My comment about making up terms in my previous post was intended as a
bit of self-mockery -- I *do* have a tendency to make up terms, and only
later to realize that that's not the most helpful thing to do (linguists
can be prone to this disorder, which I will now call
"novamalexifaction"). Frankly, I'm also happy with systems of numbered
types, as long as students can use them. As Herb points out, *all* these
terms are umbrella terms.
-- Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Double object verbs and object plus object complement verbs
Phil and Bill both make important points, and Phil's note about the
transitivity of credit for coming up with good terms is well taken.
What this question illustrates nicely is the limitations on categories.
Yes, there are clearly complex transitive structures, like "They named
her their representative." But what about "I saw him leave"? Quirk et
al. use the codes S(ubject), V(erb), O(bject), and C(omplement) for
defining verb types. Ditransitives are SVOO, and Complex Transitives
are SVOC. But their SVOC covers verbs like "name", "see", and even
"force", as in "They forced us to leave." In my opinion that's too
broad a classification, but the problem with narrowing it is that there
really isn't any principled place to stop in analyzing data into finer
and finer categories. So the question is what the most useful
categories are. And that depends largely on what we want to use them
for.
Overall, in verb categorization I've found as few as five or six in some
of the standard grammars, fifty in the Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and about
330 in Beth Levin's (1993) English Verb Patterns and Alternations.
Herb
Making up new terminology, even new punctuation is legitimate of course,
but it doesn't count as much until it is published in a refereed
journal. I personally like the term translinking and agree that it is
better than complex transitive. However, I am not sure that it is
immediately apparant that the term is a cross between transitive and
linking. A hyphen might make this more apparant and the word more
acceptable as "trans-linking." Given the general formality of grammar,
perhaps even a hyphenated "transitive-linking" may be better. In any
case, it is your term, but if it catches on without your having
published it somewhere first, you may not get proper credit for it.
Worse yet, some less disciplined author may try and publish it without
proper refernce.
Phil Bralich
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Mar 27, 2007 4:26 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Double object verbs and object plus object complement
verbs
>
>I use "complex transitive," but to me, that term can cover other types
>of constructions as well -- it seems like a "none of the above" label
>devised to deal with anything other than linking, transitive, or
>ditransitive.
>
>What I'd *like* to call the object complement constructions is
>"translinking," since I think it captures their structure better. For
>some reason, though, there appears to be a wholly-unfounded resistance
>to the idea that I, personally, can make up entirely new sets of
grammar
>terminology.
>
>Bill Spruiell
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:50 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Double object verbs and object plus object complement
verbs
>
>That term is used pretty widely in both pedagogical and standard
>reference grammars.
>
>Herb
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dallin
>Oaks
>Sent: Mon 3/26/2007 6:31 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Double object verbs and object plus object complement
verbs
>
>I have seen the term "complex transitive" verb.
>
>
>
>Dallin D. Oaks
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bralich
>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 4:07 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Double object verbs and object plus object complement verbs
>
>
>
>Is there a term to describe verbs that can take both a direct object
and
>an
>object complement such as the following:
>
>
>
>we made Mary happy
>
>
>
>we called John, the boss.
>
>
>
>I know that ditransitives are variously called ditransitives and double
>object verbs but do not know the term for the above. Further, is there
>a
>term for a double object verb that also takes an object complement as
in
>the
>following?
>
>
>
>we
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alison Cochrane
>Sent: Mar 26, 2007 5:35 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: TESOL 2007 Survey on Writing Class Assessment and Feedback
>
>
>
>
>Jerome
>
>
>
>I am very interested in the results of your research. Is there any way
>of
>receiving a copy of your findings?
>
>
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>
>Alison Cochrane
>
>ESL Teacher New York
>
>
>
>"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended
up
>where I needed to be. "
>~ Kahlil Douglas Adams
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
>from
>AOL at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339> AOL.com.
>
>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/
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/
|
