Cover not available
Part of
Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events: Verb-verb constructions at the syntax-semantic interface
Edited by Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 180] 2017
► pp. 44–78

Chapter 2
Pleonasm in particle verb constructions in German

| Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown, Dublin

Verbs with separable prefixes are one of many existing realisations of discontinuous complex predicates in German. Their syntactic structure follows the widely described sentence bracket structure, in that the finite verb base opens the bracket at the second position in the sentence, while the separable prefix, which is also called particle, closes it. Between the two brackets, the main information of the sentence is placed in a Theme-Rheme sequence, as the word order within the brackets is free. It can be shown that the verb base – particle combination in separable prefix verbs is quite productive, in that the selection of the respective particle is not entirely determined by the verb base. Also, particles may appear freely, which means that in non-finite occurrences, they can be found detached from the verb base orthographically, and they may also appear on their own, carrying a semantic residue from one of their verb-particle combination options. The chapter will explore one particular kind of separable prefix construction that has not received much attention in the literature so far. These are constructions with a separable prefix that repeats locative or directional information given in a prepositional phrase in the same sentence. Such Pleonastic Particle Constructions, as we will call them, appear in varying degrees of productivity. Using Talmy’s theory of the windowing of attention in a motion event frame, we will argue that generally, the particle can be assumed to be the redundant element, while the PP carries vital information about PATH and GROUND in a MOTION event. We will offer an explanation for the appearance of the redundant particle on the basis of that theory as well, which will also enable us to account for one interesting aspect of these Pleonastic Particle Constructions, which is that they cannot be used when the PP and/or the particle in the sentence are used figuratively.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Bracket structure topology in German
  • 3.Verbs with separable prefixes
    • 3.1The semantic contribution of the particle
    • 3.2Non-compositionality of the particle-verb complex
    • 3.3Combinability of particles
    • 3.4Particles in predicative adjective use
  • 4.On pleonastic directionals: Which element is redundant?
  • 5.Talmy: Windowing of attention in motion event frames
    • 5.1Talmy’s cognitive approach to frames and attention
    • 5.2Applying Talmy’s model to German pleonastic particle constructions
  • 6.Metaphorical uses of Pleonastic Particle Constructions
  • 7.Summary of the specifications of the Pleonastic Particle Construction
  • 8.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.180.02die
References
Amberber, Mengistu, Baker, Brett & Harvey, Mark
(eds) 2010a Complex Predicates. Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Event Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b Introduction: Complex predicates. In Amberber et al. (eds), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biskup, Petr, Putnam, Michael & Smith, Laura Catharine
2010 German particle and prefix verbs at the syntax-phonology interface. In Leuvense Bijdragen. Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 97: 106–135.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2010 The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Amberber et al. (eds), 48–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole
2015 Particle verbs in Germanic. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 611–626. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert B.
2011 The Meaning of Particle / Prefix Constructions in German [Human Cognitive Processing 34]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke
2008 Where is the PreCore slot? Mapping the layered structure of the clause and German sentence topology. In Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), 203–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG. In Proceedings of the RRG 2009 Conference, Wataru Nakamura (ed.), 168–198. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2012 What you give is what you GET? On reanalysis, semantic extension and functional motivation with the German bekommen-passive construction. In The Art of Getting: GET Verbs in European Languages from a Synchronic and Diachronic Point of View, Alexandra N. Lenz & Gudrun Rawoens (eds). Special Issue of Linguistics 50(6): 1163–1204.Google Scholar
2013a Constructions as memes. Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words. In Beyond Words, Frank Liedtke & Cornelia Schulze (eds), 283–305. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept “Construction”. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in Grammars [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 295–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen Elke
2014 A Role and Reference Grammar parser for German. In Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models [Studies in Language Companion Series 150], Brian Nolan & Carlos Periñán-Pascual (eds), 105–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drach, Erich
1937[41963] Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter
2006 Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland
2010a The role of information structure in word order variation and word order change. In Information Structure and Language Change. New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic, Roland Hinterhölzl & Svetlana Petrova (eds), 45–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010b Die Herausbildung der Satzklammer im Deutschen. Ein Plädoyer für eine informationsstrukturelle Analyse. In Historische Textgrammatik und historische Syntax des Deutschen: Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, Arne Ziegler (ed.), 121–138. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke
2001 On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German [Dissertations in Linguistics]. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2001 German Particle Verbs as Preverbs. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2002 Idiosyncrasy in particle verbs. In Verb-particle Explorations, Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds), 97–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Particle verb formation. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 434–449. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2002 Complex Predicates. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2003 Solving the bracketing paradox: An analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs. Journal of Linguistics 39: 275–325.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Negele, Michaela
2012 Varianten der Pronominaladverbien im Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Brian
2012 The Structure of Modern Irish. A Functional Account. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
2013 Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in Grammars [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 143–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2008 Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Junji
2001 Particle-bound directions in German particle-verb constructions. Paper presented at International Workshop on Germanic Languages and Comparative Grammar, University of Tsukuba (July 2001), and Germanistentagung, University of Shinshu, Japan, October. [URL]> (7 April 2016).
Olsen, Susan
1996a Pleonastische Direktionale. In Wenn die Semantik arbeitet, Manfred Bierwisch & Gisela Harras (eds), 303–329. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b Partikelverben im deutsch-englischen Vergleich. In Deutsch – typologisch. Institut für deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 1995, Ewald Lang & Gisela Zifonun (eds), 261–288. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1998 Semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte der Partikelverbbildung mit ein-. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
1999a Durch den Park durch, zum Bahnhof hin: Komplexe Präpositionalphrasen mit einfachem direktionalem Kopf. In Deutsch kontrastiv, Heide Wegener (ed.), 111–134. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1999b Verbpartikel oder Adverb. In Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, Angelika Redder & Jochen Rehbein (eds), 223–239. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
1999c Komplexe Präpositionalphrasen mit postponiertem direktionalem Kopf. Linguistische Berichte 180: 389–408.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Ines & von Genabith, Josef
2006 German particle verbs and pleonastic prepositions. In Proceedings of the Third ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions, 57–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
1991 Funktionale Betrachtungen zu Diskontinuität und Klammerbildung im Deutschen. In Beiträge zum 8. Bochum-Essener Kolloquium über „Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien“, Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, Benedikt Jeßing, Thomas Stolz (eds), 206–236. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
2010 Die deutsche Nominalklammer: Geschichte, Funktion, typologische Bewertung. In Historische Textgrammatik und historische Syntax des Deutschen: Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, Band 1: Diachronie, Althochdeutsch, Mittelhochdeutsch, Arne Ziegler (ed.), 85–120. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara
1996 Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara & Wunderlich, Dieter
1994 Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32: 913–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 57–149. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
1996 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
2005 Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, Harald
2005 Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen
2001 Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela
1999 Wenn mit alleine im Mittelfeld erscheint: Verbpartikeln und ihre Doppelgänger im Deutschen und Englischen. In Deutsch kontrastiv, Heide Wegener (ed.), 211–235. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 7]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Freywald, Ulrike
2023. Wortstellung im Satz. In Deutsche Sprache der Gegenwart, ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.