Craig,
The complex-transitive pattern, SVOC, according to Quirk et al.,
"may be divided into current and resulting types: You
should keep the cabbage fresh; That music drives me mad" (p.
1196). Among the "current" verbs is "consider,"
one that I use to illustrate the pattern with object complements:
a sentence with "consider" is nearly always incomplete
without the OC. I usually contrast it with "elect" (We
[or "they" in this case] elected Bush president/ We consider
Bush _______ [You may fill in the blank]). The "elect"
sentence doesn't need the OC to be grammatical; the "consider"
one does. Many verbs that pattern with object complements also
fit the SVO pattern, sometimes with a different meaning. (I
found [located] the book; I found the book a waste of time.)
When traditional grammar confines the word "clause" to
structures with finite verbs, that doesn't mean that nonfinite verbs,
such as participles and infinitives, don't also have subjects.
Clearly, participles and infinitives that "dangle" are verbs
without subjects. And traditional school grammar (House & Harman's
"Descriptive English Grammar" is a good example) makes clear
that when the object complement is a verb, its subject is the direct
object.
While there are many problems with traditional school
grammar (probably most of them resulting from relying on forcing
English into the Latinate mold), I don't think that this clause/phrase
definition is one of them. And in terms of teaching
grammar in K-12 or in college writing classes, I think that the
traditional clause definition, which includes a finite verb, is much
more practical for purposes of understanding sentence sense, including
punctuation and subordination.
Martha
Martha, Phil,
An alternative would be to see "Spot run" or
"Spot running" as subject bearing clauses. I know this
has been an object of discussion in the past (as to whether a
participle or infinitive heads a 'phrase' or 'clause' in these
instances.) But it certainly helps to see run and
running as intransitive verbs (non-finite) that head
predicate like constructions that can be easily expanded.
"See Spot running in circles down by the river."
"See Spot run through the fancy rose bushes."
Having these brief participles or infinitives is no more
unusual than intransitive clauses that have only the verb. "Spot
runs. Mary sleeps. The children yawn." I see Mary
sleep. I see the children yawning." And so on.
To me, an object complement is better understand as
produced by a causative verb (acting upon the object in such as way as
to bring about change. Make Spot run would be an
example.) In See Spot run, we observe something
independent of the observation. The seeing doesn't bring the running
about. We also observe a single process, not an altering one.
(If we make Spot run, he starts out not running, by definition.
If we see him run, there's no reference to a non-running state.)
My take in quick form: perception verbs
often take subject-bearing participle and infinitive clauses as
objects. This is easily understood, since what we perceive are
not just things, but processes. "I saw the young lady steal
the watch." "The young lady stole the watch, and I saw her
do it." " I watched my father come home tired every day from
work. My father came home tired from work every day, and I
watched him do it."
Traditional school grammar has a problem with this
because it is committed to these non-finite structures as phrases.
When they gather subjects (I would include absolutes), we need a
new frame of reference.
Craig
Martha Kolln wrote:
Phil,
I would agree that "running" is a participle; "run"
the bare infinitive. Both can function as object complements.
And that's what's happening here, in my opinion. Quirk et al. (A
Comprehensive Grammar) include "see" as a verb in the SVOC
pattern, along with feel, hear, notice, watch, and many others.
Here's one of their sentences, much like Spot's:
Tim watched Bill
mend/mending the lamp. (Watch Bill mend the lamp.)
The direct object is the subject of that complement verb. You'll
find a thorough discussion of verb complementation in their Chapter
16.
Martha
Anyone have a good resource that would
provide both a name and a description of the extent of distribution of
what I am loosely calling a 'reduced participial phrase' as seen in
(1) below as contrasted with a more customary participial phrase in
(2).
1) See spot
run. 2) See spot running.
Phil Bralich
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/