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/

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/