6

This ques­tion is specif­i­cally for those who are fa­mil­iar with the 2002 edi­tion of The Cam­bridge Gram­mar of the English Lan­guage by Hud­dle­ston and Pul­lum.

The book has this pas­sage at page 272:

Strictly speak­ing, an in­tran­si­tive prepo­si­tion may have a com­ple­ment other than an ob­ject NP – e.g. ow­ing in ow­ing to the rain has a PP com­ple­ment. In this sec­tion, how­ever, we will be con­cerned only with in­tran­si­tive prepo­si­tions that have ei­ther no com­ple­ment at all or else a pred­ica­tive, as in That counts [as sat­is­fac­tory].

The book also says that prepo­si­tions can take fi­nite clauses as com­ple­ments as fol­lows:

They ig­nored the ques­tion [of whether it was eth­i­cal]. (page 641)

Here, does the book con­sider the of a transitive preposition (because it takes a clause as a com­ple­ment) or an in­tran­si­tive prepo­si­tion (be­cause it doesn't take an ob­ject NP)?

Also, how about verbs tak­ing fi­nite clauses as non-ob­ject com­ple­ments?

The book on pages 1017–1018:

In the present sub­sec­tion we turn our at­ten­tion to con­tent clauses func­tion­ing as in­ter­nal com­ple­ment to a verb, as in He feared that he might lose his job ([16i]). Tra­di­tional gram­mar not only anal­y­ses the sub­or­di­nate clause here as a noun clause, but as­signs it the same func­tion as that of the NP in He feared the prospect of un­em­ploy­ment, namely that of ob­ject of the verb. Again, how­ever, we be­lieve that the sub­or­di­nate clause is not suf­ficiently like an NP to jus­tify that anal­y­sis.

The feared both in He feared that he might lose his job and in He feared the prospect of un­em­ploy­ment, traditional grammar considers a transitive verb.

The Cambridge Grammar agrees that the one in the second example (taking an object NP as a complement) is a transitive verb. Does the book considers the one in the first example (taking a that-clause as a complement) a transitive or intransitive verb?

