lecture 5: prepositional verbs and phrasal verbs
TRANSCRIPT
PPs are often adverbials = modifiers They met [in the street] (location) She left [on Wednesday] (time) He retaliated [in anger] (manner)
These are adjuncts – not restricted by the predicate: They met [in the street] [on Wednesday] [in anger]
But some verbs take PP arguments, which are restricted He put the box [in the street] * he put the box [on Wednesday] * he put the box [with anger]
PP arguments have a number of properties which are more like adjuncts They are often omissible
He sent the letter ([to Mary]) But not always - he gave the letter * ([to Mary])
They are always further from the verb than DP arguments:
* He sent [to Mary] the letter * he put [in the street] the box
They can appear after adjuncts He put the box [carelessly] [in the street]
Omissibility is not really a distinct property of adjuncts: All adjuncts are omissible Some arguments are omissible
He was eating (his dinner) We can separate the two kinds of omissiblity:
He sent a letter (to London) He drove the car (to London)
Is it possible to: Conceive of an act of ‘sending’ for which there is no
goal? Not really – it isn’t ‘sending’ otherwise
Conceive of an act of ‘driving’ for which there is no goal? Of course – driving can just involve making a vehicle move
It isn’t possible to conceive of any event which does not take place in time and space Does this mean that time and location modifiers
are arguments? If something applies to everything, it can’t
be due to the meaning of individual predicates I phoned Bill on Wednesday
It isn’t part of the meaning of ‘to phone’ that it takes place at a certain time
This is just a fact about the universe – you don’t even need to know what ‘to phone’ means to know this
Given that all events take place in time and space, then time and location are never part of the meaning of a predicate
So, they are always adjuncts No predicate has a time argument But some have location arguments
He placed the book in his bag This is not the location of the event, but the
location the theme comes to occupy due to the event taking place He placed the book in his bag in the library
Is the goal an adjunct or argument?: He posted the letter to Mary He posted the letter
There are two meanings for ‘post’ To send via the postal system To put something in the post
Similar to: Shelve a book = put a book on a shelf Post a letter = put a letter in the post
‘Send’ obviously has a goal argument (you can’t send without one)
‘Put’ clearly has no goal So whether the goal is an argument or not
depends on which ‘post’ is involved
The difference between DP and PP arguments is due to Case DPs have to occupy Case positions PPs don’t
Therefore the distribution of DPs is more restricted than that of PPs
Argument positions are fixed at D-structure
So a PP argument’s distribution should not be any different to a DP’s – at D-structure
This suggests that PPs can undergo movements which DPs can’t
There is evidence that some phrases move to the back of the clause (mostly clauses and PPs): A man [with a suitcase] arrived A man arrived [with a suitcase] A man [who seemed nice] phoned A man phoned, [who seemed nice]
This movement is called Extraposition Its function seems to be to focus the extraposed
phrase (add new salient information) What surprised me was:
that a man with a suitcase arrived that a man arrived with a suitcase
Due to extraposition a PP argument can move behind a PP modifier: I gave the money t1 [with reluctance] [to Bill]1
Therefore it only appears that PP arguments have distributions like adjuncts
Note, some DPs also undergo extraposition: I met John yesterday * I met yesterday John I met yesterday [everyone who John told me to]
This is called Heavy DP shift Only DPs with ‘heavy’ content can undergo it
In the dative construction the PP goal is the complement of the lexical verb
As this position follows all DP arguments, it seems reasonable to assume that this is the position for all PP arguments
Some verbs have two PP arguments I spoke to the students about the exam
Both of these can’t go in the complement of V position
The two PPs are interchangeable: I spoke about the exam to the students
The evidence suggests that the first argument is higher than the second: I spoke to the students about themselves * I spoke to themselves about the students
But this only works with one order: * I spoke about the students to themselves * I spoke about themselves to the students
This suggests that the two orders have different structures
The antecedent not only has to be higher than the pronoun
It must be in a particular structural relationship with it: John shaved himself * John’s mother shaved himself
A subject can be the antecedent of the object, but a phrase inside the subject cannot
We call this relationship Command A structural element commands its sister and everything inside its sister
A pronoun must be commanded by its antecedent
Because of this, the two PP arguments cannot be arranged like this
The first DP does not command the second
Perhaps the structure is like this: The goal DP is in the
specifier of the ‘about’ PP
This PP is the complement of ‘to’
So the goal commands the second DP
It is very odd that the DP related to the preposition ‘to’ is in the specifier of ‘about’
In all other cases we have seen arguments sit in either specifier or complement of their own predicate
How is the other order achieved? I spoke about the exam to the
students If ‘about the exam’ moves in
front of ‘to the students, this means P’ moves X’s don’t appear to be able to
move If ‘to the students’ moves
behind ‘about themselves’, this means something that isn’t even a phrase can move Only phrases can move
If what moves is the ‘about’ phrase, this must be a full PP
If this PP is in the complement of ‘to’, the goal must be in its specifier:
The right relationship between the two DPs still holds The first DP
commands the second
The word order is wrong! Perhaps this represents the D-structure
order and movement changes the position of ‘to’
In some languages, verbs and prepositions ‘fuse’ together by a process of incorporation
Kinyarwanda (Rwanda, southern Uganda) Umugabo ya-tém-ye igití n’ úmuhoro
man past-cut-asp tree with machete ‘The man cut the tree with the machete.’ Umugabo ya-tém-eesh-eje igití umuhoro
man past-cut-APPL-ASP tree machete ‘The man cut the tree with the machete.’
Preposition incorporation is movement of the preposition to join the verb Similar to a verb moving to a causative verb or tense
inflection
When a prepositional verb passivises, the verb and the preposition cannot be separated: He slept in the bed that night He slept that night in the bed the bed was slept in that night * the bed was slept that night in
This suggest that, in this case, the verb and preposition form a single unit i.e. The preposition incorporates into the verb
That prepositional verbs can passivise is very strange: Only transitive verbs passivise in English
John was hit/seen/frightened/feared ... * it was smiled/danced/sneezed/arrived ...
But most prepositional verbs allow passivisation: The students were spoken to The bed was slept in The money was parted with The target was aimed at
In these cases, the object of the preposition behaves like the object of the verb The object of the verb moves in passives
because the agentive verb is replaced by the passive morpheme and so the object loses it Case
Why would the object of the preposition have to move?
Suppose that when the preposition incorporates with the verb it can’t Case mark the goal
The goal will have to move to get Case from the agentive verb The verb moves (with the preposition) to support the agentive verb If the verb is passive, the goal must move further to subject to get
Case
In the case of two PP arguments, it seems that preposition incorporation has to take place: I spoke-to the students about the exam * I spoke the students to about the exam
When there is one PP argument, it is difficult to tell as both structures give the same result
When there is a theme, the preposition cannot incorporate: I gave the money to John * I gave-to the money John
This is understandable as the object of the preposition would be Caseless It cannot get Case from the incorporated
preposition It cannot move to the object position
There is a well know difference between the following: He looked up the word (in the dictionary) He looked up the chimney
The first involves what is traditionally called a phrasal verb A verb made up of a verb plus a ‘particle’
Incorporated preposition?
Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: They have idiomatic interpretations
the plane took off = to become airborne
he let down the whole family = to disappoint
the review put off the customers = to deter This suggests that they are single lexical
verbs
Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: They have the same stress pattern as a single verb
Normally stress falls on the second syllable of a verb They ex’ported the wine He a’ddressed the audience
The stress on a phrasal verb can fall on the preposition He put ‘over his message He let ‘down the family
Prepositional verbs do not stress the preposition He jumped ‘over the fence (only with contrastive
stress) Again, this suggests they are single lexical items
Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: The preposition does not have to immediately
follow the verb: He took off his hat - he took his hat off He looked up the word - he looked the word up
This is not possible with prepositional verbs: he looked up the chimney - * he looked the
chimney up He ran up the hill - * he ran the hill up
This does not favour a single lexical item analysis No other lexical item can be split up like this
The particle can be a whole phrase: This put the customers [right off their food] He took his clothes [all off]
When this is the case, the particle cannot join with the verb: * this put right off their food the customers * he took all off his clothes
This can be explained if phrasal verbs are formed by preposition incorporation Only the preposition itself can incorporate with
the verb
The obvious analysis is to treat phrasal verbs as: Having a PP complement Allowing the preposition to
incorporate
This analysis is exactly the same as the one we proposed for prepositional verbs
There is a structural difference between He looked up the word He looked up the chimney
In the first case, the object is an argument of the verb (theme):
The preposition may optionally incorporate into the verb
If so, when the verb moves to support the agentive verb we get: He looked1-up2 the word t1 t2
If not incorporate, we get: He looked1 the word t1 up
In the second case, the object is an argument of the preposition (location)
The preposition may optionally incorporate
But either way we get the same order when the verb moves
If phrasal verbs have the same analysis as prepositional verbs, why are they interpreted differently?
Perhaps they are not Some phrasal verbs don’t have idiomatic
interpretations: He stood the ladder up (phrasal verb order)
(meaning = cause to stand up)
Some prepositional verbs have idiomatic interpretations:
The police looked into the matter * the police looked the matter into (no phrasal verb
order) (meaning =
investigate)
In general PP arguments sit in the complement of the lexical verb
The preposition may incorporate into the verb If there a theme argument, the preposition cannot
incorporate If the verb is passivised, the preposition must
incorporate Phrasal verbs are the same as prepositional
verbs Most reported differences concern the position of
the DP argument As an argument of the verb or of the preposition