Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:47:49.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Verb-Preposition Constructions: Constituency and Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Patrick Farrell
Patrick Farrell*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
*
Department of Linguistics University of California, Davis One Shields Ave. Davis, CA 95616 [pmfarrell@ucdavis.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the constituent-structure and linear-order properties of English transitive and intransitive V-P constructions involving so-called ‘particles’ (turn on the lights/the lights on, mess up the song/the song up, shut up, sit down, etc.). Drawing on both standard and certain new evidence and arguments, it is proposed that V-P constructions generally come in one or both of two varieties: lexical compounds (mess up in mess up the song) and/or discontinuous verbs, that is, lexemes with more than one piece projected as a word or phrase (mess … up in mess the song up), and that the alternation, for those that have both manifestations, reflects different argument structure possibilities for a lexeme with the same overall conceptual semantics. The internal structure of VPs built on V-P lexemes is examined in some detail. The popular ‘small-clause’ approach, according to which the DP of transitive V-P structures is the subject of a phrase that has the P as its predicate, is shown to be problematic, primarily because there in fact exists a true small-clause construction that can have a P as its predicate and the putative small clause of cases like mess the song up systematically lacks the defining properties of this construction. The word-order restrictions that the small-clause approach is designed, in part, to account for are shown to follow from a set of independently needed linearization constraints, which are motivated by functional principles.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 96 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aarts, Bas. 1989. Verb-preposition constructions and small clauses in English. Journal of Linguistics 25. 277–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, Stephen P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter. 1999. The nonuniform structure of Dutch N-V compounds. Yearbook of Morphology 1998, 127–58.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1997. The composition of (dis)continuous predicates: Lexical or syntactic? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44. 317–40.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case: Towards a localist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene. 1973. A constraint on tough-movement. Chicago Linguistic Society 9. 37–46. ’.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1990. Relational grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carme, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carrier, Jill, and Randall, Janet H.. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 173–234.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Curry, Haskell B. 1977. Foundations of mathematical logic. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Amy. 2000. Morphosyntactic mismatches in Algonquian: Affixal predicates and discontinuous verbs. Chicago Linguistic Society 36. 63–87.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly, and Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3. 123–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. The grammar of English phrasal verbs. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2. 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1996. Non-constituent coordination, wrapping, and multimodal categorial grammar. Structures and norms in science, ed. by Luisa, Maria Chiara, Dalla, Doets, Kees, Mundici, Daniele, and Benthem, Johan van, 347–68. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1972. Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8. 546–61.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. English prepositional small clauses: A dual-category analysis. Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe, ed. by Orgun, Orhan and Sells, Peter. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 429–38.Google Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1965. An examination of the verb-particle construction in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6. 22–42.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) 2000. Linguistics: An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A., Rodman, Robert; and Hyams, Nina. 2003. An introduction to language. Boston: Thomson/Heinle.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff, and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.) 2002. Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings (2 vols.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goh, Gwang-yoon. 2000. Relative obliqueness and the contribution of nonheads in the subcategorization of Old English compound verbs. English Language and Linguistics 4. 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 1999. Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics 10. 105–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, head, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 373–422.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1990. Particles, prepositions, and verbs. Grammar in progress, ed. by Mascaró, Joan and Nešpor, Marina, 153–66. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Guéron, Jacqueline. 1999. English grammar: A generative perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2000. Where in the world is the Udi clitic? Language 76. 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Traugott, Elizabeth. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1982. Incomplete conjuncts. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 547–50.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 345–56. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 369–411.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2000. Consider sentences re-considered in the light of Greek evidence. Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (Festschrift for Professor Athanasios Kakouriotis), ed. by Nicolaidis, Katerina and Mattheoudakis, Marina, 81–88. Thessaloniki: School of English, Aristotle University.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Wallace, Rex. 1984. Latin morphology: Another look. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 319–28.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. Grammatical representation, ed. by Guéron, Jacqueline, Obenauer, Hans, and Pollock, Jean-Yves, 101–40. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Arthur G. 1920. The modern English verb-adverb combination in English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Publications in Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 161–95.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Takami, Ken-ichi. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and GB theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1985. A theory of grammatical agreement. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–91.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Hsiao-Mei. 1986. A categorial grammar analysis of Chinese separable compounds and phrases. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Live, Anna H. 1965. The discontinuous verb in English. Word 21. 428–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79–153.Google Scholar
Miller, Phillip H., and Sag, Ivan A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60. 847–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1989. Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan; and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–89.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Stephen. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: CSLI Publications and University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. (RUCCS technical report #2.) Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1966. Selected logic papers. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Smirniotopoulos, Jane C., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1998. Syntax versus the lexicon: Incorporation and compounding in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 34. 447–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter Arne. 1994. Dependent nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and the Scandinavian languages. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida. 2001. The phrase structure of non-projecting words. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1986. Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and La Polla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1956. Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universais. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245–74.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 278–308.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1994. What is a clitic? Clitics: A comprehensive bibliography 1892-1991, by Joel A. Nevis, Brian D. Joseph, Dieter Wanner, and Arnold M. Zwicky, xii-xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar