While research on support-verb constructions (SVCs) in Ancient Greek has been going on for close to two decades, no monograph before Victoria Fendel’s had attempted to synthesise our previous knowledge and apply it to a corpus of Greek texts.[1] Consequently, one of the main objectives of this volume is laying a solid foundation for future research. A support-verb construction (SVC), sometimes called a light-verb construction, is a semi-lexicalized combination of a semantically empty verb—a support verb—and a predicative noun which bears the semantic meaning of the phrase. SVCs are idiomatic: different languages may choose different support verbs for the same predicative noun. For instance, in English mistakes are made (never committed or done), whereas in Spanish they are committed (cometer un error) and in French they are made (faire une erreur).
The volume is divided into seven chapters. The first three discuss theoretical and methodological issues and provide the framework that Fendel applies to the data she has collected. Chapter 1 addresses the past (literature review), present (introduction to the monograph) and future (outlooks on future research) of SVCs in Attic prose. It indicates that the volume looks into verb-object structures, leaving out of the question structures with prepositional phrases (εἰς ἀπορίαν ἔρχομαι) or structures where the predicative noun is the subject of the verb (φόβος ἔχει). Within verb-object structures, she distinguishes between support verbs, which are semantically empty (γνώμην ἔχω), and verbs of realisation, which retain some of their meaning (γνώμην ἀποφαίνω). The main discussion in this chapter focuses on three ongoing theoretical issues: (i) How are support verbs different from auxiliaries?, (ii) What exactly are verbs of realisation and should they also be considered support verbs?, (iii) What processes intervene in the process of univerbation of an SVC?, and (iv) What functions do SVCs perform that simplex verbs cannot?
Chapter 2 moves on to discuss the two main methods for the discovery and analysis of SVCs: manual annotation and automatic discovery. For this volume, a Test Sample was annotated manually, and a larger Corpus was annotated semi-automatically with Sketch Engine. This highlights the limitations of automatic annotation in terms of false negatives and positives, and also the time limitations of manual annotation. A statistical comparison of both corpora allows for the formulation of interesting predictions regarding the proportion of SVCs in Ancient Greek texts. Because the limits between SVCs and other expressions is far from clear-cut, the chapter proceeds with a discussion of the edge cases that have been left out in this analysis, namely internal objects (στρατηγίαν στρατηγέω); syntactic nominalisations, i.e. nominalised adjectives among others (ἀγαθὰ ποιέω); SVCs with prepositional phrases (εἰς ἀπορίαν ἔρχομαι); structures with predicative complements (τάλαντον μισθὸν πορίζω); and underspecified expressions, such as those including very general nouns (πρᾶγμα) or other kinds of pronouns (τὰ τοιαῦτα). What Fendel does include in the analysis are certain constructions that deviate from prototypical SVCs, i.e. constructions with a verb of realisation according to the definition given in Chapter 1. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the Ninox database created for the monograph (https://app.ninox.com/#/teams/Jw8jSo665p8gQcHdt)[2] and a mention of the Chi-square tests applied to verify the statistical significance of the data.
The three main questions that Chapter 3 aims to answer regard the discontiguity of SVCs, their ambiguity and their variability. The main difficulties in their identification include the fact that both elements of an SVC can appear separately, or one of them may be omitted or substituted by e.g. a pronoun in the text. Another one is that the same noun may be predicative in a certain context, but not in another (δίκην δίδωμι ≠ ἐκτείνω τὴν δίκην). Thirdly, related to the latter is the question of how big an SVC family can be, what the differences between the verbs that integrate them are, and what happens when an SVC is internally modified, e.g. when an adjective or a determiner is added or when it is used in the plural (δίκην δίδωμι ≠ δίκας δίδωμι).
The next three chapters provide an analysis of the data in view of three linguistic interfaces in which SVCs interact: morphosyntax, syntax-semantics, and syntax-pragmatics. Chapter 4 is subdivided into two main sections: the first one deals with direct objects in SVCs, which are a marginal pattern (e.g. Thucydides 8.62: σκεύη καὶ ανδράποδα ἁρπαγὴν ποιησάμενος), and the second one with patterns of negation of SVCs (οὐ λόγον ἔχω ≠ οὐδένα λόγον ἔχω). Both issues are related to the question of the degree of analyticity of SVCs, their possible reanalysis, and their contrast with simplex verbs. External modification is available both for the SVC (πόλεμον ποιέομαι) and the simplex verb (πολεμέω), but internal modification is only available for SVCs, especially those that show the tendency to behave like syntagms rather than words.
