Advanced Syntax

1. Lecture 5: Prepositional Verbs and Phrasal Verbs Advanced Syntax

2. PPs are often adverbials = modifiers • They met [in the street] (location) • She left [on Wednesday] (time) • He retaliated [in anger] (manner) • These are adjuncts – not restricted by the predicate: • They met [in the street] [on Wednesday] [in anger] • But some verbs take PP arguments, which are restricted • He put the box [in the street] • * he put the box [on Wednesday] • * he put the box [with anger] The function of preposition phrases

3. PP arguments have a number of properties which are more like adjuncts • They are often omissible • He sent the letter ([to Mary]) • But not always - he gave the letter * ([to Mary]) • They are always further from the verb than DP arguments: • * He sent [to Mary] the letter • * he put [in the street] the box • They can appear after adjuncts • He put the box [carelessly] [in the street] Problems of identification

4. Omissibility is not really a distinct property of adjuncts: • All adjuncts are omissible • Some arguments are omissible • He was eating (his dinner) • We can separate the two kinds of omissiblity: • He sent a letter (to London) • He drove the car (to London) • Is it possible to: • Conceive of an act of ‘sending’ for which there is no goal? • Not really – it isn’t ‘sending’ otherwise • Conceive of an act of ‘driving’ for which there is no goal? • Of course – driving can just involve making a vehicle move Is the distinction between argument and adjunct valid?

5. It isn’t possible to conceive of any event which does not take place in time and space • Does this mean that time and location modifiers are arguments? • If something applies to everything, it can’t be due to the meaning of individual predicates • I phoned Bill on Wednesday • It isn’t part of the meaning of ‘to phone’ that it takes place at a certain time • This is just a fact about the universe – you don’t even need to know what ‘to phone’ means to know this Universal truths

6. Given that all events take place in time and space, then time and location are never part of the meaning of a predicate • So, they are always adjuncts • No predicate has a time argument • But some have location arguments • He placed the book in his bag • This is not the location of the event, but the location the theme comes to occupy due to the event taking place • He placed the book in his bag in the library Event location and time are always adjuncts

7. Is the goal an adjunct or argument?: • He posted the letter to Mary • He posted the letter • There are two meanings for ‘post’ • To send via the postal system • To put something in the post • Similar to: • Shelve a book = put a book on a shelf • Post a letter = put a letter in the post • ‘Send’ obviously has a goal argument (you can’t send without one) • ‘Put’ clearly has no goal • So whether the goal is an argument or not depends on which ‘post’ is involved Some more examples

8. The difference between DP and PP arguments is due to Case • DPs have to occupy Case positions • PPs don’t • Therefore the distribution of DPs is more restricted than that of PPs Difference in DP and PP argument distributions

9. Argument positions are fixed at D-structure So a PP argument’s distribution should not be any different to a DP’s – at D-structure This suggests that PPs can undergo movements which DPs can’t PPs and the Utah

10. There is evidence that some phrases move to the back of the clause (mostly clauses and PPs): • A man [with a suitcase] arrived • A man arrived [with a suitcase] • A man [who seemed nice] phoned • A man phoned, [who seemed nice] • This movement is called Extraposition • Its function seems to be to focus the extraposed phrase (add new salient information) • What surprised me was: • that a man with a suitcase arrived • that a man arrived with a suitcase Extraposition

11. Due to extraposition a PP argument can move behind a PP modifier: • I gave the money t1 [with reluctance] [to Bill]1 • Therefore it only appears that PP arguments have distributions like adjuncts • Note, some DPs also undergo extraposition: • I met John yesterday • * I met yesterday John • I met yesterday [everyone who John told me to] • This is called Heavy DP shift • Only DPs with ‘heavy’ content can undergo it The order of arguments and adjuncts

12. In the dative construction the PP goal is the complement of the lexical verb As this position follows all DP arguments, it seems reasonable to assume that this is the position for all PP arguments The D-structure position of PP arguments

13. Some verbs have two PP arguments • I spoke to the students about the exam • Both of these can’t go in the complement of V position • The two PPs are interchangeable: • I spoke about the exam to the students • The evidence suggests that the first argument is higher than the second: • I spoke to the students about themselves • * I spoke to themselves about the students • But this only works with one order: • * I spoke about the students to themselves • * I spoke about themselves to the students • This suggests that the two orders have different structures Verbs with two PP arguments

14. The antecedent not only has to be higher than the pronoun • It must be in a particular structural relationship with it: • John shaved himself • * John’s mother shaved himself • A subject can be the antecedent of the object, but a phrase inside the subject cannot • We call this relationship Command • A structural element commands its sister • and everything inside its sister • A pronoun must be commanded by its antecedent More about antecedents

15. Because of this, the two PP arguments cannot be arranged like this The first DP does not command the second What this means for double pp arguments

16. Perhaps the structure is like this: • The goal DP is in the specifier of the ‘about’ PP • This PP is the complement of ‘to’ • So the goal commands the second DP Double PP arguments: first try

17. It is very odd that the DP related to the preposition ‘to’ is in the specifier of ‘about’ In all other cases we have seen arguments sit in either specifier or complement of their own predicate Problems

18. How is the other order achieved? • I spoke about the exam to the students • If ‘about the exam’ moves in front of ‘to the students, this means P’ moves • X’s don’t appear to be able to move • If ‘to the students’ moves behind ‘about themselves’, this means something that isn’t even a phrase can move • Only phrases can move Problems

19. If what moves is the ‘about’ phrase, this must be a full PP • If this PP is in the complement of ‘to’, the goal must be in its specifier: • The right relationship between the two DPs still holds • The first DP commands the second Double PP arguments: second try

20. The word order is wrong! • Perhaps this represents the D-structure order and movement changes the position of ‘to’ Problems

21. In some languages, verbs and prepositions ‘fuse’ together by a process of incorporation • Kinyarwanda (Rwanda, southern Uganda) • Umugaboya-tém-ye igití n’ úmuhoro man past-cut-asp tree with machete ‘The man cut the tree with the machete.’ • Umugaboya-tém-eesh-ejeigitíumuhoro man past-cut-APPL-ASP tree machete ‘The man cut the tree with the machete.’ • Preposition incorporation is movement of the preposition to join the verb • Similar to a verb moving to a causative verb or tense inflection Evidence for preposition movement

22. When a prepositional verb passivises, the verb and the preposition cannot be separated: • He slept in the bed that night • He slept that night in the bed • the bed was slept in that night • * the bed was slept that night in • This suggest that, in this case, the verb and preposition form a single unit • i.e. The preposition incorporates into the verb Do english prepositions incorporate?

23. That prepositional verbs can passivise is very strange: • Only transitive verbs passivise in English • John was hit/seen/frightened/feared ... • * it was smiled/danced/sneezed/arrived ... • But most prepositional verbs allow passivisation: • The students were spoken to • The bed was slept in • The money was parted with • The target was aimed at Passivisation of prepositional verbs

24. In these cases, the object of the preposition behaves like the object of the verb • The object of the verb moves in passives because the agentive verb is replaced by the passive morpheme and so the object loses it Case • Why would the object of the preposition have to move? Passivisation of prepositional verbs

25. Suppose that when the preposition incorporates with the verb it can’t Case mark the goal The goal will have to move to get Case from the agentive verb The verb moves (with the preposition) to support the agentive verb If the verb is passive, the goal must move further to subject to get Case Analysis

26. In the case of two PP arguments, it seems that preposition incorporation has to take place: • I spoke-to the students about the exam • * I spoke the students to about the exam • When there is one PP argument, it is difficult to tell as both structures give the same result Is preposition incorporation obligatory?

27. Structures

28. Structures

29. When there is a theme, the preposition cannot incorporate: • I gave the money to John • * I gave-to the money John • This is understandable as the object of the preposition would be Caseless • It cannot get Case from the incorporated preposition • It cannot move to the object position Cases where incorporation are impossible

30. There is a well know difference between the following: • He looked up the word (in the dictionary) • He looked up the chimney • The first involves what is traditionally called a phrasal verb • A verb made up of a verb plus a ‘particle’ • Incorporated preposition? Phrasal verbs

31. Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: • They have idiomatic interpretations • the plane took off = to become airborne • he let down the whole family = to disappoint • the review put off the customers = to deter • This suggests that they are single lexical verbs Why phrasal verbs are different

32. Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: • They have the same stress pattern as a single verb • Normally stress falls on the second syllable of a verb • They ex’ported the wine • He a’ddressed the audience • The stress on a phrasal verb can fall on the preposition • He put ‘over his message • He let ‘down the family • Prepositional verbs do not stress the preposition • He jumped ‘over the fence (only with contrastive stress) • Again, this suggests they are single lexical items Why phrasal verbs are different

33. Several properties separate phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs: • The preposition does not have to immediately follow the verb: • He took off his hat - he took his hat off • He looked up the word - he looked the word up • This is not possible with prepositional verbs: • he looked up the chimney - * he looked the chimney up • He ran up the hill - * he ran the hill up • This does not favour a single lexical item analysis • No other lexical item can be split up like this Why phrasal verbs are different

34. The particle can be a whole phrase: • This put the customers [right off their food] • He took his clothes [all off] • When this is the case, the particle cannot join with the verb: • * this put right off their food the customers • * he took all off his clothes • This can be explained if phrasal verbs are formed by preposition incorporation • Only the preposition itself can incorporate with the verb More evidence that the verb and the particle are not part of the same word

35. The obvious analysis is to treat phrasal verbs as: • Having a PP complement • Allowing the preposition to incorporate Analysis of phrasal verbs

36. This analysis is exactly the same as the one we proposed for prepositional verbs • There is a structural difference between • He looked up the word • He looked up the chimney What’s the difference between phrasal prepositional verbs?

37. In the first case, the object is an argument of the verb (theme): • The preposition may optionally incorporate into the verb • If so, when the verb moves to support the agentive verb we get: • He looked1-up2 the word t1 t2 • If not incorporate, we get: • He looked1 the word t1 up What’s the difference between phrasal prepositional verbs?

38. In the second case, the object is an argument of the preposition (location) The preposition may optionally incorporate But either way we get the same order when the verb moves What’s the difference between phrasal prepositional verbs?

39. If phrasal verbs have the same analysis as prepositional verbs, why are they interpreted differently? • Perhaps they are not • Some phrasal verbs don’t have idiomatic interpretations: • He stood the ladder up (phrasal verb order) (meaning = cause to stand up) • Some prepositional verbs have idiomatic interpretations: • The police looked into the matter • * the police looked the matter into (no phrasal verb order) (meaning = investigate) Idiomatic interpretation?

40. In general PP arguments sit in the complement of the lexical verb • The preposition may incorporate into the verb • If there a theme argument, the preposition cannot incorporate • If the verb is passivised, the preposition must incorporate • Phrasal verbs are the same as prepositional verbs • Most reported differences concern the position of the DP argument • As an argument of the verb or of the preposition Conclusions