Article published 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

| University of Verona
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
Published online: 01 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.05pad
References

References

Abels, Klaus
2003 Successive-cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian
1989 Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219-251.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark & Postal, Paul M.
1996 More on Reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 127-145.Google Scholar
Beavers, John
2011 On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335-370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1991/1993 Derived nominals. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba
1990 Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 147-185.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2010 Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519-562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, Concha
2008 The class of prepositional passivizable verbs in English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(2): 143-174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
1979 The Prepositional Passive in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray
2005 Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice
1980 Peculiar passives. Language 56: 42-66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
1995 Particles. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner
1998 The affectedness constraint and AspP. Studia Linguistica 52: 19-47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, Sarah
1992 The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2013 External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125: 34-57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun
1992 Aspect and theta theory. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, Iggy M. Roca (ed.), 145-174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Weinberg, Amy
1981 Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–91.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, Taro & Ura, Hiroyuki
2002 Peculiar passives as individual-level predicates. Gengo Kenkyu 122: 181-199. Tokyo: Linguistic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1981 On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349-371.Google Scholar
Klingvall, Eva
2012 Topics in pseudo-passives. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 90: 53–80.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1993 Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu Grammar, Sam A. Mchombo (ed). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Lina
2002 Introducing Arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Argument structure and argument structure alternation. In Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Marcel den Dikken (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1978 A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1997 Push Chains and Drag Chains: Complex Predicate Split in Dutch. In Scrambling, S. Tonoike (ed), 7-33. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Williams, Edwin
1986 Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
2012 Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 191–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1996 The verb-particle-alternation in the Scandinavian languages. Ms, University of Tromsø,Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol
1987 Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar