Does anyone here disagree with this way of looking at things?
It is well known that English has three kinds of participle which appear in the same form.
1. The perfect participle.
Dave has stolen these Big Macs.
2. The past participle.
These Big Macs were stolen by Dave.
3. The adjectival participle (deverbalised)
These Big Macs are stolen.
Naming participles.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Even so, why assert that there are three types of (superficially identical) participle when you can say there's one verb form with different uses? Where's the evidence to suggest that these three uses are independent of one another? The analysis offered here makes it sound like it is just coincidence that the form stolen is appropriate with the perfect aspect, passive and adjectival use.
Regarding the second example, what does the passive use have to do with the past? Do you still call it a past participle when you say A car is stolen every 60 seconds.
Regarding the second example, what does the passive use have to do with the past? Do you still call it a past participle when you say A car is stolen every 60 seconds.
Is it adjectival or verbal there?lolwhites wrote:Even so, why assert that there are three types of (superficially identical) participle when you can say there's one verb form with different uses?>
Are you sure it's a verb form when in this:
Her leg was broken.
<Where's the evidence to suggest that these three uses are independent of one another?>
Just how are they independent? Not at all?
Regarding the second example, what does the passive use have to do with the past? Do you still call it a past participle when you say A car is stolen every 60 seconds.
Tell, what do you think of this statement?
"Sometimes an adjective is formed from the past participle of a verb."
Macavity wrote:Good. A true M Lewis fan you be, sir. Do you still have to explain how the 3rd form is used sometimes in perfect, in adjectival and a passive constructions?I like to use the term "third form" for the participle: I find students can better get to grips with it in this way. >
The question wasn't about aiding teaching only, but was about teaching something to students. Teachers need to know their subject deeply, but what they teach in class may be modified to suit.I'm sorry Metal56 but I don't understand your comment. If applied linguistics isn't linguistics applied to aid teaching (and learning), then what is it?
Here, we see distinguishing categories being discussed.
Participle
GENERAL: Non-finite form of a verb. One distinguishes the present participle writing in (i), the participle of the perfect tense written in (ii), and the passive participle written in (iii):
(i) John is writing a book
(ii) John has written a book
(iii) This book was been written by John
Source: The Lexicon of Linguistics
Participle
GENERAL: Non-finite form of a verb. One distinguishes the present participle writing in (i), the participle of the perfect tense written in (ii), and the passive participle written in (iii):
(i) John is writing a book
(ii) John has written a book
(iii) This book was been written by John
Source: The Lexicon of Linguistics
Metal,
I don’t have a problem with the names you give to what’s traditionally called the past participle. It’s just that I find a neutral term like the 3rd form more useful in the classroom. Of course, you are right in pointing out that I still need to explain how it is used to form different aspects or tenses, as well as adjectives; however, this is the beauty of such a term - there’s little that’s misleading about it. I find that if you call it the pp or, as some books and other study aids do, the perfect form, then there’s often a problem when it’s time to explain the passive or to talk about adjectives, etc. Similarly, I make little or no reference in my lessons to either the present participle or the gerund; applying the same rationale as for the 3rd form, I prefer the term the –ing form. This simplification facilitates, in my experience, the learning process and aids in raising the awareness of certain semantic “undertones”. As for the good Mr Lewis, that he cannot count me among his opponents is true enough; nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a fan. Some of his ideas are clear and refreshing, like so much fresh air, while others are less clear and perhaps even a little “radical”, serving only to muddy the waters even further and confuse; this is my feeling on “The English Verb”, anyway.
Mac.
I don’t have a problem with the names you give to what’s traditionally called the past participle. It’s just that I find a neutral term like the 3rd form more useful in the classroom. Of course, you are right in pointing out that I still need to explain how it is used to form different aspects or tenses, as well as adjectives; however, this is the beauty of such a term - there’s little that’s misleading about it. I find that if you call it the pp or, as some books and other study aids do, the perfect form, then there’s often a problem when it’s time to explain the passive or to talk about adjectives, etc. Similarly, I make little or no reference in my lessons to either the present participle or the gerund; applying the same rationale as for the 3rd form, I prefer the term the –ing form. This simplification facilitates, in my experience, the learning process and aids in raising the awareness of certain semantic “undertones”. As for the good Mr Lewis, that he cannot count me among his opponents is true enough; nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a fan. Some of his ideas are clear and refreshing, like so much fresh air, while others are less clear and perhaps even a little “radical”, serving only to muddy the waters even further and confuse; this is my feeling on “The English Verb”, anyway.
Mac.
< It’s just that I find a neutral term like the 3rd form more useful in the classroom.>
Me too. Surprised?
<Similarly, I make little or no reference in my lessons to either the present participle or the gerund; applying the same rationale as for the 3rd form, I prefer the term the –ing form. >
Again, me too.
<As for the good Mr Lewis, that he cannot count me among his opponents is true enough; nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a fan.>
Just a tease.
Me too. Surprised?
<Similarly, I make little or no reference in my lessons to either the present participle or the gerund; applying the same rationale as for the 3rd form, I prefer the term the –ing form. >
Again, me too.
<As for the good Mr Lewis, that he cannot count me among his opponents is true enough; nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a fan.>
Just a tease.
The original post was about use, and not really about form.lolwhites wrote:My beef with the original analysis is that it fails to distinguish between form and use. I don't see a need to give one form three different names depending on what you do with it. You call a spade a spade regardless of whether you're using it to dig holes or hit people.
Double post.lolwhites wrote:My beef with the original analysis is that it fails to distinguish between form and use. I don't see a need to give one form three different names depending on what you do with it. You call a spade a spade regardless of whether you're using it to dig holes or hit people.