Phrasal verb vs. Simplex pairs in legal-lay discourse: the Late Modern English period in focus

4.2.1 Semantic enrichment and pragmatic force

PVs that contain a particle working as an aspectualizer (Brinton 1988: Ch. 4) such as to arrest/to bring in, to capture/to pick up, to continue/to go on, to extinguish/to put out, to retreat/to draw back, tend to exhibit more semantic enrichment and pragmatic force than their simplex counterparts. In these cases, indeed, the phraseological component points towards a durative/iterative (e.g. to go on) or an ingressive/perfective aspect (e.g. to bring in, to pick up), and the particle may contribute to metaphorical extension of the inner meanings of the combination, helping draw “a graphic ‘picture’” (Claridge 2000: 233) of the actions and processes expressed by the base verb itself.

This is exemplified by the pair to continue/to go on in (1)–(2) which share syntactic features while preserving specific semantic peculiarities:

1. She slept with my children, and continued with me until the 3d. of December. (1810s)

2. I saw the prisoner shove the beadle down, and went on with the dray. (1750s)

Comparison of the PV with the simplex reveals that these verbs are near-synonyms, at least in terms of their aspectual properties, as they both denote duration of the action. However, further analysis of the instances suggests that, differently from the simplex, the PV emphasizes the aspectual connotation. It seems that the temporal propensities that are incorporated in to continue are visibly expressed in the case of to go on: the acquisition of additional semantic nuances results in the reinforcement of the pragmatic traits.

The context of use is another element to examine in the evaluation of these verbs. While to continue normally occurs in contexts where there is a clear reference to the duration of the action in expressions such as long, many minutes, all day, and till Friday, the whole time, as in (3)–(4), to go on is usually followed by elements specifying manner and place, such as very gently, to the shop, directly, and regularly, to White lion-street, as in (5)–(6). It thus seems that the use of a PV obviates the need for further elements to highlight the durative side of the action. This could suggest that the aspectual particle is in itself an operator sufficient to express temporal relations and to incorporate an intensifying value.

1. The prisoner came into my service on the 4th of December last, and continued there till Friday the 10^th. (1790s)

2. Did they continue the whole time the prisoner was at breakfast? (1790s)

3. Yes, till lately; at first he went on regularly. (1770s)

4. … and the butcher went on to White lion-street. (1830s)

Further corroborating the existence of both similarities and diversities between the verbs is the fact that both can be followed by a to–clause or an –ing clause, as in (7)–(10), although in the data, to continue is more frequently used with these patterns:

1. It is very much to the credit of the prisoner, rather than the child should go on to perjure herself, as she has done, she confesses it. (1790s)

2. I went on hearing the conversation about a robbery I had committed; the other two followed me in about five minutes. (1770s)

3. Then Farthing took his situation, as before, and continued to do so as if he was looking into the shop. (1810s)

4. Did the hackney coachman continue whipping as the mail coach was passing? (1790s)

Only 6 out of 126 occurrences of to go on are followed by either a to–clause (3 matches) or an –ing clause (3 matches), whereas 23 out of 61 occurrences of to continue were followed by 13 and 10 matches respectively. This means that only 4% of the instances of to go on are used with these patterns, in contrast with 37% for the simplex to continue. The use of the progressive form may be considered the point of departure for comprehension of the degree of ‘aspectuality’ of each of these verbs, in so far as the “aspectual interpretation of a sentence [or a verb in the case under examination here] depends on an interaction between (…) two categories”, i.e. aktionsart and aspect, expressed in the lexicon and by grammar respectively (Brinton 1988: 3). The progressive is one of the best examples of how grammatical modification enhances the perception of a situation as “continuing, ongoing, or developing, at a certain time” (Brinton 1988: 8–9). By extension, the fact that to continue is more frequently followed by the progressive than to go on could suggest that this is due to the linguistic identity of each verb form: it seems that the phraseological verb does not need further specification on the action as it is already expressed in the verb+particle combination.

This means that the simplex verb encodes event structure but that it also requires grammatical/extra-grammatical processes to yield durativity and to unlock its aspectual potential, in a process of ‘reflectivization’ from the context to the verb and viceversa.

Two further illustrative examples show the intensifying effect and the consequent semantic/pragmatic force prompted by the particle at the discourse level: the pairs to arrest/to bring in and to capture/to pick up. As with the pair to continue/to go on, they convey aspectual traits, but they are linked respectively to an ingressive and atelic connotation rather than to duration and continuity in time. Once again, the particles enrich the semantic features of the base verb and contribute to the aspectuality of the whole combination. Nevertheless, while the forms to continue/to go on portray similar meanings and may be used interchangeably, the choice between the PV and simplex of these pairs seems to be constrained by contextual factors.

The verbs to arrest/to bring in, reported in (11)–(14), denote the limitation of freedom and often occur with human subjects such as prisoner, or more generally, the prisoner’s name. On many occasions, the person arrested is rendered with pronouns such as me, as in example (13):

1. Were they all three brought in by strangers, or did any of the patrol bring them in? (1790s)

2. I remember the prisoner being brought in. (1770s)

3. Mr. Clarke, a tailor, arrested me for a bill of my own. (1830s)

4. I charged her with the theft, she confessed she had pawned them, because she was involved in debt, and was afraid of being arrested. (1770s)

The verb to bring in exhibits an aspectual force emphasizing that the activity expressed is characterized by an ingressive connotation, a meaning evident in the particle in, usually linked to “the beginnings of a prolonged activity” (Curme 1931: 379). Likewise, to arrest is not unrelated to such a connotation, as in (13)–(14) above, as it is linked to the restraint of liberty. The difference lies in the fact that linguistically, while aspectuality conflates with the verb to arrest itself, it is made more evident in to bring in, which is characterized by stronger aspectual properties than the simplex. As suggested, however, the shift from to arrest to the PV to bring in prompts another effect on discourse, as the pairs are not truly interchangeable. The simplex works as a necessary term in the legal domain because it is conventionalized with the specific meaning of ‘limiting the freedom due to the violation of rules’ and thus the choice may also be connected to the need for certainty in the semantic interpretation of discourse in the legal setting.

The conclusion is similar for the verbs to capture/to pick up. These verbs are not frequent in the data (to capture = 3 occurrences; to pick up = 6 occurrences) but due to the closeness they exhibit with to arrest and to bring in they were considered worthy of note. To capture expresses the concept of ‘to take into custody, apprehend; to capture’ (OED), which is similar to that of to pick up. As examples (15)–(16) below show, the effect is that the PV exhibits additional semantic nuances carried by the particle up, which conveys telic connotation:

1. I do not believe it is a common thing to pick up a man in the long-room. (1830s)

2. ... and tried to make his escape a policeman close on the spot pursued, and very soon captured him. (1830s)

Once again, the members of the pair cannot be substituted without a significant semantic change as to capture exhibits very specific semantic traits that originate from legislative texts although it is also used in spoken interaction. The lexical choice, in other words, may not always be the result of strategic decisions, but might reflect the standardization of specific terms used for the sake of legal certainty.

More importantly, to pick up should also be compared with to collect, as these verbs are equivalent in semantic terms and are also more frequent than to capture/to pick up: to pick up occurs 184 times and to collect 23, in contrast with the 6 and 3 matches of the verbs to pick up and to capture.

Considering some examples of the verb to pick up, as in (17)–(18), and of the verb to collect, as in (19)–(20), once again the divergence between the PV and the simplex resides in the intensifying effect conferred by an aspectual particle. Up, indeed, portrays literal meanings but it can also be used to indicate perfective connotations “manifested in resultant condition” (Bolinger 1971:99). Both verbs possess a connotation linked to the act of ‘bringing’ a thing or a person and entail a sense of completion, but this seems to be more strongly emphasized in the phraseological form:

1. It was a dark evening; a gentleman picked me up, and brought me to Houndsditch. (1750s)

2. I stooped and picked the bundle up. (1770s)

3. I was collecting the poors rates, in New Inn on the 12th of December. (1770s)

4. I had promised to lend a gentleman some money, and must go and collect some for him. (1750s)

Beyond this similarity in meaning, if the PV is substituted for the corresponding simplex verb, the meaning of to collect remains only in part unchanged as the use of up transmits explicitly the “completive sense” (Fraser 1974: 6), thus contributing to “imagistic-metaphorical properties” of the PV (Hampe 2002: 46) much more than is the case for the simplex. This is not an exclusive feature of the PVs mentioned, as a similar conclusion may be reached from the comparison of other pairs, e.g. to extinguish/to put out and to retreat/to draw back, as in (21)–(24):

1. The light was not extinguished by our coughing, as I supposed it would be. (1810s)

2. Did they see you – A. Yes; they put out their lights immediately, they seemed to me to have two lights. (1790s)

3. The gentleman retreated with all possible speed. (1770s)

4. I drew back into a dark part of my passage. (1810s)

Examples (21)–(24) show the intensifying effect produced by the aspectual particles and confirm the idea that the use of a PV results in semantic enrichment of the whole utterance. When matching these ideas with the contents and purposes of trials as “evidence construction” (Heffer 2005: 70), it is even possible to interpret the lexical choice as functionally oriented to give an emphatic value to specific aspects of the crime, as the intention was to stress some elements over the others when narrating the crime story.

Overall, this suggests that the semantic enrichment deriving from the phraseological status of PVs and the aspectual connotation of the particle is one of the major points of distinction between PVs and simplexes when they are equivalent in meaning. These additional semantic traits may have an influential effect on lexical choice: PVs may be preferred because of the “intensifying/emphasising force” of aspectual particles (Claridge 2000: 237), and this may be functionally linked to the desire to contribute more effectively to the informational exposition in the courtroom. At the same time, pairs which convey a meaning that is conventionalised in the legal domain do not allow a free choice in interaction: for instance, simplexes which incorporate concepts recalling those included in regulations and norms may be used for the sake of formality and the need for precision. This raises questions about the degrees of precision of courtroom discourse and the extent to which vague language was used in the courtroom of the past.

4.2.2 Semantic generality vs. semantic specificity

Examination of the data showed that literal PVs are slightly less frequent than their simplex alternatives, but this difference only amounts to 0.02 percentage points. The two types of verb differ from each other in use, however, as the phraseological form exhibits a higher degree of specificity. When it comes to idiomatic combinations, however, they are significantly less frequent than simplexes but the semantic divergences are not as significant as for literal and aspectual PVs.

Specifically, except for the pair to discover/to find out (62 and 43 occurrences respectively), idiomatic PVs are rather rare and leave space for the predominance of their simplex counterparts. Indeed, in 6 out of 7 pairs,^[5] the simplex alternative is far more frequent than the idiomatic PV synonym, which makes evaluation of the divergences very hard if not speculative. Given the diachronic orientation of the present study, the limited occurrence of idiomatic PVs may have to do with processes of conventionalization rendering non-compositional properties gradually more frequent over time: idiomatic instances develop and become widespread within the system only once the new connotation has been conventionalised in use (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 110).

For the sake of completeness, two examples of idiomatic PV/simplex pairs are presented in (25)–(26) and (27)–(28).

1. Mary Whitfield came to char for us in consequence of what I discovered. (1830s)

2. I apprehend it was kept at our office, till we could find out the person who offered it. (1750s)

3. In about half an hour after the bills were distributed. (1810s)

4. He gave the guns out at the door. (1810s)

Both pairs, to discover/to find out and to distribute/to give out, are synonymous, and comparison reveals no significant divergences. To distribute conveys the meaning of ‘to spread generally, to scatter’ (OED) which overlaps partly with that of to give out, denoting the meaning of ‘to issue; to distribute’ (OED). On the other hand, the verbs to discover and to find out are used with the meaning of ‘to disclose, reveal, etc., to others or (later) oneself; to find out’ and ‘to discover (a fact, some information, etc.)’ respectively (OED) with apparently no noteworthy difference in semantic/pragmatic terms. This is further corroborated by the closeness they bear in terms of both syntactic patterns and context of use:

1. No more than if Mr Purcell would take such a person up he was sure to discover who had the property. (1790s)

2. He ordered him back to Staines as a prisoner, and desired the constable to endeavour to find out who the sheep belonged to. (1790s)

Moving on to the literal PVs, instead, something different emerges. Similar to aspectual PVs, literal PVs exhibit pragmatic nuances and the particles work to convey additional traits to the non-pragmatic propositional contents associated with the base verb. The main point of divergence between literal PV/simplex pairs, indeed, lies in their differing degrees of specificity and generality. On many occasions, the phraseological verb strengthens the meaning of the simplex and works as a more precise alternative to it.

This recalls the idea that particles need to be examined separately given their inner semantic power, but also further highlights the role of PVs as “a means of lexical enrichment” (Bolinger 1971: 97). The adverbial particle seems to give further information on the action expressed by the verbs, emphasising the movement of action in space/time, as seen in to come back/to return reported in (31)–(32):

1. You did not suspect he meant to rob you? – No, I did not. He never came back. (1770s)

2. I returned home about twenty minutes past four. (1830s)

The phraseological constituency of the literal combination is once again the cutting edge between PVs and simplexes. The particle seems to work as a device giving a further specification of what is said, which is reflected in the fact that, in the majority of instances, the verb is not followed by other elements helping to enrich the action with details. In particular, the particle back itself emphasizes the fact that somebody has returned from somewhere, no matter with whom or whatever the reason may be. On the other hand, the semantic value of the verb to return seems to depend on the immediate context of use, which further specifies the action. For example, to return is frequently used with phrases as to the prisoner, into the city, or to the room, to the house, to the office, as in (33)–(35):

1. I afterwards returned to the room, stopped there till the male prisoner came. (1830s)

2. I took him to the station-house, and returned to the house about an hour after making some inquiry at his father’s. (1830s)

3. I could not find him, and returned to the office. (1790s)

On other occasions, there is also a sense of reiteration in these verbs, which is evident from the immediate context of use, which features the adverb again, as in (36)–(37). This turns out to reveal a further difference between the verb forms:

1. They very soon after returned again to Mr. Beckwith’s. (1810s)

2. When he got up and was gone out of doors, he missed his money and came back again. (1750s)

Specifically, as examples (36) and (37) show, both to return and to come back may be followed by the adverb again working as an intensifying factor that provides a sense of reiteration to the action. However, looking at the frequency of use it emerges that again occurs more consistently with the PV: 0.39Nf (18% of all the instances) compared to 0.16 Nf (3.5%) in the case of to return. Thus, the sense of reiteration is more prominent with the PV than with the simplex.

Another aspect worthy of note is that, among the matches where the simplex is followed by again, 9 hits show the combination back again, as in (38)–(39):

1. I went down to the Key to see if I could earn a sixpence; and I walked down the Key, and was returning back again. (1790s)

2. He looked earnestly at the window and returned back again. (1810s)

The adverb back turns out to be a specifying element colouring the simplex with extra nuances that further contribute to the description of the features of the denoted action: it means ‘in the opposite direction in space, to return to the place originally left’ (OED). To return can acquire further semantic nuances but only when followed by back or back again, which are in fact “pleonasms [serving] as a valid means of emphasis and intensification” (Claridge 2000: 219). Overall, this means that to come back, while retaining the same connotation, is a more expressive alternative than to return, with back conveying emphasis on the direction and motion which is absent in the simplex.

Similar considerations apply to the pairs to depart/to go away, characterized by very close meaning but divergent nuances. The PV seems to be anchored to a higher degree of specificity and it occurs in contexts that convey specific topological information:

1. … I went to his Lordship’s house, who gave me an account of some plate, which I did not like, and therefore departed. (1750s)

2. I left my name and departed. (1770s)

3. I left it there when I went away at night; the next morning it was gone. (1810s)

4. Jones as soon as he see I was stopped, turned round the corner, and went away from me. (1790s)

In this case, however, there is no reference to the reiteration of the action as above, rather it seems that the direction and the idea of movement are the focus of discourse. This is corroborated by the fact that the verb to go away is also used followed by prepositional phrases introduced by the preposition from, as in (43), which implies the direction and reinforces the sense of ‘moving to go elsewhere’.

Another pair that makes a case for a different degree of specificity is to remove/to put-take away. In particular, the verbs to remove/to put-take away^[6] usually indicate the act of ‘to take elsewhere, to put something out of one’s hands’ (OED). By only selecting cases where these PVs are equivalent in meaning and comparable with to remove, nevertheless, it is possible to note that behind the close semantic relation, they also differ in many respects. Consider examples (44)–(46):^[7]

1. I was removing my goods; the drawers in which the notes were, were removed on the 22d, between twelve and one o’clock. (1790s)

2. I had occasion to remove some property last November. (1830s)

3. After he took away his hand from the window that you saw him break, did you see him hand over anything to the man that you saw lurking? (1770s)

Comparing the verbs in these examples shows that substitution of the simplex for the phraseological verb form seems not to affect significantly, at least prima facie, their semantic connotation which is mainly linked to the activity of ‘removing’. The main aspect to note, again, is that the phrasal alternative entails the particle portraying additional semantic information on the action narrated, and it contributes to a shift in focus from the act of removing to the direction of the action. An interesting feature is that to remove is significantly more frequent (59 occurrences) than to take away/to put away in the data (20 occurrences). The reason this pair has been examined in more detail is that it is an exemplary case where linguistic features intertwine with diachronic aspects to determine the overall frequency. The point is that simplexes probably predominated in this period because they were rather conventionalized during the LMod time. Instead, the extant, more specific connotation of to take away gradually started to intensify during the LMod period, when this verb developed new nuances that even interrupted its equivalence to to remove. Indeed, to take away has been shown to have shifted from the meaning of ‘taking’ in the sense of ‘removing’ to that of ‘removing to take elsewhere’, and this renovated meaning became consolidated (Leone 2019: 259–261). The instances conveying the meaning of ‘removing to take elsewhere’ were not included in the overall count but are an interesting example of the process of semantic renewal and increasing divergences within the pairs which can contribute in the long term to a break in the relation of near-synonymy. This is clear when to remove is used in combination with to take away, showing their use with diverse, not overlapping, meanings:

1. Nothing was taken out; a table-cloth was removed, but not taken away. (1750s)

All this suggests that the possible answer to the question of the differences between simplex and phraseological synonyms could be that PVs possess a greater degree of specificity but are also more emphatic. Although they access the same semantic domain, compared with simplexes, PVs elicit additional features to the factual reconstruction of crimes, which may explain the lexical choice made by speaker in some cases. This fits well with the idea that “if we want to fully account for what the language is doing or what the speaker is doing through use of language, we have to take account of the context of use and the linguistic choices that are made” (Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 68).

Overall, the similar frequency of simplexes and PVs, including literal PVs, may be seen as a sign of speakers’ sensitivity to the use of lexis according to communicative purposes. At the same time, it further contributes to the conceptualization of legal-lay discourse of the LModE period as a genre where lexical choice is also driven by contextual aspects concerning actions and events narrated in a courtroom setting.