on reversed "substitute" (intransitive version)

[Laurence Horn]

On Aug 26, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:

> At 8/26/2011 06:38 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>
>> Reminds me; the original from Cris Carter was actually "When you
>> substitute him", not "if".  Same difference as they say (but I
>> usually don't).  For me, these are not at all transparent; I only
>> process them as "If/When you substitute him (for someone else)", not
>> "If/When you substitute (someone else for) him", although clearly
>> it's the latter that was intended.
>
> 1)  Why is this intransitive?

Good point.  I guess I was thinking in terms of my own dialect, in which the direct object of "substitute" is always the new quarterback, not the outgoing one.  So a transitive "The Colts substituted Manning (for X)" would contrast with an intransitive "The Colts substituted (X for) Manning", where I'd have to say "The Colts substituted for Manning", which of course *would* be intransitive (unless you take "substitute for" to be a complex transitive predicate).  But you're right in that for the speakers of the new dialect like Cris Carter, the direct object of "substitute" is the one who is replaced.  It's really a difference in argument structure or meaning rather than one of transitivity.
>
> 2)   I also believe I've heard it on soccer ... er, football ...
> broadcasts.  "Pele is being substituted" meaning "A substitute is
> coming in for Pele."
My second example, from the web, was indeed from a soccer context, but it wasn't passive.  Again, my passive here (or what's sometimes called a pseudo-passive or prepositional passive) would have to be "Pele is being substituted for".
>
> Since this seems the passive to me, wouldn't the usage be
> transitive?  That is, "him" in "When you substitute him" is the
> object of the verb.  (In "substitute for him", it's the object of a
> preposition.)  Or is my grammatical analysis defective?
>
No, as mentioned, it's just a matter of my accepting that the replacement can be the direct object of "substitute"; I grant that that's a case of my narrowness; both lexical frames allow "The Colts substituted Manning", it's just a question of whether Manning has just run onto the field (my dialect) or off it (Carter's).  Or perhaps there are speakers for whom it's simply ambiguous.  I have to grant that "They substituted him" is just as transitive for the speakers of the other dialect as "They replaced him" is for me.

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org