UHH>Informatik>NatS>CxG Web>NetzwerkKonstruktionsgrammatik>ConstructionsDatabase>ParticleVerbConstruction (17 Oct 2012, UnknownUser) Print version
Particle Verb Construction
1. General
1.1. Label
The Particle Verb Construction
1.2. Reasons for construction status
Particle and verb form a close unit, which in some cases
has non-transparent meaning. Some particle verb combinations have an argument structure
that differs from the argument structure of the base verb.
1.3. Examples
English:
(1) a. He looks up the information.
b. He looks it up.
German:
(2) a. Er lacht los.
he laughs PART
`He starts to laugh.'
b. Er lacht ihn an.
he laughs him PART(towards)
2. Language Information
2.1. Comments
(comments on the variety to which the construction belongs)
2.2. Language
German and English
2.3. Variety
no particular geographic, social, situational, or stylistic variety or to a particular genre
2.4. Speech Community
no particular speech community
2.5. Language Contact
the generel construction is not influenced by constructions from another language
2.6. Time Period
??
2.7. Stage of Acquisition
??
3. Form
3.1. Syntax
3.1.1. Comments
(general comments on the syntactic properties of the construction)
German: Particle and verb are usually serialized adjacent to each other in verb final clauses.
In verb initial clauses the particle is stranded and only the base verb is put in initial position. However, it is also possible to separate the particle from the verb in verb final cases. The particle may be fronted (positioned in the Vorfeld) or may be serialized non-adjacently among arguments/adjuncts of the verb (in the Miffelfeld).
The verb and the particle enter a tight relation which is comparible to the one
between resultative predicate and main verb in resultative constructions and the reletion
between two verbs in verbal complexes.
3.1.2. Internal
3.1.2.1. Valency
The particle may contribute arguments to the valence of the particle verb:
(3) a. * Er lacht ihn.
he laughs him
b. Er lacht ihn an.
he laughs him PART
3.1.2.2. Constituency
(description of the constituent relationships inside the construction)
3.1.3. External
3.1.3.1. Category
(category label)
3.1.3.2. Structural Position
(syntagmatic relationships with other constructions (but see also 4.3))
3.2. Morphology
3.2.1. Comments
Particle verbs have a syntactic live. The particle and the verb can be separated.
Particle verbs also enter derivation (adjectival passives, bar-derivation,
nominalization).
3.2.2. Internal
3.2.2.1. Morphological Properties of Elements
(morphological properties of elements)
3.2.3. External
3.2.3.1. Morphological Properties of Construction
(morphological properties of the construction itself)
4. Meaning
4.1. Semantics
4.1.1. Comments
there is no common meaning to all particle verbs,
however for certain transparent forms one can assign meaning to the particle and
the meaning of the particle verb combination can be computed compositionally.
Example: loslachen = `start to laugh', loslaufen = `start to walk'
4.1.2. Internal
4.1.2.1. Frame
(frame evoked)
4.1.2.1.1. Event
(event type)
4.1.2.1.2. Participants
depends on the respective verb
4.1.2.2. Truth-Conditional Information
depends on the respective verb
4.1.2.2.1. Negation
nothing special
4.1.2.2.2. Scope
??
4.1.3. External
4.1.3.1. Semantic Class
(semantic category)
4.1.3.2. Relation to Construction-External Semantic Elements
depends on the respective verb
4.1.3.3. Truth Relations
depends on the respective verb
4.1.3.3.1. Semantic Presuppositions
depends on the respective verb
4.1.3.3.2. Semantic Entailments
depends on the respective verb
4.2. Pragmatics
4.2.1. Comments
depends on the respective verb
4.2.2. Internal
depends on the respective verb
4.2.3. External
4.2.3.1. Indexical Properties
4.2.3.1.1. Deixis
(linguistic and extralinguistic domains indexed)
4.2.3.1.2. Intertextuality
(intertextual links evoked)
4.2.3.2. Interpersonal Function
(politeness, other-self, etc.)
4.2.3.3. Speaker attitude
(modality, epistemic, emotion)
4.2.3.4. Speech Act Function
(illocutionary force)
4.2.3.5. Rhetorical Function
(rhetorical potential)
4.2.3.6. Style
(stylistic features)
4.2.3.7. Pragmatic Presuppositions / Implicature
(modality, epistemic, emotion)
4.3. Discourse Properties
4.3.1. Internal
4.3.1.1. Turn Constructional Status
(status as TCU)
4.3.1.2. Within-Turn Position
(turn-initial, -medial, -final position, etc.)
4.3.2.External
4.3.2.1. Sequential Context
(position in sequence)
4.3.2.2. Position in Text- and Dialogue-Structure
(position in larger discourse structure)
4.3.2.3. Sequence Type
(type of sequence)
4.4. Information Structure
4.4.1. Internal
4.4.1.1. Topic - Comment
(contribution to topic-comment structure)
4.4.1.2. Focus
(placement of focus)
4.4.2. External
4.4.2.1. Signaled Information Status
(status of information as given, new, inferable, etc.)
4.4.2.2. Information Status Requirements
(information status requirements)
4.5. Data
4.5.1. Introspection
introspective data used
4.5.2. Authentic data
4.5.2.1. Source data properties
4.5.2.2. Methods of Analysis
reading
4.6. Literature
Booij, Geert E. 2002. Separable Complex Verbs in Dutch: A Case of Periphrastic Word Formation,
In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre und Silke Urban (Eds): Verb-Particle Explorations, Interface Explorations, Nr. 1, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pages 21-41
http://www.degruyter.de/rs/bookSingle.cfm?id=IS-3110172283-1&l=D
Müller, Stefan, 2002. Syntax or Morphology: German Particle Verbs Revisited, In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre und Silke Urban (Eds): Verb-Particle Explorations, Interface Explorations, Nr. 1, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pages 119–139. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/~stefan/Pub/syn-morph-part.html
Müller, Stefan, 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, Nr. 13, Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/~stefan/Pub/complex.html
Müller, Stefan, 2003. The Morphology of German Particle Verbs: Solving the Bracketing Paradox. Journal of Linguistics 39(2), pages 275–325. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/~stefan/Pub/paradox.html
5. Relations to other constructions
5.1. Subtypes
5.1.1. Diachronic
some particles developed from adverbs or prepositions
(I would not call this a super or subtype construction)
5.1.2. Synchronic
(relations to subtypes of the construction)
5.2. Supertypes
5.2.1. Diachronic
5.2.2. Synchronic
5.3. Paradigmatic Relations
 |
|
Copyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback