Brett,
I think (hope) anyone listening in will realize that your positions
(and H & P's) are internally consistent and thoughtful. In many ways, we
have different frames of reference. If what you want to do is create a
largely formal grammar, then these are very reasonable ways to carry
that out. From a functional or cognitive approach, we might come up with
different ways of seeing it.
The verb system (transitivity) is very key to what SFL identifies as
one of three principal metafunctions, representing the world. We do so
through processes, participants, and circumstances, and the processes
very much determine the kinds of participants that are involved. We can
have, for example, material processes, relational processes, verbal
processes, mental processes (including sensing, feeling, thinking),
existential processes, and each of those construe the world in certain
ways. So the fact that these take different complements is very
important to the overall breadth of the system. In that way it may be
comparable to seeing a fork, knife, and spoon as eating utensils. If we
just tried to identify them according to form, we may be baffled by
their differences. but we can also see that their differences are
functionally driven. If they were the same, we would be limited in what
we can do. But to see them as eating utensils, you have to step back
and examine more than just form.
What should strike us about adjectives is that they are
essentially gradable, scalar. There is a cognitive dimension to that in
that concepts like happiness and importance are not absolute, and they
are often highly contextualised. I can be a sad person who is happy to
see you. Something can be important in a very limited way. We have
developed ways to qualify (degree) and contextualise these notions,
which can vary subtly in cognitive nuance. We also have common nouns
which need at times to be identified as referents (not just students,
but /smart students)/ or characterized once they are identified. (/Those
students are smart/.) If we come at it from that direction, we can find
ways in which the larger work of language requires (or motivates) both
the patterned similarities and the differences.
"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.
I would read "because of" as a phrasal preposition, similar to "in
spite of," "out of," "according to." "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. I don't see a problem with "as funny". To
me, the whole thing (not just funny) is modifier or predicate
complement, telling us how it struck her and/or what it was like. It
sort of hovers in between. Finding can give us those borderline cases as
well. "I found her funny." She may not be funny, but I found her that
way? She is funny and I have discovered that? It sits on the border and
maybe has a foot in both worlds.
I think of "because of" as phrasal preposition, so "because" isn't
taking a PP complement. Rather, "because of" is taking an NP complement.
You can make a great case for adverbs derived from adjectives as
having special characteristics. They certainly differ from frequency
adverbs, which I assume you accept as adverbs. (/always, sometimes,
often, never,/ and so on.) Because they give us situations in which we
have the choice of two forms (adjective or adverb), they differ from
words like "away" and "near" that can be used adjectivally or
adverbially without that change. (/An away game/. /the near corner./) I
wouldn't think of them as prototypical adverbs any more than I would
think of happiness as a typical noun.
In general, our differences are probably much larger than this
disagreement would imply. If we deal with it as a problem in formal
grammar, then we won't see the larger picture.
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.
Craig
On 10/11/2010 8:54 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
> On 2010-10-11, at 9:04 AM, Craig wrote:
>
> > Verbs comprise a more unified category than you imply. All verbs
> > inflect for tense and combine with be, have, do, and the modals in
> > very uniform ways. Even transitivity categories are often fluid.
> > And the verbs all dominate their predicates in the same way,
> > constituting in that way a coherent way of representing the world.
> > The fact that there are subcategories doesn’t at all mean that some
> > verbs have nothing in common with other verbs.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that verbs were not a unified category.
> Indeed, I fully agree that they are. In spite of the vagaries of
> their complements. The point is that being a verb or not has nothing
> to do with the type of complement they take. Adjectives too allow
> various complements. Although most of the time they are complement
> free (e.g. big), some take 'to' infinitives (e.g., happy to be here),
> others take present participles (e.g. busy being teacher), PPs (e.g.
> familiar with it?), 'that' subjunctives (e.g. important that she be
> there). Nouns too take a range of complements. So if complementation
> is almost completely useless for categorizing other words, why should
> it be the defining property of prepositions?
>
> And if one does insist on object-taking preposition, what are you to
> do with prepositions that take other prepositions as their
> complements (e.g., from under the blanket) or prepositions that take
> predicate complements instead of objects (e.g. That struck her as
> funny)?
>
> > I believe you can find similarities between “away” and “before,”
> > and you can find similarities between “before” and “because,” but I
> > don’t see the connections between “away” and “because.”
>
> These are the ones that come to mind: -Both can be modified by 'just'
> (e.g., She watched him, arms held just away from her sides. & Just
> because they worked there... cf. *Just certainly, he jumped.). -Both
> can function as predicate complements (e.g., He's away. & That's
> because we don't have time.) -Both can function as non-predicate
> adjuncts (e.g., Away from the city, there were... & Because of the
> storm, there were... cf. *Working hard, there was...)--not that
> adverbs can't. -They can both be coordinated with PPs (e.g. away from
> the town and down to the river; Because of public opinion and in
> light of the government's obsession with maintaining an acceptable
> international image,... cf *Certainly and in light of....). -And if
> you want to argue for classification based on complementation, both
> can be complemented by PPs (e.g., away from..., because of...).
>
> Now what's the connection between 'away' and 'certainly' or 'because'
> and 'that' (e.g., I know that it's here)?
>
> > "Soon", by the way, didn't show up on the wiktionary list.
>
> That's a good point, to which I have no good response. It doesn't
> work as predicate complement to 'become', but it can do in a pinch
> with 'seem' (e.g., that seemed too soon). Still, I'm think on
> balance, 'soon' is more like an adverb than a preposition.
>
> 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/
>
>
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/