Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English, Kemenade-Los 2003

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 inthe West-Germanic languages, which appear to show a large degree of func-tional equivalence, although they have rather different morphosyntactic proper-ties. The first set is inseparable, as found in the Dutch verbs verbranden ‘burn’,beschrijven ‘describe’, ontmoeten ‘meet’; while the second set is separable, asfound in the Dutch verbs opbellen ‘call up’, afzeggen ‘call off’, wegblazen ‘blowaway’.

The two sets of verbs, whose properties we describe in some detail below,are functionally equivalent in the sense that they denote complex events thatinvolve a change of state in a resultative construction. This reflects theirassumed common historical origin. We claim that the morphosyntactic differ-ences between the two sets result from the fact that the verbs with inseparableprefixes have undergone a different morphosyntactic development, whilstretaining the semantics of a complex event.

We will distinguish four ways in which the complex events denoted by theverbs under discussion can be encoded morphosyntactically. These four stagesto some extent represent a historical sequence: at the first stage, the particlerepresents a genuine predicate in a secondary predicate construction, and isconstructed syntactically as a morpheme independent from the verb. At thesecond stage, the prefix/particle is part of a separable complex verb (SCV)which, though constructed from free morphemes and separable by syntacticprocesses, operates as a single lexical unit in other respects. At the third stage,the preverb, though constructed from bound morphemes, is separable from theverbal stem by other bound morphemes. At the fourth stage, which may eitherdevelop from the third stage, or develop independently according to morpho-syntactic 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 addstelic aktionsart, resulting in an accomplishment or an achievement. The predi-cate may grammaticalize further into an aspectual marker or inflectional mor-phology, in which case it no longer encodes a change of state, and is no longer aresultative predicate. The diachronic development of these resultative predi-cates, then, affects aspectuality (Boogaart 1999): the inventory of expressions oflexical aspect (or aktionsart), and, in time, grammatical aspect.

The structure of this article is as follows: in section 2, we describe in somedetail the properties of separable verbs, concentrating on present-day Dutchand 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 conceptualstructure (LCS) they have in common. We will then see how this LCS can bevariously encoded morphosyntactically. In section 4, we discuss the inseparableverbs and in section 5 we describe the historical development in some detail,developing the historical stages outlined above. In section 6 we link the declineof preverbal particles in English to a change in underlying syntax. Section 7sums 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 languagestypically 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 opbeltJohn says that he tomorrow his mother up-rings‘John says that he will phone his mother tomorrow’

b. Jan belt zijn moeder morgen opJohn 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 Secondconstraint (V2). Although particle and verb are separated by V2, suggestingthat SCVs like opbellen are constructed in the syntax, the meaning of thecombination, ‘to phone’, is not completely predictable from its constituent ele-ments bellen ‘ring’ and op ‘up’, which points to an analysis of the SCV as aphrasal verb, stored in the lexicon as one unit (Booij 1998). Thus, these SCVsare hybrid in nature, and Germanic SCVs are not alone here; they seem todescend quite straightforwardly from the preverb+verb combination discussedfor Indo-European in Watkins (1964). Similar phenomena are discussed forlanguages as diverse as Hungarian in Ackerman (1987), the Brazilian languageNadeb in Weir (1986), Georgian and Udi in Harris (this volume), NorthernAustralian languages as in Schultze-Berndt (this volume). What such construc-tions have in common is precisely this paradox between apparently being alexical combination on the one hand, and being syntactically constructed on theother hand.

To resolve this paradox, our hypothesis is that the nonverbal part of the

81Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English

SCV is a secondary predicate in origin. We will motivate this assumption in thenext subsection. Tracing the historical origin from this perspective, we will seethat 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 orderphenomena. If we regard particles as (derived from) predicates, the separationof 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’sfirst elaborate further on Dutch: the two different particle positions shown in(1a-b) above are exactly matched by the position of ‘regular’ secondary predi-cates like groen ‘green’ in (2a-b):

(2) a. Jan zegt dat hij de deur morgen groen verftJohn 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 verbby auxiliaries in verb-raising constructions, as in (3a-c) and this too is paralleledby well-established predicates in (4a-c):

(3) a. dat Jan zijn moeder op probeert te bellenthat Jan his mother up tries to phone‘that John tries to phone up his mother’

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

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

(4) a. dat Jan de deur groen probeert te verventhat Jan the door green tries to paint‘that John tries to paint the door green’

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


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

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

(5) a. dat Jan zijn moeder heeft opgebeldthat John his mother has up-phoned‘that John has phoned his mother up’

b. dat Jan zijn moeder morgen zal opbellenthat John his mother tomorrow will up-phone‘that John will phone up his mother tomorrow’

(6) a. *dat Jan de deur heeft groen geverfdthat John the door has green painted‘that John has painted the door green’

b. *dat Jan de deur zal groen verventhat John the door will green paint‘that John will paint the door green’

(7) a. dat Jan de deur groen geverfd heeftthat John the door green painted has‘that John has painted the door green

b. dat Jan de deur groen verven wilthat 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). Thereality of such a special ‘particle order’ is further supported by the existenceand behaviour of SCVs in which the nonverbal part is of a different wordcategory, i.e. AP-verb combinations as in (8a) and (fossilized) PP-verb combina-tions as in (8b). Some of these PPs are no longer synchronically analysed as PPsbut either as APs (e.g. tevreden ‘content’, lit. ‘at peace’) or as unanalysableparticles (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


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

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

The secondary-predicate origins of such adjective-verb combinations aremore transparent than those of the particle-SCVs: adjectives are the typicalnonverbal predicate category, and postulating a secondary predicate (SP) analy-sis in synchronic Dutch for these SCVs is rather less controversial than for theparticle SCVs. Nevertheless, as Koopman (1995) observes, these adjectivalSCVs behave like SCVs with a particle in that they allow both word orders: theone 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 makenthat John his car clean will make‘that John will clean his car’

b. dat Jan zijn auto zal schoon makenthat 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), inwhich 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 makenthat John his car quite clean will make‘that John will clean his car very well’

b. *dat Jan zijn auto zal erg schoon makenthat 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 historicallyfrom secondary predicates, with a (simplified) Small Clause structure as in (11).


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

(12) a. [de auto [schoon]] maken, [zijn moeder [op]] bellenb. 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 formationon a par with simplex verbs, and to behave as a word with respect to Verb-Raising, 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 ge-remained, as did the heavy stress on the particle. The reanalysis led to the riseof a new category ‘particle’, which comes with its own SCV-package of syntacticbehaviour on the one hand, inherited from its earlier predicate status, andlexical 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 andpredicates. English VO syntax makes two positions available for English predi-cates: 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 andpredicate become adjacent.


(13) a. She stuffed [NP all the documents containing incriminating evidence][PP into her briefcase]

b. She stuffed [PP into her briefcase] [NP all the documents containingincriminating evidence]

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

(14) a. He phoned his mother upb. He phoned up his motherc. He phoned her upd. *He phoned up her

(15) ‘If you force your confidence upon me, Mr. Headstone, I’ll give up everyword 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 inLipka 1972: 25). There is, then, a word order difference between regular predi-cates and particles in that the latter lack any length or complexity requirementson the NP in the ‘extraposed’ order. As a result, the particle ends up adjacentto V far more frequently than the regular predicate, which paves the way forthe verb and particle developing greater morphological unity than the verb andpredicate, reminiscent of the adjacency of the Dutch verb and particle underVerb-Raising. We saw in (8a-b) that word order phenomena in Dutch show thatSCVs are not restricted to particle-verb combinations only but also includeAP-verb and PP-verb combinations; the same is true of word order phenomenain 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, bleachwhite, 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 inquestion, take into consideration etc.

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


(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 descriptivediscussion Claridge 2000: 68, 157). The need for bare heads may also accountfor the fusion of the PP into a single word as in the examples in (17). Finally, aswith Dutch opbelbaar, English phrasal verbs may also be input to derivationalprocesses that do not build on phrases, as in come-at-able, get-at-able or lookers-on (all from OED).

All this points to a close historical connection between particle and second-ary predicate.

2.4. Particles as grammaticalized predicates

Secondary predicates (in traditional grammars referred to as ‘object comple-ments’ (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973) or ‘object attributes’(Aarts and Aarts1982, Aarts 1989)) are verbal constructions in which an embedded predicatedenotes the result of the action of the verb. Typical examples usually contain anadjective phrase as predicate and a ‘light verb’ as its verb, as in (18a-b).

(18) a. He made his papers available on the internetb. He kept the doors open

The predicate and the preceding NP are in a subject-predicate relation: as aresult of his action, his papers are available on the internet (18a); the doors areopen (18b). Predicates are by no means restricted to adjective phrases: NPs orPPs are also possible. Likewise, the verb is not restricted to a light verb but maybe any verb that can indicate the means or manner by which the result wasreached, or even a verb that lexicalizes the predicate itself. The construction isextremely productive, witness these real-life examples collected by RappaportHovav 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 (TheToronto 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)


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

The observation that particles share many characteristics with predicates has along history in the literature, from at least the early fifties onwards (Anthony1953: 86), and can be found in, e.g., Fraser (1965: 82ff), Legum (1968: 55ff) andBolinger (1971: 37ff). The parallels between the two structures are semantic(resultative meaning), syntactic (same verbs, same word orders) and intona-tional,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 phenom-enon 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 SCVsmorphological, there are sufficient parallels to warrant subsuming them underthe label ‘SCV’: a object poised on the interface between syntax and morphol-ogy with properties of its own, some inherited from the syntactic structure thatspawned 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 andEnglish on the other is due to the vicissitudes of syntactic development: particlesare no longer preverbal in English because of the loss of OV order in ME; thismeans that predicates, and the particles deriving from them, are no longer onthe left of the verb. Dutch and German have a special ‘particle-syntax’ too. InDutch, particles may remain adjacent to the verb in Verb Raising constructions,unlike genuine secondary predicates (see (5)–(6) above; for details see Booij2002: 206). In German it is just the other way around: particles insists on strictadjacency 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 SCVsare synchronically recoverable and could warrant a syntactic derivation. To besynchronically recoverable, the meaning of the particle should be transparent,and the meaning of the verb+particle combination compositional. In suchcases, 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’ andopeten ‘eat up’. Both qualify as synchronically recoverable: af and op have apredictable 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’)


There is evidence in at least two other Germanic languages of such a distinctionbetween predicative (i.e. particles that are independently attested in predicatefunction) and non-predicative particles. Swedish non-predicative particles onlyallow the V – Prt – NP order, even with pronominal NPs, whereas predicativeparticles also allow the V – NP – Prt order (Vinka 1999 quoted in Den Dikken2002, Toivonen 2001). A similar distinction has been reported from languageacquisition facts in Sawyer (1999). It is therefore tempting to grant the particlefull predicate status in constructions as in (20). This is further supported by thefact that in these transparent cases, it appears to be possible to move thepredicate to first position in the root clause, indicating that it acts as aconstituent:

(21) a. Af maakte hij het boek nietoff makes he the book not‘He did not finish the book’

b. Op at hij zijn eten nietup ate he his dinner not‘He did not finish his dinner’

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

(22) *Op belde hij zijn moeder nietup 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 withoutproblems. If there is a syntactic distinction between (21b) and (22), we wouldexpect to see this reflected in facts about Verb-raising as discussed above: if opin (21b) is a constituent, we might expect it to be different from op in (22) withrespect to V-raising, but it isn’t:

(23) a. dat hij zijn eten niet wil opetenthat he his dinner not wants up-eat‘that he doesn’t want to eat his dinner up’

b. dat hij zijn moeder niet wil opbellenthat 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


status for op in (21b) and nonconstituent status in (22), we would, in order toaccount for the lack of contrast in (23), have to make the additional assumptionthat op in (23a) undergoes head-incorporation in the syntax, or assume twodifferent structures for opeten and opbellen.3

Recoverability of the meaning of the particle is complicated by the fact thatmany predicate counterparts of particles have more than one meaning, againdepending 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 saidof 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 ordiachronic 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 analysisis not tenable in its entirety for present-day English and Dutch. Although theSCV (and ICV, as we will argue below) construction started out as a syntacticobject, some aspects of its behaviour (Verb-Raising facts as in (5b) above, andits ability to serve as input for word formation) clearly indicate that they havebecome a separate category. This means that new SCVs are quite likely to beformed on the SCV-template without going through a ‘syntactic’ stage first. Thesame is true, as we will see, with Dutch ICVs, which originally came into beingas grammaticalizations of Small Clauses and SCVs, but have clearly acquired adynamic of their own allowing new ICVs to be produced from scratch, as if theverbal prefix is a derivational affix, without any intervening SC or SCV stages.The syntactic template of the SC has remained available to the West-Germaniclanguages throughout, which means that there are, at least for Dutch, threesyntactico-morphological templates in synchronic use to express change of state.Before we discuss ICVs, we will turn to the semantic core shared by variousSCVs.

3. THE LEXICAL CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OFSECONDARY 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 employsthe 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 insection 4 that there is a third category with resultative meaning: the prefixes ofInseparable Complex Verbs (ICVs). We will assume a diachronic connectionwith predicates and particles here: prefixes have become bound morphemes


although they, too, once started out as syntactic objects. One way to discussthese morphosyntactically so different categories is to focus on the semanticfeatures that they have in common. We will adopt the semantic representationof 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 asfollows:

(25) a. He painted the door greenb. [CAUSE[ACT (he), BECOME[GREEN(door)]], BY[PAINT(he)]]

As the parallels between secondary predicates and particles stress ‘result’ as atypical common element, we assume as a first hypothesis that SCVs started outas resultatives expressing the resultative LCS of (24) (henceforth ‘R-LCS’).4 Anumber of quirky characteristics of SCVs fall out automatically: one is theshifting meaning of the secondary predicate (W) which may vary on a scalebetween extremely specific and extremely abstract. It is the variability of thecontent of W that accounts for the wide range of constructions that may encodethe LCS in (24): from syntactically defined secondary predicates where W has aspecific, transparent meaning to SCVs and phrasal verbs where the meaning ofW 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 bondbetween W and the verb. If the morphosyntax of the language allows it, W mayin time develop into a verbal prefix, though still encoding a change of state.

The second point to note is the mismatch between syntactic and semanticembedding: the ‘core predicate’ W, although semantically primary and renderedprominent by stress, is the most deeply embedded constituent syntactically;similarly, the V, prominently encoded syntactically as a verb and therefore intheory expected to play an important role as licenser of arguments, is tuckedaway in the LCS in a peripheral adjunct position. This mismatch accounts forthe phenomenon of the ‘unselected object’ which is so frequently associatedwith the SCV-construction. We will discuss these points in greater detail in thenext 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


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 LCSas 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 tendencyfor the constructions encoding it to lexicalize, with their syntactic origins becom-ing less and less transparent over time. When W is expressed by a PP, its NPcomplement tends to disappear. This may happen by fusion to the prepositionalhead, 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 synchroniccategorial status of the phrase itself is in doubt (particle? adjective? adverb?).Alternatively, it may remain implicit, as is possible with example (26) whichcould just as well read He took the ring off or He took off the ring. As theminimal requirement of the core predicate W is to indicate a change of state, aprepositional 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 achange of state, with the precise meaning to be negotiated pragmatically ininteraction with the verb, leads to the development of a range of idiosyncraticmeanings. This means that particles in particular (as opposed to adjectives whichhave more robustly lexical meaning) are unlikely to have a single semanticinterpretation, and any attempt at identifying a core meaning will usually yielda 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 andEnglish, even though their separability, as we argued in section 2, points to theSP 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 formSPs, SCVs and ICVs are transitive to start with, intransitive verbs, particularlyunergatives, are also robustly attested. We give English examples for the SP andSCV-constructions, and resort to Dutch for ICV-examples:

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


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 theunemployed

d. Handel bespeelde het orgelHandel be-played the organ‘Handel played the organ’

(28) a. He worked his fingers to the bone

b. He worked his way up

c. Hij bewerkte het toneelstuk voor de televisieHe 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 Theydrank 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 numberof the unemployed, the organ in (27) and his fingers, his way, the play in (28) donot fit the selectional restrictions of the higher verbs, play/spelen andwork/werken. The relative position of the verb and the object in the R-LCSshow that the V, although prominently encoded syntactically as verb, is in anadjunct position. The object y is not theta-marked by V but by the predicate ina secondary predicate construction (in effect the exact parallel of the‘Exceptional Case-Marking Construction’ in GB theory, with its mismatchbetween case- and theta-role assignment). This accounts for the ease with whichsecondary predicate constructions build on intransitive verbs. All objects in anSP, SCV or ICV construction are in fact ‘unselected’, although the loss ofprefixation has obscured this in English.5 The unselected nature of the objectshows through in quirks like (29a-b):

(29) a. das Wasser lauft aus/der Eimer lauft aus (Lipka 1972: 94)

b. John poured out the bucket/John poured out the water (McIntyre2000)

