Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Multi-preposition constructions in English
Evelien Keizer, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
This paper examines the semantic and syntactic properties of English constructions
containing a verb followed by two (or three) prepositions (including expressions like to
walk out on, to talk someone out of, to go up to). First it is argued that, just like simple
verb-preposition constructions (e.g. to come across, to switch off or to refer to), multi-
preposition construction (MP-construction) come in various types. By applying a large
number of semantic and syntactic criteria to authentic examples, it is shown that a
distinction needs to be made between two major construction types – the composite-
predicate construction and the appositional construction – whereby the latter
construction type can be further divided into a resultative construction and a Verb + PP-
construction. Subsequently, FDG representations are offered for each of these
construction types, reflecting the differences between these types at the
Representational Level. Finally, some important implications for the theory of FDG are
considered concerning the categorization of lexical elements, in particular the viability
of (a) the distinction between particles, locative adverbs and prepositions (where they
all take the same form), (b) the distinction between grammatical and lexical
prepositions, and (c) the distinction between prepositions and conjunctions (where they
take the same form).
1. Introduction
Although a great deal of attention has been paid, in various theoretical frameworks, to
verb-preposition constructions,1 very little research has been done on constructions with
multiple prepositions.2 This paper intends to look at these constructions in some detail.
Like simple verb-preposition constructions, multi-preposition constructions (henceforth
MP-constructions) come in various kinds, illustrated in (1)-(4):
Construction I (cf. Collins Cobuild English Grammar, 1990:169-170):
Intransitive: (1) a. His girlfriend walked out on him.
b. I couldn’t put up with his paranoia.
Transitive: (2) a. We tried to talk her out of it.
b. I’m sure they put him up to it.
Construction II:
Intransitive: (3) a. John went up to the roof.
b. He walked out into the garden.
Transitive: (4) a. We put the junk down on the floor.
b. Sue left the chairs out in the garden.
In examples (1) and (2), referred to for the time being as Construction I, we find what
have traditionally been called phrasal verb constructions: fixed combinations of a verb
and two prepositional elements (often called particles or adverbs). The verbal complex
may take its own direct object (examples (2a&b)), but need not do so (examples
43
(1a&b)). In examples (3) and (4) (Construction II), the verb and the two prepositional
elements are not generally regarded as forming one semantic or syntactic unit. The exact
relation between the verb and the two prepositions, and the internal structure of the
prepositional unit is, however, far from clear.
Part of this paper will be based on some recent work on prepositions and verb-
preposition constructions in FGD (Keizer 2008, in press). It will be demonstrated that
although there are important parallels between simple verb-preposition constructions
and MP-constructions, these parallels are not perfect, and that MP-constructions
definitely merit their own treatment and analysis. In addition, I will discuss some
broader implications for the theory of FDG.
Before starting the discussion, I would like to comment briefly on the data and
method used. Throughout the paper, use will be made of authentic data from a variety of
sources: the ICE-GB-Corpus, the British National Corpus (BNC), the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA) and the Internet (Google search). These data
will be used, first, to establish the semantic properties of the various MP-constructions
(see A. below). Secondly, the data are used to find out to what extent any semantic
differences between these constructions are reflected in their syntactic behaviour (see B.
below), in accordance with the basic principle of FDG that only those semantic
distinctions that are formally expressed in a language are relevant for the grammar of a
language:
[FDG] is form-oriented in providing, for each of the languages analysed, an account of only
those interpersonal and representational phenomena which are reflected in morphosyntactic or
phonological form. (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008:39; see also Hengeveld and Mackenzie
2008:15).
Previous research into MP-constructions, supplemented by an analysis of the
data, suggests that at least the following semantic and syntactic criteria are relevant to
an understanding of the internal structure of MP-constructions. In what follows these
criteria will therefore be applied to the constructions in (1)-(4):
A. Semantic criteria:
(i) To what extent does the verb retain its original meaning?
(ii) Does the verb have its usual valency?
(iii) Is there a resultative relation between the prepositional unit and any of the
arguments?
(iv) Does the verb ‘select’ a particular preposition?
B. Syntactic criteria:
(i) Does the construction allow ‘extraction’ (clefting, questioning and fronting) of
the prepositional unit?
(ii) Does the construction allow for coordination of the prepositional unit?
(iii) Does the prepositional unit occur independently in other syntactic
environments?
(iv) Can either of the prepositional elements be omitted (without affecting the
internal structure of the construction)?
(v) Does the construction allow sequences of more than two prepositions?
(vi) Does the construction allow for alternative word orders (reversibility)?
44
2. Earlier treatments
As mentioned before, MP-constructions have not been studied in much detail.
Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008:232-233) analyse sentences like (5a) as involving a
directional argument (to the station) and a locative expression (down) modifying the
verb; the string went down is, in other words, regarded as forming a semantic unit:
(5) a. He went down to the station.
b. (fi: goV (fi): [(li: (fj: down (fj)) (li)) (fi)Ф])
Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008:232)
Hengeveld and Mackenzie give the following reasons for adopting this analysis:
The close relationship of these modifiers with the verbs they modify shows up not only in the
fact that they are restricted in use to movement verbs, but also in that many languages encode
directional meanings lexically. (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008:232)
To illustrate the second point, Hengeveld and Mackenzie mention Spanish baj-ó ‘he
went down’ and German her-kommen ‘to come here’. One may doubt, however, the
validity of this argument: the fact that a particular language uses a single lexeme to
denote a certain concept does not mean that the combination of words used to denote
that same concept in another language must also form a semantic unit.3 The first reason
given for analysing went down as one unit is also problematic: as shown by the
examples in (6), modifiers like down, up and away are not restricted in use to movement
verbs:
(6) a. The next time I went down, I stayed down (BNC)
b. Safety experts recommend that children never sled head-first or while lying down on
their stomachs. (COCA)
c. we didn't used to see much of it when we lived up in Manchester (BNC)
d. “I told you I'd be back, but perhaps I stayed away too long…” (BNC)
Moreover, as will be demonstrated in detail later on, there is compelling formal
evidence that in (5a) it is down to the station which forms one unit, rather than the
combination went down.
Within the generative framework, Den Dikken (1995:144) proposes an analysis
of sentences like (7a) as involving two Small Clauses. In SC2, the PP on the shelf is
predicative, θ-marking a book. In SC1, down is the SC-predicate, predicating over SC2.
This higher SC is the complement of the verb put:
(7) a. John put (down) the book (down) on the shelf
a’. [VP put [SC1 θ’ [XP down [SC2 the book [PP on the shelf]]]]]4
I agree with Den Dikken that the string the book down on the shelf forms one
constituent. I do not, however, agree with the internal structure Den Dikken assigns to
this phrase, as I find it semantically implausible (it would mean that ‘the book being on
the shelf’ is ‘down’). In what follows I will defend the view that on the shelf functions
as a further specification (appositional modification) of down.5
45
3. Keizer (in press)
In the treatment of verb-preposition constructions presented in Keizer (in press), three
different analyses are proposed to account for the distinctive semantic and syntactic
properties of each group. Since the treatment of MP-constructions will be based on
these analyses, I will start by giving a short overview of the data and proposed
representations. The following three types of construction were distinguished:
The composite predicate construction: [V + P]
The resultative construction: V + [P + NP]
The V + PP-construction: V + PP
Examples (8) to (10) give some of the relevant syntactic features of the constructions
involved. Even a quick glance shows that, despite the superficial similarities between
the three groups (illustrated in examples (8a), (9a) and (10a)), they differ considerably
in syntactic behaviour:
(8) a. Pete came across the letters.
b. *Pete came the letters across.
c. *The letters are across.
d. Pete came across them.
e. *Pete came them across
f. *It was across the letters that Pete came.
g. *Pete came across the letters and across some old photographs.
(9) a. Pete switched off the lights.
b. Pete switched the lights off.
c. The lights are off.
d. *Pete switched off them.
e. Pete switched them off.
f. *It was off the lights that Pete switched.
g. *Pete switched off the lights and off the heating.6
(10) a. Pete depends on his parents.
b. *Pete depends his parents on.
c. *His parents are on.
d. Pete depends on them.
e. *Pete depends them on
f. It is on his parents that Peter depends.
g. Pete depends on his parents and on his friends.
Thus, reversing the order between preposition and NP (b-sentences) and reformulating the result
of the action in the form of a copular sentence (c-sentences) is possible in (9), but not in (8) and
(10). The NP can be replaced by a proform when it follows the preposition (d-sentences) in (8)
and (10), but not in (9); when the preposition follows the NP (e-sentences), using a proform is
possible in (9), but not in (8) and (10). Finally, clefting (f-sentences) and coordination (g-
sentences) of the ‘P + NP’-string yields a grammatical construction in (10) but not in (8) and
(9).
Analysis I: Composite predicate construction: [V + P]
Keizer (in press) analyses the expressions in (8) as composite predicate constructions,
i.e. as constructions with a composite predicate consisting of a verb and a preposition.
These constructions can be either intransitive or transitive. Other examples of such
46
combinations are the two-place composite predicates stumble across, take after, stand
by, make for, grow on, come by (for the intransitive construction in (11)) and the three-
place predicates draw into, hold against, let into (a secret), talk into, get through (the
test), keep off (the premises) (for the transitive construction in (12)).
Intransitive:
(11) a. Pete came across some letters.
b. (Past ei: (fi: [(fj: [V P] (fj)) (xi)A (xj)Ref] (fi)) (ei))
where V = ‘come’
P = ‘across’
fj = ‘come across’ (composite predicate)
xi = ‘Pete’ (first argument of ‘come across’ (Actor))
xj = ‘some letters’ (second argument of ‘come across’ (Reference)7)
Transitive:
(12) a. Sam showed us around the theatre.
b. (Past ei: (fi: [(fj: [V P] (fj)) (xi)A (xj)U
(xk)Ref] (fi)) (ei))
where V = ‘show’
P = ‘around’
fj = ‘show around’ (composite predicate)
xi = ‘Sam’ (first argument of ‘show around’ (Actor))
xj = ‘us’ (second argument of ‘show around’ (Undergoer))
xk = ‘the theatre’ (third argument of ‘show around’ (Reference))
In these constructions, the verb and the preposition behave semantically as one unit:
together they denote the relation that is asserted to hold between the arguments.
Syntactically, the tests of clefting and coordination (examples (8f&g)) clearly indicate
that the preposition and the noun phrase do not act as one syntactic unit. The fact that
adverbs can occasionally appear between the composite parts (and in the transitive
construction also the direct object NP) suggests that the verb and the preposition do not
form a single lexeme.
Analysis II: The resultative construction: V + [P + NP]
The examples in (9) are given a different analysis, in which the preposition functions as
a non-verbal predicate in a resultative construction. These constructions, too, have an
intransitive and a transitive form. Other prototypical examples of resultative verb-
preposition constructions include back down/off, barge in, boil over, break out, catch
on, die out, doze off, go back, melt away, lie down, stop by, stick around (for the
intransitive construction in (13)) and bring down, call off, drag out, give back, have on,
let in, leave behind, shut out (for the transitive construction in (14)).
Intransitive:
(13) a. Sue came in. (result: ‘Sue is in’)
b. (ei: (fi: [(fj) (xi)A (fk: [(li) (xi)] (fk))Res] (fi)) (ei))
where fj = ‘come’
li = ‘in’
fk = ‘Sue (being) in’ (second argument of ‘come’ (Result))
xi = ‘Sue’ (first argument of ‘come’ (Actor))
47
Transitive:
(14) a. Pete switched off the lights. (result: ‘the lights are off’)
b. (ei: (fi: [(fj) (xi)A (xj)U (fk: [(fl) (xj)] (fk))Res] (fi)) (ei))
where fj = ‘switch’
fl = ‘off’
fk = ‘the lights (being) off’ (third argument of ‘switch’ (Result))
xi = ‘Pete’ (first argument of ‘switch’ (Actor))
xj = ‘the lights’ (second argument of ‘switch’ (Undergoer))
Semantically, these constructions differ considerably from composite predicate
constructions. Firstly, the sentences in (13a) and (14a) inevitably result in a state (‘Sue
is in’ in (13); ‘The lights are off’ in (14)). Another semantic difference concerns the fact
that the actions denoted by the verb can quite easily be conceptualized independently
from the meaning of the preposition; verb and preposition do not form one meaning
unit.
Neither is it plausible to regard the preposition and the direct object NP as
forming one prepositional phrase; witness example (9b), where the preposition follows
the NP, and (9f&g), which show that the combination of P and NP cannot be clefted and
coordinated. Instead, the P and the NP are analysed as a non-verbal Configurational
Property (Sue in the garden, the lights off),8 expressing the result of the action denoted
(i.e. ‘switching’).
Analysis III: The V + PP-construction
The sentences in (10), finally, are analysed as straightforward V + PP-constructions.
Once again, a distinction can be made between intransitive and transitive constructions.
In addition, some verbs select a specific preposition (depend on), whereas other verbs
combine with a range of different prepositions (lead (in)to/from/up/off/across/over) etc.
Examples of the former can be found in (15) and (16):
Intransitive:
(15) a. He converted to Catholicism.
b. (Past ei: (fi: [(fj) (xi)A (fk)] (fi)) (ei))
where fj = ‘convert’
x
i = ‘he’
f
k = ‘to Catholicism’
Transitive:
(16) a. They converted him to Catholicism.
b. (Past ei: (fi: [(fj) (xi)A (xj)U (fk)] (fi)) (ei))
where fj = ‘convert’
x
i = ‘they’
x
j = ‘him’
f
k = ‘to Catholicism’
In all these construction the preposition and the following NP behave syntactically as
one prepositional phrase. Semantically, too, they function as independent units,
complementing – as a whole – the meaning of the verbal lexeme.
48
4 Multi-preposition constructions in FDG
Turning to MP-constructions, it will be argued that these, too, can be divided into
different groups. Here two major construction types can be distinguished; the second
type can be further divided into two subtypes:
Construction I: The composite predicate construction (Section 4.1)
Construction II: The appositional construction (Section 4.2)
o The resultative construction
o The V + PP-construction
4.1 Construction I: Composite predicate constructions
In this section it will be argued that constructions like those given in example (17) can
justifiably be regarded as composite predicate constructions. Section 4.1.1 provide the
semantic and some of the syntactic reasons for doing so (more details will be provided
in Section 4.2.1). Section 4.1.2 will suggest an underlying representation for these
constructions.
4.1.1 Characterization of the composite predicate construction
The first major construction type is exemplified by the sentences in (17) and (18):
(17) Intransitive:
a. I couldn’t put up with his paranoia. (= example (1b))
b. His girlfriend walked out on him.
(18) Transitive:
