Many English transitive verbs, such as deliver, eat, know, read, and understand, can function without an object. The classification of these verbs has long been a challenge. An examination of both grammar reference books and textbooks finds both inconsistency and inaccuracy in the current treatment of these verbs, showing a need for a more accurate and consistent description of these verbs. Using an approach that combines syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic analysis, the author proposes a classification framework that provides a more accurate and systematic description of these verbs. It classifies English verbs used without an object into four categories: 1) pure intransitive verbs, such as arrive, rise, and sleep; 2) ergative intransitive verbs, such as break, increase, and open; 3) transitive-converted intransitive verbs of activity, such as eat, hunt, and read; 4) object-deleting verbs, warranted by discourse or situational context, such as know, notice, and promise. The object-deleting verbs are in turn divided into five sub-types according to their semantic features. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of this framework for writers of grammar reference books and textbooks and for English language learners in dealing with these verbs.
Alsina, Alex.1996. The role of argument structure in grammar. Stanford, CA: SCLI.
2.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edn. 1992. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
Azar, Betty.1999. Understanding and using English grammar. New York: Longman.
4.
Baker, Carl L.1995. English syntax, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Barry, Anita K.1998. English grammar: Language as human behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
Biber, Douglass, Stig Johnsson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan .1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
7.
Bland, Susan Kesner (series ed.). 2003. Grammar sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
The British National Corpus, version 2 (BNC World).2001. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk
9.
Brown, E. Keith.1991. Transformational generative grammar . In Kristen Malmkjær (ed.), The linguistics encyclopedia , 482-497. London: Routledge.
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy .2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide: Spoken and written English grammar usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Diane Larsen-Freeman.1999. The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course, 2nd edn. Boston : Heinle & Heinle.
13.
Chalker, Sylvia & Edmund S.C. Weiner .1994. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lecture on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
16.
Chomsky, Noam.1993. A minimalist grammar for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Chomsky, Noam.1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Curzan, Anne & Michael Adams .2006. How English works: A linguistic introduction. New York: Pearson Longman.
19.
Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward.2005. A semantic approach to English grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke.2002. A university Course in English grammar . London: Routledge.
21.
Elbaum, Sandra N. (series ed.). 2001. Grammar in context, 3rd edn. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
22.
Fillmore, Charles J.1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS)12. 95-107.
23.
García-Velasco, Daniel & Carmen Portero Muñoz.2002. Understood objects in functional grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar76. 1-24.
24.
Goldberg, Adele E.2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Lawrence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 427-441. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
25.
Goldberg, Adele E.2005. Constructions, lexical semantics and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, 215-236. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
26.
Grimshaw, Jane.1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Groefsema, Marjolein.1995. Understood arguments: A semantic/pragmatic approach . Lingua96. 139-61.
28.
Halliday, MichaelAlexander Kirkwood.1994. An introduction to functional grammar , 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.
29.
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer.2000. Formal versus Encyclopedia properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalisations. In Bert Peeters (ed.), The lexicon-Encyclopedia interface, 349-374. Amsterdam : Elsevier Press
30.
Huang, C-T. James.1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns . Linguistic Inquiry15. 531-574.
31.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum .2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Hyams, Nina.1994. VP, null arguments and COMP projections. In Tuen Hoekstra & Bonnie D. Schwartz, Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 21-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33.
The New Oxford American Dictionary. 2001. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
34.
Kaplan, Jeffrey P.1995. English grammar: Principles and facts, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik .2002. A communicative grammar of English, 3rd edn. New York : Longman.
37.
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. 2002. Oxford: Macmillan.
38.
Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. 1999. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. 1995 [1966]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
41.
Park, Hyeson.2004. A minimalist approach to null subjects and objects in second language acquisition. Second Language Research20. 1-32.
42.
Parratt, Martin.2000. Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Prince, Ellen.1992. The ZPG letter subjects, definiteness and information-status . In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295-326. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
44.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik .1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.
45.
Radford, Andrew.1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Rutherford, William.1998. A workbook in the structure of English: Linguistic principles and language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
47.
Siddiqi, Daniel.2006. Minimize exponence: Economy effects on a model of the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Ph.D. dissertation.
48.
Simpson, John A. & Edmund S.C. Weiner (eds.). 1989. Oxford English Dictionary , 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
Trask, Robert Lawrence.1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics . London: Routledge.
50.
Van ValinD., Jr. , 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Wakabayashi, Shigenori & Rumiko Negishi .1998. Asymmetry of subjects and objects in Japanese speakers' L2 English. Paper presented to the Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
52.
Wardhaugh, Ronald.2003. Understanding English grammar: A linguistic approach , 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
53.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language: Unabridged . 1993. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
54.
Wechsler, Stephen.1995. The semantic basis of argument structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
55.
White, Lydia.1985. The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition . Language Learning35. 47-62.
56.
White, Lydia.1989. Universal grammar and second language acquisition . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
57.
Yuan, Boping.1997. Asymmetry of null subjects and null objects in Chinese speakers' L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition19. 467-497.
58.
Zobl, Helmut.1994. Prior linguistic knowledge and the conservatism of the learning procedure: Grammaticality judgment of unilingual and multilingual learners. In Susan Gass & Larry Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, 176-196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
