Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases

doi:10.1017/9781009179362.016

14 - Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases

from Part II - Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026

Marcel den Dikken and

Edited by

Norbert Corver and

Sjef Barbiers: Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Norbert Corver: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht
Maria Polinsky: Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter is about the comparative syntax of adpositions. We suggest that the category P is universal, and argue that in addition to functional adpositions, there are also lexical Ps. We make our way through the extended projections of P from bottom to top, and argue that the composition of the extended PP parallels that of the extended VP. We show that in addition to PP-internal projections for grammatical aspect (coding place vs. path distinctions) and for event aspect (coding boundedness distinctions), there are also projections dedicated to deixis and to discourse particles. The maximal extension of the PP provides an escape hatch for extraction, much like Spec, CP in the clause. We also discuss the relationship between Figure, Ground, and Theme, suggesting that Figure and Theme should be kept distinct. Finally, we suggest that cross-linguistically there are two major ways of building PPs: they can bottom out in a lexical P or in a relational noun. In the latter case, the Ground is merged as a possessor of the relational noun, and PPs show morphological parallels with possessive structures.

Keywords

preposition case Figure Ground Theme relational noun adposition

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 426 - 463
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009179362.016 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abels, K., and Neeleman, A.. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15(1): 25–74.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aelbrecht, L., and den Dikken, M.. 2013. Preposition doubling in Flemish dialects and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 33–68.CrossRef Google Scholar

Åfarli, T. 1992. The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Amritavalli, R. 2002. Syntactic Categories and Lexical Argument Structure. Ms., CIEFL, Hyderabad.Google Scholar

Andrews, J. R. 1975. Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Arylova, A. 2013. Possession in the Russian Clause: Towards Dynamicity in Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Asbury, A., Gehrke, B., and Hegedűs, V.. 2007. One size fits all: Prefixes, particles, cases and adpositions as members of the category P. In Keskin, C. (ed.), UiL OTS Yearbook 2006, 1–17. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 373–415.Google Scholar

Blake, B. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar PubMed

Bobaljik, J. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Cheng, L. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book, 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Walkow, M. and Elfner, E. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

Broekhuis, H., and den Dikken, M.. 2018. Tot (aan) het einde ((aan) toe): The internal syntax of a Dutch complex PP. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 104. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.663.Google Scholar

Bugaeva, A. 2012. Southern Hokkaido Ainu. In Tranter, N. (ed.), The Languages of Japan and Korea, 461–508. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bugaeva, A. 2016. On the innovative nature of Sakhalin Ainu: Focusing on nominalization. Studia Orientalia Electronica 117: 95–117.Google Scholar

Bugaeva, A. 2017. Noun-modifying clause constructions in Ainu. In Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B., and Sells, P. (eds.), Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries, 203–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Caha, P. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1971. Analisi semantica della deissi in Italiano. PhD thesis, University of Padua.Google Scholar

Collins, C. 2007. Home sweet home. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 1–34.Google Scholar

Coon, J. 2017. Ch’ol. In Aissen, J., England, N., and Maldonado, R. Z. (eds.), The Mayan Languages, 648–684. New York: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Corver, N., and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.). 2001. Semi-Lexical Categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Crowley, T. 2002. Mwotlap. In Lynch, J., Ross, M., and Crowley, T. (eds.), The Oceanic Languages [Curzon Language Family Series], 587–598. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar

Déchaine, R.-M., Teun, H., and Rooryck, J.. 1995. Augmented and non-augmented have. In Nash, L. and Tsoulas, G. (eds.), Proceedings of Langues et Grammaire 1. 85–101. Saint-Denis, Paris: Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar

Dékány, É. 2011. A Profile of the Hungarian DP. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Dékány, É., and Hegedűs, V.. 2015. Word order variation in Hungarian PPs. In É. Kiss, K., Surányi, B., and Dékány, É. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference, 95–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Del Corso, E. 2021. The Language and Folklore of West Sakhalin Ainu. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar

Dikken, M. den. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dikken, M. den. 1999. Speaker–oriented verbal particles in Dutch imperatives. GLOT International 4(2): 23.Google Scholar

Dikken, M. den. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Cinque, G., and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs, 74–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dikken, M. den. 2019. Case, P and Number in Mari Possessive Noun Phrases. Ms., Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Dikken, M. den, and Dékány, É.. 2018. Adpositions and case: Alternative realisation and concord. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 7(2): 39–75.Google Scholar

Dikken, M., and Næss, A.. 1993. Case dependencies: The case of predicate inversion. The Linguistic Review 10: 303–336.Google Scholar

Drummond, A., Hornstein, N., and Lasnik, H.. 2010. A puzzle about P-stranding and a possible solution. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 689–692.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dryer, M. 2013. Order of adposition and noun phrase. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Ch. 85. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/85.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRef Google Scholar

Emonds, J. 1987. The Invisible Category Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 613–632.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1991. Extended Projection. Ms., Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 2005. Extended projection. In Grimshaw, J., Words and Structure, 1–74. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Guéron, J. 1990. Particles, prepositions, and verbs. In Mascaró, J. and Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in Progress, 153–166. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hegedűs, V. 2013. Non-Verbal Predicates and Predicate Movement in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Hegedűs, V. 2014. The cyclical development of Ps in Hungarian. In Kiss, K. É. (ed.), The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax, 122–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Helmantel, M. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch Adpositional Domain. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden/LOT.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, T., and Mulder, R.. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2002. Prepositions and PPs in Zina Kotoko. In Schmidt, B. K., Odden, D., and Holmberg, A. (eds.), Some Aspects of the Grammar of Zina Kotoko, 162–174. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar

Holmer, A. 1996. A Parametric Grammar of Seediq. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1996. The architecture of linguistic-spatial interface. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. (eds.), Language and Space, 1–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 2003. Silent years, silent hours. In Delsing, L. O., Falk, C., Josefsson, G., and Sigurðsson, H. Á. (eds.), Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack, 209–226. Lund: Wallin and Dalholm.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 2004. “Here” and “there”. In Leclère, C., Laporte, É., Piot, M., and Silberztein, M. (eds.), Lexique, Syntaxe et Lexique-Grammaire / Syntax, Lexis & Lexicon-Grammar: Papers in Honour of Maurice Gross [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 24], 253–273.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 2005. Movement and silence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Koopman, H. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Koopman, H. (ed.), The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads, 204–260. London: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Law, P. 2017. Preposition stranding. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., vol. V, 3164–3202. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom037.Google Scholar

Lødrup, H. 2004. Clausal complementation in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27: 61–95.CrossRef Google Scholar

Magomedbekova, Z. 1967. The Akhvakh Language: Grammatical Analysis, Texts, Dictionary. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar

Marácz, L. 1989. Asymmetries in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Massam, D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.CrossRef Google Scholar

McIntyre, A. 2007. Particle verbs and argument structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 350–367.CrossRef Google Scholar

Muriungi, P. 2006. Categorizing adpositions in Kiitharaka. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 26–48.Google Scholar

Myler, N. 2013. On coming the pub in the North West of England: Accusative unaccusatives, dependent case, and preposition incorporation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 189–207.CrossRef Google Scholar

Noonan, M. 2010. À to zu. In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs, 161–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Panagiotidis, P. 2003a. Empty nouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(2): 381–432.CrossRef Google Scholar

Panagiotidis, P. 2003b. One, empty nouns, and θ-assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2): 281–292.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pantcheva, M. 2006. Persian preposition classes. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 1–25.Google Scholar

Pantcheva, M. 2010. The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics 48: 1043–1081.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pantcheva, M. 2011. Decomposing Path. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Pensalfini, R. 2003. A Grammar of Jingulu, an Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar

Poppe, N. 1954. A Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Riese, T. 2001. Vogul. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1988. Il sintagma preposizionale. In Renzi, L., Salvi, G., and Cardinaletti, A. (eds.), Grande grammatica Italiana di consultazione, vol. 1, 508–531. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Roy, I. 2006. Body-part nouns in expressions of location in French. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 98–119.Google Scholar

Roy, I., and Svenonius, P.. 2009. Complex prepositions. In François, J., Gilbert, E., Guimier, C., and Krause, M. (eds.), Autour de la préposition, 105–116. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar

Son, M. 2006. Directed motion and non-predicative PathP. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 176–199.Google Scholar

Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar

Stassen, L. 2013. Predicative possession. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Ch. 117. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/117.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 1994. Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 31(2): 431–445.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 49–77.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T., and Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument Structure, 63–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Takamine, K. 2006. The axial part phrase in Japanese. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 78–97.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Taraldsen, K. T. 2018. Spanning versus constituent lexicalization: The case of Portmanteau prefixes. In Baunaz, L., Haegeman, L., De Clercq, K., and Lander, E. (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax, 88–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Terzi, A. 2005. Locative prepositions, predicate inversion, and Full Interpretation. In Agathopoulou, E., Dimitrakopoulou, M., and Papadopoulou, D. (eds.), Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 17 (17th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Thessaloniki 14–17 April 2005), 210–219.Google Scholar

Tortora, C. 2005. The preposition’s preposition in Italian: Evidence for boundedness of space. In Gess, R. and Rubin, E. (eds.), Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics, 307–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tortora, C. 2006. On the aspect of space: The case of place in Italian and Spanish. In Penello, N. and Pescarini, D. (eds.), Atti dell’undicesima giornata di dialettologia, 50–69. Padua: CNR.Google Scholar

Tortora, C. 2008. Aspect inside place PPs. In Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B., and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, 273–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Trotzke, A., and Haegeman, L.. 2022. PP-internal particles in Dutch as evidence for PP-internal discourse structure. In Gergel, R., Reich, I., and Speyer, A. (eds.), Particles in German, English, and Beyond, 297–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Van Riemsdijk, H. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Pinkster, H. and Genee, I. (eds.), Unity in Diversity, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Van Riemsdijk, H. 2002. The unbearable lightness of going. The projection parameter as a pure parameter governing the distribution of elliptic motion verbs in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 143–196.CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Riemsdijk, H. 2005. Silent nouns and the spurious indefinite article in Dutch. In Vulchanova, M. and Åfarli, T. (eds.), Grammar and Beyond. Essays in Honour of Lars Hellan, 163–178. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar

Van Riemsdijk, H., and Huybregts, R.. 2001. Location and locality. In van Oostendorp, M. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (eds.). Progress in Grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, 1–23. Utrecht: Roccade.Google Scholar

Vázquez Álvarez, J. J. 2011. A Grammar of Chol, a Mayan Language. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar

Zwarts, J. 1997. Vectors as relative positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics 14: 57–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zwarts, J., and Winter, Y.. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 9: 169–211.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.