S = A: transitive verbs that can omit an object

For almost all verbs that are used both transitively and intransitively with the same subject, the transitive form can be taken as basic (there is a minor exception, mentioned at the end of this subsection); we simply have to say that the object can be omitted, under certain circumstances.

First, a note about two kinds of exception. There are some basically intransitive verbs such as climb, jump, swim, speak which may omit the preposition before a non-measure NP and make this into a direct object. Occurrence in a transitive frame is a secondary property for such verbs.

Then there are a number of CORPOREAL and WEATHER verbs that are basically intransitive but may be followed by a cognate NP, e.g. He laughed a really dirty laugh, It thundered the most ear-splitting crack of thunder. A cognate NP is always likely to include some modifiers (*He laughed a laugh sounds infelicitous) and is likely to be used because there are much greater possibilities for adjectival etc. modification of a noun than there are for adverbial modification of a verb. We suggested that these cognate NPs have at best very weak object properties, e.g. they do not readily become passive subject (although, exceptionally, one could say something like A happy smile is smiled by a happy person). Other CORPOREAL verbs are clearly transitive. Thus, alongside yawn, laugh, sleep, wink, which can only be followed by a cognate NP (not by a full direct object), there are verbs like swallow, bite, taste and pee, which can take a direct object or a cognate NP.

It was suggested that think and dream belong to both the CORPOREAL and THINKING types. In the former sense they can be followed by a cognate NP (with no preposition), which is rather unlikely to become passive subject, e.g. I thought the most horrid evil thoughts (which I’m now ashamed of). And in the latter sense they take an inherent preposition plus a direct object, which can freely passivize, e.g. People have been thinking about your idea an awful lot, Your idea has been thought about an awful lot.

Verbs in the SHOUT subtype of SPEAKING may have a Message NP—with a speech act noun as head—in object relation, e.g. recite a poem, narrate a story. There are speech act nouns cognate with some of the verbs from this subtype (e.g. recitation, narration) but—as with CORPOREAL and WEATHER items—there is a tendency not to use verb and noun together unless there is some significant modification of the noun, e.g. He prayed a really beautiful prayer, She prayed a prayer about redemption. (There is the common collocation sing a song, with no modifier, but here the cognate object is not a regular derivation from the verb.) A SPEECH ACT NP can become passive subject (although it may be less likely to be if it has as head a noun cognate with the verb, e.g. The sermon should be preached before the benediction is given, but scarcely ?A really beautiful prayer was prayed at this morning’s service). It thus seems that such a SPEECH ACT NP should be accorded full object status, unlike the cognate NPs that can follow CORPOREAL and WEATHER verbs, whose object status is at best weak. In summary, verbs from the SHOUT subtype appear to be basically transitive, but the Message role in O slot can be omitted.

Turning now to the main body of transitive verbs, we can enquire in what circumstances an object may be omitted. How is it, for instance, that an object need not be stated after saw, knit, notice, remember, know, choose, but should be (save in exceptional circumstances) after hit, wrap, discover, realize, take? It appears that the conditions for object omission vary across different semantic types.

An AFFECT verb will generally describe some unit of activity that involves a specific Target or Product, e.g. He sawed the log, She knitted a jumper. But an Agent may pursue a certain type of activity for a longish period, and/or on a variety of Targets or Products. It is then possible to use the appropriate verb without a stated object. The fact that the activity was extended is then generally marked by imperfective aspect be . . . -ing, or by a time phrase like all day, or a time adverb such as always, e.g. She is knitting, He has been sawing all morning. If past tense were used, with no time adverbial, then *She knitted, *He has sawn would be incomplete—an object should be added to obtain a grammatical sentence. (But note that an object may be omitted from such verbs when they are linked together, e.g. First she knitted, then she sewed; or where a reason clause is included, e.g. She knitted to pass away the time.)

Verbs like saw, knit—and others such as sweep, rake, polish—refer to activities that often are done over an extended period. Other AFFECT verbs—hit and wrap, for instance—generally refer to discrete actions. These may (unusually) be done over an extended period or habitually, but an object NP can never be omitted (although it may have a very general noun as head, e.g. He’s always hitting people, She’s been wrapping things all morning).

Some transitive CORPOREAL verbs omit an object under similar conditions to AFFECT verbs like saw and knit; that is, in the presence of imperfective be . . . -ing or an appropriate adverb—He’s eating/drinking, He’s always eating/drinking! Eat may also omit an object NP in quite different circumstances—where the identity of the object could be inferred from social context. If a guest calls at 1 p.m. you might politely ask Have you eaten?; this would be understood as an abbreviation of Have you eaten lunch yet? But if a friend knocks on the door at 1 a.m. it would be distinctly odd just to enquire Have you eaten? Suppose that they did look thin and hungry and you thought of offering food, the appropriate thing to say would be something like: Have you eaten anything recently?, including an object NP.

Transitive verbs of MOTION, REST and GIVING must generally specify an object—one could say He often throws things, but scarcely *He often throws. We mentioned an exception: follow and lead have converse meanings and if they are used together either or both objects may be omitted, e.g. I’ll lead (sc. you) and you follow (sc. me). There are other instances of a pair of semantically related verbs being used together and both omitting the object (which would, in normal circumstances, have to be stated). Thus, of Through the Looking Glass the White King explains to Alice about his messengers: ‘I must have two—to fetch and carry. One to fetch, and one to carry.’ And people say It is better to give than to take.

A number of basically intransitive verbs from MOTION, AFFECT and CORPOREAL may be used in causative form, e.g. The officer marched the soldiers, The nurse sat the patient up, John wakened Mary. The object NP could never be omitted from any transitive sentence for which there was a corresponding intransitive with S = O. If the O NP were omitted from John wakened Mary, then John wakened would be understood to imply that it was John who came out of a sleep, not that he caused someone else to. (We noted that ride and drive appear to belong to the RUN subtype of MOTION, but may only be used transitively, e.g. He drove his car here. Since there is no corresponding S = O intransitive (*The car drove here) these verbs do allow the O NP to be omitted, e.g. He drove here.)

Quite different circumstances attend the omission of an object constituent after some of the most common verbs from Primary-B and Secondary types. If the identity of the object could be inferred by a listener from what has gone before in the discourse, or from what can be observed of the situation, or from shared knowledge, then it may be omitted. This applies to see, hear and notice from ATTENTION; remember, forget, know, realize and understand from THINKING; decide and choose from DECIDING  but not to other verbs—which have a more specialized meaning—from these types. It also applies to a few Secondary verbs such as help and try. Suppose I see that John is attempting, without success, to unscrew a bottle top. I might say Can I help? (sc. to unscrew it), and he might reply OK, you try! (sc. to unscrew it).

Some verbs from these types may—like some from MOTION and GIVING— omit an object when used contrastively, e.g. He theorizes (sc. about languages) but I describe (sc. languages).

There are many transitive verbs which can never be used without a specified object (which may be an NP or a complement clause). They include all those in the LIKING type, all in ANNOYING (save worry, grieve and delight), as well as many from other types, e.g. want, attempt, force, let, recognize, inform, mention, put, appoint, imply and resemble.

In summary, an object NP may be omitted in varying circumstances: when an activity is extended in time and/or may relate to a variety of objects, rather than one specific object; when the identity of the object can be inferred from the situation; and when two verbs are used contrastively, with the same implied object, e.g. You should think (sc. about the question) before you answer (sc. the question). Object omission is more likely with frequently used verbs which have a wide, general meaning.

There is one minor construction type which appears to involve an intransitive/transitive pair where the intransitive sense is primary. For example, They laughed him off the stage, She cried herself to sleep, We talked him into staying. The verb-plus-object requires a post-object constituent introduced by a preposition which specifies what resulted from the action of the verb—for example, we talked to him until he said he would stay. This construction type appears to be limited to talk and a small number of basically intransitive CORPOREAL verbs including laugh and cry.