Yearbook of Morphology 2003

YEARBOOK OF MORPHOLOGY 2003

Yearbook of Morphology Editors:

Geert Booij Jaap van Marle

Consulting Editors:

Stephen Anderson (Yale) Mark Aronoff (Stony Brook, N.Y.) Mark Baker (New Brunswick, N.J.) Laurie Bauer (Wellington) Rudie Botha (Stellenbosch) Joan Bybee (Albuquerque, N.M.) Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy (Christchurch) Greville Corbett (Guildford, U.K.) Wolfgang Dressler (Wien) Martin Haspelmath (Leipzig) Jack Hoeksema (Groningen) Rochelle Lieber (Durham, N.H.) Peter Matthews (Cambridge, U.K.) Franz Rainer (Wien) Sergio Scalise (Bologna) Henk Schultink (Utrecht) Andrew Spencer (Colchester, U.K.)

Editorial address:

Editors, Yearbook of Morphology Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

YEARBOOK OF MORPHOLOGY 2003 Edited by

GEERT BOOIJ Vrije Universiteit, Nederland Amsterdam, The Netherlands

and

JAAP VAN MARLE Open Universiteit, Nederland Heerlen, The Netherlands

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW

eBook ISBN: Print ISBN:

1-4020-1513-5 1-4020-1272-1

©2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow Print ©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht All rights reserved No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher Created in the United States of America Visit Kluwer Online at: and Kluwer's eBookstore at:

http://kluweronline.com http://ebooks.kluweronline.com

Table of Contents

Preverbs ((guest) editors: Geert Booij and Ans van Kemenade) GEERT BOOIJ and ANS VAN KEMENADE / Preverbs: An introduction FARRELL ACKERMAN / Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian: A realization-based morphological perspective MONIQUE DUFRESNE, FERNANDE DUPUIS and MIREILLE TREMBLAY / Preverbs and particles in Old French ALICE HARRIS / Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi ANS VAN KEMENADE and BETTELOU LOS / Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English ANDREW MCINTYRE / Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles EVA SCHULTZE-BERNDT / Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages: synchronic and diachronic correlates JOCHEN ZELLER / Moved preverbs in German: displaced or misplaced?

1

13

33 61 79

119

145 179

Other articles MARCO BARONI / Distribution-driven morpheme discovery: a computational/ experimental study CAROL FEHRINGER / Morphological ‘gangs’: constraints on paradigmatic relations in analogical change

213

249

Book reviews Jochen Zeller (2001), Particle verbs and local domains (Geert Booij)

273

Morphology 2000. Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000 edited by S. Bendjaballah et al. (Geert Booij)

277

This page intentionally left blank

Preverbs: an introduction GEERT BOOIJ and ANS VAN KEMENADE The notion ‘preverb’ is a traditional descriptive notion in Indo-European linguistics.1 It refers to morphemes that appear in front of a verb, and which form a close semantic unit with that verb. In many cases, the morpheme that functions as a preverb can also function without a preverbal context, often as an adverb or an adposition. Most linguists use the notion ‘preverb’ as a cover term for preverbal words and preverbal prefixes. The preverb may be separated from the verb whilst retaining its close cohesion with the verb, which is called ‘tmesis’. It may also develop into a bound morpheme, that is, a prefix inseparable from the verb, with concomitant reduction of phonological form in some cases. If the preverb has become a real prefix, we may use the more specific notion of ‘complex verb’, whereas we take the notion ‘complex predicate’ to refer generally to multi-morphemic expressions with verbal valency. That is, we make a terminological distinction between complex predicates and complex verbs. The latter are multi-morphemic, but behave as single grammatical words. For both complex predicates in general (cf. Spencer 1991, Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998) and complex verbs (cf. Miller 1993) in particular, the question has been raised how and where in the grammar they should be accounted for. Well-known examples of complex predicates are auxiliary-verb sequences, serial verb constructions, the coverb-verb combinations as in Australian languages (Schultze-Berndt, this volume), similar light verb constructions in other languages, and verb raising constructions in Germanic languages. These different types of complex predicates represent various kinds of mismatches in the syntactic and morphological coding of complex events and verbal valency, and thereby challenge our view of the architecture of the grammar, and the relation between syntax, morphology, and the lexicon. Complex predicates of the preverb-verb type occur in most European languages, both the Indo-European languages (Watkins 1963, 1964) and those of the Finno-Ugric family (Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998, Ackerman (this volume), and in Georgian and Caucasian languages (Harris, this volume). A number of mostly descriptive articles on preverbs in the languages of Europe can be found in Rousseau (ed., 1995). In particular, particle verbs in Germanic languages have received a lot of attention in the recent literature (Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998, Lu¨deling 2001, McIntyre 2000, 2001, 2002, this volume), Booij 2002a;b, Dehe´ and Wanner (eds.) 2001, Dehe´ et al. (eds.) 2002, Zeller 2001; this volume, van Kemenade and Los, this volume, and references in these publications). The history of particles and prefixes in Latin and French is discussed in Vincent (1999), and Dufresne et al. (this volume) respectively. It is the aim of the collection of articles in this thematic section of the Yearbook of Morphology on preverbs to provide in-depth empirical investigations of preverbs in a number of typologically diverse languages and to discuss Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 1–11. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

2

Geert Booij and Ans van Kemenade

the consequences of their behaviour for a proper theory of the architecture of the grammar. It is striking indeed that this phenomenon is widely attested crosslinguistically, which suggests that the grammatical and historical mechanisms responsible for the rise of a class of preverbs are universal. In many cases, the development of preverbs and prefixes represents a clear case of grammaticalization, and this thematic section therefore also focuses on the diachrony of preverb constructions. For the preverb situation in Indo-European, Kuryłowicz (1964) and Watkins (1964) remain the authoritative sources. In the early stages, preverbs seem to have been independent constituents. Kuryłowicz notes that, since in many of the daughter languages preverbs behave both as preverbs and as prepositions, it is thought that the origin of both preverbs and prepositions is adverbial (cf. also Baldi 1979). The basis for the divergence in word class in the daughter languages is in the potential for variation between various syntactic modification relations. When a particle appeared with a transitive verb, it was ambiguous between a modifier of the verb (in which case it was interpreted as an adverb) and a modifier of the object (and was interpreted as a preposition/predicate). In addition, the particle could modify other adverbs and be positioned accordingly. For a list of preverbs with cognates in the various languages, the reader is referred to Beekes (1995). Kuryłowicz (1964) gives a brief discussion of some developments in the early Indo-European languages. According to Watkins, preverbs could appear in two basic positions in Sanskrit: a sentence-final one left of the verb it modifies, which is called the contact position and is exemplified in (1); and a sentence-initial one where it is not adjacent to the verb, which is illustrated in (2). This latter position of the preverb in which is does not precede the verb directly is called tmesis. The examples are from Delbru¨ck (1893–1900): (1) # ... P V# dasvasam upa gachatam (RV I, 47, 3) worshipper to come ‘come to the worshipper’ (2) #P ... V# ati tr¸s¸t¸am vavaks¸ita (RV III, 9, 3) ‘you have grown beyond the harmful (smoke)’ 2 Preverb and verb are thought to be a kind of syntactic unit. The argument for this comes from the fact that the preverb is stressed only in main clauses (as in (3), where stress is marked by an acute accent), while in subordinate clauses, in the position preceding the verb, stress shifted to the verb, as in (4). The examples are again from Sanskrit:

Preverbs: an introduction

3

(3) pra´ gacchati (he) forth goes ‘he goes forth’ (4) ya´h pra ga´cchati who forth goes ‘who goes forth’ This stress shift is thought to be the result of what Watkins calls ‘univerbation’, resulting in a syntactic unit. According to Kuryłowicz, a consequence of this univerbation was either that the verb was encliticized to the preverb (as in Sanskrit and Greek), or that the preverb was procliticized to the verb (as in Old Irish, Germanic and Balto-Slavic). In the daughter families/languages, the preverb maintains its status as an independent constituent for quite a long time in some cases, while in others it follows various stages in a classical grammaticalization path from preverb>prefix>ultimate disappearance (cf. also Pinault 1995). As cases in point, we can cite here some developments in Romance and Germanic respectively (see Dufresne et al. (this volume), and van Kemenade and Los (this volume)). Vincent (1999) discusses some interesting cases in Latin from which it is clear that, while in the early Latin prayers, preverbs/prepositions must be assumed to have independent constituent status, they later become members of compound verb stems, later developing into prefixes. This applies to the following words: (5) sub ‘under’; trans ‘across; in ‘in’; ab ‘from’; ob ‘against’; cum ‘with’; ex ‘out of’; pro ‘for’ To contrast the two stages, consider the following examples of Latin preverbs (Vincent 1999: 1118): the grammarian Festus makes two remarks on the language of the early prayers: (6)

a.

Sub vos placo, in precibus fere cum dicitur, significat id, quod supplico ‘when people say, mostly in prayers, sub vos placo, it means the same as supplico’

b.

ob vos sacro, in quibusdam precationibus est, pro vos obsecro, ut sub vos placo, pro supplico ‘ob vos sacro in certain prayers stands for vos obsecro, just as sub vos placo stands for supplico’

What seems to be the case here is that the preverb in the early prayers is in tmesis, with the personal pronoun encliticized to it by the Wackernagel effect. This indicates that the preverb is an independent constituent in first constituent

4

Geert Booij and Ans van Kemenade

position. The same preverbs form part of compound verb stems in Classical Latin and later become prefixes, as in: (7) submittere ‘to put underneath’; permittere ‘to let through’; transmittere ‘to send across’; transferre ‘to carry across’, perferre ‘to carry through’; obligare ‘to bind’ A similar phenomenon can be observed in Gothic, where the aspectual preverb ga occurs in first constituent position with sentence particles encliticized to it: (8) ga-u-hva-sehvi ga – wh particle – anything – saw ‘whether he saw anything’ (Mark, VII, 23) This preverb is attested in the Old West-Germanic languages as the past participle prefix ge-, which disappeared in English but is still widely used in presentday Dutch and German. It is thought to be cognate with Latin cum, and would thus be clearly a locative or circumstantial item in origin (although this is not uncontroversial). Phenomena parallel to the preverb-enclitic pronoun/particle ... V pattern in (6) and (8) have been observed in Hittite and Old Irish (Hopper 1975). These patterns represent instances of preverbs that follow a grammaticalization path as in (9) (9) independent preverb>left member of verbal compound >prefix>(zero). A different type of development seems to be represented by the preverb system that is still very productive in the present-day Germanic languages, in particular in West-Germanic. In the older stages of these languages, there is still a clear differentiation of word class status between adverb and preposition, as observed for Indo-European by Kuryłowicz (1964). For instance, Hiltunen (1983) makes a distinction for Old English between those phrasal adverbs that cannot occur as prepositions and include adun ‘down’; aweg ‘away; forð ‘forth’; niðer ‘down; up ‘up’; ut ‘out’, and prepositional adverbs, which can be used as either preposition or adverb and include beforan ‘before’; æfter ‘after’; to ‘to’; ofer ‘over’; ongean ‘toward’. It is probably fair to say that this differentiation lives on to a certain extent into the present-day language. A similar differentiation is suggested by studies on the early stages of other Germanic languages such as Eytho´rsson (1995) and Ferraresi (1997) on Gothic. An appropriate term for the preverb-verb combination in these languages is: separable complex verb, since this abstracts from the divergent syntactic development that took place mostly during the recorded history (as discussed in van Kemenade and Los, this

Preverbs: an introduction

5

volume). When we consider the history of the West-Germanic languages in particular, it is especially striking that the old preverb-verb system was regimented anew as a syntactically circumscribed and often lexicalized system of aspectual marking. During this process, it became immensely productive, as the very lively recent history of Dutch and German separable complex verbs and English phrasal verbs testify. The analysis of separable complex verbs in Dutch and German has been a focus of interest in the recent literature on preverbs (cf. the references given above), and it is therefore appropriate to provide the reader with some essential discussion concerning the analytical and theoretical issues involved. Preverbs in Modern Dutch and German are quite similar in their behaviour. Most of them derive from adpositions and adverbs. In addition, there are some nouns and adjectives that pattern in the same way as preverbs, in the sense that the N-V or A-V combination behaves as a separable complex verb. Preverbverb sequences in these languages differ from prefixed verbs and verbal compounds in that the preverb is separable from the verb. Dutch and German have two different word orders, XvSOV in main clauses (where v stands for the finite verb), and SOV in embedded clauses. This difference in word order has the effect that preverbs can be stranded at the end of the main clause, as a result of finite verb movement to second constituent position of the verbal part of the separable verb complex. Let us first illustrate the separability of the preverbs with some examples from Dutch (Booij 2002a: 205): (10) Verb-final clause

Verb-second clause

Hans zijn moeder opbelde

Hans belde zijn moeder op ‘Hans phoned his mother’ de fietser neerstortte De fietser stortte neer ‘The cyclist fell down’ Jan het huis schoonmaakte Jan maakte het huis schoon ‘John cleaned the house’ Rebecca pianospeelde Rebecca speelde piano ‘Rebecca played the piano’ dit resultaat ons teleurstelde Dit resultaat stelde ons teleur ‘This result disappointed us’ In the first example, the word op ‘up’ that combines with the verb, is also used as an adposition. In that case, the non-verbal element is also referred to as a particle, and the combination is referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive class of separable complex verbs (SCVs). In the second example, the word neer ‘down’ is also used as an adverb. The next two examples show that adjectives (like schoon) and nouns (like huis) can also occur in SCVs. In the last example, the word teleur ‘sad’ does not occur as an independent

6

Geert Booij and Ans van Kemenade

word. The fact that SCVs are felt as word-like units is reflected by Dutch orthography, which requires SCVs to be written as one word, without internal spacing, if the two constituents are adjacent. The separability of SCVs also manifests itself in the position of the infinitival particle te that occurs between the two constituents of SCVs, as in op te bellen, and in the form of the perfect/passive participle, with the prefix ge- in between the particle and the verbal stem: op-ge-beld. In derivational morphology, SCVs behave similarly; for instance, the ge-nominalisation of opbellen is opgebel, with the prefix in between the particle and the verbal stem. A number of these particles correspond to bound morphemes with an identical phonological form; these are real prefixes that cannot be separated from the verbal stem. These prefixed verbs carry main stress on the verbal stem, not on the prefix, whereas the SCVs carry main stress on the non-verbal constituent. Thus we get minimal pairs like the following: (11) SCV do´orboor ‘to go on drilling’ o´mblaas ‘to blow over’ o´nderga ‘to go down’ o´verkom ‘to come over’ vo´orkom ‘to occur’

prefixed verb doorbo´or ‘to perforate’ ombla´as ‘to blow around’ onderga´ ‘to undergo’ overko´m ‘to happen to’ voorko´m ‘to prevent’

Similar facts can be cited for German (Lu¨deling 2001): the German preverbs can be stranded and they can be separated from the verb by means of zu ‘to’ and by the participial prefix ge-. Like phrasal verbs in English (cf. Brinton 1988), the meaning of the preverb-verb combination (PV-V) in Dutch and German is often not fully predictable, and this implies that at least these combinations are lexical units of some sort. Typically, the preverbs contribute to the aspectual properties of the PV-V, in particular lexical aspect (Aktionsart) such as telicity or duration, and thus they may also influence the syntactic valency of the verb. For instance, the Dutch verb lopen ‘to walk’ is intransitive, whereas the SCV aflopen can be used as a transitive verb, as in the VP de straten aflopen ‘to tramp the streets’. In this respect, preverbs are quite similar to some of the verbal prefixes that similarly influence the aspectual and syntactic properties of a verb, as illustrated below. A second domain in which the unitary character of the PV-V combination manifests itself, is that of word formation: PV-Vs can feed word formation, both compounding and derivation., as illustrated by the following examples from Dutch with SCVs in the left column (from Booij 2002a: 209): (12) deverbal suffixation aanbied ‘to offer’

aanbieder ‘offerer’, aanbieding ‘offer’

Preverbs: an introduction

deverbal prefixation: invoer ‘to introduce’ uitgeef ‘to publish’

7

herinvoer ‘to reintroduce’ heruitgeef ‘to republish’

compounding with verbal left constituent: doorkies ‘to dial through’ doorkiesnummer ‘direct number’ doorkijk ‘to see through’ doorkijkbloes ‘lit. see through blouse, transparent blouse’ PV-V sequences form a challenge for our view of the relation between syntax and morphology. On the one hand, PV and V do not form a syntactic atom, as is clear from their separability in various syntactically defined contexts. Yet, their behaviour is similar to that of complex morphologically derived verbs in the sense that they form lexical units of some sort, expressing aspectual notions and having derivational effects like affecting the valency of the verb. Thus, the transitivizing effect of the particle af in aflopen as discussed above, competes with a bound prefix such as be- which has a similarly transitivizing effect. This is illustrated by the following examples: (13) op straat lopen intransitive (lit. on street walk) ‘walk in the street’ de straten aflopen separable, transitive (lit. the street off-walk) ‘roam the streets’ de straat belopen inseparable, transitive (lit. the street be-walk) ‘walk the streets’ These facts raise some intriguing questions with respect to the question of how to model the relation between syntax and morphology. It seems appropriate to view the semantically transparent cases of preverbverb as syntactically defined cases of secondary predication (we would restrict analyses along such lines, e.g. Neeleman (1994), Den Dikken (1995) to the semantically transparent cases). The facts from the history of English as discussed by van Kemenade and Los (this volume) suggest that the secondary predicate configuration may well be the historical origin of the construction. They also suggest, however, that there are many cases in Dutch and German, and probably even more in English, where the phrasal combination is not (no longer) semantically transparent. In addition to this, the construction is immensely productive in all three languages. The particles in these very productive constructions may have highly specific meanings that do not correlate regularly with the range of meanings of the same word when used in nonpreverbal contexts. Therefore, PV-V combinations call for a definition in syntactic as well as lexical terms. It is this that provides us with the possibility of interpreting PV-V combinations as derivationally related to the verbal part. Since PV-V combinations express various aspectual notions, and have gained in

8

Geert Booij and Ans van Kemenade

frequency at the expense of the older bound aspectual prefixes, we might think of them in terms of a derivational type of periphrasis. Are we justified in extending the notion ‘periphrasis’ to word formation? Let us point out that, at a more general level, there are good arguments for locating certain syntactic patterns in the lexicon, although they are productive. These are the so-called constructional idioms or idiomatic patterns, syntactic constructions formed according to the syntactic rules of the language, but with a specific meaning that cannot be derived compositionally. These are the kinds of configurations that are the focus of interest of Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995). Periphrasis may then be seen as a specific subcategory of construction, since the periphrastic forms compete directly with synthetic morphological forms: they must be used instead of a synthetic form for the expression of specific kinds of information (Booij 2002c). This is clearly the case for inflectional periphrasis. Is it also the case for PV-Vs: do they compete with derivational morphology? Indeed, in languages such as German and Dutch the use of affixes to form derived verbs is very restricted. Dutch has only one productive verbalizing suffix, the suffix -iseer that is exclusively attached to non-native stems. The only more or less productive verbalizing prefixes are be-, ver-, and ont- ‘de-’. These prefixes are on the whole incompatible with the use of a particle. In other words, it appears that preverbs have taken over the function of verbalizing prefixes. A very telling detail in this respect is that preverbs are also employed to derive a verbal stem from a nominal or adjectival root: the PV-V opleuken ‘to embellish’ is a combination of the preverb op and the adjective leuk ‘nice’; the verb leuken does not exist by itself. Another example is the SCV uithuwelijken ‘to marry off’, which is a combination of the preverb uit and the noun huwelijk ‘marriage’, used as a verb. Again, there is no verb huwelijken in Dutch. In the terms of Bybee et al. (1994), the overall development of PV-V combinations in the West-Germanic languages represents a good example of a grammaticalization development. In the older system aspectual bound prefixes loose their aspectual function (this is particularly clearly the case with ge-, which first became a past participle marker, was grammaticalized as such, and retained this status in Dutch and German while it was lost altogether in English). This function is then taken over on a large (and on the face of it, increasing) scale by the aspectual particles, which are bounders in the sense of Bybee et. al. (1994). In a general sense, the development seems to warrant quite clearly the notion of derivational periphrasis introduced above. Let us conclude with some remarks on the types of grammaticalization that we seem to be looking at here. If the above suggestions are correct, they add to the evidence for grammaticalization in the lexical/derivational domain. One scenario here is the regimentation of formerly autonomous preverbs to mark aspect periphrastically, following on the weakening and/or loss of aspectual

Preverbs: an introduction

9

bound prefixes. Both scenarios seem to involve at least one of the core characteristics of ‘grammaticalization processes’: semantic bleaching as evidenced in the case of the West-Germanic SCVs by the rise of metaphorical and idiomatic meanings for the PV-V combination. We would suggest, however, that the details of the historical developments show up a delicate interplay of independent syntactic and morphological (derivational as well as inflectional) developments, which, if given close scrutiny, may add considerably to our insight in the balance between syntax, morphology and the lexicon. The articles on preverbs in this thematic section of the Yearbook of Morphology are revised versions of papers selected from those presented at a workshop on preverbs at the Catholic University of Nijmegen in January 2001, organized by Ans van Kemenade in cooperation with Nigel Vincent and Geert Booij. They demonstrate that the systems of preverbs that are familiar to us in some of the Indo-European languages as sketched here, and the historical developments giving rise to systems of preverbs, are parallelled in languages as diverse as Caucasian languages and Northern Australian languages. This serves to further underline the challenge that preverbs pose to our views of the organization of the grammar, in particular the relation between syntax and morphology. The contributions in this collection rise to this challenge in a variety of ways: by extending our empirical basis; by suggesting various ways of modelling the relationship between morphology and syntax as instantiated by the preverb problem; and by showing how a diachronic perspective will help us to understand their behaviour.

NOTES 1

We would like to thank Nigel Vincent for his helpful comments on an earler version of this paper. 2 We are grateful to Mark Hale for his help with the translation of this example.

REFERENCES Ackerman, Farrell (this volume). Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian: A realization-based morphological perspective. Ackerman, Farrell and Webelhuth, Gerth (1998). A Theory of Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI. Baldi, Philip (1979). Typology and the Indo-European prepositions. Indogermanische Forschungen 84, 49–61. Beekes, Robert (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, an Introduction. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins. Booij, Geert (2002a). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10

Geert Booij and Ans van Kemenade

Booij, Geert (2002b). Separable complex verbs in Dutch, a case of periphrastic word formation. In Dehe´ et al. (eds.), 21–42. Booij, Geert (2002c). Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, 301–329. Brinton, Laurel (1988). The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press. Dehe´, Nicole and Dieter Wanner (eds., 2001), Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs. Berlin etc.: Peter Lang. Dehe´, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre and Silke Urban (eds., 2002). Verb Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Delbru¨ck, Berthold (1983–1900). Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 3 vols. Strassburg: Tru¨bner. Dikken, Marcel den (1995). Particles: on the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions. New York: Oxford University Press. Dufresne, Monique et al. (this volume). Preverbs and particles in Old French. Eytho´rsson, Th. (1995). Verbal Syntax in the Early Germanic Languages. Diss. Cornell University. Ferraresi, G. (1997). Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. Dissertation Stuttgart University. Goldberg, Ade`le (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harris, Alice (this volume). Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi. Hiltunen, R. (1983). The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verb: The Evidence from some Old and Middle English Texts (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B, 160). Turun Yliopisto (University of Turku, Finland), Turku. Hopper, Paul (1975). The Syntax of the Simple Sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague: Monton. Kemenade, Ans van, and Bettelou Los (this volume). Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1964). The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag. Lu¨deling, Anke (2001). On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI. McIntyre, Andrew (2000). German Double Particles as Preverbs. Morphology and Conceptual Semantics. Tuebingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 61] McIntyre, Andrew (2001). Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German: Event modification and secondary predication. In: Dehe´ and Wanner (eds.), 131–164. McIntyre, Andrew (2002). Idiosyncracy in particle verbs. In Dehe´ et al. (eds.), 95–118. McIntyre, Andrew (this volume). Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. Miller, D. Gary (1993). Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins. Neeleman, Ad (1994). Complex Predicates. OTS Dissertation Series, University of Utrecht. Pinault, George (1995). Le proble`me du pre´verbe en indo-europe´en, in Rousseau (e´d.), 35–59.

Preverbs: an introduction

11

Rousseau, Andre´ (e´d., 1995). Les pre´verbes dans les langues d’Europe. Introduction a` l’e´tude de la pre´verbation. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Schultze-Berndt, Eva (this volume). Preverbs as an open word class in northern Australian languages: synchronic and diachronic correlates. Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Vincent, Nigel (1999). The evolution of c-structure: prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics 37, 1111–1154. Watkins, Calvert (1963). Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6, 1–49. Watkins, Calvert (1964). Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Horace Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists The Hague: Mouton, 1035–1042. Zeller, Jochen (2001). Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins. Zeller, Jochen (this volume). Moved preverbs in German: displaced or misplaced?

(Geert Booij) Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected]

(Ans van Kemenade) Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Faculteit der Letteren Erasmusplein 1 6525 HT Nijmegen The Netherlands [email protected]

This page intentionally left blank

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian: a realization-based morphological perspective FARRELL ACKERMAN

Exactly where preverb-compounding takes place is a vexed question. Simpson (1992: 115)

1. INTRODUCTION Many languages have morphological means for distinguishing between atelic/telic aspectual contrasts associated with related transitive predicates.1 For example, it is well-known that the lexicons of Slavic languages contain pervasive patterns of paired predicates. This is exemplified by Russian in (1): (1)

a.

Vcˇera ja kosil travu yesterday I cut.past grass.acc ‘Yesterday I cut/was cutting (the) grass.’

b. Vcˇera ja skosil tselij gektar yesterday I cut.perfective.past whole hectare.acc ‘Yesterday I cut the whole hectare.’ Roughly speaking, the situation denoted in (1a) need not be construed as fully completed, hence the possibility for a progressive reading, nor need the action be interpreted as directed at a specifically delimitable quantity denoted by the obj(ect) argument. In contrast, the situation denoted in (1b) is construed as completed, affecting the entirety of the entity denoted by the obj argument. For the time being, I will assume that (1a) corresponds to an atelic reading and (1b) to a telic one (see section 4 for more detailed discussion). As can be seen, while the predicates in each of these sentences vary, they share the same verbal root: this root is unprefixed in (1a), but prefixed in (1b). Crucially, this variability in predicate marking and semantic interpretation is correlated with invariance of obj marking: the obj arguments in both (1a) and (1b) bear acc case. Thus, the observable meaning differences correspond to alternative forms of related predicates. The obvious formal difference in the morphological shape of semantically related predicates has led traditional descriptive linguists, as well as many constraint-based lexicalists, to assume a lexicality status for these constructions. That is, they are analyzed as composed in the lexical/ morphological component of the grammar, rather than as being products of syntactic word-formation.2 Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 13–31. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

14

Farrell Ackerman

The Finnic language Estonian exhibits a cross-linguistically less common strategy for marking similar atelic/telic contrasts. Instead of systematically creating pairs of morphologically related predicates, as in Slavic, it differentially case marks obj arguments, as in (2): (2)

a.

Ma ehitasin endale suvilat I-nom built-past-1sg myself-all cottage-part ‘I built/was building the cottage for myself.’

b. Ma ehitasin endale suvila I-nom built-past-1sg myself-all cottage-gen ‘I built the cottage for myself.’ (adapted from Erelt et al. 1997: 36) This strategy yields a single verbal root form, in the present instance ehitama ‘to build’, which participates in contrasting case government patterns for obj arguments. As can be seen from the glosses, these alternate marking options correspond to distinct, but familiar, semantic interpretations: the presence of part marking correlates with an atelic reading and the presence of gen marking with a telic one. Lexically governed case and/or grammatical function alternations frequently occur in the languages of world and are straightforwardly associated with the lexical representations for various (classes of) predicates in all lexicalist frameworks.3 This, of course, suggests an easy and principled assimilation of the telic/atelic distinction as distinguished by differential object marking into the class of lexical constructions. In addition, perhaps under Baltic, particularly German, Sprachbund influence within the domain of prefixal complex predicates (see Hassellblatt 1990), Estonian has innovated a system of phrasal predicates with separable preverbs which contrasts with simple verbal stems: such pairs convey the same atelic/telic contrast as that found in (2). This is exemplified in (3): (adapted from Lavotha 1960: 104) (3)

a.

Ku¨tt laskis a¨nest hunter shoot.past.3sg rabbit.part ‘The hunter shot (a/the) rabbit.’

b. Ku¨tt on ja¨nese maha lasknud hunter cop-3sg rabbit.gen pv shoot.perf ‘The hunter has shot down the rabbit.’ c.

Ku¨tt laskis ja¨nese maha hunter shoot.past.3sg rabbit.gen pv ‘The hunter shot down the rabbit.’

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

15

As in the Russian examples in (1) and the Estonian examples in (2), (3a) and (3b) differ with respect to telicity, where, as in (2), the atelic predicate correlates with objPART and the telic predicate with objGEN . In addition, as in Russian, the Estonian predicates in (3) differ formally from one another: the atelic predicate in (3a) is expressed by a simple verb root, while the predicate in (3b) is expressed by the same verbal root accompanied by a preverb. These Estonian predicates, consequently, are consistent with basic assumptions concerning their lexicality, given the formal morphological contrast they share with Russian predicates, the obvious semantic relatedness between the contrasting predicates, and the case-government properties they share with simple Estonian predicates, such as those in (2). Finally, as demonstrated by (3c) the pv is separable from the verbal stem under language particular specifiable syntactic conditions. This suggests that despite their lexicality, such predicates, contrary to their Russian analogues, possess the property of surface phrasality. Research has revealed that there are certain cross-linguistically common properties of complex predicates consisting of verb stems and preverbs or particles.4 First of all (classes of) such predicates can exhibit predictable and systematic or somewhat idiosyncratic lexical semantic and/or syntactic differences, i.e., valence, grammatical function status of arguments, case government, etc., relative to their simple predicate bases. Within the present context this will be interpreted as indicating that phrasal and simple predicates can differ with respect to what I will refer to as lexical or alternatively, lexemic properties. Secondly, such predicates generally become synthetic morphological entities when they undergo category-changing derivation such as nominalization.5 Finally, the pieces of phrasal predicates exhibit their own language particular syntactic distributions depending on the properties of specific syntactic constructions within the languages in which they appear.6 All of the properties converge to suggest that phrasal predicates represent an ‘‘analytic paradox’’ for linguistic theory.7 Their essentially problematic nature is remarked upon by many linguists of previous generations. For example Watkins (1964: 1037) says the following concerning phrasal predicates in Indo-European: ‘‘PV V compositions constitute ‘‘single semantic words’’, comparable to simple lexical items; yet they permit tmesis, or syntactic separation, suggesting that internal parts are independent syntactic entities. This observation permits one to identify two independent problems. The present article explores proposals which address each problem. The first problem can be stated a follows: How can the lexicality of phrasal predicates with respect to their unithood as ‘‘single semantic words’’, their relatedness to simple predicates, and their participation in category preserving and changing derivation, be reconciled with the syntactic independence of their parts.8 The proposal I entertain,

16

Farrell Ackerman

following Aronoff (1994), Stump (2001), Booij (2002), among others, is a realizational and paradigm-based one which claims that Lexeme-derivation operations relate the lexical properties of a (class of) lexeme l to a (class of) lexeme l’ yielding (networks of) derivational paradigms. Thus, the present answer to the question posed by Simpson in the quotation at the beginning of this article is that phrasal predicates are formed in the lexicon. This of course raises the issue as to what view of the lexicon is to be assumed: this will be considered in section 2. The second problem relates to the specific nature of a paradigm-based proposal. It can be formulated as follows: How will such an analysis impact on the simplest interface assumption between words (simple or complex) and their syntactic expression? Much research in lexicalist frameworks appears to be predicated on the following default assumption concerning this interface: A word w is a synthetic member of category X and w is inserted as the head of XP. I address this issue by adopting the Periphrastic Realization Hypothesis for both derivation and inflection (Ackerman and Stump to appear): Periphrastic Realization Hypothesis (General Formulation)9 Rules that deduce the forms occupying a paradigm’s cells from the lexical and morphosyntactic property sets associated with those cells include rules defining periphrastic combinations as well as rules defining synthetic forms. In sum, the present article argues that phrasal predicates in Estonian are periphrastic lexical constructions created by lexeme-formation operations within a Realization-based Lexicalist perspective. Moreover, the general assumptions and mechanisms of realizational models will be shown to straightforwardly extend to account for phrasal predicates when periphrasis (multi-word expression) is permitted to be a possible kind of exponence in lexeme-formation, as has been independently argued to be the case for inflection (see Robins 1959, Sadler and Spencer 2001, Spencer 2001, Spencer to appear, Ackerman and Stump to appear, Harris to appear, Brassil to appear, among others.) Section 2 presents some of the theoretical and conceptual preliminaries which collectively combine to provide the realizational and paradigm-based backdrop for the present proposal. Section 3 demonstrates how these assumptions apply in the analysis of Estonian atelic/telic contrasts with finite transitive verb forms. Section 4 summarizes the results. 2. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARIES As observed in Aronoff (1994) there are two conceptions of the notion ‘lexical’ that are profitably, but infrequently, distinguished in the theoretical literature.

