Lecture 5: Prepositional Verbs and Phrasal Verbs.

Lecture 5: Prepositional Verbs and Phrasal Verbs

PPs are often adverbials = modifiers They met [in the street] (location) She left [on Wednesday] (time) He retaliated [in anger] (manner)

These are adjuncts – not restricted by the predicate: They met [in the street] [on Wednesday] [in anger]

But some verbs take PP arguments, which are restricted He put the box [in the street] * he put the box [on Wednesday] * he put the box [with anger]

PP arguments have a number of properties which are more like adjuncts They are often omissible

He sent the letter ([to Mary]) But not always - he gave the letter * ([to Mary])

They are always further from the verb than DP arguments:

* He sent [to Mary] the letter * he put [in the street] the box

They can appear after adjuncts He put the box [carelessly] [in the street]

Omissibility is not really a distinct property of adjuncts: All adjuncts are omissible Some arguments are omissible

He was eating (his dinner) We can separate the two kinds of omissiblity:

He sent a letter (to London) He drove the car (to London)

Is it possible to: Conceive of an act of ‘sending’ for which there is no

goal? Not really – it isn’t ‘sending’ otherwise

Conceive of an act of ‘driving’ for which there is no goal? Of course – driving can just involve making a vehicle move

It isn’t possible to conceive of any event which does not take place in time and space Does this mean that time and location modifiers

are arguments? If something applies to everything, it can’t

be due to the meaning of individual predicates I phoned Bill on Wednesday

It isn’t part of the meaning of ‘to phone’ that it takes place at a certain time

This is just a fact about the universe – you don’t even need to know what ‘to phone’ means to know this

Given that all events take place in time and space, then time and location are never part of the meaning of a predicate

So, they are always adjuncts No predicate has a time argument But some have location arguments

He placed the book in his bag This is not the location of the event, but the

location the theme comes to occupy due to the event taking place He placed the book in his bag in the library

Is the goal an adjunct or argument?: He posted the letter to Mary He posted the letter

There are two meanings for ‘post’ To send via the postal system To put something in the post

Similar to: Shelve a book = put a book on a shelf Post a letter = put a letter in the post

‘Send’ obviously has a goal argument (you can’t send without one)

‘Put’ clearly has no goal So whether the goal is an argument or not

depends on which ‘post’ is involved

The difference between DP and PP arguments is due to Case DPs have to occupy Case positions PPs don’t

Therefore the distribution of DPs is more restricted than that of PPs

Argument positions are fixed at D-structure

So a PP argument’s distribution should not be any different to a DP’s – at D-structure

This suggests that PPs can undergo movements which DPs can’t

There is evidence that some phrases move to the back of the clause (mostly clauses and PPs): A man [with a suitcase] arrived A man arrived [with a suitcase] A man [who seemed nice] phoned A man phoned, [who seemed nice]

This movement is called Extraposition Its function seems to be to focus the extraposed

phrase (add new salient information) What surprised me was:

that a man with a suitcase arrived that a man arrived with a suitcase

Due to extraposition a PP argument can move behind a PP modifier: I gave the money t1 [with reluctance] [to Bill]1

Therefore it only appears that PP arguments have distributions like adjuncts

Note, some DPs also undergo extraposition: I met John yesterday * I met yesterday John I met yesterday [everyone who John told me to]

This is called Heavy DP shift Only DPs with ‘heavy’ content can undergo it

In the dative construction the PP goal is the complement of the lexical verb

As this position follows all DP arguments, it seems reasonable to assume that this is the position for all PP arguments

Some verbs have two PP arguments I spoke to the students about the exam

Both of these can’t go in the complement of V position

The two PPs are interchangeable: I spoke about the exam to the students

The evidence suggests that the first argument is higher than the second: I spoke to the students about themselves * I spoke to themselves about the students

But this only works with one order: * I spoke about the students to themselves * I spoke about themselves to the students

This suggests that the two orders have different structures

The antecedent not only has to be higher than the pronoun

It must be in a particular structural relationship with it: John shaved himself * John’s mother shaved himself

A subject can be the antecedent of the object, but a phrase inside the subject cannot

We call this relationship Command A structural element commands its sister and everything inside its sister

A pronoun must be commanded by its antecedent

Because of this, the two PP arguments cannot be arranged like this

The first DP does not command the second

Perhaps the structure is like this: The goal DP is in the

specifier of the ‘about’ PP

This PP is the complement of ‘to’

So the goal commands the second DP

It is very odd that the DP related to the preposition ‘to’ is in the specifier of ‘about’

In all other cases we have seen arguments sit in either specifier or complement of their own predicate

How is the other order achieved? I spoke about the exam to the

students If ‘about the exam’ moves in

front of ‘to the students, this means P’ moves X’s don’t appear to be able to

move If ‘to the students’ moves

behind ‘about themselves’, this means something that isn’t even a phrase can move Only phrases can move

If what moves is the ‘about’ phrase, this must be a full PP

If this PP is in the complement of ‘to’, the goal must be in its specifier:

The right relationship between the two DPs still holds The first DP

commands the second

The word order is wrong! Perhaps this represents the D-structure

order and movement changes the position of ‘to’

In some languages, verbs and prepositions ‘fuse’ together by a process of incorporation

Kinyarwanda (Rwanda, southern Uganda) Umugabo ya-tém-ye igití n’ úmuhoro

man past-cut-asp tree with machete ‘The man cut the tree with the machete.’ Umugabo ya-tém-eesh-eje igití umuhoro

man past-cut-APPL-ASP tree machete ‘The man cut the tree with the machete.’

Preposition incorporation is movement of the preposition to join the verb Similar to a verb moving to a causative verb or tense

inflection

When a prepositional verb passivises, the verb and the preposition cannot be separated: He slept in the bed that night He slept that night in the bed the bed was slept in that night * the bed was slept that night in

This suggest that, in this case, the verb and preposition form a single unit i.e. The preposition incorporates into the verb

That prepositional verbs can passivise is very strange: Only transitive verbs passivise in English

John was hit/seen/frightened/feared ... * it was smiled/danced/sneezed/arrived ...

But most prepositional verbs allow passivisation: The students were spoken to The bed was slept in The money was parted with The target was aimed at

In these cases, the object of the preposition behaves like the object of the verb The object of the verb moves in passives

because the agentive verb is replaced by the passive morpheme and so the object loses it Case

Why would the object of the preposition have to move?

Suppose that when the preposition incorporates with the verb it can’t Case mark the goal

The goal will have to move to get Case from the agentive verb The verb moves (with the preposition) to support the agentive verb If the verb is passive, the goal must move further to subject to get

Case

In the case of two PP arguments, it seems that preposition incorporation has to take place: I spoke-to the students about the exam * I spoke the students to about the exam

When there is one PP argument, it is difficult to tell as both structures give the same result

When there is a theme, the preposition cannot incorporate: I gave the money to John * I gave-to the money John

This is understandable as the object of the preposition would be Caseless It cannot get Case from the incorporated

preposition It cannot move to the object position

There is a well know difference between the following: He looked up the word (in the dictionary) He looked up the chimney

The first involves what is traditionally called a phrasal verb A verb made up of a verb plus a ‘particle’

Incorporated preposition?

Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: They have idiomatic interpretations

the plane took off = to become airborne

he let down the whole family = to disappoint

the review put off the customers = to deter This suggests that they are single lexical

verbs

Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: They have the same stress pattern as a single verb

Normally stress falls on the second syllable of a verb They ex’ported the wine He a’ddressed the audience

The stress on a phrasal verb can fall on the preposition He put ‘over his message He let ‘down the family

Prepositional verbs do not stress the preposition He jumped ‘over the fence (only with contrastive

stress) Again, this suggests they are single lexical items

Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: The preposition does not have to immediately

follow the verb: He took off his hat - he took his hat off He looked up the word - he looked the word up

This is not possible with prepositional verbs: he looked up the chimney - * he looked the

chimney up He ran up the hill - * he ran the hill up

This does not favour a single lexical item analysis No other lexical item can be split up like this

The particle can be a whole phrase: This put the customers [right off their food] He took his clothes [all off]

When this is the case, the particle cannot join with the verb: * this put right off their food the customers * he took all off his clothes

This can be explained if phrasal verbs are formed by preposition incorporation Only the preposition itself can incorporate with

the verb

The obvious analysis is to treat phrasal verbs as: Having a PP complement Allowing the preposition to

incorporate

This analysis is exactly the same as the one we proposed for prepositional verbs

There is a structural difference between He looked up the word He looked up the chimney

In the first case, the object is an argument of the verb (theme):

The preposition may optionally incorporate into the verb

If so, when the verb moves to support the agentive verb we get: He looked1-up2 the word t1 t2

If not incorporate, we get: He looked1 the word t1 up

In the second case, the object is an argument of the preposition (location)

The preposition may optionally incorporate

But either way we get the same order when the verb moves

If phrasal verbs have the same analysis as prepositional verbs, why are they interpreted differently?

Perhaps they are not Some phrasal verbs don’t have idiomatic

interpretations: He stood the ladder up (phrasal verb order)

(meaning = cause to stand up)

Some prepositional verbs have idiomatic interpretations:

The police looked into the matter * the police looked the matter into (no phrasal verb

order) (meaning =

investigate)

In general PP arguments sit in the complement of the lexical verb

The preposition may incorporate into the verb If there a theme argument, the preposition cannot

incorporate If the verb is passivised, the preposition must

incorporate Phrasal verbs are the same as prepositional

verbs Most reported differences concern the position of

the DP argument As an argument of the verb or of the preposition