Now this is just a hypothesis, one that I think may have been mumbling away at itself in my subconscious for a long time. It may be that there is, in fact, no pattern to the choice of complement, and that the example above is just an instance of the human mind's desire to find meaning in noise. Nevertheless, I decided to begin compiling a list. Here's an example of what I mean:
Verbs
|
Nouns
|
||
Head
|
Comp
|
Head
|
Comp
|
emphasize
|
NP
|
emphasis
|
on NP
|
explain
|
NP
|
explanation
|
about NP
|
impact
|
NP
|
impact
|
on NP
|
research
|
NP
|
research
|
on/about NP
|
question
|
NP (+ about
NP)
|
question
|
about NP
|
talk
|
(to NP) about NP
|
talk
|
about NP
|
concern
|
NP
|
concern
|
about NP
|
doubt
|
NP
that content
clause
|
doubt
|
about NP
|
I recently asked some colleagues if they were aware of such a list. Nothing exactly like this has been suggested yet, but one person did point out that the verb impact also allows an on complement and suggested that the transitive verb is actually relatively new.
It turns out that this is a BrE vs AmE difference. I queried Google ngrams and here's what I found:
BrE
AmE
Unfortunately, the scales aren't the same, but they're close. The Americans got things rolling in the early 70s, and by the early 80s, they'd made up their minds. They seem to have a strong preference for the transitive version, which they use about 400% more often than the on complement. When the British picked up the ball a decade later, they veered off in favour of the on complement, but it doesn't look like a very strong preference. By 2000, the verb was being used more in Britain than in the US (at least after will).
No comments:
Post a Comment