Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учеб. (на англ. яз.) – 4-е изд., испр. – М.: Высш. шк., 2003. – 423 с.
(Страницы даны по первому изданию 1983 года. В скобках в начале каждого раздела указаны соответствующие страницы по 4-му изданию)
still running the show? (run — monocomplementive, transitive).
The railings felt cold. (feel — link-verb, predicative complementive). We felt fine after the swim. (feel — adverbial complementive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your own pulse like that. (feel — monocomplementive, transitive).
The problem arises, how to interpret these different subclass entries — as cases of grammatical or lexico-grammatical homonymy, or some kind of functional variation, or merely variation in usage. The problem is vexed, since each of the interpretations has its strong points.
To reach a convincing decision, one should take into consideration the actual differences between various cases of the "subclass migration" in question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the regularity factor for an individual lexeme subclass occurrence.
In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class occurrences of the analysed lexemes, probably the most plausible solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes [Почепцов, (2), 87 и сл.]. In the light of this interpretation, the very formula of "lexemic subclass migration" will be vindicated and substantiated.
On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for instance, functional versus notional, the syntactic variation principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be analysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expression of categorially different grammatical functions.