I'm forwarding this thoughtful post from Johanna. I'll respond in
anothger post.
Craig-
--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: See spot run]
From: "Johanna Rubba" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, January 25, 2006 3:36 pm
To: "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,
Once again, feel free to post this.
You're right that "finite verb" is a necessary but not sufficient
criterion for "independent clause". The other part of the definition is
that the clause is not playing a constituent role such as subject,
direct object, or modifier in another clause. This is what people mean
when they say a "complete sentence" can "stand alone" -- it doesn't
need whatever it is a complement or modifier of.
As to causative, perception, and so on types of verbs, "consider" is
not a causative. If you consider a movie sophisticated, it does not
make the movie sophisticated; the sentence states your subjective
opinion. "Wishing doesn't make it so."
The problem with gerunds is that people call them a kind of "noun".
This is a form/function confusion. A gerund is a form of a verb which
is filling a _nominal_ constituent role. It retains some of its verb
"privileges" in such roles, hence the appearance of objects and
modifiers.
People like to define constituent roles like subject and direct object
by meaning or strictly by grammar (e.g., the subject controls
inflection of the verb), but we need to take discourse function
seriously, too. I haven't studied the matter carefully enough to make
pronouncements, but the discourse function of referring has to be
considered in defining "nominal" -- nominals direct the listener's
attention to a particular thing, event, etc., and make it available as
a head for modifiers, verbs, and such. To use terms very loosely, they
take an action ("Swimming against the current"), event ("Letting the
prisoner out [was a big mistake]"), etc. available as a topic to make a
comment on; they take various concepts and enable them to be arguments
of predicates, in the logical sense. If you want to make a comment
about a particular event, you can create a nominal clause, finite or
nonfinite, and put it in subject position, allowing you to predicate
something of it:
1 _That Mary ate the peanuts_ (nominalized event) was a bad idea
(predicate). She's allergic to peanuts.
2_Mary eating peanuts_ was a bad idea.
3_Mary's eating peanuts_ was a bad idea.
4_For Mary to eat peanuts_ was a bad idea.
Some of these nominalizations are "nounier" than others: "eating" in 3
is so nouny, it can be modified by a possessive; but in 1 the eating
concept is expressed as a finite verb.
Topicality also plays a role, as subjects and text topics or subtopics
often correspond; making a noun phrase an indirect object is also
sometimes a function of how topical/given the referent is. This can be
shown by appropriateness judgments on question/answer pairs:
- What did you give John for his birthday?
- I gave John a book. or I gave him a book.
-Who(m) did you give a book to?
-I gave John a book. -This is inappropriate IF THE INTONATION IS
NORMAL, with heavy stress on "book" instead of "John".
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
