Craig, can you recommend a reference text that would present systemic functional grammar’s account of these and other syntactic puzzlers?
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 11:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 22nd ATEG Conference Keynote Speakers: Claarification Please
In systemic functional grammar, this ("Spot run") is called a "macrophenomenal clause," which represents, in this instance, the content of what was seen.
I felt the earth move.
I saw the plane land on the Hudson.
I heard the snow crashing off the roof.
I agree that it seems like a single object with clause like (nonfinite) structure.
One complication comes from the similarity in structure to certain complex transitive clauses that include nonfinite clauses as complements: We made Spot run. We caused Spot to run. We forced Spot to run. We helped Spot run. In my mind, these distinguish themselves as different by being causative. Spot's running would be a result of what was done, not just something seen or heard. Perception verbs don't generally interact with what is being perceived. They don't generally change it.
Then to further complicate the issue, we have discovering and imagining and finding and like verbs. I discovered Spot running. I imagined spot running. I found Spot running.
The more detail we go into, the more it seems useful to have subcategories and not just muscle these into a one size fits all category. The nature of the syntax and the nature of our understanding of the process are not disconnected.
Craig
On 3/7/2011 10:35 AM, Benton, Steve wrote:
I agree with T.J. "See Spot to run" doesn't make sense to me.