Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 155–188 | Cite as

The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: locative and actional meanings

  • Claudio Iacobini
  • Francesca Masini
Original Paper

Abstract

The paper deals with verb-particle constructions in Italian, i.e. complex predicates formed by a verbal base and a modifying post-verbal particle. In recent years a lot of interest has been devoted to these constructions in the Germanic languages, and investigation has been focusing mostly on their structure. Recently, some studies have shown that similar constructions also exist in the Italian language. Our contribution adopts a constructionist approach and aims at improving our knowledge of the properties of verb-particle constructions in Italian with particular reference to semantics and Aktionsart. The paper shows that Italian post-verbal particles contribute to the Aktionsart of verb-particle constructions. Even though Italian does not present a coherent system of actional particles, there are nonetheless some traces of regularity. One case in point is the emergence of a specific verbparticle construction with via ’away’ that developed an actional function. The paper also discusses the diachronic and synchronic relationship between verbal prefixes and post-verbal particles, trying to determine whether these two strategies cooperate or compete in the expression of locative and aspectual meanings.

Keywords

Verb-particle constructions Italian Aktionsart Construction grammar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antelmi D. (2002). Il verbo senza significato: possibilità di slittamento del contenuto lessicale su elementi di tipo nominale. Rivista italiana di linguistica e di dialettologia 4, 97-117Google Scholar
  2. Bertinetto P.M. (1986). Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dell’indicativo. Florence, Accademia della CruscaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertinetto P.M. (1997). Il dominio tempo-aspettuale: demarcazioni, intersezioni, contrasti. Turin, Rosenberg & SellierGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertinetto P.M. (2001). On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: the perfective-telic confusion. In: Cecchetto C., Chierchia G., Guasti M.T. (eds), Semantic interfaces: reference, anaphora and aspect. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 177-210Google Scholar
  5. Blom C. (2005). Complex predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and diachrony. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (LOT Publications Series 111).Google Scholar
  6. Bolinger D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Boogaart R. (2004). Aspect and Aktionsart. In: Booij G., Lehmann Ch., Mugdan J. (eds), Morphologie/morphology: Ein internationals Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation (Vol. 2, pp. 1165-1180). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Booij G. (2002a). Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14(4): 301-329Google Scholar
  9. Booij G. (2002b). Separable complex verbs in dutch: a case of periphrastic word formation. In N. Dehé et alii (Eds.), 21-41Google Scholar
  10. Booij G. (2005a). Construction Morphology. Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Booij G. (2005b). Construction-dependent morphology. Lingue e linguaggio 4(2): 163-178Google Scholar
  12. Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) (2003). Yearbook of morphology 2003. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  13. Brinton L.J. (1988). The development of English aspectual systems. Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Cini M. (2002). I verbi sintagmatici negli etnotesti dell’ALEPO. In G. Marcato (Ed.) La dialettologia oltre il 2001 (Quaderni di dialettologia 6). (pp. 143-150). Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
  15. Dehé N. (2002). Particle verbs in English. syntax, information structure and intonation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehé N. (2005). The optimal placement of up and ab - a comparison. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8, 185-224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dehé N. et al. (eds) (2002). Verb-particle explorations. Berlin/New York, Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  18. De Mauro T. (1963). Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Bari, LaterzaGoogle Scholar
  19. Dikken M. den (1995). Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. DISC = Dizionario italiano Sabatini Coletti. (1997). Florence: Giunti Multimedia.Google Scholar
  21. Dixon R. (1982). The grammar of English phrasal verbs. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 1-42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dufresne M., Dupuis F., & Tremblay M. (2003). Preverbs and particles in old French. Yearbook of Morphology, 2003, 33-60Google Scholar
  23. Durante M. (1981). Dal latino all’italiano moderno Saggio di storia linguistica e culturale. Bologna, ZanichelliGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrel P. (2005). English verb-preposition constructions: constituency and order. Language 81(1): 96-137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fillmore Ch.J., Kay P., O’Connor M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501-538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foulet L. (1946-1947). L’effacement des adverbes de lieu. Romania 69, 1-79Google Scholar
  27. Gaeta L., Ricca D. (2003). Italian prefixes and productivity: a quantitative approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50(1-2): 93-112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldberg A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldberg A. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Studies 7(5): 219-224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldberg A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. GRADIT = Grande dizionario italiano dell’uso. (1999). Tullio De Mauro editor in chief, Turin: UTET.Google Scholar
  32. Gries S.T. (2003). Multifactioral analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of particle placement. London, ContinuumGoogle Scholar
  33. Gsell O. (1982). La rosas dattan ora-les röses dà forà-le rose danno fuori: Verbalperiphrasen mit Ortsadverb im Rätoromanischen und im Italienischen. In: Heinz S., Wandruszka U. (eds), Fakten und Theorien. Festschrift für Helmut Stimm (pp. 71-85). Tübingen.Google Scholar
  34. Haiden M. (2002). Verb particle constructions. Aston University, Ms. (available at http://www.univ-lille3.fr/silex/equipe/haiden/particle/case_117_vepa.htm).Google Scholar
  35. Haverling G. (2003). On prefixes and actionality in classical and late Latin. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50(1-2): 113-135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hiltunen R. (1983). The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb The evidence from some old and early middle English texts. Turku, Turun YliopistoGoogle Scholar
  37. Hofmann J.B., & Szantyr A. (1965). Lateinische syntax und stylistik = Lateinische Grammatik. Zweiter Band, by Leumann, Hofmann & Szantyr (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II.2.2), Munich.Google Scholar
  38. Iacobini C. (2003). L’indicazione di valori locativi a partire da basi verbali. Seminar held at the University of Roma Tre (Department of Linguistics), 13 November 2003Google Scholar
  39. Iacobini C. (2004). Parasintesi. In: Grossmann M., Rainer F. (eds), La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tü bingen, Niemeyer, pp. 165-188Google Scholar
  40. Iacobini C. (2005). I verbi italiani come base di derivazione prefissale. In: Grossmann M., Thornton A.M. (eds), La formazione delle parole Atti del XXXVII Congresso Internazionale della SLI. Rome, Bulzoni, pp. 289-307Google Scholar
  41. Jackendoff R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Jackendoff R. (2002a). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehé et al (Eds.), 67-94Google Scholar
  43. Jackendoff R. (2002b). Foundations of language Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Jansen H. (2004). La ”particella spaziale” e il suo combinarsi con verbi di movimento nell’italiano contemporaneo. In P. D’Achille (Ed.), Generi, architetture e forme testuali (pp. 129-144). Atti del VII Convegno SILFI. Florence: Franco Cesati editore.Google Scholar
  45. Jezek E. (2002). Lo sfondamento di un confine tipologico Il caso dei verbi complessi nell’italiano. In: Cordin P., Franceschini R., Held G., (eds), Parallela 8. Atti dell’ottavo incontro italo-austriaco dei linguisti. Lingue di confine, confini di fenomeni linguistici. Rome, Bulzoni, pp. 289-308Google Scholar
  46. Klein H.G. (1969). Das Verhalten der telischen Verben in den romanischen Sprachen erörtert an der Interferens von Aspekt und Aktionsart. Dissertation, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  47. Kramer J. (1981). Die Ubernahme der deutschen und der niederländischen Konstruktion Verb + Verbzusatz durch die Nachbarsprachen. In W. Meid, & K. Heller (Eds.), Sprachkontakt als Ursache von Veränderungen der Sprach-und ewusstsseinsstruktur (pp. 129-140). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
  48. Kramer J. (1987). Tedeschismi e pseudo-tedeschismi nel ladino e altrove. Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica 6, 9-30Google Scholar
  49. Langacker R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol 1. Stanford, Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  50. LIP = De Mauro T., Mancini F., Vedovelli M., & Voghera M. (Eds.) (1993). Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milan: Etas Libri.Google Scholar
  51. Lindner S.J. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics ClubGoogle Scholar
  52. Lohse B., Hawkins J.A., Wasow T. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80(2): 238-261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lü deling A. (2001). On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  54. Lü dtke J. (1996). Gemeinromanische Tendenzen IV Wortbildungslehre. In: Holtus G. et al. (eds), Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik vol. 2(1). Tü bingen, Niemeyer, pp. 235-272Google Scholar
