Bruce,
I think we understand something fundamentally different in Sue cooked
for an hour and The rice cooked for an hour. (If nothing else, Sue
won't dry out from overcooking. She won't burn. And the rice won't get
tired.) Calling both intransitive doesn't do justice to the
differences. Calling Sue an actor (cooker) and rice a medium, one
clause intransitive and the other clause ergative works for me as a way
to say that the surface similarities are misleading. I'm not sure how
blunt that is. Like much grammar, we don't "see it" entirely on the
page. The same would be true for "I mowed all lawns" and "I mowed all
days." Until we consult our internal grammar, we would be apt to say
they are the same.
I have copies of my book in hand, since Monday; others I'm told are
on their way to the states. The stateside distributor is The David
Brown Book Co. PO Box 511 Oakville CT 06779. (toll free #
800-791-9354.) It retails for $26.95, and they ask $4.50 for the first
book and $1.50 for each one after to cover shipping..
Anyone requesting an inspection copy for possible classroom adoption
can do so directly to Equinox Publishing Ltd. ,Unit 6, The Village, 101
Amies St. London SW11 2JW, United Kingdom. Their policy is to ask
for return of the book in 60 days or payment for it if it doesn't get
adopted.
The desk copy request sheet I had at the ATEG conference somehow
disappeared during the conference, so anyone who signed up and still
wants a review copy (or anyone else) should email me off list.
It is very kind of you to ask.
Craig
Bruce Despain wrote:
> Craig,
>
> This COULD be goal is kind of arbitrary, isn't it?
>
> Mary hit the target. (transitive)
> Mary hit away. (intransitive)
> *The target hit. (could be goal but no "ergative" possible)
>
> I can see that possible ergatives contrast with the transitives, but
> the existence of an intransitive that somehow deeply involves the goal
> seems important in making the transition implied in the example. Is
> the relationship between the semantics and the syntax even statable in
> blunt terms?
>
> BTW: I noticed the announcement for your new book. Am I right to
> assume that the paperback is not available in the U.S.?
>
> Bruce
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 11/2/2005 7:52:23 AM >>>
> Bill,
> My own earlier examples are from the Introduction as well. I'm not
> sure, but I think he is setting up "ergative" as a separate category
> from "intransitive" because he also gives transitive/intransitive
> pairs. It's possible to give an example of all three.
>
> Mary sailed the boat. (transitive)
> Mary sailed all day. (intransitive)
> The boat sailed. (ergative)
>
> Some verbs (like hunted) won't lend themselves to that. To focus on
> the lion, we have to make the sentence passive.
>
> The tourist hunted.
> The tourist hunted the lion.
> The lion was hunted by the tourist.
>
> The lion hunted represents a changed hunter and has potential goal
> (tourist) of its own..
>
> To be ergative, I think you need the notion that the medium COULD be
> goal in a different kind of rendering. If intransitive, it would
> definitely be a clear subcategory.
>
> Traditional categories of transitivity are enormously important,
> but also unsatisfying in so many ways. They allow us to classify
> sentences, but those classifications aren't always a great deal of
> help (very blunt instruments) when it comes to describing how these
> clauses represent the world. His classifications work enormously well
> in the interpretation (interpretive analysis) of text. I feel that
> they help me move more deeply into meaning and away from mere
> observations of form. Students seem to feel that way as well.
>
> Craig
>
> Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>>Johanna,
>>
>>Halliday uses the term "ergative" in a wider sense than it's used in
>>descriptions of, say, Basque; "ergativesque" might be a better rendering
>>(open admission: I like Halliday's theory, but don't like some of his
>>label choices). He deploys it to discuss differences between two
>>different types of transitive/intransitive verb pairs (examples from 3rd
>>edition of his _Introduction_, 2004.288):
>>
>>1.a The tourist hunted.
>>1.b The tourist hunted the lion.
>>
>>2.a The tourist woke.
>>2.b The lion woke the tourist.
>>
>>H. describes the relation between 2.a and 2.b as being an ergative one.
>>The tourist is an Actor in 2.a, and a Goal (to use H.'s term) in 2.b,
>>"yet it is the tourist who stopped sleeping in both cases."
>>
>>I think anyone interested in the behavior of English verbs would want to
>>acknowledge a systematic difference between verbs like "hunt" and verbs
>>like "wake", and between the intransitive and transitive versions of one
>>and those of the other; in some ways, this is similar to material in
>>discussions I've seen on verbal semantics, e.g. Vendler. If you have a
>>background in anthropological linguistics or native American languages,
>>"ergative" may seem to be a potentially problematic label, but it
>>doesn't cause any difficulties internal to the theory.
>>
>>Bill Spruiell
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>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/
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message may contain confidential information, and is
> intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
> is addressed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/
|
