Minor sentence or fragment?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Minor sentence or fragment?
Does anyone know how to explain why very few want to accept the term "minor sentence"? Most prefer fragment.
minor sentence
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resou ... tence.html
I find this ones
Special or minor sentence types
Some unusual types of sentence cannot be analysed in a regular way. They are found in particular kinds of text and discourse - some are common in real speech or fictional dialogue, while others are found in such things as headlines or slogans, where a message is presented as a block of text. They do not follow all the rules of normal grammar, such as verb agreement. Among the types are:
Formulae for set social situations: Cheers, Hello, Ciao, See you, How do you do? Ta!
Emotional or functional noises (traditionally interjections): Hey! Ugh! Agh! Ow! Tut! Shh! (Note how such forms are subject to change over time. Consider Tush, eh, hein?)
Proverbs or aphorisms: Easy come, easy go. Least said, soonest mended.
Short forms as used in messages, instructions or commentaries: Wish you were here. Shearer to Beckham. Simmer gently. Hope you are well.
Elliptical words or phrases with a structural meaning equivalent to a complete exclamation, question or command: Brilliant! Lovely day! Coming? Drink? All aboard! Drink up!
I find this ones
Special or minor sentence types
Some unusual types of sentence cannot be analysed in a regular way. They are found in particular kinds of text and discourse - some are common in real speech or fictional dialogue, while others are found in such things as headlines or slogans, where a message is presented as a block of text. They do not follow all the rules of normal grammar, such as verb agreement. Among the types are:
Formulae for set social situations: Cheers, Hello, Ciao, See you, How do you do? Ta!
Emotional or functional noises (traditionally interjections): Hey! Ugh! Agh! Ow! Tut! Shh! (Note how such forms are subject to change over time. Consider Tush, eh, hein?)
Proverbs or aphorisms: Easy come, easy go. Least said, soonest mended.
Short forms as used in messages, instructions or commentaries: Wish you were here. Shearer to Beckham. Simmer gently. Hope you are well.
Elliptical words or phrases with a structural meaning equivalent to a complete exclamation, question or command: Brilliant! Lovely day! Coming? Drink? All aboard! Drink up!
-
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Institutionalized Expressions
Hi,
I call these kinds of utterances "institutionalized expressions," a term I first encountered in one of Michael Lewis' books, but I'm not sure if he coined it. The essence is that the expressions are fossilized and each comprises a single lexical item. For students, they are simply to be memorized wholly and without attempts to analyze the internal grammar, since they are invariably used in exactly the same form. So, to me, this means the idea that "they do not follow all the rules of normal grammar..." misses the point that they are frozen, unanalyzable snippets of language.

Larry Latham
I call these kinds of utterances "institutionalized expressions," a term I first encountered in one of Michael Lewis' books, but I'm not sure if he coined it. The essence is that the expressions are fossilized and each comprises a single lexical item. For students, they are simply to be memorized wholly and without attempts to analyze the internal grammar, since they are invariably used in exactly the same form. So, to me, this means the idea that "they do not follow all the rules of normal grammar..." misses the point that they are frozen, unanalyzable snippets of language.


Larry Latham
minor sentences
But there's mor to it than that:
Minor sentences also occur as answers to questions or depend for their meaning on a previous sentence.
PC Timms: Where are you going?
Aiden: To Greymouth.
PC Timms: When are you leaving?
Aiden: Early tomorrow morning.
PC Timms: Who's going with you?
Aiden: My brother Tim and his girlfriend Nancy.
Minor sentences also occur as answers to questions or depend for their meaning on a previous sentence.
PC Timms: Where are you going?
Aiden: To Greymouth.
PC Timms: When are you leaving?
Aiden: Early tomorrow morning.
PC Timms: Who's going with you?
Aiden: My brother Tim and his girlfriend Nancy.
-
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Minor sentences
Ahh, I see. Yes, you have a point there. You are quite right that these kinds of constructions are extremely common in English (and very likely in other languages as well). It's true that they are not full sentences, but I must admit I'm not fond of the term "minor sentences." That leaves the impression that these expressions are somehow less important than, say, "major sentences." Sentence fragments seems to me a better term, except that teachers and textbooks hammer at students to avoid fragmented sentences, at least in their writing.
Perhaps we might call them responses, since they seem to be frequently associated with expressing answers to questions. At least those you mentioned are, and it seems likely that most will be because their fragmentary nature presumes certain knowledge on the part of the interlocutor. Such expressions appear to comprise the result of some foregoing stimulus, such as a question, although I suppose there could be other types of stimuli, as, for example a criticism or an accusation. On the other hand, this ignores the possibility that such a partial sentence might be used to make a suggestion or issue an instruction. Maybe fragment is the right term, and we should perhaps tone down the rhetoric against using fragments. Maybe we should point out where fragments are not only allowable, but preferred.
What do you think? Maybe I'm reinventing the wheel, here, because all this must have been considered by others before now. Somehow I must have just missed all that. Maybe I fell asleep in class that day.
Larry Latham
Perhaps we might call them responses, since they seem to be frequently associated with expressing answers to questions. At least those you mentioned are, and it seems likely that most will be because their fragmentary nature presumes certain knowledge on the part of the interlocutor. Such expressions appear to comprise the result of some foregoing stimulus, such as a question, although I suppose there could be other types of stimuli, as, for example a criticism or an accusation. On the other hand, this ignores the possibility that such a partial sentence might be used to make a suggestion or issue an instruction. Maybe fragment is the right term, and we should perhaps tone down the rhetoric against using fragments. Maybe we should point out where fragments are not only allowable, but preferred.
What do you think? Maybe I'm reinventing the wheel, here, because all this must have been considered by others before now. Somehow I must have just missed all that. Maybe I fell asleep in class that day.
Larry Latham
moe minors
Seals out the miseries of winter, giving you a big dividend in comfort. Winterproofs your windows quickly, simply, inexpensively.(minor sentences) And(starting a sentence withAnd) you can fit it yourself for a handsome saving. When it comes to window insulation, you can't buy better. So why pay more?(minor sentence)
Get back to you later on why I feel minor sentence is a useful term.
Get back to you later on why I feel minor sentence is a useful term.
And.......more minor sentence stuff
Hope I'm not overloading you. 
I have said it and I now will debunk it. Whether a clause (or a phrase for that matter) can stand alone as a sentence is largely a matter of context. For instance, if the boss says you have to stay late at work and you respond with the one-word question, "Why?" ( a complete sentence, by the way), the boss might say, "Because I said so." That will stand alone as a complete sentence about as well as any sentence you might have heard that day. Yet it is constructed as a subordinate clause. In recent grammars, the grammarians have been more willing to accept such sentences as complete. Constance Weaver calls them "minor sentences." It’s a name, not a very apt one considering the major consequences of ignoring the boss’s final words above. But I’m willing to stretch a little to achieve harmony. Let’s just say that we are no longer dealing with prescriptive grammar. We are describing what actually happens in speech and writing. Then we back up to some sort of formulation that explains it. Many minor sentences can be explained as being elided. That is, parts are left out because the hearer or reader is already fully aware of them. The boss’s full statement would have been (without elision) "You have to stay late because I said so." But then you would have been insulted by his failure to recognize that you already know the first part of the sentence. He doesn’t need to repeat it. Therefore, we get a minor sentence as opposed to a sentence that is not a minor sentence (a major sentence?)

I have said it and I now will debunk it. Whether a clause (or a phrase for that matter) can stand alone as a sentence is largely a matter of context. For instance, if the boss says you have to stay late at work and you respond with the one-word question, "Why?" ( a complete sentence, by the way), the boss might say, "Because I said so." That will stand alone as a complete sentence about as well as any sentence you might have heard that day. Yet it is constructed as a subordinate clause. In recent grammars, the grammarians have been more willing to accept such sentences as complete. Constance Weaver calls them "minor sentences." It’s a name, not a very apt one considering the major consequences of ignoring the boss’s final words above. But I’m willing to stretch a little to achieve harmony. Let’s just say that we are no longer dealing with prescriptive grammar. We are describing what actually happens in speech and writing. Then we back up to some sort of formulation that explains it. Many minor sentences can be explained as being elided. That is, parts are left out because the hearer or reader is already fully aware of them. The boss’s full statement would have been (without elision) "You have to stay late because I said so." But then you would have been insulted by his failure to recognize that you already know the first part of the sentence. He doesn’t need to repeat it. Therefore, we get a minor sentence as opposed to a sentence that is not a minor sentence (a major sentence?)
And it's not all negative.They can be used to good effect:
Look at this excerpt from the poem "Valentine" by Carol Ann Duffy:
Not a red rose or a satin heart.
I give you an onion.
It is a moon wrapped in brown paper.
It promises light
like the careful undressing of love.
Here.
It will blind you with tears
like a lover.
It will make your reflection
a wobbling photo of grief.
Identify the two minor sentences in the extract and describe their stylistic effect.
(exercise from http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/grammar/mai ... ammar8.htm)
Look at this excerpt from the poem "Valentine" by Carol Ann Duffy:
Not a red rose or a satin heart.
I give you an onion.
It is a moon wrapped in brown paper.
It promises light
like the careful undressing of love.
Here.
It will blind you with tears
like a lover.
It will make your reflection
a wobbling photo of grief.
Identify the two minor sentences in the extract and describe their stylistic effect.
