien's English! Ellipsis explains much of the missing structure with descriptive grammar, like Swan referring to half a conditional statement using �will� as a present tense modal verb. Swan is referring to descriptive rules of grammar.
From a PM:
| Anonymous wrote: |
How do you differentiate between an appositive noun clause and a restrictive relative clause?
Could there be an overlap in usage of terminology in this case?
I�ve been mulling this over for the past few days and can�t find anything concrete to explain this specific difference in my grammar texts or online.
If you have any references that can explain this subject matter it would be appreciated. |
Anonymous,
If grammar questions keep you up at night, you must be a very dedicated Englishee teacher!
appositive noun clause and relative clause=pants and trousers
It's the same thing.
From the time I was in school, I never liked the term �relative clause�. It's unnecessarily confusing. Whose relative is the clause? It is a noun clause, which takes the place of an appositive noun:
John, my brother, is smart.
John, who is my brother, is smart.
So, �appositive noun clause� for me is the best term for it, because it reinforces the concepts of a noun clause and an appositive noun. �Relative clause� confuses things because it implies that they are unique elements of the language rather than a combination of two concepts. Not all noun clauses are relative clauses, but all relative clauses are noun clauses. Wikipedia has a listing for �Nominal Relative Clauses�, which in fact are not relative clauses at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses
They are simply noun clauses!
http://www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3c.htm#predicate
| lifeinkorea wrote: |
This is my guess.
We can say "on" a day, like "on Friday" or "on the 4th". We can also add the word "time" to words. For example, "It's dinner time"
"the day" is similar to "time" . We could replace it and get the following:
"My parents gave me some sound advice the time I turned sixteen and got my license. "
In this case, can we say "on the time"? I wouldn't. How about a harder test, "at the time"? Even though it might sound acceptable following rules, it just doesn't sound natural. This leads me to reject using "on" in this case from the original sentence. |
When the noun changes, the collocation with the preposition changes as well. The prescriptive rule that the preposition must be included does not change.
| some waygug-in wrote: |
This is a matter of style.
I don't think there is any prescriptive rule regarding this.
If there is, I'd like to see it.
It's correct either way, but it sounds clunky to my ear to include "on", though it may be grammatically correct.
Modern usage and all that. |
Did you have 8 years of prescriptive grammar in elementary school?
I did. The only word that was acceptable to omit in a sentence was an understood subject, e.g., �you� in an imperative sentence: �Open the door!� Otherwise, ALL the words needed to be written in the sentence. Taking the preposition out of the sentence only works if an indirect object can be used. Otherwise, it is against the rules prescriptively. If you are thinking about how something sounds, you are not applying prescriptive rules. Prescriptive grammar is not about how it sounds, but about following the prescribed rules.
Hmmm. Essentials of English Grammar, by L.S. Baugh, Part II �Style�, Ch. 7 �Brevity�: No license is given to omit prepositions that sound �clunky�...
In my opinion, comma placement is about style. Andy Rooney had a great essay about this called �Hold The Commas!� that I used with my classes. I can find different grammar books with different grammar rules about where the commas must be placed in the sentence. One book says the comma must go here, and another says don't put the comma there, in the same type of sentence. I, like Andy Rooney, put the commas where I think they belong.
Yes, and I'll take Tolkein's English over modern usage any day. I thank you very much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifeinkorea
Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Location: somewhere in China
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| When the noun changes, the collocation with the preposition changes as well. The prescriptive rule that the preposition must be included does not change. |
Does that mean you are confirming what I said or pointing out something? I don't quite understand your reply, and I don't know that analyzing it to that level is practical or healthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
From the time I was in school, I never liked the term �relative clause�. It's unnecessarily confusing. Whose relative is the clause? It is a noun clause, which takes the place of an appositive noun:
John, my brother, is smart.
John, who is my brother, is smart.
So, �appositive noun clause� for me is the best term for it, because it reinforces the concepts of a noun clause and an appositive noun. �Relative clause� confuses things because it implies that they are unique elements of the language rather than a combination of two concepts. Not all noun clauses are relative clauses, but all relative clauses are noun clauses. Wikipedia has a listing for �Nominal Relative Clauses�, which in fact are not relative clauses at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses
They are simply noun clauses!
http://www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3c.htm#predicate |
HP...you are making some very interesting insights....I can't say that I agree with all of them...but I have little doubt as to your belief in them...and you have obviously done some homework on the subject, which makes it all that much more compelling.
I agree there seems to be a great deal of crossover when trying to teach the difference between noun and adjective clauses...hell...add to that adverb clauses too....the difference between relative adverbial clauses, and adverb clauses...ever so slight and often confusing to the most advanced students...hmm.....for another thread.
However, I am certain there is a difference...where not all relative clauses are noun clauses.
In your example.
John, my brother, is smart.
John, who is my brother, is smart.
...who is my brother... is definitely acting adjectively.
John is smart.
My brother is smart.
Who is my brother is smart...?
I do believe we are discussing semantics of syntax here...and the terminology is ambiguous to say the least...texts contradict each other over this very point.
A rose by any other name?
With respect to your post, I am only playing devil's advocate here...I have read others who say the very same as you.
It really is an interesting subject.
By the way, thanks for the post...your take on this subject is appreciated...always nice to get a different perspective on the finer tunings of English grammar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