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 someway to account for the often-observed fact that it appears to be the particle thatselects the verb rather than the other way around (see Lipka’s (1972) discussionof out and up; note also the V+AP combinations of (16a) above which centre


around a limited list of adjectives). The verb in those cases is not a ‘light’ verbbut far more specific, either (a conversion of) the instrument used in causingthe object y to reach the state W (i.e. ‘means’), as in (30), a description of thespecific action required to reach the state W (i.e. ‘manner’) as in (31), or aconversion 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, pokeabout, patch up, peg down/out/away, rake up, rule out, sally forth, sealoff, 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, polishup, 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, clearup/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 quibbleover the classification of individual items (e.g. is hammer out a conversion ofthe noun hammer or was the SCV built on a already existing conversion of thatnoun, or is the verb hammer the direct descendant of OE hamerian, hamorian‘to hammer’ with loss of its derivational morphology?, etc.), the overall tenden-cies are clear. With the SCVs of (30)–(32) it is the particle that provides thetemplate rather than the verb, giving rise to combinations containing verbs thatare never or rarely used without the particle, many of them conversions. Itseems that some new verbs in turn derive from the SCV rather than the otherway around. The OED lists pretty up first (first attestation: 1916), while prettyused 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 toDutch as it is to English morphology.10 The proliferation of such conversions ismade possible by the central role of the predicate W, and by the fact that theR-LCS template gives a complex event even before any of the variables havebeen 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 syntacticSCV-patterns without R-LCS semantics: the extremely productive durative par-ticles like German los, Dutch door and English on that create intransitive ratherthan 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


to him,’ Lit. ‘he spoke him to’). Whereas the first group can be shown to derivehistorically from SCVs with R-LCS semantics (McIntyre 2001), this is not trueof the second group, whose diachrony still remains to be investigated. Assumingthe R-LCS template for SCVs, then, helps to identify groups that may be theresult 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 resultativesecondary predicate constructions. There is a third type of construction to whichthe resultative LCS is relevant: the ICV.

There are a number of cognate verbal prefixes in German, Dutch and OldEnglish which derive from prepositions or adjectives (including past partici-ples); the system is almost completely moribund in Present-day English. Manyof these prefixed verbs conform to the R-LCS, as is shown by their transitivizingeffect and their telic aktionsart. We will discuss two of them at length: be-, frombi ‘around’, and for-/ver-, from various origins (*fer-, fra-, fur-), representingvarious ablaut-grades of the same root.

The transitivizing effect of be- has long been noted (e.g. Hoekstra, Lansuand Westerduin (1987); the object is invariably fully affected (Booij 1992: 56).A comparison of the prefixed form with its simplex from German is givenin (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 thewaggon, 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 meaningappears to be more unified than in Old English, where we also find it as aprivative verb (beheafdian ‘behead’, behorsian ‘deprive of horses’, befotian ‘cutoff someone’s feet’) where German and Dutch use ent-/ont-(enthaupten,onthoofden), as a pejorative verb (belædan ‘to lead astray’) where German andDutch use ver- (verleiten, verleiden) and with adjectives (‘a conversion of thepredicate W itself’, i.e. the group of verbs as in (32) above): benac(od)ian ‘laybare’, from nacod ‘naked’; the productive prefix in German and Dutch for these


predicate-conversions is ver- for Dutch (verkorten ‘shorten’, verkoelen ‘cooloff/down’) and ver- or er- in German (verkurzen, erkalten, idem). These special-izations of function are probably a later development, as fossilized privativesetc. can be found in German and Dutch, e.g. benehmen/benemen ‘take away’(beside entnehmen, ontnemen, idem). The R-LCS is clearly present in pejorativeand privative verbs, as is also evident from their SCV-counterparts withaway/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 express-ing the very abstract goal ‘completely affected’ (cf. also Booij’s LCS for be- inBooij 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 thatlexicalize the predicate (as in (32)). The fact that the R-LCS is still recoverablesuggests that the prefix – W – is not completely devoid of lexical content,however abstract this content may have become. In some fossilized formationsthe R-LCS is no longer synchronically recoverable (cf. Present-day Englishbecome, 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 lan-guages (that is, German, Dutch and Old English; for- has practically disap-peared from Present-day English apart from isolated fossils like forlorn) is ‘torack 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’ asin (36), creating verbs of the type described in (32) above. German uses er- here:ermuden ‘tire out’, erhitzen ‘heat up’, erleuchten ‘illuminate’ etc.

(36) Du. verarmen ‘become impoverished’ (<arm ‘poor’), veraangenamen‘sweeten, make more pleasant’ (<aangenaam ‘pleasant’), verdichten‘become more dense’ (<dicht ‘dense’), vermoeien ‘tire out’ (<moe‘tired’), verhitten ‘heat up’ (<hitte ‘heat’), verhevigen ‘build up, intensify’(<hevig ‘severe’)

For-/ver- is also noted as a transitivizer (Booij and van Haaften 1988), with the


object, as with be-, fully affected. As with be-, the R-LCS is for the most partstill in place for Dutch and German.

Other prefixes of the same diachronic age include German er-, from uz‘out’, as in erarbeiten ‘work out’ and its cognate a- in OE, full-/ voll-/voll- fromthe adjective fulla ‘full’, mis- from missa, originally a past participle meaning‘changed, turned’, on-/a-/ont-/ent- from anda ‘against’ (OE oþ- derives from avariant unþa), and to-/te-/zer- of uncertain origin, meaning ‘in pieces’ or perhaps‘in two’ (cf. Gothic dis-). Ge- from ga also appears to have once belonged to thislist, but developed into a marker of grammatical (in this case perfective) aspectas a past participle marker in German and Dutch, having disappeared altogetherin English. Its former membership of the class of resultative prefixes is evidentfrom the fact that in Dutch it is in complementary distribution with the othermembers: e.g. the past participle of the Dutch verb ontmoeten ‘meet’ is ontmoet,not *geontmoet.

5. THE ORIGIN OF SCVs AND ICVs

Gothic is a representative of East Germanic, a branch of Germanic of which nodescendant has survived. As English and Dutch belong to West Germanic, adifferent branch altogether, Gothic is not a direct ancestor of Modern Englishor Modern Dutch. Its importance lies in the fact that it represents the earliestextant text in a Germanic language (apart from isolated runic inscriptions onspears, stones or other artefacts), and it is the only Germanic language that isancient enough to show evidence that ICV-prefixes were once independentwords. Wulfila’s translation of the Greek bible in Gothic dates from the middleof the fourth century AD. The extant texts comprise a fragment from the OldTestament (from Nehemiah) and about three-quarters of the New Testament.

The second early Germanic dialect that we will investigate in this section isOld English, which is unique among the Germanic languages in the sheer sizeof extant documents for the period concerned (ca. 700–1100). We will see thatOld English ICVs are already solidly prefixal, and its SCV system is fullyoperational. The Old English data also show how robustly the two systems havebeen kept distinct in West Germanic, even from the earliest times.

5.1. Gothic

Let us first examine Gothic ICVs. With Gothic, we are dealing with considerablediachronic depth, yet the typical characteristics of the resultative LCS are there:prefixes occur with the same four groups of verbs we identified above as typicalfor the resultative LCS, i.e. light verbs and the verbs in (30)–(32) above; it is the


secondary predicate rather than the verb that theta-marks the object (‘unse-lected objects’), hence the prefix has a ‘transitivizing’ effect when it combineswith an intransitive verb; the secondary predicate denotes a ‘change of state’.The change of state often develops into an endpoint reached, making the eventtelic. W is, as we found with SCVs in the present-day languages, expressedeither by (a cognate of) a preposition, e.g. fra/for, bi/be, uz/a, af/of, or by anadjective, e.g. full, mis (originally a past participle) and possibly Gothic dis(exactly parallel to, though apparently not cognate with, OE to ‘apart’, forwhich there is no accepted etymology). Adjective-conversions often appear tolack a simplex form, just like the verbs in (32) that lexicalize the predicate.

(37) afdobnan ‘be silent’ (dumbs ‘dumb’)bairan ‘carry’ versus frabairan ‘tolerate, endure’ (lit. ‘carry forth’)greipan ‘reach for’ versus undgreipan ‘reach’ (lit. ‘grasp against’)fraþjan ‘think’ versus fulla-fraþjan ‘be in full possession of one’s

faculties’hlahjan ‘laugh’ versus bihlahjan ‘laugh to scorn’leiþan ‘go’ versus bileiþan ‘leave, leave behind, forsake’letan ‘let, leave, permit, suffer’ versus afletan ‘dismiss, forsake, put

away, let alone, forgive, fraletan ‘set free’ (lit. ‘let away’)niman ‘take, take away, receive, accept’ versus afniman ‘take away’maitan ‘cut, hew’ versus bimaitan ‘circumcise’, afmaitan ‘cut off’qiþan ‘say, tell, name, speak’ versus afqiþan ‘renounce, forsake’satjan ‘set, put, place’ versus bisatjan ‘beset, set round anything’,

afsatjan ‘divorce’sigqan ‘sink’ versus dissigqan ‘sink under’sitan ‘sit’ versus bisitan ‘sit about, sit near’, andsitan ‘take care,

shun’slahan ‘strike, smite, beat’ versus afslahan ‘kill, slay’sneiþan ‘cut, reap’ versus afsneiþan ‘cut off, kill’standan ‘stand, stand firm’ versus afstandan ‘ stand off, depart’swairban ‘wipe’ versus biswairban ‘wipe dry’, afswairban ‘wipe out’tiuhan ‘lead, draw, guide’ versus bitiuhan ‘go about, visit’wairpan ‘throw, cast’ versus afwairpan ‘throw away, put away’wandjan ‘turn, turn round’ versus biwandjan ‘shun’, afwandjan ‘turn

away’

The Gothic prefixes differ from their counterparts in various stages of English,Dutch and German in that they may be separated from the verbal stem by othermorphemes. There are some clear examples to show that ga-, the lexeme whichdeveloped into the inflectional past participle morpheme ge- in present-dayDutch and German, and which has disappeared altogether in English, can be


separated from the verb root by the interrogative particle u or þau ‘then’ whichinsist on the second position.12

(38) ga- u- laubeis (John 9:35)ga – int. – leave2sg‘do you believe’

(39) ga-þau-laubidedeiþ (John 5:46)ga – then – leave.pret.subj.2pl‘you then would believe’

As this position can generally be identified as the position after the first wordof the clause, this indicates that Gothic prefixes have retained some of theirearlier status of full word, even though some of them ( ga-, uz-, fra-) are neverfound as free morphemes. There may be as many as three particles interveningbetween the ga- and verb (e.g. (40)) and such particles may be clitic pronouns(as in (41)).

(40) gah-þan-miþ-sandedidum imma broþar (II Cor. 8:18)ga – then – with – send1pl him brother‘and then we are sending with him a brother’

(41) ga-u-hwa-sehwi (Mark 8:23)ga – int – anything – see3sg.subj‘did he see anything?’

According to the literature, ga- is an independent morpheme here.13 However,we would question this putative independent morphological status and pointout that Gothic has a more elaborate clitic system, in which illocutions andmodalities may be expressed by clitic particles (interrogative -u, realis -uh). Itmay also be observed that the Gothic situation is widely attested across lan-guages. The historical development giving rise to the situation in Gothic com-pares well with that described in Harris (this volume) for Udi, and the preverb-system of the East Caucasian language Akusha Dargi, which has given rise tocombinations of spatial prefixes and ‘light’ verbs (again, reminiscent of theresultative LCS) in which the preverbs can be separated from the verb root byother morphemes. They are not SCVs, however, because they are always boundmorphemes. An example is (42) (from Van den Berg 2002):

(42) ka – e – b – ik – ibdown neg neut light-verb aorist3‘it did not fall’

Clitic order is often inherited from earlier syntactic orders, and the peripheral


position of the Gothic preverb in structures such as (38)–(41) may be due totheir position in the clause when they were still independent words, much likethe SCV-particle in the later West-Germanic dialects which, as we saw above in(3)–(6), may be separated by infinitival te/zu, participial ge and by negatorne/en, in those dialects that preserve it. Ge- is a bound morpheme, ne/en andte/zu (OE to) are clitics, and the resulting strings (Dutch in (43), German in(44)) resemble the ones in (38)–(41); some of them are written as one word:

(43) a. op te bellen b. opgebeld c. op en belt (Flemish)up to phone up-ge-phoned up neg phones‘to phone up’ ‘phoned up’ ‘does not phone up’

(past participle)

(44) a. Anzuschauen b. angeschautat to look at ge looked

(past participle)‘to look at’ ‘looked at’

The possibility of intervening clitic elements may well have led to a reanalysisfrom full word to bound morpheme if learners did not encounter evidence forthe full word status of the particle elsewhere in the grammar. The Gothic datapoint to a system in which such a reanalysis has apparently taken place, althoughthe transition from SCV to ICV can still be traced. W is reanalysed as a boundmorpheme which appears in the left periphery of the verbal compound.

A development from SCV to ICV parallel to that in Gothic would not belikely for the continental West-Germanic dialects, because the nonverbal partof the SCV robustly displays a fair degree of independence. Recall that theparticle is stranded by V2-movement, which gives it the status of an independentmorpheme, and in clause-final position it carries primary stress. The rise of V2is foreshadowed in Gothic, and lends further support to our analysis of theGothic complex verbs as ICVs rather than SCVs.

5.1.1. Evidence for the rise of V2 in Gothic

Eythorsson (1995: 25) asserts confidently that ‘in Gothic the verb seems to besystematically fronted in cases where we might hypothesize an operator elementin SpecCP’. At first blush, there does seem to be systematic verb fronting aftera typical operator such as the negator ni. Table 1 presents our data from acorpus search in about a quarter of the extant Gothic material and shows thefigures of root clauses – the typical V2 environment – with fronted and non-fronted verbs. Not included are clauses consisting of the negator ni and a finiteverb (this sequence contains too few constituents to diagnose V2) or of ni, afinite verb and an embedded clause (where the final position of the clause is


Table 1: V2 after clause-initial ni

probably due to ‘extraposition’, which likewise does not allow of a firm diagno-sis of V2). The position of discourse adverbs like nu and auk was ignored, asthey do not seem to count for establishing the second position (cf. Weerman1989: 220, Ferraresi 1997: 112ff).

These results look like promising, even exciting and solid evidence that V2was associated with increased auxiliation, as claimed by e.g. Delbruck (II, 1911:15) –, until we realize that we have unearthed a peculiarity of the syntax of theNew Testament Greek Vorlage here. Gothic reflects Greek word order veryfaithfully, the only instances of V2 in this corpus that do not reflect V2 in Greekto be found in Kol. 1:23 and II Cor. 2:11.15 Metlen (1933) argues that the Gothictext is too slavish a translation to allow any claims about Gothic syntax, apartfrom the position of certain discourse particles.16 Metlen shows that even thosefew instances in which the Gothic text appears to deviate from the GreekVorlage either look suspiciously like variants found in other mss. of the Greektext, or in the Latin text.

There are some instances, however, in which single Greek verb formsrequire a periphrastic construction in Gothic. As the order of the elements ofthe periphrasis cannot be prompted by anything in the Vorlage, they probablydo reflect authentic Gothic syntax. Meillet (1908) shows that in those cases inwhich Gothic has to translate a single passive Greek verb form periphrastic-ally with a form of wisan ‘be’ or wairþan ‘become’ followed by a participle,the participle regularly follows the auxiliary in imperatives (suggestingV-movement) but precedes it elsewhere (suggesting OV-syntax). Imperatives,then, may well have spear-headed the development of V2.

The imperative (‘V1’) theory is attractive in that it provides a starting pointfor the generalization of V to C movement to other contexts beside imperatives,given that a V to C movement analysis for imperatives is uncontroversial. Thegeneralization of V2 could then involve the movement, first of wh-phrases andthen of negative adverbs to SpecCP. This order of development is suggested bythe situation in early OE, where V2 is general with wh-movement, but not yetcompleted in negative-initial clauses (van Kemenade 2000). Topicalization toSpecCP is more difficult to account for, but may call for different treatmentanyway, given the fact that V-movement does not target C here (see the discus-sion in Fischer et al. 2000: chapter 4, and references cited there), although vanKemenade (1997) shows that topicalization in Old English targets SpecCP.


Table 2: the position of the adverbial particle inn ‘in’ in Gothic

Other deviations that suggest that verb-second is an innovation in Gothicconcern particles.17 The asymmetric behaviour of inn and ut in root and sub-clauses is strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of SCVs in the Dutch examples(1a-b) above: the particle is postverbal in V2-environments (finite forms in rootclauses), but preverbal elsewhere (data based on Delbruck (1910), supple-mented by a further 29 examples resulting from a corpus search).

The asymmetry is not perfect, but there is a clear pattern: inn generallyprecedes the verb, but may be ‘stranded’ when the verb moves away in the rootclause. With ut the pattern of Table 2 is less clear (see again Delbruck 1910:360).18 A example of a preverbal particle is (45), which shows the particleseparated from the preverb+verb combination by the negation ni:

(45) saei inn ni atgaggiþ þairh daur in gardan lambe (John 10:1)he-who in not preverb-goes through door in sheepfoldqui non intrat’ o‘ mg eı’serxomenoz‘he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door’

The semantics of inn, as well as its positions are best explained under a predicateanalysis. Examples like (45) are close to the core of the R-LCS. Predicatesprecede the verb in an OV language, but are stranded by V2 movement. Theposition of the negator ni in (45) – after the particle – is reminiscent of the West-Germanic negator ne/en in (43c) above.

1.2. Doubling

Inn and ut are often found doubled. These doublings apparently act to reinforce(often cognate) preverbs, e.g. ut and us- in (46). If inn and ut are predicates, andexpress W in the resultative LCS, this probably means that us in (46) no longerhas this function:

(46) þanuh modags warþ jah ni wilda inngaggan, iþ atta is usgaggands ut badina. (Luke 15:28)then – and angry became and not wished in-go, but father his out-comingout asked him


v’ rcisqg de kai / ou’k gqelen ei’selqein. o’ de patgr au’tou e’jelqv’ nparekalei / au’ton.‘But he was angry and refused to go in. His father, coming out, pleadedwith him.’

Usgaggan and utgaggan are both used to translate Greek e’jeleuoetai (e.g. Mat.8:34, John 10:9) so there was probably no great difference in meaning.Whenever they both appear on one verb, ut is always on the periphery, so ut-us-V (e.g. utusiddjedun ‘they went out’, Mat. 9:32), never *us-ut-V. This supportsan analysis in which us is a prefix and ut a predicate or particle.

The emergence of V2 may have acted as a watershed: it highlighted anexisting difference between the syntactically defined SP (with predicates orparticles like inn and ut) and an ICV-like preverb-system which represents agrammaticalization of an earlier syntactic SP. We must assume that they stillrepresented W in the R-LCS, as do their descendants (see section 4 above); it isonly when we find doubling that we must assume that the prefix in that particu-lar instance was no longer felt as a resultative W expressing a change of stateand that that function was taken over by the predicate or particle.

Examples in which an inseparable prefix is still firmly within the R-LCSinclude ga- as in (47), which allows of a resultative interpretation, in which ga-has a completive sense and qualifies as W conveying telicity:

(47) hausjan ‘hear’ versus gahausjan ‘learn’beidan ‘wait for something’ versus gabeidan ‘put up with’brikan ‘break’ versus gabrikan ‘break to pieces’fulljan ‘fill’ versus gafulljan ‘fill up’swiltan ‘lie dying’ versus gaswiltan ‘die’

But there are also instances in which ga- appears to have dropped out of theR-LCS: no change of state is expressed, the verb is not a typical member of thefour groups characteristic of the R-LCS (the light verbs and those outlined in(30)–(32) above). It seems that ga in instances like (48) (from Streitberg 1920:196ff) has developed into a marker of perfective aspect:

(48) þiudanos wildedun saihwan þatei jus saihwiþ jah ni gasehwunkings wished3pl see that you see yet not saw3pl‘kings wished to see what you now see, yet never saw.’ (L. 10:24)

Ga- seems to be changing from a derivational to an inflectional affix, a processcomplete in Modern Dutch and German, where ge- attaches to the entire cate-gory V, which is a typical characteristic of inflection. As noted in section 4, thereis one striking set of contexts where ge- is not used as a past participle prefix inpresent-day Dutch and German and that is when the verb combines with


another inseparable prefix like be-, ver- ont-. An example from Dutch is hijverdeed zijn tijd (lit. he for-did his time) ‘he wasted his time, but Hij heeft zijntijd verdaan/*ge-verdaan (lit. he has his time for-done) This complementarydistribution testifies to the fact that ga-, fra-, und-, etc. once had the same status(that of a derivational morpheme encoding W in the resultative LCS).

Ga- is occasionally found doubled. These doublings cannot have the sameanalysis as that of ut+us, because ga- is only attested as a bound morpheme andcannot be a predicate or particle. As derivational processes are generally notrecursive (i.e. they do not apply to their own outputs; Booij 2002: 92), the twoga’s must have different status. The first, outer gain (49), then, is probably anaspectual marker, and the inner one a derivational prefix:

(49) ga-ga-leikon sik (II Cor. 11.14) ‘change oneself’19

A further prefix in Gothic which needs to be mentioned in this context: thepreverb fra-, which, like ga-, is no longer attested as a free lexeme, but is stillevident in some formations, as in (50a), and has acquired a negative meaning inothers (e.g. 50b). It is also attached to verbs that are already negative in meaning(as in (50c)). Here the semantic contribution of fra- is unclear. Both forms arefound translating the same Greek form (a’polesai in L. 9:56, Mat. 10:28, etc.).

(50) a. bugjan ‘buy’ versus frabugjan ‘sell’, dailjan ‘divide’ versus fradailjan‘divide up’, giban ‘give’ versus fragiban ‘give away, grant’, letan ‘let’versus fraletan ‘liberate, let free, leave, let down, permit’.

b. qiþan ‘say’ versus fraqiþan ‘curse’, kunnan ‘know’ versus frakunnan‘despise’, waurkjan ‘do, work’ versus frawaurkjan ‘sin’, wilwan ‘rob’versus frawilwan ‘take forcibly’20

c. lewjan ‘betray’ versus fralewjan ‘betray’, qistjan ‘ruin’ versus fraqis-tan ‘ruin’

Subsequent generations may well reanalyse such ‘pleonastic’ uses as in (50c) asintensifiers, as in OE, where the same prefix is found as an intensifier withadjectives: fræhræde ‘very fast’, fræfætt ‘very fat’ with no trace of resultative-ness. But if learners find it difficult to assign a meaning to the prefix, or feel thatthis meaning must be shored up by a particle, the prefix is likely to disappear.

5.2. Old English

Reflexes of the various prefixes discussed above for Gothic are amply attestedin Old English as well. Let us first consider a number of examples:


(51) geænan ‘unite oneself to’ (an ‘one’)ærnan ‘run, ride’ versus geærnan ‘run to, reach, gain by running

or riding’geæðelian ‘make noble’ (æðel ‘noble’)faran ‘go’ versus forfaran ‘pass away, die’flowan ‘flow’ versus beflowan ‘flow around NP, over NP’frignan ‘ask, inquire’ versus befrinan ‘question NP, learn NP’,

gefrignan ‘learn NP by asking’gan ‘go’ versus forgan ‘abstain from, lose’, began ‘traverse,

surround, practise’gieman ‘care for, heal’ versus forgieman ‘neglect, transgress’gnidan ‘rub, grind together, crumble’ versus begnidan ‘rub all

over’, forgnidan ‘crush’grindan ‘grate, grind together’ versus forgrindan ‘grind down, ruin’habban ‘have’ versus forhabban ‘hold in, keep back, draw back’hawian ‘gaze on, view, look at’ versus behawian ‘see clearly, take

care, consider’healdan ‘hold’ versus forhealdan ‘forsake, abuse, defile’heawian ‘hew’ versus forheawian ‘hew to pieces, cut down, kill’gemæstan, ‘fatten, feed on mast’ (mæst ‘mast’)

amæstanamyrðr(i)an, ‘murder’ (morðor ‘murder’)

for-, of-amyrgan ‘delight, cheer’ (myrge ‘pleasant, sweet’)niman ‘take’ versus forniman ‘take away’seon ‘see’ versus forseon ‘overlook, despise’settan ‘set’ versus forsettan ‘hedge in, obstruct’, besettan appoint,

own, surround’springan ‘spring’ versus tospringan ‘spring apart’wyrcan ‘do, make, perform’ versus fullwyrcan ‘fulfil, complete’

There is clear evidence that prefixes in Old English as in (51) are in an advancedstate of grammaticalization. In particular, they are doubled by a particle quitefrequently, e.g. the combination of ut ‘out’ and a- ‘out’ (>uz; Kluge 1901: 476,§ 283.4, anm; Lehmann 1906):

(52) leoran ‘go, depart, vanish, die’a-leoran ‘depart, flee away’ut-a-leoran ‘(cause to) depart, flee away’

(53) sellan ‘give, furnish, lend; surrender, give up, betray’a-sellan ‘give up, hand over; expel, banish’ut-a-sellan ‘grant outright’


(54) tynan ‘hedge in, fence, enclose, shut’a-tynan ‘shut off, exclude’ut-a-tynan ‘exclude’

In Brinton (1988), separable and inseparable prefixes are regarded as function-ally equivalent, but the frequency of doublings as in (52–54) casts considerabledoubt on this. Rather, it looks as though the inseparable prefixes, phonologicallyweak as they are, are in the process of losing their distinctive meaning and ceaseto encode W in the R-LCS. At the same time, the system of separable prefixesis gaining in robustness, and it has all the hallmarks of the R-LCS. The particlesystem is treated at length in Hiltunen (1983), and some of the syntactic charac-teristics of Old English particles are discussed in Koopman (1985); vanKemenade (1987), Pintzuk (1991); Fischer et al. (2000).

The Old English particles can be separated from the verb in various ways,as illustrated in (55):

(55) a. Negationforðæm hio nanne swetne wæsðm forð ne bringðbecause she no sweet fruit forth not brings‘because it does not produce any sweet fruit.’ <CP 45.341.22>21

b. Infinitive markingþæt him wære alyfed ut to farenne <GD 2 (H) 25.155.26>that him was allowed out to go‘that he was allowed to leave’

c. Modals in verb clustersær he ut wolde faran to gefeohte <Or 3.8.122.11>before he out wanted go to fight‘that giants would raise up a city’

d. Preposition strandingealond .. ðæt we ær ut of gongende wæronisland .. that we before out from going were‘island .. from which we had previously put out.’<Bede 5.1.384.23>

e. Verb Secondþa sticode him mon þa eagan ut <Or 4.5.90.13>then stuck him someone the eyes out‘then his eyes were gouged out’

These examples also show that particles in Old English are clearly amenable toa secondary predicate analysis. In all the examples, the particles clearly denotean end state. Hiltunen (1983) makes some important observations in thisrespect, noting in particular that the meaning of the verb+particle combination


is always compositional and transparent. This sits well with the analysis insection 2 in which the particle is the predicate of a resultative Small Clause. Forpresent-day Dutch, we saw that a Small Clause analysis has its attractions forsemantically transparent cases, although it is not unproblematic. For OldEnglish, where all the cases of Verb and particle combination seem to be seman-tically transparent, and clearly resultative in meaning, such an analysis gains inforce, and may well provide the historical origin of the syntactic template of thepresent-day construction. An analysis along these lines is presented in Fischeret al. (2000: chapter 6). This analysis is further supported by the fact thatparticles frequently occur in a topicalized position, which supports the idea thatthey represent a syntactic constituent:

(56) a. Forð ic gefare, frind ic gemete <MCharm 11, 31>‘forth I go, friends I meet’

b. Forð þa eode Wistan, þurstanes sunu <Maldon 297>‘forth then went Wistan, Thurstan’s son’

All the relevant facts show that particles in the Verb+particle combinationshow the same kind of syntactic robustness as they do in present-day Dutch:(55e), for instance, shows that the particle is stranded by V2-movement. It canalso be shown that particles carry primary stress, as they occur in alliteratingpositions in Old English alliterative poetry:

(57) a. / Sie sio bær gearo, | ædre geæfned, / þonne we ut cymen |be this byre ready speedily made when we out come‘Let the byre be made ready, speedily wrought, when we come out’

Beowulf, 3105–6

b. / He mid Eotenum wearð |he among Eotens became

on feonda geweald / forð forlacen, | Beowulf, 902–3in enemies’ power

‘he was betrayed among the Eotens into the power of the enemies’

The facts in Old English give clear support then, to an analysis in which theparticle as the end state W is represented syntactically as the predicate of aresultative Small Clause. Let us now turn to the development in Middle English.

6. SYNTACTIC CHANGES AS A DIAGNOSTIC:THE OV/VO CHANGE IN ENGLISH

English underwent some important syntactic changes after the Old Englishperiod. One important change was that OV word orders were gradually lost (fordiscussion, see Fischer et al. 2000 and references cited there).


If the particle construction is still derived syntactically from a fullblownsecondary predicate when this change got underway, we would expect the par-ticle position to change, because secondary predicates ceased to occur prever-bally as a result of the loss of OV orders. Such a wholesale shift to postverbalposition is reported by Hiltunen (1983). The position of the object is, of course,highly relevant, as this marks the position of the Secondary Predicate. Toillustrate with two examples of different word orders, (58), with preverbal par-ticle in an early, ‘conservative’ OV text from the south-east can be assumed tohave the (simplified) tree structure of (60); the postverbal particle in (59) in amore ‘progressive’ VO dialect from the West Midlands the tree structure of (61).

(58) All ðis woreld was þes dieules hus ær Crist come, ðe him ut warp.(Holthausen, Vices and Virtues 111)

All this world was the devil’s house before Christ came, who him out cast(=‘who cast him out’)

(59) þet is, wið unlust, warpeð hit eft ut (d’ Ardenne, Hali Meidenhad,Bodley, 50)

which means, with nausea, throw hit again out (=‘throws it up again’)


The Middle English facts show that particles ceased to occur in preverbal posi-tion with the loss of OV order. The following facts are from a corpus search inthe Middle English part of the Helsinki Corpus, for the particles on, forth andout. These particles were selected because they make a fairly transparent contri-bution to the compositional meaning of the entire verbal complex, which makesa syntactic derivation likely. The figures show a steady decline of preverbalparticles:

Table 3: particle-V and V-particle orders in the Helsinki Corpus for on, forth and out

On closer examination, it turns out that only the preverbal particles of the firstperiod follow the syntactic pattern of Old English: they occur in non-V2contexts. An example is (62), in an embedded clause. In all later periods, theorder is extremely marked in that it occurs either in verse texts to meet thedemands of rhyme, as in (63), or in slavish translations from Latin, as in (64). Inthe later periods, some appear to have been reanalysed as ICVs, e.g. (65) (seealso the OED under outtake).

(62) Augustinus cwæð þæt þt festen .. . ut ascyfð þa yfeleAugustine said that that fasting out pushes the evilþohtæs (Cmbodley 46)22

thoughts‘Augustine said that that fasting pushes the evil thoughts out’

(63) Kyng Alisaunder is out yride –þre noble knizttes ben went hym myde (Cmalisau I, 231)‘King Alexander has ridden out – three noble knights have gone withhim’

(64) And þat he out-kest her sede in terþes and departed hem inkyngdomes (cmearlps, Psalm 105 (106), 26)‘And that he cast out their seed on the earth and dispersed them in[different] nations’


(65) I oute-take not o creature (Cmcloud 24)‘I exclude not a single creature’

The idea that the development of the postverbal particle order (the phrasalverb) is due directly to the loss of OV orders is not uncontroversial. Denison(1981) adduces examples like (66) as evidence against a direct relationshipbetween the rise of postverbal particles and the loss of OV order. The pointhere is that (telic) up is not only found in postverbal position, but is accompa-nied by a preverbal object. The combination of a postverbal particle and OVorder would be unexpected if postverbal orders were due to the loss of OV,according to Denison.

(66) he suor .. . þat he alle his castles sculde iiuen uphe swore that he all his castles should give up‘he swore that he would give up all his castles’

(Clark, Peterborough Chron. 1140, 41)

If we assume an underlying OV order, the particle must have been extraposed.Particles are not generally extraposed in the West-Germanic languages, whichis why Pintzuk (1996: 250) and Kroch and Taylor (2000) take postverbal par-ticles to be diagnostic for underlying VO order. In early English, however,particles as well as other predicates are extraposed quite comfortably, especiallyin late OE, as (67a) and contrast between (67b) and (67c) shows:23

(67) a. and þæt biþ hire miht ... þæt heo gesewen ne beo uteand that will be her strength that she seen not be outside‘and that will be her strength, that she is not seen outside’

<ÆLS (Martin) 1101–2>

b. and het hine utgan <ÆLS (Martin) 914>and bade him outgo‘and bade him go out’and het [NPhine [PRED ut]] gan

c. and het hi gan ut <ÆLS (Martin) 214>‘and bade them go out’and het [NPhi] gan [PRED ut]

Another way to account for word orders such as (66) is along the lines of Fischeret al. (2000: chapter 6). They motivate an analysis in which object and particleare generated in postverbal position as a small clause, with the NP his castles as


in (66) as the subject. The word order as in (66) could readily be derived byscrambling of the NP his castles to a preverbal position. This analysis would beentirely parallel to derivations that must be independently assumed for thepositioning of bare infinitives in late Old English and early Middle English.

Brinton (1988) argues for a very different contrast between the word orderdevelopment and the rise of postverbal particles, probably based on the data inDenison (1985: 55–56). However, Denison’s finding that it is ‘‘highly unusual’’for completive up to occur in preverbal position (Ibid.) does not automaticallyentail that particles like up could only develop into a marker of telicity oncethey occurred in postverbal position. There are too many crosslinguistic exam-ples of telic markers in preverbal position to assume that preverbal order isincompatible with such meanings, not only in Dutch, which even developed thetelic meaning as a genuine predicate in a copula construction, but also inRussian (Spencer and Zaretskaya 1998) and Hungarian (Ackerman 1987). W inthe resultative LCS very easily develops highly abstract meanings. If languageskeep their OV orders, their W will always be preverbal. The intimate connectionbetween preverbal W’s and OV orders, and postverbal Ws and VO orders, isillustrated well by the development of the Scandinavian languages.

We conclude that the case for the assumption that the rise of postverbalparticle position goes hand in hand with the loss of OV word order must beconsidered convincing. We leave the late Middle English development ofparticles for further research.

7. SUMMING UP AND CONCLUSION

This paper argues that both inseparable (ICV) and separable complex verbs(SCV) in the West-Germanic languages represent grammaticalizations ofsecondary predicates, constructed in the syntax. What they both have incommon with genuine syntactically constructed predicates is their semantics:the majority of ICVs and SCVs still encode a resultative Lexical ConceptualStructure (R-LCS). Typical features arising from the R-LCS are: (i) the fact thatthe predicate (or particle, or prefix) encodes a change of state; (ii) their transiti-vizing effect; (iii) the phenomenon of unselected objects and (iv) the types ofverbs that combine with the predicate: ‘light’ verbs, ‘manner’ verbs, ‘means’verbs and verbs that lexicalize the predicate itself.

Syntactically, SCVs still betray their predicate origins by their separabilityand the clear evidence for phrasal status of at least some of its particles; thatthey have grammaticalized to some extent is shown by 1) a special word order(verb raising in Dutch, NP-‘extraposition’ in English) not found with genuinesyntactically-constructed predicates and by 2) the fact that they can serve asinput to morphological derivation.


The prefix of an ICV has grammaticalized even further, although the typicalhallmarks of the resultative LCS are still recoverable: the prefix adds telicaktionsart (showing its origins as a Change-of-state predicate) and transitivity;and it tends to combine with the four groups of verbs outlined in iii) above.Some prefixes have grammaticalized beyond the R-LCS and either acquired anew function (as in the case of ge- which came to express perfective aspect) orfound themselves superseded by the more recent SCV-system, the earliestbeginnings of which were charted in section 5, or became meaningless and werelost, as in English. The ICV and SCV systems continued to co-exist in Dutchand German.

The loss of preverbal SCV-particles in English we argued to be due to thechange in underlying syntax, from OV to VO; the fact this change affectedpreverbal particles must mean that SCVs were still syntactic rather than mor-phological objects in Old and Early Middle English.

NOTES

1 The second author’s work reported in this paper was made possible by a grant from theNetherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), grant number 360-70-051.2 It has been noticed, for German at least, that the intonation patterns for particles differfrom regular adverbs: Er versuchte mitzusprechen versus Er versuchte laut zu sprechen (Lipka1972: 20, quoting Hundsnurscher 1968: 6ff who is in turn quoting Admoni 1966: 51–53). Thesame point is made in Winkler (1997: 303), quoted in Ludeling (1999: 41), who notes that theambiguity of Bill hat den Laden leer gekauft is resolved by intonation: one reading is Billbought the shop in an empty condition (depictive) versus Bill bought everything in the shop, sothat it was empty (resultative). Winkler finds that particle constructions are stressed likeresultatives.3 The constraints restricting such topicalizations include not so much the requirement thatthe particle must be used literally, as has often been suggested in the past (e.g. Fraser 1976:58–59), but semantic transparency of both particle and verb, see Capelle’s 2002 corpus-basedstudy. Note that af in (20a-21a) too, although not literal/directional, is semantically transpar-ent. For German SCVs, contrast has been put forward as a possible factor: the failure ofTopicalization in (i) below could be due to the fact that there is no antonym to aufbrechen(*zubrechen), unlike aufmachen in (ii) which contrasts with zumachen (see Stiebels 1996):

(i) *Auf hat er das Schloss gebrochen.

(ii) Auf hat sie die Tur gemacht.

But Zeller (2001) shows that contrast is not enough to license (iii):

(iii) *An/Ab hat er den Pullover gezogen.

See also Zeller (this volume).4 Cf. also Lipka’s semantic analysis of German auf/zu/los/festbinden (schrauben) and thelike: ‘durch Binden (Schrauben) auf-, zu-, los-, fest- machen’ (Lipka 1972: 117).


5 The English counterpart of (27d), for instance, has no problem using the object with thesimplex verb: Handel played the organ where the simplex verb in Dutch would require a PP:Handel speelde op het orgel, lit. ‘Handel played on the organ’. We are not aware of anyin-depth study on the effects of the loss of prefixation in English on argument structure andour evidence is so far only anecdotal, based on general observations.6 chip meaning ‘chop, cut’7 edge meaning ‘move edgeways’8 eke meaning ‘increase, lengthen, supplement’9 peter (origin unknown, but first used in mining) meaning ‘run out and disappear (as astream, a vein of ore)’ (OED).10 Dutch opleuken ‘to fun up’ (from the A. leuk ‘funny’) is a case in point. See Booij andvan Kemenade (this volume).11 It is tempting to hypothesize a link between meaning and prosodic status: although be-and ver- do not have a full vowel, and therefore cannot form prosodic words of their own,they still do not fully integrate prosodically into their stem (Booij 2002: 170–171). Perhaps itis not accidental that the few examples of full integration that we do find (bleiben/blijven‘keep, remain’, cf. OE belifan; OE blinnan ‘leave off’ from *be+linnan ‘desist, lose’) appearto have left the R-LCS; they have become ‘aspectualizers’ (Brinton 1988), or activities, as inthe case of vreten/freßen/fretan ‘eat like an animal’, from ver/for+eat.12 The origins of ga- are obscure. It has been related (controversially) to lat. cum-, con-‘with’ (Cf. Lehmann 1986).13 The argument is as follows: word-final obstruents are as a rule devoiced in Gothic. Thefact that final obstruents in preverbs are devoiced could point to their word-status: us ‘out’, asin usgaggan ‘go out’ emerges with -z- when there are intervening clitics like interrogative u orthe sentence connector –uh: uz-uh-iddja ‘he went out’ (John 16: 28). If -u, -uh form a prosodicword with the word which they follow, as suggested in Hopper (1975: 27) this means that theunderlying form is uz, devoicing to us in usgaggan etc. because preverbs are still words (seealso Schmidt 1883; Meillet 1908: 95–97; Eythorsson 1995: 52, 124).14 Including instances of skuld/mahts wisan which we take, with Eythorsson (1995: 27–28),to be fixed collocations.15 We are indebted to Lidewij van Gils (Classics Department, Vrije Universiteit) for untan-gling the Greek text.16 And even there, the point can be made that these discourse particles are further evidenceof the unidiomatic quality of the Gothic text, as they translate Greek ‘gap-fillers’ that in thetranslation into other languages are usually left untranslated (Metlen 1933: 543).17 Verb-movement is apparently not restricted to root clauses: Eythorsson (1995: 105–106)has some remarkable data about V-movement in indirect questions, marked deviations fromthe Greek Vorlage, and also markedly deviant from the operation of V2 in the modern West-Germanic dialects.18 The asymmetry is somewhat obscured by slavish adherence to Greek orders in somecases or the distinct possibility in other cases (notably inngaggan ‘go in’) that theparticle+verb have become an ICV.19 Alternatively, the second ga- may have lost its resultative meaning altogether. Thispossibility is suggested by the fact that g- in glıkr (got. ga-leiks) ‘same’ is one of the fewsurvivals of *ga- (or of any other prefix, for that matter) in Old Norse. The fact that g- wascompletely incorporated into the prosodic word may indicate that it was no longer analysedas belonging to the regular ga-system with the usual ga-semantics (whatever they may have


been). If the same is true of gain galeikon, this might explain the doubling in (49) (Cf. theparticipial form *gegloofd in Dutch Child Language (<*gegeloofd instead of geloofd‘believed’).20 But also ‘rob’ in Mat. 11:12, John 10.12 and there used to translate a’rpafein, which istranslated in John 6:15 by the simplex wilwan.21 Throughout this paper, the reference to an OE text is enclosed in <> and follows thesystem of short titles as employed in Healey and Venezky (1985).22 For the ME short references in (62–65), see Kyto (1993).23 Another argument in Pintzuk, as well as in Kroch and Taylor (2000) is that they takeparticles to be light elements, like personal pronouns. Given the fact shown above thatparticles carry primary stress, this cannot be correct.

REFERENCES

Aarts, B. (1989). Verb-preposition constructions and small clauses in English. Journal ofLinguistics 25, 277–290.

Aarts, F. and J. Aarts (1982). English Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Pergamon.Ackerman, F. (1987). Miscreant Morphemes: Phrasal Predicates in Ugric. Diss. Stanford

University.Admoni, V.G. (1966). Stroj Sovremennogo Nemckogo Jazyka/Der deutsche Sprachbau. 2nd

edition. Moscow/Leningrad.Anthony, E.M. Jr. (1953). Test Frames for Structures with UP in modern American English.

Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Berg, H. van den (2002). Spatial prefixes in Akusha Dargi (East Caucasian). Paper delivered

at the 10th International Morphology Conference, Szentendre, Hungary, 9–12 May 2002.Bolinger, D. (1971). The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Boogaart (1999). Aspect and Temporal Ordering: A Contrastive Analysis of Dutch and English

(LOT Dissertations 27). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Booij, G.E. (1990). The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs

in Dutch. In: G. E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1990.Dordrecht: Foris, 45–63.

Booij, G.E. (1992). Morphology, Semantics and Argument Structure. In: I.M. Roca (ed.),Thematic structure: Its role in grammar. Berlin/New York: Foris, 47–64.

Booij, G.E. (1998). Samenkoppelingen en grammaticalisatie. Morfologiedagen 1996, edited byE. Hoekstra and C. Smits. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut, 6–20.

Booij, G.E. (2002). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: OUP.Booij, G.E. and T. van Haaften (1988). The external syntax of derived words, evidence from

Dutch. In: G. E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 29–44.Booij, G.E. and A. van Kemenade (this volume). Introduction.Brinton, L.J. (1988). The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and post-

verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cappelle, B. (2002). And up it rises: Particle preposing in English. In: Dehe et al., 43–66.Claridge, C. (2000). Multi-word Verbs in early Modern English: A Corpus-based Study.

(Language and Computers 32). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.


Dehe, N., R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre and S. Urban (2002). Verb-particle Explorations(Interface Explorations 1), Introduction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–20.

Delbruck, B. (1910). Zur Stellung des Verbums im Gotischen und Altislandischen. Beitragezur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 36, 359–365.

Delbruck, B. (1911). Germanische Syntax II: Zur Stellung des Verbums. Abhandlungender Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse, 28.7.Leipzig: Teubner.

Denison, D. (1981). Aspects of the History of English Group-verbs, with particular Attention tothe Syntax of the Ormulum, diss. Oxford University.

Denison, D. (1985). The origins of completive up in English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen86, 37–61.

Dikken, M. den (1995). Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic, and CausativeConstructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dikken, M. den (2002). Review of Zeller, J. (2001). Particle Verbs and local Domains.(Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Journal ofComparative Germanic Linguistics 4, 145–169.

Eythorsson, Th. (1995). Verbal syntax in the early Germanic Languages. Diss. CornellUniversity.

Fairclough, N.L. (1965). Studies in the Collocation of lexical Items with Prepositions andAdverbs in a Corpus of spoken and written Present-day English. MA thesis, UniversityCollege London.

Ferraresi, G. (1997). Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. Dissertation StuttgartUniversity.

Fischer, O., A. van Kemenade, W. Koopman, and W. van der Wurff (eds.) (2000). The Syntaxof early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fraser, B. (1965). An Examination of the Verb-particle Construction in English. DissertationMIT.

Fraser, B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Grewendorf, G. (1990). Verbbewegung und Negation im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur

germanistischen Linguistik 30, Groningen: Germanistisch Instituut, University ofGroningen, 57–125.

Harris, A.C. (this volume) Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi.Healey, A.D. and R.L. Venezky (1985[1980]). A Microfiche Concordance to Old English.

Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.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 UniversitatisTurkuensis, Series B, 160). Turun Yliopisto (University of Turku, Finland), Turku.

Hoekstra, T., M. Lansu and M. Westerduin (1987). Complexe verba. GLOT 10, 61–79.Hopper, P. (1975). The syntax of the simple sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague etc.:

Mouton.Hundschnurscher, F. (1968). Das System der Partikelverben mit AUS in der Gegenwartsprache.

Dissertation Universitat Tubingen.Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language 73, 534–559.Kemenade, A. van (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English.

Dordrecht: Foris.Kemenade, A. van (1997). V2 and embedded topicalisation in Old and Middle English. In


A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change.Cambridge: CUP, 326–352.

Kemenade, A. van (2000). Jespersen’s cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticaliza-tion. In: S.Pintzuk, G.Tsoulas, and A. Warner (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models andMechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–74.

Kluge, F. (1901). Vorgeschichte der altgermanischen Dialekte. In: Paul, H. Grundriss dergermanischen Philologie, Band 1. Strassburg: Karl J. Trubner, 320–496.

Koopman, W. (1985). The syntax of verb and particle combinations in Old English. In:H. Bennis and F. Beukema (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. Dordrecht: Foris,91–99.

Koopman, H. (1995). De plaats van geincorporeerde hoofden in de werkwoordscluster. Tabu25, 174–179.

Kroch, A. and A. Taylor (2000). Verb-object order in early Middle English. In: S. Pintzuk,G. Tsoulas and A. Warner (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford:OUP, 132–163.

Kyto, M. (ed.) (1993). Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts:Coding Conventions and lists of Source Texts. 2nd edition. Helsinki: University ofHelsinki, English Department.

Legum, St. E. (1968). The verb-particle constructions in English: basic or derived? In: B.J.Darden, Ch.-J.N. Bailey and A. Davidson (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meetingof the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 50–62.

Lehmann, W. (1906). Das Prafix uz- besonders im Altenglischen. (Kieler Studien zurenglischen Philologie. N.F. 3). Kiel: Cordes.

Lehmann, W.P. (1986). A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Leopold, M. (1977 [1907]). Die Vorsilbe ver- und ihre Geschichte. Germanistische

Abhandlungen 27. Reprint Hildesheim: Olms.Lieber, R. and H. Baayen (1993). Verbal prefixes in Dutch: A study in lexical conceptual

structure. In: G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 51–78.

Lipka, L. (1972). Semantic Structure and Word Formation: Verb-particle Constructions inContemporary English. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink.

Ludeling, A. (1999). On particle verbs and similar constructions in German (Sprach-theoretische Grundlagen fur die Computerlinguistik: Arbeitspapiere des Sonder-forschungsbereichs 340). Diss. Universitat Tubingen. (Published by CSLI, Stanford,2001).

McIntyre, A. (2000). German Double Particles as Preverbs: Morphology and ConceptualSemantics. Tubingen: Stauffenburg.

McIntyre, A. (2001). Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German:Event modification and secondary predication. In: N. Dehe and A. Wanner (eds.),Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs. Berlin: Peter Lang, 131–164.

Meillet, A. (1908). Notes sur quelques faits gotiques. Memoires de la Societe de Linguistiquede Paris 15, 95–103.

Metlen, M. (1933). What a Greek interlinear of the Gothic Bible text can teach us. Journal ofEnglish and Germanic Philology 32, 530–548.

Neeleman, A. and F. Weerman (1993). Case theory and the diachrony of complex predicatesin Dutch. Folia Linguistica Historica 13, 189–217.


The Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM (1989). 2nd edition. Ed. by J.A. Simpson andE.S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pintzuk, S. (1991). Phrase structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old EnglishWord Order. Dissertation University of Pennsylvania.

Pintzuk, S. (1996). Old English verb-complement word order and the change from OV to VO.York Papers in Linguistics 17, 241–264.

Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973). A University Grammar of English. London: Longman.Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language. London: Longman.Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives.

Language 77, 766–797.Sawyer, J.H. (1999). Verb Adverb and Verb Particle Constructions: Their Syntax and

Acquisition. (Boston University PhD Dissertation). Michigan: UMI Dissertation Service.Schmidt, J. (1883) Die Germanischen Praepositionen und das Auslautgesetz. Zeitschrift fur

Vergleichende Sprachforschung 26, 20–43.Schultze-Berndt, E. (this volume) Preverbs as an open class in Northern Australian languages:

Synchronic and diachronic considerations.Spencer, A. and M. Zaretskaya (1998). Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination.

Linguistics 36, 1–39.von Stechow, A. (1993). Die Aufgaben der Syntax. In: J. Jacobs, W. Sternefeld, A. von Stechow,

and Th. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenossischerForschung. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1–88.

Stiebels, B. (1996). Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag vonverbalen Prafixen und Partikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Streitberg, W. (1920). Gotisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitats-buchhandlung.

Streitberg, W. (1965). Der gotische Bibel. Vol. I and II. Heidelberg: Carl WinterUniversitatsverlag.

Toivonen, I. (2001). The Phrase Structure of Non-Projecting Words. Ph.D. Dissertation,Stanford University.

Vinka, M. (1999). On Swedish verb-particle constructions, ms. McGill University, Montreal.Visser, F. Th. (1963–73). An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vols. 1–3b. Leiden:

E.J. Brill.Watkins, C. (1964). Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure.

In: H.G. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists. TheHague: Mouton, 1035–1042.

Weerman, F. (1989). The V2 Conspiracy: A Synchronic and a Diachronic Analysis of verbalPositions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.

Weir, E.M.H. (1986). Footprints of yesterday’s syntax: Diachronic developments of certainverb prefixes in an OSV language. Lingua 68, 291–316.

Winkler, S. (1997). Focus and Secondary Predication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Zeller, J. (2001). Particle Verbs and Local Domains. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56),

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Zeller, J. (this volume) Moved preverbs in German: displaced or misplaced?


TEXT EDITIONS

d’Ardenne, S.T.R.O. (1977). The Katherine Group, edited from MS. Bodley 34. Paris: Societed’Edition ‘Les Belles Lettres’.

C. Clark (1970). The Peterborough Chronicle 1070–1154. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Holthausen, F. (1967[1921]). Vices and Virtues: A soul’s confessions of its sins with reason’s

description of the virtues, 2 vols. (EETS, original series 89, 159). London etc.: OxfordUniversity Press.

Department of EnglishUniversity of NijmegenErasmusplein 16525 HT NijmegenThe Netherlands

[email protected]

Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English, Kemenade-Los 2003

Documents

Transcript of Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English, Kemenade-Los 2003