Just 'carry' for 'carry weapons' and just 'lift' instead of 'lift weights'. What linguistic phenomenon is it?
There are English verbs that can be used without an object while meaning a certain object. E.g.
- Carry = carry weapons
- Lift = lift weights
- Use = use drugs
- Possibly, ‘investigate’ (an incident, a crime, a statement) as well.
Some examples I saw:
California may issue permits to carry if a person meets the requirements.
For years I lifted just because I loved to lift.
The FBI was called in to investigate.
This is what I’m wondering:
- Any more examples that spring to your mind?
- Is there a word or a term in Linguistics for this sort of phenomenon?
I found and read a few articles about null objects / context null objects. They mention examples like ‘Beat [ø] until stiff’. Are my examples the same phenomenon?
Thank you.
The "linguistic phenomenon" is know ambitransitive verbs.
These verbs, and there are many of them, may appear with or without an object but, can always have an object assumed.
e.g.
He ate
He ate a meal/apple/whole pig.
More simply, "something or someone" can be added after the verb.
In the examples you give, of course, the context implies the object, whereas normally, e.g. He ate, we do not know what he ate but he ate something.
Carry = carry weapons - context Police, politicians, concern over guns.
Lift = lift weights - context restricted to people who lift weights.
Use = use drugs - context police and drugs users.
It does this by dint of the repetitive and constant use in that context.