Verbs are preeminently words for denoting processes and states, but they have no exclusive right to this role. English speakers wishing to refer, for instance, to an act of helping can of course make use of the simple verb help (someone), or alternatively of the phrasal verb help (someone) out. But these are by no means their only possibilities. Even just within the range of lexemes derived from the root help, they may use a construction in which the act of helping is expressed with a related noun or adjective, such as give help (to someone), come to someone's help or be helpful (to someone). In the book under review, Meiko Matsumoto aims to consider the historical development of such constructions in English.

In her first chapter Matsumoto gives a rough indication of what she means by ‘phrasal verb’ and by what she terms ‘complex predicates’ (CPs), such as give help. Whereas the former term is standard, the latter (stemming from Cattell Reference Cattell1984) is just one of a whole series that have been proposed for this category in a broader or narrower sense, including ‘complex verbal phrases’ (Jespersen Reference Jespersen1937), ‘verbo-nominal phrases’ (Renský Reference Renský1964), ‘complex verbal structures’ (Nickel Reference Nickel1968), ‘expanded predicates’ (Algeo Reference Algeo, Aarts and Meyer1995), ‘group verbs’ (Denison Reference Denison1993, Reference Denison1998) and ‘stretched verb constructions’ (Allerton Reference Allerton2002). The additional verbs needed by such constructions (the give of give help) are variously referred to as ‘transitive copulas’ (Curme Reference Curme1935), ‘light verbs’ (Jespersen 1935), ‘prime verbs’ (Liefrink 1973), ‘empty verbs’ (Bolinger Reference Bolinger, Makkai and Adam1974), ‘function verbs’ (Nickel 1978) or ‘thin verbs’ (Allerton Reference Allerton2002). Matsumoto's criticism of previous grammarians for not sufficiently taking account of their predecessors is justified, but may attract the same criticism towards herself.

A more serious weakness is the author's questionable list of the ‘functional characteristics of CPs’ (pp. 26–32), which seems more like a set of interesting idiosyncratic features (‘dynamic have’, ‘active vs passive meanings in CPs with have and take’, ‘state vs event contrast’, ‘CP verbs taking the same deverbal noun’); these features seem to apply in some cases but not in others. A similar problem seems to apply to the further set of features listed in the following pages (pp. 33–7): adjectival modification of the deverbal noun, for instance, is mentioned with the example pull/make a funny face, but pull a face (with its very indirect relationship to the verb face) does not seem to be a CP at all but rather some other type of collocation. A more relevant point made by the author on adjectives is Akimoto's (1989) finding that good and great are the most common ones in CPs (as in have a good look, take a great liking), but it would have been good to be told also that these adjectives correspond broadly to manner adverbs used with the related simplex verb. A further problematic issue is the treatment of accompanying determiners, on which Matsumoto limply writes that ‘even in PDE make answer and make reply sometimes take the indefinite article and sometimes do not’ (p. 33). The fact is, however, that, depending on the individual construction, the deverbal noun takes the type of determiner permitted (in the relevant dialect) by its countability type. Allowance must be made for the fact that in some constructions (e.g. subject to some/an analysis) the noun has both a countable use and a mass one, while in others (such as grant admittance or make war, discussed on p. 53), a ‘solo’ (i.e. determiner-free) noun (Allerton Reference Allerton2002: 126, 134) is the only possibility.

A disappointing aspect of this volume is the failure to make clear the full range of structural correspondences between a CP and its related simplex verb structure. The only hint of this is in the distinction made between the patterns labelled [V + N] (e.g. take a walk) and [V + N + P] (e.g. take a look) where the issue is said to be whether the CP ‘takes a preposition’ or not. But obviously some CPs (such as take a look itself!) occur with both patterns, and if, as Matsumoto points out (p. 76), an author like Bunyan happens to use more prepositionless constructions, this can simply be a matter of using a terser style. A preferable way of expressing this point, though, is to ask whether the deverbal noun prohibits, allows or requires complementation, and what preposition is used. This leaves unmentioned the point that this prepositional complement is in a sense the underlying object of the simplex verb: for instance attack someone corresponds to make an attack on someone. But other underlying objects (as in answer someone) correspond not to prepositional complements, but to an indirect object (cf. give someone an answer). Moreover, although the subject of a CP corresponds to a simplex subject (as in the latter case), in some cases it corresponds to an object (e.g. receive an answer from someone). Matsumoto seems to be aware of the need for syntactic labelling at two levels, as when she points to the double passivization potential of certain constructions (e.g. make allowance for someone), but she does not develop this theme further.

