1.

Particle paths Haj Ross

Department of Linguistics and Technical Communication University of North Texas

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/hajpapers.html haj@unt.edu

CUNY Graduate Center. April 11, 2013.

o. Olden times. While particles are described in traditional grammars in the early twentieth century, it seems that Bruce Fraser’s 1965 MIT dissertation was the first extended study of them in the generative literature. What he called particle verbs were verb stems followed by a subset of prepositions, prepositions which could also appear after the NP which followed the verb (Pick up that dog! ~ Pick that dog up!). True prepositions (Ptrue) cannot combine with verbs in this way: some examples of Ptrue are: above, after, among, at, before, below, beside, between, for, from, into, of, onto, upon, with – these can never follow a direct object. Most prepositions are Ptrue. 1. What particles (Part) are:

the following subset of 16 spatial prepositions, PLUS three non-prepositional adverbs (?), away, back, and forth. Here is the whole gang:

up/down, in/out, on/off, over/under, through, by, past, to, about, across, along, around, away, back, forth

2. Where else particles can be found There are three other contexts in which just particles are to be found (though not all 19 occur in each):

a. After verbs with no direct objects: poop out, sally forth, chatter away b. Between verbs and their prepositional objects: boil down to, put up with c. As left adjuncts of spatial (and some temporal) PP’s (a discovery of Roger Levi, a Stanford student): in behind the shed, off under the bridge,

up through the weekend, on until noon

3. Particle paths All speakers allow PARTICLE PATHS (Ppths) – sequences of at least 2 particles in (2c) environments [Particles will be boldfaced]: a. down in under the bed, out off with his pals, down out in the valley, up around by the statue b. Many can find some that are 3 particles long: up around over by the PO, up in along through the tunnel. If these seem outlandish to you, may I suggest that you take a two-particle path that you like and try adding back to the beginning, e.g., back down in under the bed, back up around by the statue. For unknown reasons, back seems to be the best first particle in particle paths, especially when it means “again.” c. Some speakers, with the help of back, can stretch a Ppth to length 4: %back up in around behind the stove. I know of no convincing example of length 5. d. NB: when trying to construct Ppths, make sure your examples are sentence-initial, or that they follow NP’s. Because in an example like freak back out in around behind the church, while there are four particles in sequence, it is clear that they form two subsequences: back is forming a length-2 Ppth with the out of freak out, and in around is a length-2 Ppth that modifies behind. 4. Fraser’s central discovery: PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT ZAP (POZ) Fraser postulated two deletion rules, which delete anaphoric proforms after certain spatial and temporal prepositions. The first deletes PP’s under identity after the following spatial prepositional complexes: (1) along with, alongside of, inside of, into, off of, onto, out of, out through, outside of

2.

a. Kimi took a walk, and took a book along (with heri). b. There was a rrucki there – I parked alongside ((of) iti). c. If you see a housei, hide inside ((of) iti). d. The storei was open, so we dashed in (??(to) iti). e. There was a long wharfi, and they zoomed (??(on) to iti). e. If you leave the windowi open, Tweety will fly out (through iti). f. If you look inside ((of) iti), you will find some beer in the fridgei. [NB: I believe that there are no temporal prepositional complexes.] Fraser’s second rule deletes coreferential NP’s under identity after the following spatial and temporal prepositions. (2) across, after, around, beside, before, between, by, ?down, since, through, underneath a. When you come to the bridge, go across (iti). b. I teach at 10i, but we can have some coffee after ([thati / ?theni / *iti]) c. There was a rocki in the road, so we drove around (iti). d. I teach at 10i, but we can have some coffee before ([thati / theni / *iti]) e. I walked to the store, and Bill trotted beside (me). f. There were two huge trucksi there, but there was some space between (themi). g. That hill is too steep for me to run down ?(iti). h. I was sick [last month]i, but I have been well since ([theni / *iti]). i. The bushesi were thick, but we pushed our way through (themi). j. The top shelfi was full, but there was space underneath (iti) / under *(iti) I note in passing that there are a few more prepositions whose anaphoric objects can be deleted, but only with CONTRASTIVE GREASE, a huge phenomenon we cannot explore properly here. In contexts where there is no clear contrast between the prepositional object being Frasered and another part of the sentence, no deletion is possible (for me). (3) above, behind, below, during, under, up a. i. The clocki was low on the wall, so I could hang the picture above *(iti). ii. Some bulletholes were below the linei,and some were above (iti). b. i. MacDonald’si is fun – I like to park behind *(iti). ii. Sometimes I park in front of MacDonald’si, and sometimes I park behind (iti). c. i. If the lecturei is boring, I am going to go to sleep during *(iti). ii. Sometimes I drink before a classi, but I never drink during (iti). d. i. The top shelfi was full, but there was space under *(iti). ii. I take photos above the wateri, but never under (iti). (Compare (2j)) 5. Interaction between POZ and pre-PP particles Note that if particles are adjoined to the PP’s whose proforms have been deleted by POZ in (2) and (3) (the deletion site being marked by Øi), most of the sentences are worsened. Compare (2) and (2’). (2’) a. When you come to the bridgei, go (?down / *through) across Øi. b. (No appropriate particle can adjoin to after.) c. There was a rocki in the road, so we drove (*up / *along) around Øi. d. (No appropriate particle can adjoin to before.) e. Ii walked to the store, and Bill trotted (along / *down / *off) beside Øi. f. There were two huge trucksi there, but there was some space (in / *along / *out) between Øi. g. That hilli is too steep for me to run (*out / *along / *around) down Øi. h. (No appropriate particle can adjoin to since.) i. The bushesi were thick, but we pushed our way (*up / *out) through Øi. j. The top shelfi was full, but there was space (down / ?*out / *along) underneath Ø??.

3.

A related point in passing: it appears that adjoining a particle to a PP affects some long-distance syntactic processes: compare (2) and (2’) with the parallel information-seeking questions in (4) (4) a’. We walked (down / through) across that bridge. a’’. (??Down / *Through) across which bridge did you walk? b. (No relevant parallel example) c’. We drove (up / along) around that big rock. c’’. (?Up / ?*Along) around which rock did you drive? d. (No relevant parallel example) e’. Bill was trotting (along / down / off) beside her. e’’. (Along / *Down / *Off) beside whom was Bill trotting? f’. There was some space (in / ?along / out) between those trucks. f’’. (In / *Along / *Out) between which trucks was there space to park? g’. I will run (?out / along / around) down that hill. g’’. (*Out / *Along / *Around) down which hill will you run? h. (No relevant parallel example) i.’ We pushed our way (up / out) through the bushes. i’’. (*Up / *Out) through which bushes did you push your way? j’ There was space (down / out / along) underneath the shelf. i’’. (Down / ?*Out / ?*Along) underneath which shelf was there space? 6. The constituent structure of particle paths What constituent structure seems reasonable for the last six words of sentence (5)? (5) I threw the ball back up in behind the stove. The three-particle Ppth in this sentence must be one sequence, since the three particles follow a NP, not a V (recall the caution in §3d). Let us investigate the extraction possibilities in (5). (6) a. It was back up in behind the stove that I threw the ball __. b. * It was behind the stove I threw the ball back up in __ . c. * It was in behind the stove that I threw the ball back up __. d. * It was up in behind the stove that I threw the ball back __. e. It was the stove that I threw the ball back up in behind __. The phrase structure for the last six words that I propose (following a suggestion of Paul Postal’s) is shown in (7) (7) PP1 Part PP2 back Part PP3 up Part PP4 in P NP behind the stove If we consider, since all the sentences in (6) are clefts, and that only NP’s and PP’s can generally be clefted, we have an explanation for why (6a) and (6e) are grammatical. But what explains the ungrammaticality of (6b) – (6d)? (8) will do the job. (8) No PP daughter of a PP can be extracted (a corollary (perhaps ? ? ?) of the Immediate Self- Domination Constraint (ISDC) proposed in Ross (1974) – cf. for an example from this reference) (9) a. [I gave [a picture of Pat]NP to Mike]S ➞ via HEAVY NP SHIFT

4.

b. [[I gave __ to Mike]S [a picture of Pat]NP]S c. It was Pat that I gave a picture of __ to Mike (from (9a) via CLEFTING) d. ? It was Pat that [[I gave __ to Mike]S [a picture of __ ]NP]S (from (9b) via CLEFTING) NB: very crummy explanation for (8). (8) is trying to account for thunderously bad sentences, while (?*9d) is only weak. (10) a. I went hunting [together [with Max]PP]PP b. It was Max that I went hunting together with. c. It was [together [with Max]PP]PP that I went hunting. d. * It was with Max that I went hunting together. (11) a. I put the beer [inside [of the fridge]PP]PP. b. It is the fridge that I put the beer [inside [of __]PP]PP. c. It is [inside [of the fridge]PP]PP that I put the beer. d. * It is [of the fridge]PP that I put the beer [inside __ ]PP. BUT! What explains the following contrasts? (I sure can’t) (11) a. He went back up around behind the stove. [back = rearwards, again] b. Back he went up around behind the stove. [back = rearwards, again] c. Back up he went around behind the stove. [back = rearwards, ?again] d. ? Back up around he went behind the stove. [back = rearwards, again] (12) a. He threw the ball back up around behind the stove. [back = rearwards, again] b. Back he threw the ball up around behind the stove. [back = rearwards, *again] c. Back up he threw the ball around behind the stove. [back = rearwards, *again] d. * Back up around he threw the ball behind the stove. 7. The mystery of back The original meaning of all particles was spatial. Two particles have lost their spatial roots most flagrantly: back, which does show up infrequently with only its “to the rear of me” meaning, as it is does in (13), (13) Sal stayed back in the saloon. (we infer that the saloon is behind the speaker). but more commonly it shows up in its iterative garb, meaning “again” – He ran back upstairs right in front of me. The other “metaphorical particle” (I use this term ill-advisedly – without a strong theory of metaphor, it sure sounds nice, but is vaporware) is on, which usually has it aspectual sense: “continue to”: Sara walked on into the kitchen. It cannot be an accident that (a) the only particle that can precede either of these is the other. (14) a. Sara walked [on / *down / *through / etc.] back into the kitchen. [These starred sentences can be said, but they require an intonational break before back: b. Sara walked through *(,) back into the kitchen. while on has no such requirement.] c. Sara walked on back into the kitchen. I believe that sentences in which the sequence on back is preferred are easier to find than are those in which back on is, but here’s one: in (14d) the reverse is true: d. Sara walked back on in. > ??Sara walked on back in. and (b) that back is the only particle that can occur in the following two environments: e. i. / V NP ___ Particle (I picked my gin [back / ??on / *over / *in / *down] up.)

5.

ii. / V __ Particle: (I passed [back / ??on / *down / *through / *up] out/) and (c) that, as observed above in §3b and §3c, back is the particle that is best at making particle paths longer. 8. A bigger mystery: what governs the order of particles in particle paths? With respect to what sequences of particles are favored, little can be said with certainty. If we call up/down expressions of a dimension of V(erticality), and in/out those of a dimension of C(ontainment), then it seems that the best order of these two is most often (V), (C). (15) a. ?? Down out between the cars you will find a goat. (V then C) >> * Out down between the cars you will find a goat. (C then V) b. We ran up in under the bridge >> *We ran in up under the bridge. The following six particles cannot precede Ptrues, OR other particles: about, by, past, through, to, under. (16) * [Past / by / through / under] into the woods flew the terrifying zonga bird. There are four polar pairs of particles: up/down, in/out, on/off, over/under. The first member of each of these pairs is unmarked, and seems to have stronger preferences for being first in a Ppth than its marked mate: (17) a. up in around beside the pump ≥ (?)down in around beside the pump, >> b. ?* up out around beside the pump; c. get up on near the box ≥? get up off near the box > ??get down off near the box. b. Walk up in behind me > ??Walk down out behind me. All particle paths which precede a Ptrue seem stronger than ones which are all particles: (18) Walk down out into the room >> *Walk down out. Come in up to the office >> *Come in up. Some sequences of particle + Ptrue allow the (underlined) Ptrue to be deleted: (19) a. Throw it out through the window ➞ Throw it out the window. b. Drop it into the box ➞ Drop it in the box. In such cases, adding a particle to the beginning of the sequence is weakened if the Ptrue is deleted: (20) a. Throw it up out through the window ≥ ??Throw it up out the window. b. Drop it down into the box ≥ (?)Drop it down in the box. Several decades ago, Elan Dresher, thinking to pull the legs of a several visible linguists on the scene, me among them, made up a number of books. The one I was said to have written, A Linguist’s Book of Counterexamples, Elan described as follows: “This innovative work, consisting solely of numbered sentences of varying degrees of grammaticality, demonstrates conclusively that syntax, as we know it, is impossible. With an introduction by The Perfect Master, Maharaj Ji.” Unfortunately, reality imitates art, and Dresher’s beautiful parody has become with this paper mere precognition. To be sure, I have not hewed rigidly enough to his ideal of presenting commentaryless examples, no one is perfect. And I have found no Master willing to introduce this work. But as in horseshoes, close is good enough. [quoted from the end of my paper “The frozenness of pseudoclefts.” CLS 2000] References Bolinger, Dwight L. M. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford University Press, USA. Fraser, Bruce. 1965. An Examination of the Verb-Particle Construction in English. MIT doctoral dissertation. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. North-Holland Publishing. Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford University press, 1987. Ross, John Robert. Three batons for cognitive psychology. In David Palermo and Walter Weimer (eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. pp. 63-124. Talmy, Leonard. 2001. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.