1. Introduction The decoupling of lexis and syntax leads to the creation of a rubbish dump that is called ‘idiom’, ‘phraseology’, ‘collocation’, and the like. (Sinclair 1991:104) The following study will select some items of the linguistic ‘rubbish dump’ evoked by Sinclair in the above quotation, namely multi-word verbs, and assign them a somewhat more suitable place, perhaps the corridor connecting lexis and syntax. Multi-word verbs have in general received less than adequate treatment so far. Linguists dealing with purely lexical matters, for instance word-formation, have usually excluded them, ostensibly on the grounds that, seen from a formal perspective, they do not constitute ‘words’. But that exclusion seems arbitrary insofar as they constitute le xemes and are formed on the basis of regular patterns. Furthermore, it may lead to embarrassing contradictions, for instance the inclusion of phrasal nouns as opposed to the omission of phrasal verbs in works like Marchand’s (1969). Grammarians, for their part, have also mostly felt ill at ease with multi -word units; while these do have an internal syntactic structure, it is burdened with exceptions in many cases brought about by their lexeme status, so that a special treatment of them is made necessary. Most of all, multi-word verbs have hardly ever been treated as a group as such; rather, individual types are inserted here and there in grammars in many different sections (with the notable exception of Quirk et al. 1985), which makes them very hard to find . In general descriptions of the language they exist on the fringes — as rubbish dumps are of course wont to do. However, they have found a more comfortable shelter in their very own specialized dictionaries (such as Cowie & Mackin 1975), a kind of haven for ‘exotic’ verbs. And yet multi-word verbs are neither exotic nor at the fringes of the English language; rather, they are a part of the mainstream development. To quote Sinclair (1991:68) once more: "the whole drift of the historical devel opment of English has been towards the replacement of words with phrases (...)". I will therefore treat multi -word verbs in the present study as a group in their own right, with an emphasis on their common features, examining their development and behaviour in their authentic textual environments. The time and the basis I have chosen for this consideration is the non-literary prose of the late Early Modern English (EModE) era — that is, precisely the time, the place and the language important for the emergence of modern Standard English.
2
Introduction
Inevitably, the problem indicated in the first Sinclair quotation above will play an important role in this study. Both lexical, or rather semantic, and syntactic matters are intertwined in the case of multi -word verbs, and both will require more or less equal attention. The connection is so intricate, I find, that it would be unwise, if not impossible, to attempt a unified theoretical treatment with one of the two areas as the dominant basis. Accordingly, this will not be a theoretical piece of work, but one that will take an empirical and eclectic approach; my foremost aim is the description of what is there in late EModE. I will try to take a ccount of the fact that syntax and semantics merge to some extent in multi -word verbs. However, I take semantics to be the primary, and thus in some respect the more important level. After all, people who know how they are going to say something, before they know what it is they are going to say, must be considered a rare species. Multi-word verbs certainly originate mainly for semantic reasons — but these can be found just as well in the semantic properties of syntactic structures as purely in those of the individual words making up the complex verbal unit. In sum, my aims in this work are to throw some light on how syntax and semantics combine and also interact with more ‘peripheral’ linguistic areas, such as considerations of style or register, to produce a greater variety of expression in the English language. Moreover, this is foremost an historical study, and thus questions of the characteristics of multi -word verbs in EModE, their status within the language, and their development co mpared to the situation found in Present-day English (PDE) will of course be major concerns. The frequencies found and their rise or decline over time will be further important points, especially as two studies (Konishi 1958; Spasov 19661) have pointed to a decline of phrasal verbs within the period to be studied here. A new assessment of their results will be possible in the light of the more extensive data to be presented here (9,467 multi-word verbs, of which 4,266 are phrasal verbs). In general, it will also be interesting to see whether the frequencies of different kinds of multi -word verbs develop in similar ways. Furthermore, I will pay attention to EModE speakers’ awareness of and attitudes towards multi -word verbs, which might have a (positive or negative) influence on the development of these forms within the context of emerging prescriptivism and the standardization process. These matters will form the core of this work, comprising chapters 6 to 9. The chapters preceding these four will set the historical scene and provide the material required to put the empirical findings into their proper perspective. Three aspects play a role here. The first concerns the data base, 1
For information on Spasov 1966, a book that proved impossible to obtain, cf. Bolinger 1971 and Hückel 1968/69.
Introduction
3
the Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts (1640-1740), and its historical context, as the nature of every corpus necessarily affects the resultant data (chapter 2). The second and third aspects relate to linguistic theories about multi-word verbs and my interpretation or application of them (chapters 3 and 4), and the whole history of multi-word verbs (chapter 5).
2. The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts Empirical research in historical linguistics is no simple matter. On the one hand, historical linguistics has actually always been corpus-based, in being orientated towards authentic language data preserved in old texts brought down to us — i.e. it is firmly based on empirical evidence. Of course, for most of the time there was no ‘corpus’ in the present strict sense of the word; real historical corpus linguistics only started with the publication of the Helsinki Corpus in 1991. Since then, there have been more attempts to supply historical linguistics with a firm basis of principled corpora, and the Lampeter Corpus is a contribution to this ongoing process, filling one slot with a collection of prose writings from 1640 to 1740. On the other hand, it is faced with difficulties not experienced by researchers into the present-day language. There is the inapplicability of modern linguistic intuition to old data; this, together with the absence of native speakers of, e.g., EModE, complicates judgements about the acceptability, the appropriateness or, in general, the exact nature and status of any instance found of a linguistic phenomenon. This fact either impedes or rules out completely the employment of some common methods in synchronic linguistics; this point will also have to be kept in mind for the chapters 3 and 4. Then, there is the finiteness of the data, both in an absolute, overall sense — there are only so many texts that have come down to us — and with respect to instances for individual features. From this it follows that there will necessarily be gaps in the existing data, with not all historically possible linguistic manifestations actually being documented. With regard to individual features this naturally means that one should be careful not to build major arguments on the basis of apparent nonoccurrence. Any historical study will inevitably touch on the question of linguistic change, and this also shows up some particular limitations of the available data. Samuels (1972:6) listed the following assumptions about linguistic change, namely: (a) the majority of linguistic changes originate in the spoken language, and may or may not ultimately spread to the written form, (b) fewer changes, usually of a different nature, arise in the written language, and may or may not be incorporated into the spoken language, and (c) the written language exerts a conservative influence, by preventing or slowing down the acceptance of many changes that come about in the spoken language. The problems are obvious: we do not have any first-hand record of the spoken language for older periods of the language, but can only work with approximations, such as court room transcripts, private letters and
The Lampeter Corpus
5
dramatic dialogue in stage plays. We cannot assume that all features found in the spoken medium are reflected in the written texts, and of those actually found we do not know how long they have already been in existence before eventually turning up in writing. It is also not easy for us to assess which of the phenomena we find in our data would have been regarded as particularly, or even exclusively typical of the written form. All these limitations on the data base for the historical study of the English language, needless to say, apply to the present corpus as well. Moreover, as Atkins, Clear & Ostler (1992:5) have so rightly remarked in general, any "corpus is inevitably biased in some respects", regardless of whether it is diachronic or synchronic. What might be of particular relevance in the present case is the absence of the spoken dimension, in the light of the fact that the phenomenon under discussion, multi-word verbs, has often been labelled as colloquial in modern English. The more one knows about a corpus, the easier it is to put data derived from it into the proper perspective. Also, the characteristics of a written language can only be adequately put into their proper perspective against the background of the interaction of the people using it and the uses of literacy in a given society (Traugott/Romaine 1985:14). Therefore the following two sections will be devoted to a description of the Lampeter Corpus and its historical setting. 2.1 General Characteristics of the Lampeter Corpus In brief, the Lampeter Corpus is a collection of non-literary prose covering the 100-year period from 1640 to 1740. Its basic structure is determined by its sub-division into ten decades with twelve complete texts each, bringing the whole corpus up to 120 texts and 1,172,102 words.1 Every decade in turn has an internal structure, containing two texts for each of the six domains of 2 RELIGION , POLITICS, ECONOMY , SCIENCE, LAW and MISCELLANEOUS . But let me now go through the corpus characteristics in more detail. As to the time chosen, it of course represents an important period in the standardization process of the English language, a time when the
1
The research for this study was carried out with a pre-publication form of the corpus - therefore all the word counts given here may vary somewhat from the final word counts of the published corpus. 2 The codes for the individual texts chosen in the corpus and used throughout this study to identify examples taken from the corpus derive from this basic structure. The codes consist of one of the abbreviations Rel, Pol, Ec, Sci, Law, and Msc for the domains, plus the letter A or B (two texts for each domain) and the date of publication, thereby identifying the decade, e.g. PolA1646, SciB1684.
6
The Lampeter Corpus
relatively inconspicuous selection and codification process was going on (Stein 1994:10), i.e. before codification became institutionalized in the grammars and dictionaries of the 18th century. The Lampeter Corpus period either follows or coincides with important linguistic processes, in particular the massive expansion of the lexicon leading to the Inkhorn Controversy (e.g. Nevalainen 1999; Baugh/Cable 1978) and the gradual regularisation of syntactic structure towards its modern standard (e.g. Rissanen 1999, Rydén 1979). Furthermore, the span of one hundred years, while not very long in itself, was considered sufficient for the purpose of studying linguistic change, covering, as it does, three generations. The limitation in period length was also thought sensible in order to provide somewhat greater depth (1,172,102 words for 100 years as opposed to, e.g., 551,0003 words in the Helsinki Corpus for the whole EModE period, 1500-1710) while still staying within manageable overall proportions. It is thus possible to treat the corpus either as a synchronic snap-shot of late EModE or as the basis for studying diachronic development within those 100 years. Both approaches will be applied in this study. Figure 2.1 shows the spread of data (word size) over the ten decades in the Lampeter Corpus. The exact extent of the chosen 100 years was also influenced by the basic material that had been chosen. The material basis was the Tract Collection stored in the Founders’ Library of the University of Wales, Lampeter (hence the name of the corpus) 4, which up to relatively recently allowed instant access to the original prints in its possession. Using these prints instead of later editions ensured the absolute authenticity of the material — a fact not to be underestimated 5 — and also brought to light texts that had not been edited or re-published since their first publication. The available material from which to choose in the collection was especially rich during in the period from 1640 to 1740, with the Civil War in the 1640s causing a first peak of publication figures (and changing the nature of public discourse for good (Feather 1988:50f)), followed by even higher outputs in the 1680s, 1700s and 1710s.6
3
The figure is taken from Kytö’s manual to the Helsinki Corpus (1991:2). For further information on the Tract Collection, cf. Harris & James (1974). 5 Editions, which are usually prepared by people from other fields of research, e.g. historians, are not necessarily very reliable with respect to purely linguistic matters. 6 After 1640, the printing industry expanded considerably with the publication of c. 1,000 titles a year in normal times, and up to c. 2,000 titles in moments of crisis or public hysteria, and also with increasing edition sizes (c.1,500 copies, but up to 3,000 copies in some cases) (Cressy 1980:47). 4
The Lampeter Corpus
1730 108,454 1720 words 123,048 9% words 10%
1640 126,099 words 11%
1710 102,740 words 9% 1700 101,714 words 9%
7
1650 96,456 words 8% 1660 102,233 words 9%
1690 126,148 words 11%
1680 150,457 words 13%
1670 134,753 words 11%
Figure 2.1 The decade structure of the Lampeter Corpus The decision as to which kind of texts to include in the corpus was also guided by the material found in Lampeter. As the name Tract Collection already suggests it consists of tracts, though primarily actually of pamphlets. The main OED definition of the latter runs as follows: A small treatise occupying fewer pages or sheets than would make a book, composed and ... (since c 1500) printed, and issued as a separate work; always (at least in later use) unbound, with or without paper covers. In a general sense used irrespective of subject (...), and in 17th c. including issues of single plays, romances, poems, novelettes, newspapers, news-letters, and other periodicals; still sometimes applied to chap-books, and the like; ... As the OED shows, the meaning of tract (s.v. tract n. 1) is in fact rather similar to this: 2. a. A book or written work treating of some particular topic; a treatise; a written or printed discourse or dissertation
8
The Lampeter Corpus 3. a. In later use: A short pamphlet on some religious, political, or other topic, suitable for distribution or for purposes of propaganda. [first quote for 3.a.: 1762]
This means that those two particular publication formats provide for a great variety of topics and text types or genres. 7 The subject matter of the pamphlets are often questions of intense and also controversial current interest, such as the assessment and call for assassination of Cromwell, a discussion or rather refutation of witchcraft, or the economic rivalry with the Dutch. On the other hand, there are also very ‘sober’, less contentious publications, such as Hooke’s scientific treatise on the motion of the earth, a rather dry treatment of the legal administration of land-ownership, or a lengthy exegetical tract on the biblical term ‘scandal’ — things one would not expect to appear in that format from the modern perspective. 8 As regards text types, there are such things as the inevitable sermons, political and legal speeches, court room transcripts, essays, lectures, ‘text-books’, satires etc. — as well as texts that elude any hard and fast classification. The corpus is intended to reflect this varied situation as far as possible, though with two exceptions. Any kind of literary output to be found among those pamphlets (cf. the OED definition above) was excluded from the collection; this also goes for the — perhaps not always quite so literary — output of the well-known literary figures of that period, such as Dryden, Defoe or Swift.9 The reasons behind this are that (a) the literary production of that time is relatively easily accessible at any rate, and it is also already represented in corpora (e.g. the Century of Prose Corpus), and (b) the Lampeter Corpus is instead supposed to represent the back-drop to this, the wide mainstream of written language production, so to speak. Literature and great writers, after all, can only be correctly assessed if seen in their own proper environment. 10 Newspaper material was also excluded, as this will be available in the ZEN (Zürich 7
Grabes (1990:viii) used a more restricted definition than the one adopted here in his study of the English pamphlet from 1521 to 1640, e.g. with restrictions as to the length (up to 50 pages), the domain (only religion and politics) and the necessity of being related to current affairs. In general, most people seem to think mainly of politics in connection with pamphlets, cf. also for instance Ahrens (1991). 8 For a list of all the texts contained in the corpus, see the corpus manual (forthc.). Cf. also for general interest the online catalogue of the Founders’ Library. 9 This decision reflects a distinctly modern perspective, however, for, as Sharpe & Zwicker (1987:1-20) point out in their introduction, the 17th century distinguished the literary and the fictitious much less clearly from other types of writing than we do today. Literature then could still be all things, and all things could be literature. 10 Also, as Warner (1961:80) remarked with respect to the historical study of style, a minor writer can perhaps reveal the characteristics of his age better than a major author.
The Lampeter Corpus
9
English Newspaper) and the Rostock Historical Newspaper corpora. To sum up this point, the variety assembled in the corpus should also ensure a diversity of linguistic structures, for instance in lexical range through the many different topics and areas treated, but also with regard to syntactic structures dominant or under-represented in one or the other genre or register. All the texts included in the corpus are complete texts, not samples of arbitrarily cut-out smaller text chunks found in most other corpora. They contain everything from the titlepage to the Finis, that is, in addition to the main text, also dedications, addresses (usually to the reader), introductions by publishers, and appendices with lists or other additional matter. It should not be ignored that this approach has its disadvantages: the varying length of individual texts (from 3,436 words to 24,042 words) can make compilation and the final corpus seem rather erratic, it can introduce strong biases if not enough care is taken, and it certainly complicates linguistic statistics. However, the great advantage of this method is that it makes text-linguistic and stylistic studies possible on a sensible level. In this way the corpus can far better reflect the uneven spread of linguistic features across the different manifestations of the language. The inclusion of complete texts was considered especially necessary, as prose style – and this is taken to include overall textual characteristics – seems to have undergone an extensive shift in the period in question here (cf. Jones 1951; Adolph 1668, 1981). It is also easier to identify the individual stylistic preferences of some authors and to make allowances for them if one is working within the context of whole texts. The inclusion of such material as dedications and addresses can also create interesting sociolinguistic perspectives. The decade structure of the corpus, which looked like a very simple thing in the beginning, proved to have its own particular problems as well. The frequency of later editions of texts that were found in the Tract Collection made it necessary to decide on the fact that it was not primarily the date of publication, but rather that of writing which was to count. This means texts suitable for inclusion needed to have been written in the same decade in which they were published, i.e. first editions as a rule. Later editions were included in some cases, but only if the text expressly stated that corrections, enlargements or the like had been carried out by the author. Only if the time line is kept ‘intact’ in that way is the study of linguistic change over the one hundred corpus years at all feasible. The question of authorship has already been touched on above when discussing the exclusion of literary writers. A special feature of the period in question is the high instance of anonymous publications, which are to be understood against the background of censorship laws (e.g. Feather 1988:85;
10
The Lampeter Corpus
Siebert 1965:passim), or rather of eluding them, and the harsh punishment of authors found guilty of libel throughout most of the period.11 Being such a typical characteristic of the press situation then, anonymous publications, as well as those only identified by the putative initials of the author, were not completely excluded from the corpus; however, given the fact that knowledge about the author can be (socio)-linguistically important, they were kept to a minimum. Thus, most authors are known by name, and background information could be found about most of them, though unfortunately not all. Each author is represented only once in the whole corpus. Texts originating with a corporate body (stated on the titlepage or the Lampeter library catalogue), such as the Commissioners of the Navy, the East India Company or the House of Lords, were also included; in contrast to truly anonymous publications their authorship is definitely restricted to a certain socio-economic circle of people. Given the text-linguistic and to a lesser extent sociolinguistic concerns connected with the compilation of the corpus, this was also to be reflected in the finished product with the help of SGML markup based on the TEI scheme, i.e. markup of individual features of the texts and a header with (background) information about the text and its author added to every text. I will not go into detail here about these matters 12, but the general aim of the markup was to make the original layout of the texts as retrievable as possible — in so far as linguistically relevant — from the electronic version. 13 2.2 The Lampeter Corpus as a Mirror of 17th- and 18th-century England It is in three respects especially that the Lampeter Corpus can be called a mirror of the political, cultural and social conditions of England in the 17th and 18th centuries. The first is found in the areas of life and topics covered by the texts, i.e. in general by the domain structure. The second is represented by the authors of the texts, their social spread, their education, their professions and their place in public life. The last has to do with the nature of public discourse at that time, that is on the one hand the situation
11
Cf. for instance the fate of the author of text LawB1649, who lost both his ears and was branded on the cheeks (cf. the header information) as punishment for publishing libellous texts. 12 For a detailed explanation of the markup, cf. the corpus manual (forthc.). For some further remarks about the header information, see below in 2.2. 13 Quotations from the corpus in this study will not contain any overt mark-up, and will reproduce the original typographical appearance of the textual instance only if necessary to the discussion.
The Lampeter Corpus
11
of ‘the press’ as such and on the other hand the characteristics of the reception process and of the audience. The domains RELIGION , POLITICS , ECONOMY , SCIENCE , LAW and MISCELLANEOUS are supposed to reflect as widely as possible the scope of life as found between 1640 and 1740.14 And in English and British history, this was a period of enormous importance and far-reaching consequences for the future of Great Britain. To deal adequately with that point would mean turning this study into a full-blown historical treatise which, needless to say, is completely out of place here. Thus I will restrict myself to those kind of remarks of immediate relevance to the corpus material. Religion and politics are intimately intertwined in the era in question, and this is reflected in the texts; many of them deal with both issues at once or with one of them under the guise of the other. In contrast to the modern perspective this would not then have been perceived as problematic, contradictory or even remarkable at all. Of course this was bound to cause problems for classification in the corpus; usually the predominant theme in a ‘mixed’ text would determine under which heading it went (this applies also to texts in the other domains), or, in some cases, text type would help determine the question: however political the content, a sermon will always be found under RELIGION in the corpus (e.g. RelA1696). Mixed texts in general seem to have been not uncommon then, as thinking was obviously less compartmentalized than it was to become later. Therefore, there has intentionally not been an attempt to generally avoid ‘mixed’ texts and opt only for ‘pure’ ones, as this would have distorted the historical situation. Any linguistic approach taking domains/registers or text types as its basic parameter will have to take account of this fact. The four issues that are important with respect to RELIGION are Anglicanism, Protestant Dissent, Catholicism (with all three always including their relationship to the political state) and the question of (passive) atheism. The last may seem surprising at first, but while this was a religious age, it must not be forgotten that it also was the Age of Reason. In fact, after the Toleration Act of 1689 a significant number of people attended no form of worship whatsoever, which was either a sign of outright atheism or simply of
14
A comparison of this classification, which was ‘imposed’ by the corpus compilers on the Founders’ Library’s Tract Collection rather than statistically derived from it, with Feather’s (1986) subject analysis of British 18th-century publishing shows that it is not wide off the mark. Although an exact comparison is somewhat hampered by his very wide category ‘social sciences’, the only ones of his types which the Lampeter Corpus does not cover are literature (and this intentionally so), philosophy and languages (both of which of are numerically minor categories). Thus the Lampeter Corpus can also be seen to reflect the publishing situation rather accurately.
12
The Lampeter Corpus
religious apathy (Spurr 1991:378) — perhaps rather the latter, as atheism could still be the cause of sharp attacks against persons suspected of it, e.g. Hobbes (Hunter 1981). Nevertheless, there was, after the Glorious Revolution, a new atmosphere of liberalism, which fostered the growth of ‘heresies’ such as Socianism or Deism — whose members were seen as suspect not only by the Established Church but also by the state, for there was a certain connection with political radicalism (Kenyon 1977:83) as in the case of John Toland, the author of PolA1720. The question of atheism/religious apathy, while of interest in itself, is also important for estimating the possible impact of sermons on the population: not everybody might have been exposed to them as often as Samuel Pepys (cf. his diary). In general it was assumed, however, that sermons reached many people and had a great influence, so that in each decade one of the RELIGION texts (RelA) is always a sermon. After more than one hundred years of intense Protestant indoctrination and of reading the Bible in English a very far-reaching religious influence – even if maybe more on the subconscious level – on the morals, the thinking and also the mode of expression of the people can be assumed (cf. Humphreys 1954:168). And of course the sheer amount of publications on religious themes can be taken as proof of considerable public interest in the matter. 15 The real problem of the Anglican Church and the state at the time was probably not fear of atheism but the danger perceived to come from the Dissenting and Catholic camps. The English apprehension of Catholicism reached psychopathic dimensions (Mullet 1987:148), the best corpus example of which is text RelA1679, the "sermon of the Antichrist", by whom none other than the Pope is meant. Anti-Catholic sentiment also had the clearest and longest lasting political influence, in bringing about the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights (1688/89) as well as the Act of Settlement (1701), the latter forbidding a Catholic monarch or consort. The events leading to the first of these are defended and justified in PolB1690, one of whose authors happened to be a future bishop of Gloucester. While antiCatholicism could rely on widespread support within the population, the Dissenters were, so to speak, the ‘enemies from within’. The execution of Charles I and the Puritan Commonwealth that followed had left England traumatized about the effects of radical Protestantism, a feeling that lasted well into the 18th century (e.g. RelB1718; cf. Kenyon 1977:83). The ongoing sermons before Parliament every January 30, on which RelB1730 is a comment, testify to this. Therefore, the first approach was to suppress and 15
Spufford (1981:130; 138) found a proportion of up to 31% of religious publications among the chapbooks, dominating especially the cheap market - thus pointing to their accessibility also for the lower levels of society. Cf. also Hunter (1981:163).
The Lampeter Corpus
13
attack Dissent (cf. for instance RelB1667 with a discussion of this), which, naturally, was resisted by the Dissenters (cf. an ‘answer’ written by William Penn, RelB1674) and which was also not ultimately successful: the Toleration Act of 1689 relieved the Dissenters of most restrictions. While there seemed to be a numerical decline of Dissenters towards the end of our period (Spurr 1991:387), their culture, e.g. in the shape of the progressive Dissenting academies, was an important contribution to English culture. In spite of all external and also church-internal problems the Anglican Church of England was the dominant religious influence in most people’s life. It survived most conflicts relatively intact, such as that between jurors and non-jurors (e.g. the author of RelB1701) or the Bangorian Controversy (RelB1718, RelB1721), and managed to stabilize itself in the 18th century, producing more calm and social balance within its ranks. The Anglican clergy on the whole was rather open to new developments, even progressive ones, which meant, for instance, that bishops also busied themselves with other than religious (or political) matters, as for instance George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, and mathematics (SciB1735). With regard to POLITICS one can think principally of two possible types of texts, i.e. (i) texts on political theory, or (ii) treatments of and comments on current political affairs. It is especially the latter kind that is found in the Lampeter Corpus; theoretical considerations enter into some texts, such as PolB1659 (the definition of tyranny) or PolA1684 (the discussion of monarchy as such), but they are always firmly anchored in some current state or event — in those two cases Cromwell’s rule and the Exclusion Crisis respectively. It seems as if the publication format of a pamphlet does not readily offer itself to the exposition of political theory. Thus the Lampeter POLITICS texts are closely mirroring the well-known course of English history, e.g. the English Civil War and the Scottish involvement in it (PolA1646), government during the Commonwealth (PolA1659), the success of General Monck in preparing the ground for the Restoration (PolB1660), the Exclusion Crisis (PolA1684) leading up to the Glorious Revolution (PolB1690), the ongoing Jacobite threat to England after this (PolA1702), the rise of party politics following their beginnings in the 1680s (PolA1711), or — connected with the emergence of party democracy — the intricacies of elections (PolB1724). It was the existence of elections, and thus of an electorate, which made political information in print so especially important; one modern estimate puts the number of voters at c. 340,000, that is one in every four men (Speck 1987:45f). But those who were not entitled to vote also seem to have shared in a keen interest in politics, naturally particularly so in times of crisis (Mullet 1987:130). While the great majority of corpus texts deal with English affairs, there is also some interest
14
The Lampeter Corpus
in Ireland (PolA1720) and more notably for Scotland (PolB1689, PolA1699, PolB1706), reflecting both the greater importance of Scotland for England and also more self-confidence on the part of the Scots. Most texts are very ‘insular’ in outlook, but foreign (PolA1672) and colonial (PolA1699) matters occur as well. However, those are much more common in the domain ECONOMY — a telling sign of where English priorities lay in that age. The POLITICS texts as a whole usually exhibit a highly argumentative style of writing, and while this is also true of individual texts from other domains they do in that respect represent a more unified group. The domain ECONOMY is not to be understood as ‘economics’, whose beginning as an (academic) discipline can be traced to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), but it represents the great mass of writing on that topic existing before, which is best characterized as ‘economic nationalism’. There was indeed a strong interconnection between politics and economic matters, with the latter being both a means and an aim in the political struggle with other nations. Most notably there was the economic rivalry with the Dutch (cf. EcA1652, EcB1700), which even resulted in three wars during that period. As economic competition and activity in general was beginning to take place on a world-wide stage (a first ‘globalization’, so to speak), foreign trade (e.g. EcA1720, EcB1731) and colonial economies (EcA1714, EcA1731) gained in importance — and the whole enterprise also became more risky (cf. for instance the case of lost ships in LawA1673). Risks, and also greater costs, were more easily shared by groups of businessmen such as the East India Company (EcB1641, EcB1676, EcB1681, EcA1697), founded in 1600. Joint-stock companies like this one were a new development of the 17th century and an important step towards the modern form of capitalism. But also for the individual merchant/entrepreneur and for the state as such the question of finance became ever more pressing, as trade became more expansive, and thus more expensive, and at the same time more competitive. State financing was of course as sensitive a topic then as it is nowadays and the search was constantly on for relatively ‘harmless’ methods of raising revenue (EcB1660, EcB1696, EcB1717). The longest-lasting outcome of that period’s successful struggle to come to terms with finances was the Bank of England, founded in 1694 (EcA1705).16 Of course, both foreign economic involvement and sober financing require a good foundation in the domestic economy (cf. EcA1681). Many people saw this very clearly, and while, probably as a result of public interest, the press reflected outside affairs to a 16
Cf. for instance Graves & Silcock (1984:169-193) on the English financial system. According to them, by 1700 it was very well-developed and definitely superior to those of Continental Europe, so that texts from that period reflecting the evolution might be especially interesting.
The Lampeter Corpus
15
much greater extent, developments at home were not to be neglected. In both agriculture and manufacture increasing specialisation and sophistication were noticeable, often helped along by new inventions or techniques. The progressive farmer or entrepreneur would be expected to encourage ‘improvement’ (e.g. EcB1653, cf. also SciA1653), and while all this did not amount to an Industrial Revolution yet, it clearly pointed in that direction. The great mass and variety of economic publications reveal clear popular interest in the matter, and it seems that most people saw business as something positive and worthwhile (Humphreys 1954:52ff). And they obviously regarded it as something down-to-earth: all the texts are connected to one or the other current event or problem, there is nothing abstract or theoretical about them. SCIENCE is perhaps the most exciting of all the domains, and that is because science in our modern sense of the word is only really emerging during this period.17 What one finds in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially the former, is an overlapping of two scientific traditions, that of the old academic, tradition-bound approach and that of the new rational and empirical approach going under the name of ‘real (or natural, experimental) philosophy’. Corresponding to this, there was a clash and transformation of world-views, with somewhat confused views of metaphysical and nonmechanical causes gradually giving way to a clearly fact-based, rational understanding of the visible world. However, even the new ‘real philosophy’ did not right from the beginning conform to our narrow modern definition of science, it was rather "centring on natural and mechanical problems but extending through the life sciences towards medicine and through chemistry and applied mathematics towards technology" (Hunter 1981:32). As the terms ‘applied’ and ‘technology’ already hint at, there was a strong utilitarian bend present in the new approach, with the question of the usefulness of scientific studies for the amelioration of human circumstances being given due consideration. However, the most defining element of ‘real philosophy’ was the methods used, which are all based on Baconian empiricism and which are still in use in science today. These are the collection of data, the careful observation of real-world processes and events, the formulation of hypotheses and the conducting of experiments. Probably the best embodiment of this new science is the Royal Society founded in 1662. The domain SCIENCE is supposed to reflect this historical picture, and thus the variety of texts it includes is only to be understood if one disregards the narrow modern definition of the term. Astrology (SciA1644), for example, definitely represents the older approach, but nevertheless is still within the 17
Cf. Hunter (1981) for a good introduction into early modern science.
16
The Lampeter Corpus
confines of science in the 1640s (e.g. Clay 1984:185) — after all, even Newton still dabbled in alchemy! Furthermore, the traditional kind of science is also represented by such textbook-like treatments of ‘secure’ knowledge as are found in SciB1652, SciB1666, or SciA1698. Among the representatives of the ‘real philosophy’ one finds texts that even today would be regarded as prototypical science (SciA1666, SciA1674, SciB1676, SciA1683, SciB1684, SciA1720, and SciB1722), with some well-known authors such as Hooke or Boyle. Authors of some other texts must have been well established within the circle of the virtuosi (as the new scientists were then called), even though their output might seem too applied or dubious to us (e.g. SciA1653, SciB1696, SciA1709, SciB1714, SciA1730). Two texts (SciB1701, SciA1712) are special in so far as they are not ‘scientific’ as such, but rather deal with the status of scientific professions, something that is important from the perspective of the increasing consolidation and closing-up of these professions during the early modern era. What makes this domain of additional interest is the fact that scientific texts (together with sermons) have been suspected to be at the forefront of the stylistic changes taking place at the time (Jones 1951; Adolph 1968). Two principal kinds of texts combine to make up the domain LAW . On the one hand, some texts belong there because of their text type, i.e. they represent genres that only occur in the legal sphere such as statutes (LawA1643), petitions (LawB1661) or pleas (LawB1715). On the other hand, there are those texts that deal with topics or describe events in the sphere of law; they are rather about law or legal questions than within law. Some of them give an insight into the administration of law as such (LawA1680) or, on the basis of this, put the case for certain improvements, as for instance LawA1653 and LawA1694 do. Others discuss specific legal cases which either had caused public dispute, such as LawB1688, LawB1697 and LawB1704 (all of them concerned in some way with royal prerogative), or which were deemed to be of general public interest, e.g. LawA1703 or LawB1738, the latter one being concerned with the case of a printer and involving the question of freedom of the press. Law texts, as some of the above already show, can also have a close affinity to politics, be it because they touch on the question of civil rights (LawB1649, LawA1732), or because they deal with treason cases (LawA1716, LawA1723, LawB1723). Trial or court-room transcripts, such as LawA1668 and LawB1678, but also LawA1716, form a class of their own between those two types and provide a most vivid picture not only of the workings of the legal system but also of everyday life in that period. In so far as there is some actual ‘speech’, however filtered through writing, found in them, they are especially interesting for register or stylistic studies. What is also intriguing about the
The Lampeter Corpus
17
domain LAW in general is the fact that on the one hand it reflects something so typically English as the Common law system and on the other hand it was one of the last spheres of public life to officially give up the use of a foreign language with the abolition of ‘Law French’ in 1732. While MISCELLANEOUS might not sound like a very useful name for a domain, it was thought necessary in order to enable the inclusion of a wide variety of texts evidently typical of the time and the contemporary press which fit none of the other categories and are also too varied as a group to be given a more descriptive name. Quite a few of these texts are what one would find in the popular press nowadays. Among those there are topics such as natural catastrophes (MscA1669), the supernatural (MscB1666, MscA1696, MscA1712), frauds and swindlers (MscB1692), ‘adventure story’ (MscA1685), as well as biographies of people of interest (MscB1676, MscB1729, MscB1739). Other texts would fall rather under the headings of manuals or practical advice, be it more in the social sphere (MscA1676, MscB1700) or in garden and household (MscB1718, MscA1722, MscA1730), the latter combining its advice with a sales advert. Some texts view matters with political implications from a different, sometimes private, angle, for example the Civil War from the point of view of a militia man (MscA1643), ship-building and its effects on the strength of the English navy (MscB1646), or an important contractor on the rebuilding of London (MscB1685). Satire, which is so typical of the era, is also found (MscA1650, perhaps also MscB1700), as well as a self-reflective treatise on the freedom of the press (MscA1704). While the corpus thus allows illuminating insights into many aspects of life in early modern England, the domain structure and the variety of text types 18 present also make it possible to create sub-corpora in order to study different registers 19, styles, or formality levels, for instance. The following pie chart shows the absolute (number of words) and relative sizes (percentage of corpus) of these domain sub-corpora:
18
The text headers will contain information on what the text calls itself, e.g. essay, treatise, speech etc. But of course not every text contains a self-description of that kind, in which case the slot will remain empty. An additional text classification (cf. Schmied/Claridge 1997 for an early attempt) on our, the compilers’, part was considered too subjective in nature and thus dispensed with. 19 As the Lampeter Corpus period is a time of changing social conditions and emerging institutions, registers should not be seen as monolithic blocks, however. Fairclough’s (1988) concept of multi-registerial texts might be interesting here.
18
The Lampeter Corpus
Science 222,395 words 20%
Economy 173,077 words 15% Law 204,645 words 17%
Religion 202,802 words 17%
Politics 204,839 words 17%
Miscellaneous 164,344 words 14%
Figure 2.2: The domains of the Lampeter Corpus The second view into early modern England mentioned above is provided by the authors of the corpus texts and the information about them contained in the text headers. Of course, this is not always the case, definitely not for anonymous texts (16 in all) and those with ‘corporate’ authors (4), but there are also some authors, though known by name, about whom nothing could be found out (11). However, in all other cases it was attempted to give as much of the following information as possible: the date and place of birth, sex, age, places of residence up to the time of writing the text, educational history, occupation(s), as well as the socio-economic status of the writer and of his/her father or mother, occasionally supplemented by a further biographical note (such as “Royalist affiliations” for James Howell [PolA1648]). The following is an example taken from the header of text SciA1674:
Robert Hooke 1635 Freshwater (Isle of Wight) Freshwater; Oxford; London; Oxford; London
The Lampeter Corpus
19
<EDUCATION>Westminster-School; Christ Church, Oxford: MA (1663) secretary; Gresham Professor of geometry; surveyor of London; inventor; professor of Mechanics to the Royal Society; perpetual curator of experiments to the Royal Society <SOCECSTATUS>professions (academic) <SOCECSTATUSPAT>professions (clergy) From a sociolinguistic perspective it is the classification according to socio-economic status that is probably of most relevance. Of course, it is difficult to re-create a sociological profile of a past society and the results of such attempts always have to be treated with some caution. Nevertheless, the following model, which is based on the research of such historians as Holderness (1976), Wrightson (1982, 1986), Clay (1984), Houston (1992), and Coward (1994), seems to present a fair picture of society at the time of the Lampeter Corpus. I. Nobility · Aristocracy / Peerage (dukes, earls, marquises, viscounts, barons) · Gentry (baronets, knights, esquires, gentlemen) · Archbishops & Bishops II. Landed and Professional Classes · Officers · Government Officials · Clergy · Lawyers · Medical Profession · Merchants and Manufacturers · Yeomanry (rural) III. The "middling sort" · Freemen (masters, craftsmen, tradesmen) · Husbandmen / Craftsmen / Tradesmen (rural) IV. Lower ranks · Wage-earners (journeymen, apprentices, servants etc.) · Cottagers / Craftsmen / Tradesmen / Labourers (rural) V. The Poor
20
The Lampeter Corpus
Factors that play a role in determining social status include birth, title, wealth and the nature of that wealth, life-style, occupation, form of land tenure, tenure of positions of authority and legal status, not all of which are of equal weight, however (Wrightson 1982:22). The model should not be seen as static; there were of course shifts, even if only small, in the relationship between social groups during the 100 years covered here, and there was also the not negligible fact of individual social mobility (Wrightson 1986:180; 187). Naturally, not all members of society as found in this model are relevant with regard to authorship because of the uneven spread of literacy (especially the ability to write) through society (Spufford 1981:21ff) and also because access to the printing presses would have been uneven for the different social classes. 20 Thus the two lowest levels in the above model can usually be disregarded in the question of (direct) authorship and the middling sort, so to speak, will also be under-represented in that respect. Most authors will invariably come from the two top levels, which from a sociolinguistic point of view is rather deplorable. However, at least the second level and the existence of ‘social risers’ (i.e. higher social level than the father) allow for some possibly interesting variation. Another point which is somewhat disappointing is the rarity of female authors, only two in the whole Lampeter Corpus (both in the domain RELIGION ); probably it was difficult for women to get access to the printing presses. 21 It is noteworthy that one of the corpus’s female authors had inherited a print shop from her husband, which enabled her to print her material herself. The corpus thus represents the different possibilities of social and cultural participation for different members of society. Looking through the corpus authors one thus finds the following social spread: in the first and highest class there are 22 authors in all, the majority (11) of them belonging to the aristocracy, while six are members of the gentry and five are found in the ranks of the higher clergy. Most authors, however, are found in the second social class, representing among them all the possible professions but not the yeomanry (which is only found in the father generation of some authors). Of the 59 people in this group, the 20
However, Smith (1994:6; 23) remarks that authorship could reach rather far down the social scale (especially during the Commonwealth), that the capacity to put something into print grew from the 1640s onwards and that in general new kinds of authors emerged in England in the 17th century. 21 I.e. those that could write at all. In fact, nearly 90% of all women in 17th-century England could not even write their names (Cressy 1980:41). However, among London women illiteracy declined rather dramatically down to 44% by 1720 (ibid. 147).
The Lampeter Corpus
21
majority of 24 belong to the clergy. The urban part of the third, ‘middling’ group is present in the corpus with 15 authors. About 14 authors could be characterized as ‘social risers’, as they are somewhat higher up in the social ranking than their fathers were. The opposite process is also found, usually as a drop from the first into the second class, which is not surprising as younger sons of the gentry, and to a lesser extent also of the aristocracy, who did not inherit had to find another source of income. An example, though probably less out of need than out of inclination, is Boyle (SciB1684), who was born into the aristocracy, but then became a scientist. Together with the variety regarding occupations and the various educational courses taken by the authors, the existing social spread also makes it possible to approach the Lampeter Corpus from a sociolinguistic point of view. What distinguishes the Lampeter Corpus authors from most of their colleagues in PDE corpora is the nature and status of their writing. In the 17th and, to a lesser extent, the early 18th centuries "writing was not yet regarded as a profession, but rather as a form of civilised communication" (Bonham-Carter 1978:12). Although there were authors who wrote on commission for the booksellers and for money (Feather 1988:103f), for the majority of early modern authors writing was neither their sole occupation nor even the most prominent part of their life or profession. Eisenstein (1983:100) calls these authors (until the 18th century) "quasi-amateurs". It is probably not saying too much if one expects this to have an influence on their use of the language, e.g. the possible absence of professional group styles. The third thing the Lampeter Corpus mirrors is the nature of public discourse at that time and thus, indirectly, the audience of the texts found in the corpus. That public discourse and public opinion were taken seriously then and its machinations and outcome consciously exploited by, e.g., politicians is expressly stated by one of the highly contentious texts of the Lampeter Corpus (PolB1730, my italics): However the whole Stream of their Malice, for some Time, flowed only in this Channel, to vilify this Minister’s Name, to arraign his Conduct, depreciate his Services, blacken his Character, and weaken his Credit, both with his Prince and his Fellow-Subjects; all Hands were imployed, and all Engines set at Work; Manuscripts were circulated, the Press loaded, Coffee-House Talkers, Table-Wits, and Bottle-Companions had their Instructions given them; and the grossest Falshoods were inculcated in the grossest Terms; ... (p.11) The Transition was easy from Ministers to Princes; and the same Methods that had served to defame the one, were now imployed to
22
The Lampeter Corpus depreciate the other. The whole Artillery of Pamphleteers, Balladmongers, and Libellers was drawn out; ... (p.17)
All the means then possible were used, and while the author of that text mentions them accusingly, he himself is also using the most effective of those means, the pamphlet, to react to them. Pamphlet publications could be more effective than, for instance, the newspapers (one of which, The Craftsman, PolB1730 is directed against), because (a) they could treat of their topics more exhaustively if they wanted, and more importantly (b) because they could be less easily traced and suppressed as they did not emanate regularly from one rather constant source. As "the pamphlet was (...) the principle [sic] means of reaching a mass audience" (Feather 1986:38), it can be assumed that most of the authors, especially those writing about matters of great interest and/or contention, wrote with the widest possible audience in mind. Pamphlets usually want to influence and sway public opinion, and this they can only do if they make themselves clearly understood. Gordon (1966:9) states that even when print became the normal means of dissemination, much prose remained oral in conception. The drama, the sermon, and the pamphlet (...) perpetuate in print what was first conceived in terms of the spoken word. It can therefore further be assumed that most pamphlets are not written in any kind of complicated or intricate style, but rather at a neutral level. To assume a more ‘colloquial’ level, in spite of Gordon’s comment, would be to expect too much, as the stylistic awareness of the age was too well developed for that; one of the Lampeter authors even felt it necessary to apologize for the — in his opinion — inadequately humble style of his work.22 How aware authors were of their readers is also shown by the frequency of addresses to the reader being attached to their main work.23 The natural place of pamphlets was the streets and especially London’s coffee-house scene (Sommerville 1996:163), as also mentioned in the corpus quotes above. While pamphlets, as well as everything else, were 22
"... and tho’ possibly my Stile may appear rough and unpolish’d, which the courteous Reader I hope will a little excuse, ..." (MscA1685, p. 26). But a rather desperate statement by Richard Baxter (Reliquiae Baxterianae, 1696), one of the authors of MscB1658, contains an implicit admission that the style of most writers is probably still too complicated: "Indeed, the more I have to do with the ignorant sort of people the more I find that we cannot possibly speak too plainly to them. If we do not speak to them in their own vulgar dialect, they understand us not." (quoted in Gordon 1966:125f). 23 Twenty texts contain addresses to the reader; additionally, there are fourteen addresses to specific persons or groups of people.
The Lampeter Corpus
23
in their great majority printed in London (e.g. Feather 1988: 67), they also reached the rest of the country, partly through pedlars but also through a network of booksellers (Spufford 1981; Alston 1981; Feather 1988:41). Nevertheless, the London readership was the most important one (Smith 1994:26); London was not only by far the biggest city in the country (with 575,000 inhabitants (c. 10-12%) from a whole population (England/Wales) of c. 5-5.5 million in about 1700)24, but also the place where all important decisions were taken and thus where these could be influenced by pressure from below (cf. for instance the Saccheverell affair and the riots connected with it, beginning in 1709). The c. 500 coffee-houses in London were the places where people congregated not only to drink coffee, but to read literature, pamphlets or newspapers and to discuss their content (Humphreys 1954:18; Feather 1988:54). Or they did not even have to read them: early Modern England was still to a considerable extent an oral-based culture or at least one with a considerable oral residue (cf. Ong 1982). People would still read things aloud for others to share in the information (cf. Cressy 1980:14; Feather 1988:94 and Aries/Chartier 1991:150ff, also the illustration p. 130). Sommerville (1996:125) quotes Charles Leslie as saying that even the illiterate will Gather together about one that can Read, and Listen to an Observator or Review (as I have seen them in the Streets) where all the Principles of Rebellion are Instilled into them, and they are Taught ... to Banter Religion.25 Authors were aware of these practices, and therefore it is not completely inappropriate to assume that they not only wrote for readers, but also for listeners. Through the practice of reading aloud, illiterate and semi-literate people also gained access to the world of pamphlets, thereby increasing the audience. Though the extent of literacy in societies of the past is extremely hard to measure (Schofield 1981), and estimates in the extant literature differ (e.g. Cressy 1980, Spufford 1981), there is reason to believe that literacy, in par24
Figures from Wrightson (1982:128), Borsay (1987:197) and Clay (1984:2; 170). Urbanization, i.e. the proportion of the nation living in towns, was expanding; by 1700 probably a quarter of the population of England and Wales was urban (cf. also the map in Clay 1984:168). London was even a real metropolis, definitely the biggest city in Western Europe and one of the three to four largest in the world (Borsay 1987:200). An increasing urban population also meant more (active) participants in the public discourse of the time, among other things because literacy was probably more widespread in towns than in rural areas (Cressy 1980:72). 25 Source given by Sommerville: Rehearsal, Preface to the first collected volume published in 1708.
24
The Lampeter Corpus
ticular the ability to read (both the easier task and the one taught first in schools (e.g. Schofield 1981:460), was more common than often thought and that it even trickled down to the lower reaches of society (e.g. Spufford 1981) — although there was of course a clear social stratification in literacy levels. Furthermore, illiteracy certainly declined during the early modern period, as can be seen in the following graph taken from Cressy (1980:177):
Figure 2.3: The decline of illiteracy in early modern England (reproduced from Cressy 1980:177) One important aspect for the amount or increase of literacy is certainly religion: more people in Protestant cultures, such as the British one, have been shown to possess books at all (an indication of literacy) and also in greater numbers than their contemporaries in Catholic environments (Aries/Chartier 1991:134ff). In addition, however, print as such was probably not the least factor in bringing about an increase in literacy by encouraging people in daily or at least weekly contact with printed matter (an amount of exposure not possible in manuscript cultures!) to learn to read and write (Eisenstein 1985:21). While the wide audience thus must have had some checking influence on ‘high-flying’ style in pamphlets, there will also have been a reverse influ ence on the audience by the language actually used in the pamphlets. Seen psychologically, written, more specifically printed language has an inherent authority never attained by the spoken word — and in an age that (a) exhibits a rather high awareness of linguistic matters, especially of the status of the English language, and (b) gradually sets out on the course of standardizing the language, the role played by the language of public discourse is by no means negligible. Stein (1994:14) has pointed out that "it could well be argued that inherent in the written printed language of the time there was a
The Lampeter Corpus
25
codifying effect per se" and that it was already the case "long before (with e.g. Johnson and Lowth) a prescriptivism based on codification proper set in", which thus gives crucial importance to the 17th century in this respect. Printed matter not only disseminated specific linguistic features among its wide audience, but also influenced the future perception of language as such (cf. Bex 1996:32). It is thus especially the ‘mainstream’ features of English, those that are part of the drift (cf. chap.3) and those that are associated with neutral to moderately conversational styles — like the analytic verb forms examined here — which will be illuminated by a closer look at these kinds of writing.
3. Multi-word Verbs as a Group 3.1 An Attempt at a Definition The focus here will be on the question of what can count as a verb in the context of a sentence. Or, how are expressions such as the underlined ones in the following sentences, taken at random from the BNC, to be treated in this respect? (1) (2) (3a) (3b) (4) (5)
A small party may get a substantial number of votes, but if they fall short of the quota it will not normally win a seat. (BNC EW4 700) You work with your dog so you have to look after him very carefully. (BNC A17 1502) She has made a choice not only of person, but of class. (BNC AN4 2928) What you may have to take into consideration is the well-being of companies or individuals you are dependent on for your future. (BNC CBC 4727) Above all, though, glasnost and greater contact with the West have brought about a fait accompli. (BNC A2X 432) We all fell in with what you wanted, we all bent over backwards to do what you wanted. (BNC FAB 3392)
What they all have in common is that (a) they consist of more than one word1, i.e. are analytic constructions, and (b) nevertheless represent a semantic unity that is characteris tic of a single word or lexical unit. While some elements (especially prepositions and particles) are ‘easier’ to integrate into the verb phrase, others, such as a choice (3a) have not found as ready an acceptance — after all they are susceptible to a traditional in terpretation as a direct object. Here, all the elements in the above examples will be seen as being part of the verb. In all other respects, however, they clearly differ from each other, most notably in their internal make -up, but also — as a consequence — in their syntactic behaviour. Moreover, their frequencies and thus their impact on the structure of English v ary greatly, with the type found in (4) certainly being the most prominent one. Nevertheless, their common characteristics justify combining them into one larger group for the purpose of investigation (cf. 3.4). In the history of 1
The notion of ‘word’ will throughout the study be used in an everyday, quasi pretheoretical way (cf. Bauer’s discussion (1983:7-10)), as a more theoretical definition is not necessary for the problem in hand.
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
27
linguistics, these structures were mostly treated neither as a group nor in a systematic way. Therefore statements concerning them in older general descriptions of English — which I will briefly look at now — are usually scattered all over the works in question. Kruisinga’s (1925:II/3,72) definition of a compound, which according to him is "a combination of two or more words forming a semantic unit which is not identical with the combined meanings of its elements", is of interest here, as one of the examples he gives for such compo unds, pay attention, fits in with (3). In other places he explicitly mentions "compound verbs" (used for a combination of (2) and (4), (ibid. II/1, 113 ff) and "separable compounds" (reminiscent of German ‘separable verbs’), illustrated among others by cases like (4) (ibid. II/1, 65). Behind these separable compounds may lie his distinction between "distance compounds", which he exemplifies by for my brother’s sake, and "contact-compounds" such as schoolmaster (II/3,73). "Semi-compounds" is another of his terms, used for combinations like laugh at, think fit, take care of that are on the one hand "closely connected in meaning", but on the other are "not completely isolated" (II/3, 76). Kruisinga’s usage of the word ‘compound’ clearly shows that he is prepared to give word status to such combinations as in (1)-(5) above and that his main reason for doing so is their semantic cohesion. Poutsma (1926:25,118) employs the term "group-verb" for cases in which there is a close link between a verb and its complemen t and in which "the component parts form no real separate subjects of thought", i.e. just like Kruisinga his motivation for recognising a class of compound verbs is semantic. Jespersen (1928:III,294) carefully states that some phrases, his examples being taken from the classes of (2) and (3) above, "are now felt as wholes". In another place (V,6) he explicitly calls them "composite verbal expressions" and analyses them as a whole as W in his SWO-structures. Thus he draws syntactic consequences from his observation. Two different descriptions are employed by Curme (1931:572f), "transitive compound verbs" for such types as (2) and (3), and "group words" for combinations like (4). This latter term is used to distinguish some groups of words from other syntactically similar ones on the grounds that they exhibit the "oneness of meaning" otherwise only found in a word. It is clear from the statements and opinions just quoted that the prob lem posed by the structures in (1) to (5) and similar ones has received so me treatment, albeit mostly rather haphazardly and unsystematically in early studies. Recently, linguistic treatments of this point have been more systematic and intensive, as chapters 3 and 4 will show. Nevertheless, with the exception of Quirk et al. (1985), they have hardly been comprehensive with respect to multi-word verbs as a group. Thus, the attempt to deal with
28
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
all kinds of multi-word verbs in a more comprehensive, theoretical and empirical manner seems both necessary and appropriate. This is what the present work tries to do. I will take Quirk et al.’s (1985:1150) definition of a multi-word verb as a "unit which behaves to some extent either lexically or syntactically as a single verb" as a starting point. "To some extent" is symptomatic of everything having to do with multi-word verbs, as there are no clear -cut boundaries, only a cline — and the cut-off points will always have to remain based more or less on the subjective feeling of the linguist dealing with the problem. I do not, therefore, propose to offer a hard and fast theory of the problem, but simply an account of the matter which seems plausible to me. Another boundary that multi-word verbs touch or rather straddle is the one between syntax and semantics, cf. "either lexically or syntactically" in the quotation above. Some of the complexes one intuitively classifies as multi word verbs will fulfil lexical/semantic criteria, others syntactic criteria, while a third group will satisfy criteria in both spheres (cf. also Burgschmidt/Perkins 1985). Fulfilment of all possible criteria in each case cannot reasonably be expected in this context, in my opinion. I intend to use surface structure (cf. also Denison 1985b:189) and semantics (similar to many of the linguists cited above) most of all in my approach to the topic. "As language is used, meaning is both the beginning and the end point" (Dixon 1992:5), and syntax is ‘only’ the means of realizing the intended meaning. The following then is an attempt at a definition. First of all, a multi word verb is a group consisting of two or more words, regardless of whether they form an uninterrupted sequence or are spread discontinuously across the clause. Secondly, this group is made up of whatever in the context of a clause or sentence transports the concept of, or information about, the ‘process’ itself (cf. Halliday 1985:102), the ‘verbal’ meaning. The group should thus exhibit what Cruse (1986:77) terms "the union of a lexical form and a single sense". Here I am interested in how verbal semantic s may be enriched, changed or even taken over by additional elements. Notice, however, that not all its elements have to make a semantic contribution to the overall meaning; there can be empty or operator elements. Thirdly, the items making up such a multi-word verb do not necessarily all belong to the traditional word class verb; possible candidates are nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions. It is clear, however, that at least one real verb must be present to fulfil the necessary grammatical functions associated with a verb in a clause. Lastly, the internal structure of multi -word verb combinations is usually such that an alter native syntactic analysis (perhaps also connected with an alternative meaning) of them and their connection
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
29
with the rest of the clause is perfectly possible (cf. Dixon 1982:39), e.g. the analysis as a verb-direct object sequence (make a choice in (3a) above) or as verb + prepositional phrase instead of as a lexical multi -word verb (cf. Quirk et al.’s (1985:1150) two analyses of dispose of N). While the first, third and fourth points refer to (surface) form, the second one is about meaning, i.e. function, which is the most important element of the definition. An additional point is stability over time, the habitual nature of t he combination (Gläser 1986:16;19; Burgschmidt/Perkins 1985:27). This is cer tainly important, but it can only be verified empirically with other wise pre-defined multi-word verbs. Cruse’s notion of semantic constituents (1986:23 -32), which are formplus-meaning complexes (cf. the elements of the above definition), is, I think, of interest here. He himself uses the concept to award the status of minimal lexical units to idioms and — with some hesitation — to dead metaphors, but not to collocations (ibid. 37-45). According to this notion, multi-word verbs could only be considered lexical units if they represent one minimal semantic constituent. To illustrate this with Cruse’s examples, on the mat in The cat sat on the mat is a semantic constituent of the whole sentence which, however, consists of the further minimal semantic constituents on, the, and mat. Cook —’s goose, on the other hand, in This will cook Arthur’s goose cannot be divided into the constituents cook, ’s, goose, but is itself already a minimal semantic constituent. Analysing the relevant part of (6) into its semantic constituents, we get she - ... - looked - into her big, brown eyes - ..., which can be tested by putting the constituent (here the last of the three) into another sentential context, to which it should make an identical semantic contribution, cf. The doctor put the eyedrops into her big, brown eyes. (6)
She held Lizzie’s paw, looked into her big, brown eyes, wishing Lizzie could live forever. (BNC A17 1097)
The constituent in question here separates further into the minimal semantic constituents into — her- big — brown — eyes, which could be individually contrasted with at — his — bright — blue — eyes, for example; according to this theory the exchanging of blue for brown should yield parallel changes of meaning in different sentences. The substitutions made change the meaning of the whole sentence, but do not alter the basic meanings of the other individual constituents, e.g. whether there is the preposition at or into does not have any effect on she, look, eyes etc. as such. An analysis of (7), however, yields a different picture: ... — a House of Commons committee — had looked into — the possibility — ....., all of them further divisible (within limits, cf. House of Commons).
30
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
(7)
Even as early as 1840 a House of Commons committee had looked into the possibility of connecting Dover with Calais. (BNC A19 1780)
But looked into here is not further divisible. If one substitutes, e.g., stare for look, or at for into in sentences (6) and (7), they will not undergo parallel changes of meaning (recurrent semantic contrast), which would be necessary to prove that look is a minimal semantic constituent in both. Besides, a substitution with at would also change the meaning of look — which is an indication of multi-word verb status as the substitution of one part of a multi word unit changes the overall meaning of the unit (cf. Zgusta 1967:579). The surface sequence looked into makes a different semantic contribution to each of the sentences. The semantic contribution of the form to (7) is repli cated in The engineers looked into the problem, where a substitution with, say, ignore or discuss also produces an identical semantic contrast. The fact that ignore could also substitute for look into in (6), and that it is very hard to describe what identical semantic contrasts or contributions are, points to the limitations of this procedure. It is neither as straightforward, nor as precise and non-circular, i.e. non-intuitive, as Cruse makes it out to be. Nevertheless, it is a more varied and flexible test than the traditional one of substitution with a simplex synonym — especially as such a substitution is often impossible, as for example in (8) and (9)2. (8) (9)
No, a childminder cannot normally take care of a sick child .... (BNC A0J 307) I sacrifice everything for cricket, never stop out late and always take the greatest care of myself. (BNC A6Y 183)
Intuitively, take care of in both sentences is a lexical unit with the same or almost identical meaning of "restoring/maintaining health". But the substitu tion test will only work indirectly, i.e. for all the other elements of the sen tence, because the discontinuous, modified group in (9) makes it impossible to substitute another unit and still leave the syntactical structure intact. This seems to be the way Cruse (1986:37) himself proceeds in the case of cook — ’s goose (cf. above). Another problem is that one could, e.g., substitute notice for care (but cf. Zgusta 1967 referred to above), pointing towards the divisibility of take care of into the minimal semantic constituents take, care, and of. The substitution results can thus be contradictory in the case of individual combinations. In my opinion, given the varied syntactical nature of multi-word verbs, the ‘outwards-in’ procedure — substitution-testing 2
Discarding both look after and care for, as they are themselves multi-word complexes.
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
31
everything in the sentence until only the suspected complex lexical unit remains left — is a valid testing method. The approach outlined above admittedly makes multi-word verbs a rather open, and therefore somewhat unwieldy, class. However, the more one subdivides this general class and defines those subsections (cf. chap.4), the less open the approach becomes, although quite a few fuzzy edges will always remain. Before continuing with describing several possibilities of subdivision and proposing the scheme to be employed here, a few more words about the term used here are in order. As mentioned above, "multi-word verb" has been taken over from Quirk et al. (1985), basically because it is a very noncommittal cover term that can serve for a whole variety of combinations. Ultimately, however, these forms are very much context -, i.e. sentence- or clause-bound. In many respects, therefore, the label multi -word predicate might be more appropriate, but this would miss the fact that not a few of the structures in question are lexicalized. Thus, the term multi -word verb, which I will continue using, should be taken with the caveat pointed out here. 3.2 Classification Schemes for Multi-word Verbs All individual types of multi-word verbs have received some sort of treatment in the literature, and while most of this has been done in isolation, there have nevertheless been some attempts to draw up (more or less) complete lists of possible types and to classify them. 3 Mitchell (1958) A classic in this area is the classification given by Mitchell (1958:106), even though it deals only with a part of all the possible combinations. It has the advantage of great clarity and simplicity. His whole system is based on binary contrasts, as is visible in the following scheme: non-prepositional (to take) (1) non-phrasal prepositional (to take to) (2) non-prepositional (to put up) (3) phrasal prepositional (to put up with) (4)
3
The examples used in section 3.2. are those used by the quoted authors themselves.
32
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
With (1) representing the simplex verb, the classification deals with three types of multi-word verbs, namely prepositional verbs (2), phrasal verbs (3) and phrasal-prepositional verbs (4), where phrasal means the inclusion of an adverbial component. While the term phrasal verb had been introduced long before that time (Smith 1925:172), Mitchell’s scheme certainly contributed a lot to the establishment of the now common terms for the three major and most common types of multi-word verbs at least. Quirk et al. (1985) The most accessible attempt at classification is probably to be found in Quirk et al. (1985:1150-1168). A major division is made into principal types and "other multi-word verb constructions", which are obviously regarded as of minor importance. Inside the principal types a further division selects only idiomatic types as multi-word verbs proper, whereas the non-idiomatic, i.e. literal, types (e.g. come in, run away with) are treated as "free combinations" and thus placed outside the class concerned. The principal types, which are based on the formula "verb ± direct object ± adverb ± preposition", consist of the six combinations Phrasal Verb (verb + adverb) Types I ( crop up) and II (turn N down), Prepositional Verb (verb + preposition) Types I (come across N, e.g., a problem) and II (take N for N, e.g., a fool) and Phrasalprepositional Verb (verb + adverb + preposition) Types I (come up with N) and II (put N up for N, e.g., an election), where Type II is in each case the one containing a direct object. A further three types are listed under "others", namely verb-adjective combinations (e.g. lie low, cut N short), verb-verb combinations (e.g. make do with, put paid to) and verbs governing two prepositions (e.g. develop from ... into). Several problems may be mentioned in connection with this classification. Firstly, the principal types are allocated to the class of multi word verbs on semantic grounds (idiomaticity), whereas this does not seem to apply to the last three minor types. Secondly, the idiomatic approach can lead to interesting exclusions. Combinations such as come in, and send N away, which syntactically behave identically to crop up, turn N down, are thus not treated as multi-word verbs. Cases such as depend on, consist of with an obligatory preposition also seem to find no place here. Moreover, idiomaticity is not a clear-cut affair, but is best seen as a cline yielding a not very happy basis for classificatory purposes. For instance, their excluded example run away with was found in the present corpus in a sense that could be glossed by the simplex "steal", while of course the literal meaning would also still be present in the mind of the speaker/hearer. Fourthly, prepositional verb types IIb and IIc (subdivisions not mentioned above) contain a further fixed, unchangeable element besides the preposition, namely a noun as in
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
33
take care of, give way to, and lose touch with. The question is whether the presence of the noun, which is collocationally and semantically more salient than the preposition, should not take precedence over the latter in classifying these types. They are definitely on a different level than Type IIa which contains structures such as thank N for N, where the N slot can be filled by many different nouns. Talking of nominal elements in multi-word verbs, it is also somewhat unclear where combinations such as take into consideration would fit in with the present classification. They are mentioned only in passing as "yet another sub-type" of Type IIa prepositional verbs, if examples given there (lull N to sleep, put N to rights) can be interpreted as being of the "take into consideration" -type. Another minor point is why verbs governing two prepositions should be separated so completely from the other prepositional types in the classification. A last point concerns the verb -adjective combinations, namely the question why instances such as make sure/certain and see fit (mentioned only in a footnote) are not counted among them. Hückel (1968/69) An attempt to classify the major types of multi-word verbs according to strictly formal criteria, excluding semantic considerations as far as possible, is found in Hückel’s (1968/9:257-260) article dealing with the "Wortverband" (» lexical unit). The formal criteria applied comprise transitivity and word order, as well as the possibilities of passivization and nominalization. Thus, Hückel’s first general division is into transitive and intransitive combinations. The transitive category contains the following five major types: 1. verb + particle + direct object, 2. verb + direct object + particle, 3. verb + particle + preposition + direct object, 4. verb + reflexive pronoun + particle, 5. verb + fixed direct object. Type 1 is further split up into ’A’ with moveable particle posit ion, either before or after the direct object (lay (down) the burden (down)), and ’B’ where the particle is fixed in pre-object position, e.g. take out insurance, strike up a friendship. Type 2 is in a way the mirror image of Type 1B by requiring the particle to occur in fixed post-object position as in see N off, do N in. Type 4 is illustrated by give oneself away and brace oneself up. His Type 3 consists of ’A’ which permits movement of the particle and ’B’ with immutable word order, cf. The judge put down the crime to him/put the crime down to him (A) vs. The banker put the £5 down to my account only (B). Three sub-classes make up Type 5, two of which (’A’ and ’C’) are called
34
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
"blockiertes Syntagma" (= blocked syntagmatic group), and are illustrated by the building forms part of a larger estate/the police at once gave chase (A — gerund possible) and the next stories saw print in the following years (C — gerund impossible). Sub-class 5B involves a fixed preposition after the direct object, such as in EFTA steal a march on EEC. Four major types are contained in the intransitive category: 1. verb + particle, 2. verb + particle + preposition + noun/pronoun, 3. verb + preposition + noun, 4. verb + adjective. Type 1 contains combinations like sign on, talk back, and strike home. Structures such as look forward to, bear down upon, and break even with are included in Type 2. Type 3 is subdivided according to possibilities of passivization, namely ’A’ (possible), e.g. the government embarked upon a new policy, see through a trick, vs. ’B’ (impossible), e.g. the price lags behind the costprice. Finally, Type 4 is illustrated by loom large. The emphasis put on purely formal criteria in this classification is a nice attempt at keeping things as objective as possible, but the consequence is an explosion of sometimes confusing types plus the inclusion of dubious structures, as well as the omission of others. The transitive Types 1, 2, 4 and the intransitive Type 1, for example, could, in other classifications, all be subsumed under the heading phrasal verb (verb + adverb). Whether the position of the particle should be taken as a defining feature, as in Trans. 1A, 1B and 2, is doubtful because this is on the one hand rather idiosyncratic depending on the particular combination involved and on the other it has to do with degrees of idiomaticity inhibiting certain transformations (cf. Fraser’s (1976) degrees of frozenness). Also, in 1B the nouns insurance and friendship seem to have already become part of the idiom. Why those verbs with a reflexive pronoun cannot be part of Type 1A is not clear; Hückel’s ex ample give away, for instance, also occurs with other objects (cf. Cowie & Mackin 1975) and the position of itself is sufficiently explained by the rule that pronominal objects always precede the object (Cowie & Mackin 1975: xlix, and 5.2. below). Transitive Type 3 and Intransitive Type 2 represent what elsewhere are called phrasal-prepositional verbs, and again the word order dividing 3A and B is probably too idiosyncratic to be a basis for classification. Intransitive Type 3, dealing with prepositional verbs, seems to be somewhat over-inclusive; using passivization and gerund as criteria (3A) would even allow such structures as sleep in a bed, where the cohesion between sleep and in is in all other respects practically nil. Furthermore, 3B opens the door for virtually all kinds of constructions of the type verb + prepositional phrase. The inclusion of nominal and adjectival combinations
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
35
as separate types (Transitive Type 5 and Intransitive Type 4) is useful, but unfortunately incomplete. Like Quirk et al., Hückel omits the nominal take into consideration-type; moreover, the adjectival type has no transitive counterpart (e.g. cut N short) and makes no provision for the addition of a preposition, unless break even with, even being considered a particle by Hückel, under Intransitive Type 2A is taken to belong here. Cowie & Mackin, ODCIE, Vol. 1 (1975) and Cowie, Mackin & McCaig, ODCIE, Vol. 2 (1983) This is a classification from a lexicological angle, as is to be expected in the case of dictionaries, but it nevertheless does not neglect syntactical considerations. Cowie & Mackin’s classification in their first volume is based on six basic patterns, which are represented by them in the following schematic table (1975:xxix): Table 3.1: Cowie & Mackin’s classification (1975) particle preposition particle + preposition
Intransitive [A1] [A2] [A3]
Transitive [B1] [B2] [B3]
It takes up Mitchell’s basic contrasts of phrasal verb (1; go off, tip N off), prepositional verb (2; bank on N, foist N on N), and phrasal-prepositional verb (3; fall back on N, put N down to N) and splits these up further into intransitive and transitive types (A + B). While the classification o f these major types as illustrated by the examples in brackets is abso lutely logical, the authors also subsume under these headings other combinations which exceed the specifications above. Thus, bring to grips with and fall in love (with) are classified as B2 and A2 respectively, on the grounds that they "would exactly match those patterns if it were not for an additional preposition" (ibid.:xxx), i.e. with in the cases concerned. Other examples for this somewhat over-inclusive procedure are make an example of, take exception to, bear in mind (all B2) and fall into disrepute (A2). In all these cases the whole phrase as quoted here is taken as the headword in the dictionary, i.e. is seen quite rightly as a single idiom. At least one preposition is present in all of them, justifying their presence in the dictionary (1975) in the first place — and in a way also their classificatory treatment, as it makes life easier for the dictionary user. In all other respects and contexts, however, they deserve a more sophisticated treatment, especially as important differences exhibited for example by all those under B2 are thus entirely
36
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
neglected. The contrast between e.g. bear in mind and make an example of is obvious, but this latter and take exception to are not identical constructions either. At least, the verb + prepositional phrase constructions are noticed here, unlike in Quirk et al. (1985) above. Nevertheless, what has been said in the section on Quirk et al. about their Prepositional Verb Types IIb and IIc applies here as well. The second volume (1983), dealing with phrase, clause and sentence idioms, contains further types, which could be interpreted as multi -word verbs, under the heading of clause patterns (xxix -xxxiv). The patterns treated there have a much wider basis than the approach taken here necessitates. In the introduction, Cowie (1983:xiv) poses the question "[i]f it is true that highly idiomatic expressions tend in some ways to resemble single words, should this unity be reflected in the way they are grammatically described in dictionary entries?" and decides against it. Therefore, it is not possible to state which of the entries the authors would regard as more ‘unitary’, word like in nature than others. While items such as go berserk, come clean, get even with, drive N mad, make N plain, make answer/reply, run a risk (of N), take place, and give N a thought (randomly selected here) are found in the dictionary (1983), they are not classified in the manner of volume I as lexical units. Denison (1981 / 1984) The classification proposed by Denison (1981:23-34; 1984) is actually not meant to include anything else apart from verb-particle combinations (1984:276,n.3). Thus, he uses the pattern verb + one particle (adverb or preposition) as a starting point and elaborates on this in the following table (1981:23; 1984:273). Table 3.2: Denison’s classification class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
second particle + + + +
direct object + + + +
prepositional object + + + + -
name intransitive phrasal verb transitive phrasal verb prepositional verb phrasal-prep. verb -
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
37
The first four are the well-known types, which Denison illustrates with the examples cool off (class 1), use N up (2), deal with N (3), and home in on N, look forward to N (4). Verbs with two prepositions are not included here, for he points out (1984:276,n.3) that they behave syntactically like class 3 — in this case they may be taken as being in fact indirectly included. Class 5, represented by let N in on N and single N out for N, could in my opinion also be called phrasal-prepositional verbs, in this case transitive ones (cf. Cowie & Mackin 1975), whereas class 4 comprises the intransitive ones. In this way they would be analogous to phrasal verbs. Class 6, also nameless here, might just as well be called transitive prepositional verbs (cf. Cowie & Mackin), as it consists of such combinations as foist N on N, take N for N. Come out ahead, get back in (Class 7) and put N back together, read N back out (Class 8) are unusual insofar as they contain two adverbial particles, but Denison is probably right in saying that they can be regarded as an extension of Class 1 and 2 respectively. As an extension, Denison (1981:36f) remarks that group-verbs with other components can be accommodated into the above classification, for example take place, go bad (class 1), make clear, get right (class 2), get to grips with, put paid to, stop short of, take care of (class 4), and lay N low with (class 5). This approach disregards the differences in the internal make-up of the combinations, however, something which also can have consequences for their behaviour as a unit. Palmer (1965 / 1974) In his two books on the English verb, Palmer (chap.10) deals with verbal combinations, using the following rather traditional classification, which does not offer anything new: 1. phrasal verbs, which can be either transitive or intransitive; 2. prepositional verbs — in 1965 only the intransitive type (e.g. look for N), then in 1974 also the transitive ones such as take N for N. This latter type moreover includes combinations involving a noun, cf. make a mess of, set fire to, give way to. In 1965, these latter examples were treated under "other verbal combinations" and described as verb-noun-preposition units. 3. phrasal-prepositional verbs, of which the 1965 book recognises only intransitive combinations such as put up with N, while the 1974 approach also includes transitives like put N down to N. Furthermore, he mentions get rid of, with rid classified as an adjective in 1965, and put paid to, have done with etc., i.e. verb-verb combinations in the sense of Quirk et al. (1985). None of these latter units are given the status of a separate category.
38
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
Vestergaard (1977) In a brief but very lucid classification, Vestergaard (1977:3) manages to do more than many larger and more complicated attempts. He recognises four main groups of multi-word verbs, namely 1. prepositional verbs (verb + preposition), to which type the book in question is devoted, 2. phrasal verbs (verb + adverbial particle), 3. verb + object (e.g. give offence), and 4. verb + prepositional phrase (e.g. fall in love). All four can and do function as lexical, in this case, verbal units, or as he expresses it, as V in a V(erb)P(reposition)-N(oun) cluster. He does not therefore see any necessity for an additional class labelled ‘phrasal-prepositional verbs’. Fraser (1976) Fraser does not offer an explicit classification, but in defining and exactly delimiting his verb-particle combination, he lists and also discusses other similar ’compound verbals’ in English. While this therefore cannot be a com plete listing, the following discrete types can be extracted from his chapters one and two: 1. verb-particle combinations, 2. verb-adverbial combinations, 3. verb-preposition combinations, 4. verb-adjective combinations (e.g. cut short, blow open, make good), 5.1. verb-noun-preposition combinations (five types, exemplified respectively by make reference to, catch sight of, bring word to, make a fool of, catch hell from), 5.2. verb-prepositional phrase combinations (e.g. bring to light, call into question, put into effect ), 5.3. verb-noun combinations (e.g. cast anchor, keep peace, take courage). Both 1 and 2 could be and are often called phrasal verbs in other contexts, with 2 seemingly representing those combinations in which the particle is used in the literal, quasi-spatial sense. Other types looking deceptively like phrasal verbs are left out of 1 in his chapter 2; these have not been incl uded in the list above, either, as their independent status is rather doubtful. Fraser’s verb-preposition combination seems to include any verb-preposition sequence; however, he is not concerned with defining prepositional verbs in the strict sense, but only with keeping particles and prepositions apart. The types 5.1 to 5.3. are all treated under one major heading by him, indicating that he sees them as sub-types of one basic category; nevertheless I have decided to list them separately. It should have become obvious in all these classificatory schemes that there is a kind of hard core of multi-word verbs on which most people can
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
39
agree. This core comprises phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs and phrasalprepositional verbs which are always mentioned and moreover form stable categories with a rather well-defined membership. Others, such as verbadjective or verb-verb combinations, come up only occasionally and not often with separate status. Another problematic point seems to be those units involving a nominal element, which are treated either under prepositional verb, meaning that those without a preposition are disregarded, or the whole type is ignored altogether; only Hückel, Vestergaard and perhaps Fraser recognise them as separate categories. 3.3 Proposed Classification The classification proposed here is similar to those discussed above, but shifts the weightings somewhat. Here, only the classification with the absolute minimum of information about the several types will be given; the precise definition of the individual categories follows in chapter 4. (I) Phrasal verbs Verbs followed by a particle of an adverbial nature in a non-prepositional use.4 They can be intransitive (fly away) or transitive (take up, e.g. a hobby). (II) Prepositional verbs Verbs followed by a preposition in its clear prepositional use. There is only one type, a transitive one, because if one interprets verb and preposition as a unit then the following noun (phrase) functions as its direct object. The type with the sequence verb-free object-preposition (turn N into N) is regarded as a special sub-type of prepositional verb, but one that will not be treated here 4
I am aware of the problems in allocating unambiguous word class tags to the nonverbal parts of multi-word verbs. On the one hand, one could argue that the question does not arise, i.e. that they have no word-class of their own if they are part of the multi-word verb as a whole. Carstensen (1964:326f), e.g., mentions as alternative descriptors of these elements "postposition", "postverbium", and "postpositives Präfix", the latter terms being taken from Shlutenko (1955, quoted there). Cf. also Marchand’s (1951:74) term of "postpositional verbs" for what are here called prepositional verbs. On the other hand, the different elements in the various types do influence the syntactic behaviour of the combination and make different semantic contributions to the whole unit. The distinction between prepositions, adverbs and intermediary categories has proven especially problematic (cf. for example Dietrich 1960, Sroka 1962 + 1972, Kaluza 1990, Mitchell 1978, and most recently O’Dowd 1998). Denison (1981:16) speaks of a principle of gradience between preposition and adverb. I will decide on a pragmatic surface-structure approach: prepositions, however closely connected to the verb, need a nominal element to refer to, and whenever this nominal element is missing, the adverbial interpretation is enforced.
40
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
for practical reasons. Verbs with two prepositions are included under (II) by virtue of their first preposition, while the second one is ignored.
(III) Phrasal-prepositional verbs Verbs followed by an adverbial particle (as in phrasal verbs) and a pure preposition. There are monotransitive (put up with, cf. the explanation given under prepositional verbs) and ditransitive (put N down to N) types. (IV) Verb-adjective combinations Verbs followed by an adjective or a past participle, the latter being taken in its adjectival quality. They are intransitive (hold good) or transitive (break open), and, in the case of the latter, can include a final preposition (fall short of). (V) Verbo-nominal combinations They comprise all combinations which contain a nominal element as a fixed part and can be subdivided into three types, namely (Group I) simple verb noun unit (take a walk), (Group II) verb-noun-preposition unit (catch sight of), and (Group III) verb-prepositional phrase unit (put in execution). (VI) Verb-verb combinations Verbs followed by another verb in a form other than the past participle (cf. (IV)), i.e. either an infinitive (let go) or a present participle (send N packing). Both types can be either intransitive or transitive. Verb-verb combinations will be left out of consideration in the following analyses. They are certainly a minor category — probably slightly more uncommon than verb-adjective combinations, and as a group more fragmented than the latter. Furthermore, cursory searches of the Lampeter Corpus yielded not a single example of this type. Whether this is due to sheer accidence or to a later, post-18th century development of this category, cannot be determined at the moment. I would like to draw attention to a general problem concerning all the categories above, which is nicely summed up by a quotation taken from Denison (1981:23): Trying to draw a clear distinction between group-verbs and notgroup-verbs is unrewarding, however. It must be recognised that group-verbs vary along many different axis, and that far enough along any axis of variation there will be collocations which are not groupverbs. No one test can delimit the area clearly and in full accord with one’s intuitive notions, ... (my italics, CC)
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
41
It is actually a (vicious?) circle we are moving in: we all know in some way what, e.g., a phrasal verb is, but a full and theoretically adequate pr oof of this intuitive knowledge seems impossible. If in doubt, I will therefore trust my intuitions more than I will trust any kind of test. Chapter 4 and the data se lected should be considered with this in mind. 3.4 Common Concerns This is the place to address the important question of why all these different types should be treated together. It is especially for four reasons, or four bundles of reasons, that I have decided to examine them as a group. First, they are exponents of an important trend in the history of the English language, that from a more synthetic to a more analytic linguistic system. Multi-word verbs can be seen as both a result of and a reaction to developments connected with the analytic "drift" (cf. Sapir 1921:chap.VII). Their most obvious analytic characteristic is of course the fact that one meaning is expressed by a combination of separate individual words (free morphemes). The alternatives to this procedure are, or would have been, compounding and affixation, and in this respect the decline in the productivity of prefix verbs (e.g. overtake, outrun) is noteworthy when seen against the rise of phrasal verbs (cf. chap.5). While the analytic approach is characterized by "semantic spreading", namely the "packing thinner [semantic] bundles into two or more words" (Bolinger 1971:45; also Brinton/Akimoto 1999), the synthetic method could be called ‘semantic concentration’, where all the semantic features are crammed into one word. The first of these two approaches is more flexible and often produces a semantically more transparent result. Furthermore, multi-word verbs make use of features that have come about or have grown in importance as part of the analytic trend, namely prepositions and zero-derivations. With the loss of inflectional endings, more prepositions were regularly used, especially following verbs, and this is of course an important prerequisite for them to merge syntactically and/or se mantically with the verb phrases. Zero-derivation facilitates shifts from one word class to another, and thus the use of original nouns in e.g. phrasal verbs or the use of original verbs in verbo-nominal combinations. On the other hand, multi-word verbs also in some way counteract one consequence of analyticity, namely the rather rigid word order of English. Within this order, the verb, or rather the simplex verb, has a definite fixed place leaving little leeway for thematic re-ordering (except with the help of relatively complicated syntactic topicalization structures); verbs consistin g of more than one word, however, especially phrasal verbs, verb-adjective and verbo-
42
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
nominal combinations, can more easily shift (parts of the) verbal predication to more prominent sentence positions. One could call this ‘syntactic spreading’ in analogy to the ‘semantic spreading’ mentioned above. Liefrink (1973:47f) neatly captured this connection between typological features and the use of simplexes or multi-word structures by distinguishing synthetic sentences ("synthetic verb" = a simplex, e.g. to clean), analytic sentences (verb + sentence constituent, e.g. make N clean), and periphrastic sentences (verb + deverbal noun, e.g. give N a clean). While there is a difference between analytic and periphrastic sentences, on a higher general level they are both analytic. Secondly, looking at individual examples of the categories to be treated and their behaviour, one might receive the impression of a rather unsystematic assortment of idiosyncracies. Therefore, as stated in the introduction, they have often ended up in the idiom section of linguistic description. But the first impression is not correct and the idiom sec tion is not where multi-word verbs necessarily belong. Rather, they should be treated as a separate class in their own right. There is a difference between idioms proper and multi-word verbs, although non-compositionality of meaning (which I take to be the prime defining feature of idioms here) is also found among the latter. Prototypical examples of real idioms are kick the bucket "die", beat about the bush "avoid getting to the real topic", or have blue blood "be a member of the aristocracy".5 The most important distinctions between cases like these and multi word verbs as understood in this study are in my opinion the following: (i) The several types of multi-word verbs are each based on a clear syntactic pattern, with the help of which one can relatively freely go on creating such forms fitting the pattern. There is no such regularity with real idioms, and no syntactic constraints on the creation of new idioms — they can take any syntactic form. Multi-word verbs are basically colligations, because their underlying pattern requires the "mutual accompaniment of grammatical categories", not just of individual forms (Mitchell 1958:103, fn. 3). Katz/Postal’s (1963:275f) "lexical idiom", dominated by one word class, e.g. a verb, and forming a complex item within that word class, can also serve as a label for multi-word verbs. Their opposite, phrase idioms, are not thus dominated by any of their syntactic constituents.
5
I will leave syntactically not well-formed idioms, such as trip the light fantastic, go bananas, and those containing unique (not otherwise occurring) elements, e.g. kith and kin, out of consideration, as they are irrelevant for my concerns.
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
43
(ii) Real idioms always have an opaque, i.e. non-compositional, semantic make-up. Multi-word verbs, on the other hand, fill the whole range from completely literal to totally opaque. (iii) An opaque multi-word verb is different from an opaque idiom, in so far as the figurative meaning is inferable from the single constituents of the combination. Even in highly idiomatic units this is possible, provided some common sense and creativity is used. Analysis of real idioms usually requires at least some extralinguistic, socio-historical knowledge. Take for example the euphemistic phrasal verb pass away "die" versus the idiom with the same meaning, kick the bucket. Not even linguists agree on the exact origin of the latter, whereas "pass" = "go, proceed, move onward", i.e. onward to heaven or hell (as the case may be), and "away", i.e. away from the speaker/from this world, yields up the process of figuration quite easily. 6 The second reason why multi-word verbs are treated as a group thus lies in their stable syntactic patterns and the fact that their constituents always retain at least a tiny bit of individuality. What might also be useful in the context of sorting out the problems posed by idiomaticity is Mel’cuk’s proposal (1960) to distinguish between (i) idiomaticity and (ii) stability of collocation (cf. Mitchell’s "colligation", being a special type of collocation, used above). Among the four types Mel’cuk lists, namely (i) stable and idiomatic, (ii) stable and non-idiomatic, (iii) non-stable and idiomatic, (iv) non-stable and non-idiomatic (quoted from Lipka 1972:78), the first and the second can apply to different types of multi-word verbs. The third and fourth are inapplicable as stability is guaranteed by the underlying grammatical patterns. Thirdly, some or all of the multi-word types also share other features. A large proportion of them are lexicalized. And all of them, except for those prepositional verbs where the preposition is a purely syntactic requirement, use their composite nature to produce some shifting, changing or enrichment of meaning. This is achieved not only through the mere presence of the indi6
The argument produced here with regard to multi-word verbs is similar to the approach taken by Gibbs (1990) to what I call ‘real’ idioms here. He argues that "[i]dioms such as pop the question, spill the beans, and lay down the law are "decomposable" because each of their components obviously contributes to their overall figurative interpretations" (422-3), in contrast to idioms such as kick the bucket, shoot the breeze, where this is not the case. Metaphorical mapping motivates idioms of the former kind for the speaker. While I agree that there is just such an internal semantic variability within the sphere of idioms, I also think that Gibbs’ decomposable idioms are still on a different level from (idiomatic) multi-word verbs. In the latter, the metaphorical processes involved are usually less complicated and intricate.
44
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
vidual parts, but also through their different positions in the sentence and through possible modifications of the individual elements. One special semantic trait is the development of aspectual or aktionsart meanings in some of the combinations (especially phrasal verbs and verbo -nominal combinations). While the overall meaning is enhanced, that of the verbal part is often greatly reduced (even in some phrasal verbs, cf. Lipka 1972:152), turning the verb into a functional element. In this respect it is interesting that the same basic, very frequent verbs are used in all the types (cf. also Liefrink 1973), with certain exceptions for (non-idiomatic) prepositional verbs again. Thus, there are obviously the same or very similar systematic processes at work in all these multi-word combinations. This might further mean that the ‘history’ of individual combinations is very similar. They go through an evolutionary process leading to fixedness: from ad hoc expression to fixed expression and finally to single word (cf. Hudson 1998:168). Akimoto (1989, quoted in Brinton/Akimoto 1999:16) describes the development of a verbo-nominal combination as a four-stage process. As this can apply to other multi -word categories as well, I will describe it here in more general terms: stage 1: all the constituents are unrestricted; stage 2: the relation between the constituents becomes sta bilized, the presence of the single elements becomes fixed, and some component parts lose certain features of their original word -class, i.e. become decategorialized; stage 3: re-analysis of the constituent structure occurs (from, e.g. [ lose] [sight of X] to [lose sight of] [X]); stage 4: all of the constituents are idiomatized into a single lexical item. Traugott (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999:248) doubts whether the first of these stages really exists; in my opinion, it does for some combinations (e.g. the take a walk type), but not for others (e.g. rely on). While Traugott (ibid.) merges stages 3 and 4, I would prefer to keep them separate, reserving stage 4 for really opaque combinations. At any point in time, one will find specimens at all four stages; while those at stage 3 and 4 represent the more prototypical cases, sampling in historical contexts should cast its net wider than just those two cases. The last point to be mentioned here concerns the simplex (quasi-) synonyms that exist for most multi -word verbs. This leads to the question of choice on the part of the speaker/writer and to the various effects produced by one or the other choice. Consider, for example, choose vs. make a choice with the alternatives shorter/longer, verbal (dynamic?)/nominal (s tative?), transitive/intransitive use, possibilities of verbal/nominal modification etc. Or consider the set find out / discover with its opposition native versus
Multi-word Verbs as a Group
45
Romance vocabulary, and all that this is supposed to entail (e.g. in/formality, emotional value, hard words). Also consider the relationship between do over and redo, the latter standing for synthetic derivational word -formation processes; with cut short and shorten, however, the difference is less morphological than semantic. These few example s shall suffice here to show that multi-word verbs raise interesting questions in the fields of semantics and stylistics.
4. Categories of Multi-word Verbs This chapter will be devoted to a clarification of how the five multi -word verb categories are to be understood in this investigation. For this purpose, it will be necessary to review to a considerable extent the linguist ic opinion found in the literature so far. The basis of the definitions is the situation found in PDE; therefore, I will use modern examples, taken from the British National Corpus (BNC), as illustrations. 4.1 Phrasal Verbs The term ‘phrasal verb’ is problematic for two reasons: on the one hand, the category in question has not always been called that but, e.g., verb -particle combination (Fraser 1976) or discontinuous verb (Live 1965), and on the other hand, ‘phrasal verb’ has sometimes served as a cover term including also prepositional verbs (e.g. Sroka 1972) and maybe even other categories (e.g. Dixon 1982). Here, the most common approach will be followed, namely that phrasal verbs are relatively unitary combinations of a verb and a particle, which is best of all described as an adverb, but not as a preposition. 1 While any kind of lexical verb could theoretically be a part of a phrasal verb (which, however, is not the case, as will be seen later), the word following the verb belongs to a relatively closed class of invariable items. The following list of possible particles in phrasal verbs is based on those given in Quirk et al. (1985:1151), Cowie & Mackin (1975:lxxx), and Fraser (1976:5), as well as my own data (cf. also Bolinger 1971:17f): aback, aboard, about, above, across, after, ahead, along, apart, around, ashore, aside, astray, asunder, away, back, behind, by, counter, down, forth, forward(s), home, in, off, on, out, over, past, round, through, to, together, under, up This is not a complete list (which might be hard to achieve anyway, according to Bolinger); some of the particles given in Cowie & Mackin (or also in Kennedy 1920) have been left out as irrelevant for the present 1
In the following discussion of phrasal verbs I will ignore all those approaches that do not regard them as multi-word verbs. Most of them are found in the generative camp and involve a small clause interpretation, cf. for example Bas Aarts (1989), den Dikken (1995), or Kayne (1985). While trying to solve some theoretical syntactical problems, they completely side-step important semantic and communicative/ functional implications. I do not think that a purely syntactical approach to phrasal verbs (or multi-word verbs in general) can really be fruitful.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
47
analysis. The italicized items in the list can be used as prepositions as well, which is the reason why so much trouble is taken in the lit erature to distinguish phrasal and prepositional verbs. Which sequences of verb and adverb are then to be accepted as phrasal verbs here? To start with, I will regard both completely literal types (verb, or both verb and particle used in their literal or adverbial sense, e.g. pull away, yield up) and figurative, idiomatic combinations (e.g. fall out "happen", put off "postpone") as phrasal verbs (similar to Denison 1981; and cf. Bolinger 1971:16, who mentions Fairclough 1965 as doing the same), in contrast to, e.g., Quirk et al. (1985; cf. above) or Dixon (1982). Idio maticity, after all, does not emerge out of nowhere, but is based in some way or other on the regular patterns of the language. Literal phrasal verbs are the core from which figurative types are ultimately derived, and to which they are still connected by an identical, or in idiosyncratically frozen idioms at least similar, syntactical behaviour. Thus, idiomatic phrasal verbs cannot be understood without their literal background, and in the less idiomatic cases the connection, the underlying thought process of semantic idiomaticization, is still graphically clear. Besides, there is also a very pragmatic reason for including all kinds of phrasal verbs: there is a gradience or cline, reaching from completely literal to totally opaque cases, with both shading into the other (cf. also Bolinger 1971:36,n.12). It would be very hard to draw a clear dividing line somewhere — nor would it be very helpful for the matter in hand (also Kroch 1979:222f). Fraser (1976:3), on the other hand, does draw this line, and while he ostensibly does it on syntactic grounds (position in action nominalizations, constituents in gapped sentences, modification, contrastive stress), the result is a con trast between more literal types — his verb-adverbial combinations — and more idiomatic units — his verb-particle combination. 2 As stated above (chap.3), there is an intransitive and a transitive typ e3 — and the most usual indicators or tests for phrasal verbs unfortunately work with the transitive combinations alone. In order to include both types I will start the discussion about what phrasal verbs are with the particles and their function. The particles belong to the class of primary, invariable, oneword adverbs, such as those exemplified by the list above. By ‘primary’ I understand that they should not be derived by any regular processes from 2
A good discussion of Fraser’s approach in this respect is found in Declerck (1978:314f). Lindner (1981:26-31) also voices her criticism, pointing out e.g. that Fraser does not actually succeed in separating neatly the things he wants to separate. 3 Fraser (1976:4) claims that intransitive combinations are relatively rare, and Live (1965:438) seems to share his opinion. However, I am not aware of any empirical study that has tested this claim.
48
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
adjectives or nouns (e.g. sad — sadly, sky — skyward — i.e. what Bolinger calls "pure adverbs"). Also, the particles must not be pure prepositions, i.e. they must either not be followed by a noun phrase at all (ability to stand alone): (1)
The next day a high-tech caption machine broke down. (BNC A4N 10) And the one night, one bright and starlit night, a true free dragon came by to pay a call. (BNC A6J 839) Would you like Jenny to go along as well? (BNC A0F 3176)
Or they must not be the head of the following noun phrase, i.e. form a prepo sitional phrase constituent with it: (2)
These pieces, on view in London, also went along the smugglers’ network. (BNC A1Y 492) ... and so every airhead ... rushed out to buy one and take it up a mountain. (BNC AS3 1314)
vs. (3)
From 1624 to 1640 Dutton bought up the land round Sherborne Park ... (BNC Ab4 367)
Also, they must not refer or relate to any noun phrase in another sentence position as in (4) (stranded preposition, cf. 4.2): (4)
So, this is the situation you must practise and be able to cope with. (BNC A0H 1658)
Thus, (1) and (3) are instances of phrasal verbs, whereas (2), and (4) are not. In many cases, a prepositional phrase can be supplied by the imagination or socio-cultural knowledge of the reader/hearer (Dixon 1982:9), and the particle could actually be called a reduced prepositional phrase, as in for into the room in (5) (cf. Bolinger 1971:23). 4 (5)
I had orders not to take in tea until half past ten. (BNC A0D 2238) i.e. take into the room
Here, it is important that the reduction is not a case of conte xt-determined ellipsis (cf. Fairclough, as quoted by Bolinger 1971:21), by which I mean that the ‘missing’ element should not be mentioned in the same or the 4
There are also other theoretical views of this matter. Declerck (1977) sees it as a presupposition, and Legum (1968) postulates a rule of "particle incorporation" into a PP. While the latter is quite nice, because it starts out with the phrasal verb particle, the exact linguistic way these structures come about does not really matter. The important point is that a reader/listener can and probably does supply the "missing" information in his mind.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
49
immediately surrounding sentences. The simple fact that the particle can also stand on its own changes its status from preposition to adverbial (Lipka 1972:175); these cases are therefore included in the class of phrasal verbs. While Fraser (1976:46-49) admits to the similar behaviour of the reduced prepositional phrase and particles, he nevertheless excludes them from his verb-particle combination, because they are in his view semantically independent of the verb. I agree here with König (1973:84) that it would in any case be difficult to sort out prepositional reduction cases from others. 5 Another point of difference between adverbs and pure prepositions is noticeable in speech (and therefore not that helpful with a written historical corpus), namely the fact that adverbs can be or are accented, whereas prepo sitions are not (e.g. Fraser 1976:2; but denied by Sroka 1972:146). Lipka (1972) and Pelli (1976) use this as their main criterion. Furthermore, the pos sibility of contrastive accent can separate phrasal verb particles from other adverbs (Bolinger 1971:13f).6 Bolinger (1971:chap.2) discusses three types of particles, namely adverbs, prepositional adverbs and adpreps. While adverbs are the clear cases, i.e. those in the list above that can only function as adverbs (e.g. away, aside), prepositional adverbs "oscillate between preposition and adverb", which he exemplifies by "She knocked down the argument. She knocked the argument down." (ibid. 26). Both these types help to make up phrasal verbs, and will be accepted in this study as well. Bolinger’s adprep, which exhibits a dual constituency, being drawn both to the verb and to the following noun phrase, is found in sentence c. (his examples): (6)
He ran down the road. a. He ran it down. (disparaged it) - adverb b. He ran down it. (did his running somewhere down the road) - preposition c. He ran down it. (descended it) - adprep
Again I agree with Bolinger, so that in the present study adprep cases will be definitely excluded from the phrasal verb class. Another interesting question connected with the particles is their se mantic characteristics. Here I am not concerned with semantic features of 5
A special problem in this general context concerns verbs followed by the sequence "out of". These can be either a verb followed by the complex preposition "out of", or a phrasal verb with the particle "out" followed by a prepositional phrase headed by "of" (some out-phrasal verbs may be reduction cases from "out of"). As this is a very hard and basically extremely subjective decision to make, I will follow Pelli (1976) and Denison (1981) in excluding those cases altogether. 6 For papers devoted to the question of stress in phrasal verbs, cf., e.g., Eitrem (1903), and Taha (1960).
50
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
individual adverbs, but with generalisations valid for all adverbs occurring in phrasal verbs. From an etymological perspective, the items in question all originally served to denote location and/or direction in space. For literal or nearly literal uses, Bolinger (1971:chap.7) proposes two necessary features of phrasal verb particles, namely (i) motion-through-location, and (ii) terminus or result, thereby excluding all manner, time, place, simple direction and stance adverbials. Dixon (1982:40) also regards motion as important, whereas Lipka (1972:177) states that when the particle functions as a locative adverb (i.e. literal use) it denotes direction and adds the feature +dynamic to the whole combination. I assume this comes about by different definitions of the term ‘direction’, not through a fundamental difference as regards the particles. Bolinger wants to exclude, among others, up/down in the sense of upward(s)/downward(s) with the help of criterion (i) above — and those are items that Lipka excludes as well (similar: Fraser 1976:49 f).7 For some (literally used) particles, however, Bolinger’s description ’motionthrough-location’ seems problematic; there is hardly any motion whatsoever in, e.g., together, home, by, counter, apart, behind, asunder, whereas about seems to convey ‘pure’ instead of directed (i.e. through location) motion. Some of these have a clear result and are thus saved by his second criterion (which he sees as the more important one), but this still leaves about (e.g. blow/carry about) and by (pass/come by — literal senses), which are hard to attach any resultative features to. As I see it, the particle should either have the feature ‘motion’ in general (not location and not direc tion in the sense of -ward(s) adverbials) or the feature ‘result’ or both — with the last perhaps being the prototypical cases. Both Bolinger (1971:92-95) and Fraser (1976:22-25) also remarked on the fact that the real verbal force in some cases seems to lie in the adverb while the verb fulfils the role of a manner de scription, as in (one of) Bolinger’s examples: (7)
Comb down your hair. (to down by combing)
The feature ‘result’ inherent in some particles has given rise to a somewhat transferred aspectual or aktionsart use of particles in some phrasal verbs, for example adding a continuative/iterative (Live 1965), perfective (Kennedy 1920; Lipka 1972), intensity/totality (Live 1965) telic (Brinton 1988), or completive/terminative sense (Fraser 1976; Live 1965) — an example of this would be buy up (3) above. A causative interpretation added by the particle 7
Fraser (1976:51-59) excludes more than most others from his verb-particle combination class, on the grounds of the basically adverbial nature of their second constituents. While I tend to agree with the exclusion of his "kiss-back" cases, I would rather include all his other exclusions ("turn off", "drive back", "babble on" cases) in the class of phrasal verbs.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
51
is also possible (Live 1965:436). There is, however, no fixed system and also no one-to-one correspondence between a certain particle and a certain aspectual meaning (Live 1965:437; Bolinger 1971:chap.8). Particles in idiomatic phrasal verbs (e.g. blow up "explode") are not affected by any of the above interpretations. As regards the (non-semantic) function of the particles, general state ments are harder to make. Sometimes, the addition of a particle changes the transitivity of a verb, making it either transitive ( stare vs. stare down) or intransitive (e.g. take vs. take off) (Kennedy 1920:26; Fraser 1976:8; Dixon 1982:30). In other cases, it is only the added particle that creates a verb from words otherwise not used as verbs on their own (Fraser 1966:47 f), for instance ante up, zip up. Another point with regard to phrasal verbs seems to be active combinations with a passive signification (Kennedy 1920:27). These occurrences, however, are not part of a systematic whole, and also not very numerous (Dixon ibid.). As to the syntactic tests which have been proposed to determine the class of phrasal verbs, there is one test that works for both transiti ve and intransitive combinations. It concerns the insertion of an adverb be tween the verb and the particle, which should not be possible for real phrasal verbs (with certain exceptions, such as right, all, the hell) (Bolinger 1971:11ff; also 117ff; Fraser 1976:3;25ff). Fraser sorts out the ‘interruptable’ cases into his verb-adverbial combination class as opposed to verb-particle combinations (= phrasal verbs proper), whereas Bolinger points out that varying degrees of bondage between verb and adverb, as well as the position on the scale of idiomaticity, play a role. The only thing this test will do is clearly divide the really idiomatic cases (no insertion possible) from the completely literal ones (such as (8)), and probably leave an uncertain area of more or less transferred uses in the middle. (8) (9) (10)
Cadfael picked up the psaltery with due respect, and laid it safely aside on the little prayer desk. (BNC G0M 1620) On the day of the wedding, just for a short while, all strife was laid aside. (BNC G2E 1669) His mocking manner seemed laid quite aside. (from Declerck 1978:315)
Insertion of e.g. completely in (9) might be acceptable for some speakers, in some contexts or it might not be. Insertion might be more restricted with intransitive combinations in general, however (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:1152). As I will not apply a literal-idiomatic division in the definition of phrasal verbs, the simple insertion criterion will also not be used here. However, another insertion test, namely that of whole adver bial phrases, may profitably
52
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
distinguish between phrasal verbs and other verb-adverb combinations, as Vestergaard (1974:305f) points out. The remaining four tests then apply only to transitive phrasal verbs. 8 The first of these is the transformation of the phrasal verb into an action nominal (Fraser 1976:3), such as (11): (11)
... the most learned and certain Rule for the finding out of the Longitudes of Places (SciB1649)
Verb-preposition sequences cannot be transformed in the same way, i.e. *the seeking after of the gifts is not possible. (12)
... the very seeking after the gifts of Gods Spirit (RelA1653)
However, Bolinger (1971:8ff) points out that this test does not work with all phrasal verbs, whereas it does work with some verb -adprep-combinations, and that, in general, the nature of the action involved seems to play a role. This goes to make it more of a semantic than a syntactic test. The last three tests are very similar and have to do with the relative positions of particle and object (Bolinger 1971:10f; 15f, chap.5; Fraser 1976:16ff). First, the particle can stand on either side of the noun object (cf. (13a-b)), which is not true of pure prepositions which can only precede the noun, nor of pure adverbs which must usually follow it. The weight and length of the noun phrase might influence this test, however; in (14a) the placement of about after the object phrase would be highly unlikely. But it is hard to make general statements about what length of the object phrase enforces post-verbal position of the particle; clausal and gerundival objects, however, always do (Wood 1956:19; Van Dongen 1919:329). Secondly, if the object in question is a pronoun, it will precede the particle (cf. (14b)), whereas it will follow a preposition. (13a) There’s no need to nail the shelves down, ... (BNC A16 1079) (13b) Nail down the central panel — ... (BNC AM5 1582) (14a) ... and bring about an irreversible shift of power and wealth to the working class (BNC A3T 5) (14b) Eleanor of Aquitaine, the princess whose marriage to an English king brought this about, is one of the femmes fatales of the Cantos; ... (BNC A1B 81)
8
A possible fifth test is passivization of the phrasal verb, which was used for example by Live (1965) and Lipka (1972). I will not deal with this test here, because I am not at all convinced of its usefulness. It cannot distinguish phrasal verb particles from other adverbs in ways which the other tests could not do as well or even better, nor can it separate phrasal from prepositional verbs.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
53
(14c) And it was that lack of hits which probably helped bring about the suicides. (BNC A6E 1273) This is a test that always works except when the pronoun receives contrastive stress for some reason, as then it can follow the particle. Finally, Bolinger’s favourite test says that "the particle can precede a simple definite noun phrase (a proper name or the plus a common noun) without taking it as its object" (1971:15) (cf. (14c)). Again this sorts out both pure adverbs and pure prepositions, and it emphasizes the unitary nature of verb + parti cle. Bolinger (ibid. 112) calls combinations passing this test "compounds of a sort". The restrictions on the characteristics of the object are the important point here, as heavy noun phrases could change the results for pure adverbs dramatically. Also, Fraser (1976:18) states that with very short noun phrases the particle prefers the position immediately following the verb. Wood (1956:23;24) thinks that generally the post-verbal position is the more usual one, but especially so with more abstract and metaphorical expressions; the latter opinion is shared by Bolinger (1971:96). It is also important, when applying these tests, to keep in mind that some phrasal verb combinations have been fossilized with either post-verbal or post-nominal positions of the particle, with no change being possible any longer (cf. e.g. the listing in Fraser 1976:19f; Wood 1956:25). Such cases are included by Bolinger (1971:113) under his second-level stereotyping and exemplified by take in washing (post-verbal) and bring the victims to (postnominal). A possible test for levels of stereotyping is fronting of the particle, which works only with completely or fairly literal particles, e.g.: (15)
Down went the Bluecher [= ship]. (BNC AA9 912)
There is of course the question about the motivation for these different syntactic positions and transformations. Erades (1961), and Bolinger (1971), basing himself on the former, find the reason in the information structure of the sentence and the amount of news value or newsworthiness inherent in the object. Objects introducing something new will normally have end-position (following the particle), and these will usually be nouns or noun phrases. On the other hand, objects that denote something already known or inferable from the context come between verb and particle; this applies to nouns which have been mentioned shortly before in the context, pronouns, and "semi-pronominal nouns" (Erades 1961:58) such as thing(s), matter. The unitary or compound nature of phrasal verbs mentioned above seems to me to be confirmed by their use in non-verbal contexts and in wordformation processes (Live 1965:429). Thus, there is conversion to nouns
54
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
(e.g. take-off n.)9, which Lipka (1972:138) calls an "extremely productive process", nominalization with the help of suffixes, or as adjectives (cf. Vestergaard 1974:307), like (16) and (17), just to mention some example s. (16) (17)
the total fed-upness with the Tories (Peter Crampton, MEP, June 1997) badly thought out international marketing programmes (BNC A60 26)
Pre- and suffixation is especially interesting, as it emphasizes word status. Nevertheless, this fact is hardly ever commented on; the only one who sees it as important for multi-word verbs in general is apparently Leisi (1985:119). As hinted at above, something still remains to be said about the verbal element of phrasal verbs. In theory, any kind of verb would be possible, but it does not turn out to be that way in reality. Statistically, there are clear preferences to be found. Monosyllabic or disyllabic verbs with the accent on the first syllable are the dominant group, and those are usually Germanic (Anglo-Saxon or Norse) elements (Bolinger 1971:175; Fraser 1976:13f; Live 1965:430). Kennedy (1920:29) even gives tentative figures: of the monosyllabic verbs only 18% were non-Germanic, whereas with the disyllabic ones the percentage rises to about 55%. Verbs with more than two syllables are rare: Fraser (1976:14) lists exactly 13. Furthermore, it is the very common and multi-functional verbs (cf. e.g. Kirchner 1952) which also seem to be the most common ones in phrasal verbs. On the other hand, there are also many monosyllabic verbs which never occur together with a particle; while this is thus an important prerequisite, it is not a guarantee. Fraser (1976:9) lists the following as the most productive verbs with many different meanings each: take, put, go, get, turn, lay, set, run, make, and fall. Potter (1965:287) has a list of the 24 most frequent verbs, which include the ones from Fraser plus back, blow, break, bring, call, come, give, hold, keep, let, look, send, stand, and work (but notice that he includes prepositional verbs under the term phrasal verb!). As regards semantic features of verbs in these combinations, it seems that in general stative verbs such as know, want, see, hope etc. are not used to create phrasal verbs (Fraser 1976:11). Furthermore, Fraser thinks that it is possible to find whole groups of systematic combinations (i.e. those with consistent meaning alternation brought about by the particle (ibid. 5)) in which the verbs have identical or similar semantic traits. An interesting case is also the existence of a group of verbs which seldom or never occur without a particle (Kennedy 1920:29), e.g. point out. The result of the union between a verb and an adverbial particle is a unitary phrasal verb, but the observed differences between exis ting phrasal 9
Sørensen 1986, Preuss 1962, Neubert 1973, and Lindelöf 1937 are studies dealing specifically with this point.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
55
verbs have brought about attempts to look for some ordering principle. Bolinger’s semantic-idiomatic system (1971: chap.9), which would have profited from a clearer description and explanation on the part of the author, distinguishes between First- and Second-Level Stereotyping as well as Firstand Second-Level Metaphor. While in first-level stereotyping verb and particle, although forming a unit, retain their individual meanings (e.g. toss up), the second level is a completely opaque, non-compositional combination (e.g. throw up "vomit"). The metaphor levels come in between the two stereotyping levels on the semantic cline, first-level metaphor implying the non-literal, transferred use of the particle (e.g. buy up), and second-level metaphor the transferred, figurative use of the whole combination (e.g. make up a face). Fraser (1966:51f; 1976) differentiates into systematic and unsystematic combinations: systematic combinations are all those that share identical co-occurrence restrictions with the simple verb, while the unsystematic ones are all the rest. Systematic combina tions are further subdivided into a literal type (adverbial sense of particle, e.g. hand out), a completive type (i.e. an aktionsart type, e.g. hang up), and a third type with neither a literal nor a completive particle (e.g. fight off, cross out, note down). Declerck (1977) bases his classification on semantic features (especially the underlying CAUSE), producing three types: (i) locomotion phrasal verb (walk in/out), (ii) instrumental phrasal verb (comb out), and (iii) manner phrasal verb (cut out). König (1973:90) also has three semantic groups, according to whether the meaning of the whole unit is the result of (i) meaning of verb + original adverbial meaning of particle, (ii) meaning of verb + aktionsart meaning of particle, or (iii) non-compositionality, i.e. fully idiomatic combinations. In my opinion, Bolinger’s system is the most helpful one, even if the terms are not very happily chosen. The only thing this classification seems to miss is those cases where the particle is apparently re dundant, i.e. the verb could actually stand on its own without a (major?) change of meaning, for example meet up vs. meet. But probably depleted particle use could be accommodated as ‘transferred’ under first -level metaphor, if one stretched the definition somewhat. To sum up, in the present study, the following approach to phrasal verbs will be taken as the basis for collecting data from the Lampeter Corpus. Phrasal verbs are combinations of a verb and a primary, invariable adverb, the latter including the heads of re duced prepositional phrases but excluding adpreps. The semantic make-up of these adverbs should contain the features ‘motion’ and/or ‘result’. Two tests ar e seen as important, namely (i) if the object is a pronoun, the particle must follow it, and (ii) the particle can precede a simple noun phrase without taking it as its object. Of course, it is hard to apply any kind of test of whatever nature in an histo rical context
56
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
— after all, there is no native speaker of EModE available to give his or her judgement. Thus, apart from naturally occurring transformations, the only way is to use PDE grammaticality statements, and hope that they will not be completely inadequate for the older period. And finally one more point: everything in the cline from the completely literal to the totally opaque units will be accepted. 4.2 Prepositional Verbs "Since none of the criteria for prepositional or phrasal -prepositional verbs are compelling, it is best to think of the boundary of these categories as a scale" is how Quirk et al. (1985:1165f) sum up their treatment of this category. Certainly, prepositional verbs are the most difficult to define and the ones nearest the borderline of all possible multi-word verbs. This stems from the fact that (most, if not all) sentences containing a verb -preposition sequence allow two different syntactic analyses, depending on the various possibilities of bracketing of constituents. The first and more straightforward solution is SVA (cf. (18a)), which involves a simplex verb followed by an adverbial phrase, i.e. in this case there is no prepositional verb. Certain peculiarities of English, however, point towards the likelihood of an SVO analysis as in (18b). (18a) [All four books] [speak] [of a "someone other".] (18b) [All four books] [speak of] [a "someone other".] (BNC A05 493) The facts favouring (18b) are both structural/syntactic and semantic. The first involve among others the curious prepositional passive (cf. (19)) and the various preposition stranding possibilities (cf. (20)), e.g. in relative clauses and topicalized sentences, while the latter is represented by clearly idiomatic (mostly semantically opaque) verb-preposition combinations (cf. (21) vs. literal (22)). (19) (20)
Her Birmingham background is hinted at ... (BNC A06 913) ... and never try to lift more than you can easily cope with. (BNC A0G 2204)
(21)
"... and thus we come by those ideas we have of yellow, white, [etc.]" (BNC ABM 816) Soldiers from Stirling would have come by Crieff and Amulree, ... (BNC A0N2171)
(22)
All of these point to a greater cohesion between verb and preposition than between preposition and following noun phrase, but they nevertheles s —
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
57
except for the idiomatic cases — do not completely invalidate the SVA analysis.10 While the SVO solution neatly explains a few things, it also poses a new problem of its own, namely the necessity of structural re -analysis, from the bracketing of (18a) — which is assumed to be the primary one — to that of (18b) above, creating a complex verb (Denison 1993:124). I will simply take re-analysis for granted here without discussing it any further. The following paragraphs will deal with the delimitation of the category prepositional verb to be used in this study, taking up the points men tioned above and a few others of importance as I go along. Looking at common verb-preposition sequences such as depend on, look after, wait for, or belong to, it is apparent that certain collocational restrictions (cf. Palmer 1965:180 + 1974:215) or even a collocational fixity is at work here. According to Davison (1980:48) and Vestergaard (1977:58), the preposition involved should not be freely substitutable by another, the latter stating the same condition for the verb. It is for the preposition that this condition is really important, as one can assume that it is the verb that selects the accompanying preposition, and not vice versa. Of course, in some cases the preposition is substitutable, e.g. besides look after there is also look for, look into, but the exchange in these cases is not ‘free’ but governed by different meanings which also affect look itself. Furthermore, this criterion should not be taken to mean that the verb should never occur without the preposition, as, e.g., rely on, if it is to be a ‘real’ prepositional verb. Depend, look, wait, belong can all stand on their own, but either that involves different (shades of) meaning(s) or different syntactic environments, e.g. That depends. That depends what you mean. The important thing is that in a certain kind of usage the preposition is a fixed member of the sequence. If collocational fixity is taken one step further, so to speak, one reaches the stage of lexicalization (e.g. Vestergaard 1977:58), and Bolinger 10
There are indeed approaches which deny the existence of prepositional verbs or at least think them superfluous. Götz/Herbst (1989:226) in their review of Quirk et al. (1985) criticize the view taken there on the grounds that it leads to an increase of both the syntactical rules and the lexicon. Huddleston (1984:200-202) does not see verbpreposition sequences as a single syntactic constituent, based on two things especially: (i) the position of an adverbial, cf. Ed relied steadfastly on the minister vs. *Ed relied on steadfastly the minister, and (ii) the possibility of coordination, or rather repetition of the preposition, cf. Ed relied on the minister and on his solicitor. The first point is of course problematic, but one also cannot say, e.g., *Ed trusted completely the minister — adverbs simply do not often intervene between verb, whether simplex or complex, and a simple direct object. The fact that the adverb can intrude between the verb and its preposition is due to the janus-faced character of the preposition and the unresolved, wavering status of the noun phrase. This also applies to the coordination problem.
58
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
(1977:59) thinks it possible that "the great majority of prepositional verbs are lexicalized". He does not specify his definition of lexicalization there, but if one applies Bauer’s (1983:48f) terminology, for example, many prepositional verbs can certainly be called institutionalized and a certain amount even semantically lexicalized. This latter leads us to the criterion of meaning. It has been observed that a verb-preposition sequence is more likely to be a prepositional verb if it has a unitary (i.e. usually idiomatic) meaning (Palmer 1974:216; Bolinger 1977:58). The question of what constitutes a ‘unitary meaning’ is of course a difficult one, but the substitution with a simplex synonym (despite the problems of synonymity) can be and often has been used as a valid aid. However, this criterion should not be overempha sized, but only used in addition to others. 11 Also, it is sometimes over-inclusive (e.g. go into — enter), but on the other hand excludes good candidates, such as look after, which have no simplex synonym. These considerations are perhaps of more importance for the internal description of the group of prepositional verbs and of the gradience or cline observable within it. In this context, Goyvaerts’ (1973:560f) identification of several subgroups of prepositional verbs falling into two broad categories is of particular interest. These categories are (i) purely prepositional verbs (e.g. look after, believe in) and (ii) verbs which need a preposition to introduce their object (e.g. consist of, rely on). I take both kinds to be prepositional verbs, although they exhibit some differing characteristics. Instead of concentrating on the verb and the preposition, as done so far, another approach is to examine the status of the noun phrase following them. If an SVO analysis is to be upheld, the noun must be independent of the preposition preceding it. To my knowledge, Vestergaard (1977) contains the most comprehensive treatment of that problem so far. A few of the — more important — points made by him shall suffice here. The noun must be a role-playing participant in the clause, and it must be interpretable as a "true participant" rather than as a circumstantial element. He illustrates thi s with the following example: (23)
I get up and talk about it in the House of Commons...
where "(about) it" is a true participant, whereas "in the House of Commons" is not (Vestergaard 1977:46). This is similar to Bolinger’s (1977:67) ap 11
De Haan (1988:124) doubts even in the case of idiomatic combinations that their status as prepositional verbs is absolutely clear. This is in clear opposition to Quirk et al.’s stance of including only idiomatic units among their prepositional verb class (already criticized above). It is also notable here that Palmer changed his mind between 1965 and 1974, excluding non-idiomatic cases in the later edition without stating his reasons for so doing.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
59
proach, who uses the "true-patient" status of the noun as an argument for the possibility of passivization, and as an extension, it seems, also for preposi tional verbs as such. Vestergaard’s circumstantial elements are in Bolinger’s (ibid. + 75) terminology purely spatial, temporal or existential relationships. Two of Vestergaard’s (1977:49f) further tests underline the point made above: the noun alone (i.e. not the preposition-noun sequence) must be replaceable by a relative pronoun or another pronominal form, and again t he noun alone can be topicalized in a pseudo-cleft sentence, something which would not be possible for "the House of Commons" in (23), for example. The question transformation test is also concerned with the status of the noun, insofar as it serves to exclude prepositional phrases that are simply predication adjuncts (i.e. Vestergaard’s circumstantial elements). These latter can be questioned adverbially by means of "where, when, how, why" (cf. (24)), while a noun that is more like a direct object of the verb-preposition combination would require a non-adverbial question form with "who, what" (cf. (25)) (Quirk et al. 1985:1165; Diensberg 1988:90). (24) (25)
... the one [ladder] that hangs on the side of the potting shed. (BNC A0D 2329) Where does it hang? By now they too knew they could call on me. (BNC A0R 469) Who could they call on?
While this test is very convenient, it does lead to contradictory results, e.g. in cases where both questions forms are possible as in (26) (cf. e.g. de Haan 1988:122). (26)
It was in those far-off days as they strolled through the parks ... (BNC A08 1356) What did they stroll through? Where did they stroll?
Furthermore, the results from this test sometimes collide with those of another test, namely the possibility of passivization. It is a characteristic of objects that they can become the subject of a passive clause, whereas this is not possible for complements (which the question test above would admit) or adjuncts. If therefore the noun of the prepositional phrase can become the passive subject, this means that it performs the same function to the verb preposition combination as it would to a simplex transitive verb (Vestergaard 1977:56; similar Bolinger 1977:58; also Kilby 1984). Van der Gaaf (1930:1) called it direct object in these cases, while the term "prepositional object" (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985:1156) is probably a better choice in order to highlight the differences that nevertheless exist between the two types. (27a-b) are regular prepositional passives, so to speak; for example, "this" stands in the same relation to "look into" as it would to "examine" in This needs to be examined.
60
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
(27a) ... I should just hate to see my name on anything that could not be relied on, ... (BNC AHA 441) (27b) This needs to be looked into. (BNC A0D 2439) (28) (29)
Despite the spread of private pensions, 75 per cent of pensioners lived on less than £3,500 a year. (BNC A50 516) *Less than £3,500 a year was lived on by 75% of pensioners. His bed had been slept in, but there was no sign of Travis. (BNC JY1 427)
In both cases in (27) the question test from above would yield a what-form as well. While the last is also true of (28) (cf. what did they live on?), the passive is impossible because of the nature of "a small salary"; it is probably not "affected" enough by the action to serve as a true patient. (29), on the other hand, would certainly not pass the question test (taking where?), but "this bed" can be interpreted as especially "affected", because of the vi sible result of Travis having slept in it (probably messy sheets); no longer visible effects, but instead a famous former occupant (e.g. Napoleon) of the bed, indicated by a by-phrase, would make the sentence acceptable as well (cf. Diensberg 1988:96; Couper-Kuhlen 1979:9). As Couper-Kuhlen has shown, the semantic make-up of the noun in question plays an important role for the possibility of passivization, quite apart from such intracta ble factors as frequencies and highly fluctuating acceptability ratings of prepositional passives among speakers. Thus, the passivization test probably does not say as much about the cohesion between verb and preposition as one might wish it did. Live on might be suspected to belong to the class of prepositional verbs (Diensberg 1988:89 puts it into a sort of middle class of verbs with a "prepositional complement"), whereas sleep in one would definitely want to exclude — and in neither case do the tests help very much. Preposition stranding in general, i.e. in non-passive contexts, which at first sight is a good pointer towards the cohesion of verb and preposition, is called inconclusive by de Haan (1988:123), whereas Denison (1985b:192; also Dekeyser 1990) goes even further and attributes it simply to the fact that the (preferred) uninflected relative cannot be preceded by a preposition — and, one should add, that is of course completely impossible in the case of the zero relative. A point to be mentioned in favour of a multi-word verb interpretation is the possibility of coordination of the verb-preposition sequence with a simplex verb, both sharing a common object, which Denison (1985:191; cf. also Bennett 1980:106f, and Jespersen 1928:III,272, with examples) referred to as a proof for "structural re-analysis". Later, Denison (1993:124) did not seem so sure about it, calling it a less secure test than passivi zation. I would sug-
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
61
gest that it also depends on the way the coordination is syntactically realised, cf. the following sentences. (30) (31) (32)
they tend to choose subjects they like and approve of. (BNC A35 32) Many people with AIDS have to spend long periods of time in hospital unless there is someone at home who can help and look after them. (BNC A00 81) The 10 per cent or so of the population which votes for Sinn Fein appears to approve of, or at least to tolerate readily , the IRA’s attempts to kill soldiers and policemen. (BNC A2P 476)
(32) seems to me to make the most convincing case, as the verb -preposition sequence is separated from its remaining prepositional phrase or object by the simplex verb, and there is nothing that motivates this particular sequence other than the choice of the writer. In (31), the V -P-N sequence is still intact, leaving both interpretations open; moreover, "help" could be seen as bein g used in an intransitive way — although I find that unlikely here. (30) exhibits the well-established preposition stranding pattern and the addition of another verb is no major step here. While there is this gradience in importance, I would nevertheless accept all the kinds of coordination of transitives preceding the object as proof. Another point, which is not often mentioned, but which Poutsma (1926:II,34) claims as a proof for a complete union between verb and prepo sition, is the fact that the past participle and the preposition can be used as an attributive adjunct/as an adjective, e.g. longed-for peace (Live 1965:429). Some of the most common of these transformations contain the negative suffix un-, e.g. unheard-of, unthought-of. After the foregoing discussion of the situation as found in the litera ture, it is now time to determine what will actually be used as criteria for identifying prepositional verbs in this study. Collocational fixity is, I think, an important point, that is the co-occurrence of one verb with one preposition, either always or consistently in a certain meaning or usage. Both idiomatic and non-idiomatic combinations will be accepted, on the same grounds as in the case of phrasal verbs (cf. 5.1. above). The following tests will be the ones to be applied: the question test, the passivization test, as well as the test whether the noun is a role-playing participant instead of a circumstantial element. Of course, not all of them have to work; I am also inclined to see the first and the last as the more important ones. The combinations belong to and believe in, for example, will be treated as prepositional verbs here, as it is only the passivization test that does not work in their case. The last mentioned test implies certain cha racteristics — or rather absent features — of the preposition: it definitely excludes purely spatial, temporal or other distinctive uses of prepo sitions, such as cause,
62
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
manner, instrument, purpose (cf. Poutsma 1926:II, 32). In general, the preposition as part of a prepositional verb should have very little or no mean ing of its own independent of the verb and stand in no opposition to other prepositions (König 1973:67-69). This type of preposition has been described as elements with affix character or function (cf. Leisi 1985:122; Rauh 1990:486ff + 1992:363), "pure markers" with the function of making the verb transitive (Allerton 1982: 16f; 59), or as "inherent preposi tions" (Dixon 1992:271), in each case in contrast to truly lexical elements. Consider the difference between the following a. (‘meaningful’, i.e. lexical preposition) and b. examples: (33a) It should work with a hammer. (instr.) He will wait at the station. (spatial) We will meet again on Monday. (temp.) (33b) It does not consist with the theory. They finally arrived at a conclusion. They insisted on another meeting. Thus (fight) for/against N (34a), for example, will be excluded here, as well as e.g. talk/deal (in the sense of "trade") etc. with N (34b), but not deal with in the sense "to act in regard to, administer, handle, dispose in any way of (a thing)" (OED s.v. deal v., 16+17; cf. (35)). In these excluded cases, it seems that the preposition has a more explicit, closer connection with whatever fol lows than with the preceding verb. (34a) I prest my deere Christ not to drown us, for said I, we fight for thy Kingly office, ... (RelB1650) (34b) In most places in India, we are in effect our own Law-makers, and can arrest and imprison any Natives that deal with us, or owe us money; ... (EcA1681) vs. (35) ... reviews within the periphery did begin to deal with the relationship between form and content in far more radical ways ... ( BNC ARD 598) In contrast to most approaches to prepositional verbs, I will, like de Haan (1988:134, n.1), accept only those among that class which he describes as "strict sequences of a verb and a preposition". Only an adverbial element is allowed to interrupt that sequence (as in (36)), whereas an intervening object is a disqualifying feature, i.e. Quirk et al.’s Type II prepositional verb (e.g. take N for N) will not be treated here. As I see it, in the latter case the cohesion between verb and preposition is often considerably weakened or even non-existent.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
63
(36a) Even so, one in five pensioners rely entirely on state benefits for their income. (BNC A5S 19) (36b) How you discuss AIDS will depend a great deal on the way you operate in your family. (BNC A0J 779) It might be assumed that this could lead to doubtful exclusions, but it did so in only one case: (37)
... but Justice would be turn’d into Gall and Wormwood. (PolA1684)
(37) was excluded because of its verb-object-preposition structure (in the active voice), whereas (38) has been accepted. (38a) ... the Metallick Sand of the Bathe, unless corroded with an acid Menstruum, doth not turn to Vitriol. (SciB1676) (38b) Soviet Russia was turning into a "purely bourgeois republic". (BNC A64 311) A last type I would like to include here is one which probably most falls out of common definitions of prepositional verbs. Verbs that exhibit a changing usage, for example with accompanying preposition then but not today (e.g. admit of), or verbs occurring sometimes with, sometimes without a preposition (cf. Dixon 1992:278ff), can be enlightening and will therefore be examined as well.12 Their inclusion stems from my interest in the modifications, however slight, in meaning brought about by these combinations. (39) is an example of the latter case; "at" here clearly modifies "play" and does not belong to the following "politics". (39)
He wants to play at politics. (BNC A8X 1017)
Perhaps Jespersen (1928:III, 252) was thinking of similar cases when he stated that often the preposition makes the whole expression "more graphic". This concludes my treatment of prepositional verbs, but before we go on to the other categories, a few words about the differentiation of preposi tional from phrasal verbs are in order, at least as far as it also applies to writ ten historical data. The most important difference is the position of the object, especially the pronominal one, in both cases. With prepositional verbs the preposition cannot be shifted after the following noun phrase, whereas with phrasal verbs this is possible, and even obligatory in the case of a pronominal object (with certain idiosyncratic idiomatic exceptions). Fraser (1976:2) regards this as the main distinguishing criterion. Further, in contrast 12
In EModE many verbs occur both with a prepositional object and with a nonprepositional, i.e. direct, object, e.g. command, favour, forget etc., without obvious change of meaning. Usually it is the non-prepositional use that survives into PDE (cf. Rissanen 1999).
64
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
to prepositional verbs, phrasal verbs do not quite as freely allow their sequence to be interrupted by manner adverbs (with certain monosyllabic exceptions and those only with literal phrasal verbs). 4.3 Phrasal-prepositional Verbs This third category of multi-word verbs is in some way an offspring of the two preceding categories, in so far as it could be described as basic ally a phrasal verb with a preposition added on to it — but in fact it is generally more than just that. In contrast to both the above, which are very common, occurrences of this category seem to be much rarer. The under lined structures in the following sentences can serve as prototypical examples of this category. (40) (41) (42) (43)
The doctor’s voice broke in on her thoughts. (BNC JY0 289) There was no telling what a girl like that might come up with; they might beat Mavis Bramley yet. (BNC A1C 1444) The last years of his life seem to have been largely given over to this task. (BNC A6S 598) If I stretch my imagination, I can admit to feeling a little tired lately, but put that down to the ageing process. (BNC CA9 488)
The first particle in each case is an adverbial (in, up, over, down), the second a preposition (on, with, to). Just as with prepositional verbs, stranding is possible, cf. (41), the same goes for passivization; in (42) this is even the obligatory syntactic form, as this particular combinat ion only ever occurs in the passive. As with phrasal verbs, there is a semantic cline, with (40) and (42) being transferred uses, in which the metaphor is still retrievable, whereas (41) and (43) are completely opaque. In contrast to phrasal verbs, however, phrasal-prepositional verbs do not extend to the completely literal end of the cline — at least not in the definition of this category to be used here. My approach to phrasal-prepositional verbs is much more semantically, or rather idiomatically, determined than in the case of the preceding two categories. With three words co-occurring, two of which are high-frequency functional items one has to make especially sure that they really form a lexical unit, and do not just happen to be used side by side. After all, almost any phrasal verb can happen to be followed by a prepositional phrase (cf. Carstensen 1964:318 f; Palmer 1974:238). Unitary meaning seems to be the right way of establishing lexical -unit status in this case; thus, in the above sentences the respective paraphrases could be (40) "interrupted", (41) "think of, invent", (42) "devoted", and (43) "attribute to". If one downplayed semantic considerations here, given the frequency of
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
65
phrasal verbs and the ubiquity of prepositions, one might end up with a large class of phrasal-prepositional verbs, most of them having very little internal cohesion. As regards cohesion, Denison (1981:29f) points out that some sequences of verb + particle + preposition display an internal constituent struc ture, whereas others do not. His examples of the two kinds are keep on + at and put up with, respectively. As regards the first instance, Cowie & Mackin (1975) have two entries, one "keep (on) at" and the other "keep on (at/in)", i.e. in both cases one element of the three-part sequence is deletable leaving either a simple prepositional verb (keep at) or a simple phrasal verb (keep on) — with the same or only slightly changed meaning. With put up with, on the other hand, no element is deletable and there are no separ ate constituents; trying to separate with from the rest would enforce a completely different interpretation on put up. Keep (on) at is explained by Cowie & Mackin as "worry, pester, harass (continuously) with suggestions, requests, complaints", i.e. as having a non-inferable, idiomatic meaning, keep on (at/in) is much closer to the literal end of the spectrum with "not remove (from), continue to employ (at/in)". In this latter case the prepositional phrase could be questioned by "where" — something which excluded such cases from the class of prepositional verbs (cf. 5.2.). The same criterion will also be used here to eliminate some apparent phrasal-prepositional verbs. Thus keep on (at) is out, whereas keep (on) at and put up with are in, on account of their idiosyncratic, idiomatic meaning and their use of ‘empty’ prepositions (cf. the explanation under 5.2. above). Denison (1981:29f) mentions another point in favour of their unitary status, namely the fact that these sequences are rarely interrupted by anything else or inverted in any way. Pied-piping of the preposition would be highly unusual (Palmer 1974:238). Regarding interruptability, in cases like (43) above, the object can of course intervene, and — according to Cowie & Mackin (1975:xlii) — so can (in principle at least) adverbs and adverbial phrases between particle and preposition, even if the preposition is non-deletable and the combination idiomatic. However, interruption does not seem to be very common. The above then are the reasons for regarding them as a class of their own, a class of transitive lexical units, and not as intransitive verb -particle combinations followed by a preposition, as Fraser (1976:4) does. As regards transitivity, Cowie & Mackin (1975:xlif; lvf) separate the class into an intransitive pattern A3 (e.g. do away with, come in on) and a transitive pattern B3 (e.g. fob N off with N, take N out on N). Their approach is understandable insofar as they include completely literal combinations such go aground on (e.g. a sandbank) — question "where" possible! — or scrape along on (e.g. a low salary), comparable to the prepositional com-
66
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
plement cases (cf. 5.2. above), which could hardly be called transitive in any sense. As these cases are excluded here, I think it better to think o f all phrasal-prepositional verbs as being transitive, the pattern A3 (or Quirk et al’s Type I) being monotransitive and the pattern B3 (Quirk et al’s Type II) being complex transitive. On semantic grounds, Potter (1965:289) sub-divides the phrasalprepositional class further into three groups, which are (i) transparent combi nations (e.g. come up with N, fall in with, go on with, look forward to ), (ii) opaque combinations (e.g. do away with, go in for, make up to), and (iii) combinations with redundant elements (e.g. face up to, meet up with). Group (i) should, in my opinion, not include really literal ones, but only those cases where the metaphorical extension is still readily retrievable. I fully agree with group (ii), as this is the one that will include all the prototypical combinations. Group (iii) is an interesting case because of the question of how redundant the particles are, or even if they are at all redundant. The point here is that one can also face N (instead of facing up to N) or meet N (vs. meet up with N) — and whether it would make a difference. It is true that the combinations share the same or at least similar co -occurrence restrictions with the simplexes, and are thus remi niscent of Fraser’s (1976) systematic phrasal verbs. However, there are differences in meaning, certainly more noticeably in face up to than in meet up with, but nevertheless they are there and will have to be examined in each case. To briefly summarize, all the relevant criteria for phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs apply here as well. The only additional feature that is important is the exclusion of completely literal combinations and thus an emphasis on idiomaticity. 4.4 Verb-adjective Combinations Although the existence of these combinations was noticed an d remarked on long ago (e.g. Kruisinga 1925; Poutsma 1926; Jespersen 1928), they have nevertheless not received any extensive treatment so far. This might be related to the fact that members of this class are not very numerous and that they do not pattern internally as neatly as the other categories discussed already. Adjectives after all are a more unwieldy class than primary adverbs or prepositions. After such vague and intuitive descriptions as that the predicative forms "one sense-unit with the verb" (Jespersen 1928:V,31), or the adjective forms a sort of compound with the verb (Poutsma 1926:25), Quirk et al. (1985:734,n.2; 1167f) have definitely accorded these combinations multiword verb status. They point out their similarity to phrasal verbs, esp ecially
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
67
regarding the different positions of the object (cf. 4.1 above and examples (44a-c) below), which would turn the adjective into a kind of particle (cf. also Fraser 1976:36). (44a) Stomach and bowel problems have also laid him low but he shows no sign of stopping. (BNC K4V 2922) (44b) A virus has laid some of my horses low. (BNC HAE 365) (44c) There had been nothing achieved by the expedition save the coachman’s cold which now threatened to lay low the rest of her staff. (BNC H82 2406) However, Quirk et al. (ibid.) also declare comparative modification to be possible in some cases, as in their example reproduced here as (45). This modification emphasizes the adjectival character of the second element. (45)
John didn’t put the cloth as straight as Meg.
In principle, however, I think it is possible for a word to simultaneously function as a particle syntactically and semantically as an adjective. Taking a non-multi-word verb stance, the adjective can be seen as either an object complement or a subject complement. Poutsma (1926) spoke of a result-relationship, and Fraser (1976:36f) called it a be-relationship 13 between direct object or subject and the adjective, analyses which remind one of the small-clause interpretations of phrasal verbs (cf. footnot e 1 above). A paraphrase of the above as he is low, the horses are low (44a-b) is of course only possible if one interprets low in the metaphorical sense that also applies when taking lay low as a unit. I am clear ... (46) works somewhat better, especially if one retains the rest of the sentence, but the result relationship is best of all illustrated by com pletely literal cases such as (47): the drawer is open. (46) (47)
I want to get clear of this mess before anything else happens. (BNC G3G 2601) I suspected something, and one day I decided to break open her drawer. (BNC GWH 1486)
Seen diachronically, the complement analysis is probably valid in most cases, but where in the course of time the adjective became more and more attached to the verb and the meaning grew increasingly opaque, this original relationship is rather obscured nowadays.
13
Sequences which exhibit a be-relationship in surface structure by actually including the verb to be will not be regarded as verb-adjective combinations here. Often phrases such as be indicative of are treated under nominal tendencies/combinations and included in the set, cf. e.g. Renský (1964) and Hoffmann (1972).
68
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
The attachment of the adjective to the verb, and thus the unitary char acter of the whole combination, can be tested by a variant of the simple noun phrase test, i.e. the test whether the adjective can stay next to the verb pre ceding a very short object (Bolinger 1971 14; König 1973:88). The two following examples pass this test: (48a) This is a good way to make known the University ... (BNC EE6 313) (48b) you break, break open the window and get it (BNC KCE 5210) I am not quite sure whether this test works with all combinations one would like it to work with; I have not managed to find an authentic example in which lay low was followed by a simple noun phrase object, for instance. Naturally, it also does not work with intransitive combinations, which Quirk et al. (1985:1168) call copular, although it can cover those which occur both in transitive and intransitive uses, e.g. break open. Nor is it a usable test with those combinations followed — obligatorily or optionally — by a preposition, e.g. get clear of (cf. (46) above), fall short of. Some, but not all, of the latter can actually be called transitive. Lastly, there are those cases which have become intransitive by object deletion, e.g. the "it" in see/think fit, which is not only dropped when an infinitive follows (as Jespersen 1928:V,32 says), but in practically all occurrences. Thus, there is no real test for quite a number of verb-adjective combinations. I propose to employ the modification possibilities as an additional test, which would work for all kinds of verb-adverb combinations. In combinations to be regarded as real multi-word units, modification should be restricted to the minimum, i.e. to short ad verbials indicating manner (cf. (49a)) or intensification (e.g. so, very, completely), as in (49b). (49a) What I want to grieve is the old Maurice before he was laid so humiliatingly low by whatever it was ... (BNC H9Y 2969) (49b) If possible, get someone else to fly it before you to make quite sure that the ASI is working correctly. (BNC A0H 1768) I would not accept put straight in (45) above as a verb-adjective combination in the sense of this study. Because of the comparative modification, straight retains too much of its syntactic adjectival character to become really attached to the verb and form a unit with it. Comparative modification including as ... as, or than should thus not be possible, whereas more and most, if on their own, are allowed, as they can be seen as simple manner adverbs. Reduced modification possibilities make a statement about the closeness of the bond between verb and adjective; the more habitualized (or 14
Bolinger (1971:chap. 6) treats verbs-adjective combinations as a sub-category of phrasal verbs. Thus everything he says about the latter (cf. 4.1) applies here as well.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
69
even fossilized) a combination becomes, the less likely modification will be; for example it will hardly be possible to find a modified occurrence (in any way) of see fit in PDE. At the beginning of this section, I said that this category does not pat tern nicely. But Bolinger (1971:72-76) and König (1973:88f) advocate a possible subdivision into three groups. The first is made up of a combination of a causative verb (e.g. make, keep, leave) and an unknown number of adjectives, with such results as make known, make possible. In the second group any kind of verb can combine with an adjective of a closed set, namely open, loose, free, and clear, producing e.g. let loose. The third and last group is one that is lexically open, but semantically closed, in so far as any kind of verb or adjective is possible as long as the resultant combination expresses a cause-result relationship, as items like bleach white, cut short do. While this classification works with many, perhaps even the majority of verb -adjective combinations, there are cases which are not covered by it, in particular, it seems, not those with a final preposition. To end this section, these are the features the verb -adjective combinations to be considered here should possess. They are the combination of a verb with an adjective, and an optional or obligatory preposition at t he end, in which the adjective carries a prominent, sometimes even the major part of the meaning of the whole verb phrase. In some instances, the adjective embodies the verbal process as such, whereas the verb in a way modifies it by indicating the manner; this is often visible by one adjective occurring with a number of different verbs. As to the adjectives in question, most belong to the traditional word class adjective (e.g. good, sure), some are both adjectives and verbs, regardless of the direction of derivation (e.g. open, free), and some are past participles of verbs used in an adjectival function (e.g. known, rid). The criterial tests are simple noun phrase test, the nonadmission of comparative modification, and generally as little modification as possible. Additionally, in contrast to the situation with phrasal verbs, the possibilities of passivization might also be of relevance here. 4.5 Verbo-nominal Combinations One cannot really say that this category has not been given attention, but it has not been very comprehensive or systematic; in fact, most works so far have dealt with one specific semantic and syntactic sub-type among the possible combinations. This is also reflected by the fact that there is no common, established name for the category in question here. The same can be said for the verb-adjective combinations just treated, but those at least are much less common than the units involving a nominal element. Terms used
70
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
so far for this category include "complex verbal structures" (Nic kel 1978), "complex predicate" (Cattell 1984), "expanded predicate" (Algeo 1995), "Funktionsverbgefüge" (Müller 1978), "take-have-phrasal" (Live 1973), "verb-object combination" (Firbas 1969), "V-N construction" (Stein 1991), and "verbo-nominal phrase" (Renský 1964). The first three are too general and could also stand for all the other categories treated here, the fourth ignores the important nominal part, the fifth is confusing because it is reminiscent of phrasal verbs, and the sixth might be mislead ing because of its use of the term object (cf. below). The remaining two are really the best of all, and therefore I have partly taken over the last term, as ‘verbo -nominal’ has the advantage of at least clearly describing the cate gory and setting it off from all the others; phrase/construction has been replaced by ‘combination’, because it seems important to me to lay somewhat more stress on the pos sible unitary character of the sequence. As already stated above (cf. chap.3), this category is further divided into three sub-groups, namely (Group I) simple verb-noun units such as talk a walk, take place, give way, (Group II) verb-noun-preposition units, e.g. set fire to, catch sight of, put an end to, take care of and (Group III) verb-prepositional phrase units, like come to an end, bring to light, put in execution , cf. the following example sentences: (I)
(50) So training must take place with this time period in mind. (BNC A0M 348) (51) Table 4.6 takes all those who were able to give an answer at both first and second assessments ... (BNC B0W 737)
(II)
(52) Teachers ran the risk of looking like idiots or liars. (BNC AA8 496) (53) Then John made use of his position as director of the Comedy Theatre and arranged the children’s dances in the pantomime. ( BNC B34 67)
(III)
(54) What factors would you take into consideration when assessing a patient’s nutritional status? ( BNC EV5 937) (55) ... the helpings put me in mind of "Nouvelle Cuisine meets Yorkshire portions". (BNC BPJ 400)
From the examples given it should be obvious that there is quite an amount of internal variation within the three groups (regarding, e.g., type of noun, articles), which is probably unavoidable whatever kinds of classification criteria are used, given the variety of verbo -nominal combinations. 15 I haven 15
Live (1973), for example, chose to take the character of the noun as her criterial element to produce her Types I, II, and III. But she did not fit verb-prepositional phrase sequences (of which she mentions only those with be) into this classification, so
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
71
chosen to take as the basic classification criterion the absence or presence of a preposition, and, in the case of the latter, its syntactic position. This also has the advantage that the resultant types fit roughly in with those di scussed in the extant literature. Before proceeding to the discussion of these three categories, a few more general observations valid for all of them are in order. In all these com binations it is the nominal part that carries the major or even all the c omponents of meaning, i.e. the noun itself embodies the verbal process instead of being affected by it (as an object would be). This fact is especially important for the first two groups, where the noun is found in the direct ob ject position. Quirk et al. (1985:750ff) make the same semantic observations, but neverthe less retain the term ‘object’ in calling the noun an "eventive object". While the noun certainly does not represent an object semantically and functionally, the syntactic surface structure m akes it look like one. Therefore, Quirk et al.’s term, in capturing this double-sided nature of the noun, seems appropriate. From the above it follows that the verb is of minor or even of no importance, from the semantic perspective, but of course it is syntactically necessary as a verbal operator. Therefore, the verbal part is usually taken from the rather small class of very common, multi -functional verbs, such as make, take, give, put etc. Somehow verb and noun, plus perhaps a preposition, coalesce with each other to form a unit. And this is actually all that can safely be generalised about verbo-nominal combinations; thus their basic definition is necessarily semantic. A conclusive syntactical definition, in the form of tests, although some will be discussed below, is hardly possible; mainly, I think, because the individual behaviour of the nouns determines very much what syntactical possibilities the whole combination will have. Let me start with Group I then, the simple combination of a verb and a noun, without any preposition being involved. Most people have used a rather restrictive definition for this category, which is understandable in a way, because it is only in this way that one gets a set about which neat generalisations are possible. According to this approach a type of verbonominal combination is formed by the sequence: (operator) verb + determiner + deverbal noun, as in the prototypical example take a walk. Among those who have worked with this or a very similar definition are that it remains incomplete, in my opinion. She also totally ignores the prepositions, although some of the examples she gives would habitually require the presence of one. Hiltunen (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999) chose the presence or absence of an article, and the kind of article present, as a classificatory criterion. But articles in the combinations seem to behave rather idiosyncratically at any rate, and are especially problematic within an historical perspective.
72
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
Nickel (1978), Live (1973), Algeo (1995), Wierzbicka (1982) 16, Stein (1991), Stein & Quirk (1991), Müller (1978) 17, Prince (1972), Dixon (1992), and Cattell (1984). The verb in this category is purely functional, fulfilling the syntactic requirements of a verb in the sentence, and belongs to a small group, of which the most common are give, have, make, and take, i.e. verbs of Germanic stock (Nickel 1978:67). Algeo (1995:208) even restricts what he calls the "core expanded predicate" to those four verbs just mentio ned; Stein (1991:2) further excludes make, leaving a group of three verbs for her V-N construction. With the loss of most of its meaning, the verb also loses its potential for receiving any more than weak stress, the main accent fal ling on the noun (Müller 1978:13) — it is a "light verb" in every sense (Live 1973:33). This assumption is challenged by Stein (1991), however, who attempts to prove that the verbs make very spe cific contributions to the meaning of the whole combination; Müller (1978:114) also sees some independent meaning in them (cf. also Poutsma 1926:II,394; Dixon 1992:351ff). The determiner is usually simply the indefinite article (Nickel 1978:66); Algeo, Stein and also Dixon are again more restrictive by strictly excluding anything but the indefinite article. However, Live (1973:36) points out that some article-less combinations have to be seen as a sub-pattern of this category, e.g. take command, make love, give battle; additionally she mentions the much less common case of the definite ar ticle, e.g. have the lead (cf. also Müller 1978:140f). As to the nouns, in a narrow sense, they are zero-derivation nouns which are formally identical with a verb (Live’s Type I and Algeo’s core expanded predicate; also Stein 1991:2 and Dixon 1992:339), or, in a wider sense, they are either derived from or related to a verb stem (Nickel 1978:68; Hoffmann 1972:169). They are generally abstract in nature, in contrast to nouns in typical verb -object constructions, which are much more often of the concrete type , cf. He gave her a smile vs. He gave her a book (Nickel 1978:68; Müller 1978:105). 16
Wierzbicka deals only with a very specialized type of the pattern "have (take, give) + indefinite article + verbal (infinitival) stem", i.e. the last part of the sequence is not seen by her as a noun at all (also Dixon 1992), even though it is combined with an article and can be modified. She claims that these cases "can be distinguished from deverbal nouns with a zero suffix, e.g. smile, cough, or quarrel..." (755), but does not convincingly show how. In my view, this approach cannot be upheld, as it is impossible to brush away all the formal nominal features exhibited by the final parts of these combinations. An additional criterion of Wierzbicka’s seems to be the existence of a simple-verb counterpart. 17 Müller makes a difference between preposition-less Funktionsverbgefüge with the nominal part taking the place of a direct object — i.e. the category under discussion at the moment — and those containing a preposition in the middle, e.g. bring to an end (cf. below). Thus he takes a broader view than the other linguists enumerated here.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
73
Apart from this basic type just described, there are variants (usually kept very distinct from the ‘core’ type) regarding the nominal part of the combination. Müller (1978:128), Live (1973:36f) and Algeo (1995:205f) all mention nominal elements which, though clearly related to a verb, are formally noun-marked, e.g. through a suffix, such as apology, comparison, choice, loss (Live’s Type II). Live’s Type III, which she calls peripheral, is made up of combinations where there is no underlying noun-verb correspondence, but which are nevertheless replaceable by other simplexes, e.g. make an effort, take an oath, have an opinion (similar Müller 1978:120 and Algeo 1995). Live draws attention to the fact that the contribution of words of Romance stock to her types II and III is very pronounced, even more so in combinations lacking the article, whereas this is not the case in her Type I. What has been said so far accounts almost completely for the members of the first group posited above, simple verb -noun units, but it leaves some isolated items unexplained — which I would like to include, though. These are in particular take effect, take place, take pains , and make way, which neither have cognate simplex verbs 18 nor are they really replaceable by single-word equivalents — nevertheless they exhibit a very unitary verbal character. It seems to me that they are more lexicalized than most other members of this group, and this might ex plain their deviance in this respect. I now come to Group II, the setting up of which is necessary to ac count for the clear (even if at first only intuitively felt) contrast between, e.g., take a walk and catch sight of, as well as for the fact that some combinations fossilize with a fixed preposition. Members of this group are always transitive (whereas Group I units can be both transitive or intransitive); semantically they require the presence of an object and the only way to attach an object to the nominal part is of course with the help of a preposition — which therefore becomes obligatory. The problem is to decide in which cases the preposition (and thus the object) is really obligatory, as any simple verb-noun sequence can theoretically be followed by a preposition. I take the preposition to be obligatory if the combination can never occur without it 19, and if the nominal element following the preposition 18
There are, admittedly, the verbs to effect, to place and to pain, but none of those has the relevant meaning for the nominal part in the combination. A kind of exception is pain, as, at least in the Lampeter period, there was still a relationship between the simplex and the periphrastic construction, cf. these OED examples (s.v. pain n.): Eumenes pained himselfe (= took pains, CC) to carrie succour to his left wing. (1614, Raleigh, Hist. World iv. iii. 9) While he pain’d himself to raise his note. (1700, Dryden, Cock & Fox 669) 19 The condition here is that the following element is a noun and not a clause; even prepositional verbs ‘lose’ their preposition when preceding a clause.
74
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
can be seen to be affected in the way the direct object of a simplex verb would be. (56a) Make love to me, Jay. (BNC A0L 1001) (56b) You can’t make love at pistol point ... (BNC A0L 2392) While in (56a) the object me is definitely affected (cf. the simplex construction love me, and the possibility of passivization), (56b) shows that make love can occur without a further object, and thus without to, especially, but not exclusively, because it often takes a plural subject. Therefore, make love will be put into the first group above. The same goes for take part, which is an even clearer case: it can occur without the preposition (cf. (57b)) and the following nominal cannot be called affected. (57a) The Conference would wish all who may take part in the referendum to recognize that Protestant Churches are pro-Life ... (BNC A07 1036) (57b) We’re looking for ten volunteers to take part, each of whom will be sent five plants (...) to grow. (BNC A0G 390) Take part with, however, meaning "side with somebody" would lose this meaning if without the preposition, and therefore belongs into Group II. Put an end to is also definitely a fixed verb-noun-preposition sequence and as such part of the second group. The whole combination needs an object, hence the unacceptability of (58b). (58a) He would also be expected to pay a premium to put an end to the chaos. (BNC A3L 629) (58b) *He would also be expected to pay a premium to put an end. Sometimes apparent unacceptability in the preposition -less use can be remedied by increasing or changing the context, especially by modification of the nominal part. But this does not seem to be the case in the present example. Also, the delimitation of the groups will be clearer if the non -modified combinations can stand alone. Besides the two points mentioned above, the nature of the verb and the noun involved might also play a role in the delimitation of the two groups. An important question is whether the noun is independent enough to stand on its own or whether it requires some kind of complementation. Take for example the word charge, which enters into verbo-nominal combinations (in the Lampeter Corpus) in the meanings (a) "military attack", (b) "accusation", and (c) "responsibility, care" (cf. its OED entry). In the case of (a), e.g. give charge, it is self-sufficient requiring no complementation (i.e. Group I membership), with (c), e.g. take charge (of), constructions with or without complement are possible (i.e. Group I as well), but with regard to (b), e.g. lay a charge to/on N, the presence of an object of the accusation is
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
75
necessary 20 (i.e. Group II membership), lay a charge alone carrying no complete independent meaning. The verb being lay, and not make, for instance, may also play a role in this case. With the Lampeter Corpus examples have defeat (Group I) and give defeat to (Group II) it is definitely the verbs that make the difference — basically by embodying a passive versus an active sense. On the other hand, both give alarm and take alarm can stand on their own; whether the (in)transitivity of the underlying or related verb has a principled influence — the verb alarm could be used intransitively (cf. OED, s.v. alarm 1.a.) — is not quite clear to me, and would need to be looked into further. In general, it has to admitted that the borderline between Groups I and II is rather fuzzy and also permeable. There is quite definitely a gradient. What makes things even more complicated is that some combinations such as take care (of) and give (an) account (of) belong to both groups, something which goes together with different meanings: (59a) Take great care turning right. (BNC A0J 36) "be careful" (59b) This will take care of any (...) calcium deficiency too. (BNC A0G 2321) "deal with" (59c) Had she simply had Maggie so that someone, somewhere, would have to love her and take care of her? (BNC A6J 161) "care for, look after" 21 (60a) I could give you a blow-by-blow account of how England lost to Portugal the other night. (BNC A0U 1061) "tell" 20
The (obligatory) presence of an object does not necessarily always entail a fixed preposition, cf. the Lampeter Corpus instance give alteration, where the object can intervene between the two elements (a case of dative shift), thus putting this example into Group I. 21 Nunberg, Sag & Wasow (1994) propose a "double entry analysis" (523) for such verb-nominal sequences in order to account for differing syntactic behaviour exhibited by one and the same combination. The idiom take care of can be analyzed as an idiomatic phrase ("an idiosyncratic type of phrasal construction that is assigned its own idiomatic meaning" (507)) or as an idiomatic combination (which "consist[s] of a fundamentally semantically (typically figurative) dependency among distinct lexemes, however restricted in distribution these lexemes might be" (ibid.)). This may (as here) or may not go together with some semantic differentiation. (59b) contains the idiomatic phrase, which is supposed by them to disfavour the passive with care in subject position (inner passive), whereas (59c) as an idiomatic combination is said to permit both types of passive equally well. However, the native speakers I asked found the inner passive dubious/unsatisfactory in both cases. Besides, the authors go to great lengths to explain something rather simple: all the elements in these combinations are janus-faced, looking inward on the combination and kind of merging, as well as looking outward as individual words. Their individual meaning is retained or retrievable to varying degrees, which may also determine their syntactic behaviour. These degrees form a cline, not two separate camps.
76
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
(60b) Some four or five-year olds are perfectly able to give a coherent account of themselves, while some 16-year olds cannot. (BNC A2P 695) "explain, account for" The "of" in (60a) is not an integral part of the combination 22, although it is always present when the object is specified (cf. Cattell 1984:5). The important thing is that it need not always be specified. Combinations with a completely integrated preposition seem to be not all that common; thus Group II is smaller than Group I. What has been said about the characteristics of the verbal and nominal parts above is also valid here. Two further tendencies are nowadays visible in this present group, namely a certain preference for the zero-article in the base (infinitive) form of the combination and a higher percentage of Romance nouns. The third and last group of verbo-nominal combinations comprising verb-prepositional group sequences contains both transitive and intransitive units. Examples for intransitive combinations are come to an end, come to light, be in doubt; in this group it is the verbal part that determines intransitivity. With the transitive combinations there are some that require an additional preposition at the end, either to link to the object of the whole unit, as in stand in need of N, or to add another object or complement, e.g. put N in mind of N. As with prepositional verbs above, separation of the preposition from the rest is not seen as a problem (61a,b); on the other hand, the phenomenon of the stranded preposition exists here as well (61c). (61a) This meant that the new "natural philosophy" stood in need, not merely of practical development, but also of intellectual justification and explanation. (BNC ABM 666) (61b) A general system of gardening founded on experience is a work of which the public has long stood in need. (BNC ALU 923) (61c) ... both shopping expedition and holiday were what she stood in need of. (BNC AD1 3234) The direct object of the combination usually, but not always, intervenes be tween the verb and the prepositional part, i.e. take N into consideration, instead of take into consideration N; the latter becomes necessary, however , if the object noun phrase is very long or heavy (cf. (62c)). Thus, the elements of the combinations are usually separated in real language; this is balanced out by less common nominal modification in this group. (62a) The judges may even take the owner’s appearance into consideration when making their minds up. (BNC A17 1035) 22
Cf. also Nunberg, Sag & Wasow’s (1994:520, esp. fn. 34) discussion of take advantage (of), which at first sight looks like a typical preposition case, but empirically is obviously not.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
77
(62b) More ominously its size and capacity also took into consideration future military needs. (BNC AR0 521) (62c) The judge further invalidated a statute that requires the agency to "take into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public ." (BNC EBV 51) Apart from the conditions as to the internal make -up of these combinations, other, mainly syntactic criteria have also been applied to them. Most of them deal primarily with Groups I and II, however. Nickel (1978:68ff; also cf. Hoffmann 1972) mentions four criteria, which might be useful: the action denoted by the deverbal noun has the subject of the sentence as its agent (subject-predicate relationship as with a simplex verb); if a possessive pronoun accompanies the noun it is dominated by the subject of the sentence (cf. (63)); it is not the verbal but the nominal part of the combination that determines which kind of object it can take (cf. also Müller (1978:106), who says that the combination shares the selectional restrictions of the simplex equivalent, but he also admits some restricted selectional role to the verb (115)); and the verb cannot be freely replaced by others (similarly Müller 1978:114 and Hoffmann 1972:170), whereas substitution by members of the same semantic class is possible in normal verb-object constructions. (63)
And when you’ve made your choice, we’ll deliver your new machine ... (BNC AYX 217)
Müller (1978:9; 106), besides stating generally that the combinations are se mantically identical to simplexes, and can as a rule be replaced by the latter in context, also suggests some syntactic criteria to be used, namely gapping, pronominalization and certain forms of topicalization (ibid. 107-110). Gapping should only be possible if the two verbs are either both used in a verbo-nominal combination or are both used in their literal sense, but not if usage differs, cf. *John took a cigarette and then a swim in the pond. Pronominalization of the nominal part of the combination is said to be highly restricted or completely impossible, i.e. the noun cannot usually be replaced by it23 (whereas the whole combination can), or be questioned with the help of "what?".
23
Against this assumption cf. Nunberg, Sag & Wasow (1994:501f, incl. fn. 16), who quote the following nice example: The children made a mess of their bedrooms, but then cleaned it up. According to Krenn (1977:108), the noun must be present in the semantic structure to be pronominalized, and I would argue that many of the nouns in verbo-nominal combinations are at least partially, if not completely present semantically. Thus, the restriction on pronominalization should not be overrated.
78
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
(64)
The government gave way in 1988, then went back on [the] deal ... (BNC A9N 231) *What did the government give?
As to topicalization, cleft and pseudo-cleft sentences are claimed to be either unusual or again wholly impossible with verbo-nominal combinations. Fraser (1976:44) adds a criterion specifically for Group III types, namely the fact that the prepositional-phrase part of the combination cannot be preceded by an adverbial, whereas ‘free’ prepositional phrases permit this. The replaceability by a simplex of the same meaning mentioned above is a criterion that is often employed. Dixon (1992:340) operates on the sentence level by requiring that two sentences, one with the simplex, the other with the verbo-nominal combination, should have essentially the same meaning. Renský (1964:290) makes substitution by a non-derived verb his basic condition or criterion. This is intended to exclude on the one hand such cases as take place, take heart, which he calls intuitively different from, e.g., take aim, take hold, from the set of verbo-nominal combinations, and, on the other hand, to omit cases where the simplex verb is actually derived from the verb in the periphrastic form, e.g. to be head of > to head. But this criterion should not be overrated, in my opinion. Although it is deceptively simple in use in most cases, it usually goes hand in hand with a loss, substitution or shifting of semantic features, so that the simplex and the com bination are by no means identical, or a simple "stylistic variant" (Renský 1964:290); cf. also Cattell (1984:77), who uses the careful formulation "near paraphrases with related simple verbs" when describing his basic criterion. Further, the actual lack of a single-word ‘equivalent’ might have come about by a historical development in the course of which the combination simply won out on the simplex (cf. fn. 18). Also, if a language makes do with just the combination, and does not bother to create or borrow a simplex, this might be an important point as well. Non-substitutability does not, therefore, disprove multi -word verb status. The question of the status of the nouns in these combinations has been touched on above; it is of somewhat greater importance for Groups I and II than for Group III. In principle, the nouns possess all formal characteristics of nominals on their own, i.e. they can take all sorts of determiners, or also none, they can be premodified (e.g. adjectives, (65a)) or postmodified (e.g. relative clauses, (65b)), and they can be pluralized (66) — but of course every combination behaves idiosyncratically in this respect, allowing some things and barring others. Degrees of lexicalization are obviously important here. The plural, for example, is relatively rare in these combinations; some combinations allow it freely, whereas others do not permit it at all (Stein 1991:13; Müller 1978:114).
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
79
(65a) ... this may lead to generalisations about the group which take little account of the individual qualities of the artists. (BNC A04 1289) (65b) it is perhaps the way in which these terms are used by professionals and others to which the greater attention should be paid if we are to make progress which is enduring. (BNC GWJ 570) (66) Over the next days, the girls swam, took long walks, talked, and ate Cook’s meals ... (BNC FNT 1501) Sheintuch (1981:esp. 333-337), whose concern is with non-idiomatic verbal units (partly parallel to Groups I and II as understood here), states that, in order to function as part of such a unit, nouns cannot have unique reference to something in the real world. Basically, this is certainly correct, but her added restriction, that this condition is not of equal importance in different syntactic constructions, is also relevant. For it could be ar gued that the addition of a personal pronoun or a relative clause produce unique reference for the noun in question. Another point that is important for the status of the noun (in both Group I and II) is the question of transitivity, and thus also the question of (direct) object-hood of the noun. The first group can be used both intransitively and transitively, as I regard He gave an answer to be intransitive (cf. also Traugott in Brinton/Akimoto 1999:240), whereas He gave him an answer/He gave an answer to him are seen as transitive uses of the same item. I think semantically this statement needs no clarification, but in formal, syntactic terms the situation is of course not that simple: the noun phrase an answer occupies the direct object position. Normally, it should be possible to distinguish it from a ‘real’ object (such as [give N] a book) by a combination of some of the semantic requirements and syntactical tests enumerated in the discussion of Group I; the "what"-question test in particular can produce rather amusing results in the case of verbo-nominal combinations. There are also the possibilities of passivization, i.e. whether the nominal element of the combination can become the subject of a passive sentence, but unfortunately this leads to very contradictory results within t he group of verbo-nominal combinations. Müller (1978:138) deals with the question by calling the noun in the combination not a "Wertigkeitsargument", but a "Prädikationskomple ment". Chomsky (1981:37;101), encountering the same problem in take advantage of Bill, treats it by calling advantage a quasi-argument, that is either a non-argument that has been assigned no actual Q-role, or an argument with the special role "#"; the same treatment is given to take care of, make much of. However, in this way one ends up with having quasi-arguments in subject-position, as both advantage and care, even much, can become the subjects of passive sentences. Additionally, all this seems to apply only to idioms. It is probably disputable whether the above examples are idio ms or
80
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
not, but give an answer certainly is not — thus this solution would have to be extended to regular patterns as well. Cattell (1984:52;111) basically agrees with Chomsky, although his complex predicates are not idioms; but he also admits that there is no independent way of telling whether a noun phrase is an argument or part of a complex predicate, i.e. a verbo -nominal combination. The problem of passivization has been mentioned before, and now a few more words about it are in order. The third group of verbo-nominal combinations is perhaps the least problematic in this respect: it has direct objects which are not part of the combination and can therefore freely passivize (cf. (67)). Moreover, the noun in the prepositional phrase is not like a preposi tional object, but has more of a complement nature, and thus does not allow passivization. (67)
Allegations of such activity were brought to light by Cathy Massiter, ... (BNC ASB 871)
With the other two types of combinations, inner passive, based on the nominal part of the combination itself, and/or outer passive, based on the object of the whole combination are possible. The outer passive is in principle always possible, although Müller (1978:170) calls it rare (68b). Bolinger (1977:62) points out that the high or low frequency of a combination may play a role here. The inner passive, however, is more idiosyncratic (68a). (68a) Mention should be made of some other urban projects that are designed to improve agency co-ordination. (BNC B1U 974) (68b) ... therefore the planning considerations that have been mentioned need to be paid attention to. (BNC J41 27) Live (1965:37f) explains the differences partly via the characteristics of the verb (have-/make-combinations) and partly with the features of the dev erbal nouns (take-/give-combinations), whereas Müller (1978:169) attempts a semantic classification of the nouns (only for give-combinations). However, all this has to do with the fact that in all kinds of verbo -nominal combinations, but probably most of all in the second group, there is an internal cline to be noticed, from very close units to looser combinations. Denison (1981:37), for example, remarks that set fire to is to be placed at the more unitary end of the spectrum, whereas take care of tends towards the more open end. Fire in the former is not an independent noun any longer, as it cannot accept modifications or be made subject of a passive sentence. Care, on the other hand, can do both of these. Nevertheless, both are in my opinion to be seen as lexical units in their own right, so that lexical/semantic facts do not necessarily closely correlate with syntactic facts in this area.
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
81
I will close this section, like the others, with a brief summary of which combinations are to be accepted in this study. The following is to be understood for all three groups. Generally the combination should present a unitary meaning — and there is no denying that semantic intuition will be at work here, aided by paraphrasability with a simplex yielding a similar overall meaning. Moreover, the meaning should be centred in the noun, not in the verb. This does not mean that I assume the verbs to be completely empty; I think they can make independent semantic contributions to the combinations, including for example those of an aspectual/aktionsart kind. Therefore I will not a priori restrict the number of verbs to be included, but accept any kind of verb as long as it does not completely override the noun in importance. The only verb that I mostly exclude is to be. Some linguists (e.g. Poutsma 1926, Renský 1964; Hoffmann 1972) dealing with nominal tendencies have included structures such as to be an early riser, to be indicative of N as combinations. I ignored those completely in the case of verb -adjective combinations above, and will do the same for verbo-nominal combinations — with certain exceptions, however. When be (i.e. the primary notion of existence) clearly is not present in the semantic structure, as in be of opinion "think" or be at a loss "not know what to do", I have accepted the unit in question. As to the nouns, they certainly need to be of the abstract kind, and this depends on their use in the context in question. "Eyes" in set eyes on N does not represent the biological entity, but is metonymic for t he faculty of seeing — and therefore abstract. Give evidence, on the other hand, can in certain circumstances be excluded, namely in those cases (in court, e.g.) where "evidence" refers to a written statement, i.e. a concrete object. While I think that most nouns in the combinations are of the deverbal kind (conversions, suffixal derivations, or otherwise clearly related, e.g. die — death), there are also those with no formal relation to a verb, e.g. way, liberty. All these kinds will be accepted. There are also no conditions set on the presence or absence of a (certain kind of) determiner within the combination. As it is hard even today to find a sufficient number of native speakers who will agree on the (non-)acceptability of transformations of verbo-nominal combinations, I will completely refrain from employing syntactic tests on historical verbo-nominal data — except for observing which syntactic ‘transformations’ appear in the data as such. To end this whole section with, I will try to present the basic internal make-up and the transitivity features of the multi -word categories discussed above in a somewhat more convenient form:
82
Categories of Multi-word Verbs
Table 4.1: A synopsis of multi-word verbs verb category phrasal verb prepositional verb phrasal-prepositional verb verb-adjective combination verbo-nominal combination: Group I verbo-nominal combination: Group II verbo-nominal combination:Group III
noun adverb prep. adjective noun prep. noun (y) x (y) x y (x) (y) (y) x x y (y)
x
(y)
x
(x)
(y)
x
(y)
(y)
x
x
y
x
(x)
(y)
Note: "x" means the element is part of the multi-word verb, (the second "x" for prepositional verbs, given for the sake of comprehensiveness, does not constitute a new subtype, cf. 4.2); "y" (="yes") makes a statement about transitivity; and bracketed letters () indicate optionality (depending, e.g, on transitive vs. intransitive combination).
5. The History of Multi-word Verbs Complex forms with relatively clear syntactic patterning such as those dis cussed in the preceding chapter of course do not appear out of nowhere, but take time to evolve and also to consolidate. Thus, it is not surprising that either the types in question themselves or at least te ndencies in their direction are to be found in earlier stages of the En glish language. Therefore this chapter is intended to give a brief overview of the development of multiword verb types as far as can be found in the literature, and as far as is relevant to the present study. It appears that scholarly attention has been very unevenly spread, with the Old and Middle English stages clearly being overrepresented in the treatment of phenomena related to multi-word verbs. There is not much information to be found on the later periods. Also, the different types have not met with an equal amount of interest. It is es pecially remarkable that such types as phrasal or prepositional verbs have not be en the object of corpus studies as regards their place in Present -day English. At least I am not aware of any work done in that area. The following account will of course reflect these biases in the literature. 5.1 Old and Middle English The attention accorded these two periods is justified by their (especially the latter’s) importance for the phenomena in question. Denison (1981:3) states that while OE presents a completely different situation from PDE, by the time of late ME the basic structure of the present position of multi-word verbs had been established, i.e. most of the syntactic pat terns had come into existence and there were even some fully idiomatic cases to be found. This means that in the time span stretching approximately from late OE to ea rly ME some important developments were taking place, cf. for instance Hiltunen’s (1983a:220) statement on phrasal verbs: "The crucial period in the syntactic and semantic development of the phrasal verb falls within lOE and eME." While it is true that OE did not actually possess any of the types of multi-word verbs discussed in chapter 4, certain facts and tende ncies can be made out that represent the precursors or roots of the types later to emerge. Both phrasal and prepositional verbs have their ultimate origins in a highly complex OE situation exhibiting quite some variation and flexible boundaries between whatever ‘types’ there may have been. OE verbs could and did occur in conjunction with words to be variously termed prepositions, adverbs, prepositional adverbs, postpositions, separable prefixes, and
84
The History of Multi-word Verbs
inseparable prefixes (cf. Mitchell 1978), which can all look very similar, even identical on the manuscript page. The following few examples and the comments on them are taken from Mitchell (1978:255 -56) and are to give a glimpse of the situation: (1) (2a) (2b) (3)
Þa sticode him mon Þa eagan ut 7 siÞÞan him mon slog Þa handa of (Or 168.4) Þæt he for godes lufon eode to reordum mid Þam tocumendum mannum (Mart 168.25) cume to and drince (ÆHom 5.143) Gyrstanæfen me gelamp, Þæt ic ungewealdes ætsporn æt anum fotscamele. (900, Wærferth tr. Gregory’s Dial. 22,10; OED s.v. yesterneven)
Ut in (1) is probably an adverb, and of in the same sentence is either also one or it is a preposition (in post-position) belonging with him. Alternatively of is seen by some as a separable prefix, just like to in tocuman in (2a-b). Æt- in (3) is a clear case, undoubtedly to be interpreted as an inseparable prefix. But whatever their status in OE, it is amazing how reminiscent some of them are of PDE phrasal verbs, e.g. in (1) of take out and cut off, or come together for (2a-b). Phrasal verbs Hiltunen’s account (1983a) is the most thorough treatment of the genesis of the phrasal verb, and the following account leans hea vily on it. As far as one can speak of OE phrasal verbs, they are collocations of a verb and either a phrasal or a prepositional adverb (ibid. 20), as ut in (1) above. In contrast to PDE, syntactic possibilities are still more open, with four positional patterns of adverbial element and verb, two preverbal (1. a V, 2. a (...) V) and two postverbal ones (3. V a, 4. V (...) a) (ibid. 21; similar Roberts 1936:479, but denying the existence of a (...) V), cf. (4) and (5) respectively. While the preverbal patterns are still dominant in early OE, there is a quite noticeable shift towards the postverbal patterns in late OE, a development which is strengthened in early ME (first in main, then also in dependent clauses), leading to the final establishment of the postve rbal pattern by 1200 (ibid. 106-11). (4a) (4b) (5a)
He het his heafod of aslean. (Ælfric, Saints’ Lives 26, 162, Visser §668) þæt eac Eðna þæt sweflene fyr tacnade, þa hit up of helle geate asprong on Sicilia þæm londe (Or 88.30; Hiltunen 1983a:105)) Ateon ut þa horhestan wætan. (Leechdoms II, 222; Visser §668)
The History of Multi-word Verbs 85 (5b)
Ge drehnigeað ðone gnæt aweg. (OE Gosp., Mt. XXIII, 24; Visser §668)
Von Schon (1977), who is also concerned with the relative position of phrasal verb elements, recognizes two separate particle shifts in her data. The first particle shift, namely the movement to postverbal pos ition with a finite verb, is said by her to have begun in the 7th century, whereas the second particle shift, i.e. the same with non-finite verb forms, occurred only some centuries later. 1 Both Denison (1981) and Hiltunen (1983a) basically, even if with some reservation, agree with her findings, the latter pointing to a mere 35 non-finite postverbal examples in OE2, only 10 of which date from before the 10th century (ibid. 127-133). It can therefore be assumed that the change for non-finite form took place in late OE. At any rate, the postverbal position of the particle becomes the norm in ME, cf. for example Denison’s (1981:174) figures for the Orrmulum, where only 6% of all particles are in preverbal position. By 1250, the phrasal verb construction had definitely reached its modern shape (Hiltunen 1983a:6) 3. During the ME period the phrasal verb expands further and in time becomes quite a normal linguistic pattern (Brinton 1988:225). According to Kennedy (1920:13) it was a common part of everyday language in the 15th century, cf. the down-to-earth example in (6). (6)
He took of hys clothes. (1485, Caxton Chas. Gt. 212; OED s.v. take)
A good sign for its established status is also the appearance of the first nouns derived from phrasal verbs in the 14th and 15th centuries, for instance the now obsolete sit-up "surprise" (Sørensen 1986:274, also Denison 1981:13133). Burnley (1992:445), for example, cites the agentive phrasal nouns holder up of Troye (Chaucer) and fynder up of false religions (Lydgate). While most of these nouns are derived from or related to phrasal verbs, some also go back to verb-preposition sequences, such as the 15th century lean-to "a shed", or go-between found in Shakespeare. As to the reasons for the above development, Hiltunen (1983a:114; 125; 144) sees the changing of the element order of the clause as the single 1
Two problems should be mentioned here. First, Von Schon’s data base is rather small. Secondly, and more importantly, the ms. containing her 7th century material actually dates from much later. It is conceivable that things like the position of particles may be altered in the process of copying older material. 2 Compare the situation with German particle verbs (or so-called separable prefix verbs), where the particle remains preverbally attached to the verb in non-finite forms, but is found in separate post-verbal position in the case of finite forms. 3 Visser (§§670-671) cites preverbal uses after this time, especially in poetry, which are partly nonce formations for the sake of rhyme and partly ‘translations’ of Latin verbs.
86
The History of Multi-word Verbs
most important factor in the establishment of the phrasal verb patterning: the close relationship between the SV order and the postverbal pattern profits the latter as the SOV order goes into decline towards the end of the OE period. Marchand (1951:73) also regards phrasal verbs as one of the results of a fixed word order. But the rise of the phrasal verb is also connected with the fall of an other construction, OE prefix verbs. The latter’s very sudden decline to almost zero productivity and use by early ME left a slot to be filled by the newer analytic constructions (Hiltunen 1983a:92; 52). Most of the reasons adduced for the ultimate demise of the prefixal system are at the same time, if turned round, arguments for the phrasal verb. The push - and drag-chain process producing the new situation in ME received its briefest and also clearest account in Samuels (1972:163-65), which I will not repeat here, instead going through the individual reasons that have been mentioned in the literature. (i) Through the prefixes’ lack of stress their phonological structure became successively weaker, leading to loss of independent phonetic content (Hiltunen 1983a:52; Samuels 1972:163; Lutz 1997:263). De la Cruz (1975:78) calls the same fact "morphological weakening". Phrasal adverbs, on the other hand, as independent elements, can and often do carry full stress, which also means that they are not likely to be subject to phonetic weakening, and that they can transport intonational information, e.g. emphasis (Denison 1985a:47f). (ii) Another kind of weakening was going on in the semantic sphere with the fading away of the prefixes’ concrete locative, aspectual and intensifying meanings (Hiltunen 1983a:94f; de la Cruz 1975:49). Again, phrasal adverbs would carry a more explicit meaning. (iii) Preverbal elements are rather obscure and/or a potential s ource of ambiguity in an SOV syntactic order as existed in OE (Hiltunen 1983a:188; Konishi 1958:118). That means that the prefixal system must already have been drastically weakened in OE, before SV became the predominant element order in early ME. This argument of course also applies to the preverbal patterns of OE phrasal verbs mentioned above and explains their ultimate loss. An additional suggestion in this context is the one made by Marchand (1969:131) to the effect that the postverbal pattern might be connected with the normalising of the position of spatial adverbs in general. (iv) The prefixal system was burdened with too heavy a functional load, in which no single function was strong or prominent enough to secure its usefulness and thus its survival (Hiltunen 1983a:97). One could probably say the same about the thriving phrasal verb ‘system’ today; thus this is not a decisive factor as long as all other conditions are favour able.
The History of Multi-word Verbs 87 (v) The sheer presence and availability of phrasal types as al ternative, but more explicit, expressions of the same meanings and fulfilling the same or similar functions hastened the decline of prefix verbs (Hiltunen 1983a:98ff; 145; de la Cruz 1975:49; Denison 1985a:46ff). (vi) Lastly, the general trend towards analytic constructions disfavoured the synthetic prefixal constructions (Hiltunen 1983a:98; van der Gaaf 1930:12,19; Konishi 1958:118f), and profited the analytic phrasal verbs. While this statement may be true, it contains a certain amount of circularity, which disqualifies it as a ‘reason’. Whatever the reasons (it is not the purpose of this study to decide the ques tion), it is clear that the OE prefixal system did become extinct and that the modern phrasal verbs did take over in its place. De la Cruz (1975:77f) nicely illustrates this fact by citing examples of pre fix verbs in the Ancrene Riwle together with their modern phrasal rendering, e.g. the prefixal verbs with geare translated as phrasal verbs formed with up or out, and similarly for- = up/away/off, be- = up/away/off, to- = up/out/away/off, a- = up/out/away. However, some prefixes survived with modest productivity, especially over-, under-, out-, fore-, mis-, be-, and un-, and Lutz (1997:279; 281) takes care to point out that they are those which have a phonologically stable and distinct form, most of them also possessing a distinct meaning — and thus they are exempt from some of the reasons for decline stated above. Some of those surviving prefixes are identical with phrasal verb particles, sometimes leading to contrasting formations with different meanings, e.g. overtake — take over, outlive — live out. In ME, prefixal and phrasal variants existed side by side even with the same meaning, cf. fall by — bifallen "happen", flee out — outflee "expel, banish", or look over — overlook "survey from on high" (Burnley 1992:445). While the reasons against prefixal verbs and in favour of phrasal verbs dealt with above were purely language-internal, there is also the question of outside, particularly Scandinavian influence on the latter (and also on prepositional verbs) (e.g. Burnley 1992:422f, 444f; Roberts 1936:477). Old Norse had advanced phrasal constructions, but direct influence on OE/early ME has not been or cannot be proven, not least because the relevant ON texts are only extant in later manuscripts. Hiltunen (1983a:43) thinks it merely likely that the ON phrasal construction acted as a kind of catalyst, stimulating the further development of the postverbal construction type already present in OE. According to Lutz (1997:262, n.8) the Scandinavian influence worked much more indirectly by accelerating the reduction of unaccented syllables, including inflectional endings, in the Northern English dialects, thereby speeding up the fixing of word order in those dialects — which in turn favoured phrasal verbs. Denison (1981:54f,
88
The History of Multi-word Verbs
157, 285-89; 1985a:49-53), while admitting that a purely internal development is perfectly possible, still goes somewhat further by thinking an ON influence on the aktionsart usage at least likely and by assuming the direct borrowing from ON of phrasal verbs of surrendering very likely, cf. the early instances of give up, (7) being one of them, in the Final Continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle. (7)
& sæde heom ð he uuolde iiuen heom up Wincestre (ChrE 266.35, 1140; Hiltunen 1983a:125)
Once present the borrowings would then have served as a catalyst for the formation of similar combinations. Denison (1981:156) also mentions another possible foreign influence of an indirect nature: in translations from Latin into English the many Latin compound verbs could have induced the translators to render them as native verb -adverb collocations (quasi calques). Interestingly, Hiltunen (1983a:98) has examples (among them the following (8)) where exactly this happens, but on top of a prefix verb, showing how moribund the prefixal system must have appeared to some translators. (8)
L61.22 quem viri Domini Fortunatus expulissit GD (CO) 77.11 þe se drihtnes wer Furtunatus ær onweg adraf (H) 77.8 þe ... ær ut adraf
Another assumed foreign influence is of rather a negative kind in so far as the development of phrasal verbs might actually have been slowed down by the great influx of loan words, French ones during ME, Latin ones later (Kennedy 1920; Rot 1988:185). Konishi (1958:120) thinks that to be more likely of written and formal varieties of the language than of colloquial English, however. In fact, I think it likely that wholesale borrowing might even have stimulated the formation of phrasal verbs as a counter-reaction. The internal development of phrasal verbs in OE and ME also showed considerable progress. If one follows Brinton (1988:217, 220) some particles exhibit an earlier development in OE to fully-fledged verbal particles than others; this goes especially for of and forth, but also for up, út, onweg/aweg, ofdune/adune (without prefixal counterparts). Regarding the semantics of phrasal verbs in OE, there are two levels. On the first level straightforward literal meanings are found, with both members retaining their basic meanings. This means that the phrasal adverbs mostly occurred with their original locational or — more commonly — directional meanings (Hiltunen 1983a:147f; Denison 1981:147), cf. (9). The second level contains combinations with transferred meanings, i.e. meanings which are metonymically or metaphorically removed from the literal plane but in which the literal meaning is still transparent enough, as in (10).
The History of Multi-word Verbs 89 (9) (10)
hie siþþan aweg flugon (Or 160.22; Hiltunen 1983a:120) Do awei þe þohtes, þat prokien þin heorte þurh licomliche lustes (HMaid 11.108; Hiltunen 1983a:148)
Fully idiomatic combinations with opaque meaning are not found in OE (Hiltunen 1983a:148). In ME figurative combinations become more common, and de la Cruz (1972:116ff) identifies ‘close units’ on semantic grounds in that period, such as the transferred combinations lay up "save", bring down "kill" or the more fully idiomatic figurative units fall out "disagree", stir up "rebel", and bring forth "produce". As regards aktionsart meanings of phrasal particles, Hiltunen (1983a:147) finds the resultative use to be rare in OE, but gradually expanding with the rise of the postverbal pattern. Brinton (1988:220, 225), on the other hand, says that especially those particles not corresponding to prefixes (cf. above) "often" exhibit telic meaning; in ME she sees telic usages to be increasing. According to Denison (1981:147), particles used with a directional meaning are often ass ociated with an "effective value", but he cannot find any clear OE example with completive up (which is so typical of PDE). The first definite examples of this use are the give up cases (cf. (7)) in the Peterborough Chronicle mentioned above (Denison 1985a:43f). Prepositional Verbs The history of prepositional verbs is similar to that of phrasal verbs in so far as the roots of the development are found in the OE situation (van der Gaaf 1930:14), but the breakthrough of the construction happened in early ME (Hiltunen 1983a:179). One of the precursors of or trends leading to prepositional verbs is the post-position of the prepositional adverb as in him (...) com (...) to (11), called Type (C) order by Hiltunen (1983a:186). (11)
Him com þa mycel folc to. (ChrE 224.34 [1087]; Hiltunen 1983a:177)
But on the whole the appearance of the prepositional verbs on the linguistic stage seems to have been rather sudden. Denison (1981:208) remarks on the amazing number of new collocations appearing in late OE and ME, which at once gave a rather unified/unitary impression. To bring about something like the prepositional verb it was first necessary to have conditions which would cause closer as well as more frequent contact of verbs and prepositions, and secondly conditions which would favour the re-analysis as one verbal unit of two previously separate words. A decisive role with regard to the first condition was certainly played by the decay of the OE case system (Denison 1981:209ff; de la Cruz
90
The History of Multi-word Verbs
1973:163, 165f). On the one hand, this led to an increased use of prepositions, especially after verbs, to some degree taking over the function of the former inflectional endings (de la Cruz, ibid.), and on the other hand it is connected to the fixing of the SVO element order, which in turn may have had a positive effect on the increase of the prepositional verb pattern (Denison 1985b:201). Foreign borrowing or calquing, i.e. of French, Latin or ON verbs followed by a preposition (e.g. OF tenir a — hold in/of, MedL dispensare cum — dispense with, ON fara með/við — fare with), might also have contributed to the increased incidence of verb-preposition sequences (Denison 1981:209ff and 1985b:193); the same goes for the increased use of prepositional object groups under the influence of French (de la Cruz 1973:168f). Furthermore, the eclipse of the prefix system did not only favour the rise of phrasal verbs; verb-preposition sequences could also take over some of the prefixal functions (Denison 1981:209ff). The functions in question were those of making an intransitive verb transitive and of making possible a different kind of object from that taken by the uncompounded or simplex form of the verb (de la Cruz 1973:173). All these factors led to a much greater variety and frequency of prepositional use in ME than in OE (Denison 1985b:193). The second point concerning re-analysis is more complicated and definitely also more disputed. Without further discussion, I will here take for granted that re-analysis does in fact occur, but this opinion is not shared by all linguists.4 The problem of explaining re-analysis is similar to the old chicken-and-egg paradox: it is hard, if not impossible, to say whether a construction is a contributory factor to or only a symptom of re -analysis. An environment favourable to re-analysis is certainly created by the ellipsis of the noun phrase following the preposition as in (12) (Denison 1981:208; de la Cruz 1973:169). In the absence of its normal point of reference, the preposition can be interpreted as having a closer connection to the verb or even of belonging to it. (12)
ich ga lihtliche ouer, ne do bute nempni ham (Ancr. (Corp-C.) 53b.3; Denison 1985b:198)
Of greater importance in this respect, however, are the coordination cases, i.e. those constructions where a verb-preposition sequence shares a common object with another verb, cf. (13). Really valid evidence is provided only by constructions where the common object follows both verbs, which is found for the first time in early ME; OE coordination cases all have fr onted objects (Denison 1985b:198f). 4
Cf. e.g. Inada (1981), as quoted in Denison (1993:152); also Huddleston (1984:201205).
The History of Multi-word Verbs 91 (13)
þe ueond hateþ and hunteð after hire (a1225, Ancr. R. 128, Visser §395)
Lexicalization and/or semantic idiomaticity of verb -preposition sequences definitely also has something to do with unitary perception as prepo sitional verbs (Denison 1985b:194) — either as a reason or as a consequence. In this context, it is interesting that Denison (1981:245) found prepositional verbs with idiomatic meanings in the Orrmulum, which is very early indeed. The following are lexicalized and idiomatic ME examples, the latter describing an adulterous act in a tree: (14) (15)
and ye send for me, I shall .. bryng hem with me. (Paston Letters, No. 631; Van der Gaaf 1930:15) I wende han seyn / How that this Damyan hadde by thee leyn. (c.1395, Chaucer, MerchT IV.2393; Denison 1985b:193)
There are two other phenomena which can support re-analysis, namely preposition stranding in general and the typically English prepositional passive.5 With those two it has to be kept in mind that they reac h far beyond the range of prepositional verbs proper, that is, not everything concerning them is also relevant to prepositional verbs. De la Cruz (1973; also de la Cruz/Saameco 1996) sees the possibility of passivization as the most crucial event in the development of prepositional verbs, as it is only this transformation that makes them really suitable to take over the function and the slot of the former prefix verbs. He dates this seminal change to the late 13th century, citing as supporting factors most of the facts favouring prepositional verbs related above, and additionally the decline of the impersonal pronoun man. His most important point, though, is the effect of analogy, in the guise of the systemic pressure exerted by the phrasal verb system towards the filling by prepositional verbs of an empty functional and formal slot. As de la Cruz/Saameco (1996:175) put it "it is in the visible signs of verb and particle cohesion, shown by adverbial particles and prepositions alike, that we should see the primary ground for the analogy that de la Cruz (1973) proposed ...". This view is criticized by Denison (1985b:197; also 1993), who claims that the necessary homogeneity and coherence is lacking in the proposed system and that the "identification" of phrasal verb particles with prepositions in prepositional verbs is a rather dubious assumption. His first point is certainly right, as the 13th century is somewhat early for a fully-fledged phrasal system, but the fact that linguists would not ‘identify’ adverbial particles with prepositions does not mean that
5
Denison (1993) gives the best and most accessible general overview of research done in this area up to 1993.
92
The History of Multi-word Verbs
the ‘naive’ native speaker would not either. In fact, I think it rather likely that the superficial similarity of both constructions is striking for most speakers, and thus would not completely exclude the possibility that both constructions can influence each other at times. What de la Cruz’s view seems to overlook, however, is the linguistic extension of the prepositional passive, which also occurs in environments not even remotely prepositional -verb-like, cf. the ubiquitous example This bed was slept in by Napoleon. Systemic pressure by phrasal verbs could not explain those cases, in my opinion. Moreover, it should also not be forgotten that not all prepositional verbs actually passivize. Nevertheless, the possibility of prepositional passives and an increasing amount of them in the course of history must have had an influence on the re-analysis of verb-preposition sequences. In OE the prepositional passive did not exist at all, and the first safe ME examples date from the 14th century (cf. (16)), according to Denison (1985b:190), who disputes Visser’s (§1950) putative 13th-century example. While the construction is not overly common in the 14th century, it seems to have soon become established, being used extensively in the 15th century, among other places in the Paston Letters, e.g. (17), which proves its presence in everyday language (Denison 1985b:190; van der Gaaf 1930:19-21). (16) (17)
tribulacion ne shuld not fro his course with grutching be þoght on. (c. 1370, Yorksh. Writers II, 48; Visser §1951) he shuld ... be kept in prison til he were put to answere of swich crymes as he were so detect of. (Paston Letters, No. 151; Van der Gaaf 1930:11)
The emergence of the prepositional passive might also have been supported by the cases of preposition stranding in prior exi stence. Stranding is already found in OE, especially in WH-less relative clauses and infinitive clauses (Allen 1977:76-116), but usually the stranded preposition preceded the verb (van der Gaaf 1930:2-5; Denison 1985b:197), cf. (18, 19). Sometimes, as in the case of fronting in (20), it followed the verb. (18) (19) (20)
ac ælc hæfð be þam andefnum þe he ær æfter ærnað (Ælfred, Solil. 201,3; Visser §403) Seo burg ... wæs swiðe fæger an to locianne. (Or. 74,13; Visser §404) Freond ic gemete wið. (MCharm 11.37; Denison 1985b:192).
The ultimate reason for stranding is to be found in the fact that the uninflected relative, i.e. the non-WH relative (as in (18) above), cannot be accompanied by a preposition (Dekeyser 1990; Denison 1985b:192). But a certain feeling on the part of the speakers that the preposition had a close connection to the verb, or belonged to it, might have played a role as well;
The History of Multi-word Verbs 93 after all, WH-less relatives might have been avoided if stranding had been thought inappropriate, and cases in which the preposition occurred twice (once with the WH-relativizer and once with the verb), as in (21) below, would not exist (cf. Denison 1993:133). (21) (22) (23)
she coniured hym by feythe that he ought vnto hym in whose seruyse thow arte entryd in. (1470-80, Malory, M. d’A. 676, 35; Visser §416) Judas ... al redi for to fight On him he suld ha foghten for. (13.. Curs. M. (Cott.) 15735; Visser §412a) alle þet ich chulle speken of (c. 1225, Ancr. R. 2; Visser §410)
However, stranding even spread to new environments in ME, such as WHrelatives themselves, contact clauses and topicalization (Dekeyser 1990; Denison 1993:132; cf. (22)). The position of the stranded preposition also shifted to the modern postverbal position as in (22-23), the first examples of which being found around 1200 (Dekeyser 1990:165) and soon, i.e. from the middle of the 13th century on, this became the norm, at least in prose (van der Gaaf 1930:7; Denison 1985b:197). Phrasal-prepositional Verbs In contrast to the phrasal and prepositional verbs just treated, there is hardly any information on phrasal-prepositional verbs. Visser (§417) notes the existence of verb+adverb+preposition+complement in OE and ME, but doubts whether their complement can be regarded as a prepositional object and thus whether they are really instances of phrasal-prepositional verbs. At least two of his ME examples are convincing to me, namely But lat us falle awey fro this matere (Chaucer, Troil. 3, 1306; c. 1385), and ... til þey sawe theyre tyme to breke out on hem (Brut. 1436 (Hrl. 53) 580, 10; c. 1437). In contrast to Visser, Denison (1985b:202f) sees enough evidence even for idiomatic or lexicalized combinations in ME, quoting for example cry out on from around Chaucer’s time, and come off with, fall in with found in the Paston Letters. Verb-adjective Combinations Information concerning verb-adjective combinations is even rarer. Some, but not all examples listed by Visser (§237) under the heading "quasicopulas" fit the definition employed here. None of them belong to the OE period, and the only clear ME example for me is from 1423, [Thay] breken louse, and walken at thaire large (Jas. I, Kingis Q. CXV). According to Jespersen (1928: III, 369) cases like make merry, make bold etc. go back to an old usage with a reflexive pronoun, which was then omitted later. He does not say when this happened, though. The OED records no examples with
94
The History of Multi-word Verbs
(reflexive) pronouns for make bold, but has both full and elliptical usage for make merry (s.v. merry): (24) (25)
BoÞe seize he WiÞ too houndes mirie made. (1320, Sir Tristr 3085) Make we vs merie for mete haue we at wille. (1350, Will Palerne 1880)
Verbo-nominal Combinations Verbo-nominal combinations have received somewhat more attention than the preceding two types. Nominal tendencies in general are of course connected with this type, and in this context Klaeber’s (1943:73 f) findings that OE translations often render a verbally expressed Latin or Greek original with a combination of verb and noun, in which the noun is usually dominant, are of interest here. He also claims to have found the same nominal leaning in indigenous OE prose. Among the types of nominalized expression he lists (ibid. 77), only the first — and, according to him, the most common one — is the combination of a verb with a nominal object, which is usually abstract and agentive. Two of his examples are gewin drugon "they fought" (Beow 79) and fyl geniman "take a fall, be killed" (Mald 71). Visser (§148-149; §151) dates the origin of the usage of verb + etymol ogically related noun (roughly my Group I), usually without article, with approximately the same meaning as the simplex, to OE, but mentions only examples with the verbs habban and niman, for example (26), paraphrased by him as "deliberate". (26)
He hæfde geþeaht mid his witum and freondum. (Bede 292,12; Visser §149)
He also finds some OE forerunners of the type including a final preposition (my Group II), for instance (27), but does not remark on its frequency (§703704). It is not clear whether they were phrasal units in the sense the modern types are. (27) hwæþer heora sceolde on oþrum sige habban. (Or. 156,1; Visser §704) Brinton and Akimoto (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999), looking for OE collocations with (ge)don/(ge)macian, sellan/giefan, (ge)niman/tacan , and habban + deverbal noun, found quite a variety of don-items, fewer items with sellan, niman and habban, and very few only with macian and giefan. The combinations they found are described by them as less grammaticalized, less idiomaticized, and less lexicalized than their PDE counterparts. According to Hiltunen (1983a:28), verbo-nominal combinations (Groups I and II) are numerically a rather limited group in OE, but the type expanded considerably in ME, partly through French influence. The latter influence
The History of Multi-word Verbs 95 was mainly lexical, i.e. via direct borrowing of phrases (cf. faire paix — make peace), which was supported by the fact that the pattern was already grammatically established in the language. Both Hiltunen (1983a: 215f) and Denison (1985b:203) remark on the not uncommon appearance of lexicalized and/or idiomatic combinations, also those including a final preposition, in ME (28-30), although the degree of idiomaticization was not very high according to Matsumoto (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999). (28) (29) (30)
lasse boste it maketh, A beggeres bagge, þan an yren-bounde coffre. (1377, Langl., P.Pl. B. xiv, 247, Visser §150) ther as men take moore reward to the nombre than to the sapience of persones (c. 1386, Chaucer C.T.; Visser §704) The chyuetayns haue at the moost nede of socour yeuen weye to their enemyes and made the peple proye to them. (1413, Pilgr. Sowle (Caxton 1483) iv.xxx. 78; OED s.v. give)
The first passives of this type are found around 1400 (Marchand 1951:76) or later in the 15th century (Denison 1985b:202), cf. (31a-b). Matsumoto and Tanabe (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999) call passivization infrequent, and the former notices a preponderance of the inner -passive type. (31a) Rule vs by rightwisnes ... , þat no fawte with vs founden be. (c. 1400, Destr., Troy 4850; Visser §1986) (31b) I trowe it shall apeyr, but if it be take hed hate. (c. 1422-1509, Paston Letters 143; Visser §1986) The last verbo-nominal type based on verb + prepositional phrase (Group III) is harder to trace in history. Some examples of this type are found in Visser (§293) under an otherwise both much narrower (only be) and much wider group. There are no OE examples of that kind, which is not very surprising given the lower frequency of prepositional groups in that period. Some few fitting ME examples can be extracted from Visser’s listing, e.g. Youthe and elde is often at debaat (c. 1386, Chaucer Troil. A320) and he ... fireth all the world aboute, whereof they weren all in doubte (c. 1390, Gower, Conf. Am. IV, p.187). The foregoing account of the early development of multi -word verbs shows that while all necessary single elements, precursor forms, important tendencies and even embryonic multi-word types were present in OE, it was the ME period during which all the crucial steps in their evolution were taken. At the end of ME, the system of multi -word verb forms as dealt with here was basically in place, forming the basis for further syntactic an d semantic refinement and especially for numerical expansion. Regarding the latter, and setting the whole thing into a wider context, the following statement by Denison (1985b:201f) is interesting:
96
The History of Multi-word Verbs I would argue that the spread of (a) idiomatic prepositio nal verbs, phrasal verbs, the HAVE A LOOK type, and so on, and (b) the fixing of S-V-O order followed by the rise of auxiliary verbs, and the regulation of DO, would have been mutually supportive. The growth of verb-complement idioms would encourage syntactic regulation, and vice-versa, since a complete lexical item could then appear in all sentence patterns in a fixed sequence without interruption. The real period of growth of the prepositional verb, for instance, was between 1300 and 1700, which coincides with the rise and regulation of DO.
This leads us on to the next period, Early Modern English. 5.2 Early Modern English From this period on the phrasal verb seems to have increased steadily both in frequency and in productivity (Brinton 1988:187). The 16th and 17th centuries especially have been picked out as a first high point in their history, producing a great variety of usages (Kennedy 1920:16; Diensberg 1983:253f). The development of idiomaticity, and thus the greater internal cohesion of many phrasal verbs, also makes considerable progress, e.g. (33) (Diensberg ibid.), although the majority still seem to be semantically concrete like (32) (Hiltunen 1994:132). (32) (33)
Put thy sacchell over thy arme, that it fall not of. (1583 Hollyband Campo di Fior 51; OED s.v. fall) All things are now in Readiness, and must not Be put off. (1664 Dryden Rival Ladies i.ii; OED s.v. put)
The aspectual or aktionsart use of phrasal verb particles is also continued, and perhaps furthered; cf., for instance, Charle ston (1941:100, 110ff), who found examples of durative/progressive (e.g. go/work/drive etc. on) and effective/egressive (e.g. give over, sit out, leave off) aspect in her 18th century material. Phrasal nouns also continue to be formed: Lindelöf (1937:31) lists 25, 27, 34 for the 16th, 17th and 18th century respectively, for instance run-away, sneak-up (16th c.), turn-over, draw-back (17th c.), and cut-off, let-down (18th c.). There are also two studies which point to a less linear, rather an inter rupted picture of the development of phrasal verbs in EModE. Both lead to the conclusion that there was a temporary decline in phrasal verbs between roughly 1650/1660 and 1750 or 1800. The first of these studies is found in Konishi (1958:125), who chose ten common verbs to investigate the first quotations (in the OED, I presume, although he does not state that explicitly) of their combinations with phrasal particles and of their new meanings. That is, he was looking at productivity and not at actual usage — but of course it
The History of Multi-word Verbs 97 can be assumed that there is a connection between the two. His findings are to be seen in Figure 5.1 below. The other study is by Spasov (1966), who examined 46 plays spread from late ME to modern times (post 1945) to determine the occurrences of phrasal verbs in them (cf. Figure 5.2 below). 6 His study thus aims at actual usage, and that moreover in a medium which must be seen as the closest we get to ‘colloquial’ la nguage in historical linguistics (with the exception of private letters, of co urse). Therefore it is remarkable that it corresponds so relatively closely to Konishi’s results.
Figure 5. 1: Productivity of selected phrasal verbs (reproduced from Konishi 1958:125)
6
Unfortunately, Spasov’s book proved to be very elusive, and so my discussion of his findings must necessarily be second hand, based mostly on what Bolinger (1971) says. I hope that this did not lead to a distortion of the facts here. One tentative point I would like to make concerns Spasov’s textual basis: it seems to me to have been rather small with only 46 plays over such a long time span. And I have not seen the list of plays he used, which might also have been enlightening.
98
The History of Multi-word Verbs
Figure 5.2: The frequency of phrasal verbs in 46 plays (Spasov 1966, reproduced from Bolinger 1971). In both cases the lowest point lies somewhere in the second half of the 18th century, i.e. in the great prescriptive period in the history of English. But the period of decline spans the century preceding that time, and thus roughly the time covered by the Lampeter Corpus. Therefore it will be important to keep this putative development in mind when looking at the corpus data later on. Potter (1965:285), for instance, seems to offer contradicting evidence when stating that phrasal verbs are used "fairly frequently" by Sterne and Dryden. Dryden, of all people, was very conscious of his language use, and it is not that conceivable that he would have gone against the prevailing linguistic trends of his time. Two other studies have been devoted to phrasal verbs in EModE, Hiltunen’s (1994) investigation of the relevant part of the Helsinki Corpus, and Castillo’s (1994) of Shakespeare’s plays. Both came to the conclusion that their syntactic behaviour then was basically the same as today. A curious development occurred in the area of prepositional verbs. Marchand (1951:76) cites attempts to turn some prepositional objects into — also formally — direct objects, as in arrive a place, despair thy charm, look a person (no sources given). In these cases it did not work, but some former prepositional verbs are nowadays used without a preposition, e.g. congratulate (cf. (34)), join, miss, fail (Visser §399-400). This shows that some internal variation within the groups across their historical development always has to be reckoned with. (34)
I congratulate with you, for losing your great acquaintance. (1732, Swift, Let. to Gay; Visser §400)
The History of Multi-word Verbs 99 But while some items become lost, new ones also develop. The prepositional passive continued to spread in an amazing way and speed until about 1700, though losing impetus somewhat in the 18th century, perhaps through the influence of prescriptivism (Visser §1953-1955). Phrasal-prepositional verbs consolidated their status in this period, which is syntactically visible in the first passives occurring with items of this category, cf. the items (35a-b), which seem to be the two very first ones (Denison 1985b:202; Visser §1958). If one goes by the list of examples in Visser (§417), they also become significantly more numerous, e.g. (36, 37) below from among them. (35a) There was a servant of yours, and a kynsman of myne was myschevously made away with. (1502, Townly, Plumpton Correspondence 164; Visser §1958) (35b) if their Neighbors will not follow their example, ... they shall be cryed out on for disaffected. (1662, Simon Patrick, Account of the Sect of Latitude-Men, 12; Visser §1958) (36) whereby he became ... better able to go thorowe with this enterprise. (1568, Grafton, Chron. II, 32; Visser §417) (37) All those who do not live up to the Principles of Reason and Virtue. (1709, Steele, Tatler No. 125, §1, Visser §417) There is no information about the fate of verb -adjective combinations and very little about verbo-nominal combinations in this period to be found in the literature. Visser, for example, yields examples such as the following (38-41) for the latter type in various places, but next to nothing by way of explanation. (38) (39) (40) (41)
I have a great mind to be a lecherous man. (c. 1550, Bale, K. Johan (Camden) 12; Visser §151)) A Pick-Pocket; who made a Dive into my Pocket. (1700, T. Brown, Amus. Ser. & Com. 126; Visser §151) They will still gripe fast, what they haue once caught hold of. (1602, Carew, Cornwall 2a, Visser §704) Her husband ... has been in Love with her ever since he knew her. (1711, Addison, Spect. I no. 15; Visser §293)
Kytö and Hiltunen (both in Brinton/Akimoto 1999) provide some information on the — so far — missing EModE link in the history of verbonominal combinations. Working with the EModE part of the Helsinki Corpus, Kytö finds an increase in the use of these forms over the period 1500-1710. The most common verbs in her data are have and make, the latter of which must therefore have become more multi-functional and important since the OE period, when it was rather rare (see above). As in OE, however,
100
The History of Multi-word Verbs
the items found are still generally semantically transparent and not very idiomatic. Hiltunen concentrated his search on one particular text type, namely plays, with only some additional pieces of poetry and prose. 1,404 tokens representing 418 types make up his data, in which make, have (cf. Kytö), and give are the predominant verbs. He also finds that combinations with zero-article, historically the older type, are in the majority. Both Kytö’s and Hiltunen’s data contain a majority of single-occurrence items, pointing to the fact that the pattern was well established, but individual comb inations perhaps less so. Verb-adjective combinations seem to be very much a development of the early modern era, at least if the result of my cursory searches through the OED can be trusted. It is not all that easy to find phrases (especially those whose unitary status may not be generally acknowledged) in the OED, but all the ones, existing in the Lampeter Corpus and in PDE, that I checked were only cited from the 16th century onwards, with the single ex ception of make good, which yielded two 14th-century citations. Some exemplary items follow below. (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47)
They made light of it and went their wayes. (1526, Tindale Matt. xxii.5; OED s.v. light) Rather then bloody Warre shall cut them short. (1593, Shakes. 2 Hen. VI, iv.iv.12; OED s.v. short) No gate so strong, no locke so firm and fast, But with that piercing noise flew open quite. (1596, Spenser, F.Q. I, viii, 4; Visser §237) Which the bearers therof thought fit not to bestow vpon the sacrifice. (1611, AV 2 Macc. iv.19; OED s.v fit) Yet fell they [the Danes] so foule vpon Essex that the King was enforced to compound a peace. (1611, Speed Hist. Gt. Brit. vii.xliv.376; OED s.v. fall v.) The chief use, which too many make of the Former, is to devise wayes to get ridd of the Later. (1665, Boyle Occas. Refl. Ded. Let.; OED s.v. rid)
Cut short (43) is of further interest, as it is the only one of the verb -adjective combinations which is a calque, the ultimate source being the French phrase couper court. To sum up, it seems as if most multi-word verb types consolidated their status and even increased during the EModE period. However, a question mark remains as to their fate in the late 17th and e specially the 18th century, and not only with regard to phrasal verbs. If there was something that was detrimental to them, this could equally have influenced other analytic constructions as well. One question has to be asked in this context: In what way did increased linguistic awareness and the following prescriptive urge
The History of Multi-word Verbs 101 affect their development and usage? This is the reason this study does not only look at a corpus, reflecting the realities of actual usage, but also at the linguistic attitudes enshrined in contemporary works on the English language. 5.3 Late Modern English to Present-day English As already stated at the beginning of this chapter, the small amount of available information on some types of multi-word verbs, especially in the modern period, is deplorable. Thus, nothing at all can be said here about verb-adjective combinations. 7 General statements about the frequency of phrasal verbs and of their being so typical of modern English abound in the literature. This is obviously something that is simply taken for granted. For American English, Meyer (1975:3) states that the phrasal verb pat tern "has been for a century or more, and is today, the most active and creative pattern of word formation". Pelli (1976) looked at American plays written in the period from 1765 to 1972, and has found a steady increase of phrasal verb types (with the exception of the period 1805-15), and also an overall increase of tokens (with the exception of the periods 1805-15, and interestingly also 1965-72). From among his phrasal verb examples from the 19th century are the following: (48) (49)
If I could conjure up a rival or two to bear on him it might help. (1845; Pelli, 29) Oh, dear, I suppose I may as well work away on these everlasting reports. (1889; Pelli 40)
Konishi (1958:124, 127), who sees in general an enormous increase of phrasal verbs in the 19th and 20th centuries, claims t hat this type is far more common in the American variety of the language. Denison (1998:222f), while agreeing with the assumption of an increase, nevertheless also points to pattern-internal turn-overs with particular individual combinations falling out of use and new ones coming in. He cites go forward, shrug up, mend up as now obsolete 19th-century instances. Phrasal nouns also became popular in the 19th century and show much vitality in our present century, both in colloquial language and in specialist and/or technical vocabularies (Lindelöf 7
It should be mentioned that some multi-word verbs, but especially phrasal and prepositional verbs, have received treatment in the form of special dictionaries, of which Cowie & Mackin (1975), Cowie, Mackin & McCaig (1983) are probably the most thorough. Of a more recent date is for example the COBUILD Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1989) covering phrasal and prepositional verbs. But of course dictionaries cannot be regarded as a sufficient substitute for otherwise missing research.
102
The History of Multi-word Verbs
1937:31, 39; Sørensen 1986:274; 279). Some mid-20th century examples, taken from Preuss (1962:2), are mark-up "price increase", blowup "enlarged photograph", and drive-in. A feature which seems to be a typically modern characteristic or rather prerequisite of phrasal verbs is the phonological restriction to mono- or disyllabic verbs with initial stress (Denison 1981:148). A tool which might be of use for finding out about multi -word occurrences in PDE, is the frequency analysis based on the LOB corpus done by Johansson & Hofland (1989). However, they themselves point out some of the reasons why this is be a problematic approach, namely that they do not distinguish between idioms, collocations and free combinations, an d that collocations characterised by internal variation and dis continuity across the clause would receive separate treatment in their various ‘incarnations’ (Jo hansson/Hofland 1989:II,11). Going through their lists trying to identify multi-word types would thus necessarily yield only an incomplete or even skewed picture. The only promising exception to this is phrasal verbs because of the separate adverbial particle (RP tag) list (ibid. 370 -376), which, however, does not contain all instances of phrasal verbs in which the particle is positionally too far removed from the verb (ibid. 12). Adding up all the particles (with the exception of inside and outside) one gets a figure of 8,536 phrasal verbs being used in LOB. Taking instances with intervening objects and other adverbials into account (the frequency of which is unfortunately not known), the actual figure is probably even somewhat higher. Phrasal-prepositional verbs, at least the monotransitive type, have been becoming more common in the modern period, according to Denison (1998:223f). This is partly due to what he calls a "fairly systematic process of replacement", with phrasal-prepositional structures taking over from phrasal verbs, e.g. put up put up with. The most recent empirical treatment of multi-word verbs is to be found in Biber et al. (1999:403-428).8 They found on average 1,400 phrasal verbs per one million words, which – surprisingly – is considerably less than the LOB figure mentioned above. As to the distribution in different register s, phrasal verbs are noticeably more common in conversation and fiction (c. 2,000 items/1,000 000 words) than in news texts (c. 1,400), while they are rare in academic prose (c. 800). Prepositional verbs with an average of 4,800 items/1,000 000 words are on the whole much more frequent than phrasal
8
This book unfortunately came out too late to be fully taken account of in this study. However, the frequency information given there for multi-word verbs could be compared in more detail to the Lampeter Corpus figures found in chapters 6 and 7.
The History of Multi-word Verbs 103 verbs9 and (again in contrast to the latter) also show no clear register prefer ences, except for a somewhat higher figure for fiction. In comparison phrasal-prepositional verbs are relatively infrequent with only 350-400 items/1,000 000 words in conversation and fiction, c. 200/1,000 000 in news texts and only 50/1,000 000 in academic prose. Nevertheless, all three categories are seem to be rather well established in PDE. Verbo-nominal combinations, which are also remarkably frequent in PDE (Visser §148), are said by Hoffmann (1972:162) to have spread really widely only during the modern English period. They are the only type to my knowledge that has been made the subject of corpus investigations in PDE; the studies in question are those of Hoffmann (1972), Stein & Quirk (1991) and Algeo (1995). Hoffmann, who used a considerably wider definition of nominal expression than I do here, found in a 1,5 million word corpus (plays 1955-1968 + Times Literary Supplement 1968) 732 tokens, of which 82.9% (= c. 607 tokens) represent his type Ia, roughly corresponding to my Groups I and III. As the most commonly used verbs he identified have, make, give, take, do, be, and get (in descending frequency). Of the 594 different nouns used in his data, 50.5% were zero-derived from verbs. Stein & Quirk (1991) based their study on a 1.6 million word corpus of contemporary fiction and were explicitly looking only for verb-noun sequences consisting of the verbs have, take or give, nouns that are formally identical with a verb and the whole being replaceable by this latter verb. They found 297 combinations with give, 72 with have, and 33 with take, that is 402 tokens in all. Algeo (1995) searched the LOB and Brown corpora for occurrences of verbonominal combinations with do, give, have, make, take and an indefinite noun that is identical with a simple verb. He found 199 tokens/133 types in Brown, and somewhat more, 245 tokens/149 types in LOB. Compared to the phrasal verb figures from LOB above, these numbers do not seem very high. But it needs bearing in mind here that the latter two studies were very restricted in scope, making a less restricted approach like Hoffmann’s (with significantly higher figures) seem more promising. Perhaps the domain of speech and text types also play a considerable role. This leads me to a ‘fact’ found very commonly in the extant literature and in dictionaries: many multi-word verb types, particularly among the phrasal and phrasal-prepositional verbs, but also a sub-type of verbo-nominal combinations, are called colloquial or informal in PDE. 10 To give just one 9
It should be noted that Biber et al.’s definition of prepositional verb is wider than the one used here. They include V+N+preposition structures (e.g. accuse N of) and cases such as look like, serve as under V+preposition structures in their counts. 10 According to Visser (§673), this applies from the EModE period onwards, as literary English will usually prefer the Latinate loan words.
104
The History of Multi-word Verbs
example, Wierzbicka (1982:757) states that "[i]n all dialects, the construction [have + N] is highly colloquial; technical or high-style verbs [i.e. deverbal nouns] cannot be used in it at all". 11 Mostly, no proof is offered for statements of this nature. But in a small corpus study (300,000 words) Winterová (1993) found verbo-nominal combinations to be twice as frequent in dialogues in contemporary plays, which she regards as standing for colloquial speech, than in scientific writing. Potter (1965:286), on the other hand, claims that both phrasal verbs and verbo-nominal combinations are used very frequently not only in slang and colloquial speech, but also on the common (i.e. neutral/core) and literary levels of the la nguage. Müller (1978:225) even maintains that verbo-nominal combinations with give are stylistically rather elevated constructions. While I think it likely that many multi-word verb forms are more common in spoken language, I am also convinced that this type has thoroughly permeated all levels of the language nowadays. Academic writing in the humanities, for instance, can bear witness to this; the following examples were found in a book on the European Renaissance 12, which are the more remarkable for their interesting coordination structures: (50)
(51)
But as writers reviewed the offered models and took encouragement from or issue with them, they came to hope more self-consciously that their work would, as Milton was to put it, "fit audience find, though few". (p.214) The authors of the torrent of writing that reacted to the lure of print and the growth of a literate audience, at times looked up to and passed on to their readers Latin tags or mythological references. (p. 215)
General stylistic pronouncements about multi -word verbs are not permissible, in my opinion; rather it will be necessary to look at sub-patterns within them and even individual items for stylistic evaluation — and then it will be found that these items are stylistically as varied as any other group of words in the language. I think it can in fact be taken for granted that multi -word verbs are very vital, not to say frequent, members of the language in PDE, but some more hard proof for this would have been nice, nevertheless. However, if this is indeed the case, one could further hypothesize that whatever negative influence prescriptivism might have had in EModE, it was not of a lasting consequence.
11
Cf. for example Stein (1991) for a criticism of Wierzbicka’s opinion. John Hale. 1993. The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance. London: Fontana Press. 12
6. Patterns of the Past: Multi-word Verbs in the Lampeter Corpus This and the following chapters will be devoted to the analysis of the data taken from the Lampeter Corpus. While chapter 7 will be concerned with the developments and tendencies visible in the data, the present chapter will lay the foundation by presenting the facts, and describing the lexical, semantic and syntactic patterns actually found in the cor pus. However, before setting out on this enterprise, a few more words in general and about the method of analysis employed in particular are in order here. Multi-word verbs, at least as I see them, are essentially a lexical phe nomenon, and this of course might raise questions about the size of the data base. Usually, a corpus of about one million words, such as the one used here, is considered large enough for studying high-frequency, functional (i.e. mainly grammatical) items, but not necessarily sufficient for lexical studies. But as pointed out in chapters 3 and 4, multi-word verbs are a special lexical case in so far as they follow clearly defined internal syntactic patterns. Therefore, it does not matter whether a specific individual combination is found only once, as long as others — perhaps also as single occurrences — with the same pattern are found. The size of the corpus (with 1,172,102 words) did prove satisfactory in that respect: of the three main patterns (phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs and verbo-nominal combinations) a sufficient number of instances were found to make analysis on a sensible level possible. Verb-adjective combinations and especially phrasalprepositional verbs, on the other hand, are not that numer ous in the corpus. Nevertheless, some patterns did emerge with respect to the former, while in the case of the latter the data really was insufficient, but it may also be doubtful whether even a much larger corpus (e.g. the BNC) would turn up large numbers of them. Finding all the possible instances of the five categories of multi -word verbs under investigation in the Lampeter Corpus made it necessary to actually read through the whole corpus — a traditional, ‘manual’ approach, in fact. The corpus is not (yet) grammati cally annotated, so that automatic searches for, e.g., adverbial particles (cf. the RP -tag in the LOB corpus) or sequences of verb plus preposition were not possible. I rejected an other possible procedure, namely that of automatically looking for items usually found in these combinations, such as prepositions, adverbial particles, and very commonly used combination verbs, such as make, take, give etc. On the one hand, this would have produced a lot of unwanted data to be sorted out — again manually. But on the other hand, it was precluded by the much more serious drawback of having to determine the possible components of
106
Patterns of the Past
multi-word verbs in advance, thus restricting oneself to certain, more nar rowly defined sub-types of these combinations. Some studies on verbonominal combinations in PDE, and also Hiltunen’s on phrasal verbs in the Helsinki Corpus, have taken this course (cf. chap.5), but while this may be justified for modern English with the everyday empirical knowledge of the researcher of what is possible in general in the background, it is not the best approach for historical studies. After all, one cannot know at the outset which items enter into these combinations in the past (they might be a smaller, larger or otherwise different group than today), and how fixed the patterns then were. Also, the ‘unexpected’ items (from the modern point of view) and the borderline cases might even be the more interesting ones. Thus the manual search approach chosen here should be well suited to present a faithful picture of the true extent and characteristics of multi -word verbs in the 17th and 18th centuries. I will now turn to describing that picture in detail. 6.1 General Patterns As already stated several times in the course of this study, the items under consideration here are not random lexical features, but they are based on relatively clearly defined patterns. Patterning is of two kinds, on the one hand lexical (or collocational) patterns and on the other hand syntactic patterns. Both can be combination -internal or -external, referring to the internal lexical or syntactic make-up of an item or to its context/surroundings in the clause. In some areas the lexical and syntactic kinds overlap, e.g. with respect to the question of prepositions in verbo -nominal and verb-adjective combinations. The following sections will deal with the patterns ident ified in the Lampeter Corpus data. In order to give a general overview the appendices 1-5 at the end list the normalized (i.e. PDE spelling) base forms of all the combinations found in the corpus. Thus, for every instance treated here in the text — which must necessarily be selective — further similar ones can be found in these lists. As pointed out in chapter 4, the categories in question here are some what fuzzy, and therefore tricky decisions had to be taken about the inclusion or exclusion of individual instances in some, though fortunately not too many, cases.1 Nevertheless, the phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs and verb 1
A few examples for excluded cases should suffice here: break through, die of, feed on, take a course, make head, be in danger. It is, of course, the context the items occur in which is important for the decision. Phrasal verbs were, as a rule, not a problem, except for sequences of verb + out of — because it is practically impossible to conclusively determine the status of out in individual cases, these were all excluded
Patterns of the Past 107 adjective combinations found in the corpus need no further general explanations apart from those given in chapter 4, but phrasal -prepositional verbs are by the nature of things a more difficult case. Therefore, I want to point out the less clear or prototypical cases included in that class here. While all phrasal-prepositional verbs are, strictly speaking, mergers of a phrasal verb on the one hand and a prepositional verb on the other, there are some cases in the corpus where this is still more graphically to be seen than usual. The semantic merger is not quite complete in them, in fact the two separate multi-word verbs are very apparent and present in the meaning, cf. look back + look into (2) or call out + call for (3). Some of them are probably nonce formations in the truest sense of the word: six of those in question occur only once in the Lampeter Corpus. (1) (2) (3)
And [I] sent in for Captaine Stoakes, the Master, the Gunner, Bennet, and Marshall, and bad them be of good cheere,... (RelB1650) ... but if we will look back into the Examples of former Ages, we shall find (...) that never any before went so far out of the way to d efend their own Countrey. (PolA1672) ’Tis matter of Wonder and Astonishment, that there are Men, who call themselves Christians, (...) are still, for the very same thing, calling out for new Methods of Vengeance, ... (PolA1702)
Looking at these examples, it appears to me that what we have here are actu ally the prepositional verbs send for, look into and call for (with their transferred or idiomatic meanings left intact), with an extra adverbial particle added. The particle is more or less superfluous, definitely more in (2), where former Ages makes the backwards orientation clear anyway, but less so in (1), where in serves as a directional marker otherwise not present in the context, and in (3), where out has an intensifying function. It is interesting to find these hybrid formations, because they show a willingness to make use of a whole pile of particles for the sake of greater expressiveness, instead of a dislike of them. The remaining items in the phrasal-prepositional class are of a more ‘traditional’ make-up, such as fall in with, given over to or live up to, and need no special comment. 2
(cf. also Denison 1981). Generally, the trickiest decisions had to be taken in the category of prepositional verbs. 2 One particular item posed difficulties as to its attribution to which group of multiword verbs, namely give into, as in: Now that the Vulgar should ascribe every thing that’s a little surprizing, to Witchcraft, is no wonder; but that Clergymen, Men suppos’d to have made some Improvement in Physick, should give into the little crude Notions of Nurses and Old Women, (...), is astonishing; (MscA1712)
108
Patterns of the Past
Three different groups of verbo-nominal combinations have been explained in chapter 4. As a reminder, they are (Group I) simple verb -noun combination, (Group II) verb-noun-preposition sequence, and (Group III) verb-prepositional phrase chain. The numerical relationship of the three groups in the corpus as a whole and in the individual decades is shown in the following table: Table 6. 1: Verbo-nominal combinations split up by groups
1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 total %
Group I 95 130 86 120 93 122 53 75 126 81 981 49.2
Group II 54 94 73 101 67 113 65 71 97 56 791 39.7
Group III 19 29 14 9 28 29 22 19 35 18 222 11.1
total
1994 100
While there is a substantial number of instances of Group I and II verbs, Group III is a minor category in comparison. The frequency of Group II was contrary to my expectations at first (cf. chap.4), but it is made up of fewer types, 105 (T/T ratio 0.1) against 191 (T/T ratio 0.2) for Group I. Thus, sequences including a final preposition indeed tend to coalesce somewhat less often in multi-word combinations. On the other hand, this group contains a few very established and therefore frequent items, namely several similar combinations involving the noun account (62 occurrences), have/take care of (63 occurrences), take notice of (137 occurrences) and make use of (158 occurrences). Of course, sorting out, or distinguishing between, members o f Groups I and II is not without its problems; there are cases where empirically observed syntactic behaviour and especially semantics make a sound decision possible, but the distinction in less clear cases is some times at least Despite its prepositional origin (calqued on donner dans) it was here on semantic grounds attributed to the category of phrasal-prepositionalverbs. By the way, Samuel Johnson in his dictionary (i.e. about 40 years after the Lampeter examples), while calling it "a French phrase" and thus being aware of its origin, lists it only with the spelling give in to (s.v. give v.n. 5.).
Patterns of the Past 109 partly based on intuition. While (4-6) without any doubt belong into Group I, others were trickier and needed more consideration. (4) (5) (6)
... so there seems no need of making any manner of Apology for engaging in so very laudable an Attempt. (SciA1712) Upon the 5th. of October (...) we saw a sail to windward of us, which immediatly we found to give us chace; (MscA1685) some men have a minde to cavil upon all occasions ... (RelA1653)
Bear witness occurs twice in the corpus, both times with a — different — preposition: (7) (8)
Blessed be God, this whole Assembly can bear witnesse to the falsehood, let me be bold to adde, to the more then Divelishnesse of this accusation. (RelA1653) And for the unlawfulnesse thereof, let Mr Greatarick’s works bear witnesse of him. (MscB1666)
Both falsehood (7) and him (8) can be said to have object-status: passivization, for example, is possible. However, a preposition-less variant of the combination with the same meaning is also found, as the following instance taken from the OED shows, and it has therefore been put into Group I: (9)
That Obsignation ... whereby the Spirit it self is said to bear Witness with our Spirit. (1691, Norris Pract. Disc. 162; s.v. obsignation)
The next examples were allocated to either Group I (10; 12) or II (11; 13) mainly on the basis of their differing semantics — which, however, has syntactic consequences: (10) (11) (12) (13)
... and accordingly Application is made to the Legislative Power, to dissolve this Marriage, ... (LawB1715) "apply to N" I shall treat of these Heads in as brief and plain a manner as I can, and then make an Application of the whole, ... (RelA1708) "apply N" ... I shall, for my further information, take leave to propose a few Queries to those learned Gentlemen of Cambridge, ... (SciB1735) "assume permission" Captain Macdonald gave us Certificates of our service in the late Action, and then Mr. Baxter and I took leave of him; (MscA1685) "leave"
Group III is represented by 222 tokens made up by 43 different types (T/T ratio 0.19). Except for in the case of semantically intransitive combinations such as (14), the elements of the unit are more likely to be ‘interrupted’ by an object than the Group I and II instances, at least in active sentences
110
Patterns of the Past
(cf. (15; 16)) — which makes them less liable to merge into a unit and thus may account for the fewer types found. (14) (15) (16)
I would further ask, how he could prove that the Law it self was at an End, and that Trials by Juries were taken away when a Governor pleased; (LawB1738) And for an instance of what this King is able to doe, without putting his estates in hazard by drayning them too drye of men to make good his kingdome; (SciB1652) whilst we were setting her [= ship] on fire, we heard a noise of some people in the Hold, ... (MscA1685)
A few types have an additional obligatory final preposition: besides the instances in (17; 18) there is only one further, stand in necessity of, which is a variant of (17). (17) (18)
... he freed the French King from his fears of Spain, inabled him to subdue all Factions at home, and thereby to bring himself into a condition of not standing in need of any of them, ... (PolA1668) This policy of Hugh Peters, puts us in mind of godly Gravener, ... (MscA1650)
Both of these seem to be extremely stable combinations. 6.2 Lexical Patterns 6.2.1 Verbs The one component all multi-word verbs have in common is a lexical verb. Therefore, I want to start the discussion of lexical patterns within these com binations with that element. First, let us take a look at the most commonly used verbs and the way they are spread across the five different types. The cut-off point (100+ tokens) is of course a matter of debate; I have based my decision for or against inclusion here on overall frequency and also on prominence in individual types. Table 6.2 then lists them foremost according to their occurrence in how many types (in all five down to in only one) and then according to their overall frequency. The 4,557 tokens of multi-word verbs these fifteen verbs help to form make up c. 48% of the total of 9,467 multi-word verb tokens found, whereas the remaining c. 52% contain a whole host of different verbs, especially in the category of phrasal verbs. This goes to show the supreme importance of these very common verbs. Of Kirchner’s (1952) ten major or most common verbs of the English language seven are found in this list, namely take, make,
Patterns of the Past 111 come, give, go, put and have; the three ‘missing’ ones are the Lampeter Corpus), do (93 tokens), and get (39 tokens). Table 6.2: Common verbs in multi-word verbs (tokens) 3 Phrasal Prep. Phrasal VerbVerboverbs verbs -prep. adjective nominal verbs comb. comb. take 332 49 4 1 491 make 107 6 1 78 530 come 181 24 21 11 5 give 81 2 11 336 lay 159 2 18 32 set 299 6 3 38 look 15 178 8 go 155 14 7 send 112 39 1 put 145 110 think 48 121 bring 233 12 find 139 7 carry 242 have 143 2,200 368 53 232 1,704 total
be (50 tokens in
total verb 877 722 242 430 211 346 201 176 152 255 169 245 146 242 143 4,557
rank by freq. 1. 2. 7. 3. 8. 4. 9. 10. 12. 5. 11. 6. 13. 7. 14.
The most versatile verbs are take, make, come (occurring in all five patterns) and give, lay, set (occurring in four). What they have in common is a rather wide range of meaning, which is also relatively indeterminate and therefore flexible. 4 The same could be said about put, which, while being found in only two (yet very different) patterns, is among the first five in simple frequency. Look, go, send, think, bring, find and carry retain a stronger primary meaning, which restricts them largely to those patterns where less or no verb bleaching takes place. Have is something of a special case: it is the only really stative verb in this group and this at least partly explains its restriction to verbo-nominal combinations. Quite apart from the
3
There is some overlap with common verbs in Moon’s FEIs (1998:76), although the comparison is complicated by her counting inflected forms separately. Among her top twenty one finds takes, makes, goes/go, puts, gives, and comes, which also play a prominent part here. 4 Samuel Johnson also mentions this class of verbs as a particular difficulty for the lexicographer, enumerating many of the verbs in question here. The relevant quote can be found in chapter 8.1 of the present study.
112
Patterns of the Past
absolutely clear cases have and carry, all the other verbs also have their preferences regarding the type of multi -word verb (cf. the italicized figures in Table 6.2). Make, take and give prefer verbo-nominal combinations, while come, lay, go, send, set, put, bring and find are mostly found in phrasal verbs. Look is the only verb exhibiting a strong liking for prepositional verbs, and think is strongest in verb-adjective combinations. Looking at the performance of these verbs in the individual multiword verb types, it strikes one that their contributions are very unequally distributed. The ten verbs (of the 15 above) occurring in prepositional verbs help to form only 13.1% of all instances (tokens), which must be due to the higher percentage of non-native verbal elements in this group, but perhaps also to the fact that there is a more equal spread of types. The thirteen verbs for phrasal verbs, and the seven verbs for phrasal-prepositional verbs make up roughly more than half of all sampled combinations in these groups, 51.6% and 57% respectively. The highest share, however, that they contribute is to verb-adjective combinations with 77.8% (five verbs) and to verbo-nominal combinations with 89.6% (ten verbs); in these classes all other verbs really become marginal. An additional perspective on these common verbs can be provided by comparing their occurrence in multi-word verbs with their overall frequency in the corpus (Table 6.3). This might give an indication as to how semantically and syntactically independent they are (cf. occurrence as simplex) or how dependent they are on semantic and/or syntactic comple tion by other lexical elements.
Patterns of the Past 113 Table 6.3: Common verbs: simplex and multi-word occurrences All occurrences Occurrences in % of all multi-word verbs look 374 201 53.7 set 649 346 53.3 carry 527 285 45.9 take 2,248 877 39.0 lay 548 211 38.5 put 846 255 30.1 send 577 152 26.3 bring 997 245 24.6 go 837 176 21.0 give 2,074 430 20.7 make 4,046 722 17.8 come 1,470 242 16.5 think 1,453 169 11.6 find 1,591 146 9.2 I have counted the corpus instances of all those verbs, with the exception of have, which, because of its use as an auxiliary, would not have made a valid comparison possible.Of the generally very frequent verbs (take, give, make, come, think, find), only take has a high instance of usage in multi-word verb structures. It is rather the lesser used verbs whose overall frequency is considerably boosted by their occurrence in multi-word verbs, notably look, set, carry, and lay. It can be assumed that relatively high occurrence in these environments also increases the predisposition of speakers to further expand — numerically and with new formations — on them. The following examples contrast simplex and multi-word use of some items: (19) (20) (21) (22)
... low ordinary Espaliers about Two Foot high, along the several Rows of Vines, to which their Shoots might be carried horizontally and fastened, ... (MscB1718) During that Period, the Spanish Branch carried on a War for above 50 Years in the Netherlands ... (PolB1713) If, I say, these Republicans will not otherwise be contented, let them then take it thus. (PolA1684) ... and if this device should take place, the rents belonging to those two Halls will be lost, because there will be no body to look after them. (EcA1681)
114
Patterns of the Past
(23)
... yet there are several amongst us who seem to look no farther than the Counting Tables in Grocer’s Hall, and so judge of the Bank as they do of a Banker’s Shop, ... (EcA1705) Without looking into the Conduct of other Nations in such Cases, We have in our own Examples perhaps of as many Revolutions, as any other Kingdom in the whole World. (PolA1702)
(24)
(25) (26)
Upon one of the North Quadrants of this Meridian (...) the Climes are set to the several Degrees of Latitude; (SciB1649) If you, Gentlemen, are true Friends of the Government, and Lovers of your Country, you have now an opportunity of shewing it, and of serving your selves also, by assisting chearfully to set open the Gates of Redemption. (EcB1720)
Phrasal verbs The next point now is to look at all the verbs in the five types of multi-word verbs separately, starting with the largest group, i.e. phrasal verbs. 326 different verbs are used to crea te phrasal verbs; the twenty most common ones are: take (332 tokens), set (299), carry (242), bring (233), come (181), lay (159), go (155), put (145), find (139), send (112), make (107), draw (94), cut (81), give (81), keep (70), fall (67), throw (61), pull (60), cry (55) and turn (55). This list differs to some extent from Fraser’s and Potter’s lists of common verbs mentioned in chapter 4. At the other end of the spectrum, however, there are also many verbs that occur only once (120 verbs, equals 36.8% of all) or twice (47 verbs, i.e. 14.4%). Among the former are found such verbs as assemble, bow, choose, dwindle, gush, interpret, link, plot, retail, screen, shatter, stop, try, weather, and the latter are represented by, e.g., buoy, deal, furnish, heal, mount, pin, sell, treasure. For the more frequent verbs especially, it is not only relevant how often they occur, but with how many particles they (can) combine; the more flexible they are in the latter respect the more ‘useful’ they are for the pattern as a whole. 26 verbs combine with five or more different particles: bring (16 particles), come (15), go, put (both 14), carry (12), take (10), draw, keep, run, set (all 9), give, lay, send, throw (8), break, fall, get, turn (7), blow, cast, drive, fling, pass (6), look, march, and strike (5). Most of the twenty most frequent verbs are contained in the foregoing list, except for cut, make, pull (4 particles), cry (3) and the — in this respect exceptional — find, which combines only with one single particle, namely out. On the other hand, even such infrequent (phrasal) verbs as look (15 occurrences), march (8) and strike (9) prove themselves to be rather versatile. The following selected examples with bring can exemplify the range somewhat:
Patterns of the Past 115 (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32)
And then it will be Natural for them to enter upon Contrivances, and come to Resolutions how to bring about the desir’d Change. (EcA1705) Did they not bring in French Wines for Tory Healths, to the great Detriment of the Herefordshire Trade, ... (PolA1711) ... as appears by Affidavits from the Persons who carryed Kelly to the Bishop’s House, and who also delivered Letters from him to the Bishop, and brought back the Bishop’s Answers; (LawA1723) From those so brought up tame, I made the greatest Discoveries. (MscA1730) Great things are come to the birth, onely there wanteth strength to bring forth. (RelA1642) ... but it [missing Pistol] could not be heard of, till the very day the ship was going out of the Harbour, and then somebody that had it could not be quiet till he brought it out, ... (RelB1650)
In order to be complete, the other ten particles found with bring are along, away, down, home, off, on, over, to, together, and under. Less frequent — and probably also less established — items can be represented by the combinations with march: (33) (34) (35) (36) (37)
But Gustavus, despising his Threats, march’d on with his victorious Army, ... (MscB1739) ... at last she contrived to feign her self sick, whilst her Knight, under pretence of a Condoling Visit, was to steal her down Stairs, and march off with her. (MscB1692) ... the whole Army being drawne up in their severall Regiments, continued there about an houre and then we marched away: (MscA1643) ...the three Regiments of the Auxiliary forces, the Blew, Red, and Orange, who marched forth for the reliefe of the City of Glocester ... (MscA1643) When this was done, my L.Generals forces marched up to our Brigade: (MscA1643)
In contrast to the mixture of literal, transferred and idiomatic combinati ons in the case of bring, march forms basically only literal combinations. The great majority of the verbs, 208 items or 64% of all, combine with one particle only, which might mean either that they are very established, lexicalized combinations (such as find out mentioned above), that the data base is simply not broad enough, or that they are nonce formations, such as the item in (38) seems to be. (38)
men are more attentive to new Oaths, and unheard of Blasphemies; to such as jest, and droll down Religion, that it may no longer interrupt the pleasant wickedness of a degenerated Age; (RelA1682)
116
Patterns of the Past
A further consideration with respect to the verbal part of phrasal verbs is the type of verb. There are two major questions, the first concerning the number of syllables, and the second the etymology of the verb. As to the first point, in PDE the basic rule seems to be a restriction to monosyllabic verbs or to disyllabic ones with the stress on the first syl lable. 5 Of the 326 verbs in the Lampeter Corpus, 265 (81.3%) are in fact monosyllables, 58 (17.8%) are disyllabic and only three have more than two syllables. The latter three are assemble, deliver, and interpret, the first two of which are also used in phrasal verbs in PDE (cf. BNC). Eleven of the 58 disyllabic ones violate the stress rule, namely combine, convey, decry, emit, entice, escape, explain, resign, retreat, return, and unite, which are all stressed on the second syllable. 6 Some of those are also found in PDE, however; only decry, emit, and resign seem not to occur in PDE (BNC). What these last eleven verbs have in common is their prefix structure and their history: all are loan words. This leads to the second question mentioned above, that of etymology, which was tackled with the help of the OED. There are basically two opposing categories, namely that of native versus Romance verbs; native comprises Germanic, i.e. mainly Anglo-Saxon and Norse material, whereas Romance means Latin and French loans — the latter can include Old Franconian words loaned via French or Anglo-Norman, but excludes words already borrowed during the OE period. 203 verbs (62.3%) were classified as native, and 105 (32.2%) as Romance. A further 18 verbs are of unclear origin, but, judging from their phonological shape, seem to be mostly native, e.g. blot, cut, screen, shatter, tramble, wrap. Most of the 105 Romance verbs are entirely assimilated, usually being monosyllabic as well, e.g. branch, cry, fade, join, pass, or serve; only the disyllabic and polysyllabic ones mentioned above really stand out. I can thus sum up the situation by saying that there is hardly anything unexpected in that area to be found in the Lampeter Corpus data. Prepositional verbs With regard to prepositional verbs the contrast between native and foreign words is of more importance, as — roughly speaking — loan words tend to require the preposition syntactically (with no choice involved), whereas native words tend to be more flexible and to make use of the seman-
5
This rule is probably not as definite as it is sometimes made out to be, but rather a clear tendency, as there are exceptions to the apparent rule found in the BNC. 6 Denison (1985:45, fn.7) noted a "proportionately large number" of polysyllabic verbs and/or verbs violating the stress rule in the fifteenth-century Paston Letters; in the Lampeter Corpus, however, the number cannot be called very large.
Patterns of the Past 117 tic potential of added prepositions. Prepositional verbs based on native verbal elements are those that are closest to phrasal verbs and are the main reason for the attempts to define them apart syntactically. All in all, 160 verbs are used in prepositional verbs, and the following 53 (33.1% of all) are native — i.e. the relationship of phrasal verbs reversed. answer, ask, believe, belong, beware, call, care, come, deal, drive, dwell, fall, fawn, get, give, go, grasp, grope, guess, hear, hint, hope, hunt, laugh, lay, light, long, look, make, meet, miss, mutter, play, reach, read, reckon, run, scoff, see, seek, send, set, side, speak, stand, strike, take, talk, think, trust, want, wish, wonder Some of them syntactically need the preposition as much as most of the Romance verbs; belong, beware, care and deal are the only ones to represent this group in my data. The others employ the preposition to create some sort of difference towards the simplex use. It is a difference in meaning, for instance, whether you believe N or whether you believe in N, whether you answer N or answer for N, or whether you drive N or drive at N. Similarly the following examples: (39) (40)
... amidst our Controversies with one another (let Those see to it, who made them necessary) God’s Controversy with the Nation in general (...) seems now to be drawing towards a Conclusion. (RelA1721) ... but root up & destroy the Corn abundantly, as likewise any grass, trees, plants, or whatever corn is in their way, or they can come at: (SciA1653)
With some others, the difference the preposi tion makes is less clear, e.g. in the case of join vs. join with, or miss vs. miss of. Apart from percentage of types, a look at the actual occurrence (in tokens) of these native prepositional verbs is interesting as well. For that pur pose, I have slightly enlarged the ‘native’ group; it is after all not only the etymology that counts, but also the general impression a combination makes — aim at and consist of, for instance, have different linguistic flavours. Some French verbs form very common, everyday units and were most probably completely integrated into the language. Besides the verbs listed above as native, aim, arrive, beg, blench, cope, cry, enter, fail, fix, part, pass, point, search, tally , turn and wait have also been included within that category. The result is shown in Table 6.4. The proportion of the more down-to-earth combinations is consistently around 50%, which is higher than I had at first expected. As hinted at above, it is those combinations that are similar to phrasal verbs by using the semantic potential of the non-verbal element and also by inclining towards the development of transferred or idiomatic meanings, cf. for instance take upon, look into, stand with, or come
118
Patterns of the Past
by. In many respects, they could form one category together with phrasal and phrasal-prepositional verbs. They are thus also the more interesting cases among prepositional verbs in stylistic terms. Table 6.4: The ‘native’ element in prepositional verbs
1640s 1650s 1660s 1670s 1680s 1690s 1700s 1710s 1720s 1730s Total
All tokens 255 277 200 306 358 350 252 253 294 271 2,816
Native tokens 150 155 105 185 170 174 118 121 138 173 1,489
% native/all 58.8 55.9 52.5 60.4 47.5 49.7 46.8 47.8 46.9 63.8 52.9
As with phrasal verbs, the question of how many prepositions a verb combines with is also relevant here, even if to a lesser extent. The over whelming majority of 124 verbs combines with only one preposition, 25 verbs are found with two, seven verbs connect with three, three verbs are linked with five prepositions, and one verb even associates with seven prepositions. Not always does a different preposition indicate a different meaning or function, however: whether search is followed by after or for (41-42) does not affect the meaning, whereas the alteratio n between of and with accompanying consist (43-44) produces a different meaning in each case. (41) (42) (43) (44)
yet there is not an occupation or trade of finding them, nor are our English people very active in searching after them; (EcB1653) ... with power given to your Petitioner, to search for, and seaze on all course and adultrate Silver, ... (LawB1661) ... our ancient Parliaments (which consisted of the King and Spiritual and Temporal Lords, without any Knights, Citizens, or Burgesses as all our Histories and Records attest) (LawB1649) ... supposing that none of the Kingdomes will take any way concerning his Majesties Person, but such as may consist with duty and honour, ... (PolA1646)
Patterns of the Past 119 As to the verbs with five respectively seven prepositions, they ar e come (at, by, of, (up)on, (un)to), go (about, by, (up)on, over, through), stand (by, for, (up)on, (un)to, with) and look (about, after, at, for, into, (up)on, (un)to ). Not surprisingly all four of them are native verbs. Instances of the various uses of stand are to serve as an illustration here: (45) (46) (47) (48) (49)
We are told indeed that the Dutch will for their own sakes stand by us in the Day of Danger. (PolB1713) It is Mr. Locke’s opinion, that every general name stands for a general abstract idea, which prescinds from the species or individuals comprehended under it. (SciB1735) But this proud Nation stands so much upon what they call Gentility, ... (LawA1653) But it pleased God, that by the integrity of the Sea-men (who faithfully stood to that Noble Lord,) ... (MscB1646) ... and therefore it cannot stand with reason to imagin that the Bloud in its Circular course is emitted immediately out of the Arteries into the Veins, these vessels being separate. (SciA1683)
Each of the foregoing five examples represents a different meaning, even the very similar (45) and (48) exhibit a subtle distinction. Before leaving prepositional verbs, I should just list those verbs that take three different prepositions; they are agree, consist, enter, fall, search, ta ke, and turn — again a predominance of the native or at least pseudo-native elements. Phrasal-prepositional verbs Phrasal-prepositional verbs in the Lampeter Corpus are build on a stock of twenty verbs. Considering the type in question, it is not surpr ising that all of these verbs are those already familiar from the two preceding types of multi-word verbs. In all three types of the phrasal/prepositional spectrum occur call, come, fall, give, go, look, make, run, search, send, strike, take , and turn, in two types (phrasal + phrasal-prepositional) bear, break, grow, live, rise, and sit; one verb, part, is common to the prepositional and phrasalprepositional patterns. The remaining two patterns are clearly distinguished from the three above as regards their verbal component, because in them the verb tends to be more a functional element rather than a lexical item in its own right. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see which kind of verbs fulfil this function and also how much independence there might be on their part.
120
Patterns of the Past
Verb-adjective combinations Verb-adjective combinations make use of 22 verbs, a variety that is actually surprising, considering the not very high number of types. Also, it might indicate that the verb is not quite as purely function al as assumed. Among those verbs, there are indeed the well-known very general, multifunctional verbs to be found, such as make (78 occurrences), take (only 1), lay (18), get (7), also keep (1) and come (11). Most of the others, e.g. break, cut, force, judge or throw, have a more specific content of their own — which, however, does not necessarily mean that their meaning is always fully or at all realized in the combination. Many of them are also found in the phrasal/prepositional area. Some verbs, like rip or slit, not only denote a definite action, but even a highly specific one. The presence of such verbs has to do with the fact that while the adjectival part carries most of the verbal meaning, the verb can contribute a considerable amount as well. In the following instances, for example, the verb and the adjective are of almost, or even totally, equal importance: (50) (51) (52) (53)
As also the not cutting straight such watercourses, of such brookes and gutters that are exceeding crooked, ... (EcB1653) It was by our Direction, that the Famous Exposition of the Church of England Articles was written, by which the Inclosure and Pale, that had been made up by the Tories, was thrown open, ... (PolA1711) ... and if these rules be approved on with such alterat ions as your Majesty, & your Privy Council shall judge fit, ... (LawB1661) It is also known, that the Kings of England have (...) as occasion re quired, and as they saw meet, exempted Persons and Societies from the common and ordinary course and way of Church-Discipline and Inspection. (RelB1667)
Examples where the verb is indeed reduced to a functional element are get clear, make sure or lay waste. Nine of the verbs in this pattern combine with more than one adjective, mostly two. In the case of think, it is three, which, however, are semantic variants of each other. The only verb that is really versatile is make, associating as it does with ten absolutely different adjectives. Verbo-nominal combinations Thirty-three verbs occur in verbo-nominal combinations as a whole, but because as many as 19 occur in only one of the groups, it will be necessary to look at the three groups sepa rately as well. Table 6.5 gives an overview of the distribution of verbs across the groups, using token frequencies and ordering the sequence by overall frequency. Four verbs are found in all three groups, namely put, run, set, and take. Put, set, take belong
Patterns of the Past 121 to the semantically empty, or versatile, verbs and their flexibility as to the groups here is not surprising. Set in the following examples does not carry much meaning in itself: (54) (55) (56)
... for sailing Eastward, they have, without turning back, arived to the place from whence they first set Sail, ... (SciA1698) The ever vigilant Gustavus, (...) attack’d the Enem y with his Land Forces, set fire to, and destroy’d several Vessels of the Enemy, ... (MscB1739) And therefore, for these reasons, they Voted farther, that the Prisoners should be set at Liberty without paying any Fees, or Charges, ... (PolA1668)
Run, on the other hand, was a more unexpected candidate. However, it occurs only in four combinations altogether, i.e. run a risk, run the hazard of, run the adventure of, run to ruin, the first three of which are basically synonymous. Also, even common verbs usually have a preference for one or the other type, even if they occur in more than one; put, for instance, is typical of Group III and only incidentally — and marginally — also occurs in the others. Ten verbs are found in two groups simultaneously; these are do, cast, get, give, have, lay, make, render (Group I + II), and bring, keep (Group I + III).
122
Patterns of the Past
Table 6.5: Verbs in verbo-nominal combinations (tokens)
make Take Give Have Put Do Be Set Lay Beg Call Stand Crave Run See Bring return Find Get Come Lose render Cast Keep Bear Reap Catch Draw Pass Pay pick receive Wage
Group I 250 231 249 66 1 90
Group II 280 247 87 77 34 2
7 2 31
3 30
Group III 13
75 50 28
21 16 13 5 13 1 8 1
7
1 11
7 6 5
2 1 1 2 2
4 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
total verb 530 491 336 143 110 92 50 38 32 31 21 16 13 13 13 12 8 7 7 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Of the 19 verbs that occur only in one single group, seven also occur only once ever — which may mean that they are marginal for the pattern(s). The
Patterns of the Past 123 same probably goes for those occurring only twice. (57) exemplifies such a singular occurrence: (57)
And which [laws] have received many alterations (RelB1667)
This seems to be a variation on the variously documented make (an) alteration, in this case to achieve a passive sense (cf. also the passive meaning in (59) below). Similarly catch hold of is a — probably more expressive — variant of the more common lay (also: take) hold of. Looking at the verbs as such, quite many are familiar from the four other patterns discussed above, but some are unique to the verbo -nominal groups. The most important among these are have (Groups I (59) + II (58)) and be (Group III) (60, 61), which from their syntactic and semantic makeup are more or less predestined for this type rather than any other 7, and which contribute a sizeable amount of tokens. (58) (59) (60) (61)
Certainly he that Claims by an Abstract, had need of a very good Counsel at his Elbow, to give him sound and uncontroulable Advice, in drawing it up; (LawA1694) The Labours of no Adversary hath had more grateful Acceptance in the Thoughts of your Reverend Author J. Faldo, then a noted Socinian, ... (RelB1674) Least of all am I in love with this Notion of thrift, being rendred so necessary even to our subsistence: (EcA1668) ... the influence of the last Comet we beheld in 1618. which is now strongly in operation in all or most places of this Kingdome; (SciA1644)
The remaining unique verbs to this pattern are crave, lose, reap, receive, render, and wage. As to combination with how many nouns, numerous verbs are attached to only one noun, with Group I having the highest instance of those. Modestly productive in that respect are get (6 nouns), lay (6), bring (6), set (7), as well as do (15). Really high combinatory flexibility is only reached by very few verbs, however. Those are put (I: 1, II: 5, III: 13), have (I: 19, II: 16), take (I: 27, II: 17, III: 2), give (I: 40, II: 14), and especially make (I: 68, II: 33).8 Once again, and not surprisingly, these are the very common, multi functional ones, that have played such a prominent part in this section.
7
Remember, however, that be was specifically excluded by me from the other types, for reasons given in chap.4. 8 There might be some minor overlaps between the groups, especially I and II, cf. the occurrence of take care (of) in both of these.
124
Patterns of the Past
The following table summarizes some aspects — verb frequency and origin — of the foregoing discussion in tabulary format: Table 6.6: Number of verbs (types) occurring in multi-word verbs All verbs Native verbs Phrasal verbs Prepositional verbs Phrasal-prepositional verbs Verb-adjective combinations Verbo-nominal combinations Group I Group II Group III
326 160 20 22 33 25 16 10
203 53 17 19 25 19 13 10
Romance verbs9 105 107 3 3 8 6 3 -
6.2.2 The Non-verbal Elements This is the area where multi-word verb types differ, making use of everything from rather ‘empty’ elements to semantically ve ry specific items — which goes together with the varying functions of the verbal parts treated above. While these elements in themselves are more or less unlike each other, it is nevertheless interesting to look for possible common features inherent in them or in their function. One of these items, namely a preposition, is found in most, i.e. four of the five types, though with different weight or prominence. Phrasal verbs Phrasal verbs in the Lampeter Corpus use the following 24 particles as formative elements: about, along, apart, ashore, aside, asunder, away, back, behind, by, counter, down, forth, home, in, off, on, out, over, through, to, together, under, up. Castillo (1994:439) gives a list of 43 particles she found in Shakespeare, i.e. considerably more than in the present data: abed, aboard, about, abroad, across, after, again, aground, aloft, along, aloof, apart, ashore, aside, asunder, away, back, before, 9
"Romance" is here to be strictly understood as etymological origin, regardless of degree of assimilation.
Patterns of the Past 125 behind, by, by and by, down, forth, forward, home, home and home, in, off, on, out, over, overboard, over and over, round, round about, through, through and through, to, together, toward, up, up and down, upon. I have underlined those 21 of her items that do not occur in the Lampeter material. Some of her particles seem somewhat unusual to me, but, given Shakespeare’s extraordinary linguistic inventiveness, it is of course possible that he did use them in a phrasal verb context. This also means that his usage need not necessarily reflect the everyday use of phrasal verbs at his time, and that therefore not all of these listed particles were common or used at all by other speakers. Thus, it is probably not advisable to assume a decline in pro ductivity in between Shakespeare and the Lampeter Corpus period on this basis. At any rate, I would certainly want to exclude the coordinated particles (p and p), which pose a definition problem; this would reduce Castillo’s list by five to 38 particles. In order to compare the Lampeter set of particles with those found in PDE, the LOB corpus can be examined. According to Johansson & Hofland (1984:370-376), the following twenty particles (i.e. RP-tags) are found there: about, across, along, around, aside, away, back, behind, by, down, forth, in, off, on, out, over, past, round, through, up.10 Again, I have underlined those that are not found in the Lampeter Corpus. Vice versa, there are also eight particles which are used in the latter, but ap parently not in LOB; these are apart, ashore, asunder, counter, home, to, together, and under. Their non-occurrence in LOB could of course simply be due to sampling procedures, e.g. ashore is most common in nautical contexts, and if there are no texts about that thematic area, it is not very likely to occur at all. Thus, I had a look at the list of particles given in Cowie & Mackin’s Dictionary (1975:lxxx), which consists of 56 items. 11 Most of the missing particles are indeed found there, so that one can assume that they are in use in PDE, even though perhaps not very frequently. This leaves two particles as apparently typical of the Lampeter Corpus, or rather of EModE, as they were also found in Shakespeare by Castillo, namely ashore and asunder.
10
Excluding inside and outside, as explained in chap.5 above. I do not want to analyze or even comment on the whole list, but it does seem somewhat over-inclusive, e.g. I find items such as alongside, backwards, underground, or upstairs ill-placed in a phrasal verb context. Without a particle index it is, however, very hard to find the combinations based on them in the dictionary, and thus to assess their status. 11
126
Patterns of the Past
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 give an overview of the absolute and relative fre quencies of all particles found in the Lampeter Corpus and in LOB. Remembering that the overall frequency of phrasal verbs in LOB is more than double up
992
out
932
down
427 356
off away
335
in
323
on
254
forth
196
together
96
over
94
back
84
about
62
aside
47
by
23
along
13
asunder
10
under
6
ashore
4
to
3
apart
3
through
2
behind
2
home
1
counter
1
Figure 6.1: Phrasal verb particles in the Lampeter Corpus (tokens) 12
12
For comparison, Hiltunen (1994:135) in his study of the Helsinki Corpus finds three groupings of particles in EModE: 1. back, off, forth (with a frequency of less than 100), 2. down, away (over 100), 3. out, up (over 200).
Patterns of the Past 127 that of the Lampeter Corpus, the absolute figures need to be supplemented by percentages. In both corpora, the two most frequent particles produce 45% of all phrasal verb combinations, and the five most common particles make up about 70% of all. This more or less marginalizes many of the remaining particles. out
2029
up
1754
back
740
on
724
down
706
away
539
in
482
off
431
over
362 179
about round
138
through
90
around
86
along
71
by
52
behind
43
aside
38
across
34
past
20
forth
18
Figure 6.2: Phrasal verb particles in the LOB corpus (tokens) Between then and now there have obviously been shifts in the importance of individual particles. The top eight particles in both corpora are almost the
128
Patterns of the Past
same, with one exception: forth, no. 8 in EModE, has fallen to the very last position in PDE, whereas back has shot up to rank 3 (from 10 in the earlier period). Interestingly, they are semantic op posites, but that need not mean anything. Forth is a victim of linguistic fashion, so to speak; it is nowadays perceived as archaic and/or formal. According to the OED (s.v. forth) it was already "[c]riticized as obsolete by Gray in [a] letter to Dr. Beattie 8 Mar. 1771", so that the decline of forth does not seem to be a PDE phenomenon. While forth in EModE combined with a whole number of different verbs (e.g. examples (62-63), also break, call, deliver, draw, give, hold, issue, put, send, set, take etc.), it only occurs in combination with set in LOB. (62) (63)
My Lord that man hath sworn I was out on Tuesday, it was Wednes day before I came forth, but staid at home with my wife, because I would not be among them. (LawA1668) ... he brought forth several very pretty Pieces, with which he frequently entertain’d his Friends in private, ... (MscB1729)
In many cases forth has been replaced by other particles, e.g. out. It is not quite clear why back has increased so much. Looking at the verbs it associates with there are a few more types in LOB than in the Lampeter Corpus, but, in general, they are very much the same kind of verbs, e.g. bring, give, come, fall, look, turn etc., and they are used in the same ways in both corpora. It is thus obviously not a question of functional extension. Denison (p.c.) suggested that the rise of back might be correlated with the decline of again, i.e. a reason outside the phrasal verb pattern proper. Although an interesting question, it will for reasons of space not be followed up here. As a whole, the greater or lesser use of particles is not something that lends itself to explanation by general reasons; it is rather due to the changing preferences for individual words, be it verbs or particles, and thus not very systematic. Therefore, I will leave these two diagrams now, with one last remark, however, namely the indication that together has apparently not always been the marginal particle it is today. All the particles that occur in rea sonable numbers at all are also very versatile, combining with many different of the 326 verbs. Prepositional verbs Not surprisingly, the set of prepositions as parts of prepositional verbs is somewhat smaller than the phrasal particle class, consisting of fifteen items. From among about, after, at, by, for, from, in, into, of, on/upon, over,
Patterns of the Past 129 through, to/unto, under, and with, the underlined ones13 are also found as adverbial particles in phrasal verbs. Some of those even occur with the same verbs in both paradigms, as the following four sample sentences show: (64) (65) (66) (67)
Surely therefore every Man that hath a good Title, and can possibly come by the Deed or Evidence by which he Claims it, will Inroll his Deed at large, ... (LawA1694) That, reply’d my Mother, could not be, for there was none came by at that time, ... (MscA1696) It were endless in this to run through the several ages before and until Luther, God having then in those former times discovered Antichrist to some here and there; (RelA1679) Rebeccah Niccols, who also was by, swore, That Watson, when he came in, run him down into a Chair, and the other run him through. (LawB1678)
This of course poses the problem, mentioned in chapter 4, of distinguishing the two types. The prepositional verbs in (64) and (66) are obligatorily fol lowed by their respective objects (deed/evidence; several ages), as the preposition, however close the connection to the verb (cf. come by), needs the rest of the prepositional phrase for syntactic completion. The intransitive combination in (65) therefore must be a phrasal verb; for the above rea son there are no intransitive prepositional verbs. (67) can only be a phrasal verb because of the obligatory placement of the pronominal object between run and through, something that is not possible (with any object) in the case of prepositional verbs. While (65) and (67) based on the data alone leave no doubt as to the classification, instances such as (64) and (66) need some intuition as to whether mid-placement of the object would be possible or not. All the prepositions, except for under, are found in the corpus with a number of different verbs, the most versatile one being on/upon attaching itself to 44 verbs, followed by to/unto (28), of, at (26), and with (24). Some of the prepositions seem to have prefer ences as to which kinds of verbs they combine with, e.g. about and through only occur with native verbs, while by apparently has a restriction to verbs of a certain semantic area, that of "+/ motion" (come, go, pass, stand), regardless of whether the resultant meaning is transferred or not. The more (concrete) semantic content the prepositions contain, such as the three just mention ed (also: after, from, into, over), the fewer verbs they combine with and the more selective they are. Prepositional verbs with these prepositions tend to be closest to phrasal verbs in style and in semantics. The prominent on/upon is found with very different kinds of 13
Of might have been underlined as well, as the two forms of and off were not quite clearly separated in the Lampeter Corpus period, as some spellings in the corpus show.
130
Patterns of the Past
verbs, on the one hand with the ‘expected’ ones with rather empty/functional use of preposition, such as depend on, rely on, also (68), and, on the other hand, with (mostly) native ones producing a transferred or idio matic meaning, e.g. call on, take on, and (69). Furthermore, it is found in contexts where it is a variation on another preposition, e.g. treat on (> of), center on (> in), also (70a,b) indicating that the range of on was wider then. (68) (69)
We might have insisted upon having our King obliged to reside as much amongst us as amongst them: (PolA1699) I am perswaded you would look upon me as an Injurious Person in so doing; (RelB1674)
(70a) That no succour or relief in any probable wise could be hoped for. (LawA1643) (70b) That whereas Sir Iohn Rainenam K. hath the Licenses for Cornwall and Devon. it is very fit for you likewise take it in, which may bee easily done, and hope on reasonable tearmes, ... (EcA1641) Phrasal-prepositional verbs The phrasal-prepositional verbs found in the Lampeter Corpus make use of sub-sections only of the sets of particles and prepositions listed above, namely of eleven of the former (along, away, back, counter, down, in, off, out, over, through, up), and six of the latter (by, for, into, on/upon, to, with). As these combinations are not very systematic in the first place, it would be futile to try to comment on this particular selection of ele ments. The statement that every word has its own history is very appropriate here — even if they are not words in the usual sense, and even if some of them, being nonce formations, strictly speaking have no history. Verb-adjective combinations Proceeding now to verb-adjective and verbo-nominal combinations, we come to those elements that, unlike particles and prepositions, are members of the open lexical classes. They are thus semantically much more complex than the above, which, however, also makes their combinatory behaviour less flexible. The verb-adjective combinations sampled contain twenty-four adjectives, two of which are participles used adjectivally (known, rid). All those adjectives are common, every-day items (with the exception of void), which are also short, i.e. monosyllabic or, less frequently, disyllabic ( easy, merry, open, weary). The native element predominates with eighteen or nineteen (depending on the origin of fit) words. Many of these adjectives, in addition to the two participial forms, can be connected to a verbal form, which goes
Patterns of the Past 131 together well with the fact that they carry a large, if not the main part of the meaning of these combinations. Some have not only the identical form of the verb, but also the same meaning, for instance break/force/set etc. open open v., make free - free v., also: (71) (72)
On the other side, she, having smelt his Plot, begins to grow weary of him, and plies the Countermine, ... (MscA1650) She now wearied of passing all her time by herself, and sighed for the comfort of society. (OED s.v. weary v., 1782 F. Burney Cecilia ii. iv)
Others, while being formally identical, do not quite match semantically; thus get clear (of), make clear do not conform with the simplex verb clear. However, make clear is very close to the phrasal verb clear up, with make and up fulfilling similar functions towards clear in both combinations. Also, the sense carried by clear in both (73) and (74) is almost the same: (73) (74)
... he got clear of the Danish Dominions, and arriv’d safe at Lubeck. (MscB1739) ’Tis undoubtedly a great Detriment to the Trade of this Nation, to suffer Ships to sail from the Plantations to the Straits, &c. and return again, without being obliged first to come home, and to clear out from hence for the Plantations. (EcA1720)
Other adjectives have related verbs, e.g. (make) easy - ease, (make) sure ensure. Eight of the adjectives combine with more than one verb, usually with little or no change of meaning, as it is usually the adjectives that carry most of the meaning, anyway. An exception here is hold good vs. make good, where two different meanings are involved. Most of those eight adjectives are also the numerically frequent ones, e.g. ~ fit (121 instances), ~ good (49), ~ open (29), and ~ short (23). In the latter case, the change of verb is definitely immaterial; there is no difference to be made out between come or fall short. Prepositions also play a role in verb-adjective combinations; eleven of the 47 types found have one attached to them. These are make bold with*, get clear of*, fall foul of/upon, make free with, make light of, lay o.s. open to(*), get rid of, come short of*, fall short of*, make sure of* , and grow weary of. The variation in the prepositional element of fall foul (without semantic differentiation), while not very common, is found in some prepositional and verbo-nominal combinations as well. The starred items also have counterparts without a preposition (in the case of lay open also without the reflexive pronoun), which I have counted as separate types because there are different shades of meaning involved, even if they are ve ry subtle.
132
Patterns of the Past
(75)
This we know to be Law, Rex habet superiorem, Deum & Legem, etiam & Curiam, and so says the same Author; and truly Sir, he makes bold to go a little further, Debent ei ponere frænum, They ought to bridle him pag. 65. (PolA1684) He indeed did take them, but he thought they had been his Wives, for they were in her Lodging, who was then newly come from Service; and he thought he might make bold with them, being hers, and sold them to the other Prisoners. (LawB1678)
(76)
(77) (78)
And therefore you that are rich had need double your diligence to make your calling and election sure. (MscB1658) Gravener, he that is Commissary to my Lady Fairfax; who hath pawned his Commission for another couple of Flanders horses, to make sure of Mistris Luson: (MscA1650)
The meaning in (75) is roughly "dare, have the courage", which is still present in the background in (76), but the meaning there is wider, it is rather the resultant action following or based on the feeling of courage. The meanings in (77) and (78) are extremely similar, but somehow one feels that in (78) there are more and different connotations involved. There fore, they have been kept separate. Verbo-nominal combinations It is the last of the multi-word verbs groups, the verbo-nominal combinations, where variety in the non-verbal elements is greatest. Split up by groups the situation is as follows: Group I contains as many as 154 different nouns, Group II is also going strong with 84 items, and Group III yields another 35. However, the total number for verbo-nominal combinations as a whole is not the simple sum of these figures, because some nouns occur in two or even all three groups; the real total is therefore 241 nouns14 for all verbo-nominal combinations. Nouns as a general rule occur in combination with only one verb, combinations with two are not very common, with three are very rare, and association with more than three is definitely exceptional. In cases where there is verbal variation the verbs are often (quasi-)synonyms of each other, e.g. give/render an account, put/lay a restraint upon, i.e. it is actually no real variation. Thus, the difference between the following three instances is not (denotative) meaning — which is mostly carried by leave, anyway — , but rather varying degrees of politeness:
14
This means that 32 nouns occur in two (e.g. account, end, doubt, part, question) or some few even in all three (e.g. fire, stop) groups.
Patterns of the Past 133 (79) (80) (81)
... so that I must take leave to say, That in Cases where the matter is dubious, both Lawyers and Divines prescribe rather favour than rigour; (LawA1680) I must now crave leave to attempt the recommendation of our duty; (RelA1682) I shall only beg Leave to add One Observation, that (...) is but too well known to that Right Reverend Bench: (LawB1723)
Alternatively, the verbs can be so devoid of independent meaning that the variation does not matter either, as in give/make (an) answer, have/take (a) care of. Another possible reason for verbal variation is to achieve the effect otherwise obtained by using the simplex verb in the active or passive voice, e.g. give/receive (an) alteration , or also transitive vs. transitive use, e.g. bring/come to light. (82,83) illustrate both these points: (82) (83)
the Court of Chancery, will much call the Judgment of this Nation in question, to be out-witted by a generation of Lawyers, ... (LawA1653) but in the point of the Dispensation they all agreed, or else that other point could never have come in question. (LawB1688)
In one case at least, that of get/lose sight of, the variation is parallel to affirmative versus negated use of a simplex verb. The transitive/intransitive and active/passive pairs mean that these combinations provide lexical alternatives to syntactic structures, leaving the author to make his choice between the two possibilities. As far as I can see, none of the nouns used in these combinations would preclude this kind of variability. What is even more important than the way the nouns combine with verbs is the character of the nouns themselves, i.e. their morphological status and their etymology. The first of these is the more crucial question, and will therefore be dealt with first. Many linguists (e.g. Stein 1991, Algeo 1995, Prince 1972, Wierzbicka 1982) have restricted this type — or at least regarded it as the core — to cases in which the nominal part is a zeroderivation of or formally identical with the corresponding verb. I prefer to speak simply of formal identity, as the direction of the derivational proc ess (verb > noun, noun > verb), or perhaps even the fact of derivation as such might not always be clear. Looking at Table 6.7 it is indeed true that the majority of the nouns can be connected to an identical verb, but the dominance of this type is by no means as pronounced as one might have expected.
134
Patterns of the Past
Table 6.7: Nouns in verbo-nominal combinations: morphology (types)
Group I Group II Group III
identical verb 75 56 18
derivation 67 23 13
non-related 12 5 4
total 154 84 35
Group I especially features a nearly equal number of nouns which are morphologically explicit derivations of a verb (or vice versa), usually possessing an unambiguous nominal suffix. Furthermore, there is a third type of noun in these combinations, namely those that are not at all related to a verb, but for mally or semantically independent. With regard to the first, and to a lesser degree also the second kind of noun, the question arises of how strictly semantic equivalence should be interpreted. In my opinion, there need not be a complete semantic match, which might even be prevented by the influence of the differing syntactic uses (cf. examples (85, 86) below), but noun and verb should share a considerable amount of specific semantic features. This means that the test of substituting the simplex for the multi -word verb would not always work, and is not regarded as decisive by me. In the case of noun/identical verb, it is especially important to have the EModE situation in mind. I would not, for example, have automatically thought of advantage as both a noun and a verb from the PDE perspective, but it seems to have been not uncommon as a verb in the past, whereas the OED does not list a single verbal instance from the 20th century (calling it obsolete). Simplex and multi-word use of advantage in the Lampeter Corpus is exemplified in the following two sentences: (84) (85)
... though each particular shall be advantaged as well as the whole body, yet it will not be indeavored as far as I am able to see into mens minds or practices (EcB1653) ... the young Woman pull’d off her shoe to ease her foot, and the Prisoner took advantage of it, and ran away; (LawB1678)
Period, essay, and testimony as verbs are similar cases (cf. OED). On the other hand, verbal forms that are normal today might not necessarily have been so in the past. The verb notice, for instance, was not very common before the middle of the 18th century, but the OED lists a sufficient number of examples to accept it as a verbal form for the EModE period. The Lampeter Corpus yielded one verbal instance (86), which is here contrasted with its multi-word counterpart (87).
Patterns of the Past 135 (86)
(87)
... and yet all, (...) to agree to Admiration, as much as when any one Question in Trigonometry may be wrought many several ways, and by several Datums, and yet all to agree, with so little Difference as is not to be notic’d. (SciA1709) For being dress’d a little cleaner than ordinary, and the Duke happening to be behind the Scenes, could not help taking Notice of it. (MscB1729)
In general, forms to be accepted as verbal should be documented by a sensible number of instances in the OED; thus, cognizance, for which the OED gives the single instance of (88), and which was also not to be found in the Lampeter Corpus, was not accepted as a verb, and therefore the noun cognizance belongs in the category "non-related". (88)
Why the Emperour made choyse of the Westerne Bishops to cognisans the cause. (OED, 1642 Heylin Hist. Episcopie (1657) i. 417)
In contrast to some of the above, sometimes verbs come to mind that did not exist in EModE. A somewhat exotic example is best v. (in the context of the multi-word verb make the best of), which the OED documents only from the 19th century. Like the previous example best therefore joined the non-related class. But of course there were also many cases, of which (89-91) are some few examples, where the attribution to the first class of noun (identical verb) was not at all ambiguous and thus unproblematic. (89) (90) (91)
... and yet the Author is of Opinion, Page the 11th. that no Wisdom can give the Publick effectual help till we can mend the Condition and Posture of Trade. (EcA1697) All I shall do, shall be to take thence the Questions which I just now made mention of, and to speak to them in the best Manner I can, ... (PolB1724) ... when broken in many set battels by Belisarius and Narses, Lieuten ants for the Emperour Justinian, their Kingdome and name there came unto an end. (SciB1652)
The second kind of noun, i.e. one clearly related to a verb, but distin guished by formal nominal features, did not pose any significant problems. Common cases are those with obvious nominal endings or suffixes, such as appearance, description, examination, inference, payment, necessity , or pleasure. Others are less systematically (from the PDE perspective), but ne vertheless clearly derivationally related to a verb, e.g. choice, complaint, descent, thought, trial, or death. Nouns which actually are identical to a verb, but occur obligatorily in the plural in verbo-nominal combinations (e.g.
136
Patterns of the Past
amends, pains, thanks), were also put into this second group. Some examples for this class are: (92) (93) (94)
He will not deny that he was there, but he made no resistance at all: (LawA1668) How he could repose so much Confidence in a meer Stranger; and after his Daughter had been so long married to him, to make no Inquiry into him all this while? (MscB1692) The Fathers shall not be put to Death for the Children, nor the Children for the Fathers: (RelB1730)
The last group of nouns are those that bear no obvious relation to a verb, i.e. there is no formally related verb, or the semantic distance between noun and verb is too great. Most of these cases are a bsolutely clear, such as ear, eye, foot, liberty, peace, way, or most, but some might be open to debate. For example, I have regarded the nouns in (95, 96) as completely independent of part v. and place v., as they are semantically too far removed. (95)
(96)
[he] is guilty not onely of his own evils, but whatsoever in others are thereby occasioned, either in those that take part in this tyranny, or in the struglings of the people sensible of their oppression, and laboring for relief. (LawB1659) First, He may be assur’d, if the Inoculation takes Place, of the Time when he shall have the Small Pox. (SciB1722)
The noun in have recourse to is a similar case. Also, I felt that loss in be at a loss cannot necessarily be connected to lose v. any more. The other point of interest with regard to the nouns hinted at above is their etymology — which is not unconnected to the formal characteristics just discussed. One would expect that those nouns with a typically nominal suffix are of foreign, i.e. usually Romance, origin. And this is indeed the case, but additionally many of the other noun types also contain a high percentage of Romance nouns. In all three groups, there is a prepon derance of originally foreign words, as Table 6.8 shows, very heavy with nearly 80% of all in Groups I and II, and still reaching 57% in Group III. Of course, many of those are on the same or a similar level to the native elements, as re gards linguistic integration, e.g. escape, order, prisoner, doubt, use, surprise.
Patterns of the Past 137 Table 6.8: Nouns in verbo-nominal combinations: etymology (types)
Group I Group II Group III
native 32 16 15
Romance 120 66 20
total 15 152 84 35
But with words like consternation, necessity, subjection, signification, cognizance, countenance, exception, compensation the question arises in how far they still belonged to the less integrated, ‘hard word’ section of the language at the time of Lampeter Corpus. It is components like these that stylistically split the type of verbo -nominal combinations into two camps, and also somewhat set off the type as a whole from the other four. In this respect at least the category cannot be unreservedly treated as a unit. Live (1973) also took a wider than usual perspective on the nominal part, moreover documenting her instances, and a comparison with her data yields a surprising amount of correspondences. Thus, the EModE situation as documented by the Lampeter Corpus is not that much different from that found in PDE. Even Lampeter instances which I would have instinctively rated as typical of the past, crop up in Live’s lists, e.g. have/make/give application, make atonement, have/make entrance, have speech, have/make dis turbance, take/give heed — which latter, interestingly, vanishes completely after the first fifty years in the Lampeter Corpus. But today these examples sound formal and/or archaic, while they seem to have been neutral in the 17th and 18th centuries. Besides the nouns, other non-verbal elements play a role in verbonominal combinations, as well. Many of the prototypical PDE types, such as take a walk, give a shout, have been lexicalized with an obligatory indefinite article. On the other hand, there are combinations like take place, give way, which under no circumstances ever have an article. Thus, the question of the article is important for determining the base form of the multi -word combination in question. However, the decision article vs. zero is not as easy as it sounds, and this is why a considerable number of types in the appendix lists feature articles in brackets or with a question mark. Because of this uncertainty, I will not give any frequency figures here, but the majority of types seem to prefer the zero-article form — which goes contrary to PDE expectations. Hiltunen (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999) called the article-less 15
The sum of native and Romance does not necessarily agree with the overall total of nouns, because some have an unclear or mixed etymology, and were therefore not allocated to any group, but left out of consideration.
138
Patterns of the Past
combination the historically older type. The lack of an article may have to do with the fact that many of the nouns are of an abstract nature (e.g. delight, leave [= permission], offence, protection etc.), or get a more abstract, or generalized interpretation when used in a verbal meaning (e.g. battle, election, gain, order etc.). In spite of the abstract nature of variation, there is nevertheless an article present in (97), so that this can not be regarded as a general rule. (97)
... whereas for the most part elswhere it swerveth, or maketh a Variation from the true Meridian towards the East, or West, ... (SciB1649)
Of course, one could also argue that a (verbal) action or event turns the noun into something more specific and thus also more concrete (cf. also examples 101-103 below). Also, the same noun can occur once with and once without an accompanying article, in the following sentences apparently depending on the verbal part of the combination — and perhaps also on the overall meaning? (98)
And therefore you have good encouragement for further search; in doing whereof, be pleased to cast an eye upon these following considerations. (LawB1659) (99) That their Tutours be desired to have a special eye upon them, as to their godlinesse, ... (MscB1658) (100) ... a Haberdasher of small Wares passing by, and happening to set Eye upon our Chapman, made bold to lay hands upon him, and carry him off to the Cock in Amen corner; (MscB1692) Due to the adjectival modification in (99) — and because this is the only instance of this type — it is not possible to be certain in this case, but I assume it to be parallel to (98) in having obligatory an in the base form, in contrast to (100) which has not. (101,102) pose the same problem as (99), but make an alteration is established by occurrences such as (103), whereas give an? alteration must remain an open question. (101) ... as I have fully experimented by decocting two parts of the powders with one of Sulphur in a proportionable quantity of Water, which gave the water very little alteration, ...(SciA1676) (102) whereas the Leaves of Oak made little or no alteration in the Water of the King’s Bath, the Chips (...) make rather a better purple in the Water of all the Baths, than the Galls; (SciB1676) (103) ... and I was not willing to be at the trouble of making an Alteration in them, having so little inclination to this barren Controversy, ... (RelB1721) The difference in verb here further produces a grammatical change, that of transitive (101) vs. potentially intransitive (102,103) combination. But this
Patterns of the Past 139 generally does not seem to influence the presence or absence of the article. The verb give, however, exhibits a tendency towards zero-article combinations; the only give-units that definitely have an indefinite article are the two similar Group I items give an account, give a relation. One combination with give takes an obligatory definite article, namely give the lie to. There are five other items which also belong in this category (make the best of, make the most of, have/get the start of, have the trial of , and (104)), all of which not surprisingly belong to Group II; their definiteness makes further complementation necessary. (104) ... there was little Prospect of getting the Mastery of them [= diseases]: (SciA1730) Some other combinations can take the definite article if the (syntactic) occa sion requires it, e.g. run a/the risk of, take (the) liberty . But on the whole, the definite article in verbo-nominal combinations is a minority phenomenon. The following examples illustrate typical combinations without any article. (105) He own’d he had had general Discourse with Pancier relating to a Plot, ... (LawA1723) (106) For example, They cannot design well unto his Majesty, who tell him, That he must not make haste to conquer his Enemies, until he have first screw’d up his Prerogative; (PolB1689) (107) ... the first Weapons, our just Fury can lay hold on, may certainly be lawfully employed against that uncircumcised Philistin that oppresses us. (PolB1659) (108) That it is an extream Insolence to pretend to pass judgment on a Bishop. (RelB1692) Despite the modification, (105) is a clear case as it lacks the article even in the modified construction. Group III combinations are also usually zero article units, with some few exceptions, such as end, stop (also with article in Group II, cf. e.g. (109)), loss, amazement. In the following examples, the article is an integral component of the unit, with (110) being a clear case, I think, in spite of the modification. (109) Now to put an end to all disputes of this kind, I have thought fit to appeal to any understanding person, ... (SciB1676) (110) A Presbyterian Lady too, that casts a sad looke with her eies for the downfall of her Faction, ... (MscA1650) (111) ... it must be reckon’d highly impolitick, as well as ungrateful, in our Neighbours to treat us continually at such a rate, as if they had a mind to bring us under subjection, ... (PolA1699)
140
Patterns of the Past
(112) If the Marshall shall dismisse without Authority, any Prisoner committed unto his charge, or suffer him to make an escape, he shall be lyable to the same punishment due unto the dismissed or escaped offendour. (LawA1643) A question possibly connected to the presence or absence of an article con cerns the degree of institutionalization (cf. Bauer 1983) or even lexicalization. It might be assumed that items without article have a more unitary character than others, cf. for example take care (of), take notice of, give ear, take part, make prize of, have regard to, make war etc. However, some combinations with a very idiomatic flavour, such as be at a loss, put an end to, run a/the risk, make a stand, contain an article, while some others with zero-article do not make a very established impression, e.g. have acceptance, take beginning, take inspection . It may be more a question of chance in what form a particular combination happens to ‘freeze’. Finally, the prepositions in verbo-nominal combinations need to be mentioned. The predominant prepositions in verbo-nominal combinations Group II are of, to, and, to a lesser extent, (up)on; if there is a final preposition in Group III combinations, it is, with one exception, of. Of is not surprising as it is the simplest way to connect two nouns (i.e. nominal part of combination and whatever object/complement following) together, and to is the usual preposition for dative objects. The other prepositions occurring, i.e. against, for, into, in, and with, are, except for the latter, idiosyncratic to single instances. 6.3 Semantic Patterns? The interest here is not on the semantic structure of the combinations as a whole, and whether there are any patterns in this respect. Lipka (1972) fol lowed this approach with regard to phrasal verbs with up and out, and even with only these two particles involved he found ten possible semantic patterns. Similarly, Wierzbicka (1982) tried to work out a semantic pattern for verbo-nominal combinations of have + deverbal noun, as in Lipka’s case again a very restricted type, and found a semantic invariant (subjective/experiential perspective, action/process limited in time and seen as repeatable, no external goal), which, however, requires nine sub-types to be fully explicatory. These two attempts shall suffice to indicate how
Patterns of the Past 141 unwieldy and moreover probably not very enlightening an extension of that approach to all possible combinations would be.16 What I intend to do here is much more modest: it is simply to survey the rough semantic characterizations of the verbs and other eleme nts forming these combinations, in order to see which elements are more likely than others to be found in multi-word verbs. I do not necessarily expect to find patterns in the strict sense (thus the question mark in the chapter heading), as the fact that there is a syntactic patterning along with certain (though limited) morphological restrictions need not imply a corresponding system on the semantic level, which is after all much more open. Nevertheless, perhaps there are some tendencies to be found that are also valid across various categories of multi-word verbs. The procedure I will follow is the one used by, e.g., Hiltunen (1983a:146) who sorted the verbs employed in OE and early ME phrasal verbs into the following groups: verbs of existence (4%), of motion (29%), of concrete activity (66%), and of mental activity (1%). Such an approach is not only applicable to the verbs in phrasal verbs, but also to those in phrasal prepositional verbs and to the ‘native’ ones amongst those in preposi tional verbs, moreover to some verbs and all adjectives in verb-adjective combinations, and to the nouns in verbo-nominal combinations. That is, basically to all elements that make an important contribution to the overall meaning. When allocating these elements to different groups, it is important to use the meaning of those items when not used in a multi-word verb, although this is sometimes not easy, especially in the case of nouns. Elements of idiomatic combinations are included in this procedure, as the semanti c shift only takes place after combining. Verbs in phrasal verbs from the present data yield a not dissimilar re sult from that reached by Hiltunen: as much as 78% are verbs of concrete activity (e.g. carry, fill, lift, rake, trade ), 14% are made up of verbs of motion or rest (e.g. climb, ride, step, stand), mental activity verbs (e.g. learn, reckon) come to 3%, 4% are verbs relating to verbal ac tivity (e.g. call, preach), whereas verbs of existence fall below 1%. Thus, the unwieldy group of concrete activity verbs is even larger here than in Hiltunen’s data; attempts to sort it into meaningful subgroups failed due to the great diversity within this group. In a way, therefore, the outcome of this investigation is a non result, because it does not say anything in particular. The only thing it indicates is that almost any English verb is semantically eligible for phrasal verb formation, with only one exception: purely stative verbs do not occur. 16
However, in individual cases the semantic features of the combination as a whole (including e.g. aktionsart meanings) may influence its being preferred over the simplex. These cases will therefore be dealt with in chapter 9 below.
142
Patterns of the Past
With regard to prepositional verbs, I have only included the native or quasi-native verbs (i.e. those also used in Table 6.4 above), as it is only in their case that the addition of a preposition is more than a simple syntactic necessity, i.e. there is a choice. The result is as following: concrete activity verbs are again the largest group with 56% (e.g. look, hunt, catch, play), 17% are mental activity verbs (e.g. believe, wonder, guess), verbs of motion and rest (e.g. come, fall, enter) as well as those of verbal activity (e.g. answer, talk, cry) make up 10% each, with 1% remaining for relational verbs. Thus, as in the case of phrasal verbs, the verbs entering into prepositional verbs are as a rule dynamic ones. Not surprisingly, phrasal-prepositional verbs yield a very similar picture to the two categories just treated. Of the twenty verbs occurring in them, ten (50%) are of the type concrete activity (e.g. break, search), eight (40%) denote either motion or rest (e.g. go, run, sit), and the remaining two (call, live) represent verbal activity and existential verbs respectively. As verb and adjective make a nearly equal semantic contribution to the whole verb-adjective combination, both will be included in the classification here. The verbs fall into the three groups 73% concrete activity (e.g. cut, hold, throw), 18% motion or rest (e.g. turn, stand), and 9% mental activity (judge, think). The adjectives make up two almost equally large groups, one of abstract or mentally perceived state (e.g. fit, void, sure), and one of concrete, i.e. visible etc. state (e.g. open, low, straight). In this case, it may also be interesting to see whether there is any semantic trend in the process of combining. There is only one correlation, in so far as mental activity verbs only combine with adjectives of the abstract/mental group. The other two verb groups combine with both kinds of adjectives, although with the majority taken from the concrete group. The semantic grouping of the nominal part of verbo-nominal combinations proved to be the most complicated. The following classification, tentative as it is, does not fit with the equally tentative one given by Nickel (1978); should his semantic classes be a correct reflection of the situation in PDE17, this could mean that there has been a change in respect of which nominal elements enter into these combinations in between EModE and PDE. A first, though small, class is the one where the noun denotes an entity, be it concrete/visible (e.g. eye, prisoner, light) or abstract/‘imaginary’ (e.g. mind). Another, even smaller class is made up by 17
To my knowledge, there is no PDE corpus-study dealing with the semantics of the noun independent of the combination. Stein (1991) is concerned with the independent semantic contributions of the verbs, whose complete semantic emptiness she denies; without discussing them here in detail, I would agree with the points she makes in this respect.
Patterns of the Past 143 nouns that are best described as denoting a state, e.g. peace, death, end, liberty. The great majority of nouns describe ongoing activities or pro cesses, which, however, are of varying nature and have been sorted into four groups. The first of these are activities which are realized verbally, e.g. answer, complaint, discourse, exclamation, mention, lie, shout, whisper . Secondly, there are activities or processes which could be observed when taking place, i.e. they are immediately visible, e.g. assault, execution, payment, quarrel, search, return, stop. The third kind is more abstract in so far as the action itself cannot be seen as such, but only perhaps its effects or concomitant cir cumstances; nouns such as advantage, benefit, cause, hazard, respect, semblance, success belong to this class. The last group are activities taking place within a person, so to speak, that is mental or emotional processes, e.g. consideration, delight, doubt, intent, love, pleasure, pity, thought . The division into these six quasi-semantic classes in the three groups (I, II, III) of verbo-nominal combination is as following: - entity (I: 8.5%, II: 6%, III: 11%), - state (I: 4%, II: 8%, III: 17%), - verbal activity (I: 20%, II: 8%, III: -), - concrete activity (I: 35%, II: 33%, III: 29%), - abstract activity (I: 24%, II: 33%, III: 6%), - mental/emotional process (I: 8.5%, II: 11%, III: 34%). While there is more or less agreement between the groups as regards entity and concrete activity, there are more significant differences in the other classes. In Group III, verbal activity is completely absent and abstract activity is negligible, whereas mental/emotional process becomes more prominent. The latter probably has to do with the fact that the prepositional phrase structure lends itself better to the description of internal states. For all three classes, the concrete and abstract activity segments together make up a considerable part of the whole, thus linking them with the semantic make -up of the other multi-word verbs. Regarding the semantic prerequisites of items entering into multi word verbs, the opting for elements denoting concrete activity on the one hand, and the relative avoidance of elements with stative content on the other hand seem to be the only tendencies across the five categories. A subdivision of the large concrete activity groups would be desirable but proved impossible with the present data. Two further approaches would be possible, namely taking tokens into account as well, and sorting out all singular and infrequent occurrences or analyzing separately the collocates of, say, have vs. take in verbo-nominal combinations, or up vs. out in phrasal verbs etc. As semantic analysis is not the primary aim of this study, I have, however,
144
Patterns of the Past
refrained from following either approach and will leave it at what I have said so far. Although I have stated at the beginning of this section that I am not interested here in the meaning of the combinations as a whole, I cannot leave this point without saying something about idiomatic meaning in multi-word verbs. It has been stated in other historically orientated studies of multi-word verb items that the majority, even the great major ity, of all instances found are literal (e.g. Hiltunen 1994). This generally also holds true for the present set of data. With regard to phrasal verbs, about 53% of all instances (tokens) are used in an absolutely literal sense, i.e. actually only a narrow majority. The remaining non-literal cases are not a compact group, however. Some are only slightly removed from the literal meaning, and the connection to the latter is immediately obvious, such as in (113, 114) — those I have termed transferred uses. They account for about 22% of all instances. (113) If I were to draw up (If I could) a New Geographie of the Whole Earth, This, or the like to this ought to prepare to the Description. (SciB1649) (114) Now so soon as the Whole-Sale-Men did perceive this, then he did all he could to beat down the Weavers price, that so he might keep his Countrey Chapmen. (EcA1681) Other items are further removed from the literal and following the course of the shift requires more complicated thinking, as in (115, 116) for example. Those are the really idiomatic cases, which make up 25% of the whole. 18 (115) the utmost extent of their Husband’s credit (...) being the only limit of their Expence: otherwise Estates could not be so commonly blown up without noise, ... (MscA1676) (116) Thirdly, That if this proceeding fall out to be an invasion of property (...) then I say every individual person will be interressed in the Fate of this Cause. (PolB1674) It is of course also possible for one and the same item to be used in two, or even all three kinds of meaning. Prepositional verbs in the Lampeter Corpus seem to have been less prone to idiomaticization than phrasal verbs. Only 17% of all instances
18
My approach is similar (but probably not exactly identical in each individual classification) to de la Cruz’s (1972:114) postulation of two major types of semantic development, namely (i) metaphorical or figurative changes, e.g. put s.b. out (inconvenience), bring up (rear), and (ii) transferences of the type "part/whole", "cause/effect" etc., e.g. look out (beware, be careful), look down on (despise).
Patterns of the Past 145 (again tokens) occur in an idiomatic meaning. However, if one takes only the ‘native’ group as the basis for calculation — as this is the one predisposed towards idiomaticization — one reaches a figure of 32%. (117) Considering how impatient all Mankind are when their prejudices are looked into, I do not wonder to see you rail and rage at the rate you do. (SciB1735) (118) it is a most warm Dissuasive, not only to Physicians (...) not to practise it at all; and consequently, to deprive them of all Possibility of coming by Experience. (SciB1722) (117, 118) belong to this group, with look being especially active in different kinds of idiomatic combinations. Phrasal-prepositional verbs are by definition (cf. chap.4) always used in an idiomatic sense. However, some are more idiomatic than others, e.g. fall in with is more opaque than call out for. Thus, the difference made with regard to phrasal verbs of transferred versus completely idiomatic applies here as well. It is especially the very obvious nonce mergers of phrasal and prepositional patterns mentioned above that belong in the transferred category. Also, some idiomatic cases have literal counterparts, for instance come over to (literal, e.g. from France to England vs. idiomatic "change sides"), but in contrast to the procedure with phrasal verbs these literal ones have not been included in the data in this category. The great majority of verb-adjective combinations are literal; this goes especially for all cases in which both verb and adjective retain independent meaning. Combinations with a final preposition are more prone to idiomaticization than those without. About 34% of all instances are idiomatic as such or are being used in that way, all of them still being rather transparent, cf. the following examples. (119) These things some may make light of, but the Prudent will consider. (SciB1676) (120) Do the Illiterate owe nothing to it? Whence have they the Scriptures laid open to them in the Vulgar Tongue? (RelB1721) As to verbo-nominal combinations, there are very few types or instances which can be considered in some way transferred or idiomatic. The overwhelming trend to stay literal may have to do with the fact that the verbal part has to a large extent only a functional role so that the noun stays dominant and retains its usual semantic content. In contrast to, e.g., phrasal verbs, this category does on the whole not produce new meanings, thus completely new lexemes, but doubles up existing ones to produce stylistic or other variants. Group II (with final preposition) seems to produce slightly more idiomatic cases (122, 123) than Groups I (121) and III (124).
146
Patterns of the Past
(121) The Design of those, that first blew abroad that strang e and improbable Rumour, was so obvious to all, (...) that I could not imagine, any Persons of sound Understanding could possibly give Ear to it: (RelB1692) (122) Was it not the Fishing Trade gave rise to all your Wealth, ... ? (EcB1700) (123) Secondly, if he be, Whether it is lawful to do Justice upon him without Solemnity, that is, to Kill him? (PolB1659) (124) ... and I am at a Loss to think what Reason there can be for any new Convention with that Court, ... (PolA1731) Combinations with relatively concrete entities, such as (122) and also place, eye, root, way, mind, light, foot, shipwrack etc., are of course ideal candidates for idiomaticization. In (124), the idiomatic meaning is nicely illustrated by the presence of the cruder synonym of "execute", n amely "kill". All in all, idiomatic instances make up about 15% of all combinations found in the corpus. 6.4 Syntactic Patterns This section is devoted to grammatical features and transformations of multi word verbs, especially those that have been of interest in PDE discussions. It needs to be examined in how far modern regularities apply to the past situa tion as well, and whether there were perhaps different rules at work then. Some points in this section may be relevant to one particular type only, while other processes will be found to be at work in several. Concepts, such as transitivity or syntactic coordination with other verbal forms, are important for all the five categories. Transitivity The question of whether a multi-word verb is transitive or intransitive is a very fundamental one with consequences for the other features to be looked at, as these often apply only to transitive combinations. Therefore, transitivity will be looked at first. Three of the types under investigation here are by definition (cf. chap.4) always transitive: those are prepositional verbs, phrasal-prepositional verbs and Group II of verbo-nominal combinations. The other types are mixed, and have to be looked at in more detail. Transitivity is not necessarily a simple either/or question, as some combinations can be used both transitively and intransitively. Others are fixed in one or the other mode, however. With phrasal verbs, 803 items were found in an intransitive use, which comes to 18.8% of all phrasal verbs and th us, in accordance with Fraser’s assumption mentioned in chapter 4, to a clear
Patterns of the Past 147 minority. With (125), it is the verb come as such which determines intransitivity, while in the case of (126) a transitive use — going together with a different meaning — is also imaginable, although it does not actually occur in the corpus. (125) My Lord that man hath sworn I was out on Tuesday, it was Wednes day before I came forth, but staid at home with my wife, because I would not be among them. (LawA1668) (126) ... when enormous crimes broke out, against which no Provision had been made, Then a Law, as they thought, might declare the Nature of such crimes and apply a proportioned Punishment to them; (LawB1697) The simplex break also has both possibilities of use. The same goes for live; but when this latter is combined with the particle out it can only be used transitively. (127) ... Men, who perhaps never saw Twenty, and had been well educated, and of honest Parents, being cut of before they have liv’d out half their Days. (EcB1731) The class of verb-adjective combinations has even fewer intransitive combinations; only eight types (15 tokens) are found in an intransitive use, such as (128). (128) Now although what I speak of before (...) will hold good in this Trade also: (EcA1681) Some of those also have transitive variants, e.g. get clear — get clear of. With a few of the transitive combinations the complementation is always clausal, e.g. with make bold and with the ~ fit/~ meet instances, but very rarely there is also an ‘empty’ objectival it pres??ent, as in (129): (129) Because we have thought it fit to defend our Neighbours in Flanders, we must therefore presently march into the Empire, to defend there some who are not our Neighbours, ... (PolA1672) Verbo-nominal combinations of Group I are a special problem with regard to transitivity, as was already mentioned in chapter 4. According to the logic of the approach taken here, and especially with a view to the treatment of Group II combinations, the item give an answer in (130) will have to be regarded as intransitive —but the matter is not quite that simple. (130) We thought it our duty to give an answer in the just vindication of those Noble Lords and Commons of the Committee of the Admiraltie, ... (MscB1646)
148
Patterns of the Past
(131) Your Petitioner being commanded by his Majesty to give Sir George Downing an answer, I was necessitated to make a further Reply; (LawB1661) (132) I need not give a particular Answer to every one of these Authorities ; (PolB1724) On the syntactic surface, (130) is transitive, but the underlying semantics point to an intransitive use. Consequently, (131, 132) are formally ditransitive and semantically monotransitive. Comparing (130) and (133), basically the same description applies, with the important difference, however, that (133) is not expandable in any way parallel to (130) above — i.e. it is definitely semantically more intransitive than (130) is. (133) My Lord, I shall make a Pause here, and stop going on farther in my Discourse, ... (PolB1706) But this is not mirrored in the surface structure. Evading the transi tive/intransitive distinction altogether — by blurring it — seems to me to be one of the primary purposes of these particular items. Sorting transitive and intransitive items apart in this group is therefore rather futile, and I have not undertaken it. Suffice it to say that ‘absolutely intransitive’ combinations like (133) are not very common; examples are take beginning, take place, or the pseudo-passive cases have acceptance, have (a) defeat. Group III verbonominal combinations are an easier case than the preceding one. Only a frac tion of this group is intransitive, which are basically those items formed with the verbs be and come, but also take to flight. On the whole, no more than about 8% of all the tokens in this group are intransitive. While phrasal-prepositional verbs are always transitive, as mentioned above, there remains the question of mono- or ditransitivity. The overwhelming majority of instances, such as look up to, run away with, are monotransitive. Items such as give N up to N and turn N over to N (5 instances) can be ditransitive, while (135) is one of three examples for complex -transitive combinations. (134) this should Engage us to give up our selves to Him, as the only way to be Saved from Sin and Death; (RelA1711) (135) ... all the Family had given over Anne Thorn for dead. (MscA1712) Position of the Object Staying with transitive multi-word verbs for the moment, it is foremost the question of the position(s) of the object(s) that is of interest. Phrasal verbs, verb-adjective, and verbo-nominal combinations admit some
Patterns of the Past 149 variation in that respect. 19 It is phrasal verbs that have the clearest ‘rules’ with regard to object positions, namely in brief the fact that (as a rule) nominal objects can either precede or follow the particle, while pronominal objects must precede the particle (cf. chap.4). There are 332 pronominal objects with phrasal verbs in the corpus, of which 319 (= 96%) indeed intervene between verb and particle. 20 In thirteen cases, however, the pronoun follows the particle 21 — which is of course possible (in PDE) if contrastive stress on the pronoun is intended. Contrastive stress is the reason for the end position of the pronoun in (136): (136) He will be sure to keep us down, lest we should pluck down him. (PolB1659) The contrast is between us (the people, the opponents of the government) and him (Cromwell, the ‘tyrant’ according to this text). The other twelve instances are more ambiguous, or not to be interpreted in a contrastive way at all. Furthermore, none of the others is a simple personal pronoun as in (136), but they are reflexive pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and pronominal all. The following might be cases of special, (139) even of contrastive, stress: (137) Some people contending for one Image, others for another, gave occa sion, that the King tooke downe all. (RelA1642) (138) So True is That Observation, Nothing can ruin the Church, but the Church: Meaning by the Latter, Those of her Ministers, who either openly oppose, or secretly undermine, both her temporal and spiritual Interests. Setting aside That, we might securely bid Defiance to the Powers of Darkness, to the Enemies of God and his Church; (RelA1721) (139) ... and farther, they make up that in a day, that the customed Tayler doth not make up in four days at the least. (EcA1681) In (140) and (141) I can see no emphasis at work. Reflexive pronouns are also found in preceding position in other instances, but perhaps the fact that it is still perceived as two words here makes a difference. 19
Also, in a restricted way, phrasal-prepositional verbs, but as all the relevant examples have been mentioned in the discussion of transitivity, I will not discuss them again when talking about objects. 20 The ‘empty’ object it, which according to Rissanen (1999) is common with phrasal verbs in particular (his examples: hold it out [Shakespeare], make it up [Middleton]), was not found in the present data. Perhaps this usage was more connected to the ‘spoken’ language (cf. the origin of the examples). 21 For comparison, Castillo (1994:442f) found twenty cases of pronominal objects following the particle in her Shakespeare corpus, i.e. about the same proportion of the total as in the Lampeter Corpus material.
150
Patterns of the Past
(140) Upon this account, I see ’tis high time to rowse up my self a little, since the Philistins are so much upon me. (RelB1692) (141) For, after a full beerglasse, she set down this too for a Maxim. The Members ought, now Cavaliers are poore, If they will share a Mistresse, pay the score. (MscA1650) The postposed this in (141) functions like a lexical colon, introducing the following ‘maxim’, which might have determined its positioning. Only forty-two nominal objects are found in the position between verb and particle, which comes to only 1.3% of all transitively used combinations.22 There is no empirical data on this question for PDE, but in spoken English the pre-particle position seems to be rather common. However, the length and complexity of the object noun phrase should always play a role. The majority of the intervening objects are short, as in the following two in stances, and therefore to be regarded as quite normal. (142) I had once intended to have supported many things in the following papers by passages of this Writer, but they swelled so much beyond what I designed, that I was forced to lay that thought aside; (RelB1721) (143) Let others raise Millions to end the War, we did it to carry the War on. (PolA1711) Nevertheless the order in (143) seems unusual from the modern perspective; nowadays carry on is preferably not interrupted (cf. Cowie/Mackin 1975). The following sentences represent the only cases where the object noun phrase was somewhat longer in nature: (144) His Father was indeed no better than the Gloucester Carrier; but having scraped a pretty handsome Sum of Money together, by his own Industry, and having but this one Son, he was resolved to breed him a Gentleman, ... (MscB1729) (145) My reason is, because without that supposition you can never bring the quantity or expression nx n-1 + nn -n /2 ox n-2 + &c. down to nx n-1, ... (SciB1735) (146) ... and resolved at once to throw both the Mask and Scabbard aside, ... (PolB1730) (147) ... he chased Captain Denton a Scarborough Man of War a shore, which was then cast away; (MscB1646)
22
Among Hiltunen’s (1994:133f) 851 examples from the EModE Helsinki Corpus about 30 cases have a nominal object intervening between verb and particle. In Shakespeare, this sequence seems to be somewhat more common, as Castillo (1994:444) found c. 718 instances of it.
Patterns of the Past 151 None of these noun phrases, while being rather long, is too complex for mid position. The only one that sounds really clumsy is the one in (145), which is caused in particular by the presence of the mathematical formula. Probably the attraction of to on down plays a role in the choice of this syntactic ordering. With some phrasal verbs, the position of the object is conventionally fixed, i.e. cannot be shifted at will to pre- or post-particle position. This is especially clearly to be seen in cases where the object has actually frozen as a part of the phrasal verb idiom, such as cry one’s eyes out, where the sequence cry out one’s eyes is not an option any more. (148 ) [we] were in the very breach of the shore, the sight whereof caused a great scrick in the ship, and thereupon brought our ship to, ... (RelB1650) (148) represents such an instance, in which the object, although it is not a fixed part of the idiom, needs to be precede the particle (unless it is very long or complex). Before leaving the question of objects in phrasal verbs, there is a last phenomenon to be mentioned, namely that of indirect objects intervening between verb and particle, as in (149). (149) That the India Goods Transported do not bring us in near the quantity of Gold and Silver Exported to carry on that Trade: (EcA1697) While these instances are rare (seven in the whole corpus), they are interest ing, among other things, because they are not common in PDE. Incidentally, the direct object in (149) is an example of one too long and complex to be able to appear in intervening position. Although it has not received much attention so far, verb -adjective combinations (without final prepositions) as a rule function very similar to phrasal verbs with regard to objects. This means that, normally, pronominal objects intervene between verb and adjec tive, as in (150, 151). (150) ... all which are so palpable misapprehensions, as there needs no Endeavour to lay them open. (RelB1667) (151) Sir Greenfield and others make this good. (SciA1644) (152) All which (...) I must necessarily admit, acknowledge to be just and legall by my voluntary payment of it, of purpose to maintaine an Army to justify and make good all this, by the meer power of the Sword; (LawB1649) (152) is the only exception to this rule found in the corpus, which, however, may not be an exception at all. All this sounds emphatic (in fact, the author of that text is very emphatic throughout) , so that a variant of the contrastive
152
Patterns of the Past
stress rule discussed above under phrasal verbs can apply here; moreover, the coordination of make good with justify may play an additional role in the word order used here. In contrast to pronouns, nominal objects ca n either precede (153) or follow (154) the adjective. (153) And therefore you that are rich had need double your diligence to make your calling and election sure. (MscB1658) (154) ... you shall hear the Evidence, and if we make good the Evidence, you must find them guilty. (LawA1668) Here it should be remembered that the verb-adjective combination preceding a simple definite noun phrase as in (154) is an especially good proof of its multi-word verb status (cf. chap.4). A very long and/or heavy noun phrase, however, needs to be shifted to post-adjectival position. The few such noun phrases that there are fulfil this condition (e.g. (155)), with the single excep tion of (156), which, especially because of the relative clause, would not be possible in PDE. (155) ... to endeavour all along to lay open what I take to be an important Truth to us all at this time, and to support it by proper Evidence. (EcA1705) (156) Why, we are told, that the Dukes of Berry and Orleance will make the Title, which they have acquired by this Renunciation of K. Philip , good by their own Interest and Force. (PolB1713) As regards objects in verbo-nominal combinations, there are no such group-defining rules discussed in the existing literature, but nevertheless there is variation that does not look altogether irregular. This is clearest in Group III, as it is a rather compact class. (157) he freed the French King from his fears of Spain, inabled him to subdue all Factions at home, and thereby to bring himself into a condition of not standing in need of any of them, ... (PolA1668) (158) ... an old Mistresse and a yong Saint; one whose proportion puts us in mind of her Excellencies, ... (MscA1650) In the case of final-preposition combinations, such as (157-158) above, the positional order is fixed, i.e. the object must follow the preposition (cf. prepositional verbs23), and any second object that may be possible, as in (158), must intervene between the verb and the prepositional phrase. With all other verbo-nominal combinations, the situation seems strikingly similar to 23
In fact, every combination that has a final preposition, i.e. phrasal-prepositional verbs, some verb-adjective combinations and Group II verbo-nominal combinations, behaves like prepositional verbs (with the exception that the first and the last mentioned can have an additional intervening object).
Patterns of the Past 153 that found in phrasal verbs and verb-adjective combinations. (159), for example, passes Bolinger’s simple noun phrase test familiar to both the above categories: (159) ... if you can carry away no more, yet be sure to Remember, and often call to mind this Text: (RelA1711) While this is the only Group III instance of this kind, others are not very far removed in quality, such as (160,161), both of which are perfectly imaginable with a shorter object noun phrase as well. It has to be admitted, however, that in (161) the coordination structure (cf. below) will have had an influence on the word order. (160) Nay, after the most signal Appearances of God we are apt, like the Israelites, to call in question the Divine Goodness and Power, ... (RelA1696) (161) ... and then tells us (pag. 6.) the Statute provides that all Persons, Bodies Politick and Corporate, which then were or thence after should be, should stand, and be disabled, to have use, or exercise, or put in use any such Monopolies. (EcB1676) Just as with phrasal verbs and verb-adjective combinations, the object phrase may also come between verb and prepositional phrase (162, 163), unless it is too long or complex, as in (164, 165). (162) And after Scotland hath suffered the heat of the day and winters cold, have forsaken their owne peace for love of their Brethren, have set their own house on fire to quench theirs: (PolA1646) (163) And I charge him that puts the Sentence in Execution, to do it effectually, ... (LawB1678) (164) ... the Spaniard in the first place, who being enabled by the power of his Indian Treasure, not onely to keep in subjection many goodly States and Provinces in Italy, the Low-Countries, and elsewhere, ... (EcB1641) (165) it should be lawful for a man to kill another, that doth design, plot, conspire; or that setteth on foot any thing that tendeth to the erecting a Tyranny. (PolB1659) Pronominal objects were always found preceding the prepositional phrase, cf. (166), so that once again the phrasal verb rule applies here. (166) ... that no one Person (...) may ever be deprived of the Pleasure or the Profit of a Fruitful Garden, for want of Rules and Instructions, or of knowing Times and Seasons when to put them in Practice. (MscB1718)
154
Patterns of the Past
With the most common verbs in Group I combinations, make, take, give, and have, one notices that there is variation of the object position only in the case of give. While this may also partly be due to the kinds of noun these verbs combine with, the reason lies mainly in the differences between the verbs as such. Whereas make, take, and have can only take a direct object, give can, but need not, both take a direct and an indirect object. This may also explain why the former three are all at least slightly more common in Group II, and especially why give is so much more prominent in Group I (cf. Table 6.5 above). One-place verbs thus either have a tendency to occur as semantically intransitive, or they make use of an optional preposition to attach the — usually single — object of the whole combination: (167) Campanella’s Advice to King Phillip to make speedy payment of that Debt. (PolB1674) (168) ... Sir Robert VViseman, Sir VVilliam Turner, and Sir Timothy Baldwyn, made their report to his Majestie, ... (LawA1673) Also, notice the difference between (169), where the water is an indirect object, and (170), where it is expressed as a prepositional phrase of place. (169) ... as I have fully experimented by decocting two parts of the powders with one of Sulphur in a proportionable quantity of Water, which gave the water very little alteration, ...(SciB1676) (170) ... the Leaves of Oak made little or no alteration in the Water of the King’s Bath, ... (SciB1676) While quite a number of give-combinations are found with ‘internal’ objects, as in (169) above, the majority of which are made up of pronominal objects, such as give him battle (MscA1643), gave them three shouts (MscA1685), this kind of object is exceedingly rare with other verbs. If it occurs at all, it is usually with verbs that can be regarded as stand-ins for give, like render or return in (171). (171) But why should any be unwilling to return the King Thanks, I think it is no more than what every one is obliged to; (RelB1687) (172) But being her self a Woman of Principle, and naturally faithful to her Trust, she could not forbear making him this Answer: (MscB1692) Only three times and only with pronominal objects is this construction found with make (172), not at all with take or have. It has already been mentioned that with give the majority of internal objects are pronouns; in fact the latter were not found as external, prepositional objects at all — which again is reminiscent of the phrasal verb rule. As to internal nominal objects, they are always simple, mostly definite, noun phrases never exceeding two words, e.g. your Honours, the World, the Publick. Long internal objects seem to be
Patterns of the Past 155 prohibited. Thus, there is some regularity in the treatment of objects in Group I verbo-nominal combinations, even though the situation may not be quite as fixed as with other types. Intervening Elements: Modification and the like Objects are one type of units that can interrupt the sequence of multi word verbs, but there are also other types, namely those that in some way modify the non-verbal elements of the combinations. With phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs, and phrasal-prepositional verbs, it is intervening adverbials. These, and additionally comparative structures, are of interest with regard to verb-adjective combinations; in the case of verbo-nominal combinations, it is modification of the nominal part, i.e. adjectives, negation (as long as it is nominal) and also the noun occurring in the plural. Intervening adverbials are of special interest, as their occurrence in phrasal verbs has been seen as very restricted and as they are the only ele ments allowed to interrupt prepositional verbs (cf. chap.4). Indeed, there are only twelve instances of adverbials in phrasal verbs in the whole corpus, while 145 adverbials are found in prepositional verbs, which are less restrictive in that respect. Quite in (173), as well as totally, entirely, all, which also occur in phrasal verbs, serve an intensifying function and do not seem completely out of place from a PDE perspective. (173) No Doubt on’t, Mr. Considerer; but you seem to think that you have cut us quite down in what follows. (PolA1731) (174) I knew not how to bring this more home, then by propounding a President for it in our Neighbors the Hollanders; (EcA1652) (175) To help him therefore out, (...) may it not be an Instance, that if the East-India Company did admit all Merchants to trade with their par ticular Stocks, (...) it would have increased and augmented the East India Trade five times more than now it is? (EcB1676) Furthermore, there are adverbs like softly, fast, close, and well, which have a more clearly qualifying function. (174), and especially (175), which involves a sentence adverbial, not a modification of the phrasal verb, sound rather unusual to the modern ear. Adverbial insertions in prepositional verbs occur equally with verbs of Romance and of Germanic extraction, and also equally with idiomatic and non-idiomatic combinations. In some few cases this leads to unusual examples like the idiomatic (176). (176) I shall not stick to declare (...) that in my judgment I am for a New Stock, provided we can come honestly by it, that is, without Injustice to the new Adventurers ... (EcB1681)
156
Patterns of the Past
As a preposition cannot be modified in the way a particle can, these adverbials refer either more to the verb (i.e. manner, e.g. loud, carefully, earnestly), more to the following noun (e.g. solely, entirely, but, more particularly), or actually to the whole clause (e.g. then, now, thus, here), in which latter case a different position would have been perfectly possible, or even desirable (cf. (177)). Further, there are more lengthy intrusions, such as (178), also consisting before the Reformation of seven Bishopricks (SciB1652), they partake, in common with us, of Nature (EcA1705), which might not be found like that today. (177) ... In which although that Pope failed then of his end, yet was that after attained. (RelA1679) (178) As for Example; Suppose I look in a Map for London, whose Longitude from St. Michaels is about 27d. 30m. (SciA1698) Those are not very common, though; they come to no more than fifteen in stances in all among 149 adverbial insertions as a whole. Phrasal-prepositional verbs, in spite of their small number, yielded the surprising number of seven adverbial interruptions, showing that the cohesion of the types found was not yet strong enough. Four adverbials (readily, directly, quite, so) preceded the phrasal particle, while three followed the prepositional pattern intervening between particle and preposition. Two of the latter were of the longer kind already found in prepositional verbs, namely give himself up for some time to those Exercises (RelA1711), and come up in every tittle to the reason (LawB1688). Fifteen modifications in all were found in verb-adjective combinations, occurring in seven types and showing a special preference for combinations involving short (10 instances), usually qualifying it with far, but also, e.g., much, vastly. Potentially more problematic are cases with a comparative structure (cf. chap.4), such as the following two. (179) Nor will our neighbors therefore (as it is hoped) take it more ill from us, if wee (...) see the Necessitie of providing for the Defence of this Common-wealth by Shipping ... (EcA1652) (180) ... being prevailed with after for publishing it, I thought it fittest for your Lordships Patronage, in whose hand is the Government of that people for whom this is particularly designed. (RelA1679) But neither of these examples actually contains an explicit compariso n with, e.g., than; rather, the comparatives serve a generally intensifying function, such as adverbials like highly, exceedingly would do as well. This kind of comparative therefore does not exclude those instances from the class of verb-adjective combinations. The following example should, I think, also be regarded as modification.
Patterns of the Past 157 (181) And now the case is altered from what it was, when it was thought unfit, that the King should come to his Parliament, ... (PolA1646) In a way it is a parallel to nominal negation treated below. It only occurs with the pair fit/unfit . The possibilities offered by modification of the noun in verbonominal combinations are both greater and simpler than those in the other types just treated. Taking this into consideration, the actual level of modifications 24 found is surprisingly low: it applies in 319 of 981 instances in Group I (32.5%), 207 of 791 instances in Group II (26.2%), and in only 23 of 222 instances in Group III (10.4%). The figures just given concern pre modification; additionally, there are also 27 instances of post-modification in Group I, three in Group II, but none in Group III. As pre- and postmodification in the great majority of cases occur together in the same item, I have left post-modification out of account in calculating the percentages, so as not to skew the picture. The amount of modification found in the Lampeter Corpus is in stark contrast to the situation described by Kytö (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999:183) for the Helsinki Corpus. As her figures, given singly for the verbs in these combinations (take (54%), give (60%), make (72%), do (74%), have (75%)), show, modification is by far more common in her EModE data. Why this should be the case is not clear to me, but I think that a register-/text-type-approach might ultimately yield some answers. There is, however, not the space to follow this up here. It may be assumed that different degrees of institutionalization or lexicalization will play a role with regard to the question of modification, with more lexicalized combinations tending to prohibit them, for instance. Thus, combinations such as take effect, take heed, make shift, take revenge, give way (to), make way (for), have recourse to, get/lose sight of, give rise/occasion to, take part with, etc., which are certainly single lexical items, are indeed, and in accordance with expectations, never found modified in the Lampeter Corpus. On the other hand, this assumption might not be always correct, as units which I would have regarded as very instituti onalized even then are found with modification, sometimes of a rather extensive kind (e.g. (184)), for example: (182) And so true we find his words, (for they take full place in Mr. Wings Nativity) that, as Mr. Wings Life did not cross or Contradict the I nfluences of the Stars, neither did his Death. (MscB1670) (183) ... for what do we do, that you find so much Fault with us? (RelB1687)
24
The figures for modification given here include the use of possessive pronouns.
158
Patterns of the Past
(184) Therefore the Petitions humbly Pray you Lordships and the Honourable House of Commons, to take the annexed Articles (or any other) into your most grave and wise consideration, ... (EcB1641) Similarly, modification is found in very established units like take pains, take care (of), make mention of, make use of, and take notice of, even though not very often. While all of these are institutionalized, the noun is nevertheless salient and to a certain degree independent enough to make modification possible. With some combinations, however, modification is prohibited by the internal structure as such, as it would rather h ighlight those semantic aspects that are inappropriate to the verbal meaning, e.g. the concrete meaning in set sail, take prisoner, or give ear. Similarly, the semantic make-up of the noun, partly also the rest of the combination, is decisive for the possibility of pluralization. Thus, while one can theoretically make several mentions or uses of something, neither *take notices of or *take cares of is thinkable at all. Both semantic and lexicalization constraints therefore make plural occurrences not ve ry likely. In fact, there are none at all in Group III, and only 48 and 19 in Groups I and II, respectively. None of the Group I plurals are surprising, except for the example in (185), comprising such nouns as discovery, preparation, quarrel, answer, alteration, observation, resolution, claim, risk, order, attempt , etc. (185) And that all actions, pretentions, and grants whatsoever for the same should be voyde, and for ever renounced, and revoaked, giveing every man liberty to take advantages of his owne wronge, ... (LawA1673) (186) Further progresse may be made as before, without any losse of time and charge, except the contrary party take Exceptions unto such Certificate, ... (LawA1653) In Group II, the nouns thought, boast, application, enquiry, return, reflection, restraint, use, leave (we took our leaves ... of each other — RelB1650), the slightly unusual account and exception, the only really extraordinary one (cf. (186)), were found in the plural. Finally, there is the question of negation, or more precisely nominal negation as opposed to verbal negation, as part of the modification of the noun. This is definitely only applicable to Group I and II combinations, while Group III does not offer that possibility at all. There are cases of nominal negation such as (187, 188) in the corpus, but not very many, only 42 in Group I and somewhat more, 57, in Group II. (187) As to my timeing this Charge; why now and not before, since I had published Hints thereof many Years ago? Surely I am obliged to give no Account of this: (SciB1735)
Patterns of the Past 159 (188) But the said Treaty taking no effect, the said Plenipotentiaries removed from Uytrecht before Mr. Carew arrived at Amsterdam. (LawA1673) Thus, nominal negation seems to have been rather uncommon. Passives All transitive verbs should passivize, and sometimes even strictly speaking intransitive ones do (thinking of This bed has been slept in, for example). Transitive phrasal verbs as a rule passivize normally, with no problems or interesting features to speak of. Therefor e they need not be discussed with regard to this aspect. All prepositional verbs, being regarded as transitive, ought to be passivizable, but not all are. Quasi existential ones, such as abound in/with, amount to, belong to, consist of/in , or some others like acquiesce in, look to, take upon, tally with , etc. cannot accept a passive sense.25 Passive occurrence can, however, be seen to be a sign of a strong bond between verb and preposition, something that emphasizes the unitary status of the item. The same can be said of preposition stranding in general, i.e. also in other than passive contexts (cf. below). Passives make an additional semantic point, first and foremost about the semantic features of the object (which is actually of less interest here), and secondly about the semantics of the (multi-word) verb. If a sequence of several words is perceived as a single lexical item (all other things being equal) it should have on average the same amount of passive occurrences as a simplex has. Thus, passives are not defining, but nevertheless interesting char acteristics of prepositional verbs. In total, there are 332 passive occurrences of preposi tional verbs (of a total of 2,816 instances) in the Lampeter Corpus, quite a normal amount, especially taken those into account that do not passivize at all. Svartvik (1966), for instance, found a frequency of 13% passives in texts from the humanities, and the prepositional figure with 11.8% seems reasonable in this respect. 26 There is no difference between those prepositional verbs formed on native (190) or Romance (189) verbs, nor be tween idiomatic (191) or non-idiomatic combinations.
25
This is of course a consequence of the sampling criteria as defined in chap.4, while other researchers might not see these as prepositional verbs at all. 26 I am here comparing Svartvik’s text-based percentage figure to percentage of tokens of a multi-word type found — which is certainly not unproblematic. However, it is only meant to provide a general impression. Furthermore, a pilot study of passives in the domain SCIENCE has yielded considerably fewer instances than is common nowadays, so that lower passive figures can probably be assumed for the Lampeter Corpus than for PDE texts.
160
Patterns of the Past
(189) but besure you be not catch’d in a Lie, for People are too apt to believe that Courtiers Servants Lie; tho’ they speak T ruth, if their Desires be’nt Comply’d with. (MscB1700) (190) That no succour or relief in any probable wise could be hoped for. (LawA1643) (191) And if these Papers have given any Light into a Subject, which (...) has lain so much out of the way of some, and been so overlookt by others, that it has scarce been duly search’d into by any; (EcA1705) (192) ... he would have told him that she [ship] was stranded about Arundell by five States-men of warre, and seized on by Sir William Wallers army, ... (MscB1646) (192) is one of those cases where the preposition is strictly speaking superfluous (seize also occurs on its own in the corpus), but nevertheless it is not left out in the passive — even though this would have been an easy way to avoid a stranded preposition. It should also be mentioned that there are multi -word units which have frozen in the passive form, i.e. never occur in the active voice at all, such as given to, with its phrasal-prepositional variant given over to. Apart from this latter, there are five further passive instances among phrasalprepositional verbs; while the passive sounds quite natural in an idiomatic case like break in upon, in nonce-like formation such as (193) it makes a somewhat ‘inelegant’ impression. (193) This Place of Scripture was turn’d down to in the said Bible. (MscA1696) There are thirty-four passive occurrences of verb-adjective combinations, representing c. 12% of all instances. None of them involves a unit with a final preposition, although semantically this would have been possible. These sound rather idiomatic, however, and thus it is probably only due to generally low frequencies and chance that no passives with them occur. The preposition-less cases behave in the passive just like phrasal verbs, with the adjective staying attached to the verb, as in (194). (194) if ever any Protestant Countrey, should be so farr forsaken of the Lord as to be suffered to turn unto Popery, these Observations will be made good in their visible losse of the Splendor, Riches, Power, and Greatness, that they now know. (PolA1668) The various groups of verbo-nominal combinations behave differently with regard to passivization. First, with respect to frequency: Group I has the lowest passive count (8.8%), while Groups II and III score higher than expected (17.3% and 22.1% respectively). Secondly, there is the question of
Patterns of the Past 161 which types of passives, i.e. inner and/or outer passives (cf. chap.4), a combination allows. As the noun of Group III combinations occurs within a prepositional phrase it is not available for passivization, and thus only outer passives are possible with this type. Those are quite regular, the combinations behaving just like phrasal verbs or verb -adjective combinations, i.e. the prepositional phrase remains attached to the verb (cf. (195, 196)). (195) For that Destruction of Three Kingdoms, and the Death of the Best of Princes, is Writ in Gods Book, and who shall be called to an Account for it, God Almighty knows, ... (RelB1687) (196) If then this were once put in execution, all Parishes would quickly finde their Collections for the Poor to be much less then now they are. (EcA1681) In cases with a final preposition, the passive need not automatically produce a stranded preposition, cf. they will ... be put in mind of Religion (RelA1708). With (transitive) Group I and with Group II combinations there are two possibilities: either the object of the whole multi -word unit becomes the subject of the passive sentence (197), or the nominal part of the combination itself shifts to subject position (198), i.e. outer or inner passive respectively. (197) Pinks and Carnations will hold very well in London, in open Places, if they are taken care of in the Winter. (MscA1722) (198) My Lord, they asked if the Duke of York were there, and answer was made, Yes, thinking they would have been satisfied and dispersed, ... (LawA1668) The outer passive, as in (197) is the less common one, with only twelve instances in Group I, but as many as 57 in Group II, where more cohesive items are found. The inner passive, as in (198), is found 74 times in Group I, and 80 times in Group II. The likelihood and/or preference of one or the other kind of passive depends very much on the individual combination. A greater degree of institutionalization or lexicalization does not necessarily go along with decreased freedom for the noun in that regard, cf. for example the numerous inner passive examples of make use of, take notice of. (199) And a like account must be given of particular accidents in other places, from the particular situation of those places, as Bays, Chanels, Currents, &c. (SciA1666) (199) is an example of a very lexicalized combination with both inner passive and modification, and nevertheless the idiomatic meaning stays
162
Patterns of the Past
intact. In fact, inner passive and modification quite often go hand in hand; perhaps, the presence of the latter forces this type of passive. With outer passives, modification of the noun seems to be very uncommon or almost non-existent, the following being one of the few instances: (200) ... Commons, Mores, Heaths, Fens, Marishes, ... some being made a little better use of then others; but all capable of very great Improve ment, ... (SciA1653) There are also combinations for which the passive types are not a matter o f preference, but which have only one, namely the outer passive choice; among those I would rate e.g. take prisoner, bear witness of, see cause, give battle, take root, take cognizance of, take place, take effect, give ear, give the lie to, give occasion to, take part etc. Again, this is probably due to very individual reasons, e.g. the derived nature of the noun (prison-er), or the possible activation of the ‘wrong’, i.e. more concrete, meaning, e.g. in *root is taken. Preposition Stranding Preposition stranding has already been mentioned in the discussion of the previous section, but it is in itself a wider phenomenon than the passive. It occurs in passive constructions, of course, but also in infinitive constructions (201), relative clauses (202, 203), in questions, and others such as (204). (201) Because that after the Manufacturers have carried their Commodities a great way to a Fair, they have only one single Market to depend upon for the selling thereof; (EcA1681) (202) for the Domini electi ad causas, whom we so often meet with in the Records of Parliament, (...) were such Members at every respective Parliament elected from within their own Walls, ... (PolB1689) (203) For Men who have attained more than perhaps they ever aimed at, (...) have commonly for a while strong desires to secure their possessions, ... (RelB1667) (204) This you dwell upon and examplify [sic] to no other purpose, but to amuse your Reader and mislead him from the Question; (SciB1735) While the illustrations given here are all prepositional verbs, stranding can of course occur in any combination with a final preposition, i.e. also in phrasalprepositional verbs, some verb-adjective and Group I verbo-nominal combinations, as well as all of the Group II of the latter. Some of th ese stranding environments are more interesting than passives, be cause they leave a choice. With relative clauses, as well as infinitive clauses functioning as such, there is the possibility of pied-piping, e.g. the rewriting of (201) as ...
Patterns of the Past 163 Market upon which they can depend ...; the same goes for questions, cf. who does he depend on? versus. on whom does he depend?. Even the fronted structure in (204) could be reformulated — i.e. if one disregards the second verb for the moment — as upon this you dwell. Those stranding types say more about the perception of multi-word verbs as lexical units than the passive alone and as such does. There is not much to be found in this respect with the less numerous types. The single stranding example for verb -adjective combinations (205) occurs in a fronting context; there is no pied-piping with this type. (205) These things some may make light of, but the Prudent will consider. (SciB1676) Nor is any pied-piping found with phrasal-prepositional verbs, which yield four stranding cases, only one of which does not occur in a passive, but in a relative construction: (206) If there were any whose Manner he could not fall in with, he had the Wisdom not to attempt it. (RelA1711) Verbo-nominal combinations of Group I are also of interest here, as they can take an optional preposition — and as we have seen above, the borderline between Group I and II is not exactly watertight. 185 Group I items indeed occur with a preposition, of which two are stranded and four are pied -piped. The two stranded ones are give an account (of) "tell", and give way (to), both of them in relative constructions. Both are very well-established and tight combinations, and the first is probably also influenced by its Group II ‘variant’ meaning "explain, account for". Interestingly, however, give an account (of) is also responsible for two of the pied-piped examples. From among Group II verbo-nominal combinations, 115 examples involve stranding and only eleven pied-piping. The latter are supplied by seven combinations, five of which (give (an) account of, make (a) doubt of (cf. (207) below), make mention of, have recourse to, have regard to, lay stress upon) also occur in a stranding construction; the remaining make question of is not found with a stranded preposition. Stranding is not evenly spread across all the occurring types, apart from those mentioned above already, it is also found with find fault with, give assent to, lay/take hold on, have need of, give/make proof of, give countenance to, take cogn izance of, lay claim to, make boast of, make choice of, and especially with the three combinations take care of, take notice of (208), and make use of. (207) ... as if it were a Capital Sin to be assured of what a Christian ought not to make a Doubt of, ... (RelB1674)
164
Patterns of the Past
(208) The last thing I shall take notice of is, the Delay used by Sir John, after his Apprehension; (LawB1697) Those are mostly the prototypical ones that usually come to mind first when thinking of verbo-nominal combinations. It may be of importance that they are all zero-article combinations (with the semi-exceptions of give (an) account of, make (a) doubt of, which occur both with and without); this fact and stranding together stress the high degree of internal cohesion these types exhibit. If one takes preposition stranding as indicating the unity of the verbal combination, there is also a prepositional usage that points to the opposite interpretation, namely the repetition of the preposition which sometimes oc curs in the case of prepositional verbs. Structures such as those in (209, 210) seem rather to stress the unity of the prepositional phrase, i.e. the connection of the preposition with the following noun. (209) So that, though som of the 12 Moneths, answering to the 12 Signs, consist of one Daie more then thirtie, and one of 2 Daies less, .... (SciB1649) (210) ... and as Circumstances occur, occasionally in some few Instances observe, how far their Assertions tally with Truth, their Questions with History, and even their Writings with Themselves. (PolB1730) In a way the prepositions function as pro-forms, which are necessary in the above sentences because they carry the transitivizing force of the whole verb. There are only twenty-three instances of repeated prepositions in the corpus, and more than half of them (14 instances) occur in the first three corpus decades. Coordination A last major point among the syntactic features of multi -word verbs is the aspect of coordination, i.e. the question of whether within the verb phrase of a clause a multi-word verb is coordinated with a simplex verb. While in chapter 4 coordination was explicitly discussed only with regard to prepositional verbs (mainly because their status is usually most in doubt), it is a fea ture that is of importa nce for all multi-word verb types. But as also pointed out in chapter 5, the coordination test applies only to transitive cases, since it involves the sharing of an object. Moreover, the surest cases are those where the object follows the two (or more) coordinated verb forms (in whatever sequence they are), as opposed to passive or relative clause contexts, where (if applicable) well-established stranding occurs. Nevertheless, I have decided to count all these transitive cases.
Patterns of the Past 165 The actual amount of such coordination found is not overwhelming, but the fact that it existed at all is proof that definitely some — and thus possibly more or even all — multi-word types were perceived as lexical units. Not surprisingly, the highest coordination figures were found for phrasal verbs, the best-established type in many other aspects as well. (211) is a fairly typical case of simplex-phrasal verb coordination, whereas (212) shows the coordination of two multi-word verbs, which also occurs occasionally with the other types, or across types. (211) ... rayse and keep up what force they will be [sic] Sea and Land, ... (LawB1649) (212) The second sort of gain in the course of Trade is, when the Merchant by his laudable endeavours may both bring in, and carry out Wares to his advantage, ... (EcB1641) In the case of two prepositional verbs being coordinated, they can share their preposition which is then only expressed once, e.g. believe and delight in N. (213) is the ideal case of coordination, or best proof, as it shows the sequence prepositional verb (with sort of semi-stranded preposition) — simplex verb — object; while not quite so nice (214) with its ‘normal’ stranding environment was also accepted as a coordination example. (213) he severely checks and reproves himself, that he had taken on him the Cure of other mens souls, having not sufficiently cared for and cured his own: (RelA1669) (214) This is the utmost of what seems to be desired or aimed at. (RelB1667) In (215, 216) the multi-word verbs both follow the simplex, which sequence was perhaps preferred because of their length; on the other hand, another three word example precedes the simplex in (217), showing that it is at least possible. (215) Secondly, Weigh well the improbability of effecting and going through with such a design, in regard of enemies and difficulties: (LawB1659) (216) Observe also the Heat of Mines, ... noteing how much it exceeds, or falls short of the Heat at the Surface of the Earth: (SciB1696) (217) The ever vigilant Gustavus, ... set fire to, and destroy’d several Vessels of the Enemy, and might have ruin’d ’em all, but for the Inactiveness of the Lubeckers. (MscB1739) The latter is an example for Group II verbo-nominal combinations, while (218, 219) provide instances for Group I and III respectively. (219) is interesting because of its sequence of Group II verb — simplex — Group III
166
Patterns of the Past
verb, with the necessary preposition of for the first of these gone missing — or perhaps intentionally left out? (218) To whom shall we speak and give warning that they may hear? (Jer. 6.10.) (RelA1682) (219) and then tells us (pag. 6.) the Statute provides that all Persons, Bodies Politick and Corporate, which then were or thence after should be, should stand, and be disabled, to have use, or exercise, or put in use any such Monopolies. (EcB1676) A further interesting feature with regard to verbo -nominal combinations is what I call internal coordination (similar to the shared preposition of preposi tional verbs mentioned above), i.e. the fact that one verb is comb ined with two nouns, such as in the following two examples. While the elements agreement and especially peace in (220) also occur on their own in combinations, (make) cessation sounds more like a nonce formation, so that here more and less established elements are coordinated. (220) ... both Kingdomes (...) are obliged by Treaty that none of us shall make any peace, cessation, or agreement whatsoever, without mutuall advice and consent of both (PolA1646) (221) ... but if our forraign Trade come to a stop or declination by neglect at home, or injuries abroad, ... (EcB1641) In both sentences above, the coordination makes for clear semantic variety with different verbal meaning being expressed by the elements. But this is not always the case; make change and alteration of N (PolB1689) contains practically synonymous elements, and the common take care and pains, as well as take notice and regard, while not really synonymous, are so close to each other in their actual use that they can only be seen as intensify ing each other, not as making semantically different points. Miscellaneous Features Lastly, I want to pay attention to some other syntactic features, most of which are of minor importance, but which have been mentioned here or there in the literature. First, there is the question of fronting or topicalization of the particle in phrasal verbs. The possibility of this transformation in a combination has been used as an argument for excluding that combination from the class of phrasal verbs (e.g. Fraser 1976). In this study, these cases have not been excluded, because I see the positional flexibility provided by the individual elements of multi-word verbs as a very important point favouring their usage. Nevertheless, there are only a handful of instances (8) of
Patterns of the Past 167 particle fronting such as (222) in the whole corpus. 27 In some respect this is an easy way of topicalizing the verb, or at least an important semantic part of it. (222) Away goes Husband, Money, and Ring, and the Wife staying with her old Landlady, waits for the return of her kind Spouse; (MscB1692) The next point also concerns phrasal verbs. While any multi -word verb can be used in a nominalized form (verbal noun), with phrasal verbs this usage has been used as a test distinguishing them from prepos itional verbs (cf. chap.4). (223) The Second Article Charged upon me, is, The carrying on of a Treasonable Correspondence for the Bishop of Rochester. (LawB1723) (224) ... that make the very foundation of the Universities, the very seeking after the gifts of Gods Spirit and after abilities for the Ministery, ... (RelA1653) (225) Lastly I am not altogether without hope, but that something possibly may happen to be said in this Scribble, that may conduce to the healing up this wound again. (PolB1674) In contrast to the prepositional verb in (224), the phrasal verb nominalization in (223) connects to its objects with an of, as is theoretically expected. However, (225) shows that the of-less variant was also possible 28, and it would be hard to claim that because of this heal up is not a phrasal verb. So this test is not necessarily applicable in the past. Apart from the nominalized -ingformations there are also zero-derivations, such as a look-out or the pluralized put-offs. Before leaving nominalizations, however, a really nominal phrasal usage (cf. (226)) should be illustrated, one that would not be possible in PDE, I think. (226) ... there was a Message sent from his Majesty (...) directed to the Earl of Warwick, therein requiring the delivery up of the Fleet into the hands of Sir John Pennington, (MscB1646) All in all, there are 130 nominal uses of phrasal verbs, the great majority of which are the expected kind as illustrated in (223) above. The very last feature to be mentioned here is the adjectival us e of phrasal and prepositional verbs, of which ten and thirteen instances, respec 27
The phenomenon is hardly more common even in Shakespeare, where Castillo (1994:440-42) found eighteen normal particle topicalizations, plus some such topicalizations without proper inversion, one of her examples being And forth my mimic comes (MND iii,ii,19). 28 It has to be admitted, however, that there is the theoretical possibility that the printer unintentionally left out the small word of.
168
Patterns of the Past
tively, were found. It is of interest especially for the latter, as it graphically makes clear the perception of the multi-word sequence as a unit. These prepositional adjectives can be used either attributively (228) or predicatively (227), with or without hyphen (e.g. the much talked of Attainder — LawB1697), and with or without further modification (e.g. long-wish’d for change — PolA1711), the latter being most usually the negative prefix un- ((227), eight cases). (227) To have a Servant (...) brought as an Evidence; and my most intimate Friends Imprisoned for not swearing against me; Are Hardships and Proceedings, I believe, hitherto unheard-of in England; (LawB1723) (228) Why then should men pretend, that that cannot be done, which hath been done, and is done at this day in so many Kingdoms and Nations, with the wished-for success by Peace and Happiness? (RelB1667) Table 6.9, containing the relevant frequencies for all five categories of multi-word verbs, summarizes the most important syntactic points made above. In general, one can say that multi-word verbs in late EModE do not vary significantly in their behaviour, be it syntactically or lexically, from that exhibited by their successors in PDE. There are of course minor deviations, and shifts, but these do not disturb the basic fact that the sys tem was fully in place and functioning well in the 17th and 18th centuries.
22
Group III
102
379
34
6
20
15
-
4
-
Group II
-
-
Prepositional verbs Phrasalprepositional verbs Verbadjective combinations Verbonominal combinations Group I
332
803
Phrasal verbs
intransitives pronoun
36
-
31
11
2
-
42
noun
intervening
15
7
149
12
adverbial
23 / -
207 / 3
319 / 27
-
57
42
-
19
48
3
- / 49
80 / 57
74 / 12
34
5
115 / 11
2/4
1/-
4/-
6
22
24
7
1
pre- or negator plural/ passive preposition coordination postmocompara (inner/ stranding/ (external) dification -tive outer) pied-piping not 227 counted 332 563 / 89 96
intervening/modifying element
Table 6.9: Summary: Some syntactic features of multi-word verbs
7. Frequencies and Tendencies After the foregoing description of the data, it is now time to look at the per formance of the various categories of multi -word verbs in larger contexts, in particular their development over time, and the influence of register and socio-linguistic considerations on them. A point that needs to be raised in this context is the question of the suitability of the corpus for the investigation of language change. According to Labov (1981:177), a span of two generations will be enough to establish a linguistic change: If we want to propose that change in progress has been de tected in a given speech community, we will need evidence to show that some variation within the community is a direct result of the fact that in the recent past language learners acquired a different form of the language than they are ac quiring now. [...] The strongest confirmation of an ongoing change will be given if it is demonstrated in the near future that the trend detected has moved further in the same di rection. ’Recent past’ and ’near future’ must mean a span of time large enough to allow for significant changes but small enough to rule out the possibility of reversals and retrograde movements: we might say from a minimum of half a generation to a maximum of two. King (quoted in Polomé 1990:5) assumes a basic model of three generations, with change starting as simple (syntactic) variation in the first generation, being incorporated into the grammar of the second generation, and consolidation of the change taking place in the third generation. The 100 years of the Lampeter Corpus, comprising three generations (with one generation consisting of about 30 years), fulfil Labov’s and King’s requirements, and should thus be adequate for studying change. However, the "reversals and retrograde movements" mentioned by Labov are especially interesting in the broader context of the whole history of English, and I would not really want to rule them out in general — and in this respect 100 years might not be long enough. Furthermore, the present study is not only concerned with the more qualitative features Labov and King might have in mind1, but also with sheer frequency of use and consequently the
1
As pointed out in chapters 5 and also 6 the system of multi-word verbs was basically in place by the beginning of the EModE period.
Frequencies and Tendencies
171
development of these frequencies. Whether 100 years are sufficient in this respect remains to be seen. 7.1 One Hundred Years of Continuity and Change Taking the Lampeter Corpus as a synchronic (even if somewhat longish) snap-shot of late EModE, the total occurrences of multi -word verbs in the whole corpus, as given in Table 7.1, can be seen to represent the status of these verbal types in the non-literary, but public language of the time. Table 7.1: Multi-word verbs in the Lampeter Corpus
Phrasal verbs Prepositional verbs Phrasal-prepositional verbs Verb-adjective combinations Verbo-nominal combinations Total
Total occurrences 4,266 2,816 93 298 1,994 9,467
Frequency per 1,000 words 3.6 2.4 0.08 0.2 1.7 8.1
These figures as such are of course not very informative, but something to measure them against is necessary. As pointed out in chapter 5 the available data on the area in question is not in plentiful supply; nevertheless there is some which I will now try to make use of as best as possible. 2 The Lampeter Corpus occurrences of phrasal verbs can be compared to those found in the LOB corpus for PDE. In the one million words of the LOB 8,536 phrasal verbs are found3, double as many as in the Lampeter Corpus. The distance becomes even greater if one normalizes the Lampeter figure to a one-million-word basis, the result being a mere 3,636.6 phrasal verbs. Thus, it would appear that phrasal verbs were not as common in the past as they are now. This could be true in general of the whole language then, both written and spoken. In this case, there must have been an increase towards the modern standards at some later stage, in the 19th century or even as late as the present century. Alternatively, an explanation could lie in differing norms for written language or different relationships between the 2
Of interest here are only possible comparisons to PDE or within EModE; other periods will be ignored. 3 Cf. chapter 5 for the origin of this figure and the problems related to it. Nevertheless it is possible to accept it as a rough basis for comparison.
172
Frequencies and Tendencies
written and spoken variants then and now. Fewer phrasal verbs in the written texts of the 17th and 18th centuries could indicate a reduced permissiveness of more colloquial items (or items stigmatized as such) within that medium. 4 Early Modern England was still to a large extent an orally based society (cf. chap.2, and Ong 1982), and the full adaptation of the English language to the written form was still in progress. This state of affairs can support two possible, but opposing trends, on the one hand, (a) a greater influx and use of oral features in writing (perhaps unintentionally) or, on the other hand, (b) a conscious decrease in usage or even complete removal of such features in the written language (cf. Stein 1990, for example) in order to create an ‘appropriate’ standard. It might be that a form of hypothesis (b) was at work in the texts of the Lampeter Corpus with regard to ‘colloquial’ phrasal verbs. Biber and Finegan (1989), who find their 17th-century texts relatively oral, but less so than 20th-century texts, generally point to an increasing oralization of written texts moving towards the 20th century, which might mean that the more writing becomes an everyday feature (which it certainly was not yet in the 17th and 18th centuries), the more mutual give and take there will be between the written and spoken varieties. Further comparisons regarding phrasal verbs can be made staying within the EModE period. Hiltunen (1994), investigating the occurrence of phrasal verbs formed with the seven particles away, back, down, forth, off, out, and up5, found 851 instances of such combinations in the EModE part of the Helsinki Corpus, i.e. a frequency of 1.54 per 1,000 words. Recalculating the Lampeter findings to include only phrasal verbs with exactly those seven particles yields a figure of 3,322 instances, or 2.8 per 1,000 words. A more comprehensive approach, that is including all possible combinations, was taken by Castillo (1994) in her study of the 37 plays of Shake speare. She found 5,744 phrasal verbs, which equals c. 6.5 occurrences per 1,000 words 6 as opposed to 3.6 in the Lampeter Corpus. Thus, Shakespeare easily beats both the Lampeter Corpus and the Helsinki Corpus in his usage of phrasal verbs. However, Shakespeare is perhaps not the right standard to measure these corpora against; after all, he is known for his extraordinary linguistic 4
That is, assuming that phrasal verbs are in fact colloquial (which I have tentatively doubted, cf. chap.5), and that they were also regarded as such in EModE times. 5 He thus included most of the more commonly used particles, but left out two which were also found to be very frequent in the Lampeter Corpus, namely in and on. 6 Castillo herself does not give a figure for instances per 1,000 words, nor does she give the word count of her data base. The figure given in the text is the result of my own calculation, based on the word count of Shakespeare’s works given in Spevack (1973:v), namely 884,647 words. This includes his poetry, which Castillo, however, did not include — thus the actual occurrence calculated for the plays only would be even higher.
Frequencies and Tendencies
173
inventiveness and has been credited with up to 1,700 neologisms (cf. Nevalainen 1999). The average man in the street was probably somewhat less innovative, in contrast. The lower figure for the Helsinki Corpus in comparison with the present data might be due to a higher percentage of very formal, and also formulaic (which might be more important in this context) text types, such as official correspondence and sta tutes, which do in fact contain the fewest instances of phrasal verbs in Hiltunen’s data. Also, it may be that the longer period sampled plays a role, with perhaps fewer phrasal verbs being found in the early part of the EModE period, but Hiltunen does not provide a diachronic ordering of his data. Apart from the phrasal verbs just dealt with, there is comparative data for only one other multi-word verb type, namely verbo-nominal combinations. The results from the Lampeter Corpus can be compared with the situation in PDE as investigated by Stein & Quirk (1991) in a 1.6 million word corpus of contemporary fiction, and by Algeo (1995) in the LOB and Brown corpora.7 Both took a much narrower definition than the one ap plied here as their basis (cf. chap.4). In order to make a comparison, I have therefore extracted from my Group I those examples which fit their definition as closely as possible 8, i.e. combinations of have, take, give + zero-derived nominal verb (Stein & Quirk), additionally also the verb make (Algeo). The results are the following: Table 7.2: Verbo-nominal combinations in the Lampeter Corpus and in PDE
tokens per 1,000 words
7
Lampeter Corpus 178 0.15
Stein & Quirk 402 c. 0.259
Lampeter Corpus 303 0.26
Algeo: LOB 245 0.25
Algeo: Brown 195 0.19
The study by Hoffmann (1972) will be ignored here, as the information he gives is not detailed enough to make a comparison viable. 8 A complete fit is probably not possible, as one somehow has to take account of the varying data bases and the different state of the language as such. Thus, for example, I have ignored the question of the definite article as an integral (or not, as the case may be) part of the combination when sorting through the examples. Also, some of my Group II instances might have belonged here, but I have ignored them completely, as I do not know Stein & Quirk’s or Algeo’s attitude on following prepositions. The comparison was slightly easier (and therefore more precise, in the end) in the case of Algeo, as he lists all his instances. 9 This can only be an approximate figure, as Stein & Quirk (1991:197) put the size of their corpus at "around 1.6 million words" (my italics, CC).
174
Frequencies and Tendencies
The Lampeter Corpus and LOB yield an almost identical result, showing that with regard to this particular construction early modern British English had already reached the modern state of affairs — even if one does not find such prototypical examples as take a look (instead: cast a look) in the Lampeter Corpus. The important point is that the pattern was clearly established. The striking difference of the Lampeter figures for the two compari sons is due partly to the obviously prominent position of make in these combinations (not included by Stein & Quirk), and partly to a more restricted attitude towards the nominal element on the part of Stein & Quirk, which excluded more of the Lampeter instances than Algeo’s approach. In general, I think that the comparison with Algeo’s material is the more interesting and also the more informative one, as he used the slightly wider definition and with the two corpora also a wider selection of text types (as opposed to only fic tion [Stein & Quirk]). As with phrasal verbs, a comparison within EModE is also possible for verbo-nominal combinations. Kytö and Hiltunen (both in Brinton/Akimoto 1999) have investigated combinations based on the verbs have, make, give, take, and do (i.e. a slightly more restricted approach than the present one) in the Helsinki Corpus (EModE part) and in a 1,100 000word corpus of plays, respectively. Their results are strikingly different: whereas Hiltunen found ‘only’ 1,404 tokens (418 types), i.e. 1.3 occurrences per 1,000 words, in his plays, Kytö’s study came up with as many as 2,056 tokens (675 types), or 3.7 occurrences. Hiltunen’s result is much closer to the Lampeter Corpus figure of 1.7 occurrences, thus linking plays and pamphlets in one group opposite the apparently different texts of the Helsinki Corpus. Given what was said above about the latter, this leads me to assume a preference of verbo-nominal combinations for more formal contexts, and for text types clearly marked as ‘written’ and further removed from the spoken end of the continuum. To sum up, phrasal verbs were apparently used less than today, while verbo-nominal combinations, or at least a certain type of them, had reached today’s level of frequency in the Lampeter Corpus. As far as I can see, these two types do not necessarily belong to different levels of formality in PDE, but it seems that a difference was perceived in the past in this respect. Text type preference certainly plays a role here. Furthermore, there may be internal in/formality clines within the categories just discussed, which would certainly be more pronounced within verbo-nominal combinations with their greater variety of types. Additionally to the approach adopted so far, the corpus can be used to follow the diachronic developments taking place during the span of 100 years shortly before the final standardization phase. The following table
Frequencies and Tendencies
175
presents the actual figures found in the corpus for the occurrences of the five different types of multi-word verbs split up by the ten corpus decades: Table 7.3: Multi-word verbs per decade (tokens)
1640s 1650s 1660s 1670s 1680s 1690s 1700s 1710s 1720s 1730s
Phrasal verbs
Prep. verbs
572 429 354 401 456 569 306 380 451 348
255 277 200 306 358 350 252 253 294 271
Phrasalprep. verbs 11 7 6 6 11 16 6 17 4 9
Verbadjective comb. 45 45 21 39 30 29 28 20 22 19
Verbonominal comb. 168 253 173 230 188 264 140 165 258 155
Total
1,501 1,011 754 982 1,043 1,228 732 835 1,029 802
As the corpus decades are not of equal size (cf. chap.2), these raw f igures, except for giving an impression of the amount of data sampled for each dec ade, are not very telling. The similar looking totals for the 1650s and the 1680s, for instance, are not at all similar, as these represent the smallest and the largest decades in word count, respectively. Therefore, the same data arranged according to occurrences for every 1,000 words of text, as in Figure 7.1, gives a clearer picture of the distribution of the data. Two things are clearly visible in the figure. First, the relative strength or frequency ranking of the five types is the same in each of the ten decades; the order always is (1) phrasal verbs, (2) prepositional verbs, (3) verbo -nominal combinations, (4) verb-adjective combinations, and (5) phrasal-prepositional verbs (with the minor exception of the last two being of equal rank in the 1710s). This sequence is not surprising, in fact, it is exactly what I would have expected intuitively for PDE — an intuition which, unfortunately, cannot at the moment be verified by empirical studies (cf. chap.5). Phrasal verbs occupying the top position is probably due to the ease with which they can be produced, to their flexibility and to the various semantic purposes they can serve. All the other types are more restrict ed in some way or the other, and thus less of an obvious, immediate choice.
per 1,000 words
176
Frequencies and Tendencies
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 Phrasal verbs Prepositional verbs Verbo-nominal combinations Verb-adjective combinations Phrasal-prepositional verbs
Statistical significance : phrasal verbs prepositional verbs phrasal-prepositional verbs verb-adjective combinations verbo-nominal combinations
F score 1.74 .78 .22 6.72 .18
p< .223 .404 .652 .032 .684
df 8 8 8 8 8
R-squared .179 n.s. .089 n.s. .027 n.s. .456 .022 n.s.
Figure 7.1: Multi-word verbs per decades (frequencies per 1,000 words) The second point to observe in the figure is that there is no uni-directional development, either upwards or downwards, discernible for any of the five types. Rather, each decade seems to exhibit an idiosyncratic situation, with especially striking peaks for phrasal verbs in the 1640s, 1650s and 1690s, and the emerging picture obviously not fitting into a larger pattern. Of course, it is conceivable that the corpus structure, in this case the composition of complete texts, skews the picture, e.g. by one or two texts contributing an excessively high amount of data to the decade total. Therefore, I checked the three decades with very high phrasal verb figures (1640s, 1650s, 1690s) for the distribution of instances between the individual texts. In the 1650s, and especially the 1640s, there was a nice spread of text s
Frequencies and Tendencies
177
with low, medium and high frequencies, which is what is to be expected. The 1690s, however, were a little problematic: eight texts stayed below the aver age frequency, three were somewhat higher and one text (SciB1696) contributed a staggering 11.4 items for 1,000 words — without that text the decade would yield an average of 4.0 items per 1,000 words, making the peak less prominent, but nevertheless not making it disappear completely. Thus, some skewing by individual texts is possible, but not to such an extent as to totally change the picture. What also emerged from this investigation was that intuitively very similar texts do not pattern in the same way with respect to phrasal verb frequencies. Thus, legal texts or formal speeches are found with both high and low frequencies — it ultimately seems to come down to the particular stylistic preferences of the author in question. If the data in Figure 7.1 above (except for the negligible category phrasal-prepositional verbs), is presented in graph format, as in Figure 7.2, it is easier to see how the individual categories performed over the 100 years. Again, it becomes clear how irregular their behaviour is, but the inserted trend lines serve to indicate a supposed general direction of their development. Here, it is important to take the R-square values given below Figure 7.1 into account. With the exception of verb -adjective combinations the spread of the data over time is not significant at all ( p < .05), and none of the five R-squared values marks an important relationship. However, statistic significance is not everything, and it is still possible to comment on the situation as presented in Figure 7.2. The behaviour of verb-adjective, and to a lesser extent of verbo-nominal combinations, can be interpreted as representing stability in my opinion; there is variation, admittedly larger in the case of the latter, around a stable median. It might be that these two types reached a ‘plateau’ rather early on. Prepositional verbs exhibit a modest rising tendency and can probably also be regarded as a very stable type. At any rate, developments on a larger scale would be unusual for this type, as the possibilities for new formations are somewhat more restricted than with the other types. With phrasal ve rbs, the picture looks more dramatic, with the messiest graph of all and with a clearly falling trend line. In spite of the latter, it is hard to speak of a definite decline of phrasal verbs; an adjustment of the 1690s data (as mentioned above) by taking out the ‘abnormal’ text, and thereby reaching 4.0 per 1,000 words, makes an underlying decline more likely, but still not really convincing. Thus, the present result does not seem to bear out the findings of Konishi and Spasov reported in chapter 5. This could of course be due to the different methodologies employed and the different data bases used. Looking at the periods of decline found by the two researchers, c. 1650/1660 to c. 1750, it might be that the time span of the Lampeter Corpus is just
178
Frequencies and Tendencies
unfortunate for the question in hand. It is after all easier to recognize a decline if one has the contrast of the surrounding non-declining periods. Thus, the question of the development of phrasal verbs cannot be satisfactorily resolved with the data available . 5.0 4.5
per 1,000 words
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 Phrasal verbs Prepositional verbs Verbo-nominal combinations Verb-adjective combinations Figure 7.2: The development of four multi-word verb categories Nevertheless, let me play out an hypothesis: assuming for a moment that there actually was a decline in the use of phrasal verbs during the second half of 17th and (most of?) the 18th century, why could this have been the case? The possible reasons that come to mind are all interconnected: they are (a) the standardization process, (b) a certain domi nant stylistic ideal, and (c) prescriptivist tendencies (cf. chap.8). Phrasal verbs are po tentially good targets in the contexts of these reasons, because (i) they are relatively frequent, i.e. prominent enough to be noticed easily — in contrast to, e.g., phrasal-prepositional verbs; (ii) due to this, they can more easily be perceived as something disturbing or outright negative (because of their allegedly colloquial/oral nature); (iii) with a certain percentage of them the particle does not carry much inde pendent semantic weight, and can therefore be interpreted as superfluous;
Frequencies and Tendencies
179
(iv) most of them can be avoided, either by simply leaving out the particle (even if with some loss of meaning), or by substituting another verb synonymous to the phrasal verb, commonly of Romance origin (and thus to be perceived as stylistically more elegant). These facts apply only to a lesser degree, or not at all, to the other categories, which might account for a potentially different behaviour. To summarize, there is a considerable amount of continuity, with re gard to prepositional verbs, verbo-nominal combinations and verb-adjective combinations. Without indulging in further speculation, phrasal verbs can only be safely said to exhibit random variation. Phrasal-prepositional verbs unfortunately occur too infrequently to make any definite statement. In ge neral, because attitudes (and style) are involved, the individ ual text or rather its author, will always need to be taken into consideration. 7.2 Stability and Productivity It is not only the numerical, quasi ‘external’ history of a phenomenon, as treated in 71. above, but also its internal developments which say something about the vitality of a feature. This concerns the relationships of types and tokens and their spread throughout the corpus. On the one hand, there is the question of how active, i.e. productive, a pattern is, which manifests itself by the formation of new lexical items on the existing pattern. The number of single occurrences (hapax legomena), while of course not conclusive evidence of a new formation in individual cases, can point towards the degree of productivity present in a type of feature. On the other hand, there is also the question of the inherent stability of a pattern, as too much fluctuation might be disturbing. A certain amount of stable, i.e. continuously used items of one category, can help to more firmly establish the whole pattern and thus encourage the formation of new items. Taken for all the occurrences in the corpus as a whole, the type/token ratios 10 for the various multi-word verbs are as follows: Phrasal verbs: 0.16 (4,266 tokens/669 types) Prepositional verbs: 0.71 (2,816 / 199) Phrasal-prepositional verbs: 0.43 (93 / 40) Verb-adjective combinations: 0.16 (298 / 47) Verbo-nominal combinations: 0.17 (1,994 / 338) Once again, the result for phrasal-prepositional verbs is best left out of consideration, because of the low actual figures. Phrasal verbs, verb -adjective 10
I am aware of the fact that, from a statistician’s perspective, type/token ratios are not very useful, let alone significant. Nevertheless, I think some valid linguistic points can be made with the help of this method.
180
Frequencies and Tendencies
combinations and verbo-nominal combinations fall roughly into the same sphere as regards repetitiveness or richness of types, and thus by extension productivity. The data above expressed differently means that, theoretically, about every sixth occurrence of such a verbal form will be a new lexical type. All three can thus be characterized as moderately productive. This is less the case for prepositional verbs, where only about every fourteenth instance will be a new type. This is obviously due to the generally more restricted pattern of this type with fewer selectional possibilities and less freedom of combination. The loss in activity means a gain in stability, however. As to the type/token ratios for the individual decades they are of course higher, ranging for phrasal verbs from 0.35 (1690s) to 0.48 (1730s), for prepositional verbs from 0.2 (1680s) to 0.4 (1660s), for verbo -nominal combinations from 0.35 (1720s) to 0.59 (1640s), and for verb -adjective combinations from 0.25 (1700s) to 0.57 (1660s). In all cases, the distribution of high and low ratios throughout the decades is rather mixed and does not fol low a developmental pattern. A further indication of productivity is the amount of single instances of a multi-word verb, which are rather high for all types in all decades. With phrasal verbs, they make up between 50% and 60% of all types per decade, in three cases even more than 60%. The situation is similar for verbonominal combinations, again with percentages in the fifties and sixties, only one decade being as low as 46%. Group II of this type seems somewhat less prone to a high amount of single instances than the other two sub-groups, and is thus a little more consolidated. On average, prepositional verbs generally exhibit fewer instances of single occurrences per decade, with the highest number being 58.7%, and the lowest 29.2% — and of course that fits well for this type. An alternative way of looking at things is to examine how many types occur in how many corpus decades. This has to do with the stability over time, or habituality of a collocation mentioned in the definition of multi -word verbs in chapter 4. Figure 7.3 illustrates the percentages of types which occur in only one decade, which in two decades, which in three decades and so on. High figures in fewer decades, and especially the lower range, indicate more flexibility and more productivity in the pattern, while an even spread and occurrences in the higher range of decades stand for a greater amount of con solidation within the pattern. It is clear that occurrence in a greater number of decades goes along with more frequent occurrence of the type (in absolute numbers) in general. The latter is true of prepositional verbs, which are the only type that is distributed relatively evenly in this respect, with compara tively minor peaks for occurrence in one, two and three decades only. All the
181
Frequencies and Tendencies
other types have a very pronounced peak for occurrence in just one decade (49%, 67%, 54%, 51%), and for the majority of those cases this also means only one single occurrence ever. Phrasal-prepositional verbs appear as the most erratic, or least stable type; merely one verb is established enough to occur in seven decades, and this is break in (up)on, illustrated by the following two examples. (1) (2)
Josiah (...) did much, yet because the peoples spirits were not wrought to concurre with him, the worke soone vanished, and Gods Judgements brake in upon them. (RelA1642) And if you suffer those Laws to be broke in upon, and render Life or Liberty so precarious, as to be affected or taken away, (...) that Excel lency must soon disappear, ... (LawB1723)
80 Phrasal verbs Prepositional verbs Phrasal-prepositional verbs Verb-adjective combinations Verbo-nominal combinations
70
% of all types
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1
2
3
4
5 6 7 number of decades
8
9
10
Figure 7.3: Types per occurrence in number of decades The three phrasal-prepositional items come up to, fall in with and run counter to occur in four decades each. Verb-adjective combinations are slightly better distributed than the latter, with two verbs even occurring in all ten decades, namely think fit (3) and make good (4), the former being an especial favourite of the period. (3)
If France should think fit to quarrel with the Emperor, she will encourage Spain to invade his Italian Dominion; (PolA1731)
182
Frequencies and Tendencies
(4)
By this your Honours may perceive the malice of this silly ignorant man, that will inform your Honours with that, which he cannot in the one, nor dare not in the other, make good. (MscB1646)
None occur in eight or nine decades, but two are found in seven (make known, lay open) and a further two (fall foul of/(up)on, break open) in six decades. The best-established verbo-nominal combinations are those ten occurring in eight decades (Group I: give an account, take advantage, give (an) answer, give leave, make (an) observation, take place; Group II: make choice of, lay hold (up)on/of; Group III: take into consideration, be of opinion), the four found in nine decades (Group I: take pains, make way; Group II: have recourse (un)to; Group III: put in execution) and finally the four used in all ten decades (Group I: take care; Group II: take care of, take notice of, make use of; no Group III verb). The following list gives the most stable and/or common items, i.e. those occurring in eight, nine or all ten corpus decades, within the group of prepositional verbs: Prepositional verbs: 8 decades: account for, comply with, consist with, dispense with, dispose of/on, enquire after/into, fail of, hear of, look after, look into, look to, meddle with, relate (un)to, seek after/for, treat of/ (up)on, wonder at (16 types) 9 decades: admit of, call for, call (up)on, deal with, enter into/unto, judge of, look (up)on, talk of/on, tend to (9 types) 10 decades: aim at, amount (un)to, belong (un)to, complain of, consist in, consist of, depend (up)on, insist (up)on, meet with, part with, rely (up)on, send for, speak of, take (up)on, think of/(up)on (15 types) The foreign and the native element are in balance here; it is not only the quasi unavoidable fixed combinations such as dispose of, depend on that are represented in the common group, but also the ‘freer’ and more idiomatic formations like look into, call on and meet with. This thorough mixing, rendering prepositional verbs anything but a monolithic group, is what makes it so interesting. A few examples to illustrate some of these types: (5) (6) (7)
In which although that Pope failed then of his end, yet was that after attained. (RelA1679) The King (...) put forth a Declaration, wherein he warn’d all his people that they should look to their proprieties, for if Hee was thus barr’d of his owne, ... (PolB1648) The Parliament will not, as I believe, admit of new Devices in the Course of their Proceedings, whatever we do at Law. (LawB1704)
Frequencies and Tendencies (8) (9) (10)
183
My Design therefore is, (...) to consider the Allegation s, without entering into the Characters of those who advance them, ... (PolB1730) Besides, all this Scribler aims at, is, to shew a bare Possibility of the Ninevites believing a Future State. (RelB1718) The most probable expedients I have met with in Discourse (beside a Land-tax) are Forein Impost, Domestick Excise, and Subsidies: (EcA1668)
To continue with phrasal verbs, a similar but slightly longer list is possible. It is the generally very common, basic verbs of the English language that are well represented here, some of them, like bring, carry, come, lay, set and take, in several combinations. Look in prepositional verbs above is a similar instance of this phenomenon. Phrasal verbs: 8 decades: bring about, bring forth, call in, fall out, fi ll up, get up, give in, issue out, keep up, lay aside, leave off, make out, pull down, run out, take in, take out, throw away, throw off (18 types) 9 decades: bring up, carry away, come up, deliver up, draw up, go on, go out, lay out, pass by, send out, set down, set forth, set out, stir up (14 types) 10 decades: bring in, carry on, come in, come out, cry out, cut off, find out, give up, lay down, make up, put in, set up, take away, take off, take up (15 types) It can be interesting to follow one of these verbs through all the ten decades and cut off is to serve as the chosen example: (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
With the same labor you may finde out the Longitude, if holding still the Globe you observ the Degrees of Intersection cut off by the Meridian in the Equator: (SciB1649) And doe we think his Lawes and his Religion, together with his Judges (...) would ever have cut his Head off for fighting to maintaine them? (LawA1653) His proving that Rd cuts off from ab a Line equal to the line of Bc, doth not prove, that ab passeth through c: (SciA1666) He at once cuts off all this Pageantry, who appay’d in his Self-sufficiency without other regard, ... (MscA1676) ... and if Queen Elizabeth did Cut her [= Mary of Scots] off, what have we to do with that? (RelB1687) All other Hair but that of their Eye-brows and Eye-lids they pull up by the Roots, cut off the hair of their Heads, and paint themselves black by way of triumph, when they kill a Spaniard. (PolA1699) ... and said that all were Rogues who came there, especially Mr. Hore, whose Ears he swore he would cut off, and Arrest him for five Pound a Day, ... (LawA1703)
184
Frequencies and Tendencies
(18)
By which Method we may yet put our selves into a Capacity of cutting off all other Nations, or at least of making it difficult for them to get any great Number of Slaves from the Coast of Africa; ... (EcA1714) So that the Small Pox may be reckon’d to cut off 1/10 of Mankind above the Age of one Year. (SciB1722) And we still want an Adjustment of the Point, as stated by Dr. Croxall, how far we may cut off wicked Ministers, and civilly disable a Tyrannical King, ... (RelB1730)
(19) (20)
From these examples it also becomes clear that, by type, I understand the surface form regardless of the meaning. Cut off in the examples above is used in its most literal sense, in several similar transferred ways, and in its most idiomatic meaning of "kill", but nevertheless it is regarded as only one type here. Looking at all these common types especially, but also at all the other types, from the Lampeter Corpus it strikes one that they, or the great majority of them, have stood the test of time, so to speak. They are still in use today, even if not all of them are actually found as dictionary entries (e.g. make known, give an account). A few of them, however, sound unexpected from the PDE perspective, e.g. admit of, fail of, judge of, conjure down, resign up and rhyme out, cf.: (21) (22)
Mr. Tuffer rimes out his experiences to good purpose, and in all their bookes thou maist find out many things worth thy observation. (EcB1653) ... it is true the Patent that had already past the Seal for the main part of the Customs was resigned up again, but not forced. (EcA1676)
Others, such as think fit or take pains, may have an archaic or very formal touch nowadays, but they are still used occasionally. Talking specifically of phrasal verbs, Denison (p.c.) suggested the possibility of a continual turnover rather than a general accumulation of combinations in the lexicon over time, pointing, e.g., to the large number of 19th-century combinations which have now vanished. Considering the Lampeter Corpus phrasal and prepositional verbs more closely, about 91 (c. 14% of all types) of the former and twelve (c. 6%) of the latter would, I suspected, not be found today. Clos er examination with the help of cursory searches of the BNC reduced the number of ‘aberrant’ phrasal verb types to only about 58 (8.7%), though. It is amazing how many unfamiliar sounding combinations nevertheless exist in PDE, e.g. assemble together, deliver up, feed up (different from fed up), issue out, lengthen out, or retreat back. Moreover, this is not to say that the remainder, which were not found in the BNC, would not be possible nowadays, as most of those phrasal verbs violate no current forma tion
Frequencies and Tendencies
185
restrictions (e.g. bring under, eat down, man out, tell out). But there are also some among them which do go against present rules and seem therefore highly unlikely for PDE, e.g. decry down, emit forth, resign up, retail out, return up. Matters are somewhat easier with prepositional verbs, mainly because there is less flexibility. There were, in the Lampeter period, verbs commonly or often occurring with a preposition (usually of), such as accept of, admit of, allow of, doubt of etc., which was subsequently dropped completely. Thus, while there are to some extent idio syncratic, or rather period-typical, combinations in the Lampeter material, the most stable items fit in well with the general development of these types towards PDE. This means that while there might be some constant turnover at the fringes, there is also a more permanent core which makes for continuity. The ‘core’ combinations exhibit the stability over time expected of lexicalized multi word verbs. 7.3 Register variation The last question to be raised in this chapter concerns the influence of regis ters and of individual authors on the use of multi-word verb forms. With the help of parameters and individual characteristics present in the corpus set -up, it is possible to follow up some leads in this respect. The domain structure of the Lampeter Corpus (cf. chap.2) represents what is usually called ‘field’ in the register model of language. Texts of one domain share not only their subject matter (in the widest sense), and thus much of their vocabulary, but probably to some extent also other grammatical and stylistic characteristics. Therefore, I have looked at the frequencies of multi-word verbs in the six corpus domains (boldface indicates statistical significance 11).
Table 7.4: Multi-word verbs in the corpus domains (tokens/per 1,000 words) Phrasal 11
Prep.
Phrasal-
Verb-
Verbo-
I.e. statistical significance according to the chi-square test (with Yates correction). The statistical calculations were done by comparing each domain to the rest of the corpus as a whole.
186
Frequencies and Tendencies
Religion Politics Economy Science Law Miscellaneous
verbs
verbs
652/ 3.2 601/ 2.9 790/ 4.6 748/ 3.4 770/ 3.8 705/ 4.3
551/ 2.7 503/ 2.4 395/ 2.3 467/ 2.1 514/ 2.5 386/ 2.3
prep. verbs 28/ 0.1 20/ 0.1 5/ 0.03 3/ 0.01 11/ 0.05 26/ 0.1
adjective comb. 42/ 0.2 53/ 0.2 52/ 0.3 47/ 0.2 57/ 0.3 47/ 0.3
nominal comb. 341/ 1.7 345/ 1.7 259/ 1.5 351/ 1.6 376/ 1.8 322/ 1.9
With regard to verb-adjective combinations, it is quite clear that there is no interesting variation. The figures for phrasal-prepositional verbs of course suffer from the effects of generally low frequencies, but the fewer occurrences in SCIENCE and LAW have a certain intuitive fit, while the same situation in ECONOMY, especially in view of its high instance of phrasal verbs, is somewhat surprising. The remaining three categories are more interesting, and, because of higher raw frequencies, also more relevant. The occurrences of prepositional verbs in POLITICS, ECONOMY, LAW and MISCELLANEOUS are close or identical to the corpus average of 2.4, but, interestingly, RELIGION lies above that average, while SCIENCE falls below. As science is concerned — at least partly — with establishing meaningful relations between phenomena, a relatively high instance of prepositions and thus also prepositional verbs might have been expected. The corpus average for phrasal verbs is 3.6, around which the domains show considerable variation. The highest figures are found in MISCELLANEOUS and ECONOMY, the former being characterized by a comparatively greater number of texts with more down-to-earth content and less formal styles than the other domains. ECONOMY, in contrast to our modern economics, was no academic discipline, but it was open to everybody who had an opinion on this vital matter to state it in published writing. Thus, these figures could point to a more colloquial nature of phrasal verbs. The lower phrasal verb figures found in RELIGION and POLITICS are also of interest. Politics then was not as ‘popularized’ as it is now; the political nation and the class of politicians was a more restricted segment of the whole population, with the latter espe cially being drawn from the circle of well-educated people, usually from the higher social classes. At least the educational point is also true of the writers of religious texts. It is conceivable that this group of authors had imbibed a certain stylistic ideal which, at least, disfavoured phrasal verbs. Anothe r noteworthy point here is that the present result seems to be contradictory to Hiltunen’s (1994:136ff) findings on the basis of the Helsinki Corpus, where he found phrasal verbs to be more common in religious, i.e. biblical, texts,
Frequencies and Tendencies
187
fiction and handbooks than in other texts, with private letters yielding unexpectedly low figures. Verbo-nominal combinations are most common in LAW and MISCELLANEOUS, two intuitively very different domains. However, in both cases the corpus average of 1.7 is exceeded only slightly. Also, it might be different types of verbo-nominal combinations that are prominent in these two domains, as there is certainly a stylistic division to be found in this category. Therefore, I had a closer look at the kind of verbo -nominal combinations occurring in LAW. Expecting a clear dominance of combinations with Romance and/or suffixal nominal elements, I was surprised to find that this was not the case; the ratio of the latter to those items with native and/or isomorphic nouns was approximately 50:50. Another point to be mentioned with regard to verbo-nominal combinations and domains is the somewhat lower frequency of this category in SCIENCE. Today, verbo-nominal combinations are often treated critically in style manuals on technical or abstract academic/scientific writing, indicating at least a perception of their being frequent in or typi cal of these styles — in this case, there would be a contrast to the more average figure found in the Lampeter Corpus. However, the modern perception might just as well be a prejudice; Winterová (1993:180f) did after all not find a very high amount of verbo-nominal combinations in the scientific part of her corpus, while dramatic dialogue (her ‘colloquial speech’) produced double the amount. 12 In the light of the stylistic changes happening during the period investigated here (cf. Howell 1956, Gordon 1966, Adolph 1968, for example), and especially the role the Royal Society was supposed to play in fostering a new plain style (at least according to Spra t, cf. Hüllen 1989), it is also of interest to investigate the possibility of a more limited ‘group style’ within SCIENCE. Six of the Lampeter Corpus SCIENCE authors were connected to the Royal Society, and thus I had a closer look at multi-word verbs in their texts. The authors in question are John Wallis (SciA1666), Robert Hooke (SciA1674), Walter Charleton (SciA1683), Robert Boyle (SciB1684), John Woodward (SciB1696), and Richard Mead (SciA1720). Table 7.5 shows the occurrences of multi-word verbs in their works; phrasal-prepositional verbs are not included as they do not occur at all in any of these texts. It is obvious from the information contained in the table that there is neither a common text profile with regard to the phenomenon under investiga tion, nor a really consistent internal patterning across and within the individual texts. There are two possibilities: either the members of the Royal Society did not feel 12
In contrast, Deutschbein (1932:139) was of the opinion that nominal style, of which verbo-nominal combinations are an important element, was not part of colloquial speech.
188
Frequencies and Tendencies
bound to a common style (meaning in the end there was none), or the features in question here were not important or salient enough to play a role in this ‘group style’. Without further investigation into the general linguistic characteristics of the assumed styles of this period (which, however, is not the concern of this study) an answer is unfortunately not possible. Table 7.5: Royal Society authors and the use of multi-word verbs (per 1,000 words)
SciA1666 SciA1674 SciA1683 SciB1684 SciB1696 SciA1720
Phrasal verbs 1.4 1.9 3.4 4.0 10.2 5.9
Prep. verbs 2.4 1.3 1.2 2.4 0.5 1.8
Verb-adjective combinations 0.4 0.08 0.2 0.08 0.1 0.1
Verbo-nominal combinations 2.4 3.2 0.9 1.2 2.7 2.8
Regarding the register approach, there is another factor to be taken into account here, namely the ‘medium’ or ‘mode’, that is whether a tex t is spoken or written. This may of course have an influence on the frequency of use of multi-word verb forms. Needless to say, the Lampeter Corpus, being an historical corpus, contains no real speech, but what it does have are approximations to the spoken language of the time. Sermons are normally texts to be characterized as "written to be spoken", but in the case of later publication some post-editing will also have to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, they are probably nearer to the spoken language than texts firmly anchored in the written sphere alone. Also, they are intended to get a message across to all sorts of people, including the less educated ones — something to which their style has to be adapted. Figure 7.4 shows a comparison of the ten sermons in the corpus (all RelA-texts) with the ten RelB-texts. Of interest here are phrasal verbs, which are used significantly more often in sermons. This may be due to an assumption on the part of the authors that phrasal verbs possess a higher degree of inte lligibility for the ordinary listener than Romance simplexes do (especially in the light of the speed and irreversibility of the ‘listening process’!), but also to a perception of a greater expressive force of these forms. After all, sermons are meant to move and to convince the addressee. The same reasons can apply to the greater number of phrasal-prepositional verbs found in sermons. John Wilkins in his Ecclesiastes (1646), an influential work, had argued for
Frequencies and Tendencies
189
colloquial plainness in sermons (Gordon 1966:126), which might also have directed some ministers towards choosing more native items. 13
4
Sermons
per 1,000 words
3.5
RelB
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
Verb-adjective combinations
Phrasalprepositional verbs
Verbonominal combinations
Prepositional verbs
Phrasal verbs
0
Figure 7.4: Multi-word verbs in sermons 14 Of interest here are phrasal verbs, which are used significantly more often in sermons. This may be due to an assumption on the part of the authors that phrasal verbs possess a higher degree of intelligibility for the ordinary listener than Romance simplexes do (especially in the light of the speed and irreversibility of the ‘listening process’!), but also to a perception of a greater expressive force of these forms. After all, sermons are meant to move and to convince the addressee. The same reasons can apply to the greater number of phrasal-prepositional verbs found in sermons. John Wilkins in his Ecclesiastes (1646), an influential work, had argued for colloquial plainness
13
Wilkins was not the only one recommending plainness, but there were many works in the late 17th century going in the same direction. Cf. also Swift’s Letter to a Clergyman mentioned in chapter 8. 14 Only phrasal verbs are statistically significant (x2 = 12.53, p £ 0.0004003). Phrasalprepositional verbs would be significant without Yates-correction.
