23. Particle-verb formation

McIntyre, Andrew

doi:10.1515/9783110246254-025

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From this, it necessarily follows that the fixed elements of the Russian LH constructions (bases) depart from their free counterparts in semantics and distribution to a much lesser extent than the fixed elements of the HL constructions (prefixes) (cf. Kiparsky 1997;McIntyre 2015;Monakhov 2023a). In English, a similar distinction is attested to verb-particle constructions but not to prefixed verbs (Stiebels 1996;McIntyre 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parsability revisited and reassessed

Monakhov

2024

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides evidence that the inveterate way of assessing linguistic items’ degrees of analysability by calculating their derivation to base frequency ratios may obfuscate the difference between two meaning processing models: one based on the principle of compositionality and another on the principle of parsability. I propose to capture the difference between these models by estimating the ratio of two transitional probabilities for complex words: P (affix | base) and P (base | affix). When transitional probabilities are comparably low, each of the elements entering into combination is equally free to vary. The combination itself is judged by speakers to be semantically transparent, and its derivational element tends to be more linguistically productive. In contrast, multi-morphemic words that are characterised by greater discrepancies between transitional probabilities are similar to collocations in the sense that they also consist of a node (conditionally independent element) and a collocate (conditionally dependent element). Such linguistic expressions are also considered to be semantically complex but appear less transparent because the collocate’s meaning does not coincide with the meaning of the respective free element (even if it exists) and has to be parsed out from what is available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parsability revisited and reassessed

Monakhov

2024

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The frequencies of the occurrence of hammer away and hammer away at are shown in (46) and (47) The relevant examples, which are all found in 1830s, are shown below: Let us now consider the cases of the verb chew, a verb of ingesting, according to Levin (1993). The frequency of the occurrence of the phrasal verb chew away is shown below: Consider the cases where the intransitive usage of chew away is used.…”

Section: Hammermentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammaticalization of the Particle away in English: A Cartographic Approach

Niinuma

2014

IIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the historical development of the particle away in English. Assuming the three-layered VP structure proposed by Ramchand (2008), and the Inner Aspect proposed by Travis (1994Travis ( , 2010, Fujita and Matsumoto (2005), and Ogawa and Niinuma (2013), I argue that there are three positions available for the particle away: the directional away is located in Res, which is the lowest in the VP structure, the completive aspectual away is in Asp(completive), which is above Proc, and the continuative or iterative aspectual away is in Asp(continuative or iterative), which is above Asp(completive). The data from Corpus of Historical American English show that the continuative or iterative aspectual away has been concatenated with the activity verbs earlier than accomplishment verbs, which is compatible with the syntactic analysis of grammaticalization proposed by Roberts and Roussou (2003).

show abstract

Particle topicalization and German clause structure

Trotzke

Quaglia

2016

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon of topicalizing verb particles in German. Based on the data we discuss, we argue that only a version of the Split-CP hypothesis for the German clause can account for the observations. Section 1 critiques previous accounts of particle topicalization and discusses some properties of particles that are potentially relevant to topicalization. We conclude that a particle's ability to be topicalized depends more on its ability to be contrasted with other particles than on the semantic autonomy of the particle per se. Section 2 discusses unexpected cases of non-contrastable particles in the left periphery. In this context, we introduce a previously unnoticed phenomenon in which particle verbs denoting strongly emotionally evaluated situations allow their particles to be topicalized, even if the particle does not receive a contrastive interpretation. In Sect. 3, we show that an elaborated syntax of the German left periphery of the kind argued for in cartographic approaches is uniquely able to predict the distribution of topicalized particles.

show abstract

23. Particle-verb formation

Cited by 11 publications

References 21 publications

Parsability revisited and reassessed

Parsability revisited and reassessed

Grammaticalization of the Particle away in English: A Cartographic Approach

Particle topicalization and German clause structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About