curiousdannii
  • 5,725
JK2
  • 6,553
  • 1
    Is this question about intransitive prepositions, intransitive verbs, or intransitivity? How does CGEL define intransitivity? (presumably valency zero) – Mitch Jan 19 '19 at 16:49
  • 2
    @Mitch This question is specifically about CGEL's definition of transitivity/intransitivity. I think discussing transitivity necessarily involves discussing intransitivity because it's either transitive or intransitive. The question is about both verbs and prepositions because CGEL discusses (in)transitivity for both. – JK2 Jan 19 '19 at 22:02
  • JK2: can you the add their definition to the question? It makes things better if it is as self contained as possible. – Mitch Jan 19 '19 at 22:06
  • 1
    @Mitch Their definition of transitivity is too basic to be useful, because the definition is presented in the section where they don't talk about any complements in the form of finite or non-finite clauses. – JK2 Jan 20 '19 at 00:20
  • Into the mind of Geoffrey Pullum. 2009 LTTC International Conference on English Language Teaching and Testing at the Taiwan National University explained this in detail. – Steve B053 Feb 23 '19 at 13:37
  • @SteveB053 If you know the detail, why don't you post an answer or at least point me to it? – JK2 Feb 24 '19 at 01:04
  • Have you taken any of his classes? I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he is quite profound. Also, you have set the parameter. To leave answering the question exclusively within only one of his co-authored publications. To understand his mindset, an alternative is to explore outside this, read all his published papers or works, or email him directly. – Steve B053 Feb 24 '19 at 03:25
  • I'm not familiar with CGEL. Judging from your examples, CGEL is sometimes unclear about whether to call complements "clauses". Complements can be derived from clauses, but that is no excuse for confusing them. A complement is not like a clause. The example "whether it was ethical" is clearly a complement, not a clause. – Greg Lee Mar 11 '19 at 19:46
  • @GregLee I have no qualms about calling complements 'clauses', which CGEL often does. In fact, I don't think it's anything unique about CGEL; for example, in this wiki, 'complement' is defined as follows: In grammar, a complement is a word, phrase or clause that is necessary to complete the meaning of a given expression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(linguistics) So honestly, I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate? – JK2 Mar 12 '19 at 01:29
  • @JK2, It's like the difference between the traditional grammarian's view of nouns sometimes being subjects of verbs, which syntacticians these days do not accept, and the modern view that only NPs can be subjects There may be special cases where nouns appear to be subjects, where a noun happens to be the only thing in its NP. Similarly, there may be special cases in which a complement looks like a clause, where for instance a complementizer has been omitted, but these are misleading. A complement has nominal properties that clauses do not have, even without an explicit complementizer. – Greg Lee Mar 12 '19 at 01:48
  • 1
    @GregLee CGEL defines an NP such that even a single noun can constitute an NP, and says that only NPs--not nouns--can be subjects. In that sense, CGEL is anything but 'traditional grammar'. And CGEL states that clauses do not have nominal/adjectival/adverbial properties, and it ditches the very idea of 'nominal/adjectival/adverbial clauses'. That said, I don't understand why you say that a complement has nominal properties. For example, a prepositional phrase at me can be a complement of a verb look in Look at me, and this PP-complement doesn't have any nominal properties, does it? – JK2 Mar 12 '19 at 02:07
  • 1
    @JK2, I meant that a sentential complement has nominal properties. (For instance, it can be converted to a definite pronoun, or that/this.) – Greg Lee Mar 12 '19 at 08:20
  • @GregLee Sorry, but I'm not too familiar with the term 'sentential complement'. – JK2 Mar 12 '19 at 10:25
  • 1
    @JK2, A sentential complement is a complement derived from a sentence. It's what we've been talking about, I believe. Maybe you'd say "clausal complement"? – Greg Lee Mar 12 '19 at 12:28
  • @GregLee Then, I don't understand why you say 'whether it was eth­i­cal' is not a clause. It is a clause any way you slice it, and the clause is being used as a complement of a preposition of. Hence, clausal complement or "sentential complement" as you like to call it. – JK2 Mar 12 '19 at 14:48
  • @JK2, Is it equally clear to you that in "Crows can't count", that the subject is the noun "crows"? Absolutely clear, any way you slice it? How do you know that "whether it was ethical" is a clause? I say it's not. It's only derived from a clause. – Greg Lee Mar 12 '19 at 19:18
  • @GregLee Determining parts of speech (such as 'noun') of a word (such as 'crows') is based on its form and function. Sometimes, the form alone is very helpful, as in "-ed" inflection in a verb or the "-s" inflection in a plural noun. But most of the time, you also need to know its function as well. In "Crows can't count" "Crows" has the form of a plural noun and the function of constituting a single-word NP that in turn functions as subject. (Cf. The same "crows" is a verb in "She crows about her success", even though it has the same form.) – JK2 Mar 12 '19 at 22:31
  • @GregLee But determining parts of speech of a word is not to be confused with determining whether an utterance is a word or not. While the former is based on its function as well as its form, the latter is only based on its form. You don't need to know anything about its function to know whether it's a word or not. Similarly, determining the type of a clause may be based on its function as well as its form, but determining whether an utterance is a clause is only based on its form, i.e., its construction. "Whether it was ethical" is headed by "it was ethical" (a clause), so it's a clause. – JK2 Mar 12 '19 at 22:36
  • @JK2, That's very inventive. Did you expect me to believe it? How do you know what the head is? Besides, heads do not determine the types of their phrases -- How does "to err" get to be a NP in "To err is human."? – Greg Lee Mar 13 '19 at 02:58
  • @GregLee What is so inventive that it's hard to believe? The proposition that 'it was ethical' is the head of 'whether it was eithical', or all the stuff leading up to it? How do I know it's the head? CGEL says it's the head. In CGEL, the type of a phrase is determined by its head and its head only. So, 'To err' is a VP, and never is an NP in CGEL. I know there're modern grammarians parsing 'whether' as the head of 'whether it was ethical', but my question is about CGEL, so.. But I don't know of any modern grammarians who view 'To err' as an NP, unless somehow they're into traditional grammar. – JK2 Mar 13 '19 at 03:44
  • @JK2, I'm going to take one more stab at explaining this to you. Just as we describe how the noun "crows" can be the NP subject of "Crows can't count" by putting the N inside the NP which is the subject, in just the same way, we describe how the VP "to err" can be the NP subject of "To err is human" by putting the VP "to err" inside the NP which is subject. As to your assertion that "to err" is never a NP in CGEL, I just don't believe you. – Greg Lee Mar 13 '19 at 11:37
  • 2
    @GregLee If you have access to CGEL, please quote me exactly where CGEL says so. If you don't, it means nothing to me whether you "believe me" or not, because I know exactly what CGEL says. – JK2 Mar 13 '19 at 15:17
  • @JK2 I asked a question about complements here; I don’t know if it will be useful for your question about transivity though. – aesking Aug 07 '19 at 23:35
  • @aesking Did you not notice that I was one of the two people who answered that question? :) – JK2 Aug 07 '19 at 23:50
  • @JK2 woah, that was you! :) you’re right. I had to look back again. – aesking Aug 08 '19 at 00:14
  • Though the notion(/s) of transitivity are of course fundamental to an understanding of the behaviour of verbs, restricting the discussion to one particular treatment is against the ethos of ELU. Questions about the interpretation of in-house phraseology of say CGEL should be addressed either to the authors or supervisors who have recommended the text. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 14 '20 at 14:24

2 Answers2

2

For CGEL, transitive means specifically 'taking a object as complement'. Moreover, I recall personal discussions with Pullum and Huddleston in which they confirm that only NPs function as objects. Verbs or prepositions which take other types of complements, such as clausal complements, predicative complements, etc, are not transitive.

Brett Reynolds
  • 9,274
  • 1
    Can you please give a page reference to where they give this definition? – curiousdannii Jan 12 '20 at 12:48
  • 1
    Is there any written corroboration of their stance 'they [hold] that only NPs function as objects. Verbs or prepositions which take other types of complements, such as clausal complements, predicative complements, etc, are not transitive'? – Edwin Ashworth Jan 12 '20 at 16:39
  • CGEL p. 216 "a transitive clause contains an O" – Brett Reynolds Jan 13 '20 at 13:23
  • Chapter 4 deals with clause complements, and sets out other types of complements, such as clausal complements. – Brett Reynolds Jan 13 '20 at 13:25
  • 2
    I'd just like to add that the authors of CGEL allow analysing ing-clauses as objects "when they occur in some distinctively object relation with some element OTHER than the head verb: "This made obtaining a loan virtually impossible" (p1255). As for the terms transitivity/intransitivity, they explicitly state that the terms apply to the relation between a verb and its object. A "transitive" construction involves a verb taking a noun phrase as complement. An "intransitive" one does not –  Feb 11 '20 at 20:33
  • 2
    There are other types of verb complements, but their relation with the head verb does not have a widely accepted name (they are described in rather formal or descriptive terms), with the exception of non-finite complements. The term for this one is "catenative" - He likes studying grammar. ("studying grammar" is a catenative complement of the verb "like" ) –  Feb 11 '20 at 20:52
2

The CGEL introduction to transitivity of verbs begins on p 216 with:

Transitivity

The default type of internal core complement is an object (O). Whereas all canonical clauses contain an S, they may or may not contain an O, depending on the nature of the verb. This yields the important contrast referred to as transitivity - a transitive clause contains an O, an intransitive one does not.

It then goes on to give examples of transitive vs intransitive, mono- and ditransitive, and later (p 218) draw a distinction with the closely related concept of valency which depends solely on the number of complements, where transitivity depends on the kind of complement.

i He died. intransitive monovalent

ii This depends on the price. intransitive bivalent

iii Ed became angry. intransitive (complex) bivalent

iv He read the paper. monotransitive bivalent

v He blamed me for the delav. monotransitive trivalent

vi This made Ed angrv. monotransitive (complex) trivalent

vii She gave him some food. ditransitive trivalent

Community
  • 1
Mitch
  • 71,423
  • The ultimate question was "Does the book consider[] ['fear' in 'He feared that he might lose his job' (taking a that-clause as a complement) a transitive or intransitive verb?" – Edwin Ashworth Feb 11 '20 at 14:56
  • 2
    Sorry, I was addressing the title question. The passage in the question text, "Again, how­ever, we be­lieve that the sub­or­di­nate clause is not suf­ficiently like an NP to jus­tify that anal­y­sis.", seems to state that a "that" clause is not an O, against 'traditional'/what I think (naive?) views. – Mitch Feb 11 '20 at 16:14
  • @Mitch +1 answer. I take it it’s viewed as intransitive then, CaGEL is treating that clasues the same as PP phrases where PPs which are complements to the verb are intransitive - only NP complement would make it transitive? – aesking Feb 11 '20 at 17:20
  • 2
    @aesking I think the CGEL view is unsupportable; nothing they say leads me to believe you can differentiate meaningfully between an NP and a "that" clause with respect to transitivity. But then I am not a professional linguist. Fortunately, the question is about what CGEL says, not what I think is right. – Mitch Feb 11 '20 at 18:18
  • Your answer is quoting only from Chapter 4: The clause: complements, which doesn't even discuss finite clauses being used as complements either of verbs or of prepositions, which is the issue of the two specific questions presented in OP. Please address both the questions in your answer. Thank you. – JK2 Feb 13 '20 at 00:11