Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:50:26.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ground Arguments in German Particle Verbs: A Comparison with Dutch and English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Toshiaki Oya
Toshiaki Oya*
Affiliation:
University of Tsukuba
*
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8571 Japan, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I discuss the following three topics with respect to German particle verbs with a ground argument. First, I consider the difference between anlächeln and zulächeln ‘smile at’ in German. In the former the accusative argument represents a ground, whereas in the latter the dative argument is licensed by inalienable semantics. Second, I discuss why a ground can be expressed by a dative in the German verb zueilen ‘hurry toward’, whereas in the corresponding Dutch verb toesnelln the preposition naar or op ‘to’ is necessary. This difference is due to the fact that German has a low dative. Finally, I consider the question of why expressions like ∗pour the glass in or ∗load the truck on are not allowed in English, whereas the corresponding expressions are possible in German and Dutch. This results from a difference in the syntactic structure of particle verbs in the languages.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 257 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2009

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

REFERENCES

Blom, Corrien. 2004. On the diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: Predicative and nonpredicative preverbs. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16.1–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, Corrien. 2005. Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, & Cornips, Leonie. 1994. Undative constructions. Linguistics 32.173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Philippa. 2006. The datives that aren't born equal: Beneficiaries and the dative passive. Dative and other cases, ed. by Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André, & Abraham, Werner, 141–181. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1998. The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. The dative. Vol.2.: Theoretical and contrastive studies, ed. by Langendonck, Willy Van & Belle, William Van, 185–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert, & Rosengren, Inger. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15.203–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HayJen, Christopher Kennedy Jen, Christopher Kennedy, & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 9.127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14.305–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemedade, Ans van, & Los, Bettelou. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. Yearbook of Morphology 2003, ed. by Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van, 79–117. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda J. 2000. The syntax of specifiers and heads: Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, & Sells, Peter. To appear. Unpredicated particles. Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, ed. by Wee, Lian Hee & Uyechi, Linda. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/moh07.pdf]Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 25.609–665.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study of the syntax-morphology interface. Doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. Dative and other cases, ed. by Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André, & Abraham, Werner, 49–77. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2001. German double particles as preverbs. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, argument linking, and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. Yearbook of Morphology 2003, ed. by Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van, 119–144. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells. Linguistics 42.523–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. Dative and other cases, ed. by Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André, & Abraham, Werner, 185–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2007. Particle verbs and argument structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 1.350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2006. Remarks on the projection of dative arguments in German. Dative and other cases, ed. by Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André, & Werner Abraham, 79–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1997. Der Dativ in Partikelverben. Sprache in Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Dürscheid, Christa, Ramers, Karl Heinz, & Schwarz, Monika, 307–328. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rapp, Irene. 1997. Fakultativität von Verbargumenten als Reflex der semantischen Struktur. Linguistische Berichte 172.490–529.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1990. Functional prepositions. Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday, ed. by Pinkster, Harm & Genée, Inge, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Belle, William, & Van Langendonck, Willy. 1992. The indirect object in Dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen 1.17–43.Google Scholar
Van Belle, William, & Van Langendonck, Willy. 1996. The indirect object in Dutch. The dative. Volume 1.: Descriptive studies, ed. by Belle, William Van & Langendonck, Willy Van, 217–250. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi. 2004. Auxiliary selection in the east. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13.197–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the “event-argument homomorphism” model of telicity. The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, ed. by Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rapoport, Tova, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1991. Der Dativ – ein struktueller Kasus? Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien, ed. by Fanselow, Gisbert & Felix, Sascha W., 70–103. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28.27–68.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2001a. Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2001b. Lexical particles, semi-lexical postpositions. Semi-lexical categories, ed. by Corver, Nobert & Riemsdijk, Henk van, 505–549. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar