Syntax

More than two-thirds of the verbs from my sample occurring in HAVE A or TAKE A constructions are intransitive. This is a very natural syntactic correlation. The verbs have and take involve two core NPs—the original subject remains as subject and an NP consisting of a plus the original verb base goes into post-verbal position, e.g. I rode (on the elephant), I had/took a ride (on the elephant).

There are, however, a fair number of instances of HAVE A and TAKE A with transitive verbs. Here a new syntactic slot has to be created in the periphrastic construction for the original transitive object. It is generally introduced by the preposition of. Thus John bit/smelt the cake and John had a bite/smell of the cake. Similarly, Can I borrow your ruler? and Can I have a borrow of your ruler?; also Can I ride your bike for a little while? and Can I have a little ride of your bike?

About 90 per cent of the verbs occurring in the GIVE A construction are transitive. This is again a natural syntactic correlation—a transitive clause will have two core NPs and give has three, with a-plus-verb-base making up the third. Subject remains as is, the original object remains as first object of give, and a plus the original verb fills the second object slot, e.g. John pushed Mary, John gave Mary a push.

For the lexical verb give, referring to transfer of possession, the most basic syntactic frame is with Gift in O slot and Recipient introduced by preposition to, e.g. John gave the book to someone. We described how a prepositional NP—such as the Recipient here—can drop its preposition and move into direct object slot when it is particularly salient to some instance of an activity, e.g. John gave Tom a book. GIVE a constructions invariably employ the latter syntactic frame—one would say give Mary a push, scarcely *give a push to Mary. In fact, GIVE A constructions tend only to be used when the original transitive object has a specific, individuated reference, and thus fits naturally into object slot; the NP consisting of a plus verb base does not have reference to an entity, and it is not plausible for an NP like a push to be first object, with an NP like Mary relegated to a prepositional phrase.

Note also that although the lexical verb take may passivize on its object, and give may potentially passivize on both first and second objects, the a-plus-verb-base NP in a HAVE A, TAKE A or GIVE A construction may never become passive subject—we would never hear *A swim (in the pool) was had/ taken or *A push was given Mary. The HAVE A, TAKE A and GIVE A constructions satisfy none of the criteria for passivization that were presented.

Some intransitive verbs—and also some inherent preposition verbs—do occur in the give a construction. They divide into two sets. With one set give has a single NP following it, consisting of a plus the intransitive verb base, e.g. John laughed, John gave a laugh. With the other set there are two NPs following give, the second being a plus verb root while the first corresponds to a prepositional NP (generally marked by at or to) from the basic sentence, e.g. John looked/smiled/winked at Mary, John gave Mary a look/smile/wink; and Mary waved to/at John, Mary gave John a wave.

There are rare instances of the GIVE A construction occurring with a ditransitive verb, such as lend in Will you give me a lend of your ruler? This is most appropriately related to the basic sentence Will you lend me your ruler? (itself derived from Will you lend your ruler to me? by reassignment of the prepositional NP into direct object slot). The original first object remains as first object, a plus verb base is the new second object, and the original second object becomes marked by of in the GIVE A construction (as a constituent within the NP a lend of your ruler). Of here plays a similar role to that described above for HAVE A and TAKE A constructions involving a transitive verb—compare with the basic sentence Can I borrow your ruler? and periphrastic Can I have a borrow of your ruler?