I’m forwarding the message below from Peter Fries, whose posting was blocked for some reason.

 

-- Bill Spruiell

 

 

In a message dated 12/19/06 1:49:45 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

 

<< Craig's point concerning the absence of 'graduated it' is certainly quite relevant.  I somehow missed his message, so I may be repeating him, but --

 

Actually as I think of it I find the generic 'high school', 'college' or 'university'

much more probable than graduate (a specific highschool). e.g. 'graduate Monroe highschool' or 'graduate the University of Wisconsin'. As I recall, the examples cited by the person who did the web search (I'm sorry I deleted the message and have forgotten who did it.)  were all(?) the generic use 'highschool', 'college' or 'university'.

 

On a sort of related issue

 

Has any one thought about drawing parallels with sentences like.

 

Mary walked the boundaries.

Tom climbed the ladder.

The family fled the city.

The inhabitants fled the Yankees. (I just read an account of an episode of the Civil War.)

 

In all of these examples a) the passive seems awkward at best.

?The boudaries were walked by Mary.

?The ladder was climbed by Tom.

?The city was fled by the family.

??The Yankees were fled by the inhabitants. (This seems worst of all to my ears -- not just for political reasons.)

 

b) the object does NOT receive the action of the verb. (Nothing happened to the boundaries, ladder, city or Yankees through the action of the

verb.)

 

c) the object may be paraphrased by an appropriate preposition.

Mary walked _around/along_ the boundaries.

Tom climbed _up/down_ the ladder.

The family fled _out of/from_ the city.

The inhabitants fled _from_ the Yankees.

 

This is not intended to argue that a notion like 'object' (or 'complement' in some theories) is irrelevant. Rather it means that we need another sort of analysis which adresses the same examples but provides a different (more

semantic) analysis. Not all objects (nor all subjects, for that matter) are the same.

Both types of analysis address certain aspects of the 'behavior' of the data.

(The recent discussion on indirect objects vs prepositional phrases shows

that.) Neither analysis is sufficient unto itself.

 

For any teacher who is still reading this, I might mention that it is this 'semanticy' (semanticky??) approach that Geoff Williams (University of British

Columbia) used in classes of twelve year olds to discuss the texts they were reading, and how they (= the texts) meant what they did. It could be described as an age-appropriate mini course in linguistic stylistics. I am describing this from memory, but as I remember the presentation, by the end of the course the students were able to discuss interpretations of several texts while basing their conclusions on the language of these texts.

Best,

Peter Fries >>

 

 

 

 

Peter H. Fries

Box 310

Mount Pleasant MI 48804

 

Phone:  989-644-3384

Cell:  989-400-3764

Email: [log in to unmask]

Web Page: www.chsbs.cmich.edu/peter_fries