Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:55:30.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 22 - Verbal Particles, Results, and Directed Motion

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Ida Toivonen
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

The status of the Germanic verbal particles and particle verbs display a number of intriguing characteristics, and they have therefore been extensively investigated in the literature on morphology, syntax, and semantics. The particles share much in common across the Germanic languages, yet they also differ in subtle ways both within and across languages. This chapter draws attention to those similarities and differences, and discusses why it has proven difficult to state a unified definition for particles. Special attention is given to several unsettled debates about the status, structure, and meaning of particles. Finally, the chapter draws attention to the interaction between particles and two related but distinct constructions: resultatives and directed motion constructions.

Keywords

particlesword orderargument structureresultativesdirected motion
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 516 - 536
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Åfarli, T. 1985. “Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8: 75–98.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A., Dalrymple, M., and Toivonen, I. 2013. “Constructions with Lexical Integrity,” Journal of Language Modelling 1.1: 1–54.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., and Sveen, A. 2011. “West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ Construction,” Linguistics 49.1: 53–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J. 2012. “Resultative Constructions,” In Binnick, R. I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford University Press: 908–933.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. 1991. “Theoretische aspekten van partikelvooropplaatsing II.” In TABU 21: 89–95.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and van Walraven, C. M. 1986. “The syntax of verbs in Yiddish.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 111–135.Google Scholar
Blom, C. 2005. Complex Predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and Diachrony. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1990. “The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs in Dutch.” In Booij, G. E. and van Marle, J. (eds), Yearbook of Morphology, Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Foris: 45–63.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2005. Particle Patterns in English: A Comprehensive Coverage. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Christie, E. 2015. The English Resultative. Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Christie, L. 2011. “Investigating the differences between the English way-construction and the fake reflexive resultative construction.” In Armstrong, L. (ed.), CLA Conference Proceedings, Canadian Linguistic Association: 1–14.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2002. Particle Verbs in English: Syntax, Information Structure and Intonation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2015. “Particle verbs in Germanic.” In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F., eds., Word Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dehé, N., Urban, S., McIntyre, A., and Jackendoff, R. (eds.) 2002. Explorations in Verb-Particle Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Construction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egmond, M-E. 2006. Two Way-Constructions in Dutch. Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Egmond, M-E. van 2009. Two Way-Constructions in Dutch. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, M. 2007. The Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb-Particle Combination. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1972. “Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule,” Foundations of Language 8: 546–561.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 2003. “Verbal clusters and cluster creepers.” In Seuren, P. and Kempen, G. (eds.), Verb Constructions in German and Dutch, Vol. 242. Current Issues in Linguistic Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 43–89.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1976. The Verb-Particle Combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. and Jackendoff, R. 2004. “The English resultative as a family of constructions,” Language 80.3: 532–568.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. “English particle constructions, the lexicon and the autonomy of syntax.” In Dehé et al. 2002, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
Larsen, D. 2014. Particles and Particle-Verb Combinations in English and Other Germanic Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.Google Scholar
Le Roux, C. 1988. On the Interface of Morphology and Syntax: Evidence from Verb-Particle Combinations in Afrikaans. Master’s thesis, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Hovav, M. Rappaport 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Los, B., Blom, C., Booij, G., Elenbaas, M., and van Kemenade, A. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, A. 2001. On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ludwig, I. 2005. The Way-Construction in German. Ms., University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. 2007. “Mellan polerna. Reflexiv- och deponenskonstruktioner i svenskan,” Språk och stil 17: 86–134.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van 2002. “Dutch separable compound verbs: Words rather than phrases?” In Dehé et al. 2002, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2001. German Double Particles as Preverbs: Morphology and Conceptual Semantics. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2003. “Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles.” In Booij, G. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer: 119–144.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2004. “Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells,” Linguistics 42: 523–571.Google Scholar
Mondorf, B. 2011. “Variation and change in English resultative constructions,” Language Variation and Change 22: 397–421.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 2002. “Particle placement.” In Dehé et al. 2002, 141–164.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Weerman, F. 1993. “The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 433–475.Google Scholar
Norén, K. 1996. Svenska partikelverbs semantik. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Oya, T. 1999. “Er bettelt sich durchs Land: Eine ‘one’s way’ Konstruktion im Deutschen?” Deutsche Sprache 27: 356–369.Google Scholar
Johan, P. 2013. “The Way-Construction and Cross-Linguistic Variation in Syntax: Implications for Typological Theory.” In Paradis, C., Hudson, J., and Magnusson, U. (eds.), The Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual Space. Oxford University Press: 236–262.Google Scholar
Perek, F. and Hilpert, M. 2014. “Constructional tolerance: Are argument structure constructions equally powerful across languages?” Constructions and Frames 6.2: 266–304.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1998. Svenskans inre grammatik: Det minimalistiska programmet. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Seland, G. 2001. The Norwegian Reflexive Caused Motion Construction: A Construction Grammar Approach. Cand. Philol. thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. 1983. “Resultatives.” In Levin, L. S., Rappaport, M., and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club: 143–157.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. (ed.) 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. and Wunderlich, D. 1994. “Morphology feeds syntax,” Linguistics 36: 1–39.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. Dependent Nexus. Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1996. “The optionality of particle shift.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 47–75.Google Scholar
Thim, S. 2012. Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb-Particle Construction and its History. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 1999. “Swedish place expressions.” In Tamanji, P., Hirotani, M., and Hall, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press: 367–379.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2001. The Phrase Structure of Non-Projecting Words. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2002. “The directed motion construction in Swedish,” Journal of Linguistics 38.2: 313–345.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2003. The Phrase Structure of Non-projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Particles. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. 2006. “On continuative on,” Studia Linguistica 60.2: 181–219.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2003. “The Dutch way.” In Verhagen, A. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT: 27–57.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2007. “English constructions from a Dutch perspective: Where are the differences?” In Hannay, M. and Steen, G. J. (eds.), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 257–274.Google Scholar
Verspoor, C. M. 1997. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Walková, M. 2013. The Aspectual Function of Particles in Phrasal Verbs. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 1997. “Resultative predicates and control,” Texas Linguistics Forum 38: 307–321.Google Scholar
Zeller, J. 1999. Particle Verbs, Local Domains, and a Theory of Lexical Licensing. Ph.D. thesis, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Zeller, J. 2001. Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2015. “Out of phase: Form-meaning mismatches in the prepositional phrase.” In Toivonen, I., Csúri, P., and van der Zee, E. (eds.), Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 63–78.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×