190
Frequencies and Tendencies
in sermons (Gordon 1966:126), which might also have directed some ministers towards choosing more native items. 15 Dialogue is even closer to the spoken sphere than sermons. The Lampeter Corpus does contain some dialogue, which can be subdivided into ‘real’ and fictitious dialogue. ‘Real’ dialogue is represented by three texts documenting trials: LawA1668 does that by transcribing the proceedings in actual direct speech, LawB1678 uses indirect speech for the same purpose, and LawA1716 mixes direct dialogic speech with monologic speeches of the defendants. LawA1668 and LawB1678 represent the courts of London and Middlesex, shedding light on everyday legal cases as well as the middle and lower segments of the population, whereas LawB1716, a treason case dealt with in the House of Lords, represents a much more formal occasion with participants of high social standing. The fictitious dialogues are found in the texts LawA1680, a conversation between a barrister and a former client of his called to do jury service, and EcB1700, a debate between an English man and a Dutchman about the economic situation of both countries. As points of comparison, I have used the remaining LawA- and EcB-texts, but counted them separately. The following figures (7.5-7.6) show the behaviour of the three major multi-word verb categories in these texts. 16
15
Wilkins was not the only one recommending plainness, but there were many works in the late 17th century going in the same direction. Cf. also Swift’s Letter to a Clergyman mentioned in chapter 8. 16 The occurrences of phrasal verbs in LawA1668 and LawB1678 are highly significant (x2 = 171.23 and 59.02 respectively), and significant (x2 = 6.44) in LawB1716. The figures for verbo-nominal combinations are significant (x2 = 8.04) in the case of LawA1680. All the other figures are not statistically significant.
"real" dialogue
fictitious dialogue
EcB-rest
LawA-rest
EcB1700
LawA1680
LawA1716
LawB1678
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 LawA1668
per 1,000 words
Frequencies and Tendencies
non-dialogue
Figure 7.5: Phrasal verbs in dialogue 3.5
per 1,000 words
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
"real" dialogue
fictitious dialogue
Figure 7.6: Prepositional verbs in dialogue
EcB-rest
LawA-rest
EcB1700
LawA1680
LawA1716
LawB1678
LawA1668
0
non-dialogue
191
192
Frequencies and Tendencies 3
per 1,000 words
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
"real" dialogue
fictitious dialogue
EcB-rest
LawA-rest
EcB1700
LawA1680
LawA1716
LawB1678
LawA1668
0
non-dialogue
Figure 7.7: Verbo-nominal combinations in dialogue The very high figure for phrasal verbs in direct speech, and the still rather high figure in indirect speech speaks for the fact that these verbs are indeed typical of spoken language, and thus probably also in general of more colloquial styles of the language, be they written or spoken. In the case of LawA1716, the highly formal occasion, perhaps also the social status of the participants (aristocracy), seems to inhibit the use of phrasal verbs, the fre quency even falling below the general corpus average. In contrast to this, the text contains a higher than average number of prepositional verbs, a great part of which belong to the more formal segment of the language. Coming back to phrasal verbs, the occurrences in the texts with fictitious di alogue are nearer to those of the non-dialogue samples and of the corpus in general, indicating that fictitious dialogues are either not disposed towards, or not successful in a correct imitation of real speech. Verbo-nominal combinations are somewhat more prominent in dialogic texts than in the non-dialogic ones, also exceeding the corpus average. What is surprising here are the low figures found in the fictitious dialogues. It is conceivable that these forms were considered to be typical of the written language (cf. Kytö’s findings discussed above), even of more formal, abstract styles, cf. also the domain LAW taking second place in their ranking. At any rate, just as in the case of phrasal verbs, the representation of actual speech with regard to this category is again not true to the facts as found in the dialogue texts.
Frequencies and Tendencies
193
The last register influence to be touched on here is that of (personal) tenor or style referring to the formality level of a text. This is, of course, a very tricky question, one that is hard to deal with in PDE, and nearly impossible with regard to earlier forms of the lan guage. Not even today is there an agreement about the terms used and their exact mean ings, nor is there a real empirical foundation to be found in this area. I h ave decided to use social factors known about the authors as a possible indication towards the formality or informality of the language used by them. There are two women represented in the corpus, both authors of re ligious texts (RelB1687 and RelB1718)17, whose use of multi-word verb forms has been compared to that found in the remaining RelB-texts, as is to be seen in the following figure. 3.5 RelB1687 RelB1718 RelB-rest
per 1,000 words
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
Verbadjective combinations
Phrasalprepositional verbs
Verbonominal combinations
Prepositional verbs
Phrasal verbs
0
Figure 7.8: Female authors and the use of multi-word verbs18 Women in early modern England generally received less formal education than men, or even none at all, as witnessed, for example, by the lower literacy figures for women (cf. chap.2). It is therefore possible to assume women to be theoretically closer to more colloquial forms of the language. 17
The author of RelB1687, Elinor James, was the wife of a London printer, who later ran the print-shop on her own after her husband’s death. Unfortunately, no information regarding social status is known about the author of RelB1718, Anne Roberts. 18 Only verbo-nominal combinations in text RelB1718 are statistically significant (x2 = 4.65, p £ 0.03109).
194
Frequencies and Tendencies
From figure 7.8 it is clear that with the single exception of verbo -nominal combinations in text RelB1687 19, both women use fewer multi-word verbs than male authors of religious texts. On the basis of the hypothesis mentioned above, I would have expected at least higher frequencies for phrasal and phrasal-prepositional verbs; this, however, is not the case. From modern socio-linguistic studies it is known that women tend to aspire to the standard or prestige norms of the language: thus, if any of these multi -word verb forms was prescribed as something negative or undesirable, their avoidance by these women would make sense. However, as will be shown in chap.8, it is hard to maintain this view. Of course, only two women are not much in the way of evidence; more data would be needed, especially in different domains and text types, to reach a more conclusive result here. 20 Another strand followed up in the pursuit of the question of in/formality was to look more closely at six texts written by authors of lesser social standing and/or poor educational background as compared to the average Lampeter Corpus author. Once again, the idea was that authors of this kind might be closer to colloquial forms of speech. Of course, this ap proach is dependent on information about the authors being found at all, and on the quality of the sources (cf. chap.2); thus, as with the female authors above, this approach also has it problems, but I nevertheless thought it worthwhile in order to show up tendencies. The texts and authors chosen are MscA1643 (London militia sergeant in Civil War, freeman?), MscA1685 (mariner), MscA1696 (craftsman/haberdasher), MscB1700 ( DNB: "of low extraction", "little education"), MscB1729 (painter), and EcB1731 (midship man). The remaining MscA- and EcB-texts serve as samples for comparison. I will again concentrate on the three major categories of multi -word verbs, whose occurrences are shown in the figures below. The figures show neither a unified behaviour of the six texts nor a clear correlation between the use of the different categories of multi -word verbs. The domains ECONOMY and MISCELLANEOUS as such already exceed the corpus average for phrasal verbs, and three of the texts in question exceed this once again, two of them to a considerable extent. On the other hand, the remaining three texts are average or even below the corpus aver age. MscA1643 and MscA1685 are narrative texts, which might play a role in the use of phrasal verbs; however, MscA1696 with a relatively low frequency is also a straight-forward narrative, whereas EcB1731, again with 19
In this context, Müller’s (1978:225) finding that the female authors in his corpus used verbo-nominal combinations (with give as the only verbal formator in his study) more often than the male authors may be of interest. 20 The female authors in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) would be a worthwhile object of study in this respect, for example.
195
Frequencies and Tendencies
a high frequency, is not. It may be that the authors are socially too diverse after all to exhibit comparable linguistic behaviour; also, it may simply come down to very personal stylistic preference of the authors in question. In some texts there seems to be a kind of inverse or negative relationship between phrasal and prepositional verbs. Thus, MscA1643 is very high on the former and very low on the latter, and in contrast MscA1696 and MscB1700, which have relatively fewer phrasal verbs (although about corpus average), exhibit higher frequencies with regard to preposi tional verbs. A similar, though less clear case, may be EcB1731. This observation could reflect the stylistic difference between phrasal verbs (more or less) as a whole and the more heavily Romance element among prepositional verbs, with texts that favour the former avoiding the latter. 8
per 1,000 words
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EcB-rest
MscA-rest
EcB 1731
MscB1729
MscB1700
MscA1696
MscA1685
MscA1643
0
Figure 7.9: Social status and the use of phrasal verbs 21
21
For three texts the data is statistically significant: MscA1643 (x2 = 14.74, p £ 0.00012), MscA1685 (x2 = 5.33, p £ 0.021), and MscB1729 (x2 = 4.22, p £ 0.03987).
196
Frequencies and Tendencies 3.5
per 1,000 words
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 EcB-rest
MscA-rest
EcB 1731
MscB1729
MscB1700
MscA1696
MscA1685
MscA1643
0
Figure 7.10: Social status and the use of prepositional verbs22 3.5
per 1,000 words
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 EcB-rest
MscA-rest
EcB 1731
MscB1729
MscB1700
MscA1696
MscA1685
MscA1643
0
Figure 7.11: Social status and the use of verbo-nominal combinations 23 22
Not statistically significant. Only one text shows a statistically significant variation: MscA1696 (x2 = 5.46, p £ 0.01948). 23
Frequencies and Tendencies
197
While the comparison-samples are corpus-average with regard to verbonominal combinations, all the texts under consideration here except one exceed this frequency. The exception, MscB1700, is corpus-average for both phrasal verbs and verbo-nominal combinations, but above average for prepositional verbs. MscA1696 shows a very pronounced liking for verbonominal combinations. There seems to be no correspondence between the use of phrasal verbs and verbo-nominal combinations in these six texts, despite the alleged similarity of these two categories. A last remark that may be of interest: MscA1685, which is high in both phrasal verbs and verbo nominal combinations, but only average for prepositional verbs, also has the highest incidence of phrasal-prepositional verbs found in the corpus, 0.8 per 1,000 words.24 Finally, the question has to be put whether there are any tendencies visible in the foregoing investigations. With due caut ion and without trying to read too much into the statistics, I think nevertheless some general statements can be made. Phrasal verbs seem to be more common in types of language that can be characterized as nearer to the spoken variety, i.e. colloquial, informal language (cf. the ‘real’ dialogues) and especially kinds of language that want to be understood easily and be accessible for a wide audience (cf. sermons). Perhaps the same goes for phrasal-prepositional verbs; in fact, I think it does, but the raw frequencies are generally too low here to commit oneself fully to a view on the matter. Verbo-nominal combinations seem on the one hand to be typical of the same kind of language as phrasal verbs, but on the other hand also of formal, written contexts and more abstract legal texts. This need not be a contradiction, but due to the internal divisions in this category as pointed out above. In fact, Kytö (in Brinton/Akimoto 1999) has found the same situation in her data, with verbo-nominal combinations being common in both very involved, personalized styles and formal writings. Furthermore, Hiltunen (ibid.) has pointed to the relatively high frequency of these verb forms in Milton’s poetry, a writer noted for his Latinate and highly formal style. 25 Perhaps we just have to revise our perception of verbo-nominal combinations completely: instead of being stylistically marked, they might just be part of the neutral core. The results for the remaining three multi -word verb categories unfortunately do not lend themselves to any such speculations. In general, the register approach to multi -word verbs is an interesting perspective, but will need to be refined by connecting the verbs to other features as well. I will leave this question to be resolved by future studies .
24
Statistically significant: x2 = 17.52, p £ 0.0000285. However, Söderlind (1964:115) maintained that Milton was not as inclined to foreign borrowing as commonly assumed, but in fact is also found to coin new native words and to use zero-derivations quite frequently. 25
8. Attitudes and Alternatives As chapter 9 will be concerned with linguistic choice, a brief look at the basis of that choice will be of interest. There is, on the one hand, the presence of alternatives, which in the case of multi -word verbs are simplex and compound verbs; these will be treated in 8.2. below, mainly in terms of frequency. On the other hand, the level (or lack) of conscious ness on which the choice takes place might influence the nature and/or the outcome of the choice. Consciousness presupposes first of all the awareness of the existence of multi-word verbs as lexical items in their own right. Only if there is awareness can one pose the next question, that of positive or negative attitudes towards these forms as groups. I will deal with th is second complex, that of awareness and attitudes 1, first. 8.1 Contemporary Awareness of and Attitudes towards Multi-word Verbs Looking at the situation today, it is obvious that awareness of and also a set of — probably rather unsystematic — attitudes towards some multi-word verb forms exist. This will be due not least to the availability of dictionaries, especially the specialized ones devoted to idiomatic verb usage. Brinton (1996:189-193) summarizes existing attitudes towards phrasal verbs and verbo-nominal combinations, as found in handbooks on usage and (technical) writing. She found that while at present opinions on phrasal verbs seem to be relatively neutral, or even lenient (e.g. defences made on the grounds of vocabulary enrichment), there are nevertheless still some objections. These maintain for example that the particle is redundant and therefore superfluous, and, above all, that phrasal verbs are a bad habit from the respective other side of the Atlantic. 2 In contrast to phrasal verbs, verbonominal combinations were found by Brinton to be attacked heavily, in technical writing handbooks in particular. The criticisms are directed against the weak and empty verbal part of the combinations, the reduction of the actional dynamic content by the use of abstract nouns, the verbosity of the combination as compared to the simplex, its pretentious and bureaucratic
1
I am taking a certain freedom with these terms, in so far as I am using them with regard to people who were language specialists in some way. However, they were not linguists in the present sense of the word. 2 The opposition to phrasal verbs may have been stronger in past decades of this century, cf. the comments from the 1930s to the 1960s quoted by Foltinek (1964:94f).
Attitudes and Alternatives
199
character as well as its stylistic awkwardness.3 It can be assumed that native idiomatic prepositional verbs and phrasal-prepositional meet with roughly the same acceptance as phrasal verbs, while verb-adjective combinations, or at least a part of them, might share the fate of verbo -nominal combinations. Unfortunately, there is not much information on the latter categories in this respect, only accidental snippets found here and there. In the survey conducted by Mittins et al. (1970:13f, 47), for example, their questionnaire item 16 concerns a phrasal-prepositional structure, the test sentence being "We met up with him at the Zoo". Its acceptability/appropriateness ratings are generally rather low, with only 14% overall (i.e. by all informants and in all situations) approval, and even less, only 2-4%, in formal contexts. The reason for rejection given by informants is the Ameri can origin of the item. It is of course hard to know whether only the item quoted is aimed at or the whole class of phrasal-prepositional verbs. After this brief survey of the state of affairs in PDE, it is now time to go back in time and attempt an assessment of the situation in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are two ways to find out about awareness and positive or negative attitudes with respect to multi -word verbs: explicit statements about them4, e.g. in grammars, dictionaries, or instances of self-correction. The latter way will not be followed up here, but I will not leave it without at least giving some examples, e.g. that of Dryden, who seems to have developed a dislike of features connected with phrasal and prepositional verbs. According to Von Schon (1977:37), he repeatedly deleted phrasal verbs in his manuscript text, putting Latinate synonyms in their place. Furthermore, Söderlind (1951:26) quotes him as criticiz ing Ben Jonson for placing "the preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which I have but lately observed in my own writings" ("Defence of the Epilogue", 231f); consequently corrections such as the end at which he aimed (from the end he aimed at) and the age in which I live (from the age I live in)5 are found in his manuscripts (cf. Konishi 1958:122). It may be that the presence of ‘small words’ with no immediately obvious (or even ‘wrong’) grammatical connections did not suit his rational (and Latinate) approach to language. Swift, in part contrast, did not seem to mind final prepositions, but he tended
3
A study carried out by Brown & Herndl (1986:13-19) on what they term "superfluous nominalizations" in corporate writing turned up a more positive side of the attitude coin: nominal structures are a prestige feature, as they are perceived as a sign of good academic writing and as more formal than simplexes. 4 I am not concerned here with the fit or non-fit of expressed opinions and actual linguistic behaviour. While I am aware of the discrepancies (cf. the over- and underreporting found in socio-linguistic studies), this is not the important point here. 5 According to Bately (1964:270ff), the contact clause is not his point of criticism here.
200
Attitudes and Alternatives
to expand monosyllabic words where possible, e.g. on to upon, in to into, or till to until (Strang 1962:1953f). The approach of looking for explicit statements about the phenomena in question has been dealt with by examining grammars and some other miscellaneous writings on language published during the 17th and 18th centuries. Hiltunen (1983c) inspected about forty grammars to follow the evolution of thought on phrasal and prepositional verbs up to 1839.6 His main conclusions for the two centuries in question here are that the 17th century is characterized by only "latent awareness" (ibid. 378) of these constructions, whereas the 18th century "develops towards more definite statements of verb and particle formin g a group instead of being dissociate items" (ibid. 381). In the following treatment I will refer back to Hiltunen’s findings where appropriate. Awareness and attitudes can be separated to a certain extent, and the former will be dealt with first, mostly with the help of grammars, and other theoretical works on language. I will start with a look at some works written before the time proper of this investi gation, i.e. before 1640. The grammars of neither Greaves (1594), Gil (1621), Hewes (1624), nor Butler (1634)7 contain any explicit statements about multi -word verbs as such, which leads me to assume that there was no conscious awareness of the existence of these structures on their part. Reading between the lines, so to speak, one does find some implicit awareness, however. Multi-word verb forms are not only found in the running text of these works, but also in example sentences used to illustrate other miscellaneous points of grammar. 8 Greaves and Butler offer least in this respect. In Greave’s two sa mple pieces for grammatical analysis, for instance, two relevant structures ( they straight cut of my head; who ... erst tooke paines)9 appear, but he does not even attempt an analysis, instead not mentioning them at all. The only example found in Butler, containing the phrasal verbs run away/go away (p. 46), turns up in a marginal note on the role of be and have in tense formation. In Gil, one finds various multi-word instances, e.g. the phrasal verb it iz givn out (p.66) as an illustration of impersonal verbs, or the prepositional verb Neiðer art ðou hï whüm J lük for (p.76) as an example of inversion after neither. He does not himself elaborate on the nature of the verbs, but what is of interest 6
The list of works examined in this chapter only partly overlaps with Hiltunen’s, including grammars, but furthermore also other works on language not considered by him. 7 General assessments of all the grammars used here are best found in Michael (1970), also in Vorlat (1975) and Padley (1988). 8 This applies to all grammars in the 17th and 18th centuries. 9 Greave’s grammar does not have page numbers.
Attitudes and Alternatives
201
here, especially in the light of later pronouncements on the matter, is the use of a stranded preposition 10 in the context of the relative pronoun whom. Hewes, whose grammar is primarily intended as a text book for teaching Latin 11, nevertheless contains some interesting items. His example sentences yield up instances of phrasal verbs (e.g. it doth ... finde him out (E2); nothing dryeth up sooner than a teare (I3)), prepositional verbs (e.g. it is the part of a prince to provide for 12 his Countrey; euery foolish man is taken with pride (H2); who relyeth on the peoples praise), and verbo-nominal combinations (e.g. let Custom give place to Truth (K2); it is a kinde of sinne to take pitty of those, that pitty not themselves (L2); why doest thou make question (N3)). In general, his instances are a mix of completely liter al and idiomatic, as well as of institutionalized versus freer combinations. Further, Hewes explicitly mentions the existence of preposition stranding (R3), but does not criticize it in any way, only indicating a procedure of help, presumably in the translation into Latin, namely "then yee must inuert and place [the preposition] rightly, or conceiue its true vse". Hewes also very implicitly recognizes nominalized verbal expressions, witness the following quotation (T): And of those yee shall also haue a greate vse, when you shall haue occasion to vary your Speeches from the Noune Substantiue to the Verbe, and from the Adjectiue to the Aduerbe, and yet still re ceiue the sence or matter, as in this Instance: Mary Magdalene tooke great griefe and sorrow at her sinnes. Mary Magdalene most grievously and bitterly bewayled her sinnes. In his example, we find a contrast between a verbo-nominal and a purely verbal structure13, and he seems to indicate that the nominalized construction is the primary one, or the first choice. Also, in mentioning the change from adjective to adverb, he makes a point about the different modification structures of the alternatives, which feature so promi nently in modern treatments of the phenomenon. But basically, Hewes is making more a stylistic than a grammatical comment here.
10
I will pay attention to preposition stranding in the context of this chapter, as it touches on the topic of multi-word verbs, cf. chap.7. 11 Cf. the editor’s note, which also states that Hewes represents "the earliest attempt to reconcile the rules of Latin grammar with those of English and as such can legitimately be regarded as a pioneer work". The book does not make use of page numbers; where letters with or without numbers are found on the sheets these will be quoted as reference instead. 12 In the explanation, he calls for the sign of the dative required by many other verbs as well. 13 Had he used the verbs grieve or sorrow in his verbal example, the contrast would be even clearer.
202
Attitudes and Alternatives
Apart from the sections on the verb in grammars, another place where some information on the phenomenon in question could be expected are the sections on prepositions and, to a lesser extent, adverbs. Wha t both Hiltunen (e.g. 378) and I found in these sections are mostly mere listings indicating the meaning of those items (e.g. Wallis, Cooper, Aickin, Greenwood below). With regard to adverbs, there is often an emphasis on the lexical items in this class. Prepositions, especially when following verbs, are usually treated as case markers (cf. Greaves, p.34, Gil, p. 78f), or they are listed as elements entering into the word-formation process (cf. Butler, p. 52), e.g. in the case of prefix verbs. These appro aches are found, to a greater or lesser extent, throughout the whole period. Where one could also expect to find some hints are the sections on the noun and on the adjective, but this expectation is always disappointed. Verb-adjective combinations, in particular, are notably absent from the linguistic works of that period. The following grammars or textbooks published during the period of investigation (1640-1740) were used: Jonson (1640)14, Poole (1646), Wallis (1653), Coles (1674), Cooper (1685), Miège (1688), Aickin (1692), Dyche (1707), Greenwood (1711), and Maittaire (1712). There are considerable differences of quality between these works, and also varia tion regarding the awareness of verbal combinations. Some have nothing whatsoever to offer on the subject, e.g. Jonson, Coles, Cooper 15, Aickin, Dyche. Some, Greenwood being an example here, have individual remarks and instances here and there, without recogniz ing an overall connection. Statements such as "[b]eing put after Verbs, it [i.e. over] signifies to desist or leave off, as, He gives over, i.e. he desists, etc." (Greenwood, p.90), intended to refer merely to another meaning of the preposition over, are completely unsystematic. Other grammarians are at least on the way to an understanding, sometimes via a detour through Latin. For instance, the relevant points Poole has to offer on the topic are found in his section titled "Certaine Rules for the easier turning of English into Latine" (p.24 -38), where he treats items 16 and phrases which he seems to have considered especially difficult. In the little chapter on of he has the following to say (p.25): Sometimes of belongs to the word going before: as, to heare of, to tast of, to smell of, to aske coun sell of, to complaine of, to despaire of, to admit of, to thinke of, to put of, to be glad of, out of, be cause of, in comparison of, and the like; and then it is not the signe
14
Written earlier, first version before 1623, second version c. 1632 (cf. editor’s note). The only place he uses phrasal verbs (sit/set/lie/lay down) in illustrative examples is, curiously, in the treatment of verbs as absolute, active, passive and neuter. 16 Interestingly, the majority of them are invariant adverbs and prepositions. 15
Attitudes and Alternatives
203
alwayes of the Genitive case, but must be taken in making Latine with the words going before. The statement "sometimes X is part of the signification of the word going before/of the verb" is found often, notably with respect to with, for, at, on/upon, about, and under17; for some reason it is not found in the chapters on to, by, in, and over18. Taking into account the context in which these remarks are found, it is not possible to be certain about Poole’s view, i.e. whether he saw these sequences really as one lexical item, or whether his explanations are solely translation aids. Wallis, despite being regarded as a better grammarian than Poole, also views the matter via Latin, and actually does not go as far as the former 19; the only explicit statement I found in his whole treatise is the following: Off separationem significat; ut aliquando Latinorum abs, ex, ut abscindo, exuo: Cui opponitur On, continuationem innuens (exuo to put off, induo to put on:) hinc up-on super. He does not, however, say that, or whether, he considers structures like put off to be lexical units. Miège, despite his modest comment "I shall speak of these t hree Parts of Speech [i.e. adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions] under one Head, because I han’t much to say of any of them" (my italics), is the first grammarian to make an explicit comment about a phenomenon that is after all characteristic of English as opposed to continental European languages. Talking about preposition stranding (in a neutral way) leads him on to the following observation (p.81): Whereas in Verbs Compound the Preposition goes first, and makes but one Word with the Verb, the English has another Way besides of using Prepositions, viz. after the Verb, and distinct from it. As, to look upon, for, to view; to look for, for, to seek; to put out, for, to extinguish; to go after, for, to follow.
17
Some of his examples are: meet with, look for, care for, wonder at, ayme at, call upon, bring about, keep under, all of which, except for the last two, are prepositional verbs. However, the examples under of above are more varied; one of them, put of, is a phrasal verb. There, he also illustrates verbo-nominal combinations in the sentences Hee made use of my authority. I have need of your help. 18 Of these, at least in occurred commonly enough (cf. chap.7) for Poole to have noticed its similar role. 19 Hiltunen (1983c:378), by quoting only Wallis and not Poole, seems to overrate the former.
204
Attitudes and Alternatives
And he goes on to a statement (p.82) that can e xplain phrasal verbs that have come about through prepositional phrase reduction (especially with over, under): Lastly, ’tis observable, that there are Prepositions sometimes used Adverbially, that is, without a Substantive; as before, after, above, below, over, under, within, without, &c. For Exemple, he went before, and I came after; He was above, and I below. He is not always as advanced as that, however. In the context of the following quote (p.36), it does not seem to occur to him that cut short is of a different kind than his other examples: Sometimes you will find them [Adjectives] used Adverbially; As exceeding great, mighty strong, prodigious high, to sing clear, to speak loud, to carry it high, to cut short, to run fast, to speak proper, &c. Thus, one of the few examples of verb-adjective combinations found at all in these early works is ignored by the author. The next grammarian to yield explicit statements on the matter in hand is Maittaire, whose material has rightly been called by Hiltunen (1983c:382) "the most comprehensive treatment of the phrasal verb" in the 18th century. I think it is not a coincidence that both authors with an early awareness of the phenomenon are originally foreigners: against the background of their native first language, it must have been easier to notice the peculiarities of English. Maittaire’s most definite statements are found in the section on composition with prepositions, but there are relevant remarks scattered throughout the book: The English Prepositions may compound words by being put after, without governing a word; as to go on, to go out, to run in, to go by, to get up, to pass over, whence the Noun passover. And thus about, between (which compound not the other way) are used; as to lead about, to go between. Of takes another f, when it compounds thus; as to hold off. Thus also some Adverbs compound words; as to go forth, to go back, to stand away. (110-111) The Particle, which compounds the verb by following it, does not always go next to the verb; but the Noun, which is governed by the verb, is often placed between; as i keep in my breath or i keep my breath in; i call back my word or i call my word back: The Pronoun ever goes between; as i keep him in, i call him back; scarcely i keep in him, i call back him. (111)
Attitudes and Alternatives
205
Besides the particle up seems to compound the Verb more than govern the Noun; and therefore in such a case it may admit another sign or Particle besides; as he is gone up to the hill; thus also he went down the hill or down from the hill, ... (162) What he is talking about here are on the whole phrasal verbs, some of which are possibly cases of prepositional-phrase reduction (e.g. go out, run in); only one of his examples, go between, is a prepositional verb. The confusion of the two types, and of prepositions and adverbs generally, is typical of the period.20 Somewhat less clearly, Maittaire also seems to recognize the existence of phrasal-prepositional verbs, although his chosen example is not exactly prototypical to modern eyes: "Sometimes two such Particles, and even of the same Signification, are added to, and decompound the Verb; as i turn away back " (111). In dealing with the relative pronoun that he observes that the Signs and Particles are ever put after the word, upon which they depend; as this is the man, that i take care of, (...) this is the thing, that i depend upon. Such a transposition of the Signs and Particles is also used with the Article who or which ... (33) stating not only the unity of prepositional verbs, but implici tly also that of verbo-nominal combinations (take care of). On the other hand, he also takes note of the semantic redundancy, and thus strictly speaking superfluity, of some particles, his example being approve (of) your opinion (151). By the way, Campbell (1776) later addresses the same question, favouring the preposition-less use of these items on the grounds of simplicity and brevity (158f).21 Further, Maittaire treats the differences and connections between the various forms of composition in a relatively systematic way: The sense of the word is sometimes altered by composition; as to stand with, to withstand; to stand under, to understand; to run out, to outrun; to give, to give over, to forgive . (110) The Compounding Particle sometimes goes before or follows the word; as to overpass or to pass over, the going out, Ps. 121.8. the outgoings, Ps. 65.8. their sitting down, their rising up, Lament. 20
The category ‘particle’, appearing here and there in the grammars, does not help to clear up the confusion, as it is just another label for the same old fuzzy content. It is, contrary to Hiltunen (1983c:379), also not a new feature of the 18th century, cf. Miège’s definition of it as "a short word, whether it be a Pronoun, Adverb, Conjunction, Preposition, or Interjection, is commonly called a particle" (2). Cf. also the discussion of Walker in the text below. 21 As mentioned above (cf. chap.6), a number of such prepositional verbs occur in the Lampeter Corpus, e.g. admire at, accept of, admit of.
206
Attitudes and Alternatives 3.63. my downsitting, my uprising. Ps. 139.1. Sometimes it only follows; as to gather together, the gathering together, Ps. 64.2. Sometimes it follows the verb, but it goes before the noun; as to come in, an income: ... (111f)22
He is aware of the existence, side by side, of the old prefixal and the newer phrasal pattern in many, though not all cases (cf. gather together), as well as the semantic differentiation between them. 23 In contrast to other grammarians of the period, who also quote items like income, uprising etc., he seems to see a clear connection of these synthetic forms to the phrasal pattern. Before leaving Maittaire, there is a last interesting point to be mentioned. On p. 131 he sets phrasal items and (Romance) simplexes side by side, e.g. use vs. make use of, leave out vs. omit, fall vs. fall down, come by vs. get, fall out vs. quarrel, thereby implying a semantic and stylistic statement. Walker offers not a complete grammar, but a treatment of a specific set of phenomena or problem areas in his Treatise of English Particles (7th ed., 1679). As usual for this period his definition of particle is very wide, comprising many very different items (e.g. a/an, all, become, hence, it, next, own etc.) apart from those of interest here, preposi tions and adverbs. Walker’s main intention is to facilitate the correct rendering of peculiar English phrases into Latin. Although he must have come across many multiword verb structures in collecting the material for his treatise, he shows no overall awareness of the systematic nature of the phrasal tendency in English. What one finds throughout the book are references like the following (p.12), almost repeated verbatim or only slightly altered each time: ABOUT) is sometimes part of the signification of the foregoing Verb, and then is included in the Latine of the Verb; as, To go about a thing. | Conari, moliri, &c. Cic. To bring a thing about. | Efficerem, effectum dare, reddere, Ter. There is never a cross-reference to any of the other places (e.g. after, at, away, by, down, for, in, into, of 24, on/upon, over, up25), which would have revealed a more general phenomenon. Sometimes, the phrasal explanation is
22
Compare this to Greenwood’s simple statement "OUT, signifies Excess, Excellency or Superiority in any Thing, as, to out-do, to out-run, to out-go, etc." (196), where no alternative at all is mentioned. 23 Hiltunen (1983c:380) quotes Dilworth (1751) and Coar (1796) as examples for similar statements. 24 Of is also treated as a case marker after verbs. 25 For up he gives more examples than usual for him, probably due to the perceived prominence of this particle in phrasal verbal constructions.
Attitudes and Alternatives
207
also missing as in the case of along.26 The only case in which he is somewhat more explicit is when he describes out as "being a part of its English composition" (296), seemingly indicating a word-formation process; his examples are find/speak/fall/stand/seek out . Throughout the book, his examples in the relevant sections are phrasal or prepositional verbs; none of the other types occur explicitly, though verbo-nominal combinations in particular figure in miscellaneous instances illustrating other phenomena. 27 Looking beyond the time of this investigation, i.e. beyond 1740, it becomes obvious that a later publication date does not necessarily also mean advanced grammatical views (cf. also Hiltunen 1983c:379). Both Martin (1748) and Dilworth (1751) make no mention at all of multi-word verb structures, only referring to the well-known, but in contrast of course much less important, prefix verbs (prepositions compounding verbs). Other gram marians, however, go along the path set by Maittaire. Lowth (1762, p. 128f), probably the most famous of 18th-century grammar writers, after mentioning prefix verbs, has the following to say on the topic of phrasal and prepositional verbs: But in English the Preposition is more frequently placed after the Verb, and separate from it, like an Adverb; in which situation it is no less apt to affect the sense of it, and to give it a new meaning; and may still be considered as belonging to the Verb, and a part of it. As, to cast is to throw; but to cast up, or to compute, an account, is quite a different thing: thus, to fall on, to bear out, to give over ; &c. The instances he gives are all very idiomatic ones, which are of course easy to notice. The same fact seems to have set off Buch anan (1767, p. 97): The separable prepositions are generally set after the verb, and affect its sense, so that the Phrase is clear or obscure, according to the proper or improper use of the Preposition; as to fall is to drop from a higher Place, but to fall off is to apostatize; to fall on, to
26
He has the sentence I will go along with you home, and only takes note of the connection between along and with, not the possibilities that go along may sometimes be a phrasal verb, and go along with even a phrasal-prepositionalverb. 27 A century later, Willymott’s English Particles Exemplified in Sentences Designed for Latin Exercises (8th edition, 1771) with a similar purpose even falls behind the information offered by Walker. Multi-word verb structures are hardly ever used in the illustrations of particle use, although they occur in other parts of the example sentences, where they receive no explanation (i.e. translation). There are fewer than ten examples of the kind "... clandestine Hostility cover’d over with the Name of Peace (inductus.)" (210) to be found in the whole book.
208
Attitudes and Alternatives make an Assualt: to fall out, to happen, also to quarrel; to fall under, to be subject to; as it fell under their cognizance, &c., &c. 28
Just before the passage quoted above, Lowth also deals with the subject of preposition stranding, and he does so in an unexpectedly benevolent way, contrary to the perception one tends to have of 18th -century prescriptivists. While he says that pied-piping is more suitable in an elegant style, he admits that stranding "is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing" (127f, my italics, CC). Further, when, on the same page (fn. 1), he proceeds to correct John Locke’s sentence "We are stil l much at a loss, who civil power belongs to" the only thing he changes is who to whom. A discussion of 18th-century views on any linguistic matter would not be complete without mentioning Samuel Johnson. And indeed he has something to offer on the subject in the preface to his Dictionary of the English Language.29 With regard to phrasal and prepositional verbs, he gives the best statement found since Maittaire: There is another kind of composition more frequent in our language than perhaps in any other, from which arises to foreigners the greatest difficulty. We modify the signification of many verbs by a par ticle subjoined; as to come off, to escape by a fetch; to fall on, to attack; to fall off, to apostatize; to break off, to stop abruptly; to bear out, to justify; to fall in, to comply; to give over, to cease; to set off, to embellish; to set in, to begin a continual tenour; to set out, to begin a course or journey; to take off, to copy; with innumerable expressions of the same kind, of which some appear wildly irregular, being so far distant from the sense of the simple words, that no sagacity will be able to trace the steps by which they arrived at the present use. These I have noted with great care; ... (no page number) Just like other writers, Johnson also seems to have been made aware of the phenomenon through the very idiomatic items. He clearly regards the combinations as a lexical problem, not as a syntactic one; thus, he treats them in the entries of the dictionary, but not in the "Grammar of the English Tongue" following the preface. I suspect that the per ception of these structures might generally and first have been from a lexical angle then 30; if so this might ex28
Quoted from Hiltunen (1983c:381). Cf. also Osselton (1995) on Johnson and phrasal verbs. 30 Cf. also Leonard (1929:9), who says that linguistic criticism before the 18th century was apparently mostly concerned with matters of vocabulary. Similarly Cohen (1977:4f) and Bex (1996:39). According to Rusch (1972) the character of the lexicon was a most important reason for the positive evaluation of the English language, cf. his 29
Attitudes and Alternatives
209
plain the mostly inadequate treatment in grammars. On the other hand, the orthographic separation into several words probably prevented their interpre tation as words as such. This does not leave much room or possibilities to deal with them. Johnson, at least, sees multi -word verbs as a kind of lexical items and lists them as sub-entries under the main entry of, usually, the verb found in them. I will use his entries of put (v.a., senses 22-66, & v.n., 4-14) as an illustration, listing the sub-entries with their definitions 31: put by put down put forth put in put in for put in practice put off
put on/upon put on put over put out put to put to it put to death put to sea put together put up
put up with
1. to turn off, to divert. 2. to thrust aside. 1. to baffle; to repress; to crush. 2. to degrade. 3. to bring into disuse. 4. to confute. (v.a.:) 1. to propose. 2. to extend. 3. to emit, as a sprouting plant. 4. to exert. (v.n.:) 1. to leave a port. 2. to germinate; to bud; to shoot out. (v.a.:) to interpose. (v.n.:) 1. to enter a haven. 2. to offer a claim. (v.n.:) to claim; to stand candidate for. to use; to exercise. (v.a.: ) 1. to divest; to lay aside. 2. to defeat or delay with some artifice or excuse. 3. to delay; to defer; to procrasti nate. 4. to pass fallaciously. 5. to discard. 6. to recommend; to vend or obtrude. (v.n.:) to leave land. 1. to impute; to charge. 2. to invest with, as cloaths or covering. 3. to impose; to inflict. 1. to forward; to promote; to incite. 2. to assume; to take. (v.a.:) to refer. (v.n.:) to sail cross. 1. to place at usury. 2. to extinguish. 3. to emit, as a plant. 4. to extend; to protrude. 5. to expel; to drive from. 6. to make publick. 7. to disconcert. 1. to kill by; to punish by. 2. to assist with. to distress; to perplex; to press hard. to kill. (v.n.:) to set sail; to begin the course. to accumulate into one sum or mass. (v.a.:) 1. to pass unrevenged. 2. to emit; to cause to germinate, as plants. 3. to expose publickly: as, these goods are put up to sale. 4. to start. 5. to hoard. 6. to hide. (v.n.:) 1. to offer one’s self a candidate. 2. to advance to; to bring one’s self forward. (v.n.:) to suffer without resentment.
chart on p. 212. All this goes together well with the fact quite a number of 17thcentury grammars did not contain anything on syntax (Michael 1987:324). 31 If nothing is specified the entry/definition is from the v.a. entry of put.
210
Attitudes and Alternatives
put upon put upon trial
1. to incite; to instigate. 2. to impose; to lay upon. to expose or summon to a solemn and judicial examination.32
The material contained in these entries consists of phrasal, prepositional, phrasal-prepositional verbs and verbo-nominal combinations (Group III). Verb-adjective combinations, missing here, can be found in other entries, e.g. lay open "to shew; to expose", make free with "to treat without ceremony". 33 There is a mix of idiomatic and literal combinations, and Johnson takes account of the polysemy so often found in this area. Without explicitly saying so, Johnson also comes very close to a basic fact underlying the concept of multi-word verbs, namely the semantic depletion of many common English verbs, cf. the following statement taken from the preface: My labour has likewise been much increased by a class of verbs too frequent in the English language, of which the signification is so loose and general, the use so vague and indeterminate, and the senses detorted so widely from the first idea, that it is hard to trace them through the maze of variation, (...) such are, bear, break, come, cast, full, get, give, do, put, set, go, run, make, take, turn, throw. (no page number) Practically all the verbs he lists (except full?) enter into combinations, in which their content becomes, if not completely empty, at least general and vague, just as he says. Undoubtedly, he must have come across many multiword uses of these verbs in the process of his data collection, and this will have had some influence on arriving at the above statement. In contrast to the works mentioned so far, the treatises I want to conclude the discussion of awareness with, Priestley (1762) and Campbell (1776), are more theoretical pieces. Some passages in Priestley’s section "Of Idioms of speech" in Lecture XV (p. 230-232) are well worth quoting in the present context:
32
A comparison with the Lampeter Corpus data might be of interest here. First, here are those items in Johnson which are not found in the corpus: put to / to it / upon / up with / in for / to sea / upon trial / in practice. On the other hand, there are quite a number of put-combinations in the corpus which Johnson does not list, most of them being verbo-nominal combinations: put ashore / aside / asunder / away / a period to / blame on / a restraint on / a stop to / an end to / to an amazement / to confusion / into consternation / to sale / in mind (of) / into motion / in execution / into surprise / in use / in hazard / into a fright. 33 Johnson also lists combinations that do not fall under the multi-word verb definition used here, e.g. lay before, come again.
Attitudes and Alternatives
211
In all languages, likewise, such senses are affixed to combinations of words as could not be gathered from the component parts of them; (...) In this case, intire words resemble single letters in other words: that is, they have no meaning in themselves, but the phrase composed of them is the least significant part into which the sentence it helps to form can be divided; (...) These complex kind of idioms are little attended to by those who speak a language; because, from their infancy, they learn to affix single ideas to those whole sentences, in the same manner as they usually do to single words: for instance how few English people are aware that to give over a thing is an idiom of this kind, or a phrase, of which the ideas of the parts do not compose the idea of the whole; (...) Priestley is here elaborating on the semantic non-compositionality of idioms, which also figures in a number of modern linguistic idiom definitions. What makes his treatment the more interesting is that he chooses a phrasal verb to illustrate his point. But his explanation is equally valid for other multi-word verb forms, i.e. all those where at least some semantic transfer takes place or those where at least one element changes or loses its meaning. Greenwood (1711:26), already mentioned above, in a way combined the last two quotes into one: ... peculiar Phrases ..., which if they were to be translated verbatim, ... into another Tongue would seem wild and insignificant; with which our English Tongue doth too much abound; witness those Words of Break, Bring, Cast, Clear, Come, Cut, Draw, Fall, Hand, Keep, Lay, Make, Pass, Put, Run, Set, Stand, Take, none of which have less than thirty or forty, and some of them about a hun dred several Senses, according to their Use in Phrases, ... In dealing with the distinction of verbs active and neuter as treated by Lowth, Campbell (1776:205-207) mentions quite a few prepositional and phrasal items. The clearest statement on prepositional verbs as lexical units is found in his discussion of laugh at: It were an abuse of words to call this a neuter, being as truly a compound active verb in English, as deridere is in Latin, to which it exactly corresponds in meaning. Nor doth it make any odds that the preposition in the one language precedes the verb, and is conjoined with it, and in the other follows it, and detached from it. The real union is the same in both. (205, my italics, CC) It only follows logically from this that Campbell’s view of preposition strand ing is also very lenient (p.395f).
212
Attitudes and Alternatives
To summarize the above findings on the question of how aware ‘people’ were of the existence of multi-word verbs in the 17th and 18th centuries, I need to agree with Hiltunen’s view that there was a progress from latent in the former to more definite awareness (e.g. of their unitary nature, their idiomaticity, their grammatical behaviour) in the latter century. This is certainly true of phrasal and prepositional verbs, by extension also of phrasal-prepositional items. With respect to verb-adjective and verbonominal combinations, however, awareness was less than latent, rather it seems to have been non-existent in the 17th century. Furthermore, that particular situation did not improve in the 18th century; apart from entries of these forms in dictionaries like Johnson’s, where there is of course no room for systematic discussion, they are not explicitly explained in any of the works examined. I would now like to turn my attention to existing attitudes on these structures. Supposedly, the more conscious one is of something, the more readily does one develop an opinion of some sorts about it. Thus, I expect to find pre- and proscriptive statements on the phrasal and prepositional para digms rather than on the combinations with nouns and adjectives. Besides ‘direct’ statements on the items in question, there are also other points that are of potential interest, e.g. statements on the lexicon as such, or general stylistic considerations. To start with, there are no direct statements of the general kind, for instance ‘verbs in composition with a following preposition are bad’, or something the like. What one can find are remarks on individual items; this, however, will not necessarily be revealing about the attitude towards the whole group of, say, phrasal verbs. Only if many items of one category received similar assessments by numerous different people would it be pos sible to infer a more general feeling from this. This was not the case, though. The following examples for individual condemnations were found mostly in the Dictionary of English Normative Grammar (DENG, ed. Sundby et al. 1991)34 and some other places. "Drink it out!", "To set out on a journey", "To cast out with a person", "To take on for a soldier" and "Say away" were all regarded as "improper" and as "Scotticisms" (Sc93:28 / 94;323;340;342). "He opened up the cause with an elegant speech" is also regarded as "improper" by a different grammar ian and corrected to "opened the cause by" (Bu86:222 / 98). The above examples are relatively clearly directed against phrasal verb forms, but the target of the criticism is not al ways that 34
I quote the original source in DENG’s notation (e.g. Sc93, cf. p. 439-453), followed by the page number of DENG.
Attitudes and Alternatives
213
clear, especially when there is no ‘corrected’ version, as in the next instance. In "Having been informed that some smugglers were to pass that way we kept a look out after them" (Wo77:108 / 101), which is considered "improper", the target could be the phrasal noun as such, the fact that it enters into a verbal phrase, the verbo-nominal combination as such, the preposition after, or all of these features together. Further, clear phrasal verb instances are: - "He followed out his plan": improper, corrected to "prosecuted" (An800:xxxv/slv / 327) - "Distress of mind is held out by physicians as the cause of his bad health": improper, corrected to "said ... to be the cause" (An800:xxxv/xlv / 331) - "We hear it is in contemplation to run up a novel and superb pavilion at Newmarket for pugilistical exhibitions.": improper, corrected to "erect" (An800:xxxvi/xlvi / 339) - "When I got up in the Morning, I got my Breakfast, and then got myself drest.": vulgar, corrected to "I rose early" (Ki98:88 / 328f) - "knock under": vulgar (Be88:334 / 333) - "worked out by dint of thinking": colloquial, vulgar (Bl 83:426 / 345) - To take in. To cheat; to gull: as, the cunning ones were taken in. A low vulgar phrase. (Samuel Johnson, 1755, s.v. take v.n.) Thus, we have the — negative — word of merely eight different grammarians and, which is important, all of them, except Johnson, date from only the end of the 18th century. Their most common statement "improper" is unfortunately too broad to locate the precise reason for their dislike. "Vulgar" occurring four times can be both a social and a stylistic state ment, in conjunction with "low" probably the former. The negative terms used then are in general not very helpful; the same goes for their positive counterparts, cf. Ingham’s (1968) observations on the term "elegant" by Johnson and others. The other categories of multi-word verbs, which are not as prominent in use as phrasal verbs, receive still less attention and criticism from the grammarians. In the case of verb-adjective and verbo-nominal combinations, this was also to be expected from the awareness situation. The few examples where the phrase as a whole is the target are the following: - To make away with. To destroy; to kill; to make away. This phrase is improper. (Samuel Johnson, 1755, s.v. make v.n.)35 35
I checked Johnson’s whole entries for the verbs come, give, lay, make, put, set, take (i.e. those where numerous multi-word verb forms can be expected) and found only two negative comments, this one and take in above. Johnson thus seems to have a neutral or even benevolent attitude towards these verbal categories.
214
Attitudes and Alternatives
- "to put in practice": improper (Ro97:105 / 98) - "I am of opinion": vulgar, corrected to "I think, I deem, I judge, it is my opinion" (Hu91:159 / 322) - "if the walks were a little taken care of that lie between them": colloquial, vulgar, corrected to "if a little care were bestowed on the walks" (Bl83:472 / 342)36 - Notice should not be used as a verb; the proper expression is take notice. (J. Johnson, Royal and Universal Dictionary, 1762: 19f)37 The last instance is different from the rest insofar as the multi -word form there is defended against the simplex. From these few examples, it is impossible to draw any inferences about the general attitude towards, e.g., verbo-nominal combinations. Something that is not uncommonly found is internal correction, i.e. one part of the multi-word combination is corrected and substituted by a dif ferent element, which of course is not a criticism of the whole item, but more of an implicit acceptance, as it would not be worth correcting that way other wise. This procedure is found rather often with the prepositional part of the verbs, e.g. depend of changed to depend upon (Tr81:80, "unidiomatic" / 96), insist for > insist upon (Pr68:164, "improper" / 98), make much on > make much of (Br88:74, "improper" / 101), take revenge of > take revenge on (Kn96:74, "improper" / 101) etc. While "improper" as a term is again not very helpful, "unidiomatic" is more interesting, because it implies a tacit assent to the idiomaticity of depend on, and in extension, other prepositional structures. If a multi-word verb is accepted as it is, the question of its exact value next to the simplex can arise. John Trusler (Distinction between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language, 1783:288), for instance, tried to work out the difference between the pair choose/make a choice, deciding that the latter applied only to persons, a view with which Samuel Johnson disagreed. 38 To move away from direct statements, remarks abou t the lexicon as a whole can also make some inferences possible. Take the following two passages, for instance.
36
To set these judgments in the perspective of (earlier) use of the condemned forms, I will quote the instances found in the corpus: put in practice - 8, be of opinion - 31, take care of - 63 (Group II; Group I: a further 73, some of which also occur with the preposition). 37 Quoted in Leonard 1929:67. This is actually more an example of fending off language change, as notice was the newer form, cf. the OED’s (s.v. notice v.) remark about it: "not much used before the middle of the 18th cent., after which it became common in American use, and was also mentioned as a Scotticism". 38 Quoted in Leonard (1929:108).
Attitudes and Alternatives
215
There is no language can deliver a matter with more variety then ours, plainely by Synonyma’s, or by circumlocution with Mataphors: (...) We (...) exceed the Latines in a peculiar grace of compounding many words together, which is one of the greatest beauties can be in a Language. Our significancy and abilities in expression, in the severall parts both letters, words, and phrases, is very eminent , (...) (Vindex Anglicus. 1644.) In short, no Vulgar Language can deliver a Matter with more Variety, either plainly by Synonima’s, or by Circumlocution with Metaphors. (Miège 1688) Both the anonymous author of the Vindex Anglicus and Miège (who seems to have copied from the former) praise the great expressiveness of the English lexicon. The plus points mentioned are synonyms (whose existence is due to having either native vs. Romance, but also simplex vs. multi-word alternatives), the possibilities of word-formation (of which the analytic forms can be regarded a special case), metaphorical circumlocutions (of which phrasal verbs are certainly good examples), and, explicitly, the use of phrases. Although multi-word verbs are not mentioned as such (and could not have been, as there was hardly awareness of and no name for them), everything referred to speaks in their favour. As etymological origin and syllabic structure play a role in multi word verbs (cf. chap.6), it is also worthwhile looking at statement s about these points. A majority of multi-word structures contain elements that are of native origin and/or monosyllabic. The contrast to this is formed by Romance and polysyllabic lexical items. According to Bailey (1992:57), "[t]he consensus that emerged in the 17th century was to select a linguistic middle way between the perils of polysyllabic eloquence and the bluntness of very short words", adding however that "the most desirable mixture of the two remained a subject of debate thereafter" (ibid. 190 ). This leaves the way open for very individual stylistic prefer ences and decisions. Some people revealed a professed liking for polysyllabic loan words, for example the grammar writer Hewes already mentioned above, who gives as his reason that these words "serue more to beautifie your stile in either Tongue, then what are simple or prime wordes, or at least they shall much better your English tongue" (S2). One of the authors in the Lampeter Corpus, Walter Charleton (cf. text SciA1683), who obviously liked bringing in new loans, defended himself against criticism on this account by saying that he was proud to follow those Worthies, who have infinitely both enriched and and ennobled our Language, by admitting and naturalizing thousands of forraigne
216
Attitudes and Alternatives Words, providently brought home from the Greek, Roman, Italian, and French Oratories". 39
Authors with preferences like these could still be happy with many of the prepositional verbs and verbo-nominal combinations, of course, although they might not quite like the other multi-word verbs so much. Other people are less particular, Oliver Goldsmith in the 18th century, for example: For my own part, I never go out of the common way of expression, merely for the purpose of introducing a more sounding word with a Latin termination; the English language is sufficiently copious, with out the addition of new terms; and the native words seem to me to have far more force than any foreign auxiliaries, however purposely ushered in.40 He makes the important point that native words can be more expressive 41, one reason being perhaps because their connotative content is of a different, more emotive, kind from that of loan words. In fact, the Anglo -Saxon revival in the first half of the 17th century led to the development of a ce rtain pride in the Germanic element of English and brought about a more positive attitude towards the native monosyllables than there had been be fore (cf. Jones 1953:233-39). However, with the Restoration the linguistic fashion changed again to a preference of Romance words, and a perception of Germanic words as rather harsh (ibid. 248; 256). Nevertheless, the swing was not quite complete. The advantage Greenwood (1711:25) sees in the native, mostly monosyllabic, component of the language is brevity, namely "that we can express more Matter in fewer Words than any other Language whatever". Addison (Spectator 135; 1711) is somewhat ambivalent about the same topic: As first of all by its abounding in Monosyllables, which gives us an Opportunity of delivering our Thoughts in few Sounds. This indeed takes off from the Elegance of our Tongue, but at the same time ex presses our Ideas in the readiest manner, and consequently answers the first Design of Speech better than the multitude of Syllables,
39
From the preface to his translation of Paracelsus’ Deliramenta Catarrhi (1650), quoted in Jones (1953:260). 40 Quoted in Kirchner (1952:xii) without the original source given. 41 Leonard (1929:75f) notes that of the two methods to assess usage employed in the 18th century, (i) analogy with some other phenomenon, and (ii) favouring something because it was a more exact expression, the second is the more common reason given. The notion of exactness would probably rather favour the Latinate vocabulary, whereas expressive elements tend not to be very precise.
Attitudes and Alternatives
217
which makes the Words of other Languages more Tunable and Sonourous. On the one hand, he takes positive account of the suitable and short way of expression monosyllables offer, but on the other hand he deplores their inele gant appearance and sound. Campbell (1776:342) corrects him and others on that "opinion, which I shall afterwards evince to be erroneous, that a frequent recurrence of monosyllables is inconsistent with harmony". Not everybody was convinced by him, such as, for instance, the author of the Philological Inquiries in Three Parts (1781), who finishes his condemnation of monosyllables with the statement: Above all, care should be had, that a Sentence end not with a crowd of them, those especially of the vulgar, untenable sort, such as, to set it up, to get by and by at it, etc. for these disgrace a Sentence that may be otherwise laudable, and are like the Rabble at the close of some pompous Cavalcade. (105f)42 The author is rather clear and outspoken in his dislike, which is the more in teresting in this context as he uses phrasal 43 and prepositional material for an illustration of the worst scenario he can think of. On the whole, the attitude towards monosyllables seems to have been ambivalent throughout the two centuries concerned, with some points perceived speaking in their favour and other points producing a more negative impression. The latter are invariably to do with style, as is also clearly visible in the last quotation above. While style certainly has a lot to do with individual stylistic prefe rences, a few more general observations are in order here. Swift’s statement "[p]roper Words in proper Places, makes the true Definition of a Stile" (Letter to a Young Clergyman, p.65) contains the following implications: (i) there is choice between words (with roughly the same meaning), (ii) words are not all equally adequate for various kinds of uses, but need to be "proper" for the use intended, (iii) the placing and arrangement of the chosen words within the sentence makes a difference (one understandi ng of "places"), and (iv) the extralinguistic, social situation has an influence on which words are considered proper (the other interpretation of "places"). Further, as an extension of the last point, social rank as such plays a role, something which was also visible in some of the terms of judgment used above, e.g. "low", "vulgar". The following passage from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (III.ii. 162-165) is interesting in this context:
42 43
Quoted from Tucker (1961:83). Set up is not an uncommon item, occurring 92 times in the Lampeter Corpus.
218
Attitudes and Alternatives Ant. Shall I descend? and will you give me leave? All. Come down. 2. Pleb. Descend. 3. Pleb. You shall have leave. 44
The passage contains the Romance verb descend, which is used by Marcus Antonius, who belongs to the ruling elite of society, and by an individual plebeian obviously echoing the former in his response. The mass of the plebeians, however, in their spontaneous answer use the native phrasal synonym come down; it is their first and more natural choice. Also, Antonius uses the rather formal, polite verbo-nominal combination give leave, which again is repeated (with a variation) by a single plebeian. Antonius uses words that set him apart socially and keep a polite distance to the masses, a distance which plebeians individually do not break through. Of course, Shakespeare is not alone in playing with language use to characterize his dramatic persons. McIntosh (1994:71-72) found a "‘Truly Polite’ language that identifies very refined characters in late eighteenth -century drama", one characteristic of which is a nominalized syntax marked by, among others, "ample use of the verbs to be and to have" (often used in verbo-nominal combinations), and "‘light’ verbs plus deverbal nouns rather than finite verbs (‘make an attempt’ rather than ‘try’)". Elsewhere, McIntosh (1986:105 -106) quotes two versions of a passage from James Cook’s journal of the voyage of the Endeavour, the one being Cook’s own original (1770), and the other the rewriting for the purpose of publication by John Hawkesworth (1773). Cook: one need hardly wish for a better was the Access to it from the Eastward less dangerous, but this difficulty will remain untill some better way is found out than the one we came, which no doubt may be done was it ever to become an object to be look’d for. (391)
Hawkesworth: better would not need to be desired, if the access to it, from the eastward, were less dangerous: that a less dangerous access may be discovered, I think there is little reason to doubt, and to find it little more seems to be necessary, than to determine ... (3:619)
Obviously the style of Cook, who was a day labourer’s son with little education, was not considered adequate for a published work. The well-educated and obviously style-conscious Hawkesworth, besides producing a more explicit syntax, also substitutes words and phrases. The substitution s run along a native/Romance axis, cf. way/access, wish/desire, find out/discover, 44
I was made aware of this passage by Schäfer (1973).
Attitudes and Alternatives
219
and in doing so delete the native phrasal and prepositional forms. From these few examples, it is nevertheless possible to infer that Romance verbs and verbo-nominal combinations (perhaps primarily the type with Romance involvement) belonged to the more formal and more prestigious variants of English, whereas the phrasal and prepositional patterns (especially their idio matic members) tended to be identified rather with more colloquial and less prestigious styles. This was part of the rationale behind some of the investigations in chapter 7. I would like to close this discussion of multi-word verbs and style with a more narrow, i.e. non-social, treatment of the matter, of which Campbell (1776) is to serve as an example. The second chapter of Book III deals with the problem of style depending on the number of words used. What I found most striking here is that he does not mention verbo -nominal combinations at all, neither in a positive nor in a negative way. They are invariably longer and more complicated than their simplex counterparts, and their ‘ver bosity’ and ‘pompousness’ are among the major points of criticism levelled at them nowadays (cf. above). In the section on pleonasm, Campbell does however use as his very first example a sentence involving phrasal verbs. "They returned back again to the same city from whence they came forth" (Campbell’s italics) is corrected by him to "They returned to the city whence they came" (1776:341). In his view the italicized words are "mere expletives", which "serve neither for ornament nor for use, and are therefore regarded as encumbrances" (ibid.). He seems not to be inclined to recognize some pleonasms as a valid means of emphasis and intensification. The charge of pleonasm could of course be directed against many individual instances of multi-word verbs, especially from among the phrasal verbs and also some native prepositional verbs. From the above discussion it should have evolved that EModE attitudes on multi-word verbs are not expressed in a clear -cut, generalisable way, and thus remain to a large extent hazy. Furthermore, what statements there are must be taken to refer to written language (cf. for instance Strang 1962:1949f [on Swift]), i.e. they do not necessarily say anything about the situation in spoken and less formal/formalized linguistic contexts. They cer tainly do not if Adamson (1989:207;210) is right in her assumption that from the 17th century onwards the literary (written) and colloquial norms separated, producing an H and an L variety of English which were differentiated especially with regard to the lexicon. 45 Then, there is the question of which 45
There certainly is a difference, even if H and L should perhaps be reserved for more clearly defined situations. Bex (1996:38), who accepts Adamson’s model, adds that H
220
Attitudes and Alternatives
usage it was that the 18th century was prepared to accept as the basis of acceptability, at least theoretically. The repeated references to the usage of the ‘best authors’ indicates that at most it was a carefully selected part of the written language 46, not even all of it — this is the ‘variety’ the quoted attitudes are about. For most of the language, they do not apply at all or to a much reduced extent. Moreover, as both awareness and attitudes have been found to be severely under-developed, the majority of choices taken with regard to multi-word verb usage will have to be regarded as not very conscious or elaborate decisions on the basis of the individual instance. 8.2 Alternatives to Multi-word Verbs The stylistically motivated criticisms dealt with imply above all that there is a better choice which authors can opt for. In Campbell’s example, the better choice was the same verb used without the particle as a simplex, while Hawkesworth opted for the more ‘complicated’ substitution by a Romance verb, although the simplex would have done equally well semantically. I will not investigate the simplex option, but have a closer look at the Romance alternative in this section as it seems to be the more salient, and also a pre ferred, choice of the time. Furthermore, I will pay some attention to the oc currence of prefix verbs in the Lampeter Corpus. While calling them a real alternative at this stage in the history of the language would be misleading, they are interesting, because (i) they obviously played such an important part in the genesis of multi-word verbs (cf. chap.5), but were never treated again in this context after the ME period, and (ii) they are often promi nently mentioned as compounding patterns in linguistic works of the EModE era, indicating that people were much more consciously aware of their existence than of the analytic constructions. As to verbs of Romance origin, the question is if, and what kind of, an effect there is on their part on the occurrence of multi -word verbs. Romance verbs are in a way connected to the influence of Latin as such. With regard to, especially, phrasal verbs, this has re ceived different assessments. In Kennedy’s (1920:13) opinion the influence was of a negative, inhibitive kind, producing a decline in the use of phrasal verbs. Vice versa, he sees an increased use of phrasal verbs as a threat to the more specialized Romance vocabulary, so that the negative influence potentially works both ways. De la Cruz (1972)47, on the other hand, assumes that exposure to Latin actually can be associated with conservative tendencies, whereas L is rather found with Puritans and revolutionaries. 46 Pamphlets and tracts certainly did not belong to this privileged variety. 47 Quoted from Diensberg (1983:255).
Attitudes and Alternatives
221
helped to foster phrasal verbs, because in translation from Latin into English the Latin prefixes would often be rendered by a particle following the verb. Although this is one possible translation strategy, I think that the temptation to take over the Latin verb as a loan word is at least equal ly strong, at times probably even stronger than choosing the particle option. During the 16th and early part of the 17th centuries, especially, English had absorbed a multitude of foreign, particularly Latin, loan words. Many of them were ‘book words’, i.e. part of the written, formal language with a learned aura about them — in short, those which became known as ‘hard words’. As such, they formed an automatic contrast to those multi word verbs made up of native elements. Not only would these two classes be mostly on different stylistic levels, but one of them would also in general be easier to understand than the other. Of course, loan words in the course of time became integrated into the English language. However, this process could take rather long (e.g. Schäfer 1973), be of highly differing speed for different words, and also be never quite completed for all levels and all speakers of the language. People having problems with quite a large segment of the Latinate loan vocabulary certainly existed during the time span under consideration here; after all, when Sheridan presented Mrs. Malaprop in 1775, her predicament must have been credible enough to make her a workable character. Smollet in Humphrey Clinker (1771) made his character Win Jenkins have problems with separate and account, among others (cf. McIntosh 1986:34) — those words had been part of the language since the 16th (or even 15th?) and 14th century respectively. In order to assess the situation in the Lampeter Corpus with regard to multi-word verbs vs. Romance verbs, I chose a spot check approach. As the corpus is not grammatically tagged, it is not possible to filter out all the verbs and then proceed from there; using the whole corpus was therefore considered impracticable. I selected the decades 1650 and 1730 for this check because they represent respective peaks (1650s) and lows (1730s) in the occurrence of multi-word verbs, and because they are sufficiently far apart in time. Before presenting the table with the frequencies of multi -word and Romance verbs, it is necessary to explain how I arrived at these figures. The figure for multi-word verbs is composed of all phrasal verbs, all phrasalprepositional verbs, all verb-adjective combinations, the ‘native’ element in prepositional verbs48, and ‘native’ verbo-nominal combinations, i.e. those
48
Cf. Table 7.5 in chap.7, and the explanation given there. This approach has the consequence that Romance prepositional verbs will be found among the Romance list, e.g. abstain, consist.
222
Attitudes and Alternatives
where the nominal part is native or highly integrated. 49 The Romance verbs were extracted from the complete word lists of the decades, with very inte grated loan words sorted out again, especially if they were also monosyllabic, e.g. arm, crown. In the case of the existence of an obvious, ‘easier’ native synonym, e.g. aid vs. help, the Romance word would definitely stay within the list, however, even if well integrated. It is evident that the prod uction of such a list is subjective to a certain degree; also, one cannot be sure that native speakers of EModE would have accepted the list as what it is intended to be, an antithesis to native multi-word verbs. One further problem connected with the Romance list has to be mentioned: there are cases where verb and noun, or verb and adjective have identical forms, e.g. endeavour, perfect. In order to find out the potential error rate from this source, I checked through two 500-word samples from each decade, and then reduced the final figures for the Romance words by the percentage of error established with the help of these samples. By all those procedures just described I arrived at the following table: Table 8.1: The use of multi-word verbs and Romance verbs
Multi-word verbs Romance verbs Total of words
1650s total per 1,000 words 832 8.6 4,054 42.0 96,456
1730s total per 1,000 words 636 5.9 5,378 49.6 108,454
According to the frequencies shown by the table there is some cor relation between a more frequent use of multi -word verbs and a reduced occurrence of Romance verbs, and vice versa. 50 In the 1650s, the native variants were preferred and the Romance element somewhat disfavoured, or at any rate used less than could have been expected. Historically, this decade was the big time for the Puritans and some other people with a revolutionary bend of mind, in general a brand of people averse to any kind of pomp and ostentation. These are the kind of people that have repeatedly been associated with the so-called ‘plain style’ (e.g. Adolph 1968) or the L-variety of the language (cf. fn.45 above). Also, the 1650s just about still belong to that period in which the Germanic element of the language was in vogue (cf. above), although the same decade also saw many Latin borrowings (Barber 49
The same criteria apply as for the sorting out of native prepositional verbs. This procedure reduced the verbo-nominal combinations in the 1650s from 247 to 126, and in the 1730s from 148 to 87. 50 The figures are statistically highly significant: x2 = 119.3, 2 dF, p £ 0,001.
Attitudes and Alternatives
223
1997:232). And the (early) 17th century was slightly more concerned about the language being copious and expressive enough than about decorum and stylistic fine points. The 18th century, in contrast, attached great importance to the ‘proper’ way of expressing something, on social grounds as well. 51 Furthermore, after the Restoration, foreign influences had once again become fashionable (cf. above), with Swift actually complaining about the wave of French words and phrases entering the language (although he seems to exaggerate the extent [cf. Baugh/Cable 1978]). The fact that there is a proportionally greater number of Romance verbs in the 1730s makes some sense therefore. Looking at the two lists of Romance verbs, there is no obvious qualitative difference, i.e. more or less the same kind of words are found in both of them. The 1730s list contains more items 52, of course, 1,969 compared to 1,632 for the 1650s. From the PDE perspective, most of those Romance items make a normal, not too complicated impression; there are no hard-word ‘monsters’ of the kind found in dictionaries or critical sources of the time. A selection of the somewhat more exotic words are anathematize, calumniate, controvert, depopulate, embrionate, excarnate, immanitate , and putrefy. It is hard to say what effect these would have had on an EModE speaker. The same goes for verbs which seem absolutely normal to us, such as violate, subscribe, reiterate, propagate, necessitate etc., but these may still have seemed very ‘foreign’ to speakers then. Act, cause, deny, issue and similar ones are at the even more everyday end of the spectrum, today that is; act for instance only dates its existence in English from the end of the 16th century and was thus rather recent in the Lampeter period. For a number of words on the Romance lists, multi-word verb synonyms are possible, but their acceptability would of course greatly depend on the context these words were used in. Examples of such contextual choice will be dealt with in chapter 10; here it is rather the frequencies and general possibilities that are of interest. A few examples of such probable synonymous relationships: accelerate - speed up, advance - come/go forth, compile - heap up, compose - draw up, conceal - hide away, conjoin - join together, continue - go on, delay - put off, depart - go away, desist - leave off, distribute - give out, cause/effect - bring about, discover - find out, erect/establish - set up, extinguish - put out, import - bring in, maintain - keep up, omit - leave out, re-
51
Society was becoming more rigid again in the 18th century, with less social movement and more concern about status. 52 Each grammatical form and every spelling variant of a verb constitutes one individual item in this count.
224
Attitudes and Alternatives
move - put/take away, retreat - draw back, return - come back, revoke - take back, separate - set apart consider/regard - look (up)on, demand - call for, desire - wish for, examine look into, imagine - think of, request - ask for assist - go along with, contradict - run counter to, respect - look up to, submit - give in to abolish - get rid of, confirm/ensure/secure - make sure, destroy - lay waste, encourage - make bold, facilitate - make easy, intimate - make known, captivate 53 - take prisoner, command - give (an) order, deliberate - have a thought, execute - put to death, finish - make an end of/put an end to, remember - bring/call to mind, reply - make/give answer, select - make choice of, testify - bear witness While this is only a selection, the number of examples for each category of multi-word verbs is indicative of the productivity and flexibility the respective groups can muster up for the substitution of Romance simplexes. Phrasal verbs represent what is clearly the most versa tile pattern in this respect. Despite their infrequency overall, phrasal-prepositional verbs also prove rather active here. The group of verbo-nominal combinations would of course swell enormously if I had not disregarded types of the kind make an alteration with a typically Romance member. The stylistic shifts produced by the above substitutions take place on different levels; get rid of, for instance, is much further removed stylistically from abolish than lay waste is from destroy, and between consider/regard and look (up)on it is hard to see any stylistic contrast at all. Therefore, it is not possible to generalize an overall, systematic stylistic contrast between Romance verbs and their multi word synonyms. I will now come to the other group mentioned above, that of prefix or compound verbs. This is a much smaller group than the one looked at above, and also smaller than multi-word verbs as a whole. It has been said (e.g. Brinton 1988:187; de la Cruz 1975:66) that by the EModE period verbal prefixes, with the possible exception of be-, were no longer productive (cf. chap.6 for the decline of prefixes). This obviously refers to the remnants of the old inseparable kind of prefix, but even of that kind some are still very active in the 17th century, e.g. mis-, and un- (cf. OED). A few prefixes, whether they be of the old inseparable or of the separable kind, are still in modest use today.
53
Cf. OED s.v. captivate, sense 1a. (obs., arch.).
225
Attitudes and Alternatives
I am only interested in a subsection of all possible prefixes, namely those that are formally identical with adverbial particles and prepositions used in the multi-word verb paradigm, even if they are of different etymological origin. As only the phrasal and prepositional, by extension also phrasal-prepositional verb categories bear a relation to prefix verbs, only those multi-word verbs will be considered here. Taking the particles occurring in these categories as the basis, I looked through the word list of the whole corpus to find prefix formations with the same elements. As expected, there were not that many to be found in the Lampeter Corpus, as the following table shows:
Table 8.2: Prefix verbs and phrasal/prepositional verbs Prefix verbs Phrasal/Prepositional verbs
Tokens 1,453 7,175
Per 1,000 words 1.2 6.1
Types 90 908
A rather high percentage of prefix verbs is made up of one single item, the old, well-established and very common verb understand (454 instances); the only other verb to exceed one hundred occurrences is undertake (130). Prefix verbs were found with the following formatives: counter-, for-, fore-, out-, over-, under-, up- and with-. Fore-, though not a particle found in the analytic constructions, was included here because of its similarity to and possible confusion with for-, cf. for example the occurrence of both forbear and forebear in the corpus. Prefix verbs were found written as one word (e.g. outface), with a hyphen (e.g. out-live), or even as two separate words (e.g. out bid). The latter, though a variant in OE, was unexpected at this late point in time; it was found in fourteen instances with eleven types formed on out- (7), over- (3), and under- (1). In this way, the prefix formations represent a mirror image of phrasal verbs. Regarding productivity in the EModE period, there are quite a number of those prefix verbs found which are dated by the OED to that era (according to the date of the first instance given). Fifteen types (i.e. about 17% of all), producing 64 instances, are first dated in the 17th century; those are counterbalance (1603; 3 instances), counter-work (1602; 2), out balance (1644; 2), outdo/out do (1607; 9), out-number (1670; 1), outslip (1643; 1)54, outstay/out stay (1600; 3), out-trade (1677; 1), out(-)wit (1652; 4), over()balance (1608; 9), over-bid (1616; 1), over-reckon (1615; 1), overstock/over stock (1649; 5), underbuild (1610; 1), and under(-)sell/under 54
The OED only lists instances in the 17th century for this verb.
226
Attitudes and Alternatives
sell (1622; 21). From among those prefixes/particles, out is also among the two most common ones in phrasal verb formation. There are some parallel items as well, i.e. those occurring both as a prefix verb and as an analytic construction in the Lampeter Corpus, thirteen as phrasal verbs and one as a prepositional verb: out-cast/cast out outshoot/shoot out uphold/hold up out-drink/drink out overcome/come over outgo/go out overlook/look over withstand/stand with out-live/live out overpass/pass over out-ride/ride out overthrow/throw over out-run/run out over(-)turn/turn over Of course there is usually a semantic difference between the items from different patterns. An apparent exception to this is constituted by the first pair of items on the list above; out-cast and cast out are both used in the same, almost literal way, and seem to be interchangeable in (1) and (2): (1)
(2)
And secondly, to your land you must have respect too, Land in good tilth, in good heart and sound, in a good season, will out-cast its very marrow, through the Lords blessing expect fruit enough: (EcB1653) ’Tis supposed to be cast out by the Sea; but whether it be so really, or be drawn out of the adjacent Cliffs (...) is to be determined by future Enquirers; (SciB1696)
Overpass in (3) is also used in a more literal way: (3)
... that he would hide them, in particular, under the Hollow of his Hand, until his Indignation is overpast; (RelA1730)
Even if it is not quite parallel to pass over, which had already acquired a more idiomatic use, it is very similar to a phrasal construction such as pass away (in its literal use). At any rate, it does not carry the common prefixal meaning of over-, i.e. "to excess", as is found e.g. in overawe, overcharge. A considerable semantic overlap seems also be present in the case of turn over and overturn. It appears as if the two classes of phrasal verbs and prefix verbs, or at least a subsection of their respective members, could come much closer to each other in EModE than nowadays. Also, there was still greater productiv ity, and seemingly also flexibility, in the realm of pre fixal formations in the 17th century in particular, perhaps somewhat less so in the 18 th century, than there is today. While prefix verbs thus did not represent an option as a whole class as Romance verbs did, they could probably influence choice in individual instances more often than in PDE.
Attitudes and Alternatives
227
To sum up, the verbal options of an EModE author were: (i) a multi word verb, (ii) a Romance simplex, (iii) a native simplex, or — to a much lesser extent — (iv) a native/mixed compound verb. Probably, he 55 would primarily use whatever came first into his mind, i.e. the most common term, whichever category that belonged to. If he went over his work again, trying to polish it up, or if he was very style-conscious to start with, the matter becomes more complex: depending on what time he wrote at (connected with that, what age he was) and which stylistic teachings he had imbibed, he would tend either to the native or to the Romance part of the lexicon. The first alternative may be more likely in the 17th, the second in the 18th century. To complicate things further, however, his intended audience (an information that is hard to get at) can play a role as well in guiding him to more frequent use of this or the other part of the vocabulary (e.g. phrasal verbs in sermons, cf. chap.7). There are certainly many factors influencing lexical choice, and some of them I will now turn to in the following chapter.
55
I use "he", here and in the following chapter, as a convenient shorthand - which is not completely inappropriate as after all the majority of writers then were definitely male.
9. Making a Choice This final chapter will deal with aspects that can influence the decision for or against the use of a multi-word verb. It is not meant as a comprehensive treatment of that complex topic, which I think would not be possible anyway because of the individuality of every single instance. Rather I will concentrate on points previous research has turned up, and on claims made in the extant literature, in order to see whether they are also born out by the present data, as well as on avenues suggested by my own data. Needless to say, many of the following statements are of a more or less speculative nature, i.e. it cannot be determined to what extent the potential reasons influenced actual general usage. 9.1 Semantic Subtleties In Chapter 8, I have pointed out some synonymous relationships between multi-word verbs and Romance verbs, also even some few prefix verbs. Furthermore, there is often the possibility of synonymity of multi -word verb and a simplex which is formally identical to one element of the combination. However, it is a linguistic truism that absolute synonyms hardly ever exist in a language, as this would be uneconomical. Either one member of a synonymous pair falls into disuse, i.e. gets lost from the language, or some (semantic or otherwise) differentiation takes place. Thus, one can usually detect a semantic difference in the case of multi-word verb/simplex pairs, however large or slight it may turn out to be. Apart from synonymous pairs a further aspect will be considered here, namely those instances in which the meaning of the simplex is still clearly present, even though the whole combination may have a slightly or completely different meaning. Before I move on to a discussion of the semantic differences detectable in the data, I think it necessary to also point out the fact that it can be very hard indeed to find a fitting one-word synonym for some multi-word verbs. It is especially examples from the verbo -nominal group that come to mind here, e.g. take heed, give way, take advantage, find fault with, but other categories contain such items as well. Give over/up for, lay about, see to, make bold with, and fall short of, for instance, are difficult to replace by simplexes with the same meanings; phrasal verbs, however, seem t o be more commonly substitutable items. Of course, a paraphrase is always possible, as, e.g., become extinct for die out, but this is a substitution on a different level. The fact that these paraphrases can be rather long and even complicated naturally is something that speaks in itself for the use of the multi -word verb.
Making a Choice
229
The first semantic difference to be mentioned here concerns the se mantic range of an item, or in other words, the specificity versus the generality of its meaning. The entry for the word consider runs as follows in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 1: 1 to think about sb/sth, esp in order to make a decision 2 to think or have the opinion; to regard sb/sth as sth 3 to take sth into account; to make allowances for sth 4 to look carefully at sb/sth The corpus quotations in (1, 2) illustrate the dictionary senses 2 and 3, which, however, can also be expressed differently, namely 2 by the prepositional verb look upon, and 3 by the verbo-nominal combination take into consideration, as in (3, 4) respectively. Take into account, used in the dictionary definition, is a further multi-word option. (1)
(2) (3)
(4)
and if it be considered how the Manufactures of Wooll are increased in Ireland, Holland, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal, (...) no Reason will appear for bringing Home, or incouraging the Expence of these Goods ... (EcA1697) In short, I can afford to allow them all the Vertue and good Principles imaginable, if I may but take leave to consider them (...) as Men liable to Temptations, ... (EcA1705) Taking therefore into consideration the performances of some before me, and the attempts of others, in my time, which were not satisfac tory, (...) I thought it worth my while to employ my leisure hours in some Experiments on the Waters, ... (SciB1676) that so they may look upon themselves, not as mercenary hirelings, but as Members of the Commonwealth, ... (LawB1659)
Compared to the simplex consider, both multi-word verbs exemplified are therefore more precise, more to the point. This may lead some authors to prefer the multi-word verb, at least in some contexts. On the other hand, one need not necessarily be a politician to sometimes favour the less specific lexical item — which can also be represented by the multi-word alternative. The verbo-nominal combinations in (5, 6) are somewhat more specific than kill, on the one hand, because they indicate intention and outside involvement, whereas kill could also be used in the context of an accident. (5)
1
... a whole legion having perfidiously fallen in upon Rhegium, the Romans without regard to that Law put them all to death, such regard had they to Justice.(LawB1697)
Shortened to the bare definitions of the entry. I have chosen a learner’s dictionary for simplicity.
230
Making a Choice
(6)
Upon the same grounds of Retaliation did Samuel do justice with his own hand upon the Tyrant Agag. (PolB1659)
But on the other hand both put to death and do justice upon either evade or blur the question of exactly what kind of killing is involved, cf. the verbs murder, execute, assassinate etc., and are in that respect less precise. In fact, the sense in (5) is "murder", or even more graphically "slaughter, massacre", and while the author clearly thinks of the events as illegal (a war crime, we would call it), he does nevertheless not use the more appropriate words. 2 The action in (6) is described by the Authorised Version (1 Sam 15.33) as "And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal", certainly not a pleasant sight, or act, even if it was done to fulfil God’s will. Here, the author of PolB1659 is making his interpretation of the biblical story explicit by his choice of expression, indicating a legal execution. Compared to the possible simplexes, both put to death and to a larger extent do justice upon are euphemistic, or at least can be used in that way. This kind of euphemism is based on less precision regarding important aspects of the action. Another kind of semantic difference is found in those cases where the multi-word verb contains additional meaning compared to the simplex contained in it, but where the (primary) meaning of the simplex is still clearly present. Within the category of verb -adjective combinations, there are quite a few items based on the adjective open, which is connected to the corresponding verb open. Both (7) and (8) describe ‘opening actions’ that are forceful, even violent, but whereas in (7) this additional meaning is contained in the general context (clapt a Bar in between the Gates to open them3), it is merged into the combined verbal form in (8); the same merger happens in (9). (7) (8)
(9)
2
Nine of the Clock on Friday, I went to the Gate of the New-Prison, and there came and clapt a Bar in between the Gates to open them, and I saw Latimer throwing stones at the Windows. (LawA1668) Mary Gastring, the Wife of Lewis, swore, That going out to a Neighbours house, she then lost those goods, and found them with the Prisoner at the Bar; that the things were in several Boxes and Trunks, but none broken open. (LawB1678) It was by our Direction, that the Famous Exposition of the Church of England Articles was written, by which the Inclosure and Pale, that had been made up by the Tories, was thrown open, ... (PolA1711)
But apparently put to death did not have the preferred meaning of "execute" (cf. OED) for that author. 3 This can serve as one example for a longer paraphrase (as mentioned above); while it is more complicated it has of course the advantage of being even more explicit than, say, break open.
Making a Choice
231
In all three instances, the basic action is "to open", with the multi -word elements break and throw standing in a similar relationship to open as a manner adverb (e.g. suddenly, wide for (9)) would. Thus, the manner component becomes an integral part of the meaning of the multi -word verb, which is not present in the simplex. This is also the case where open is combined with force, rip, and slit; only set (as in (10)) does not quite fit into this ‘manner’ group. (10)
I think, amongst the few good Things that Lewis XIV. has done, this ought to be mention’d, that (...) [he] order’d that all the Prisons in Normandy should be set open to all Persons that were detained for those Crimes. (MscA1712)
It seems to me to emphasize the beginning of the action, i.e. constitute some thing like ingressive aktionsart 4, which is a kind of additional meaning as well. The phenomenon of clearly present simplex meaning with some addition to it is especially common in the case of phrasal verbs, many of which are used in a completely literal way (cf. chap.6.3). Combinations with particles of the original dominant directional or locative sense in particular are similar to the process demonstrated with break/throw etc. open above. Bolinger (1971:87f) has pointed out the verbal nature of some of these particles themselves, most clearly visible in their use as imperatives or virtual verbs, or, one might add, their conversion into verbs. 5 This characteristic also predestines the particles to take over the verbal meaning, and to reduce the role of the verb in the combination. (11) (12)
(13)
4
... a great Oak which was blown down, ... (MscA1685) And that a little Care to put the People there into a way to send us their Commodities, and Productions, would cause them to throw away their Woollen, Linen, and other Manufacturies that interfere with this Kingdom, ... (EcA1720) Thus it may happen, in process of Time, That as one Sett begins to rub out a Part of the Score with a wet Finger; ... (EcB1717)
The question of aktionsart will be dealt with in more detail below. The following examples illustrate some such particle uses in the Lampeter Corpus, which are, however, extremely rare. (i) ... crying out to them, Away, away, every man shift for his life, you are all dead men ... (MscA1643) (ii) If Truth doe prevaile, Diana must downe, and then farewell their profit. (RelA1642) (iii) ... but his Touch and stroke so Invigorateth the parts that they reject the Heterogeneous Ferment, ’till it be outed the Body at some of those parts he is thought to stroke it out at. (MscB1666) 5
232
Making a Choice
All of these could be paraphrased in Bolinger’s fashion (cf. chap.4) as "to down by blowing", "to away by throwing", and "to out by rubbing", thus making the verbs serve for the indication of manner or method of the resu lt denoted by the particles. The combination force away is an especially clear example of resultative particle use. Similar cases are e.g. boil over, cut off, hem in, but also on a transferred level, vote down, pay out, even spy out (e.g. "others Inventions", SciA1674). (14) is another such transferred example, but one which here is used on a higher metaphorical level. (14)
He that would bar me of a coming Joy, And by strict Rules, my Liberty Destroy, In Trammels makes me Pace away my Life, ’Twixt Nature and his Rules is constant strife; (MscB1700)
In this case, the particle also serves to make the verb transitive 6, which is another way of changing or adding to the overall meaning. Laugh occurs as a simplex, which is primarily intransitive and thus undirected (15), and in transitive multi-word structures such as (16, 17). (15) (16)
(17)
How then can a Man that has one Foot in the Grave, jest and Laugh? (RelA1711) [the bride] besought all their good Companies to Morrow at Dinner with her at her House in Limestr eet, there to call their Trustee to an Account, and to laugh out an Afternoon with her upon their Travelling Adventures. (MscB1692) Yet none made doubt of it; but would rather laugh at any that should talk of March and September, as being the dangerous times. (SciA1666)
The latter two are directed actions with an aim. (16) is similar to (14) above in so far as it means "spending the specified time (life, afternoon etc.) by doing x (»verb)", here, by doing or talking about pleasant things that make one laugh. At in (17) makes the existence of a target explicit, i.e. the target that is being made fun of, an action that implies the (potential) presence of laughter. Thus, both the phrasal and the prepositional verb still contain the primary meaning of the simplex. Talking of at in prepositional verbs, which is not uncommon, forming 26 different types, it is obvious that in the majority of the cases it serves purely to point towards the aim of the action, i.e. in syntactic terms to pro duce transitivity (e.g. aim/arrive/come/look/ mutter/wonder etc. at). In some cases, the transitivizing function is ‘superfluous’ from our modern 6
Pace alone can of course also be used transitively, but only with a cognate or nearly cognate object. In the corpus the simplex is not found at all.
Making a Choice
233
perspective, cf. admire/beg at7, thus only emphasizing/intensifying the notion of goal. Some at-combinations, however, also transport something else: (18) (19)
What though some Men have run upon wild Notions, and catching at Shadows lost their Substance, that’s no Objection against our Fishery, which is a certainty; (EcB1700) ... add to this, that the prohibitory Clause with relation to the Trade of both Nations must be adjusted, lest like Æsop’s Dog, we lose the old in grasping at the new; (PolB1706)
Both examples above carry the idea of an attempt, i.e. that somebody is trying to catch or grasp something, but (perhaps) not quite succ eeding in it. This semantic trait resides in at, and becomes thus part of the overall verbal meaning, without which a longer paraphrase would be necessary to produce the same meaning. 8 Kennedy (1920:33) remarked of phrasal verbs (but it is applicable to other multi-word verbs as well) that one reason for their being used may lie in the speakers’ wish to strengthen or emphasize an idea expressed by the simplex, and their desire to vary the expression of an idea. The separate elements of multi-word structures as such are more expressive, because they often present a graphic ‘picture’ of the action/process, and they are also easier to manipulate by the speaker for the sake of semantic shifts. Generally, there is an interesting tension between the combined meaning of the elements and their meanings taken separately and literally. Sometimes, the use of a multi-word verb even produces word-play obviously not quite intended by its author, cf. for instance: (20)
An antique mirror was stolen from the home of Mr. and Mrs. Buddy Shavers of Worcester Thursday evening. Police are looking into it.9
On the other hand, inventive speakers can exploit the metaphorical and punning potential inherent in many multi-word verbs for their own purposes. Consider the following three examples: the simplex has the straightforward everyday meaning "play", whereas the two prepositional verbs can be para 7
Not only from our perspective, though: cf. Campbell’s criticism of surplus prepositions in such cases as quoted in chap.9. 8 The "attempt"-meaning is also very obvious in drive at, cf. Cowie & Mackin’s definition of the whole expression. (i) and all he drives at, is by his unjust aspersions to bring the Parliament and them at ods, ... (MscB1646) Today, this prepositional verb seems to occur only in the continuous form, whereas in the Lampeter Corpus it was found exclusively in the simple present. 9 Richard Lederer. 1993. More Anguished English. London: Robson Books: p. 76/79 quoted from an unspecified press source (Lederer’s italics).
234
Making a Choice
phrased by "pretend for fun to be somebody or do something"/"engage in casually or half-heartedly" (for (22), cf. Cowie & Mackin, s.v. play at1+2) and "exploit, develop (usually to harm somebody)" (ibid., s.v. play on/upon2). (21)
(22) (23)
He would not then have had it in his power to use his Arts, and play his Game with a dozen honest men of as good natural understandings perhaps, tho’ not of equal Experience and Cunning with himself. (LawB1738) he dyed in the midway between fifty and sixty years, and having for a score of the last of ’em, play’d at no other Game than cheating the World in all the Shapes and Masques he cou’d invent, ... (MscB1692) My design being only to disabuse my fellow Citizens and others, that they be not frightned with shadowie appearances, nor suffer themselves to be thus play’d upon by every sly and subtil Gamster, to disturb the setled course of their lawful advantages, ... (EcA1676)
(22) is taken from a text about a confidence trickster who spent his life, and earned his income, pretending to be a marriageable gentleman; using "pretend" or a similar verb, however, would have required a completely different sentence and it would have made impossible the complex picture conjured up by play in conjunction with game, shapes and masques, the latter being connected with the theatre meaning of "play", something which goes well with pretension. Apart from deceptio n, there is also fun and entertainment involved — for the ‘hero’ of the story and for its readers at least, even if not for the victims. (23) activates similar connections, i.e. again the theatre (shadowie appearances) and games (gamster) — but here the connotations are more clearly negative, cf. the OED definitions for gamester, which include references to "gamblers" (sense 3) and even to "lewd persons" (sense 5). These metaphorical extensions are only possible because of the presence of play and its meaning in the multi-word structure; using more or less synonymous simplexes, such as pretend or exploit instead, would have been more direct, but probably less effective in the end. Three more examples of the expressive potential of multi -word verb shall suffice here. Phrasal verbs, such as the one in (24), offer themselves because of the relatively high number of transferred and idiomatic combina tions in this category. (24)
this [self-love], which eates out all friendship, natural affection, compassion, and plants instead of them, hatred, malice, discontent, rejoy cings at one anothers Calamities; (LawB1659)
The author embeds his talk about abstract emotions in imagery taken from the natural, biological world (eat out, plant), with the image created by the
Making a Choice
235
phrasal verb being especially graphic and unpleasant 10 — something which obviously suits his purpose. The literal, original and the figurative meaning ("abase, humble") also interact in lay low (25), the additional adjectives, quasi coordinated into the multi-word verb, both enlarge and graphically reactivate the picture. (25)
The sign of which Coming, will bee the Detection, by little and little, of all Imposture, and the laying of all things low, naked, and mean before him; the stripping men of that Honor, Credit, and Repute, ... (EcA1652)
My final instance here is not so much metaphorical, but more of a word -play or pun. (26)
But let us hear what Use you the great Men of Uses, make of this Introduction; I find it in the next Paragraph in these Words. (RelB1674)
One element of the verbo-nominal combination in (26) is taken up again outside the combination, thus connecting the characterization of the persons with their action. As the characterization seems to be not very complimentary — the persons in question are the author’s opponents and the meaning of "uses" is probably something like "purpose, especially of an advantageous nature" (cf. OED) — this reflects back on the interpretation of the otherwise neutral content of make use of. The metaphorical and playful extensions just treated have to do with connotations and the shifting of them. But connotations can also differ be tween the simplex and multi-word verb without imagery being involved; meet vs. meet with is a case in point in this respect. On the face of it, both seem to be nearly the same, yet their difference is clearly visible in their semantic preferences of the objects they take. 11 Three quarters of the transitive occurrences of meet have objects that are human; moreover, the people are usually either very specific, identified, or even known personally to the author (e.g. Anne Thorn, my Lord General, this man, his people). The remaining objects are either concrete, but non-human (e.g. that place) or — rarely — more abstract (e.g. reception). In contrast, meet with definitely prefers abstract objects, or, if concrete (much less common), at least non human ones; these two classes together make up three quarters of all meet with objects. Typical abstract objects are regard, difficulty, argument, 10
Cf. OED s.v. eat (sense 17c.): "To destroy as a parasite or a corrosive." For people living in early modern times, witnessing such processes would have been a rather common experience, i.e. the picture was more accessible to them than it is to us. 11 In the case of the simplex meet the majority of the instances occur actually without any object; instead there is a plural subject.
236
Making a Choice
declaration, disappointment, enter tainment, inconvenience etc., whereas Finnland, lake, eggs etc. represent the concrete types. There is a clear minority of human objects, who are commonly a rather general class as opposed to specific people (e.g. Antaeci, Judacial men, chapmen) and/or who are seen as having negative characteristics (e.g. opponents, impostors, ignorant physicians). Only five of the human objects denote apparently specific, or well-known (to the author) people, e.g. the Vice-Admiral, a friend. The following instances are some rather prototypical examples of this situation: (27) (28) (29)
I foresee you will meet with several Objections, ... (MscA1676) Thoul’t meet With Criticks, and backbiting foes; (EcB1653) Having had various Fortune abroad, I remembred I was in the Evening to meet a select Company of Merchants, and other Eminent Citizens. (SciB1701)
However, as (30) shows, meet could also occur in situations that seemed predestined for the prepositional verb variant. (30)
However, since You have met such unkind Treatment from the rest of Mankind, we are resolved to make You some little Reparation, ... (MscB1692)
Apart from their object preferences, there is a further difference between meet and meet with. The former verb tends to be rather neutral as to the intentionality of the meeting, if anything it makes an actually planned meeting (as in (29)) more likely. In the case of meet with the encounter seems much more commonly unintentional and unplanned, in many instances even unwanted; the latter is not surprising if one takes the negative traits of many of its objects into account. Thus, the major difference between the simplex and the prepositional verb in this case lies in their distinct connotations. Some of the items mentioned above (e.g. admire at, catch at, meet with) contain elements that superficially seem redundant or really are in some uses. There is a group of phrasal verbs in which the apparent redundancy of the particle is a prominent feature. The most obvious items in this respect are assemble together, echo back, kidnap away, decry down, emit forth, flee away, kneel down, retreat back, return back, unite together, vanish away, as well as the those in the following instances: (31) (32)
... and after, the Colonell himself thinking to escape away, his horse was shot under him, & so taken, ... (MscB1646) And the said [list of people], their Accomplices and Confederates (...) did gather together great Numbers of His Majesty’s Subjects, and with them did assemble in a warlike and traiterous Manner, ... (LawA1716)
Making a Choice
237
Traugott’s (1972:252) suggestion for types similar to these was that they make a covert endpoint, i.e. a goal/result indicated by the verb, overt through the addition of particle. This would not work for all of my examples, for instance echo back, decry down can hardly be explained this way. What all the above combinations have in common is that the particle repeats semantic information (which may be an endpoint or it may not) already contained in the verb. In that respect, the process is reminiscent of Bolinger’s (1972:246 f) description of the semantic redundancy of some intensifiers in cases such as, e.g., endure something patiently, in which the adverb matches quite closely the intensifiable feature of the verb. Thus, the particles have an intensifying/emphasizing force, which is the stronger the more obviously redundant the particle is; in the case of kneel down the perceived redundancy might be less12 than with return back. Formations like the latter with both a prefix an d a particle are similar to OE prefix verbs followed by an additional adverb, nicely termed "echo particle" by Von Schon (1977). Decry and cry down are synonymous, de- being interpreted as "down" (cf. OED, s.v. decry), but one of the authors in the Lampeter Corpus has nevertheless seen it necessary to reinforce the prefix verb with the particle (33); also, the simple phrasal verb as in (34) was obviously not sufficient for him. (33) (34)
his Majesty hath set forth three Proclamations, (...) the third decrying down after a certain Day, all Gold and Silver Coines that have been made in England since 1640. (LawB1661) ... and if Paper and Shooes, &c. had stood in the way of East-India Goods, it is probable that by the same way of arguing, those would have been cryed down also: (EcA1697)
The examples just treated thus indicate a certain desire for emphasis, based in some way on greater explicitness. This urge is also visible in the find out corpus instances, in many of which, like in (35a) the particle seems to be an extra. (35a) ... not only sending us to our own Wiccliffe, but eating through the Mountains to find out the more Ancient (though obscure) Waldenses: (RelA1682) (35b) The Parliament was now searching to find out truth: (LawB1697) One particular semantic difference between simplexes and phrasal verbs that has often been remarked on is the feature of aktionsart often inherent in the latter, or rather contributed by their particles. Of course, 12
Kneel down in contrast to the simplex kneel may also put the stress on the beginning of the action as opposed to the ongoing action, cf. also sit down vs. sit. One could also call it ingressive aktionsart.
238
Making a Choice
simplexes can contain aktionsart meaning as well, but they do not possess an overt marker for it, and, furthermore, all such cases are isolated individuals and not part of an overall system. 13 In contrast, there is the claim that aktionsart is more systematic in the case of phrasal verbs, and also verbo nominal combinations (cf. especially Brinton 1988 and 1996). Statements on aspectual functions of phrasal verb particles go a long way back in the linguistic literature 14, but they were mostly not very methodical and usually based on individual instances only. Also, one and the same particle was ascribed different aspectual or aktionsart functions by various linguists. Let us take down as an example: it was described as indicating (i) something like completive or near-completive sense (Kennedy 1920:19), (ii) completion in a destructive sense (Live 1965:436), (iii) ingressive aspect (Poutsma 1926:296), (iv) effective aspect (Curme 1931:381), and (v) intensification (Potter 1965:288). The situation is similar with regard to other particles. Brinton (1988) suggested that some particles (notably up, down, out, off, less frequently through, over, away) in fact behave much more systematically and "typically express a telic notion" (aktionsart), adding "the concept of goal or an endpoint to a durative situation" (ibid. 168) and thus "convert an activity into an accomplishment" (ibid. 169). I have chosen the particle off as a case study for an investigation of telicity in the Lampeter Corpus data. I am of course interested in how common, i.e. systematic, it actually is, but my greater interest lies in how salient it may have been for speakers compared with other features of the phrasal verb(s). In short, how important can aktionsart probably be in deciding the writer’s choice between a phrasal verb and a simplex? There are 356 phrasal verb occurrences with the particle off, made up of sixty-two types. The great majority of those contain telicity as a feature; only about 40 instances, or c. 11%, of all instances cannot (or only with problems) be interpreted in that way. The following instances are examples of what I would rate clear telic uses: (36a) But let me tell you Sir, if in the sequel of this discourse I shall not clearly wipe off all these Varnishes and false colours, ... (PolB1674) (36b) but after they had landed, and built a Fort, the very Night before they were to mount their great Guns, the Negroes came down upon them, and beat them off, and demolished their Fort, ... (EcA1714) (36c) Have we not wantonly cast off our old Friends, without getting new? (PolB1713) 13
Aktionsart meaning can also be achieved via an explanatory paraphrase, but in that case it is not part of the verb any more and as such a rather different matter. 14 Cf. for example Brinton (1988: 243ff [Appendix B]) for a collection of most such extant statements ordered by particle.
Making a Choice
239
(36d) That attempts have been lately made to shake off the subjection of Ireland unto, and dependance upon, the Imperial Crown of this Realm, ... (PolA1720) In contrast, I would not describe the examples in (37a,b) as telic: (37a) ... in the Sea this matter like ragged rocks, burning in four fathom water, two fathom higher then the Sea it self, some parts liquid and moving, and throwing off, not without great violence, the stones about it, which like a crust of a vast bigness, and red hot, fell into the Sea every moment, ... (MscA1669) (37b) ... Boyce only told him he was afraid the Servant he Caryll had sent to him to help off was Sample, alledging this Reason, that he had observed he was disguised, ... (LawA1723) Both produce some awkward results with the tests Brinton (1988:171ff) cites from Dowty (1979) for telic expressions. (37a) describes the effects of a vol canic eruption (as such a rather undirected processes); while off is clearly used in a locative/directional sense, this should not actually prevent it from being telic (cf. Brinton 1988:275,n.4).15 Help off in (36b) is obviously a variant of help out, out being another commonly telic particle, but the combination is not really telic. Exactly what kind of contribution off makes here is not at all clear to me. Furthermore, there are idiomatic combinations, such as (38), in whose case the question of telicity would not even arise (cf. Brinton 1988:275f,n.7). (38)
As to the hasty and violent Proceedings of his Trial; it was then told him, That the greatest Advantage he had, was in putting off his Trial: (PolB1690)16
In such cases the connection of the phrasal verb to the simplex verb contained in it is tenuous or non-existent, anyway — and telicity as a common defining feature of phrasal verbs only seems sensible if it distinguishes them from their corresponding simplexes, if I understand Brinton (ibid. 171) correctly. In that context, accomplishment verbs (39a -c) combining with particles are really a problem, because they destroy the overall systematic contrast.
15
In contrast, Denison (1985:38) keeps the "completive up" he treats strictly apart from spatial meaning components. 16 The situation is different in purely metaphorical combinations, such as the following: (i) ... upon which they attack’d the Spaniards, cut off 20 of their men, and 3 Priests that belong’d to the Mines. (PolA1699) This, like its synonym kill, is a telic expression.
240
Making a Choice
(39a) The solution I formerly mentioned of Silver in Aqua fortis, being laid upon Ivory, will soon give it a dark and blackish stain, which is not, that I have found, to be washed off. (SciB1684)17 (39b) ... and as the Salt draws nearer the state of Fusion, the Sulphur wasts and is diminished; so that as dross or Recrement it burns off in Calcination, ... (SciB1676) (39c) I knew it was impossible, that the Dirt, wherewith I was so freely and bountifully bespatter’d, should stick long upon me, that a little Time would of course dry it off; and if not so, ’twould however come out by the least Rubbing. (RelB1692) Similar cases can be found with other particles, e.g. heal up, issue out, lengthen out, sink down. These are similar to the redundant particl e cases described earlier (cf. e.g. (31, 32)). Thus, despite the exceptions just men tioned, the aktionsart telicity can be said to be fairly comprehensive, even if not completely systematic, with regard to phrasal verbs formed with off.18 The general impression yielded by combinations with the three other common telic particles, up, out, down, is the same. One example from among those, this time with its non-telic simplex counterpart, shall suffice here: (40) (41)
For either Perpetuana or Shalloon will wear out two Coats, or when it hath worn out one Coat, it will serve for one use or other afterwards for children. (EcB1681) The Inhabitants of these places do eat, wear Clothes, and furnish their Houses, and whatsoever Commoditie they use, come first from the Merchants, or Wholesale-Trader. (MscB1685)
In examples like (36a-d) above and (40), the goal or endpoint of the activity denoted by the verbs is indeed very salient, but so is a kind of resultative meaning, even in (40). 19 For an average, ‘naive’ speaker, the precise difference between result and telicity is probably hardly existent, anyway. Cases such as the ones treated above, under (11-13), will probably always be interpreted as result by speakers, who, furthermore, might not perceive (36a-d) as different from the former. However, in my opinion, it is rather the residual actual meaning of the particles, in the case of off something like "(spatial) removal, separation", which is present in most non -
17
Of course, wash and wash off require different kinds of objects, e.g. clothes and stain/dirt respectively. In this way, they are similar to die and die out taking different kinds of subjects (cf. e.g. Lipka 1972:183). 18 As it is not completely comprehensive, it does not exclude the possibility of individual combinations possessing other aktionsart values, e.g. the ingressive. 19 I do not agree with Brinton (1988:179) that the resultative analysis is problematic in those cases where the particle has no more spatial meaning.
Making a Choice
241
idiomatic cases, and at least inferable in quite a number of the remainder 20, that will be more significant in the production and use of these phrasal verbs than abstract concepts like telicity. It is this semantic contribution that changes the meaning of the basic verb most obviously. In (42) the important point is that they, namely the Indians, went "away from where our men were", thus removing a potential threat. (42)
Our Men gave them some old Hats, Lookingglasses and Knives, with which they were extremely well pleas’d, and went off. (PolA1699)
The fact that this amounts to a change in telicity is logical, but for the speaker purely incidental. I would therefore argue that telicity only indirectly influences the usage of phrasal verbs. Apart from aktionsart values just discussed, phrasal verbs, or rather only those with the particles on, away, and (to a lesser degree?) along, can also express durative or iterative aspect in PDE. In these cases, the particles are devoid of any other meaning (e.g. "removal" etc. for away), including aktionsart. Such combinations with away and along, at least, make a somewhat colloquial impression. Of the particles in question, on and away belong to the more common ones in the Lampeter Corpus with 254 and 335 instances respectively, while along, with only 13 occurrences, is rather rare. Along usually has a relatively strong sense of "accompaniment" in its combinations, but two instances of come along (in one text), one of which is given in (43), are possible candidates for aspectual meaning. (43)
and I stood and looked a while at the Prisoners in Bishopsgate, and my Uncle coming along, I went with him a little way, and then turned about and left him; (LawA1668)
Also, there is only one aspectual example of away (44); the remaining 334 cases are better dealt with by the resultati ve or some similar analysis. (44)
... till she was put in the Tower, where she now pines away for want of fresh-Cod, ... (MscA1650)
Given the rarity of instances, it seems as if both along and away were not very well developed as aspectual markers in the Lampeter period, although they at least existed as an option. It may, however, be interesting here that (43) is a direct dialogue example and that MscA1650 (44) is a text that, though hard to characterize exactly, is anything but serious (something which has stylistic implications, of course). Thus, it is possible that the
20
Also, speakers are more imaginative in the ‘retrieval’ of meaning in apparently noncompositional idioms than linguists tend to think, cf. Gibbs (1990).
242
Making a Choice
colloquial hypothesis mentioned above is correct, and that the selection of texts in the corpus simply is not suitable for showing up more examples. In contrast to the two particles just treated, aspectual on is more common, although it is still only a minority of all on-combinations found. Perhaps the use started with verbs of motion, such as in (45a), and then spread to other contexts. (45a) But Gustavus, despising his Threats, march’d on with his victorious Army, ... (MscB1739) (45b) ... it is but four or five Hours work (...) to recover an Harbour, and without loss of time put to Sea again; the work of Unloading, Repacking, and sending our Fish to Market going on in all Weathers. (EcB1700) (45c) The Subjects upon this will be wonderfully satisfied, and all the small Trades be kept on with Pleasure: (EcB1696) (45d) None may Prejudice Improvements, by denying any liberty for carrying on the Work, receiving reasonable satisfaction for the Dammage. (EcB1653) In (45b-c) we find the two items that today serve as continuative paraphrases, but only go on actually also occurs in that way in the corpus (e.g. go on increasing this Trade, EcA1697). Carry on (45d) in all its many instances contains a semantic feature "continue", but it most often occurs with trade or something similar in object position so that the meaning "conduct, transact" is also clearly present, often even dominant; also, the item never occurs in its intransitive use in which the durative aspect becomes most obvious. To sum up, aspectual distinction was an option phrasal verbs offered compared with their simplexes, and this could therefore play a role in the usage of these complex items. But I find it impossible on the basis of the present data to call it a very common phenomenon. This may also be connected to the generally less frequent use of the progressive forms in EModE (e.g. Barber 1997:188), indicating (among others) less importance or salience of this particular feature for speakers then. Verbo-nominal combinations have also been said to mark aspectual distinctions. 21 While Renský (1964b:295) talks of perfective aspect, Live (1963:34), Prince (1972:413), Wierzbicka (1982:757ff), and Stein (1991:17f) are of very similar opinion, seeing the activity denoted by the combination as a single action that is limited in time as opposed to the unbounded activity
21
This applies especially to those combinations that belong to Group I, but also Group II under the system applied here.
Making a Choice
243
described by the simplex. 22 Prince (ibid. 418) further added the notion of completed-ness, which Brinton (1996:199) followed up with the statement that verbo-nominal combinations "convert activities into accomplishments or at least ‘quasi-accomplishments’", thus making them parallel to the telic phrasal verbs dealt with above. An accomplishment -feature is certainly often, but not necessarily always, the result of the boundedness of the activity; the latter is primary and more salient, in my opinion. Therefore, I will concentrate on this aspect. The following four sets of examples can illustrate this point: (46a) A Presbyterian Lady too, that casts a sad looke with her eies for the downfall of her Faction, ... (MscA1650) (46b) I could look directly upward, (...) so as to find any Star which passed within the hole of the Table, ... (SciA1674) (47a) In that case the Needle will not point directly to the Poles, but will make a Variation; (SciB1649) (47b) It was also observed that those Jury-men varied in the report they gave of Goodman’s Depositions. (LawB1697) (48a) ... they had gathered a great multitude of four or five hundred, and then they made an attempt to come into our Parish, and they cried, Down with the Redcoates. (LawA1668) (48b) ... and attempting to alter and subvert the ancient Government, Parliaments, Laws, and Customs of our Realm: (LawB1649) (49a) Upon the second floor ss I fixed the frame that carried the Eyeglass and the other Apparatus fit to make this observation. (SciA1674) (49b) they [=the Ancients] having laid the first Foundation of the most ex cellent Art, by both observing and describing the Nature of Diseases. (SciA1712) In each case, the multi-word combination describes one clearly defined activity/action which takes a certain, limited span of time, and can even be very short (e.g. 46a, 48a). 23 The simplex verbs, on the other hand, either describe a general situation as it is (46b, 47b), or refer to a longer process, the individual stages of which are not important (48b, 49b). It is noteworthy that all the verbo-nominal combinations above contain the indefinite article (once with additional modification (46a)) or the demonstrative pronoun this in (49a), i.e. some marker of definiteness. Both kinds of determiner stress the individuality of the action, and thus make an important contribution to the 22
It is important to note here that the simplex can denote a bounded activity as well, depending on the context of the sentence it occurs in. 23 But a notion of accomplishment is not necessarily involved as well, e.g. it is problematic with cast a look (46a) and make an attempt (48a), in my opinion.
244
Making a Choice
boundedness of the whole combination. The same goes for most types of modification. In PDE, the majority of verbo-nominal combinations seem to contain the indefinite article as a fixed element (which supports the aspectual interpretation described), but in EModE one finds many combinations with zero-article, which are, indeed, the older type. 24 It is therefore necessary to also have a closer look at the zero-article items 25 to find out whether they are, or can be, marked for aspect as well. What one finds is a mixed situation: some combinations are used in a very general sense, not being limited to a single activity at all, while some, in fact, describe individual activities of limited duration. In many, perhaps most, cases it is also hard to see any difference in meaning when one substitutes the simplex for the verbo-nominal combination, leaving the rest of the sentence as intact as possible. The following sentences (50-52) illustrate general statements transported by the multi-word combination: (50) (51) (52)
(53)
... and in those Actions he must inform himself at his peril, and may if he doubts, avoid Danger, by putting away those things which give Offence. (LawB1704) We have need to take heed, that we run not from one extreme into another; (PolA1646) For thus all Lusts whatsoever (...) in the minde (...) both in their first Issuings forth, and in their utmost Accomplishments, are still but either to give countenance unto, or further to heap up a kinde of greatness, Repute and Esteem in us for us. (EcA1652) Here it is not meant to countenance Murders, that after slaying a man, it shall be sufficient to plead he was erecting a Tyranny for himself or others: (PolB1659)
They refer to inherent or internal characteristics (50,51) or to general mental dispositions (51, 52), which can lead to activities, but are not activi ties as such. There is no noticeable semantic difference between the multi -word verb in (52) and its corresponding simplex in (53). The prototypical PDE examples quoted in most treatments of the matter usually denote clear activities (e.g. take a walk, give a smile, do a dive), something which might have led to the overlooking of evidence such as provided by the above cases.26 However, even activity verbs can describe a more general, thus unbounded, state of affairs, also in their multi -word use, cf.:
24
Cf. also Hiltunen in Brinton/Akimoto (1999) on this point. Or rather zero-article usage, as some items are found both with and without article, or also both with indefinite and definite article. 26 Also, the modern accounts I am aware of usually exclude items with a final preposition like the one in (52). 25
Making a Choice (54) (55)
245
But still a British Parliament has a Right to give Advice in this important Conjuncture, ... (PolB1713) This was the Mensurator by which I measured the exact distance of the Stars from our Zenith: it may be also made use of for the measuring the Diameters of the Planets; (SciA1674)
In both cases, it is only a possibility that is referred to. While the following instances can be seen to describe an activity of limited duration, it is never theless difficult to see an aspectual difference between them an d their rewriting with a simplex within the context of the same sentence: 27 (56a) We did give them chase all day, and at night we lost them: (MscB1646) (56b) We did chase them all day, and at night we lost them. (57a) All I shall do, shall be to take thence the Questions which I just now made mention of, and to speak to them in the best Manner I can, ... (PolB1724) (57b) ... the Question I just now (have) mentioned, ... (58a) ... and with some Muskettiers he gave fire upon the Centinells, killed one of them, and wounded the other; (MscA1643) (58b) ... he fired at the Centinells, ... Also, potentially very short (e.g. (57): mention), or punctual activities do not lend themselves to the creation of an aspectual multi -word vs. simplex contrast, cf. for example put an end to, give stop to, make an end of, come to an end vs. end, stop, finish. Furthermore, there is the possibility of using one and the same verbo-nominal combination once for a general statement, and once for a single specific activity (probably of limited duration); in the following two examples this contrast is additionally visible in the zero article, non-modified (59) vs. the definite, modified form (60) of the combination. (59) (60)
He that believes the Promises, so as to obey the Precepts; that ac cepts his Saviour as a King to rule, and a Prophet to teach, as well as a Priest to make attonement; ... (RelA1682) in order to make the best Atonement in my Power for the great Fault I had been Guilty of, I can justly say, that I was in no small Degree instrumental in procuring a general Submission to his Majesty. (LawA1716)
In general, I am of the opinion that the Lampeter Corpus data does not warrant positing an overall aspectual difference between simplex verb and
27
The b-variants are my own re-writings of the sentences.
246
Making a Choice
verbo-nominal combination. This distinction can be made (i.e. is an opportunity offered by the combinations), but need not necessarily be present even in all the possible cases. The author can activate this particular aspect if and when he wants to, and he has the possibility of reinforc ing it with the means of modification. Thus, this point can certainly play a role in deciding for or against a multi-word verb in individual cases, but it is not a determining factor for the existence and use of the category as a whole. One particular means of modification is pluralization of the nominal part of the combination, which has aspectual or aktionsart implications. Besides indicating the longer duration of the action (63), the plural can also point to the fact that the activity is composed of single incremental parts (61,62); the units themselves are stressed when the noun is additionally modified (especially by a number, as in we gave them Three shouts, MscA1685). (61)
(62) (63)
If a vain-glorious Herod has but Confidence enough to make an Oration, though repugnant to the first Principles of Religion, no wonder that it makes such an impress upon the Multitude, that they give shouts, with the loudest Acclamations, and attribute to him the Wis dom of a Deity, who is scarce endowed with the Prudence of a Man; (RelA1682) severall of the proprietors and Interessed Persons in the said debt and Dammages, made fresh applications to his Majestie by petition, ... (LawA1673) As first, I had thoughts of making use of some very great and massy Tower or Wall that were well setled, or of some large Rock or Hill whereunto I might fix my Glasses, ... (SciA1674)
Of course, similar effects can also be reached with the simplex and some additional paraphrase or periphrastic construction, but simple pluralization i s much more economical and very effective. Still staying with the topic aspect/ aktionsart, there are instances of ingressive aktionsart to be found in the data; again they are not systematic, however. The ingressive force lies mainly in the verbal component of the combination, cf. for example ingressive fall in love versus be in love/to love. Such ingressive items can be found among all three groups of verbo -nominal combinations, but are more common among Group III (65), where the prepo sitional phrase may reinforce the contribution of the verb. (64)
I had almost forgot to observe that this Law (the King being therein concerned) is a general Act of Parliament, of the which not only the Judges, but even every individual Subject of this Kingdome ought to take knowledge of course; (PolB1674)
Making a Choice (65)
247
What I have observ’d, as to the Quantities the Gentleman before men tion’d took every Night, brings to my Mind what I often thought of; which is, that I believe many noble Medicines are laid aside as useless, for want of having been given in due Quantities. (SciA1730)
Some further examples are take root, set sail (vs. make sail), set eye upon, catch/get/lay hold on/of, take possession of, set on fire, bring/come/call in question, put in execution, call/put in mind 28, put in motion, bring/come to light etc. Some instances of verb-adjective combinations may also contain ingressive force, e.g. grow weary of, get rid of. Most or all of the semantic differences treated above are based on the simple fact that multi-word verbs exhibit the phenomenon of ‘semantic spreading’, i.e. they distribute the meaning of the whole combination onto the individual elements (cf. chap.3). These component parts make their own more or less distinct contributions to the overall meaning; completel y empty elements probably do not exist (cf. Stein 1991 on verbs in verbo-nominal combinations). This makes the multi-word lexical items more ‘motivated’ (e.g. Leisi 1985:75f) for the average speaker, especially in contrast to the non-transparent Romance verbs, or also to older native compound verbs that had lost their motivation over the course of the centuries. Furthermore, it makes them easier to use in general and also to manipulate them to serve the purposes of the speaker or writer. These aspects ar e important points in favour of the use of multi-word verbs. 9.2 Author and Audience There are other things to be considered besides semantic fine points in the choice between simplex and multi-word verbs. Those to be treated in this section are connected with the general situation or context of the discourse. One aspect is the accessibility of the text for the reader, which has to do with the kind of vocabulary being used, e.g. how familiar and easy to understand it is. Another aspect is represented by stylistic considerations on the part of the author, regarding for instance the harmonious flow of the text, or its setting within the levels of formality (cf. the formal/informal cline). These points depend to some extent on the expected audience of a text, but also on the personality of the author.
28
An additional important point for the use of these mind-combinations is the fact that their simplex rival remind was only a recent arrival in the language (first quotation in the OED: 1645), and thus not well established. Remind is found ten times in the corpus, whereas the multi-word variants with mind make up 25 instances.
248
Making a Choice
Let me deal with the aspect of accessibility first. The underlying as sumption here is that native words and phrases will in general require less ‘effort’ in the production and comprehension process, whereas loa n words, especially polysyllabic ones and more recent acquisitions 29, tend to be harder — thus the ‘hard word’ debates of the 16th and 17th century, for instance. The question of terminology and of using the most suitable words is of par ticular importance when new concepts are being introduced or need to be spread. As described in chapter 2, foreign trade gained enormous significance during the Lampeter period, the main mechanisms of this trade being imports and exports. Looking in the OED for the verbs import and export, one finds the first quoted instance (with the appropriate commercial meaning) of the former in 1548, but for the latter only in 1665. While one should certainly not overrate OED first citings, the two verbs, especially export, were definitely not long-established words, and additionally they were specialized items. Thus, they and the concepts they represent needed to be made familiar to speakers in the Lampeter period. Both loan verbs occur in the corpus (mostly, but not quite exclusively in ECONOMY texts), but they are also sometimes replaced by native alternatives, namely the phrasal verbs bring in, carry out, send out, and ship out, cf. the following examples. (66) (67)
(68) (69)
...or that the Merchant had not rather carry out wares (by which there is ever some gains expected) than to export Money, ... (EcB1641) If we compare the National Advantages of shipping out Corn, and also of our Woollen Manufacturies, we shall find the sending out the Value of 100l. in Woollen Manufacturies to be full as good as sending out the same Value in Corn. (EcA1720) They say, The bringing in of so much Silk and so cheap, is a publick Nusance, and destroys their Trade, ... (EcB1681) It is well known by all Traders, that the Silks imported from France were most Lustrings and Alamodes ... (EcA1697)
It is perhaps noteworthy that the newer foreign term, export, has more native paraphrases than the other. The phrasal verbs make the process of importation and exportation graphically clear by literalizing it, especi ally through the strong directional/local meaning of the particles. They are thus easy to understand, and they are already familiar to all speakers because of their absolutely literal uses (e.g. several Hogs were brought in Dead, LawA1703) by which they are supported. 30 The use of the simple native
29
Cf. chap. 9.2. on the integration of Romance loan words. Both bring in and carry out already had transferred or idiomatic usages as well (e.g. bring in money/a profit, carry out a plan), which probably also eases the introduction of new transferred usages. 30
Making a Choice
249
items can ease the introduction and familiarization of the newer loan terms, the more so if they are often used next to each other in the same context and in the same meaning, as in (66) above. Even if the foreign term does not denote a newish concept, the author of a text may decide that the native item is the better choice. It is perhaps a way of being consciously reader-friendly, but of course it is also always in the interest of the author to be understood b y his audience. For some texts this is an especially pressing concern, for instance a text such as LawA1643, titled Laws and Ordinances of Warre, Established for the better Conduct of the Army, (..,), which is dependent on being understood quite clearly by every common soldier in order to fulfil its function. (70a) is found in the running text, i.e. is part of the legal instruction itself, while (70b) is the text structuring marginal note connected with (70a). 31 (70a) He that makes known the Watch-word without Order, or gives any other word but what is given by the Officers, shall die for it. (LawA1643) (70b) Revealing the watch word. (LawA1643) While reveal was not a new loan, being attested from the late 14th and 15th century onwards, make known was certainly the much simpler and easier alternative. Additionally, connotations may have played a role here as well: perhaps the religious, supernatural associations of reveal were still stronger then, which would make it less appropriate for the context above. Th is text is characterized by an amount of phrasal verbs that is higher than usual 32, among them (71-72), which may of course be due to the intention of being understood more easily. (71) (72)
No Inhabitant of City, Town, or Country, shall (...) conceal, or use means to convey such Run-awayes, but shall apprehend all such, and deliver them to the Provost Marshall. (LawA1643) ... if [the fault be found] in the Souldiers, then every tenth man shall be punished at discretion, and the rest serve for Pioniers and Scavengers, till a worthy exploit take off that Blot. (LawA1643)
The technical term for run-away soldiers, deserter (OED 1635), and the corresponding verb desert (OED 1603/1647), did exist then, but both were rather recent, so that there could be no guar antee of every soldier, or other citizen, understanding the loan. Similarly, the Romance alternative for (72), 31
With marginalia of a text-structuring function (i.e. those without additional information) there may be the possibility that they originate not with the author but with the printer. Thus, only (70a) definitely represents the choice of the author. 32 5.1 phrasal verbs per 1,000 words in this text vs. 3.6 in the whole corpus, and 3.8 in the domain LAW.
250
Making a Choice
expunge, was a newcomer in English (OED 1602); also, it makes a rather elevated impression stylistically, at least from the modern perspective. T hese Romance options were found to be actually used in other texts of the Lampeter Corpus, expunge five times, and desert/desertion (not deserter) twenty times, but none of the latter in the military sense. Some other examples where both the multi-word verb and its Romance synonym are found in the corpus are find out / discover, maintain / keep up, establish / set up, cause / bring about, demand / call for, intend / have a mind etc. Sermons are another text type that is, or at least should be, more audi ence-oriented than some others. The following example taken from a sermon exhibits a nice native-foreign variation within a parallel structure: (73)
How amazingly hath he laid open that which had lain concealed in the thickest Darkness! (RelA1696)
If the author had used reveal instead of lay open, the stylistic effect might have been even more elevated, but both verbs would then have been foreign loans, which might have been a hindrance to understanding for some hear ers/readers. 33 Making one part of the antonymic pair native could ensure that the other member would also cause no problem. An interesting point here is the fact that the author used the native term for the positive concept, some thing which goes together well with the common observation that word s of foreign origin often tend to be more neutral and abstract, while native items are more inclined to have emotionally charged connotations. In the next two examples, the authors resorted to the everyday, colloquial (?) items for talking about everyday actions or experiences 34, even if only in a metaphorical context as in (74). (74) (75)
33
In the primitive times, this holy fire, though but newly descended into the hearts of believers, yet presently was in a great part put out by schisme and contention. (RelA1653) The Women, without any Sense of Decency, own themselves to be common Whores, and seem to glory in their shame; and, to supply their Necessities, they take to Picking of Pockets and Shoplifting, ... (RelA1730)
A similar example with a native-Romance antonymic pair is found in a SCIENCE text with a very practical orientation, where rhetorical considerations that might have influenced the sermon passage will not have played a big role: (i) Observe also the Heat of Mines, by Assistance of the Weather-glass, if to be had, both Summer, and Winter, noteing how much it exceeds, or falls short of the Heat at the Surface of the Earth: (SciB1696) 34 This also goes for (75); the sermon in question was preached in London, where criminal activities of that kind were certainly not uncommon. The preacher is talking about stage plays in particular, though.
Making a Choice
251
Ordinary people in ‘real life’, who wanted somebody to deal with the fire, would probably, just like the preacher, have asked him/her to put it out, not to extinguish it. Take to in (75) seemed quite likely the most suitable word to the minister, as any possible alternative, such as devote or apply oneself to something, do something habitually , etc., has more explicitly positive connotations than he could have wished for. Both the phrasal and the prepositional verb used in the sentences above are the most appropriate words for the content transported and within the given communicative situation. Native forms, besides often being the more familiar, everyday items, tend also to be multi-functional in so far as their meaning can relatively easily be stretched to accommodate the needs of the speake r, as the phrasalprepositional verb break in upon illustrates in the following sentences: (76) (77) (78) (79) (80)
Josiah, a good King, did much, yet because the peoples spirits were not wrought to concurre with him, the worke soone vanished, and Gods Judgements brake in upon them. (RelA1642) ... this was the Belief and Practice of all Christians, until broken in upon by the Sectaries, that began within less than three hundred years of the present Age. (RelA1708) So may we daily be in Expectation of Death, and provide against it, but it needs not to break in upon, either the usual Business, or Refreshments of the Day. (RelA1711) if that Quantity [of Iron] is not enough for Home-Consumption, it may be enlarged to 40 or 50,000 Tun, without breaking in upon our Timber. (EcA1720) And if you suffer those Laws to be broke in upon, and render Life or Liberty so precarious, as to be affected or taken away, by every idle Hearsay, that Excellency must soon disappear, ... (LawB1723)
While there is certainly some common element in those five uses of break in upon, the exact meaning is nevertheless different in each of the sentences. For (76) there seems to be no simplex synonym, a paraphrase would be something like "happen suddenly, with unpleasant consequences"; possible replacements for the other examples are approximately "disrupt, interfere with" (77), "interrupt, disturb" (78), "deplete" (79), and "violate, abolish" (80). Polysemous and flexible native items such as this one are thus less memory-intensive, both for the author of the text and for the audience, while serving the purpose just as well as the various substitutions would. Taking the then recent explosion of the English lexicon into account, and the strain this must have meant for some people’s memory, this might be an important point.
252
Making a Choice
It is not only polysemous individual items that can be a support for the memory, but also the patterns as such and the smaller networks of words formed within them. For instance, the relatively predictable effect of phrasa l particles, within a certain range, can be a help in creating new forms on the spot if one cannot (or does not want to) think of a more sophisticated alterna tive. Regarding networks of words, there are, for example, quite a number of formations on the same verb, which can support each other, such as the phrasal, prepositional, and phrasal-prepositional verbs based on come and look: - come at, come by, come of, come upon, come to, come about, come along, come ashore, come away, come back, come down, come forth, come in, come off, come on, come out, come over, come together, come up, come down upon, come in upon, come in with, come over to, come up to, come up with - look about, look after, look at, look for, look into, look (up)on, look to, look back, look down, look on, look out, look over, look back into, look back upon, look out for, look out to, look up to New formations within such patterns and networks are probably easier to understand than a new loan word, especially for speakers who are not conversant in either Latin or French (which was certainly the majority of the population). Sometimes, a multi-word verb and its simplex synonym, usually a Romance verb, are used in coordination, as in (81-84). (81) (82) (83) (84)
yea, though you meet with Spirits that recoile and start back at the very mention of an accommodation, that seeme to abhorre all union and reconciliation ... (RelA1653) These are never averse to have their principles looked into, and examined by the test of Reason. (SciB1735) To suppose such a thing would be as absurd, as to expect or look for it would be rediculous, ... (LawA1732) Or, in Concealing and keeping close (by several Glosses) the Imperfections, weaknesses, and uncomlinesses, (...) from the sight and ap prehensions of others; (EcA1652)
As stated above, occurrence of native and foreign term in the same context, or even better directly coordinated like here, can support the familiarization of speakers with the loan word. However, neither recoil, examine nor conceal were new words in the Lampeter period; only expect was more recent then, as it is not quoted by the OED before the late 16th century. It may be that the authors of the above sentences saw the need to still support all of them by their native paraphrases (i.e. did not see them as integrated
Making a Choice
253
enough), or that they simply wanted to strengthen the overall effect by using the synonymous pairs as a sort of emphasis. 35 Looking at the (possible) native-Romance contrasts treated above, the question arises whether these also imply an automatic informal-formal distinction, or, in other words, whether an author who wanted to produce a very formal piece of writing, for example, would avoid certain kinds of multi-word verbs. It has often been remarked that a great part of the Romance, especially Latinate, element of the language is on a higher stylistic level (learned, more elegant rhetorically, also more abstract) than most of the native words, which, being characterized by their common, everyday usages, are more concrete, emotional and expressive in their own way (cf. e.g. Schäfer 1973:ix). On the other hand, a native item such as break in upon, treated above, is termed a "formal expression" by the Collins/COBUILD Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs; while this judgement refers to PDE, of course, it is hard to say how it was rated then. Break in upon occurred in the domains RELIGION, POLITICS, ECONOMY, and LAW, two of which we would think of as containing rather formal text types — but following this train of thought would lead to a circular argument: we simply do not know how the domains or text types represented in the Lampeter Corpus were regarded then. There is also a more general question to be asked in this context: to what extent is it possible to apply the formal-informal axis to linguistic situations of the past? According to Samuels (1972:120), the distinction between "formal" and "less formal" (as he put it) is an old one, existing even in pre-literate cultures, which means that style -switching has always been a possibility. Also, in the transition from an oral-based to a literate, print-based society, with all that this implies linguistically (cf. chap. 2), the more oral linguistic realizations and the more liter ate/literary ones must have formed a cline similar to the formal-informal one. Thus, transferring the basic distinction to the past is possible, but determining the borderlines, or perhaps rather border areas, between the different stylistic levels is not so easy. The above general distinction between Romance and native words is claimed by Schäfer (1973:24) to have been visible in its very early stages in linguistic and stylistic comments made around the year 1600. Coming back to multi-word verbs in this question, Hiltunen (1994:139,n.4) argued that phrasal verbs are found less frequently in writing, precisely because they are more characteristically colloquial in general, and this is especially true of metaphorical combinations, which tend to be even more marked as colloquial. One could probably extend this statement also to 35
On the other hand, Nevalainen (1999) points out that "repetitive word pairs were a more or less automatic feature in the rhetoric of a number of formal registers at the time" (my italics, CC), especially the legal register.
254
Making a Choice
other types of multi-word verbs, with the exception, however, of verbo-nominal combinations. But in my opinion it is not really possible to generalize over a whole category of words; there are different kinds of Romance verbs as much as there are multi-word verbs with different stylistic values. A lot depends on the individual item here, and also on the context it is used in. Some of the phrasal verbs above (e.g. exs. (72, 74, 81)), for example, do indeed seem colloquial, but others have a very formal, sometimes even formalized, ring to them. Others might be completely neutral as to style. Let us look at a few more phrasal verb examples: (85) (86) (87)
(88)
(89)
(90)
... it is to be observed that the state of the Christian Church is set forth in the Revelations by 2 Visions of 2 Women. (RelA1679) The Two before you in the Bill were never yet conjoyn’d by God, in the true Meaning of those Words; they may therefore as yet be put asunder by Men; (LawB1715) and if they make no better Offers to the Honourable Commissioners appointed by the State for the Discovery of Longitude than they have hitherto, all Hopes of their discovering it may be laid aside for good and all. (SciB1714) Here we must suppose God working a Miracle upon every trifling Occasion, to oblige the evil Spirits; (...) and not only this, but likewise indulge them in several apish, ridiculous Pranks, (...), and to sum up this Inconsistency, all to humour some poor, decripid, silly Old Woman. (MscA1712) but that every Man might write as much Truth as he pleased about the Administration of the Government, not only by pointing out Faults and Mistakes, but by publishing his own Comment and Inferences ... (LawB1738) ... whereupon, consulting with som knowing Friends, hee was advised to make som Instruments to trie out the experience. (SciB1649)
The first three seem more formal to me than the others. In the case of set forth (85), this judgment could of course be influenced by the archaic and rare nature of the particle forth nowadays, but it seems not completely unjustified, as usually only things of some import (e.g. theory, truth, discovery, the word of God etc.), and within non-trivial circumstances, are "set forth" in the Lampeter Corpus. Asunder (86) and aside (87) belong to the less common particles in the corpus (with 10 and 47 occurrences respectively), which in itself might already be an argument against combinations with them being colloquial. The whole sentence in (86), moreover, contains a rather close paraphrase of a biblical statement 36, and is 36
Matthew 19.6: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Authorized Version).
Making a Choice
255
in that way on a different stylistic level. Lay aside in (87) could be substituted by another phrasal verb, namely give up, but this would clearly lead to a change towards a less formal style — which shows up the stylistic cline within the category of phrasal verbs. Both sum up (88) and point out (89) make a rather neutral impression, even though sum up must have arisen in more formal, especially written contexts, in the first place. Try out (90), on the other hand, sounds as if it had its origin in the spoken language; nevertheless it also remains on a rather neutral plane and does not seem displaced in the rather learned scientific text it is found in. These few examples shall suffice to show that generalized statements are problematic. The same goes for the other multi-word verb categories, cf. for instance the clear difference between (91) and (92). (91) (92)
... projects seldom fail in Holland, nor take effect here, which, by gross mistake, is imputed to their ingenuity, being indeed, the natural consequence of low Interest; (EcA1668) They say, Northampton makes love one hour to you, and he beats the brains of it out in a quarter. (MscA1650)
However, all this is not to say that especially high frequencies of one or the other category of multi-word verb in a whole text (cf. the approach taken in chap.7) cannot produce a stylistic shift in a certain direction, which may have been intended by the author. Apart from stylistic levels, there are also other stylistic considerations that may play a part in determining the use of multi-word verbs. Talking about phrasal (and to some degree prepositional) verbs, Kennedy (1920:33) attributed their existence and use to the striving for a certain rhythmic effect in our speech. Once again, a remark made on one type also is true of the others; probably it applies even more to verbo-nominal combinations than to phrasal verbs. Using more words and being able (in many cases at least) to spread them across the sentence in different ways allows speakers to influence the rhythm of the sentence more effectively. Furthermore, using a multi-word verb can prevent a sentence (or clause), especially if it is a short one, from sounding too abrupt. Consider the rhythm of the following sentences with and without the multi-word verb: (93a) To all which I shall give no answer. (SciB1735) (93b) All which I shall not answer. (94a) It will behove you to make your Answer, what reason had you for it? (LawA1668) (94b) It will behove you to answer, what reason had you for it? (95a) THERE are, I make no doubt, among the Mathematicians many sincere Believers in Jesus Christ; (SciB1735)
256
Making a Choice
(95b) There are, I doubt not, ... / ?There are, I don’t/do not doubt, ... Each of the (a)-sentences has a somewhat more harmonious melody than the rewriting with a simplex. What is important to remember here is the fact that EModE writing was still more thoroughly grounded in an oral background (cf. chap.2) than is the case in later times, i.e. writers would probably have an auditory impression of what they wrote in the back of their heads. This is even more likely in the case of speech-related genres such as sermons, (political and legal) speeches, and dialogues, all of which are represented in the corpus. Example (94) is of special interest here, because it is actually taken from a text transcribing direct courtroom speech, the quote showing the judge talking to a defendant. Of course, in each of the instances given above one can also find other than rhythmic reasons why the multi -word variants were used, e.g. kinds of modification, but these will be dealt with in the next section. Another stylistic consideration is quite simply variation. While writing about one topic, the same or very similar things will usually come up again and again, and the author will have to make a choice whether he will present them in the identical words, or whether he wants to vary his expressions. Most authors, at least the better ones, will opt for the second possibility, and the English language with its wealth of (near-)synonyms, to which multiword verbs contribute, offers ample opportunities for doing so. Variation of this kind is really only visible across longer stretches of text, ideally the whole text; for reasons of space I will restrict myself here to some examples in smaller contexts (96-98), and only hint at the larger textual contexts in (99). (96)
(97)
(98)
(99)
I quickly concluded therefore that all their endeavours must have hith erto been ineffectual to this purpose, and that they had not been less imposed on themselves, then they had deceived others by their mistaken observations. (SciA1674) By such as take heed to themselves, but ’tis not in a spiritual but carnal sense; who will look narrowly to themselves, as to their worldly concerns, their Revenue and Income; but are too careless to the spiritual concerns both of themselves and their Flock, ... (RelA1669) But to return to the last Revolution: Tho we must own that we owe our Deliverance to his present Majesty, and were oblig’d in Conscience and Honour to concur with him; yet who could have blam’d us to have stood upon Terms before we had fallen in with England? (PolA1699) ... yet his being a Parson, for which they ought to honour him more than for any other Character, or than for all the rest put together, so
Making a Choice
257
degrades him, and renders him vile in their Eyes; that it takes off from That Respect, which upon other Accounts they would otherwise pay him. (...) Nor does our admitting That Word, as apply’d to Marriage, in the least derogate from the Truth of what I observe under This Head. (RelA1721) (96) and (98) present the expected kinds of variation, between a prepositional verb or a phrasal-prepositional verb on the one hand and a Romance verb on the other, whereas (97) shows that different multi -word verbs can also be used for that purpose. A synonymous pair of a verbo nominal combination and a prepositional verb contrast further with a case of adjectival complementation. (99) is like (98) in kind, but the instances of variation are much wider apart in the text, take off from being found on page 14 and derogate on page 1937 with c. 1,200 words in between them. Nevertheless, I think it can still count as conscious variation, as the contexts are rather similar and the two verbs form a neat contrast (native phrasal prepositional verb vs. "hard word"). Not all variation has to involve different words, however; even the relatively simple change between verbo -nominal combination and its related verb, as in (100, 101), can do the job. (100) or suppose the Collectors should omit or defer to make a Demand for any of these Taxes; must the Freeman lose his Right to vote for that reason, though he was ready to have paid this as well as all the rest, if it had been demanded? (PolB1724) (101) I did next contrive a way of making observations that might be free from all the former inconveniencies and exceptions, and as near as might be, fortified against any other that could be invented or raised against it. This way then was to observe by the passing of some considerable Star near the Zenith of Gresham Colledge, ... (SciA1674) On the other hand, sometimes variation seems not to be an aim. The direct speech text mentioned above, LawA1668, contains the trial of one specific offence, namely, as the pamphlet title states, that of "pullin g down bawdyhouses", and throughout the whole text only the verb pull down is used (32 times in all) to describe the offensive action, no other possible variant. On the written page, this creates the impression of monotony, but in the context of the original spoken intercourse, and also for the sake of legal clarity, it was probably quite appropriate. In a purely written context, such repetition is even more conspicuous, however: in example (102) there is a bit too much notice given and taken in such a short space. 37
These are the page numbers of the original text, retrievable from the SGMLencoding of the electronic version.
258
Making a Choice
(102) and giving notice to my Assistant to prepare, he upon the sign given took notice exactly by a Pendulum Clock to the parts of a Second when the said Stars past, and also took notice what division the Diagonal thread mr cut upon the Rule op. (SciA1674) Robert Hooke, the author of that sentence, was obviously more concerned with the content than with the form of his message. Hooke in passage (102) exhibits a rather nominal style, even apart from the verbo-nominal combinations (cf. also upon the sign given, what division), a style which according to Wells (1960:217) is easier to produce than a more verbal style, and thus suited to people emphasizing the content. Obviously then, verbo-nominal combinations can be seen in the context of nominal style, as they are one, though by no means the only, of its elements. Thus, negative criticism directed at nominal style is also relevant to them. Wells (ibid.) summarizes the reasons given by critics as follows: (i) nouns are more static and less vivid than verbs, (ii) longer sentences, which usually are a consequence of a nominal style, are on the whole less vivid and less comprehensible than shorter (i.e. verbal) ones, and, finally, (iii) nominal style creates monotony, whereas a verbal style allows for m ore diversity. I will only deal with the first of these points here. Without any negative undercurrent, McIntosh (1977:120,n.1) also calls nominal predication 38 stative, because it is least verb-like. Deutschbein (1932:8), on the other hand, attributes expressive and dynamic characteristics to the nominal style he sees as typical of modern English prose. Talking expressly of verbo -nominal combinations (his examples: make a return, take a walk, give N a dust etc.), he says (ibid. 130f) that an action becomes more intensive, vivid, and forceful if it is expressed through them instead of a purely verbal construction. ‘Static’ (Wells) and ‘stative’ (McIntosh), while not being identical, are certainly connected as they both work towards the same general impression produced by a piece of writing. I will take ‘static’ to be a stylistic feature, and ‘stative’ to be a semantic one. Let’s look at some few examples from the Lampeter Corpus, setting multi-word and simplex uses of the same item side by side: (103a) (103b)
38
And no Vote in this House can hinder a Man from making use of what Arguments he thinks fit. (PolB1706) And if it were necessary to use any further Arguments for the proof of this Matter, they would plainly appear by comparing ancient Histories with Modern in the Descriptions they give of the Countries. (MscB1685)
He is talking of all possible kinds of nominal predication, i.e. not exclusively, not even preferably, of verbo-nominal combinations.
Making a Choice (104a) (104b) (105a) (105b)
(106a) (106b)
259
Secondly, for Importing of forraign Goods, such as Linnen, Sugars, Raw-silk, &c. which we stand in need of. (EcB1660) It is certain, they need not for Meat and Drink in Ireland, ... (EcB1700) Yet I must acknowledg, that what was precipitated was very inconsiderable to what was decocted, and not so much as to make much alteration in the colour of the water; (SciB1676) For ’tis a most dangerous thing to shake or alter any of the rules or fundamental points of the common Law, ... (LawA1680) How does it appear that the Emperor (...) gave them any Assistance, when They actually besieged it? (PolA1731) All Captains, Officers, and Souldiers, shall do their endeavours to detect, apprehend, and bring to punishment all Offenders, and shall assist the Officers of the Army for that purpose, ... (LawA1643)
The general impression from these examples, and also from the rest of the data, is that verbo-nominal combinations do not automatically increase either the stative or the static element in the predication. The deverbal nouns in the combinations basically share the semantic traits of the underlying verbs, added to by some nominal features, which are mostly of a formal nature. The more the noun stays like the verb, e.g. by being isomorphic with it or by not taking an article (cf. esp. (103), also (104)), the less noun -like, the less static/stative it feels. Combinations fulfilling these conditions are very common in the data; slightly more than half of the types, and certainly the majority of the tokens, contain zero-derived nouns for instance. Suffixderived nouns, as in (105-106), are phonologically ‘heavier’, slowing down the pace of the sentence, and may thus possibly seem more static stylistically. Semantically, however, they 39 can be interpreted as both result/abstract entity on the one hand or as process on the other, the latter possibility of course retaining all the dynamic verbal force. In my opinion, the stative meaning of result is somewhat more salient in alteration (105), whereas assistance (106) retains more dynamism; there are also cases like need (104) where both verb and noun have a stative feature. In contrast to other forms of nominal style, there is alwa ys a finite verb present in verbonominal combinations, which, especially in the case of action verbs such as make, give, also adds some dynamic force. Modification, as is present in (105-106), may be used to increase both staticness and stativ ity, depending on how specific and individualizing the modification used is. To sum up 39
This goes for all nouns in the combinations, not only the suffixal ones.
260
Making a Choice
then, using verbo-nominal combinations as such does not dramatically increase the static and/or stative nature of a discourse, but it does give the author more of an opportunity to fine-tune these features if he wants to. As to Deutschbein’s terms of praise quoted above, the sheer additional weight provided by the combination can of course give a more intensive and forceful imprint to the predication. Müller (1978:223) also points out that verbo-nominal combinations actually emphasize the activity as such, whereas the use of simplexes tends to rather stress the manner and the circumstances of the activity. All in all, therefore, verbo-nominal combinations are not hit overmuch by this particular criticism of nominal style. This section has shown that multi-word verbs offer ample opportunities to an author for varying his expression and for adapting to the needs of his audience as well as to the needs of the topics treated. Furthermore, they can (but need not necessarily) be used to create an overall stylistic effect. 9.3 Syntax and Message The semantic spreading exhibited by multi-word verbs (cf. 9.1) could not exist without syntactic spreading, which means that a combination take s up more, and different kinds of slots, within the clause or sentence than a simplex verb. It thus occupies more syntactic and phonological space, not only through the various elements but also in some cases through longer words (e.g. Romance/suffixal nouns). These basic facts attribute more weight to the predication with a multi-word item than to that with a simplex, and already go some way in emphasizing it as such. Perhaps those prepositional verbs, e.g. fail of, accept of, admire at etc., in which the preposition seems superfluous to the modern and even some contemporary speakers, are due to a desire for more weight. A good example is certainly make/have use of in contrast to the extremely short monosyllabic simplex use, which tends to be rather inconspicuous. Nevertheless, with 451 occurrences the simplex is nearly three times more frequent than the verbo nominal combination (158 occ.). Table 9.1 shows the spread of both forms over the corpus decades: 40
40
Cf. Kytö in Brinton/Akimoto (1999) for the same comparison on the basis of the EModE part of the Helsinki Corpus. She further compares care with take/have care, which is seen as less suitable here because of the semantic difference between the simplex and multi-word forms; also, the simplex care hardly exists, the usual form being the prepositional verb care for. In the present investigation of use-make/have use
Making a Choice
261
Table 9.1: use vs. make/have use of in the Lampeter Corpus (tokens) use make/have use of
1640s 58 11
1650s 39 17
1660s 26 12
1670s 44 26
1680s 63 12
use make/have use of
1690s 43 23
1700s 60 12
1710s 25 18
1720s 45 12
1730s 48 15
Thus, more phonological and syntactic weight alone are obviously not reason enough for the use of multi-word structure. Other points, like those pointed out above, and those of a more syntactic nature that will follow, will play a role in every individual instance of choice. What is furthermore important about syntactic spreading is that it offers a number of specific features and procedures, which can help an author to make what he has to say more pre cise and/or more effective. This last section will therefore be devoted to how syntax can influence and enhance the message. Elements of a multi-word verb can occupy positions in a clause which a simplex cannot occupy at all or only with difficulty. Those are primarily front and final position, i.e. the most prominent places in a clause. The norm in English is the "principle of end-focus" (Quirk et al. 1985:1357) with the final position carrying both most stress and most information value, but a kind of front-focus is also possible, cf. the process of fronting, for instance. In this case, focusing is much more a question of emphasis, not of high information value, the fronted item usually being marked theme. I will now deal with end-focus first. Within the SV(O)-structure of English a simplex verb would not normally end a clause or sentence, unless in the case of an intransitive verb without further complementation or circumstantial modification, i.e. plain SV. However, English speakers tend to avoid such abrupt structures. More complex syntactic rearrangements, such as cleft sentences like the one found in (107), can also leave the verb at the end. (107) 3. Pursue it [=love] earnestly, because it is well worth the greatest vehemency and intention of spirit. (...) It is that which God delights in, that which God himself is. (RelA1653) This then is actually a case of divided focus (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:1384), with the emphasis not unequivocally or not primarily on the verb. Also, it of, all variants of use denoting habituality (used to do s.th., etc.) and such cases as they used him civilly where discarded in order to achieve semantic equivalence.
262
Making a Choice
requires some syntactic effort to produce cleft and similar kinds of structures. 41 In contrast, elements of some multi-word verbs can take end position, and thus end-focus, quite naturally: the particle of phrasal verbs, the adjective of verb-adjective combinations, and the noun of verbo-nominal combinations. Phrasal verbs with a non-pronominal object leave it to the author which of the two structures, V-p-O or V-O-p, he will opt for. If he chooses the latter, as in (108), he gives end -focus to the greater part of the verbal force inherent in the particle (cf. 10.1.) and thus emphasizes the verb. (108) The Tears of Widows and Orphans are our Summons to This chearful Meeting: Which yet ought to be a chearful one, because the End of it is to contribute what we can to wipe Those Tears away. (RelA1721) The same procedure is possible with verb-adjective combinations, which behave similarly to phrasal verbs in that respect (cf. chap.4). (109) And therefore you that are rich had need double your diligence to make your calling and election sure. (MscB1658) (110) The Consent of the Empire was obtain’d, and the Letters expectative deliver’d before the Differences between the Empire and Spain were adjusted; so that the Emperor had made all his Engagements good; (PolA1731) (111) ... with Assurances that They would effectually make good ALL SUCH EXPENCES and ENGAGEMENTS. (PolA1731) While (109-110) focus on the verb by placing its adjectival element at the end, even after a longer and coordinated noun phrase, (111) makes it very clear that end-focus and emphasis is reserved for the object noun phrase, and accordingly leaves the adjective attached to its verbal part. (112-113) are examples of verbo-nominal combinations providing end-focus with the help of their noun taking clause-final (112) or sentence-final (113) position. (112) That I and all men have reason to make this a doubt, your own action, as well as your tame sufferings do but too plainly manifest. (PolB1659) (113) ... but it is plain, from this Account, that the formidable Union of Spain and the Emperor gave these two Courts no Alarm. (PolA1731)
41
I have not checked the Lampeter Corpus for all possible syntactic topicalization structures, but only looked for some types of cleft sentences in the present and past (search string: it is/it was + who/whom/which [range of 5 to the right]). There were only three or four likely candidates, perhaps indicating that the structure was not very common then. It may also be noteworthy that the example quoted in the text is from a sermon, i.e. a text with connections to the spoken language.
Making a Choice
263
In both cases there would have been an alternative, if t he author had not wanted that particular focus: make (a) doubt of N is possible, and (113), which is a so-called ditransitive give-construction, can be paraphrased by "... gave no alarm to these two courts". 42 With most transitive verbo-nominal combinations of Group III, final position and end-focus is the natural place of preposition-noun sequence, as in the following two examples. (114) ... the honourable Houses, who upon better reasons both may, and (we hope) will take their Vote into further consideration: (PolA1646) (115) Their Resolution and Constancy had almost cost ’em their Lives, for dreading the Courage and Indignation of Gustavus, if he shou’d be releas’d, gave secret Orders to put him and the other Lords to Death. (MscB1739) In contrast, those combinations belonging to Group II, such as lose sight of, make use of etc., do not offer the possibility of giving end-focus to the noun; the final obligatory preposition precludes this. The same is true of preposi tional and phrasal-prepositional verbs. But in all other cases, as the above examples show, end-focus comes about naturally and easily through the structure of the multi-word verb, and requires no extra effort from the author. Furthermore, it is equally easy to avoid it if not desired. 43 What I intend front-focus to mean is (a) positioning of part of the verbal predication at or very near the beginning of a sentence or clause, but also (b) the prominent placing of the non-verbal part of a multi-word structure in front position of the structure its elf (a kind of ‘internal fronting’), i.e. usually in a position a simplex could not take. Fronting can, but need not, mean that the element is the theme, i.e. given information. The same group of multi-word verbs that allows end-focus also makes frontfocus possible. Some phrasal verbs, namely the most literal ones, allow their particle to be pre-posed, as in (116): (116) He had not talk’d with him long, before he was desired to take measure of him; and whilst that was doing, up came a Foot-man in a gentile Livery, and paying him much Respect and Reverence, told him
42
This is possible even though Quirk et al. (1985:753) state that the affected "direct object" naturally takes end-focus and the indirect object is therefore not normally replaceable by a prepositional structure. Cf. the following example, which can stand representative for others found in the Lampeter Corpus: (i) This Clause in his Majesties Proclamation, gave the Alaram to some persons that are Wiredrawers, to ingage some worthy Gentlemen to be instrumental to procure the Wiredrawers a Corporation from his sacred Majesty: (LawB1661) 43 With the exception of phrasal verbs and verb-adjective combinations with pronominal object, where there is no positional choice.
264
Making a Choice that Sir John, his Master, desired his Company at Dinner. (MscB1692)
This is not very common (cf. chap.6), and usually only found in narrative contexts like the above. The fronting of the partic le is a simple narrative device, making the account more vivid by indicating a sudden, unexpected or surprising event. Even more uncommon than particle fronting is fronting in verb-adjective combinations: it occurs only twice in the whole corpus, (117) representing one of these two instances: (117) How exceeding short doth this fall of the Admirable Sweetness of his Nature, who is Lord of the Christian-Religion, that was so far from Indulging Hatred to his Conscientious Friends, that he forbid it to his greatest Enemies? (RelB1674) The second example not only concerns the very same item but also the identical syntactic pattern (a Report how far short they fall of those Qualifications, MscA1712). This might mean that fronting in verb-adjective combinations is highly restricted to certain individual items. Surprisingly, the item in question here is one of the most lexicalized and idiomatic units within its category, i.e. a type where one would not have expected such transformational freedom. Thus, the phenomenon may be more widespread and become visible in a larger database. I will thus have to leave this question open. The items most flexible with regard to possibilities of fronting are verbo-nominal combinations from Groups I and II, among which internal fronting is not at all uncommon. The simplest way of achieving that effect is using the inner passive (cf. chap.6), as is to be seen in (118-119): (118) She being suspected for them, and that she was run away, Pursuit was made after her by a young man, who overtook her, and found the things about her; (LawB1678) (119) He answered himself thus, Even that which hath been already done. (...) The like Answer may not be unfitly returned, Even that which hath been already spoken. (PolA1659) The clausal fronting of pursuit in (118) neatly links up with the final element of the preceding clause, run away, bringing the logical sequence of events into neighbouring position; pursuit here represents new information. Answer in (119) takes up the thread of verbal answer used earlier, and thus serves as a cohesive element, at the same time varying the parallel structure. Other than inner-passive fronting structures are exemplified in the following sentences:
Making a Choice
265
(120) And though it be manifest enough, that Galilæo, as to some particulars, was mistaken in the account which there he gives of it; (SciA1666) (121) And what influence this will have into the state of this Nation; time will manifest, if men are not as yet at leasure to consider. (RelB1667) (122) There is mention made before p. 7 of the anthos tes horas, of the Emperour, which the Interpreter renders, ætatis flos & vigor. (RelB1692) (123) For as to his Call, he had no other that we read of, but the neccesity his brother stood in of his help. (PolB1659) The multi-word internal relative clause in (120), the indirect question as in (121), and the existential sentence of (122) give an idea of the transforma tional and focusing possibilities verbo-nominal combinations can offer. While this does not mean that every single type allows all or even any of them, the phenomenon is nevertheless rather widespread. It does not even exclude lexicalized (e.g. (122), also take notice of, make use of) or idiomatic combinations, cf. the idiomatic meaning present in (120), "explain, account for", which is present despite the syntactic transformation. (123) shows that fronting, here with the help of a relative structure, is, unexpectedly, also possible in Group III; this was the only example found, however. It is in these fronted uses that the verb is downgraded most to operator-status, while the noun retrieves most fully its nominal characteristics and gets even greater weight than in all other uses. While fronting, or front -focus, is more sophisticated and somewhat more complicated to bring about than end-focus, it is nevertheless an important possibility and at least in the case of verbo nominal combinations it is freely made use of by the authors in the Lampeter Corpus. Syntactic spreading also enables the writer to single out individual elements of the combination for modification. This means that the modifica tion can in some circumstances be more specific, namely by modifying one particular part of the overall meaning instead of the more indistinct whole. The category that immediately comes to mind with respect to modificatory possibilities is of course verbo-nominal combinations, but some other items offer themselves as well. I have given both the decidedly low frequency figures and some examples of phrasal verb and verb-adjective modification in chapter 6, and there is no need to repeat all of that here. But some more ex amples may be in order: (124) ... that such as are unwearied of your Majesties government, dare not attempt to cast it totally off, ... (PolA1646) (125) And surely were there no other consideration but this (give me leave to repeat it, though I have said it once before) this alone were sufficient to make us keep close together, ... (PolA1659)
266
Making a Choice
(126) And now if one may make so bold as to give Law to the Geographers, ... (SciB1649) The adverbs totally, close, and so clearly refer to and modify specifically the non-verbal element of the combination. They can thus be more to the point intended by the author. However, because of the infrequency of these cases and because of an obviously existing tendency to restrict intervening elements in these types of verbs, modification in phrasal verbs and verb adjective combinations cannot be seen as an important reason for their use. The situation is more complex with regard to verbo -nominal combinations. First of all, because modification has been identified as a major reason for their use, both in PDE (e.g. Müller 1978) and in earlier stages of the lan guage (e.g. Kytö on EModE in Brinton/Akimoto 1999). And secondly, because the possibilities for modification are greater and more diverse in this than in any other type. First, adjectival modification is usually easier to pro duce than the adverbial one a simplex verb would require, and the plural morpheme compared to an adverbial phrase of frequency or duration is probably as simple as one can get. The verbal alternative to (127), have been altered many times, requires one or two words more than the nominal structure, and (128) is rephraseable as I can use this in no other way. (127) And which [laws] have received many alterations, and may at any time when it seems good to the King and Parliament receive more; (RelB1667) (128) I have no other use to make of this, but to infer that the Directors have in them a Power to dispose of the Money (...) as they shall think fit. (EcA1705) Also, adverbial descriptions can often sound rather clumsy or at any rate less elegant than the adjectival/nominal alternatives. To "answer something satisfactorily" would probably not be rated as a stylistic highlight, whereas the adjectival solution in (129) is not in the least awkward. (129) By all this I intend no more than to give a satisfactory Answer to the Argument of Merit pleaded upon this Head; (EcA1705) Furthermore, there are things which cannot be adequately expressed adverbially, but cause no problem as nominal modification structures, e.g. you can have little need (RelB1667) of somebody or something, but *need littly of course would not work. The following represent some other examples for which there is no obvious or easy adverbial alternative: (130) Judges and Lawyers have ill successe: (SciA1644) (131) To this Objection, I give this plain Answer. (PolB1674)
Making a Choice
267
(132) In the mean time my Friends in England had taken some care for my Ransome, ... (MscA1685) The demonstrative pronoun, as in (131), is not an uncommon modification, also occurring on its own without additional adjectives. It is of course easy to give this kind of definiteness to a noun, but it is impossible to do something like this directly to the verb. Some, especially when it is more clearly a marker of indefiniteness than it is in (132), presents the same problem. Even if both the adverbial and adjectival and/or determiner alternatives work, e.g. have a secret influence (RelB1667) on somebody and influence N secretly, they might not convey exactly the same meaning. Similarly, a hasty account, as in (133), is not necessarily the same as telling something hastily — one can after all simply speak very fast, while the adjectival modificati on also makes a statement about the characteristics of the report. (133) I have given Mr Boyle an hasty account thereof in a Letter, which I send now to you, that you may not be ignorant of it. (MscB1666) Postmodification is also found, and apart from very few exceptions it usually comes in the form of a relative clause, as in (134): (134) Be serious in the consideration of these particulars, and upon liking, give what promotion you can towards their settlement. (LawB1659) Just as in this example, postmodification in nearly all cases is accompanied by a premodifying element. Finally, there is the possibility of using modification to personalize the action by adding a possessive adjective (135) or pronoun (136): (135) our Gracious Sovereign Queen ANN was Graciously pleased to give the Royal Assent to our Act of Security, ... (PolB1706) (136) ... and when left to his free Will and Pleasure to take his Choice, whether he will promote the publick Good, and his own Interest, by accepting a Sum of Money for his Annuity,... (EcB1720) In some combinations; this is more common than in others, e.g. take leave of occurs very often with a possessive pronoun, and at least one item, make one’s way, has a pronoun slot to be filled obligatorily. Thus, the possibilities of modification, and the advantages going with it, offered by verbo -nominal combinations are quite impressive, but as pointed out in chapter 6 the overall frequency of modification (about 28%) is not very high, definitely less than one would expect against the background of other studies. In the context of the present data, modification can therefore not be taken as the most powerful reason for the existence and use of the whole group of verbo nominal combinations, especially not for Group III items. In individual
268
Making a Choice
cases, however, it might very well have influenced the decision of one or the other author in favour of the multi -word unit. Nominal negation, just like modification above, has also been seen as a reason for using verbo-nominal structures, basically because it is syntactically ‘simpler’ than verbal negation. This feature again was not found to be very common in the corpus data (cf. chap.6), and moreover it is not applicable to Group III combinations at all. The idea of nominal negation being simpler must be based mainly on a comparison of negation with the help of the do-periphrasis — however, this latter structure was not yet fully and exclusively in place in the period of the Lampeter Corpus (e.g. Barber 1997:193ff; Rissanen 1999). One also finds straightforward non-periphrastic verbal negation, i.e. without do-support, in the corpus. Infinitival negation does not require do at all. And then there are those cases in which the presence of a modal or other auxiliary make non-periphrastic negation possible. Cases of uses of never and neither/nor-constructions will also have to be taken into consideration. Examples (137-140) illustrate some different possibilities: (137) I take no pleasure in War, ... (EcB1653) (138) ... for though His Majesty doth not make use of them [= Test Acts], They may stand as Rods doth <sic> upon Mantle-Trees, to keep Rebellious Children in Subjection. (RelB1687) (139) ... [he] asks her, if she had any hand in bewitching Anne Thorn; to which at first she gave not positive Answer; (MscA1712) (140) That (...) what He should say in that Court might not be made use of against him in any Inferiour Court; (LawB1697) Thus, it is necessary to look at all negated verbo-nominal combinations of Groups I and II in order to find out how frequen t or infrequent nominal negation is in comparison with them. The examples of nominal negation found amounted to 99 instances for Groups I and II together (cf. chap.6), and all the cases of non-nominal negation together only come to 44 instances, again for both groups. There are also cases that can only take verbal negation: (141) I must here again repeat it, (because what is never out of my Mind, I would not lose sight of one Moment,) that I have no design to accuse the Ministry. (PolB1713) In (141), nominal negation, *lose no sight of, would create nonsense, for instance. All in all, negation of any kind of verbo-nominal combinations is obviously not very common in the first place. It is clear, however, that the nominal variant, with more than double the occurrences, is the preferred method of negation in the data. This may be due to its greater simplicity at least in some cases, but an additional factor may be found in a possible se-
Making a Choice
269
mantic or pragmatic difference between verbal and nominal negation. Com paring (139) above with the two examples in (142), a distinction is discernible. (142a) (142b)
of all which I shall give no answer. (SciB1735) the Moors themselves call’d to us, We made no answer and travel’d on, (MscA1685)
In (139), an answer as such was given, though it was not a positive one; it even seems that finally a positive answer was made (cf. at first). In contrast, in (142a+b) it is clear that no answer at all exists. This may be the reason for the different choice made by the authors in questio n. What may play a role in influencing the use of verbo-nominal combinations of Group I is the possible intransitivizing function of these items, so that it is not necessary to specify an actual object of the activity. The figures given in chapter 6 show that intransitive usage in Group I is not uncommon, but it is necessary to be aware that this figure also contains such items as make an escape, which do not have a transitive use at all. Nevertheless, a considerable group of items can be used both transi tively or intransitively, i.e. with or without an object. Wishing to avoid mentioning the object can have different reasons, some of which the following examples are to illustrate: (143) he interposes not his own authority and appoints not himself who shall be his Vice-gerents and rule under him; he leaves it to none but the people themselves to make the election, ... (PolB1659) (144) To which may be added the Experience and Testimony of my Honoured and Learned Friends Sir Edward Greaves, and Dr. Nat. Highmore, who have both made trial, and found the Waters turn. (SciB1676) (145) One was a Pretence to make a Discovery, and to get time by sending a Letter over Sea to the King; (LawB1697) (146) ’Tis plainly for this reason, that very severe Laws are still in force against Papists, though no one feels the rigour of them while he lives quiet, and gives no offence. (RelB1721) In the first of these examples, (143), the object of election has already been mentioned in the preceding text (i.e. his Vice-gerents), and therefore does not need to be repeated; using the verb "elect", however, would have required a pronominal object at the least. (144) is from a text concerned with various scientific experiments performed on the waters of Bath, to which make trial refers. Thus, the object here is implicitly present, easily retrievable from the overall topic of the discourse. In (145), it is not known
270
Making a Choice
what is to be discovered, so that no object could possibly be stated. While in this example it is implied that it is unknown because it does not exist (cf. Pretence), most cases, e.g. the many uses of make (an) observation in scientific texts, are simply a question of an unknown object. In the last instance above, (146), it is clear that the action denoted by the combination is the important point as such; also, the action denoted basically affects everybody and anybody. These and all the other instances of not intrinsically intransitive, but intransitively used combinations point to the fact that this is a very important reason for the use of many Group I verbo-nominal combinations. Some multi-word verbs provide the opportunity of expressing a passive signification with an active form, i.e. they avoid the formal passive which an alternative simplex would require. Kennedy (1920:27) remarked that this is not uncommon with phrasal verbs, but the present data does not contain evidence for this. The only category in which this phenomenon is common and rather systematic is once again verbo -nominal combinations of Group I. The following sentences represent some examples: (147) Sir Iohn Meldram at Newarke upon Trent, upon the 21. had his defeate: (SciA1644) (148) They were sure to get the preference of the Market of us in other Countries, and if occasion were, to under-sel us also as much per Cent. in all places, and upon all Trades; (EcA1652) (149) ... we shall at length discover him by his divided, and dividing foot; and thence take warning to avoid him. (PolA1659) (150) The Labours of no Adversary hath had more grateful Acceptance in the Thoughts of your Reverend Author J. Faldo, then a noted Socinian, of whose Attempt he speaks thus; (RelB1674) In the case of (147) and (149), the items are part of contrastive active passive pairs, i.e. give defeat to / have defeat, give warning / take warning. This effect is reached very simply by varying the verbal element, using give, or sometimes make, for the active sense, and, as a rule, take or have for the passive. Other instances of this kind are give/have notice, give/take alarm, give/take offence, make/have a variation, or give, make/receive an alteration. Not all ‘passive’ items can be paired up with an ‘active’ counterpart, however, cf. for instance (148) and (150) above. It is possible that all these cases reflect a certain re luctance to use the formal passive voice, or even a dislike of it, but they are too few and too infrequent in the
Making a Choice
271
data to state this with certainty. 44 At any rate, like the passive, these forms help to shift items into subject position according to the wishes to the writer. In chapter 6, I have treated coordination with other verbs as an im portant point of emphasizing unitary status of the multi -word verb. What was mainly at issue there was the syntax around the item, but these forms also offer the possibility of internal coordination. One rather complex multi -word verb can thus contain two, or sometimes more, ‘verbs’, i.e. denote various activities or different aspects of one activity. This is not possible with all categories; prepositional and phrasal-prepositional verbs cannot allow it, but the other types can. In the case of verb-adjective combinations, the verbal element is doubled up, as in (151): (151) Maintaine amongst us a free course of trading for eternall happinesse, set and keepe open those shops, such Pulpits, such mouthes, as any Prelaticall usurpations have, or would have, shut up. (RelA1642) Phrasal verbs can combine one verb with two particles, as in (152), or one particle with two verbs (153): (152) I suppose the increase of Heat, which sometimes that Bath wants, procured by keeping the Air out, and the steam in great measure in, (...) will make a sufficient recompence for this supposed molestation. (SciB1676) (153) Ye cannot Preach nor Pray them down directly and immediately — Well, That which the Word cannot do, the Sword shall: (RelB1674) Most commonly, however, internal coordination is found with verbo -nominal combinations, again with those of Group I being the most prominently, but not exclusively used ones. While (154) coordinates items that seem to be not that well established on their own (give outcry 45 as such is not found at all in the corpus, and give alarm only four other times besides this occurrence), nouns which are part of very fixed combinations can nevertheless also be coordinated, as (155, 156) show. (154) And then let all Mankind judge, whether of the two is more to be blamed, he that hath lead his Prince out of the old via Regia (...) or he that hath given an honest Alarm or Outcry of this evil Dealing. (PolB1674)
44
Regarding a possible dislike of the passive the following point is of interest: a pilot study on the use of the passive voice in the Lampeter Corpus domain SCIENCE, a register noted for its preference of the passive in PDE, has shown that it was used much less frequently than today. 45 This type, if it existed, would be a precursor of the common PDE formations with a zero-derived phrasal verb, e.g. make a mess-up (Sørensen 1986:279).
272
Making a Choice
(155) AFter the Clothier hath taken all the care and pains that possibly he can, to make his Cloth both cheap and good, yet when he cometh to sell it, he cannot do it himself, ... (EcA1681) (156) ... and yet they [= goods] are complain’d off there, as much as here, and stops and restraints are often put upon the bringing of them from India: (EcA1697) In both the latter cases, the coordinated nouns are connected with identical verbs, and in (156) even the same preposition, in their usual non-coordinated use. In one example, namely any such care and provision should be had and taken (PolB1660), however, the author felt it necessary to coordinate two verbs as well, producing a rather awkward structure. He could have avoided it by taking the more common take care instead of have (a) care as his basis, but perhaps he saw a semantic difference there which was important to him. Cases in which two verbs are coordinated with only one noun are not found in the data. Looking at all the examples of internal coordination given above, one can see that they either contain not much extra information (154, 155), i.e. function mainly as emphasizers, that they express different aspects of the activity (151, 153), or that they denote essentially different activities (152, 156). Thus, they can provide rather useful expressive opportunities for a writer. A last point I would like to make here regarding verbo-nominal combinations is the fact that, theoretically, the presence of the noun in the predicate makes nominal types of reference (e.g. pronouns) to the verbal predication possible. In order for this to be possible, the noun must have an independent semantic presence within the combination (cf. Krenn 1977:108), which is the case in the great majority of cases, even the idiomatic ones. An example of such referencing is found in (127) above, which I again quote here as (157): (157) ... mutable and changeable Laws; And which have received many alterations, and may at any time when it seems good to the King and Parliament receive more; (RelB1667) More takes up and refers back to alterations; while it is necessary to repeat receive as well, i.e. to retain the multi-word context (cf. Krenn 1977:112), this process is nevertheless easier than expressing (157) entirely verbally. All instances of relative clauses, as in (158), are of course also examples of such nominal reference. (158) ... they have given all Incouragements that were requisite to their Trade in their own Countrie: (EcA1652) Clear-cut pronominal reference examples were, however, not found in the data, but one has to make allowances for the fact they may easily be over -
Making a Choice
273
looked in the process of data collection if they go beyond the context of one sentence. The following examples of the repetition of the noun as such might be of interest here as well: (159) He [=God] many times made the choice, but left the Continuation and Ratification of that choice to the people themselves. (PolB1659) (160) CHarles Hore, the Complainer in the following Case, did in the Year 1701 make Complaint to the House of Commons, of a great Abuse Committed in Her Majesty’s Brew-house at St. Katharines; which Complaint was Referr’d to the Consideration of a Committee, ... (LawA1703) The italicized occurrences of the nouns would be possible following a purely verbal structure as well, but the connection is closer and clearer with the use of the verbo-nominal combinations. While pronominal or other reference is certainly not a major point for the use of these combinations, it is nevertheless interesting and merits furth er investigations, in my opinion. I hope to have shown in the foregoing chapter that the use of multi word verbs often opens up interesting semantic, stylistic and syntactical ave nues, which can be followed by the writer and exploited for his expressive and communicative purposes. However, it should also have become clear that not all multi-word categories treated here offer the same possibilities or even an equal range of them. Prepositional verbs are in a way the least versatile of all, which is due to the syntactically immobilizing effect of their prepositional second element on the one hand, and to the high number of purely syntactically determined combinations (consist of, depend on etc.) on the other hand. But the ‘native’ members of this class (look into, catch at etc.) team up with phrasal and phrasal-prepositional verbs as well as verbadjective combinations to make considerable semantic and stylistic contributions to the resources of the English language. Phrasal verbs, and to a lesser extent also verb-adjective combinations, additionally possess enough syntactic flexibility to be useful in producing shifts in meaning and emphasis in that respect as well. With regard to that last point, verbo -nominal combinations of all categories certainly offer the most opportunities while also providing some semantic expansions. Writers can exploit all these things for their purposes, or they can decide against them, of course: it is all these individual decisions taken and choices made that have produced the mixture of simplex and multi-word verbs found in the texts of the Lampeter Corpus.
10. Conclusion This study has been concerned with providing some insights into the use of multi-word verbs in the late EModE period. Its aims were on the one hand purely factual description of the state of affairs as regards linguistic features, and on the other hand a more speculative assessment of the status of these structures with respect to language attitudes, stylistics etc. As to the first, all the categories of multi -word verbs as defined on a PDE basis in chapter 4 were also found in the Lampeter Corpus (chapter 6). In each category, so-called ‘prototypical’ types were encountered (cf. for instance set out, rely on, come by, look up to, make good, give a shout, make use of, take into consideration), indicating that the core defining features were also at work then. The number of identical, or highly similar, combinations in PDE and EModE points to stability within the system as such, and, furthermore, provides evidence for the ‘habitual nature’ (mentioned in chapter 3 as an additional point to the definition) of many items, empirically proving their status as institutionalized items or even lexicalizations. While quite a number of combinations occurred again and again throughout the corpus period, many turned up only once, making for great variety within the data. This highlights the productivity of the patterns, in particular the phrasal and verbo-nominal ones. The phrasal verb data exhibits mostly familiar kinds of types for the modern observer, built on the same kind of verbs and particles still common today, with only minor shifts with regard to the latter (especially the decline of forth and the rise of back). The verbal elements are in accordance with PDE expectations, being made up of c. 81% monosyllabic verbs and only three items with a polysyllabic structure, and containing about 62% native versus c. 32% Romance verbs. The combinations’ syntactic behaviour is not surprising either. As suspected by Fraser (1976), only a minority is used intransitively. With transitive items, the rules of obje ct position, especially intervening pronominal objects and post-particle position of heavy object noun phrases, are observed by the overwhelming majority; the very few exceptions found could, as a rule, be explained on reasons of, e.g., emphasis or style. Prepositional verbs revealed a roughly 50:50 internal split between loan words with syntactically obligatory preposition on the one hand, and native or highly integrated foreign items with (mostly) semantically determined preposition on the other hand. The fact that the latter group, in terms of tokens, consistently contributed around 50%, sometimes even as much as 60% to the overall amount throughout the ten corpus decades was a
Conclusion
275
surprising result of this study. This makes a major proportion of prepositional verb instances comparable in character to phrasal and phrasal prepositional verbs in so far as items with new or additional meaning are created. The most important syntactic points with regard to this category are the occurrences of passives and preposition stranding. Prepositional passives were found in reasonable numbers, and preposition stranding was also not uncommon in other, i.e. non-passive, contexts. Neither of these two unityemphasizing structures seems to have been shunned by speakers; st randing is even found in contexts where it could easily have been avoided if desired. Pied-piping, in contrast, is rare, and occurs usually only with ‘emptypreposition’ items, such as belong to, depend on. The class of phrasal-prepositional verbs is made up of two groups, namely prototypical, (highly) idiomatic items, e.g. come up with, given over to, fall in with, and nonce-like formations such as look back into, search out for. Ditransitive items, like give N up for N, are rare in this class. Their syntactic behaviour revealed nothing extraordinary; passives and preposition stranding both occur, but are infrequent. Verb-adjective combinations fall into a larger class of preposition-less items, and a smaller one of combinations involving a final preposition. Intransitive uses, which are possible among the preposition-less ones, are very uncommon. With regard to object position, this category behaves just like phrasal verbs. Representatives of all three groups of verbo-nominal combinations were found, but in varying proportions. Group I (verb+noun) was the most common type, followed relatively closely by Group II (verb+noun+ preposition), whereas Group III (verb+prepositional phrase) fell far behind the other two. However, even this last group was frequent enough not to warrant its common exclusion from PDE studies of the verbo -nominal phenomenon. The strength of Group II showed that combinations with an obligatory preposition are by no means rare, making institutionalization within this type rather likely; instances such as take notice of, take care of, give account of etc. are good examples of this process. The internal make-up of the verbo-nominal combinations found in the Lampeter Corpus points to the possibility that the fixation on a very narrowly defined, prototypical pattern common in PDE studies might not be justified. While the most common verbs are in fact make, take, give and have (in that sequence), followed by put and do, a number of other verbs occur as well, even if considerably less frequently. The deviance regarding the type of nouns between PDE assumptions and what was actually found is more striking. In many cases — somewhat more than half in Group I, about a third in Group II, and 50% in Group III — the noun was not isomorphic with a simplex verb, but a derived or unrelated item. Furthermore, the proportion of
276
Conclusion
nouns of Romance origin came to about 80% in both Group I and II, and was still as high as 57% in Group III. Thus, many at first sight ‘unusual’ combinations were encountered in this category. A future PDE investigation on the basis of a broader definition, which is to be desired, might, however, show that they are not at all unusual. Syntactically, verbo-nominal combinations, in particular those of Groups I and II, can be very versatile. A major feature with Group I combinations seems to be the intransitivizing function, or, put in other words, the blurring of the notion transitivity. With regard to object position, in Group II the object actually has to follow the whole combinati on, but some few exceptions were met with. Group III combinations largely behave like phrasal verbs in this question; pronominal objects especially have to precede the prepositional phrase. Group I items, in particular those formed with give, leave the most choice, and thus quite a number of intervening objects, mostly pronominal ones, are found in this group. Passives occurred with all three groups, but not very frequently; in the first two, which permit both inner and outer passives, the inner type, emphasizing the independence of the noun, was clearly predominant. Outer passives showed a clear preference for well-established items, such as take notice of, make use of. Preposition stranding in Group II, both in passive and other contexts, was found as well, but to a lesser extent than with prepositional verbs. Modification (including nominal negation and pluralization) has been identified as the major reason for the use of the combi nations in many other, mainly PDE, studies, but the amount of actually modified structures found in the Lampeter Corpus does not entirely warrant such a general statement. While it is difficult to guess at the perception of multi -word verbs as unitary lexical items by speakers in the past, there are some indications pointing in this direction. Some have already been mentioned, such as passives and preposition stranding. Another syntactic indication of unity is coordination of a multi-word combination with another verb; this was found to some, usually small, degree with all categories, but most frequently with phrasal verbs. The semantics of an item can also indicate or emphasize lexicalized status. While it is true that, except for phrasal -prepositional verbs, the majority of all items were used in a literal sense, idiomatic ity was not completely underdeveloped. As many as half of all phrasal verbs were found in a transferred or metaphori cal use, a third of verb-adjective combinations were idiomatic types, the prepositional verb class contained a quarter of idiomatic combinations, and even in the verbo-nominal category, which certainly does not lend itself as much to idiomatization as the other ones, about 15% of all occurrences were idiomatic. Thus, all the categories contributed new lexical material to the language.
Conclusion
277
As to the observations on frequencies, only some tentative statements are possible. Phrasal verbs seem to have been used less frequently than today, whereas verbo-nominal combinations might already have reached their present level of use in the 17th and 18th cen turies. As comparable PDE data for the other kinds of multi-word verbs is unfortunately missing, no conclusions can be drawn here in this respect. Considerations of register and stylistic level will probably play a role for the usage of all the categories. Phrasal verbs, possibly also phrasal-prepositional verbs, were found to be preferred in spoken or speech-related contexts, cf. their higher frequency in dialogues and sermons. Nevertheless, it is not possible to call the whole class as such colloquial. Verbo-nominal combinations yielded a somewhat ambiguous picture, being equally common in both more formal and more informal contexts, leading me to the hypothesis that they, or the majority of them, might be part of a stylistically rather neutral level of the language. However, the register approach as tried out here needs to be refined, and connected to a full-scale stylistic analysis of whole texts. Another point regarding frequencies concerns the question of linguistic change raised in the introduction, in particular Konishi’s (1958) and Spasov’s (1966) claim of a decline of phrasal verbs in the period in question here. This is connected with the question of the suitability of the Lampeter Corpus for this investigation. While nothing can be said about phrasal-prepositional verbs, because their overall frequency is too low, three categories, namely prepositional verbs, verb-adjective combinations and verbo-nominal combinations, were found to be rather stable patterns, staying very much around the same frequency level throughout the one hundred years from 1640 to 1740. But not all the categories behave in the same way, as phrasal verbs, on the other hand, produced a rather erratic graph, which failed to point to either stability or any clear development. Thus, the above authors’ suggestion can neither be substantiated nor repudiated on the basis of the present data. However, the pres??ent result might be taken as an indication that their data basis was too small to really warrant such a claim. A problem regarding the Lampeter Corpus in this respect may lie in its time frame, i.e. a corpus covering more than one hundred years would be advantageous for linguistic changes that are not qualitative but quantitative in nature. As the turning points proper of the assumed development of phrasal verbs lie outside the period covered by the Lampeter Corpus a further investigation with similar material, covering at least the periods from 1600 to 1640, and from 1740 to 1800, might help to conclude the question. The kind of data offered by the corpus did not constitute a problem, though, as there was enough variation with regard to domains, text types, and
278
Conclusion
authors. Also, the inclusion of whole texts did not produce skewing of the data to any serious extent. It was particularly because of the proposed change just discussed that I decided also to look at attitudes towards multi -word verbs during and around that period. While the 17th century showed hardly any awareness of the existence of phrasal and prepositional verbs, th ere were some few hopeful beginnings to be made out in the 18th century, which developed into explicit, sometimes even advanced, statements about and descriptions of such kinds of verb. In contrast, explicit awareness of verb -adjective and verbo-nominal combinations obviously remained non-existent throughout the two centuries. No clearly negative, proscriptive pronouncements about the five categories were found, and not even individual items were criticized to a noticeable extent. Thus, the prescriptivist s, and probably most people then, seem to have had a rather neutral or tolerant attitude towards these verbal combinations. This is of importance in so far as, within the context of standardization, a prevailing negative attitude could have impeded the selection of these types as suitable candidates for the standard written language. However, this was definitely not the case. Rather than looking for openly expressed attitudes, which may not exist at all, as in this case, or which, if they exist, may be not quite honest, Milroy & Milroy (1991:19) suggest that "[i]n fact, statistical counts of vari ants actually used are probably the best way of assessing attitudes". All the multi-word verbs, with the possible exception of phrasal-prepositional verbs, occur frequently enough to at least assume a neutral attitude towards them. What is equally important as "statistical counts", in my opinion, is looking at the individual contexts they occur in. I have tried to show that in many, probably even the majority of all, cases, there was a choice for the author to either use a multi-word structure or a simplex verb of whatever nature (native simple or compound verb, Romance verb). Often, the multi -word verb offered advantages over a corresponding simplex, such as more expressiveness, greater intelligibility, and syntactic flexibility. Choosing the complex verb meant exploiting these features, but it also implied tacit acceptance of the item in question. A stigmatized feature, however advantageous, would not have been used that often. Furthermore, these multi-word combinations increased the stock of vocabulary, produced more variety overall as well as in individual texts — in short, contributed to the ‘copiousness’ of the language which the 17th century, in particular, pr ized so much. Because of their versatile nature, and the different stylistic levels present within the categories, they were not even detrimental to the ‘decorum’ so important to the 18th century.
Conclusion
279
In conclusion, multi-word verbs were a well-established feature of the language in the 17th and 18th centuries. Burdened with no negative attitudes, all the patterns in question continued to thrive, and seemingly even increased their frequency in some cases, in particular phrasal verbs.
Appendices: All Multi-word Verbs Found in the Lampeter Corpus A note on the ordering of the following lists: The alphabetical order is based on the verbs with respect to phrasal, prepositional, and phrasal -prepositional verbs, on the adjectives in the case of verb-adjective combinations, and on the nouns for verbo-nominal combinations. Appendix 1: Phrasal Verbs (669 types) assemble together bail out bandy about barter off batter down bear away bear down bear out bear up beat down beat off beat out beat up bind over bind together bind up blab out block up blot out blow about blow away blow down blow out blow over blow up boil over bolt out bottle out bow down branch out break asunder break down
break forth break in break off break out break up breath forth breath off breath out breed up bring about bring along bring away bring back bring down bring forth bring home bring in bring off bring on bring out bring over bring to bring together bring under bring up bruise away buoy up burn down burn off burn out burst forth burst out
build up buy back buy off buy up call forth call in call out carry about carry along carry away carry back carry down carry forth carry in carry off carry on carry out carry over carry up cast away cast down cast in cast off cast out cast up chaffer away chain up chalk out chase ashore chase away chequer out cheer up
Appendices choke up choose out clap up clear out clear up cleave asunder climb up cloister up close in close up combine together come about come along come ashore come away come back come by come down come forth come in come off come on come out come over come together come up conjure down conjure out convey away convey off convey over copy out cover over crackle off cram in crop off crush out cry down cry out cry up cut down cut off cut out cut up
dam up deal about deal out decry down deliver back deliver in deliver out deliver up die away dig down dig up do up draw away draw back draw down draw forth draw in draw off draw on draw out draw up dress out dress up drink in drink out drink up drive away drive back drive off drive on drive out drive up droll down drop off dry off dry up dwindle away eat away eat down eat out eat up echo back emit forth entice away
escape away explain away fade away fall asunder fall away fall back fall down fall in fall off fall out feed up fence in fence off fetch in fetch out fetch up fight out fill up find out fit out fit up flee away fling away fling down fling forth fling in fling off fling up flow in flow forth fly away fly off fly out fly up foam out fodder up force away force out freeze up furnish out gather in gather out gather together gather up
281
282
Appendices
get away get down get in get off get out get together get up give away give back give forth give in give off give out give over give up gloss over go about go along go aside go away go back go down go forth go in go off go on go out go over go together go up gold over graft in grow up gush forth hammer out hand about hand down hang down hang on hang up haul up heal up heap together heap up
help off help out hem in hew out hire out hoard up hoist in hoist out hold forth hold out hold together hold up hook in huddle together huddle up huckster up interpret away issue forth issue out join together jostle out keep back keep down keep in keep off keep on keep out keep together keep under keep up kidnap away kneel down knock down knock out lap up laugh out lay aside lay down lay forth lay in lay on lay out lay together lay up
lead aside lead down lead on lead up league together learn out leave off leave out lengthen out let down let in let out lie by lie down lift up link together live out lock up look back look down look on look out look over lop off make away make out make over make up man out march away march forth march off march on march up mark out meet together melt down melt off mix together moulder away mount up move about move off muffle up
Appendices muster up nail down nail up note down note out offer up pace away pack up paint out paint over parcel out pare off pass along pass away pass by pass on pass out pass over patch up pay down pay in pay off pay out pent up pick off pick out pick up pin down pin up pine away place forth plain away plot down plough up pluck down pluck out pluck up plump up ply in ply off point out pour in pour off pour out
preach/pray down prick off prop up prune off puff up pull down pull off pull out pull up pump out purge out purse up put ashore put aside put asunder put away put by put down put forth put in put off put on put out put over put together put up raise up rake up rally up reach forth reach up read out read over reckon in reckon up rent out resign up retail out retreat back return back return up ride down ride off ride out
ride up rime out rinse away rip up rise up roll up root out root up rouse up rub off rub out run along run away run counter run down run in run off run out run over run through rush in sail back sally out salve up scrape together scrape up screen off screw up scum off seal up search out seek out sell off sell out send away send back send down send forth send in send out send over send up serve out serve up
283
284
Appendices
set apart set aside set back set down set forth set in set off set out set up sew up shake off shatter off shave away ship off ship out shoot off shoot out show forth show out shower down shrink up shuffle off shuffle out shut out shut up sift out sing forth single out sink down sink in sit down sit up slide back smooth over snatch away snatch up sound forth speak out speed off spew forth spew up spin out spirit away spirit up
spit out spring forth spring up sprout forth spur on spy out squeeze out squirt forth squirt out stand by stand out stand up start back (start up) upstart stave off stay behind steal away steal out step down step forth step in stick down stick in stifle up stir up stitch up stop up store up strain out stretch forth stretch out strike down strike off strike out strike through strike up stroke out stuff up suck in suck out suck up sue out sum up swallow in
swallow down swallow up sweep away sweep up take along take away take back take down take forth take in take off take out take together take up tear off tear out tear up tell out tempt away throng up throw aside throw away throw down throw in throw off throw out throw over throw up thrust out tie down tie up tire out toss up trace out trade away train up tramble down tread down treasure up trifle away trip away trip out troop off truck off
Appendices trump up try out tumble down turn about turn away turn back turn off turn out turn over turn up twist together unite together usher in vamp up vanish away
vote down wall up wash away wash down wash off wash out wear away wear off wear out weary out weather out weigh down wheel about whip up whirl about
win over wind up wipe away wipe off wipe out work out work up wrap up write down write out write over wrought out wrought up yield up
285
286
Appendices
Appendix 2: Prepositional Verbs (199 types) abound in abound with abstain from accept of account for acquiesce in adhere to admire at admit of adventure upon agree (up)on agree (un)to agree with aim at allow of amount (un)to answer for answer to appertain to approve of/on arrive at ask for aspire to assent (un)to attain to attend (up)on attend (un)to beg at believe in belong (un)to beware of blench at call for call (up)on care for carp at catch at center in/(up)on come at come by come of come (up)on
come to comment (up)on complain of comply with conceive of concenter in conclude (up)on concur with conduce to confide in conform (un)to/with connive at consider of consist in consist of consist with consult with cope with correspond to/with cry for deal with delight in depart from depend (up)on descant (up)on desist from despair of differ from disapprove of discourse of/upon dispense with dispose of/on doubt of drive at dwell (up)on encroach upon engage in(to) enlarge (up)on enquire after/into enter into/unto enter upon
entrench upon fail of fall from fall (up)on fall to fawn on fix on get over given to go about go by go (up)on go over go through grasp at grope for guess at hanker after hear of hint at hope for/on hunt after impose (up)on insist (up)on interfere with intermeddle with join with judge of labour under laugh at launch into lay about light (up)on long after/for look about look after look for look at/(up)on look into look to look (up)on make at
Appendices make for marvel at meddle with meet with miss of mutter at object to part from part with partake of pass by pass for persist in play at play upon point at pretend to prevail with/upon prey upon provide for pry into push at reach after read of reckon upon
refer to reflect (up)on relate (un)to rely (up)on repine at resolve (up)on run over run through scoff at search after/for search into see to seek after/for seize (up)on send for set about side with snatch at speak of stand by stand for stand to stand (up)on stand with strike at
strive for submit to subscribe to succeed in suit with take (up)on take to taken with talk of/on tally with tend to think of/(up)on touch (up)on treat of/(up)on trench on trifle with trust in turn (in)to turn over wait for wait (up)on want of wish for wonder at
287
288
Appendices
Appendix 3: Phrasal-prepositional Verbs (40 types) bear down upon break in (up)on call out for come down upon come in upon come in with come over to come up to come up with fall in with give into give(n) over to give over for give up for
give up to go along with go down with go off with go through with grow up (in)to live up to look back into look back upon look out for look out to look up to make away with part away with
rise up into run away with run counter to run out of search out for send in for sit down by strike in with take off from take(n) up with turn down to turn over to
Appendices Appendix 4: Verb-adjective Combinations (47 types) make bold make bold with get clear get clear of make clear keep close make easy hold fast judge fit see fit think fit fall foul of/upon make free with stand free hold good make good
stand good think good take ill make known make light of break loose let loose turn loose lay low see meet think meet make merry break open force open lay open lay oneself open to
set(/keep) open rip open slit open throw open get rid of come short come short of fall short fall short of cut straight make sure make sure of make void lay waste grow weary of
289
290
Appendices
Appendix 5: Verbo-nominal Combinations 5.1. Group I (191 types) have acceptance give an account (of) do an act make an addition (to) take (the) advantage (of/over) give advice make an agreement give an? alarm take (the) alarm give alteration make an alteration receive an? alteration make amends give answer make answer return answer make apology bear an? appearance make application (to) make an? assault (upon) give assistance give assurance make atonement make an attempt give battle have one’s beginning take beginning have benefit reap the? benefit take (the) benefit (of) take (the) boldness have a breach do business have (a) care take care see cause give a? change make a? change
give charge take charge (of) give chase make choice (of) take one’s choice make a claim (to) put in a? claim make collection give comfort make a? comment make a? comparison make compensation make complaint (of) give consent take a? consideration make a declaration (of) have a? defeat make defence make a? demand made a descent give the/a? description of make a? diminution give direction have discourse (with) make a? discovery (of) make a distinction give disturbance give ear take effect make election give encouragement make enquiry make one’s entrance make an escape give evidence (of) make an examination (into)
make an? exclamation do execution have existence give fire make gain do harm make haste give heed take heed (of) give help do homage do honour do hurt draw an? inference make an? inference have an? influence (upon/into) do injury take inspection give instruction have (an) intent do justice take knowledge beg leave crave leave give leave have leave take leave have (the) liberty (of) take (the) liberty make a lie cast a look make love have a mind give notice (of)/(to) have notice (of) make an? objection
Appendices make an? observation (of) give offence (to) take offence make an? offer give order make an order keep pace (with) take pains take part make a pause make payment of make (a) peace give place (to) have place take place give pleasure (to) take pleasure (in) get the preference (of) have the preference (of) make preparation take prisoner make proclamation make a? profession make progress give promotion give protection
291
give provocation make pursuit pick a quarrel give a relation make a? remark (on) make repetition give (a) report (of) make (a) report (of) make a? reply return a? reply make a? request make resistance make a resolution take a resolution pay respect make a retrospect (into) make a return take revenge (of) do reverence do right run a?/the risk make room (for) take root bring ruin (upon) make sail set sail give satisfaction
make satisfaction (to) make search (into) make semblance do service take shelter make shift give a? shout lay siege (to) have speech make a stand have success give thanks render thanks return thanks give trouble have a? variation make a variation do violence make war (upon) wage war give warning take warning give way (to) make way make one’s way take a whisper bear witness (to/of) do wrong
make the best of put blame on make boast of make (a) breach of have (a) care of take care of lay a charge to/on give check to lay claim unto take cognizance of have communication with
give control to give countenance to give credit to give a? defeat to have delight in take delight in have dependance upon make (a?) doubt of make an end of put an end to make enquiry into
5.2. Group II (105 types) give account of make account of render an account of take (an) account of make (the) advantage of run the adventure of have an aim upon make application of have assault against make assay of give assent to
292
Appendices
give entertainment to make essay of take an? examination of make an exchange of take exception unto cast an eye upon have an eye upon set eye upon/of find fault with set fire to run (the) hazard of catch hold of get hold of lay hold (up)on/of take hold on/of make judgment of pass judgment on do justice upon take leave of give the lie to get the mastery of make mention of make the most of make narration of
have need of take notice of give occasion to make opposition to take part with put a period to take pity upon get possession of take possession of take preference of make prize of give proof of make proof of take a prospect of make provision for make question of have recourse (un)to make reflection upon have regard to have relation to lay a restraint upon put a restraint upon make return of make a review of give rise to
make a sacrifice of make sense of make shipwreck of make (a) show of get sight of lose sight of have signification of get the start of have the start of give (a?) stop to make (a?) stop of put a stop upon/to lay stress upon make surrender of take a survey of give testimony of have a? thought of take thought of have the trial of make trial of have use of make use of take a view of
put in hazard set at liberty bring to light come to light be at a loss be in love with bring (in)to mind call to mind put in mind (of) put into motion stand in necessity of stand in need of be in operation be of opinion bring to perfection put in practice
bring in question call in(to) question come in question be at rest run to ruin put to sale set to sale come to a stop bring under subjection keep in subjection put into surprise put in use be in want of
5.3. Group III (43 types) call to (an) account put to an amazement put to confusion take into consideration put into consternation put to death be in doubt be at an end come to an end put in execution set on fire take to flight set on foot/a-foot put into a? fright
References Data Basis The British National Corpus. 1995. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services. The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts. 1999. (ICAME Collection of English Language Corpora, 2nd edition.) Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition. On Compact Disc. 1992. Oxford: OUP. Source Texts Aickin, Joseph (1692/1967), The English Grammar. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 21. Menston: Scolar Press. Blair, Hugh (1827), Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres . 3 vols. London: Richardson. Blount, Thomas Pope (1694/1974), De Re Poetica: Or, Remarks upon Poetry. London: Garland Publishing. Butler, Charles (1634/1910), The English Grammar. Ed. A. Eichler. Halle: Niemeyer. Campbell, George (1776/1963), The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Ed. Lloyd F. Bitzer. London/Amsterdam: Southern Illinois University Press. Coles, Elisha (1674/1967), The Compleat English School-Master. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 26. London: Scolar Press. Cooper, Christopher (1685/1911), Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ. Ed. John D. Jones. Halle: Niemeyer. Dilworth, Thomas, (1751/1978), A New Guide to the English Tongue. American Linguistics 1700-1900. Delmar, New York: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints. Dyche, Thomas, (1707/1968), A Guide to the English Tongue. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 92. Menston: Scolar Press. Fairfax, N., (1674/1946), A Treatise of Bulk and Selvedge of the World. ‘’To the Reader‘’, in: William Craigie (ed.), The Critique of Pure English from Caxton to Smollett, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gil, Alexander, (1621/1968), Logonomia Anglica. English Linguistics 15001800. No. 68. Menston: Scolar Press. Greaves, Paul, (1594/1969), Grammatica Anglicana. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 169. Menston: Scolar Press. 1969. Greenwood, James, (1711/1968), An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 128. Menston: Scolar Press.
294
References
Hewes, John, (1624/1972), A Perfect Survey of the English Tongue. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 336. Menston: Scolar Press. Home, Henry, (1762/1970), Elements of Criticism. 3 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Hoskyns, John, (n.d./1937), ‘’Directions for Speech and Style‘’, in: Louis Brown Osborn (ed.), The Life, Letters, and Writings of John Hoskyns 1566-1638, Hamden/Conn: Archon Books (reprint 1973), 103-166. Johnson, Samuel, (1755/1773 /1996), A Dictionary of the English Language. On CD-Rom, ed. by Anne McDermott, Cambridge: CUP. Jonson, Ben, (1640/1972), The English Grammar. English Linguistics 15001800. No. 349. Menston: Scolar Press. Lowth, Robert, (1762/1967), A Short Introduction to English Grammar. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 18. Menston: Scolar Press. Maittaire, Michael, (1712/1967), The English Grammar. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 6. Menston: Scolar Press. Martin, Benjamin, (1748/1970), Institutions Of Language. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 258. Menston: Scolar Press. Miège, Guy, (1688/1969), The English Grammar. English Linguistics 15001800. No. 152. Menston: Scolar Press. Poole, Joshua, (1646/1967), The English Accidence. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 5. Menston: Scolar Press. Priestley, Joseph, (1762/1971), A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. Warrington: W. Eyres. The Spectator, (1965/1987), ed. with an introduction and notes by Donald F. Bond. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Swift, Jonathan, (1719/20), ‘’A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Entered into Holy Orders‘’, in: Herbert Davis and Louis Landa (eds.), Jonathan Swift: Irish Tracts 1720-1723 and Sermons, Oxford: Blackwell, 63-81. The Tatler, (1970), ed. by George A. Aitken (1898-99). Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Vindex Anglicus; Or The Perfections of the English Language Defended and Asserted [anon.], (1644/1946) William Craigie (ed.), The Critique of Pure English from Caxton to Smollett, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Walker, William, (1679), A Treatise of English Particles . London: by T.N. for Robert Pawlet, 7th edition. Wallis, John, (1653/1969), Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ. English Linguistics 1500-1800. No. 142. Menston: Scolar Press. Webbe, Joseph, (1622/1967), An Appeale to Truth. English Linguistics 15001800. No. 42. Menston: Scolar Press. Welsted, Leonard, (1724/1971), A Dissertation Concerning the Perfection of the English Language, The State of Poetry, etc., in: Willard Higley Durham (ed.), Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century, New York: Russell & Russell.
References
295
Willymott, William, (1771), English Particles Exemplified in Sentences Designed for Latin Exercises. London: for C. Bathurst. Literature Aarts, Bas (1989), ‘Verb-preposition constructions and small clauses in English’, in: Journal of Linguistics, 25: 277-290. Adamson, Sylvia (1989), ‘With double tongue: Diglossia, stylistics and the teaching of English’, in: Mick Short (ed.), Reading, Analysing and Teaching Literature. London/New York: Longman, 204-240. Adolph, Robert (1968), The Rise of Modern Prose Style. Cambridge/Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Adolph, Robert (1981), ‘On the possibility of a history of prose style’, in: Style, 15: 435-450. Ahrens, Rüdiger (1991), ‘The political pamphlet: 1660-1714. Pre- and postrevolutionary aspects’, in: Anglia, 109: 21-43. Algeo, John (1995), ‘Having a look at the expanded predicate’, in: Bas Aarts, Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP, 203-217. Allerton, D. J. (1982), Valency and the English Verb. London etc.: Academic Press. Alston, R.C. (1965-1977), A Bibliography of English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800. Leeds: Alston. Alston, R.C. (1981), ‘The Eighteenth-century non-book: Observations on printed ephimera’, in: Giles Barber & Bernhard Fabian (eds.), Buch und Buchhandel in Europa im 18. Jahrhundert. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 343-353. Aries, Philippe & Roger Chartier (eds.) (1991), Geschichte des privaten Lebens. Vol. 3: Von der Renaissance zur Aufklärung. Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer. Atkins, Sue, Jeremy Clear & Nicholas Ostler (1992), ‘Corpus Design Criteria’, in: Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7: 1-16. Bailey, Richard W. (1992), Images of English. A Cultural History of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Barber, Charles (1997), Early Modern English. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bately, Janet. M. (1964), ‘Dryden’s revisions in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy: The preposition at the end of the sentence and the expression of the relative’, in: Review of English Studies, New Series, 59:268282. Bauer, Laurie (1983), English Word-formation. Cambridge: CUP. Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable (1978), A History of the English Language. Third edition. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
296
References
Bennett, Paul A. (1980), ‘English passives: A study in syntactic change and relational grammar’, in: Lingua, 51: 101-114. Bex, Tony (1996), Variety in Written English. Texts in Society: Societies in Text. London/New York: Routledge. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan (1992), ‘The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries’, in: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 688-704. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan (1989), ‘Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres’, in: Language, 65: 487-517. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johannsson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan (1999), Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Bolinger, Dwight (1971), The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bolinger, Dwight (1972), Degree Words. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Bolinger, Dwight (1977), ‘Transitivity and spatiality: The passive of prepositional verbs’, in: Adam Makkai, Valerie Beckker-Makkai, Luigi Heilmann (eds.), Linguistics at the Crossroads. Padova/Lake Bluff/Ill.: Liviana Editrice/Jupiter Press, 57-78. Bonham-Carter, Victor (1978), Authors by Professions. Vol. 1. London: Bodley Head. Borsay, Peter (1987), ‘Urban development in the age of Defoe’, in: Clyve Jones (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680-1750: Essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes. London/Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 195-219. Brinton, Laurel J. (1988), The Development of the English Aspectual System. Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles . Cambridge: CUP. Brinton, Laurel J. (1996), ‘Attitudes toward increasing segmentalization’, in: Journal of English Linguistics, 24: 186-205. Brinton, Laurel J. & Minoji Akimoto (eds.) (1999), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Brown, Robert L., Jr. & Carl G. Herndl (1986), ‘An ethnographic study of corporate writing: job status as reflected in written text’, in: Barbara Couture (ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspec tives. London: Francis Pinter, 11-28. Burgschmidt, Ernst & Christopher Perkins (1985), Phraseologie: Kollokationen - Phraseme - Idiome. Braunschweig: Verlag E. Burgschmidt. Burnley, David (1992), ‘Lexis and semantics’, in: Norman Blake (ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. II: 1066-1476. Cambridge: CUP, 409-499.
References
297
Carstensen, Broder (1964), ‘Zur Struktur des englischen Wortverbandes’, in: Die Neueren Sprachen, 7: 305-328. Castillo, Concha (1994), ‘Verb-particle combinations in Shakespearean English: A syntactic study’, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 95: 439-451. Cattell, Ray (1984), Composite Predicates in English. (Syntax and Semantics Vol. 17). Sydney etc.: Academic Press. Charleston, Britta Marian (1941), Studies on the Syntax of the English Verb. Bern: Stämpfli & Cie. Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Claridge, Claudia (1997), ‘A century in the life of multi-word verbs’, in: Magnus Ljung (ed), Corpus-based Studies in English. Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 69-85. Clay, C. G. A. (1984), Economic Expansion and Social Change: England 1500-1700. 2 vols. Cambridge etc.: CUP. Cohen, Murray (1977), Sensible Words. Linguistic Practice in England 1640-1785. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press. Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1989). London/Glasgow: Collins. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1979), The Prepositional Passive in Englis h. A semantic-syntactic analysis. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Coward, Barry (1994), The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714. 2nd edition. London/New York: Longman. Cowie, A. P. & R. Mackin (1975), Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Volume I: Verbs with Prepositions & Particles. Oxford: OUP. Cowie, A. P., R. Mackin & I.R. McCaig (1983), Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Volume II: Phrase, Clause & Sentence Idioms. Oxford: OUP. Cressy, David (1980), Literacy and the Social Order. Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: CUP. Cruse, D.A. (1986), Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. de la Cruz, Juan (1972), ‘Transference and metaphor in Middle English verbs accompanied by a locative particle’, in: Orbis, 21: 114-135. de la Cruz, Juan (1973), ‘A late 13th century change in English structure’, in: Orbis, 22: 161-176. de la Cruz, Juan (1975), ‘Old English pure prefixes: structure and function’, in: Linguistics, 145: 47-81. de la Cruz, Juan & Emilio Saameco (1996), ‘The Middle English prepositional passive: Analogy and GB’, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 97: 169-186.
298
References
Curme, George O. (1931-1935), A Grammar of the English Language. Boston etc.: D. C. Heath & Co. Davison, Alice (1980), ‘Peculiar Passives’, in: Language, 56: 42-66. Declerck, Renaat (1977), ‘Some arguments in favor of a generative semantic analysis of sentences with an adverbial particle or a prepositional phrase of goal’, in: Orbis, 26: 297-340. Declerck, Renaat (1978), ‘Review of Bruce Fraser, The verb-particle combination in English’, in: Journal of Linguistics, 14: 313-321. De Haan, Pieter (1988), ‘A corpus investigation into the behaviour of prepositional verbs’, in: Merja Kytö, Ossi Ihalainen, Matti Rissanen (eds.), Corpus Linguistics. Hard and Soft. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 121135. Dekeyser, Xavier (1990), ‘Preposition stranding and relative complementizer deletion: Implicational tenden cies in English and the other Germanic languages’, in: Sylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent, Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87-109. den Dikken, Marcel (1995), Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. New York/Oxford: OUP. Denison, David (1981), Aspects of the History of English Group-Verbs. With Particular Attention to the Syntax of the Ormulum. Ph. D. Thesis, Oxford University. Denison, David (1984), ‘On get it over with’, in: Neophilologus, 68: 271277. Denison, David (1985a), ‘The origins of completive up in English’, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 86: 37-61. Denison, David (1985b), ‘Why Old English had no prepositional passive’, in: English Studies, 66: 189-204 Denison, David (1993), English Historical Syntax. London/New York: Longman. Denison, David (1998), ‘Syntax’, in: Suzanne Romaine (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776-1997. Cambridge: CUP, 92-329. Deutschbein, Max (1966),. Grammatik der englischen Sprache auf wissenschaftlicher Grundlage. 18th edition. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Deutschbein, Max (1928), System der neuenglischen Syntax. 3rd edition. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer. Deutschbein, Max (1932), Neuenglische Stilistik. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer. The Dictionary of National Biography, Founded 1882, ed. Leslie Stephen. Oxford: OUP. Diensberg, Bernhard (1982), ‘Probleme der neuenglischen Wortbildungslehre: Zur linguistischen Analyse der ’Verb-Particle Construction’’, in: Sprachwissenschaft, 7: 378-402.
References
299
Diensberg, Bernhard (1983), ‘Zur Genese und Entwicklung des neuenglischen Phrasal Verbs’, in: Folia Linguistica Historica, 4: 247264. Diensberg, Bernhard (1988), ‘A syntactic analysis of English prepositional verbs’, in: Tromsø Studies in Linguistics 11: Tromsø Linguistics in the Eighties, 85-109. Diensberg, Bernhard (1992), ‘English phrasal verbs expressing aspect and aktionsart?’ (Review of Brinton 1988), in: Folia Linguistica Historica, 11:187-197. Dietrich, Gerhard (1960), Adverb oder Präposition? Zu einem klärungsbedürftigen Kapitel der englischen Grammatik. Halle: VEB Max Niemeyer. Dixon, R. M. W. (1982), ‘The grammar of English phrasal verbs’, in: Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2: 1-42. Dixon, R. M. W. (1992), A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. (1983), The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge etc.: CUP. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L (1985), ‘On the printing press as an agent of change’, in: Olson, David R., Nancy Torrance & Angela Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, Language, and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing. Cambridge: CUP, 19-33. Eitrem, H. (1903), ‘Stress in English verb + adverb groups’, in: Englische Studien, 32: 69-77. Erades, Peter (1961), ‘Points of Modern English Syntax. XL’, in: English Studies, 42: 56-60. Fairclough, Norman (1988), ‘Register, power and socio-semantic change’, in: David Birch & Michael O’Toole (eds.), Functions of Style. London: Pinter, 111-125. Feather, John (1986), ‘British Publishing in the Eighteenth Century: a preliminary subject analysis’, in: The Library, 8 (6th series): 32-46. Feather, John (1988), A History of British Publishing. London/New York: Croom Helm. Firbas, Jan (1969), ‘On the prosodic features of the Modern English finite verb-object combination as means of functional sentence perspective’, in: Brno Studies in English, 8: 49-59. Foltinek, Herbert (1964), ‘Die Wortverbindung Verbum + up oder out im modernen Englisch’, in: Moderne Sprachen, 8: 94-104. Fraser, Bruce (1966), ‘Some remarks on the verb-particle construction in English’, in: Francis P. Dinneen (ed.), Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies . Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 45-68. Fraser, Bruce (1970), ‘Idioms within a transformat ional grammar’, in: Foundations of Language, 6: 22-42. Fraser, Bruce (1974), ‘Review of Bolinger 1971’, in: Language, 50: 568-575.
300
References
Fraser, Bruce (1976), The Verb-particle Combination in English. New York: Academic Press. Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (1990), ‘Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity’, in: Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 417-451. Gläser, Rosemarie (1986), Phraseologie der englischen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gordon, Ian A. (1966), The Movement of English Prose. London: Longman. Götz, Dieter & Thomas Herbst (1989), ‘Language description and language teaching: The London School and its latest grammar’, in: Die Neueren Sprachen, 88: 220-235. Goyvaerts, D. L. (1973), ‘Some observations about the verb+particle construction in English’, in: Revue de Langues Vivantes, 39: 549-562. Grabes, Herbert (1990), Das englische Pamphlet. Vol. I: Politische und religiöse Polemik am Beginn der Neuzeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Graves, Michael A.R. & Robin H. Silcock (1984), Revolution, Reaction and the Triumph of Conservatism. English History, 1558-1700. Auckland: Longman Paul Limited. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985), An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London etc.: Edward Arnold. Harris, L.J. & James, B.Ll. (1974), ‘The tract collection at Saint David’s University College, Lampeter’, in: Trivium, 9, 100-109. Hiltunen, Risto (1983a), The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verb. (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B., Vol. 160.) Turku. Hiltunen, Risto (1983b), ‘Syntactic variation in the early history of the English phrasal verb’, in: Sven Jacob son (ed.), Papers from the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. (Stockholm Studies in English LVII.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 95-108. Hiltunen, Risto (1983c), ‘Phrasal verbs in English grammar books before 1800’, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 84: 376-386. Hiltunen, Risto (1994), ‘On phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: notes on lexis and style’, in: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 129-140. Hoffmann, Achim (1972), ‘Die verbo-nominale Konstruktion - eine spezifische Form der nominalen Ausdrucksweise im modernen Englisch’, in: Zeitschrift für Anglistik, 20: 158-183. Holderness, B. A. (1976), Pre-Industrial England: Economy and Society 1500-1750. London: Dent. Houston, Robert A. (1992), The Population History of Britain and Ireland 1500-1750. London: Macmillan. Howell, W. S. (1956), Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. New York: Russell & Russell. Hückel, W. (1968/69), ‘Einige Fragen des Wortverbandes im Englischen’, in: Fremdsprachen, 12/13: 252-261.
References
301
Huddleston, Rodney (1984), Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP. Hudson, Jean (1998), Perspectives on fixedness: applied and theore tical. Lund: Lund University Press. Hüllen, Werner (1989), ’Their Manner of Discourse’: Nachdenken über Sprache im Umkreis der Royal Society. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Humphreys, A. R. (1954), The Augustan World. Life and Letters in Eighteenth-Century England. London: Methuen. (Reprint: Folcroft Library Editions, 1974.) Hunter, Michael (1981), Science and Society in Restoration England. Cambridge etc.: CUP. Ingham, Patricia (1968), ‘Dr. Johnson’s ’Elegance’’, in: Review of English Studies, 19: 271-278. Jespersen, Otto (1928), A Modern English Grammar. On Historical Principles. 7 Vols. Copenhagen/London: Ejnar Munksgaard/Allen & Unwin/Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Johansson, Stig & Knut Hofland (1989), Frequency Analysis of English Vocabulary and Grammar Based on the LOB Corpus. Vol. 2: Tag Combinations and Word Combinations. Oxford: Clarendon. Jones, Clyve (ed.) (1987), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680-1750: Essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes. London/Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press. Jones, Richard Foster et al. (1951), The Seventeenth Century. Studies in the History of English Thought and Literature from Bacon to Pope. By Richard Foster Jones and others writing in his honor. Stanford/London: Stanford University Press/Oxford University Press. Jones, Richard Foster (1953), The Triumph of the English Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kaluza, Henryk (1990), ‘English verbs with prepositions and particles’, in: Dietrich Nehls (ed.), Grammatical Studies in the English Language. (Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 19). Heidelberg: Groos, 19-23 Katz, Jerrold, P.M. Postal (1963), ‘Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution’, in: M.I.T. Research Laboratory of Electronics, Quarterly Progress Report, 70: 275-282. Kayne, Richard S. (1985), ‘Principles of particle constructions’, in: J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer, J.-Y. Pollock (eds.), Grammatical Representation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 101-140. Kennedy, A.G. (1920), The Modern English Verb-Adverb Combination. Reprint: New York 1967. Kenyon, J.P. (1977), Revolution Principles. The Politics of Party 1689 -1720. Cambridge etc.: CUP. Kilby, David (1984), Descriptive Syntax and the English Verb. London/ Sydney/Dover: Croom Helm. Kirchner, Gustav (1952), Die zehn Hauptverben des Englischen im Britischen und Amerikanischen. Halle: Niemeyer.
302
References
Klaeber, Friedrich (1943), ‘Zum germanischen Sprachstil: Das Nomen’, in: Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 183: 73-94. König, Ekkehard (1973), Englische Syntax. Frankfurt/Main: Athenäum Fischer. Konishi, Tomoshichi (1958), ‘The growth of the verb-adverb combination in English - a brief sketch’, in: Kazuo Araki (ed.), Studies in English Grammar and Linguistics: A Miscellany in Honour of Takanobu Otsuka. Tokio: Kenkyusha, 117-128. Krenn, Herwig (1977), ‘Idiomatic phrases and pronominalization’, in: Papiere zur Linguistik, 12: 108-115. Kroch, Anthony S. (1979), ‘Review of The verb-particle combination in English. By Bruce Fraser’, in: Language, 55: 219-224. Kruisinga, E. (1925), A Handbook of Present-Day English. Utrecht: Keminck en Zoon. Kytö, Merja (1991), Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki. Labov, William (1981), ‘What can be learned about change in progre ss from synchronic description?’, in: David Sankoff and Henrietta Cedergren (eds.), Variation Omnibus. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, 177-201. Legum, Stanley E. (1968), ‘The verb-particle construction in English: Basic or derived?’, in: B. J. Darden, Ch.-J. N. Bailey, A. Davidson (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, 50-62. Leisi, Ernst (1985), Das heutige Englisch. 7th edition. Heidelberg: Winter. Leonard, Sterling Andrus (1929), The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800. Madison: University Press. (University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature 25) Liefrink, Frans (1973), Semantico-Syntax. London: Longman. Lindelöf, Uno (1937), English Verb-adverb Groups Converted into Nouns. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum. Tomus IX.5. Helsinki. Lindner, Susan Jean (1981), A Lexico-semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with Out and Up. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego. (University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor) Lipka, Leonhard (1972), Semantic Structure and Word-formation: Verbparticle Constructions in Contemporary English . München: Wilhelm Fink. Live, Anna H. (1965), ‘The discontinuous verb in English’, in: Word, 21: 428-451. Live, Anna H. (1973), ‘The take-have phrasal in English’, in: Linguistics, 95: 31-50.
References
303
Lutz, Angelika (1997), ‘Sound change, word formation and the lexicon: The history of the English prefix verbs’, in: English Studies, 78: 258-290. Marchand, Hans (1951), ‘The syntactical change from inflectional to word order system and some effects of this change on the relation ’verb/object’ in English. A diachronic -synchronic interpretation’, in: Anglia, 70: 70-89. Marchand, Hans (1969), The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-formation. 2nd edition. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. McIntosh, Carey (1977), ‘A matter of style: stative and dynamic predicates’, in: Publications of the Modern Languages Association of America, 92: 110-121. McIntosh, Carey (1986), Common and Courtly Language. The Stylistics of Social Class in 18th-Century English Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. McIntosh, Carey (1994), ‘Prestige norms in stage plays, 1600-1800’, in: Dieter Stein, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 1600-1800. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 63-80. Meyer, George A. (1975), The Two-word Verb: A Dictionary of the Verbpreposition Phrases in American English. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Meyer, Hans Joachim (1971), ‘Die Richtungsvarianten von up im Kontext mit Verben’, in: Zeitschrift für Anglistik, 19: 387-408. Meyer, Hans Joachim (1972), ‘Die Partikel up als Steigerungsausdruck’, in: Zeitschrift für Anglistik, 20: 237-261. Michael, Ian (1970), English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: CUP. Michael, Ian (1987), The teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to 1870. Cambridge: CUP. Miller, Percy (1971), ‘The Plain Style’, in: S. E. Fish (ed.), SeventeenthCentury Prose. Modern Essays in Criticism. New York: OUP, 147186. Milroy, James & Leslie Milroy (1991), Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. 2nd edition. London/New York: Routledge. Mitchell, Bruce (1978), ‘Prepositions, adverbs, prepositional adverbs, postpositions, separable prefixes, or inseparable prefixes, in Old English?’, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 79: 240-257. Mitchell, T. F. (1958), ‘Syntagmatic relations in linguistic analysis’, in: Transactions of the Philological Society : 101-118. Mittins, W.H., Mary Salu, Mary Edminson, Sheila Coyne (1970), Attitudes to English Usage. London: OUP. Moon, Rosamund (1998), Fixed expressions and idioms in English. A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
304
References
Müller, Ernst-August (1978), Funktionsverbgefüge vom Typ ‘’give a smile‘’ und ähnliche Konstruktionen. Frankfurt/Main etc.: Peter Lang. Mullet, Michael (1987), ‘Popular culture and popular politics: Some regional case studies’, in: Clyve Jones (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680-1750: Essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes. Lon don/Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 129-150. Neubert, Albrecht (1973), ‘Zur Interpretation englischer Komposita wie lookout, pick-up, pull-back’, in: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 21: 64-69. Nevalainen, Terrtu (1999), ‘Early Modern English lexis and semantics’, in: Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3: 1476-1776. Cambridge: CUP. Nickel, Gerhard (1978), ‘Complex Verbal Structures in English’, in: Dietrich Nehls (ed.), Studies in Descriptive English Grammar. (Studies in Descriptive Linguistics, 1). Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 63-83. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow (1994), ‘Idioms’, in: Language, 70: 491-537. O’Dowd, Elizabeth (1998), Prepositions and Particles in English . New York/Oxford: OUP. Olsson, Yngve (1961), On the Syntax of the English Verb, With Special Reference to Have a Look and Similar Complex Structures. Gothenburg Studies in English. Göteborg: Almqvist & Wiksell. Ong, Walter J. (1982), Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen. Padley, G.A. (1988), Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Vernacular Grammar II. Cambridge: CUP. Palmer, Frank (1965), A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank (1974), The English Verb. London: Longman. Pelli, Mario G. (1976), Verb-particle Constructions in American English. Swiss Studies in English Vol. 89. Bern: Francke Verlag. Polomé, Edgar C. (1990), ‘Language change and the Saussurean dichotomy: Diachrony versus synchrony’, in: Edgar C. Polomé (ed.), Research guide on language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3-10. Potter, Simeon (1965), ‘English Phrasal Verbs’, in: Philologica Pragensia, 8: 285-289. Poutsma, H. (1926), A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff. Preuss, Fritz (1962), ‘Substantivische Neologismen aus Verb und Adverb’ in: Lebende Sprachen, 7: 1-3. Prince, Ellen F. (1972), ‘A note on aspect in English: The take a walk construction’, in: Senta Ploetz (ed.), Transformationelle Analyse. Frankfurt/Main: Atheneäum, 409-420.
References
305
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rauh, Gisa (1990), ‘Präpositionen: Eine geschlossene Klasse’, in: Die Neueren Sprachen, 89: 476-498. Renský, Miroslav (1963), ‘A syntax based on concretes’ (Review of Olsson), in: Philologica Pragensia, 6: 286-297. Renský, Miroslav (1964), ‘English verbo-nominal phrases: Some structural and stylistic aspects’, in: Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 1: 289299. Rissanen, Matti (1999), ‘Syntax’, in: Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3: 1476-1776. Cambridge: CUP. Roberts, Murat H. (1936), ‘The antiquity of the Germanic verb-adverb locution’, in: Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 35: 466481. Rot, Sándor (1988), On Crucial Problems of the English Verb. (Bamberger Beiträge zur englischen Sprachwissenschaft 22). Frankfurt/Main: Lang. Rusch, Jürg (1972), Die Vorstellung vom Goldenen Zeitalter der englischen Sprache im 16., 17., und 18. Jahrhundert. Bern: Francke Verlag. Rydén, Mats (1979), An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wik sell. Samuels, M. L. (1972), Linguistic Evolution. With Special Reference to English. Cambridge: CUP. Sapir, Edward (1921), Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. Schäfer, Jürgen (1973), Shakespeares Stil: germanisches und romanisches Vokabular. Frankfurt/Main: Athenäum. Schmied, Josef (1994), ‘The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts’, in: Merja Kytö, Matti Rissanen, Susan Wright (eds), Corpora Across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 81-89. Schmied, Josef & Claudia Claridge (1997), ‘Classifying text- or genrevariation in the Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English texts’, in: Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire, Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Corpora Workshop. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 119-135. Schofield, R.S. (1981), ‘Messung der Literalität im vorindustriellen England’, in: Jack Goody (ed.), Literalität in traditionale n Gesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 451-471. Sharpe, Kevin & Steven N. Zwicker (1987), Politics of Discourse. The Literature and History of 17th-Century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
306
References
Sheintuch, Gloria (1981), ‘On the notion verbal unit and its relevance to certain syntactic constructions’, in: Linguistics, 19: 325-355. Siebert, Fredrick Seaton (1965), Freedom of the Press in England 14761776. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Siemund, Rainer & Claudia Claridge (1997), ‘The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English tracts’, in: ICAME Journal, 21: 61-70. Sinclair, John (1991), Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP. Smith, Logan Pearsall (1925), Words and Idioms. London: Constable & Company Ltd. Smith, Nigel (1994), Literature and Revolution in England, 1640-1660. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Söderlind, Johannes (1951), Verb Syntax in John Dryden’s Prose. (Essays and Studies on English Language and Literature X). Uppsala. Rep. Nendeln Kraus. Söderlind, Johannes (1964), ‘The attitude to language expressed by or ascertainable from English Writers of the 16th and 17th centuries’, in: Studia Neophilologica, 36: 111-126. Sommerville, John C. (1996), The News Revolution in England. Cultural Dynamics of Daily Information. New York/Oxford: OUP. Sørensen, Knud (1986), ‘Phrasal verb into noun’, in: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 87: 272-283. Speck, W. A. (1987), ‘The electorate in the first age of party’, in: Clyve Jones (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680-1750: Essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes. London/Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 45-62. Spevack, Marvin (1973), The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare. Cambridge/Mass.: Belknap Press. Spufford, Margaret (1981), Small Books and Pleasant Histories. Popular Fiction and its Readership in Seventeenth -Century England. London: Methuen. Spurr, John (1991), The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Sroka, Kazimierz A. (1962), ‘Critique of the traditional syntactic approach to adverb/preposition words in Modern English’, in: Bulletin de la société polonais de linguistique, 21: 127-140. Sroka, Kazimierz A. (1972), The Syntax of English Phrasal Verbs. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Stein, Dieter (1990), The Semantics of Syntactic Change. New York: Mouton. Stein, Dieter (1994), ‘Sorting out the variants: Standardization and social factors in the English language 1600-1800’, in: Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English 16001800. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-17. Stein, Gabriele (1991), ‘The phrasal verb type ’to have a look’ in Modern English’, in: IRAL, 29: 1-29.
References
307
Stein, Gabriele & Randolph Quirk (1991), ‘On having a look in a corpus’, in: Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London/New York: Longman, 197-203. Strang, Barbara (1962), ‘Swift and the English language: A study in principles and practice’, in: To Honour Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Vol. III. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1947-1959. Strang, Barbara (1970), A History of English. London/New York: Routledge. Sundby, Bertil, Anne Kari Bjørge & Kari E. Haugland (1991), A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar: 1700-1800. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Taha, Abdul Karim (1960), ‘The structure of two-word verbs in English’, in: Language Learning, 10: 115-122. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1972), A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1991), ‘Review of Brinton 1988’, in: Studies in Language, 15: 221-226. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Suzanne Romaine (1985), ‘Some questions for the definition of ‘style’ in socio-historical linguistics’, in: Folia Linguistica Historica, 6: 7-39. Trnka, B. (1930), On the Syntax of the English Verb from Caxton to Dryden. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 3. Prague. (Kraus Reprint 1978). Tucker, Susie I. (1961), English Examined. Two Centuries of Comment on the Mother-tongue. Cambridge: CUP. Van Dongen, W. A. (1919), ‘He put on his hat and He put his hat on’, in: Neophilologus, 4: 322-353. Van der Gaaf, W. (1930), ‘The passive of a verb accompanied by a preposition’, in: English Studies, 12: 1-24. Vestergaard, Torben (1974), ‘Review of Bolinger 1971’, in: English Studies, 55: 303-308. Vestergaard, Torben (1977), Prepositional Phrases and Prepositional Verbs. A Study in Grammatical Function. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Visser, F. Th. (1963-1973), An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Von Schon, Catherine (1977), The Origin of the Phrasal Verb in English. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Vorlat, Emma (1975), The Development of English Grammatical Theory, 1586-1737; with Special Reference to the Theory of Parts of Speech. Louvain: University Press. Warner, Alan (1961), A Short Guide to English Style. Oxford: OUP. Wells, Rulon (1960), ‘Nominal and verbal style’, in: Thomas E. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge/Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 213-220. Wierzbicka, Anna (1982), ‘Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat?’, in: Language, 58: 753-799.
308
References
Winterová, Dominika (1993), ‘English verbo-nominal phrases in colloquial speech and scientific writing’, in: Prague Studies in English, 20: 179185. Wood, Frederick T. (1956), ‘Verb-adverb combinations: The position of the adverb’, in: English Language Teaching, 10:18-27. Wrightson, Keith (1982), English Society 1580-1680. London etc.: Hutchinson. Wrightson, Keith (1986), ‘The social order of early modern England: Three approaches’, in: Lloyd Bonfield, Richard M. Smith, Keith Wrightson (eds.), The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure: Essays presented to Peter Laslett on his Seventieth Birthday. Oxford: Blackwell, 177-202. Zgusta, Ladislav (1967), ‘Multiword lexical units’, in: Word, 23: 578-587.
