Prepositional What ?

: A Little Terminological Nit-

Picking.
© Jean-Pierre van Noppen (U.L.B.) 1

Wittgenstein said that «by a new notation no facts of geography are

changed» (1958:57). Even though it suggests, in a rather positivistic vein,
that the bare, uninterpreted data offer themselves to our cognition without
further mediation, the map–making analogy may be enlightening to a
point. It is common for one and the same territory to be charted in two or
more significantly different ways, according to the projection used. It
would be more surprising, however, and definitely confusing, to have one
and the same representation for two different, and sometimes
incompatible, views of a given portion of reality.

Yet this seems to be what happens in some instances of

grammatical terminology. The case I would like to illustrate here is the use
made in different grammars of the terms prepositional object and
prepositional complement. The problem is not so much that the phrases
have different, albeit overlapping, areas of reference in two or more
systems of grammatical description, but that the choice of the terms rests
on two different rationales, each of them coherent on its own terms, but
mutually irreconcilable and – worse – neither of them totally satisfactory,
in the sense that the more comprehensive description of the two suggests
similarity where there is actually difference, and the more detailed
account allows categorisa-tion of most, but not all, examples.

Supposing that we dispose of fail–safe criteria to distinguish between

phrasal (i.e. particle) and prepositional verbs – in general terms, we do –,
the task remains to describe the limits and the grammatical features of
the latter category; the difficulty being that different relationships may
prevail between the elements in a superficially similar S+V (+O) + [prep +
N] sequence.

In ACGEL, Quirk, Greenbaum et al. (1985:1156) envisage two

possible analyses for the sentence she looked after her son. The first
approach supposes that looked is an intransitive verb, and after her son a
kind of adverbial, while the second views looked after as a two–word verb
phrase and her son as its object, termed prepositional object; even in this
latter case, ACGEL persists in considering the verb intransitive, but labels
it Type I in order to avoid an embarrassing contradiction between terms,
an intransitive verb being by definition a verb that is not complemented by
an object 2 .

1 The author is indebted to P. De Brabanter for his substantial critical

comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
2 In section 16.25 (monotransitive complementation), however, Type I
 The argument in favour of the intransitivity hypothesis rests on the
existence of a phrase boundary between the verb and the preposition,
which appears in various structures, e.g. when the prep + N phrase is
fronted or isolated (On whom did she call ? On the dean ), or when an
adverb can be inserted between the two (They looked disdainfully at the
picture). The transitivity hypothesis, on the other hand, is supported by
the existence of a prepositional passive, with the V + prep stranded in
final position (The dean was called on, the picture was looked at). ACGEL
points out, however, that passivisability is not a safe criterion : not all
prepositional objects can become subjects in a passive transformation
(Her eyes lighted upon the jewel, I don’t care for Jane’s parties), and some
passivisable structures correspond to an SVA rather than SVO pattern in
the active form (This bed has been slept in, these chairs are not to be sat
on). As a consequence, ACGEL concludes that «we do not reject the SVA
analysis, but rather we offer the SVO analysis as, to varying degrees, a
suitable alternative», and constructs a scale ranging from a
straightforward SVO pattern to a clear SVA case, based on three criteria,
i.e. passivisability (i.e. the transformation of the [prep+N] syntagm into
subject of a passive transform), the possibility of wh– questions, and the
(im)possibility of adverbial questions (Quirk et al. 1985:1166). The
transformation of the adverbial-question criterion into a negative one
(where “+” means “the prepositional verb cannot be the answer to an
adverbial question”) allows a classification where a decreasing number of
pluses indicates decreasing prepositionality :

Vpass Qwh– No Qadv

(1) The police have asked for details + + +

(2) The queen slept in this bed + + –
(3) White wine goes with poultry – + +
(4) She died of pneumonia – + –
(5) His job also comes into the picture – –+
(6) She left before noon – – –

On this scale, (1) is rated as the prototypical prepositional verb, while (2)
and (3) are only “marginally” prepositional. ACGEL does not discuss (4),
which allows both the adverbial interrogative (How did she die ? Of
pneumonia) and the what–question (What did she die of ? ). We shall have
to return to this and similar examples below. (5) rates low on the
prepositionality scale in spite of the strong V + prep cohesion. This may
be explained by the fact that in the idiom come into the picture verb,
preposition and object are welded together in a unit that will allow neither
passive nor interrogative transformations of the sentence. (6) is analysed
as an SVA structure; we are clearly not dealing with the prepositional verb
leave before, and the corresponding question is obviously when did she
leave, although what/who- questions could be imagined in some contexts

prepositional verbs (i.e. verbs with a prepositional object) are treated as

“analogous” to verbs with a direct object, which seems more coherent.
(?What did she call after, lunch or supper ?; ?What did he fall into ? A
precipice ).

To these features, ACGEL adds another criterion, i.e. the form of the
wh- question, which effects a supplementary distinction within class (1)
allowing to assess the cohesion between verb and pronoun. The “ideal”
prepositional verb is not likely to allow fronting of the whole prep + N
phrase; Look after, an “ideal” prepositional verb with strong V + prep
cohesion, does not allow the question *After whom did she look ?, while
rely on, presumably less “ideal”, allows the structure On whom did he rely
? as well as Who(m) did he rely on ? .

The term prepositional object reappears in ACGEL’s treatment of

Type II, i.e. transitive prepositional verbs, where it denotes a preposition-
initiated noun phrase after the direct object, as in the gang robbed her of
her necklace, She took good care of the children, or we caught sight of the
lifeboat. Type II prepositional verbs are further categorised in to IIa, IIb
and IIc according as it is the direct object, both objects, or the
prepositional object that may become the subjects of a passive transform,
a condition which is dependent on the “idiomatic” status of the verb
phrase, i.e. on the strength of the verb-preposition cohesion, and hence on
the relative freedom of choice of the subsequent elements (direct object,
preposition, prepositional object): lull N into sleep, make a mess of N, keep
tabs on N.

In ACGEL, then, the term prepositional object appears as the label

for a large, rather mixed set of preposition-initiated noun phrases more
recognisable by virtue of their surface structure than by their grammatical
patterning, and identifiable mainly by recourse to non-adverbial who/what
questions. In Greenbaum’s Introduction to English Grammar, a by-product
of ACGEL for use in schools and colleges, this criterion is practically raised
to the status of definition :

The prepositional object differs from direct and indirect objects in that a
preposition introduces it. (...) Like other objects, prepositional objects can be
questioned by who or what, (...) and they can often be made the subject of a
corresponding passive sentence (Greenbaum 1991:61).

This sounds like good common sense. The definition is open to question,
however. On the one hand, the who/what criterion, as grammar teachers
know only too well, is not a fail-safe test by which to identify objects : the
question S+V+what will yield a subject complement if the verb is
intensive, and the definition would be circular if one required the verb of
the question to be transitive. On the other hand, while it is true that direct
and indirect objects “often” lend themselves to passivisation (have and
other “middle verbs” being the most notable exceptions), prepositional
objects as defined by Greenbaum are only subject-transformable in what
we have called the “prototypical” cases, and, more significantly, are not at
all transformable in some other patterns, as can be observed in a small
collection of examples culled from Greenbaum’s own illustrations and
exercises :

Vpass Qwh– No Qadv

(7) My aunt is looking after my brothers + + +
(8) The principal called for references + + +
(9) Heavy smoking leads to cancer – + +
(10) He blamed the accident on the weather – + +
(11) I explained the procedure to the children – + +
(12) You may order a drink for me – + +
(13) I have just caught sight of them + + +
(14) They took advantage of his inexperience ± + +
(15) I congratulated her on her promotion – + +
(16) He thanked us for the generous tip – + +
(17) I have put his problem down to inexperience – + +
(18) They look down on their neighbours + + +
(19) I caught up on my reading ± + +
(20) We have received donations from our listeners – + –

In this series, only (7), (8) and (18) qualify as “ideal” prepositional verbs,
the latter of the phrasal-prepositional type. In (9), the case for transitivity
(not passivisability) could be made only on the basis of analogy with
induce. In (11), the coherence between explain and to is not very strong;
but to the children could not be interpreted as a recipient indirect object
in the strict sense of the term, since explain (unlike the French expliquer)
does not allow the dative transformation3. The object in (12), on the other
hand, could be interpreted as “prepositionally indirect” (Dekeyser et al.
1987:281), as can be shown by the dative in you may order me a drink;
but I may be ordered a drink sounds implausible. (13) lends itself to
passivisation by virtue of the strong, idiomatic coherence between the
verb, the direct object and the preposition, but (14) does so only in a
lesser degree, inasmuch as take advantage of is passivisable only when
the prepositional object is human. In transitive structures like (15), (16)
and (17) the object (direct or indirect) may be raised to subject position,
but not the prepositional object. The phrasal-prepositional verb in (18)
can be passivised by virtue of the semantic agent/patient relationship, but
the passive of the equally phrasal-prepositional catch up on in (19)
sounds strange (?I’ve got a lot of work to be caught up on). Finally, one
may wonder whether (20) contains a prepositional verb at all; one could
very well imagine the adverbial question Whence / From where did we
receive those donations ? as well as From who(m) ?

3 Foundations (1987:274, 277) classifies explain, indicate and deliver

along with other verbs (admit, confess) that pattern with a prepositional
complement on the basis of the impossibility of the dative transformation.
The NP after deliver could, however, be qualified as a prepositional object
in the (rare) case where it becomes the subject of a passive transform, as
in ?He was delivered a bulky package.
 By ACGEL’s standards, most of these verbs would qualify as only
“marginally” prepositional, and as a consequence, the case for the object
status of the prepositional object as defined in this grammar is not so
strong as it seems at first sight.
The solution adopted by Dekeyser et al.’s Foundations of English
Grammar, a grammar in the Belgian tradition (cf. Tops & Dekeyser 1991),
is to keep the term prepositional object only for those NPs which may
become subjects of a passive transformation : “a prepositional phrase that
cannot become the subject of a passive transform is not an object”
(Dekeyser et al. 1987:275). This is, admittedly, a limitation of the notion
of object (since not even all direct objects are passivisable), but a use
closer to its prototypical characterisation. It does, of course, rather
drastically limit the number of prepositional objects, as well as leave a
terminological void for the prep + N phrases that are neither adverbial nor
passivisable.
Dekeyser et al. maintain the term prepositional verb for verb+prep
syntagmas with prepositional objects as well as for those that do not allow
passivisation, but suggest calling the non-passivisable prep + N phrases
prepositional complements. In several respects, this looks like a more
elegant solution (van Noppen 1995), but it raises some difficulties of its
own. Where ACGEL sought to distinguish between SVO and SVA,
Foundations places prepositional verbs across the separation between
SVOp and SVCp, which on the one hand raises the question of the status of
the prepositional complement, and on the other supposes that the
difference between prepositional complements and preposition-initiated
adverbials is totally clear.

The term prepositional complement itself is not an invention of the

Belgian grammarians; actually, it appears both in ACGEL and in
Greenbaum’s Introduction, albeit (once again) with different scopes of
reference.

In ACGEL the term is used but not defined : prepositional objects are
described as “prepositional complements which have a close connection
with the preceding verb” (looking at herself), while after a noun (a story
about himself), the sequence is labelled not complement but prepositional
phrase (1985:359). Prepositional complement also appears in the chapter
on adjective complementation, where it may be optional (good at) or
obligatory (averse to, compatible with, fond of, 1985:1221).

In Greenbaum’s Introduction (1991:67-8), the scope of reference is

considerably wider, since here a prepositional complement is whatever
follows the preposition in a preposition-initiated phrase. Greenbaum's
category is clearly more formal than functional, and one must then
understand that we have two names, from two different (but compatible)
viewpoints, for the same element (this is not an isolated case: an adverb
may function as adverbial, an auxiliary as operator, etc.). According to
Greenbaum, the “main functions” of prepositional comple-ments 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, illustrated
only by disjuncts and optional adjuncts (In my opinion, people behave
differently in crowds). Among these functions, Greenbaum rather
surprisingly fails to mention the role of prepositional object. Some of his
examples, however, show that the category also contains prep + N
sequences which rate as objects by his own standards (Attend to a case;
Wait for a person; Play with a ball ).

On the other hand, the examples of prepositional complements in

Foundations show that the authors use complement as in adverbial
complement, where complement sometimes# indicates a phrase
syntactically and semantically indispensable to complete the SVA or SVOA
pattern (someone was lurking in the bushes, the mountains towered over
the village, water was seeping through the ceiling, she put the file on his
desk, she slipped the key into the lock, etc.). The prepositional
complement is supposed to be similarly indispensable, but neither
adverbial nor passivisable; the preposition here coheres with the verb
rather than with the complement, and is used figuratively rather than in its
literal, i.e. locative, temporal, instrumental etc. meaning (take to drink,
succeed in one’s exams, Dekeyser et al. 1987: 281) :

(21) Maisie had never taken to him.

(22) Jonathan took after his mother.
(23) The Carters lived on a small salary.
(24) We congratulated Joan on her promotion.
(25) She spends a lot of money on cosmetics.
(26) He asked too much of himself.
(27) The judge had to convince Nixon of his innocence.
(28) That reminds me of my promise.
(29) They accused him of the murder.

One may, however, have some misgivings about the term

complement, which raises terminological problems of its own. In subject
complement, the term denotes a function, based on the notion of
“intensiveness”. Subject complements can not be dispensed with, unless
one accepts a change in the meaning of the verb (God is; She’s
becoming). In object complement, we have a weaker case for
indispensability : the complements in she dyed her hair green and they
elected him chairman can be disposed of without a change in meaning. In
adnominal complement clause we find some sort of intensive link again
(the fact that nobody had called, the question whether they should attend
the party), but the complement is syntactically dispensable. In adjective
complement , the complement looks like a modifier which is often
syntactically dispensable (afraid of dogs, happy to go). In adverbial
complement, the term that we are here interested in, complement (in
some grammars) does not denote a function (the function being
Adverbial), but simply a property, i.e. indis-pensability. Looking at the
examples, however, we can observe that, in contrast with adverbial
complements, not all prepositional complements are equally
indispensable. In (21) and (22), deletion of the complement would result in
an impossible sequence. In (23)-(25) and (27)-(29), the authors claim that
the complement is semantically indispensable, but need not be overtly
realized. This is particularly clear in (28): If I forget, remind me. If, as is
the case here, we are talking about surface syntax rather than about
argument structure, the notion of semantic indispensability has only
limited value. If I say I’m reading, I am obviously reading something, but
that does not preclude the verb read from appearing in the SV pattern. By
the same token, We congratulated Joan or She spends a lot of money are
formally altogether acceptable utterances without further
complementation. (23) stands, I feel, at the limit between SVCp and SVA.
Is the Carters’ limited income a circumstance fundamentally different from
the fact that they live in a rusty trailer, that they live with three dogs, or
that they seem to live especially between midnight and dawn ? The
arguments that may be adduced in favour of the prepositional-verb status
of live on, and hence the Cp status of on a small salary or off the dole is 1.
the stronger coherence between live and on as contrasted with the weak
link between live and in, with, between, and 2. the non-literal use of on
and off . In the case of with, the contrast spatial/non-spatial does not
apply, but one might posit a difference between a literal live (together)
with one’s parents and a figurative live with (the fact, the situation, etc.),
in which the former live is the verb live=dwell with an adverbial
complement and the latter the verb live=survive followed by a
prepositional complement — or is it a preposition-initiated adverbial ?

In principle, the question form should be sufficient to distinguish

between prepositional complements and adverbials: compare he won
them over to his cause (What...?) and he won them over thanks to his
parents’ pleading / after lengthy negotiations (How...., When..?). But the
distinction between Cp and A status is not always so easy. While the
who/what question can be asked of almost any prep+N phrase, some
sentences allow both the wh- and the adverbial question. He died of
pneumonia is the answer to What did he die of?, but this question could
be put alongside How did he die?, which might be answered with different
prepositional collocations like on a cross or in a road accident.# While
Smoking leads to cancer clearly calls for a what- question and All roads
lead to Rome for a where or a whither one, I feel that Contradiction leads
to conflict could be the answer to both types of questions, conceivably
because of a cognitive metaphor which allows us to map states as loci.
This latter observation, incidentally, also takes some force out of the
literal/figurative preposition argument, in addition to the fact that not all
prepositions have a spatial, temporal etc. basis (go with, call for, take
advantage of).

If we postulate coherence between verb and preposition as a

discriminating criterion, we must distinguish between V+prep units on the
one hand, and frequent or predictable vs. “free” V+prep collocations on
the other; it is not a matter of how many different prepositions it would
take for a verb to gain or lose its prepositional status, since one verb may
combine into strongly cohesive patterns with various prepositions, with or
without changes in meaning: when look collocates with at, after or for, the
meaning changes only in the latter two cases, but look at is clearly a
prepositional verb; while squeeze, which collocates with into, out of,
under, between, and (up) against, all in a (mainly) locative sense and
without change in meaning, could on a prima facie basis be classified as
an SVOAc verb on the basis of free variation of the prepositional phrase
and its indispensable “complement” character. It does not, however,
qualify as an adverbial if we apply the “question” test, since the obvious
question would be what, not where. This may be the reason why squeeze
appears as a compound verb in Cowie & Mackin 1975:300. If substitution
by a single lexical item were a safe criterion of coherence – unfortunately
it is not – we could make some sort of a case on the basis of tentative
synonymy with insert or express, although these, too, require some sort of
prepositional complementation (into the slot, out of the lemon). The
criterion of adverbial insertion is hardly more decisive, since we may find
examples where an adverb can be inserted before a prepositional object
(they looked carefully at the picture), a prepositional complement (white
wine goes perfectly with poultry) or an adverbial (she was sleeping
soundly in the armchair) as well as before an adverbial complement (he
put the book all the way on the top shelf), although in the latter case there
seem to be semantic limitations on the type of adverb, and one might
claim that here the adverbial phrase all the way coheres semantically with
the adverbial complement of place it qualifies.

****

Foundations, then, provides us with a more satisfactory classification

than ACGEL and Introduction, but will unfortunately let us down if we feel
we must be able to assign a label to each prep+N sequence on the basis
of unexceptionable criteria, while Greenbaum’s criterion of the what-
question is misleading in that it lumps together too many different
patterns under a single name, i.e. prepositional object.

The task may be somewhat facilitated by asking the questions in a

given order. I would advocate a routine which starts by asking whether the
adverbial question is possible. Putting the A question at the beginning not
only keeps passivisable A’s (sleep in) from being cast into the Op
category, but also takes care of phrases which allow both the adverbial
and the who/what questions before they are lumped together with Cp’s:
She slipped the key into the lock / across the counter is obviously SVOAc
(Where ?) but allows the question What did she slip the key into / across ?
Cf. also He fell into the precipice / Where did he fall ? / ?What did he fall
into ? ) This procedure would turn the NPs in examples (4), she died of
pneumonia and (20), We have received donations from our listeners into
adverbials, too.

It must be granted that not all adverbial questions are simple or

obvious ones, and that some of them rather circularly involve the
preposition itself (from where, etc.), although many of these compound
questions can be replaced by more archaic one-word adverbial
interrogatives (whence, whither, whereby, ...).

Another objection is that, by virtue of the varied, “dustbin” nature of

the category adverbial (Quirk et al. 1985:51, Dekeyser et al. 1987:278 ),
not all A-slots as we know them correspond to adverbial questions. This
objection holds mainly for subjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts, but since
the adverbials which are liable to be confused with prepositional objects/
complements are prep+N adjuncts, the remark has limited impact on this
discussion; but it is true that the preposition-initiated adverbial in He
traveled with his aunt cannot be elicited by an adverbial question. The
decision whether one should class a prep-initiated phrase as adverbial
may be aided – though not decisively settled – by other clues like weak
V/prep coherence (indicated by free choice and separability) and literal
(especially spatial) meaning of the preposition (this latter criterion would
encourage classification of squeeze as an SVA or SVOA verb, but would
conveniently leave the NPs in his job also comes into the picture and
smoking leads to cancer to be classified in a subsequent category).

If this first set of criteria is satisfied, the NP can be classified as an

adverbial. The next question in the routine should ask whether the prep-
initiated NP can be made the subject of a passive transform (the principal
called for references). If the answer is positive, the NP can then be
classified as prepositional object. All remaining prepositional phrases
may, finally, be assigned to the class prepositional complement, a default
category which can now be characterized in terms of strong verb/prep
predictability and the possibility of who/what- questions without the risk of
drawing into the category elements which are felt to belong elsewhere.

One remaining problem is that prepositional Oi equivalents with to or

for will be assigned to different categories according to whether they are
passivisable / “datifiable” or not. Perhaps these cases, on which ACGEL
and Foundations were bound to disagree (prepositional object in Quirk er
al. 1985: 59, 1208; prepositional complement in Dekeyser et al. 1987:274,
277), could, for the sake of clarity and terminological coherence, be
assigned to a separate category, prepositional Oi equivalent.

References

Cowie, A.P. and Mackin, R.: Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English.
Verbs with Prepositions and Particles. Oxford : Oxford University
Press, 1975.
Crystal, D.: Rediscover Grammar. London: Longman, 1988.
Dekeyser, X., Devriendt, B. and Tops, G., Geukens, S.: Foundations of
English Grammar. Antwerp : Inka / DNB, 1987.
Greenbaum, S.: An Introduction to English Grammar. London: Longman,
1991.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.: A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Tops, G. and Dekeyser, X.: “English Grammar Writing : The Belgian
Contribution”, in Leitner, G. (ed.): English Traditional Grammars.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991, pp. 141-152.
van Ek, J.A. and Robat, N.J.: The Student’s Grammar of English. Meppel:
Ten Brink, 1984.
van Noppen, J.-P.: Prepositional What ? A Terminological Point. Bruxelles,
ULB (Cahiers du CeDoP : Anglais), 1995.
Wittgenstein, L.: The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1958.