Herb,
Structures are, of course, an inevitable aspect of language. Meaning
is formal and form is meaningful, so you can approach that dynamic
relation from either direction. But when the primary interest is in
"how do we classify X," the weight seems to shift away from meaning
(especially if meaning includes interpersonal meaning and the
construction of discourse.) Grammaticalization can be thought of as
indicating that grammar is emergent and dynamic. Grammar changes for
the same reason that vocabulary changes, because we find it useful to
do so in a dynamic, changing world. Language, of course, requires a
good bit of stability, and grammar is inevitably more stable than the
lexicon. But that doesn't mean it is well understood as a system of
fixed forms.
Predicate adjective and predicate nominal are terms I remember from my
own schooling, and I found them useful at the time because they
directed attention to the fact that the adjective and nominal modified
or renamed the subject. They didn't have a term for predicate adverbial
(as in "My house is on the ocean"), but that's a side issue. Similarly,
the term "object complement," for adjective or noun (not adverial,
again a mistake) highlights the fact that the adjective or noun phrase
modifies or renames the object IN THE SAME WAY A PREEDICATE ADJECTIVE
OR NOMINATIVE MODIFES OR RENAMES THE SUBJECT. So Odile's question might
be rephrased as "wouldn't it be useful to give them the same name?"
Later in my explorations of language, I came to respect the objection
that these are all complements of the verb because it's not the
subject or object that licenses them, but the verb. "Mary is a bright
woman" and "Mary knows a bright woman" differ in their grammar
precisely because of the selection of verb.
Verbs are copular when they take a copular complement, which>can
describe, rename, or locate the subject (in space or time.) Verbs are
complex transitive when they bring into focus the qualities, identity,
or location as somehow brought about. You can say that they construe
the experience differently.
Mary is bright. Mary is a bright woman.
Good parents and good schools made Mary bright. Good parents and good
schools made Mary a bright woman.
Both tell what Mary is like. One adds how she came to be that way.
It's more complicated, of course, because words like "consider,"
"imagine," and "believe" hedge the certainty in the complex transitive
construction, but "seems," "appears," and "looks" do the same in a
more straightforward copular sentence. "I believe Mary bright" or
"teachers consider Mary bright" are not expressing certainty.
It seems to me that this sort of attention is more useful. These
choices allow us to construe experience flexibly.
Craig
Craig,
>
> Good points all. English does conflate topic-comment and
> subject-predicate to a degree that makes it difficult to separate them.
> While there are syntactic tests for subjecthood that bring to light the
> formal traits of subjects, it's impossible to talk about subjects without
> also talking about function. And, as you show, topichood is far from
> limited to subjects. Odile's question starts with the more formal
> properties of subjects and predicates, and so, of course, I addressed it
> from that perspective. Starting the study of grammar from a more
> functional, discourse-oriented perspective provides important insights
> into why we have structures that we have and how we use them, but it
> doesn't get around the fact that grammatical structures exist and that
> grammaticalization is powerful historical process.
>
> Herb
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:18 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 15 Mar 2010 to 17 Mar 2010 (#2010-37)
>
> Herb,
> I think within the formal tradition, we tend to use "function" in a
> very narrow sense. The prime motive still seems to be formal
> classification rather than discourse. Another question (or set of
> questions) might be centered around why we have these options and what
> might motivate one choice over the other.
> What do Mary's teachers think of her?
> Mary's teachers consider her bright.
> Does anyone consider Mary bright?
> Mary is considered bright by her teachers.
> I tend to agree with the idea that information in a subordinate clause is
> not "predicated" in the same way as the main clause, but it does give us
> information structuring options that are internal to the clause. "When, in
> the course of human events, it becomes necessary....
> Do you see topic/comment and subject predicate as conflated?
> "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."
> Though "in the beginning" is technically part of the predicate (as
> adverbial modifier), it also seems like a stepping-off point for the
> message structure (what SFL would call "marked theme").
> My apologies if this seems to take the talk in an unwanted new
> direction. I confess I am finding it hard to join the conversation.
> Purely formal questions (even when function is given a token place)seem
> narrow in focus.
>
> Craig
>
> Odile,
>>
>> I think that very thoughtfully posed set of questions hinges on the
>> distinction between structure and function. If we define "subject" and
>> "predicate" functionally, then the predicate is the comment the sentence
>> makes on the topic, typically the subject. If we define the predicate
>> structurally, then the predicate is the verb phrase, a structure
>> comprising the verb, its complements, and its modifiers. The term
>> "subject complement" is a structural term for the complement of a
>> linking
>> verb. If what is the functional subject of a verbless clause that is
>> comprised of the complements of a complex transitive verb, that is, a
>> direct object and its complement, then the subject complement becomes an
>> object complement. The reverse of this shift takes place in the passive
>> of a complex transitive:
>>
>> Active: Her teachers consider Mary bright.
>> Passive: Mary is considered bright by her teachers.
>>
>> In the passive version, "bright" is now a subject complement.
>>
>> The terminological problem with "predicate" becomes clearer when we deal
>> with subordinate clauses that do not, relative to the discourse they are
>> part of, have a topic-comment structure but do have a subject-predicate
>> structure. In your examples with subordinate clauses, the clauses have
>> subjects and predicates, in a structural sense but not in a functional
>> sense. It's the ambiguity of these terms, whether we are using them
>> structurally or functionally, that causes the problems you lay out so
>> neatly.
>>
>> (For those who might, correctly, take exception to the distinction I'm
>> making in the last paragraph, I agree, but at the level of discourse the
>> topic-comment distinction tends to act at the main clause level. While
>> there are clearly exceptions, we don't tend to put new information in
>> subordinate clauses, and topics are typically subjects of main
>> clauses--except when they're not. But I've tried to avoid these issues
>> above.)
>>
>> Herb
>>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:18:56 -0700
>> From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Predicate adjectives: three questions
>>
>> I am tangled up in the throes of predicate adjectives, and I'm
>> wondering whether anyone can help. I have three questions.
>>
>>
>> * Question 1
>>
>> Is an adjective in the object complement slot a predicate adjective?
>> (That is, with an understood copula.)
>>
>> She considered the car red.
>>
>> I think yes. The _to be_ relationship is understood, and the
>> adjective appears in the predicate phrase.
>>
>>
>> * Question 2
>>
>> Is the adjective that follows a noun in the subject phrase a
>> predicate adjective when it follows a verbal (infinitive,
>> participial) form and refers back to that noun?
>>
>> The car, being red . . .
>>
>> The car, considered red . . .
>>
>> The car, to be red . . .
>>
>> I think no. The adjective is not in the predicate phrase. (The verb
>> form is not finite, but then neither is the understood "to be" in the
>> first example, so the limiting factor is that the adjective does not
>> appear in the predicate phrase, right?)
>>
>> But if so, if this is the limiting factor, must the predicate phrase
>> be that of the entire sentence? Is the crucial point here not that
>> the adjective is not in _the_ predicate phrase, but that the
>> adjective is not in _any_ predicate phrase? (That's question 3,
>> actually.)
>>
>>
>> * Question 3
>>
>> Is an adjective that appears within the predicate phrase of its
>> clause as a subject complement in that clause a predicate adjective,
>> regardless of whether it appears in the predicate phrase for the
>> entire sentence?
>>
>> I like that car because it is red. (two main verbs, so no
>> problem here)
>>
>> I like the car that is red.
>>
>> I like the car, which is red.
>>
>> I think that the car is red.
>>
>> I think yes. Within the clause, the relationship is that of a
>> predicate adjective.
>>
>> But does it matter that in the second, third, and fourth sentences
>> the main verb is transitive? There is a sense in which, for these
>> particular sentences, the embedded clause appears in the predicate
>> phrase, but not in the standard way in which we think of predicate
>> adjectives. And in the second and third, it might as easily have not.
>>
>> The car that is red . . .
>>
>> The car, which is red, . . . .
>>
>> Does it matter, with respect to the entire sentence (for the purpose
>> of this one issue: is _red_ a predicate adjective here or not),
>> whether the relative clause falls within the subject phrase or the
>> predicate phrase?
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> Predicate adjectives are most commonly spoken of in terms of being
>> subject complements with respect to the entire sentence, but is it
>> rather the case that the predicate adjective is linked to its noun
>> via _to be_ or another linking verb, whether explicitly or
>> implicitly, such that it appears in the predicate of some clause?
>>
>> In other words, the limiting factor is not that the verb be
>> conjugated (it is not in the case of the object complement), but that
>> the adjective be situated as a predicate within a clause (it is not,
>> for instance, in the case of a relative phrase).
>>
>> I think so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Odile
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of ATEG Digest - 15 Mar 2010 to 17 Mar 2010 (#2010-37)
>> **********************************************************
>>
>> 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://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/
|
