Cover not available
Article published In:
Into adpositions: New formal perspectives on the structure of the PP and its variation
Edited by Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Theresa Biberauer, Jaume Mateu and Anna Pineda
[Linguistic Variation 21:1] 2021
► pp. 46–89

Afrikaans circumpositions

(Mis-)matches at the syntax-interface

| University of the Western Cape

Circumpositions in Afrikaans present several puzzles: (i) they always encode spatial paths, but spatial paths can also be encoded by prepositional phrases; (ii) they can be doubling or non-doubling, and (iii) they exhibit disharmonic word order of the kind that appears to violate the Final-over-Final Condition (FOFC). In this paper, I argue that circumpositions offer support for the existence of a directional head [dir] in the fine structure of the Afrikaans verbal domain, and that this head is lexicalised by adpositional material in circumpositional expressions. I show that Afrikaans grammar distinguishes Route-paths from Goal-/Source-paths, and argue that whereas [dir] selects a [pathP] in the structure underlying Goal-/Source-paths (circumpositional expressions), Route-paths (prepositional expressions) are ‘bare’ [pathP] structures. I argue that since circumpositions identify structural components in different Spellout Domains, double-insertion of adposition-like material is required to exhaustively lexicalise the structure, and the disharmonic word order is understood as a direct consequence of the fact that [dir] is located in Afrikaans’ head-final verbal, which addresses the concern arising around FOFC. Finally, given that the adpositions in circumpositional expressions are shown to occupy structural positions that are distinct from that of de-adpositional V-particles, the paper also addresses the structural relation between circumpositions and particle verbs in which adposition-like material lexicalises a resultative [res] node in the verbal domain.

Keywords: Afrikaans, adpositions, circumpositions, particles, doubling, syntax-interface, lexicalisation, spellout, spatial path, FOFC
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1 How to distinguish a bona fide circumposition from a ‘spurious circumposition’
    • 3.2 The case of met…langs (lit.: with…along; “along”)
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Basic tenets
    • 4.2Against a [ pathp path [placep place]] analysis of circumpositions
    • 4.3Prepositional Path-encoding elements
    • 4.4Deriving circumpositions
  • 5.Postpositions vs. V-particles
    • 5.1Analysing V-particles and ‘spurious circumpositions’
    • 5.2Russian prefixes and Afrikaans particles
    • 5.3[res] vs. [dir]
  • 6.Composing Goal-/Source- and Route-paths
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
References (79)
Aelbrecht, Lobke & Den Dikken, Marcel
2013 Preposition doubling in Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(1). 33–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
2003 Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
2014 A syntactic Universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 42(5). 169–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa
2016 Probing the nature of the final-over-final condition: The perspective from adpositions. In Laura Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Structure and order. Berlin: Language Science Press. 177–216.Google Scholar
2017a Factors 2 and 3: A principled approach. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 101. 38–65.Google Scholar
2017b Particles and the final-over-final condition. In Michelle Sheehan, Theresa Biberuaer, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts (eds). The final-over-final condition. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 187–196.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Folli, Raffaella
2004 Goals of Motion in Afrikaans. In O. Courzet, H. Demirdache, & S. Wauquier-Gravelines (eds). Journées d’Etudes Linguistiques. 19–27.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian
2010 Subjects, tense and verb-movement. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 263–303.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1994 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1977 Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2010 What principles and parameters got wrong. Lingbuzz. 1–34. [URL] (25 June 2017).
Borer, Hagit
1984 Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2007 The superset principle. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL master thesis.Google Scholar
2009 The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
2010 The parameters of case marking and spellout driven movement. In Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck (ed). Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 32–77.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1996 Bare Phrase Structure. In Héctor Campos (ed). Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 51–109.Google Scholar
1970 Remarks on nominalizations. In Roderick Jakobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds). Readings in english transformational grammar. Waltham, Ma: Ginn & Company. 184–221.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter
1985 Imbabura Quechua. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J.
1978 Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Belder, Marijke & Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2013 How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 625–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vos, Mark
2013 Afrikaans mixed adposition orders as a PF-linearization effect. In Theresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word orders conference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 333–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Eva K.
2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
2010a Directions from the GET-GO: On the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 91. 23–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.). Mapping spatial PPs. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 74–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio
2007a An exhaustive lexicalisation account of directional complements. Nordlyd 34(2).165–199.Google Scholar
2007b The exhaustive lexicalization principle. Nordlyd 34(2). 165–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1991 Extended projections. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
1995 Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, Ma: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1999 Distributed morphology. GLOT International: State of the Article 4(4). 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2014 On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 225–276.Google Scholar
Haselbach, Boris P.
2017 Revisiting route prepositions: Paths at the interfaces. Talk given at the Morphosyntactic variation in adpositions workshop (8–9 May). Queen’s College, Cambridge.
Jackendoff, Ray
1977 X’-syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jake, Janice L.
1985 Grammatical relationships in Imbabura Quechua, New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Keresztes, László
1998 Mansi. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.). The Uralic languages. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 387–427.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1973 “Elsewhere” in phonology. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds). A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 93–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Hilda Koopman (ed.). The syntax of specifiers and heads: Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. London: Routledge. 204–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kracht, Marcus
2002 On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(2). 157–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 The fine structure of Spatial Expressions. Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1998 The origins of telicity. Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 197–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magomedbekova, Zagidad
1971 Ã Ö Ø Ò× ÞÝ Ö Ñ Ø× Ò Ð Þ Ø× ØÝ× ÐÓÚ Ö [The Karata language: grammar analysis, texts, glossary]. Tbilisi: Å Ò Ö [Mecniereba].Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphology in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 201–225.Google Scholar
2006 Morphology lectures: Streaming video. Lectures at the DEC of the ENS, Paris, October. [URL] (25 June 2017).
Seyoum, Mulugeta
2008 A grammar of Dime. Leiden: Leiden University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1994 Ingush. In Rieks Smeets (ed). North East Caucasian languages. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Oosthuizen, Johan
2000 Prepositions left and right in afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 331.67–91.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos E.
2015 Categorical features: A Generative theory of word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina
2010 The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48(5). 1043–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. & Caha, Pavel
2011 The functional projections of case and path: Grammatical and spatial cases: A unified fseq. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Pretorius, Erin
2015 On the status of postpositions in Afrikaans. Talk given at the 4th Southern African microlinguistics workshop (SAMWOP 4) . 27–29 December. Grahamstown, RSA.
2017a Spelling out P: A unified syntax of Afrikaans adpositions and V-particles. Utrecht: Utrecht University doctoral dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b The secret nominal life of afrikaans intransitive adpositions. In Alex Andrason & Theresa Biberauer (eds). Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 481. 9–16.Google Scholar
Radkevich, Nina. V.
2010 On location: The structure of case and adpositions. Connecticut: UConn PhD thesis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter
2002 The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. Proceedings of WCCFL 211. 387–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 461. 152–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojina, Nina
2004 English particles, Russian prefixes, and prepositional phrases. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle, Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
2017 The final-over-final condition. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal
2009 Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1). 1–6.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2003 Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd 31(2). 431–445.Google Scholar
2004 Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32(2). 205–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, & Giorgos Spathas (eds). Argument structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P.
2007b P: Anatomy of a category. LOT Winterschool course in Amsterdam. February.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2012 Spanning. Unpublished manuscript. 1–9.Google Scholar
2014 Generalized applicatives: Reassessing the lexical-functional divide. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4). 439–446.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut T.
2010 The nanosyntax of nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120(6). 1522–1548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk
1978 A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Functional prepositions. Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 229–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk & Huybregts, Riny
2002 Location and locality. Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. 1–23.Google Scholar
Vellard, Jean A.
1967 Contribución al estudio de la lengua Uru. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
2003 Representation Theory. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi
2000 The structure(s) of particle verbs. Unpublished manuscript. 1–36. Available at: [URL]. DOI logo
Zeller, Jochen
2001 Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost
2005 Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6).739–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Aspects of a typology of direction. In Stephen Rothstein (ed.). Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 A hierarchy of locations: Evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions. Linguistics 48(5). 983–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Directionele PPs als predikaten (of niet). Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics 19(2). 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar