Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 731–773 | Cite as

Particle verbs and benefactive double objects in English: high and low attachments

Original paper

Abstract

This paper analyzes verbs that can enter into a transitive (The students wrote a lab report), benefactive double object (The students wrote their professor a lab report) and particle verb (The students wrote up a lab report) construction. The analysis is situated within the Distributed Morphology framework. It argues for the presence of a small clause structure only in the particle verb construction and not in the benefactive construction; the particle merges directly with the Root while the benefactive possessive element merges with an already categorized verb. The benefactive differs from the better researched dative in that the dative does involve a caused possession small clause structure. Particle verbs can occur in double object constructions, but they involve a benefactive-like syntax and not a caused possession small clause analysis. Furthermore, I argue that the Roots that underlie these verbs are relationless and underspecified with respect to meaning, supporting the idea that the functional vocabulary introduces arguments and fully specifies the meaning of the Roots. However, rather than adopting the position that an object is introduced at only one point in the derivation, this analysis shows that an object can be introduced at several different points within the derivation. Finally, this paper shows that argument merger is sensitive to the phase structure of the clause.

Keywords

Particle verb Double object Dative Benefactive Distributed Morphology Argument structure Event structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of Roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(4): 737–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5(3): 167–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4): 681–742. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1993. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Sam A. Mchombo, 47–91. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  6. Cappelle, Bert. 2002. And up it rises: Particle preposition in English. In Verb-particle explorations, eds. Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban, 43–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  9. Diesing, Molly, and Eloise Jelinek. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3(2): 123–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2004. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  13. Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  14. Farrell, Patrick. 2005. English verb-preposition constructions: Constituency and order. Language 81(1): 96–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Folli, Rafaella, and Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavors of v. In Aspectual inquiries, eds. Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, Bruce. 1978. The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  17. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building Twenty: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  18. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  19. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In Linguistic variation yearbook 2, ed. Pierre Pica, 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  20. Harley, Heidi. 2007. The bipartite structure of verbs crosslinguistically. Manuscript, University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  21. Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74: 101–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(4): 577–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kayne, Richard. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. In Grammatical representation, eds. Jacqueline Guéron, Hans-Georg Obenauer, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 101–140. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  24. Keyser, S. Jay, and Thomas Roeper. 1992. Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 89–125. Google Scholar
  25. Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Complex predicates, eds. Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells, 473–499. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  26. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  27. Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In BLS 26: Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, eds. Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf, and Alan C.L. Yu, 385–399. Berkeley: BLS. Google Scholar
  28. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  29. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax/lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  30. Marantz, Alec. 1996. “Cat” as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  31. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics: Proceedings of the 21st annual penn linguistics colloquium, eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201–225. Philadelphia: PWPL. Google Scholar
  32. Marantz, Alec. 2000. Roots: The Universality of Root and Pattern Morphology. Paper presented at the conference on Afro-Asiatic languages, University of Paris VII. Google Scholar
  33. McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells. Linguistics 42(3): 523–571. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McIntyre, Andrew. 2007. Silent possessive PPs: English double objects. Handout of an invited talk, University of Geneva. Google Scholar
  35. Neeleman, Ad. 2002. Particle placement. In Verb-particle explorations, eds. Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban, 141–164. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  36. Pesetsky, David. 1989. The earliness principle. Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  37. Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Google Scholar
  38. Pylkkänen, Lina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  39. Ramchand, Gillian. 2006. First phase syntax. Manuscript, University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  40. Ramchand, Gillian, and Peter Svenonius. 2002. Lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the Verb-particle construction. In WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st west CoaSt conference on formal linguistics, eds. Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts, 387–400. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  41. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  42. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. Google Scholar
  43. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1999. Event structure and ergativity. In Events as grammatical objects, eds. Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 187–238. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  44. Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. In Nordyld 32(2), ed. Peter Svenonius, 205–252. Tromsø: CASTL. Google Scholar
  45. van Hout, Angeliek. 2000. Event semantics in the lexicon-syntax interface: Verb frame alternations in Dutch and their acquisition. In Events as grammatical objects, eds. Carol L. Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 239–282. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  46. Van Valin, Robert, and Randy LaPolla. 1997. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  47. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2000. The structure(s) of particle verbs. Manuscript, McGill University. Google Scholar
  48. Zeller, Jochen. 1996. On verbal modifiers and their thematic properties. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  49. Zeller, Jochen. 2001. Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  50. Zeller, Jochen. 2002. Particle verbs are heads and phrases. In Verb-particle explorations, eds. Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban, 233–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  51. Zhang, Niina. 2006. Root merger in Chinese compounds. Studia Linguistica 61(2): 170–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations