Prepositional What ? » a Terminological Point

Jean-Pierre van NOPPEN

« Prepositional What ? » A Terminological Point

Les Cahiers du CeDoP

Le présent document est protégé par la législation sur le droit d’auteur. Il ne peut faire l’objet d’aucune reproduction, sous quelque support que ce soit, ni d’aucune communication au public, sous quelque forme que ce soit et moyennant quelque procédé technique que ce soit, sans l’autorisation expresse du titulaire du droit d’auteur.

Preface

The original incentive to this paper is the publication of Sidney Greenbaum's Introduction to English Grammar (Longman, 1991). I see the book neither as a grammar nor as a classroom manual, but as a simple, practical and legible introduction to basic grammatical categories as well as to such points of usage as one may expect students embarking on English studies in a French-speaking University to be familiar with (incl. spelling, punctuation, style and a number of widespread usage problems).

The main reference upon which our candidature courses are based, however, remains Dekeyser & C°'s Foundations of English Grammar (Antwerp : DNB, 1979), a grammar in the Belgian tradition1.

Of course, we expected a reasonable amount of terminological divergence between the two books, and felt that here as elsewhere, not confining students to the straitjacket of a single terminological approach would be intellectually stimulating. At one point, however, we felt that the terminological choices of our Belgian grammarians offered a more convenient and coherent system than that found in Introduction and in the Quirk/Greenbaum/Leech/Svartvik classics.

Jean-Pierre van Noppen English Linguistics Dept., ULB

1 Cf. G. Tops & X. Dekeyser : «English Grammar Writing : The Belgian Contribution », in G. Leitner (ed.) : English Traditional Grammars. An International Perspective. Amsterdam : J. Benjamins, 1991, pp. 141-152. CeDoP 3

1. The issue at question is the description of the various patterns of relationship involved in the sequence verb + preposition + NP. Let us at this point assume (although this is not always the case) that students have already made the difference between verb + adverbial particle + NP and verb + preposition + NP,2 and observe how the book helps us to distinguish the other sequences if we abide by Greenbaum's classification.

According to Dr Greenbaum (op. cit., p. 61), « the first type of prepositional verbs » is followed by a prepositional object, « which differs from direct and indirect objects in that a preposition introduces it ». (...) « Prepositional objects can (like other objects) be questioned by who or what », and can « often be made the subject of a corresponding passive sentence. »

1. My aunt is looking after my brothers. 2. The principal called for references. 3. Heavy smoking leads to cancer.

If we adopt the « who or what » criterion as the sole test of transitivity3, we are forced to agree with Greenbaum, and to put all three sentences into the same bag.

If on the other hand we adopt the additional viewpoint of passivizability, example 3 could not be qualified as a transitive pattern : *« Cancer is led to by heavy smoking ». Of course, if we add the criterion of lexical substitution (which is one of the tests for lexical cohesion between verb and particle), we can assimilate « lead to » to the transitive « induce » and build a stronger, « analogical » case for transitivity. (Smoking induces cancer/Cancer is induced by smoking ; but note in passing that the two sentences have a different scope of truth-value !).

We do not, on the basis of these three examples, have a very strong case for a difference in transitivity between (1) and (2) on the one hand, and (3) on the other. The fact that the « prepositional object » in (3) cannot be converted into the subject of a passive transformation may, however, be an indication that « prepositional transitivity » englobes several patterns which might be usefully distinguished.

2 This issue (i.e. the difference between phrasal and other verbs) is dealt with satisfactorily in Greenbaum 1991, although he initially calls both the preposition and the AP « particle » ; a problem subsists in the distinction between prepositional verbs and verbs followed by a preposition-initiated adverbial adjunct. The distinction between transitive phrasal verbs and intansitive verbs followed by a preposition-initiated adverbial adjunct is not as straightforward as some grammars suggest, cf. the difference between « she dressed up », « she came up », « she came up the stairs » and « she picked up the package ». The criterion of replacing the verb + particle by a single lexical item to highlight the semantic unity of the collocation is not a safe guide here, cf. R. Quirk & al. : A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 1985 (henceforth CGE), section 16.5. 3 The « who or what » criterion is, of course, convenient in the case of non-passivisable transitive verbs. « He has a car » is clearly an SVOd structure, even if we cannot say *« a car is had by him », and here the test of transitivity must be « What does he have ? ». CeDoP 4

The first question to be considered here is whether the criteria for transitivity, including the « who or what » test, apply with equal strength to all verb + preposition sequences. If we take the following series of examples, we could claim that the argument for transitivity becomes progressively weaker as we move down the list4 :

4.1. Our Reverend called on my aunt. 4.2. Whom did our Reverend call on ? 4.3. My aunt was called on by our Reverend.

(Who/what question, passivizable, lexical substitution by monotransitive « visit »).

5.1. He has paid for the drinks. 5.2. What has he paid for ? 5.3 The drinks have been paid for.

(Who/what question, passivizable, no lexical substitution)

6.1. He fell into the precipice. 6.b. (?)What did he fall into ? - Where did he fall ? 6.3. *The precipice was fallen into.

(Who/what question strange, adverbial alternative question, not passivizable, no lexical substitution)

7.1. He called after lunch. 7.2. (?)What did he call after, lunch or supper ? - When did he call, after lunch or supper ? 7.3. *Lunch was called after.

(No who/what question, adverbial alternative question, not passivizable, no lexical substitution).

By virtue of the same « who/what » criterion, Greenbaum also calls « prepositional object » the preposition-initiated NP after a direct object (9-13) and the preposition-initiated NP after a phrasal verb + preposition (14-16).

9. He blamed the accident on the weather. 10. You may order a drink for me. 11. I have explained the procedure to the children. 12 I have just caught sight of them. 13. I congratulated her on her promotion. 14. They look down on their neighbours. 15. I have put this problem down to inexperience. 16. We put him up for election.

4 The CGE, Section 16.15 develops a similar scale, but uses it only to distinguish between « essentially » and « marginaly » prepositional verbs ; but An Introduction to English Grammar, esp. in the exercise section (4.24, p. 267), indistinctly labels take advantage of, thank sb. for, congratulate sb. on and even receive sth. from as « prepositional verbs ». CeDoP 5

Here as before, I feel that too many different relationships have been thrown together under the same heading. Of course the who/what test works in all examples, and in a number of cases, one might develop an « analogical » argument for transitivity, claiming that the same verb in a different pattern would give the NP object status. So one might rephrase (9) as « He blamed the weather for the accident » (but is it the same verb ? the CGE suggests that it is, cf. section 16.56, 57) ; in (10), « for me » is equivalent to an indirect object, as can be shown by a dative transformation « he ordered me a drink ». « Explain » in (11) does not allow the dative transformation in English (it does in French), but the NP has the same semantic recipient status as an Oi, and differs only in form. In (12) we deal with an idiomatic multi-word verb with a built-in object, but which as a unit taken globally functions as a transitive verb (Cf. « I sighted them »). In (13) I see no case for transitivity except the « who/what » test. Example (14) stands a better case, and « their neighbours » could easily be tagged as prepositional object, in terms of passivisability, in terms of the semantic agent/patient relationship and in terms of replacement and analogy (« they snub their neighbours »). GreenbaumÕs examples (15) and (16) also belong to the schema phrasal verb + preposition + NP, but here the phrasal verb is transitive and has its own object, while there seems to be little reason, apart from the « who/what » test, to consider inexperience and election as « objects ».

2. On p. 67 of the same book5, Greenbaum introduces the term prepositional complement. In his terminology, a prepositional phrase is a structure composed of a preposition and a prepositional complement (an NP or a clause). Greenbaum here attends to the issue of pre- and post-position (« stranding ») of prepositions, which is irrelevant to our discussion here. It does not become clear, however, whether there is presumed to be a difference between a prepositional object and a prepositional complement. The category seems to be more formal than functional, and one might then understand that we have two names, from two different viewpoints, for the same element (this is not an isolated case ; an adverb may function as adverbial, an auxiliary as operator, etc.). The examples given by Greenbaum show that this category is as comprehensive as the previous one, and that it contains NPs which rate as objects of prepositional verbs as well as NPs following intransitive verbs (« Your case will soon be attended to » vs. « This ball is for you to play with » or « Where are you coming from ? »). Among the « main functions » of prepositional phrases, however (p. 68), Greenbaum does not mention the role of prepositional object.6

This gap is filled, however, by the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985). In section 6.26, prepositional objects are defined as « prepositional complements which have a close connection with the preceding verb » (Mary stood looking at herself in the mirror). Chapter 16.5 clarifies Quirk & C°'s option not to regard the pictures in « many people looked at the pictures » as a direct object of look at, but as the complement of the preposition, despite the fact that the passive is frequently possible. The noun phrase following the preposition in such constructions is termed a prepositional object. Object status is also given to the preposition-initiated NPs of what the authors call prepositional verbs of type IIa, e.g. ». The gang

5 also in CGE, Section 9.1. 6 The functions acknowledged are : 1. post-modifier of a noun (I took several courses in history), 2. post-modifier of an adjective (I was happy with my marks), and 3. adverbial (In fact, the economy was showing signs of improvement). The latter function is illustrated only by disjuncts and optional adjuncts. CeDoP 6 robbed her of her necklace » or « Jenny thanked us for the present », in which only the Od/Oi7 may become the subject of a passive transformation.

3. In their Foundations of English Grammar, Dekeyser, Devriendt, Tops and Geukens also resort to the terms « prepositional object » and « prepositional complement »8 to refer to the same set of linguistic phenomena. But whereas in Greenbaum, the two terms cover a common field within which different patterns of relationship can be recognised, the Antwerp team introduces a set of discriminating criteria which invest the terms with more specific meanings and which, I feel, build up a terminologically more coherent system, inasmuch as « object » and « complement » receive meanings closer to those they have in other collocations.

The preposition + NP or preposition + NP equivalent string is simply termed « prepositional (noun) phrase ». Prepositional phrases and clauses function as prepositional objects, prepositional complements, adverbials or postposed modifiers.

Foundations (Section 3.10) differs from the CGE (Section 16.5) in the premiss that prepositional verbs (verbs with a fixed preposition9) are transitive, i.e. that they have objects which are introduced by prepositions which have lost their literal, spatial or temporal reference10. These objects must be passivisable in order to achieve object status, and require a non-adverbial question form. Thus they rank syntactically and semantically with the class of direct objects. The only difference is that they do not collocate directly with the verb phrase but require a preposition ; hence the name prepositional objects.

17.1. John will attend to this matter. 17.2. This matter will be attended to by John. 17.3. What did John attend to ?

A number of preposition-initiated NPs share all the characteristics of the prepositional object (fixed preposition with figurative meaning ; non-adverbial question) except the possibility of becoming the subject of a passive transformation :

18.1. They had to live on a small salary. (on = non-spatial) 18.2. What did they live on ? 18.3. *A small salary was lived on.

These preposition-initiated NP's are labelled prepositional complements. The label « complement » appears as particularly appropriate in those cases where the preposition-complement is semantically indispensable to complete the syntagma :

19. They compared him to a giant.

7 « him » in « she congratulated him » is qualified as Oi on semantic grounds in Introduction, p.62. 8 as well as « prepositional verb » and « prepositional (noun) phrase ». 9 i.e. with a preposition selected by reason of the verb rather than by independent semantic choise. When adverbials are involved, the occurence of varying prepositions is dictated by the following NP. 10 The prepositions in live in and sleep in in the sense of « use as a house/as a bed » maintain their literal meaning, but the verbs qualify as prepositional by virtue of the who/what-question and the passivisability criteria. CeDoP 7

20. They prevented him from smoking.

Preposition-initiated NP's which do not fulfil the requirements of passivisability, non-adverbial questions, and of non-fixed and non-spatial or temporal prepositions are considered as adverbials (they married in the morning, on Wednesday, at the seaside,...) when they follow verbs. After nouns, Foundations speaks of postposed noun modifiers (a girl with a straw hat).

4. We have contrasted two terminological approaches to one grammatical phenomenon. In contrast to many terminological debates, the divergence between Greenbaum's and Foundations' grammatical labels here is not « a mere matter of agreeing on words » ; the basic issue of the transitivity (or not) of prepositional verbs has here led to a different conception of the status and the scope of coverage of « object ». In Greenbaum, the notion of prepositional object is a comprehensive one which encompasses at least three different patterns. In this respect, the difference made in Foundations between prepositional object, prepositional complement and preposition-initiated NP in an adverbial slot appears as more efficient (since it allows to discriminate between different patterns) and as more coherent (since the object remains an « object » not unlike a direct or indirect one, and the complement a « complement » not unlike a (non-optional) adverbial complement, e.g. in an SVA or SVOA pattern).