Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 10:29:36 -0500
From: Mike Agnes by971[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU
Subject: Query: "run over"
Query:
LDOCE2 (1987) marks the phrasal verb "run over"
with the symbol - , indicating, according to
the front matter, that "the object can come either
before ["over"] or after it. But if the object is
a pronoun . . . , it MUST come directly after the
verb."
As a speaker of American English, must I accept
that this accurately describes British English?
My American English, for example, permits both
all of the following:
She ran him over.
She ran over him.
She ran the idiot over.
She ran over the dog.
Can any speaker of British English confirm that
only the second sentence above is impermissible
in that national variety, and that the others are
grammatical?
Do any speakers of _American_ English sense
differences among the sentences? (Some
informants have detected different registers;
others, the presence or lack of intent. Some
find sentence three marginal.)
Four notes:
(1) We have one printed citation that we presume
is from a writer of British English and that
violates the LDOCE2 prescription:
"She falls in love with Michael Edwards, a doctor
who almost runs her over on May Morning, and then
takes her to breakfast to apologize."
(2) We note that LDAE retains the - symbol in the
entry for "run over," implying that the restrictions
apply in American English. We believe this is in error.
(3) We note a semantic and syntactic distinction between
the verb in the above sentences and the verb "run over"
in a sample sentence in Quirk, Greenbaum et al.,
"A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language"
(1985):
The car ran over the bump.
This is given as an example of a Type I prepositional
verb, marked "by the inability of the particle to be
moved to a position after the following noun phrase"
as well as by the fact that "the order of particle
and pronoun is different." The semantic difference is
tellingly mirrored in LDOCE2's definition of "run over":
"to knock down and pass over the top of"
Bumps, unlike rabbits and other potential roadkill (all
marked as animate), are not knocked down. Also, in
American English the sentence
*We ran the bump over.
is either ungrammatical or a misprint.
(4) We have not been able to check the treatment
of "run over" in Anthony Cowie's second edition of
the "Oxford Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs" (1993).
Many thanks.
Mike Agnes
Internet: by91[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]cleveland.freenet.edu
Bitnet: by971%cleveland.freenet.edu[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]cunyvm
Fax: 216 579 1255
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 10:54:56 -0500
From: ALICE FABER FABER%LENNY[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]VENUS.CIS.YALE.EDU
Subject: Dialect Diversity?
When the New York Times article on the loss of the traditional NYC accent
(e.g., toidy-toid street) was printed last year, I had the same reaction that
others on the list have expressed to the comments attributed to Stewart. But
we should bear in mind that the few sentences printed were probably distilled
out of a longer interview, and many qualifications expressed would have been
edited out in the name of pithiness.
Alice Faber
Faber[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]Yalehask.bitnet
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 13:27:50 +22305606
From: "Ellen Johnson Faq. Filosofia y Hdes." ejohnson[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ABELLO.SECI.UCHILE.CL
Subject: diversity of accents
sorry to jump into this discussion late, but I can't get onto the network every
day to check the mail. I have to take exception to Dennis Preston's statement
about my research findings, though I appreciate the citation.;-)
I studied the effects of age, sex, race, region, rurality, and education on
language variation and found that though region was the most important variable
in my analysis of 1930s LAMSAS data, it was the least important one for the
1990 data. Regionally-defined dialect areas are still there, but I think they
are becoming less distinct, at least for the lexicon. I don't have the figures
on hand but I'll try to post them early next week for anyone who is interested.
It is ironic to find my dissertation cited as part of the anti-media-influence
position, since in it I actually took the admittedly unpopular stance of
claiming a certain amount of influence from the media on ling. change. I don't
limit this influence to TV and movies, but include the print media as well.
Lexical acquisition differs from, e.g., acquisition of one's regional
pronunciation, because we are continually learning and using new words
throughout our lifetimes. Thus, the greatly increased amount of information
available to people today, not just through the media, but also through public
education (greatly improved since LAMSAS speakers went to school) has provided
them with lots of opportunities to learn new words.
This is reflected in my findings in two ways. The first is the size of the set
of vocabulary items I collected compared to Guy Lowman (even though we averaged
about the same number of responses per informant). The number of words in the
sample increased almost 50% (again, figures to follow later). The second way I
think TV, etc., makes a difference is in the amount of change linked to a
particular social or regional group. By far the majority of the vocabulary
changes that occurred between 1930 and 1990 were not cases of change led by any
particular group. Lexical change influenced by the media could spread rapidly
across the nation without regard for social class. See, for example, the
Algeos' column on New Words in AmSpeech for words that have been encouraged by
the media. Another example is the way the term 'African-American' suddenly
became well-known once Jesse Jackson's speech was widely reported in the news,
though in this case, the word was already in use by a certain group of
speakers.
Finally, change from above does occur, at least in the lexicon. You can read
more about all this in a forthcoming article in Language Variation and Change.
I'm really interested in all the responses, since I looked for citations for my
dissertation from linguists refuting the myth that television would lead to
homogeneity in Am. Eng. and it was hard to find this discussion in print
anywhere.
Ellen Johnson
ejohnson[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]abello.seci.uchile.cl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 09:51:10 -700
From: Keith Russell wkr[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CPU.US.DYNIX.COM
Subject: Re: Query: "run over"
On Wed, 24 Nov 1993, Mike Agnes wrote:
Query:
She ran him over.
She ran over him.
She ran the idiot over.
She ran over the dog.
Can any speaker of British English confirm that
only the second sentence above is impermissible
in that national variety, and that the others are
grammatical?
Do any speakers of _American_ English sense
differences among the sentences? (Some
informants have detected different registers;
others, the presence or lack of intent. Some
find sentence three marginal.)
I am not a speaker of British English. However, as a native speaker of
Canadian English, and a speaker of "American" English as a second
language, I find all four sentences grammatical. I do feel a difference
between one and three on the one hand, and two and four on the other, but
am having difficulty identifying just what the distinction is. It does
seem to me that two and four are somewhat more standard and less colloquial.
Keith Russell
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 13:49:00 -0600
From: "Timothy C. Frazer" mftcf[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU
Subject: testi
practicing entering ads-l
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 16:23:34 -0600
From: Natalie Maynor maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU
Subject: Forwarding
For some reason this mail bounced back to me. Natalie
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 11:36:12 CST
From: Evan.Norris%VPAcad%VH[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]topnet.uwsa.edu
Subject: re: Query: "run over"
To: [AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UGA.CC.UGA.EDU:owner-ads-l[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UGA.CC.UGA.EDU
Mike Agnes asked for judgments on these four sentences:
1. She ran him over.
2. She ran over him.
3. She ran the idiot over.
4. She ran over the dog.
My judgement as a native speaker of American English is that the sentences
are all grammatical, although 1 and 3 are more marked. There is also an
ambiguity in 1 and 3 involving the sense of 'run over' as 'deliver to
someone', as in 'I'll run it right over.' I admit that it does seem a bit
contrived, but there you are...
Evan Norris
UW System Administration
ejn%vpacad%vh[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]topnet.uwsa.edu
(608) 262-3526
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 17:55:38 CST
From: salikoko mufwene mufw[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU
Subject: Re: diversity of accents
In response to Ellen Johnson's very useful information, does denial of
media-induced homogeneity entail denial of media influence? I thought we
were concerned with the first claim.
Salikoko S. Mufwene
Linguistics, U. of Chicago
s-mufwene[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uchicago.edu
312-702-8531
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 21:45:57 -0700
From: Rudy Troike RTROIKE[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ARIZVMS.BITNET
Subject: Re: diversity of accents
Is there anybody who doesn't know who Barney is?
--Rudy Troike
------------------------------
End of ADS-L Digest - 23 Nov 1993 to 24 Nov 1993
************************************************
There are 4 messages totalling 76 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. diversity of accents (4)
---------------