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

17

He proposes that Lexical1 denotes the repository of what is idiosyncratic in language, following the tradition of Bloomfield (1933), DiSciullo and Williams (1987), among others: ‘‘The term lexicon should therefore be understood ... as referring only to the permanent lexicon: the list of all idiosyncratic signs, regardless of their category or complexity.’’ Aronoff (1994: 22) Lexical2 , in contrast, bears more centrally on word and paradigm based variants of morphology and has ‘‘to do with lexemes’’, following the tradition of Sapir (1921), Matthews (1972), among others. Aronoff (1994: 22) says that, ‘‘The endless list of all lexemes, by contrast, will remain nameless.’’ 10 It is reasonable to interpret this view as implicating a notion of the lexicon as the locus of derivational and inflectional operations affecting lexemes and exhibiting gradient degrees of regularity; this accords better with the explanatory assumptions of lexicalist theories than the view expressed by lexical1 . Within realization-based models of morphology as typified by Stump (2001), Spencer and Sadler (2001), Blevins (to appear), operations modifying properties associated with lexemes can be legitimately interpreted as lexical in this second sense, and will be so here. This obtains, following the standard lexicalist line, whether such modification has to do directly with lexical semantics and correlated lexical properties such as valence, the grammatical function status of arguments, case government requirements of complements, etc., and thus with lexeme-derivation, or with morphosyntactic features such as tense, aspect, agreement, etc., and thus with inflection. This yields an interpretation of Lexicalism compatible with Lexical2 which can be referred to as the Realization-based Lexicalist Hypothesis (following Blevins 2001): Realization-based Lexicalist Hypothesis Lexicalism is a hypothesis about the correspondence between contenttheoretic aspects of lexemes (associated with lexical and/or morphosyntactic property sets) and the surface forms that realize them. In line with this, Ackerman and Stump (to appear) propose that lexical representations are pairings of lexemic (l) and morphosyntactic (s) content associated with a root or stem (r) which are realized on the surface by some phonological form (y). This can be represented schematically as: r
y.11 In Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) this separationist view of lexicalism (Beard 1995), sharply distinguishing content from form, was further constrained by the Principle of Lexical Modification (also known as the Principle of Lexical Adicity in Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998))12

18

Farrell Ackerman

Principle of Lexical Modification Only lexical (not syntactic) operations can alter or affect information associated with lexemes. This principle was intended to function as a sufficient condition for determining the lexical status of constructions by hypothesizing a substantive restriction on the modification of contentive information, i.e., if there is evidence of lexical2 effects, then the responsible operation is lexical/morphological, not syntactic, irrespective of whether the surface expression is synthetic or periphrastic. It is generally assumed within morphological theories that the inflectional morphology of a language defines sets of inflectional paradigms. It has been hypothesized, in addition, that the derivational morphology of a language, as typified by lexeme formation operations, defines sets of derivational paradigms (see Booij 2002, among others) and that these, in turn, constitute networks of related lexical representations.13 Following Ackerman (to appear) I will assume that for each derivational category l available to a lexeme L14 with root R, there is a function wderl such that wderl R=R∞ , where R∞ is a cell in the derivational paradigm of L occupied by R∞. Thus, if l=causative and is available to the Estonian lexeme move with a root liigu, then Qcaus <move> liigu=<make move> liiguta, where liigutama is the infinitival form of this verb. Focusing on the domain of Estonian lexeme-derivation I will, additionally, adopt the distinction between two types of lexeme-formation operations for predicates articulated in Ackerman and Moore (2001).16 The first type, Morphosemantic Operations, alters lexical semantics with possible consequences for aspects of lexical property sets such as grammatical function assignment and case-government.17 Causativization as exemplifed by the previously cited Estonian contrast between the non-causative infinitival form liikuma ‘to move, circulate’ versus the causative infinitival form liigutama ‘to move, set in motion’ represents a Morphosemantic Operation.18 In section 3 I will argue that this type of operation relates atelic and telic variants of Estonian predicates. The second type, Morphosyntactic Operations, does not affect lexical semantics, but, like Morphosemantic Operations can alter other aspects of lexical property sets such as grammatical function assignment. Passive, which is generally assumed to simply reassign grammatical functions to a predicate with unaltered lexical semantics, exemplifies this latter class of operations. Now, given the sharp separation between content and form within realization-based proposals, the diagnostics employed to argue for the lexicality of an entity are strictly independent of the synthetic versus periphrastic form by which that element is realized. In particular, I will assume with Ackerman and Stump (to appear) that there are two realization principles for expressions in paradigm cells, where, once again, the pair represents a lexeme and all of its

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

19

morphosyntactic properties, while R represents a root form associated with the pair. Synthetic Realization Principle (=Morphological Expression of Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998): Where the realization w of L,sR is a synthetic member of category X, w may be inserted as the head of XP. Periphrastic Realization Principle: Where the realization of w1 w2 of L,sR is periphrastic and w1 and w2 belong to the respective categories X and Y, w1 and w2 may be inserted as the heads of the respective nodes X(P) and Y(P). The structural relationship between X(P) and Y(P) in the Periphrastic Realization Hypothesis is determined by language-specific empirical evidence concerning constituency. Additionally, the surface distribution of periphrastic lexical constructions is keyed to (classes of) syntactic constructions and, consequently, to the identification of the inventory of syntactic construction types in a language.19 In sum, the preceding assumptions, all motivated for other concerns, make it possible to formally address the analytic paradox concerning the semantic unithood of phrasal predicates, despite the syntactic separability of their pieces.20 The basic idea is that phrasal predicates occupy cells in derivational paradigms and are related to simple predicates as well as other words via derivational paradigm functions involving morphosemantic lexeme-formation operations. Lexical restrictions on the application of specific lexeme-derivation operations to (classes of) predicates, as well as lexical idiosyncrasy associated with certain predicates within even regular derivational paradigms, argue for a lexical/morphological treatment. Participation of phrasal predicates in category preserving and changing derivations, likewise, argues for a lexical/morphological treatment. Realization-based models provide all of the relevant ingredients for the analysis of phrasal predicates in terms of morphology, if, as per The Periphrastic Realization Hypothesis, periphrasis is permitted to be form of morphological exponence.

3. ESTONIAN PHRASAL PREDICATES AND DERIVATIONAL PARADIGMS: ACCOUNTING FOR THE ATELIC/TELIC CONTRAST21 Researchers generally propose that there are two classes of Estonian predicates which participate in atelic/telic telic contrasts. First, Type 1, referred to as Aspectual Predicates in some of the literature (Erelt et al. 1997), contains simple

20

Farrell Ackerman

finite predicates which participate in distinct obj case-government patterns: when the obj appears in the partitive case, the predicate has an atelic interpretation, while when it appears in the genitive case, it has a telic one.22 (4) a.

Ma ehitasin endale suvilat kaks na¨dalat. I-nom build-past-1sg myself-all cottage-part (two-nom week-part) ‘I was building the cottage for myself (for two weeks).’

b. Ma ehitasin endale suvila kahe na¨dalaga. I-nom build-past-1sg myself-all cottage-gen two-gen week-com ‘I built the cottage for myself (in two weeks).’ (adapted from Erelt et al. 1997: 36) The durative adverbial in (4a) is standardly argued to co-occur with atelic predicates, while the time span adverbials, such as that in (4b), co-occur with telic predicates. The operative notion of telicity for present purposes is based on Krifka (1998):

telic predicate: A lexical predicate P is telic iff for every event e and e∞, such that P(a1 , ..., an , e) and P(a1 , ..., an , e∞), and where e∞ is a subevent of e, e and e∞ have the same boundaries (end-points). With respect to this definition, the Estonian phrase for build the cottage, with the genitive suvila in (4b), is associated with a telic interpretation because any subevent that qualifies as build the cottage shares the same end-points. In this instance, the only relevant subevent is the whole event itself. Thus, in most cases, a telic predicate will have a quantized quality; that is, no proper subevent will represent an instance of the predicate. The lexical predicate that selects a genitive object (e.g., suvila) is a telic predicate, thus entailing that one of its arguments will denote an end-point. Given that the end-point of build the cottage corresponds to the entire cottage, the genitive, whole object suvila denotes this end-point. As will be further discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2 an object denoting endpoints in this manner will be associated with a property which Ackerman and Moore refer to as bounding entity. The Estonian phrase for building the cottage with the partitive form suvilat in (4a), on the other hand, receives an atelic interpretation. There is at least one proper subevent of the cottage building event that itself qualifies as a cottage-building event. Figure (1) provides additional exemplars of Type 1 predicates: avastama parandama kujundama keetma

‘discover’ ‘improve’ ‘shape’ ‘cook’

looma saavutama koostama voltima

‘create’ ‘attain’ ‘put together’ ‘fold’

Figure 1. Type 1 Predicates

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

21

Type 2 consists of simple verbal stems paired with phrasal predicates containing the simple verbal stem and some separable preverb. This is exemplified in (5) (5)

a.

Ma loen *raamatu/raamatut. I.nom read.1sg.pres book.part ‘I am reading the book’

b. Ma loen raamatu/*raamatut la¨bi. I.nom read.1sg.pres book.gen/*book.part pv ‘I will read the book’ (Kippasto and Nagy 1995: 224) In Type 2 the simple predicate is atelic and its obj argument is governed for the partitive case, while the related phrasal predicate is telic (sometimes with additional meaning changes) and its obj is governed for the genitive case. Figure (2) contains a list of additional members of Type 2. arvama kasutama seletama va¨sitama

‘think, guess’ ‘use’ ‘explain, expound’ ‘tire’

a¨ra arvama a¨ra kasutama a¨ra seletama a¨ra va¨sitama

‘puzzle out, solve’ ‘take advantage of’ ‘clear up, account for’ ‘wear out’

Figure 2. Type 2 Predicates Looking at Type 1 and Type 2 a basic descriptive generalization becomes apparent. Predicates in both classes exhibit differential object marking: Atelic predicates govern objPART , while telic predicates govern objGEN . Thus, a difference in meaning corresponds to a difference in lexical property sets for related lexical representations with respect to case government. This kind of meaninginduced manipulation of lexical property sets is diagnostic of morphosemantic lexeme-formation operations as provided previously. In what follows I will argue for two related, but independent, points concerning the analysis of aspectual alternations exhibited by members of Type 1 and Type 2. First, the Estonian atelic/telic contrast reflects a morphosemantic lexeme-formation operation which provides distinctive entailments for atelic and telic variants of predicates. Second, the correspondence between atelicity and objPART and telicity and objGEN follows from the Paradigmatic Argument Selection Principle as formulated in Ackerman and Moore (2001). The point of departure for addressing these issues is the Proto-Property proposal of Dowty (1991). On this account the entailments of predicates are interpreted in terms proto-agentive and proto-patientive properties associated with co-occurring arguments. In addition, the relative numbers of proto-agentive and protoagentive properties associated with distinct predicate arguments determine the correspondence between such arguments and their grammatical function and/or

22

Farrell Ackerman

case marking encoding. This can be illustrated as follows for a generic predicate a which selects for two arguments and the grammatical functions subj and obj: if arg1 has the preponderance of proto-agentive properties in contrast to a preponderance of proto-patientive properties associated with arg2 , then arg1 will align with the subj function, while arg2 will align with the obj function:

On this view, predicates are associated with both semantic entailment sets for their arguments and grammatical function inventories. Dowty’s essential insight is that a syntagmatic argument selection principle represents a reliable crosslinguistic hypothesis concerning how co-occurring arguments with specified entailment set inventories of basic, i.e., non-derived, predicates typically align with grammatical function inventories: the most proto-agentive set aligns with subj, while the most proto-patientive set aligns with obj. The approach motivates why the basic predicate meaning ‘build’ in English (and analogous predicates in other languages) exhibits the following alignment of entailments and grammatical functions: most Proto-Agentive: Subject

most Proto-Patientive: Direct Object

build< x,

y >

volitional (proto-ag) sentient (proto-ag) causing change of state (proto-ag) movement relative to obj (proto-ag) exists independently (proto-ag)

undergoes change of state (proto-pat) incremental theme (proto-pat) causally affected (proto-pat) stationary relative to subj (proto-pat) lack of independent existence (proto-pat)

3.1. The Lexeme-derivation of telic predicates On the assumption that the arguments of predicates are associated with entailment sets, as in Dowty (1991) described above, two predicates can be related in terms of additions and deletions of various proto-property entailments. Ackerman and Moore (2001) argue for the postulation of a new protopatientive argument which they call bounding entity. For Estonian they propose that this property is associated with the obj argument of the base atelic predicate yielding a derived telic predicate with an obj which possesses more proto-patientive properties than the obj of the related base predicate. The

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

23

essential elements of this proposal can be schematized as follows, where a telicizing operation applies to an atelic predicate and results in a telic predicate with bounding entity among the proto-properties associated with the obj argument of the related derived predicate.

This schema can be instantiated in the following way for the predicate ehitama ‘build’:

As previously mentioned, the notion bounding entity as motivated in Ackerman and Moore (2001) is a proto-patientive property which refers to an endpoint. Applied to (4b), the end-point of build the cottage corresponds to the entire cottage where, the objGEN suvila ‘cottage’ denotes this end-point, and is, therefore a bounding entity. As is standard in realizational accounts, the root y in the lexeme-formation operations can be identical to x, and this assumption will be shown to be important below. Clearly, such an account presumes a notion of Lexical Relatedness and this can be characterized as follows within the realization-based assumptions adopted here: A lexeme l∞ is related to a lexeme l iff l∞ is an l derivative of l. Thus, the atelic and telic variants of Estonian predicates are interpretable as related, since the telic variant is a derivative of the atelic variant via the application of the lexeme-formation operation which alters semantic properties of the predicate. This is a morphosemantic operation, according to the taxonomy of lexical operations assumed here, because it has the effect of manipulating and modifying lexical semantic properties of the relevant predicate. So far, I have focused on how the lexeme-formation operation alters the contentive information associated with predicates: specifically, on the difference in entailed properties and their reflection in case government requirements for obj arguments. If one shifts attention to the formal realization or exponence of such contentive information it becomes clear that telic realizations can be either phrasal pv-v compounds (Type 2) or simple predicates (Type 1). This independence of content and form is a foundational assumption of realizational proposals and, hence, is predicted to occur within such proposals: that the same content

24

Farrell Ackerman

can be expressed in numerous ways is a fundamental assumption of realizational approaches. Instructively, the realization rule for Type 1 predicates is of the sort which Stump (2001) calls the Identity Function Default (ifd): it is the realization rule that defaults to the root of the base lexeme without modification, and Stump has shown that it applies quite broadly within morphology. Indeed, the application of this default in Type 1 explains why identical surface forms can be associated with different entailments sets and case-government demands. For Type 1 predicates there is, thus, a semantic change effectuated by a lexemeformation operation which is not matched with a formal change in the exponence of the predicate. Indeed, given both the present adoption of realizational assumptions and the hypothesis that the Identity Function Default is a general realizational option within such realizational proposals, it would be suspicious if the ifd did not obtain in derivation, as it does in inflection. As a consequence, the data from Type 1 can be viewed as following straightforwardly from independently motivated and required realizational assumptions.

3.2. Explaining the correlations between meaning and the case encoding of obj s It was previously stated as a descriptive generalization that telicity correlates with gen and atelicity with part. While these correlations are stipulated in the telic lexeme-formation operation presented above, they do not appear to follow from any particular principle of lexeme-formation operations. Correlations between lexical semantics and grammatical encodings can be stipulated in other ways as well; for example, in terms of highly articulated tree structures as in Ramchand (1997) for Scots Gaelic or as in Nelson (1998) for Finnish. While such stipulations in either the present lexeme-formation account or the two cited syntactic accounts ensure descriptive accuracy, their obvious drawback is that nothing really prevents one from having stated the correlations inversely so that telicity correlates with part case-marking and atelicity with gen casemarking. In recognition of this problem, Ackerman and Moore (2001, following the sorts of functionalist results concerning patterns of argument encoding and the lexical semantics of predicates as found in Tsunoda (1981), Hopper and Thompson (1981), among others, argue that the observed correlations can, in fact, be (at least probabilistically) predicted. In particular, we posit the existence of a Paradigmatic Argument Selection Principle which regulates the correspondence between the semantics of predicate arguments and their surface encodings, when there is a semantic contrast and an alternation in (grammatical function or case) encoding. On such an account the alignments between lexical semantics of related predicates and the specific differential object marking of their arguments can be shown to follow, rather than being simply stipulated. I now turn to how this works.

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

25

Ackerman and Moore (2001: 95) state the Paradigmatic Argument Selection Principle as follows: Paradigmatic Argument Selection Principle: Let p (..., argi , ...) and P∞ (..., arg∞i , ... ) be lexically related predicates, where argi and arg∞i are corresponding arguments. If argi and arg∞i exhibit different grammatical encodings and argi is more prototypical with respect to a particular proto-role than arg∞i , then the encoding of argi encoding will be less oblique than the encoding of arg∞i . This principle constrains the grammatical encoding for the ‘‘corresponding arguments’’ of related predicates in accordance with their relative degree of prototypicality for entailed property sets. In order to see how this principle operates it is crucial to provide a definition of obliqueness: Obliqueness An element b is more oblique than another element a iff b appears to the right of a on either the grammatical function or case hierarchy.23 Obliqueness can be calculated in terms of the standard grammatical function hierarchy, as well as the less standard, but nonetheless justifiable, case hierarchy in:

gf hierarchy:

subj>do>io>obl

Case hierarchy:24 nom>acc>gen>part>dat>loc>abl/inst>other The potential effects of this principle become clear by examining a schematic diagram for the three lexically related transitive predicates Preda , Predb , and Predc below:

26

Farrell Ackerman

As can be seen, if we identify arg2 as the corresponding argument of the three related predicates preda, predb, predc, it is possible to compare the relative number of proto-properties of the ‘same’ argument across related predicates in derivational paradigms. While each difference in an entailed proto-patient property necessitates the postulation of a distinct predicate, the Paradigmatic Selection Principle insures that the actual encoding of corresponding arguments will follow from either the grammatical function hierarchy or the case-hierarchy. We have already seen that atelic and telic predicates are interpretable as lexically related and are, consequently, candidates for the application of Paradigmatic Argument Selection. In fact, Paradigmatic Argument Selection applies straightforwardly to motivate the attested alignment of differential case marking with arguments possessing constrasting proto-patientive property sets. This can be represented diagrammatically, where, given the case hierarchy, predTELIC is predicted to govern the gen case for its obj argument by virtue of possessing more proto-patientive properties than its related predATELIC variant:

Thus, the Paradigmatic Argument Selection Principle can been construed as functioning as a well-formedness condition on the lexical encodings of related predicates which exhibit semantically induced encoding contrasts, as in the Estonian atelic/telic contrast. Lexical representations are constrained to exhibit alignments/correspondences between semantic arguments and their grammatical encodings, e.g., atelicity/partitive and telicity/genitive, in accordance with the Paradigmatic Selection Principle, and thus these correspondences need not be stipulated on the present account. Of course, these correspondences are expected to obtain independent of whether a particular predicate is of Type 1 or Type 2, since these types differ simply with respect to surface exponence, not with respect to the semantic nature of their contrast. Moreover, the hypothesis that predicates participate in derivational paradigms can be seen as facilitating the kind of comparisons required by paradigmatic selection. This follows since the proto-property information that needs to be compared between predicates is associated with the lexical representations of those predicates related via derivational paradigms.

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

27

4. CONCLUSIONS In this article I have argued that Estonian phrasal predicates are lexical constructions created by lexeme-formation operations, but that they participate in derivational paradigms. As is typical within realization-based accounts, the content of these constructions is demonstrably separate from its form. The consequent expectation is that similar content can be expressed by distinct forms and, moreover, that some of those forms may even be phrasal. The phrasality of form is sanctioned by the Periphrastic Realization Hypothesis. In Estonian, the postulation of derivational paradigms provides a straighforward characterization of the notion ‘related predicate’. This, in turn, facilitates the operation of Paradigmatic Argument Selection, providing a principled correspondence between the entailments of predicate arguments and their grammatical encodings in lexical representations. In general, the proposed analysis of Estonian atelic/telic predicates demonstrates that central assumptions of realization-based morphological theories dovetail explanatorily in the domain of lexeme-derivation with Dowty’s independent line of research concerning lexical semantics and grammatical encoding. NOTES 1

I focus here solely on transitive finite predicates, though intransitives in many languages exhibit such pairing as well. See section 4. for a definition of telicity following Krifka (1998, 1992); see also Smith (1997), Filip (1999), among others. 2 See Rappaport-Hovav (2002) for a critique of syntactic analyses of aspectuality and Julien (2002) for a representative approach to syntactic word-formation. 3 ´ preszja´n and Pa´l One need only look at a typical valence dictionary such as that by A (1982) for Hungarian and Russian to see how pervasive and characterized by smaller and larger subsets of systematicity such patterns of case government really are. 4 See Dahlstrom (1996) on Fox, Rice (2000) on Athapaskan languages, Simpson (1992) on Walpiri, Stiebels and Wunderlich (1994) on German, among others. Simpson (1992: 115) identifies a typical profile for Walpiri: Preverbs vary in compositionality. Some are clearly non-compositional (and thus should be formed in the morphology), but many are highly productive and form quite transparent compounds (and thus are candidates for syntactic word formation). Phonologically, preverbs compounded with verbs act like parts of words and not full words, since they do not have to obey the morphological structure constraint that all words in Walpiri must end in a vowel. In terms of word-formation, preverbs compounded with verbs can have nominalizing suffixes attached, and then derivational suffixes ... some preverbs, notably the preverb jangkardu ‘against’ add Dative arguments to verbs. (Simpson 1992: 115) 5 See Ackerman (1987) and Ackerman and LeSourd (1997), however, for instances where separability is maintained with some deverbal adjectives when such derivates are used predicatively.

28 6

Farrell Ackerman

There have been numerous recent attempts to argue that the syntactic behaviors of phrasal predicates in several languages are explicable in terms of syntactic movement operations and thereby participate in a shared structure-based explanation. See Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) (and references cited there) for the analysis of Dutch and Hungarian. Despite the prevalence of such syntactocentric accounts (see Jackendoff 1997) there is much reason to believe that this increasingly abstract direction of analysis is essentially misguided (Culicover 1999, Jackendoff 2002, among others). 7 This is the term used in Nash (1982), a neglected and insightful investigation into preverbs. 8 A recent effort to address this paradox has been offered within an optimality theoretic perspective by Ackema and Neeleman (2001). They note some similarities in spirit between their proposal and that in Ackerman and LeSourd (1997). The present proposal shares some of the central intuitions guiding these proposals. 9 See below for a more specific formulation of this hypothesis. 10 Following Aronoff (1994:10), lexeme will be restricted to (grammatical) words and thus, excludes vp idioms. 11 The arrow
signals the result of applying realizational rules within the class of morphological theories assumed here. See Ackerman and Stump (to appear) for discussion. 12 This is, in effect, amounts to a Generalized Direct Syntactic Encoding Principle following the lead of lfg’s Direct Syntactic Encoding Principle which specifically addresses grammatical function alternations. 13 This adapts ideas from Ackerman and Stump (to appear), and builds on ideas from Robins (1959), Matthews (1972), Aronoff (1976, 1994), Zwicky (1989), Anderson (1992), Stump (2001), Sadler and Spencer (2001), Spencer (2001), among others. 14 More specifically, l itself represents lexemic information consisting of the triplet [lexical meaning (m), lexical category, lexical property set], where the lexical property set is taken to include valence, grammatical functions, case, government, etc. 15 Of course, one can assume here a null set of morphosyntactic properties appropriate to this lexeme, making these representations identical to the pairings for inflection above. 16 See references in Ackerman and Moore (2001) for similar distinctions posited by other researchers. 17 This corresponds to operations on lexical conceptual structures in Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (1998). See Booij (2002) and Baayen and Lieber (1993) for verbal prefixation as modifications of lexical conceptual structures. 18 Throughout this article I ignore as irrelevant to present issues the sort of stem gradation phenomena typified by the contrast between non-causative liiku and causative liigu. 19 Recurrent syntactic construction types, i.e., overarching cross-linguistic generalizations, can be modeled within the grammatical archetype architecture of Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998, Malouf 2000, Ginzburg and Sag 2001. 20 Of course, I am not claiming that these assumptions provide the only means to address this paradox, but simply one that is consistent with realizational models of morphology as they have been independently developed for inflectional phenomena. In fact, there are several analogues to the assumptions made here in other traditions. For example, in some ways the claim that morphosemantic lexical operations create ‘semantic words’ resembles certain claims concerning abstract incorporation in lf which permits syntactically separated heads to form a kind of semantic complex, as in Zeller (2001). I forego detailed comparison between alternatives in this article.

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

29

21

This analysis represents an realizational morphology interpretation of the proposals made in Ackerman and Moore (2001). 22 This discussion follows the more detailed presentation in Ackerman and Moore (2001: Chapter 5). 23 Given this definition of obliqueness it is possible that two elements exhibit opposite obliqueness properties in terms of case and grammatical relations. We leave these cases aside in this discussion. 24 This hierarchy is adapted from Blake (1994: 157). See Ackerman and Moore (2001) for motivation of relative positions on this hierarchy.

REFERENCES Ackema, P. and A. Neeleman (2001). Competition between morphology and syntax. In G. Legendre et al. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 29–60. Ackerman, F. (1987). Miscreant morphemes: Phrasal predicates in Ugric. U.C. Berkeley PhD Thesis. Ackerman, F. (to appear). Morphosemantic mismatches and Realization Based Lexicalism. In E. Francis and L. Michaelis (eds.), Linguistic Mismatch: Scope and Theory. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (2001). Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Ackerman, F. and G. Stump (to appear). Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in Realization-based Lexicalism. Projecting Morphology, eds. A. Spencer and L. Sadler. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Ackerman, F. and G. Webelhuth (1998). A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Ackerman, F. and P. LeSourd. (1997). Toward a lexical representation of phrasal predicates. In J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 67–106. Anderson. S. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ´ preszja´n, J.D. and E. Pa´l (1982). Orosz-ige-Magyar-ige. Budapest: Tanko¨nykiado´. A Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baayen, H. and R. Lieber (1993). Verbal prefixes in Dutch. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 51–79. Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational paradigms. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds). Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 243–256. Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany: SUNY Press. Bierwisch, M. (1990). Verb cluster formation as a morphological process. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1990. Dordrecht: Foris, 173–199. Blake, B. (1994). Case. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press Blevins, J. (2001). Realisation-based lexicalism. Journal of Linguistics 37, 317–327. Blevins, J. (to appear). Word and Paradigm Morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston. Booij, G. (1997). Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–53. Booij, G. (2002). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30

Farrell Ackerman

Brassil, D. (to appear). Periphrasis, standard lexicalism, and realizational lexicalism. Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in Realization-based Lexicalism. In A. Spencer and L. Sadler (eds.), Projecting Morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dahlstrom, A. (1996). Morphology and Syntax of the Fox (Mesquakie) language. Ms. University of Chicago. DiSciullo, A-M. and E. Williams (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619. Erelt, M., T. Erelt, and K. Ross (1997). Eesti Keele Ka¨siraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Filip, H. (1999). Aspect, Eventuality Types, and Noun Phrase Semantics. New York: Garland Publishing. Ginzburg, J. and I. Sag (2000). Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Harris, A. (to appear). Unexpected periphrasis in Udi and Georgian. In F. Ackerman, J. Blevins, and G. Stump (eds.), Periphrasis and Paradigms. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Hassellblatt, C. (1990). Das Estnische Partikelverb als Lehnu¨bersetzung aus dem Deutschen. Wiesbaden: Vero¨ffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica. Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1981). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–299. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ´ szt Nyelvko¨nyv. Budapest: Bibor Kiado´. Kippasto, A. and J. Nagy (1995). E Koopman, H. and A. Szabolcsi (2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 197–235. Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical Matters. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 29–53. ´ szt Nyelvko¨nyv. Budapest: Tanko¨nyvkiado´. ¨ . (1960). E Lavotha, O Malouf, R. (2000). Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Matthews, P.H. (1972). Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Matthews. P. H. (1991). Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nash, D. (1982). Verb roots and preverbs in Walpiri. Working Papers of SIL-AAB Series A, 6. Nelson, D. (1998). Grammatical Case Assignment in Finnish. New York: Garland Publishing. ´ szt Nyelvko¨nyv. Budapest: Tanko¨nyvkiado´. ¨ do¨n, L. (1960). E O Ramchand, G. (1997). Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rappaport Hovav, M. (2002). Review of C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: the Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Journal of Linguistics 38, 697–703. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (1998) Morphology and lexical semantics. In A. Zwicky and A. Spencer (eds.), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 248–271. Rice, K. (2000). Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Robins, R.H. (1959). In defence of wp. Transactions of the Philological Society 116–144.

Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian

31

Sadler, L and A. Spencer (2001). Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71–97. Simpson, J. (1992). Walpiri Morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Spencer, A. (2001). The Word-and-Paradigm approach to morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 279–313. Spencer, A. (to appear). Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. Ms. University of Essex. Sapir, E. (1911). The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13, 250–282. Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harvest Books. Smith, C. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer [2nd edition]. Stiebels, B. and D. Wunderlich (1994). Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32, 913–668. Stump, G.T. (1993). On rules of referral. Language 69, 449–479. Stump, G.T. (2001). Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stump, G.T. (2002). Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 147–180. Tsunoda, E. (1981). Split case-marking patterns in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19, 389–438. Watkins, C. (1964). Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In H. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton, 1035–1042. Zeller, J. (2001). Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Zwicky, A.M. (1985). How to describe inflection. In M. Niepokuj, M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou and D. Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–386. Zwicky, A.M. (1989). Quicker, quickly, *quicklier. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1989. Dordrecht: Foris, 139–173.

