I hold to the strict definition of the indefinite object as the V IO DO
pattern.
However, English is interesting because it has occasionally has two
different methods of achieving the same goal, each with slightly
different implications, which I assume is why both remain. We have the
two ways of expressing transfer. V IO DO and V DO prep Object (an
adverbial phrase saying "where did it go", the equivalent of "He went to
the mall.")
Other dual methods of "saying the same thing with different
constructions"
We have the inflectional possessive: "book's cover"
The periphrastic (added words) possessive: "cover of the book"
In some cases, we have the inflectional comparison: "purpler" (by the
two
syllable rule, equivalent to "greener")
the periphrastic comparative: "more purple"
We can make a possessive through inflection: "improve the students'
learning"
We can use a noun modifier: "improve student learning."
English is rich in possibilities of conveying subtle differences in
meaning!
C.W. Pollard
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: IO
Johanna,
When I present ditransitives, I present V IO DO and V DO PP as
alternative structures. We talk about pragmatic factors governing
choice between them, and I give them examples of verbs like "explain"
that allow only V DO PP and verbs like "wish" that allow only V IO DO.
We also talk about verbs like "warn" that take V IO PP (Mary warned John
of the danger) and false ditransitives like "Mary gave the wall a coat
of paint". While I present seven different verb types, based on
complementation, I want them to understand that these are major types
but don't come close to exhausting the classification.
Herb
My students also often bring up the IO terminology problem. I tell them
it is a matter of different use of terminology by different analysts.
Then I tell them I will use IO to refer only to the noun phrase
following the verb, not the PP.
That leaves the question of what to call the PP. I'd like to say it's
adverbial, but it doesn't fit the structural diagnostics for adverbials.
For instance, adverbials answer "when, where, why, how, and for what
purpose" questions. PP-IO's don't answer such questions; the questions
for such PPs are "who(m) did you give it to' or "who(m) did you make it
for".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue * San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 * Fax: (805)-756-6374 * Dept. Phone. 756-2596
* E-mail: [log in to unmask] * Home page:
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/
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/
|
