Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Chapter 24 Modality in Germanic
- Chapter 25 Tense and Aspect in Germanic Languages
- Chapter 26 Prepositions and Particles
- Chapter 27 Negative and Positive Polarity Items
- Chapter 28 Grammatical Reflexes of Information Structure in Germanic Languages
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Chapter 26 - Prepositions and Particles
Place and Path in English, German, and Dutch
from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2020
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Chapter 24 Modality in Germanic
- Chapter 25 Tense and Aspect in Germanic Languages
- Chapter 26 Prepositions and Particles
- Chapter 27 Negative and Positive Polarity Items
- Chapter 28 Grammatical Reflexes of Information Structure in Germanic Languages
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Summary
Germanic languages heavily rely on prepositions and particles (‘Ps’) for describing places and paths. This category P might be considered as a small class of minor function words, but this chapter demonstrates the richness and variety of this category on the basis of Dutch, English, and German data, focusing on two of their aspects that have not received much attention in the literature: transitivity and complexity. Given that Ps are always based on a spatial relation (between a figure and a ground), it is surprising to see that they can often be used, under specific semantic conditions, without a syntactic object that expresses the ground, even as prepositions. A close look at the variation in formal complexity of Ps shows the same semantic conditions at work, revealing a basic gradient of meaning that cross-cuts the distinction between places and paths and prepositions and particles.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 615 - 638Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Carlson, L. and van der Zee, E. (eds.) 2005. Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Claessen, C. and Zwarts, J. 2010. “On the directional particle heen.” In van Kampen, J. and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 31–43.Google Scholar
Eschenbach, C. 2005. “Contextual, functional, and geometric components in the semantics of projective terms.” In Carlson, L. and van der Zee, E. (eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development. Oxford University Press: 71–91.Google Scholar
Garrod, K. R. and Coventry, S. A. 2004. Saying, Seeing, and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gehrke, B. 2008. Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P Elements and Motion Events. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. and Sailor, C. 2015. “Prepositional object gaps in English.”, British In Köhnlein, B. and Audring, J. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 63–74.Google Scholar
Haselbach, B. 2016. P’s at the Interfaces: On the Syntax, Semantics, and Morphology of Spatial Prepositions In German. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of The Prepositions in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kracht, M. 2002. “On the semantics of locatives,” Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 2: 157–232.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1996. “Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence.” In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 109–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S. J. 1983. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2015. “Particle-verb formation.” In Müller, P., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 434–450.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. 2010. “À to Zu.” In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. Oxford University Press: 161–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., and Cohn, A. G. 1992. “A spatial logic based on regions and connection.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman: 165–176.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van and Huybregts, R. 2007. “Location and locality.” In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W. (eds.), Clausal and Phrasal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation: A Festschrift for Joseph E. Emonds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 339–364.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2007. “Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce.” In Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T., and Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 63–103.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2010. “Spatial p in English.” In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. New York: Oxford University Press: 126–160.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1975. “Figure and ground in complex sentences.” In Cogen, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society: 419–430.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2017. “Spatial semantics: modeling the meaning of prepositions,” Language and Linguistics Compass 11. 5: 1–20.Google Scholar