(exercise from http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/grammar/mai ... ammar8.htm)
-
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Minor sentences
I quite agree that it's certainly not negative. As you point out, it's simply descriptive of how people naturally use English in conversation.
In the poem, the second (could I use the term elided sentence?) is the easier to grasp in terms of its stylistic effect. When the reader says "Here.", the effect is very speechlike. It accompanies the motion to hand the onion to the receiver of the gift, presumably a lover. The "Here." and the motion occur together so naturally that the mind's eye of the reader can see the motion. Its use brings the reader directly into the poem in a way somewhat similar to the way current use by interlocutors of simple present verb tenses (also extensively used in the poem) to describe events which have already occurred can produce an immediacy; a dramatic effect:
I go, "You can't be serious."
And she goes, "As a heart attack."
So I say, "Well, if you feel that way, here's your damn dress back."
(Note also the use of a minor sentence)
The other "minor sentence" is the first in the poem: Not a red rose or a satin heart. It also reads like something one would say in actual conversation, preparing to give the onion to a lover. It seem these constructions would not likely appear in written English, except as dialogue.
I feel like a student here, but you're giving me a heck of a good lesson. It's nice to be on the other end for a change.
Larry Latham
In the poem, the second (could I use the term elided sentence?) is the easier to grasp in terms of its stylistic effect. When the reader says "Here.", the effect is very speechlike. It accompanies the motion to hand the onion to the receiver of the gift, presumably a lover. The "Here." and the motion occur together so naturally that the mind's eye of the reader can see the motion. Its use brings the reader directly into the poem in a way somewhat similar to the way current use by interlocutors of simple present verb tenses (also extensively used in the poem) to describe events which have already occurred can produce an immediacy; a dramatic effect:
I go, "You can't be serious."
And she goes, "As a heart attack."
So I say, "Well, if you feel that way, here's your damn dress back."
(Note also the use of a minor sentence)
The other "minor sentence" is the first in the poem: Not a red rose or a satin heart. It also reads like something one would say in actual conversation, preparing to give the onion to a lover. It seem these constructions would not likely appear in written English, except as dialogue.
I feel like a student here, but you're giving me a heck of a good lesson. It's nice to be on the other end for a change.
Larry Latham
minor teacher
LOL.
Dear Larry
We are all simultaneously teachers and learners.
Thanks for such a detailed and interesting response.
Dear Larry
We are all simultaneously teachers and learners.
Thanks for such a detailed and interesting response.
-
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
"minor sentences"
metal56, Celeste and Larry
I've only just looked in on your conversation ... maybe you've all gone off to your respective bars or wherever, long ago; and anyway I'm not about to add anything more to your interesting thoughts on the matter. But Celeste asked who had used the term minor sentence, and while I can't vouch for its origin, I can say that it's found its way into the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, edited by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner. My edition is 1994.
As metal56 said at the start , it describes the ms as "an acceptable utterance that does not conform to normal sentence rules, in contrast to a regular or FULL sentence". It then goes on to say that "various classifications and terms are used" to analyse such utterances, such as "irregular sentence" or "non-sentence", but doesn't actually use the word "fragment".
It goes on to give various examples, all of which your conversation seems to have more than covered. But it doesn't tell us who came up with the term in the first place. When was Constance Weaver writing? Would the presence of the term in the ODEG mean that it was being used more generally than by one author? I guess the important thing is your comment, metal 56, that these "sentences" have to be accepted as normal utterances, worthy of description [and not some sort of 'corruption' of the language, as some 19th century grammar teachers(?) might have had us believe!]
Anyway, thanks for your interesting discussion.
Norm
I've only just looked in on your conversation ... maybe you've all gone off to your respective bars or wherever, long ago; and anyway I'm not about to add anything more to your interesting thoughts on the matter. But Celeste asked who had used the term minor sentence, and while I can't vouch for its origin, I can say that it's found its way into the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, edited by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner. My edition is 1994.
As metal56 said at the start , it describes the ms as "an acceptable utterance that does not conform to normal sentence rules, in contrast to a regular or FULL sentence". It then goes on to say that "various classifications and terms are used" to analyse such utterances, such as "irregular sentence" or "non-sentence", but doesn't actually use the word "fragment".
It goes on to give various examples, all of which your conversation seems to have more than covered. But it doesn't tell us who came up with the term in the first place. When was Constance Weaver writing? Would the presence of the term in the ODEG mean that it was being used more generally than by one author? I guess the important thing is your comment, metal 56, that these "sentences" have to be accepted as normal utterances, worthy of description [and not some sort of 'corruption' of the language, as some 19th century grammar teachers(?) might have had us believe!]
Anyway, thanks for your interesting discussion.
Norm