Abstract
Aspectual properties of English particles still lack a satisfactory account, as neither the standard (Brinton 1985, Verb particles in English: Aspect or aktionsart? Studia Linguistica 39(2). 157–168. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.1985.tb00750.x (accessed 30 January 2015)) nor a more recent (Cappelle and Chauvin 2010, Interprétations aspectuelles des verbes à particule en anglais: Téliques, comparatifs, résultatifs. In Pascale Hadermann, Olga Inkova, Michel Pierrard & Dan Van Raemdonck (eds.), Approches de la scalarité, 249–281. Geneve: Droz) account can be generalized over all aspectual particles. By analyzing aspect in terms of scalarity this paper argues that particles are either scalar or non-scalar, which leads to their different aspectual and syntactic behavior. Scalar particles are marked for scalarity; they can affect the argument structure of the verb root and enforce telicity. In contrast, non-scalar particles are unmarked for scalarity; they do not affect the argument structure and do not enforce telicity. Both scalar and non-scalar particles systematically appear in atelic and telic sentences, depending on the verb root and its arguments. Scalarity, like telicity, is a feature built compositionally and monotonically.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper was carried out during my stay at the University of Groningen. I would like to thank Angeliek van Hout, Jack Hoeksema, two anonymous reviewers of this journal and three anonymous reviewers of another journal for their comments and suggestions on previous versions of this paper. All remaining errors are mine.
References
Beavers, John. 2008a. Multiple incremental themes and Figure/Path relations. In Tova Friedman & Satoshi Ito (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT), 18, 90–107. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/18.90 (accessed 30 January 2015).10.3765/salt.v18i0.2495Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008b. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow & Martin Schäfer (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110925449.245Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 51(4). 681–706. doi:10.1515/ling-2013-0024 (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Bikicki, Nataša & Jelena Jerković. 2011. The perception of telicity in transparent phrasal verbs. In Ivana Ɖurić Paunović & Maja Marković (eds.), English language and Anglophone literatures today, 18–30. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu.Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events: Structuring sense, vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1985. Verb particles in English: Aspect or aktionsart? Studia Linguistica 39(2). 157–168. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.1985.tb00750.x (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2005. Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Leuven: Catholic University Leuven dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert & Catherine Chauvin. 2010. Interprétations aspectuelles des verbes à particule en anglais: Téliques, comparatifs, résultatifs. In Pascale Hadermann, Olga Inkova, Michel Pierrard & Dan Van Raemdonck (eds.), Approches de la scalarité, 249–281. Geneve: Droz.Search in Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. 2nd edn. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriette. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347–385. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047954 (accessed 17 March 2015).10.1023/A:1005916004600Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In Carol Tenny & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as grammatical objects, from the combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, 3–60. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1). 55–101.Search in Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and maximalization: The case of telicity and perfectivity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 217–256. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/la.110 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Giddings, Catherine. 2001. What it means to be DOWN and OUT: The semantics of particles in English. In Michalis Georgiafentis, Paul Kerswill & Spyridoula Varlokosta (eds.), Reading working papers in linguistics, 5, 155–173. Reading: University of Reading. http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/appling/workingpapers/giddings.pdf (accessed 30 January 2015).10.17154/kjal.2014.06.30.2.155Search in Google Scholar
Glođović, Anica. 2013. Aspectual and/or aktionsart function of adverbial particles in English phrasal verbs. Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature 11. 119–131.Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT), 9, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/9.127 (accessed 30 January 2015).10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2). 305–354. doi:10.1007/BF00133686 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twisting the night away. Language 73(3). 534–559.10.2307/415883Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.), Verb-particle explorations, 67–94. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110902341.67 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Jeschull, Liane. 2003. What particle verbs have to do with grammatical aspect in early child English. In Dagmar Bittner & Natalia Gagarina (eds.), Acquisition of aspect (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 29), 119–131. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. http://www.zas.gwzberlin.de/fileadmin/material/ZASPiL_Volltexte/zp29/zaspil29-jeschull.pdf (accessed 30 January 2015).10.21248/zaspil.29.2003.172Search in Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Thomas Roeper. 1992. Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23(1). 89–125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178758 (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2010. Lexicalized scales and verbs of scalar change. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), University of Chicago, 8–10 April. http://www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/cls10change.pdf (accessed 10 January 2013).Search in Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2001. Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German: Event modification and secondary predication. In Nicole Dehé & Anja Wanner (eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, 131–164. Berlin: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of mophology 2003, 119–144. Kluwer: Dordrecht. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells. Linguistics 42(3). 523–571. doi:10.1515/ling.2004.018 (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, Mari Broman. 1994. The semantics and pragmatics of lexical aspect features. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24(2). 361–377.Search in Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2001. Aktionsart, l-syntax and selection. Paper presented at Perspectives on Aspect conference, Utrecht University, 12–14 December. http://www.let.uu.nl/~Henk.Verkuyl/personal/poa/ramchand.pdf (accessed May 25 2012).Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 13–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/la.110 (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002 (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9780470759127Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2006. Telicity at the dinner table: Do I have to eat it all? In Hans-Martin Gärtner, Sigrid Beck, Regine Eckardt, Renate Musan & Barbara Stiebels (eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka: A web festschrift for Manfred Krifka. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6Search in Google Scholar
Smollett, Rebecca. 2005. Quantized direct objects don’t delimit after all. In Henk J. Verkuyl, Henriëtte de Swart & Angeliek van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on Aspect, 41–59. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3232-3 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Thim, Stefan. 2012. Phrasal verbs: The English verb-particle construction and its history. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110257038Search in Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event semantics of verb frame alternations. A case study of Dutch and its acquisition. New York & London: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek. 1998. On the role of direct objects and particles in learning telicity in Dutch and English. In Annabel Greenhill, Mary Hughes, Heather Littlefield & Hugh Walsh (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Boston University conference on language development (BUCLD) 22(2): 397–408. Boston, MA: Boston University.Search in Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek. 2000. Projection based on event structure. In Peter Coopmans, Martin B. H. Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 397–422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/ (accessed 30 January 2015).Search in Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopolou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 60–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0003 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Walková, Milada. 2013. The aspectual function of particles in phrasal verbs. Groningen: University of Groningen & Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.001.0001 (accessed 30 January).Search in Google Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro. 1998. Aspect shift. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 349–370. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4 (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
