Cover not available
Part of
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: 1 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.05pad
References (40)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castillo, Concha. 2008. The class of prepositional passivizable verbs in English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(2): 143-174. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 1998. The affectedness constraint and AspP. Studia Linguistica 52: 19-47. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125: 34-57. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Argument structure and argument structure alternation. In Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Marcel den Dikken (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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