Craig,
The reciprocal property is is problematic for your perspective.
If "admire" and "impress" are feeling processes, then why is the
experiencer of admire in the subject position but the experiencer of
impress in the object position? If these two verbs are the same
"process," shouldn't the grammar be the same?
The key question you ask:
Would you see grammar and semantics as separate kinds of inquiry?
In many areas, of course they are separate.
Let's consider these two sentences:
1) Bob likes cognac, but he rarely drinks it.
2) Bob likes cognac although he rarely drinks it.
I think they mean exactly the same thing. But and although have
different grammatical properties.
3) *But he rarely drinks it, Bob likes cognac.
4) Although he rarely drinks it, Bob likes cognac.
Semanitcs has nothing to say about the grammatical difference between 3
and 4. Of course, we label but a co-ordinating conjunction and although
a subordinating conjunction. That does not describe the semantic
property of the clauses they head but the GRAMMATICAL properties they
head.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/13/10 1:39 PM >>>
Bob,
No matter what theory of language you are working out of, it seems
to me you need to deal with the fact that some processes seem to be
thought of as somewhat reciprocal. I not only "delight in drinking
beer," but "drinking beer delights me." "I admire Obama." "Obama
impresses me." In each of these cases, we can turn it around without
making the clause passive. (beer and I act upon each other.) So we
think of our feelings as actions in the world, but also as reactions to
the world, and that gets expressed in the grammar.
How would you explain the same phenomena? Is it totally independent
of grammar? Is grammar totally independent of cognition? Would you see
grammar and semantics as separate kinds of inquiry?
Craig
On 10/12/2010 3:18 PM, Robert Yates wrote:
> I appreciate Craig's description of the verb system from the SFL
> perspective.
>
> The verb system (transitivity) is very key to what SFL identifies as
> one of three principal metafunctions, representing the world. We do so
> through processes, participants, and circumstances, and the processes
> very much determine the kinds of participants that are involved. We
can
> have, for example, material processes, relational processes, verbal
> processes, mental processes (including sensing, feeling, thinking),
> existential processes, and each of those construe the world in
certain
> ways. So the fact that these take different complements is very
> important to the overall breadth of the system,
>
> ***
> I have tried to figure out what SFL means when it claims "So the fact
> that these [processes] take different complements is very important
to
> the overall breadth of the system,"
>
> I wonder what are the nature of complements in "thinking" that are
> different from the others, etc.
>
> Let us think about feeling for a moment. Consider please and delight
> in.
>
> 1) Drinking beer pleases me.
> 2) I delight in drinking beer.
>
> If the process of feeling has a unique set of complements, then how
can
> 1 and 2 be so different for the feeling of "please" and "delight in"?
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]> 10/12/10 10:58 AM>>>
> Brett,
> I think (hope) anyone listening in will realize that your
positions
>
> (and H& P's) are internally consistent and thoughtful. In many ways,
we
>
> have different frames of reference. If what you want to do is create a
> largely formal grammar, then these are very reasonable ways to carry
> that out. From a functional or cognitive approach, we might come up
with
>
> different ways of seeing it.
> The verb system (transitivity) is very key to what SFL identifies
as
>
> one of three principal metafunctions, representing the world. We do so
> through processes, participant> very much determine the kinds of participants that are involved. We
can
> have, for example, material processes, relational processes, verbal
> processes, mental processes (including sensing, feeling, thinking),
> existential processes, and each of those construe the world in
certain
> ways. So the fact that these take different complements is very
> important to the overall breadth of the system. In that way it may be
> comparable to seeing a fork, knife, and spoon as eating utensils. If
we
> just tried to identify them according to form, we may be baffled by
> their differences. but we can also see that their differences are
> functionally driven. If they were the same, we would be limited in
what
> we can do. But to see them as eating utensils, you have to step back
> and examine more than just form.
> What should strike us about adjectives is that they are
> essentially gradable, scalar. There is a cognitive dimension to that
in
> that concepts like happiness and importance are not absolute, and they
> are often highly contextualised. I can be a sad person who is happy to
> see you. Something can be important in a very limited way. We have
> developed ways to qualify (degree) and contextualise these notions,
> which can vary subtly in cognitive nuance. We also have common nouns
> which need at times to be identified as referents (not just students,
> but /smart students)/ or characterized once they are identified.
(/Those
>
> students are smart/.) If we come at it from that direction, we can
find
> ways in which the larger work of language requires (or motivates) both
> the patterned similarities and the differences.
> "Just" can be used in relation to a larger range of elements
than
> you list here. The lunch menu can include "just hamburgers." I can be
> "just sitting here minding my own business." Your observations tell us
> more about "just" than about what these elements have in common. I
don't
>
> think you want to add NP or predicate phrase to the preposition list.
> I would read "because of" as a phrasal preposspite of," "out
of," "according to." "Away from" is common enough to be
> thought of in the same frame, though it might also be close to "near
to
> my heart" in some contexts. I don't see a problem with "as funny". To
> me, the whole thing (not just funny) is modifier or predicate
> complement, telling us how it struck her and/or what it was like. It
> sort of hovers in between. Finding can give us those borderline cases
as
>
> well. "I found her funny." She may not be funny, but I found her that
> way? She is funny and I have discovered that? It sits on the border
and
> maybe has a foot in both worlds.
> I think of "because of" as phrasal preposition, so "because"
isn't
> taking a PP complement. Rather, "because of" is taking an NP
complement.
> You can make a great case for adverbs derived from adjectives as
> having special characteristics. They certainly differ from frequency
> adverbs, which I assume you accept as adverbs. (/always, sometimes,
> often, never,/ and so on.) Because they give us situations in which we
> have the choice of two forms (adjective or adverb), they differ from
> words like "away" and "near" that can be used adjectivally or
> adverbially without that change. (/An away game/. /the near corner./)
I
> wouldn't think of them as prototypical adverbs any more than I would
> think of happiness as a typical noun.
> In general, our differences are probably much larger than this
> disagreement would imply. If we deal with it as a problem in formal
> grammar, then we won't see the larger picture.
> In passing, though, I'd like to say that it's a pleasure having
this
>
> sort of talk. Too often, disagreements on the list have turned into a
> very different kind of conversation. I may not be won over, but I am
> gaining from seeing it through your eyes.
>
> Craig
>
> On 10/11/2010 8:54 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>> On 2010-10-11, at 9:04 AM, Craig wrote:
>>>> inflect for tense and combine with be, have, do, and the modals in
>>> very uniform ways. Even transitivity categories are often fluid.
>>> And the verbs all dominate their predicates in the same way,
>>> constituting in that way a coherent way of representing the world.
>>> The fact that there are subcategories doesn’t at all mean that some
>>> verbs have nothing in common with other verbs.
>> I didn't mean to imply that verbs were not a unified category.
>> Indeed, I fully agree that they are. In spite of the vagaries of
>> their complements. The point is that being a verb or not has
nothing
>> to do with the type of complement they take. Adjectives too allow
>> various complements. Although most of the time they are complement
>> free (e.g. big), some take 'to' infinitives (e.g., happy to be
here),
>> others take present participles (e.g. busy being teacher), PPs
(e.g.
>> familiar with it?), 'that' subjunctives (e.g. important that she be
>> there). Nouns too take a range of complements. So if
complementation
>> is almost completely useless for categorizing other words, why
should
>> it be the defining property of prepositions?
>>
>> And if one does insist on object-taking preposition, what are you
to
>> do with prepositions that take other prepositions as their
>> complements (e.g., from under the blanket) or prepositions that
take
>> predicate complements instead of objects (e.g. That struck her as
>> funny)?
>>
>>> I believe you can find similarities between “away” and “before,”
>>> and you can find similarities between “before” and “because,” but I
>>> don’t see the connections between “away” and “because.”
>> These are the ones that come to mind: -Both can be modified by
'just'
>> (e.g., She watched him, arms held just away from her sides.& Just
>> because they worked there... cf. *Just certainly, he jumped.).
-Both
>> can function as predicate complements (e.g., He's away.& That's
>> because we don't have time.) -Both can function as non-predicate
>> adjuncts (e.g., Away from the city, ther> storm, there were...
cf. *Working hard, there was...)--not that
>> adverbs can't. -They can both be coordinated with PPs (e.g. away
from
>> the town and down to the river; Because of public opinion and in
>> light of the government's obsession with maintaining an acceptable
>> international image,... cf *Certainly and in light of....). -And if
>> you want to argue for classification based on complementation, both
>> can be complemented by PPs (e.g., away from..., because of...).
>>
>> Now what's the connection between 'away' and 'certainly' or
'because'
>> and 'that' (e.g., I know that it's here)?
>>
>>> "Soon", by the way, didn't show up on the wiktionary list.
>> That's a good point, to which I have no good response. It doesn't
>> work as predicate complement to 'become', but it can do in a pinch
>> with 'seem' (e.g., that seemed too soon). Still, I'm think on
>> balance, 'soon' is more like an adverb than a preposition.
>>
>> Best, Brett
>>
>> ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre
Humber
>> College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto,
>> Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
>>
>> 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://listsVisit 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/
|
