John,
You might check Mark Lester's text Grammar in the Classroom. He has an excellent treatment of the different sorts of phrasal verbs.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: March 4, 2009 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."?
Bruce,
Many thanks for this thorough explanation! I had my "aha!" moment finally. I enjoy discussing phrasal verbs with my students, and I can't wait to explore the idea of different types of particles. I'm going to head over to the library today and see if I can find more information about phrasal verbs and their particles.
Regards,
John
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
John
I am sorry that sometimes I do become very terse and sometimes it is due to muddled thinking. Let me explain the import of my thinking a little more. I apologize to all for too often using the list to think out loud. I can’t blame most people who simply ignore my ramblings.
The German may well be a source of confusion, since they use the dative case as the object of the preposition von, where we have a “genitive” using the preposition of, but an objective case. The semantics and the syntax in its morphological manifestation are at odds. I have used the same terms for both phenomena. When I said “benefactive,” I was referring to the semantics of a prepositional phrase in for, which is often called a “dative,” and when I said “dative,” I simply meant what is usually called the indirect object when expressed without a preposition.
The fact that we express a number of relations in English without the aid of prepositions can lead to confusion. My attempt has been to sort out the phrasal verbs into two basic kinds. One kind has an adverb (particle) that complements it fully, as in “I handed my gun over.” This “over” is similar to the German “über” in “überzeugen” but in English such particles are always separable. The second kind of phrasal verb has an adverbial phrase in the form of a prepositional phrase as its complement. (There are also combinations, etc.) This preposition is also attached like a particle to the verb, so that when the verb is not intransitive, the object of the preposition may be the subject of its passive form. Compare: “The teacher went over the papers carefully,” vs. “The papers were gone over carefully by the teacher.” This example is particularly confusing when we see that “I handed over my gun,” may be likewise compared with “My gun was handed over by me.” The only way to separate the two uses of over may well be to show that “I handed it over” works, but *“The teacher went them over” does not. The adverb particle is thus different from the prepositional particle.
That said, the idea was that the omission of the preposition can make direct objects of a verb look identical to the prepositional object of a verb. This was the case with the of-phrase used to complement convince. When the of
Is missing the object looks like a direct object. This idea was carried over to other verbs with a prepositional particle that may be seen to omit it in certain cases (perhaps?). The so-called indirect object may be seen to participate in allowing its verb to make it the subject of a passive form: “I gave him $2” vs. “He was given $2.” What if we acknowledge that this is equivalent to “I gave $2 to him.” Is this not a prepositional object of give?. This would suggest that their full passive would be “He was given $2 to,” which, however, wants to omit its preposition. The regular omission of the preposition could be explained as by force of the existence of an indirect object construction that does not use it. (I seem to have just knocked over a straw man.)
Bruce
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."?
I had never considered phrasal verbs taking an object in the way that prepositional phrases do until Bruce's e-mail.
Bruce, I hope this isn't too general of a request, but could you elaborate on your second paragraph? I feel like I've almost grasped the concept you're trying to relay, but I'm missing something. Are you saying that the indirect object function is not present in this sentence, that it has been omitted? (And, perhaps, that it would be present if the sentence had the structure, "Someone/something convinces someone of something for/on behalf of someone"?) Could you provide an example of what you mean by, "[T]he dative....appears with the prepositional object of this same sort"?
I think some of my confusion if stemming from some German interference. In German, "to convince someone of something" would be "jemanden (von etwas) uberzeugen" (with umlaut on the "u"). The "someone" ("jemanden") is in the accusative/direct object case, and the "of something" is in the dative/indirect object case. My understanding of your analysis has the "of something" as the object of a preposition/phrasal verb but not necessarily functioning as the indirect object. Have I muddled your intended meaning?
John
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Patty and Scott,
I think Patty is on the right track. The noun clause is the object of the prepositional verb “convince of” whereas “us” is in the role of direct object. Something convinces someone of something. The preposition is regularly omitted when its object is a (factive noun) clause.
What is interesting is that the dative (or benefactive) appears with the prepositional object of this same sort. However, the person to whom or for whom the particular action of the verb is performed cannot be expressed with a factive noun clause, so the confusion does not occur with the loss of the preposition. The preposition is regularly omitted when its object is a pronoun and/or it is placed before the object of the verb. This, of course, is the so-called indirect object, and its surface structure is very similar to the former case of an omitted preposition.
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Patricia Lafayllve
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."?
A return question…
If we take the original sentence down a bit, we have <language convinces us>. My eyes read <us> as the direct object, which would then make <that a…explanation> the clause that answers the question “What” (as in, what does the language convince us). So…why would we take <us> as the indirect object?
-patty
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: "convinces us that..."?
List,
I have a few questions about the following sentence:
<Poe's language, however, gradually convinces us that a purely rational explanation will not suffice, however neatly it fits the external facts. >
Would you take <us> as the indirect object? Would you take the <that> clause after it as the direct object? Is this analogous to <He showed us a monkey>? Does <convince> always take a noun clause object when it takes an direct object? In <He convinced us>, is <us> now the direct object, that is, we were the convinced ones, or is there still an implied clausal direct object leaving <us> as an indirect object?
Thanks,
Scott Woods
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/
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
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/
|
