Abstract
While the unusual behaviour of particle verbs in West Germanic has been the subject of much debate, it still awaits a substantive explanation. These verbs undergo reversal and/or intercalation subject to such syntactic constraints as finiteness and clause type. Situated within Prototype Theory, this study defines the relevant grammatical categories in terms of varying degrees of syntacticity (i.e., sentence-likeness vs. word-likeness) of which cohesiveness is a major indicator. The higher the cohesiveness of a given category, the more resistant it is to syntactic processes. The following scale of increasing cohesiveness is proposed: main clauses, finite verbs, subordinate clauses, non-finite verbs, nouns. Thus, reversal and intercalation are found in the leftward, though not in the rightward categories. This scale is pragmatically motivated. Generally speaking, main clauses are communicatively more important than subordinate clauses. Therefore, the former require a wider choice of expressive means such as reversal and intercalation than the latter. The availability of syntactic options is argued to be an iconic reflection of communicative needs.
Acknowledgements
I am pleased to record my gratitude to Claas Riecken and Glenda Goldschmidt-Lechner for providing me with first-hand specimen of North Frisian and Afrikaans, respectively. I am equally grateful to Tim Zingler for giving me a vital clue and to Günter Radden for giving me a hard time convincing him. I am even more grateful to the three COGL reviewers whose highly perceptive comments unfolded their full potential through their complementarity. Their eye-opening reports enabled me to write the kind of paper I had wanted to write all along.
References
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience. The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571–612.Search in Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1998. The (in)compatibility of morpheme orders and lexical categories and its historical implications. English Language and Linguistics 2. 245–262.10.1017/S1360674300000873Search in Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2015. Locating affixes on the lexicon-grammar continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 2. 150–180.10.1075/cogls.2.1.08berSearch in Google Scholar
Blom, Corrien & Geert Booij. 2003. The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: A case study in grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 61–91.10.1556/ALing.50.2003.1-2.5Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Another glance at main clause phenomena. Language 53. 511–519.10.2307/413174Search in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1990. The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs in Dutch. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 45–63. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1515/9783112420744-004Search in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation. In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.), Verb-particle explorations, 21–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902341.21Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.110.02bybSearch in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2002. And up it rises: Particle preposing in English. In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.), Verb-particle explorations, 43–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902341.43Search in Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta. 1986. The internal structure of English transitive sentences. Memory & Cognition 14. 420–431.10.3758/BF03197017Search in Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. & Lars Johanson. 1998. Turkish. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 203–235. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
de Sutter, Gert. 2009. Towards a multivariate model of grammar: The case of word order variation in Dutch clause final verb clusters. In Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds.), Describing and modeling variation in grammar, 225–254. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2002. Particle verbs in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.59Search in Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2015. Particle verbs in Germanic. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation, vol. 1, 611–626. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110246254-037Search in Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans & Corretje Moed-van Walraven. 1986. The syntax of verbs in Yiddish. In Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages, 111–135. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert B. 2011. The meaning of particle/prefix constructions in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.34Search in Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 369–427.10.1023/A:1005778326537Search in Google Scholar
Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110863154Search in Google Scholar
Elenbaas, Marion & Ans van Kemenade. 2014. Verb particles and OV/VO in the history of English. Studia Linguistica 68. 140–167.10.1111/stul.12018Search in Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1982. Trennbarkeit und Nichttrennbarkeit bei den deutschen Partikelverben mit durch und um. In Ludwig M. Eichinger (ed.), Tendenzen verbaler Wortbildung in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 33–50. Hamburg: Buske.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2013. A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110303971Search in Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1981. Some interesting differences between nouns and verbs. Cognition and Brain Theory 4. 161–178.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar. A function-based introduction. vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.engram1Search in Google Scholar
Gorlach, Marina. 2004. Phrasal constructions and resultativeness in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sfsl.52Search in Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52. 382–397.10.2307/412566Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Haiden, Martin. 2006. Verb-particle constructions. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 5, 344–375. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch76Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10. 287–310.10.1515/flih.1989.10.1-2.287Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Philip & Ian Hinchliffe. 1994. Swedish. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1. 111–136.Search in Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Verb-object order in early Middle English. In Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner (eds.), Diachronic syntax. Models and mechanisms, 132–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 236–287.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1984. Performative subordinate clauses. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 472–480.10.3765/bls.v10i0.1953Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1990. What, me worry? ‘Mad Magazine Sentences’ revisited. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16. 215–228.10.3765/bls.v16i0.1730Search in Google Scholar
Larsen, Darrell. 2014. Particles and particle-verb constructions in English and other Germanic languages. Newark, DE: University of Delaware unpublished dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenade. 2012. Morphosyntactic change. A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511998447Search in Google Scholar
Luo, Han. 2017. English transitive particle verbs. Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4. 330–354.10.1075/cogls.00008.luoSearch in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Fred Weerman. 1993. The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 433–475.10.1007/BF00993166Search in Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Constructional economy and nonfinite independent clauses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations, 138–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Klaus-Michael Köpcke. 2008. A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 83–112.10.1075/arcl.6.05panSearch in Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan & Eric Haeberli. 2008. Structural variation in Old English root clauses. Language Variation and Change 20. 367–407.10.1017/S095439450800015XSearch in Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 316–328.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. The Penthouse Principle and the order of constituents. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), Papers from the comparative syntax festival, 397–422. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara & Dieter Wunderlich. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32. 913–968.10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.913Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Thim, Stefan. 2012. Phrasal verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110257038Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15. 237–251.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90012-MSearch in Google Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter Meijes. 1985. Frisian reference grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-projecting words. A case study of Swedish particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-010-0053-6Search in Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, Stefano Quaglia & Eva Wittenberg. 2015. Topicalization in German particle verb constructions: The role of semantic transparency. Linguistische Berichte 244. 407–424.Search in Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Bettelou Los. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 79–117. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7_5Search in Google Scholar
van Marle, Jaap. 2002. Dutch separable compound verbs: Words rather than phrases. In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.), Verb-particle explorations, 211–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902341.211Search in Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2002. Particle verbs are heads and phrases. In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.), Verb-particle explorations, 233–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902341.233Search in Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2003. Moved preverbs in German: Displaced or misplaced? In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 179–212. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7_8Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
