Direct object search.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:54 pm

Hi

Which is the direct object here? Is it "the doctor" or "to examine her son"?

"Janet persuaded the doctor to examine her son."

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:52 am

Sorry if this spoils the mystery and/or fun, but the original sentence just seems to me to be a verb taking an object (a single object) and a to-infinitive.

I suppose fans of "deep structures" and what have you might say there is a 'The doctor examined her son' lurking there somewhere, but this is what is surmised by the hearer ('...[and so he examined him...and] HE DISCOVERED THAT **IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN ONGOING SAGA ABOUT THE SICK SON INSERTED HERE**'), rather than what might (not) actually be in anyone's mind (least of all the speaker's) before, during or even after the encoding and output stages of the (final) utterance.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:25 am

fluffyhamster wrote:
I suppose fans of "deep structures" and what have you might say there is a 'The doctor examined her son' lurking there somewhere, but this is what is surmised by the hearer ('...[and so he examined him...and] HE DISCOVERED THAT **IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN ONGOING SAGA ABOUT THE SICK SON INSERTED HERE**'), rather than what might (not) actually be in anyone's mind (least of all the speaker's) before, during or even after the encoding and output stages of the (final) utterance.

I guess I must be a fan, coz I see it as ditransitive.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:14 am

Though in response to Metal's original question, the doctor was the direct object of the verb.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:18 am

lolwhites wrote:Though in response to Metal's original question, the doctor was the direct object of the verb.

Indeedy do. (I thought that was obvious, but didn't like to say). But it is nice sometimes to get our brains pulsating with the possibility that "there might be more to it than that..."

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:30 am

Actually why are we talking about "direct object" here at all (as opposed to just "object"), when there is only one here (=aforesaid "object") and no contrasting "indirect" one to speak of?

Or have I overlooked something?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:05 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:Actually why are we talking about "direct object" here at all (as opposed to just "object"), when there is only one here (=aforesaid "object") and no contrasting "indirect" one to speak of? Or have I overlooked something?

You may have:

Consider also, for another example, sentences with structures like NP1 V NP2 to-V NP3 (We expected Jim to win the race). Those sentences fall on a gradient between monotransitive constructions and ditransitive constructions, with complex transitive constructions as the intermediate ground, cf.:

(1) We like the parents to visit the school. [monotransitive]

(2) We expected Jim to win the race. [complex transitive]

(3) We asked the students to attend the lecture. [ditransitive]

http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/engl_126/style3.htm

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:51 pm

Hmm, I guess I'm a bit of plodder or stick in the mud all right, because I just don't "get" sentences like those three, especially when they are "contextualized" to the extent that they supply within the sentence what would almost certainly be a given in the context beyond that (immediate, decontextualized) sentence, all rather unnecessarily:

We like (the) parents to visit (the school, obviously enough)

We expected Jim to win (the race we were just talking about)

We asked the students to attend (the lecture, which had I not mentioned it before now would naturally lead you to ask, 'Which lecture?', hence my mentioning it just now)

The very first sentence (about Janet's son) seems "better" context-wise...so it's a "complex transitive" eh? Fancy that!

As I implied by quoting Colloquial Chinese, I can "see" the "ditransitive" if I disregard the fact that English verbs are variable in form...

I can kind of follow the various "tests" Kies demonstrates to "prove" the constituents, but with the passive sentences I myself just see N BE V-ed to-V N, and if I had to choose there being an object I'd likely say it was just the "first" noun ("again").

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:22 pm

Huddleston goes into this in excruciating detail in Chapter 14 of the CGEL. When I've finished reading it I'll post what he says. Basically, however, he maintains the phrase has a noun phrase as the object and a catenative complement after.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:30 pm

I'm not too sure I like the idea of di-transitivity here though. as Fluffy says there is only one way you can passivize it.
The doctor was persuaded by Janet to examine her son.
*To examine her son was persuaded by Janet the doctor.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:19 pm

Wouldn't the passive be 'The doctor was persuaded (by Janet) to examine her/Janet's son'?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:18 pm

Woops! Tnanks. I've changed it now.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:11 am