Dept. of Linguistics University of California at San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected]

This page intentionally left blank

Preverbs and particles in Old French* MONIQUE DUFRESNE, FERNANDE DUPUIS and MIREILLE TREMBLAY

1. INTRODUCTION Preverbs are intriguing grammatical objects. Semantically, they form a lexical unit with the verb they modify, sometimes behaving like an affix and sometimes more like an independent word. In all cases, however, preverbs appear to form a complex predicate with the verb they modify. While the formation of such complex predicates in Germanic languages has always received a lot of attention, very few studies have been devoted to the description of complex predicates in Romance languages. This is partly due to the fact that most modern Romance languages appear to lack verb-particle constructions, using derivation (prefixation) as a means of modifying the semantic and morphosyntactic properties of the stem verb. Consequently, with the notable exceptions of Roeper and Keyser (1992) and of Di Sciullo (1996, 1999), very few researchers have tried to provide a unified analysis of particles and prefixes within a broader theory of complex predicates. The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we establish the existence of a productive system where a prepositional element (a particle or a prefix) forms a complex predicate with the verb in Old French. Old French was characterised by two competing aspectual systems based on prepositions: prefixes, which could be either aspectual or locative, and particles, which were mainly locative but could take an aspectual reading. These two systems are illustrated in (1) and (2), respectively. (1)

quant li rois entent ceste parole, si s’apensa meintenant when the king hears this talk, (pro 3ps) A+think now que ce iert Lancelos that it was Lancelot ‘when the king heard these words, he realised that it was Lancelot’ Artu: 16

(2)

Et cil vont arriere a la nef And these go back to the ship. Partonopeu, 5901, cited in Buridant (2000, § 441)

In (1), the prefix a- adds an inchoative reading to the verb. Thus the verb apenser can be paraphrased by ‘to begin to think’. In (2), the locative particle arriere forms a semantic unit with the verb aller, with the meaning ‘to return, to come back’. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 33–60. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

34

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

The two systems are of Indo-European origin. Not only are they found in other Indo-European subfamilies such as Germanic or Hellenic, they are also found, according to Vincent (1999), in earlier stages of Romance. The examples in (3) and (4) illustrate the use of prefixes and particles in Latin. (3)

(4)

a.

exercitum Ligerim traducit. he leads his army across the Loire. B.G. 7, 11, 9, cited in Hale and Buck (1988: 203)

b.

ne quam multitudinem hominum amplius trans Rthenum traducere. that he should lead no more crowds of men across the Rhine B.G. 1, 35, 5, cited in Hale and Buck (1988: 204)

si calvitur pedemve struit, manum endo iacito if he plays tricks or runs off, lay hand on (him) the Twelves Tables, cited in Vincent (1999: 1119)

The existence of particles and preverbs in both stages of the language (Latin and Old French) provides further support to the claim that preverbs are an Indo-European phenomenon, and are not simply found in Old French as a result of language contact with the Germanic language family during the Frank invasions. The second goal of this paper is to contrast the morphosyntactic characteristics of Old French prefixes and particles. In recent work, Buridant (1995, 2000) provides a detailed description of such constructions in Old French, which he classifies into two distinct categories. He distinguishes preverbs, which can be separable or non-separable, from particles. In this paper, we study these two systems, from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. We will focus on the morphosyntactic status of preverbs and particles, their distribution, and the relationship they entertain with the verb. In doing this, we will provide further arguments in favour of the distinction established by Buridant. More precisely, we show that Romance prefixes and particles show surprising similarities, yet that they have a very different grammatical status: prefixes are morphological objects, in the sense that they seem to form a word with the verb, while particles are syntactic objects because the particle and the verb are independent words. Our study is based on the Base de franc¸ais me´die´val (BFM) constituted by Christiane Marchello-Nizia of the E´cole Normale Supe´rieure de Lyon. This computerised database contains texts in verse and prose from the earliest stages of the language (the Strasbourg Oaths in 842) to the 16th century. In this paper, we only used data from the 12th century to the 15th century. The discussion is organised as follows. Section 2 presents an overview of the morphosyntax of Old French, introducing the morphological case system and the verb second phenomenon. Section 3 focuses on preverbs, particularly the

Preverbs and particles in Old French

35

distinctive properties of separable and non-separable prefixes. Section 4 contrasts the properties of Old French particles with those of prefixes, both separable and non-separable. Some arguments in favour of a unified analysis of prefixes and particles will be outlined in section 5. Finally, the conclusion discusses the consequences of this analysis for the concept of preverb as a theoretical construct. 2. OLD FRENCH AS A V-SECOND LANGUAGE In this paper, we rely strongly on verb movement within the clause to distinguish the morphosyntactic status of preverbs and particles. It is a well-known fact that Old French was a verb second language:1 in main clauses, the verb is raised to the second position, while it remains in its base position in subordinate clauses. This is illustrated in (5): the main verb pensa is raised to a position beyond the nominative subject li rois Artus, while the embedded verb (the auxiliary avoit and the past participle dit) remains in its base position and is thus preceded by its nominative subject Agravains.2 (5)

Cele nuit pensa li rois Artus assez a ce que Agravains That night thought the king Arthur enough to that which Agravains li avoit dit him-DAT had said ‘That night, King Arthur thought about what Agravains had told him’ Artu: 5

Within the Principle and Parameter framework (Chomsky 1981, 1986, 1995), the verb second phenomenon is accounted for by two movements:3 first, some constituent (XP) is moved to the specifier position of some functional category in the left periphery of the clause (such as CP or TopicP), then the verb is moved to the head position of the functional category, to the right of the XP constituent. Movement of the verb accounts for the order Verb-Subject we find in (5), assuming that the subject remains in its base position in the main clause as shown in (6). (6) [TopicP XPi Vj] [IP Subject tj ti] When the main clause also contains an auxiliary, only the auxiliary is moved and the past participle remains in its base position between the subject and the object. In (7), for example, the auxiliary avons occupies the second position, between the adverb la in first position and the subject nous. The past participle atendues remains in its base position and thus appears after the subject. (7)

La vous avons nous atendues / et porwardees par les rues There you have-1PP we waited-FP / and searched-FP in the streets ‘We waited for you there and looked for you in the streets.’ Feuille´e, 855–56, cited in Buridant (1995)

36

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

It is worth noting that the pronoun vous is not taken into consideration when establishing the V2 order since, as a clitic, it is part of the verb and is moved along with the verb. We will come back to this property of clitics in the next section. 3. PREVERBATION IN MEDIEVAL FRENCH Aspectual prefixes were very productive in Old French: prepositional prefixes, such as a-, de-, en-, sur-, por-, par-, were frequently used to modify the aspectual class of the predicate, as illustrated in (8). (8)

A: De: En: Sur: Pour:

porter parler amer saillir aller

‘to carry’ ‘to talk’ ‘to love’ ‘to jut out’ ‘to move, to leave’

a-porter de-parler en-amer sor-saillir por-aler

Par:

geter

‘to throw’

par-jeter

‘to bring’ ‘to speak ill of’ ‘to fall in love’ ‘to jump’ ‘to go all over, to look after someone’ ‘to throw away’

Old French preverbs possess a number of very interesting properties, both synchronically and diachronically. First, preverbs were characterised not only by their productivity, but also by their wide semantic range. For example, the prefix a- changes a durative activity such as river ‘to sail along the shore’, into an accomplishment ariver ‘to reach the shore’. The prefixation of a- in ariver adds an endpoint to the predicate, which then becomes a bounded event. As a result, the prefixed verb, unlike the bare verb, takes a new directional object, a port in example (9). (9)

Qui en mer entre ultreement se paine d’ariver a Who in sea enters afterwards REFL works to arrive at port, U ilh vuet port, where he wants ‘He who goes to sea struggles afterwards to get to the port where he wants to go’ Eles 517, cited in Tobler: 532

Moreover, the prefix a- can also change a durative activity such as parler ‘to talk’ into an inchoative: the verb aparler in (10) means ‘to address someone’ and thus the focus is on the onset of the event. (10)

II. homes de blans dras vestus Qui unt Anna si aparle´e two men of white clothes dressed who have Anna thus addressed ‘two men dressed in white that have addressed Anna’ Wace, Marie 28, cited in Tobler: 427

Preverbs and particles in Old French

37

Finally, when the prefix a- is added to a continuous durative such as emplir ‘to fill’, the verb acquires an intensive reading and means to ‘to fill up, to fulfil’, as in (11). (11)

Ademplir voeill vostre cumandement. To fill up want (pro) your command ‘I want to carry out your orders’ Roland, XXII, 30

The examples in (12) through (16) show that other prefixes can also have a wide semantic range. For example, the prefix par-4 can be either used as an intensive (12), or transform an activity into an accomplishment (13). (12)

amer destraindre

‘to love’ paramer ‘to love with passion’ ‘to hold (tight)’ pardestraindre ‘to hold tight’ Dictionnaire de l’ancien franc¸ais, Larousse: 439–440

(13)

atendre dire

‘to wait’ paratendre ‘to wait until the end’ ‘to say’ pardire ‘to finish saying’ Dictionnaire de l’ancien franc¸ais, Larousse: 439–440

As for the prefix con-, it can have either an intensive reading (14), or be used to modify the argument structure of a predicate5 (16) (14)

brisier ‘to break’

combrisier

geter

congeter

‘to make someone go/ ‘to throw away’ tencier ‘to quarrel/to blame’

‘to break completely/ to destroy’ ‘to banish’

contencier ‘to fight/to make war’ Examples from Hamacher (2002: 74)

(15)

E sor il pissa li goupiz. And on him urinated the fox. ‘And the fox urinated on him.’ Fables de Marie de France, XIV, 16, cited in Hamacher (2002: 101)

(16)

Et conpissa toz mes loviaus and urinated all my wolf-cubs. ‘And he urinated on all my wolf cubs.’ Le roman de Renart, Branche I, v. 37, cited in Hamacher (2002: 101)

3.1. The loss of productivity of aspectual prefixes Diachronically, a change took place in the system. In earlier work (Dufresne, Dupuis and Longtin (2001), Dufresne and Dupuis (2001)), we showed that

38

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

aspectual prefixation decreased over the centuries and is no longer productive in Modern French. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the decrease in the creation of new verbs formed with the prefixes a- and sur- between the 13th and the 20th centuries.

Table 1: Decrease in the productivity of the prefix a- (DDL 2001, DDT 2000)

Table 2: Decrease in the productivity of the prefix sur- (DD 2001)

Interestingly, not all aspectual prefixes disappeared at the same time. While our preliminary study of the prefix a- showed a sharp decrease in productivity during the 16th century, a recent analysis of the prefix con- (Hamacher 2002) dates the loss of productivity of the prefix during the 13th century. It is worth noting that, while most of this morphological process is no longer available in the language, the prefixes themselves did not completely disappear, due to the lexicalisation of some prefixed verbs. In Modern French, detection of this morphological process is only possible when both members of a pair of verbs are still in existence. Thus the verb arriver is no longer perceived as a morphologically complex verb, because river no longer exists, and neither are the verbs investir ‘to invest’, de´valer ‘to tear down’ or avaler ‘to swallow’. On the other hand, the verbs endormir, apporter, parfaire and de´battre are still perceived as derived forms, since they can be contrasted with the bare form. ≠ ar+river ‘to arrive’ ≠ in+vestir ‘to invest’ ≠ de´+valer, a+valer ‘to tear down, to swallow’

(17)

a. b. c.

arriver investir de´valer/avaler

(18)

a. b. c. d.

dormir/en+dormir porter/ap+porter faire/par+faire battre/de´ +battre

‘to sleep / to put someone to sleep’ ‘to carry / to bring’ ‘to do / to perfect’ ‘to beat / to debate or struggle’

To summarize, while prefixes in Old French were frequently used to affect the aktionsart of the verb, in Modern French they are no longer used productively.

Preverbs and particles in Old French

39

3.2. Non-separable prefixes Buridant (2000) points out that Old French prefixes belong to one of two classes: non-separable prefixes such as a-, con-, de-, en-, entre-, and separable prefixes such as par-, re-, and possibly tres-. In the next two sections, we provide further arguments in favour of this distinction, despite the fact that both types of prefixes share similar properties. In Old French, non-separable prefixes behave like regular prefixes: they always appear attached to the verb and form a syntactic unit with the verb. Numerous arguments show that prefixed verbs in OF are formed in morphology, and are thus syntactic atoms. The first argument uses verb movement: non-separable prefixes remain attached to the verb when the verb undergoes movement to fulfil the verb second requirement as in (19). (19)

Molt aloient tost li ceval, / Much went immediately the horses-NOM / si s’entrefierent li vasal / ... thus SE-entre-fought the vassals-NOM / ... ‘The horses rushed forward immediately / thus the vassals fought each other ...’ Le bel inconnu: 81

Moreover, in Old French, infinitive verbs, unlike finite verbs, could also be moved to occupy the first position, in which case it is the whole verb (prefix+stem) which is moved, as illustrated in (20). (20)

Ademplir voeill vostre cumandement. To-fulfil want-I your order ‘I want to carry out your orders.’

Roland (XXII, 30)

The second argument is morphological: prefixed verbs can be nominalised, for example departir in (21). Given that derivation processes only apply to morphological objects, such examples indicate that the prefixed form can be the input of a word formation process. (21)

Au departir li redemande, / La belle Yseut, anuit At-the departure to-him RE-ask / The beautiful Yseut day viande food ‘Before leaving / Beautiful Yseut asks him food for the day’ Be´roul: 121

40

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

The last argument is lexical. As shown in Di Sciullo (1996, 1999), prefixation can affect the argument structure of the predicate. For example, Dufresne, Dupuis and Longtin (2001) have shown that in Old French the prefix a- could not only change an imperfective verb into a perfective verb, but could also modify the argument structure of the verb. A comparison of the argument structure of porter and apporter in five texts in prose from the 13th century shows that only 38% of the 231 occurrences of the verb porter appear with a locative or a dative argument, whereas this percentage increases to 81% for the 151 occurrences of the prefixed form. In short, the presence of a dative argument, optional with porter, becomes compulsory with aporter. This contrast is shown in (22) and (23). (22)

(23)

... il porta un escu vermeill et couvertures autretelles ... he wore a shield red and blankets matching ‘... he was holding a red shield and matching blankets’

Artu: 27

Lors demande ses armes, et len then (pro 3ps) asks his arms, and someone (object pro 3pp) li aporte maintenant to-him brings immediately ‘He then ask for his arms and someone brings them to him immediately’ QGraal: 94

Such prefixes appear to have been lexicalised with the verb, as the meaning of prefixed verbs is not always compositional. For example, the verb abaisser in (24) had two meanings, a compositional reading ‘to lower’ or ‘to pull down’, and a non-compositional reading ‘to pacify, to turn off’. Given that semantic drift is characteristic of morphological objects which have been lexicalised, the fact that prefixed verbs can undergo semantic change shows that they are lexical units. (24)

Maintien les bonnes coustumes de son royaume, et maintains (pro, 3ps) the good customs of his kingdom, and les mauvaises abaisse the bad eliminates ‘He keeps the good customs of his kingdom and eliminates the bad ones.’ Joinville, cited in Dictionnaire Larousse d’ancien franc¸ais: 2

To conclude, the aspectual morphemes a-, de-, en-, entre- and con- behave like real prefixes in Old French. The prefixed verbs are formed in morphology, where they can undergo subsequent morphological processes such as change of category, or affect the argument structure of the predicate. Prefixed verbs can also become lexicalised and, as lexical items, can be subject to semantic drift. Finally, the prefix of such verbs cannot be separated from the stem by verb movement.

Preverbs and particles in Old French

41

3.3. Separable prefixes At first, the separable prefixes par- and re- appear to behave like other prefixes.6 Semantically, they also affect the aspectual value of the predicate. For example, a verb prefixed with par- can acquire an intensive interpretation, as in paraimer meaning ‘to love with passion’, or it can result in the durative aspect of a verb becoming terminative, as in pardire ‘to finish saying’ and in parattendre ‘to wait until the end’. As for the prefix re-, it can indicate repetition, going back to a previous position, iterativity (i.e. the existence of a similar process), or intensive aspect.7 The prefixes par- and re- also appear to behave like other prefixes with respect to verb movement: they directly precede the verb as in (25) and move with the verb to satisfy the verb second requirement (26). When prefixed to an infinitive form as in (27), they can move with it to occupy the first position. Finally, they can also be part of a nominalised infinitive verb, as in (28). (25)

a.

et la fains tant le partormente and the hunger much him PAR-torment ‘and hunger torments him so much’ Renart II, 3374, cited in Buridant (1995)

b. Et li doi cierge s’en revont / Ariere el palais dont And the two candles return / back to-the palace from-which il sont they are ‘And the two candles return to the palace they come from’ Partonopeu, 1097–98, cited in Buridant (2000, § 441) (26)

(27)

a.

le mers reportoit le nef ariere the sea pushed the ship back

Clari: 73

b.

et s’en revient messire Gauvains a Kamaalot, ... and CL-CL return Messire Gauvains_NOM to Camelot Artu: 73

c.

La sus amunt parjettent tel luiserne On-it above PAR-throw such light

a.

Retorner voldrent arriere en lor contre´e return want-3pp back in their country ‘They want to return to their country’

Roland, CXC, 2634

AmiAmil: 112

b. ... / Ki parjurer les an lairoit, / ... / who to-be-a-traitor-to-one’s oath them of-it let-COND, / ... / who would let them betray their oath about it./ Escoufle: 105

42

(28)

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

a.

Ainz qu’il fuissent al pareissir del gue´ Before that they were at the PAR-exit of-the ford Guillaume, 2772, cited in Buridant (1995)

b. Au redrescier i corrent plus de cent At-the get-up, to-her run more than hundred ‘As she gets up, more than one hundred people run to her’ AmiAmile: 100 c.

Au revenir, dist: «La vostre ame, ... At-the returning, he-says: ‘‘Your soul ...

Escoufle: 85

Interestingly however, the prefixes par- and re- differ from other prefixes in that they can also undergo tmesis, i.e., they can appear separated from the verbal stem they modify. First, they can be separated from the verb by an auxiliary. In example (29), re is separated from the past participle eu ‘had’ by the auxiliary a ‘has’ and by the direct object enfant ‘child’. In (30), par is separated from the past participle dist by the auxiliary avez ‘have’. (29)

Ma femme ra enfant eu¨ My wife re-has child had ‘My wife had another child’ La complainte, Rutebeuf, 9698, cited in Gosselin (1999)

(30)

Vos en par avez dist trop mal You of-it PAR AUX said too-much bad ‘You were blathering’ Renart, XIV, 14715, cited in Moignet (1979)

Moignet (1979) notes that par and re can also be separated from the verb by a clitic, such as the pronoun i ‘there’ in (31) and (32). (31)

Ne cuidiez ja qu’i par i viegne Not you-believe never that he PAR there come ‘Never believe that he will come’ Eracle, 5604, cited in Moignet (1979)

(32)

Uns r i vint qui ravoit perie One re there came that re-had perish ‘One who had perished again came back there’ La vie de saint Martin, 5573, cited in Gosselin (1999)

In fact, par- and re-, when separated from the verb, seem to become part of the clitic cluster. The most striking argument in favour of such an approach comes from restructuring constructions. It is a well-known fact that in Old

Preverbs and particles in Old French

43

French, as in many other Romance languages such as Italian and Spanish, an object pronoun can appear before a modal verb.8 In example (33), the clitic la appears before the modal verb porent. (33)

Au chief de la sale ot un banc / ou la dame s’ala In front of the room was a bench / where the lady CL-went seoir / la ou tuit la porent veoir ... sit-INF / there where all her can-3PP see, ... ‘At the front of the room, there was a bench where the lady went to sit, and where all could see her’ Ch. Lyon, 2072–2074

Interestingly, the distribution of par- and re- appears to follow the same rule. For example, in (34) from Moignet (1979) the preverb par- appears before the modal verb puet ‘can’, despite the fact that it modifies the verb ataindre ‘to reach’. In examples (35) and (36), from Morin and Saint-Amour (1977: 148), the prefix re- is found before the modal verb devroies ‘should’ and before the factive verb fet ‘made’. (34)

et si ne le par puet ataindre and then not him PAR can reach ‘and he could not easily reach him’ Ch. Lyon, 887, cited in Moignet (1979: 130)

(35)

Tu me redevroies dire you me re-should tell ‘You should tell me again’

(36)

Ch Lyon 356 (Tobler VIII 365, 15), cited in Morin and Saint-Amour (1977: 148)

Une dolors ... lors refet lor joie oblier a sadness them re-made their joy forget ‘A sadness made them forget their joy again’ Ch. Lyon 3819 (Viii 365, 17), cited in Morin and Saint-Amour (1977: 148)

Finally, the preverbs par- and re- behave like clitics in that they are never found in first position of a V2 clause, and they do not count as an independent word with respect to the V2 requirement, as shown in (37). (37)

Li chevaliers par fut tant biax The knight PAR was very handsome.

Perceval: 74

To conclude, while the examples in (25) to (28) seemed to indicate that parand re- are prefixes, the examples in (29) to (37) showed that par and re are

44

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

sometimes independent from the verb although remaining part of the clitic cluster. Based on the above data, we argue that par- and re- are involved in two distinct processes. On the one hand, just like the non-separable prefixes, they are part of a morphological process, in which a prefix forms a compound with the verb. On the other hand, par- and re- can undergo tmesis and thus behave more like aspectual morphemes9 independent from the verb, very much like preverbs in Germanic languages as noted by Booij and Van Kemenade (this volume). However, separable prefixes are unlike Germanic preverbs in that they cannot be stranded by movement of the finite verb, a property which also sets them apart from the system of particles coexisting in the language, as argued below.

4. PARTICLES IN OLD FRENCH According to Buridant (2000), Old French had a system of separated particles (locative adverbs) which could modify the meaning of the verb. A non-exhaustive list of particles includes arriere, sus, ensus, amont, contreval, avant, devant, aval, hors, fors, and jus.

4.1. Particles are not affixes Particles are unlike prefixes, whether separable or non-separable, in that they do not appear to form a word with the verb. Words, including compounds, are syntactic atoms in the sense that syntactic rules cannot target parts of words. The examples in (38) illustrate the phenomenon: the two components of the compound word essuie-glace ‘wiper’ cannot be separated from the verb by an adverb, or by movement such as caused by passivisation of the verb. (38)

a.

*essui-bien-glace wipe well windshield

b. *[glace-essui-bien] windshield wipe well c.

*Glace a e´te´ re´pare´ cet [essuie e] par Jean. windshield has been repaired this wipe by Jean Examples from Di Sciullo and Williams (1987: 80)

In the case of particles, however, the fact that both the verb and the particle can move independently shows that both items have independent morphological status. First, Old French particles, like their Germanic counterparts, can be stranded by verb movement. This is illustrated in (39) to (44). In (39) to (42),

Preverbs and particles in Old French

45

the finite verb moves to the first or second position to satisfy the so-called verb second requirement, while in (43) and (44) an infinitive verb moves to the first position. In both cases, the particle remains stranded within the verb phrase. (39)

Gitez en donc ma part sus Throw of-it thus my share down ‘Thus throw my share of it down.’ RenartR, IIIb, 4998, from Buridant (2000, § 4400)

(40)

Voist s’en arriere sans nule demoree Goes REFL-EN back without no stay ‘He goes back immediately’ Aliscans, 1949, from Buridant (2000, § 441)

(41)

Ains descent tout maintenant jus de son ceval ... So descends all now down from his horse ... ‘He then dismounts from his horse ...’

Trispr: 127

(42)

Is t’an fors contre moi Exit you of-it outside against me ‘Get out from there and confront me’ Saisnes, L, 3637, cited in Buridant (2000, § 441)

(43)

... retorner voldrent arriere en lor contree ... return want-3PP back in their country ‘... they want to go back to their country’

(44)

AmiAmile: 112

Et si recrut en tel maniere / And so be-exhausted in such way / Qu’aler ne pot avant n’arriere That go-INF NEG can forward nor backward ‘He was so exhausted that he was unable to go any further or back’ Guillaume A, 789–90, cited in Buridant (2000, § 440)

Moreover, the particle can move by itself to the first position,10 leaving the verb in place, as illustrated in (45) to (47): (45)

Je suis mehaingnier / Je ne puis mes avant aller / I am wounded / I NEG can more forward go / Arrier me covient retorner Back me suit return ‘I am wounded / I can’t go on / I have to go back’ RenartR, IX,9238–38b, cited in Buridant (2000, § 440)

46

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

(46)

Sus le voldrent faire lever On him-ACC wanted-3PP make stand ‘They wanted to force him to get up’ VieSGre´gI, ms. A2, 2411, cited in Buridant (2000, § 440)

(47)

Puis comande qu’an li amaint / Then command that one him-DAT brings / son cheval, et l’an li amainne; / is horse, and someone him-DAT brings; / sus est sailliz de terre plainne on is arised from ground flat ‘He ordered that his horse be brought to him, and someone brings him his horse; He gets on his horse.’ Erec: 22

Example (48) shows that it is possible to co-ordinate two particles, while example (49) shows that it is possible to cumulate two particles (sus and en contremont): (48)

(49)

Assez le quistrent sus et jus Much him-ACC seek-3PP up and down ‘They look for him everywhere.’

Artu: 38

Il resaut sus en contremont He re-jumps up upwards ‘He jumps up in the air.’ Gormont, 279, cited in Buridant (2000, § 440)

To conclude, we have seen that the complex predicate verb+particle does not form a syntactic atom. In the next two sections, we will see that, while the verb and the particle do not form a compound word, they still appear to form a lexical unit. 4.2. On the distribution of particles While particles are syntactically autonomous, their distribution in non-V2 clauses shows that they are still closely related to the verb. Interestingly, if one considers such sentences, one notes that the particle often appears adjacent to the verb. Although in most cases (in fact, mainly in 13th century prose), the particle follows the verb, as illustrated in (50) to (52), there are a number of cases (mainly in 12th century verse) in which the particle precedes the verb (53 to 55).11 (50)

... quant les Griu les virent traire ariere, ... ... when the Greeks them-ACC saw-3PP draw back, ... ‘... When the Greeks saw them withdraw, ...’

Clari: 70

Preverbs and particles in Old French

(51)

Quant il furent bien ale´ avant en le mer ... When they were-3PP well gone forward into the sea ‘When they advanced well into the sea ...’

47

Clari: 20

(52)

.. que che ne fu se menchoingne non que on ... that this NEG was either a lie which (pro-3PS) him le avoit mis sus had not put on ... ‘... that it was either a lie which he had been accused of ...’ Clari: 20

(53)

Voldrent le faire sus lever / Want-3PP him-ACC make up stand / Mais il ne pot sor piez ester But he NEG can on foot be ‘They wanted him to stand up / But he couldn’t stand on his feet’ VieSGre´g1,ms.A1,2537–38, cited in Buridant (2000, § 440)

(54)

Li se¨aus est jus avalez The pail is down taken ‘The pail is taken down’

(55)

RenartR, II, 3641, cited in Buridant, § 440

Ou bois se sont arriere remis Or wood REFL are back went ‘They went back into the woods’ RenartR, VI, 5440, cited in Buridant (2000, § 440)

Examples in which the particle is found before the verb appear to put particles on a par with other preverbs, i.e., (separable and non-separable) prefixes. However, such examples cannot be considered representative of the canonical word order, since they are found mainly in poetry (12th century verse), where additional stylistic constraints such as rhythm, rhyme and caesura may come into play. In prose, the distribution of particles appears more stable: a preliminary analysis of the distribution of particles sus and arriere with respect to the infinitive verb or the past participle (which do not undergo V-movement) reveals that the particle is clearly postverbal in most cases.

Table 3: The distribution of particule sus in our 13th century prose corpus

48

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

Table 4: The distribution of particule arriere in our 13th century prose corpus

The fact that particles mostly follow the verb in the prose corpus constitutes a strong argument in favour of a distinct analysis of preverbs and particles. This conclusion is supported by the observation that the distribution of particles is generally quite different from that of other preverbs. First, particles do not appear to be part of the clitic cluster (they can occupy the first position, they never appear in clitic position, etc.). Second, particles usually appear after direct objects (56a, b), but before indirect objects (57a, b). (56)

a.

... qu’il est menterres de metre tel chose avant ... that it is lie OF put such thing forward. ‘... that it is a lie to say such a thing.’ Artu: 37

b. le mers reportoit le nef ariere the sea RE-brought the ship back ‘the sea pushed the ship back’ (57)

a. Si keurent il sus as Franchois If run they-NOM up to-the French’ ‘If they attack the French’ b. ... retorner voldrent arriere en lor contree ... return want-3PP back in their country ‘... they want to go back to their country’

Clari: 74

Clari: 106

AmiAmile: 112

Although we found a few examples where a particle appears before a direct object (58), or after an indirect object (59), such examples were clearly not quantitatively significant. (58)

a. Que l’en li amaint avant la reı¨ne that one him-DAT bring forward the queen. ‘That someone bring the queen before him’ b. Turnez ariere les estrees Turn back the roads ‘Turn around and go back’

Artu: 122

Gormont: 32

Preverbs and particles in Old French

(59)

a.

49

A grant joie fu remenez / devant l’empereor arriere, To great joy was RE-brought before the emperor back ... ‘To her great joy, she was brought back before the emperor ...’ Dole: 153

b. ... et tant fist puis k’il vint en la Petite ... and such (pro 3ps) did since that he came in little Bretaingne ariere. Brittany back ‘... and he did so much that he came back to Little Brittany.’ Trispr: 232 Obviously, an individual quantitative description of the distribution of each particle is required before a detailed analysis of Old French particle constructions can be provided. A few conclusions can be reached however. First, while section 4.1 showed that particles are autonomous lexical items, section 4.2 showed that they are base-generated postverbally within the verb phrase. This conclusion is supported by the tendency observed for most indirect objects to appear after the particle.12 In the next section, we will see that there is further morphosyntactic evidence showing that the particle is within the lexical domain of the verb, and forms a complex predicate with it.

4.3. On the lexicalisation of particles Syntactic operations target constituents. Interestingly, we found a limited number of examples where the subject seems to follow the complex predicate. This is illustrated in (60) and (61). In (60), the subject Girflez bears nominative case, and follows the complex predicate saut avant. Similarly in (61), the subject li rois, also in nominative case, follows the complex predicate cort sus. (60)

(61)

Lors saut avant Girflez et dist ... Then jumps forward Girfle´ and says ‘Then Girfle´ comes forward and says ...’

Artu: 319

Lors li cort sus li rois ... Then him-Dat run on the king-NOM ‘Then the king attacks him ...’

Artu: 152

The position of the subject with respect to the verb can be accounted for by verb movement: the adverb lors occupies the Topic position, i.e., the first position, and the complex predicate moves to occupy the second position. The fact that the complex verb moves as a whole indicates that it is a syntactic unit (a constituent).

50

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

The example in (62) is even more convincing as the complex predicate precedes both the subject Messire Gauvains and the indirect object de son ostel. In this case, the position of the verb with respect to the subject cannot be explained by a rule of subject postposition. (62)

A ces criz et a ces noises issi hors Messires At these cries and at these noises, came out Messire Gauvains de son ostel ... Gauvains-NOM from his house ‘When he heard the cries and the noise, Messire Gauvain came out of his house ...’ Artu: 130

We also considered the order verb+particle with respect to adverbs. In most cases, the adverb precedes the particle. Assuming Cinque’s (1999) analysis according to which adverbs occur in the specifier positions of functional categories to the left of the VP, this leads us to conclude that the particle is probably generated within the VP.13 (63)

Il se trait un poi ariere et lour dist ... He-NOM REFL withdraw a bit back and them-DAT says ... ‘He steps back a little and tell them ...’ Trispr: 137

(64)

... je lour courui esranment sus ... ... I them-DAT ran immediately sus ‘... I immediately dashed after them ...’

Trispr: 62

We also found a few examples (such as 65 below) in which the whole complex predicate (verb+particle) precedes the adverb. Such examples can be analysed in two ways: either the complex predicate has moved as a whole (as a result of verb movement), or the adverb has been extraposed. The fact that such examples involve fairly large adverbs argues in favour of the latter hypothesis. (65)

... qu’il se trest avant plus et plus. ... that he-NOM REFL goes forward more and more. ‘... that he go forwards more and more.’

QGraal: 85

The lexicalisation of complex predicates constitutes another strong argument in favour of the hypothesis that particles form a complex predicate with the verb. First, as shown in Di Stefano (1991), there are a number of examples where the verb and the particle form a semantic unit.

Preverbs and particles in Old French

(66)

a. b. c. d.

Corre sus a` Metre sus a Metre avant Metre arrere

51

‘to attack’ ‘to accuse’ ‘to produce an argument’ ‘to neglect, to discredit’

The presence of a particle, just like that of a prefix, can affect the argument structure of the predicate. Tremblay (2000) has shown that, in the case of the lexicalised complex verb corre sus, the presence of the particle sus has an effect on the argument structure of the verb corre: while the verb corre takes a dative argument in just 50% of occurrences, this percentage increases to 100% when the particle is present.14

Table 5: Corre vs. corre sus in the 13th century corpus

Examples are still found in Modern French, where we find a dative clitic in very similar constructions.15 (67)

a.

Paul court apre`s Sophie. Paul runs after Sophie.

b. Paul lui court apre`s. Paul runs after her. There is, however, an important distinction to be made between Modern French and Medieval French. First, in Modern French, there is almost a complementary distribution between a simple preposition, such as sur, sous, and dans, and the corresponding complex preposition dessus, dessous, dedans, respectively. This observation leads Roberge (1998) to propose that only the former have Case properties. (68)

a.

Paul est tombe´ sur Sophie. Paul is fell on Sophie ‘Paul ran into Sophie / Paul fell on Sophie’

52

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

b. Paul lui est tombe´ dessus. Paul DAT-Cli is fallen on pro ‘Paul fell on her / Paul set on her.’ In Old French, the situation is quite different since most particles can also function as prepositions. Examples such as (69) and (70) indicate that the preposition sus can assign Case to its complement: sus sa poitrine, sus son lit. (69)

Sus sa poitrine tenoit ses mains croisant On his chest kept his hands crossed. ‘He was keeping his hands crossed on his chest’ Aliscans, 827, cited in Buridant (2000, § 388)

(70)

Si s’est assise sus son lit If REFL is sitted-FS on her bed. ‘She sat on her bed’ FabliauxNR, II, 10, 299, cited in Buridant (2000, § 388)

When sus is used as a particle, however, it loses its argument structure and its ability to assign Case.16 (71)

(72)

Si corent sus au chevalier (pro 3pp) run (part.) toward the knight ‘they pursue the knight’

Artu: 223

Et toutevoies recort il sus au serpent ... However, he attacks (part) again the snake ... QGraal: 94

(73)

Je lour courui esranment sus ... I them pursued immediately (part) ...

Trispr: 62

In fact, such examples lead us to the conclusion that Old French particles are true prepositions, as opposed to adverbs as proposed in Buridant (2000). His conclusion is supported by a number of observations. First, all particles have a prepositional counterpart. Second, we have seen that particles are generally base-generated postverbally, and thus have a distribution quite different from that of adverbs, which are preverbal. Finally, contrary to adverbs, particles appear to form a complex predicate with the verb they modify. Even though this complex predicate is not a compound word, we have seen that the presence of the particle may affect the argument structure of the predicate, a property which sets them apart from adverbs as adverbs do not have such an effect on the verb.

Preverbs and particles in Old French

53

5. TOWARDS A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF PREVERBS AND PARTICLES To summarise the discussion so far, we have considered three types of aspectual elements in Old French: non-separable prefixes, separable prefixes, and particles. We reached two conclusions. On the one hand, we have argued that the distinction proposed in Buridant (2000) between prefixes and particles is justified on morphosyntactic grounds. Non-separable prefixes always form a word with the verb and can affect the argument structure of the predicate. Separable prefixes can either form a word with the verb, or behave like independent aspectual heads. Unlike non-separable prefixes, they do not appear to modify the argument structure of the predicate. Particles have a completely different morphosyntactic status: while they form a complex predicate with the verb, they do not form a true ‘‘word’’ with it, at least in most cases. On the other hand, our study has also showed that the distinction between prefix and particle is not as clear-cut as previously thought. In fact, as we look more closely at the different types of prefixes and particles, the distinction becomes less sharp: prefixes sometimes behave like particles, and particles share a number of characteristics of prefixes. Thus, rather than a dichotomy between prefixes and particles, it seems as if we are dealing with a morphosyntactic continuum with non-separable prefixes at one end and separated particles at the other.

The existence of such a continuum constitutes an argument in favour of a unified analysis of prefixes and particles. In fact, this appears desirable given the considerable evidence in favour of such an approach. First, both prefixes (Nyrop 1899, Buridant 1995, Di Sciullo 1996, Wilmet 1998) and particles are prepositional. Second, prefixes and particles share similar semantic characteristics: both can be locative and/or aspectual: (74)

parler ‘to talk’ aparler ‘to start talking’ parler avant ‘to continue talking’

(75)

venir revenir aller ariere

‘to come’ ‘to go back’ ‘to go back’

The third argument is diachronic. In our first study on prefixation (Dufresne, Dupuis and Longtin 2001), we dated the loss of productivity of prefixation back to the end of the 16th century. Interestingly French lost its

54

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

particle system at about the same time (Buridant 2000). Fourth, some particles can also be used as prefixes17 (Buridant 2000). (76)

a.

forjoster forjugier forjurer

b. fors aller issir fors (77)

a.

‘to hunt’ ‘to sentence’ ‘to give up’ ‘to go’ ‘to go out’

horbannir

b. oster hors chacier hors

examples from Buridant (2000, § 439)

Finally, the prefix system seems to sometimes interact with the particle system. For example, the separable prefix re- can be reinforced with the particle arriere, without any change in meaning. (78) retorner, torner arriere, retorner arriere ‘to return’ This phenomenon appears limited to cases where the re- has a locative meaning, as in (79). (79)

Quant Melyans l’entent, si retorne arriere ... When Melyan him hears then (pro 3ps) returns back ‘When Melyan hears him he comes back’ QGraal, 42,3 cited by Gosselin (1999)

Similarly, the prefix par is often used with an intensive adverb. This is illustrated in (80), (81) and (82), where par appears with mult, tant, and trop: (80)

Devers un gualt uns granz leons li From a forest a large lion to him Mult par ert pesmes e So (part) (pro 3ps) appears nasty and ‘From a forest a large lion comes toward and cruelty’

vient, / comes / orguillus e fiers, / arrogant and cruel him full of rage, hardiness Roland, CLXXXV, 2550–1

(81)

Sur lui se pasmet, tant par est anguissus On him (pro 3ps) faints full (part) (pro 3ps) is anguish ‘He faints because he his so full of anguish Roland, CCV, 2880

Preverbs and particles in Old French

(82)

Eracles, trop par ies estranges Eracle too much (pro 2ps) are strange ‘Eracle, you are so strange ...’

55

Eracle: 192

In our 12th century corpus, out 162 occurrences of particle par, only 7 involved no adverb. This kind of doubling phenomena is generally symptomatic of semantic erosion and is thus probably a first sign of the loss of productivity of the aspectual prefix system. 6. CONCLUSION To conclude, a unified analysis of Old French prefixes and particles sheds doubt on the status of preverb as a primitive in the grammar. First, there does not appear to be a uniform class of preverbal elements which can be analysed independently of postverbal elements. Second, ‘‘preverb’’ is a mixed grammatical object which can be involved in complex predicate formation occurring variously in the lexicon, in morphology or in syntax. Finally, ‘‘preverb’’ cannot be conceived as a categorical primitive, distinct from preposition. Hence, given that preverb is not a theoretical construct, there cannot be a theory of preverbs per se. Rather, assuming that preverbs (and particles) are a subclass of prepositions, albeit intransitive, the grammatical and semantic properties of preverbs must follow from a broader theory of lexical categories. NOTES * We wish to thank the participants of the Workshop on Preverbs held at the University of Nijmegen in January 2001 as well as an anonymous reviewer for useful suggestions and remarks. Part of this work was also presented at the following conferences: PREP 2000, LSRL, Going Romance and ICHL. The research in this paper was partially supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grants # 410-96-1445 and # 214-97-0016) and by Queen’s University’s Advisory Research Committee. We also wish to thank E. Hamacher for proofreading the text. 1 For a detailed description of the verb second properties of Old French, see Adams (1987), Dupuis (1990), Thurneysen (1892), and Vance (1997). 2 Old French distinguishes between two genders (feminine and masculine), two numbers (singular and plural) and two morphological cases: nominative case (cas sujet) and object case (cas re´gime). Nominative case is usually marked on masculine nouns, while most feminine nouns do not distinguish between the two morphological cases.

Table I: Declination of a masculine noun ‘the wall’

56

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

Table II: Declination of a feminine noun ‘the girl’ 3

More recent work such as Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) proposes to dispense with headmovement in favour of phrasal movement. This theoretical distinction is not relevant here. 4 See Label (2003) for discussion. 5 See Hamacher (2002) for a thorough discussion of the evolution of the semantic and morphosyntactic properties (including productivity) of the prefix con- from Latin to Old French. 6 The figure of the 20th century in Table 2 is explained by a new meaning of the prefix: it has acquired the same meaning ot the iterative external prefix re- (contrer to double, surcontrer to redouble) still very productive in ModF. 7 Note however that contrary to non-separable prefixes, the separable prefixes par- and redo not appear to affect the argument structure of the verb. 8 See Lebel (2003) and Barbaud and Lebel (2000), for a detailled description of the semantic and distributional properties of the prefix par-. As for the prefix re-, the reader should consult Gosselin (1999). 9 Retructuring is no longer possible in Modern French, although Grevisse (1980, § 549) gives examples from literary French showing that the construction has not completely disappeared from the language. 10 We assume that these aspectual morphemes are base-generated under functional projections above VP, possibly ASPP. 11 The position of the particle to the left of the verb should not be attributed to tmesis, which is a more local process and is not the outcome of verb movement. 12 A similar distribution has been observed for the borrowed particle back in Acadian French (see King 2000).

13

i. a.

Puis je voulais pas back aller. And I want-IMP NEG back go ‘And I didn’t want to go back’

ii.

Tu peux aller leur dire back. you can go them-DAT back. ‘You can tell them again.’

b.

(=King 2000: examples 5 and 10)

The tendency observed for most direct objects (and some indirect objects) to appear between the verb and the particle can probably be motivated on Case-theoretic grounds: in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), movement of the direct object is triggered by feature checking requirements. 14 See however Tortora (2002) for an alternative proposal. Tortora provides evidence from Borgomanerese showing that at least some argument prepositions may move from their base positions within the verb phrase to a functional projection above VP. 15 A further argument showing that the complex predicate corre sus has been lexicalised involves the prefix entr-, derived from the preposition entre ‘between’. In Old French, entr-

Preverbs and particles in Old French

57

was used, together with the reflexive clitic se, to indicate reciprocity, and had an effect on the argument structure of the predicate. (1)

Un chevaler de grant valour / Et une dame de honour / A knight of great worth / And a lady of honour / S’entre amerent jadis d’amour SE-entre-love in-times-past of-love ‘A knight of great worth and a lady of honour loved eachother’. FabliauxNR, IX, 113, 5–7, cited in Buridant (2000: 493)

A similar example involves the complex predicate corre sus, which receives a reciprocal interpretation when prefixed with entr-. In this case, the prefix is interpreted as taking scope over the whole complex predicate, and not just the verb. (2)

Il metent les mains as espees et s’entrecourent sus They-NOM put-3PP the hands to-the swords and SE-between-run up mout ireement much angrily. ‘They take their swords and attack each other with anger.’ Trispr: 214

16

For a detailled description of dative clitics in such constructions, see Gaatone (1983). According to Zeller (2001), the non-case-assigning properties of particles follows from their lacking functional structure. 18 It is interesting to note that the prefixes/particles for and hors are both of Germanic origin (Nyrop, cited in Buridant 1995). The fact that a single element can have been introduced in the language in both morphology and syntax consitute an additional argument in favour of a unified analysis of prefixes and particles. 17

REFERENCES Adams, M. (1987). From Old French to the Theory of Pro Drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 1–32. Barbaud, P. and Lebel, M.H. (2000). Du pre´verbe PAR en ancien franc¸ais. Paper presented at the PREP 2000 Conference. Tel Aviv, Israel. Buridant, C. (1995). Les pre´verbes en ancien franc¸ais. In Rousseau, A. (ed.), Les pre´verbes dans les langues d’Europe: introduction a` l’e´tude de la pre´verbation, Universite´ de Lille III: Presses du Septentrion. Buridant, C. (2000). Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien franc¸ais. Paris: Sedes. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1991). ‘Some notes on the economy of derivation’. In Frieden, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press. 417–454. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, New York: Oxford University Press. Di Sciullo, A-M. (1996). Configurations. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Di Sciullo, A-M. (1999). Verbal structures and variation. In E. Trevin˜o and J. Lema (eds.), Semantic Issues in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

58

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

Di Sciullo, A-M. and Williams, E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. LI Monograph 14. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dufresne, M., Dupuis F. and Longtin C.M. (2001). Un changement dans la diachronie du franc¸ais: la perte de la pre´fixation aspectuelle en a-. Revue que´be´coise de linguistique 29, 33–54. Dufresne, M. and Dupuis F. (2001). On the consequences of the grammaticalisation of aspect in French. Paper presented at the Going Romance Conference, Amsterdam. Dufresne, M., Dupuis F. and Tremblay M. (2000). The role of syntactic faetures in historical change. In S. Dworkin and D. Wanner (eds.), New Approaches to Old problems. Issues in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 129–149. Dupuis, F. (1990). L’expression du sujet dans les subordonne´es en ancien franc¸ais. The`se de doctorat, Universite´ de Montre´al. Gaatone, D. (1983). Le de´agre´able dans la syntaxe. Revue romane 18. Universite´ de Copenhague: Institut d’e´tudes romanes,. Gosselin D. (1999). Une analyse en morphologie configurationnelle: le pre´fixe re- en ancien franc¸ais. Ph.D. dissertation, UQAM. Hale, W.G. and Buck, C.D. (1988). A Latin Grammar (8th ed.). The University of Alabama Press. Hamacher, E. (2002). La pre´fixation verbale en ancien franc¸ais: le recul d’un proce´de´ morphologique. M.A. dissertation, Queen’s University. King, R. (2000). The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koopman, H. and Szabolcsi, A. (2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge: MIT Press. ´ cole Lebel, M.-E. (2003). Par dans l’histoire du franc¸ais. Ph.D. dissertation, UQAM & E normale supe´rieure. Moignet, G. (1979). Grammaire de l’ancien franc¸ais. Paris: Klincksieck, Morin, Y.-C. and Saint-Amour, M. (1977). Description historique des constructions infinitives du franc¸ais. Recherches linguistiques a` Montre´al. Montre´al: Universite´ de Montre´al. Nyrop, K. (1899) Grammaire historique de la langue franc¸aise. Copenhague: Picard. Roberge, Y. (1998). Les pre´positions orphelines dans diverses varie´te´s de franc¸ais d’Ame´rique du Nord, in Brasseur (ed). Franc¸ais d’Ame´rique: variation, cre´olisation, normalisation. Centre d’e´tudes canadiennes, Universite´ d’Avignon. Roeper, T. and Keyser, J.S. (1992). Re: the abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 89–125. Thurneysen, R. (1892). Die Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzo¨sischen, Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie 16, 289–307. Tortora, C. (2002). Romance Enclisis, Prepositions, and Aspect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 725–758. Tremblay, M. (2000). Pre´positions, particules et interfaces. Paper given at the 4th Bilingual Workshop in theoretical linguistics. York University, Toronto. Tremblay, M., Dufresne, M. and Dupuis, F. (2002). Les pre´positions dans l’histoire du franc¸ais. Paper presented at Synchro-1 Conference, Paris. Vance, B. (1997). Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vincent, N. (1999). The evolution of c-structure: prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics 37, 1111–1153. Wilmet, M. (1998). Grammaire critique du franc¸ais. Paris: Duculot. Zeller, J. (2001). Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Preverbs and particles in Old French

59

Dictionaries and Grammars Di Stefano, G. (1991). Dictionnaire des locutions en moyen franc¸ais. Grevisse, M. (1980). Le bon usage. Gambloux: Duculot Petit Robert I. (1991). Dictionnaire de la langue franc¸aise. Le Robert (1993). Dictionnaire historique de la langue franc¸aise. Larousse (1992). Dictionnaire de l’ancien franc¸ais. Tobler, A. and Lommatzsch, E. (1925). Altfranzo¨sisches Wo¨rterbuch Berlin: Weidmann.

Texts Consulted aliscans Aliscans. Ed. C. Regnier, Champion, 1990–1991 (CFMA 110–111).

amiamile Ami et Amile. Ed. P.F. Dembowski, Paris, 1969, Champion (CFMA 97).

artu La Mort le Roi Artu. Ed. Jean Frappier, Gene`ve, 1954, Droz.

beroul Tristan, Be´roul. Ed L. M. Defourques, Paris, 1947, Champion (CFMA 12).

ch. lyon Yvain, le chevalier au lion, Chretien de Troyes. Ed. M.Roques, Paris, 1960, Champion, CFMA (89)

clari La Conqueste de Constantinople, Robert de Clari. Ed. Philippe Lauer, Paris, Champion (CFMA 40).

dole Le Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole, Jean Renart. Ed. Felix Lecoy, Paris, 1962, Champion (CFMA 91).

eracle Eracle, Gautier d’Arras. Ed. Guy Raynaud de Lage, Paris, 1976, Champion (CFMA 102).

erec Erec et Enide, Chretien de Troyes. Ed. Mario Roques, Paris, 1952, Champion (CFMA 80)

escoufle L’Escoufle, Jean Renart. Ed. F. Sweester, Gene`ve, 1974, Droz (TLF. 211).

fabliauxnr Nouveau Recueil Complet des Fabliaux. Ed. W. Noomen and Van Der Boogard, Van Gorcum, I, 1983; II, 1984; III, 1986; IV, 1988; V, 1990; VI, 1991; VII, 1993; VIII, 1994; IX, 1996.

feuille´e Le Jeu de la Feuille´e, d’Adam de la Halle. Ed. J. Dufournet, Gand, 1977, Story-Scientia.

gormont Gormont et Isembart, Ed. Alphonse Bayot (3rd Edition revue), Paris, 1931, Champion (CFMA 14).

guillaume La Chanson de Guillaume. Ed. D. Mc Millan, Paris, 1949–50.

60

M. Dufresne, F. Dupuis and M. Tremblay

joinville La Vie de Saint Louis, Jean de Joinville. Ed. J. Monfrin, Paris, 1996, Garnier Flammarion

le bel inconnu Le Bel Inconnu, Renaut de Beaujeu. Ed. G. Perrie Williams, Paris, 1967 (2e`me e´dition), Champion (CFMA 38).

partonopeu Partonopeu de Blois. Ed. J. Guildea, Villanova, 1967.

qraal La Queste del Saint Graal. Ed. A. Pauphilet, Paris, 1923, Champion (CFMA 33).

renart Le Roman de Renart. Ed. M. Roques, Champion, 1948–1960.

roland La Chanson de Roland. Ed. Ge´rard Moignet, Paris, 1970, Bordas.

saines La Chanson des Saines, de Jehan Bodel. Ed. A. Brasseur, Droz, 1989, TLF, 369.

trispr Tristan en prose (tome 1), Ed. Philippe Me´nard, Gene`ve, 1987, Droz (TLF 353).

viesgre´g1 La vie du pape saint Gre´goire. Huit versions franc¸aises me´die´vales de la le´gende du Bon Preˆcheur. Ed. H.B. Sol, Rodopi, 1977.

Monique Dufresne De´partement de linguistique et de didactique des langues Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al Montre´al, QC, Canada H3C 3P8 dufresne.monique @uqam.ca Fernande Dupuis De´partement de linguistique et de didactique des langues Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al, Montre´al, QC, Canada H3C 3P8 [email protected] Mireille Tremblay De´partement d’e´tudes franc¸aises Queen’s University Kingston, Ont. Canada K7N 3N6 [email protected]

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi1 ALICE C. HARRIS

0. INTRODUCTION The structure of the preverb+stem combination is superficially similar in Georgian, a member of the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) family, and in unrelated Udi, a member of the Lezgian group of the North East Caucasian family. Compare (1) and (2) in this regard. (1) (2)

Georgian: mi-v-i-t’an-e thither-1sg-cv-carry-aor Udi:

ta-zu-sˇ-er-e thither-1sg-carry-er-aorII

‘I took it (away)’ 2 ‘I took it (away)’

Of interest here is the fact that in both languages the preverb (mi-, ta-) forms a semantic whole with the verb root (-t’an-, -sˇ-), yet an agreement marker (v-, -ne-) occurs between them. This kind of interruption of a semantic and formal unit is a well recognized problem in linguistics (see, for example, Ackerman and Webelhuth 1998). In this paper it is shown that two quite different histories led to the situation found today and illustrated in (1–2).

1. KARTVELIAN 1.1. What is a Preverb in Kartvelian? In the Kartvelian languages, preverbs have many of the properties they have in other languages, including indication of location or direction of motion. For example, we have the forms in (3). (3)

a-vida ga-vida sˇe-vida c’a-vida

‘she went up’ ‘she went out’ ‘she went in’ ‘she went away’

With some verbs, preverbs have meanings that are not predictable from the meanings of the parts. For example, da-inaxa ‘she saw, noticed, caught sight of it’ contrasts with sˇe-inaxa ‘she saved, kept it’; da- means ‘downwards’, though it has acquired a neutral meaning as well, and sˇe- means ‘in, into’. These are characteristics widely associated with preverbs. In certain other languages, notably Russian, the presence of a preverb is Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 61–78. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

62

A.C. Harris

associated with perfective aspect; to some extent this is true also in Modern Georgian, as we can see in pairs such as ak’etebs ‘she is doing it’ and ga-ak’eta ‘she has done it’. However, this has been grammaticalized, and simple, minimal contrasts of a perfective with and imperfective without a preverb hardly exist today (see Holisky 1981 for more on aspect in Georgian). With regular verbs of Classes 1 and 2, a preverb occurs in the tense-aspect-mood (TAM) categories indicated in (4). (4)

Lacks PV

Requires PV

present future imperfect conditional present subjunctive future subjunctive

Occurs most felicitously with PV aorist (imperative) optative

For many verbs, the only difference between the forms of the first two columns is the absence vs. presence of a preverb. For example, the imperfect vak’etebdi ‘I was making it’ differs from the conditional ga-vak’etebdi ‘if I made it’ only in lacking the preverb. The six TAM categories in the first two columns comprise the traditional Series I verb forms, while those in the third column are the categories of Series II. In the latter set of TAM categories, imperfective forms exist in principle and lack the preverb (see Tschenke´li 1958: 158); in practice, however, the perfective is almost always the form used in these TAM categories. This characteristic provides a diagnostic for preverbs in Georgian: A preverb occurs in the future, conditional, and future subjunctive with regular verbs of Classes 1 and 2 and does not occur in the present, imperfect, and present subjunctive. A second peculiarity of preverbs in Georgian is that the directional preverbs can optionally occur with mo- ‘hither’, also a preverb, forming a ‘‘complex preverb’’. (5)

a-vida ga-vida sˇe-vida c’a-vida

‘she went up’ ‘she went out’ ‘she went in’ ‘she went away’

a-mo-vida ga-mo-vida sˇe-mo-vida c’a-mo-vida

‘she came up’ ‘she came out’ ‘she came in’ ‘she came away’

The opposition illustrated in (5) is often referred to in traditional Georgian linguistics as ‘‘orientation’’, and I adopt that term here. There are, however, two exceptions to the generalization that preverbs can occur with mo-: mi- ‘thither’ and da- ‘downwards’. First, the orientation that opposes mi-akvs ‘she takes it’ is not *mi-mo-akvs but mo-akvs ‘she brings it’. Second, in Modern Georgian dalacks an opposition of orientation; there is no *da-mo- or any equivalent. This is probably best viewed as a result of its change of meaning; da- originally meant ‘downwards’ but its current meaning is very general. Other combinations also occur, especially ga-da- ‘across’, also referring to change.

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

63

Note that in the TAM forms that have a preverb, all parts of the complex preverb appear; while in those TAM forms that lack a preverb, all parts of the complex preverb are lacking. For example, the future ga-mo-vak’eteb ‘I will repair it, correct it’ corresponds to the present vak’eteb ‘I am doing it’; the future ga-da-vak’eteb ‘I will re-do it, change it’ corresponds to the same general present. (The preverbs ga-mo- and ga-da- here affect the meaning of the basic vak’eteb ‘I do, make it’, as described for another verb just after example (3).)

1.2. Origins The origin of preverbs in the Kartvelian languages is much like that in IndoEuropean languages. In Georgian and its sisters, a number of preverbs are derived relatively recently from adverbs. Svan, a Kartvelian language, possesses two sets of preverbs.3 The type that represents the input to the formation of preverbs is found as an independent word preceding or following the verb, as in (6). (6)

acˇad sga she.go inside (Svanskie teksty na lasˇchskom narecˇii, cited by Deeters 1930: 17 from A. Oniani’s 1917, tale no. 7)

Sga ‘in(side)’ and other items that occur in the position illustrated in (6) may alternatively be proclitic to the verb, as in (7). (7) sga: cˇad (cited by Deeters 1930: 15 from the same source) in=she.go Sga: cˇad in (7) is from sga=acˇad ‘in=went’. In Svan, sga ‘in(side)’ is a proclitic, not a prefix; evidence to support this is the fact that it may be separated from the verb by a particle, as shown in (8), where sga: y is synchronically from sga=i ‘in=again’. (8)

a.

sga: y acˇad da: v-ı´ ... (cited by Topuria 1967: 60) in.again she.go devi(mythological being)-nom ‘The devi went in again ...’

b. sga ud etqe: rix ce: rbat-s ... (cited by Topuria 1967: 61) in again they.implore God-dat ‘... again they implore God ...’ Svan zˇi ‘up, on’, cˇu ‘down, under’, ka ‘out, from, thither’ behave like sga

64

A.C. Harris

‘in(side)’, occurring as independent words, as in (6, 8), or proclitic to the verb, as in (7). Four other preverbs in Svan – an ‘hither’, ad ‘thither, away from’, es ‘thither’, la ‘in, thither’ behave differently from those in the first group. Members of the second group cannot occur independently, as in (6), or separated from the verb, as in (8). In dialects with umlaut, members of the second set undergo this process when followed by i in the verb, as shown in (9); members of the first do not, as shown in (10). Examples in (9–10) are in the Upper Bal dialect. (9) a¨n-te (sˇa->sˇe-, observing that the a vocalism is preserved in certain dialects (1959: 56; see also Deeters 1930: 10–11). The Old Georgian preverb da- (Common-Georgian-Zan *da-) ‘downwards (on the surface)’ is said to come from the noun *dab- ‘ground, earth’ preserved in the Georgian noun dab-a ‘town’, u-dab-n-o ‘desert’, m-dab-al-i ‘low, short’, as well as in Svan, Laz, and Mingrelian words (Sˇanize 1973: 261 [1953: 268], Mart’irosovi 1956: 41). Old Georgian ac- (Common-Georgian-Zan *ac-) ‘up’ is probably from an independent adverb, preserved as the root in the derived word m-ac-al- ‘high’.5 Many other Georgian preverbs have similar sources (Sˇanize 1973: 261, Mart’irosovi 1956, and other sources cited above). Since many Georgian adpositions are also derived from adverbs or locative nouns, we have preverb/adposition pairs, such as the preverb sˇe- ‘in, into’ beside the postposition -sˇi ‘in’, and the preverb gan- beside the postposition -gan both ‘from’. Beside the preverbs of Old Georgian derived from adverbs and nouns we find unreanalyzed locative nouns and adverbs (see Vesˇap’ize 1967, in which examples (12–13) are cited). In (12), the adverb gare occurs as a separate word; in (13) it forms part of the verb. It is assumed here that gare in (13) is an adverb, not a preverb, since there is no evidence other than its position to suggest that it has been reanalyzed. (12)

deda-y sˇeni da zma-ni sˇenni dganan gare mother-nom your and brother-pl.nom your stand.3pl outside ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside.’ (Mt 12:47Ad)6

(13)

gare-c’ar-vakcio salmoba-y sˇen-gan (Exodus 23:25) outside-pv-take.1sg sickness-nom you-from ‘I will take sickness away from you.’

A second kind of evidence that supports the view that Georgian preverbs originated as words separate from the verb roots is the fact that in Old Georgian ‘‘little words’’ (probably second position clitics) could occur between the preverb and the verb stem (see Cherchi 1994, 1997, for a complete analysis). (14)

a.

romel ca igi akundes mi-ve-ecos mis gan which.nom indef det have.3sg pv-even-take.it him from ‘whatever he has (even that) will be taken from him’ (Mt 25:29Ad)

b. sˇe-tu-izinos sopel-i q’oveli da ganik’uas sul-i tvisi pv-if-gain.3sg world-nom all and lose.3sg soul-nom self’s ‘[what does it profit a man] if he gain the whole world and lose his soul’ (Mk 8:36Ad) The origin of some Georgian preverbs is unclear; examples are mi- ‘thither’

66

A.C. Harris

and mo- ‘hither’. There is weak evidence that these, too, originated as adverbs of location, but no precise adverbs have been identified. The evidence is the fact that mi- and mo- occur as postpositions or the preposed portion of circumpositions, as illustrated in (15–17). (Examples in (15–17) are cited by Imnaisˇvili 1957: 324–325.) (15)

rametu q’o cˇem-da-mo did-did-ni zlier-man (L 1:49Ad) because do.3sg me-adv-hither great-pl.nom strong-erg ‘because the strong one has done great things to me’

(16)

upalo moed p’irvel vidre mo-sik’udi-d-mde7 q’rm-isa mis (J 4:49B) lord.voc come first before hither-death-adv-until child-gen his ‘Lord, come before the death of my (lit. his) child.’

(17)

acadet tanad acorzinebad orta ve mi-mk’a-mdis (Mt 13:30Ad) two all thither-harvest-until allow.2pl together grow ‘allow both to grow together until the harvest’

If the preverbs mi- and mo- originated in some other way, not as adverbs, we would not necessarily expect them to occur also as adpositions, as they do in (15–17). On the other hand, it is possible that if they did not originate as adverbs they would nevertheless have been drafted as adpositions on analogy with other preverbs, such as sˇina- ‘in’. Because of the possibility of analogy, it is impossible to be confident of the origins of these preverbs.8 In the earliest Old Georgian examples, preverbs are already proclitic to the verb, but other elements may occur between the preverb and the verbal base (see (14) and Cherchi 1994, 1997); in this respect they resemble the Svan forms in (8). In Old Georgian data, perfective forms are likely to occur with preverbs, but perfectivity does not depend exclusively on the presence of the preverb. That is, forms in perfective paradigms, such as the Old Georgian aorist, are perfective whether or not the preverb occurs. In Old Georgian particular preverbs are already common with particular verbal bases. Thus, the history of preverbs in Kartvelian is similar to that of a number of other languages: adverbs or nouns gradually become part of a verb stem. 2. UDI AND OTHER LEZGIAN LANGUAGES9 2.1. Synchronic description Udi inherited structures of the forms in (18), among others. (18)

a. *PV1-(PV2 )-CM-root ... b. *CM-root ...

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

67

Here CM is a class marker, the form of agreement found in languages of the North East Caucasian family. Following the root are the tense-aspect-mood markers, which do not interact with the preverb, and which are not relevant to the topic of this paper.10 It is likely that the Proto-Lezgian structure in (18a) was formed through processes similar to those described above for the Kartvelian languages, but at this time that cannot be proven. Udi has a set of seven preverbs, given in (19). (19)

PV

Meaning

Example

e-

‘hither’

e-ne-cˇer-e

ta-

‘thither’

ta-ne-d-e

la(y)-

‘up’

la-ne-p-e

ci-

‘down’

ci-ne-p-e

ba(y)-

‘in’

ba-ne-d-e

cˇ’e-

‘out’

cˇ’e-ne-bak-e

qa(y)-

‘back, repeat qay-ne-bak-e action’

[hither-3sg-carry-aorII] ‘she brought’ [thither-3sg-lv-aorII] ‘she took’ [up-3sg-lv-aorII] ‘she pulled up, dressed, wore’ [down-3sg-lv-aorII] ‘she poured down, threw down’ [in-3sg-lv-aorII] ‘she thrust s.t. in, baked’ [out-3sg-be-aorII] ‘she passed through, ground’ [back-3sg-be-aorII] ‘she returned, went back’

Here LV is a ‘‘light verb’’; -d- is a light verb to which no particular meaning can be attached. The root -p- earlier meant ‘say’ and continues in this meaning, but it has lost this meaning in many words. (19) illustrates the preverbs in verbs where their directional meaning remains fairly clear; but there are other verbs in which that meaning is no longer clear, such as la-ne-d-e ‘she wiped, spread’. In Udi preverbs do not serve a grammatical purpose such as marking perfective aspect. Each preverb occurs with only a few verb roots, including the verb roots ‘come, go’ (suppletive and irregular) and -sˇ-/-cˇ- ‘carry’.11 From a synchronic point of view, Udi does not combine preverbs as was possible in Proto-Lezgian (see (18a)).

2.2. Origins of the Preverbs Udi preverbs appear to come from a variety of sources – inherited, borrowed, reanalyzed (grammaticalized and degrammaticalized).

68

A.C. Harris

Two Udi preverbs, la- ‘up’ and qa- ‘back, reverse action’ are clearly inherited from Proto-Lezgian preverbs, *l- ‘up, on’ and *q- ‘behind, back’, respectively (Harris, to appear).12 These occurred in the position of PV1 in (18a). The element y, which occurs under certain circumstances with three of the preverbs, may be the reflex of a second preverb of Proto-Lezgian, *ay-, appearing in the position of PV2 in (18a) (see Harris, to appear; compare Alekseev 1985: 48). Some of the other Udi preverbs are probably language-specific innovations. For example, the preverb ci- ‘down’ appears to be related to the adverb cina ‘south, to the south’. (-na cannot be identified with certainty; there are numerous possibilities.) It is likely that ci- was reanalyzed from an adverb, much as in Svan, Georgian, and other languages. The Udi preverb ba- ‘in’ appears to be borrowed from an Iranian language (Wolfgang Schulze, personal communication). In all instances, the preverb occurs in the same position as the inherited preverbs – quite unremarkably – and with them forms a system. Perhaps the most interesting source among the Udi preverbs is degrammaticalization. There is evidence for a Pre-Udi verb root *e or *eC ‘come’. Language-internal evidence that e was once part of the root comes from future stems of verbs in which ‘come’ is used as a light verb, in a way similar to the way bak- is used in the last two examples in (19). Such verbs include be1 x-ec- ‘swell’, nep’ax-ec- ‘fall asleep’ (Jeiranisˇvili 1971: 235, 239), box-ec- ‘boil (intr)’. It might be suggested that the e here might be epenthetic (synchronically), although this does not seem to be consistent with the phonology of the language.13 There are a handful of verbs such as c’oro-ec- ‘drip, drain’, axa-ec- ‘hang down’, qay-ec‘open, undo’ (all three, Jeiranisˇvili 1971: 73), ba1 ca-ec- ‘is found’ 14 which preserve -ec- and where epenthesis is a priori unlikely because of the presence of a vowel to the left. Alternatively it might be suggested that e- is the remnant of an old preverb, but this does not seem to be consistent with evidence from the sister languages. While there is not agreement about the forms to be reconstructed, to the best of my knowledge no one has suggested that the comparative evidence supports the reconstruction of preverbs in the meanings ‘hither, here’ or ‘thither, there’ (leading to verbs meaning ‘come’ or ‘go’). Furthermore, the forms generally reconstructed consist only of a single consonant (Alekseev 1985: 117ff., Nikolayev and Starostin 1994, and Schulze 1988). Thus, the internal evidence and comparative evidence seem to support a Pre-Udi form *ec- ‘come’ or a root of similar composition.15 While originally (part of) the root, e- was reanalyzed as a preverb, parallel in behavior to the others listed in (19). In modern Udi, ‘come’ is multiply suppletive, as illustrated in (20). (20)

Stem Example Gloss

Present stem Aorist stem Future stem Imperative stem

e-%a(-)re-ce-k-

e-ne-sa ar-e-ne e-ne-c-o e-k-e

[hither-3sg-%-pres] [ar-aorII-3sg] [hither-3sg-c-futI] [hither-k-imper]16

Translation ‘she comes, is coming’ ‘she came’ ‘she will come’ ‘come (here)!’

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

69

It is likely that the vowel a of the aorist stem is related to the e- preverb, but vowel alternation in Proto-Lezgian is not well understood. In the Nij dialect, the stem form is har-. I assume henceforth that at least e-%-, e-c-, and e-k- in (20), are from a shared source, *e-C-. Evidence to support reanalysis of *eC- as *e-C- (that is, evidence to support reanalysis with a morpheme boundary) is of several kinds. First, there are the parallel positions of e- and the other preverbs in (19). Second, e- occupies the position occupied by other preverbs in the future stems of the six intransitive verbs of directional motion, as shown in (21). (21)

e-cta-clay-cci-cbay-ccˇ’e-c-

‘come’ ‘go’ ‘go up’ ‘go down’ ‘go in’ ‘go out’

(Data from Jeiranisˇvili 1971: 74)

Third, e- in e-ke ‘come (imper)’ occupies the position occupied by other preverbs in the imperative stems of the intransitive verbs of directional motion, such as ta-ke ‘go (imper)’, cˇ’e-ke ‘go out (imper)’. Fourth, e- is in the same position as other preverbs in the transitive verbs of directional motion, with the root -sˇ-/-cˇ- ‘carry’, illustrated in (22).17 (22)

e-ne-cˇ-e ta-ne-sˇ-er-e lay-ne-cˇ-er-e bay-ne-cˇ-er-e

[hither-3sg-carry-aorII] [thither-3sg-carry-er-aorII] [up-3sg-carry-er-aorII] [in-3sg-carry-er-aorII]

cˇi-ne-cˇ-er-e18 [out-3sg-carry-aorII]

‘she brought it’ ‘she took it’ ‘she took it up’ ‘she took it in’ (Jeiranisˇvili 1971: 237–238) ‘she took it out’

Thus there is good evidence to support both the view that *eC- was a single root morpheme historically, and the view that e-%-, e-c-, and e-k- are a preverb e- and a suppletive root today. This means that Udi e- has degrammaticalized from the root in which it was found in Proto-Lezgian.

2.3. The problem with -ne- and other person markers As mentioned above, the preverbs have partly lost their locative/directional meanings in verbs other than the intransitive and transitive verbs of directional motion. Some of those in which both stem morphemes can be identified with certainty are listed in (23).

70

(23)

A.C. Harris

ta-ne-d-e la-ne-d-e la-ne-p-e ci-ne-p-e ba-ne-d-e ba-ne-k’-e ba-ne-p-e cˇ’e-ne-bak-e cˇ’e-ne-p-e

[thither-3sg-lv-aorII] [up-3sg-lv-aorII] [up-3sg-lv-aorII] [down-3sg-lv-aorII] [in-3sg-lv-aorII] [in-3sg-lv-aorII] [in-3sg-lv-aorII] [out-3sg-be-aorII] [out-3sg-lv-aorII]

‘she gave’ ‘she wiped, spread’ ‘she pulled up, dressed’ ‘she poured down, threw down’ ‘she thrust s.t. in, baked’ ‘she poured’ ‘she poured in, filled with’ ‘she went through, crossed over’ ‘she undressed, took off’

Evidence that the preverbs in (19) are not productive is that Jeiranisˇvili, a native-speaker linguist, states repeatedly that the first element (which he seems to have considered a morpheme) in these words could not be identified or glossed (1971: 78, 231, 232, 233, 234). Thus the meaning, for Jeiranisˇvili, belongs to the combination of preverb and light verb and is not predictable from the meanings of the parts. This is confirmed by the fact that the light verbs -d- and -k’- have no discernable meaning, while the meaning of -p- is no longer directly related to its basic meaning, ‘say’, in these and other examples. It is not unusual to have preverb-verb combinations with lexicalized (‘‘listed’’ in the terms of Di Sciullo and Williams 1987) meanings and with structures in which an agreement marker intervenes between the preverb and the verb root. This is, after all, what we find in Georgian (1). It is easily explained in terms of the preverb being added to a form in which some agreement markers already preceded the verb root. What makes Udi unusual and problematic is the fact that the agreement markers found in the modern language in the position between the preverb and the root are recently formed. The inherited markers would probably have had forms similar to those in (24), which are reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian. (24) I II III IV

Singular

Plural

*w *r/y *b *d

*b *b *d *d

(Schulze 1992, see also Alekseev 1985)

The b- marker of class III is, in fact, preserved in fossilized form in Udi (Jeiranisˇvili 1956). Comparing the Proto-Lezgian class markers in (24) with the Udi person markers (PMs) in (25), it is easy to see that they are not cognate.

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

(25)

71

Person Markers (PMs) Independent Pronouns 1.Sg 2.Sg 3.Sg 1.Pl 2.Pl 3.Pl

-zu -nu -ne -yan -nan -q’un

zu un yan va1 n, efa1 n

The independent pronouns are given in the ergative/absolutive form. It is easy to see that the first and second person PMs are derived from independent pronouns. The third person PMs are derived from independent deictic pronouns, but they are not provided here because their derivation is more complex and not directly relevant (but see Harris 2002: 181–182). The forms in (24) and (25) show that the Udi PMs are not inherited from Proto-Lezgian class markers and that the Udi PMs are relatively new. This means that, at least for the inherited preverbs la- ‘up’ and qa(y)- ‘back, reverse action’, the agreement markers assumed their current positions after the structure PV-root already existed. How can this be?

2.4. How Udi PMs came to occur between the preverb and the root The historical process of univerbation in Indo-European languages is one that is familiar through the work of Watkins (1963, 1964), among others, and a similar schema has been sketched above in this paper and in the work of other linguists. This occurred historically also in Udi and can be seen most clearly in recent noun incorporations, such as (26a), which occurs beside (26b), which lacks incorporation. (26)

a.

merab-en zavod-a asˇ-ne-b-sa Merab-erg factory-dat work-3sg-do-pres ‘Merab works in a factory.’

b. merab-en zavod-a asˇ-l-ax-ne b-esa Merab-erg factory-dat work-ext-dat-3sg do-pres ‘Merab does the WORK in a factory.’ Although in (26a) asˇ occurs in the absolutive case, with a % ending, and in (26b) it is in the dative case, it is easy to see that a structure similar to the latter could have been reanalyzed as (26a), ‘‘trapping’’ the PM (here -ne-) between the incorporated noun and the light verb, -b- ‘do’. It may be that something similar occurred with the innovative preverbs, such as ci- ‘down’, though it is impossible to determine the relative order of the

72

A.C. Harris

change of independent ci- to a preverb and that of independent pronouns to PMs. Thus, it is possible that we had something like *ci-ne p-e [down-3sg sayaorII]>ci-ne-p-e [down-3sg-lv-aorII] ‘she poured down, threw down’. Nearly all of the light verbs in the modern language are single consonants (bak- ‘be, become’ is the only exception), and I assume that status was reached before the change discussed in this paragraph. One way a speaker might analyze the structures resulting from univerbation (with the exception of those employing bak-) is as (27). (27) X-PM-C ... , where X is any incorporated material (including nouns, such as asˇ ‘work’, and possibly innovative preverbs, such as ci- ‘down’), PM is the person marker ‘‘trapped’’ through univerbation, and C is a consonant (the light verb), and where the ellipsis indicates other, irrelevant morphemes following the root. This pattern was extended to monomorphemic verb roots, with X now representing whatever precedes the final consonant in the root. This change is indicated in (28), where the double arrow represents extension, and where bok’- ‘burn’ is a monomorphemic root reconstructed by both Schulze (1988) and Nikolayev and Starostin (1994), and where the forms used for illustration are the modern ones.19 (The pattern was never extended to the two monomorphemic verb roots that end in a vowel.) (28)

Pattern Extension asˇ-ne-b-e work-3sg-do-aorII X-PM-C ...

& X-PM-C ... bo-ne-k’-e burn1-3sg-burn2-aorII

Another root in which this kind of extension must have occurred is berx- ‘grind, mill’, and we find forms such as ber-ne-x-e ‘she ground’ today. For these and certain other verbs it is hypothesized, then, that the PMs derived in Pre-Udi from independent pronouns, as shown in (25), moved inside monomorphemic verb roots by extension of (27), the pattern created through the process of univerbation. For some other monomorphemic verb roots, however, a problem arises: Comparative evidence suggests that the inherited class markers occupied the position in the verb root that is later occupied by the reduced pronouns. For example, both Schulze (1988: 135) and Nikolayev and Starostin (1994: 1025) reconstruct a Proto-Lezgian ancestor for Udi aiz- ‘stand’. Nikolayev and Starostin (loc cit) list the following reflexes in the sister languages indicated,

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

73

where the equal-sign marks the position of the inherited marker of class: Rutul (l-u=zfa-), Tsakhur (ul’-o=zar-), Kryts (q:-u=zur-), and Archi (o=c:i-).20 In these sister languages the marker of class occurs immediately before the reflex of the fricative, just as it does in Udi, as illustrated in (29). (29) ai-ne-z-o stand1-3sg-stand2-futI ‘she will stand up’ Given the comparative evidence, we are obliged to reconstruct the position marked by ‘‘=’’ as the position of the marker of class in Proto-Lezgian. This raises three questions: First, what does this indicate about how the innovative Udi person markers got into the position illustrated in (29)? Second, how did the class markers get into this position in Proto-Lezgian or before? What does this have to do with preverbs? Examples like Udi aiz- ‘stand’ show that the position of the inherited class marker is relevant to the position later assumed by the Udi person marker. If we deny this relationship and claim instead that person markers came to their present intramorphemic position through extension (or analogy), we would be claiming that it was a coincidence that in the Proto-Lezgian etymon of aiz- and certain other modern Udi monomorphemic verb roots person markers happen to occupy the position class markers occupied in Proto-Lezgian. We must assume that coincidences of this sort do not occur in root after root.21 There are several ways the position of the Proto-Lezgianclass markers could be related to that of the Udi person markers. First, it is entirely possible that the person markers were innovated before the class markers were lost.22 Second, in Udi, especially Udi of the 19th century, other morphemes occur – when they do occur – with the person marker. It is possible that these were present before the loss of the class markers and marked the ‘‘slot’’ until person markers were positioned. A third possibility is that the position of the class marker may have been dependent on the location of word stress, and that person markers may have been similarly positioned relative to stress. Although it is only a tendency for the person marker to immediately follow stress in modern Udi, at an earlier stage this may have been required. Thus, we must assume that in verb roots of this type, the person marker moved into the slot reserved for it by one of the means outlined in this paragraph; I refer to this below as ‘‘movement to a slot’’. The second question posed above is how the class markers got into monomorphemic verb roots in Proto-Lezgian. It is likely that this occurred through some combination of univerbation and pattern extension, just as happened later in Pre-Udi. The last question, and the one that brings us to the point of this paper, is how PMs got into the positions they occupy with respect to preverbs. In § 2.2 I identified four kinds of origin for Udi preverb: (i) inheritance (e.g. la- ‘up’,

74

A.C. Harris

qa(y)- ‘back, repeat action’), (ii) reanalysis of an adverb (e.g. ci- ‘down’), (iii) borrowing (e.g. ba- ‘in’), and (iv) degrammaticalization, e.g. e- ‘hither’. For each of these the origin of the position of the person marker may be a bit different. (i) The structure inherited for preverbs was (18a), as indicated above. Since the innovative person marker came to occupy the position previously held by the class marker, we must assume that this took place through movement to a preexisting slot. (ii) As noted above, it is possible that the person marker came to follow the preverb ci- ‘down’ through univerbation. On the other hand, the preverb may have been reanalyzed and positioned first, with the person marker later being positioned as with inherited preverbs. This depends on the relative order of changes, which is not at this time recoverable. (iii) Similarly with regard to borrowed preverbs, if we assume that the borrowing took place first, the positioning of the person marker would have been as with inherited preverbs. (iv) Most interesting is the positioning of the person marker relative to the degrammaticalized preverb e- ‘hither’. We may assume that the reanalysis of eas a preverb was motivated in part by the paradigmatic parallels described in § 2.2, but also in part by the position of the person marker relative to it. It is possible that the inherited root *eC- came to be interrupted by the person marker through the mechanism of extension, as indicated in (30). (30)

Pattern Extension asˇ-ne-b-e work-3sg-do-aorII X-PM-C ...

bo-ne-k’-e burn1-3sg-burn2-aorII X-PM-C ... & X-PM-C ... e-ne-c-o come1-3sg-come2-futI

After the pattern of (27) was extended to *eC-, the e- was reanalyzed as a preverb, as indicated in (31), where the triple arrow represents reanalysis. (31)

e-ne-c-o come1-sg-come2-futI X-PM-C ...

e-ne-c-o come1-3sg-come2-futI z PV-PM-root ...

Thus, the single surface form, e-ne-c-o ‘come’, in pattern (27) was reanalyzed as a realization of pattern (18a).

3. CONCLUSION I have shown that agreement markers may come to occur between a preverbroot combination by a variety of diachronic means. The mechanism followed in

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

75

Svan and Georgian is a familiar one, involving reanalysis of an adverb or noun, cliticization to an existing agreement-root sequence, and eventually further reanalysis of the proclitic preverb as a prefix. In Udi we find a variety of pathways to this end, including univerbation (a kind of reanalysis), pattern extension, reanalysis of an adverb, and degrammaticalization. Perhaps most surprising is the realization forced upon us by the data, that the innovative person marker of Udi in some instances moves to the position previously occupied by the inherited markers of class. NOTES 1

I am grateful to Wolfgang Schulze for calling my attention to the origin of ba- ‘in’, as noted in the text. I also want to thank both to Wolfgang and to Lyle Campbell for commenting extensively on a related manuscript and for discussion of many issues relating to Udi. The research reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. SRB-9710085 and BCS-0091691 and by the International Research and Exchanges Board under the ACLS-Academy of Sciences Exchange with the Soviet Union (1989) and in earlier years. I am grateful for the support of both organizations. My research on Udi is entirely dependent upon the help of my consultants, especially Luiza Nesˇumasˇvili, Dodo Misk’alisˇvili, Nana Agasisˇvili, and Caco Cˇik’vaize, to whom I am very grateful. 2 The following abbreviations are used in this paper: adv adverbial case, aor aorist, c consonant, cm class marker, cv character vowel, dat dative, det determiner, er suffix er/r with no identified function, erg ergative, ext extension, fut future, gen genitive, imper imperative, indef indefinite, lv light verb, nom nominative, pl plural, pm person marker, pres present, pv preverb, ques question particle, sg singular, tam tense-aspect-mood, voc vocative. In Udi examples, the copular is glossed be when it functions as a light verb, and the verb ‘make, do’ as do when it serves as a light verb. Tense-aspect-mood categories in Udi are named and numbered according to the system in Pancˇvize (1974), as described in Harris (2002). 3 Except as noted, examples are from the Lasˇx dialect. 4 It cannot be shown with certainty that the set of prefixal preverbs originated as adverbs, but it is generally assumed that their origin was parallel to that of the adverb/proclitics (see, for example, Schmidt 1969). The description and analysis of preverbs in Kartvelian languages is based on that in Harris and Campbell (1995: 94–96). 5 The etymologies given here can also be found in Klimov (1998) and Penrixi and Sarjvelaze (1990). The derivational morphology is described in detail in (Jorbenaze et al. 1988); note especially the circumfix m–al- ‘characterized by’, which forms adjectives and participles (Jorbenaze et al. 1988: 272–274). 6 Old Georgian examples cited are from the Bible, with the following abbreviations used: Ad the Adisˇi codex (the oldest, 897 A.D.), J John, L Luke, Mk Mark, Mt Matthew. 7 On the formation of the adverbial case of nouns in -il, see Imnaisˇvili (1957: 36–40). 8 Another hypothesis is that the origins of mi- ‘thither’ and mo- ‘hither’ are in some way connected with the first person singular objective prefix, m- (Klimov 1964: 135, 136, Klimov 1998: 122, 124). Problems of this hypothesis include the origins of the vowels, especially in view of the fact that m-i- often has meanings such as ‘for me’, ‘to me’, ‘with respect to me’. Another problem is that, given that the meanings of mi- and mo- are ‘away from speaker and

76

A.C. Harris

hearer’ and ‘toward speaker and hearer’, rather than just ‘away from speaker’ and ‘toward speaker’, one might expect the prefix gv- ‘us inclusive’ (‘me and you’) to have been used, rather than m- ‘me’. 9 Except as noted, data are from the village of Okt’omber, where the Vartasˇen dialect of Udi is spoken. 10 There is some evidence for an aspectal marker *-l-, which would have preceded the root; but this is likewise irrelevant to the present study. 11 As discussed below, e- occurs only with these two roots; and ci- ‘down’ evidently fails to occur with ‘carry’, though it does occur with other roots, as illustrated in (23). 12 Alekseev (1985: 117) reconstructs *al ‘on’, but Schulze (1988: 49) points out that the evidence suggests that the vowel preceding l in several of the sisters is relatively recent. 13 Generally, e syncopates in the environment VC+__sV (see Harris 2002: 82–83). 14 Finding this verb difficult to elicit in any form, I have the form cited here only from two consultants. 15 Nikolayev and Starostin (1994: 269) identify this Udi verb as a reflex of Proto-Lezgian *?irq˙a¨r ‘reach, come, get, hit, overtake, find’, but I do not consider this a firm reconstruction. 16 Although I have glossed the morpheme -e as imperative, it is not the regular imperative formant, which is -a. Even the division of ke into two morphemes is undertaken with little concrete evidence; doing so makes the stem, e-k- structurally similar to the future stem, e-c-, and the putative imperative ending -e similar to the regular -a. 17 See Schulze (1988: 129) on the etymology of this root. Nikolayev and Starostin (1994: 254) give a different view, relating the Udi verb e-cˇ- ‘bring’ to forms in two other Lezgian languages. This etymology would, in any case, not shed much light on the question of whether e- was inherited as part of the root in this word too, thus forming part of the basis for separating off e- as a preverb at a later date, or whether the derived preverb was extended to this root. 18 I assume that *cˇ’e- became *cˇi- in this verb on analogy with the root, cˇ-. I have no explanation for the change in the vowel. 19 On the notion ‘‘extension’’ in diachronic syntax, see Harris and Campbell 1995. For proof of the monomorphemic status of these roots in Udi, see Harris 2000; and for more details of the change, including details of the roots discussed here, see Harris 2002. 20 Nikolayev and Starostin (1994) rely almost entirely on a single source for information about Udi (they make little use of sources in German or Georgian), and they evidently have no information about the location of PMs in Udi. We may assume, therefore, that their analysis was not in any sense constructed with the issue discussed here in mind. 21 All regular monomorphemic verb roots in Udi have endoclitic PMs. For some, only extension is possible; for some it is clear that this explanation is not satisfactory because of evidence from the sister languages; for some the facts are not all known. 22 Plank (1980) and Abraham (1997) have argued that in other instances one set of markers was retained until a replacement system was in place.

REFERENCES Abraham, Werner (1997). The interdependence of case, aspect and referentiality in the history of German: The case of the verbal genitive. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, eds. Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29–61.

Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi

77

Ackerman, Farrell, and Gerd Webelhuth (1998). A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Alekseev, M.E. (1985). Voprosy sravnitel’no-istoricˇeskoj grammatiki lezginskix jazykov: Morphologija. Sintaksis. Moscow: Nauka. Blake, Robert P. (1974). The Old Georgian version of the Gospel of Mark. Patrologia Orientalis 20, fascicle 3. (First edition, 1928.) Blake, Robert P. (1976). The Old Georgian version of the Gospel of Matthew. Patrologia Orientalis 24, fascicle 1. (First edition 1933.) Blake, Robert P. and Maurice Brie`re. (1950). The Old Georgian version of the Gospel of John. Patrologia Orientalis 26, fascicle 4. Brie`re, Maurice. (1955). La version ge´orgienne ancienne de L’e´vangile de Luc. Patrologia Orientalis 27, fascile 3. Cherchi, Marcello (1994). Verbal tmesis in Georgian. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico Sezione Linguistica 16, 33–115. Cherchi, Marcello (1997). Verbal tmesis in Georgian, Part II. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico Sezione Linguistica 19, 63–137. Deeters, Gerhard (1930). Das khartwelische Verbum. Leipzig: Markert & Petters. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gamq’relize, T. (1959). Sibilant’ta sˇesat’q’visobani da kartvelur enata uzvelesi st’rukt’uris zogi sak’itxi. [Sibilant correspondences and some questions of the most ancient structure of the Kartvelian languages.] Tbilisi: Ak’ademia. Giginejsˇvili, B.K. (1977). Sravnitel’naja fonetika dagestanskix jazykov. Tbilisi: Universitet. Harris, Alice C. (2000). Where in the word is the Udi clitic? Language 76, 593–616. Harris, Alice C. (2002). Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, Alice C. (to appear). The prehistory of Udi locative cases and locative preverbs. Festschrift for Howard I. Aronson, ed. Dee Ann Holisky and Kevin Tuite. Harris, Alice C., and Lyle Campbell (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holisky, Dee Ann (1981). Aspect theory and Georgian aspect. Tense and Aspect (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 14), ed. P.J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen. New York: Academic Press, 127–144. Imnaisˇvili, I. (1957). Saxelta bruneba da brunvata punkciebi zvel kartulsˇi. [The declension of nouns and the functions of cases in Old Georgian.] Tbilisi: Universit’et’i. Jeiranisˇvili, Evg. (1956). Gramat’ik’uli k’lasis gakvavebuli nisˇnebi udur zmnebsa da nazmnar saxelebsˇi [Fossilized markers of grammatical class in Udi verbs and deverbal nouns]. Iberiul-k’avk’aziuri enatmecniereba 8, 341–362. Jeiranisˇvili, Evg. (1971). Udiuri ena [The Udi language]. Tbilisi: Universit’et’i. Jorbenaze, B., M. K’obaize, and M. Berize (1988). Kartul enis morpemebisa da modaluri element’ebis leksik’oni. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. ` tymologicˇeskij slovar’ kartvel’skix jazykov. Moskva: Akademija. Klimov, G.A. (1964). E Klimov, Georgij A. (1998). Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mart’irosovi, Aram (1946). Tandebuli kartulsˇi. [Adpositions in Georgian.] Iberiul-k’avk’aziuri enatmecniereba 1, 203–246. Mart’irosovi, A. (1956). C’indebulisa da tandebulis ist’oriuli urtiertobisatvis kartulsˇi. [On

78

A.C. Harris

the historical relationship between preverbs and postpositions in Georgian.] Iberiulk’avk’aziuri enatmecniereba 8, 39–46. Nikolayev, S.L., and S.A. Starostin (1994). North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk Publishers. Pancˇvize, Vl. (1974). Uduri enis gramat’ik’uli analizi. [A grammatical analysis of the Udi language.] Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Penrixi, Hainc (=Fa¨hnrich, Heinz), and Zurab Sarjvelaze (1990). Kartvelur enata et’imologiuri leksik’oni. [Etymological dictionary of the Kartvelian languages.] Tbilisi: Universit’et’i. Plank, Frans (1980). Encoding grammatical relations: Acceptable and unacceptable nondistinctness. Historical Morphology, ed. Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 289–326. Sˇanize, Ak’ak’i (1973 [1953]). Kartuli enis gramat’ik’is sapuzvlebi. [Fundamentals of the grammar of the Georgian language.] Tbilisi: Universit’et’i. Schmidt, Karl Horst (1969). Zur Tmesis in den Kartvelsprachen und ihren typologischen Parallelen in indogermanischen Sprachen. Giorgi Axvledians. Tbilisi: Universit’et’i, 96–105. Schulze, Wolfgang. ms (1988). Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der Su¨dOstkaukasischen (Lezgischen) Grundsprache. Bonn. Schulze, Wolfgang (1992). Zur Entwicklungsdynamik morphosyntaktischer Subsysteme. Caucasologie et mythologie compare´e, ed. Catherine Peters. Paris: 335–362. Topuria, Varlam (1967 [1931]). Svanuri ena, I: Zmna [The Svan Language, I: The Verb]. [Published as volume I of his Sˇromebi [Works].] Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Tschenke´li, Kita (1958). Einfu¨hrung in die georgische Sprache, Band 1. Zu¨rich: Amirani. Vesˇap’ize, Irak’li (1967). Zmnisc’ini zvel kartul enasˇi. [The preverb in the Old Georgian language.] Tbilisi: Universit’et’i. Watkins, Calvert (1963). Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6, 1–49. Watkins, Calvert (1964). Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. H.G. Lunt. The Hague: Mouton, 1035–1045.

Department of Linguistics SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4376 U.S.A. [email protected]

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English ANS VAN KEMENADE and BETTELOU LOS1

1. INTRODUCTION This paper charts the historical development of two sets of verbal prefixes in the West-Germanic languages, which appear to show a large degree of functional equivalence, although they have rather different morphosyntactic properties. The first set is inseparable, as found in the Dutch verbs verbranden ‘burn’, beschrijven ‘describe’, ontmoeten ‘meet’; while the second set is separable, as found in the Dutch verbs opbellen ‘call up’, afzeggen ‘call off’, wegblazen ‘blow away’. The two sets of verbs, whose properties we describe in some detail below, are functionally equivalent in the sense that they denote complex events that involve a change of state in a resultative construction. This reflects their assumed common historical origin. We claim that the morphosyntactic differences between the two sets result from the fact that the verbs with inseparable prefixes have undergone a different morphosyntactic development, whilst retaining the semantics of a complex event. We will distinguish four ways in which the complex events denoted by the verbs under discussion can be encoded morphosyntactically. These four stages to some extent represent a historical sequence: at the first stage, the particle represents a genuine predicate in a secondary predicate construction, and is constructed syntactically as a morpheme independent from the verb. At the second stage, the prefix/particle is part of a separable complex verb (SCV) which, though constructed from free morphemes and separable by syntactic processes, operates as a single lexical unit in other respects. At the third stage, the preverb, though constructed from bound morphemes, is separable from the verbal stem by other bound morphemes. At the fourth stage, which may either develop from the third stage, or develop independently according to morphosyntactic circumstance, the prefix is part of an Inseparable Complex Verb (ICV), which is a bound morpheme inseparable from the verbal stem. The predicate/particle/prefix typically encodes a change of state, and adds telic aktionsart, resulting in an accomplishment or an achievement. The predicate may grammaticalize further into an aspectual marker or inflectional morphology, in which case it no longer encodes a change of state, and is no longer a resultative predicate. The diachronic development of these resultative predicates, then, affects aspectuality (Boogaart 1999): the inventory of expressions of lexical aspect (or aktionsart), and, in time, grammatical aspect. The structure of this article is as follows: in section 2, we describe in some detail the properties of separable verbs, concentrating on present-day Dutch and present-day English. In section 3, we present an analysis of the semantic Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 79–117. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

80

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

core shared by the two sets of verbs, by formulating the lexical conceptual structure (LCS) they have in common. We will then see how this LCS can be variously encoded morphosyntactically. In section 4, we discuss the inseparable verbs and in section 5 we describe the historical development in some detail, developing the historical stages outlined above. In section 6 we link the decline of preverbal particles in English to a change in underlying syntax. Section 7 sums up the results and outlines questions that must be pursued further.

2. PARTICLE VERBS IN PRESENT-DAY DUTCH AND ENGLISH 2.1. The paradox of particle verbs (SCVs) Separable complex verbs (SCVs) in the present-day West-Germanic languages typically consist of a verbal base, and a nonverbal part, often but not always a ‘particle’. By way of example, let’s consider the Dutch verb opbellen ‘to call up’ (from Booij 1990). (1)

a.

Jan zegt dat hij morgen zijn moeder opbelt John says that he tomorrow his mother up-rings ‘John says that he will phone his mother tomorrow’

b. Jan belt zijn moeder morgen op John rings his mother tomorrow up ‘John will phone his mother tomorrow’ In (1a), a nonroot clause, the particle op precedes the non-finite verb, while in (1b), it is left stranded in clause-final position as a result of the Verb Second constraint (V2). Although particle and verb are separated by V2, suggesting that SCVs like opbellen are constructed in the syntax, the meaning of the combination, ‘to phone’, is not completely predictable from its constituent elements bellen ‘ring’ and op ‘up’, which points to an analysis of the SCV as a phrasal verb, stored in the lexicon as one unit (Booij 1998). Thus, these SCVs are hybrid in nature, and Germanic SCVs are not alone here; they seem to descend quite straightforwardly from the preverb+verb combination discussed for Indo-European in Watkins (1964). Similar phenomena are discussed for languages as diverse as Hungarian in Ackerman (1987), the Brazilian language Nade¨b in Weir (1986), Georgian and Udi in Harris (this volume), Northern Australian languages as in Schultze-Berndt (this volume). What such constructions have in common is precisely this paradox between apparently being a lexical combination on the one hand, and being syntactically constructed on the other hand. To resolve this paradox, our hypothesis is that the nonverbal part of the

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

81

SCV is a secondary predicate in origin. We will motivate this assumption in the next subsection. Tracing the historical origin from this perspective, we will see that the syntactic behaviour of the particle reflects this provenance. 2.2. Particles in present-day Dutch The erstwhile predicate status of particles is supported by various word order phenomena. If we regard particles as (derived from) predicates, the separation of verb and particle by the operation of the verb-second rule follows naturally, as other predicates are also stranded by verb movement in the root clause. Let’s first elaborate further on Dutch: the two different particle positions shown in (1a-b) above are exactly matched by the position of ‘regular’ secondary predicates like groen ‘green’ in (2a-b): (2)

a.

Jan zegt dat hij de deur morgen groen verft John says that he the door tomorrow green paints ‘John says that he will paint the door green tomorrow’

b. Jan verft de deur groen. John paints the door green ‘John paints the door green’ Another positional quirk of the particle is that it can be separated from the verb by auxiliaries in verb-raising constructions, as in (3a-c) and this too is paralleled by well-established predicates in (4a-c): (3)

a.

dat Jan zijn moeder op probeert te bellen that Jan his mother up tries to phone ‘that John tries to phone up his mother’

b. dat Jan zijn moeder op heeft gebeld that Jan his mother up has phoned ‘that John has phoned up his mother’

(4)

c.

dat Jan zijn moeder op zal bellen that Jan his mother up will phone ‘that John wants to phone up his mother’

a.

dat Jan de deur groen probeert te verven that Jan the door green tries to paint ‘that John tries to paint the door green’

b. dat Jan de deur groen heeft geverfd that Jan the door green has painted ‘that John has painted the door green’

82

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

c.

dat Jan de deur groen wil verven that Jan the door green wants paint ‘that John wants to paint the door green’

There are, however, some additional particle positions from which other predicates are barred: particles can occur inside the verb cluster in verb-raising constructions such as (5a-b), unlike resultative predicates (6a-b), which are only allowed similarly close to the verb in the Infinitive-finite verb order as in (7a-b): (5)

a.

dat Jan zijn moeder heeft opgebeld that John his mother has up-phoned ‘that John has phoned his mother up’

b. dat Jan zijn moeder morgen zal opbellen that John his mother tomorrow will up-phone ‘that John will phone up his mother tomorrow’ (6)

a.

*dat Jan de deur heeft groen geverfd that John the door has green painted ‘that John has painted the door green’

b. *dat Jan de deur zal groen verven that John the door will green paint ‘that John will paint the door green’ (7)

a.

dat Jan de deur groen geverfd heeft that John the door green painted has ‘that John has painted the door green

b. dat Jan de deur groen verven wil that John the door green paint wants ‘that John wants to paint the door green’ It looks as if the particle has been incorporated into the verb in (5a-b). The reality of such a special ‘particle order’ is further supported by the existence and behaviour of SCVs in which the nonverbal part is of a different word category, i.e. AP-verb combinations as in (8a) and (fossilized) PP-verb combinations as in (8b). Some of these PPs are no longer synchronically analysed as PPs but either as APs (e.g. tevreden ‘content’, lit. ‘at peace’) or as unanalysable particles (e.g. tegemoet, tekeer): (8)

a.

leegscheppen ‘empty’ (lit. ‘empty-scoop’), goedkeuren ‘approve’ (lit. ‘good-judge’), volgooien ‘fill up’ (lit. ‘full-throw’), losmaken ‘loosen’ (lit. ‘loose-make’), schoonmaken ‘clean’ (lit. ‘clean-make’), blootstaan

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

83

‘be exposed to’ (lit. ‘naked-stand’), vreemdgaan ‘have an extra-marital affair’ (lit. ‘foreign-go’), etc. b.

teloorgaan ‘be lost’ (lit. ‘to loss go’), te gronde richten ‘ruin’ (lit.‘to ground force’), tewerkstellen ‘employ’ (lit. ‘to work put’), tegemoetkomen ‘go to meet’ (lit. ‘to meet come’), tekeergaan ‘rave, storm, wreak havoc’ (orig. ‘parry blows, attack’ from the Middledutch noun keer ‘turn, parry’), terechtstellen ‘execute’ (lit. ‘to justice put’), etc.

The secondary-predicate origins of such adjective-verb combinations are more transparent than those of the particle-SCVs: adjectives are the typical nonverbal predicate category, and postulating a secondary predicate (SP) analysis in synchronic Dutch for these SCVs is rather less controversial than for the particle SCVs. Nevertheless, as Koopman (1995) observes, these adjectival SCVs behave like SCVs with a particle in that they allow both word orders: the one in (9a), cf. (4) above, but also that in (9b) from which ‘nonincorporated’ predicates are barred, cf. (5a-b): (9)

a.

dat Jan zijn auto schoon zal maken that John his car clean will make ‘that John will clean his car’

b. dat Jan zijn auto zal schoon maken that John his car will clean make ‘that John will clean his car’ A telling difference emerges when the adjective in (9) is modified, as in (10), in which case the order in (10a) emerges as the only possibility. The order in (9b) and (10b) apparently requires a ‘bare’ head, suggesting incorporation. (10)

a.

dat Jan zijn auto erg schoon zal maken that John his car quite clean will make ‘that John will clean his car very well’

b. *dat Jan zijn auto zal erg schoon maken that John his car will quite clean make ‘that John will clean his car very well’ We propose to account for these data by assuming that SCVs derive historically from secondary predicates, with a (simplified) Small Clause structure as in (11).

84

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

The linear proximity of predicate and (clause-final) verb, and the special semantics associated with the construction (which will be discussed in greater detail in section 3) in time led to varying degrees of lexicalization, involving a rebracketing of the structure in (11), repeated in (12a), into a structure like (12b). (12)

a. b.

[de auto [schoon]] maken, [zijn moeder [op]] bellen de auto [schoonmaken], zijn moeder [opbellen]

It is this reanalysis (through incorporation and/or subsequent lexicalization) which allows the particle-verb combination to serve as input for word formation on a par with simplex verbs, and to behave as a word with respect to VerbRaising, as in (5b) and (9b). Most intriguingly, the reanalysis represented in (12) did not lead to any loss in phrasal behaviour, as we saw in (2)–(4) above: separation by V2, and by verbal clitics like infinitival te, inflectional geremained, as did the heavy stress on the particle. The reanalysis led to the rise of a new category ‘particle’, which comes with its own SCV-package of syntactic behaviour on the one hand, inherited from its earlier predicate status, and lexical behaviour on the other hand, which is the result of reanalysis.

2.3. Particles in present-day English The issue of separability is also relevant to present-day English particles and predicates. English VO syntax makes two positions available for English predicates: an unmarked one with the secondary predicate following its subject as in (13a), and a marked one with the positions of subject and predicate reversed, which is only acceptable with long and complex Small Clause subjects. Verb and predicate become adjacent.

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

(13)

a. b.

85

She stuffed [NP all the documents containing incriminating evidence] [PP into her briefcase] She stuffed [PP into her briefcase] [NP all the documents containing incriminating evidence]

Particles show the same two positions, but there is no length or complexity requirement, apart from the fact that pronouns are generally barred from the ‘extraposed’ position, unless they have contrastive stress, as in (15). (14)

a. b. c. d.

He phoned his mother up He phoned up his mother He phoned her up *He phoned up her

(15) ‘If you force your confidence upon me, Mr. Headstone, I’ll give up every word of it. Mind! Take notice. I’ll give it up, and I’ll give up you. I will!’ (Dickens, 1919 [1865]. Our Mutual Friend, London: Dent, 673) The latter point was noted at least as far back as Fairclough (1965: 61, quoted in Lipka 1972: 25). There is, then, a word order difference between regular predicates and particles in that the latter lack any length or complexity requirements on the NP in the ‘extraposed’ order. As a result, the particle ends up adjacent to V far more frequently than the regular predicate, which paves the way for the verb and particle developing greater morphological unity than the verb and predicate, reminiscent of the adjacency of the Dutch verb and particle under Verb-Raising. We saw in (8a-b) that word order phenomena in Dutch show that SCVs are not restricted to particle-verb combinations only but also include AP-verb and PP-verb combinations; the same is true of word order phenomena in the English phrasal verb illustrated in (14), which similarly extends to V+AP (16a) and V+PP combinations (16b) (see also Quirk et al. 1985: 734, 1167; Claridge 2000: 66–70, 153; Denison 1981: 36–37). (16)

a.

break/blow/blast/cut/fling/push/whisk open, cut/stop short, bleach white, blow/keep/make clear, put straight, let/set free, think fit, cast/let/pry/shake/wrestle loose, strip naked etc.

b.

bring to light, put in execution, take in hand, call to mind, call in question, take into consideration etc.

As in Dutch, the list in (16b) can be extended almost indefinitely with items in which the PP has been grammaticalized into an AP or particle. On in such PPs tends to be reduced to a:

86

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

(17) carry aloft (>on loft), set alight (>on light), take apart (>on part), put awry (>on wry), carry around (>on round), keep asunder (>on sunder), set afoot (>on foot) etc. We saw in the previous section that the AP in a Dutch SCV needs to be bare, and the same appears to be true for the AP in an English multi-word verb, which increasingly resists modification as it lexicalizes (see for some descriptive discussion Claridge 2000: 68, 157). The need for bare heads may also account for the fusion of the PP into a single word as in the examples in (17). Finally, as with Dutch opbelbaar, English phrasal verbs may also be input to derivational processes that do not build on phrases, as in come-at-able, get-at-able or lookerson (all from OED). All this points to a close historical connection between particle and secondary predicate.

2.4. Particles as grammaticalized predicates Secondary predicates (in traditional grammars referred to as ‘object complements’ (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973) or ‘object attributes’(Aarts and Aarts 1982, Aarts 1989)) are verbal constructions in which an embedded predicate denotes the result of the action of the verb. Typical examples usually contain an adjective phrase as predicate and a ‘light verb’ as its verb, as in (18a-b). (18)

a. b.

He made his papers available on the internet He kept the doors open

The predicate and the preceding NP are in a subject-predicate relation: as a result of his action, his papers are available on the internet (18a); the doors are open (18b). Predicates are by no means restricted to adjective phrases: NPs or PPs are also possible. Likewise, the verb is not restricted to a light verb but may be any verb that can indicate the means or manner by which the result was reached, or even a verb that lexicalizes the predicate itself. The construction is extremely productive, witness these real-life examples collected by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2001), with a ‘means’ verb and an adjective phrase in (19a), a ‘manner’ verb and an adjective phrase in (19b) and a ‘lexicalized predicate verb’ with a PP in (19c): (19)

a.

Last night, the dog poked me awake every hour to go outside (The Toronto Sun, 27 Nov. 1994, p. 6)

b.

Sudse cooked them all into a premature death with her wild food. (P. Chute. 1987. Castine. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, p. 78)

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

c.

87

She might employ it [her body] as a weapon – fall forward and flatten me wafer-thin. (Delia Ephron. 2000. Big City Eyes, New York: Bantam, p. 92)

The observation that particles share many characteristics with predicates has a long history in the literature, from at least the early fifties onwards (Anthony 1953: 86), and can be found in, e.g., Fraser (1965: 82ff), Legum (1968: 55ff) and Bolinger (1971: 37ff). The parallels between the two structures are semantic (resultative meaning), syntactic (same verbs, same word orders) and intonational,2 and have led some scholars to posit a predicate analysis for all particles (e.g. Grewendorf 1990, von Stechow 1993, Den Dikken 1995). The similarities between English, German and Dutch particles are striking. They all exhibit the same characteristics: a tendency to transitivize, the phenomenon of ‘unselected’ or ‘transferred’ objects and the problem of seemingly ‘redundant’ particles. In spite of the claim made in Neeleman and Weerman (1993) that English phrasal verbs are syntactic structures and Dutch SCVs morphological, there are sufficient parallels to warrant subsuming them under the label ‘SCV’: a object poised on the interface between syntax and morphology with properties of its own, some inherited from the syntactic structure that spawned it, some newly acquired as part of its special lexicalised status as SCV. The different ordering of the particle in Dutch/German on the one hand and English on the other is due to the vicissitudes of syntactic development: particles are no longer preverbal in English because of the loss of OV order in ME; this means that predicates, and the particles deriving from them, are no longer on the left of the verb. Dutch and German have a special ‘particle-syntax’ too. In Dutch, particles may remain adjacent to the verb in Verb Raising constructions, unlike genuine secondary predicates (see (5)–(6) above; for details see Booij 2002: 206). In German it is just the other way around: particles insists on strict adjacency to the verb, whereas genuine secondary predicates may, but need not, be adjacent (Dehe´ et al. 2002: 5). Further support for the predicate origin of the particle is that some SCVs are synchronically recoverable and could warrant a syntactic derivation. To be synchronically recoverable, the meaning of the particle should be transparent, and the meaning of the verb+particle combination compositional. In such cases, the particle can be construed as the predicate in a copula construction (Booij 1998: 8). Examples of such SCVs are afmaken ‘finish’, lit. ‘off-make’ and opeten ‘eat up’. Both qualify as synchronically recoverable: af and op have a predictable predicate meaning: (20)

a.

Mijn huiswerk is af ‘My homework is finished’ (lit. ‘off’)

b.

Het eten is op ‘The food is gone’ (lit. ‘up’)

88

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

There is evidence in at least two other Germanic languages of such a distinction between predicative (i.e. particles that are independently attested in predicate function) and non-predicative particles. Swedish non-predicative particles only allow the V – Prt – NP order, even with pronominal NPs, whereas predicative particles also allow the V – NP – Prt order (Vinka 1999 quoted in Den Dikken 2002, Toivonen 2001). A similar distinction has been reported from language acquisition facts in Sawyer (1999). It is therefore tempting to grant the particle full predicate status in constructions as in (20). This is further supported by the fact that in these transparent cases, it appears to be possible to move the predicate to first position in the root clause, indicating that it acts as a constituent: (21)

´ f maakte hij het boek niet a. A off makes he the book not ‘He did not finish the book’ ´ p at hij zijn eten niet b. O up ate he his dinner not ‘He did not finish his dinner’

The possibility of topicalization of the particle in (21) would seem to suggest a syntactic difference between SCVs with a compositional meaning, and those with a noncompositional meaning: there is a contrast in this respect between opeten ‘eat up’on the one hand, as in (21b), and e.g. opbellen ‘call up’ on the other hand: (22)

´ p belde hij zijn moeder niet *O up phoned he his mother not ‘He did not phone up his mother’

It should be noted on the other hand that this distinction is not entirely without problems. If there is a syntactic distinction between (21b) and (22), we would expect to see this reflected in facts about Verb-raising as discussed above: if op in (21b) is a constituent, we might expect it to be different from op in (22) with respect to V-raising, but it isn’t: (23)

a.

dat hij zijn eten niet wil opeten that he his dinner not wants up-eat ‘that he doesn’t want to eat his dinner up’

b. dat hij zijn moeder niet wil opbellen that he his mother not wants up-phone ‘that he doesn’t want to phone his mother’ If we want to account for the contrast in (21b) and (22) in terms of constituent

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

89

status for op in (21b) and nonconstituent status in (22), we would, in order to account for the lack of contrast in (23), have to make the additional assumption that op in (23a) undergoes head-incorporation in the syntax, or assume two different structures for opeten and opbellen.3 Recoverability of the meaning of the particle is complicated by the fact that many predicate counterparts of particles have more than one meaning, again depending on the context: om ‘about’ may mean ‘amenable to a change of plan’ when said of the members of a boardroom, but ‘entailing a detour’ when said of a route; aan ‘on’ may mean ‘going’ when said of a relationship but ‘on’ when said of an electrical appliance, etc. This complicates any synchronic or diachronic picture. Although we postulate an origin for the particle as a secondary predicate, analysed as a SC-head, we have also quoted good evidence that such an analysis is not tenable in its entirety for present-day English and Dutch. Although the SCV (and ICV, as we will argue below) construction started out as a syntactic object, some aspects of its behaviour (Verb-Raising facts as in (5b) above, and its ability to serve as input for word formation) clearly indicate that they have become a separate category. This means that new SCVs are quite likely to be formed on the SCV-template without going through a ‘syntactic’ stage first. The same is true, as we will see, with Dutch ICVs, which originally came into being as grammaticalizations of Small Clauses and SCVs, but have clearly acquired a dynamic of their own allowing new ICVs to be produced from scratch, as if the verbal prefix is a derivational affix, without any intervening SC or SCV stages. The syntactic template of the SC has remained available to the West-Germanic languages throughout, which means that there are, at least for Dutch, three syntactico-morphological templates in synchronic use to express change of state. Before we discuss ICVs, we will turn to the semantic core shared by various SCVs.

3. THE LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF SECONDARY PREDICATES 3.1. Introducing the LCS Particles in SCV-constructions have long been known to share the ‘resultative’ meaning of adjectival and prepositional secondary predicates. Visser employs the term ‘effective adverb’ (1963: I,597), taken from Curme (see Denison 1981: 64); Lipka observes that both German and English particles indicate the result, and often function much like adjectives (Lipka 1972: 115–116). We will see in section 4 that there is a third category with resultative meaning: the prefixes of Inseparable Complex Verbs (ICVs). We will assume a diachronic connection with predicates and particles here: prefixes have become bound morphemes

90

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

although they, too, once started out as syntactic objects. One way to discuss these morphosyntactically so different categories is to focus on the semantic features that they have in common. We will adopt the semantic representation of resultative predicates in the form of the Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS, Jackendoff 1990) in the simplified form of (24) from Spencer and Zaretskaya (1998: 6): (24) [CAUSE[ACT (x)], BECOME[W(y)]], BY [V(x)]] For a typical secondary predicate as in (2) the variables may be filled in as follows: (25)

a. b.

He painted the door green [CAUSE[ACT (he), BECOME[GREEN(door)]], BY [PAINT(he)]]

As the parallels between secondary predicates and particles stress ‘result’ as a typical common element, we assume as a first hypothesis that SCVs started out as resultatives expressing the resultative LCS of (24) (henceforth ‘R-LCS’).4 A number of quirky characteristics of SCVs fall out automatically: one is the shifting meaning of the secondary predicate (W) which may vary on a scale between extremely specific and extremely abstract. It is the variability of the content of W that accounts for the wide range of constructions that may encode the LCS in (24): from syntactically defined secondary predicates where W has a specific, transparent meaning to SCVs and phrasal verbs where the meaning of W may become so bleached that it merely conveys an endpoint to the activity. The degree of bleaching of W correlates strongly with the closeness of the bond between W and the verb. If the morphosyntax of the language allows it, W may in time develop into a verbal prefix, though still encoding a change of state. The second point to note is the mismatch between syntactic and semantic embedding: the ‘core predicate’ W, although semantically primary and rendered prominent by stress, is the most deeply embedded constituent syntactically; similarly, the V, prominently encoded syntactically as a verb and therefore in theory expected to play an important role as licenser of arguments, is tucked away in the LCS in a peripheral adjunct position. This mismatch accounts for the phenomenon of the ‘unselected object’ which is so frequently associated with the SCV-construction. We will discuss these points in greater detail in the next sections.

3.2. The interpretation of the predicate W The core predicate W in the R-LCS template marks the endpoint of the activity, as the activity will stop when the variable y has reached a certain state – either

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

91

a quality, expressed by an Adjective Phrase such as groen in (2) or schoon in (9), or a position, expressed by a Prepositional Phrase, as in (26a), with an LCS as in (26b): (26)

a.

He took the ring off his finger

b.

[CAUSE[ACT (he), BECOME[OFF HIS FINGER(ring)]], BY [TAKE(he)]]

A very prominent characteristic of the R-LCS template is the massive tendency for the constructions encoding it to lexicalize, with their syntactic origins becoming less and less transparent over time. When W is expressed by a PP, its NP complement tends to disappear. This may happen by fusion to the prepositional head, as in items like awry and aloft in (17) in which the obsolescent nouns wry ‘tortuous movement’ and loft ‘sky’ are no longer recoverable and the synchronic categorial status of the phrase itself is in doubt (particle? adjective? adverb?). Alternatively, it may remain implicit, as is possible with example (26) which could just as well read He took the ring off or He took off the ring. As the minimal requirement of the core predicate W is to indicate a change of state, a prepositional head on its own is enough to express a change in position. The fact that these bare heads are used as a convenient shorthand for a change of state, with the precise meaning to be negotiated pragmatically in interaction with the verb, leads to the development of a range of idiosyncratic meanings. This means that particles in particular (as opposed to adjectives which have more robustly lexical meaning) are unlikely to have a single semantic interpretation, and any attempt at identifying a core meaning will usually yield a highly abstract one. The meaning of many SCVs, then, unlike other predicates, is often noncompositional, and hence not always recoverable synchronically. This seems to preclude a synchronic SP analysis for such SCVs in Dutch and English, even though their separability, as we argued in section 2, points to the SP as its diachronic origin. 3.3. Unselected objects The R-LCS offers helpful insights into another phenomenon that unifies SPs, SCVs and ICVs: their well-known transitivizing effect. Although many of the ‘light’ verbs like make, get, give, keep, let, put, set and the like that typically form SPs, SCVs and ICVs are transitive to start with, intransitive verbs, particularly unergatives, are also robustly attested. We give English examples for the SP and SCV-constructions, and resort to Dutch for ICV-examples: (27)

a.

The small band ... played the company into the supper-room (OED1898)

92

(28)

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

b.

Handel ... asked the organist to permit him to play the people out (OED 1823)

c.

They accused the minister of playing down the number of the unemployed

d.

Handel bespeelde het orgel Handel be-played the organ ‘Handel played the organ’

a.

He worked his fingers to the bone

b.

He worked his way up

c.

Hij bewerkte het toneelstuk voor de televisie He be-worked the play for the television ‘He adapted the play for television’

Although the examples are not as spectacular as Spencer and Zaretskaya’s They drank the pub dry (Spencer and Zaretskaya 1998: 2), or the ones in Jackendoff (1997), the principle is the same: the objects the company, the people, the number of the unemployed, the organ in (27) and his fingers, his way, the play in (28) do not fit the selectional restrictions of the higher verbs, play/spelen and work/werken. The relative position of the verb and the object in the R-LCS show that the V, although prominently encoded syntactically as verb, is in an adjunct position. The object y is not theta-marked by V but by the predicate in a secondary predicate construction (in effect the exact parallel of the ‘Exceptional Case-Marking Construction’ in GB theory, with its mismatch between case- and theta-role assignment). This accounts for the ease with which secondary predicate constructions build on intransitive verbs. All objects in an SP, SCV or ICV construction are in fact ‘unselected’, although the loss of prefixation has obscured this in English.5 The unselected nature of the object shows through in quirks like (29a-b): (29)

a.

das Wasser la¨uft aus/der Eimer la¨uft aus (Lipka 1972: 94)

b.

John poured out the bucket/John poured out the water (McIntyre 2000)

c.

Clear out a river (by removing mud)/clear out mud (from a river) (Lipka, ibid.)

The adjunct-like ‘instrumental’ role of the verb in the LCS template goes some way to account for the often-observed fact that it appears to be the particle that selects the verb rather than the other way around (see Lipka’s (1972) discussion of out and up; note also the V+AP combinations of (16a) above which centre

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

93

around a limited list of adjectives). The verb in those cases is not a ‘light’ verb but far more specific, either (a conversion of) the instrument used in causing the object y to reach the state W (i.e. ‘means’), as in (30), a description of the specific action required to reach the state W (i.e. ‘manner’) as in (31), or a conversion of the predicate W itself (32). (30) boot out, bowl over, branch out, brick up, brush up, buckle up, elbow out, fork out, hammer out, hand over, hem in, knuckle down, pan out, poke about, patch up, peg down/out/away, rake up, rule out, sally forth, seal off, tick off, tide over, top up, trail off, worm out, zip up (31) blot out, bob up, butt in, chew up, chime in, chip in,6 chuck out, crop up, dole out, edge away,7 eke out,8 pare down, peter out,9 point out, polish up, root up/out, rub out, snap up, trot out, veer round, wind up (32) back off/away, brazen out, cheer up, clean up/out/off/away, clear up/out/off/away, crack up, free up, gloss over, open up/out, parcel out, pretty up, round up/off (Similar groupings are made by Lipka 1972: 98–114). Although one may quibble over the classification of individual items (e.g. is hammer out a conversion of the noun hammer or was the SCV built on a already existing conversion of that noun, or is the verb hammer the direct descendant of OE hamerian, hamorian ‘to hammer’ with loss of its derivational morphology?, etc.), the overall tendencies are clear. With the SCVs of (30)–(32) it is the particle that provides the template rather than the verb, giving rise to combinations containing verbs that are never or rarely used without the particle, many of them conversions. It seems that some new verbs in turn derive from the SCV rather than the other way around. The OED lists pretty up first (first attestation: 1916), while pretty used as a verb on its own is not attested until 1953. The same lists as in (30)–(32) could be made for Dutch, even though conversion is not as widely available to Dutch as it is to English morphology.10 The proliferation of such conversions is made possible by the central role of the predicate W, and by the fact that the R-LCS template gives a complex event even before any of the variables have been filled in; ‘CAUSE’, ‘ACT’, ‘BECOME’ are already there by default.

3.4. Leaving the resultative LCS There are two groups of SCVs that participate fully in the existing syntactic SCV-patterns without R-LCS semantics: the extremely productive durative particles like German los, Dutch door and English on that create intransitive rather than transitive combinations (McIntyre 2001), and the group of ‘postpositions’ in German, Dutch and Old English (on the model of he cwæþ him to ‘he spoke

94

A. van Kemenade and B. Los

to him,’ Lit. ‘he spoke him to’). Whereas the first group can be shown to derive historically from SCVs with R-LCS semantics (McIntyre 2001), this is not true of the second group, whose diachrony still remains to be investigated. Assuming the R-LCS template for SCVs, then, helps to identify groups that may be the result of different developments than the ones discussed here.

4. INSEPARABLE COMPLEX VERBS So far, we have established an analysis for SCVs in terms of a resultative LCS, which is realized syntactically as a Small Clause, on a par with other resultative secondary predicate constructions. There is a third type of construction to which the resultative LCS is relevant: the ICV. There are a number of cognate verbal prefixes in German, Dutch and Old English which derive from prepositions or adjectives (including past participles); the system is almost completely moribund in Present-day English. Many of these prefixed verbs conform to the R-LCS, as is shown by their transitivizing effect and their telic aktionsart. We will discuss two of them at length: be-, from bi ‘around’, and for-/ver-, from various origins (*fer-, fra-, fur-), representing various ablaut-grades of the same root. The transitivizing effect of be- has long been noted (e.g. Hoekstra, Lansu and Westerduin (1987); the object is invariably fully affected (Booij 1992: 56). A comparison of the prefixed form with its simplex from German is given in (33): (33)

a.

Er gießt Wasser auf die Blumen ‘He pours water on the flowers’

b.

Er begießt die Blumen ‘He waters the flowers’ (Dutch: gieten/begieten, Old English geotan/begeotan)

This is the equivalent to the locative alternation in English (load hay onto the waggon, load the waggon with hay), which is no longer marked by a prefix. English be- has a very limited use, mainly in past participles: bespectacled, becardiganed. Be- is fairly productive in German and Dutch, and its meaning appears to be more unified than in Old English, where we also find it as a privative verb (beheafdian ‘behead’, behorsian ‘deprive of horses’, befotian ‘cut off someone’s feet’) where German and Dutch use ent-/ont-(enthaupten, onthoofden), as a pejorative verb (belædan ‘to lead astray’) where German and Dutch use ver- (verleiten, verleiden) and with adjectives (‘a conversion of the predicate W itself’, i.e. the group of verbs as in (32) above): benac(od)ian ‘lay bare’, from nacod ‘naked’; the productive prefix in German and Dutch for these

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

95

predicate-conversions is ver- for Dutch (verkorten ‘shorten’, verkoelen ‘cool off/down’) and ver- or er- in German (verku¨rzen, erkalten, idem). These specializations of function are probably a later development, as fossilized privatives etc. can be found in German and Dutch, e.g. benehmen/benemen ‘take away’ (beside entnehmen, ontnemen, idem). The R-LCS is clearly present in pejorative and privative verbs, as is also evident from their SCV-counterparts with away/weg or off/af (take away/off, weg/afnemen; lead away/off, weg/afleiden), but also recoverable in ‘purely transitivizing’ be- of (33b), which is a W expressing the very abstract goal ‘completely affected’ (cf. also Booij’s LCS for be- in Booij 1992: 56): (34) [CAUSE[ACT (he), BECOME[be(flowers)]], BY [pouring (he)]] The verbs are the typical R-LCS verbs we noted above: either ‘light verbs’, ‘means’ or ‘manner’, with a few examples of the fourth group of verbs that lexicalize the predicate (as in (32)). The fact that the R-LCS is still recoverable suggests that the prefix – W – is not completely devoid of lexical content, however abstract this content may have become. In some fossilized formations the R-LCS is no longer synchronically recoverable (cf. Present-day English become, beget, begrudge).11 The second prefix, for-/ver-, has many functions (Leopold 1977[1907], Lieber and Baayen 1993), the most prominent one common to all three languages (that is, German, Dutch and Old English; for- has practically disappeared from Present-day English apart from isolated fossils like forlorn) is ‘to rack and ruin’ or ‘away’, as in (35). (35) Ger./Du. rotten ‘rot’, verrotten ‘rot away’; OE rotian, forrotian; lassen/laten ‘let’, verlassen/verlaten ‘abandon’; OE lætan, forlætan; werfen/werpen ‘throw’, verwerfen/verwerpen ‘reject’; OE weorpan, forweorpan An extremely productive use in Modern Dutch is as a ‘predicate lexicalizer’ as in (36), creating verbs of the type described in (32) above. German uses er- here: ermu¨den ‘tire out’, erhitzen ‘heat up’, erleuchten ‘illuminate’ etc. (36) Du. verarmen ‘become impoverished’ (<arm ‘poor’), veraangenamen ‘sweeten, make more pleasant’ ())]. Some potential objections to this analysis stem from the problem that, taken in isolation, complex verbs often look more idiosyncratic than they are. When a preverb does not clearly have the same semantics as a related nonpreverb (e.g. a spatial preposition), an inadequate data base may tempt one to deny that the preverb has any meaning beyond some vague ‘completive’ or ‘telic’ effect. But study of a representative set of verbs formed with the preverb in question usually reveals clear patterns in the particle’s semantic contribution (as is argued in McIntyre 2002a). Consider up, a classic ‘completive’ particle (e.g. Denison 1985). Note for instance that the uses of up in (11)–(13) occur in various other complex verbs: (14)

a. b.

Decremental up: drink up, dry up, mop up, take up (time/space), burn up, smoke up (cigarettes) up signifying that the direct argument reaches a state considered sufficient for a particular purpose: paint/heat it up, fix it up (=till it is usable), frighten up (actors for a horror scene), starve up (people in order to make them compliant), roll up (a joint), chat someone up

See Lindner (1983: 3.4, esp. 151f, 164–67) on these two particle uses and on a larger network of interrelated senses. If the distinctions between these subsenses are psychologically real, then up clearly has a more specific function than just ‘perfectivising’ or ‘telicising’ the verb. It telicises a verb in the same way as any result predicate does, namely by expressing a result state achieved through the simplex activity. (15) illustrates this parallel. (15)

a.

the dog chewed the paper up [ Event do(dog, chew)] &CAUSE [ Event become(nonexist(paper))]

b.

the dog chewed the paper soggy [ Event do(dog, chew)] &CAUSE [ Event become(soggy(paper))]

One could perhaps describe the unity of completive up uses by underspecifying

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 127

the predicate in the scope of become in the lexical entry, allowing an inference based on the verb meaning to supply the appropriate predicate. This may or may not be the right course. Giving up this general a meaning would generate many non-existent combinations without further mechanisms, but it could be argued that up is semiproductive and/or that its productivity is confined to certain tokens and classes of simplex verbs (McIntyre 2002a). If we do give completive up an underspecified meaning like [become(<state>(x))], where the state is contextually inferred, the representation would still be structurally parallel to that of a resultative. Moving on from up, consider some uses of German ver- and er-, seen in traditional treatments as instances of ‘completive’ or ‘intensifying’ prefixes. Partly drawing on Stiebels (1996), we can see that these are also resultative predicates. ver- for instance has a productive decremental reading, parallel to up in (15a) and away in (9a): vertelefonieren/-feiern ‘use up (money, time) by telephoning/celebrating’, verbrauchen ‘use up’2. In a second use (Stiebels 1996: 151–155), ver- specifies a result state describable as together (verlo¨ten ‘solder together’, vermixen ‘mix together’, verkoppeln ‘couple’). Some vague category ‘telicity marker’ does no more justice to the meaning of ver- than it would to that of the English gloss together. One meaning of er- is ‘to death/dead’ (erha¨ngen/-schlagen/-dru¨cken ‘kill by hanging/hitting/pressing’). Simply calling er- a perfective marker cannot explain the contrast between ermorden ‘murder’ (obligatorily transitive) and the simplex verb morden ‘commit murder’ (intransitive with an implicit generic object, unless extreme inhumanity is connoted). It makes no sense to intensify or perfectivise morden. The resultative analysis can capture ermorden by assuming that er- is the overt manifestation of a semantically redundant result predication which is added to circumvent the problem that the simplex verb normally disallows the linking of a patient3. The idea that preverbs primarily contribute telicity is probably connected to the idea that Germanic prefixes and particles always yield telic VP’s. Advocates of this are e.g. Dehe´ (2000), Tenny (1994, section 2.2.2), Keyser and Roeper (1992: 113); the latter authors write ‘‘Like all particles, up appears to require a delimited interpretation.’’) This myth is refuted by examples like the following, where the in-time test is passed without any event iteration effects: (16) Grandma held down the wrestler for an hour; They kept out the enemy for a day; She slagged off her husband for 10 minutes; I scrubbed down the table for 10 minutes; They beat him up for five minutes; He stared down his opponent for a minute; Fran chatted up Stan for ten minutes Summarising the main points from this section, I emphasise that there are many more resultative preverbs than a superficial examination would suggest. So-called ‘completive’ preverbs often turn out to be subinstances of the resultative construction, sometimes with underspecified result states. These result

128

Andrew McIntyre

states may or may not be overt spellouts of a result component already present in a transitive verb’s meaning.

3.2. Theme and reference object in prepositional preverbs The above description of transitive complex verbs needs to be augmented by some observations on the types of arguments contributed by prepositional preverbs. We note that a prepositional element often expresses a relation between two entities, a theme (also called a trajector, figure or locatum) and a reference object (landmark, ground), where the latter is used in specifying the location of the former, cf. (17a). Normally, particle verbs leave their reference object implicit: interpreting (17b) involves supplying a reference object with contextual help (McIntyre 2001b: 275–279 gives details and references). Here the overall semantic structure is resultative: the verbal actitivity leads to a change of position of the direct object, a theme. However, (17c) gives a third possibility: the reference object of the particle is linked at the expense of the theme4, a phenomenon which most researchers fail to note. Table 1 gives a list of the possibilities of (non-)linking of themes and reference objects in complex verbs. (17)

a. b. c.

I wiped [the dust]Theme off [the table]Reference Object I wiped [the dust]Theme off I wiped [the table]Reference object off

The main distinction is between types A (reference object not linked) and B (reference object linked). The research has largely ignored Type B, but the examples given in the table are a small subset of those I have found. Wunderlich (1983) noted that German has a regular (but, I add, not exceptionless) pattern whereby prefix verbs fit into type B and particle verbs into type A; (18a,b) gives a typical minimal pair. (18)

a.

er durchfuhr den Park he through-drove the park

b.

er fuhr durch he drove through

c.

er fuhr durch den Park he drove through the park

McIntyre (2001b), Zeller (2001b) and Svenonius (1996) seem to be the only modern studies on particle verbs which have noted type B. Svenonius sees type B particles as unaccusative elements. This makes sense if one assumes a syntactic derivation of particle verbs where the direct argument originates

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 129

Type

Subject

Object

Examples

A1

Agent

Theme

I pumped the water out, I offloaded the books

A2

Theme

B1

Agent

Reference Object

The doctor pumped his stomach out. She ran him through (with a sword). I filled the hole in (with cement) I overlaid/inlaid the table with gold I underscored the word I struck the word through

B2

Theme

Reference Object

The river overflowed its banks I overstepped the line

B3

Reference Object

I ran in, I walked off

The pot overflowed, boiled over. (pot metonymically represents its upper rim) The pen ran out (of ink) (applicable if conceptually like ‘the ink ran out of the pen’) Der Tank sickerte/lief aus ‘‘the tank leaked/ran out’’, ‘the tank leaked/emptied’ (auxilliary: ‘be’)

Table 1: Themes and reference objects in complex verbs

within a small clause or some other projection which includes the particle and not the verb. Other writers miss the basic semantic properties of the prepositional relations. For instance, den Dikken (1995: 54f) assumes that all particles are unaccusative (ergative) prepositions. This would mean that the theme in (17b) originates in the complement position of the prepositional element, although in (17a) this position is reserved for the reference object. This does not sit easily with den Dikken’s adherence to the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (p. 19ff). Various writers analysing the semantics of complex verbs have failed to take the existence of Type B structures into account. Stiebels’ (1996) otherwise authorative account of complex verb semantics does not discuss the possibility that the formalisation of the German pattern equivalent to (17c) should be related to that of (17b). She (p. 159) analyses (17c) using a result predication become(clear(y)). Note that a number of particle uses show a similar ‘alternation’ where either the theme or the reference object is linked, cf. (19). McIntyre (2001b: 275–279) gives many German examples; the pattern is less well attested in English.

130

Andrew McIntyre

(19) pour out {the bucket/the water}; fill in {the form/the information}; strip off {a person/their clothes} Cases where the reference object is linked often show a ‘holistic’ effect. Thus, pour out the bucket means not just that something gets poured out of the bucket, but that the bucket is emptied completely. Anderson (1971) noted various cases where the realisation of an entity as direct object gives it a holistic reading. I am not aware of a satisfactory explanation for this effect, but refer to Tenny (1994: 49ff) and Brinkman (1997) and their references for some proposals. Type B preverbs might again tempt one to posit a ‘completive’ or ‘telic’ meaning for the particle, but the data known to me suggest that this is epiphenomenal of the holistic effect. The use of through in examples like (20) (called an ‘aspectual particle’ by Jackendoff 2002) can be given the semantic analysis in (20). The simplex verbs are ‘path accomplishments’ (Wechsler 1989) or ‘performative verbs’ (Jackendoff 1996: 332f), verbs whose object does not undergo change, but acts like an incremental theme because the event progressively relates to different parts of it. This can be conceptualised as a progression through the object. The particle expresses this overtly. That it suggests a completive reading can be derived from the holistic effect. Note also that we find transitivisations (think the issue through/*think the issue), where the verb meaning is enriched by a new subevent housing the particle and object. (20)

a.

think the matter through, work the problem through, sing the song through

b.

Vladimir played the sonata through, [ Event do(vladimir, play)]i & [ Event go([event]i ,(through(sonata))]

A complete account of Type B complex verbs, including the ‘aspectual’ through verbs, would involve discussion e.g. of the factors licensing the holistic effect and the suppression of the theme argument in cases like (17c). This must be reserved for separate article.

4. SCOPE-BEARING PREVERBS The last section dealt with preverbs whose argument-structural effects are easy to explain since they reduce to patterns observable with resultative predicates. The present section takes up more challenging cases of scope-bearing, nonresultative preverbs, which, perhaps significantly, are all prefixes. These sometimes have the effect of blocking direct objects selected by the verb. We will find that the data bespeak the correctness of the following (at this point purely descriptive) generalisation:

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 131

(21) Minimal Scope Requirement: Scope-bearing preverbs always have the narrowest possible scope which does not yield semantic deviance. This claim is similar to claims made in Stiebels (1996: ch. 8). Let us look at some preliminary evidence for it. The narrow scope of re- is well documented (e.g. Wechsler 1989, Dowty 1979: 256f). A verb like reseal means ‘cause to become again sealed’ rather than ‘seal again’, cf. (22)5. Secondly, consider the type of prefix exemplified in (23), which pretheoretically has a reversative meaning. This phenomenon, coupled with the non-occurrence of wide-scope negative prefixes, suggests that reversative prefixes are simply negative operators which are forced to assume narrow scope by the Minimal Scope Requirement, cf. the representations in (23). Note that treating dis and un as negative operators has the advantage that we can capture the negative meanings they exhibit when combined with non-verbs (unclear, disinterest). This assumes that the etymological non-relatedness of verbal and adjectival un- is synchronically irrelevant. On un-, see Dowty (1979: 256–260); on the narrow scope of its German equivalent in complex adjectives, see Lenz (1995). (22)

reseal

do(x) &CAUSE become(again(sealed(y)))

(23)

a. b. c.

do(x) &CAUSE become(not(stable(y))) do(x) &CAUSE become(not(tangled(y))) do(x) &CAUSE become(not(locked(y)))

destabilise disentangle unlock

4.1. The scalar reading of over- and (in)transitivity Risch (1995) used the term ‘scalar’ for the German equivalents of over/under and out which include elements related in meaning to those in comparative structures. The relevant uses are seen in I over-/undercooked the food ‘cooked it to a degree greater/less than is good’. Scalar uses of prefixes are to be distinguished from the uses like overlay x with y, overstep the line, overrun a country, where direct objects are the conceptual reference object of the prefixal preposition (sometimes with a metaphoric interpretation). We look at over- in the scalar sense, where it integrates a modifier into the semantic representation for an event. Here are sample representations for verbs showing two main instantiations of scalar over-, a degree interpretation and a frequency interpretation: (24)

Mavis overtightened the bolt (=made it too tight/overtight) [ Event do(mavis)] &CAUSE [ Event become(over(tight(bolt)))]

(25)

Dave overwashes his clothes (=washes them so frequently or intensively that they are damaged) [ Event do(dave, wash)] &CAUSE [ Event over(affect(event, clothes))]6

The contribution of over is left undecomposed because further decomposition

132

Andrew McIntyre

will presumably not affect the remarks below about argument linking and the prefix’s scope. Risch (1995) gives a decomposition of the German equivalent u¨ber- embedded in a larger theory of gradation, but is less concerned with explaining argument-structural matters. A complete discussion of over would take a whole article. The remarks below concentrate on the effects of the Minimal Scope Requirement. Basically, we see that over seems always to take scope over the predication containing the direct object if there is one, and that cases where this narrrow scope is semantically deviant force the neutralisation of the subevent containing the object. 4.1.1. When over- and objects are mutually exclusive In the sentences in (26), over- is incompatible with direct objects selected by the verb in some English varieties. (26)

a. b. c.

Max overate (*cakes). You overbuy/overpurchase (*jewelry). Does your theory overgenerate (*unacceptable sentences like this one)? d. They overbuild (*houses)7. e. Mervyn oversmokes (*cigarettes). f. You overdrank (*beer).

I was initially unaware that the judgements above are variety-specific. Farrell Ackerman informed me that he accepts some of the objects in (26), and T. Deacon in a talk in Leipzig (2.3.2001) utterred the sentence the brain overproduces connections. However, my judgements in (26) have been confirmed with several other speakers. I checked this by embedding such sentences in short texts8, and having native speakers read them under the pretext that I needed their help in checking the English of a non-native speaker. Several native speakers (if not all) adjudged VP’s like overeat chocolate as unacceptable, without any leading questions on my part. Both the ‘inflexible’ and the ‘liberal’ varieties deserve study as manifestations of Universal Grammar. I offer an explanation for the differences below. In the meantime, all judgements refer to an inflexible variety like mine. In (27), I give sample representations for the transitive uses of the simplex verbs corresponding to the prefix verbs in (26). Other representations are imaginable, but what seems uncontroversial is that the simplex verbs all express a non-gradable result state. A cake can be either eaten or not eaten, there are no degrees of eatenness. Certainly, a cake can be half-eaten and a house partly built, but here the portion of the theme to which the property applies is relativised, not the property itself.

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 133

(27)

a.

Max eats cakes [ Event do(max, eat)] &CAUSE [ Event become(nonexist(cakes))] (parallel: drink, smoke)

b.

You buy/purchase jewelry [ Event do(you, buy)] &CAUSE [ Event become(possess(you, jewelry))]

c.

They build houses [ Event do(they, build)] &CAUSE [ Event become(exist(houses))] (parallel: generate)

Contrast these verbs with a verb like tighten (cf. (24)). Tighten is clearly a change-of-state verb, but the gradability of its result state allows for atelic readings not permitted by verbs with verbs with non-gradable result states (I tightened the bolt for a minute vs. *I ate the cake for a minute). I now begin my explanation for why over appears to ‘block’ objects. I will argue that integration of the prefix into the subevent licensing the object, demanded by the Minimal Scope Requirement, yields semantic deviance. Consequently, the result conjunct must be eliminated from the representation, yielding an intransitive structure, as in (28). (28) Max overeats [ Event over(do(max, eat))] The representations below for *Max overeats cakes give the logically possible ways of integrating the preverb into a transitive structure. (The representational format will be revised later in this section.) (29)

a. b. c.

[ Event do(max, eat)] &CAUSE [ Event become(nonexist(over(cakes)))] [ Event do(max, eat)] &CAUSE [ Event become(over(nonexist(cakes)))] [ Event do(max, eat)] &CAUSE [ Event over(become(nonexist(cakes)))]

In the representation in (29a), over has scope only over the object. This would be logically possible if it were a quantifier over entities. The structure would then mean ‘Max eats too many cakes’. But in the inflexible English varieties, over is a modifier of events, not a quantifier of entities. Liberal dialects seem to be able to use over as a quantifier over entities. This is confirmed by the intuition of a liberal informant I found, who indicated that the sentences I starred above are interpreted such that overV x’s means ‘‘V too many x’s’’. The informant disallows sentences with explicitly quantified NP’s like *she overdrank seven glasses of wine or *they overbuilt five supermarkets. The idea that verb prefixes can be quantifiers of entities, and particularly the provisional representation of this in (30a), require more attention, but this must be left for future work. I note merely that the basic idea is not without precedent. Spencer and Zaretskaya

134

Andrew McIntyre

(1998b) discuss critically some analyses of Slavic prefixes which see prefixes as quantifiers over entities. (29b) is impossible because a non-gradable result predicate cannot be modified by an element like over-, which specifies a degree. In (29c), over has scope over the whole change of state. As far as I know, scope over become in the verbs of the eat-class would make semantic-pragmatic sense only under the following conditions: (30)

a.

A frequency reading (=‘too often’) could be assigned to over-.

b.

The object could be interpreted such that the repetitions of events entailed by the frequency reading of over could in successive events apply to different tokens of the type referred to by the object NP.

Condition (b) is not met. I will show below that this can be traced back to another recognised problem. That condition (b) plays a role can be seen in the fact that, to a speaker of the inflexible variety, he overeats cakes sounds bad precisely because it forces the world-knowledge-wise deviant reading where the same cakes are consumed more than once. This reading is the only one available in inflexible dialects because the other readings permitted by the Minimal Scope Requirement, namely (29a) and (b), are semantically uninterpretable, whereas (29c) is, although pragmatically deviant, at least interpretable. To begin explaining why condition (30b) is not met, or, for short, why the object fails to receive what I call a token-differentiated (=sloppy) reading when under the scope of the prefix, it is important to note that the problems attending the frequency reading of over- are strongly reminiscent of another prefix capable of expressing repetition, re-. *re-eat and *rekill are impossible because something prevents their objects from being interpreted in a token-differentiated way, forcing a pragmatically deviant reading in which the same entity is eaten/ killed twice. Thus, *he rekilled people (unlike he killed people again) forbids a reading in which people refers to different individuals in successive killings. In (31), we see that both re- and over- are incompatible with token differentiation while semantically parallel adverbials allow it, provided that the object’s determiner does not intrinsically force reference to specific tokens (cp. (31b)). This suggests that preverbs, unlike adverbials, are insensitive to the semantics of determiners. (31)

a. b.

*I {reate/overate} {cakes/chocolate/the cakes/that piece of chocolate}. I ate {cakes/chocolate/*the cakes/*that piece of chocolate} {again/too often}.

My explanation for why token differentiation is impossible with the prefixes will draw on an idea first presented in Carlson and Roeper (1980: 143f; henceforth: C&R), who present the data and decomposition in (32). They note that

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 135

again is able to have scope over the existential quantifier, while re- cannot. They hold that prefixation occurs in the lexicon, and cannot hold scope over material added in syntax. It can have scope over the direct object variable, but not the NP that binds the variable. Wunderlich (2001) independently uses the same assumptions in his discussion of the scope of re- and the interpretation of direct objects. (32)

a. b.

Bob resigned a card: (Zx) (card(x) & again’ (Bob sign x)) [the same card as before] Bob signed a card again: again’ ((Zx) (card(x) & Bob sign x)) [possibly a different card]

Note that the assumption that re-verbs are morphological objects, even if correct, is not a necessary condition for the scope and non-token-differentiation effects seen with re-, since the German adverb wieder ‘again’, when positioned after an object as in (33), shows the same effects. (33a) and (b) are bad because one cannot kill or bear the same child twice (i.e. *rebear/rekill a child)9. Wieder does not combine the verb morphologically in (33), since full PP’s intervene between wieder and the verb, even in the base word order. (33)

a.

*da sie ein Kind wieder zur Welt gebracht hat since she a child again to.the world brought has (since she had a child (=the same child) again)

b.

*da sie ein Kind wieder ums Leben gebracht hat since she a child again around.the life brought has (since she killed a child (=the same child) again)

c.

da sie ein Kind wieder nach Hause gebracht hat since she a child again to home brought has (since she took a child (=the same child) back home)

Thus, affixes are not the only items that force non-token-differentiated readings of verbal objects. The correct empirical generalisation covering re-, over- and wieder in (33) seems to be as follows: (34) Items whose scope domain consists of (part of) a result state of an event do not allow a token-differentiated reading of the object. (The Minimal Scope Requirement predicts that prefixes will be among such narrow-scope items.) To explain why (34) should hold, I will enlist the basic assumptions made by C&R and Wunderlich (2001) about the relative scope of existential quantifiers and prefixes. I will make this more explicit using the

136

Andrew McIntyre

following examples, enriching the semantic representations assumed above with quantifiers and restrictors: (35)

(36)

a.

*Soldiers rekilled prisoners Zx: soldiers(x), Zy: prisoners(y) & [do(x) &CAUSE BECOME(AGAIN(DEAD(Y))]

b.

Again, soldiers killed prisoners again [Zx: soldiers(x), Zy: prisoners(y) & [do(x) &CAUSE become(dead(y))]]

c.

Soldiers reopened windows Zx: soldiers(x), Zy: windows(y) & [do(x) &CAUSE BECOME(AGAIN(OPEN(y))]

a.

*Soldiers overate cakes Zx: soldiers(x), Zy: cakes(y) & [do(x, eat) &CAUSE OVER(BECOME(NONEXIST(Y)))]

b.

Soldiers ate cakes too often over [Zx: soldiers(x), Zy: cakes(y) & [do(x, eat) &CAUSE become(nonexist(y))]]

The bold-typed segments of (35a,c) and (36a) do not contain a full representation of the object’s semantics but only a variable. The interpretation of these segments is already fixed before the variables are bound by anything which could allow token differentiation. Thus, these segments are interpreted such that some entity, y, respectively becomes dead again or too often stops existing. This interpretation is pragmatically deviant in (35a) and (36a), but not in (35c). I should comment on the assumptions about quantification and variable binding. The above representations follow C&R and Wunderlich (2001) in assuming that existential plurals can in principle allow a token-differentiated interpretation, cf. (35b) and (36b), but binding by some kind of generic operator would also be sufficient. Of course, I make crucial use of the assumption – taken for granted by many linguists – that we need a basic representation of an event where the participants are represented as yet-to-be-bound variables (where ‘event’ may correspond to VP, Diesing 1992). An analysis which dispenses with this assumption is Wechsler (1989), who would with reference to (35c) talk in terms of re- having scope over windows but not soldiers, the logic being that the same windows, but not necessarily the same soldiers, were involved in both the original and the restored situation. However, this is problematic: in (37), it is uncontroversial that again has wider scope than re-, since the causing event must be repeated. Wechsler would therefore have to say that both the subject

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 137

and the object are included in the scope of again. However, token-differentiated readings of both NP’s are possible in this case, contrary to what Wechsler would predict. (37) Again, soldiers opened windows [may be different windows and soldiers from those in prior opening event] 4.1.2. Variable transitivity and the scope of overWe now examine cases where the scope of over differs according to whether the verb is used transitively or not. These offer different evidence for the Minimal Scope Requirement. (38) and (39) give representations for two uses of overheat. (In the representations, heat* stands for the unspecified activity causing something to be heated.) The Minimal Scope Requirement predicts that the transitive use of overheat can only mean that the theme entity becomes too hot. It cannot mean that it becomes hot too often. In the detransitivised use of overheat in (39), there is no implication that anything becomes too hot. Instead, it could be used for instance in stating that the heating costs too much. As suggested by the Minimal Scope Requirement, this meaning is impossible when overheat is used transitively. (38)

Max overheats the furnace [ Event do(max, heat*)] &CAUSE [ Event become(over(hot(furnace))])]

(39)

Max overheats (in sense ‘he heats his room too much’, not the unaccusative sense ‘he becomes too hot’) [ Event over(do(max, heat*))]

We next look at overcook. (40) offers two representations of transitive cook, which could be seen either as a change of state verb or an affect verb of the type mentioned in footnote 6. I prefer the latter option, but either representation will, coupled with the Minimal Scope Requirement, predict the intuition that transitive overcook means that the object is overly strongly affected by the cooking process, the only possible interpretation of transitive overcook. Notice that if we intransitivise it, as in (41), overcook can have a very different reading in which the subject does too much cooking. One entailment of this is that the subject cooks too much food, or cooks for too many people. Fred overcooked food cannot receive this reading, since the Minimal Scope Requirement only allows the readings in (40), where the prefix is part of the result event. (40)

Fred overcooked food a. [ Event do(fred, cook)] &CAUSE [ Event become(over(cooked(food)))] b. [ Event do(fred, cook)] &CAUSE [ Event (over(affect(event, food))]

138

(41)

Andrew McIntyre

Fred overcooked [ Event over(do(fred, cook))]

4.2. Conclusions The discussion of scope-bearing prefixes has illustrated the workings of the Minimal Scope Requirement. In particular, I have shown how the Minimal Scope Requirement gives rise to a set of circumstances which create the impression that the prefix over- ‘blocks’ direct objects with verbs with non-gradable result states. This arises in contexts where the prefix cannot be part of the same subevent as the object without yielding deviant interpretations. It seems appropriate to mention a couple of phenomena superficially akin to those found with over- to which my analysis should not be extended. Firstly, the phenomena found with English over- do not correspond to those found with its German equivalent u¨ber-. I merely comment on one difference, namely the fact that German attests cases like (42a), where the prefixed verbs have an unselected reflexive object, where idiomatic English glosses mostly use an intransitive frame (impossible in German). Risch (1995) contents herself with stipulating that the verbs in (42a) have a semantically vacuous argument position. A possibility for a more principled analysis emerges if we entertain the idea that the reflexive is an instance of the unselected reflexive found in resultative constructions like (42b). An implementation of this would be to assume that the prefix contributes information something like (c). On this analysis, the prefix provides a result state which specifies only that some pragmatically inferred property predicated over an entity (appearing as the reflexive coindexed with the subject) is asserted to hold to too great a degree. I must leave this analysis as a speculation at this point, however. (42)

a.

b. c.

sie haben sich u¨berarbeitet/ u¨bergessen/ u¨berkauft/ u¨berhoben they have themselves overworked/ overeaten/ overbought/ overlifted ‘they overworked/overate/overpurchased; they hurt themselves lifting something’ sie haben sich zu Tode gearbeitet ‘they worked themselves to death’ Scalar u¨ber-: become(over(<property>(y)))

It is also worth noting that there is a series of verb particles such as (43) which, like over-, appear to ‘block’ the direct object of the verb. I believe that the factors causing such blockages are entirely different from those affecting over-. I will not discuss these particles here, as I have already done so in McIntyre (2001a, 2002b). (43) read (*notes) on, sing (*songs) along, play (*a silly game) around, type away *(at) the essay

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 139

The main question which remains is that of what the Minimal Scope Requirement should follow from. One answer would be that, as suggested by Carlson and Roeper (1980) or Wunderlich (2001), the prefix’s combining with the verb in the morphological component greatly reduces the range of material over which it may take scope. However, this does not guarantee minimal scope, for it does not rule out prefixes which have scope over a causing event in a resultative structure, and these do not appear to exist. Unfortunately, I have no adequate solutions to this problem and leave the Minimal Scope Requirement as a descriptive generalisation which can hopefully be motivated in the future.

5. SOME CONCLUSIONS AND RESIDUAL MATTERS I now mention some conclusions and consequences flowing from the discussion of the semantic and argument-structural facets of preverbs reported on above. Firstly, cases where preverbs have the effect of introducing unselected objects (chat someone up, vote someone out, stare someone down, think an issue through) result when conflation introduces an extra subevent to the verb’s meaning, an effect also seen with standard resultative constructions (talk people senseless, stare someone into submission). Transitivisation is not a sign that the constructions are non-compositional. Transitivisation is certainly no proof for the morphological status of particle verbs, unless we want to argue that resultative constructions with full PP’s and AP’s are morphological objects, which has to my knowledge not been attempted. Furthermore, I query whether transitivisation by prefixes necessarily supports Zeller’s (2001a) thesis that German prefixes head a functional projection responsible for licensing direct objects. Even if we agree that such a projection is needed, the resultative nature of the preverbs’ semantics means that they will always license a direct argument anyway, whether or not they originate in a syntactic head responsible for transitivity. Unselected objects have been a primary motivation for the assumption that preverbs are small clause (SC) predicates and for other theories assuming that internal arguments of complex verbs originate in a projection of the preverb (e.g. Hoekstra 1988, 1992, den Dikken 1995, Stechow 1995, Svenonius 1996, Zeller 2001b). The underlying configuration can be represented in a schematic fashion as in (44). (44) work the debt off [ VP work [ SC/PP/Particle P the debt off]] The SC approach is reasonable for resultative preverbs, but it makes no sense to claim that scalar over and the other scope-bearing preverbs discussed in section 4 take a direct object as argument. At least in these cases, we are forced to adopt some variant of the other major type of analysis for complex verbs, in

140

Andrew McIntyre

which the preverb and verb form a constituent to the exclusion of the object, whether this consituent is a syntactic projection (Zeller 2001c, Haider 1997, Lu¨deling 2001, Mu¨ller 2000, Booij 1990, Keyser and Roeper 1992) or a morphological object (Dehe´ 2002, Neeleman and Weerman 1993, Olsen 2000, Stiebels and Wunderlich 1994). Another observation is that direct objects are not characterisable in terms of any type of thematic role or relationship to some predicate in a semantic representation. For instance, any kind of theory which links direct objecthood to affectedness or change of state (e.g. Pinker 1989, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995) runs into problems with some complex verbs which allow linking of the reference object, especially cases where the reference object indicates a distance travelled by a theme (e.g. (18a) and cases like circumnavigate the world, overstep the line. It remains to draw attention to some problems not touched on here. Firstly, I must note that there are certain transitivisation effects which do not comfortably fit into the picture presented above. (These mostly involve preverbs which have semantic effects parallel to temporal adverbials.) I cannot yet say why rehas a transitivising effect on the simplex verbs in (45a). It is not obvious that the prefixation involves the addition of a new subevent to the verb’s meaning, nor is it clear whether these three examples, even if unique, should be written off as exceptional. Nor is it clear how to capture the transitivising effect seen in (45b–d). The objects in (b) and (c) can be seen as reference objects of bound prepositional preverbs (cf. paraphrases with before humans, before ours, with Schumann), but the mechanisms involved in deriving the argument structure cannot be derived from what has been said in the rest of this essay. The German particles vor ‘beforehand’ and nach ‘afterwards’ transitivise verbs in some rare cases, cf. (45d), involving intransitive arbeiten. There is no sense in which the unselected object is a conceptual argument of nach. However, all these cases are extremely rare. (45)

a. b.

I reworked the essay, I rethought the plan, I relived my youth dinosaurs preexisted humans, their innovation antedated/predated ours c. Horowitz ... believed he had coexisted Schumann in some way (www.arbiterrecords.com/museum/horowitz.html) d. den Schrank nacharbeiten ‘‘the cubboard after.work’’, ‘put the finishing touches on the cupboard’

Finally, I mention one other riddle that temporal preverbs pose. The prefix preand the adverb beforehand mean ‘before x’ where x is some time or event which is identified from the context. With the prefix, but not the adverb, x is obligatorilly identified with direct objects which have a temporal value (e.g. event nominals), cf. (46a) and (b). I have no solution for this puzzle.

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 141

(46)

a. b.

I got to the partyi late because we were pre-rehearsing the performancek . (rehearsal before k/*i) I got to the partyi late because we were rehearsing the performancek beforehand. (rehearsal before k/i) NOTES

1 NP’s are said to be ‘quantised’ or ‘bounded’ if the entities they refer to are linguistically represented as being finite, as having an inherent quantity. Bare mass nouns and bare plurals (water, books) are examples of non-quantised NP’s; examples of quantised NP’s might be the water, the book(s), seven books. If an incremental theme is not quantised, the event will be atelic: he ate the cakes {in/*for} an hour vs. he ate cakes {for/*in} an hour. For more information, see e.g. Krifka (1998), Jackendoff (1996), Tenny (1994) and their references. 2 Verbrauchen and aufbrauchen ‘use up’ may be related to gebrauchen ‘use’ by prefix truncation. Alternatively, brauchen, which normally means ‘need’, has a second, contextsensitive sense ‘to use’, which is licensed in particular contexts, like these complex verbs and when under the scope of a possibility operator: ich kann’s nicht brauchen ‘I can’t use it’. 3 Similar quasi-redundant uses are found with ‘completive’ up in (3), except here the particle serves to license the suppression of an argument rather than the expression of one. Argument suppression seems to be the purpose of the preverbs in give away and its German equivalents vergeben, verschenken and abgeben. The simplex normally requires expression of the beneficiary. To circumvent this, the possession change subevent in the representation (i) is replaced by a suitable path which does not require mention of the beneficiary, as suggested in (ii).

(i) (ii) 4

Mary gave books to John: Mary gave books away:

do(mary, give) &CAUSE go(books, to john) do(mary, give) &CAUSE go(books, from deictic_centre)

Some speakers reject (18c), but the existence of (mainly American?) speakers who accept it, and a parallel alternation with German abwischen ‘wipe off’, show that it is a possible particle verb. 5 Certainly, I sealed the window badly, so he resealed it implies a repetition of a sealing event rather than a mere return of the window to a sealed state, but I take this to be contextual inference (cf. Dowty 1979: 256f). I cannot find or construct sentences where the prefix superficially appears to have non-minimal scope which cannot be explained as contextual inferences. 6 affect is used with verbs of indeterminate telicity (I swept the floor for/in ten minutes). I assume that the telic reading comes through the inference that the activity brought about its canonically intended result state. Rappoport Hovav and Levin (1998: 114) formalise the relevant verb class, represented by sweep, as [x act<SWEEP> Y ]. They assume that the internal argument is introduced by the idiosyncratic constant rather than by a closed-class predicate. 7 I have twice encountered uses like the house is overbuilt, where overbuilt seems to mean ‘overly elaborately constructed’. This looks like prefixation to an adjectival participle. 8 For instance: Yesterday we had planned to go to the beach with the children. I´t was a perfect day. The sun was shining brightly and there wasn’t a single cloud in the sky. But unfortunately, we ended up having to stay at home. The reason was that Peter felt sick because he had overeaten chocolate. That didn’t exactly make our day.

142

Andrew McIntyre

9

If wieder precedes the object, it has wide scope and allows token differentiation of the object, compare (i) with (34a). See Stechow (1995, 1996) for attempts at an explanation. (i)

da sie wieder ein Kind zur Welt gebracht hat since she again a child to.the world brought has (since she had another child)

REFERENCES Anderson, S. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic representation. Foundations of Language 6, 197–219. Booij, G. (1990). The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs in Dutch. In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morpholog 1990. Dordrecht: Foris, 45–63. Brinkmann, U. (1997). The Locative Alternation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Carlson, G. and T. Roeper (1980). Morphology and subcategorisation. In T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst and M. Moortgat (eds.), Lexical Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 123–164. Carrier, J. and J. Randall (1992). The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 173–235. Curme, G. (1914). The development of verbal compounds in germanic. Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle). 39, 320–61. Dehe´, N. (2000). English particle verbs: particles as functional categories. In: Hero Janßen (ed.), Verbal Projections. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Dehe´, N. and A. Wanner (eds.) (2001). Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs. Berlin: Peter Lang. Dehe´, N. (2002). Particle Verbs in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dehe´, N., R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre and S. Urban (eds.) (2002). Verb Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. den Dikken, M. (1995). Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Denison, D. (1985). The origins of completive up. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen LXXXVI, 37–61. Dowty, D.R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Haider, H. (1997). Precedence among predicates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 3–41. Hoekstra, T, (1988). Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101–139. Hoekstra, T. (1992). Aspect and theta-theory. In: I.M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure. Berlin/New York: Foris, 145–174. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. (1996). The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 305–354. Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language 73, 534–559. Jackendoff, R. (2002). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In Dehe´ et al. (eds.), 67–94. Jacobs, J. (1993). The lexical basis of optional complements. Theorie des Lexikons. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282. Nr. 53.

Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles 143

Keyser, S. and T. Roeper (1992). Re: The abstract clictic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 89–125. Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lenz, B. (1995). un-Affigierung. Tu¨bingen: Stauffenburg. Levin, B. and T. Rapoport (1988). Lexical subordination. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 24, 275–289. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Li, Y. (1999). Cross-componential causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 445–497. Lieber, R. and H. Baayen (1993). Verbal prefixes in Dutch. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 51–78. Lindemann, R. (1998). Bedeutungserweiterungen als systematische Prozesse im Systerm der Partikelverben mit ein-. In: Olsen (ed.), 105–148. Lindner, S. (1983). A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Lu¨deling, A. (2001). On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI. Mateu, J. (2001). Unselected Objects. In: Dehe´ and Wanner (eds.), 83–104. McIntyre, A. (2001a). Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German. In: Dehe´ and Wanner (eds.), 131–164. McIntyre, A. (2001b). German Double Particles as Preverbs: Morphology and Conceptual Semantics. Tu¨bingen: Stauffenburg. McIntyre, A. (2001c). Review of Lu¨deling (2001). The Linguist List (www.linguistlist.org/ issues/12/12-1680.html) McIntyre, A. (2002a). Idiosyncrasy in particle verbs. In: Dehe´ et al. (eds.), 95–118. McIntyre, A. (2002b). Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells. To appear in Linguistics. Mu¨ller, S. (2000). Complex predicates. Habil. Thesis, Universita¨t des Saarlandes, Saarbru¨cken. Neeleman, A. and F. Weerman (1993). The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 433–475. Olsen, S. (ed.) (1998). Semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte der Partikelverbbildung mit ein-. Tu¨bingen: Stauffenburg. Olsen, S. (2000). Against incorporation. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 74, 149–172. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47–81. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (1998). Building verb meanings. In: M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI, 97–134. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77, 766–797. Risch, G. (1995). Verbpra¨figierung des Deutschen. Dissertation, Universita¨t Stuttgart. Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In: L. Levin, M. Rappaport and A. Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 143–157. Spencer, A. and M. Zaretskaya (1998a). Verb prefixation in Russian. Linguistics 36, 1–39. Spencer, A. and M. Zaretskaya (1998b). Pri-prefixation in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6, 107–125.

144

Andrew McIntyre

Stechow, A. von (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In: U. Egli et al. (eds.), Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 81–117. Stechow, A. von (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’. Journal of Semantics 13, 87–138. Stiebels, B. (1996). Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Stiebels, B. and D. Wunderlich (1994). Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32, 913–968. Svenonius, P. (1996). The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages, Ms. Tromsø. (www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius) Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalisation patterns. In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–149. Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wechsler, S. (1989). Accomplishments and the prefix re-, Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 19, 419–434. Winkler, S. (1994). Secondary Predication in English. Diss. Tu¨bingen. Wunderlich, D. (1983). On the compositionality of German prefix verbs. In: R. Ba¨uerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, 452–465. Wunderlich, D. (1987). An investigation of lexical composition: The case of German be- verbs. Linguistics 25, 283–331. Wunderlich, D. (1997a). Argument extension by lexical adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14, 95–142. Wunderlich, D. (1997b). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27–68. Wunderlich, D. (2001). Prelexical syntax and the Voice hypothesis. In: C. Fe´ry and W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 487–513. Zeller, J. (2001a). Prefixes as transitivisers. In: Dehe´ and Wanner (eds.), 1–34. Zeller, J. (2001b). How syntax restricts the lexicon: particle verbs and internal arguments. Linguistische Berichte 188, 461–494. Zeller, J. (2001c). Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Institut fu¨r Anglistik Universita¨t Leipzig Beethovenstr. 15 04109 Leipzig Germany e-mail: [email protected]

Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages: synchronic and diachronic correlates* EVA SCHULTZE-BERNDT

1. INTRODUCTION Preverbs constituting a distinct part of speech are found in languages of different genetic affiliation throughout Northern Australia. In a large part of the linguistic area defined by the presence of preverbs, they are used to form complex predicates which at first sight bear striking similarities to the separable complex verbs of Germanic languages: the preverb is an uninflecting element which takes primary stress if it appears in preverbal position, but its position with respect to the inflecting verb is variable. Its meaning may be of a spatial or aspectual type. Thus, the Jaminjung examples in (1) and (2) have straightforward translation equivalents in English.1

(1)

jag yirr-ijga-ny binka-bina down 1pl.excl-go-past river-all ‘we went down to the river’

(2)

mangarra burrb nganthi-w-iya! plant.food finish 2sg:3sg-pot-eat.impf ‘you should have eaten up your food!’

However, there is a crucial difference between the preverbs of Germanic languages and the preverbs of Northern Australian languages. The former constitute a closed class, but the latter form an open class with hundreds if not thousands of members, including recent loans. In contrast, in most (though not all) of the Australian languages in question, inflecting verbs form a closed class, often with 30 or less members. At this point, the reader may object that the terms preverb and verb are not appropriate for these two parts of speech, since the term preverb is usually associated with a closed class and the term verb with an open class. This terminological problem is also reflected in the literature on Northern Australian languages: while the terms preverb and verb have been employed by some authors, various other terms can also be found, and none is generally accepted to date. A selection of the terms employed in the Australianist literature is provided in (3), with references. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 145–177. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

146

E. Schultze-Berndt

(3) Terms employed for the inflecting and uninflecting constituents of Northern Australian complex verbs Verb Verb/Auxiliary Verb Inflecting verb Finite verb Auxiliary Auxiliary

Preverb Verbal particle Coverb

Nash 1982, 1986, Simpson 1991 Hoddinott and Kofod 1976, Merlan 1994 Kofod 1996b, Wilson 1999, Carr 2000, Schultze-Berndt 2000, 2001 Uninflecting verb McGregor 2002 Participle Cook 1988 Base Capell 1979 (Main) verb Reid 1990, Walsh 1996

In this paper, I will – somewhat tentatively and deviating from the terminology I have used in other publications – adopt the term preverb for the uninflecting open-class elements of Northern Australian languages. I hope to show that contrasting their properties with those of more typical (i.e. closed-class) preverbs, both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective, sheds light on the nature of preverbs in general, since in a sense, Northern Australian preverbs represent an extreme case of what preverbs may look like. The syntactic and semantic differences between Northern Australian and European preverbs are in direct correlation with differences in the size of the preverb class and differences in the division of labour between preverbs and verbs. In the discussion of the synchronic aspects in Section 2, I will focus on preverbs forming separable complex verbs. In this section, all the data used for illustration come from my own fieldwork on Jaminjung,2 a language belonging to the Western Mindi branch of one of the currently recognized Non-PamaNyungan language families, the Mindi family (cf. Chadwick 1997). Some other languages possessing separable complex verbs similar to those in Jaminjung are listed in Table 1. As can be seen from the information provided in the table, the languages mainly differ in the number of (inflecting) verbs.3 These languages, though belonging to different language families, are found in a contiguous geographical area. Inseparable complex verbs of various types also exist in languages of Northern Australia. Although unfortunately, historical data on Australian languages are virtually nonexistent, the comparative perspective permits some conclusions on the diachronic development of preverbs and complex verbs. It can be shown that complex verb formation in at least some of the languages has undergone several cycles whereby former complex verbs have become single, unanalyzable verb roots, which could in turn function as the verbal part of newly arising complex verbs. The comparative and diachronic perspective on preverbs in Northern Australia will be taken up in Section 3. In Section 4 I turn to the question of the analysis of preverb-verb structures. I will argue that the synchronic and diachronic properties of the Northern

Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages

147

Language family

Language

Number of verbs

References

Wardamanic? Gunwinyguan?

Wardaman Wagiman

>130 >40

Mindi

Jaminjung/ Ngaliwurru Nungali

35 22/28

Miriwoong Gajirrabeng Gija Ungarinyin Wunambal Worrorra Gunin Nyulnyul Nyikina Warrwa Yawuru Bardi Gurindji Ngarinyman Bilinarra

19 24 21 >500 14/11 ~10 >18 >200 >150 >50 >82 >200 ~35 ~35 ~35

Merlan (1994) Cook (1988), Wilson (1999) Schultze-Berndt (2000) Bolt et al. (1971)/ Harvey and Schultze-Berndt (in prep.) Kofod (1996a) Kofod (1996a) Kofod (1996a, b) Rumsey (1982) Va´szolyi (1976)/Carr (2000) Silverstein (1986) McGregor (1993) McGregor (1996a) Stokes (1996), McGregor (2002) McGregor (1994) Stokes (1996), McGregor (2002) Metcalfe (1975) McConvell (to appear) Jones (1994) Nordlinger (1990)

Jarragan

Worrorran

Nyulnyulan

Ngumbin (Pama-Nyungan)

Table 1. Northern Australian languages with separable complex verbs and open classes of preverbs.

Australian complex verbs are best accounted for by a construction-based analysis which allows them to be simultaneously represented as lexicalized expressions and as instantiations of a productive construction type. Diachronic change can be represented as a change in the nature of the construction from a syntactic to a morphological construction, eventually followed by loss of constructional status.

2. PREVERBS AS AN OPEN WORD CLASS: SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC CORRELATES As already indicated in Section 1, several properties of preverbs in Jaminjung and languages with separable complex verbs of a similar nature are in direct correlation with the status of preverbs as an open word class. First, preverbs cover a semantic range which corresponds much more closely to that of verbs

148

E. Schultze-Berndt

Map 1. Approximate location of Australian Aboriginal languages or language families referred to in the paper. Key to Map 1 Bininj G.-w. Goon Jam Jarr Jaru Ma Nganki Ngar Nung Nyul Warl Wg Wmb Worr Wrd

Bininj Gun-wok (Gunwinyguan) Gooniyandi (Bunuban) Jaminjungan (Western Mindi): Jaminjung, Ngaliwurru, Nungali Jarragan: Gija, Miriwoong, Gajirrabeng Jaru (Ngumpin) Mangarrayi Ngankikurungkurr and Ngan’gityemerri Ngarinyman and Gurindji (Ngumpin) Nunggubuyu Nyulnyulan: Nyulnyul, Nyikina, Bardi, Warrwa, Yawuru Warlpiri (Ngumpin-Yapa) Wagiman Wambaya (Eastern Mindi) Worrorran: Worrorra, Wunambal, Ungarinyin, Gunin Wardaman Pama-Nyungan/Non-Pama-Nyungan boundary

Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages

149

than to that of preverbs in the familiar European languages (Section 2.1). Correspondingly, verbal loans are also integrated into the class of preverbs (Section 2.2). Moreover, preverbs exhibit a restricted set of derivational morphology (Section 2.3). Finally, Northern Australian preverbs not only function as constituents of complex verbs, but have a wider range of syntactic functions, e.g. as main predicates in dependent clauses (Section 2.4). In discussing the properties of preverbs in Northern Australian languages, it first needs to be demonstrated that preverbs indeed constitute a distinct part of speech. Preverbs can easily be distinguished from verbs by the absence of verbal inflections (which are obligatory on verbs). Preverbs can also be distinguished from nominals: unlike nominals, they cannot form a noun phrase together with determiners or nominal modifiers, they cannot take the whole range of nominal case markers (although some case markers with preverbs have subordinating function; see Section 2.4.2), and they are not used as arguments. Furthermore, in several languages with gender or noun class systems, for example the Jarragan languages (Kofod 1996b, 1997), preverbs do not exhibit gender marking, and verbs only show gender agreement with core arguments, but never with preverbs. The boundary between preverbs and adverbs, on the other hand, is difficult to draw; while there are minor distributional differences between preverb-like elements with a more adverbial semantics such as ‘slowly, carefully’ and preverbs proper, both are best regarded as subcategories of a larger preverb category.4

2.1. Semantics of preverbs and preverb-verb combinations From the open class status of preverbs in Northern Australian languages, it follows that they cover a much wider semantic range than preverbs in European languages: the semantics of preverbs in the former corresponds closely to that of verbs in the latter. For example, in addition to expressing a spatial path ( jag ‘down’ in (1)) or completion (burrb ‘finish’ in (2)), preverbs may encode manner of motion (yugung ‘run’ in (4)), change of state (ning ‘break off; finish’ in (5) and (6)) and impact (barr ‘smash’ in (6)). Preverbs of these types can typically combine with more than one verb. For example, yugung ‘run’ also collocates with other motion verbs, e.g. -ijga ‘go’, -uga ‘take’ and -arrga ‘approach’, and ning ‘smash’ also combines with other verbs of contact and impact such as -wa ‘bite’, -ina ‘chop, hit with an edge’ or -angu~-angga ‘get, handle, manipulate’ (the last combination is used to describe breaking something off with the hands). The use of different verbs can also influence the transitivity of the complex verb. For example, the intransitive reading of ‘break off, finish’ is rendered by the combination of ning with the verb –ijga ‘go’, as shown in (5). In order to render the transitive reading, the preverb has to combine with one of

150

E. Schultze-Berndt

the verbs specifying the manner and/or instrument involved in contact and impact. In (6) this is the general impact verb -ma ‘hit’. (4)

mulurru=biya yugung wirib-gu janju-wu ngiya old.woman=now run dog-dat dem-dat dem ga-ruma-ny=nu 3sg-come-past=3sg.obl ‘the woman then came running to that dog here’

(5)

ning=biyang ga-w-ijga=wunthu, kikap-mayan buny-b-iyaj break.off=now 3sg-pot-go=cond kick.up-cont 3du-pot-be ‘if it stops, the two will be kickstarting it (a motor boat)’

(6)

ning=biji yirri-ma gurunyung barr smash break.off=only 1pl.excl:3sg-hit.past head ‘we just finished (=killed) it (a flying fox), smashing its head’

Other preverbs only combine with a single verb, which often has a very general meaning. These preverbs often encode specific actions such as ‘scraping’ (wij in (7)) or communicative events such as ‘showing’ (yurrg in (8)). (7)

nganthan wij-wij nganth-angga-m? rdp-scrape 2sg:3sg-get/handle-prs what ‘what are you scraping?’ (addressee was scraping a carrot)

(8)

mulurru-ni gagawuli yurrg gan-garra-ny Gilwi-ni old.woman-erg long.yam show 3sg:1sg-put-past [place.name]-loc ‘the woman showed me yam in Gilwi’

With regard to the semantic range of preverbs, it is perhaps interesting to note that in Jaminjung, and all the neighbouring languages that I am aware of, deixis, which is so prominent in the preverb system of some European languages (cf. German hin/her), is not encoded by preverbs, but rather as semantic component of a verb root (‘come’, ‘bring’), as in Jaminjung, or as a derivational clitic (as in Warlpiri; cf. Nash 1982); often, deixis is not at all encoded in the complex predicate. As the examples above show, the semantic relationship between preverb and verb may vary considerably, in correlation with the wide range of meanings encoded by preverbs. The preverb may specify the manner of the event encoded by the verb, as in (4), or the result, as in (1), (2), and (6). The relationship between the constituents may also be a classificatory one, that is, the verb encodes the general type of event to which the subevent encoded by the preverb belongs. For example, in (7) ‘scraping’ is characterized as a specific type of manipulation by the use of the general manipulation verb -angu~-angga ‘get,

Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages

151

handle, manipulate’ (compare also (9b) and (10) below). In (5) and (8), the preverb again conveys specific semantics, while the verb only encodes one very general semantic feature of the event. In (5) this is the feature of change of state (encoded by the motion verb –ijga ‘go’ in a secondary sense); in (8), –arra ‘put’ indicates that the event has a component of transfer (in this case, transfer of information).5 Several authors, including Capell (1979), Silverstein (1986), McGregor (1990, 2002) and Schultze-Berndt (2000) have suggested that all kinds of semantic relationships found within complex predicates in the languages of the area can be subsumed under an analysis according to which the semantically generic verbs function as verbal classifiers, although the authors differ in the details of their analysis and their definition of classification.

2.2. The integration of loans as preverbs Considering the open-class status of preverbs in Jaminjung and surrounding languages, it comes as no surprise that recent verbal loanwords are consistently integrated as preverbs, and never as verbs. In a large area in Northern Australia, an English-based creole language, Kriol, is now the language of daily interaction, and the first language of many younger people (Harris 1991). A Kriol verb, bayim ‘buy’ is illustrated in (9a), in a periphrastic conjugation with the non-specific past auxiliary bin (<Engl. been). Kriol verbs borrowed into Jaminjung as preverbs retain the transitivity marking suffix -im, as shown in (9b) and (10). Just like other preverbs, they form complex verbs with one of the Jaminjung verbs. The choice of verb depends on the semantic type of the event that is described; this again reflects the classificatory nature of the generic verbs. For example, the generic verb of manipulation -angu~-angga ‘get, handle, manipulate’, already illustrated in (7), is used with preverb loans encoding both physical (9b) and non-physical manipulation (10). (9)

a.

en waya na, wa thet waitfella bin bayim and wire foc subord dem whitefellow aux:past buy:tr ‘and wire, which the white man bought’

b. mangarra gurrany guny-ngangga-m bayim! plant.food neg 2du:3sg-get/handle-prs buy:tr ‘you two don’t (i.e. never) buy any food’ (10)

mugmug-ni=gun braitenim gan-angu owl-erg=contr frighten 3sg:3sg-get/handle.past ‘the owl frightened him’

152

E. Schultze-Berndt

2.3. Morphological properties of preverbs Corresponding to their open-class status and their wide semantic range, preverbs in Northern Australian languages also have morphological and syntactic properties going beyond those of preverbs in European languages. With regard to their morphological properties, they can form the input to a few types of derivation, including reduplication, aktionsart-changing derivation, and nominalization, illustrated below for Jaminjung. In some languages, including the Jarragan languages (Kofod 1996b), preverbs can be productively derived from nominals. In Jaminjung, preverbs cannot be derived from members of other parts of speech, although there is some degree of overlap between preverbs and nominals in that a few lexical items (discussed in Schultze-Berndt 2000: 73–75) exhibit the distributional properties of both parts of speech. 2.3.1. Reduplication Reduplication of preverbs serves to express extended duration, repetition or intensity of events, as well as multiplicity (or an aggregate) of participants. Usually, this involves full reduplication, although word-initial partial reduplication is also found. An example of reduplication of a preverb encoding an inherently repetitive event, ‘scraping’, is (7). 2.3.2. Continuous marking The suffix -mayan derives preverbs with the aktionsart of activity from preverbs of other classes. The resulting forms exhibit a striking functional resemblance to English present participles in –ing (the latter of course formed from verbs, not from preverbs). They can be used in a complex predicate of the type she came running (where alternatively, the participle may be analyzed as a subordinate clause). The continuous forms also function as main predicates in a progressive construction formed with the verbs -yu ‘be’ or -ijga ‘go’ in auxiliary function, illustrated in (11) (for another example, consider the second clause in (5)). (11)

janyungbari buliki burlug-mayan ga-yu gugu another cow drink-cont 3sg-be.prs water ‘the other cow is drinking water’

For verbs, on the other hand, no derivation affecting the aktionsart exists, at least in Jaminjung. The only type of derivation available to verbs is the transitivity-changing reflexive-reciprocal suffix. 2.3.3. Nominalization Jaminjung preverbs may undergo a few processes of nominalization, such as

Preverbs as an open word class in Northern Australian languages

153

quality nominalization (‘N has the quality of ’), illustrated in (12), and the non-specific ‘associative’ nominalization (‘N is associated with ’), illustrated in (13). Note that verbs cannot be nominalized at all. (12) a. mangurrb-bari ‘black’<mangurrb ‘be black’ b. dum-bari ‘full (of food)’/a:/ in monosyllabic words ending in a single lenis obstruent or original sonorant. 12 Note that the corresponding word in the dialect of Kesswil in Oberthurgau is /blœ:bele/ with the analogical umlaut of /c:/ (cf. /blc:b/ ‘blue’). Indeed, this is one of the dialects that systematically have the analogical umlaut for many derivatives outside the morphological gang, except for isolated lexicalized forms. Thus, the concept of gangs only operates in those dialects whose analogical forms have not simply been extended to all derivatives. 13 Note also the analogical inflected adjective /en folne bu:x/ ‘a full belly’. 14 Although Bertrang does not give many examples, he makes it clear that the analogical umlaut is a feature of noun plurals and diminutives: ‘Anstatt /EI/ steht /E:/ als Umlaut von wg. /a:/, Ar. /c:/, im Plural der Substantive und in den Diminutiven’ (Bertrang 1921: 127). 15 The plural suffix -en does not occur with umlaut. 16 If the noun singular has the falling intonation the diminutive usually has it, too. 17 /d/ is often inserted between /n/ and /l/ for ease of pronunciation. 18 Some linguists may wish to argue that since diminutives are used very frequently in Swiss dialects, forms such as /man(d)li/ etc. could be lexicalised. However, other lexicalised forms such as /gmæIsam/ ‘together’ (standard German gemeinsam) do delete -n. 19 Except in the case of noun plurals which are suffixless in some dialects, e.g. Arlon /drc:t/: /drE:t/ ‘wire(s)’. 20 Maiden (1996) refers to this principle as ‘stabilisation’. He demonstrates how some

270

C. Fehringer

apparently ‘unnatural’ alternation patterns in a handful of Romance verbs were extended analogically on the basis of purely formal intraparadigmatic relations. 21 Such rules are different from the n-insertion rule in Zu¨rich which can no longer be regarded as purely phonological due to the analogical extension of -n to derivatives whose base forms do not have -n underlyingly (see (8) above). 22 Here, the /i/ is not a product of umlaut (contrast standard German Mu¨cke ‘midge’ with Fisch ‘fish’). 23 c.f. the spread of /EI/ as a general preterite subjunctive marker to most strong verbs in Luxemburg due to the loss of the corresponding preterite indicative forms and therefore the loss of the indicative vs. subjunctive alternation (see Chapman 1996: 51–52). 24 Although, conversely, I have found isolated examples of back vowels in base adjectives which may be cases of analogical ru¨ckumlaut, e.g. /ra:ss/ ‘strong’ (c.f. MHG ræZe) from Glarn in (24) above and /spc:t/ ‘late’ (c.f. MHG spæte) in Lungau/Salzburg (Mauser 1998: 212). However, this does not appear to be a particularly widespread process. 25 Compare standard German kalt : sich erka¨lten ‘cold : to catch cold’, heiss : heizen/erhitzen ‘hot : to heat’, frei : befreien ‘free : liberate’, trocken – trocknen ‘dry : to dry’, nass – nass machen ‘wet : to wet’ etc.

REFERENCES Anderson, S.R. (1992). A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Arens, J. (1908). Der Vokalismus der Mundarten im Kreise Olpe. Ph.D. dissertation. BornaLeipzig: Noske. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bach, E. and R.D. King (1970). Umlaut in modern German. Glossa 4/1, 3–22. Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational paradigms. In: G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 243–256. Becker, T. (1990). Analogie und morphologische Theorie. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Berger, J. (1913). Die Laute der Mundarten des St. Galler Rheintals. Beitra¨ge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 3. Frauenfeld: Huber. Bertrang, A. (1921). Grammatik der Areler Mundart. Brussels: Academie Royale de Belgique. Beyer, E. (1963). La flexion du groupe nominale en alsacien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Blevins, J.P. (2001). Paradigmatic derivation. Transactions of the Philological Society 99/2, 211–222. Booij, G.E. (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–17. Booij, G.E. (1997). Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In: G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–55. Born, W. (1983[1978]). Kleine Sprachlehre des Mu¨nsterla¨nder Platt. Mu¨nster: Regensberg. Braune, W. and H. Eggers (1987). Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Bybee, J.L. and M.A. Brewer (1980). Explanation in morphophonemics: changes in Provencal and Spanish preterite forms. Lingua 52, 201–242. Cameron-Faulkner, T. and A. Carstairs-McCarthy (2000). Stem alternants as morphological signata: evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 813–835.

Morphological ‘gangs’

271

Carstairs, A. (1987). Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2001). Umlaut as signans and signatum: synchronic and diachronic aspects. In: G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1999. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–23. Chapman, C. (1994). A diachronic argument against the Split Morphology Hypothesis: analogical umlaut in German dialects. Transactions of the Philological Society 92/1, 25–39. Chapman, C. (1995). Perceptual salience and analogical change: evidence from vowel lengthening in modern Swiss German dialects. Journal of Linguistics 31, 1–13. Chapman, C. (1996). Anomalies in the strong verb paradigms of two West Central German dialects. Zeitschrift fu¨r Dialektologie und Linguistik 63, 49–57. Chapman, C. (1997). Diminutive plural infixation and the ‘West Franconian’ problem. In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 73–89. Dressler, W.U., W. Mayerthaler, O. Panagl and W.U. Wurzel (1987). Leitmotivs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dressler, W.U. (1989). Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift fu¨r Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10. Durrell, M. (1989). Umlaut in Old High German and after. In Flood, J.L. and D.N. Yeandle (eds.), Mit regulu bithuungan. Neue Arbeiten zur althochdeutschen Poesie und Sprache. Go¨ppingen: Ku¨mmerle, 219–232. Enderlin, F. (1913). Die Mundart von Kesswil im Oberthurgau. Beitra¨ge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 5. Frauenfeld: Huber. Fleischer, W. and I. Barz (1995). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Ford, A. and R. Singh (1983). On the status of morphophonology. In: J.F. Richardson et al. Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Henzen, W. (1927). Die deutsche Freiburger Mundart im Sense- und su¨dostlichen Seebezirk. BSG 16. Frauenfeld: Huber. Kats, J. (1939). Het phonologisch en morphologisch systeem van het Roermondsch dialect. Roermond/Maseik: J.J. Romen and Sons. Lu¨ssy. H. (1974). Umlautprobleme im Schweizerdeutschen. Frauenfeld: Huber. Maiden, M. (1996). The Romance gerund and ‘system-dependent naturalness’ in morphology. Transactions of the Philological Society 94/2, 73–118. Mauser, P. (1998). Die Morphologie im Dialekt des Salzburger Lungaus. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mayerthaler, W. (1981). Morphologische Natu¨rlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Meinherz, P. (1920). Die Mundart der Bu¨ndner Herrschaft. Beitra¨ge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 13. Frauenfeld: Huber. Moulton, W. (1971). Der morphologische Umlaut im Schweizerdeutschen. In: M. Bindschedler et al. (eds.), Festschrift fu¨r Paul Zinsli. Bern: Francke, 15–25. Neuse, H. (1915). Studien zur niederrheinischen Dialektgeographie in den Kreisen Rees, Dinslaken, Hamborn, Mu¨hlheim, Duisburg. Deutsche Dialektgeographie 8. Marburg: Elwert. Obler, L.K. and K. Gerlow (1998). Language and the Brain. Cambridge/New York: CUP. Perlmutter, D.M. (1988). The Split Morphology Hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish. In:

272

C. Fehringer

M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. London: Academic Press, 79–100. Robins, R.H. (1959). In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society, 116–144. Scalise, S. (1988). Inflection and derivation. Linguistics 26/4, 561–583. Schirmunski, V. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Schmid, K. (1915). Die Mundart des Amtes Entlebuch im Kanton Luzern. Beitra¨ge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 7. Frauenfeld: Huber. Strauss, S.L. (1982). Lexicalist Phonology of English and German. Dordrecht: Foris. Streiff, C. (1915). Die Laute der Glarner Mundarten. Beitra¨ge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 8. Frauenfeld: Huber. Van Marle, J. (1985). On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. Van Marle, J. (1996). The unity of morphology: on the interwovenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. In: G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 67–83. Weber, A. (1948). Zu¨richdeutsche Grammatik, ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart. Zu¨rich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag. Wellmann, H. (ed.) (1993). Synchrone und diachrone Aspekte der Wortbildung im Deutschen. Heidelberg: Winter. Wipf, E. (1910). Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Beitra¨ge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 2. Frauenfeld: Huber. Wurzel, W.U. (1970). Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wurzel, W.U. (1984a). Was bezeichnet der Umlaut im Deutschen? Zeitschrift fu¨r Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 37, 647–663. Wurzel, W.U. (1984b). Flexionsmorphologie und Natu¨rlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Zwicky, A. (1967). Umlaut and Noun Plurals in German. Studia Grammatica 6. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

School of Modern Languages University of Newcastle Old Library Building Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK [email protected]

Book Reviews Jochen Zeller, Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001, xi+323 pp., Eur 49,46. ISBN 90 272 2762 4. Reviewed by Geert Booij

This book is the published version of a doctoral dissertation defended by Zeller (henceforth Z) at the University of Frankfurt. It deals with the topic of German particle verbs such as anrufen ‘to phone’, a topic that is also the focus of the thematic section of this volume of the Yearbook of Morphology to which the reader of this review is referred for further information on the phenomena in this domain of linguistic research. Z’s basic claim is that particle verbs are not words but have phrasal status and form a V∞-constituent. That is, particle verbs have the structure [[Prt]PrtP V0 ]V∞ . Z adduces a number of arguments for the position that particle verbs do not have the status of complex words (as was claimed by Stiebels & Wunderlich (1994) for German and by Neeleman & Weerman (1993) for Dutch). The basic arguments for assigning particle verbs phrasal status is that the two parts can be split by Verb Second and Topicalization, and that the principle of Lexical Integrity forbids splitting of words by rules of syntax. On the other hand, the existence of particle verbs does not follow directly from the standard syntactic rules of German. Therefore, Z proposes that words that can function as particles have a subentry for their use as particle, in which they are subcategorized for combining with verbs in the structure given above. This position concerning the analysis of particle verbs is similar to the one I defended for Dutch particle verbs in Booij (1990, 2002a;b), where I also argued for the phrasal status of particle verbs. As Zeller rightly emphasizes, the view of the lexicon as defended in Jackendoff (1997) is a perfect framework for such an analysis: the lexicon specifies the correspondence between pieces of phonological, syntactic, and semantic information and it is therefore quite feasible to specify properties of multi-word units in the lexicon. As Z points out, it is necessary to list particle-verb combinations in the lexicon if they have a noncompositional meaning, which is often the case (e.g. aufho¨ren ‘to stop’, and anfangen ‘to begin’. Z’s analysis thus differs from those syntactic approaches to particle verbs that consider particles as predicates of small clauses, and derive particle verbs through syntactic incorporation. This is the approach taken in Den Dikken (1995) for English, and also defended in Den Dikken’s review of Z’s book (Den Dikken 2001). In my opinion, the basics of Z’s analysis and argumentation are quite convincing, and they converge with what I said about particle verbs in Dutch. One Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 273–279. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain.

274

Book Reviews

difference between his and my analysis is that in Booij (2002a;b) I qualified words that function as particles as ‘non-projecting’, implying that there is no phrase node, but only an X0 node dominating the particle (which can be P, N, A or Adv). Z asssumes that a particle does project a full phrase, because it can be topicalized under certain semantic or pragmatic conditions (see also Zeller, this volume). This reasoning presupposes that being a full phrase is a precondition for being topicalized. On the other hand, by assigning particles an X0 status only, we correctly predict that the normal unconditioned topicalization does not apply. A second argument of Z’s for assigning phrasal status to particles is that they can be modified (p. 100 ff). Z cites, among others, the following German sentences as evidence for this position: (1)

a. b.

Das Kleid da hinten sieht besser aus ‘This dress over there in the back looks better’ [Besser aus] sieht das Kleid da hinten

Sentence (1b), with topicalization of besser aus, is meant to show that besser, which can also be interpreted as an independent constituent of the sentence, can function as the modifier of the particle aus. However, the grammaticality of this sentence is questionable. In other cases where modification of the particle word is possible, the modified word may also be interpreted as a secondary predicate instead of as a particle. That is, there may be structural ambiguity involved. For instance, in the Dutch sentence (2)

a.

Jan maakte zijn huiswerk af ‘John finished his homework’

the word af may be interpreted either as a particle or as a phrase that functions as a secondary predicate (the construction that is a historical source of the verb particle construction), since af also occurs as a predicate without a verb, as in Het huiswerk is af ‘The homework is ready’. In such cases, modification is possible, as in (2)

b.

Jan maakte zijn huiswerk helemaal af ‘John finished his homework completely’

In those cases where a particle interpretation is the only possible one because of the idiomatic nature of the particle verb, modification is excluded, as in: (2)

c.

*Jan belde zijn moeder helemaal op ‘John phoned his mother completely’

where op cannot be interpreted as a secondary predicate with independent

Book Reviews

275

syntactic status. In other words, modification may be taken to indicate the nonparticle status of the word involved. So the problem for Z’s hypothesis of phrasal status for particles is that in most cases modification of particles is impossible, which requires a systematic explanation that a phrasal status of particles does not provide. Interestingly, Toivonen (2001) has argued on the basis of an analysis of Swedish particle verbs that the grammar must allow for non-projecting categories, since in Swedish the postverbal particles can never be modified. A special assumption made by Z is that particle phrases differ from other phrases in that they lack the functional projection that, for instance, turns an NP into a DP. The effect is according to Z that there is a relation of structural adjacency between a particle and a verb: the particle is head-governed by the verb. Z’s definition of this notion reads as follows (p. 36): (3)

Structural adjacency A head X and the head Y of its complement YP are structurally adjacent

According to Z, this structural adjacency implies that particle and verb are together in a local domain, which makes it possible for this word combination to be reanalysed as V0 under certain circumstances, which I will discuss now. If the particle phrase were dominated by a functional projection layer, there would not be structural adjacency anymore between particle and verb, because instead of Prt the head of the Functional Projection of the PrtPhrase is structurally adjacent to V, and hence in the same local domain. Z gives two arguments for the idea of reanalysis of particle verbs into V0 . One is that they can occur in the non-head position of compounds and derived words. Since according to Z derived words cannot contain phrases (the No Phrase Constraint), unlike compounds, the particle verbs must have been reanalysed since they do feed word derivation, as Z rightly points out. For instance, we can derive Anrufer ‘caller’ from anrufen ‘to call’, and the same applies to Dutch particle verbs (Booij 1990). However, I do not consider this a strong argument since not only particle verbs but also other phrases can feed derivation in Dutch, as illustrated by the following examples with the Dutch nominal suffix -er: (4)

derde-klass-er ‘third form pupil’