Craig,
I like the Hallidayan perspective you and Bill bring, and I agree with Bill that transitivity varies a great deal from verb to verb. I sometimes recommend Beth Levin's English Verb Classes and Alternations (Chicago 1993) as a reference for this, very much worth owning. She does a very subtle analysis of the ways in which verbs can behave that allows us to appreciate the complexity of the notion transitivity.
Depictive is a cover term for a variety of relationships that can be teased out, but H&P don't do so because further analysis has no significant grammatical consequences. I have hard time picking up the sense of choice, although I can see how different contexts might motivate that to different degrees. However, I would describe the difference between "ate the fish raw" and "ate the raw fish" as the same predicative vs. attributive distinction that exists between "the raw fish (is on the table)" and "the fish is raw", and the pragmatic consequences are about the same. Because of that I'd say that the notion of choice is situational rather than implicational. I know that H&P would describe "rubbed my hands raw" as resultative rather than causative. The causative verb is "rubbed", but "raw" is resultative. Because of how causative interacts with the agenthood of the subject, I prefer this analysis. Same thing with "ate me out of house and home", although this gets a bit more idiomatic so that its meaning isn't so analytic as in the other examples. I agree that pin oaks all differ and most of them are beautiful, but they're still all pin oaks.
Herb
Herb,
That's an enormously helpful taxonomy. It's hard for me, though, to
think of raw as simply depicting the fish and not in some way depicting
the eating (a kind of adverbial, adjectival mix.)
If I asked "which fish did you eat," you wouldn't respond with "I
ate the fish raw." You would say "I ate the raw fish."
If I asked "How did you eat the fish," you wouldn't say "I ate the
raw fish." You might say "I ate the fish raw."
I believe the sentence implies the notion of choice, that we could
eat the fish cooked or eat the fish raw, and the sentence tells us HOW
that fish was eaten, although, I admit, rawness is also an attribute of
the fish. It's a little like saying "We chose for the fish to be raw
when we ate it" in a much less cumbersome way.
It's very different from saying I rubbed my hands raw, which would
be causative.
I like Bill's point that every verb brings with it its own kind of
transitivity, and that can be multiplied by the different meanings of
the verb. Sometimes we worry about forest and forget about the beauty of
the trees.
How about "He ate me out of house and home" for a causative version?
Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
>Let's try a different sort of analysis. Superficially, 1, 2, and 3 look alike, and they all have predicate complements. But the meanings, as Bruce indicates, are different. "They painted the barn red" is what's called a resultative, the adjective expressing the result of the action of the verb. The predicate complement is also optional. You can leave "red" out. In "They ate the fish raw", "raw" is what Huddleston&Pullum call a "depictive" as opposed to a resultative. In "They declared Bush President" (sorry, but it's a political year) we've got another clear complex transitive, with President as object complement and as resultative complement, but in this case "President" is obligatory. Without repeating the entire H&P analysis here (I do recommend reading it--it's very clearly done), what they do is classify sentences taking predicate complements by the properties optional/obligatory, resultative/depictive, and O vs S as predicant (They served the coffee black vs. They served the coffee blindfolded). Their full analysis goes into a little more detail but is comprehensive--and elegant.
>
>Herb
>
> Michael,
>
> I take the two sentences as the same pattern. The paraphrase for teaching the meaning is a little different. The pattern with a predicate noun is similar.
>
> 1. They ate the fish raw.
> 1a. The fish was raw.
> 1b. They ate the fish in this state.
>
> 2. They painted the barn red.
> 2a. The barn was red.
> 2b. They painted the barn into this state (in this color).
>
> 3. They elected Bush president.
> 3a. Bush was president.
> 3b. They elected Bush into this state (to this position).
>
> The meaning in (2) and (3) are more or less causative. The meaning in (1) is not causative, but I don't have a name for it. Maybe "stative" would work.
>
> Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kischner, Michael <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:21 PM
> Subject: They ate the fish raw.
>
>
>
> How would people parse "They ate the fish raw"?
>
> "Raw" looks like an object complement to me, but in this pattern (Kolln's Pattern IX) the verb typically acts to bring about the connection between direct object and object complement, as in "They painted the barn red." Is "They ate the fish raw" a variation?
>
> 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/
|
