回答：
不知楼主自己找到答案没有.我想简单说下我的看法,不一定对,但互相讨论一下,便于更好地理解.
在《教程》4.3.3中先给“宾语”进行了定义即：
OBJECT is also a term hard to define. Since, traditionally, subject can be defined as the doer of the action, object may refer to the “receiver” or “goal” of an action and it is further classified into DIRECT OBJECT and INDIRECT OBJECT.
然后又说：
Modern linguists (e.g. Chomsky, Halliday) suggest that object refers to such an item that it can become subject in a passive transformation.
所以,顺理成章,接着说：
Although there are nominal phrases in ex. 4-27, they are by no means objects because they cannot be transformed into passive voice.
Ex. 4-27
(a) He died last week.
(b) The match lasted three hours.
(c) He changed trains at Fengtai. (*Trains were changed by him at Fengtai.)
说一下自己的看法：对于He changed trains.如果不按照上面的定义的话,我肯定会认为是object,因为作为补语太不习惯,毕竟这个和(a)(b)差别很大.但,宾语毕竟是动作的承受者,而在这个句子中,也不能说train承受了change这个动作,而是可以理解为He changed his route by taking another train.就如同我们汉语“打春” 不能把“春”理解成宾语一样,虽然看上去是动词+名词结构的.那“打春”是动补结构吗?我认为肯定不是.所以,有时意译、结构分析时会有冲突.
在4.3.4中,《教程》又一次提到这个例子,并说是verb+complement结构,根据的还是能否把英文句子改为为被动,而在4.3.3也进行了声明,即这个依据是某些语言学家的观点(Chomsky and Halliday).所以,至于我们个人能否接受,那就因人而异了.
但是把它定义为补语,我觉得也欠妥.《教程》因为没有把complement的定义及特征给出,所以把上述句子作为“动+补”肯定会有争议的.
希望能对你有所帮助,欢迎进一步探讨. 回答：
不知楼主自己找到答案没有.我想简单说下我的看法,不一定对,但互相讨论一下,便于更好地理解.
在《教程》4.3.3中先给“宾语”进行了定义即：
OBJECT is also a term hard to define. Since, traditionally, subject can be defined as the doer of the action, object may refer to the “receiver” or “goal” of an action and it is further classified into DIRECT OBJECT and INDIRECT OBJECT.
然后又说：
Modern linguists (e.g. Chomsky, Halliday) suggest that object refers to such an item that it can become subject in a passive transformation.
所以,顺理成章,接着说：
Although there are nominal phrases in ex. 4-27, they are by no means objects because they cannot be transformed into passive voice.
Ex. 4-27
(a) He died last week.
(b) The match lasted three hours.
(c) He changed trains at Fengtai. (*Trains were changed by him at Fengtai.)
说一下自己的看法：对于He changed trains.如果不按照上面的定义的话,我肯定会认为是object,因为作为补语太不习惯,毕竟这个和(a)(b)差别很大.但,宾语毕竟是动作的承受者,而在这个句子中,也不能说train承受了change这个动作,而是可以理解为He changed his route by taking another train.就如同我们汉语“打春” 不能把“春”理解成宾语一样,虽然看上去是动词+名词结构的.那“打春”是动补结构吗?我认为肯定不是.所以,有时意译、结构分析时会有冲突.
在4.3.4中,《教程》又一次提到这个例子,并说是verb+complement结构,根据的还是能否把英文句子改为为被动,而在4.3.3也进行了声明,即这个依据是某些语言学家的观点(Chomsky and Halliday).所以,至于我们个人能否接受,那就因人而异了.
但是把它定义为补语,我觉得也欠妥.《教程》因为没有把complement的定义及特征给出,所以把上述句子作为“动+补”肯定会有争议的.
希望能对你有所帮助,欢迎进一步探讨.