"Three months after his father’s death, Dave was now ru

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:17 am

"Three months after his father’s death, Dave was now running the shop."

Can't remember if I've posted this before, but I'm wondering why I like the use of "was" there and yet many I speak to don't.

What do you think? Am I alone in my feeling for "was" there?

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:31 am

Metal, yes, I do remember, you've posted this before, the same sentence.

José

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:39 am

Metamorfose wrote:Metal, yes, I do remember, you've posted this before, the same sentence.

José

I can't find it or even remember the outcome.

abufletcher · Post by **abufletcher** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:08 am

This really isn't about the tense at all but about an apparent conflict with the discourse marker "now." There's no questions that "Dave is now..." is not suitable to a past narrative format. The interesting thing is that you really can use "now" in the past -- where it simply works as a contrastive time marker (now vs. then).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:54 am

abufletcher wrote:This really isn't about the tense at all but about an apparent conflict with the discourse marker "now." There's no questions that "Dave is now..." is not suitable to a past narrative format. The interesting thing is that you really can use "now" in the past -- where it simply works as a contrastive time marker (now vs. then).

This really isn't about the tense at all but about an apparent conflict with the discourse marker "now."

How could anyone mistake the use of "now", there" for a discourse marker?

There's no questions that "Dave is now..." is not suitable to a past narrative format.

It's suitable if the narrative is using the "Historic Present".

The interesting thing is that you really can use "now" in the past -- where it simply works as a contrastive time marker (now vs. then).

Yes, it is interesting. I like it.

Fine examples of the same:

I was now totally committed to arranging marriages between bioassay and medicinal chemistry. Obvious candidates existed, such as 5-hydroxytryptamine, but other shadowy ideas were lurking about in my imagination.

James W. Black

Theresa and children Stefan and Brandon - the baby brother who clung to the skirt of his big sister so many years before, was now a caregiver. They were planning a trip to Disneyland in February, and Lynda, ever the child in a woman's body, spent hours animating how much fun they would have in sunny California.

http://www.seeseephoto.com/portfolio/st ... tory4.html

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Haven't we been here before?

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1440

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:17 pm

lolwhites wrote:Haven't we been here before?

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1440

Who's "we"?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:43 pm

Well, you and me anyway since we both contributed. Admittedly the older thread was quite well buried but it had some good ideas going on it before You Know Who (s)trolled in.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:07 pm

lolwhites wrote:Well, you and me anyway since we both contributed. Admittedly the older thread was quite well buried but it had some good ideas going on it before You Know Who (s)trolled in.

Well, there nothing like a fresh start. So, what's your take on it?

abufletcher · Post by **abufletcher** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:59 pm

How could anyone mistake the use of "now", there" for a discourse marker?

Now, come on! It's ALL just discourse markers!

Would you prefer the term "contrastive temporal particle"?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:30 am

abufletcher wrote:
How could anyone mistake the use of "now", there" for a discourse marker?
Now, come on! It's ALL just discourse markers! Would you prefer the term "contrastive temporal particle"?

There, to me, it isn't a discourse marker but a "deictic adverb". I may be wrong though.

abufletcher · Post by **abufletcher** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:07 am

It may well BE a "deictic adverb" (I probabably is but I don't much care) but what it DOES is structure the discourse.

BTW, why are the vast majority of posts on the Applied Linguistics forum dedicated to petty grammatical points? Grammar isn't applied linguistics -- it's not even the most interesting part of linguistics proper.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:11 am

abufletcher wrote:It may well BE a "deictic adverb" (I probabably is but I don't much care) but what it DOES is structure the discourse.

BTW, why are the vast majority of posts on the Applied Linguistics forum dedicated to petty grammatical points?

I don't know.

Do you think that this discussion is petty?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:21 am

abufletcher wrote:It may well BE a "deictic adverb" (I probabably is but I don't much care) but what it DOES is structure the discourse.

BTW, why are the vast majority of posts on the Applied Linguistics forum dedicated to petty grammatical points? Grammar isn't applied linguistics -- it's not even the most interesting part of linguistics proper.

This is the definition of DM I am working with

"What is a Discourse Marker?

A DM is a word or phrase that functions primarily as a structuring unit of spoken language. DMs frequently appear at the beginning or end of an SU. To the listener, a DM signals the speaker's intention to mark a boundary in discourse, such as a change in the speaker, the beginning of a new topic or the expression of a response:

That gets on my nerves, too. Anyway, tell me about your new job.

DMs can also serve to indicate the speaker's attitude or orientation toward the discourse; for instance, a speaker may introduce a discourse marker to indicate a contradictory stance toward what the other speaker has stated:

A: I think he's done a terrible job in that position. If it were up to me I'd fire him.
B: See, I don't know if I'd go that far. "

Is your definition the same?

abufletcher · Post by **abufletcher** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:55 am

Well, that strikes me as a terribly narrow definition that obviously presupposes the "above the level of the sentence" view of what discourse is. It suggests that "discourse markers" are a descrete set of lexical items (or phrases) that differ from the rest of the sentence -- which presumably can be rendered out into propositional logic and diagramed into a tree while DMs can't.

I don't think there is any reason to assume that discourse-relevant things don't happen right on through (not "down") to phonetic aspects of interaction. In fact one of my Ph.D. supervisors did work best described as "conversational phonetics."

As for whether this discussion is petty, well, the noticing that "now" (whatever anyone wants to call it) can co-occur with past tense, IS interesting. Arguing about metagrammatical labels ISN'T.

But my point was that Applied Linguistics is most certain NOT about the sort of grammar discussions that account for most of the posts on this forum. While knowledge of common pedagogic grammars does appear to be a professional badge of some sort in the EFL field (like a secret handshake among lodge brothers), it's not what applying linguistics to the processes of language learning is about.

I have nothing against people developing their basic awareness of how bits of the English langauge can work together for an effect (when employed by actual people out there in the actual world interacting through English). But grammar discussion are some else entirely from discussions of what linguistics ought properly to include and how it might be applied to the teaching of language.