  55. Mair W.N. (1984). Transferenz oder autonome Bildung?. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 100, 408-432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Masini F. (2005). Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the case of Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18, 145-173Google Scholar
  57. Masini F. (to appear). Diacronia dei verbi sintagmatici in italiano. To appear in Archivio Glottologico Italiano.Google Scholar
  58. McIntyre A. (2001). German double particles as preverbs: morphology and conceptual semantics. Tü bingen, StauffenburgGoogle Scholar
  59. McIntyre A. (2002). Idiosyncrasy in Particle Verbs. In N. Dehé et al (Eds.), 95-118.Google Scholar
  60. McIntyre A. (2005). The semantic and syntactic decomposition of get. An interaction between verb meaning and particle placement. Journal of Semantics 22(4): 401-438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyer-Lü bke W. (1899). Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, IV Syntax. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  62. Müller S. (2002). Complex predicates: verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  63. Rohlfs G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Turin: Einaudi; revised version of Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihre Mundarten. Bern: Francke Verlag 1949-1954Google Scholar
  64. Rohlfs G. (1983). Romanische Lehnübersetzungen aus germanischer Grundlage: materia romana, spirito germanico. Mü nchen, Bayerischen Akademie der WissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
  65. Romagno D. (2003). Azionalità e transitività: il caso dei preverbi latini. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 88(2): 156-170Google Scholar
  66. Sasse H.-J. (2002). Recent Activity in the Theory of Aspect: Accomplishments, Achievements, or just Non-Progressive State?. Linguistic Typology 6, 199-271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schwarze, Ch. (1985). ”Uscire” e ”andare fuori”: struttura sintattica e semantica lessicale. In A. Franchi de Bellis, & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teorie e applicazioni descrittive (pp. 355-371). Atti del XXIV Congresso Internazionale della SLI. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
  68. Simone R. (1997). Esistono verbi sintagmatici in italiano?. In: De Mauro T., Lo Cascio V. (eds), Lessico e grammatica. Teorie linguistiche e applicazioni lessicografiche. Rome, Bulzoni, pp. 155-170Google Scholar
  69. Stiebels B. (1996). Lexikalische argumente und Adjunkte: zum semantischen Beitrag verbaler Präfixe und Partikeln. Studia Grammatica 39 Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Stiebels B., Wunderlich D. (1994). Morphology feeds syntax. Linguistics 32, 919-968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Talmy L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In: Shopen T. (eds), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume III Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-149Google Scholar
  72. Talmy L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: typology and process in concept structuring, Vol 2. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  73. Telmon T. (1993). Varietà regionali. In: Sobrero A.A. (eds), Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo. Rome-Bari, Laterza, pp. 93-149Google Scholar
  74. Toivonen I. (2003). Non-projecting words. A case study of Swedish particles. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  75. Traugott E.C. (1982). From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic- Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In: Lehmann W.P., Malkiel Y.(eds), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam, Benjamins, pp. 245-271Google Scholar
  76. Traugott E.C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In: Joseph B.D., Janda R.D. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 624-647Google Scholar
  77. Vendler Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Id (pp. 97-121). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Venier F. (1996). I verbi sintagmatici. In: Blumenthal P., Rovere G., Schwarze Ch. (eds), Lexikalische Analyse Romanischer Sprachen. Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 149-156Google Scholar
  79. Vicario F. (1995). Sul tipo a da afara., a veni înapoi: verbi con avverbio in rumeno. Revue de Linguistique Roumaine 40(4): 149-164Google Scholar
  80. Vicario F. (1997). I verbi analitici in friulano. Milan, Franco AngeliGoogle Scholar
  81. Vincent N. (1999). The Evolution of C-Structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics 37(6): 1111-1153Google Scholar
  82. Voghera M. (1994). Lessemi complessi: percorsi di lessicalizzazioni a confronto. Lingua e Stile 29, 185-214Google Scholar
  83. Wienold G., Schwarze Ch. (2002). The lexicalization of movement concepts in French, Italian, Japanese and Korean: Towards a realistic typology. Arbeitspapier 112, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e LetterariUniversità di Salerno (Italy), Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature StraniereFisciano (Salerno)Italy
  2. 2.Dipartimento di LinguisticaUniversità Roma Tre (Italy), Facoltà di Lettere e FilosofiaRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations