Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:22:07.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetrical Intercalation in Germanic Complex Verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2020

Thomas Berg
Thomas Berg*
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
*
Department of English, University of Hamburg, Überseering 35, 22297 Hamburg, Germany [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A shared feature of the Germanic languages is the occurrence of complex verbs consisting of the verb itself and what I refer to as the adverbal unit (AU). I examine the nature of the units that can be inserted into such complex verbs and compare intercalation patterns in AU-Vs and V-AUs. AU-Vs are found to be much more resistant to intercalation than V-AUs. The former accommodate the past participle marker, the infinitival linker, and—less commonly—verbs, whereas the latter accommodate NPs, ADVPs, and—less commonly—both phrase types concurrently. Thus, V-AUs may be split by more syntactic as well as heavier material than AU-Vs. I argue that this difference in cohesiveness is due to varying degrees of coactivation of Vs and AUs. The constituents of AU-Vs show a higher degree of coactivation than those of V-AUs. Adverbal units depend for their activation on the prior activation of verbs more than verbs depend for their activation on the prior activation of adverbal units. These different activation patterns lead to different degrees of cohesiveness and hence to different intercalation possibilities in the two verb types. Although intercalation is compulsory in some contexts, it proves to be a dispreferred option.*

Keywords

phrasal verbscohesivenessmorpheme ordercoactivationintercalation
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 107 - 144
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Papers like this one crucially rely on the advice of native speakers, linguists, and language teachers. Being given so patiently of their advice is a rewarding and gratifying experience. The following advisors deserve special mention: Glenda Goldschmidt-Lechner (Afrikaans), Willem Visser (West Frisian), Jarich Hoekstra (North Frisian), Höskuldur Thráinsson (Icelandic), Jógvan i Lon Jacobsen (Faroese), Hans-Olaf Enger (Norwegian), Anne-Lena Jansåker (Swedish), Merle Dickau (Danish) as well as Kurt Braunmüller, who was always up to providing answers to my persistent questions about Scandinavian. The Norwegian analysis would probably not have materialized if it had not been for Maximilian Thurm’s unfailing assistance. The paper has greatly profited from the constructive criticism I received from Jarich Hoekstra, Winfried Boeder, and the anonymous JGL reviewers. My heartfelt thanks to all.

References

Aa, Leiv Inge. 2015. The grammar of verb-particle constructions in spoken Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. 1985. Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8. 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1998. The (in)compatibility of morpheme orders and lexical categories and its historical implications. English Language and Linguistics 2. 245–262.10.1017/S1360674300000873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2018a. Towards an explanation of the syntax of West Germanic particle verbs: A cognitive-pragmatic view. Cognitive Linguistics 29. 703–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2018b. Frequency and serial order. Linguistics 56. 1303–1351.10.1515/ling-2018-0023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besten, Hans den, & Corretje, Moed-van Walraven. 1986. The syntax of verbs in Yiddish. Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages, ed. by Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn, 111–135. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt, & Höder, Steffen. 2012. The history of complex verbs in Scandinavian languages revisited: Only influence due to contact with Low German? Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages - 25 years of research, ed. by Lennart Elmevik & Ernst Håkon Jahr, 151–169. Uppsala: Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi CXXI.Google Scholar
Chen, Ping. 1986. Discourse and particle movement in English. Studies in Language 10. 79–95.10.1075/sl.10.1.05cheCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004333840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1973. The origins of the Germanic phrasal verb. Indogermanische Forschungen 77. 73–96.10.1515/if-1972-0104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2001. Transitive particle verbs in English: The neutral order. Evidence from speech production. Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, ed. by Nicole Dehé & Anja Wanner, 165–189. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2015. Particle verbs in Germanic. Word-Formation: an International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 1, ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, & Franz Rainer, 611–626. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 2001. English phrasal verbs: Theory and didactic application. Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy, ed. by Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, & René Dirven, 3–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E., & Faarlund, Jan T.. 2014. English: The language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. English verb-preposition constructions: Constituency and order. Language 81. 96–137.10.1353/lan.2005.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle, & Gibson, Edward. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112. 10336–10341.10.1073/pnas.1502134112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich. 2006. ‘Versandete Präpositionen’ (P-Wrap) und die Struktur der Partikelphrase im Nordfriesischen. Us Wurk 55. 1–47.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, & Los, Bettelou. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. Yearbook of morphology, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 79–117. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne. 2014. English coordinate constructions. A processing perspective on constituent order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohse, Barbara, Hawkins, John A., & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80. 238–261.10.1353/lan.2004.0089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, Tom, & Holmes, Philip. 2010. Danish. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile, Cowart, Wayne, & Garrett, Merrill F.. 2015. The role of the language production system in shaping grammars. Language 91. 415–441.10.1353/lan.2015.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2002. What happened to English? Diachronica 19. 217–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, & Weerman, Fred. 1993. The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 433–475.10.1007/BF00993166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, & Taylor, Ann. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. The handbook of the history of English, ed. by Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los, 249–278. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470757048.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81. 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28. 673–710.10.1515/cog-2016-0051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. 1985. The lexicon in a model of language production. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara, & Wunderlich, Dieter. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32. 913–968.10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thróinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., í Lon Jacobsen, Jógvan, & Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fró∂skaparfelag.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter M. 1999. Frisian reference grammar. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1954. Grammar of the Gothic language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar