NP, PP and Zero Complements in CLMETEV-2

7.2.1 NP, PP and Zero Complements in CLMETEV-2

Two proverbial uses were found in the second part as well, but this time both of the tokens were of the intransitive type described in the OED. As for PP complements, in addition to the one from+NP complement – a pattern once found in the first part as well – a new pattern was detected:

23 Two proverbs of the type ‘bear and forbear’ found in the data are not included. Another presumably proverbial use was also found in one token by Foster (1821): “whether […] they will hear, or whether they will forbear”. This token is not listed in table 5 either.

(1) Bulwer-Lytton 1834 – The Last Days of Pompeii: ... so none ever interpret us with justice;

and none, no, not our nearest and our dearest ties, forbear with us in mercy!

(2) Southey 1813 – Life of Horatio Lord Nelson: …though he forbore from any public expression of displeasure at seeing the proofs and trophies of his victory destroyed,…

The PP complement [--with+NP] was listed under sense [A:Tolerate] in table 2, and the illustration in (1) is compatible with the said sense. In (2), the meaning is the basic [D:Refrain], although, again, the complement NP bears resemblance to OED sense 3 of ‘forbearing an emotion’.

The percentage of nominal complements in the data was on the same level compared to the first part of the corpus, at 17% (11 out of 19 tokens from F. Burney). The understood meaning of forbear was again found (10/19 tokens):

(3) Burney 1782 – Cecilia: But though she scrupulously forbore the smallest complaint, she failed not from time to time to cast out reflections upon fickleness ...

(4) Lamb 1807 – Tales from Shakespeare: Lucentio, Bianca’s husband, and Hortensio, the other new-married man, could not forbear sly jests, which seemed to hint at the shrewish disposition of Petruchio’s wife…

(5) Cottle 1847 – Reminiscences of S. T. Coleridge and R. Southey: …but not too much to discourage the enthusiastic aspirant after happiness, I forebore all reference to the accumulation of difficulties to be surmounted, and merely inquired…

The understood reading is clear in (3)-(4) (e.g. forbore to utter the smallest complaint; uttering sly jests).

Tokens such as in (5), where the paraphrase is not as straightforward (e.g. forbore to make any reference), are, however, also analyzed as instances of the understood sense since a “missing” verb of communication can still be inferred. Other examples of this type include: all interference, any further enquiry, any importunity, any further expostulation.

The connection to ‘forbearing an emotion’ was found in three tokens (cf. also (2) above):

(6) Gillman 1838 – The Life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: …on account of the name being pretty and metrical, indeed he could never forbear a smile when relating the story.

What comes to ZERO complementation, forbear is often used as a command. Little less than a half of the tokens (6 tokens) are commands or paraphrases of commands with sense [D:Refrain], except for one token:

(7) Lamb 1808 – Adventures of Ulysses: But Telemachus cried to them to forbear, and not to presume to lay hands upon a wretched man to whom he had promised protection.

Token in (7) illustrates sense [A:Tolerate], although a distinction could again be made between

‘abstaining from injuring or punishing’, as in (7), and ‘showing forbearance’, since the former can be rephrased with a sentential complement.

The analysis of the rest of the ZERO complement tokens revealed a new way to use the verb:

(8) Brontë 1847 – Agnes Grey: I might […] propose questions the reader be puzzled to answer, and deduce arguments that might startle his prejudices, or perhaps provoke his ridicule, because he could not comprehend them; but I forbear.

(9) Dickens 1812 – Barnaby Rudge: Mr Tappertit looked at him as though he were about to give utterance to some very majestic sentiments […], but as it was clear […] that the engagement was one of a pressing nature, he graciously forbore, …

Both of these tokens of forbear seem to have a missing complement construction: but I forbear to propose questions and he graciously forbore to give utterance. These actions are understood as the ones which are refrained from, but possibly due to avoidance of repetition they are left out from the complement position, creating thus a type of ellipsis. A quick survey of relevant literature reveals that this type of structure is known as Null Complement Anaphora (NCA) (Hankamer and Sag 1976:411²⁴; the left out complement added by V.P):

(10) I asked Bill to leave, but he refused [to leave].

NCA is analyzed as a type of deep anaphor, which as opposed to surface anaphors, “shows no evidence of resulting from a syntactic deletion process” (Hankamer and Sag 1976:414-415). That is, the sentence in (10), as in (8) and (9), is not a result of syntactic transformations. In fact, instead of considering something “left out”, or “deleted”, a more accurate expression would be “substituted” – the NCA can substitute either a linguistic structure, as in (8)-(9), or, what is more, a “semantic unit” that only exists in

24 Due to limitations of space, the introduction to the theory of NCA is brief and restricted to Hankamer and Sag’s (1976) analysis. I am aware, nevertheless, that there are linguists who refute their theory. For example, Napoli (1983) argues against null complements, and suggests that instances such as in (9) are simply intransitive uses.

the pragmatic environment of the utterance (Hankamer and Sag 1976:425). Also worth noting is that the linguistic antecedent does not have to be in the form that would normally be required by the governing verb, which can be seen in (8), where there is a bare infinitive “propose” instead of a to-infinitive (Hankamer and Sag 1976:413). The fact that NCA does not require linguistic antecedents, but can be interpreted within the overall pragmatic context, and that the antecedent is not syntactically controlled makes it possible to consider also the imperatives, and paraphrases of them, as having an anaphor:

(11) Burney 1782 – Cecilia: …he hastily called to a waiter to bring him a bottle of champagne.

Of this he drank glass after glass, notwithstanding Cecilia, as Mrs Harrel had not courage to speak, entreated him to forbear [sic].

Illustration in (11) can be seen as a situation in which the non-linguistic action (drinking champagne) is asked to be forborne. The interpretation of the command thus rests solely on the situation²⁵. However, as we are not watching a play, it is perhaps more accurate to say that there is a linguistic antecedent for the anaphor (“he drank glass after glass”).

The possibility of NCA could also be considered for sense [A:Tolerate]. In the light of the data it would seem that also in (7) the context defines the action (i.e. some kind of fit of violence) from which one is asked to refrain. More data is, however, needed to conclude how NCA would work with the sense of ‘showing forbearance / being tolerant’.