Bob,
We have had this discussion before. The reciprocity of mental
processes is one way SFL sees them as distinct. "I noticed the
painting. The painting caught my attention." "I admire him. He
impresses me." You can make either element the subject without
making the sentence passive. That is not true in material process
clauses. It is certainly not a problem for SFL. Halliday and
Matthiessen cover it in their Introduction to Functional Grammar.
Coverage, in fact, dates back to the first edition.
A statement can be seen as a construal of experience, one of the
three primary metafunctions. We have resources available within the
language that allow us to do this. We also interact through language
and we construct text. Whether a subordinate clause comes first, for
example, may not seem meaningful as a construal of experience, but
it constructs a different kind of message.
Craig
On 10/13/2010 10:44 PM, Robert Yates wrote:
> Craig,
>
> The reciprocal property is is problematic for your
perspective.
>
> If "admire" and "impress" are feeling processes, then why is
the
> experiencer of admire in the subject position but the
experiencer of
> impress in the object position? If these two verbs are the
same
> "process," shouldn't the grammar be the same?
>
> The key question you ask:
>
> Would you see grammar and semantics as separate kinds of
inquiry?
>
> In many areas, of course they are separate.
>
> Let's consider these two sentences:
>
> 1) Bob likes cognac, but he rarely drinks it. 2) Bob likes
cognac
> although he rarely drinks it.
>
> I think they mean exactly the same thing. But and although
have
> different grammatical properties.
>
> 3) *But he rarely drinks it, Bob likes cognac. 4) Although he
rarely
> drinks it, Bob likes cognac.
>
> Semanitcs has nothing to say about the grammatical difference
between
> 3 and 4. Of course, we label but a co-ordinating conjunction
and
> although a subordinating conjunction. That does not describe
the
> semantic property of the clauses they head but the
GRAMMATICAL
> properties they head.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/13/10
1:39 PM >>>
> Bob, No matter what theory of language you are working out
of, it
> seems to me you need to deal with the fact that some
processes seem
> to be thought of as somewhat reciprocal. I not only "delight
in
> drinking beer," but "drinking beer delights me." "I admire
Obama."
> "Obama impresses me." In each of these cases, we can turn it
around
> without making the clause passive. (beer and I act upon each
other.)
> So we think of our feelings as actions in the world, but also
as
> reactions to the world, and that gets expressed in the
grammar. How
> would you explain the same phenomena? Is it totally
independent
>
> of grammar? Is grammar totally independent of cognition?
Would you
> see grammar and semantics as separate kinds of inquiry?
>
> Craig
>
> On 10/12/2010 3:18 PM, Robert Yates wrote:
>> I appreciate Craig's description of the verb system from
the SFL
>> perspective.
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> *** I have tried to figure out what SFL means when it
claims "So
>> the fact that these [processes] take different
complements is very
>> important
> to
>> the overall breadth of the system,"
>>
>> I wonder what are the nature of complements in "thinking"
that are
>> different from the others, etc.
>>
>> Let us think about feeling for a moment. Consider please
and
>> delight in.
>>
>> 1) Drinking beer pleases me. 2) I delight in drinking
beer.
>>
>> If the process of feeling has a unique set of
complements, then
>> how
> can
>> 1 and 2 be so different for the feeling of "please" and
"delight
>> in"?
>>
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>
>>>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
10/12/10 10:58 AM>>>
>> 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, participant> 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 preposspite
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:
>>>>> 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, ther> 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/
>>
>> 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://listsVisit 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/
>
>