The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: a case study in grammaticalization

Abstract

This paper investigates the grammaticalization of words into prefixes, via the intermediate stage of separable particles. Particle-verb combinations are analysed as constructional idioms, whereas prefixed verbs are analysed as words.We hypothesize that semantic change triggers the structural change of particles becoming inseparable prefixes. In this way, syntax reflects semantics: the loss of independent semantic content, accompanied by other specific semantic developments, triggers the loss of syntactic independence. Data from Middle and Modern Dutch are discussed to illustrate the validity of the hypothesis and to show that semantic changes indeed precede syntactic changes in the development of particles into prefixes. In the first example, the word ÓÔ 'up' that combines with the verb is also used as an adposition. In that case, the non-verbal element is also referred to as a particle, and the SCV is then referred to as a particle verb. Particle verbs form a productive class of SCVs. In the second example, the word Ò Ö 'down' is also used as an adverb. The fact that SCVs are felt as word-like units is reflected by Dutch orthography, which requires SCVs to be written as one word, without internal spacing, if the two constituents are adjacent. ½º ÁÒØÖÓ Ù Ø ÓÒThe basic reason why SCVs have to be considered as word combinations, and not as prefixed words, is that they are separable: in main clauses, the tensed verbal form appears in second position, whereas the other part is stranded. If we assumed SCVs to be words, we would violate the principle of Lexical Integrity that says that syntactic rules cannot refer to elements of morphological structure (Bresnan-Mchombo 1995;Lapointe 1980).A second phenomenon in which we see the separability of SCVs is Verb Raising. If the verb of an embedded clause is raised to the matrix clause, the SCV can be split, but it can also be treated as a unit. In sentence (2b) the whole SCV ÓÔ ÐÐ Ò is raised to the matrix clause, whereas in sentence (2c) the particle ÓÔ is left behind in the embedded clause. This means that either the verb ÐÐ Ò only, or the whole SCV ÓÔ ÐÐ Ò can be raised to the matrix clause, and shows that there is certainly a level at which the SCV does form a unit for the syntax. The conclusion from sentences like (2b) that SCVs can behave as syntactic units is supported by the behaviour of SCVs in the progressive construction ' Ò Ø + infinitive'; compare:Hans is zijn moeder aan het opbellen Hans is his mother at the up-phone

On the Diachrony of Complex Predicates in Dutch: Predicative and Nonpredicative Preverbs

“…Data concerning the change from SCV preverb into ICV preverb are available from a corpus study (reported in Blom and Booij 2003). The research questions guiding this study were: Can we find Middle Dutch SCVs that have developed into Modern Dutch ICVs, and has this change indeed only happened to SCVs with nonpredicative preverbs?…”

“…It thus seems as if the semantic change of acquiring the typical ICV semantics precedes the structural change of becoming inseparable (see also Blom and Booij 2003).…”

The Morphology of Dutch. By Geert Booij. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pp. xii, 253. Paper. $29.95.

“…He then presents evidence of cases where SCVs attested in an earlier stage of Dutch correspond to ICVs in the present-day language, and argues that these show that the particle-to-prefix development is a case of grammaticalization that has been occurring in Middle and Modern Dutch, corresponding to the second step in the cline: "word > part of SCV > prefix" (p. 218). A full critique of this account, the key points of which have now been repeated in several publications (see, for example, Booij 2001, Blom and Booij 2003, Blom 2004, would go beyond the scope of this review, but I would like to raise a couple of questions about its historical plausibility.…”

The Metre of Old Saxon Poetry: The Remaking of Alliterative Tradition. By Seiichi Suzuki. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004. Pp. xx, 505. Hardcover. $90.00.

“…A full critique of this account, the key points of which have now been repeated in several publications (see, for example, Booij 2001, Blom and Booij 2003, Blom 2004, would go beyond the scope of this review, but I would like to raise a couple of questions about its historical plausibility. He claims that the inseparable prefixes are more grammaticalized than the separable particles in terms of both their fusion to the verb stem and their semantics.…”