Bob,
   I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't saying that there's no
meaningful reason for saying "graduated high school" (it's not natural
for me, so I would have to speculate on what it intends to a user), but
that we should not be quick to find "logical" defenses for our own
usage when it differs from other people. I'm probably as guilty of this
as the next person. Another example might be the double negative, which
is probably disliked because of the groups that tend to use it, then
disparaged because of meaning problems that aren't there for the users.
   I think Halliday handles transitivity enormously well. Traditional
grammar, which has very few categories,including the idea of "direct
object", is very clumsy.
   I suspect we need to understand how "graduate high school" means in
relation to the kinds of structures Peter mentions in his thoughtful
post. It creates the same kind of meaning puzzle as "finish high
school", which I assume we would all accept as common and
unproblematic.
   The core meaning of "direct object" (the most central meaning) is
probably somehting like "affected participant", something acted upon by
the process of the verb. But there are huge variations from this, which
any functional grammar would need to explore. We can also "play
football" or "complete college." Maybe it's an instance of the direct
object extending the range of the verb.
   A functional grammar looks at form from the perspective of function. I
don't see any way in which "graduate high school" disproves the
usefulness of that.

Craig

I am confused by a Craig Hancock's recent post.  Craig has a theoretical
> commitment to Halliday's systemic functional linguistics.  In the
> preface to the 1994 edition of his Introduction to Functional Grammar,
> Halliday writes, " Language has evolved to satisfy human needs . . . --
> it is not arbitrary" (p. viii).
>
> In his recent post Craig appears to acknowledge there are arbitrary
> aspects of language, especially in this interface between the lexicon
> and syntax with respect to the verb graduate.
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/18/06 7:49 AM >>>
>
>    If we can "finish high school" I guess we ought to be able to
> graduate it.
>    I think we can confuse logic with what sounds right. And if it sounds
> right, then we look for logical explanations.
>    I like the way the talk has tended. We don't need to legislate as
> much
> as we itch to. Even though we like to think of ourselves as experts and
> sources of good advice (with good cause), we need to be careful
> observers from time to time.
>    The language does have a life of its own.
>
> ******
> My own own understanding of the nature of language is what Craig posted
> and not Halliday's claim that language is not arbitrary.  I am glad we
> agree on something.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/