Parsing.

[tkacka15]

Is my parsing correct?

"He persuaded her not to go."

He - the subject;

persuaded - the predicator (the verb);

her - the indirect object;

not to go - the direct object (a non-finite infinitive clause).

Thank you.

 

[Raymott]

No, 'her' is the direct object.

 

[lotus888]

Is my parsing correct?

"He persuaded her not to go."

He - the subject;

persuaded - the predicator (the verb);

her - the indirect object;

not to go - the direct object (a non-finite infinitive clause).

Thank you.

The reason why you think "her" is an indirect object is because "persuade" is actually acting as a causative verb.

He persuaded her (not) to go. For now, let's exclude "not".

He persuaded her to go. The "persuasion" is what caused her to go.

CAUSE + PERSON + TO + VERB
PERSUADE + PERSON + TO + VERB

In this case, the person is the agent for the action.

He made her puke. He didn't puke. She's the one who puked. He caused her to puke.

She is not the object of made. She is simply an agent of the verb puke (it happened to her).

The way I see it, the PERSON is neither a direct nor indirect object -- she is simply an agent.

http://www.espressoenglish.net/causative-verbs-in-english-let-make-have-get-help/

http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-causative-verb.php



--lotus

 

[tkacka15]

No, 'her' is the direct object.

Thank you, Raymott, for your reply.

I understand it this way:

He persuaded [what] not to go into [whom] her.

Is my understanding of it right?

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Tkacka:

I have good news and bad news for you.

The bad news is that there appear to be several "correct" ways to interpret your sentence -- depending on which book you are using.

The good news is that one huge book respected by scholars throughout the world * agrees with you that "her" is an indirect object. Let me cite a few of its points:

1. "I told/advised/persuaded Mark to see a doctor."

a. The book says that "the noun phrase [Mark] is an indirect object, ... the indirect object refers to the addressee ["Mark"]."

b. The book then gives this passive sentence [as "proof"?]: Mark was told/advised/ persuaded to see a doctor."

c. The book reminds us that we cannot say "To see a doctor was told [/persuaded] Mark."


As I said, the analysis depends on the book that you use.

I, of course, shall keep my opinion to myself, and I shall never gainsay anything that a teacher tells you. I just thought, however, that it would OK to let you know that there are several ways to parse your sentence.


*Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985 edition), page 1215.

P.S. To make the situation more fun, look at this sentence from a reputable book:

"The dean requested me to report at once [to his office?]." (My emphasis)

a. The two scholars claim that "me to report at once" is the direct object of the verb (and "me" is the subject of the infinitive).

b. I guess that the "huge" book would disagree, for it says that "request" is to be analyzed in the same way that "persuade" is.

Pence and Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English (1947 and 1963), page 70.

 

[Matthew Wai]

not to go - the direct object (a non-finite infinitive clause).

I think 'not to go' is a to-infinitive acting as an adjective modifying 'her', but I am not a teacher.

 

[tkacka15]

Thank you, The Parser, for your detailed and interesting replay.


"I just thought, however, that it would OK to let you know that there are several ways to parse your sentence."

Yes, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I don't think so.

Then what do you think 'not to go' modifies?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with Parser. These seemingly simple constructions are difficult to analyze. One of of the most perplexing sentences comes from a children's book. "See Spot run". The best analysis that I have seen has "Spot" as the indirect object.

 

[Raymott]

1. "I told/advised/persuaded Mark to see a doctor."

a. The book says that "the noun phrase [Mark] is an indirect object, ... the indirect object refers to the addressee ["Mark"]."

b. The book then gives this passive sentence [as "proof"?]: Mark was told/advised/ persuaded to see a doctor."


*Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985 edition), page 1215.

"The dean requested me to report at once [to his office?]." (My emphasis)

1. I agree that the second may be right. But 'requested' is not 'persuaded'. You can request a coffee, but you can't persuade a coffee. This is important to my argument below.

2. 1b doesn't 'prove' the claim.
"I hit the dog."; "The dog was hit". This 'proves' that the dog is the direct object.
"I persuaded Mark."; "Mark was persuaded". So, how does this 'prove' that Mark is the indirect object?
"I gave Mark a book."; "Mark was given a book"; "A book was given to Mark." Does the first passive variant 'prove' that 'Mark' is the direct object, while the second 'proves' that 'the book' is the direct object?
There's something fishy about this proof.
Actually, Quirk doesn't present this as a proof, just an illustration. There are obviously different ways of parsing this.

Taking the original, "He persuaded her not to go", and asserting that this essentially means "He persuaded 'not to go' to her" then, yes, 'her' is indirect. It would be more convincing with "suggested/advised". That would make "not to go" a suggestion or a piece of advice. But is it a persuasion? 'She' is the patient (in the agent/patient schema). 'He' affected a change in 'her'. Persuasion is not a simple telling or suggesting or advising.
So, I'm sticking with 'her' as the direct object in this case, and I reserve the right not to parse the rest of the sentence.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

For those members and guests who may be interested in this topic, I have found something else to share.

First, let's NOT discuss the difference between "to convince" and "to persuade." For some speakers, there is a difference that should be observed. For the sake of this post, however, let's not go there.

*****

One scholar gives this example: "Amdromeda persuaded/convinced Perseus to leave at once."

The scholar says that those two verbs "mean something like 'cause someone to intend to take some action.' "


Source: Roderick A. Jacobs, University of Hawai'i [sic] at Manoa, English Syntax / A Grammar for English Language Professionals (1995), Oxford University Press, page 297.

 

[lotus888]

I agree.


Andromeda?


--lotus

 

[Matthew Wai]

"He persuaded her not to go."

Does 'not to go' function as a noun, an adjective or an adverb?

 

[tkacka15]

Does 'not to go' function as a noun, an adjective or an adverb?

No, in my parsing it functions as a direct object, in Raymott's parsing "not to go" follows the direct object "her" and in my tentative understanding he means it as an adjunct.

Anyway, I think that your question is the one about the word classes rather than about the functions of the "not to go" in that sentence. I classify it as a non-finite clause where "her" is an implied subject, "not" an adverb and "to go" a verb.

 

[Raymott]

First, let's NOT discuss the difference between "to convince" and "to persuade."

There's no need to. They have the same function in making the person who is persuaded or convinced the direct object.

 

[mawes12]

In "I told her not to go.", I think "not to go" is acting like a noun there because I think it answers the question, "What has he told her?".

I might be wrong though.

 

[Matthew Wai]

in Raymott's parsing "not to go" follows the direct object "her"

Does 'not to go' modify 'her'?

 

[tzfujimino]

He persuaded her not to go.

He - subject
persuaded - verb
her - object
not to go - object complement

This is how I would parse the sentence.
(I'm not a grammarian.)

 

[Matthew Wai]

not to go - object complement

'An object complement is a noun, a pronoun, or an adjective'── quoted from http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/object_complement.htm

Is 'not to go' a noun or an adjective?

 

[tkacka15]

'An object complement is a noun, a pronoun, or an adjective'── quoted from http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/object_complement.htm

Is 'not to go' a noun or an adjective?

Hi Matthew.

"not to go" is not a part of speech, i.e. it's not a noun or an adjective; it's a verb phrase in which the verb "to go" is the head of the phrase and the adverb "not" is the head modifier.