Two Types of Verb Particle Constructions

Mikael Vinka
McGill University

The Problem. Although differing in technical detail, most analyses of Verb Particle Constructions (VPCs) propose a unified account, treating all VPCs as structurally identical (Chomsky 1957, Emonds 1976, Kayne 1985, Taraldsen 1991, Den Dikken 1995, Svenonius 1996). While the unified account can account for the word order alternation in (1) and (2), it faces some serious problems for Swedish VPCs.

(1a) John drank (up) the wine (up).

(1b) MaDurinn hefur (upp) drukkiD (upp) víniD.(Icl)

man has up drunk up wine

(1c) Mannen har (opp) drukket (opp) vinen (Nor)

man has up drunk up wine

(2a) John switched (on) the TV (on).

(2b) Vi¹ hentum (út) hundinum (út). (Icl)

we threw out dog out

(2c) Vi kastet (ut) hunden (ut). (Nor)

we threw out dog out

It is generally held that the word in Swedish VPCs is strictly V-Prt-NP (Holmberg & Platzack 1995), (3a) and (4a). However, if the full DP object of (3a) and (4a) is replaced by a pronoun, then (3b) is remains bad while (4b) improves dramatically. Also, in (4) the main verb can be replaced by the light verb hade 'had', without changing neither grammaticality nor interpretation, (4c); this is impossible in (3c). Next, in (4) passive can apply without forcing the particle to surface as prefix, (4d), but not in (3d). In (3) the particle must surface as prefix in passive, (3e). Hence, a 'D-structure' object can not surface to the left of the particle in (3b, 3e). Finally, in the particle in (4) can be used as the predicate in a copula construction, whereas the particle in (3) can not, (3f) and (4f). On the basis of this distinction, I call the particle in (3) non-predicative, and the one in (4) predicative.

Non-Predicative VPCs

(3a) Jag drack (upp) vinet (*upp)

I drank up wine up

(3b) Jag drack (upp) det (*upp)

I drank up it up

(3c) *Jag hade upp vinet.

I had up the wine _ I drank up the wine

(3d) *Vinet blev drucket upp

wine became drunk up

(3e) Vinet blev upp-drucket.

wine became up-drunk

(3f) *Vinet är upp.

wine is up
Predicative VPCs

(4a) Jag satte (på) TVn (*på)

I switched on TV on

(4b) Jag satte (på) den (på)

I switched on it on

(4c) Jag hade på TVn
I had on TV = I switched on the TV

(4d) TVn blev satt på

TV became switched on

(4e) TVn blev på-satt

TV became on-switched

(4f) TVn är på

TV is on

The Proposal. This paper argues predicative and non-predicative VPCs are structurally distinct. Adopting Baker's (1997) highly articulated VP, I claim that the lexical verb in a non-predicative VPC originates as A (which conflates with V) and the particle is the structural complement of A, (5). In predicative VPCs, the lexical verb is essentially the spell out of MANNER and CAUSE (Hale & Keyser 1993, Levin & Rapoport 1989), suggesting that it originates as a light verb in the upper v ((3c-4c)). The predicative particle is the complement of the lower V, which is phonologically empty, but hosts a lexical operator BECOME/GO, as in (6) (Baker 1997, Travis 1997).

Moreover, it is a well known fact that all VPCs have consequences for the aspectual properties of an event, typically related to telicity (Tenny 1994, Travis 1997, Keyser & Roeper 1992). Following Travis (1991, 1997), AspP intervenes between VP and vP (Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996 etc) and Asp_ hosts a feature [±telic], in addition to the case-feature [accusative]. Assuming that the feature [±telic] in Swedish is strong in the sense of Chomsky (1995), the particle is forced to move into AspP in order to check off the feature. A non-predicative particle moves into SpecAspP, thus a licit checking relation obtains. This also has the effect of blocking a pronominal object from raising into SpecAspP (3b).In a predicative VPC, the particle head-moves into V, whereupon [V Prt [VØ]] raises to Asp_, where checking now can obtain via the head-head relation. As a consequence, SpecAspP is empty and a pronominal object may raise into this position (4b).

Assuming now that the theme must raise through SpecAspP also in passives, the fact that a predicative particle may be stranded follows straightforwardly, since the particle does not target SpecAspP. However, in non-predicative VPCs, both NP and PrtP compete for SpecAspP. The situation can be resolved, since A governs Prt, and therefore Prt can incorporate into A (Baker 1988, Travis 1984), thus surfacing as prefix, assuming left-adjunction only (Kayne 1993). A conflates with V and V raises to Asp and hence a checking relation obtains between Asp and Prt.. Crucially, SpecAspP is now available as an intermediate landing site for the theme.

Extensions. The theory outlined provides a straightforward way to capture the various behaviors of VPCs found among the Scandinavian languages and English. Western Norwegian (Svenonius 1996), behaves essentially as Swedish, which suggest that the feature [±telic] is strong, and thus forcing incorporation in passivized or passive-like non-predicative VPCs, (7).

(7a) *Me prøvde[ å få [ slaktet skore opp]]. (W.Nor)

we tried to get carcass cut up

(7b) Me prøvde [ å få [slaktet opp-skore]]. (W.Nor)

we tried to get carcass up cut

On the other hand, in Standard Norwegian, Icelandic and English, the feature is optionally strong, hence allowing (1) and (2). These languages do not allow particle-incorporation in passives. I assume that this blocked by economy considerations, since incorporation involves more overt movement than non-incorporated ones.

Finally, Danish allows only the word order V-NP-Prt, and particles never surface as prefixes. This suggest then that [±telic] is weak in this language.

(8) Boris skrev (*under) kontrakten (under). (Dan)

Boris wrote under contract under
'Boris signed the contract'


< Back to List of Abstracts | Back to PLC23 Home Page >

About the PLC23 Committee
Previously held Penn Linguistics Colloquium: PLC22 (1998), PLC21 (1997)

Penn Department of Linguistics
University of Pennsylvania