Bruce,
Ultimately, these approaches can be compatible. I also think it's
fun to approach this from different sides.
If you can say I saw X, where X is a nonfinite clause of any
activity that can reasonably be thought of as "seen," then there is no
real added complexity.
"Spot dropped dead. I saw it with my own eyes. I saw Spot drop dead."
The same would be true of "projected clauses" for speech act verbs
or cognition verbs, though these would be finite. "Sally said Spot
dropped dead." "I believe Spot dropped dead." "I understand that Spot
dropped dead."
The internal grammar of the projected clause can range from simple
to highly complex.
In systemic functional grammar, there are three major metafunctions:
the experiential (representing the world), interpersonal (establishing
relations between speaker/writer and reader/listener), and textual
(constructing text.) In general, transitivity is at the heart of the
experiential metafunction. The clause, in its experiential role, encodes
a process (seeing) and participants (some entity doing the seeing,
something being seen), and circumstances. In 'See Spot run," the seer is
an unexpressed "you." The entity being seen is "Spot run", a nonfinite
clause. There are no expressed circumstances, but they could show up in
either clause. "Yesterday morning, I saw Spot run through Mr. Smith's
garden." Here, "yesterday morning is a circumstance (adverbial modifier)
of the main clause, and "through Mr. Smith's garden" is a circumstance
(adverbial modifier) in the non-finite clause.
From a cognitive view, the things we see (as sentient beings) are
not just things, but processes in their own right. That is another, more
functional explanation of what we might think of as formal
recursiveness. Recursiveness is motivated, not just a separate formal
system. But it is also very real.
The passives are interesting. "Spot was seen running through Mr.
smith's garden." This might look like evidence for the "object
complement" argument because the subject separates out from the
predicate. We wouldn't normally say "Spot running through Mr. Smith's
garden was seen."
But, if these more abstract patterns arise from use, why shouldn't
they be more varied than we would predict from the theory that they are
wired in? As in biology, we see a great deal of gradation within
categories if we in fact expect to find it. Naming the world requires
some flexibility.
Craig
On 3/7/2011 2:59 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I wanted to reply to your functionalist reply that points out the importance of discourse context. There are several meanings to "function" and the pragmatic is just one of them. Traditionalists may want to be more analytic with the patterns of syntax seeing them as constructions that can exist without the discourse function. Of course, in practice the discourse is always there, but often there are compromises and blendings that occur as different conventions and dialects come into play.
>
> What about "I saw Spot drop dead"? If "drop" is the objective complement, what is "dead"? Maybe it is a subjective complement to an objective complement. All of a sudden the syntax is pushing the analysis forward. The functionalists need another pattern for their inventory. When do the patterns end? There are many other recursive constructions that don't fit in a list.
>
> Bruce
>
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> From: Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 22nd ATEG Conference Keynote Speakers: Claarification Please
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:41:50 -0500
>
> Bruce,
> I would agree that "coming to see Spot in an activity" is a good
> way to explain it.
> In "I see that spot ran," Halliday would say that it has shifted
> from act to fact, and "see" is now more cognition than perception.
> (Compare: "I see that the stock market is up again today." )
> Compare "I saw the man standing over there," as an answer to "which
> man did you see," with
> "I saw the man standing over there" as an answer to
> "What did you see the man doing?"
> I think the first is adjectival (narrowing the category down),
> the second just a subject bearing clause. Discourse context will have
> some bearing on it.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 3/7/2011 1:15 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>> We can see a situation: (1) I see that Spot is running. (content clause on stilts as direct object)
>> We can see the object itself: (2) I see Spot. (name as direct object on main line)
>> The other constructions seem to be blends of these two.
>>
>> A) The object in an activity: (3) I see Spot over there running around. (participial phrase modifying Spot, curved line descending from direct object)
>> When "see" does not have an adverbial modifier, the participial phrase modifying Spot is involved (B):
>> B) An object and its objective complement: (4) I see Spot running around. (curved line on stilts in own slot)
>>
>> We could force a different direct object: (5) I see a running around by Spot over there. (gerund phrase, stepped line on stilts in own slot with agent prepositional phrase descending from it)
>>
>> The closest we can come to the sentence in question seems to be the one in (4). But this "running" is adjectival and an infinitive "run" is nounal. The conclusion seems to be that "I see Spot run" must be two nouns, the first being the object and the second its objective complement in the form of an infinitive. To me an argument that makes "Spot run" some sort of compound noun or variation of (1) or (2) is not as helpful as seeing it as a variation of the objective complement. This would be analogous to "Running made Spot tired," or "Barking made him a nuisance," though it has the meaning of "coming to perceive s.t. in an activity" rather than "causing s.t. to become s.t."
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>> From: "Benton, Steve"<[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: 22nd ATEG Conference Keynote Speakers: Claarification Please
>> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:35:55 -0600
>>
>> I agree with T.J. "See Spot to run" doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> "Spot run" looks to me like a direct object.
>>
>> I see something. What is it? Spot running.
>>
>> What do you want me to see? Spot run.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Johnson
>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 9:26 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: 22nd ATEG Conference Keynote Speakers: Claarification
>> Please
>>
>> I'd tend to agree with Martha on this. I see it as the following:
>> [You] see spot [to] run.
>> In this scenario, "Spot" is the direct object and "run" is the objective
>> complement.
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:15:26 -0600
>> "T. J. Ray"<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Enlightenment sought with explanation of "See Spot run."
>>>
>>> I'm unable to see that this sentence contains an objective complement.
>>> It does contain a direct object: "Spot run," an infinitive phrase. I
>>> see no objective complement. "Spot" serves as the subject of the
>>> infinitive "run." Why would the phrase not appear on a single line
>>> that might be raised over the direct object slot?
>>>
>>> tj
>>>
>>>
>>>> The major change I've made is on the main line when there's an object
>>>> complement, such as "See Spot run" or "I consider diagrams useful."
>>>> In the
>>>> original R&K, the object complement comes between the verb and the
>>>> direct object on the main line, with a line slanting toward the
>>>> object. In my version, the words on the main line keep the order in
>>>> the sentence:
>>>> I | consider | diagrams \ useful.
>>>> In "See Spot run," the "run" would be on a pedestal in that last slot
>>>> to indicate its form as an infinitive, with a line attached to it for
>>>> the understood "to."
>>>
>>> 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/
>> 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/
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> 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/
> 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/
>
> 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/
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/
|
