Bruce --
Sorry about that; I was trying to fight my tendency toward long-windedness (with, apparently, a cure worse than the disease). Here's an explanation I hope will be clearer, but which may bore most of the list half to death (unless they've learned to just junk my emails):
(1) Projected clauses are only one class of clauses that in traditional grammar would be considered dependent. They're identified on the basis of structural as well as semantic characteristics. They can be direct quotation-types, in which case what's traditionally considered the matrix clause can introduce, follow, or interrupt the projected clause:
He said, "John opened the door."
"John," he said, "opened the door."
"John opened the door," he said.
In a lot of registers, the same thing can happen without maintenance of the direct-quote phrasing, as long as "that" isn't explicitly added:
He said John had opened the door.
John, he said, had opened the door.
John had opened the door, he said.
You can't do that kind of rearrangement with regular hypotactic or embedded clauses:
*Because the room, John opened the door, was stuffy.
*I, the book was heavy, left on the table.
Adding a 'that' locks a projected clause into place, possibly by nominalizing it (I need to double-check this bit):
He said that John had opened the door.
You also can't pull a projection out and focus it in the same way you can with a lot of hypotactic clauses (you can't do that with although-clauses either, but I'm not sure off the top of my head how that fits in -- I'm in a coffee shop, which mysteriously lacks H&M's grammar):
It was because the room was stuffy that John had opened the door.
It was when John opened the door that the papers blew away.
*It was that John opened the door that he said.
SFL requires a "semantic" distinction to be linked to an observable exponent, so there aren't any "unanchored" semantic distinctions floating around.
(2) There are clausal constructions that you might describe as allowing recursion, but which aren't examples of projection, thus the set of recursible (sp?) clauses is not identical to the set of projected clauses:
Ex: One can -- in theory -- keep nesting temporal or because-clauses, but they aren't projected:
We opened the door (because the room was stuffy (because it was in the basement (because....)))
(3) The definition and exponence-patterns of projection do not *require* recursion. If it were claimed that recursion in the formal sense is not a feature of language -- that, instead, human language uses iteration that under particular circumstances is arbitrarily repeatable until processing limitations are reached -- projection as a theoretic construct would be unaffected.
--- Bill Spruiell
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Bruce Despain [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 7:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: functionalism in the classroom
Bill,
You were awfully vague with respect to the difference between projection and recursion. I took it that projection is a mysterious concept relating to the semantics of discourse, whereas you seem to be saying that its formality is as an epiphenomenon. I say mysterious because for me epiphenomena seem to be formal constructs without forms to construct. Thank your for pointing this out.
Bruce
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: functionalism in the classroom
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:53:57 +0000
Bruce:
"Projection" is crucially different from recursion. It refers to a specific kind of clause relationship -- projection and hypotaxis are distinct categories in SFL -- and the bundle of characteristics the term refers to is the same whether one views language as actually using recursion as a fundamental design principle, or (instead) as having recursive-seeming structures as an epiphenomenon.
A side comment, but one possibly pertinent to some of this: there's a recent article by David Golumbia in _Language Sciences_ ("Minimalism is functionalism"; vol 32 (2010).28-42) that may provide some useful context for the discussion. It doesn't have any classroom application, however (at least, not outside a classroom on linguistic metatheory).
--- Bill Spruiell
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 9:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: functionalism in the classroom
Bruce,
I wouldn't want to imply that functional approaches to grammar are
just "Whatever is reasonable," though reasonableness is a point in
their favor. They certainly attempt to be just as rigorous and
comprehensive as a formal approach. Certainly, the observation that
perception verbs, verbal process verbs, and cognition verbs take whole
clauses as complements is one that can be empirically verified. The
question then becomes what you do with that observed pattern. You can
describe the formal rules for the generation of those forms or you can
try to describe what this pattern reveals about how we understand the
underlying processes.
I believe that what we call things matters, but I am also aware that
there is competing terminology in different camps. I may shift back and
forth in an attempt to combat polarization, to explain one way of
seeing it in terms of another,and I'm not surprised that that would
come across as carelessness. I don't intend that.
Here's Langacker on form and function: "Descriptions of particular
constructions are not meant to be free-standing, for in themselves
they offer no indication of how or to what extent the constructions
are functionally motivated. It is only by combining the functional and
descriptive dimensions that we arrive at a full understanding of
grammatical phenomena" (Intro to cognitive Grammar, 2008, p.9).
Form constrains function, but it also enables it. It seems reasonable
that we continue to use structures when we find them useful and that
continued use reinforces the forms.
Craig
So, I guess you are saying that whatever is reasonable will work. It also
> sounds like projection is recursion with a different name. But the finite
> list of patterns must derive somehow from the more complex projections if
> it is reasonable. Sure, whether you call it an adverbial clause of
> circumstance or a circumstance coded as an adverbial clause seems the same
> to me. Or whether a small clause is a called a phrase or a clause doesn't
> seem to be very different in the end. Still, there must be some formal
> constraints on functionalism.
>
> --- [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 15:36:18 -0500
>
> 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/
>
>
>
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/
|
