Abstract
This paper contributes to the study of inflected reduplicating adpositional particle constructions by investigating their behavior under ellipsis. It will be shown that just like any separable particle, inflected reduplicating adpositional particles can be severed from the rest of the clause via the phenomenon of particle stranding and this phenomenon has properties that bear on the analysis of these constructions. The novel observations in the domain of ellipsis are predicted by some but not all approaches to inflected adpositional particle constructions, particularly they motivate rethinking some aspects of the syntactic approaches currently available.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note also that it is not the case that all particle−verb combinations are fully convertible between the complex and the simplex strategy, e.g. nominal complements with a definite determiner sometimes fare poorly in the preverbal position (ib):
- 2.
Next to the H-class of inflecting particles, Surányi also designs a very similar analysis for inflecting U-class particles, in which the associate shows up in dative case, shown in (i). In this paper we put the U-class aside for reasons of space, yet many points to be made also carry over to U-particles as well.
- 3.
The LCA is a well-formedness condition defined on linearization statements (Chomsky 1995), which maps asymmetric c-command relations to linear structure. In the works cited here, multiple identical overt chain links are unlinearizable, as they provide conflicting linearization statements, as each copy both precedes and follows the other.
- 4.
Ellipsis bleeding verb movement has also been found in matrix sluicing in English: verb movement to C does not take place when the TP is elided. See for explanations Lasnik (1999), Merchant (2001), and for other constructions involving bleeding, van Craenenbroeck and Lipták (2008):
An alternative possibility to derive the lack of verb movement out of the ellipsis site in particle stranding would be to say that the verb does move to C as in non-elliptical clauses, and ellipsis deletes the C’ constituent. - 5.
The conclusion that ellipsis in particle stranding must take place before morphosyntactic reanalysis is compatible with various views on the timing of this ellipsis process. It would be compatible with the view that ellipsis happens in PF (Merchant 2001), necessarily before morphosyntactic reanalysis, or that ellipsis is implemented already in the syntactic component (Aelbrecht 2010; Baltin 2012). Alternatively, it is also compatible with the view that ellipsis blocks vocabulary insertion (Bartos 2001): if the verb does not receive an exponent via vocabulary insertion, morphosyntactic reanalysis between the particle and the verb cannot obtain.
- 6.
The simplified approach presented in (27) would nevertheless bring up the question why partial deletion is allowed to begin with. As Nunes (2004) states, partial deletion, operating with more steps of deletion than full copy deletion, is only allowed as a form of Chain Reduction if full copy deletion would violate additional requirements. Since full copy deletion is in principle allowed in derivations like (i), the account in (27) would have to state that partial deletion must be freely available as an option next to full copy deletion — possibly because the two strategies do not compete in this sense as they differ in subtle aspects of meaning or information structure.
- 7.
It is an interesting question in what precise way ellipsis interacts with the formation of the multiple copy chain and whether the step of morphosyntactic reanalysis is not missing due to the ellipsis process itself. As an anonymous reviewer remarks, if ellipsis applies before linearization in (26), it can potentially remove the postverbal copy in the same chain, thus saving the particle-copy from any linearization-related effect that can be detrimental to its surfacing overtly. If this is possible, multiple copy formation should be possible without morphosyntactic reanalysis taking place, and this would not interfere with the formation of the chain headed by the dislocated topic (which can be taken to head its own chain). I leave the viability of this approach for future research, noting only that under this scenario, it is not clear why ordinary particle-stranding, unaccompanied by topics, cf. (20–22), always features a partially deleted copy to begin with. If the lower copy is fully removed via ellipsis, the need for partial deletion disappears and we would expect a full copy in the preverbal slot, such as (i) in fn. 6.
- 8.
The precise definition of e-givenness is as follows:
-
(a)
A constituent α can be deleted only if α is e-given.
-
(b)
An expression E counts as e-given iff E has a salient antecedent A and, modulo ∃-type shifting, (i) A entails the F-closure of E and (ii) E entails the F(ocus)-closure of A.
-
(c)
The F-closure of α is the result of replacing F-marked parts of α with ∃-bound variables of the appropriate type (modulo ∃-type shifting).
-
(d)
∃-type shifting is a type-shifting operation that raises expressions to type < t > and existentially binds unfilled arguments.
-
(a)
- 9.
The opposite situation in which a simplex strategy antecedes a complex one is similarly ill-formed:
An alternative possibility to derive the lack of verb movement out of the ellipsis site in particle stranding would be to say that the verb does move to C as in non-elliptical clauses, and ellipsis deletes the C’ constituent.
References
Ackerman, Farrell, and Gert Webelhuth. 1993. The composition of (dis)continuous predicates: Lexical or syntactic? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44: 317–340.
Aelbrecht, Lobke. 2010. The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Baltin, Mark. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 381–423.
Bánréti, Zoltán. 2007. A mellérendelés és az ellipszis nyelvtana a magyarban [The grammar of coordination and ellipsis in Hungarian]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Bartos, Huba. 2001. Sound—form non-insertion and the direction of ellipsis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 48: 3–24.
Booij, Geert. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. In Advances in non-linear phonology, ed. Harry van der Hulst, and Norval Smith, 143–160. Dordrecht: Foris.
Brody, Mihaly. 2000. Word order, restructuring and Mirror Theory. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 27–43. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalism program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In Proceedings of BLS, eds. Rebecca T. Cover and Y. Kim, 73–91. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Anikó Lipták. 2008. On the interaction between verb movement and ellipsis: New evidence from Hungarian. In Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Charles, B.Y., and J.H. Hanna, 138–146. Someville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart Shieber, and Fernando Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 399–452.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3): 409–442.
Dékány, Éva. 2015. The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33 (4): 1121–1168.
Den Dikken, Marcel, and Balázs, Surányi. 2017. Contrasting contrastive left dislocation explications. Linguistic Inquiry 48:4, 543–589.
Fanselow, Gisbert, and Damir Cavar. 2002. Distributed deletion. In Theoretical approaches to universals, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, 65–107. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gécseg, Zsuzsa. 2001. A kontrasztív topik szintaxisáról és szemantikájáról. [About the syntax and semantics of contrastive topics.] Magyar Nyelv. XCVII/4: 283–293, 423–432.
Goldberg, Lotus. 2005. Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. PhD dissertation, McGill University.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale, and S. Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hegedűs, Veronika. 2014. A névutós kifejezések grammatikalizációja és belső szerkezeti változásai. In Magyar generatív történeti mondattan [Hungarian generative diachronic syntax] ed. É. Kiss, Katalin, 154–176. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Hegedűs, Veronika. 2016. Egyeztető igekötők a magyarban? A “kettőző” igekötők grammatikalizációja. Paper presented at the conference Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia. 22–23 November 2016, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Piliscsaba.
Hegedűs, Veronika and Éva Dékány. 2017. Two positions for verbal modifiers: Evidence from derived particle verbs. In Approaches to Hungarian 15. Papers from the 2015 Leiden conference, eds. Harry van der Hulst, and Anikó Lipták, 65–94. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kenesei, István. 1998. Adjuncts and arguments in VP focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 61–88.
Kenesei, István. 2000. Szavak, szófajok, toldalékok. [Words, word classes, affixes]. In Struktúrális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia [A Structural grammar of Hungarian 3. Morphology], ed. Ferenc Kiefer, 75–136. Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest.
Kenesei, István. 2008. Az ellipszis szabályai a szóösszetételekben [Rules for ellipsis in compounds]. In A morfológiától a pragmatikáig: Tanulmányok Pete István 80. Születésnapjára, ed. Károly Bibok, 63–77. Szeged: JATEPress.
Kiefer, Ferenc. 2000. A szóösszetétel [Compounding]. In Kiefer (ed), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3: Morfológia [A structural grammar of Hungarian 3. Morphology], ed. Ferenc Kiefer, 519–567. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.). 1994. Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Verbal prefixes or postpositions? Postpositional aspectualizers in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 6, ed. Casper de Groot, and István Kenesei, 123–148. Szeged: JATEPress.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2006. The function and the syntax of the verbal particle. In Event structure and the left periphery. Studies in Hungarian, ed. Kiss Katalin, É. 17–56. Dordrecht: Springer.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2008. Free word order, (non–)configurationality, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39 (3): 441–475.
Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Laczkó, Tibor, and György, Rákosi. 2011. On particularly predicative particles in Hungarian. In The proceedings of the LFG 11 Conference, eds. Miriam, Butt, and Tracy H. King, 299–319. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Laczkó, Tibor, and György, Rákosi. 2013. Remarks on a novel LFG approach to spatial particle verb constructions in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 13. Papers from the 2011 Lund conference, eds. Johan, Brandtler, Valéria, Molnár, Christer, Platzack, 149–178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9: 32–66.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working Minimalism, ed. Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 189–215. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Lipták, A. 2012. Verb-stranding ellipsis and verbal identity: The role of polarity focus. Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 82–96.
Marácz, László. 1986. Dressed or naked: The case of the PP in Hungarian. In Topic, Focus and Configurationality, ed. Abraham Werner, and Sjaak de Meij, 223–252. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McCloskey, James. 2005. On Goldberg. Workshop in Identity in Ellipsis. Paper presented at the University of California Berkeley.
McCloskey, James. 2010. The shape of Irish clauses. In Formal Approaches to Celtic Linguistics, ed. Andrew, Carnie, 143–178. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6): 661–738.
Molnár, Valéria. 1998. Topic in focus. On the syntax, phonology and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45 (1–2): 89–166.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Olsvay, Csaba. 2004. The Hungarian verbal complex: An alternative approach. In Verb clusters, eds. É. Kiss, Katalin, and Henk, van Riemsdijk, 291–333. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ott, Dennis. 2014. An ellipsis approach to contrastive left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 269–303.
Rákosi, György. 2014. A case of disagreement: On plural reduplicating particles in Hungarian. In The evidential basis of linguistic argumentation, ed. András Kertész, and Csilla Rákosi, 179–189. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rákosi, György and Laczkó Tibor. 2011. Inflecting spatial particles and shadows of the past in Hungarian. In The proceedings of the LFG 11 Conference, ed. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 440–460. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Schoorlemmer, Eric and Tanja Temmerman. 2012. Head movement as a PF-phenomenon. Evidence from identity under ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 29th west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Jaehoon, Choi et al., 232–240. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Surányi, Balázs. 2009a. Adpositional preverbs, chain reduction and phases. In Approaches to Hungarian 11, ed. Marcel den Dikken, and Robert Vago, 217–250. Amterdam: John Benjamins.
Surányi, Balázs. 2009b. Verbal particles in an outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56 (2–3): 201–249.
Surányi, Balázs. 2009c. “Incorporated” locative adverbials in Hungarian. In Adverbs and Adverbial Adjuncts at the Interfaces, ed. É. Kiss, Katalin, 39–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Acknowledgements
I thank Lisa Cheng, Güliz Güneş and Andrés Saab for discussions on the material presented in this paper, two anonymous reviewers for excellent comments and to István Kenesei for calling my attention to many identity mismatches in particle stranding in 2011. This research was supported by NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) via the Vrije Competitie grant Ellipsis licensing beyond syntax. All errors and shortcomings are mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lipták, A. (2018). Dissecting Adpositional Particle Constructions: Remarks from Ellipsis. In: Bartos, H., den Dikken, M., Bánréti, Z., Váradi, T. (eds) Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 94. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90709-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90710-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)