Chapter 5 delves into lexically passive SVCs and constructions with inanimate subjects, which refers to the syntax-semantics interface. Fendel explores how certain support verbs can be used as detrasitivising mechanisms that place a volitional undergoer in the subject position. The types of expressions that she identifies are stative (ὅπλα ἔχω) and passive SVCs (δίκην δίδωμι, συγνόμης τυγχάνω).
Chapter 6 explores the syntax-pragmatics interface by analysing how SVCs contribute to the cohesion and coherence of discourse. In her decision to adhere as far as possible to the limits of a sentence, Fendel explores the phenomena of relativisation of the predicative noun and the anaphoric reference to the event. In anaphoric contexts, the predicative noun may be referred to by means of a zero anaphora, a pronoun, or a lexical reiteration, with varying degrees of attention being thus drawn to the predicative noun. This issue goes back again to the question of the compositionality of SVCs, since not all of them can undergo this operation, thus signalling at a lower degree of compositionality.
Finally, Chapter 7 synthesises the main findings of this research around three points. The first one is that, while there seems to be a fixed set of support verbs in Attic Greek, their use is rather flexible and allows for a number of lexical substitutions and syntactic operations, discussed in Chapters 3-6. The second one is the extent to which SVCs may be considered gap fillers of the Greek grammatical system. While some of their functions have been extensively discussed in the literature, Fendel highlights that their choice over simplex verbs may often be pragmatically conditioned. The third one is the proposal for an analysis of SVCs according to their properties at four different levels: lexicon, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Lastly, she makes some suggestions for further research.
The volume is complemented by two extensive appendices that provide what Fendel calls the families of support verbs around each of the nouns she analyses, which are sometimes also called collocational patterns in the literature (Appendix 1), and the SVCs that Sketch Engine detected starting from the support verb rather than the noun (Appendix 2).
From a theoretical perspective, this work departs from the previous research on SVCs in Ancient Greek in several different ways. The most obvious is that it adopts the framework of multi-word expressions (Savary, n.d.), rather than phraseology and collocations, which is more widely used by scholars in Classics (e.g. Benedetti, 2010; Benedetti & Bruno, 2012; Baños, 2014; Jiménez López, 2016; Tronci, 2017; Bodelot & Spevak, 2018; Baños et al., 2022). This is a positive point because it bridges the gap between the research carried out on Ancient-Greek SVCs, and the perspectives from General Linguistics and Corpus Linguistics. What is more, despite the limitations regarding corpora of Ancient Greek, it is realistic and provides a discussion as to the statistical relevance of the data under discussion.
A point that might come off as confusing for researchers on SVCs is the use that is made of Mel’čuk’s (2004, p. 208) defintion for verbs of realisation: “Les verbes de réalisation Vréal sont des verbes collocationnels qui ont le comportement syntaxique des Vsupp, mais qui, à la différence de ceux-ci, sont sémantiquement pleins.” This definition is used by Fendel throughout the book, but its second part is omitted: “Leur sens est assez complexe : ‘faire avec le référent de S0 ce qu’on est censé faire avec lui’ ≈ ‘remplir l’exigence contenue dans le sens de S0’” (Mel’čuk, 2004, p. 208). To put it briefly, verbs of realisation share most of their properties with support verbs, with the exception of their meaning. In terms of Alonso Ramos (2004, p. 114), who is not cited or discussed anywhere in the monograph, support verbs denote that the event referred to by the predicative noun exists in a given State of Affairs, whereas verbs of realisation imply that the event does not merely exist, but that its end is achieved (e.g. to make a promise ≠ to keep/fulfill a promise). In the classification used both by Mel’čuk (2004, 2023) and Alonso Ramos (2004), SVCs are in a sense the prototype of verb-noun collocations, where the support verb is semantically empty. Constructions with verbs of realisation are largely like SVCs but convey this slightly nuanced meaning. Further away from the prototype are collocations with different diathetical (πόλεμον ποιέω ≠ πόλεμον ποιέομαι), aspectual (μηχηνὴν εὑρίσκω) or polar meanings (λόγων δέομαι). The reason behind this organisation lies in the fact that a heavier semantic and syntactic value must be attributed to the verbs in these other types of collocations. However, it seems that Fendel subsumes under the label of SVCs a series of collocations with different characteristics: prototypical SVCs and collocations with a diathetical reading (causative, passive, etc.). Under the label of verbs of realisation, she seems to include more lexically restricted collocative verbs (verbes appropriés in terms of Gross [2004]), verbs with an aspectual meaning (δίκην τελέομαι) and collocations with a negative polarity (δίκην ἀπολείπω).
The reason why the reorganisation of Mel’čuk’s (2004, 2023) categories by Fendel is relevant is how it affects the interpretation of the data. Throughout the monograph, one of the points that is emphasised is the heterogeneity of SVCs. While it is true that SVCs are far from homogeneous, it seems that a comparison between prototypical support verbs and verbs of realisation, causative verbs, passive verbs, etc., is clearly going to yield more heterogenous results than an analysis focussing on each category separately. Thus, a re-analysis of her data adhering to the categories used by Mel’čuk (2004, 2023) and Alonso Ramos (2004) might provide more detailed insights into the behaviour of support verbs and their variations in the future.[3] All these issues go back to the main question, which Fendel also highlights in her study: “In the case of support-verb constructions, their definition is one of the biggest debates” (p. 545).
Despite this issue, most doubts that may arise in the reader’s mind are cleared by her providing extensive lists of the verbs, nouns, collocations, and texts that she discusses, so her findings should be easily applicable by other scholars even if they take a different theoretical perspective. All in all, I believe that the biggest merits of this monograph are the one-by-one analysis of examples, the detailed appendices and the intellectual courage to discuss some of the thorniest questions that surround SVCs in Ancient Greek. This study is a well-rounded approach for those who wish to delve into the topic for the first time, and a necessary reference for researchers who wish to expand on their knowledge of SVCs.
Bibliographical references
Alonso Ramos, M. (2004). Las construcciones con verbo de apoyo. Visor.
Baños, J. M. (2014). Construcciones con verbo soporte, extensiones y elecciones preferentes: ‘bellum parare’, ‘suscipere’, ‘trahere’ y ‘conficere’. BOSELAT, 1, 5–11.
Baños, J. M., Tur, C., Jiménez López, M. D., & Jiménez Martínez, M. I. (Eds). (2022). Collocations in theoretical and applied linguistics: From Classical languages to Romance languages. Guillermo Escolar/SEEC.
Benedetti, M. (2010). Omogeneità formale e varietà funzionale in costrutti con ἔχειν in greco antico. In R. Ajello, P. Berrettoni, F. Fanciullo, G. Marotta, & F. Motta (Eds), Quae omnia bella devoratis. Studi in memoria di Edoardo Vineis (Edizioni ETS, pp. 75–87).
Benedetti, M., & Bruno, C. (2012). A proposito di alcuni costrutti con ‘ἔχειν’ nel greco antico. In M. Mancini & L. Lorenzetti (Eds), Discontinuità e creolizzazione nell’Europa linguistica (pp. 7–27). Viterbo.
Bodelot, C., & Spevak, O. (2018). Les constructions à verbe support en latin. Université Bailse-Pascal.
De Melo, W. (2024). Collocations in theoretical and applied linguistics: From Classical to Romance languages. Eds. J. M. Baños, M. D. Jiménez López, M. I. Jiménez Martínez and C. Tur. Bryn Mawr Classical Review. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2024/2024.10.04/
Fendel, V. (Ed.). (2024). Support-verb constructions in the corpora of Greek: Between lexicon and grammar? Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/461
Gross, G. (2004). Pour un Bescherelle des prédicats nominaux. Verbes Supports : Nouvel État Des Lieux. En Lingvisticae Investigationes, 27(2), 343–358.
Jiménez López, M. D. (2016). On Support Verb Constructions in Ancient Greek. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 101(2), 180–204.
Mel’čuk, I. (2004). Verbes support sans peine. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 27(2), 203–217.
Mel’čuk, I. (2023). General phraseology: Theory and practice. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.36
Savary, A. (n.d.). PARSEME (Parsing and multi-word expressions). https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/parseme/
Tronci, L. (2017). At the lexicon-syntax interface. Ancient Greek constructions with ἔχειν and psychological nouns. In T. Georgakopoulos, T.-S. Pavlidou, M. Pehlivanos, A. Alexiadou, J. Androutsopoulos, A. Kalokairinos, S. Skopeteas, & K. Stathi (Eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 1021–1033). Edition Romiosini/CeMoG.
Notes
[1] See, however, previous volumes of collected studies: Baños et al. (2022) ‒ reviewed in this journal (De Melo, 2024) ‒ and Fendel (2024).
[2] I have been unable to access the database to contrast the information. The .excel file has been deposited here: https://dx.doi.org/10.5287/ora-g2op5v0em. However, I have also been unable to access the .excel file because it is currently under an embargo.
[3] The answer to the question of how many different types of verb-noun collocations exist is language-specific. However, Mel’čuk (2023, pp. 215–218) provides a good overview of the main types that he has identified.