11
Stretched Verb Constructions in English
11
11
111
This book presents a thorough and original discussion of an important yet neglected area of English grammar and semantics. Verb phrases such as make an accusation against somebody, give one’s approval for something or be abusive towards somebody can be seen as ‘stretched’ versions of simpler verb phrases such as accuse somebody (of something), approve (of) something or abuse somebody. The stretched construction in each case consists of a verb with a rather ‘thin’ or ‘lightweight’ meaning, complemented by a noun phrase or adjective phrase that carries the eventive meaning normally carried by the verb. Offering a wealth of new material, this book seeks to answer certain questions about these constructions: • • • •
111
111
111
• •
What is the precise nature of these constructions and how many types of them are there? What differences in syntactic structure are there between the stretched verb construction and the simple verb? What kinds of eventive noun are used to represent the related simple verb, and what kinds of specifiers and modifiers do they require or permit? What kinds of thin verbs are used, and what semantic contributions can they make in their semantically lightweight use? How do stretched verb constructions compare with other non-literal expressions like restricted collocations and idioms? How are stretched verb constructions handled by language-users and dictionary makers?
Students and linguists working in the fields of syntax, idiomaticity and lexicology will find this book a valuable resource. D. J. Allerton lectured in general linguistics at the University of Manchester until 1980, when he moved to become Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Basle in Switzerland. His chief research field is syntax, which he approaches from a valency/dependency perspective. His other interests include lexicology, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis and intonation.
1
Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics Series Editors: Ekkehard König and Johan van der Auwera
1
1
11
11
11
11
1 Negative Contexts Collocation, polarity and multiple negation Ton van der Wouden 2 When-Clauses and Temporal Structure Renaat Declerck 3 On the Meaning of Topic and Focus The 59th street bridge accent Daniel Büring 4 Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference Laura A. Michaelis 5 The Grammar of Irish English Language in Hibernian style Markku Filppula 6 Intensifiers in English and German Peter Siedmund 7 Stretched Verb Constructions in English D. J. Allerton
11
11
Stretched Verb Constructions in English D. J. Allerton
11
111
111
RO
• l
ou
y Ta
or
p
•
111
GE
111
LE UT D
& F r n cis G a
r
London and New York
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
First published 2002 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. © 2002 D. J. Allerton All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Allerton, D. J. Stretched verb constructions in English/D. J. Allerton. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. I. English language – Verb phrase. 2. English language – Syntax. I. Title. PE1319 A56 2001 425–dc21 2001052018 ISBN 0-203-16764-3 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-26255-7 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0–415–25733–6 (Print Edition)
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
‘Those rules of old discover’d, not despis’d, Are Nature still, but Nature methodiz’d;’ (Pope, Essay on criticism)
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
Contents
11
11
111
List of figures List of tables Preface PART I
Defining the field
1
I.1
3
111
Towards a definition of ‘kindred relations’ I.1.i I.1.ii I.1.iii I.1.iv I.1.v
I.2
111
111
x xi xiii
Stretched elaborated verb structures I.2.i I.2.ii I.2.iii
I.3
The data to be explained 3 Types of correspondence between structures 8 ‘Transformational relations’ 9 Harris’s approach 10 ‘Kindred relations’ 13 15
The data and the issues they raise 15 The range of stretched verb constructions 20 The individual stretched verb constructions 24
Using data I.3.i The problems of corpus-based and intuition-based data 30 I.3.ii The approach used in this study 31
30
PART II
Syntactic restructuring
33
II.1
35
Syntactic framework II.1.i Levels of syntactic description 35 II.1.ii Scheme of functional categories and structures 38 II.1.iii Obligatory and optional elaborators 49
1
viii Contents II.2
Types of restructuring II.2.i II.2.ii II.2.iii II.2.iv II.2.v II.2.vi II.2.vii
54
Structure 1 patterns: V-ejection to AD (agentive) 54 Structure 2 patterns: V-ejection to ND (agentive) 59 Structure 3 patterns: V-ejection to ND (eventive) 63 Structure 4 patterns: V-ejection to PD (eventive) 66 Structure 5 patterns: V-ejection to PO/PÖ (eventive) 70 Structure 6 patterns: V-ejection to O/Ö (eventive) 77 General trends of restructuring 105
1
1
11
11
11
11
PART III
The event phrase
111
III.1 Eventive and agentive noun phrases: their core
113
III.1.i
Eventive nouns: their mode of derivation, semantic value and status 113 III.1.ii The determiner and the grammatical subclass of eventive noun phrases 124 III.1.iii Agentive nouns and their determiners 136 III.2 Eventive and agentive noun phrases: modifiers and qualifiers
139
III.2.i Adjectival modifications 139 III.2.ii Prepositional postqualifiers and thin prepositions 148 III.3 Agentive adjective phrases
159
III.3.i Agentive-eventive adjectives 159 III.3.ii Agentive adjective modification and complementation 163 PART IV
The thin verb
167
IV.1 The individual thin verbs, their meanings and collocations
169
IV.1.i IV.1.ii IV.1.iii IV.1.iv
Thinness and predictability of meaning 169 Thin verbs of high frequency 174 Thin verbs of medium frequency 186 Thin verbs of low and very low frequency 190
IV.2 The grammatical meanings of thin verbs IV.2.i Thin verbs, verb valency and verbal voice 192 IV.2.ii Thin verbs, ‘Aktionsart’ and verbal aspect 197
192
Contents IV.2.iii Thin verbs and minor semantic features 208 IV.2.iv Thin verbs and positive polarity 209
11
PART V
The lexical status of stretched verb constructions
213
V.1
215
The semantics of stretched verb constructions
11
V.1.i V.1.ii
11
V.1.iii V.1.iv
111
111
111
111
ix
V.2
Idioms, metaphors and collocations 215 The analysability and malleability of stretched verb constructions 223 Stretched verb constructions compared with rival patterns 226 Defective stretched verb constructions 234
Stretched verb constructions and the lexicon V.2.i V.2.ii V.2.iii
239
The cross-language status of stretched verb constructions 239 The psycholinguistic and cognitive status of stretched verb constructions 242 The lexicographic status of stretched verb constructions 245
A final thought
254
Appendix 1: Appendix 2:
255
Appendix 3: Appendix 4:
A classification of English adverbials Types of adjective modifying deverbal nouns – their correspondences to adverbial types Potential of eventive nouns for thin verbs Complete list of stretched verb constructions
Glossary Bibliography Index
258 266 271 280 283 293
1
Figures
1
1
11
11
11
11
2.1 Syntactic restructuring 4.1 Scheme of eventuality types 5.1 Schematic model of semantic processing by the reader–hearer
108 204 245
11
Tables
11
11
111
111
111
111
1.1 Exemplification of structural types of stretched verb construction 2.1 English verb valency patterns in non-stretched structures (excluding embedded structures) 3.1 Modes of derivation of eventive and deverbal nouns 3.2 Additional semantic facets of eventive deverbal nouns 3.3 Basic determiner potential of eventive nouns (in stretched verb constructions) 3.4 Modes of derivation of agentive-eventive nouns 3.5 Correspondences between meanings of adjectives (modifying eventive nouns) and types of adverbial 3.6 Prepositions and semantic roles in prepositional qualifiers (and in other prepositional phrases) 3.7 Modes of derivation of agentive-eventive adjectives 3.8 Semantic facets of subjects expressed by agentive adjectives as descriptors 4.1 Frequency of thin verbs in structures 5 and 6 (in combination with deverbal nouns in data base) 5.1 Phraseological units – defining criteria for subtypes 5.2 List of defective stretched verb constructions (numbered according to their construction type) 5.3 Range of structures in the semantic field (‘benefit some other person(s) by undertaking or joining some work on their behalf’)
18 50 114 122 128 137 147 152 160 162 171 222 236 247
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
Preface
11
11
111
111
111
111
The impulse to write something about what I call ‘stretched verb constructions’ grew out of two earlier interests, syntactic valency and collocations. I once encouraged a doctoral student to work in this field, but when she (quite sensibly) switched to German literature, she left me with a mediumsized collection of examples. I soon realized that because of the number and variety of the constructions any attempt at a thorough piece of work would mean a more detailed but less extensive coverage. Hence the curious limitation to verbs and deverbal (eventive) nouns beginning with A. Even so, the elusive nature of real data means that many aspects of the examples and their analysis is debatable and in need of further investigation. I can only hope to have taken some first steps in this relatively unexplored field. My thanks go to Domenica Cameron for bequeathing me her collection of constructions and the challenge of incomplete, unanalysed data. I am grateful to Cambridge University Press for permission to reproduce extracts from Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1995). I have had very helpful discussions with Richard Matthews, Paul Skandera and Nadja Nesselhauf about different parts of the book. I received some very encouraging comments from an anonymous reviewer, and Esther Mombelli and Rosemary Allerton read the whole of the book, pointing out many errors of detail. The doubtless large number of remaining errors are of course my own responsibility. The arduous task of compiling an index has been taken on by Cornelia Tschichold, to whom I owe sincerest thanks. DJA February 2001
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Part I
Defining the field
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
I.1 Towards a definition of ‘kindred relations’
11
11
111
I.1.i The data to be explained Language apparently abhors absolute synonymy almost as much as nature abhors an absolute vacuum. It is generally assumed by linguists that pairs of words or other lexical elements with absolutely identical meanings are rare, perhaps even non-existent. Not surprisingly, synonymy between grammatical constructions is equally uncommon: rival constructions, like affirmative versus negative verb phrase, or restrictive versus nonrestrictive relative clause, usually show clear differences in meaning; in other words, to adopt the terminology of Haas (1980: 67–9), they exhibit ‘heteronymy’. Even structures with more subtle differences of meaning, like active versus passive, or cleft versus non-cleft, can be said to be nonsynonymous, although they may involve near-synonymy, or ‘plesionymy’, to use the term proposed by Cruse (1986: 285–9). Morphologically related words of different syntactic classes, such as those of (1) below, are no exception to the general rule of heteronymy: (1)
111
111
111
(a) danger dangerous endanger
(b) risk (NOUN) risky risk (VERB)
(c) chance (NOUN) chancy chance (VERB).
There is a difference not only between the sets (1) (a), (b) and (c), but also between the words within each group sharing a common base but belonging to different word-classes. These differences in meaning between related words of different syntactic classes are of course partly predictable from the difference between noun, adjective and verb, but not completely so.1 For instance, whereas in the risk group all words have a pessimistic orientation, in the chance group this is only true of the verb and the adjective; the noun chance is neutral between optimism and pessimism. But such
1
For discussions of the semantic value of primary syntactic categories, see Lyons (1966, 1977), Allerton (1990a), Matthews (1993), Vogel (1996), Anderson (1997).
1
1
1
11
11
4 Defining the field idiosyncrasies are almost to be expected in the field of word-formation: the lexicon is well known as a repository for irregularities and exceptions, both in form and meaning. What is slightly less well-known is how such sets of words behave when they are placed into appropriate syntactic contexts. The adjectives (dangerous, risky, chancy) in the second line of (1) have been derived by suffixation, and the verbs in the third line have been derived by prefixation (endanger) or by so-called ‘conversion’ (risk, chance). As an alternative to deriving a verb from a noun by morphological derivation of this kind, it is often possible to form a more complex construction that is equivalent to the (one-word) verb (e.g. put . . . in danger, take a risk with . . . ). In such cases we seem to be able to start from a word of one syntactic class from which we derive a word of a different class by morphological means, and we can then embed this derived word in a syntactic construction of the same syntactic class as the original word. The resulting construction, if it is equivalent to a single verb, may well need a similar kind of complementation (or, to use a less ambiguous term, ‘elaboration’) to the one required by the simple verb, if it is to become an autonomous ‘complemented or elaborated verb structure’. For instance, put . . . in danger, take a risk with . . . will require elaboration with something, somebody (or the like) in the same way as the transitive verbs endanger and risk. We shall give the label ELABORATED VERB STRUCTURES2 to combinations of a verb with all the complementation it requires. Elaborated verb structures, in their turn, may be further supplemented by ‘free’, i.e. optional, adverbials (of time, manner, etc.) and require completion with an ‘auxiliary verb structure’ (i.e. tense and auxiliary verbs) to become a full predicate. The following example will clarify the analysis being assumed here: Sebastian must have endangered our lives there yesterday. SENTENCE SUBJECT Sebastian PREDICATE must have endangered our lives there yesterday. AUXILIARY VERB must have -ed STRUCTURE FREE ADVERBIALS there yesterday. ELABORATED VERB endanger- our lives STRUCTURE Let us now consider the range of elaborated verb structures3 of (2); those of (2)(a) are simple, or let us say ‘simplex’ (i.e. based on a simple lexical
11
11
2 The term ‘elaborated verb structure’, an improvement on ‘verb elaboration structure’ as used in Allerton (1982) is preferred to the ambiguous expression ‘verb phrase’, which for many syntacticians would have the meaning needed here, but for Quirk et al. (1972: 43–4) refers to combinations of auxiliary and lexical verb without its elaboration. 3 In all following examples smth, smbd, smwh stand for ‘something’, ‘somebody’, ‘somewhere’ respectively.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
‘Kindred relations’ 5 verb like endanger in its active or passive form), whereas those of (2)(b) are complex (i.e. involving a construction like put in . . . danger): (2) (a) (b)
endanger smth be endangered – – put smth in danger be in danger (of failing) –
risk smth be risked take a risk with smth ?take a risk on smth put smth at risk – be at risk of failing
– – – – –
run the risk of failing take the risk of failing take risks/a risk – –
chance smth ?be chanced take a chance with smth take a chance on smth – –
– – ?take the chance of failing take chances/a chance have a chance of winning use the chance to succeed
The existence of such constructions, with their surprising variety, raises a number of interesting questions, of which the most immediate is what to call them. They were discussed by early modern grammarians like Aronstein (1924: 42–4), Poutsma (1926: 21f, 387f), Trnka (1928: 141), Kruisinga (1932: 198), Jespersen (1942: 116–18) and Kirchner (1952), and also Rensky´ (1964) of the Prague school, who all saw the constructions as manifesting the analytic tendency of English, and the division of the simple verb’s meaning into two elements; but none of them offers a distinctive label for them, apart perhaps from Rensky´ ’s ‘verbo-nominal phrases’. They have also been linked with idioms and other conventional phrases: Nattinger and DeCarrico have a category of ‘lexical phrases’, but they apparently limit this to ‘collocations . . . that have been assigned pragmatic functions’ (1992: 36). The constructions were referred to as types of ‘phrasal verb’ in Stein (1991), and, more recently, as ‘expanded predicates’ in Algeo (1995) and ‘composite predicates’ in Brinton and Akimoto (1999); but none of these terms is very distinctive. Comparable constructions have been noted in German, where they are referred to as ‘Funktionsverbgefüge’(= ‘function verb constructions’) by, for instance, Engelen (1968) or as ‘nominale Fügungen’ (= ‘nominal complexes’) or ‘nominal paraphrases’, to use the translation of Keller (1978).4 In French the terms ‘locution verbale’ and ‘coalescence verbonominale’ are sometimes used, for instance by Björkman (1978). A new generally acceptable label for English would therefore be very useful. Since both take a risk and put (smth) at risk, for example, have a meaning that is very similar to that of risk (smth), we could say, adapting Heringer’s 4 Important contributions in this field are also to be found in Daniels (1963), Engelen (1968), Herrlitz (1973), von Polenz (1985), Sommerfeldt and Schreiber (1996).
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
6 Defining the field terminology (1989: 106–13), that the meaning of the simple verb has been ‘stretched’ over the longer whole phrase, and speak of STRETCHED VERB CONSTRUCTIONS.5 The next most obvious point to consider, given our starting point, is what kind of difference of meaning is involved between standard elaborated verb structures based on verbs compared with the ‘stretched’ ones based on verb–noun combinations. It is certainly quite a subtle difference, and we might also be tempted to ask why a language with a verb like risk also needs two alternative structures like take a risk with and put . . . at risk, or even why it needs the lengthier verbo-nominal constructions at all. Even without going into the matter in detail, we can already observe that the typical semantic role for a verb in a standard simple verb structure like risk smth is to refer to the kind of event involved, while the role of the subject, object, etc. is to refer to the participants and circumstances of the event. In the verbo-nominal structures, on the other hand, the event appears in the form of a noun, and there may be a more general reassignment of semantic roles to grammatical categories. A second set of questions to consider concerns the nature of the elements that have to be added to the (verb-derived) noun to give the combination the status of an elaborated verb structure. Starting from the noun itself, we can note that it first has to be supplied with an appropriate determiner, countable or mass according to the context, but that then the resulting noun phrase needs to be given a function (such as object) relative to a specially inserted verb, like take, put, be or run in the examples of (2). These verbs are used in an abstract non-literal sense, and although there seems to be a certain logic in the choice of verb in each combination, there also seems to be an element of arbitrariness. There does not seem to be a good reason why, for instance, English allows run the risk but does not favour run (the) danger(s). German, by contrast, has the combination Gefahr laufen literally ‘run danger’ but requires ein Risiko eingehen ‘go-in(to) a risk’, with combinations corresponding to run a risk and take a risk being unacceptable. These examples illustrate the general point that the choice of verb in such structures is at least partly arbitrary; and the same applies to prepositions selected to precede the nouns in the constructions put smth at risk and put smth in danger. The verbs and prepositions in question do not have their full literal meaning; nor are they totally empty of meaning. The verb and preposition of a stretched verb construction like put . . . in danger could be said to have a meaning that, while certainly not empty,6 5 Heringer actually seems to distinguish between ‘Streckverbindungen’ (in this case ‘gestreckte Verben’) and ‘Funktionsverbgefüge’ according to the degree of emptiness or grammaticalization of the thin verb. 6 This is suggested by Halliday (1985: 135), for whom ‘the process is expressed only as a Range, the verb being lexically empty’, although, interestingly enough, the example She dropped me a curtsey is analysed as having a ‘material Process’, which is defined (1985: 103–4) as being a process of ‘doing’.
‘Kindred relations’ 7
111
has, as a result of the stretching of the meaning over the longer construction, become rather ‘thin’, ‘weak’ or ‘light’, compared with, for instance, put and in in an elaborated verb structure like put the car in the garage. The verbs in stretched verb constructions seem to have a status that is half way between full lexical verbs and auxiliary verbs. There is probably a continuum of ‘fullness’ of lexical meaning ranging from very explicit lexical verbs like wink or engrave through more general verbs like act or affect, and then non-auxiliary be and have, to the most lexically empty grammatical markers, progressive or passive be and perfect have, which only have meaning in conjunction with the verb suffixes -ing and -en/-ed. The verbs take, put, etc. in the constructions under consideration here probably come about half-way along this scale: we can therefore refer to them as THIN VERBS, because the meaning is spread more thinly across the whole stretched construction. This is what Jespersen (1942: 117) probably had in mind when he spoke of ‘light verbs’.7 A term that refers more to the place these verbs have on the scale from auxiliary to lexical is the expression ‘support verbs’ used by Dras and Johnson (1996). Some French grammarians, such as Tutin (1997), have used the expression ‘verbe support’. In German grammar, where equivalent structures have been studied more intensively than in English, such verbs are referred to as ‘Funktionsverben’ (= ‘function verbs’). Thin verbs are discussed from a slightly different but eminently compatible perspective by Mel’cˇuk (1993). For him they realize one of his standard types of ‘lexical function’ (= ‘fonction lexicale’), the type that he entitles ‘Oper1’. Such recurrent semantic elements appear with different lexical shapes in different lexical collocations, the choice being determined by the deverbal noun (referred to as the ‘key word’ (‘mot clef’)), which appears in deep object position in French examples like porter plainte à qqn. This approach is not so far from that hinted at in Allerton (1982: 75–6), where it is suggested that, although such structures obviously have syntactic aspects, the choice of verb with ‘minimal semantic content’ is something that needs to be recorded in the lexicon. This is not to say that the verb is devoid of semantic content, and some linguists, such as Wierzbicka (1982), Stein (1991) and Quirk (1995), have pleaded strongly for the individual semantic contribution of such verbs. A further important issue concerning these constructions is their syntactic structure. We have seen that, as regards the role they play in the wider sentence, they are all elaborated verb structures. But their internal structures vary: while the basic structures with full lexical verbs (endanger smth, risk smth, chance smth) are apparently verb-plus-object constructions, the
111
7 The term is used in a rather different sense by, for instance, Radford (1997: 201f ), for whom it refers to a semantically lightweight verb that forms a construction with a full lexical verb, e.g. sad in make . . . sad (beside sadden).
11
11
11
111
111
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
8 Defining the field stretched verb structures we have considered sometimes have the deverbal noun as object (e.g. take a risk with smth) but sometimes have it as part of a preposition phrase (e.g. put smth at risk). It is clearly worth asking what the full range of such stretched verb structures is, and how they correspond to simple verb structures. In comparing such simple and complex constructions with each other, we can be seen to be following an approach that has something in common with the Construction Grammar approach found in, for instance, Fillmore et al. (1988), Goldberg (1995), Michaelis and Lambrecht (1996). A final important question concerns the lexical status of these constructions. It is clear that they cannot simply be regarded as fully regular syntactic structures that have simply been generated according to general rules. Although they do follow general patterns, it is obvious that they are subject to significant restrictions, not only in the choice of thin verbs and prepositions but also in their ability to be formed at all. The gaps in (2) above speak for themselves: why, for instance, does a risk require run, while a chance requires take, and a danger allows neither. This irregularity of patterning puts us in mind of word-formation, and we might be tempted to say simply that they must be listed in dictionaries. Even ignoring the fact that no current dictionaries, not even the B.B.I. Dictionary (Benson et al. 1986a), yet do this satisfactorily, this listing would still not bring out the evident regularity of syntactic patterning. This naturally brings us to the question of the nature of the syntactic relationship between the different grammatical patterns we have observed.
I.1.ii Types of correspondence between structures In Chomskyan ‘transformational grammar’ and other generative approaches the treatment of related but superficially different syntactic structures (such as affirmative versus negative, cleft versus non-cleft or active clause versus passive clause) has been developed considerably over the last forty years or so. Whereas originally Chomsky (1957) foresaw the possibility of generating the marked member (e.g. negative) of a pair of related structures directly by transformational rule, it is now envisaged that the pair will be differentiated at an underlying level by means of abstract devices, which then trigger movement rules and other ‘tidying up’ operations, to give the two superficially different sentences. This can mean that the relationship is not so clearly visible at the surface level of description; to appreciate the relationship (in a generative account) we need to see the transformational or derivational history of the structures concerned. A clearer picture of such relationships may emerge from a connectionist approach, cf. Bechtel and Abrahamsen (1991), Cottrell (1994), or even from a more highly developed lexicalist approach, either of which might allow the separate specification of different but related structures, presumably through some kind of ‘parallel processing’. For the time being, though,
11
11
11
‘Kindred relations’ 9 it will be sufficient to go back to early Chomsky, or, even better, to his teacher, Z. S. Harris. More traditionally the grammar of a language is described, either formally or informally, as a series of connected constructions. These constructions can be linked in at least three different ways, as noted by Haas (1966: 126–7): (a) they can be linked hierarchically, in that a construction at one level operates as a constituent of a higher construction (as when an object noun phrase, or a predicative noun phrase, forms part of a elaborated verb structure); (b) they can be linked also paradigmatically, in that one construction operates as an alternative to another (as when noun phrases and adjective phrases act as alternative predicative complementations of copular verbs like be or seem); (c) they can finally be linked syntagmatically, most closely as fellow constituents of a higher construction (to which each of them is linked hierarchically – as when a verb is partnered by an object or predicative noun phrase).
111
111
111
111
Moreover pairs of constructions that were treated by Harris (1957) or Chomsky (1957) as related through a transformation are linked either hierarchically through embedding (as when a relative clause with a sentence-like structure, is a constituent of a noun phrase) or paradigmatically (as when active and passive are alternative structures for a whole clause). But in either case they are linked by being functionally equivalent despite having similar (though structurally different) internal forms. If we approach things from a different direction, we can ask just how similar or how different two grammatical structures can be. They may differ minimally in that they have different elements at one point in their structures (as outlined in (b) above), or in that one of them contains an additional (optional) element; in both of these cases the two structures can, where this is thought desirable, be regarded as variants of a single complex construction.
I.1.iii ‘Transformational relations’ The relationships between constructions (at sentence level or below) for which Harris and Chomsky invoked the notion of ‘transformation’ involved cases for which the two patterns are too different to be regarded as variants of the same construction and yet are semantically so close that they need to be linked. Let us describe such constructions as being TRANSFORMATIONALLY RELATED. In such cases there will be a relatively complex difference in form between two constructions but a simple difference in meaning. Usually the two structures can be related by an automatic
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
10
Defining the field
rule. To form a standard negative sentence from an affirmative one in current spoken English, for instance, the rule could look something like: (i) In finite clauses: if there is an auxiliary (/or are auxiliaries), add the clitic n’t after the (first) auxiliary; if no auxiliary is present, add n’t after a specially inserted auxiliary DO. (ii) In non-finite clauses: add the word not immediately before any auxiliary or the lexical verb. The effect of such rules is to produce related structures like those of (3): (3)
AFFIRMATIVE
NEGATIVE
opened the door could have opened the door to open the door having opened the door
didn’t open the door couldn’t have opened the door not to open the door not having opened the door or having not opened the door
We can observe a similar effect by comparing active clauses with their corresponding passive clauses. The net effect of all of this for such structures, which we are calling TRANSFORMATIONALLY RELATED, is, as we noted, that they have a complex difference in form corresponding to a simple difference in meaning. The complex differences in form result from the insertion or omission of grammatical elements and the reordering of elements, with any consequential changes in agreement, etc. due to a change in function (like object to subject). There can be changes in grammatical function and changes in inflectional category (e.g. active to passive verb) but no changes in major word class (e.g. noun to verb). A connexionist approach to the description of such structures implies specifying not just the separateness of the different structures, but also the precise ways in which they are related, e.g. the correspondence between an active object and a passive subject. This does of course mean a high level of redundancy in the specification of grammatical patterns. But the human mind may well require the high level of redundancy necessitated by multiple specification in order to compensate for its general inefficiency of operation and the myriad of errors of performance it is capable of.
I.1.iv Harris’s approach Z. S. Harris’s approach to inter-sentence relations is still worthy of our attention. In his article ‘Cooccurrence and transformation in linguistic structure’ (1957) he developed a notion of ‘transformation’ that corresponds quite closely to the traditional idea embodied in such well-known grammatical exercises as ‘Convert into the passive’. Harris’s approach,
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
‘Kindred relations’ 11 however, arose out of his requirement that a fully explicit syntax should take account of lexical cooccurrence restrictions and of textual links between sentences. The fact, for instance, that injure (unlike damage) does not collocate with table or telephone, either as the head noun of its object in an active sentence or as the head noun of its subject in a passive sentence, is something that needs to be accounted for in a full syntactic description of English. Equally the fact that Sybil said so can only be understood by referring back to an earlier sentence is something requiring a syntactic explanation. It is worth emphasizing three points about Harris’s notion of ‘transformation’. The first is that, although the two structures linked in a transformational relationship may be unequal in that one of them (such as ACTIVE in the pair ACTIVE–PASSIVE) is structurally simpler and therefore perhaps the natural candidate for the grammarian to select as the basic form, it is perfectly possible to regard the two related structures as, at least in some ways, equal in status. In fact, Harris speaks of ‘two-way transformations’. Certainly at the level of performance it is easy to envisage a speaker switching from PASSIVE to ACTIVE or from INTERROGATIVE to DECLARATIVE just as readily as in the reverse direction. A second point is that some transformational relationships involve a link between a lexical element and a corresponding grammatical one. A good example is the relationship formulated in the 1960s and 1970s as the rule of ‘pronominalization’. This means that, for example, any singular countable noun in English can be replaced with the grammatical substitute one, or any noun phrase can be replaced with one of the pronouns he, she, it or they. Harris saw such correspondences as involving a one–many relationship; and, although within a generative framework it would be essential to take the lexically specified structure as primary, this is not strictly necessary if we are (redundantly) specifying the two structures in parallel. Finally, Harris was willing to contemplate the possibility that transformational relations could involve exceptions. Of course some of the exceptions he discussed were purely the result of the technical limitations of his chosen syntactic framework, as when he worries about the fact that the apparently passive sentence (4)(a) does not have (4)(b) as its corresponding active: (4)
(a) The guests were drunk by midnight. (b) *Midnight drank the guests.
Any grammarian looking for a semantic correspondence between two transformationally related sentences would of course immediately reject (4)(a) and (b) as such a pair (on the basis of were drunk being not passive but adjectival, not to mention the meaning of by); but Harris was simply following post-Bloomfieldian tradition by refraining from considering semantics.
1
1
1
12
A more serious exception to the ACTIVE–PASSIVE correspondence is the fact that active sentences with reflexive objects have no corresponding passive sentence, as demonstrated by: (5)
11
11
(a) *Themselves were incapacitated by the guests with drink. (b) The guests incapacitated themselves with drink.
Such apparent ‘exceptions’ to transformational correspondences can presumably be taken care of by building the limitations into the specification of the relationship. Alternatively, it could be said that the relationship only holds for, say, 95 per cent of the possible cases. Whichever of these approaches we take, it will still be possible to state transformational relations of Harris’s kind in terms of regular correspondences between alternative structures. The active–passive relation for English, for instance, (given that it excludes ‘stative’ passive structures like be interested in smth) could be expressed as follows: (6)
[activeNP1 subj + Aux + Vactive + (Prep +) NP2 obj ] ⇔ [passive NP2 subj + Aux + Vpassive + (Prep +) + by + NP1]
11
11
Defining the field
in which ‘Aux’ stands for all auxiliaries except passive BE, and ‘Vpassive’, is understood as equivalent to ‘BE + Vactive’, and in which the sign ⇔ is interpreted as meaning ‘corresponds to’. This would ensure correspondences like: (7)
[The farmer shot (at) the duckling] ⇔ [The duckling was shot (at) by the farmer]
providing that subject–verb agreement was only allowed to operate once the one form or the other had been selected. The role of the NP1 will probably also have to be specified.8 Similarly for cleft structures of active sentences: (8)
[non-cleft NP1 subj + Aux + Vactive + (Prep +) NP2 obj + Advb/PPplace + Advb/PPtime] ⇔ [cleft It + Aux + BE + X + that + [non-cleft structure without X]]
whereby ‘X’ is interpreted as one of the set {NP1 subj, NP2 obj, Advb/ PPplace, Advb/PPtime}. This would ensure correspondences like:
8 See the discussion of ‘perjects’ in section II.1.i below.
11
‘Kindred relations’ 13 (9)
[The farmer shot (at) the duckling at home last night] ⇔ [It was the farmer that shot (at) the duckling at home last night.] or [It was the duckling that the farmer shot (at) at home last night.] or [It was at home that the farmer shot (at) the duckling last night.] or [It was last night that the farmer shot (at) the duckling at home.]
Correspondences such as these are regular enough to be formulated as grammatical rules, not in the sense of ‘rewrite rules’, but in the sense of ‘rules of regular grammatical-semantic correspondence’.
11
11
111
111
111
111
I.1.v ‘Kindred relations’ Under this heading Harris wanted to place all quasi-transformational relationships which were valid for considerably less than 100 per cent of cases. We could consider the following as typical examples: (10) (a) ATTRIBUTIVE/PREDICATIVE adjectives, (b) ‘simple’/‘stretched’ elaborated verb structures. Beginning with the first type, we should note the extremely regular but less than total correspondence between the two structures: (11) (a) the ADJ. N (b) the N that is/was/etc. ADJ. Hundreds of adjectives appear in both positions, e.g. artistic, beautiful, constant, dangerous, eventful, fertile, good, hostile, important. In choosing adjectives for either structure, account needs to be taken, of course, of the collocational restrictions of the adjectives concerned. As is well known, ‘predicative-only’ adjectives, such as afraid, asleep, glad, ill are excluded from the adjective position of (11)(a), while ‘attributive-only’ adjectives like former, principal, sole, are impossible in the structure of (11)(b). Moreover some adjectives (e.g. present) appear in the two positions, but with a clear difference in meaning. This all serves to suggest that the two adjectival structures of (11), while apparently related, are not so closely related that they can be regarded as involving a transformational relationship (although this was proposed in early transformational grammar). They are more distantly related, more like cousins than siblings. It does not seem unreasonable to use Harris’s term ‘kindred relations’ to describe them. This volume is chiefly concerned with describing the other type of kindred relations exemplified above, namely that of (10)(b), which Harris did briefly mention under this heading. Kindred relations are not, however, limited to these two types. Let us consider briefly the following examples:
1
1
14 Defining the field (12) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Sybil’s legs were/felt stiff. Sybil had stiff legs. Sybil was/felt stiff-legged. Sybil was/felt stiff in the legs. Sybil had/felt stiffness in her legs.
Here too we find a set of sentences that have related meanings on the basis of the relatedness of their constructions and the common lexical items used to fill out those constructions. Each example of (12) represents a different kindred pattern, but all of them involve a proper Noun Phrase (Sybil), a concrete noun (leg) and an adjective (stiff ). The set could be represented roughly as follows:
1
11
11
11
11
(13) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
[[NP’s]Det N]NPsubj + Vcop + [Adjpredic]AdjP [NPsubj] + Vposs + [Adjattr + N]NPobj [NPsubj] + Vcop + [[Adjattr + N]-ed]AdjP [NPsubj] + Vcop + [Adjpred[P + N]]AdjP [NPsubj] + Vposs + [Adj-ness]NPobj + [P + NP]Advl.
The overall relationships between these different sentence structures involve a number of different individual correspondences: the adjective appears sometimes in attributive position, sometimes in predicative position, and once (in (13)(e)) it appears in the form of the corresponding derived noun; the Noun Phrase Sybil mostly appears as subject of the sentence, but in (13)(a) it is embedded as the base for a possessive determiner with the noun legs as the core noun of the subject; the verb is in some cases a copular verb, in others a possessive verb; some patterns involve a preposition, others do not. The overall effect of these and other differences is to produce sentence structures which cannot be linked by regular transformations but can only be seen as involving a kindred relationship.
11
I.2 Stretched elaborated verb structures
11
11
111
111
111
111
I.2.i The data and the issues they raise Returning to the type of kindred relations which is of central interest to us, we can begin by considering the following sets of sentences and asking to what extent the members of each set can be said to be semantically the same and in what ways they differ: (14) (a) (b) (c) (d)
Sybil criticizes me. Sybil is critical of me. Sybil is a critic of mine. Sybil makes criticisms of me.
(15) (a) (b) (c) (d)
Sebastian disgraced us. Sebastian was disgraceful. Sebastian was a disgrace (to us) Sebastian brought disgrace (on) to us.
(16) (a) (b) (c) (d)
Politicians should serve the community. Politicians should be servants of the community. Politicians should be of service to the community. Politicians should give service to the community.
The similarities in meaning are obvious, and it can simply be said that this results from the lexical-morphological relationship between members within the sets of word criticize, critic, critical; disgrace, etc.: they share a derivational stem or base, and the semantic similarity is the consequence. But, as we began to see in the case of expressions related to danger, risk and chance, there is more to it than this. Each difference in word-class involves a difference in meaning, and in addition there are differences in the syntactic structure of the remainder of each sentence which give rise to further differences in meaning. Yet the overall effect is that sentences are nearly, though not quite, synonymous. How is this possible? It is as though the syntactic structure outside
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
16
Defining the field
the related words makes up for the difference in grammatical class within the set of related words themselves. We could compare it to the situation that arises within lexical morphology, when a denominal adjective-forming suffix (e.g. -al) is added to a noun (e.g. nation), and then the stem formed has a further deadjectival noun-forming suffix (e.g. -ity) added to it, to give a complex noun (e.g. nationality), which is clearly still related to the original root noun, but equally clearly different from it. Another way of looking at the differences exhibited within the sets of (14), (15) and (16) is to say that, since the sentences with simple verbs seem to involve the simplest structure, the other structures can be looked at as expanded, or (to retain the terminology introduced earlier) ‘stretched’ verb constructions. The main questions to be asked, then, about these related constructions are: (17) (a) What are the precise grammatical structures of the different stretched verb constructions? (b) How regular are the semantic differences between the different structures? (c) How regularly can the constructions be formed from each other, and do they mutually interact? (d) How should they be accounted for in a linguistic description – by grammatical rule, by listing in the lexicon, or in some other way? These are very large questions, which will need to be answered in depth, but, to begin with, we can at least look at the sample of structures given in Table 1.1, to see what they reveal. The following provisional conclusions can be drawn to the questions of (17): (I) Unlike transformational relations, kindred relations involve crosscategorial changes, like verb > noun, verb > adjective. Obviously, each related structure needs to be given an independent grammatical description, but each of these descriptions should make clear how each structural element is related to the corresponding elements in the other structures. Something like a surface and a deep level of description will thus be necessary for each structure related by a kindred relation. In our examples we can take the simple elaborated verb structure (numbered ‘0’) as the ‘basic’ or ‘simplex’ structure – not so much because it is derivationally primary or underlying but purely because it has a simpler structure. (II) Whereas transformational relations are in principle regular and apply in all cases (providing they are semantically appropriate), kindred relations are less regular and with their obvious gaps and idiosyncrasies seem to stand between syntax and lexical morphology (= word-formation). This is why they are often put along with idioms in ‘phraseology’ (translating German ‘Phraseologie’), although unlike idioms, they are semantically
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched elaborated verb structures 17 analysable. This means that the semantic value of the various adjectives and nouns and of the constructions they occur in can only partly be predicted on the basis of the verb to which they are related; in other words, we are in the realm of what Goldberg (1995: 120–40) refers to as ‘partial productivity’, cf. also Matthews (1979, 1981), Allerton (1984a, 1990b). For instance, the fact that the word servant has a narrower meaning than simply ‘person who serves’ or the fact that service has slightly different meanings depending on whether it is a countable or a mass noun, is a matter of individual lexemes. Equally, we could cite the examples be of use, be in use to show that an alternation in the thin preposition in effect selects one of two polysemous readings for the noun use, either ‘value’ or ‘utilization’. In the verb structures we have examined account also needs to be taken of limitations on the choice of degree modifiers and other expansions of the verb or its equivalent element: for instance, with the verb criticize the modifiers sharply, intensely are possible and therefore correspondingly sharp, intense in the nominal structures 5 and 6 and sharply, intensely again in the adjectival structure 1; in structure 2 on the other hand, big is a possible modifier of critic, without having a corresponding modifier in the other structures. (III) Just as transformational relations may combine with each other to produce complex sentences (for instance sentences involving both passivization and clefting), so also kindred relations may combine with each other and with transformations. For example, the form be a decision-maker (quoted in parentheses in Table 1.1) involves two kindred relations: first, the type 0 construction decide smth is expanded to the type 6 construction make a decision, and then this construction is used as the basis for the formation of a type 2 construction, be a decision-maker. A case where a transformational relation interacts with a kindred relation can be observed by taking any of the examples cited for construction 6 and converting it to the passive, e.g. Criticisms were made; this is possible in all cases except those with the verb have, which is not a normal transitive verb as regards passivization. On the other hand, some of our kindred structures need to be interpreted as related not to the active form of the verb but to its passive form; this point has been taken account of by giving double entries for the verbs criticize, decide, etc. and is particularly relevant for use and its kindred structures. We shall later also need to consider structures that have a causative meaning, to account for structures like put into service, which might have been included in Table 1.1 under serve, if there had been a suitable place for it. (IV) The last question is the most problematic of all. It is insufficient to mention such structures in the syntax, but it is equally inadequate simply to list them in the lexicon; what is needed is a link component between syntax and lexicon, but exactly what this should look like is a question that cannot yet be answered. This question, even more than the preceding ones, makes a thorough examination of the available data absolutely essential.
11
11
11
be abundant
–
–
be critical
–
be decisive
– be dependent (on smbd/smth) be dependable be destructive
– be disgraceful –
–
be fashionable
abound
abscond (from smwh) claim smth
criticize (smbd)
be criticized
decide (smth)
be decided depend on smbd/smth be depended on destroy smth
be destroyed disgrace (smbd) end smth
be ended
–
–
–
– be a destroyer of smth – – –
– [cf. be a decision-maker] – be a dependant
–
be a critic
be an absconder (from smwh) be a claimant
–
be an end (to smth) be the fashion
– be a disgrace –
– –
be a decision be a dependency
–
–
–
–
–
–
3. Vø + NomDescrev
be in fashion
–
– be in disgrace be at an end
– –
– –
–
–
–
–
be (there) in abundance –
4. Vø + PrepDescrev
11
2. Vø + NomDescrag
come into fashion
– – bring smth to an end come to an end
– –
indulge in criticism come in for criticism arrive at/come to a decision – –
–
exist in abundance –
5. Vø + PrepObjev
1
1. Vø + AdjDescrag
1
0. Vev
Table 1.1 Exemplification of structural types of stretched verb construction
set the fashion
have an end
– cause the destruction of smth suffer destruction bring disgrace put an end to smth
make/take a decision – –
suffer criticism
have a claim on/ lay claim to smth make criticisms
–
–
6. Vø + Objev
1
– be serviceable
– be threatening
– – be useful
be helped lead murder smbd be murdered offer (smbd) smth
be offered serve (smbd)
be served threaten smbd
be threatened use smth be used
Note: The term
DESCRIPTOR
a leader a murderer
a helper smbd)
be an offer –
– be a help (to smbd) – – – – –
– –
– –
– come to the help of smbd – – – – –
5. Vø + PrepObjev
receive help have the lead commit a murder – make smbd an offer receive an offer give service, do a service receive service make threats
– give help to smbd
6. Vø + Objev
be under threat come under threat receive threats – – make use of smth be of use, be in use come into use find a use
– –
be on offer be of service
– be of help (to smbd) – be in the lead – – –
4. Vø + PrepDescrev
(preferred here to the traditional terms ‘complement’, ‘predicative’, etc.) and the term
OBJOID
will be explained in Chapter 2.
PrepDescrev = eventive Prepositional Descriptor PrepObjev = eventive Prepositional Object/Objoid Objev = eventive Object/Objoid
3. Vø + NomDescrev
– be a threat to smbd – – be a user (of smth) – – –
– –
– be a servant
– be (of – be be – –
2. Vø + NomDescrag
AdjDescrev = eventive Adjectival Descriptor1 NomDescrag = agentive Nominal Descriptor NomDescrev = eventive Nominal Descriptor
be afloat be helpful (to smbd) – – (be murderous) – –
float (INTR.) help (smbd)
Note: Abbreviations Vev = eventive Verb Vø = thin Verb
1. Vø + AdjDescrag
0. Vev
Table 1.1 (continued)
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
20
Defining the field
I.2.ii The range of stretched verb constructions A first issue that needs to be addressed with regard to the range of data that form the topic of this study, is the precise delimitation of stretched verb constructions. Throughout, the aim is to study non-minimal (i.e. stretched) constructions that are semantically equivalent to minimal (i.e. simplex) verb-based constructions, in their active or passive form, or in a causative version or that of some other grammatical voice, if one can be found. This means that a border-line has to be drawn between those examples that are near-synonymous allowing for a possible change of voice and those that are sufficiently different in meaning to be regarded as having a distinct additional semantic component. This will not always be an easy line to draw, but it is necessary to draw it, both to make the study of manageable size and to concentrate on the essential problem (or even paradox) of having so many semantically similar constructions. The effect of this decision will be, for instance, that corresponding to the simple verb annoy smbd we shall accept cause annoyance to smbd (with an ‘active’ value) and feel annoyance at/with smbd/smth (with a ‘passive’ value). On the other hand, we shall reject express annoyance at/with smbd/smth and show annoyance at/with smbd/smth, because they refer not only to the act of annoyance but also to the fact that the annoyance is exhibited, either verbally or nonverbally, whereas annoyance alone is strictly a mental state which need not be physically manifest. Similarly, whereas give/grant admission and gain admission will be included (because of their correspondence to admit and be admitted respectively), seek admission will be excluded because the notion of ‘seeking’ is not present in the basic meaning of the verb admit (in this sense). To be absolutely strict, we might wish to exclude structures that differ substantially in terms of grammatical aspect, e.g. strike up, keep up or renew an acquaintance (beside the neutral have an acquaintance): but, just like differences in grammatical voice, these differences leave the core meaning of the construction intact and can thus be regarded as within our field. The semantic contribution they make will be discussed in section IV.2.ii. A second kind of construction we shall exclude is one in which there is a similar semantic correspondence to the one we are looking for between a simplex verb construction and a longer construction but in which the noun in the extended construction is not an eventive one derived from the verb: it is instead is a basic concrete noun used in an instrumental sense, from which the verb has been derived. In other words, whereas stretched verb constructions (in the sense we have been considering) have an abstract thin verb and an eventive noun (or adjective), these other verb constructions, which we might call ‘full instrumental elaborated verb structures’, contain a verb designating a concrete action and a noun referring to a tool, piece of equipment or container involved in the action. Consider the examples:
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched elaborated verb structures 21 FULL INSTRUMENTAL E.V.S.
REDUCED INSTRUMENTAL E.V.S.
cast/weigh anchor supply smbd with arms/armaments put smth into bottles hit smth with a hammer contact smbd by radio
anchor (ship) arm smbd bottle smth hammer smth radio smbd
These full instrumental elaborated verb structures differ from stretched verb constructions in a number of ways: although the fuller version of the structure may look ‘stretched’, it can be regarded as the normal format, from which the other format has been reduced; the concrete noun they contain can be seen as basic, while the verb in the reduced construction has been derived from it; and, as we have seen, both constructions have a relatively concrete meaning. A further group of constructions that have to be excluded according to our strict definition (and are excluded, for instance, by Rensky´ (1964: 290)) is the set of constructions that match the syntactic structure and semantic value of a particular stretched verb construction but for which there is no corresponding simple verb. For instance, beside expressions like cause (much) annoyance to/for smbd, cause (no) harm to smbd, cause (real) worry to/for smbd, all with a corresponding simple eventive verb (annoy, harm, worry), we also find expressions like cause anguish for smbd or cause problems for smbd. Native speakers often feel that there is a similarity between cause anguish/problems for smbd and the verb-related constructions, but it is obviously not possible to regard these examples as stretched verb constructions. What we can say is that such constructions have a similar grammatico-semantic pattern to stretched verb constructions, but that they are not identical because one connection is missing. They perhaps still deserve the label ‘stretched verb (elaboration) structures’ because they are non-minimal, but their lack of connection to a simple verb means they are in some sense ‘defective’. Often this becomes clear by comparison with other languages, e.g. English has commit suicide but no corresponding simple verb construction (except for kill oneself ) whereas French has se suicider. There is a problematic borderline between the defective stretched verb constructions and normal ones, in that in some cases there is a verb but one that is extremely rare and perhaps unknown to many speakers: we might cite the marginal stretched verb constructions gain access, commit aggression, cause consternation with their stylistically restricted or very rare verbs access (technical), aggress (highly formal) and consternate (archaic). But such cases are fortunately relatively few in number, and it is possible a draw a line somewhere down the middle, allowing all cases where the typical speaker-writer familiar with formal style might have come across the verb in question. Truly ‘defective’ stretched verb constructions will be considered in more detail in Part V (section V.1.iv).
22
Defining the field
1
There is a final border-line case for us to consider. It concerns structures in which the eventive noun occurs in subject position followed by a thin verb. This is a structure for which we have so far made no provision, but which is Rensky´’s (1964) Type A2 and which Mel’cˇuk (1982) allows for by proposing a lexical function ‘Func’ for the semantically ‘light’ or ‘thin’ verb. In sentences like those of (18), for example, the subject noun phrase expresses the class of event, while the verb simply says that the event took place:
1
(18) (a) (b) (c) (d)
1
11
11
An advertisement appeared in today’s local newspaper. The attack occurred at half-past-nine. Agony afflicted him. Applause rang out across the whole auditorium.
There are certainly lexical cooccurrence restrictions between the eventive noun in subject position and the thin lexical verb, as any attempt to interchange the verbs of (18)(a), (b), (c) and (d) clearly demonstrates. The choice of thin verbs is, however, (at least in English) more limited than in the patterns we have so far discussed: in fact, it is mainly a matter of the verbs occur and take place. It is also obvious that they cannot give rise to stretched verbs in the sense of non-minimal lexical verb constructions. We shall therefore exclude them largely from our study. Let us now survey the structures that will be included in our study. Our starting point can be simplex (= non-stretched) elaborated verb structures, i.e. combinations of a lexical verb with all of its required elaboration or ‘complementation’, to use the term favoured by Quirk et al. (1972, 1985). Since these are the starting point for our establishment of kindred structures, they were labelled as Structure 0 (‘Vev’) in Table 1.1. Such structures differ of course according to the valency of the verb, so that the elaboration may include elements such as (direct) object, indirect object, prepositional object, predicative complement, required adverbial or some combination of these. Some of the verbs given in Table 1.1 could serve as examples:
11
(19) VERB (alone) VERB + OBJECT VERB + PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT VERB + ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENT VERB + OBJECT + INDIRECT OBJECT VERB + OBJECT + PREPOSITIONAL OBJOID9
abound destroy smth depend on smbd abscond from smwh offer smth to smbd threaten smbd with smth
11
9 This term, taken from Allerton (1982: 89–93), refers to apparent ‘prepositional objects’ that are not potential subjects of a corresponding passive sentence.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched elaborated verb structures 23 Each of the structures of (19) is simple or minimal, in the sense that its verb is a full lexical element, and that the same applies to all of its elaborators (its object, etc.), with the result that there is no need for any ‘thin’, ‘empty’ or ‘filler’ elements in slots that do not have a ‘full’ lexical content. Verbs that are lexically full have the semantic function of specifying the class of event that is being referred to, while the noun phrases and preposition phrases that elaborate it refer to entities involved in the event in various ways, such as performing it, being affected by it, benefiting from it, etc. – a point that was first clearly made by Fillmore (1968, 1971, 1977). If we now consider the structures of the other columns, we meet a rather different state of affairs. Here we find a variety of kindred constructions that are longer because of their thin elements. We may distinguish two main types of these stretched verb (elaboration) structures, with the possibility of a third to be added: (A) NOUN-BASED stretched verb structures are found in columns 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Table 1.1. These are noun-based in the sense that the lexical meaning carried by the verb in a simplex elaborated verb structure is carried in these structures by a noun. In most cases this is a derived noun that specifies the class of event (i.e. the process or action referred to by the kindred verb), but in the case of Structure 2 it is an agentive noun that refers to the performer or principal entity involved. In all Structures 1 to 6 the verb slot is filled by a thin (or ‘empty’) verb, marked in the notation of Table 1.1 with the symbol ‘Vø’; this is normally the verb be in Structures 1, 2, 3 and 4 but involves a variety of verbs in Structures 5 and 6 (such as do, give, have, make, put; bring, come). The noun is the principal element (the ‘head’ in the interpretation of some grammarians) of a noun phrase; and this noun phrase is a ‘descriptor’ (i.e. a predicative complement) in Structures 2 and 3, an object (or objoid) in Structure 6, and embedded within a preposition phrase in Structures 4 and 5. (In sentences like The attack occurred it is of course the subject.) (B) ADJECTIVE-BASED stretched verb structures are found in column 1. The adjective is derivationally linked to the basic lexical verb of the corresponding Structure 0; together with the verb be it forms a construction with a combined meaning that is actional in nature. The combination be critical, in the use we are considering here, amounts to ‘behave critically’. The adjective is part of an adjective phrase which syntactically plays the role of ‘descriptor’ (i.e. predicative complement) to its companion verb be, which is of course a classic ‘empty’ (i.e. thin) verb. (C) A possible third type, which does not appear in Table 1.1, is the type of ADVERB-BASED stretched verb constructions exemplified by act foolishly compared with fool about, be a fool, be foolish, act the fool. Here again we have a thin verb, but this time it is modified directly by its most natural modifier, a manner adverb. The thin verb in this
1
24
Defining the field construction is largely limited to act or behave; this lack of variety makes for a less interesting construction. Possible examples corresponding to the constructions of Table 1.1 would be (re)act critically, behave destructively, act disgracefully.
Such constructions are language-specific. Very often while in one language a particular construction is used, in another language the same meaning has to be expressed using a different but kindred construction, giving rise to possible interference and translation problems, e.g.
1
1
11
ENGLISH
GERMAN
draw smbd’s attention to smth (*make smbd attentive to smth)
jdns Aufmerksamkeit auf etws lenken10 jdn auf etws aufmerksam machen11
English only has one pattern with this kind of meaning, whereas German has two different patterns with a delicate semantic difference between them: the first (slightly more formal construction) suggests a more subtle or indirect hint, while the second refers to an explicit verbal mention of something and therefore comes closer to the English constructions. Let us now turn to look briefly at the individual stretched verb structures of English to establish their basic characteristics. At this stage we shall remain at a fairly superficial level of syntax.
I.2.iii The individual stretched verb constructions
11
Referring again to Table 1.1, we can take Structure 0, i.e. simplex (= non-stretched) elaborated verb structures, as the basis for our description. Comparing Structure 0 (e.g. help (smbd)) directly with each of the other structures in turn, we can observe the most important features that characterize each of them. Whereas Structure 0 has a normal full lexical verb with whatever complementation is required by that individual verb, Structure 1 (‘Vø + AdjDescrag’) has an adjective as its kernel lexical element, as in be helpful [to smbd]. The expected semantic effect of this would be to place emphasis on the propensity to perform the action rather than on the action itself; but this is only the meaning conveyed when the combination be helpful is used with a ‘stative’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 177–8) meaning, suggesting a permanent character trait. When, however, the meaning is ‘dynamic’, with the possibility (but not the requirement) of a progressive form of the verb be, the meaning is rather ‘behave helpfully’. The contrast can be seen best
11
10 The abbreviation jdns stands for jemandens ‘somebody’s’. 11 The abbreviations jdn and etws stand for jemanden ‘somebody (ACC.)’ and etwas ‘something’ respectively.
11
11
11
11
111
111
Stretched elaborated verb structures 25 in the present, where the dynamic meaning can only be expressed with the progressive form: (20) (a) Sybil is always extremely helpful. (b) Sybil is being extremely helpful today. The adjective has clearly been morphologically derived, and, as in other fields of word-formation, its existence depends on the historical accidents of lexicalization. Thus while kindred adjectives like abundant, critical, dependent, etc. exist as relatives of the verbs abound, criticize, depend, etc., no corresponding adjective exists for abscond, claim, end, etc. The fact that such missing items are due to lexical gaps rather than to any semantic incongruence again becomes clear when we compare English with other languages: German, for instance, has an adjective-based expression fündig werden meaning ‘be/become successful in finding something that has been searched for’ related to finden ‘find’, where English has no comparable adjective-based expression linked to find – although there is of course the noun-based structure make a find, which has a meaning that is broader in that it also applies to accidental finds.12 In Structure 1, then, the adjective, or at least the adjective phrase of which it is part, functions as the predicative complement of the verb be (or some other copular verb), a classic case of a lexically empty (or rather ‘thin’) verb, which has the main function of simply enabling the adjective to operate as the main element in a verb phrase. But this change of function is not without its syntactic effects. The examples of (19) above showed that verbs, depending on their valency, may require complementation by one or more from an inventory of different structural elements (such as object); and some of these are noun phrases. Adjectives, on the other hand, are rarely complemented by noun phrases,13 which means that another kind of complementation, in the form of a preposition phrase (for instance), may be necessary, cf. be helpful to smbd beside help smbd. Moreover, even though such complementation is possible, it is less common than verb complementation with objects, etc., even allowing for the optionality of objects like help. So the net result is that this structure tends to de-emphasize the participant referred to by the object of the kindred simple verb. Structure 2 (‘Vø + NomDescrag’) differs from Structure 1 in being centred on a noun rather than an adjective (e.g. be a helper (of smbd) compared with be helpful). Its most important feature is that the lexical content of the verb of Structure 0 appears as the stem of a derived agentive noun (=
111
111
12 German also has einen Fund machen with a more general meaning, but the more common expression eine Entdeckung machen ‘to make a discovery’ is often preferred. 13 Exceptions in English include worth, and possibly near (always assuming the latter is an adjective).
1
26 Defining the field ‘nomen agentis’) such as helper. Semantically this has the effect of emphasizing not the activity, nor the personal quality or manner associated with it, but rather the individual person and his/her role in the activity. The example helper, being formed as it is with a highly productive suffix, may give the impression that the pattern is highly productive and even regular; but such an impression would be misleading. It is true, admittedly, that ‘nonce’-forms like (21) can always be created: (21) ?Sebastian was the ender of the uncertainty.
1
1
11
11
11
11
But such utterances are generally perceived as mild errors of performance, because they do not correspond to the lexical intuitions of the native speaker: not only is there no lexical item ender; there is no stretched verb construction be the ender (of smth) either. The existence of a derived agentive noun is thus a prerequisite for this structure, but of course it does not have to be formed with -er. In Table 1.1 we find examples of the suffix -ant/-ent (e.g. claimant, dependent), as well as the use of a bare stem (critic), in this case entailing the removal of the verbalizing suffix (-ize); a variety of minor suffixes is also found, e.g. -ee (as in be an escapee), -ist (as in be a recordist), -ster (as in be a trickster). Like the adjective of Structure 1, the agentive noun occurs as the core noun of a predicative noun phrase following a copular verb. The copular verb, in turn, normally appears as the verb be, although it is true that combinations like become a helper can occur. The agentive noun frequently allows complementation, but its valency requirements are again rarely the same as for the corresponding simple verb, because the complementation of a noun must take the form of a preposition phrase. The most frequent preposition used is of, but other prepositions are found, for instance to in be a claimant to smth. In some cases, moreover, it is most common to find the agentive noun without complementation at all, even though it has a transitive verb as its kindred construction, e.g. murderer; even with nouns that allow a complementing preposition phrase, this tends to be peripheral (as in Structure 1), meaning that the person(s) referred to are de-emphasized. At one level of description Structure 3 (‘Vø + NomDescrev’) is just like Structure 2 in that it is built around a noun, and that this noun occurs as the core noun of a predicative noun phrase following a copular verb. Where Structure 3 differs from Structure 2 is in the nature of the noun itself: the noun of Structure 3 (e.g. disgrace, fashion, help, threat) is not agentive but eventive, i.e. it specifies the class of event being referred to in the sentence. In fact, this structure, which is somewhat less frequent than the other structures, poses something of a semantic problem,14 in the sense that it either has to be understood metaphorically or requires a different interpretation of the verb be. Consider the examples: 14 I am grateful to Itsuki Koya for drawing this point to my attention.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched elaborated verb structures 27 (22) (a) Sebastian’s book was a disgrace. (b) Sybil was a great help. It seems clear that, in a literal sense, neither Sebastian’s book could actually be a disgrace nor could Sybil actually be a help, because the nouns disgrace and help normally refer to an act, process or state. Sebastian’s book or Sybil is the cause or target or source of the disgrace or help respectively, but not the disgrace or help itself. We could say that such sentences involve a metaphor; alternatively we could say that be here has a special meaning, something like ‘cause’ or perhaps even ‘become a source of’. Whatever our analysis, it is clear that Structure 3 is not synonymous with either Structure 2 or Structure 1: the essential difference is that, perhaps through its dramatic, metaphorical mode of expression, it focuses our attention on the grammatical subject’s responsibility for the event and more particularly for its results. This comes out especially clearly if we compare be a help (to smbd) (Structure 3) with be helpful (Structure 1) and be a helper (Structure 2). From the grammatical point of view Structure 3 is relatively straightforward. Morphologically the core noun is usually derived from a verb, often by zero-derivation (as in all the examples in Figure 1) but not always, cf. be an abhorrence. The valency of the noun is usually different and sometimes quite limited than that of the kindred verb. For instance, be a disgrace (for smbd) quite commonly occurs with the for- phrase, thus leaving unmentioned the ‘experiencer’ of the feeling of disgrace, whereas the verb disgrace is that type of transitive that always requires its object to present. The structure be a help (to smbd) is even more minimalist, in that it not only optionally omits mention of the person helped but also is incapable of mentioning the field of activity referred to in help smbd with smth or help smbd to do smth. In Structure 4 (‘Vø + PrepDescrev’) we again meet a noun-based structure involving a copular verb, but this time the noun phrase is embedded in a preposition phrase, e.g. in disgrace, in the lead, of help. The description given at the top of column 4 for this structure is mildly controversial, in so far as it suggests that these preposition phrases can be interpreted as ‘prepositional descriptors’, i.e. as prepositional predicative complements, (a category that is discussed in more depth in II:1.ii; for the category in general, see Allerton and Koya (forthcoming). If, however, we examine data like the following: (23) (a) Sybil was in a bad mood. (b) The children were out of control. (c) Sebastian was in danger. we are faced with the problem that although the preposition phrases look like place adverbials, they could not possibly be queried with Where? and
1
1
28 Defining the field thus cannot simply be regarded as place adverbials. The only kind of question that can normally be used to elicit such elements is What state was/were NPsubj in?, and such a question would also elicit answers like He/She/They was/were cheerful/quite miserable/a bit confused. In other words, following a copular verb, a description of a subject’s mental or physical state can take the shape of an adjective phrase or a preposition phrase. The copular verb in this Structure 4 is most commonly be, but seem is also often possible too, as it would have been in (23)(a)(b) and (c). A further possibility for the verb in Structure 4 is a verb indicating a change from some other state to the one described by the preposition phrase; as a result the word get can often be used in this pattern, providing we are ready to change in to into to mark the change of state, as in:
1
11
11
(24) (a) Sybil got into a bad mood. (b) The children got out of control. (c) (?)Sebastian got into danger. As the example of (24)(c) demonstrates, there may be certain collocational restrictions between thin verbs and our proposed prepositional predicatives,15 but then there are too between standard copular verbs and adjectives, cf. fall ill, *fall fit; keep fit/healthy, ?keep unfit/unhealthy.16 If then the functional category of prepositional predicatives, or as we have also termed them ‘descriptors’, can be justified, there seems to be no reason why our Structure 4 should not be accommodated under it. We shall therefore describe be in disgrace, be in fashion, be of help, etc. in this way. Turning to the semantics of Structure 4, we find that the choice of preposition phrases, with their natural association with place and time adverbials, is not so unreasonable. Virtually all of the examples we have considered seem to suggest an action that is more limited in its nature, perhaps in time, perhaps in degree, than the corresponding Structure 0 pattern with the simple full lexical verb. Thus to be of help seems to involve a weaker or less definite contribution than to help; similarly, to be in the lead suggests something more temporary and transitory than to lead. Structure 4 also seems to describe the position someone is in, rather than what they are actually doing. This apparently squares quite well not only with the
15 Consider further the following examples: (for which different speakers will make different judgements of acceptability):
11
11
John was in danger. *John was in problems. John was in a difficult situation.
(?)John got into danger. ?John got into problems. John got into a difficult situation.
?John got out of danger. ?John got out of problems. John got out of a difficult situation.
16 Examples from Allerton (1984b); see also Quirk et al. (1985: 1171–3).
11
11
11
Stretched elaborated verb structures 29 meaning of prepositional predicatives in general (like be in a bad mood and the other examples discussed above) but also with comparable literal place or time adverbial constructions. The remaining patterns, Structure 5 (‘Vø + PrepObjev’) and Structure 6 (‘Vø + Objev’) are also noun-based, with the noun at the core of a noun phrase. Structure 5 has the noun phrase as part of a preposition phrase which in turn is part of the elaboration demanded by the thin verb, while Structure 6 has the noun phrase as a direct constituent of the elaborated verb structure. But in both cases the thin verb is a non-copular verb, either transitive or intransitive in the case of Structure 5, always transitive in the case of Structure 6. Semantically this has the effect of seeing the verb elaboration structure as ‘dynamic’ (i.e. as a process or action, etc.) rather than as ‘static’ (i.e. as a state). Syntactically it means that these two patterns present a much greater variety and richness than any of the other Structures, apart from Structure 0. They are, moreover, important constructions in Present-day English, and although some of them appear to be associated with a rather formal style, others, particularly those formed with do, have and get, are common in informal English, as the following example (seen outside a British shop in 1995) testifies:
111
111
111
111
(25) We do high-quality leather-cleaning. With good reason the writer of this sign did not choose a Structure 0, which would have been based on the verb clean and thus needed an adverbial modifier to carry the meaning of high-quality, an adverbial that does not exist. A further example noted in current broadcast English is (26), which was heard from a rugby expert speaking after the international match between New Zealand and Scotland on 15 June 1996: (26) Let’s get into a bit of match analysis. The related simple eventive verb structure is clearly analyse the match, but the effect of using the stretched structure is quite complex. On the one hand it reifies the act of analysing the match, but on the other it makes the sentence more informal by using a stretched verb construction with the verb get and reinforcing the informality with the partitive construction a bit of. Although, therefore Structure 0 is the most basic pattern, it cannot be used in all contexts. Structures 5 and 6, on the other hand, are also highly significant patterns, which are represented in both informal and formal English. They will therefore play a major part in the detailed account of stretched verb constructions given in the remainder of this volume.
1
I.3 Using data
1
1
11
11
11
11
I.3.i The problems of corpus-based and intuitionbased data The advantages and disadvantages of corpus-based and intuition-based studies are well-known, cf. for instance Aarts (1991), Leech (1991, 1992); in fact, the debate is a long-standing one. The influence of behaviourism on Bloomfield and his consequent suspicion of meaning and of intuitions in his later work (1935: 139–44) meant that the post-Bloomfieldians concentrated on texts and corpora. J. R. Firth was much happier about accepting semantics as a legitimate part of linguistic studies but still preferred to interpret meaning in terms of context (1957: 19); indeed, it was this insistence on the contextual study of language that led him to the notion of ‘collocation’ (1957: 194–5). Contexts can of course be invented, but it is much easier to look for them in texts, and it is not surprising to find direct or indirect pupils of Firth like Halliday (1966), Sinclair (1966) and Mitchell (1975) developing the concept further. Corpora bring with them relative freedom from the personal intervention of linguists, in that, although someone is needed to sanction the corpus, this can normally be done en bloc, without picking and choosing particular parts of the text. The size of a corpus is of course especially important, and it obviously must be sufficient to provide a representative number of examples of the phenomenon under investigation; and the rarer the phenomenon, the larger the corpus will have to be. Moreover, even when apparently relevant examples have been found, they still may need to be sifted, to exclude dubious or false ones that merely give the illusion of representing the phenomenon in question. Examples taken from a corpus may be doubtful for various reasons: the analysis of the data may not have been rigorous enough to pick out exclusively relevant cases; the language-user producing the example in question may be a foreigner or a dialect-speaker; or the example itself may be non-standard, limited to a particular style, or perhaps even simply an error of performance that the user would normally reject. Such factors need to be taken into account
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Using data 31 by the linguist; and if the intuitions of a grammarian are necessary at this stage, then why not use them from the beginning? Intuitions, on the other hand, are not without their difficulties. For investigating linguists who are native speakers, introspection can certainly in theory give direct access to a speaker’s knowledge of his/her language, but such knowledge is not so easy to access. The problems of introspection have been evident since the advent of behaviourist psychology, which sought to avoid subjective interpretation of data, but unfortunately ended up by hardly investigating mental phenomena at all. An intuition-based researcher may simply have unreliable intuitions and wrongly include or exclude examples, perhaps because of an inability to introspect, perhaps because of interference from a devoutly held theory, perhaps because of memory limitations, etc. Moreover each lone linguist is strictly speaking limited to an individual idiolect. Since an intuition-based study thus suffers from as many shortcomings as a corpus-based one, it would appear that the only sensible decision is to combine the two approaches, and indeed any others that prove helpful. In fact, at least two other sources of data can be considered: pre-analysed data can be found in dictionaries of various types; and elicitation tests could be used to check possible findings against the intuitions of (other) native speakers. Dictionary entries can be assumed to be based on a combination of examples from texts and intuitions by the editors, and thus do not provide a truly independent source. Elicitation tests, as discussed by Greenbaum and Quirk (1970), are an attempt to gain information about the intuitions of language-users other than the investigator(s) and in this sense provide a further linguistic resource; but they have the disadvantage that they can only confirm or cast doubt on the hypotheses of the researcher, and formulating questions for a questionnaire in a neutral way can puzzle naive informants. All these sources of data thus have their weaknesses as well as their uses; they can be regarded as complementary.
I.3.ii The approach used in this study Stretched verb constructions as a whole are not a rare phenomenon and examples can be found in most texts; research done so far suggest that there may be about 5,000 to 10,000 of them in English. The frequency of any individual construction, however, is rather low, the least frequent ones being extremely rare. Corpora of the size of the LOB (London–Oslo–Bergen) corpus or the Brown corpus therefore turn out to contain only a relatively small number of examples, and even the BNC (British National Corpus) of 100 million words has its limitations. For instance, in Kjellmer (1994) (which is based on the Brown Corpus) the only Structure 6 (= Vø + Objev) constructions listed under MAKE (combining made, make, makes and making) that have a deverbal noun beginning with the letter A seem to be make an advance,
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
32
Defining the field
make an adjustment, make an appearance and make an assignment, a total of four; but the last one is difficult to make sense of as a collocation, and this would reduce the number to three. The doubtless incomplete list on which the present study is based, on the other hand, contains around fifty examples. The principal (though not exclusive) basis for this study is the data gleaned from the author’s intuitions vis-à-vis the verb-related nouns and adjectives found under the initial letter A in the New Collins Concise Dictionary. First, a list of eventive nouns, agentive nouns and agentive adjectives was compiled. Then these were tested to see whether they could be combined with ‘thin’ verbs to form constructions that could be regarded as ‘stretched’ versions of the kindred verb. Intuitions about the existence or normality of constructions were in all doubtful cases checked against dictionaries, including the BBI, and against corpora, particularly the Brown and LOB corpora and the BNC. But non-occurrence in a corpus (even in the BNC) cannot entirely nullify the intuitions of the author or of the editors of the BBI Dictionary. Consider, for instance, the results of the following ‘simple searches’ carried out on-line on the BNC: practise abstinence practised abstinence
0 0
practises abstinence practising abstinence
1 0
They demonstrate just how rarely some stretched verb constructions are actually used, even though the majority of native speakers would feel them to be part of their linguistic repertoire. Results like this might suggest that there could be more place for elicitation tests and informant-based research in this field, and theoretically this is doubtless true. The problem is, however, one of scale. Actual stretched verb constructions would have to be tested against non-existent ones, and, with well over 400 examples, the work involved goes beyond the capacity of a small-scale study. Like most modern dictionaries the New Collins Concise Dictionary itself gives some examples of stretched verb constructions, but these only represent a fraction of the approximately 450 examples so far compiled under initial A. The present work has also drawn on earlier unpublished research by D. Cameron (1988), who collected about 2,500 examples all told, of which about 120 fall under initial A. Even the BBI Dictionary has only about 160 examples, i.e. about a third of the examples collected for this study. These examples probably represent about 6 per cent of the total number of stretched verb constructions used in English. It will be assumed in this volume that those based on deverbal nouns with initial orthographic A are reasonably typical of the whole set, but there is no way of knowing this before the complete NCCD has been processed. Time will tell whether this assumption has been a reasonable one. Ultimately a dictionary of stretched verb constructions may be required; but this issue will be taken up again in Part V.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Part II
Syntactic restructuring
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
II.1 Syntactic framework
11
11
111
111
II.1.i Levels of syntactic description The aim of Part II is to describe and explain the relationships between the syntactic structures of simplex verb constructions and those of stretched verb constructions. The examples discussed in Part I made it clear that these relationships are no simple matter. In terms of the corresponding simplex structures, a stretched verb structure may have elements omitted, inserted or retained but with a new syntactic function. What then typically happens to the particular elements? We can already say that the semantic material of the lexical verb is displaced to various positions in its elaboration structure – to object position, for instance, in Structure 6, or to the noun phrase within a preposition phrase in Structures 4 and 5. But we also need to ask how the other syntactic elements are affected by this change. A further point to consider is what range of syntactic structures results from ‘stretching’ a simple verb structure: are the stretched structures actually longer or more complex, or do they remain within the format of simple elaborated verb structures, if necessary by dispensing with one or more elements? In describing the links between simple structures and stretched structures, we shall follow the view sketched in Part I that they are kindred constructions, but that the simple structure is in some sense more basic, if only because it does not need to have thin or empty elements. Kindred relations, as we saw, differ from transformational relations, in that they can involve transcategorial connections like verb-to-noun and that consequently they lack total regularity. Nevertheless there are some interesting parallels between kindred relations and transformational relations, which we can observe in the examples of (1) and (2):
111
111
(1)
(a) (i) Sybil (greatly) enjoyed the concert. (ii) The concert was (greatly) enjoyed by Sybil. (b) Sybil (greatly) enjoyed herself.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
36 (2)
Syntactic restructuring Sybil derived17 (great) enjoyment from the concert.
The relationship between (1)(a)(i) and (ii) is the well-known transformational relation of passivization, which involves a shifting of the superficial syntactic functions determined by the valency of the verb. In the passive sentence the valency object18 appears as a superficial subject, and the valency subject appears as what in Allerton (1982: 43) is termed ‘perject’.19 But the verb itself, while taking on a passive form, remains a verb, and its valency remains intact, in that it still has the potential for taking a valency subject and valency object, even though these now appear as superficial perject and subject respectively, with the former becoming omissible. The issue of valency also arises in the sentence (1)(b), in which the object position is filled by a reflexive pronoun that lacks its normal semantic value and instead has the function of superficially filling the valency function of object. In this way it cancels the transitivity of the verb and simultaneously slightly modifies the lexical meaning of the verb, so that instead of describing a person’s reaction to a stimulus it refers to a very self-conscious emotional experience. The result of these processes is the formation of a new lexical item enjoy oneself, which, though having an obvious lexico-semantic link to the simple enjoy, is semi-independent of it and is certainly unpredictable enough in meaning to require a lexical entry in a dictionary. The relationship between enjoy and enjoy oneself 20 is one between a basic lexical item and a derived lexical item sharing the same base, in some ways similar to the relationship between a transitive/ intransitive pair like lay/lie. Superficially, enjoy oneself is a bivalent verb, with valency subject and object intact, but actually, the reflexive object is inert. The stretched verb construction of (2) introduces a new dimension: not only is derive enjoyment (from) a different lexical item from enjoy; it also has a radically different syntactic structure, involving a new range of syntactic potential, particularly that introduced by the new noun phrase object, with its possibilities for determiners, adjectives and relative clauses. Moreover the verb slot in (2) is now filled not by enjoy but by the thin verb derive, 17 In informal English got would be preferred. 18 The pair of terms ‘valency subject/object’ is elsewhere variously termed ‘deep subject/ object’, ‘D-subject/object’, ‘underlying subject/object’ and ‘logical subject/object’. 19 A special term seems necessary to indicate that such elements as by Sybil in (1)(a)(ii) are neither to be equated with the semantically defined concept of ‘agent phrase’ (which ought to apply to active subjects as well in appropriate cases) nor to be regarded as freely occurring adjuncts, since they are excluded in active sentences. 20 unlike the relationship between wash and wash oneself (which corresponds to regular syntactic expansions like wash and wash the baby) and also unlike an obligatorily reflexive verb like absent oneself (which is of course incapable of having such a relationship, because there is no independent lexical item absent (VERB) without a reflexive pronoun).
11
Syntactic framework 37 which imposes its own valency on the structure, taking subject, object and what we shall come to call ‘prepositional objoid’ (from the concert). For assessing the precise nature of these syntactic structures, it will be useful to have a formulaic mode of expression. Let us adopt the following conventions to show the correspondences between the active simple verb structure of (1)(a)(i) and the other structures of (1) and (2): (A)
11
We use a single upper-case letter to represent the superficial function of every basic element, including the following: S = Subject V = Verb O = Object
11 (B)
111
J = Perject PÖ = Prepositional Objoid21
To every superficial descriptive category we attach an oblique stroke (or ‘slash’) followed by a lower case letter indicating the corresponding element in an equivalent active simple verb structure, e.g. . . . /s for the element that corresponds to the object in the simple verb structure. Thin elements which have no correlate in the simple verb structure will be labelled as . . . /ø.22
Returning to the examples of (1) and (2) we can now express them formulaically as follows: (1)
111 (2)
(a) (i) Sybil enjoyed the concert. S/s + V/v + O/o (ii) The concert was enjoyed by Sybil. S/o + be/ø + V-en/v + J/s (b) Sybil enjoyed herself. S/s + V/v + O/s Sybil derived enjoyment from the concert. S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/o
This convenient mode of representation thus makes it clear both what the superficial structure is and what the correspondences are of each of its major constituents, always allowing for the possibility that an element in the surface, typically a thin element, has no correlate in the kindred simple pattern. It does not, however, indicate which elements, if any, of the
111
111
21 The term Prepositional Objoid refers to a preposition phrase that is closely associated with the verb but is not a potential passive subject. The motivation for the abbreviatory convention will be explained later. 22 This can be interpreted as zero, or as a special form of //, the initial phoneme of thin.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
38
Syntactic restructuring
kindred simple verb structure are missing from the surface structure, for instance, the element that appears as the object in the structure of (1)(b). A more explicit mode of representation for (1)(b) would therefore be: (1)
(b′)
Sybil enjoyed herself. S/s + V/v + O/s (+ Ø/o)
where Ø indicates an element that appears in the kindred structure but not in the stretched structure under consideration. This is the format that will be used in section II.2 for representing the individual subvarieties of syntactic restructuring.
II.1.ii Scheme of functional categories and structures Before a detailed study can be made of the syntactic correspondences under review, it is obviously essential to establish a set of descriptive categories for the structures being considered. These must then be applied consistently to the stretched verb structures and the corresponding simple verb structures. We now proceed, therefore, to the establishment of a set of such criteria-supported verb valency categories. It corresponds, in the main, to the sets presented in two earlier works, namely Allerton (1982, 1994). The approach adopted proceeds from the assumption that active sentences with a full lexical verb are in some sense basic and can be taken as a reference point for the superficial structures of the other patterns, including simple passives and stretched verb structures, both active and passive. Each stretched verb structure will therefore be assumed to have a kindred simplex structure (see above, section I.1.v) with a verb that is active rather than passive. In identifying functional categories, therefore, all that we need is a set of criteria that gives clear results for simple active sentences but also (without any basic change) for the superficial form of the other structures. In other words, we need criteria for identifying subjects, objects, etc. that will tell us which phrases have which surface functions in any kind of sentence, so that we can make an accurate comparison of the distribution of functions in the stretched verb structures with that in the simple active structure. The distribution of superficial syntactic functions in some stretched verb structures differs from their distribution in the kindred simplex active structure even more than does their distribution in the passive transform of the simple sentence. Consider the examples: (3)
The news alarmed the stranger. S/s + V/v + O/o
11
11
11
111
111
Syntactic framework 39 (4)
The stranger felt alarm at the news. S/o + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/s
Of course it could be argued that (4) should be related not to (3) but to the passive transform of (3) (The stranger was alarmed by the news); but there is no obvious evidence for this, and so for the sake of simplicity we shall leave this possibility aside. Assuming that the lexical VERB (V) with its potential for tense, aspect and modals, presents no problems of identification, we can begin our surface functional categories with the SUBJECT (S), which, following Allerton (1982: 42), we can identify in English23 through the following criteria: (i) POSITION. The subject is the noun phrase in a declarative sentence that either immediately precedes the lexical verb or precedes it with only auxiliaries and certain adverbials (but no noun phrases) coming between the two. When an object is fronted it precedes the whole subject(-auxiliary)-verb complex (Sebastian I (can) understand). In some interrogative sentences the finite auxiliary or finite main verb BE precedes the subject (cf. Is Sebastian complaining?/Is Sebastian sad?). (ii) LACK OF PREPOSITION. The subject (like the object) always appears as a noun phrase without a preposition, whereas both prepositional objects/objoids and perjects have a preceding preposition (cf. I was introduced to Sybil by Sebastian). (iii) CASE. The subject is the noun phrase that, when represented by a simplex (non-coordinated) pronoun, invariably appears in the nominate case (I, etc.), whereas the object, and even the predicative (or ‘descriptor’, see below) occurs in the oblique form (cf. She dislikes him/ He dislikes her /It is him (not her), etc.). (iv) CONCORD. The subject is the only noun phrase that (in clauses without a modal auxiliary) determines the number of the finite verb, where this is possible, i.e. in present and past tenses for the verb be, but only in the present tense for all other verbs (cf. She is making a complaint/complaints /They are making a complaint/complaints).24 (v) OBLIGATORINESS. The subject is obligatory in all declarative and interrogative sentences, whereas the obligatoriness or even the permissibility of objects, etc. depends on the valency of the individual verb. In an individual case, therefore, either there will be only one obligatory noun phrase, namely the subject, or there will be more than one,
111
111
23
24
taking for granted that SUBJECT is a ‘family resemblance’ type of concept that needs to be defined differently for each language and is not necessarily universal, cf. Allerton (1980), Koya (1992). Some speakers apparently use predicative concord with the verb be in certain contexts, as in, for instance: The advantage of this way of organizing the teaching is/are the small classes; cf. further Allerton (1992).
40
in which case reference needs to be made to criteria (i) to (iv), cf. The professor is teaching (the new class). Additionally, the subject is the noun phrase that is ellipted in a standard imperative sentence, cf. Teach the new class.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
Syntactic restructuring
On the basis of these five criteria, the subject can be unequivocally identified in most English clauses. In fact the first two alone will suffice in most cases. The criteria will, moreover, give clear results whether the sentence is a basic simple active sentence, a passive version of this, or a stretched verb structure, active or passive. Existential sentences (cf. There are two books on the table (aren’t there?)) present more complex problems of identification, but they are perhaps best described separately. Turning to the OBJECT (O), we can begin by noting that it has already been partly distinguished from the surface subject on the basis of criteria (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) above. The first criterion, position, is obviously critically important in English. Although a surface object can appear before the subject, for instance in a clause with ‘object-fronting’, or in relative clauses with a relative pronoun as object (cf. (5)(a) and (5)(b) below respectively) the object never appears as the noun phrase that immediately precedes the lexical verb and its auxiliaries; this position is reserved for the surface subject: (5)
(a) Sybil he quite likes. (b) (The book) which he quite likes (is . . . ).
This means that the surface object is a prepositionless noun phrase (cf. criterion (ii) above) that either immediately precedes the subject (as in (5)(a) and (b)) or, more normally, immediately follows the lexical verb, with only the possibility of certain adverbials intervening between verb and object, and these only in formal English, as in (6): (6)
We completed yesterday a building that even the Prince of Wales admires.
There is one important exception to this rule for the normal position of the object: trivalent verbs like give, offer or tell allow an INDIRECT OBJECT (IO) (a category to be considered shortly) in its prepositionless form to appear before the (direct) object, as in (7′) as opposed to (7): (7) (7′)
He gave a book to Sybil. He gave Sybil a book.
OR OR
He gave it to Sybil. *He gave Sybil it.
The fact that (7′) is only a secondary or marked word order is demonstrated by the fact that this constituent order is impossible when the direct object is an unstressed pronoun, as shown.
11
11
11
Syntactic framework 41 The positional criterion for identifying the surface object can thus be summed up as follows: the object appears either: (i) as the first of two pre-verb prepositionless noun phrases, or (ii) as the second, or as the unique post-verb prepositionless noun phrase. But this criterion, together with the criterion of case, actually picks out the broader category of ‘(prepositionless) non-subject noun phrase’ or ‘object-like noun phrase’ rather than solely ‘object’. To distinguish surface objects from other non-subject noun phrases, it will be useful to consider the following examples: (8)
The piano damaged a/the carpet.
(9)
The piano resembled a/the pianola.
(10) The piano weighed a ton. (11) The piano had a stool.
111
111
111
111
(12) The piano seemed an antique. The first of these sentences contains a noun phrase (a carpet) that will count as an object in any account of these data. Sentences (9) to (12), on the other hand, contain a post-verb noun phrase that may seem like an object, and indeed satisfies the criteria we have used for distinguishing objects from subjects, but is best regarded as belonging to a different (though closely related) category. It is true that all the sentences, including (8) with its undeniable object, share certain features: for instance, they freely allow an adverb like possibly to intervene between the subject and the verb, but not between the verb and the following noun phrase; and they allow the post-verb noun phrase to be fronted to pre-subject position. But these postverb noun phrases also differ in certain important ways. It is probably the noun phrase an antique of (12) that stands out as most different from the others. In traditional grammar such noun phrases are referred to as ‘complements’, and this usage is retained in the Quirk et al. grammars (e.g. 1985), although the term ‘complement’ would be used by Halliday (e.g. 1985) for all of the non-subject noun phrases of (8) to (12), including objects. Many other grammarians use the term ‘predicate nominal’ (which on the face of it could also be interpreted to include objects), for which there then has to be a corresponding term ‘predicate adjectival’, to cover the possibility of something like (rather) ancient replacing an antique in (12), to give: (13) The piano seemed (rather) ancient.
1
1
42
Syntactic restructuring
It is reasonable to use Jespersen’s term ‘predicative’ (1933: 124–31) for both nominal and adjectival possibilities; and indeed this is the usage adopted in Allerton (1982). But this term, looking as it does like an adjective, and being so close to ‘predicate’, is not ideal either. We shall therefore use the new term DESCRIPTOR, which can be symbolized as ‘D’; the term is already used in computer technology, where it has a meaning close to the one needed here.25 To distinguish the verb elaborators of (12) and (13) descriptors (or predicatives) can be divided into NOMINAL DESCRIPTORS (= ‘ND’) and ADJECTIVAL DESCRIPTORS (= ‘AD’). A further subclass of descriptor (whose existence was provisionally noted in Part I) needs to be recognized to describe the post-verb phrase in sentences like:
1
11
11
11
11
(14) The piano seemed in good condition. Such preposition phrases (i.e. combinations of preposition and noun phrase) are certainly not adverbial in function and were identified by Jespersen (1933: 129–31) as ‘predicative’. They clearly have the function of complementing the verb, though, as we shall see shortly, they cannot be regarded as ‘prepositional objects’ either. The verb seem in general is not permitted to occur without a suitable element to satisfy its valency, but obviously this can be a suitable preposition phrase just as well as an adjective phrase or noun phrase. All three of them make equally good answers to questions like What was the piano like? or What state was the piano in? Let us simply call such phrases PREPOSITIONAL DESCRIPTORS (or ‘predicatives’) and abbreviate them as ‘PD’. Further examples (with appropriate subjects) would be in good health, out of condition, in a bad mood. Returning to nominal descriptors, as typified by (12) above, we can first distinguish them from the other non-subject noun phrases of (8) to (11) through their capacity for being replaced by equivalent adjective phrases (or preposition phrases). A second criterion for recognizing them is their inability to be the focus of a cleft sentence, which can be demonstrated by transforming all of the sentences of (8) – (12) to a version with the nonsubject noun phrase cleft, giving (8C) – (12C): (8C)
It was a/the carpet that the piano damaged (not a/the rug).
(9C)
It was a/the pianola that the piano resembled (not an/the organ).
(10C) It was a ton that the piano weighed (not a tonne).
25 For practical reasons it is also useful to have a term that can be abbreviated with a letter other than ‘P’, which can also stand for ‘preposition’.
11
11
11
111
Syntactic framework 43 (11C) It was a stool that the piano had (not a stand). (12C) *It was an antique that the piano seemed (not a wreck). The differentness of the descriptors (= predicatives) of (12) to (14) compared with the object-like noun phrases of (8) to (12) is, of course, less than surprising when it is considered that semantically the latter refer to independent entities, while predicatives refer to a quality or attribute of the subject itself. They do this not only in bivalent structures of the kind we have been considering, in which the accompanying copular verb is one of the group be, remain, become, seem¸ etc. but also in trivalent structures of the form make the antique saleable, keep the antique in good condition. The non-subject noun phrases of (8) to (11) are not themselves all identical. Although they may all be regarded as ‘object-like’, only (8) has an OBJECT in the narrow sense of a noun phrase that is a potential subject of a passive sentence, cf.: (8P)
A carpet was damaged by the piano.
(9P)
*A/The pianola was resembled by the piano.
(10P) *A ton was weighed by the piano. (11P) *A stool was had by the piano. What is more, only true objects allow a so-called ‘tough-movement’ sentence like: (8T)
A/The carpet was difficult to damage (in those days).
111 Since, therefore, noun phrases like a pianola, a ton and a stool in (9), (10) and (11) respectively have some but not all of the characteristics of objects, we shall call them OBJOIDS, and refer to them with the abbreviation ‘Ö’.26 The examples of (9), (10) and (11) actually represent three different subtypes of objoid, cf. Allerton (1982: 83–5); but this difference need not concern us here. If we accept the transformational relationship to the subject in a corresponding passive sentence as a criterion for judging true object status, then
111
111
26 The German letter ‘Ö’ can be thought of as standing for Öde or Ödland ‘wasteland’, since objoids are not fruitful ground for transformational relations like passivization and ‘tough movement’; alternatively it can simply be thought of as a variant of ‘O’, with the two dots representing the ‘i’ and the ‘j’ of ‘Objoid’. Note that, unlike the term ‘Objektoid’ used by Siller-Runggaldier (1996), the concept of ‘objoid’ does not normally imply an associated preposition; in fact, we shall need a distinct category of prepositional objoid.
1
1
1
11
11
44
Syntactic restructuring
we must also accept that some sentences contain two such ‘objects’ (in this narrower sense). The sentence pair (7)–(7′) above exemplified this double object pattern, as well as its potential for transposition of the two objects. A further example is the pair (15)–(15′) below, which similarly have two post-verb noun phrases that are potential subjects in a corresponding passive sentence, as the related sentences (15P) and (15′P) show: (15) (15′) (15P) (15′P)
The piano offered an opportunity to us. The piano offered us an opportunity. An opportunity was offered (to) us by the piano. We were offered an opportunity by the piano.
We shall follow traditional practice (as opposed to that of some modern grammarians) by referring to both noun phrases and preposition phrases like (to) us in (15) and (15′) as INDIRECT OBJECTS, but only in so far as the proposed candidate may appear both after the normal object in the form of a preposition phrase and before the normal object as a noun phrase. This means that verbs like give, tell, show, etc. follow the same pattern as offer, but that the preposition phrase occurring after the object of a verb like demonstrate, explain, return, etc. (as in demonstrate the equipment to smbd) cannot be regarded as an indirect object but must be seen as a prepositional object or, in this case, objoid. Two further categories are of lesser importance in the present work but should be mentioned for the sake of completeness: the first is that of INDIRECT OBJOID (IÖ) as it appears in sentences with two object-like noun phrases that lack the potential for being a passive subject, i.e. they have an indirect objoid as well as a (direct) objoid after the verb (cf. The piano cost me five pounds); the second is that of OBLIQUE OBJECT (OO) as it appears in sentences with two full objects (with passivization potential) the second of which may have a preposition (for) but can drop it without changing its position vis-à-vis the direct object (cf. He envied me (for) my piano). We have already met preposition phrases in a predicative function after verbs like seem; but they also have other functions in relation to a lexical verb. Consider the following examples: (16) The piano interfered with the view. (17) The piano differed from the pianola.
11
11
(18) The piano stood beside the bookcase. (19) The piano deteriorated in the conservatory.
11
11
11
Syntactic framework 45 The preposition phrases of (16) and (17) clearly differ from those of (18) and (19) on at least two counts. One is that the prepositions in (16) and (17) are fixed with no possibility of exchanging the two prepositions or introducing any other one like to or in, while in (18) and (19) any semantically appropriate preposition could be substituted, e.g. behind, against or near in (18) and outside, under or near in (19). The other is that the preposition phrases of (18) and (19) can be replaced, without a substantial change of sense, by there and can be elicited using the question word where?; whereas the preposition phrases of (16) and (17) cannot be reduced to there, and are most naturally elicited using questions of the form What . . . with/ from/etc.? This makes it plain that while the preposition phrases of (18) and (19) can be described as adverbial phrases of place, those of (16) and (17), having a preposition selected by the verb, and being nominal enough in nature to be elicited by a What? question, can be regarded as objectlike elaborators of the verb. But the preposition phrases of (16) and (17) are not grammatically identical. They seem to display a similar difference to that we noted above between objects and objoids, i.e. that only (16) has a natural passive transform; cf.:
111
111
111
111
(16P) The view was interfered with by the piano. (17P) *The pianola was differed from by the piano. We shall refer to an item like with the view in (16) as a PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT, and to an item like from the pianola in (17) as a PREPOSITIONAL OBJOID, abbreviating them as PO and PÖ respectively. Turning to the adverbial phrases of (18) and (19), we find that they are not quite identical in status either, although they can each be regarded as constituting an adverbial. The phrase in the conservatory in (19) is a free modifier adverbial (abbreviated simply as Avl) of a type that can appear in any sentence. In sentence (18), on the other hand, the adverbial beside the bookcase has a special link to the lexical verb stand, which belongs to a set of verbs (including also stand, lie, live, reside, last, etc.) that are incomplete without a following adverbial of the category appropriate for the verb in question: for instance, stand requires an adverbial of place, last requires an adverbial of duration. In such cases the adverbial can be regarded as part of the valency requirement of the verb, in other words, as an ADVERBIAL ELABORATOR of the verb (to be abbreviated as AE). Some single word adverbials, i.e. adverbs, have an even stronger link with the verb, so that the combination of verb-plus-adverb has a semantic unity; these are the well-known ‘phrasal verbs’. For example, in the sentences:
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
46
Syntactic restructuring
(20) The piano played up. (21) The piano hung about. the adverbs up and about cannot be contrasted with other adverbs of the same type (e.g. down, nearby) in the usual way, and the overall meaning of the verb-plus-adverb combination is at least partly unpredictable: play up does not mean ‘engage in games in a higher position’ but rather ‘act awkwardly’; hang about does not mean ‘remain suspended nearby’ but rather ‘stay too long in a place’. Following Allerton (1982: 91–2) we shall refer to the adverbs in these combinations as LIMITER ADVERBS, and record them simply as ‘L’, a phrasal verb appearing as ‘V-L’. Some verbs take an embedded sentence, i.e. some sort of clause rather than a phrase as an elaborator. The required clause may be a full finite clause (most commonly a that-clause) or it may be a non-finite clause based on an infinitive or a gerund, cf.: (22) The piano showed that live music has a great appeal. (23) The piano tended to play flat. (24) The piano kept disturbing the neighbours. We can describe this aspect of the valency of the verbs show, tend and keep as involving elaboration with a FINITE clause, with an INFINITIVE structure, or a GERUND structure respectively, and consequently use the abbreviations F, I and G. Whereas the finite clause of (22) naturally always has its own independent subject, this is often not so for infinitive and gerund structures, as the examples of (23) and (24) show. Such infinitive or gerund elaborators may, however, include an independent subject preceding the infinitive or gerund, as in (25), (25F) and (26): (25) The pianist wanted her to sing a wrong note. (25F) The director arranged for her to sing a wrong note. (26) The pianist anticipated her singing a wrong note. which all have the independent subject her. An infinitive clause with subject can be represented as S-I in cases like (25); cases in which the infinitive has subject preceded by for, as in (25F), can be subsumed under the same category, the occurrence of for being predictable by rules (which admittedly differ between British and American English). A gerund clause with subject, as in (26), can be represented as S-G. A further group of elements within elaborated verb structures needs to be referred to, those that are embedded as modifiers of primary elabora-
11
Syntactic framework 47 tors. Within a noun phrase acting as object (or having some other function) we may find a preposition phrase qualifying the noun as its elaborator; in other words the element may be an elaborator of an elaborator. Consider the examples: (27)
The piano provoked an enthusiasm for music.
(28) (a) The piano interested the brother of the manager. (b) The piano interested the manager’s brother.
11
11
111
The phrase for music in (27) does not stand in a direct relationship to the verb provoke; it is simply a postqualifying elaborator within the noun phrase an enthusiasm for music, which as a whole acts as the object of provoke. On the face of it of the manager in (28)(a) has a similar indirect relationship to the verb interest, and certainly it is a prepositional qualifier; but the semantics is slightly different in this case, as witnessed by the kindred possessive determiner construction found in (28)(b). We shall therefore regard both of the manager in (28)(a) and the manager’s in (28)(b) as GENITIVAL QUALIFIERS (= GQ), distinguishing these from the normal PREPOSITIONAL QUALIFIERS (= PQ) of (27). Finally, when clausal elements (finite, infinitival or gerundial) appear as postmodifying complements of nouns, as in the non-italicized parts of the following noun phrases: (29) the proof that live music has a great appeal (30) the tendency (for the piano) to play flat (31) the habit of singing late at night
111 they can be termed Finite Complements (= FC), (Subject-) Infinitive Complements (= (S-) IC) and Gerund Complements (= GC) respectively. We are now in a position to list our abbreviations for the principal elements that may play a part in an elaborated verb structure, including the subject (because of its close valency links) alongside normal verb elaborators, as well as elements that appear as a modifier or complement within a noun phrase in one of the primary elaborators: S
Subject
V
Verb
111
111
O (direct) Object IO Indirect Object Ö Objoid
AE Adverbial Elaborator L Limiter adverb F I G
Finite clause elaborator Infinitive elaborator Gerund elaborator
1
1
1
11
11
48 Syntactic restructuring IÖ OO ND AD PD
Indirect Objoid Oblique Object Nominal Descriptor Adjectival Descriptor Prepositional Descriptor
PO Prepositional Object PÖ Prepositional Objoid
J
Perject
PQ Prepositional Qualifier GQ Genitival Qualifier FC Finite Complement (of noun) IC Infinitive Complement (of noun) GC Gerund Complement (of noun)
These functional elements combine, initially, to produce elaborated verb structures, in that a V, depending on its valency requirements, adopts none, one, two or three of the elements O, IO, Ö, ND, AD, PD, PO, PÖ, AE, L, F, I or G; if it is passive, it must have a different S derived from the original O, IO, OO or PO and may also include a J in place of the original S; furthermore, noun phrases among them may incorporate a PQ or GQ. Then to produce a clause or sentence, the elaborated verb structure needs to be combined with an S and an auxiliary verb structure. Since a subject is a required constituent of every sentence, even meteorological verbs like rain, sleet or snow need one in the form of it, although this is empty of meaning or at the very best ‘thin’. Marking such thin subjects as Sø, we can display the range of non-embedded27 verb valency structures found in English sentences with a non-stretched verb structure as in Table 2.1. In Table 1.1, in section I.2.i, we noted a number of kindred structures corresponding to the simple Structure 0 with an eventive verb. These structures had the event expressed in different functional positions: Structure Structure Structure Structure Structure Structure
1 2 3 4 5 6
had had had had had had
an an an an an an
agentive agentive eventive eventive eventive eventive
Adjectival Descriptor. Nominal Descriptor. Nominal Descriptor. Prepositional Descriptor. Prepositional Object (or Objoid). Object (or Objoid).
11
This is obviously the most important aspect of the syntactic restructuring that takes place as we switch from Structure 0 to Structures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. We can therefore take it as the primary factor in our classification of the kinds of structuring that take place; then within these general categories we can distinguish subcategories, and where necessary, subsubcategories, etc.
11
27 i.e. excluding F, I and G.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Syntactic framework 49
II.1.iii Obligatory and optional elaborators Verb elaboration structures were defined in the previous section as combinations of a lexical verb with the set of functional categories it requires to elaborate it: normal (mono)transitive verbs, for instance, require a subject and an object to accompany them. However, although such functional categories as subject and object are necessary to define a particular verb elaboration structure, this does not mean that the elaborators themselves are always obligatorily present. While subjects and descriptors are normally obligatory, objects and prepositional objects can be either obligatory or optional, depending on the individual verb. There is moreover more than one kind of optionality. Taking objects as our illustration, let us first consider cases of obligatory elaborators. It is easy to find examples of verbs that require their object to be present on all occasions: catch, damage, dread, find, influence, like, love, represent, say, sharpen, want are clear instances of verbs that cannot do without their object. This means that sequences such as *Sybil caught are not normally acceptable as sentences in any context. In such cases we can describe the object (or other elaborator, e.g. prepositional object) as OBLIGATORILY PRESENT and speak of PROHIBITED OMISSION of the elaborator in question. Turning to optional elaborators, we can illustrate one kind of omissibility of objects with the verb watch. Sentences like Sybil’s watching do occur, but only in the right context, i.e. when the speaker has reasons for believing that the listener will be able to identify the object which is being watched, whether it be us, the television programme showing at the moment or whatever else. The same considerations apply when the object is omitted after verbs such as choose, enter, find out, fit, follow, hurt, leave, obey, pull, push, ring (up) or win. Whenever such verbs are used without an overt object, the listener feels obliged to reconstruct a definite specific one from the surrounding linguistic and situational context. The verbs in question have a DEFINITE object that is subject to CONTEXT-BOUND OMISSION or is ELLIPTABLE.28 Such objects, etc. will be marked with the square brackets, e.g. watch [television], fit [the lock]. When, however, a potentially transitive verb like read occurs without an object, the omitted item has a different status altogether. When the speaker utters a sentence like Sybil’s reading, there is no question of the listener being required to reconstruct the nature of the thing being read. The speaker has omitted the object he or she could have included, but not because it is obvious from the context; rather, the speaker sees the nature of the thing being read as unimportant or even irrelevant to the message. In practical terms the speaker abstains from mentioning the nature of the
28 Matthews (1981: 38ff ) described such elements as ‘latent’.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
50
Syntactic restructuring
Table 2.1 English verb valency patterns in non-stretched structures (excluding embedded structures) Structure 0 pattern1
Example of Structure 0 pattern
(Example of kindred stretched pattern)
It rained.
(It poured with rain.)
S+V
Felix miaowed.
(Felix gave a miaow.)
Sø + V + AD
It got stuffy.
–
S+V+O
Felix saw me.
(Felix caught sight of me.)
S+V+Ö
Felix resembled me.
(Felix bore a resemblance to me.)
S + V + ND
Felix became a fanatic.
–2
S + V + AD
Felix became very angry.
–2
S + V + PD
Felix got into a bad mood.
–2
S + V + PO
Felix relied on me.
(Felix placed reliance on me.)
S + V + PÖ
Felix differed from me.
(Felix and I had our differences.)
S + V + AE
Felix sat on the sofa.
(Felix had a sit on the sofa.)
S+V+L
Felix broke down.
(Felix had a break-down.)
Felix gave catfood to me.
(Felix made a gift of catfood to me.)
Felix gave me the catfood.
(Felix made me a gift of the catfood.)
S + V + O + OO
Felix envied Felicity (for) her tail.
(Felix felt envy towards Felicity.)
S + V + IÖ + Ö
Felix cost me ninety francs.
(The cost of Felix (to me) was ninety francs.)
S + V + O + ND
Felix made me a fanatic.
–3
S + V + O + AD
Felix made me very angry.
–3
S + V + O + PD
Felix got me into a bad mood.
–
S + V + O + PO
Felix kept an eye on me.
–
S + V + O + PÖ
Felix deprived me of my slippers. –
Zero-valent Sø + V Monovalent
Bivalent
Trivalent S + V + O + IO
11
11
Syntactic framework 51 Table 2.1 (continued) Structure 0 pattern1
Example of Structure 0 pattern
(Example of kindred stretched pattern)
S + V + O + AE
Felix led me upstairs.
(Felix took the lead.)
S+V+O+L
Felix held me up.
(Felix caused a hold-up.)
S + V + L + PO
Felix put up with me.
–
S + V + L + PÖ
Felix stood out from the others.
–
S + V + L + AE
Felix came over badly.
–
S + V + PO + PÖ
Felix applied to me for permission.
(Felix made an application to me for permission.)
S + V + PO + PD
Felix looked on me as an expert.
–
S + V + ND + IÖ
Felix made a nice pet for me.
–
Felix made me a nice pet.
–
S + V + ND + PÖ
Felix looked an expert to me.
–
S + V + AD + PÖ
Felix looked expert to me.
–
11
111 Tetravalent S + V + O + IO + PÖ
Felix paid me a large sum for it. (Felix gave me a large sum in payment.) S + V + O + AE + AE
Felix moved it from here to there.
–
S + V + O + L + AE
Felix put the message over well.
–
S + V + O + L + IO
Felix typed out the article for me.
(Felix did the typing-out of the article for me.)
S + V + O + L + PÖ
Felix played me off against the vet.
–
111
111
111
Felix paid a large sum to me for it. –
Notes: 1 For the abbreviations used here see pages 47–8; Sø stands for an irreplaceable subject without any lexical content. 2 The fact that these patterns lack a stretched correlate is probably no accident: the ‘simple’ construction in these cases can be regarded as non-minimal, in that the verb is lexically weak, being chosen from a very limited list, and it could be argued that the combination of copular verb-plus-adjective simplifies to a simple intransitive verb like enthuse or rage. 3 Like the bivalent patterns referred to in footnote 2, these patterns could also be regarded as non-simple: the combination of factitive verb-plus-object-plus adjective could be seen as simplifying to a transitive verb-plus-object like fanaticize me or anger me.
1
1
1
11
11
52 Syntactic restructuring object of the verb read, and the listener simply ignores it; indeed the verb is being used as though it were intransitive. Verbs which allow their objects to be omitted in a similar way include clean, dig, draw, drive, hoe, knit, paint, sew, sow and wash. We can say that the verbs in question have an INDEFINITE object that is subject to CONTEXT-FREE OMISSION or is SUPPRESSIBLE. Such elements will be marked with parentheses, e.g. clean (the flat), paint (a picture). All verb elaborators need to be specified as to whether they are obligatorily present, elliptable or suppressible.29 Only then does it become clear how the verbs that they elaborate can be used. At least one pair of verbs (at least in traditional British English) differ from each other in the kind of omissibility of their objects, namely ring (up) and telephone, with the former having an elliptable object and the latter a suppressible one, so that, while Sybil’s ringing up now requires the listener to reconstruct the object, Sybil’s telephoning now does not. One special case of the ellipsis of an object needs to be noted: sometimes, when the verb involved is a mutual reciprocal verb, a definite object can be ellipted so long as it is combined with subject, leaving an omissible each other as object, etc. Thus Sybil met Sebastian and Sebastian met Sybil can be combined as Sybil and Sebastian met each other, or, more simply and naturally, Sybil and Sebastian met. Replacing met with kissed, married or quarrelled with gives similar results. We can call this phenomenon RECIPROCAL OMISSION and mark it with inward-pointing arrow brackets, as in meet >each otherwith smbd
. Determiners and pronouns are abbreviated as follows: sm for some, smbd for somebody, smth for something, onslf for oneself, smwh for somewhere, pple for people. 32 This example is exceptional in corresponding not so much simply to the simple verb but to its progressive form (be advancing) or even more plausibly to its perfect form (have advanced).
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
56
Syntactic restructuring
(1–1–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + AD/v + PÖ/o kindred with S + V + O e.g. be absorbing ( for smbd) absorb smbd be abusive (to/towards smbd ) abuse smbd be accommodating [towards smbd] accommodate smbd be advantageous (to/for smbd) advantage smbd be alarming ( for smbd ) alarm smbd be amazing (to/for smbd) amaze smbd be amusing ( for smbd) amuse smbd be analytic/-al (about smth) analyse smth be annoying ( for smbd) annoy smbd be antagonistic (to/towards smbd) antagonize smbd be appalling ( for smbd ) appal smbd be appreciative [of smth/smbd] appreciate smth/smbd be articulate (about smth) articulate smth be astonishing (to/for smbd) astonish smbd be astounding (to/for smbd) astound smbd be attractive (to/for smbd) attract smbd (1–1–03–0–0) S/s + V/ø + AD/v + PÖ/po e.g. be aggressive (to/towards smbd)
kindred with S + V + PO aggress against smbd
(1–1–04–0–0) S/s + V/ø + AD/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. be agape at smth/smbd gape [at smth/smbd] be attentive [to smth/smbd] attend to smth/smbd (1–1–05–0–2) S/s + V/ø + AD/v (+ Ø/o) e.g. be absent [from smth]
kindred with S + V + O= + PÖ absent onslf [from smth] 33
(1–1–06–0–0) S/s + V/ø + AD/v kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ + PÖ/pö e.g. be accountable [for smth] (to smbd) account for smth (to smbd) be answerable [for smth] (to smbd) answer for smth (to smbd) be apologetic [about smth] apologize [for smth] (to smbd) (to/towards smbd) 33 The object in this simplex pattern is compulsorily reflexive, i.e. coreferential with the subject, hence the sign O=.
11
Types of restructuring 57 (1–1–07–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/o + AD/v e.g. make smth active make smbd angry make smbd annoyed make smth articulate make smth automatic
kindred with S + V + O activate smth anger smbd annoy smbd articulate smth automate smth
11
(1–1–08–0–0)
11
S/s + V/ø + O/o + kindred with S + V + O + PÖ AD/v e.g. make smbd accustomed to smth accustom smbd to smth make smbd acquainted with smth acquaint smbd with smth make smbd alert to smth alert smbd [to smth]
111
111
(1–2–01–0–0) S/o + V/ø + AD/v (+ Ø/s) e.g. be abandoned be abortive be automatic
kindred with S + V + O abandon smbd abort smth automate smth
(1–2–02–0–0) S/o + V/ø + AD/v + PÖ/s e.g. be abhorrent (to smbd) be abominable (for smbd) be acceptable [to smbd] be accessible (to/for smbd)
kindred with S + V + O abhor smth abominate smth accept [smth] access smth34
(1–2–03–0–0) S/o + V/ø + AD/v e.g. be angry (about/at smth/with/ at smbd) be annoyed (about/at smth/ with/at smbd)
kindred with S + V + O anger smbd annoy smbd
111
111
34 As noted above, the verb access was rare and historically a secondary derivation from the noun access, but as the verb increases in use, its secondary nature is becoming much less obvious.
1
1
1
58
Syntactic restructuring
(1–2–04–0–0) S/o + V/ø + AD/v kindred with S + V + O + PÖ e.g. be alert (to smth) alert smbd [to smth] be accustomed (to smth) accustom smbd to smth To make it clear that the correspondences are valid, we can consider the following examples of (32) below, limiting ourselves to one example for each subvariety of Structure 1: (32) (1–1–01–0–0) (1–1–01–0–2)
Sebastian is always very analytic. (Sebastian always analyses things.)
(1–1–01–0–5)
Sybil was a bit argumentative. (Sybil argued a bit about the details.)
(1–1–02–0–0)
Sebastian was very amusing (for us) all evening. (Sebastian amused us all evening.)
(1–1–03–0–0)
Sybil was apologetic towards Peregrine. (Sebastian apologized to Peregrine.)
(1–1–04–0–0)
Sybil was attentive to the problems of the students. (Sybil attended to the problems of the students.)
(1–1–05–0–2)
Sybil was absent from the meeting. (Sybil absented herself from the meeting.)
(1–1–06–0–0)
Sebastian was accountable for the expenditure to Priscilla. (Sebastian accounted for the expenditure to Priscilla.)
(1–1–07–0–0)
Sybil made their concerns articulate. (Sybil articulated their concerns.)
(1–1–08–0–0)
Sebastian made everyone acquainted with the fire regulations. (Sebastian acquainted everyone with the fire regulations.)
(1–2–01–0–0)
The selection procedure was automatic. (Xavier automated the selection procedure.)
(1–2–02–0–0)
Sybil’s proposal was acceptable to the party. (The party accepted Sybil’s proposal.)
11
11
11
11
Sybil was active at the very beginning of the crisis. (Sybil acted at the very beginning of the crisis.)
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Types of restructuring 59 (1–2–03–0–0)
Sebastian was angry about the procedure. (The procedure angered Sebastian.)
(1–2–04–0–0)
Sybil was alert to the problem. (Xavier alerted Sybil to the problem.)
As adjective phrases, the descriptors of this pattern essentially describe a state, in this case the state of the subject of the sentence, whereas the corresponding simplex verb construction, with its eventive verb, presents roughly the same eventuality as a happening (i.e. as a process, act, etc.). The adjective phrase can have a meaning that refers to the character, ability or potential of the subject rather than to any particular eventuality, but in order to be regarded as a stretched verb construction, the structure concerned needs to have an eventive meaning. Thus be active, for instance, needs to have the verbal meaning ‘act on a particular occasion or set of occasions’ (as in . . . was very active as chairman last week) rather than the adjectival meaning of ‘have the habit of acting’. From the structural point of view, it is worth noting that some preposition phrases that are prepositional objects or objoids in the simplex structure (as in attend to smth/smbd of (1–1–04–0–0)) appear as prepositional qualifiers in the stretched constuction (as in be attentive to smth/smbd) and are consequently incorporated into the adjective phrase (noted with < . . . >). We shall note a similar tendency with noun-based patterns too. There seem to be three major subvarieties of the pattern. The intransitive active one, basically S/s + V/ø + AD/v with or without some kind of preposition phrase, has the verb be and is stative in meaning. The transitive active one, basically S/s + V/ø + O/o + AD/v with or without a preposition phrase, has the verb make and is dynamic in meaning. The passive one, basically S/o + V/ø + AD/v with some kind of PP, again has the verb be and is stative.
II.2.ii Structure 2 patterns: V-ejection to ND (agentive) Like Structure 1 patterns, Structure 2 patterns have a copular verb such as be or become but this time accompanied by a descriptor in the shape of an agentive noun phrase. The agentive noun describes the role or function of the subject, rather than its state or condition, as an adjectival descriptor does; but clearly the two meanings are quite close. In combination with a copular verb like be, such an agentive noun only actually forms a stretched verb construction when it carries not just the meaning of attributing the relevant role or function but also implying that the subject actually does the action designated by the kindred verb. Thus whereas elaborated verb structures like be a dunce, be a duke or be a typical Dane simply attribute a particular quality to somebody, phrases such as be a drinker or
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
60 Syntactic restructuring be a good driver typically ascribe an activity to the agent referred to by the subject. Many agentive nouns are ambiguous or at least vague in this respect, so that an enquiry whether someone is a ‘lecturer’ can be a question about someone’s occupation (i.e. university or college lecturer) or about what the person does (i.e. sometimes or regularly gives lectures). The examples that follow should all fall into the latter category. They are categorized according to the same scheme as for Structure 2 patterns. (2–1–01–0–2) S/s + V/ø + ND/v (+ Ø/o) e.g. be an abortionist be an administrator be an advertiser be an alarmist be an analyser/analyst be an announcer be an appeaser be an assassin be an assessor be an assurer35 be an attacker be an/the auctioneer be an/the auditor be an avenger
kindred with S + V + O abort smth administer/-strate smth advertise (smth) alarm smbd analyse smth/smbd announce smth appease smbd assassinate smbd assess smth/smbd assure smbd attack (smth/smbd) auction smth audit smth avenge smth/smbd
(2–1–01–0–5) S/s + V/ø + ND/v (+ Ø/po) kindred with S + V + PO e.g. be an abstainer abstain [from smth] be an adjudicator adjudicate [between pple] be an aggressor aggress against smbd be an attendant attend (‘help’) to smbd/smth (2–1–01–0–6) S/s + V/ø + ND/v + (+ Ø/pö) e.g. be an absconder be an actor
kindred with S + V + PÖ abscond [ from smwh] act (‘perform dramatically’) (in smth)
(2–1–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v e.g. be an abetter/-or of smbd be an abhorrer of smth
kindred with S + V + O abet smbd abhor smth
35 in the sense of ‘provide financial protection to smbd’.
11
11
11
Types of restructuring 61 be be be be be be be
an an an an an an an
abridger of smth abuser of smbd admirer of smbd adorer of smth advocate of smth aide of smbd arranger (of smth)
abridge smth abuse smbd admire smbd adore smth advocate smth aid smbd arrange smth
(2–1–03–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. be an agitator ( for/against smth) agitate for/against smth be an applicant [ for smth] apply [ for smth] be an arbitrator (between people) arbitrate [between people] be an aspirant to smth aspire to smth (2–1–04–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + O = + PÖ e.g. be an absentee [ from smth] absent onslf [ from smth]
111
111
111
111
(2–1–05–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v e.g. be an accompanist {of smbd} be an accuser of {of smbd} be an adviser {of smbd} be an aide {of smbd} be an assistant {of smbd} be an avenger {of smbd}
kindred with S + V + O accompany smbd accuse smbd advise smbd aid smbd assist [smbd] avenge smbd
(2–1–06–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + PÖ e.g. be an agent {of smbd} act (‘be active’) for smbd be an associate >of smbd< associate with smbd (2–1–07–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + O= + PÖ e.g. be an ally >of smbd< ally onslf with smbd (2–2–01–0–1) S/pö + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + O + PÖ (+ Ø/s) e.g. be an/the addressee [of smth] address (‘send’) smth (to smbd)
1
1
1
62
Syntactic restructuring
(2–3–01–0–0) S/x + V/ø + ND/v (+ Ø/pö) e.g. be an adhesive (for smth)
adhere to smth
As with Structure 1 patterns, we can now demonstrate the validity of the correspondences by giving examples as in (32) below, limiting ourselves to one example for each subvariety of Structure 2: (33) (2–1–01–0–2)
Sebastian was the auctioneer. (Sebastian auctioned the antiques.)
(2–1–01–0–5)
Sybil is an abstainer. (Sybil abstains from strong drink.)
(2–1–01–0–6)
Sebastian was an absconder from boarding school. (Sebastian absconded from boarding school.)
(2–1–02–0–0)
Sybil is an advocate of corporal punishment. (Sybil advocates corporal punishment.)
(2–1–03–0–0)
Sebastian was an applicant for the post. (Sebastian applied for the post.)
(2–1–04–0–0)
Sybil was an absentee from the meeting. (Sybil absented herself from the meeting.)
(2–1–05–0–0)
Sebastian was Grizelda’s accompanist/the accompanist of Grizelda. (Sebastian accompanied Grizelda.)
(2–1–06–0–0)
Sybil was Gerald’s agent/the agent of Gerald. (Sybil acted for Gerald.)
(2–1–07–0–0)
Sweden was an ally of Prussia. (Sweden allied itself with Prussia.)
(2–2–01–0–0)
Sebastian was the addressee of the petition. (The secretary addressed the petition to Sebastian.)
(2–3–01–0–0)
Superglue is an adhesive for plastics. (Superglue causes plastics to adhere to things.)
11
11
kindred with S + V + PÖ
11
11
The vast majority of these variants of Structure 2 are ‘active’ and ‘intransitive’ in the sense that they preserve the subject of the kindred simplex verb structure: they all centre around the pattern S/s + V/ø + ND/v with or without a preposition phrase corresponding to an object or prepositional object or objoid in the kindred simplex structure. The only real
11
11
11
111
111
Types of restructuring 63 exceptions are structures (2–2–01–0–0) and (2–3–01–0–0), each with only one example. For (2–2–01–0–0), which has a subject corresponding to a prepositional objoid in the kindred structure, it is possible to find examples outside our A- database with a kindred object, e.g. be an employee, be a trainee, but these are less common than might be imagined.36 Example (2–3–01–0–0) also represents a rare type, with its subject corresponding to an external agent in the corresponding simple verb structure and its qualifying preposition phrase corresponding to the kindred object. Structures with preposition phrases are subject to the same trend of incorporation noted for Structure 1: in be an abetter/-or of smbd of type (2–1–02–0–0) or be an agitator for/against smth of (2–1–03–0–0), for instance, the object or prepositional object of the verb in the simplex construction has become a prepositional qualifier of the agentive noun.
II.2.iii Structure 3 patterns: V-ejection to ND (eventive) It will be recalled that in this pattern the event appears not as a verb (as it does in a simplex structure) but as a descriptor (= predicative) in the form of a noun phrase. Structure 3 is not particularly common; but, despite its lack of frequency, it throws up a number of interesting variant forms. (3–1–01–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v e.g. be an advantage [to smbd ] be an affront [to smbd ] be an answer [to smth] be an attack [on smbd/smth]
kindred with S + V + O advantage smbd affront smbd answer [smth] 37 attack [smbd/smth] 38
(3–1–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. be an allusion to smbd/smth allude to smbd/smth be an argument [for/against smth] argue (‘reason’) for/against smth (3–2–01–0–0) S/o + V/ø + ND/v + PÖ/s e.g. be an abomination ( for smbd)
kindred with S + V + O abominate smth/smbd
111
111
36 Why, for instance, are there no -ee nouns derived from the verbs abuse, accuse, appease, assassinate, assess, avenge? 37 only with the meaning ‘constitute a response to something’ (for abstract grammatical subjects). 38 only with the meaning ‘constitute a verbal assault’ (for abstract grammatical subjects).
1
64
Syntactic restructuring
(3–2–02–0–1) S/o + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + O + PÖ (+ Ø/s) e.g. be an addition [to smth] add smth [to smth] be an award [to smbd] award smth (to smbd) (3–2–03–0–1)
1
S/o + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + O + PÖ (+ Ø/s) e.g. be an acquaintance {of smbd} acquaint smbd with smbd
1
(3–3–01–0–0)
11
S/po + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. be an/the agreement agree on smth [between pple] (3–4–01–0–1) S/pö + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V-L + O + PÖ (+ Ø/s) e.g. be an average of sm things average smth out at smth (3–5–01–0–1) S/avl + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + O + Avl (+ Ø/s) e.g. be an abuse [of smth] abuse smth ( by means of smth) be an analysis [of smth] analyse smth through smth
11
11
11
(3–5–02–0–1) S/avl + V/ø + ND/v kindred with S + V + PO + Avl (+ Ø/s) e.g. be an application [ for smth] apply [ for smth] (through smth) To make it clear that the correspondences are valid, we can consider the following examples of (34) below, limiting ourselves to one example for each subvariety of Structure 3: (34) (3–1–01–0–0) (3–1–02–0–0)
The article was an attack on the Prime Minister. (The article attacked the Prime Minister.) The comment was an allusion to his grey appearance. (The comment alluded to his grey appearance.)
11
Types of restructuring 65 (3–2–01–0–0)
Sabotage was an abomination for Priscilla. (Priscilla abominated sabotage).
(3–2–02–0–1)
The stamps were an addition to the collection. (Sybil added the stamps to the collection.)
(3–2–03–0–1)
Sebastian is an acquaintance of Priscilla’s. (I acquainted Priscilla with Sebastian.)39
(3–3–01–0–0)
Payment within 30 days was the agreement (between us). (We agreed on payment within 30 days.)
(3–4–01–0–1)
The final mark was the average of the two individual marks. (We averaged the two individual marks out at 65 per cent.)
(3–5–01–0–1)
The decree was an abuse of presidential power. (Peregrine abused presidential power in/with that decree.)
(3–5–02–0–1)
The letter was an application for the new post. (Quentin applied for the new post in a letter.)
11
11
111
The two features shared by all of these subvarieties of Structure 3 are the occurrence of the verb BE as the thin verb and the appearance of the event in the form of an abstract noun in the position of nominal descriptor (predicative). Since the effect of the verb BE in this sentence pattern is to ascribe the quality of the descriptor to the subject, it is not surprising to see that the subject is also most commonly an abstract noun; but examples with an animate noun can be found, such as:
111
111
111
(27) Sebastian was an addition to the team. The (3–1) patterns retain the subject of the simple verb structure, but all of the other types select a different subject – the kindred simple object in (3–2), the kindred simple prepositional object in (3–3), the kindred simple prepositional objoid in (3–4) or a kindred simple adverbial elaborator in (3–5). It would be possible, as already noted, to regard the structures of (3–2) and (3–3) as being related not to S + V + O + PÖ and S + V + PO respectively but to their passive transforms; but this would not seem to take us any further in our analysis, and it would not help us at all with the structures of (3–4) and (3–5). Let us continue to say simply that the
39 It would be more natural in current English to say I acquainted Virginia and Tony, or even better I introduced Virginia and Tony.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
66
Syntactic restructuring
relationship between the stretched structures of (3–2) and (3–3) and their corresponding eventive verb structures involves a restructuring that includes an object/subject interchange of the type found in passivization, but of that of course it also involves nominalization of the kindred simple verb. A further point to note is that all the stretched structures of this type have a prepositional or genitive qualifier attached to the descriptor noun phrase, and this qualifier regularly serves as a carrier of the meaning of the element expressed by the object or prepositional object/objoid of the kindred simple structure. These qualifiers are essentially noun phrase constituents, which do not form direct elaborators (or ‘complements’) of the (thin) verb, but are sub-constituents within the object, where the semantic contribution of the kindred basic verb (i.e. the ‘eventive’ role) is now accommodated. This means that certain kindred simple elaborator functions, like kindred simple object, prepositional object and even subject, are attached to or annexed by the nominal descriptor as its postmodifier, so that the preposition of this prepositional qualifier is selected by the (deverbal) noun, not by the thin verb. This process of annexation or incorporation (indicated by the angled brackets < . . . >) applies consistently in Structure 3, and also plays an important role in Structures 4, 5 and 6. Considered from the point of view of the kindred simple verb structure, these correspondences between kindred structures look slightly different. The structures of (3–1–02–0–0) and (3–3–01–0–0), for instance, can be seen to be related to the same simple structure, namely S + V + PO; the stretched structures differ in whether they retain the same subject as the kindred simple eventive verb structure (as does (3–1–02–0–0)) or transform the kindred prepositional object into a subject, demoting the original subject to the function of prepositional qualifier of the eventive noun in descriptor position. Something similar can be observed by considering the common simple eventive verb structure S + V + O + PÖ shared by (3–2–02–0–1), (3–2–03–0–1) and (3–4–01–0–1); the stretched verb structures differ in that the (3–4–01–0–1) pattern has a subject that corresponds to the kindred simple prepositional objoid, while the (3–2) patterns make the kindred simple object into their subject. The difference between the prepositional qualifier of (3–2–02–0–1) and the genitival qualifier of (3–2–03–0–1) is at least partly explained by the fact that the latter denotes a human being.
II.2.iv Structure 4 patterns: V-ejection to PD (eventive) This stretched structure is also a relatively infrequent pattern. It is characterized by the realization of the event in the form of a preposition phrase acting as a descriptor (= predicative) following a copular verb like be. Using our standard form for indicating the relationship between the
11
Types of restructuring 67 simple eventive verb structure and the kindred stretched structure, we can nevertheless note the following variant forms of the pattern: (4–1–01–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PD/v e.g. be in abundance (4–1–01–0–2)
11
S/s + V/ø + PD/v (+ Ø/o) e.g. be on the attack
11
(4–1–02–0–0)
111
111
111
111
kindred with S + V abound
S/s + V/ø + PD/v + PÖ/o e.g. be of assistance [to smbd ]
kindred with S + V + O attack [smbd/smth]
kindred with S + V + O assist [smbd]
(4–1–03–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PD/v e.g. be in acknowledgement of smth be in aid of smbd/smth be in answer to smbd/smth
kindred with S + V + O acknowledge smth aid smbd/smth answer [smbd/smth] 40
(4–1–04–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PD/v kindred with S + V + PÖ e.g. be in accord with smbd/smth accord >with smbd/smth< ally (onslf) >with smbd< be in alliance with smbd 41 be in alternation with smth alternate >with smth/smbd< (4–1–05–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PD/v kindred with S + V + PÖ + PÖ + PÖ/pö e.g. be in agreement >with smbd< agree with >smbd< [about smth] [about smth]
40 with abstract subject only. 41 This example could be treated as belonging to a separate subgroup, being kindred, as it is, with a verb with a reflexive object, in other words with the structure S + V + O + PÖ; but the verb construction ally oneself with smbd has an object that is normally reflexive (like absent oneself ), and this empty object of the simple eventive verb structure has no separate realization in the stretched verb construction. (Sentences like They allied the Serbs with the Croats seem improbable.)
1
68
Syntactic restructuring
(4–2–01–0–1) S/o + V/ø + PD/v (Ø/s) e.g. be under anaesthesia be under analysis be on approval be under arrest be under attack
1
(4–2–02–0–1)
1
S/o + V/ø + PD/v (Ø/s) e.g. be in addition [to smth]
11
11
11
11
kindred with S + V + O anaesthetize smbd analyse smth approve smth arrest smbd attack [smbd/smth]
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ add smth [to smth else]
To illustrate the correspondences, it will again be useful to examine examples; and we can restrict ourselves to one example for each subvariety of Structure 4 (as we did in the case of Structure 3): (35) (4–1–01–0–0)
Delicious food was (there) in abundance. (Delicious food abounded (there)).
(4–1–01–0–2)
The Socialists were on the attack. (The Socialists attacked the Opposition.)
(4–1–02–0–0)
Sebastian was of assistance to Olga. (Sebastian assisted Olga.)
(4–1–03–0–0)
The note was in answer to the letter of resignation. (The note answered the letter of resignation.)
(4–1–04–0–0)
His speech was in accord with his earlier comment. (His speech accorded with his earlier comment.)
(4–1–05–0–0)
Sybil was in agreement with Peregrine about the project. (Sybil agreed with Peregrine about the project.)
(4–2–01–0–1)
The data were under analysis. (Government scientists were analysing the data.)
(4–2–02–0–1)
The fee was in addition to the earlier charge. (They added the fee to the earlier charge.)
The various subtypes of Structure 4 all have the verb BE followed by a prepositional descriptor, rather than a nominal one (as in Structure 3). It will be recalled that these preposition phrases (like on the attack or under analysis) are being regarded as ‘descriptors’ (or ‘predicatives’, see section
11
Types of restructuring 69
111
I.1.ii) because they do not have any recognizable adverbial function, but rather seem to complement the verb be, here acting as a copular verb like remain or seem. There is a slight problem for the analysis of such phrases as descriptors, in that although such descriptive phrases can occur after be, remain or seem, they seem impossible after become; the ‘change of state’ meaning associated with become seems in these contexts to have to be expressed with come or go, suggesting a direction adverbial (though go also appears before descriptor adjective phrases, e.g. very red, quite mad). Descriptors, whether adjectival or prepositional, have the function of describing the state or condition of the entity designated by the subject, although the simple eventive verb structure may refer to a clear happening. In (4–1–01–0–2) for instance the Socialists are clearly said to have done something in the verb-based sentence, whereas they are merely said to be in a state of activity in the preposition phrase-based sentence, a subtle difference, which is even valid if we convert the verb-based sentence to the progressive form ( . . . were attacking . . . ). The superficial form of the different patterns is similar, any expansion beyond the prepositional descriptor being in the form of a prepositional qualifier, which (as we noted in the case of Structure 3) has the effect of incorporating the element concerned as a subconstituent rather than as a direct elaborator of the verb be. Thus of smbd/smth in be in aid of smbd/smth does not have a direct relationship to the verb be; it has actually been annexed by the (deverbal) noun of the prepositional descriptor. The different (4–1) patterns all retain the subject of the eventive verb construction, whereas the patterns of (4–2) have the eventive verb’s object as its subject, giving it a passive meaning. It is worth noting the prevalence of the preposition under in (4–2–01–0–1); the value of different prepositions will be considered in section III.1.iv. Equally interesting is the contrast between on the attack in (4–1–01–0–2) and under attack in (4–2–01–0–1); the possible relevance of the presence of the definite article will be discussed in Part III. Looking at things from the point of view of the kindred simplex eventive verb structures, we see that both the ‘active’ patterns (4–1–01–0–2) and (4–1–02–0–0) and the ‘passive’ pattern (4–2–01–0–1) relate to the simple structure S + V + O. The difference between (4–1–01–0–2), on the one hand, and (4–1–02–0–0) and (4–1–03–0–0), on the other, is simply that whereas the latter patterns retain a mention of the kindred object in the form of a prepositional objoid (PÖ) or prepositional qualifier (PQ),42 the (4–1–01–0–2) pattern excludes this possibility: it is not normal to add a mention of the person or thing attacked to the construction be on the attack. The difference between (4–2–01–0–1)
111
42 This seems to be obligatory or optional according to its status in the kindred simple verb construction, e.g. obligatory in be in aid of smbd/smth but optional in be of assistance to smbd.
11
11
111
111
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
70
Syntactic restructuring
and (4–2–02–0–1), on the other hand, is a matter of a difference in the ‘underlying structure’, (4–2–01–0–1) having only a kindred subject and object to accommodate, while (4–2–02–0–1) also has a prepositional objoid.
II.2.v Structure 5 patterns: V-ejection to PO/PÖ (eventive) The range of possibilities for this stretched verb structure is slightly broader than for Structures 3 and 4. The essential difference between Structure 4 and Structure 5 is that, whereas the former contains a copular verb, prototypically be, the latter contains a classic intransitive verb, although in combination with its following preposition it sometimes gives the appearance of being a prepositional verb. Structure 5 agrees with Structures 3 and 4 in having a variety of different types of correspondence to kindred simplex eventive verb structures. We can note these in the usual way: (5–1–01–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PO/v e.g. indulge in sm acting
kindred with S + V act (‘perform dramatically’)
(5–1–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PO/v e.g. arrive at an accommodation [with smbd]
kindred with S + V + O accommodate smbd
(5–1–03–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PO/v kindred with S + V (+ Os) + PÖ e.g. enter into an alliance >with smbd< ally onslf >with smbd< (5–1–04–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PO/v e.g. arrive at an agreement > with smbd< (about smth) enter into an agreement >with smbd< (about smth)
kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ agree >with smbd< [about smth] agree >with smbd< [about smth]
(5–2–01–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PÖ/v e.g. go/move into action
kindred with S + V act (‘be active’)
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Types of restructuring 71 (5–2–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/o + PÖ/v e.g. receive smbd with acclaim provide smbd with aid fill smbd with alarm provide smbd with amusement subject smth to an/sm analysis place/put smbd under arrest provide smbd with sm assistance
kindred with S + V + O acclaim smbd aid smbd alarm smbd amuse smbd analyse smth arrest smbd assist smbd
(5–2–02–0–6) S/s + V/ø + O/o + PÖ/v (+ Ø/pö) e.g. bring smth into alignment
kindred with S + V + O align smth >with smth
smbd
with smbd< agree >with smbd< [about smth] (about smth) get into an argument >with argue (‘quarrel’) >with smbd< smbd< (about smth) (about smth) (5–2–08–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PÖ/v e.g. come to an arrangement >with smbd< [about smth]
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ arrange smth with smbd
(5–2–09–0–0) S/s + V/ø + PÖ/v e.g. come to an accord with smbd about smth
kindred with S + V + PÖ + PÖ accord with smbd about smth
(5–3–01–0–1) S/o + V/ø + PÖ/v (+ Ø/s) e.g. meet with sm acceptance
kindred with S + V + O accept (‘tolerate’) smth/smbd
(5–3–02–0–0) S/o + V/ø + PÖ/v + PÖ/s e.g. come under attack (from smbd)
kindred with S + V + O attack [smbd/smth]
(5–3–02–1–0) S/o + V-L/ø + PÖ/v + PÖ/s kindred with S + V + O e.g. come in for sm abuse from/ abuse smbd at-the-hands-of smbd (5–4–01–0–1) S/pö + V/ø + PÖ/v (+ Ø/s) e.g. go to arbitration
kindred with S + V + PÖ arbitrate between pple
(5–5–01–0–0) S/po + V/ø + PÖ/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. meet with the approval {of smbd} approve [of smbd/smth]
11
Types of restructuring 73 (5–6–01–0–0) S/x + V/ø + O/s + PÖ/v + PÖ/po e.g. call smbd to account (for smth)
kindred with Sx Vx + [S + V + PO] cause smbd to account for smth
(5–7–01–0–1) S/ö + V/ø + PÖ/v (Ø/s) e.g. suffer from an ailment
kindred with S + V + Ö smth ails smbd
11
11
In order to exemplify each subvariety of correspondences, we shall again give a pair of sentences, the first one a Structure 4 sentence, the second one (in parentheses) its kindred structure in a simple eventive verb structure: (36) (5–1–01–0–0) (5–1–02–0–0)
Sybil arrived at an accommodation with Peregrine. (Sybil accommodated Peregrine.)
(5–1–03–0–0)
The Socialists entered into an alliance with the Progressives. (The Socialists allied themselves with the Progressives.)
(5–1–04–0–0)
Sebastian entered into a formal agreement with Priscilla about the children. (Sebastian formally agreed with Priscilla about the children.)
(5–2–01–0–0)
The Secret Service moved into action. (The Secret Service acted.)
(5–2–02–0–0)
Sebastian filled Olga with alarm. (Sebastian alarmed Olga.)
(5–2–02–0–6)
Sybil brought the oar into alignment with the prow. (Sybil aligned the oar with the prow.)
(5–2–03–0–2)
Sybil presented Oscar with an award. (Sybil awarded a medal to Oscar.)
(5–2–04–0–0)
The audience burst into applause at the joke. (The audience applauded the joke.)
(5–2–06–0–0)
Sybil came to Gerald’s aid (= . . . the aid of Gerald). (Sybil aided Gerald.)
111
111
111
111
Sebastian indulged in some acting at college. (Sebastian acted at college.)
1
74
Syntactic restructuring (5–2–07–0–0)
Sebastian finally came to an agreement with Priscilla about the will. (Sebastian finally agreed with Priscilla about the will.)
(5–2–08–0–0)
Sybil came to an arrangement with the press about her meeting. (Sybil arranged her meeting with the press.)
(5–2–09–0–0)
Sebastian came to an accord with the Prime Minister about the succession. (Sebastian accorded with the Prime Minister about the succession.)
(5–3–01–0–1)
The scheme met with general acceptance. (People generally accepted the scheme.)
(5–3–02–0–0)
Sybil came under attack from the press. (The press attacked Sybil.)
(5–3–02–1–0)
Sebastian came in for abuse at the hands of the press. (The press abused Sebastian.)
(5–4–01–0–0)
The plan met with Grizelda’s approval (= . . . the approval of Grizelda). (Grizelda approved of the plan.)
(5–5–01–0–1)
Sebastian and Sybil went to arbitration. (The court arbitrated between Sebastian and Sybil).
(5–6–01–0–0)
The authorities called Oscar to account (for the emergency). (The authorities caused Oscar to account for the emergency.)
(5–7–01–0–1)
Sybil is suffering from an ailment at the moment. (Something ails Sybil at the moment.)
1
1
11
11
11
11
Unlike Structures 3 and 4, which consistently have the verb be, Structure 5 includes a number of different verbs, embracing different valency types. What all the verbs in this stretched structure share, however, is the potential for being complemented by a prepositional object or objoid, because this is the place where the event of the kindred simple verb is manifested. The fact that the thin verb is not be but a verb which in its literal use has an actional meaning has the result that the overall meaning of Structure 5 constructions refers more to an action than the kind of states referred to in Constructions 3 and 4. The verb enter (into) of enter into an alliance in (5–1–04–0–0), for instance, helps give its construction a dynamic value (in
11
Types of restructuring 75 this case an inchoative or inceptive value) compared with the Structure 4 phrase be in alliance. An examination of the different patterns of (5–1–01–0–0) through to (5–7–01–0–1) again reveals structural diversity. The patterns of (5–1) differ from the rest in having the event appearing as a prepositional object rather than a prepositional objoid. This means that the deverbal noun, which in the Structure 5 construction expresses the event, can become the subject noun in a corresponding passive sentence; so that (30)(i) and (ii) would be the passive correlates of (36)(5–1–03–0–0) and(5–1–04–0–0) respectively:
11
11
111
111
111
111
(37) (a) An alliance was entered into by the Socialists with the Progressives. (b) An agreement was entered into by Sebastian with Priscilla about the children. Such passive sentences cannot be formed when the event is expressed in the form of a prepositional objoid, as it does in (29) (5–2–07–0–0), for which the ungrammatical passive correlate would be: (38)
*An agreement was finally come to by Sebastian with Priscilla about the will.
The four patterns of (5–1), then, are the only ones within Structure 5 to have the kindred simplex verb appearing in a true passivizable prepositional object position, the main differences between them being the number of prepositional qualifiers they have (none in the (5–1–01–0–0) pattern, one in the (5–1–02–0–0) and (5–1–03–0–0) patterns, representing a kindred object or prepositional objoid respectively, and two in the (5–1–04–0–0) patten, representing a prepositional object and a prepositional objoid. The remaining patterns of Structure 5, from (5–2) to (5–7), all have an eventive prepositional objoid to represent the kindred simplex verb. They differ from each other in what kindred simplex element the subject represents: in (5–2) the subject corresponds to a kindred simplex subject, in (5–3) to a kindred simplex object, in (5–4) and (5–5) to a kindred simplex prepositional object or objoid respectively, in (5–6) to the subject of an external clause in which the clause containing the kindred simplex verb has been embedded, and in (5–7) to a kindred simplex objoid. This means that in (5–3), (5–4), (5–5), (5–6) and (5–7) there has been a more substantial restructuring: not only does the kindred structure’s verb appear as a prepositional objoid; its subject is also displaced, appearing as an object in (5–6), as a genitival qualifier of the eventive noun in (5–4), possibly as a prepositional objoid in (5–3), and finding no representation at all in (5–5) and (5–7). Within the various subvarieties of (5–2) there is a basic pattern (5–2–01–0–0) with the structure S/s + V/ø + PÖ/v, to cater for kindred intransitive verbs, and different expansions of it, mainly to accommodate
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
76
Syntactic restructuring
a kindred simplex object, which appears in the stretched structure as an object in (5–2–02) and (5–2–03), as a prepositional objoid in (5–2–04), as a prepositional qualifier in (5–2–05), and as a genitival qualifier in (5–2–06). The stretched pattern of (5–2–03–0–2) is unusual in that it represents the kindred simplex indirect object as an object, while suppressing the kindred simplex object itself. The (5–2–07–0–0) pattern has two prepositional qualifiers representing a kindred simplex prepositional object or objoid respectively. One pattern, (5–3–02–1–0), has a phrasal verb, a combination of verb-plus-limiter-adverb, as the thin verb, which means that it shows a sequence of relatively empty elements consisting of verb with limiter adverb and following preposition (come in for). Turning now, as we did for the other Structures, to the perspective of the kindred simplex verb patterns, we can now see that the intransitive pattern can only appear as S/s + V/ø + PO/v (= pattern 5–1–01–0–0) or as S/s + V/ø + PÖ/v (= pattern 5–2–01–0–0); this is the pattern at its most basic. Looking at kindred simplex S + V + O types of pattern, we can disregard the PO/v types (5–1–01) to (5–1–04) as relatively uncommon; pattern (5–1–02) , with its compulsorily reflexive object in the kindred simplex structure, is especially rare. This means that stretched structures corresponding to a kindred simplex transitive pattern are basically S/s + V/ø + PÖ/v, with the object then appearing in one of the positions O, or (as we have just noted); the alternative is a semantically passive pattern, in which the kindred simplex object has been switched to subject position, giving the structure S/o + V/ø + PÖ/v (+ Ø/s) of (5–3–01–0–1), with the kindred simplex subject not being expressed. Kindred simplex S + V + PO patterns not surprisingly transform their prepositional object into a PÖ or a , except in the passive pattern (5–4–01–0–1), where it takes over subject position. Perhaps the most interesting pattern of Structure 5 is the complex pattern illustrated in (36) (5–6–01–0–0). The construction call smbd to account for smth is an expression with a less than fully transparent meaning; nevertheless it can be seen as semantically close to the definition ‘cause or require somebody to give an account of something or account for something’. This means that the subject of the simplex verb account for smth is shifted to the object position of the verb call in the stretched structure; the subject in the stretched structure, however, represents an entity not evident in the simplex verb structure, namely an outside causer or instigator. As compared with an embedded structure with a verb of causation like cause, make or have in addition to the verb account itself, the construction call smbd to account for smth has a single verb call that is not a traditional verb of causation but a thin verb specially drafted in for use in this particular pattern. But the fact that the full verb call is frequently complemented with an object and an adverbial or prepositional elaborator (call smbd up, call smbd into the office, etc.) makes it a natural choice.
11
11
11
111
111
Types of restructuring 77
II.2.vi Structure 6 patterns: V-ejection to O/Ö (eventive) This is an extremely rich structural type with over eighty different variants, making it clearly the major syntactic type of stretched verb structure. Its distinctive characteristic compared with Structures 3, 4 and 5 (in other words, the others with an eventive deverbal noun) is that the event appears as a noun in object or objoid position. The valency of English verbs in general is such that there are substantially more valency structures that include an object than ones that include a preposition phrase. Table 2.1 had fifteen patterns with O, two with Ö, three with PD, five with PO, and eight with PÖ. This wider range of object structures, combined with the greater involvement of objects in transformational and kindred relations, results in there being a far wider range of different subvarieties for Structure 6, with frequent cases of one simple eventive verb structure appearing in two or three eventive noun structures, creating the stretched equivalent of passive and causative structures. There is a point to bear in mind concerning indirect objects (IO), which only appear in the stretched constructions of Structure 6. By definition (see above, section II.1.ii) indirect objects appear in two different patterns in active sentences, one in which the indirect object includes a preposition (to or for) and follows the (direct) object, the other in which the indirect object takes the form of a bare noun phrase and precedes the (direct) object. When an indirect object occurs as part of a stretched verb construction, it may appear in either form; but for the sake of simplicity of presentation, only one form will be listed below, namely the one with the preposition present and the indirect object following the (direct) object. (This was established in the discussion above as the unmarked version of the pattern.) Thus the example give aid to smbd (listed under 6–1–02–0–6 below) has the alternative form give smbd aid. Amongst the very rich range of possibilities for Structure 6 at the very least the following different subvarieties can be distinguished:43 (6–1–01–0–0)
111
S/s + V/ø + O/v e.g. do some acting initiate/take action make an advance gain advancement form an agglomeration
kindred with S + V act (‘perform dramatically’) act (‘be active’) advance (‘progress’) advance (‘be promoted’) agglomerate
111
43 It should constantly be borne in mind that the constructions grouped together under the same syntactic subvariety may differ substantially in other respects (such as the type of noun phrase used as object, the value of the thin verb, etc.).
1
78 Syntactic restructuring (6–1–01–0–2) S/s + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/o) e.g. record/register an achievement make an acquisition assume an affectation cause anger practise appeasement make/perform/effect an arrest
1
(6–1–01–0–26)
1
S/s + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/o + Ø/pö) e.g. call an alert show application
11
11
11
11
kindred with S + V + O achieve smth acquire smth affect smth anger smbd appease smbd arrest smbd
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ alert smbd [to smth] apply onslf [to smth]
(6–1–01–0–24/26) S/s + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/o + Ø/nd, pd, pö) e.g. make an appointment 44
kindred with S + V + O + ND/PD/PÖ appoint smbd [(as) smth] appoint smbd [to smth]
冦
(6–1–01–1–0) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v e.g. put on an act
kindred with S + V act (‘perform dramatically’)
(6–1–01–1–2) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v (+ Ø/o) e.g. put on an affectation bring in an acquittal carry out an arrest
kindred with S + V + O affect smth acquit smbd arrest smbd
(6–1–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/o e.g. give an address [to smbd] 45 give an air to smth give an airing to smth give one’s approval [to smth] give articulation to smth
kindred with S + V + O address (‘speak to’) smbd air (‘dry in the air’) smth air (‘make public’) smth approve smth articulate smth
44 with the meaning ‘assign smbd to a post’ (and not with the meaning ‘arrange a meeting’). 45 cf. deliver an address to smbd under (6–1–12–0–0).
11
Types of restructuring 79 (6–1–02–0–4) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/o (+ Ø/nd, pd, pö) e.g. give an appointment (‘post’) to smbd
11
111
(6–1–03–0–2)
111
冦
(6–1–02–0–6) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/o (+ Ø/pö) e.g. give/offer sm aid (to smbd) cause sm amazement (to smbd) afford sm amusement to smbd cause sm amusement (to smbd) cause sm annoyance (to smbd) give one’s approval [to smth] give/render assistance to smbd affer (one’s) assistance to smbd
11
kindred with S + V + O + ND/PD/PÖ appoint smbd [(as) smth] appoint smbd [to smth]
S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/io (+ Ø/o) e.g. give/grant an award (to smbd)
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ aid smbd (with smth) amaze smbd [with smth] amuse smbd (with smth) amuse smbd (with smth) annoy smbd (with smth) approve smth (for smbd) assist smbd (with smth) assist smbd (with smth)
kindred with S + V + O + IO award smth (to smbd)
(6–1–04–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/po e.g. give one’s assent [to smth] give/pay sm attention [to smth/smbd]
kindred with S + V + PO assent to smth attend to (‘listen to’) [smth/smbd]
(6–1–05–0–2) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/pö (+ Ø/o) e.g. give an assignment to smbd give an autograph to smbd
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ assign smth to smbd 46 autograph smth ( for smbd)
111
111
46 This is a difficult case to classify, because the verb assign has at least two different usages for most speakers and also differs between British and American English. The above analysis is based on the usage in which the noun phrase referring to the person to whom something is assigned is always preceded by a preposition and cannot become the subject of a related passive sentence; in other words, it is a prepositional objoid. Other usages would obviously require a different classification.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
80 Syntactic restructuring (6–1–06–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/pö + kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ PÖ/po e.g. give one’s assent (to smbd) assent [to smth] ( for smbd) [for smth] (6–1–07–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PO/po kindred with S + V + PO allow for smth e.g. make an/sm allowance for smth 47 (6–1–08–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/o e.g. heap/shower abuse on smbd hurl/shout sm abuse (at smbd) extend/minister aid to smbd provide aid [for smbd] arouse/cause alarm in smbd cause alienation in smbd provide sm amusement ( for smbd ) induce/produce anaesthesia in smbd make an approach [to smbd] provide assistance [for smbd] render assistance (to smbd) arouse/cause sm astonishment (in smbd)
kindred with S + V + O abuse smbd abuse smbd aid smbd aid smbd alarm smbd alienate smbd amuse smbd anaesthetize smbd approach smbd assist smbd assist smbd astonish smbd
(6–1–09–0–2) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/io (+ Ø/o) kindred with S + V + O + IO e.g. make/present an award (to smbd) award smth (to smbd) (6–1–10–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/po e.g. suffer agony (‘mental anguish’ ) [with smth] take aim [at smth] make an allusion to smth have an argue >with smbdwith smbd
with smbd< provide the accompaniment [for smbd] make an acknowledgement of smth
kindred with S + V + O abridge smth access smth 52 accommodate smbd accompany smbd acknowledge smth
111
111
49 50 51 52
in the sense of ‘wait on smbd’. in the sense of ‘pay attention to smth/smbd’. in the sense of ‘pay attention to smth/smbd’. As already noted above, the verb access was a secondary derivation from the noun access, but its secondary nature is becoming less obvious.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
82
Syntactic restructuring do/make an adaptation of [smth] deliver an address (‘speech’) [to smbd] make an/sm adjustment [to smth] feel admiration for smbd publish/run an advertisement (for smth) make an affirmation (of smth) cause an/ aggravation 53 [of smth] do/make an alteration [to smth] make an amendment [to smth] provide sm amplification [of/for smth] do/make an analysis of smth make an annotation to smth issue/make an announcement (about smth) provide an answer [to smth] make an appraisal of smth/smbd feel sm appreciation for smth make an ascent [of smth/smwh] commit an assault (on smbd) do/make an assessment [of smth] launch/make/mount/press an attack [on smbd/smth] make an attempt [at smth] do an audit (of smth) calculate an average [of sm things]
(6–1–12–0–6) S/s + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/pö) e.g. bring/make an accusation [against smbd] (6–1–12–1–0) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v e.g. work out an accommodation >with smbd< carry out an adaptation [to smth] carry out an amputation (of smth) carry out an/the assassination (of smbd)
adapt smth address (‘speak to’) smbd adjust smth admire smbd advertise (smth) affirm smth aggravate smth alter smth amend smth amplify smth analyse smth annotate smth announce smth answer [smth] appraise smth/smbd appreciate (‘be grateful for’) smth ascend smth/smwh assault smbd assess smth attack [smbd/smth] attempt smth audit smth average [sm things]
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ accuse smbd [of smth]
kindred with S + V + O accommodate smbd adapt smth amputate smth assassinate smbd
53 in the sense of ‘worsening’; ‘in the sense of ‘trouble’ aggravation cannot be related to the verb aggravate.
11
11
11
111
111
Types of restructuring 83 carry out an assesssment [of smth/smbd] carry out an attack (on smbd/smth) press home an attack (on smth) work out an average [of sm things] (6–1–13–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/pö e.g. make an allocation of smth [to smbd/smth] grant an annulment [of smth] [to smbd] give/offer an answer [to smth] (to smbd) give an appraisal of smth (to smbd) give (one’s) approval [ for smth] (to smbd) give/grant authorization [ for smth] (to smbd) grant an adjournment [of smth] (to smbd) (6–1–14–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/pö e.g. make an admission (about smth) (to smbd) make an appropriation (of smth) [ for smbd] make an approach [to smbd] (about smth)
assess smth/smbd attack [smbd/smth] attack [smth] average [sm things]
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ 54 allocate smth [to smbd/smth] annul smth ( for smbd) answer [smth] ( for smbd) appraise smth ( for smbd) approve smth ( for smbd) authorize smth ( for smbd) adjourn smth ( for smbd)
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ admit (‘confess’) smth [to smbd] appropriate smth (for smbd) approach smbd [about smth]
(6–1–15–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + AE/ae e.g. place/put an advertisement ( for smth) smwh
kindred with S + V + O + AE advertise (smth) (smwh)
111
111
54 Some of the preposition phrases with the kindred verbs in this subvariety (allocate, annul, answer, appraise, approve) may give the appearance of an indirect object, but in fact (with the exception of allocate for some speakers) the phrase concerned cannot normally appear without its preposition before the direct object, nor can it become the subject in a corresponding passive sentence.
1
1
1
11
11
84 Syntactic restructuring (6–1–16–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. make an adjudication [between pple] adjudicate [between pple] commit aggression against smbd aggress against smbd 55 file/lodge an appeal [against smth] appeal [against smth] file an application [for smth] apply [ for smth] offer/present/press an argument argue (‘reason’) for smth [ for smth] conduct arbitration [between pple] arbitrate [between pple] make arrangements [for smth] arrange for smth form an association >with smbd< associate >with smbd< (6–1–16–1–0) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. carry out an adjudication adjudicate [between pple] [ between pple] carry out aggression (against smbd) aggress 56 against smbd stir up agitation (against smbd/smth) agitate (against smbd/smth) carry out arbitration [between pple] arbitrate [ between pple] drive home an argument argue (‘reason’) for/against smth [ for/against smth] put forward an argument argue (‘reason’) for/against smth [ for/against smth] (6–1–17–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ IO/pö account for smth (to smbd) e.g. give an account 57 of smth (to smbd) (6–1–18–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ e.g. conclude/make/negotiate/reach an agree >with smbd< [about smth] agreement>with smbd< (about smth) make an appeal (to smbd) appeal 58 (to smbd) [about smth] [about smth]
11
11
55 This is of course an extremely rare verb. But it should be recalled that the ‘underlying’ verb is not being regarded as derivationally primary in any sense; it simply represents a kindred construction. 56 This is, as noted in the previous footnote, a rare verb. 57 where account means ‘explanation’. 58 with the meaning ‘urge to reconsider’.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Types of restructuring 85 make/submit an application ( for smth) [to smbd]
apply to smbd for smth
(6–1–18–1–0) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v e.g. work out an agreement >with smbd< (about smth) put in an appeal [to smbd] [for/against smth] put in/send in an application to smbd for smth
kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ agree >with smbd< [about smth] appeal 59 [to smbd] [for/against smth] apply for smth
(6–1–19–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + PÖ e.g. practise abstinence (from smth) abstain 60 [from smth] form an affiliation >with smbd< affiliate >with smbd< forge/form an alliance >with smbd< ally (onslf ) >with smbd< (6–1–19–0–2) 61 S/s + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/o) e.g. pronounce absolution [from smth] make an addition [to smth] add an appendage [to smth] make an assumption (about smth/smbd)
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ absolve smbd [from smth] add smth [to smth] append smth [to smth] assume smth (about smth/smbd)
(6–1–20–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/o e.g. give/grant absolution [from smth] [to smbd] give/grant admission [to smwh] to smbd
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ absolve smbd [from smth] admit (‘let in’) smbd [to smwh]
59 with the meaning ‘urge to reconsider’. 60 in the sense of ‘not eat/drink/etc.’; not in the sense of ‘not vote’. 61 There might well also be a related structure (6–1–19–1–2) with a phrasal verb as the thin verb, but the only example collected so far is strike up an acquaintance with smbd/smth, which is slightly deviant in being kindred with a simplex structure with a reflexive verb, namely acquaint oneself with smbd/smth, and in limiting the use of the stretched verb construction to animate acquaintances.
1
1
1
86
Syntactic restructuring give/offer advice (on smth) (to smbd) give applause ( for smth) [to smbd] give an assurance [to smbd] (about smth)
advise smbd (about smth) applaud smbd ( for smth) assure 62 smbd [of/about smth]
(6–1–21–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ IO/po e.g. make/offer an apology [ for/about apologize [to smbd] smth] [to smbd] [for/about smth] offer one’s apologies [for/about smth] apologize [to smbd] [to smbd] [for/about smth] (6–1–22–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/po e.g. express/make one’s apologies [about/for smth]
kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ apologize [to smbd] [for/(to smbd) about smth]
11
11
11
11
(6–1–23–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + e.g. reach an accord >with smbd< (about smth)63
kindred with S + V + PÖ + PÖ accord >with smbd< (about smth)
(6–1–24–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v e.g. commit/perform an act of a certain kind
kindred with S + V + AE act in a certain way
(6–1–25–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v e.g. arouse the anger {of smbd}
kindred with S + V + O anger smbd
62 in the sense of ‘promise’. 63 It could be argued that the semantic relationship between this construction and its simplex relative is not close enough, because the subject of the verb accord is not so often human (as for the stretched verb construction) but more commonly inanimate or abstract. A better example of this particular structural type would be perhaps reach a compromise >with smbd< (about smth) with its kindred simplex pattern compromise >with smbd< (about smth).
11
11
11
Types of restructuring 87 (6–1–25–1–0) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v e.g. stir up the anger {of smbd}
kindred with S + V + O anger smbd
(6–1–26–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v e.g. make an attempt [to do smth]
kindred with S + V + I attempt to do smth
(6–1–27–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/o kindred with S + V + O + I e.g. give/grant authority/authorization authorize smbd [to do (to smbd) [to do smth] smth] (6–1–28–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v e.g. make an arrangement [( for smbd) to do smth]
kindred with S + V + (S-)I arrange ( for smbd) to do smth
111
111
(6–1–28–1–0) S/s + V-L/ø + O/v e.g. work out an arrangement [( for smbd) to do smth] (6–1–29–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v e.g. make an affirmation that-Clause make an assertion that-Clause make an assumption that-Clause make an avowal that-Clause
kindred with S + V + F affirm that-Clause assert that-Clause assume that-Clause avow that-Clause
(6–1–30–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + IO/o e.g. give an assurance that-Clause to smbd
111
111
kindred with S + V + (S-)I arrange ( for smbd) to do smth
64 in the sense of ‘promise’.
kindred with S + V + O + F assure 64 smbd that-Clause
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
88
Syntactic restructuring
(6–1–31–0–0) S/s + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/pö e.g. make an allegation that-Clause to smbd
kindred with S + V + PÖ + F allege that-Clause to smbd
(6–2–01–0–1) S/o + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/s) e.g. undergo acclimatization undergo an/sm adaptation get an airing suffer alienation undergo an/sm analysis suffer an awakening
kindred with S + V + O acclimatize smbd adapt smth air (‘make public’) smth alienate smbd analyse smth awaken/wake smbd
(6–2–02–0–0) S/o + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/s e.g. suffer sm abuse ( from/at-thehands-of smbd) take sm abuse ( from smbd) find sm acceptance from smbd suffer an affront ( from/at-thehands-of smbd) receive sm aid ( from smbd) feel sm alarm [at smth] feel sm amusement [at smth] find sm amusement [in smth] suffer annihilation (at-thehands-of smbd) feel sm annoyance [about/at smth/ with/at smbd] suffer sm annoyance [ from/ at-the-hands of smbd] feel sm astonishment [at smth] feel an attraction for smbd
kindred with S + V + O abuse smbd abuse smbd accept smbd affront smbd aid smbd alarm smbd amuse smbd amuse smbd annihilate smbd annoy smbd annoy smbd astonish smbd attract smbd
(6–2–03–0–1) S/o + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + O + PÖ (+ Ø/s) e.g. gain/secure admission/admittance admit (‘let in’)smbd [to smth/ [to smth/smwh] smwh] undergo amalgamation >with smth< amalgamate smth >with smth< undergo assimilation [with/into smth] assimilate smth [with/into smth]
11
11
Types of restructuring 89 (6–2–04–0–0) S/o + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/s e.g. receive absolution [from smth] ( from smbd) receive/take advice (about smth) ( from smbd)
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ absolve smbd [from smth] advise smbd [about smth]
(6–2–05–0–0) S/o + V/ø + O/v e.g. receive the approval {of smbd}
kindred with S + V + O approve smth/smbd
11
111
111
(6–2–06–0–1) S/o + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/s) e.g. make the acquaintance {of smbd}
kindred with S + V + O + PÖ acquaint smbd >with smbd else< 65
(6–3–01–0–1) S/io + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/s + (+ Ø/o) e.g. receive an award ( from smbd)
kindred with S + V + O + IO award smth (to smbd)
(6–4–01–0–0) S/po + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/s e.g. incur/suffer aggression ( from/ at-the-hands-of smbd) receive attention ( from smbd)
kindred with S + V + PO aggress 66 against smbd attend to smbd 67
(6–4–02–0–0) S/po + V/ø + O/v e.g. find the approval {of smbd} attract/capture/catch/command/ get/hold/retain the attention {of smbd} (without intent)
kindred with S + V + PO approve of smth/smbd attend to smth 68
111
111
65 66 67 68
This is a problematic case, as noted above in the case of example (3–2–03–0–1). This is a rare verb, as already noted under type (6–4–01–0–0). in the sense of ‘treat medically’. in the sense of ‘pay attention to smth’.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
90
Syntactic restructuring
(6–5–01–0–0) S/pö + V/ø + O/v + kindred with S + V + O + PÖ PÖ/s e.g. get an annulment [of smth] annul smth ( for smbd) ( from smbd) get/receive an answer [to smth] answer smth ( for smbd) ( from smbd) get approval [for smth] ( from smbd) approve smth ( for smbd) (6–6–01–0–1) S/x + V/ø + O/v (+ Ø/s) e.g. stimulate an/sm activity
kindred with S + V act (‘be active’)
(6–6–02–1–2) S/x + V-L/ø + O/v (Ø/o) e.g. spark off applause ( from smbd )
kindred with S + V + O applaud [smbd]
(6–6–03–0–0) S/x + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + O e.g. precipitate/provoke an attack attack [smbd/smth] (by smbd) (on smbd/smth) get an answer [to smth] [from smbd] answer [smth] (with intent) (6–6–03–1–0) S/x + V/ø + O/v e.g. spark off an attack (on smbd/smth) (by smbd)
kindred with S + V + O attack [smbd/smth]
(6–6–04–1–0) S/x + V-L/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ e.g. bring about an agreement agree >with smbd< (about smth) [between pple] (about smth) spark off an argument (between pple) argue (‘quarrel’) >with smbd< (about smth) (about smth)
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Types of restructuring 91 (6–6–05–0–0) S/x + V/ø + O/v + IO/s e.g. give/grant access [to smth/smwh] (to smbd)
kindred with S + V + O access smth/smwh
(6–6–06–0–5) S/x + V/ø + O/v (Ø/po) e.g. attract/capture/catch/command/ get/hold/retain the attention {of smbd} (with intent)
kindred with S + V + PO attend to smth 69
(6–6–07–0–0) S/x + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/po e.g. draw the attention {of smbd} to smth
kindred with S + V + PO attend to smth 70
(6–6–08–0–0) S/x + V/ø + O/v e.g. get/secure/seek/win the approval {of smbd} [ for smth]
kindred with S + V + O approve smth
(6–6–09–0–0) S/x + V/ø + O/s + PÖ/v + PÖ/po e.g. call smbd to account ( for smth)
kindred with S + V + PO account for smth
(6–6–10–0–0) S/x (= o) + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + O e.g. inspire the admiration {of smbd } admire smbd (6–6–11–0–1) S/x (= po) + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + PO e.g. provoke aggression ( from/ aggress against smbd at-the-hands-of smbd) 69 in the sense of ‘pay attention to smth’. 70 in the sense of ‘pay attention to smth’.
1
92
Syntactic restructuring
(6–6–12–0–0) S/x (= pö) + V/ø + O/v kindred with S + V + O + PÖ + PÖ/s e.g. obtain an annulment annul smth ( for smbd) [of smth] ( from smbd) elicit/get/obtain an answer [to smth] answer [smth] ( for smbd) [ from smbd]
1
(6–6–13–0–0)
1
S/x (= pö) + V/ø + O/v + PÖ/s e.g. elicit/get/obtain an apology [ for smth] [ from smbd]
kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ apologize [to smbd] [ for smth]
(6–7–01–0–0) S/s + V/ø + Ö/v + PÖ/pö e.g. have an appeal ( for smbd)
kindred with S + V + PÖ appeal to (‘please’) smbd
11
11
(6–7–02–0–0) S/s + V/ø + Ö/v + AE/ae e.g. feel/have an ache (smwh)
kindred with S + V + AE 71 ache (smwh)
(6–7–03–0–0) S/s + V/ø + Ö/v e.g. have an appreciation of smth have an attempt [at smth]
kindred with S + V + O appreciate (‘understand’) smth attempt smth
(6–7–03–0–7) S/s + V/ø + Ö/v kindred with S + V + O + AE (+ Ø/ae) e.g. have an approach (of a certain kind) approach (‘regard’) smth in a [to smth] certain manner
11
11
71 In a further kindred structure the place adverbial and the ‘possessor’ subject are merged to give a joint (semantically complex) subject: thus S/s + V/ø + Ö/v + A/a can be regarded as a stretching not just of S + V + AE but even of S + V, the latter construction appearing, for instance, as My arm aches.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Types of restructuring 93 (6–7–04–0–0) S/s + V/ø + Ö/v e.g. have an argument >with smbd< [about smth]
kindred with S + V + PO + PÖ argue (‘quarrel’) >with smbd< (about smth)
(6–7–05–0–0) S/s + V/ø + Ö/v e.g. have an alliance >with smbd
with smbd/ smth< come to an ACCORD >with smbd< [about smth] reach an ACCORD >with smbd< [about smth] call smbd to ACCOUNT (for smth) give an ACCOUNT of smth (to smbd) render an ACCOUNT of smth (to smbd) be ACCOUNTABLE (to smbd) [for smth] bring an ACCUSATION [against smbd] make an ACCUSATION [against smbd] be an ACCUSER of smbd be ACCUSTOMED to smth make smbd ACCUSTOMED to smth feel an ACHE (smwh)
have an ACHE (smwh) record an ACHIEVEMENT register an ACHIEVEMENT be in ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of smth make an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of smth be an/the ACQUAINTANCE {of smbd} have an ACQUAINTANCE with smbd/smth make the ACQUAINTANCE {of smbd} strike-up an ACQUAINTANCE >with smbd< make smbd ACQUAINTED with smth make an ACQUISITION be ACQUISITIVE bring-in an ACQUITTAL commit an ACT of a certain kind perform an ACT of a certain kind put-on an ACT do sm ACTING indulge in sm ACTING go into ACTION initiate ACTION move into ACTION take ACTION be ACTIVE engage in an/sm ACTIVITY stimulate an/sm ACTIVITY be an ACTOR carry-out an ADAPTATION [to smth] do an ADAPTATION [to smth] make an/sm ADAPTATION [to smth] undergo an ADAPTATION be an ADDITION [to smth] come in ADDITION [to smth] make an ADDITION [to smth] deliver an ADDRESS [to smbd] give an ADDRESS [to smbd] be an ADDRESSEE [of smth]
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched verb constructions 273 be an ADHESIVE (for smth) grant an ADJOURNMENT of smth carry-out an ADJUDICATION [between people] make an ADJUDICATION [between people/things] be an ADJUDICATOR [between people] make an ADJUSTMENT [to smth] feel ADMIRATION for smbd inspire the ADMIRATION {of smbd} be an ADMIRER {of smbd} gain ADMISSION [to smwh/ smth] give ADMISSION [to smwh/smth] to smbd grant ADMISSION [to smwh/smth] to smbd make an ADMISSION (of/about smth) (to smbd) secure ADMISSION [to smwh/ smth] gain ADMITTANCE [to smwh/ smth] secure ADMITTANCE [to smwh/ smth] be an ADORER of smth/smbd make an ADVANCE be an ADVANTAGE [to smbd] give an ADVANTAGE to smbd be ADVANTAGEOUS (to/for smbd) place an ADVERTISEMENT (for smth) smwh publish an ADVERTISEMENT (for smth) put an ADVERTISEMENT (for smth) smwh run an ADVERTISEMENT (for smth) give sm ADVICE (about smth) [to smbd] offer sm ADVICE (about smth) [to smbd]
receive sm ADVICE (about smth) (from smbd) take ADVICE (about smth) (from smbd) be an ADVOCATE of smth assume an AFFECTATION put-on an AFFECTATION form an AFFILIATION >with smbd< make an AFFIRMATION (of smth) make an AFFIRMATION (to the effect) that + Clause be an AFFRONT [to smbd] suffer an AFFRONT (from/at-thehands-of smbd) be AFLOAT be AGAPE at smbd/smth be an AGENT {of/for smbd} form an AGGLOMERATION cause an/sm AGGRAVATION [of smth] carry-out AGGRESSION (against smbd/smwh) commit AGGRESSION (against smbd/smwh) incur AGGRESSION (from/ at-the-hands-of smbd) provoke AGGRESSION (from/ at-the-hands-of smbd) suffer AGGRESSION (from/ at-the-hands-of smbd) be AGGRESSIVE (towards smbd) be an AGGRESSOR against smbd stir-up AGITATION (against smbd/smth) be an AGITATOR (for/against smth) be AGLEAM be AGLITTER be AGLOW experience sm AGONY [with/about/over smth] feel sm AGONY [with/about/over smth]
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
274 Appendix 4 suffer sm AGONY [with/about/ over smth] arrive at an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] be an AGREEMENT [between sm pple] be in AGREEMENT >with smbd/smth< [about smth] be in AGREEMENT [with smth] bring about an AGREEMENT >between people< [about smth] come to an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] conclude an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] enter into an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] have an AGREEMENT >with smbd< make an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] negotiate an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] reach an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] work-out an AGREEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] be in AID of smth/smbd come to the AID {of smbd} extend sm AID to smbd give sm AID (to smbd) go to the AID {of smbd} minister sm AID to smbd offer sm AID [to/for smbd] provide sm AID [for smbd] provide smbd with sm AID receive sm AID (from smbd) render sm AID to smbd suffer from an AILMENT have an AIM (of doing/being smth) take AIM [at smbd/smth] give an AIR to smth get an AIRING give an AIRING to smth have an AIRING
arouse sm ALARM (in smbd) cause sm ALARM (in smbd) create sm ALARM (among pple) feel sm ALARM [at smth] fill smbd with ALARM be ALARMING (for smbd) be ALARMIST be an ALARMIST be ALERT (to smth) make smbd ALERT to smth call an ALERT cause ALIENATION (in smbd) suffer ALIENATION bring smth into ALIGNMENT be ALIVE make an ALLEGATION (that + Clause) (to smbd) be in ALLIANCE >with smbd< enter into an ALLIANCE >with smbd< forge an ALLIANCE >with smbd< form an ALLIANCE >with smbd< have an ALLIANCE >with smbd< make an ALLOCATION [of smth] to smbd make an/sm ALLOWANCE for smth be an ALLUSION to smbd/smth make an ALLUSION to smbd/ smth be an ALLY {of smbd} do an ALTERATION [to smth] make an ALTERATION [to smth] be ALTERNATE be in ALTERNATION >with smth/smbd< undergo AMALGAMATION >with smth< cause sm AMAZEMENT (to smbd) be AMAZING to/for smbd lie in AMBUSH [for smbd] wait in AMBUSH [for smbd] make an AMENDMENT [to smth] provide sm AMPLIFICATION [of /for smth]
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched verb constructions 275 carry out an AMPUTATION (of smth) afford sm AMUSEMENT to smbd cause sm AMUSEMENT (for smbd) feel sm AMUSEMENT [at smth] find sm AMUSEMENT [in smth] provide sm AMUSEMENT (for smbd) provide smbd with sm AMUSEMENT
be AMUSING (for smbd) be under ANAESTHESIA induce ANAESTHESIA (in smbd) produce ANAESTHESIA in (smbd) be an ANALYSIS [of smth] be under ANALYSIS do an ANALYSIS of smth make an ANALYSIS of smth subject smth to an/sm ANALYSIS undergo an/sm ANALYSIS be ANALYTIC(AL) (about smth) arouse the ANGER {of smbd} cause sm ANGER incur the ANGER {of smbd} show sm ANGER stir-up the ANGER {of smbd} be ANGRY (with/at smbd) (about/ at smth) make smbd ANGRY suffer ANNIHILATION (at-thehands-of smbd) make an ANNOTATION [on smbd/ smth] issue an ANNOUNCEMENT (about smth) make an ANNOUNCEMENT (about smth) cause sm ANNOYANCE (to/for smbd) feel sm ANNOYANCE [with/at/about smbd/smth] suffer sm ANNOYANCE (from/ at-the-hands-of smbd) be ANNOYED (with/at smbd) (about/at smth)
make smbd ANNOYED be ANNOYING (for smbd) get an ANNULMENT [of smth] (from smbd) grant an ANNULMENT [of smth] [to smbd] obtain an ANNULMENT [of smth] (from smbd) be an ANSWER [to smth] be in ANSWER to smth elicit an ANSWER [to smth] [from smbd] get an ANSWER [to smth] [from smbd] – with intent get an ANSWER [to smth] [from smbd] – without intent give an ANSWER [to smth] (to smbd) make an ANSWER [to smth] (to smbd) obtain an ANSWER [to smth] [from smbd] offer an ANSWER [to smth] (to smbd) provide an ANSWER [to smth] receive an ANSWER [to smth] [from smbd] be ANSWERABLE (to smbd) [for smth] be ANTAGONISTIC towards smbd be APOLOGETIC [about smth] (to smbd) elicit an APOLOGY [for smth] [from smbd] express one’s APOLOGIES [about/for smth] (to smbd) get an APOLOGY [for smth] [from smbd] – with intent get an APOLOGY [for smth] [from smbd] – without intent make an APOLOGY [for/about smth] [to smbd] make one’s APOLOGIES [about/ for smth] (to smbd)
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
276 Appendix 4 obtain an APOLOGY [for smth] [from smbd] offer an APOLOGY [for/about smth] [to smbd] offer one’s APOLOGIES [about/ for smth] be APPALLING (for smbd) have an/sm APPEAL (for smbd) make an APPEAL to smbd (about smth) file an APPEAL [against smth] [with smbd] lodge an APPEAL [against smth] [with smbd] put-in an APPEAL [for/against smth] [to smbd] make an APPEARANCE [smwh] put-in an APPEARANCE [smwh] practise APPEASEMENT add an APPENDAGE [to smth] break into APPLAUSE (at smth) burst into APPLAUSE (at smth) give sm APPLAUSE (for smth) [to smbd/smth] spark off APPLAUSE (from smbd) be an APPLICANT [for smth] be an APPLICATION [for smth] file an APPLICATION [for smth] find sm APPLICATION have an APPLICATION make an APPLICATION [for smth] (to smbd) put-in an APPLICATION [for smth] send-in an APPLICATION [for smth] submit an APPLICATION [for smth] (to smbd) show APPLICATION give an APPOINTMENT to smbd make an APPOINTMENT give an APPRAISAL of smth (to smbd) make an APPRAISAL of smth feel sm APPRECIATION for smbd/smth
have an APPRECIATION of smth be APPRECIATIVE [of smth/smbd] have an APPROACH [to smth] make an APPROACH [to smbd] (about smth) make an APPROPRIATION (of smth) [for smbd] be on APPROVAL find the APPROVAL {of smbd} get APPROVAL [for smth] [from smbd] get the APPROVAL {of smbd} [for smth] – with intent get the APPROVAL {of smbd} – without intent give (one’s) APPROVAL [for smth] [to smbd] give (one’s) APPROVAL [to smth] meet with the APPROVAL {of smbd} receive the APPROVAL {of smbd} secure the APPROVAL {of smbd} [for smth] seek the APPROVAL {of smbd} [for smth] win APPROVAL [for smth] [from smbd] win the APPROVAL {of smbd} [for smth] be APPROXIMATE be an ARBITRATOR (between pple) carry-out ARBITRATION [between people] conduct ARBITRATION [between people] go to ARBITRATION have an ARGUE >with smbd< spark off an ARGUMENT (between people) (about smth) get into an ARGUMENT >with smbd< (about smth) have an ARGUMENT >with smbd< (about smth) be an ARGUMENT for/against smth
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched verb constructions 277 drive-home an ARGUMENT [for smth] offer an ARGUMENT [for smth] present an ARGUMENT [for smth] press an ARGUMENT [for smth] put-forward an ARGUMENT [for smth] be ARGUMENTATIVE come to an ARRANGEMENT >with smbd< [about smth] make an ARRANGEMENT [(for smbd) to do smth] work-out an ARRANGEMENT [(for smbd) to do smth] make (sm) ARRANGEMENTS [for smth] be an ARRANGER (of smth) be under ARREST carry-out an ARREST effect an ARREST make an ARREST perform an ARREST place smbd under ARREST put smbd under ARREST be ARTICULATE (about smth) make smth ARTICULATE give ARTICULATION to smth make an/the ASCENT [of smwh/ smth] be ASLEEP be an ASPIRANT to smth have an ASPIRATION (to be/ do smth) carry-out an/the ASSASSINATION [of smbd] commit an ASSAULT (on smbd) give one’s ASSENT (to smbd) [for smth] give one’s ASSENT [to smth] make an ASSERTION [that-Clause] carry-out an ASSESSMENT [of smth/smbd] do an ASSESSMENT [of smth/ smbd]
make an ASSESSMENT [of smth/ smbd] give an ASSIGNMENT to smbd undergo ASSIMILATION >with/(in)to smth< be of sm ASSISTANCE [to smbd] come to the ASSISTANCE {of smbd} give sm ASSISTANCE [to smbd] go to the ASSISTANCE {of smbd} offer sm ASSISTANCE [to smbd] provide sm ASSISTANCE [for smbd] provide smbd with sm ASSISTANCE
render sm ASSISTANCE [to smbd] be an ASSISTANT {of smbd} be an ASSOCIATE >of smbd< form an ASSOCIATION >with smbd< make an ASSUMPTION (about smbd/smth) make an ASSUMPTION (that-Clause) give an ASSURANCE [about/of smth] [to smbd] give an ASSURANCE [that-Clause] [to smbd] be ASTONISHING (to/for smbd) arouse sm ASTONISHMENT (in smbd) cause sm ASTONISHMENT (in smbd) feel sm ASTONISHMENT [at smth/smbd] be ASTOUNDING (to/for smbd) make ATONEMENT [for smth] add an ATTACHMENT [to smth] be an ATTACK [on smbd/smth] be on the ATTACK be under ATTACK carry-out an ATTACK (on smbd/ smth) come under ATTACK
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
278 Appendix 4 launch an ATTACK (on smbd/ smth) make an ATTACK (on smbd/smth) mount an ATTACK (on smbd/ smth) precipitate an ATTACK (on smbd/ smth) (by smbd) press an ATTACK (on smbd/smth) press-home an ATTACK (on smbd/ smth) provoke an ATTACK (on smbd/ smth) (by smbd) spark off an ATTACK (on smbd/smth) (by smbd) have an ATTEMPT [at doing smth] have an ATTEMPT [at smth] make an ATTEMPT [at smth] make an ATTEMPT to do smth put in an ATTENDANCE [at smth] dance ATTENDANCE on smbd be an ATTENDANT attract the ATTENTION {of smbd} – human subj attract the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj capture the ATTENTION {of smbd} – human subj capture the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj catch the ATTENTION {of smbd} – human subj catch the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj command the ATTENTION {of smbd} –human subj command the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj devote one’s ATTENTION to smth/smbd draw the ATTENTION {of smbd} to smth focus one’s ATTENTION on smth/smbd
get the ATTENTION {of smbd} – human subj get the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj give sm/one’s ATTENTION to smth/smbd hold the ATTENTION {of smbd} – human subj hold the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj pay sm ATTENTION [to smth/ smbd] receive ATTENTION (from smbd) receive the ATTENTION {of smbd} retain the ATTENTION {of smbd} – human subj retain the ATTENTION {of smbd} – inanimate subj be ATTENTIVE [to smbd/ smth] feel an ATTRACTION for smbd/ smth be ATTRACTIVE (to/for smbd) put smth up for AUCTION do an AUDIT (of smth) give AUTHORITY [to do smth] (to smbd) grant AUTHORITY [to do smth] (to smbd) give AUTHORIZATION [for smth] (to smbd) give AUTHORIZATION [to do smth] (to smbd) grant AUTHORIZATION [for smth] (to smbd) grant AUTHORIZATION [to do smth] (to smbd) give one’s AUTOGRAPH (to smbd) be AUTOMATIC make smth AUTOMATIC be an AVENGER be an AVERAGE [of sm things]
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Stretched verb constructions 279 calculate an AVERAGE [of sm things] work-out an AVERAGE [of sm things] make an AVOWAL (that-Clause) suffer an AWAKENING be an AWARD [to smbd]
give an AWARD [to smbd] grant an AWARD [to smbd] make an AWARD (to smbd) present an AWARD [to smbd] present smbd with an AWARD receive an AWARD (from smbd)
1
Glossary
1
1
11
11
11
11
(AE): an adverbial required by the valency of a verb, e.g. (live) abroad/in the country; (last) long/for two hours.
ADVERBIAL ELABORATOR
AUXILIARY VERB STRUCTURE:
the total range of elements (tense, primary and modal auxiliaries) that can help specify a lexical verb in a finite clause for tense, modality, etc.
DESCRIPTOR:
(also called ‘predicative/complement’) an elaborator of a copular verb (e.g. be, become, seem), the subvarieties being ADJECTIVAL DESCRIPTOR (= AD, e.g. (be) doubtful ), NOMINAL DESCRIPTOR (= ND, e.g. (be) a doubter) and PREPOSITIONAL DESCRIPTOR (= PD, e.g. (be) in doubt).
ELABORATED VERB STRUCTURE:
a lexical verb together with all the
elaborators its valency requires. ELABORATOR:
a phrase that (partially) satisfies the valency requirements of a verb, adjective or noun.
EVENTIVE NOUN:
a noun denoting a type of state or happening (e.g. amendment, answer, arrival), normally derived from a verb and traditionally referred to as ‘nomen actionis’. (OF NOUN) (FC): a finite clause required by the valency of a noun, e.g. (allegation) that the arrangement is dishonest.
FINITE CLAUSE COMPLEMENT
(F): a finite clause required by the valency of a verb, e.g. (allege) that the arrangement is dishonest.
FINITE CLAUSE ELABORATOR
(GQ): a noun qualifier that may take the form of either a preposed possessive noun phrase or a postposed of-phrase, e.g. Sebastian’s (attention) or (the attention) of Sebastian.
GENITIVAL QUALIFIER
(OF NOUN) (GC): a structure of preposition plus gerund clause used to complement (i.e. complete the valency of) a noun, e.g. (the habit) of singing late at night.
GERUND COMPLEMENT
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Glossary
281
(G): a gerund clause (possibly including its own independent subject) that is acting as an elaborator of a verb, e.g. (anticipated) (her) singing a wrong note.
GERUND ELABORATOR
(IO): an elaborator of a verb that is a second object, i.e. occurs in addition to a direct object, which it either precedes or follows with the preposition to or for, like us/to us in the sentence: Tony brought us a piano/brought a piano to/for us.
INDIRECT OBJECT
(IÖ): an elaborator of a verb that is a second objoid, i.e. occurs in addition to a (direct) objoid, which it precedes, like us in the sentence: The piano cost us fifty pounds.
INDIRECT OBJOID
(OF NOUN) (IC): a gerund clause used to complement (i.e. complete the valency of) a noun, e.g. (the tendency) to sing late at night.
INFINITIVE COMPLEMENT
(I): an infinitive clause (possibly including its own independent subject) that is acting as elaborator of a verb, e.g. (wanted) (her) to sing a wrong note.
INFINITIVE ELABORATOR
(L): an adverbial particle that is used as part of the valency of a lexical verb, combining with it (possibly also with an object) to give a phrasal verb, e.g. ( fall) over, ( put smbd ) off.
LIMITER ADVERB
(= DIRECT OBJECT) (O): a noun phrase that is part of the valency (= elaboration) of a verb (which it directly follows, except in structures with ‘fronting’ or with a prepositionless indirect object) and that corresponds to the subject of the related passive sentence with the same verb, e.g. the piano in Tony brought (us) the piano, corresponding to The piano was brought ((to) us) by Tony.
OBJECT
(= DIRECT OBJOID) (Ö): a noun phrase that is part of the valency (= elaboration) of a verb (which it directly follows, except in structures with ‘fronting’) but that does not correspond to the subject of the related passive sentence with the same verb, e.g. (The piano cost (us)) fifty pounds (with no corresponding sentence: *Fifty pounds were cost by the piano).
OBJOID
(OO): a noun phrase elaborator of a verb that is optionally preceded by a preposition and that occurs after the object but unlike the indirect object cannot be moved to the position before the direct object, e.g. Tony envied Margaret ( for) her longevity.
OBLIQUE OBJECT
( J): a by-preposition phrase that occurs in a passive sentence with the same meaning (of agent, experiencer, stimulus, etc.) as the subject in the corresponding active sentence, e.g. by Tony in: The committee was organized/admired/impressed by Tony (corresponding to Tony organized/admired/impressed the committee).
PERJECT
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
282 Glossary (PO): a noun phrase in a preposition phrase that is not adverbial but determined by the valency of the verb (with the choice of preposition determined by the verb) such that this noun phrase can act as subject in a corresponding passive sentence, e.g. The committee looked at/ objected to/interfered with the proposal (corresponding to The proposal was looked at/objected to/interfered with by the committee).
PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT
(PÖ): a noun phrase in a preposition phrase that is not adverbial but determined by the valency of the verb (with the choice of preposition determined by the verb) such that this noun phrase cannot act as subject in a corresponding passive sentence, e.g. The committee differed from/clashed with the minister (with no corresponding sentences *The minister was differed from/clashed with by the committee).
PREPOSITIONAL OBJOID
(PQ): a constituent of a noun phrase that follows and qualifies the head noun and that takes the form of a postposed preposition phrase in which the choice of preposition is determined by the individual noun, e.g. (attention) to detail beside (interest) in detail.
PREPOSITIONAL QUALIFIER
STRETCHED (ELABORATED) VERB STRUCTURE/CONSTRUCTION:
a non-minimal elaborated verb structure in which the verb itself is ‘thin’ (i.e. has a ‘lighter’ or ‘weaker’ meaning than usual) and the eventive meaning (normally carried by a verb) is expressed in a noun phrase or adjective phrase, e.g. give us some help, come to our help, be of help to us, be helpful to us.
(S): an obligatory noun phrase elaborator of a lexical verb that normally directly precedes it and determines its number/person concord and that, when pronominal, occurs in the nominative form; the perject in a passive sentence is said to be the ‘deep’ or ‘underlying’ subject because it corresponds to the subject of a related active sentence.
SUBJECT
THIN VERB:
a lexical verb used with a meaning that is ‘lighter’ or ‘weaker’ than usual because the ‘eventive’ meaning verbs normally carry is expressed by an elaborating noun phrase or adjective phrase, e.g. give, make, come (to) in give an answer, make a statement, come to an agreement.
VALENCY:
the requirement or potential that a lexical word (verb, adjective or noun) has for the presence of one or more structures whenever it occurs, in the way that a classic intransitive verb requires a subject but does not tolerate an object.
11
Bibliography
11
11
111
111
111
111
Aarts, J. (1991). ‘Intuition-based and observation-based grammars’. In: Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 44–62. Aarts, J. M. G. and Calbert, J. P. (1979). Metaphor and Non-metaphor. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Abney, S. P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Cambridge, Mass.: doctoral thesis, MIT. Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (1991). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. Akimoto, M. (1999). ‘Collocations and idioms in Late Modern English’. In: Brinton, L. J. and Akimoto, M. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English (= SLCS47). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 207–38). Algeo, J. (1995). ‘Having a look at the expanded predicate’. In: Aarts, B. and Meyer, C. F. (eds), The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allerton, D. J. (with French, M. A.) (1975). ‘Morphology: the forms of English’. Chapter 3 of: Bolton, W. F. (ed.), The English Language [= vol. X of the Sphere History of English Literature]. London: Sphere Books, 79–134. Allerton, D. J. (1978). ‘The notion of “given-ness”, and its relation to presuppositions and to theme’. Lingua 31, 133–68. Allerton, D. J. (1979). Essentials of Grammatical Theory. London: Routledge. Allerton, D. J. (1980). ‘Grammatical subject as a psycho-linguistic category’. Transactions of the Philological Society 1980, 40–61. Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English Verb. London: Academic Press. Allerton, D. J. (1984a). ‘Three (or four) levels of word cooccurrence restrictions’. Lingua 37, 17–40. Allerton, D. J. (1984b). ‘Verb + Predicative constructions and their limitations’. In: Fries, U. and Hasler, J. (eds), Anglistentag 1982 Zürich. Gieen: Hoffman Verlag, 411–20. Allerton, D. J. (1987a). ‘English intensifiers and their idiosyncracies’. In: Steele, R. and Threadgold, T. (eds), Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 15–31. Allerton, D. J. (1987b). ‘The linguistic and sociolinguistic status of proper names’. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 61–92. Allerton, D. J. (1988). ‘“Infinitivitis” in English’. In: Klegraf, J. and Nehls, D. (eds), Studies in Descriptive Linguistics (essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday). Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 11–23.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
284 Bibliography Allerton, D. J. (1990a). ‘Language as form and pattern: grammar and its categories’. In: Collinge, N. E. (ed.), An Encyclopaedia of Language. London: Routledge, 68–111. Allerton, D. J. (1990b). ‘Linguistically strange word combinations’. In: Bridges, M. (ed.) (1990). On Strangeness [= Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature 5]. Tübingen: Narr, 25–38. Allerton, D. J. (1992). ‘Problems of Modern English grammar II – Disagreement about agreement (findings); and new topic’. English Studies 73, 458–70. Allerton, D. J. (1994). ‘Valency and valency grammar’. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4878–86. Allerton, D.J., Carney, E. and Holdcroft, D. (eds) (1979). Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allerton, D. J. and Cruttenden, A. (1974). ‘English sentence adverbials: their syntax and their intonation in British English’. Lingua 27, 1–29. Allerton, D. J. and Cruttenden, A. (1978). ‘Syntactic, illocutionary, thematic and attitudinal factors in the intonation of adverbials’. Journal of Pragmatics 2, 155–88. Allerton, D. J. and Koya, I. (forthcoming). ‘Pre-/postpositional predicatives’: crosslanguage syntactic category or conventional implicature?’. To appear. Alverson, H. (1994). Semantics and Experience: Universal Metaphors of Time in English, Mandarin, Hindi and Lesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Anderson, J. M. (1997). A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronstein, P. (1924). Englische Stilistik. Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner. Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds) (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ashton, E. O. (1944). Swahili Grammar. London: Longman. Atkins, B. T. and Zampolli, A. (eds) (1994). Computational Approaches to the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bache, C. (1997). The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Analysis. Frankfurt: Lang. Bäcklund, U. (1981). Restrictive Adjective-Noun Collocations in English. Umeå: Acta Universitatis Umensis. Bahns, J. (1996). Kollokationen als lexikographisches Problem: eine Analyse allgemeiner und spezieller Lernerwörterbücher des Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Barkema, H. (1996). ‘Idiomaticity and terminology: a multi-dimensional descriptive model’. Studia Linguistica 50, 125–60. Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K. and Robins, R. H. (1966). In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman. Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A. (1991). Connectionism and the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell. Benson, M. (1989). ‘The structure of the collocational dictionary’. International Journal of Lexicography 2, 1–14. Benson, M., Benson, E. and Ilson, R. (1986a). The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: a Guide to English Word Combinations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Benson, M., Benson, E. and Ilson, R. (1986b). Lexicographic Description of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Björkman, S. (1978). Le type avoir besoin: étude sur la coalescence verbo-nominale en français. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (Studia Romanica Upsaliensia 21).
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Bibliography 285 Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language (British edition). London: Allen and Unwin. (American edition, 1933.) Bolinger, D. L. (1979). ‘The jungle theory of double -ing’. In: Allerton, D. J., Carney, E. and Holdcraft, D. (eds), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: a Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–56. Brinton, L. J. and Akimoto, M. (1999). Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English (= SLCS 47). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brownell, H., Gardner, H., Prather, P. and Martino, G. (1994). ‘Language communication and the right hemisphere’. In: Kirshner, G. S. (ed.), Handbook of Neurological Speech and Language Disorders. New York: Marcel Decker, 325–49. Burger, H., Buhofer, A. and Sialm, A. (1982). Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. Byrne, L. S. R. and Churchill, E. L. (1986). A Comprehensive French Grammar (3rd edition, revised by G. Price; 1st edition 1950). Oxford: Blackwell. Cameron, D. (1988). Combinations of ‘Empty’ Verb with (De)Verbal Noun in Contemporary English. Basle: Lizentiatsarbeit der Universität Basel. Cattell, R. (1984). Complex Predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1970). ‘Remarks on nominalization’. In: Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass: Ginn, 184–221. Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on Language. London: Fontana. Chomsky, N. (1990). ‘On the nature, use and acquisition of language’. In: Lacan, W. G. (1990). Mind and Cognition: a Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 627–46. Chung, S. and Timberlake, A. (1985). ‘Tense, aspect and mood’. In: Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–58. Clark, E. V. (1992). ‘Conventionality and contrast: pragmatic principles with lexical consequences’. In: Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. F. (eds), Frames, Fields and Contrast: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 171–88. Collinge, N. E. (ed.) (1990). An Encyclopaedia of Language. London: Routledge. Cortès, C. (1997). ‘Décider, prendre une décision: du verbe à la locution verbale’. In: Fiala, P., Lafton, P. and Pignet, M.-F. La locution: entre lexique, syntexe et pragmatique, identification en corpus, traitment, apprentissage. (Publication di l’INALF, collection ‘Saint Cloud’). Paris: Klincksieck, 19–35. Cottrell, G. W. (1994). ‘Connectionist approaches to natural language processing’. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 698–706. Cowie, A. P. (1990). ‘Language as words: lexicography’. In: Collinge, N. E. An Encyclopedia of Language. London: Routledge, 671–700. Cowie, A. P. (1994). ‘Phraseology’. In: Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3168–71. Cowie, A. P. (1998a). ‘Introduction’. In: Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–20. Cowie, A. P. (1998b). ‘Phraseological dictionaries: some east-west comparisons’. In: Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 209–28. Cowie, A. P. (ed.) (1998c). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
286 Bibliography Cowie, A. P., Mackin, R. and McCaig, I. R. (1975/1983). Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, volumes 1 and 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. A. (1995). ‘Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic point of view’. In: St. Dizier, P. and Viegas, E. (eds), Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33–49. Culicover, P. (1996). Principles and Parameters: an Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daniels, K. (ed.) (1963). Substantivierungstendenzen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dirven, R. (1989). ‘Verbs and verb phrases’. In: Dirven, R. and Putseys, Y. A User’s Grammar of English: Word, Sentence, Text, Interaction, Part A. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang, 15–52. Dirven, R. and Putseys, Y. (eds) (1989). A User’s Grammar of English: Word, Sentence, Text, Interaction, Part A. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang. Dixon, R. M. W. (1988). A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago. Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Dras, M. and Johnson, M. (1996). ‘Death and lightness: using a demographic model to find support verbs’. Available electronically from cmp-lg/9610001, see www. mpce.mq.edu.au or
[email protected] Dubois, J. (1969). Grammaire structurale du français. Paris: Larousse. Egg, M. (1995). ‘The intergressive as a new category of verbal Aktionsart’. Journal of Semantics 12, 311–56. Engelen, B. (1968). ‘Zum System der Funktionsverbgefüge’. Wirkendes Wort 18, 289–303. Fernando, C. and Flavell, R. (1981). On Idiom: Critical Views and Perspectives. Exeter: University of Exeter. Fiala, P., Lafon, P. and Piguet, M.-F. (1997). La locution: entre lexique, syntaxe et pragmatique, identification en corpus, traitement, apprentissage. (Publication di l’INALF, collection “Saint Cloud”). Paris: Klincksieck. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). ‘The case for case’. In: Bach, E. and Harems, R. T. (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt Rinehart, 1–88. Fillmore, C. J. (1971). ‘Some problems for case grammar’. In: O’Brien, R. J. (ed.), Report of the 22nd Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies (= MSSL 24). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 35–56. Fillmore, C. J. (1977). ‘The case for case re-opened’. In: Cole, P. and Sadock, J. M. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, 59–81. Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). ‘Towards a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbours’. In: Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. F. (eds), Frames, Fields and Contrast: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum, 75–102. Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, B. T. S. (1994). ‘Starting where the dictionaries stop: the challenge of corpus lexicography’. In: Atkins, B. T. and Zampolli, A. (eds), Computational Approaches to the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 349–93. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, C. (1988). ‘Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone’. Language 64, 501–38.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Bibliography 287 Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. Fodor, J. R. and Katz, J. J. (eds) (1964). The Structure of Language, Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Fontenelle, T. (1998). ‘Discovering significant lexical functions in dictionary entries’. In: Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189–207. François, J. and Grass, T. (1997). ‘Les constructions à verbe support en lexicographie juridique bilingue (allemand/francais)’. In: Fiala, P., Lafon. P. and Piguet, M.-F. La locution: entre lexique, syntexe et pragmatique, identification en corpus, traitement, apprentissage. (Publication di l’INALF, collection ‘Saint Cloud’). Paris: Klincksieck, 183–98. Fraser, B. (1970). ‘Idioms within transformational grammar’. Foundations of Language 6, 22–42. Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R. and Nayak, N. (1989). ‘Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behaviour of idioms’. Cognitive Psychology 21, 100–38. Gibbs, R., Nayak, N., Bolton, J. and Kapper, M. (1989). ‘Speakers’ assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms’. Memory and Cognition 17, 58–68. Gibbs, R., Nayak and Cutting, C. (1989). ‘How to kick the bucket and not decompose: analysability and idiom processing’. Journal of Memory and Language 28, 567–93. Givon, T. (1984). Syntax: a Functional–Typological Introduction I. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gläser, R. (1986). Phraseologie der englischen Sprache. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie; and Tübingen: Niemeyer. Goldberg, A. C. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago. Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1970). Elicitation Experiments in English: Linguistic Studies in Use and Attitude. London: Longman. Gross, G. and Kiefer, F. (1995). ‘La structure événementielle de substantifs’. Folia Linguistica 29, 43–65. Gross, M. (1981). ‘Les bases empiriques de la notion de prédicat sémantique’. Language 63, 7–52. Gross, M. (1994). ‘Constructing lexicon-grammars’. In: Atkins, B. T. and Zampolli, A. (eds), Computational Approaches to the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 213–63. Gutiérrez, M. L. (1993). Estructuras sintácticas del español actual, 4th edition (1st edition 1978). Alcobendas (Madrid): Sociedad General Española de Librería. Haas, W. (1966). ‘Linguistic relevance’. In: Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K. and Robins, R. H. In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman, 116–47. Haas, W. (1980). ‘Sentence meanings and truth-values’. In: Brettschneider, G. and Lehmann, C. (eds), Wege zur Universalienforschung. Tübingen: Narr, 65–75. Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). ‘Lexis as a linguistic level’. In: Bazell et al. In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman, 148–162. Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). ‘Language structure and language function’. In: Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 140–65. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Harris, Z. S. (1957). ‘Cooccurrence and transformation in linguistic structure’. Language 33. 283–340. (Reprinted in Fodor and Katz (1964: 155–210) and in Householder (1972: 151–85).)
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
288 Bibliography Heringer, H.-J. (1989). Lesen, Lehren, Lernen: eine rezeptive Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Herrlitz, W. (1973). Funktionsverbgefüge vom Typ ‘in Erfahrung bringen’. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hopper, P. and Thompson, S. (1984). ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar’. Language 60, 703–52. Householder, F. W. (ed.) (1972). Syntactic Theory I: Structuralist. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Howarth, P. (1998). ‘The phraseology of learners’ academic writing’. In: Cowie, A.P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 161–86. Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X-bar Syntax: a Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles VI. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munsgaard/London: Allen & Unwin. Joos, M. (1964). The English Verb. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press. Keller, R. E. (1978). The German Language. London: Faber and Faber. Kelly, E. F. and Stone, P. J. (1975). Computer Recognition of English Word Senses. Amsterdam: North Holland. Kirchner, G. (1952). Die Zehn Hauptverben des Englischen – im Britischen und Amerikanischen. Halle: Niemeyer. Kjellmer, G. (1994). A Dictionary of English Collocations, 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Koya, I. (1992). Subjecthood and Related Notions: a Contrastive Study of English, German and Japanese. Basle: Birkhäuser. Kruisinga, E. (1932) A Handbook of Present-day English, II/3. Groningen: Noordhoff. Laczkó, T. (1985). ‘Deverbal nominals and their complements in noun phrases’. In: Kenesei, I. (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 1: Data and Descriptions. Szeged: Jate, 92–118. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lambton, A. K. S. (1953). Persian Grammar (paperback edition with key, 1974). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Langacker, R. A. (1987). ‘Nouns and verbs’. Language 63, 53–94. Langacker, R. A. (1987, 1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2 vols. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Leech, G. N. (1991). ‘The state of the art in corpus linguistics’. In: Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 8–29. Leech, G. N. (1992). ‘Corpora and theories of linguistic performance’. In: Svartvik, J. Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 105–22. Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. F. (eds) (1992). Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lepschy, A. L. and Lepschy, G. (1988). The Italian Language Today, 2nd edition (1st edition: 1977). London: Routledge. Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Bibliography 289 Lipka, L. (1990). An Outline of English Lexicology. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lyons, J. (1966). ‘Towards a notional theory of the parts of speech’. Journal of Linguistics 2, 209–36. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mac Cormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Mackin, R. (1978). ‘On collocations: “words shall be known by the company they keep” ’. In: Strevens, P. D. (ed.), In Honour of A. S. Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–65. Mackridge, P. (1987). The Modern Greek Language: a Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Magnusson, U. and Persson, G. (1986). Facets, Phases and Foci: Studies in Lexical Relations in English. Umeå: Almqvist & Wiksell. Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-Formation, 2nd edition (1st edition: 1960). Munich: C. H. Beck. Matthews, P. H. (1979). Generative Grammar and Linguistic Competence. London: Allen and Unwin. Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P. H. (1993). ‘Central concepts of syntax’. In: Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. and Vennemann, T. (eds), Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, 89–117. McIntosh, A. (1961). ‘Patterns and ranges’. Language 37, 325–37. Mel’cˇuk, I. (1982). ‘Lexical functions in lexicographic description’. In: McCawley, M., Gensler-Orin, D., Brugman, C., Civkutis, I., Dahlstrom, A., Krile, K. and Sturm, R., Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: UCB, 427–444. Mel’cˇuk, I. (1988). ‘Semantic description of lexical units in an explanatory combinatorial dictionary’. International Journal of Lexicography 1, 165–88. Mel’cˇuk, I. (1992). ‘Changer et changement en français contemporain (étude sémanticolexicographique)’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 87, 161–223. Mel’cˇuk, I. (1993). ‘La phraséologie et son rôle dans l’enseignement/apprentissage d’une langue étrangère’. Études de linguistique appliquée 92, 82–113. Mel’cˇuk, I. (1998). ‘Collocations and lexical functions’. In: Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–53. Mel’cˇuk, I. et al. (1984, 1988, 1992). Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du fançais contemporain: recherches lexico-sémantiques I, II, III. Montreal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Michaelis, L. A. and Lamprecht, K. (1996). ‘Toward a construction-based theory of language function: the case of nominal extraposition’. Language 72, 215–47. Mitchell, T. F. (1975). ‘Syntax (and associated matters)’. In: Bolton, W. F. (ed.), The English Language (= Sphere History of Literature in the English Language, vol. 10). London: Sphere Books, 135–213. Mitchell, T. F. (1979). ‘The English appearance of aspect’. In: Allerton, D. J., Carney, E. and Holdcroft, D. (eds), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: a Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–84. Miyamoto, T. (1999). The Light Verb Construction in Japanese: the Role of the Verbal Noun. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
290 Bibliography Moon, R. (1998). ‘Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English’. In: Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–100. Mustajoki, A. (2000). ‘Functional syntax as a basis for contrastive analysis’. Paper given to the “Linguistikkreis” of the University of Basle, 11 April, 2000. Nagy, W. (1978). ‘Some non-idiom larger-than-word units in the lexicon’. Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 289–300. Nattinger, J. R. and DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newman, J. (1996). Give: a Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nickel, G. (1968). ‘Complex verbal structures in English’. IRAL 6, 1–21. Obler, L. K. and Gjerlow, K. (1999). Language and the Brain. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Ogden, C. K. (1968). Basic English: International Second Language, revision prepared by E. C. Graham. New York: Harcourt Brace. Olsson, Y. (1961). On the Syntax of the English Verb (Gothenburg Studies in English 12). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Palm, C. (1995). Phraseologie: eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Palmer, F. R. (1965). A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. London: Longman. Palmer, F. R. (1974). The English Verb. London: Longman. Paradis, C. (1997). Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press. Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. (1983). ‘Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency’. In: Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–226. von Polenz, P. (1985). Deutsche Satzsemantik, Grundbegriffe des Zwischen-den-Zeilen-Lesens. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pottier, B. (1972). Introduction à l’étude linguistique de l’espagnol. Paris: Hispanoamericanes. Poutsma, H. (1904–26). A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff. Quirk, R. (1995). Grammatical and Lexical Variance in English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, R. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: a First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: a Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rensky´, M. (1964). ‘English verbo-nominal phrases: some structural and stylistic aspects’. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 289–99. Roos, E. (1989). ‘Idioms’. In: Dirven, R. and Putseys, Y. A User’s Grammar of English: Word, Sentence, Text, Interaction, Part A. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang, 215–41. Rosch, E. (1977). ‘Human categorization’. In: Warren, N. (ed.), Advances in CrossCultural Psychology, vol. 1. London: Academic Press. Rosch, E. (1978). ‘Principles of categorization’. In: Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale; New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27–48. Rose, J. H. (1978). ‘Types of idioms’. Linguistics 203, 55–62.
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Bibliography 291 Ruhl, C. (1989). On Monosemy: a Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Schenk, A. (1994). Idioms and Collocations in Compositional Grammars. Utrecht: Research Institute for Language and Speech. Scurfield, E. (1991). Chinese. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Siller-Runggaldier, H. (1996). Das Objektoid: eine neue syntaktisch-funktionale kategorie, aufgezeigt anhand des italienischen. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert. Simatos, I. (1997). ‘Référence et argumentalité du GN dans les locutions verbales’. In: Fiala, P., Lafon, P. and Piguet, M.-F. La locution: entre lexique, syntexe et pragmatique, identification en corpus, traitement, apprentissage. (Publication di l’INALF, collection ‘Saint Cloud’). Paris: Klincksieck, 77–102. Sinclair, J. McH. (1966). ‘Beginning the study of lexis’. In: Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K. and Robins, R. H. In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman, 410–30. Sinclair, J. McH. (ed.) (1987). Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Collins. Sinclair, J. McH. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Snell, R. and Weightman, S. (1989). Teach Yourself Hindi. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Sommerfeldt, K.-E. and Schreiber, H. (1996). Wörterbuch der Valenz etymologisch verwandter Wörter: Verben, Adjektive, Substantive. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Stein, G. (1991). ‘The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern English’. IRAL 29, 1–29. Stock, O., Slack, J. and Ortony A. (1993). ‘Building castles in the air: some computational and theoretical issues in idiom comprehension’. In: Cacciari, C. and Tabossi, P. (eds), Idioms: Processing Structure and Interpretation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 229–47. Strevens, P. D. (ed.) (1978). In Honour of A. S. Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stubbs, M. (1995). ‘Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantitive studies’. Functions of Language 2, 23–55. Stubbs, M. (1996). ‘ “Eine Sprache idiomatisch sprechen”: Computer, Korpora, kommunikative Kompetenz und Kultur’. In: Mattheier, K. (ed.), Norm und Variation. Bern/Frankfurt: Lang, 151–67. Stubbs, M. (1998). ‘A note on phraseological tendencies in the core vocabulary of English’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 33, 399–410. Svartvik, J. (1992). Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Svensson, P. (1998). Number and Countability in English Nouns. Umeå: Umeå University. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogues and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Trnka, B. (1928). ‘Analysis and synthesis in English’. English Studies 10, 138–44. Tschichold, C. (1996). ‘English Multi-Word Units (= MWUs) in a lexicon for natural language processing’. Basle: Doktorarbeit der Universität Basel. Tutin, A. (1997). ‘Codage des constructions à verbe support pour un lexique de TALN’. Actes de TALN ’97 (Grenoble). Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H.-J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman. Vendler, Z. (1967). ‘Verbs and times’. In: Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press, 97–121.
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
292 Bibliography Vogel, P. M. (1996). Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel: zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Welte, W. (1990). Englische Phraseologie und Idiomatik. Frankfurt/Berne: Lang. Wierzbicka, A. (1982). ‘Why you can have a drink when you can’t *have an eat’. Language 58, 753–99. Wood, R. T. and Hill, R. J. (1979). The Macmillan Dictionary of English Colloquial Idioms. London: Macmillan. Zhang, L. (1995). A Contrastive Study of Aspectuality in German, English and Chinese. New York: Lang.
11
Index
11
11
111
111
111
111
Aarts 30 Abney 124 Abrahamsen 8 absolutive adjective 163 abstract noun 65 achievements 200 actional meaning 74 active (voice) 10, 11, 38 active meaning 192 activities 203 adjectival descriptor 119 adjective 13, 24, 25 adjective meaning 59 adjective-based stretched verb structure 23 adjectives in -ed/-en 161 adverb-based stretched verb structure 23 adverbial 45, 126, 141 adverbial elaborator 45 affirmative 10 affixation 113 -age 116 agentive adjective 32, 113, 163 agentive noun 23, 25, 32, 59, 227 agentive-eventive meaning 136 agentive-eventive noun 146 Akimoto 5 Aktionsart 234 -al 116 Algeo 5 Allerton 7, 17, 27, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 102, 113, 124, 125, 139, 141, 172, 219, 221, 235, 243 alliteration 219, 232 ambiguity 116, 226
analysability 221 analysability, semantic 218 -ance/-ence 113, 117 Arabic 241 arbitrariness 6 Aronstein 5 article, definite 125 article, indefinite 53, 125, 229 Ashton 202 aspect 115, 224 aspect adjective 140, 141 -ation/-ition/-ution 117 attributive 14 auxiliary verb 7, 125 back-formation 238 Barkema 217 base 219 Basic English (Ogden) 238 BBI dictionary 32, 219, 246, 248 Bechtel 8 behaviourism 30 Benson 8, 219, 246 binomial 216 Björkman 5, 223, 240 BNC 32 Bolinger 232 Brinton 5 Brown corpus 32 Brownell 243 Burger 216 Cameron 32 case 39 catenative pattern 233 causative voice 194
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
294 Index causativity 195, 196 Chinese 241 Chomsky 8, 9, 125 classifier 125 clause 46 clefting 12, 17, 42, 121, 223 cognate object 232 cohesion 102 collocant 219 collocation 7, 11, 28, 30, 54, 172, 191, 196, 215, 217, 245 collocational restrictions 139, 210 common noun 125 complement 41 complementation 4, 25 complex sentence 17 composite predicate 5 compound 218 compounding 113 concord 39 concrete nouns 178 connectionist approach 8 Construction Grammar 8 context 30 continuations 201 conversion 4 cooccurrence restrictions 11, 22, 221 coordination 219 copular verb 26, 27, 43, 54, 59, 66, 159, 228, 229 corpora 30 corpus-based approach 30 Cortès 240 Cottrell 8 countability 207 countable noun 119, 125, 127, 136, 231 coups 200, 203 Cowie 246 Cruse 3 Cruttenden 139 Culicover 124 culminations 201, 203 DeCarrico 5 definite genitive NP 134 demotion 108 derivation 4, 113, 159, 197 derivational suffix 118
descriptor 23, 28, 39, 42, 59, 63, 66, 69, 161, 228 determiner 6, 124, 136, 224 determiner phrase 124 deverbal noun 8, 75, 102, 113, 115, 121, 178, 216 deviance 220 dictionary 8, 31, 36, 221, 245 dictionary, electronic 248 direct object see object Dirven 216 discourse 220 do-constructions 231 Dowty 200, 201 Dras 7 Dubois 239 duration 198 duration adverb 144 duration adverbial 199 dynamic meaning 24, 29 Egg 199, 200 elaborated verb structure 4, 20, 22, 24, 59 elaboration 4 elaborator 47, 49, 52, 54, 100, 105 elicitation tests 31 ellipsis 52 end-focus 102 Engelen 5 epithet 216 errors 26, 30, 243 eventive adjective 54 eventive meaning 99, 109, 118 eventive noun 20, 26, 32, 52, 66, 100, 127, 171, 217 eventive object 105 eventive verb 21, 29, 66, 69, 77 eventuality 198, 199, 201, 203, 205, 209 exemplification 219 exertion 202, 206 expanded predicate 5 expectation 208 experiencer 27, 193 extent adjective 143 factual status adjective 144 Fillmore 8, 23
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Index 295 finite clause 46 finite complement 47 Firth 30 fixed expression 216 flexibility 224 formal style 29, 227 formula 217 François 240 Fraser 223 French 7, 194, 202, 239 frequency 172, 186 frequency adverb 144 frequency adverbial 142 frequency of stretched verb constructions 31 fronting 40, 165 function words 170 functional categories 49 Funktionsverbgefüge 5, 216 Garman 244 generative grammar 8 genitival qualifier 47 genitive qualifier 102 German 5, 6, 24, 25, 202, 239, 248 gerund 118 gerund complement 47 gerund structure 46 Gjerlow 243 Goldberg 8, 17 gradability 139 gradable adjective 163 grammatical restructuring 102 Grass 240 Greek 240 Greenbaum 31 Gutiérrez 240 Haas 3, 9 hackneyed phrase 220 Halliday 30, 41, 243 happenings 199, 200 Harris 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 have-constructions 229, 231 head 23 Heringer 5, 239 heteronymy 3 Hill 246 Hindi 241
homonymy 174, 218, 226 hyponymy 115 -ia 118 idiom 5, 16, 174, 215, 243 idiomaticity 239 inanimate subject 179 inception 200, 205 inceptive meaning 75, 157, 182 inchoative meaning 75 incorporation 101 incubus 151 indirect object 76, 77, 100, 104, 251 indirect objoid 44 infinitive complement 47 infinitive structure 46 inflection 197 informal style 29, 227, 231, 233 -ing 118 inherence 140 intensifier 141, 163 intensity 209 interference 24 intergressives 199 intransitive verb 70, 100, 104 introspection 31 intuition 26 intuition-based approach 30 -ion 117, 135 -is 118 Italian 240 -ity 118 Jackendoff 125 Japanese 241 Jespersen 5, 7, 42 Johnson 7 Keller 5 key word 7 kindred relation 13, 17 Kirchner 5 Kjellmer 31 Koya 27 Kruisinga 5 Lambton 241 Leech 30 Lewis 194, 241
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
296 Index lexical function 7, 22, 217 lexical gap 25 lexical irregularity 219 lexical item 36, 197 lexical passivization 101, 251 lexical phrase 5 lexical selectivity 219 lexical verb 7, 24, 28, 100 lexicalist approach 8 lexicon 4, 7, 16, 17, 172, 215, 226, 244 light verb 7 limiter adverb 102, 103 LOB corpus 32, 173, 186 location 120 locution verbale 5 Lyons 197 Mackridge 240 Magnusson 115 Makkai 215, 223 manner adverb 143 manner adverbial 119 Marchand 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 mass noun 125, 127, 207 master word 219 Matthews 17 meaning differences 6, 9, 15, 20 meaning of thin verbs 172 Mel’cˇuk 7, 22, 217, 243 -ment 117, 135 metaphor 27, 215, 243 method adverb 142 Michaelis 8 Mitchell 30, 203 Miyamoto 241 modal verbs 125 Moon 217 morphology 16, 198 native speaker 26, 31, 32, 246 Nattinger 5 negative 10, 188 New Collins Concise Dictionary 32 nomen actionis 115 nomen agentis 136 nominal paraphrase 5 nominalization 66, 101, 106, 223
noun-based stretched verb structure 23 number of stretched verb constructions 31, 32, 170 numeral 125 object 6, 8, 23, 27, 39 object position 35, 77 objoid 23, 43, 99, 102 Obler 243 obligatoriness 39, 49, 108 oblique form 39 oblique object 44 obsolete verbs 235 Ogden 238, 241 omission 49 optionality 49, 106, 108, 109, 127 overrepresented verbs in stretched verb constructions 174 Palm 216 Palmer 233 particle 225 partitive construction 29 passive (voice) 10, 11, 38, 45, 121 passive meaning 69, 156, 190, 192, 229 passivization 17, 36, 66, 100, 101, 105, 110, 154, 223 see also lexical passivization patient 164, 203 performance 26, 30 periphrasis 197, 203 perject 36, 106 Persian 241 persisting effect 209 Persson 115 phase 197 phrasal verb 5, 45, 76, 102, 110, 215, 225, 233 phrase lexicon 244 phraseme 217 phraseology 16, 215, 216 place adverb 144 place adverbial 27 plesionymy 3 polarity 209 polysemy 17, 113, 118, 174, 186, 218, 226 possessive 134, 151, 177
11
11
11
111
111
111
111
Index 297 potentiality 208 Pottier 240 Poutsma 5 Prague school 5 predication 115 predicative 14, 25, 26, 29, 39, 42, 54, 120, 161 prefixation 4 preposition 25, 26 preposition phrase 45 prepositional object 225 prepositional objoid 37, 59, 66, 69, 74, 75, 102, 104, 107, 108, 119, 148, 154, 225 prepositional qualifier 47, 69, 104 prepositional verb 70 process 199 processes 203 productivity 17, 26 progressive 205, 206 pronominalization 11 proper noun 125 proverb 216, 220, 232 pseudo-idiom 216 qualifier 66, 101 quality adjective 141, 142, 161 Quirk 7, 22, 24, 31, 41, 102, 125, 139, 140, 161 quotation 216 Radford 223 range adjective 140, 141 rare verbs 23 see also thin verb, unique reciprocal verb 52 relative clause 100 restrictor 145 Roos 216 Ruhl 174 Russian 240 scalar adjective 163 scalar modification 164 Scurfield 241 semantic contribution 7 semantic feature 127, 195, 209, 233 semantic role 6, 100, 101, 105, 106, 109, 148, 151, 164, 193 semantic selection 173
sensory verb 119 sentence adverb 144 sentence adverbial 142, 145 servant word 219 Simatos 240 simile 216, 219 simplex elaborated verb structure 24 simplex verb construction 20 Sinclair 30 slogan 216 Snell 241 social disapproval 209 solo eventive noun 134 solo noun 126, 207 Spanish 240 speech-act ·184, 194, 216, 220 static meaning 29 stative meaning 24, 196 Stein 5, 7 Stock 244 stratificational grammar 215 strokes 200, 203 Structure 0 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 48 Structure 1 24, 25, 26, 27, 48, 54, 58, 59, 62, 63, 106, 113, 159, 161, 164, 176, 182, 226, 227, 228, 240, 250 Structure 2 23, 25, 26, 27, 48, 59, 62, 113, 121, 136, 146, 157, 175, 227, 240, 250 Structure 3 26, 27, 48, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 106, 176, 228, 250 Structure 4 27, 28, 48, 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 106, 107, 155, 156, 157, 176, 228, 240, 250 Structure 5 29, 48, 70, 74, 75, 76, 99, 106, 107, 108, 156, 169, 177, 229, 239, 240, 251 Structure 6 23, 29, 31, 35, 48, 77, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 155, 169, 229, 240, 251, 252 style see informal/formal style subject 6, 14, 39, 65, 225, 227 subject adjunct adverbial 142 subject complement 120 success with difficulty 209 suffix 16, 26, 157 suffixation 4, 113 support verb 7
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
298 Index Swahili 202, 241 synonymy 3, 15 syntax 17, 24 telic adjective 163 telic modification 164 tense 224 terminations 200 textual contribution 221 that-clause 46 thematic status 107 theme-rheme 243 thin verb 7, 217 neutral 196 unique 172 thin verbs add 191, 207 arouse 207, 229 arrive at 207 assume 207 attract 196 be 174–6, 207 bring (in) 207 bring about 196, 207 burst into 207 carry out 229 cause 186, 193, 194, 196, 229 come 176–7, 229 come in for 194 come to 207 commit 194, 229 conduct 207 dance 191 deliver 207 do 177–8, 207, 229 drive home 191, 207 effect 207 elicit 196 engage in 207 feel 186, 193, 194, 207, 229 fill 229 find 187, 194, 207, 229 form 187, 207, 229 gain 195, 229 get 178–9, 194, 229 give 179–81, 189, 192, 194, 229 go 181–2, 229 go into 207 grant 188, 194, 207, 229
have 182–3, 196, 207, 224, 229 hurl 194 incur 194 induce 207 indulge (in) 207, 229 inflict 193 initiate 207 inspire 196, 207 launch 191, 207 lodge 191 make 183–4, 192, 194, 229 meet 229 meet with 194 minister 191 mount 207 move 229 obtain 207 offer 188, 208, 229 perform 207, 229 practise 207 precipitate 196, 207 present 207, 229 press home 207 promote 207 provide 188, 207, 229 provoke 196 put in 229 put on 191, 207 reach 207 receive 189, 192, 194, 229 record 207 refuse 210 render 207, 229 secure 194, 207, 229 shout 194 spark off 196, 207 spring into 207 stimulate 196, 207 strike up 207 subject 207 suffer 189, 193, 194, 207, 229 take 184–6, 229 undergo 190, 192, 194, 229 withdraw 210 work out 207, 229 time adverbial 142, 200 -tion 117 transformation 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 35, 43, 105, 121, 223
11
11
Index 299 transitive verb 99 translation 24 treatments 203 Trnka 5 Turkish 194, 241 Tutin 7 uncountable noun 119 underrepresented verbs in stretched verb constructions 174 ungradable adjective 163 unique morpheme 235 -ure 118
111
111
111
Weightman 241 Welte 215 Wierzbicka 7, 229, 230, 231 Wood 246 word formation 4, 8, 16, 135, 235 X-bar theory 125 -y 118
11
111
valency requirement 45 Vendler 200, 201 verb meaning 6, 48 verbo-nominal phrase 5
valency 22, 25, 26, 27, 36, 38, 48, 74, 77, 119, 141, 169, 172, 187, 239
zero derivation 27, 118, 135, 231 Zhang 205