Johanna,
Halliday argued in his "Notes on transitivity and theme", back in the
60s, that linking verbs are in fact transitive. However, he built his
argument on the basis of the topic/focus structure rather than on the
basis of argument structure. It's an interesting argument, but I didn't
buy it then and still don't. I don't think linking verbs participate in
transitivity at all. Rather, the property identified in the subject
complement is modifies the subject, while in transitives the subject
affects the object. (Is there a better way to talk about this sense of
directionality?) Intransitivity simply means that the action of the
verb involves only the subject and affects nothing else, although it may
license a locative or temporal complement. I think the claim that
linking verbs do not participate in transitivity is corroborated by the
fact that complex transitives in which the object complement is not
infinitival or participial lack any verb form between the object and the
OC, and the missing verb is always linking.
Herb
Johanna wrote:
Great answers coming in on this question.
I called "become:" intransitive rather than linking (of which is it
indeed a prototypical example) to focus on the impossibility of
classifying "who" as a direct object. I'm glad Herb pointed out the
important fact that intransitives and linking verbs take different kinds
of complements. Linking verbs are still a type of intransitive, though,
are they not?
I find it quite bizarre to say that the complement ("who") of an
infinitive verb ("to become") which is itself the direct object of a
verb like "want" should be in the objective case (sorry for this
multi-layered clause). It sounds to me like a futile attempt to avoid
the real explanation: That speakers of English are shifting to different
criteria for their use of subject vs. object case. It is just too hard
for some hard-liners to accept the loss of the beloved "who/whom" and
"I/me" distinctions.
And Dick's post reinforces my remarks to the effect that the bizarre
sound of the "correct" form "I want to become he" signals how the
case-marking criteria are changing. French has long been using
objective-case pronouns in such positions, but I don't hear anybody
criticizing the French for doing so.
Another sign of the changes is that people who say or insist on "It is
I" are increasingly considered hair-splitting snobs. And also that I
again heard "whom" used in subject position on NPR today, and that quite
educated people are using subjective pronouns in conjuncts such as "for
my friend and I". If we would all just stop insisting on the who/whom
distinction, the random usages might go away.
***************************************************
Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~ E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
***************************************************
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/
|
