TJ,
    That's a great question. I'm teaching transitivity right now in a sophomore level grammar class, and we have roughly six classes or so to sketch it out. I will certainly mention perception verbs during those classes, but not necessarily expect the bulk of the class to understand it before we move on.
   I think it makes a lot of sense to say that the direct object of a perception verb or the direct object of a cognition verb (I believe Spot ran) will be different from direct objects with material processes. We can't say I kicked Spot run or I rolled Spot ran even though kicked and rolled are transitive verbs. The nature of the verb dictates the kinds of complements that go with it. We understand kicking and rolling to be different sorts of activities from seeing and believing, and the grammar differs accordingly. Though quite different, all are transitive in our wide net.
    We have pretty good evidence that formal grammar doesn't carry over to reading and writing, at least in the short term.  Classifying sentences for the sake of classifying sentences can take up a huge amount of classroom time, essentially because these patterns work well for prototype verbs, but not for many verbs on the periphery. I find it easier to acknowledge that right away and take some of the pressure off. I would rather look at the nuances of meaning that come into play with language in use than concentrate on the most abstract patterns, which can take us further and further away from the living language. That said, I am very interested in having my students understand the core categories: transitive, intransitive, complex transitive, di-transitive, and copular. They may be a rough way to divide the language, but they are also hugely important to the way we represent the world through the medium of the clause. These constructions certainly participate in the construal of meaning. They are also a mirror into the ways we conceive of the world.
    In the best of all possible worlds, we would teach about language consistently throughout the grades and observations like this won't seem the province of the specialist. I was doing RK diagrams in seventh and eighth grades, and I routinely at least wrestled with the core distinctions. Our students are capable; we have just made the decision that it is not useful to include this in the curriculum. We just need to be dissenting voices as often  as we can.

Craig

On 3/7/2011 1:00 PM, T. J. Ray wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> Craig,
You could well be right.  At this point, I must pose a question of the level of the conversation.  Are we talking about
how to explain something to students or to linguists?

tj


On Monday 03/07/2011 at 11:49 am, Craig Hancock wrote:
    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. 
 
"Spot run" looks to me like a direct object. 
 
I see something.  What is it?  Spot running. 
 
What do you want me to see?  Spot run. 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 
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/