McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics
result event can be expressed in a VP with a single verb stem and some type of overt result Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics: Germanic Prefixes and Particles predicate. The causing event is represented by the agent and the verb stem, while the result event is represented by other material in the VP. ANDREW MCINTYRE (5) a. Particle verbs (some): Dave scratched a sticker off 1. INTRODUCTION DO (DAVE ,SCRATCH ) &CAUSE GO (STICKER , OFF [Thing ]) b. Resultative constructions: Dave ate himself sick This study discusses the semantic and argument-structural behaviour of Germanic preverbs DO (DAVE ,EAT ) &CAUSE BECOME (SICK (DAVE )) (understood as a cover term for verb particles and prefixes). It is based on detailed research on most German and English particles, and prefixes such as re-, out-, over- and pre-. My goal is In the above semantic representations, &CAUSE indicates that the event on the left causes the to cover the most important phenomena which form the basis for a theory of the argument- one on its right. (Other notations might use CAUSE here.) Various authors note that the causal structural effects of Germanic preverbs, concentrating on little-known data where possible. relationship is not the only relationship which can subsist between events. Rappaport Hovav Among others, we discuss the following phenomena. (1) illustrates the phenomenon of and Levin (2001) and McIntyre (2002b) argue that the subevents in unaccusative resultative unselected objects, i.e. objects of complex verbs which do not correspond to the selection structures such as walk into the house and break open are conceptualised as being exactly the restrictions of the simplex verb. The ability of preverbs to license unselected objects is well same event rather than as two causally related events. These structures are not discussed in known, but the interaction between preverbs and objects has various other, less well known this study because the behaviour of preverbs in such contexts is quite straightforward. manifestations. (2) gives examples where particles allow linking of either the theme or the The ability of a VP with a single verb stem to express two causally related events as a reference object of the prepositional relation expressed by the particle, even if one or both of productive option (possible e.g. in Germanic languages but not in e.g. Romance) is variously the possible objects is not selected by the verb. (3) shows some cases where an obligatorilly known as lexical subordination (Levin and Rapoport 1988, Spencer and Zaretskaya 1998a,b), transitive verb becomes optionally transitive in the presence of a particle. (4) gives examples template augmentation (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998), lexical adjunction (Wunderlich where preverbs disallow the objects selected by the verb. 1997a), event composition (Pustejovsky 1991) and conflation (Talmy 1985). I will use Talmy's term here. Most of these authors assume that conflation is the result of a productive (1) work off a debt (cf. *work a debt), vote governments out, think out a plan, dream up a lexical (semantic) operation over a verb. Others (McIntyre 2002b, Mateu 2001) argue that the solution, chat someone up, rework an essay, outstay one's welcome, counteract an (im)possibility of conflation in a given language results from certain (morpho)syntactic order properties of the language. The discussion here is independent of this issue. (2) pour out {the bucket/the water} (cf. *pour the bucket); fill in {the form/the Another important property of &CAUSE structures is that secondary predicates information} introduced by the GO or BECOME conjuncts end up either within the verbal complement (3) lock up (the house) vs. lock *(the house); roll/light up (a cigarette) vs. roll/light *(a domain or (with prefixes and arguably particles) as morphological sisters to the verb. Some cigarette) linguists are reluctant to assume that all particles appear in the verbal complement position, (4) a. read (*articles) on, sing (*a song) along, type away *(at) the essay the rationale being apparently that many such elements (e.g. 'aspectual' particles, which are b. overpurchase (*jewelry), oversmoke (*cigarettes), overeat (*cakes) treated as result predicates in section 3) are not subcategorised by the verb. Such reasoning underlies Jackendoff's 2002 belief that aspectual particles are not arguments and Lüdeling's I keep the study reasonably theory-neutral, in the hope that it will be serviceable as an 2001 claim (argued against in McIntyre 2001c) that German aspectual particles with an introduction to an area of grammar which has, I fear, given rise to a number of 'adverbial' meaning are adjoined to V'. Lüdeling and Jackendoff fail to consider the possibility misconceptions. Our investigation of the semantic and argument-structural effects of preverbs that the particle, while not selected by the verb's entry in the permanent lexicon, becomes an will proceed as follows. Section 2 gives some basic information about the argument structure argument of the verb once it has undergone conflation. of conflation (resultative) structures which will be needed in the rest of the study. Section 3 To my knowledge, the following descriptive observations hold of all cases involving discusses complex verbs which are a subspecies of the transitive resultative construction. The conflation with & cause : resultative analysis is shown to be applicable in many cases where intuition at first speaks against such an analysis, notably so-called 'aspectual' preverbs. Section 4 discusses scope- (6) If a causing event e1 and a resulting situation e2 are combined in a structure involving bearing prefixes. I argue that these are constrained to have minimal scope, a phenomenon a single verb stem with the semantic respresentation [e1 &CAUSE e2], then: which surprisingly turns out to be the explanation for hitherto unstudied cases like (4b) where, a. e1 contributes the verb stem and its external (usually: agent) argument. No other for many English speakers, over-prefixation seems to 'block' a verb's direct objects. Section 5 arguments of a predicate in e1 may be linked unless they are also arguments of a notes some conclusions which can be drawn from the generalisations discussed in the earlier predicate in e2 . sections, and some problems needing further attention. b. e2 may be overtly represented by the remaining material in the VP, i.e. direct objects, resultative AP's ( they trampled the grass flat ), directional PP's ( the police 2. CONFLATION AND ARGUMENT LINKING wrestled the criminal to the floor ), prefixes ( offload the goods ), particles ( pull off the sticker ). To understand the semantic representations in the following sections, it is necessary to discuss the semantics of VP's which express more than one potentially freestanding event. It is well These observations are in concert with the widely assumed Direct Object Restriction (DOR) known that Germanic languages allow constructions like (5), in which a causing event and a which says that resultative predication can only apply to underlying direct objects (Carrierand
1 2 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics
Randall 1992, Haider 1997, Hoekstra 1988, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Li 1999, insist on morphological unity with the verb. The fact that he is under the table and he is out Simpson 1983, Winkler 1994; critically assessed in Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2001 and cannot mean 'he has been outdone' does not show that the resultative analysis is wrong. It just
McIntyre 2002b). Result predicates and preverbs involved in &CAUSE structures may predicate shows that the relevant readings of out- and under the table are 'construction-specific' in that over a direct object, regardless of whether it happens to be one selected by the verb when no they have stipulations in their lexical entries to the effect that they are only licensed in a result predicate is present. (7) shows both possibilities. The object in (b), but not in (a), might particular construction (in the pretheoretic sense of the term), namely the resultative be seen as an argument of eat . However, in both cases, the object is part of the subevent construction (for under the table ) and as morphological nonhead of a complex verb (for out-). which introduces the particle. What we do not find are structures like those in (c) where the McIntyre (2002a) gives more evidence for the need to assume construction-specific senses of verb provides a direct object not licensed by the secondary predicate. lexical items. The result expressed by the particles in (9a,b) is a decremental effect on the direct (7) a. Basil ate the cupboard empty object (Stiebels (1996: 133-143) treats some similar German preverbs). These can be
DO (BASIL ,EAT ) &CAUSE BECOME (EMPTY (CUPBOARD )) represented as in (c), or, in a localistic analysis which tries to capture the unity of the senses
b. Basil ate the food up DO (BASIL , EAT ) &CAUSE BECOME (NOT (EXIST (FOOD )) of the particles, as in (d). c. *Basil ate the cupboard the food empty. *Basil ate the food empty. (9) a. I slept/danced/read the afternoon away Of course, (6), while uncontroversial, is purely descriptive. However, offering an explanation b. I slept off a hangover, I worked off a debt, I exercised off excess weight for it would take us far away from the topic of preverbs. McIntyre (2002b) and Wunderlich c. sleep off/away DO (X,SLEEP ) &CAUSE BECOME (NONEXIST (Y))
(1997a,b) are two very different theories aiming to account for these generalisations. d. sleep off/away DO (X,SLEEP ) &CAUSE GO (Y, FROM DEICTIC _CENTRE )) e. [ VP V NP away] 'waste time V-ing' (Jackendoff 1997: 555) 3. RESULTATIVE PREVERBS 3.1. Resultative analyses of apparently non-resultative preverbs With the 'time'-away construction in (9a), the causative analysis claims that a similar conceptualisation is at work to that seen in in order to pass the time, I slept/drank . It also Perhaps the majority of preverbs are able to be analysed as mapping onto a predicate in a claims that the passage of time can be conceptualised in the same way as the using up of some result conjunct introduced by &CAUSE in a conflation structure. They thus have the same substance, which is independently attested by parallels like I have no {time/food} left and I function as normal resultative predicates. I wish to present some data to illustrate the ran out of {time/food} . Jackendoff's (1997) study of the 'time'-away construction does not widespread applicability of a resultative analysis for preverbs. I concentrate on cases where describe away as part of a predication over the time phrase appearing as object. He stipulates the resultative analysis might seem counterintuitive at first sight, to show what the resultative that away is part of an idiomatic lexical item, as in (9e), unimpressed by the fact that the analysis does when pushed to its limits. Other studies stressing the resultative character of argument selection features of the construction are the same as those seen in resultatives. He preverbs are Stiebels (1996, esp. section 7.3) and Spencer and Zaretskaya (1998a,b). argues against a resultative analysis like mine (p. 549ff). For instance, he claims that the In out-prefixed verbs of the type in (8a), out V y means 'V better/more than y, surpass with object in normal resultatives is a patient, his diagnostic of which is the do to test, which is respect to V'. As in resultatives, we find direct objects which are obligatory and unselected. I inapplicable with away : *What I did to Monday was sleep it away . But this is not a good express out 's contribution as a monadic function OUTDONE , cf. (8b). OUTDONE introduces a diagnostic for resultative semantics: *what I did to myself was laugh myself silly, *what I did new subevent into the semantic representation involving an entity which is asserted to be to the remark was edit it into the text, *what he did to air was breathe it into the bag, *what outdone, whether or not this entity happens to correspond to the verb's normal object selection he did to the drug reference was read it into the Beatles song . requirements. Jackendoff also claims that the 'time'-away construction requires a volitional subject while uncontroversially resultative uses of away do not: the wind blew {the papers/*the night} (8) a. outcompete, outdance, outfight, outguess, outrun, outthink, outvote away . I see this fact as an argument for my analysis. The resultative analysis assumes that we
b. Fred outdrank Stan DO (FRED ,DRINK ) &CAUSE OUTDONE (STAN ) can conceptualise time as being a resource which can be depleted because its possessor engages in some activity, a conceptualisation independently attested in watching TV used The resultative character of these out-verbs becomes clear if we compare (8b) (an unselected up/wasted up my time; I had no time yesterday because I was working . But inanimate entities object construction: *Fred drank Stan ) with the metaphoric resultative Fred drank Stan under cannot be conceptualised as having time at their disposal (cf. how does grandma spend her the table , which exploits the idea that Fred's drinking causes drinking competitor Stan to time? vs. *how does the wind spend its time? ). It is thus logically impossible for inanimates to become so paralytic that he passes out, falling under the table. The PP under the table has deplete their time by performing some activity. Jackendoff is content with stipulating the recently undergone semantic bleaching, the result of which is a meaning similar to out-. This volitionality requirement, while a resultative analysis can explain it. allows it to combine with verbs other than drink . Examples I encountered are Page would One also finds numerous obscure instances of resultative particles which combine with a play today's guitar heros under the table and I could have mixed that dj under the table limited set of verbs. For instance, the source argument expressed by off can be an abstract (mixing is an activity performed by discjockeys); more combinations (with e.g. talk, smoke, possessive domain ( sell/auction/hive/flog off ). Another example (cf. Lindner 1983: 80-87, sleep ) can be found in an internet search under www.google.com targeting "anyone under the 125-138) is furnished by some verbs with up and out where the result could be called table"). Thus, the argument structure and semantics of out-prefixations and under the table 'cognitive availability' ( search/seek/point/pick someone out, find/work/tease out the answer, resultatives are basically the same, the major difference, irrelevant to our concerns, being that look up an address, dream/think up an idea, summon/call up a memory, play up an issue, the way in which out - developed its present meaning is not synchronically discernible. bring out/up the main issue ). This class is, like many preverb uses, idiosyncratically Otherwise, the two result predicates differ merely in the fact that one of them happens to restricted. However, the basic resultative structure is still detectable, the hallmarks of
3 4 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics resultativity being unselected objects and an accomplishment structure ( seek somone {for/*in} The argument linking properties of 'completive' complex verbs are the same as those of 10 mins vs. seek someone out {in/*for} 10 minutes ). resultative constructions. In both cases, intransitive verbs can become transitive ( chat people In the verbs in (10), German ein (basic meaning: 'in') indicates that the direct object up, talk people senseless ). This happens because the preverbs or result APs/PPs are licensed (sometimes a reflexive coindexed with the subject) enters into a state of readiness for the by the addition of a new subevent via conflation. This extra predication always contains an activity expressed by the verb. The object is often not selected by the simplex. Traditional entity appearing as direct object. 'Completive' preverbs deserve no special theoretical status. sources saw ein as an inchoative marker, analysing cases like sich einspielen as 'begin Rather, they express information about the culmination of an event by indicating the way in playing'. This analysis makes no sense of the fact that the argument structure of the particle which the event affects an entity. This explains the overwhelming tendency of completive verbs exactly parallels that seen in normal resultative constructions (compare sich einspielen preverbs to transitivity, which tendency is also evident in resultatives. There do not seem to 'refl. in-play' with sich warm spielen 'refl. warm play', both of which mean 'get warmed up (in be completive preverbs that telicise an activity expression by making it mean 'finish Ving'. sport)'). For more on these ein-verbs, see Lindemann 1998: 125-132. Rather, they instantiate a schema [ BECOME (
(11) Gwen ate the cakes up/ Gwen ate the cakes [Event DO (DOG ,CHEW )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (SOGGY (PAPER ))]
[Event DO (GWEN ,EAT )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (NONEXIST (CAKES ))] One could perhaps describe the unity of completive up uses by underspecifying the predicate Type 2: the preverb contributes a result predication not present in the simplex verb. One in the scope of BECOME in the lexical entry, allowing an inference based on the verb meaning subclass introduces unselected objects (cf. (12)), while the other class does not affect the to supply the appropriate predicate. This may or may not be the right course. Giving up this transitivity of the simplex (cf. (13)). The latter class imposes an incremental theme reading general a meaning would generate many non-existent combinations without further upon the object which is not necessarily present in the simplex ( I used the resources {for/in} 3 mechanisms, but it could be argued that up is semiproductive and/or that its productivity is days vs. I used up the resources {in/*for} 3 days . confined to certain tokens and classes of simplex verbs (McIntyre 2002a). If we do give completive up an underspecified meaning like [ BECOME (
[Event DO (FRED ,CHAT )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (READY (MARY ))] resultative. (13) Cecil used up the resources Moving on from up , consider some uses of German ver- and er-, seen in traditional [Event DO (CECIL ,< ACTIVITY >) [BY _MEANS _OF (RESOURCES )]] & treatments as instances of 'completive' or 'intensifying' prefixes. Partly drawing on Stiebels [Event BECOME (NONEXIST (RESOURCES ))] (1996), we can see that these are also resultative predicates. ver- for instance has a productive decremental reading, parallel to up in (15a) and away in (9a): vertelefonieren/-feiern 'use up (money, time) by telephoning/celebrating', verbrauchen 'use up'. 2 In a second use (Stiebels
5 6 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics
1996: 151-155), ver- specifies a result state describable as TOGETHER ( verlöten 'solder Type Subject Object Examples together', vermixen 'mix together', verkoppeln 'couple'). Some vague category 'telicity marker' A1 Agent Theme I pumped the water out, I offloaded the books does no more justice to the meaning of ver- than it would to that of the English gloss together . A2 Theme I ran in, I walked off B1 Agent Reference The doctor pumped his stomach out. One meaning of er- is 'to death/dead' ( erhängen/-schlagen/-drücken 'kill by Object She ran him through (with a sword). hanging/hitting/pressing'). Simply calling er- a perfective marker cannot explain the contrast I filled the hole in (with cement) between ermorden 'murder' (obligatorily transitive) and the simplex verb morden 'commit I overlaid/inlaid the table with gold murder' (intransitive with an implicit generic object, unless extreme inhumanity is connoted). I underscored the word It makes no sense to intensify or perfectivise morden . The resultative analysis can capture I struck the word through B2 Theme Reference The river overflowed its banks ermorden by assuming that er- is the overt manifestation of a semantically redundant result Object I overstepped the line predication which is added to circumvent the problem that the simplex verb normally B3 Reference The pot overflowed, boiled over. (pot metonymically represents its 3 disallows the linking of a patient. Object upper rim) The idea that preverbs primarily contribute telicity is probably connected to the idea that The pen ran out (of ink) (applicable if conceptually like 'the ink ran out Germanic prefixes and particles always yield telic VP's. Advocates of this are e.g. Dehé of the pen') (2000), Tenny (1994, section 2.2.2), KeyserandRoeper (1992: 113); the latter authors write Der Tank sickerte/lief aus "the tank leaked/ran out", 'the tank leaked/emptied' (auxilliary: 'be') 'Like all particles, up appears to require a delimited interpretation.') This myth is refuted by Table 1: Themes and reference objects in complex verbs examples like the following, where the in -time test is passed without any event iteration effects: The main distinction is between types A (reference object not linked) and B (reference object linked). The research has largely ignored Type B, but the examples given in the table are a (16) Grandma held down the wrestler for an hour; They kept out the enemy for a day; She small subset of those I have found. Wunderlich 1983 noted that German has a regular (but, I slagged off her husband for 10 minutes; I scrubbed down the table for 10 minutes; add, not exceptionless) pattern whereby prefix verbs fit into type B and particle verbs into They beat him up for five minutes; He stared down his opponent for a minute; Fran type A; (18a,b) gives a typical minimal pair. chatted up Stan for ten minutes (18) a. er durchfuhr den Park b. er fuhr durch c. er fuhr durch den Park Summarising the main points from this section, I emphasise that there are many more he through-drove the park he drove through he drove through the park resultative preverbs than a superficial examination would suggest. So-called 'completive' preverbs often turn out to be subinstances of the resultative construction, sometimes with McIntyre 2001b, Zeller 2001b and Svenonius 1996 seem to be the only modern studies on underspecified result states. These result states may or may not be overt spellouts of a result particle verbs which have noted type B. Svenonius sees type B particles as unaccusative component already present in a transitive verb's meaning. elements. This makes sense if one assumes a syntactic derivation of particle verbs where the direct argument originates within a small clause or some other projection which includes the 3.2. Theme and reference object in prepositional preverbs particle and not the verb. Other writers miss the basic semantic properties of the prepositional relations. For instance, den Dikken 1995: 54f assumes that all particles are unaccusative The above description of transitive complex verbs needs to be augmented by some (ergative) prepositions. This would mean that the theme in (17b) originates in the complement observations on the types of arguments contributed by prepositional preverbs. We note that a position of the prepositional element, although in (17a) this position is reserved for the prepositional element often expresses a relation between two entities, a theme (also called a reference object. This does not sit easily with den Dikken's adherence to the Uniformity of trajector, figure or locatum) and a reference object (landmark, ground), where the latter is Theta Assignment Hypothesis (p. 19ff). used in specifying the location of the former, cf. (17a). Normally, particle verbs leave their Various writers analysing the semantics of complex verbs have failed to take the reference object implicit: interpreting (17b) involves supplying a reference object with existence of Type B structures into account. Stiebels' 1996 otherwise authorative account of contextual help (McIntyre 2001b: 275-279 gives details and references). Here the overall complex verb semantics does not discuss the possibility that the formalisation of the German semantic structure is resultative: the verbal actitivity leads to a change of position of the direct pattern equivalent to (17c) should be related to that of (17b). She (p. 159) analyses (17c) using object, a theme. However, (17c) gives a third possibility: the reference object of the particle is a result predication BECOME (CLEAR (y)). Note that a number of particle uses show a similar linked at the expense of the theme 4, a phenomenon which most researchers fail to note. Table 'alternation' where either the theme or the reference object is linked, cf (19). McIntyre (2001b: 1 gives a list of the possibilities of (non-)linking of themes and reference objects in complex 275-279) gives many German examples; the pattern is less well attested in English. verbs. (19) pour out {the bucket/the water}; fill in {the form/the information}; strip off {a (17) a. I wiped [the dust] Theme off [the table] Reference Object person/their clothes} b. I wiped [the dust] Theme off c. I wiped [the table] Reference object off Cases where the reference object is linked often show a 'holistic' effect. Thus, pour out the bucket means not just that something gets poured out of the bucket, but that the bucket is emptied completely. Anderson 1971 noted various cases where the realisation of an entity as direct object gives it a holistic reading. I am not aware of a satisfactory explanation for this effect, but refer to Tenny (1994: 49ff) and Brinkman (1997) and their references for some
7 8 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics proposals. Type B preverbs might again tempt one to posit a 'completive' or 'telic' meaning for Risch (1995) used the term 'scalar' for the German equivalents of over/under and out which the particle, but the data known to me suggest that this is epiphenomenal of the holistic effect. include meaning elements related to those in comparative structures. The relevant uses are The use of through in examples like (20) (called an 'aspectual particle' by Jackendoff 2002) seen in I over-/undercooked the food 'cooked it to a degree greater/less than is good'. Scalar can be given the semantic analysis in (20). The simplex verbs are 'path accomplishments' uses of prefixes are to be distinguished from the uses like overlay x with y, overstep the line, (Wechsler 1989) or 'performative verbs' (Jackendoff 1996: 332f), verbs whose object does not overrun a country , where direct objects are the conceptual reference object of the prefixal undergo change, but acts like an incremental theme because the event progressively relates to preposition (sometimes with a metaphoric interpretation). We look at over- in the scalar different parts of it. This can be conceptualised as a progression through the object. The sense, where it integrates a modifier into the semantic representation for an event. Here are particle expresses this overtly. That it suggests a completive reading can be derived from the sample representations for verbs showing two main instantiations of scalar over-, a degree holistic effect. Note also that we find transitivisations ( think the issue through/*think the interpretation and a frequency interpretation: issue ), where the verb meaning is enriched by a new subevent housing the particle and object. (24) Mavis overtightened the bolt (=made it too tight/overtight)
(20) a. think the matter through, work the problem through, sing the song through [Event DO (MAVIS )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (OVER (TIGHT (BOLT )))] b. Vladimir played the sonata through, (25) Dave overwashes his clothes (=washes them so frequently or intensively that they are [Event DO (VLADIMIR ,PLAY )] i & [Event GO ([ EVENT ]i ,( THROUGH (SONATA ))] damaged) 6 [Event DO (DAVE , WASH )] &CAUSE [Event OVER (AFFECT (EVENT , CLOTHES ))] A complete account of Type B complex verbs, including the 'aspectual' through verbs, would involve discussion e.g. of the factors licensing the holistic effect and the suppression of the The contribution of over is left undecomposed because further decomposition will theme argument in cases like (17c). This must be reserved for separate article. presumably not affect the remarks below about argument linking and the prefix's scope. Risch (1995) gives a decomposition of the German equivalent über - embedded in a larger theory of 4. SCOPE-BEARING PREVERBS gradation, but is less concerned with explaining argument-structural matters. A complete discussion of over would take a whole article. The remarks below concentrate on the effects The last section dealt with preverbs whose argument-structural effects are easy to explain of the Minimal Scope Requirement. Basically, we see that over seems always to take scope since they reduce to patterns observable with resultative predicates. The present section takes over the predication containing the direct object if there is one, and that cases where this up more challenging cases of scope-bearing, non-resultative preverbs, which, perhaps narrrow scope is semantically deviant force the neutralisation of the subevent containing the significantly, are all prefixes. These sometimes have the effect of blocking direct objects object. selected by the verb. We will find that the data bespeak the correctness of the following (at this point purely descriptive) generalisation: 4.1.1. When over - and objects are mutually exclusive
(21) MINIMAL SCOPE REQUIREMENT : Scope-bearing preverbs always have the narrowest In the sentences in (26), over- is incompatible with direct objects selected by the verb in some possible scope which does not yield semantic deviance. English varieties.
This claim is similar to claims made in Stiebels (1996: ch. 8). Let us look at some preliminary (26) a. Max overate (*cakes). evidence for it. The narrow scope of re- is well documented (e.g. Wechsler 1989, Dowty b. You overbuy/overpurchase (*jewelry). 1979: 256f). A verb like reseal means 'cause to become again sealed' rather than 'seal again', c. Does your theory overgenerate (*unacceptable sentences like this one)? cf. (22). 5 Secondly, consider the type of prefix exemplified in (23), which pretheoretically has d. They overbuild (*houses). 7 a reversative meaning. This phenomenon, coupled with the non-occurrence of wide-scope e. Mervyn oversmokes (*cigarettes). negative prefixes, suggests that reversative prefixes are simply negative operators which are f. You overdrank (*beer). forced to assume narrow scope by the Minimal Scope Requirement, cf. the representations in (23). Note that treating dis and un as negative operators has the advantage that we can capture I was initially unaware that the judgements above are variety-specific. Farrell Ackerman the negative meanings they exhibit when combined with non-verbs (unclear, disinterest ). This informed me that he accepts some of the objects in (26), and T. Deacon in a talk in Leipzig assumes that the etymological non-relatedness of verbal and adjectival un- is synchronically (2.3.2001) utterred the sentence the brain overproduces connections . However, my irrelevant. On un -, see Dowty 1979: 256-260; on the narrow scope of its German equivalent judgements in (26) have been confirmed with several other speakers. I checked this by in complex adjectives, see Lenz 1995. embedding such sentences in short texts 8 , and having native speakers read them under the pretext that I needed their help in checking the English of a non-native speaker. Several native
(22) reseal DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (AGAIN (SEALED (Y))) speakers (if not all) adjudged VP's like overeat chocolate as unacceptable, without any
(23) a. destabilise DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (NOT (STABLE (Y))) leading questions on my part. Both the 'inflexible' and the 'liberal' varieties deserve study as
b. disentangle DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (NOT (TANGLED (Y))) manifestations of Universal Grammar. I offer an explanation for the differences below. In the
c. unlock DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (NOT (LOCKED (Y))) meantime, all judgements refer to an inflexible variety like mine. In (27), I give sample representations for the transitive uses of the simplex verbs 4.1. The scalar reading of over - and (in)transitivity corresponding to the prefix verbs in (26). Other representations are imaginable, but what seems uncontroversial is that the simplex verbs all express a non-gradable result state. A cake
9 10 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics can be either eaten or not eaten, there are no degrees of eatenness. Certainly, a cake can be half-eaten and a house partly built , but here the portion of the theme to which the property Condition (b) is not met. I will show below that this can be traced back to another recognised applies is relativised, not the property itself. problem. That condition (b) plays a role can be seen in the fact that, to a speaker of the inflexible variety, he overeats cakes sounds bad precisely because it forces the world-
(27) a. Max eats cakes [Event DO (MAX , EAT )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (NONEXIST (CAKES ))] knowledge-wise deviant reading where the same cakes are consumed more than once. This (parallel: drink, smoke ) reading is the only one available in inflexible dialects because the other readings permitted by b. You buy/purchase jewelry the Minimal Scope Requirement, namely (29a) and (b), are semantically uninterpretable,
[Event DO (YOU , BUY )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (POSSESS (YOU ,JEWELRY ))] whereas (30c) is, although pragmatically deviant, at least interpretable.
c. They build houses [Event DO (THEY , BUILD )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (EXIST (HOUSES ))] To begin explaining why condition (30b) is not met, or, for short, why the object fails to (parallel: generate ) receive what I call a token-differentiated (=sloppy) reading when under the scope of the prefix, it is important to note that the problems attending the frequency reading of over- are Contrast these verbs with a verb like tighten (cf. (24)). Tighten is clearly a change-of-state strongly reminiscent of another prefix capable of expressing repetition, re-. *re-eat and * rekill verb, but the gradability of its result state allows for atelic readings not permitted by verbs are impossible because something prevents their objects from being interpreted in a token- with verbs with non-gradable result states ( I tightened the bolt for a minute vs. *I ate the cake differentiated way, forcing a pragmatically deviant reading in which the same entity is for a minute ). eaten/killed twice. Thus, * he rekilled people (unlike he killed people again ) forbids a reading I now begin my explanation for why over appears to 'block' objects. I will argue that in which people refers to different individuals in successive killings. integration of the prefix into the subevent licensing the object, demanded by the Minimal In (31), we see that both re- and over- are incompatible with token differentiation while Scope Requirement, yields semantic deviance. Consequently, the result conjunct must be semantically parallel adverbials allow it, provided that the object's determiner does not eliminated from the representation, yielding an intransitive structure, as in (28). intrinsically force reference to specific tokens (cp. (31b)). This suggests that preverbs, unlike adverbials, are insensitive to the semantics of determiners. (28) Max overeats [Event OVER (DO (MAX , EAT ))] (31) a. *I { re ate/ over ate} {cakes/chocolate/the cakes/that piece of chocolate}. The representations below for * Max overeats cakes give the logically possible ways of b. I ate {cakes/chocolate/*the cakes/*that piece of chocolate} { again/too often }. integrating the preverb into a transitive structure. (The representational format will be revised later in this section.) My explanation for why token differentiation is impossible with the prefixes will draw on an idea first presented in Carlson and Roeper (1980: 143f; henceforth: C&R), who present the
(29) a. [Event DO (MAX , EAT )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (NONEXIST (OVER (CAKES )))] data and decomposition in (32). They note that again is able to have scope over the existential
b. [Event DO (MAX , EAT )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (OVER (NONEXIST (CAKES )))] quantifier, while re- cannot. They hold that prefixation occurs in the lexicon, and cannot hold
c. [Event DO (MAX , EAT )] &CAUSE [Event OVER (BECOME (NONEXIST (CAKES )))] scope over material added in syntax. It can have scope over the direct object variable, but not the NP that binds the variable. Wunderlich (2001) independently uses the same assumptions In the representation in (29a), over has scope only over the object. This would be logically in his discussion of the scope of re- and the interpretation of direct objects. possible if it were a quantifier over entities. The structure would then mean 'Max eats too many cakes'. But in the inflexible English varieties, over is a modifier of events, not a (32) a. Bob resigned a card : ( ∃x) (card(x) & again' (Bob sign x)) [the same card as before] quantifier of entities. Liberal dialects seem to be able to use over as a quantifier over entities. b. Bob signed a card again : again' (( ∃x) (card(x) & Bob sign x)) [possibly a different This is confirmed by the intuition of a liberal informant I found, who indicated that the card] sentences I starred above are interpreted such that over V x's means "V too many x's". The informant disallows sentences with explicitly quantified NP's like * she overdrank seven Note that the assumption that re-verbs are morphological objects, even if correct, is not a glasses of wine or * they overbuilt five supermarkets . The idea that verb prefixes can be necessary condition for the scope and non-token-differentiation effects seen with re-, since the quantifiers of entities, and particularly the provisional representation of this in (30a), require German adverb wieder 'again', when positioned after an object as in (33), shows the same more attention, but this must be left for future work. I note merely that the basic idea is not effects. (33a) and (b) are bad because one cannot kill or bear the same child twice (i.e. without precedent. Spencer and Zaretskaya (1998b) discuss critically some analyses of Slavic *rebear/rekill a child ). 9 Wieder does not combine the verb morphologically in (33), since full prefixes which see prefixes as quantifiers over entities. PP's intervene between wieder and the verb, even in the base word order. (29b) is impossible because a non-gradable result predicate cannot be modified by an element like over-, which specifies a degree. In (29c), over has scope over the whole change of state. (33) a. *da sie ein Kind wieder zur Welt gebracht hat As far as I know, scope over BECOME in the verbs of the eat -class would make semantic- since she a child again to.the world brought has (since she had a child (=the same pragmatic sense only under the following conditions: child) again) b. *da sie ein Kind wieder ums Leben gebracht hat (30) a. A frequency reading (='too often') could be assigned to over-. since she a child again around.the life brought has (since she killed a child (=the same b. The object could be interpreted such that the repetitions of events entailed by the child) again) frequency reading of over could in successive events apply to different tokens of the c. da sie ein Kind wieder nach Hause gebracht hat type referred to by the object NP.
11 12 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics
since she a child again to home brought has (since she took a child (=the same child) 4.1.2. Variable transitivity and the scope of over - back home) We now examine cases where the scope of over differs according to whether the verb is used Thus, affixes are not the only items that force non-token-differentiated readings of verbal transitively or not. These offer different evidence for the Minimal Scope Requirement. (38) objects. The correct empirical generalisation covering re-, over- and wieder in (33) seems to and (39) give representations for two uses of overheat . (In the representations, HEAT * stands be as follows: for the unspecified activity causing something to be heated.) The Minimal Scope Requirement predicts that the transitive use of overheat can only mean that the theme entity becomes too (34) Items whose scope domain consists of (part of) a result state of an event do not allow a hot. It cannot mean that it becomes hot too often. In the detransitivised use of overheat in token-differentiated reading of the object. (39), there is no implication that anything becomes too hot. Instead, it could be used for instance in stating that the heating costs too much. As suggested by the Minimal Scope (The Minimal Scope Requirement predicts that prefixes will be among such narrow-scope Requirement, this meaning is impossible when overheat is used transitively. items.) To explain why (34) should hold, I will enlist the basic assumptions made by C&R and Wunderlich (2001) about the relative scope of existential quantifiers and prefixes. I will (38) Max overheats the furnace make this more explicit using the following examples, enriching the semantic representations [Event DO (MAX , HEAT *)] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (OVER (HOT (FURNACE ))])] assumed above with quantifiers and restrictors: (39) Max overheats (in sense 'he heats his room too much', not the unaccusative sense 'he becomes too hot') (35) a. *Soldiers rekilled prisoners [Event OVER (DO (MAX , HEAT *))]
∃X: SOLDIERS (X), ∃Y: PRISONERS (Y) & [DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (AGAIN (DEAD (Y)) ] b. Again, soldiers killed prisoners We next look at overcook . (40) offers two representations of transitive cook , which could be
AGAIN [∃X: SOLDIERS (X), ∃Y: PRISONERS (Y) & [DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (DEAD (Y))]] seen either as a change of state verb or an AFFECT verb of the type mentioned in footnote 6. I c. Soldiers reopened windows prefer the latter option, but either representation will, coupled with the Minimal Scope
∃X: SOLDIERS (X), ∃Y: WINDOWS (Y) & [DO (X) &CAUSE BECOME (AGAIN (OPEN (Y)) ] Requirement, predict the intuition that transitive overcook means that the object is overly (36) a. *Soldiers overate cakes strongly affected by the cooking process, the only possible interpretation of transitive overcook . Notice that if we intransitivise it, as in (41), overcook can have a very different ∃X: SOLDIERS (X), ∃Y: CAKES (Y) & [DO (X, EAT ) &CAUSE OVER (BECOME (NONEXIST (Y))) ] b. Soldiers ate cakes too often reading in which the subject does too much cooking. One entailment of this is that the subject cooks too much food, or cooks for too many people. Fred overcooked food cannot receive this OVER [ ∃X: SOLDIERS (X), ∃Y: CAKES (Y) & [DO (X, EAT ) &CAUSE BECOME (NONEXIST (Y))]] reading, since the Minimal Scope Requirement only allows the readings in (40), where the The bold-typed segments of (35a,c) and (36a) do not contain a full representation of the prefix is part of the result event. object's semantics but only a variable. The interpretation of these segments is already fixed before the variables are bound by anything which could allow token differentiation. Thus, (40) Fred overcooked food these segments are interpreted such that some entity, y, respectively becomes dead again or a. [Event DO (FRED , COOK )] &CAUSE [Event BECOME (OVER (COOKED (FOOD )))] too often stops existing. This interpretation is pragmatically deviant in (35a) and (36a), but b. [Event DO (FRED , COOK )] &CAUSE [Event (OVER (AFFECT (EVENT ,FOOD ))] not in (35c). (41) Fred overcooked I should comment on the assumptions about quantification and variable binding. The [Event OVER (DO (FRED , COOK ))] above representations follow C&R and Wunderlich (2001) in assuming that existential plurals can in principle allow a token-differentiated interpretation, cf. (35b) and (36b), but binding by 4.2. Conclusions some kind of generic operator would also be sufficient. Of course, I make crucial use of the assumption -taken for granted by many linguists- that we need a basic representation of an The discussion of scope-bearing prefixes has illustrated the workings of the Minimal Scope event where the participants are represented as yet-to-be-bound variables (where 'event' may Requirement. In particular, I have shown how the Minimal Scope Requirement gives rise to a correspond to VP, Diesing 1992). An analysis which dispenses with this assumption is set of circumstances which create the impression that the prefix over- 'blocks' direct objects Wechsler (1989), who would with reference to (35c) talk in terms of re- having scope over with verbs with non-gradable result states. This arises in contexts where the prefix cannot be windows but not soldiers , the logic being that the same windows, but not necessarily the same part of the same subevent as the object without yielding deviant interpretations. soldiers, were involved in both the original and the restored situation. However, this is It seems appropriate to mention a couple of phenomena superficially akin to those found problematic: in (37), it is uncontroversial that again has wider scope than re-, since the with over- to which my analysis should not be extended. Firstly, the phenomena found with causing event must be repeated. Wechsler would therefore have to say that both the subject English over - do not correspond to those found with its German equivalent über-. I merely and the object are included in the scope of AGAIN . However, token-differentiated readings of comment on one difference, namely the fact that German attests cases like (42a), where the both NP's are possible in this case, contrary to what Wechsler would predict. prefixed verbs have an unselected reflexive object, where idiomatic English glosses mostly use an intransitive frame (impossible in German). Risch (1995) contents herself with (37) Again, soldiers opened windows [may be different windows and soldiers from those in stipulating that the verbs in (42a) have a semantically vacuous argument position. A prior opening event] possibility for a more principled analysis emerges if we entertain the idea that the reflexive is an instance of the unselected reflexive found in resultative constructions like (42b). An
13 14 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics
implementation of this would be to assume that the prefix contributes information something (44) work the debt off [VP work [ SC/PP/Particle P the debt off]] like (c). On this analysis, the prefix provides a result state which specifies only that some pragmatically inferred property predicated over an entity (appearing as the reflexive The SC approach is reasonable for resultative preverbs, but it makes no sense to claim that coindexed with the subject) is asserted to hold to too great a degree. I must leave this analysis scalar over and the other scope-bearing preverbs discussed in section 4 take a direct object as as a speculation at this point, however. argument. At least in these cases, we are forced to adopt some variant of the other major type of analysis for complex verbs, in which the preverb and verb form a constituent to the (42) a. sie haben sich überarbeitet/ übergessen/ überkauft/ überhoben exclusion of the object, whether this consituent is a syntactic projection (Zeller 2001c, Haider they have themselves overworked/ overeaten/ overbought/ overlifted 1997, Lüdeling 2001, Müller 2000, Booij 1990, Keyser and Roeper 1992) or a morphological 'they overworked/overate/overpurchased; they hurt themselves lifting something' object (Dehé 2002, Neeleman and Weerman 1993, Olsen 2000, Stiebels and Wunderlich b. sie haben sich zu Tode gearbeitet ‘they worked themselves to death’ 1994). c. Scalar über -: BECOME (OVER (< PROPERTY >( Y))) Another observation is that direct objects are not characterisable in terms of any type of thematic role or relationship to some predicate in a semantic representation. For instance, any It is also worth noting that there is a series of verb particles such as (43) which, like over-, kind of theory which links direct objecthood to affectedness or change of state (e.g. Pinker appear to 'block' the direct object of the verb. I believe that the factors causing such blockages 1989, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995) runs into problems with some complex verbs which are entirely different from those affecting over-. I will not discuss these particles here, as I allow linking of the reference object, especially cases where the reference object indicates a have already done so in McIntyre (2001a, 2002b). distance travelled by a theme (e.g. (18a) and cases like circumnavigate the world , overstep the line . (43) read (*notes) on, sing (*songs) along, play (*a silly game) around, type away *(at) the It remains to draw attention to some problems not touched on here. Firstly, I must note essay that there are certain transitivisation effects which do not comfortably fit into the picture presented above. (These mostly involve preverbs which have semantic effects parallel to The main question which remains is that of what the Minimal Scope Requirement should temporal adverbials.) I cannot yet say why re- has a transitivising effect on the simplex verbs follow from. One answer would be that, as suggested by Carlson and Roeper (1980) or in (45a). It is not obvious that the prefixation involves the addition of a new subevent to the Wunderlich (2001), the prefix's combining with the verb in the morphological component verb's meaning, nor is it clear whether these three examples, even if unique, should be written greatly reduces the range of material over which it may take scope. However, this does not off as exceptional. Nor is it clear how to capture the transitivising effect seen in (45b-d). The guarantee minimal scope, for it does not rule out prefixes which have scope over a causing objects in (b) and (c) can be seen as reference objects of bound prepositional preverbs (cf. event in a resultative structure, and these do not appear to exist. Unfortunately, I have no paraphrases with before humans, before ours, with Schumann ), but the mechanisms involved adequate solutions to this problem and leave the Minimal Scope Requirement as a descriptive in deriving the argument structure cannot be derived from what has been said in the rest of generalisation which can hopefully be motivated in the future. this essay. The German particles vor 'beforehand' and nach 'afterwards' transitivise verbs in some rare cases, cf. (45d), involving intransitive arbeiten . There is no sense in which the 5. SOME CONCLUSIONS AND RESIDUAL MATTERS unselected object is a conceptual argument of nach . However, all these cases are extremely rare. I now mention some conclusions and consequences flowing from the discussion of the semantic and argument-structural facets of preverbs reported on above. Firstly, cases where (45) a. I reworked the essay, I rethought the plan, I relived my youth preverbs have the effect of introducing unselected objects ( chat someone up, vote someone b. dinosaurs preexisted humans, their innovation antedated/predated ours out, stare someone down, think an issue through ) result when conflation introduces an extra c. Horowitz...believed he had coexisted Schumann in some way subevent to the verb's meaning, an effect also seen with standard resultative constructions (www.arbiterrecords.com/museum/horowitz.html) (talk people senseless, stare someone into submission ). Transitivisation is not a sign that the d. den Schrank nacharbeiten "the cubboard after.work", 'put the finishing touches on constructions are non-compositional. Transitivisation is certainly no proof for the the cupboard' morphological status of particle verbs, unless we want to argue that resultative constructions with full PP's and AP's are morphological objects, which has to my knowledge not been Finally, I mention one other riddle that temporal preverbs pose. The prefix pre- and the attempted. Furthermore, I query whether transitivisation by prefixes necessarily supports adverb beforehand mean 'before x' where x is some time or event which is identified from the Zeller's (2001a) thesis that German prefixes head a functional projection responsible for context. With the prefix, but not the adverb, x is obligatorilly identified with direct objects licensing direct objects. Even if we agree that such a projection is needed, the resultative which have a temporal value (e.g. event nominals), cf (46a) and (b). I have no solution for this nature of the preverbs' semantics means that they will always license a direct argument puzzle. anyway, whether or not they originate in a syntactic head responsible for transitivity. Unselected objects have been a primary motivation for the assumption that preverbs are (46) a. I got to the party i late because we were pre-rehearsing the performance k. (rehearsal small clause (SC) predicates and for other theories assuming that internal arguments of before k/*i) complex verbs originate in a projection of the preverb (e.g. Hoekstra 1988, 1992, den Dikken b. I got to the party i late because we were rehearsing the performance k beforehand. 1995, Stechow 1995, Svenonius 1996, Zeller 2001b). The underlying configuration can be (rehearsal before k/i) represented in a schematic fashion as in (44). NOTES
15 16 McIntyre: Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics
deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle). 39/1. 320-61. 1 NP's are said to be 'quantised' or 'bounded' if the entities they refer to are linguistically Dehé, N. (2000). English Particle Verbs: Particles as Functional Categories, in: Janßen, Hero (ed.), represented as being finite, as having an inherent quantity. Bare mass nouns and bare plurals ( water, Verbal Projections . Tübingen: Niemeyer. books ) are examples of non-quantised NP's; examples of quantised NP's might be the water, the Dehé, N. and A. Wanner (eds.) (2001) Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs . Berlin: book(s), seven books . If an incremental theme is not quantised, the event will be atelic: he ate the Peter Lang. 83-104. cakes {in/*for} an hour vs. he ate cakes {for/*in} an hour . For more information, see e.g. Krifka Dehé, N. (2002). Particle Verbs in English . Amsterdam: Benjamins. (1998), Jackendoff (1996), Tenny (1994) and their references. Dehé, N., R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre and S. Urban (eds.) (2002). Verb particle explorations. Berlin: 2 Verbrauchen and aufbrauchen 'use up' may be related to gebrauchen 'use' by prefix truncation. Mouton de Gruyter. Alternatively, brauchen , which normally means 'need', has a second, context-sensitive sense 'to use', den Dikken, M. (1995). Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. which is licensed in particular contexts, like these complex verbs and when under the scope of a Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites . Cambridge MA: MIT Press. possibility operator: ich kann's nicht brauchen 'I can't use it'. Denison, D. (1985). The origins of completive up . Neuphilologische Mitteilungen LXXXVI. 37-61. 3 Similar quasi-redundant uses are found with 'completive' up in (3), except here the particle Dowty, D.R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. serves to license the suppression of an argument rather than the expression of one. Argument Haider, H. (1997). Precedence among predicates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 3- suppression seems to be the purpose of the preverbs in give away and its German equivalents 41. vergeben, verschenken and abgeben . The simplex normally requires expression of the beneficiary. To Hoekstra, T, (1988). Small clause results. Lingua 74:101-39. circumvent this, the possession change subevent in the representation (i) is replaced by a suitable path Hoekstra, T. (1992). Aspect and theta-theory. In I. M. Roca (ed.) Thematic Structure. Berlin/New which does not require mention of the beneficiary, as suggested in (ii). York: Foris. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures . Cambridge (Mass.) MIT Press. (i) Mary gave books to John : DO (MARY ,GIVE ) &CAUSE GO (BOOKS , TO JOHN ) Jackendoff, R. (1996). The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification (ii) Mary gave books away : DO (MARY ,GIVE ) & GO (BOOKS , FROM DEICTIC _CENTRE ) CAUSE in English, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 305-54.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin' the night away, Language 73: 534-559. 4 Some speakers reject (18c), but the existence of (mainly American?) speakers who accept it, Jackendoff, R. (2002). English Particle Constructions, the Lexicon, and the Autonomy of Syntax. In Dehé and a parallel alternation with German abwischen 'wipe off', show that it is a possible particle verb. 5 et al. (eds.) Certainly, I sealed the window badly, so he resealed it implies a repetition of a sealing event Jacobs, J. (1993). The Lexical Basis of Optional Complements. Theorie des Lexikons. Arbeiten des rather than a mere return of the window to a sealed state, but I take this to be contextual inference (cf. Sonderforschungsbereichs 282. Nr. 53. Dowty 1979:256f). I cannot find or construct sentences where the prefix superficially appears to have Keyser, S. and Roeper, T. (1992). Re: The Abstract Clictic Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 89-125. non-minimal scope which cannot be explained as contextual inferences. 6 Krifka, M. (1998). The Origins of Telicity. In Rothstein, S. (ed.) Events and Grammar . Dordrecht: AFFECT is used with verbs of indeterminate telicity ( I swept the floor for/in ten minutes ). I Kluwer. assume that the telic reading comes through the inference that the activity brought about its Lenz, B. (1995). un -Affigierung . Tübingen: Stauffenburg. canonically intended result state. Rappoport Hovav and Levin (1998:114) formalise the relevant verb Levin, B. and T. Rapoport (1988). Lexical Subordination. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics class, represented by sweep , as [x ACT
Olsen, S. (ed.) (1998). Semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte der Partikelverbbildung mit ein-. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Olsen, S. (2000). Against Incorporation. In: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 74. 149-172. Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pustejovsky, J. (1991) The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41. 47-81. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (1998) Building Verb Meanings, in Butt, M. and W. Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments . Stanford: CSLI. 97-134. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2001) An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives, Language 77. 766-797. Risch, G. (1995) Verbpräfigierung des Deutschen . Dissertation, Stuttgart. Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport and A. Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar . Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 143-157. Spencer, A. and M. Zaretskaya (1998a) Verb prefixation in Russian. Linguistics 36. 1–39. Spencer, A. and M. Zaretskaya (1998b) Pri-prefixation in Russian, Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6. 107ff. Stechow, A. von (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In: U. Egli et al (eds.) Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language . Amsterdam: Benjamins. 81-117. Stechow, A. von (1996). The different readings of wieder "again". Journal of Semantics 13. 87-138. Stiebels, B. (1996). Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte . Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Stiebels, B. and D. Wunderlich (1994). Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32. 913-968. Svenonius, P. (1996). The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages , Ms. Troms ∅. (www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius) Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalisation patterns, in: T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description , Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57-149. Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface . Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wechsler, S, (1989). Accomplishments and the prefix re-, Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 19. 419-434. Winkler, S, (1994). Secondary predication in English . Diss. Tübingen. Wunderlich, D. (1983). On the compositionality of German prefix verbs. In: Bäuerle, R. et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language . Berlin: De Gruyter. 452-465. Wunderlich, D. (1987). An investigation of lexical composition: The case of German be- verbs. Linguistics 25. 283-331. Wunderlich, D, (1997a). Argument extension by lexical adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14. 95-142. Wunderlich, D, (1997b). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 27-68. Wunderlich, D. (2001). Prelexical syntax and the Voice hypothesis. In Féry, C. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.). Audiatur Vox Sapientiae . Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 487-513. Zeller, J. (2001a). Prefixes as transitivisers. In Dehé and Wanner (eds.) (2001). 1-34. Zeller, J. (2001b). How syntax restricts the lexicon: particle verbs and internal arguments. Linguistische Berichte 188. 461-494. Zeller, J. (2001c). Particle Verbs and Local Domains . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19