It must be recalled, however, that the main perspective of this volume is historical. Indeed, apart from the first chapter and the brief conclusion, every chapter is concerned with the development of particular constructions through the history of English. The division into chapters is, however, somewhat curious. Chapter 2 examines CPs with do, make and give, while chapter 3 treats CPs with have and take (which are separated out largely on the basis of having a partly passive interpretation); chapter 4 goes on to concentrate specifically on have/take a look. Chapter 5 then considers phrasal verbs, according to the chapter title just with have and take, but in practice also with put, do, draw and a few others. In chapter 6 the author turns to constructions with ‘body nouns’, such as have an eye on (cf. pull a face above), in which the object noun is not deverbal, but a basic concrete noun denoting a part of the body; these are not CPs according to the author's definition (p. 19), although they are comparable, even rival, constructions. The next two chapters represent diversions into only distantly related fields: chapter 7 deals with the idiom be used to, and chapter 8 considers verbs of passivization and of happening. Finally, chapter 9 returns to the field of CPs with a look at those which correspond to the verb hunger, viz. nominal have (a) hunger and adjectival be hungry; no mention is made of the fact that such related adjectival constructions are available for many other English verbs, although a page is devoted to translating be hungry into a random sample of five West and North European languages.

The organization of all these chapters is very similar and becomes rather predictable for the reader. There is a brief introduction to the topic, followed by a short survey of previous studies. There ensues a consideration of the main topic of the chapter, divided according to differences in pattern, to individual light verbs, to historical period or to author. This is followed by an account of more specialized topics, such as passivization, structure of the eventive noun phrase, and semantic contrasts such as stative/eventive. Each of the main sections has a wealth of examples, and each example is assessed for its interest and relevance. There is plenty here for historically oriented syntacticians, lexicologists and semanticists to chew over.

But in some ways this is an unsatisfactory volume, with a number of general weaknesses. Firstly, as already indicated, the chapters on the be used to construction and on passivization and happening are not made relevant to the overall theme. Secondly, no clear distinction is made between fully fledged CPs and ones that are ‘defective’ in the sense that they have no related simplex verb, such as make noise(s) and do mischief/justice/etc. (referred to on p. 53 and p. 76, respectively). More generally, the reader feels the lack of an account of the overall range of collocations and idioms and how CPs, on the one hand, and simplex verbs, on the other, fit into this. The relation between simplex verbs and CPs becomes particularly relevant when the examples of alternation are quoted from Mallory (on p. 60). It would also have been interesting to hear the author's views on the lexical relationship between simplex verb lexemes like see, look or watch and figurative metaphors like keep an eye on, the topic of chapter 6.

Perhaps the most serious weakness of all is the failure to follow up the leading idea of the title and the introduction: have the various types of periphrastic expressions studied developed from simple verbs? Some book titles are, of course, meant to be provocative rather than to summarize the content of the volume. But this volume seems to be suggesting that more recent stages of English have developed a series of complex lexical verb patterns that were not present (or, at least, not substantially present) in older forms of the language. Readers might therefore be led to expect evidence for a relatively high number of simple verb constructions in the Old English period, but for a relative increase in ‘composite predicates, phrasal verbs and related constructions’ (the wording of the title) in the time since. Sadly, such evidence is entirely lacking. On the contrary, the ‘stretched’ constructions under consideration seem to abound at earlier stages in the history of English.

Aside from these general issues a few detailed points need to be raised. Why, for instance, is the expression ‘functional types of CP’ (pp. 61–2) apparently used in a meaning which amounts to nothing more than ‘CPs with different light verbs’? Why is so-called ‘dynamic’ have (meaning ‘enjoy’ or ‘experience’) said to have ‘gained in dynamism’ in British English, when some of the examples cited show a comparable use in ME? Why is there an apparent insistence on a binary stative/eventive distinction of ‘Aktionsart’ for lexical items designating sleep, when only be asleep is truly stative, with have a sleep and fall asleep different types of event? Why are possessive determiners with a deverbal noun, which are exemplified in various places (as on p. 97), never treated as a unitary phenomenon? Would it not have been possible to consider contrasting body nouns with the same verb (e.g. believe one's ears/eyes) in a little more depth? Finally, although Matsumoto seems mostly to be at home interpreting English texts from the medieval period onwards, she has apparently misinterpreted one or two examples: on p. 88 she interprets the following words of Defoe as an example of have a dinner:

while the following late ME text is viewed as an instance of have a look:

even though, as David Denison (private communication) confirms, had is being used to construct the past perfect form ‘have despent’ (with a look as its object).

This book is thus not without its weaknesses, in particular in syntactic theory, and to a lesser extent in textual analysis. There is, however, a wealth of examples, mostly embedded in longer quotations; indeed they appear to make up as much as one third of the printed text. Anyone interested in the history of extended verb constructions in English should therefore find this volume a rich source of material.