Brett,
I agree that variety of complementation doesn't disqualify
elements from being in the same category. It is hard for me to
conceptualize connections, though, when the arguments for including
"away" and the arguments for including "because" are so different
from each other. I don't see an overriding connection that would
supersede these differences.
I think "just" is not typical of adverbs only if you narrow the
category down to words that it is not typical for. "Just then" and
"just now" are deeply typical. We get back into that circularity
problem. But, as you say, it's not a defining test.
The fact that "because of" can be interrupted is interesting,
but I think that's true of other set constructions as well. "In
spite, I think, of the weather..." "According, if my memory is
correct, to Barack Obama..."
I should have said earlier that I wouldn't put "because" in the
same category as "that." "That" can show up in more than one role,
but when it comes at the beginning of a content clause (or noun
clause) it is simply a complementizer. I wouldn't call it a
subordinating conjunction. That distinction is both thoughtful and
useful, and one way in which noun clauses differ from adverbial
clauses, but it doesn't require us to agree that any head of a
clause not simply complementizing should be thought of as
preposition.
"Away" may have something in common with "certain/certainly" as
a pairing. A word like "away" can move from adjectival to adverbial
slot without a change in form, but that's true whether it is
preposition or adverb. We don't have a morphology that moves in that
direction. I think that turns out to be a wash for either side.
I think adverb is a category that tends to gather different
groups into its fold and can be rightly criticized for that. We have
frequency adverbs, adverbs derived from adjectives, qualifiers of
various kinds (which I would give a separate category for.) Words
like "certainly" are part of a group that often function as sentence
modifiers. ("surely," "honestly," even "hopefully," though that was
disparaged for some time.) But--and it may just be a matter of
having grown up thinking about it that way--words like soon
and now and then just seem to me at the heart of the
category.
I don't see an overarching connection between these groups.
Craig
On 10/12/2010 7:44 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
> I don't think that Craig and I
have such different frames of
> references as he may fear, though I'm pretty ignorant when it
comes
> to SFL, so my perception may be overly optimistic. I fully
agree with
> his points on the verb system and transitivity therein. I
still don't
> understand, though, why a defining characteristics of
prepositions
> would be that they take a complement of a particular type
(i.e., NP
> functioning as an object) and that minus that complement they
are not
> prepositions but something else. Why is variety of
complementation
> "important to the overall breadth of the verb system" but
anathema to
> the preposition system?
>
>> "Just" can be used in relation to a larger range of
elements than
>> you list here. The lunch menu can include "just
hamburgers." I can
>> be "just sitting here minding my own business." Your
observations
>> tell us more about "just" than about what these elements
have in
>> common. I don't think you want to add NP or predicate
phrase to the
>> preposition list.
>
> No, clearly that wouldn't be a good move. What I intended to
show was
> not that 'just' as a modifier is either sufficient or
necessary to
> place something in the preposition category, but rather that
it is
> typical of prepositions and highly unusual for adverbs.
>
> Again, I'd like to see how traditional grammar (or SFL) puts
'away'
> and 'certainly' or 'because' and 'that' in the same
categories.
>
>> I would read "because of" as a phrasal preposition,
similar to "in
>> spite of," "out of," "according to."
>
> Although 'because' certainly occurs tightly with 'of', do
they really
> form a single unit? How about this example: "It was expected
that
> he'd continue to stay away from it, BECAUSE, I think, and I'm
sure
> you'll agree, OF the sensitivity around the use of that
word."
> Doesn't look like much of a unit, but it sure seems like a
> head-complement relationship.
>
>> "Away from" is common enough to be thought of in the same
frame,
>> though it might also be close to "near to my heart" in
some
>> contexts.
>
> So in this interpretation, 'away' is never a preposition, but
'away
> from' is? That seems ad hoc.
>
>> I don't see a problem with "as funny".
>
> Sorry, bad example. I had in mind that this was traditionally
seen as
> a preposition, but I see now that the OED claims 'as' is
never a
> preposition (though other dictionaries differ). OK, how about
'for'
> in OED sense 19b? As far as I can tell, all dictionaries call
this
> 'for' a preposition even though "for dead", "for certain",
etc
> violate the dictum that prepositions must have objects. How
does the
> traditional account deal with this?
>
>> In passing, though, I'd like to say that it's a pleasure
having
>> this sort of talk. Too often, disagreements on the list
have turned
>> into a very different kind of conversation. I may not be
won over,
>> but I am gaining from seeing it through your eyes.
>
> Hear, hear! Learning and enjoying it.
>
> Best, Brett
>
> ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language
Centre Humber
> College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto,
> Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
>
>