Charge sb with sth/charge sb over sth

Question

I know that the construction "to charge sb with sth" is considered to be a prepositional verb with a direct object. How about "to charge sb over sth"? The thing is that I have some press headlines and my task is to classify them according to whether they contain a prepositional verb or not. "To charge sb with" can be found in every dictionary, with "over" it is not the case. Is there any constituency test to prove that the construction with "over" is not a prepositional verb? At first sight both constructions function in the same way, I mean their syntactic behaviour is identical. Or am I wrong?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

AnonymousI know that the construction "to charge sb with sth" is considered to be a prepositional verb with a direct object.

I wouldn't do that.

He was charged.
He was charged with murder.
He was charged for the crime.
He was charged by the police.

AnonymousHow about "to charge sb over sth"?

Yes, you can do that, too.

Anonymous Is there any constituency test to prove that the construction with "over" is not a prepositional verb?

Negatives are hard to prove.

Anonymous both constructions function in the same way, I mean their syntactic behaviour is identical. Or am I wrong?

You are right. I suggest that your dictionary simply lists a common collocation, not a prepositional verb.

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks for your answer, I appreciate your involvement, really.

I see your point, however, normally verbs have different patterns of complementation. In the case of the verb "charge" it can be [V] or [VN].

I am pretty sure that "by the police" is not a case of prepositional object, it is an adjunct, as the use of "by" in this case is a grammaticalised use. In order to prove that "by the police" does not function as a prepositional object is to make a question: *What was he charged by?". As far as I know, the question is wrong. It means that "by the police" is not a prepositional object, it is just an adjunct. So, it is not so difficult to prove a negative in this case.

In the case of "with murder" I can ask a question "What was he charged with?" (I am sure)

In the case of "for murder" I can ask "What was he charged for?" (Here I am not as sure as above, but I think it is ok, or not?)

It is possible that another constituency test (relative clause, fronting or a different one) could prove that "for the murder" (or my example "over the murder") is not a prepositional object . However, as I am not a native, it is not easy (sometimes even impossible) to decide on a particular example and say "yes, it is possible to say that" or "no, it is wrong".

All dictionaries I consulted, Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, etc. contain the combination "to charge sb with sth". It appears strange that none of them includes any other, I think.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousI know that the construction ...

I'm not sure this will help, but it's probably worth taking a look.

CJ

Kasita · Answer

Thanks for your answer.

Yes, this is another interesting subject, however it is not related to my doubt. All the examples we have mentioned up to now have a preposition. It is easy to check. Prepositions need a complement and in these cases: "charged with", "charged by", etc., we have to have a complement. *"He was charged with". or *"He was charged by". are incorrect, obviously.

"Charge sth up" is the unique example of a phrasal verb with "charge" that comes to my mind. "Up" is an adverb (to be more exact, adverbial particle) and it does not need any complement. Of course, it is possible to add something, but it would be classified as adjunct then (we talked above about

Kasita · Answer

Btw, I decided to register so I'm not "anonymous" anymore.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Kasita Btw, I decided to register so I'm not "anonymous" anymore.

Thank you Kasita!
Welcome to English Forums.

Charge sb with sth/charge sb over sth

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions