Teacher Discussion Forums

Hello all.
My name is Brian; and I'd like to ask for your help in classifying this sentence.

'Mary saw Peter walking his dog.'

Is this a complex sentence, as it has one finite verb (saw) and one non-finite verb (walking)?

My understanding of a complex sentence is that it should have one main clause and one or more subordinate clauses. (Clauses defined as a group of words with a finite verb. But 'walking' is a non-finite verb.) Is this a complex sentence because of the complex verb phrase?

Thanking you
Brian

No, it's not a complex sentence. Multiple non-finite clauses can occur in simple sentences. In contrst to your sentence, the sentence "Mary says Peter is walking his dog." is complex because both verbs are finite.

Hi Brian and Ouyang (and apologies, Brian, for not replying sooner - I was intending to, but have been busy with other things and rather forgot all about your question - nice to see Ouyang came to the rescue!).

"Expanding" on what Ouyang wrote, I wouldn't say that there is a complex verb phrase there ('saw' is simple enough), but rather, a 'complex transitive' (i.e. a verb with an object with a bare infinitive or participle following it that together form a sort of subject-predicate non-finite clause/phrase functioning overall as an object (meaning it is still one of the five elements of clause structure*)), which allows us to "say two things at once"** (that is, for the "object" to also seem to be a "subject"***, provided it is followed by a non-finite verb (one could forge a link to 'pivotal constructions' in Chinese here****)). (I wonder actually if something like 'absolute clause***** functioning as object' would be an at all acceptable analysis? (Opinions, please!)).

Chalker & Weiner in their [i]Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar[/i] wrote:complex transitive verb

1 A verb that takes a direct object plus an object complement; i.e. a verb in an SVOC structure:

Let's paint the town red
They made him leader

2 More widely, a verb in any structure in which the object noun phrase alone is not 'acted upon' by the verb, but the object and what follows it are in a sort of 'subject-predicate' relationship as regards meaning e.g.

We watched him leave/leaving (i.e. He left)
I knew him to be a crook (i.e. He was a crook)
They made him pay (i.e. He paid)
I saw him arrested (i.e. He was arrested)

There are however considerable differences of analysis here: some of these verbs would be considered ordinary transitive (monotransitive) verbs in some grammars, or dealt with as catenatives.

3 (In other models.) A verb that takes an obligatory adverbial in an SVOA pattern; e.g.

She put the car in the garage
He threw himself into the role

Compare DITRANSITIVE.

[-You could also do a search in Huddleston & Pullum's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar for 'complex transitive', follow the links to the half-dozen or so pages with the term higlighted.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qlxD ... frontcover
-Then, Lock's Functional English Grammar provides a Hallidayan/Systemic-functional perspective - a search for 'perception', then consulting pp106-107 (i.e. section 6.1.3 to just the end of the first paragraph following examples 12-14 on page 107), and the table on page 111, should be sufficient to get the gist of SF grammar in relation to this area (but you might like to read the whole of at least Chapter 6 there (assuming it is all previewable)).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P0cT ... frontcover
-Finally, books like The Grammar Book go into some detail regarding the difference between what they call 'subject-participle complements' versus gerund complements and bare infinitive complements generally (see pg 644 and pp 651-652). (I could type some of it up and post it here if you like)].

NB: (In relation to your question of whether you had a simple or complex sentence there, Brian) I'm assuming that you can accept the idea of non-finite clauses, but seeing, like I've pointed out above (and below, in the additional notes) that the thing that follows the complex transitive verb is a sort of S-P fusion with neither finiteness following that S ("obviously"/strangely enough) nor what I would call absolute non-finiteness (which would only really follow if there were no immediately prior S!), then it can hardly be a complex sentence (sorry if my sentence here is a little brain-bending, but I'm not sure how else I can describe things at the moment. Hopefully Ouyang or somebody will come along and straighten out as least the sentence, if not me too! LOL).

Generally, I guess I am basically tempted to see "uninterrupted" catenatives as complex VPs, complex transitives as having S-P "objects" (but only because of there being finiteness in only the prior CT verb but not the following P), and examples like She told me (that) she was delighted and I hadn't asked her what she wanted (both drawn from the entry for 'ditransitive' in the Chalker & Weiner, and, incidentally, having finites in the second clause) as clauses functioning as "direct" objects.

I'm not sure if all this will really prove that helpful - I wonder if I've thought things through clearly and enough myself yet - but I hope it will at least be of interest and encourage further discussion, even if it doesn't ultimately add much in itself.


*Consider that 'Mary saw' and 'Peter walk/Peter walking' are obviously ungrammatical if and when separated. Compare all this also with something like 'Walking her dog, she saw Peter walking his also', where there really is a subordinate clause (or phrase, if you prefer), specifically, a participle/participial clause.

**I've remembered a quote that Sinclair attributes to Winters: 'grammar is needed because you can't say everything at the same time' - and how much less we'd be able to say at the same time were it not for such structures! (Maybe we'd "end up" like the Piraha? (Do a search for 'Piraha' here on Dave's and you'll find there are four quite interesting threads)).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NhSO ... r#PPA73,M1

***Chalker & Weiner mention a fifth 'Z element' in SF grammar (besides Predicator (which replaces V), Complement (which includes O), Adjunct (which replaces Adverbial), and presumably Subject still) 'used for nominal groups whose status is indeterminate between subject and complement...for example...elements in which subject and object are fused: Jack persuaded Fiona to come'. I'm not sure that Lock discusses this, BTW.

**** http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aEti ... #PPA105,M1

***** 'A non-finite or verbless clause containing its own subject, separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma (or commas, or dashes) and not introduced by a subordinator: The fight to board the train - the women crushed against the doors, the children clutching their mothers - repeated itself at the next station; The place empty once more, I settled down for the night' (Chalker & Weiner). One could extend the principle to e.g. "verbs of perception" with the use of a colon (imagined more than actually written or printed and visible), thus: She saw: Peter walking his dog.

Fluffy, I suspect Brian did not realize that he had asked such a complicated question. Most grammars define complex sentences as containing two clauses in which one is subordinate to the other. By that definition, his example sentence is complex. However, he's not going to find a grammar book which will include a sentence similar to his as an example of a complex sentence.

This is why I use the term "verbal phrase" rather than "non-finite clause". IMO non-finite clauses are non-clauses. I believe a relationship of complementation rather than predication exists between the direct object and the present participle in his sentence.

Consider the sentence, "Mary saw Peter and Paul together in the hot tub." What is the word "together" in that sentence? Most teachers will look it up in a dictionary and conclude it's an adverb. It isn't. It's a predicate adjective which complements the compound object "Peter and Paul". That's why I use the term "predicate verbal" in my grammar at http://www.ColorCodedEnglish.com/ to explain these complex predicates.

The term "complex catenative verb" is also useful for explaining these constructions. For example, "to see" is a complex catenative, but "to want" is both a simple and complex catenative, "I want to leave" / "I want Peter to walk the dog".

Fluffy, I think the phrases you quoted, "the women crushed against the doors, the children clutching their mothers" are sometimes classified as "absolute phrases", so I don't think the term "absolute clause" is particularly helpful, but, like I said, I don't consider non-finite clauses to be clauses.

Hi again Ouyang! Sorry that I keep saying 'clause' when for some (many?) 'phrase' would be better - I did say 'or phrase if you prefer' once at least, but the Chalker & Weiner entry is called 'absolute clause' (which must've distracted me), and being a grammar dictionary, it doesn't exclude the idea of non-finite clauses. I also have no problem with 'a relationship of complementation rather than predication existing between the d.o and pr.p in the example sentence', again, I was just following the Oxford dictionary (whilst wondering about complementation myself - what difference is there between the two terms, is there much (here)?).

I'm not sure though if there is real subordination/two clauses in the example sentence though, because (like I was trying to say before) 'Peter walking his dog' seems so fragmentary: verb(al)s should agree with their subjects whilst (on the "other" hand) participal phrases (subjectless as far as I can fathom) be somewhat moveable (without becoming clear "danglers") - right? (Then, the C&W entry for 'absolute clause' states that they aren't introduced (assumedly ever) by subordinators, implying that they achieve cohesion with the co-text and context by other means instead, which to me seems relevant somehow to Brian's example).

One thing's for sure though, grammar books aren't 100% clear and helpful, and to get nearer that 100% clarity one might decide on the need to start positing alternative analyses that make more consistent sense to oneself at least (as you've obviously done, Ouyang!).

Regarding 'together', I guess I'll have to refer back to your CCG.

Just out of interest:

Trask, in his [i]Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar[/i], wrote:absolute construction A phrase which is linked to the sentence containing it only by meaning and intonation, with no grammatical link of any kind. In the following examples, the bracketed sequences are absolute constructions: [The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home; The two women[, their business concluded,] retired to the bar. Compare the example The two women, having concluded their business, retired to the bar, in which the phrase enclosed in commas is overtly linked to the rest of the sentence by the participle having.

Then, Brazil pg 128, and chapter 5 (esp pp59-60):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ADDF ... #PPA128,M1

Also two entries from the glossary in Brazil (unfortunately not available for preview otherwise):

finite second predicator Chains are found in which a second (or subsequent) N initiates a subchain (q.v.): that is to say, it is followed by a finite verbal element just as if it were a chain-initial N. This facility is used most frequently when the N concerned is the second of a reduplicating pair.

non-finite verbal element The non-finite forms of verbal elements are: -ing form, to- form, past participle form, and plain infinitive. As parts of a chain (q.v.) they have two special features: they have no separately realized subject N; and their event time (q.v.) is given by relating it to the time reference point of another verb.

It sure is a complex discussion! I hope Briank braced himself.

Aww, no obscure obscuring obfuscation of your own, Woody? I'm sure Brian will be disappointed - I know I am!

Hello Fluffyhamster, Ouyang.

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. I got the answer I needed and so much more! It would take me some time to digest all of it, but I'm getting there

Regards
Brian