In:Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation
Edited by Ermenegildo Bidese, Federica Cognola and Manuela Caterina Moroni
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 234] 2016
► pp. 119–144
Why a bed can be slept in but not under
Variation in V+P constructions
Published online: 1 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.05pad
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.05pad
In English the verbs that collocate with prepositions are called prepositional verbs (V+P) and are often subsumed under the class of phrasal verbs (V+ particle) although they should be kept distinct: in fact, it is easy to show that prepositions and particles have different syntactic behaviors. One of the most striking characteristics of these verbs is that they can passivize, i.e. the prepositional object can be extracted from inside the PP and become the subject of the corresponding passive sentence. Not all prepositional verbs have a passive counterpart, though. Why? This paper addresses this question by regarding the prepositions entering (V+P) as functional elements, especially in view of their relationship with (“prepositional”) objects.
Keywords: applicative constructions, English, passive, prepositional verbs, stranding
References (40)
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive-cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219-251.
Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 147-185.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519-562.
Castillo, Concha. 2008. The class of prepositional passivizable verbs in English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(2): 143-174.
. 1974. The Amherst lectures. Lectures given at the
1974 Linguistic Institute
. University of Massachusetts. Amherst MA: Université de Parsi VII.
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Damonte, Federico & Padovan, Andrea. 2011. Un’origine avverbiale per i prefissi del tedesco. In I preverbi. Tra sintassi e diacronia, Davide Bertocci & Elena Triantafillis (eds). Padua: Unipress.
Fagan, Sarah. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: CUP.
Fleischer, Jürg. 2002. Die Syntax von Pronominaladverbien in den Dialekten des Deutschen. Eine Untersuchung zu Preposition Stranding und verwandten Phänomenen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Heft 123. Tübingen: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Haddican, Bill & Holmberg, Anders. 2012. Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach (with Anders Holmberg). Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15(3): 189-212.
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125: 34-57.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta theory. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, Iggy M. Roca (ed.), 145-174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hornstein, Norbert & Weinberg, Amy. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–91.
Kageyama Taro. 2006. Property description as a voice phenomenon. In Voice and Grammatical Relations. In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani [Typological Studies in Language 65], Takasu Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kageyama, Taro & Ura, Hiroyuki. 2002. Peculiar passives as individual-level predicates. Gengo Kenkyu 122: 181-199. Tokyo: Linguistic Society of Japan.
Kayne, Richard. 1981. On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349-371.
Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie. 1990. Preposition-stranding and passive. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds), 153-164. New York NY: Academic Press. First published in 1985 in Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu Grammar, Sam A. Mchombo (ed). Stanford CA: CSLI.
. 2013. Argument structure and argument structure alternation. In Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Marcel den Dikken (ed.). Cambridge: CUP.
Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Prepositions and external argument demotion. In Demoting the Agent: Passive and Other Voice-related Phenomena, Torgrim Solstad, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Maria Filiouchkina Krave (eds), 93-99. Oslo: University of Oslo.
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.
1997. Push Chains and Drag Chains: Complex Predicate Split in Dutch. In Scrambling, S. Tonoike (ed), 7-33. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Williams, Edwin. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
