Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

1.2.4.Intransitive adpositions

quickinfo

This section discusses intransitive adpositions. Subsection I shows that these adpositions probably do not form a homogeneous group, but must be divided into two groups, viz., locational adpositions and verbal particles. Subsection II provides a small sample of particle verbs and Subsection III discusses some syntactic differences between intransitive adpositions and verbal particles. Subsection IV, finally, is devoted to P + V compounds, which can be easily confused with verbs taking an intransitive adposition or a particle.

I. Intransitive adpositions and particles
II. Particle verbs
III. Differences between intransitive adpositions and particles
IV. Particle verbs versus P + V compounds

[+] I. Intransitive adpositions and particles

Adpositions can sometimes be used without a complement, in which case they are often called intransitive adpositions or (verbal) particles. It may be the case that intransitive adpositions and particles do not form a homogeneous group. Consider example (71).

		Jan zet	zijn hoed	op	(zijn hoofd).
		Jan puts	his hat	on	his head

Example (71) shows that the particle op can be used in the same function as the predicative PP op zijn hoofd; substituting one for the other does not affect the core meaning of the example, which expresses that the hat is undergoing a change of location. It seems plausible that the fact that op can be used as an intransitive adposition is related to the fact that the information conveyed by the complement of the preposition op is more or less superfluous; when it is dropped, our knowledge of the world enables us to reconstruct the full event and to determine the new location of the moved entity. Regardless of how one would like to account for this intuition, it is at least clear that there is a close relation between the use of op as a preposition and its use as an intransitive adposition. In this respect the intransitive use of op resembles the pseudo-intransitive use of transitive verbs like eten'to eat'; if no direct object is present, it is inferred that some canonical object (an entity that is edible) is involved. Intransitive adpositions are generally locational in nature, and are mostly used with verbs denoting activities involving dressing and personal hygiene, as in (72a&b), or refer to pragmatically determinable locations, as in (72c). See Section 1.3.1.5, sub I, for more discussion.

a.		Jan doet	zijn sjaal	om	(zijn nek).
		Jan puts	his shawl	around	his neck

b.		Jan smeert	zonnebrandolie	op	(zijn lichaam).
		Jan smears	suntan oil	on	his body

c.		Het postkantoor	is dicht bij	(mijn huis).
		the post office	is close to	my house

The adposition af in (73a) also seems to perform a function similar to the PP op zijn hoofd in (71). The main difference is that whereas the intransitive use of op in (71) has implications concerning the new location of the hat, (73a) identifies the original location of the hat. It is, however, less clear whether af can indeed be considered an intransitive adposition. If it is one, it must have the lexical property that it can only be used as such, given that it cannot take the noun phrase zijn hoofd as its complement. Alternative, one might of course speculate that the particle af is somehow related to its use in the circumposition van .. af; cf. (73b).

a.		Jan zet	zijn hoed	af	(*zijn hoofd).
		Jan puts	his hat	off	his head

b.		Jan zet	zijn hoed	(?van zijn hoofd)	af.
		Jan puts	his hat	from his head	off

Often, there is no apparent semantic relation between the use of intransitive adpositions and their prepositional counterparts. In such cases, we will use the term (verbal) particle. These particles normally form a more or less fixed semantic unit with their associated main verb and they cannot be replaced by a full PP without affecting the core meaning of the construction. Despite the fact that Dutch orthography requires the particle and the verb to be written as a single word if they are adjacent, the combination probably cannot be considered a morphological compound since the finite form of the verb can be placed in the second position of main clauses while stranding the particle in clause-final position. Illustrations of this split pattern are given in the primed examples in (74).

a.	Jan wil	wat achterstallig werk	inhalen.
	Jan wants	some overdue work	prt.-catch
	'Jan wants to catch up on some overdue work.'

a'.	Jan haalde	snel	wat achterstallig werk	in.
	Jan caught	quickly	some overdue work	prt.
	'Jan caught up on some overdue work quickly.'

b.	De minister	wou	cruciale informatie	achterhouden.
	the minister	wanted	crucial information	prt.-keep
	'The minister wanted to withhold crucial information.'

b'.	De minister	hield	cruciale informatie	achter.
	the minister	kept	crucial information	prt.
	'The minister was withholding crucial information.'

The examples above suggest that there is a gradient scale by which intransitive adpositions are related to their prepositional counterparts. In some cases the relation is quite tight, whereas in other cases the relation is looser or perhaps even nonexistent. Although the distinction between intransitive adpositions of the type in (71) and the verbal particles in (74) is often not very clear-cut as a result, we will nevertheless make this distinction. In doing so, we will rely heavily on whether the adposition has retained its original spatial meaning and can appear in the same environment as a predicative PP, or whether it has (partly) lost its meaning and cannot be replaced by a predicative PP (without affecting the core meaning of the construction). Subsection III will discuss a number of syntactic differences between intransitive adpositions and verbal particles, but first we want to discuss the particle verbs in more detail.

[+] II. Particle verbs

Dutch has numerous particle verbs, that is, more or less fixed combinations of verbs and particles. The meanings of these particle verbs are generally not compositionally determined; they are to a certain extent unpredictable and must therefore be listed in the lexicon. This is especially clear from the fact that there are several particle verbs that seem to be derived not from a verb, but from an adjective or noun. Table (75) provides some examples of such cases.

adjective/noun	verb	particle verb
sterkA'strong'	*sterken	aan + sterken'to recuperate'
zwakA'weak'	*zwakken	af + zwakken'to tone down'
diepA'deep'	*diepen	op + diepen'to bring out'
brief 'letter'	*brieven	over + brieven 'to pass on'
disN'meal/dining table'	*dissen	op +dissen'to dish up (a story)'
beenN'bone'	*benen	uit + benen'to bone'

The fact that the meaning of the particle verbs in (75) must be listed in the lexicon suggests that we are dealing with complex words. Subsection IV will show, however, that particle verbs cannot be considered complex words in the normal, morphological sense of the term. For this reason, we will often choose to not follow the orthographic rule according to which the particle and the verb are written as a single word (if they are adjacent). Note that the fact that particle verbs are not regular compounds is also recognized by Dutch traditional grammar, which uses the term scheidbaar samengesteld werkwoord “separable compound verb” for these verbs in order to distinguish them from real compounds of the type P + V that do not allow the “split” pattern. A brief discussion of the differences between the particle verbs and these so-called onscheidbaar samengestelde werkwoorden “inseparable compound verbs” can also be found in Subsection IV.
Table 9 provides a small sample of particle verbs that are derived from existing verbs; cf. De Haas & Trommelen (1993: Chapter 2, sub 6) for many more examples. Broadly speaking, the particles can be said to constitute a subset of the spatial prepositions. There are only three exceptions, which are marked with an asterisk in the table. First, the particle af has no prepositional counterpart in colloquial Standard Dutch at all (but see the remark above Table 7 in Section 1.2.3). Second, the particle mee, which is homophonous to the stranded counterpart of the preposition met used in instrumental and comitative phrases, is clearly not spatial. Finally, the particle na cannot be used as a spatial preposition (as a preposition it expresses a temporal meaning); perhaps it is an abbreviation of the complex spatial particle achterna'after/behind', which can be used as a postposition, as in Hij liep de jongen achterna'He followed the boy'. The fact that the meanings of the particle verbs are not compositionally determined does not mean that the original spatial meanings of the particles are completely undetectable; many of the particles in Table 9 can still be recognized as–that is, still feel like–spatial adpositions. Consequently, some of the examples in the table come semantically rather close to the examples involving intransitive adpositions discussed in Subsection I.

Table 9: Particle-verb combinations

particle	example	translation
aan	een kaars aan steken drie kilo aan komen	to light a candle to increase three kiloʼs in weight
achter	achter blijven informatie achter houden	to stay behind to withhold information
*af	af gaan een band af spelen af studeren	to fail/lose face to play a tape to graduate
bij	bij blijven de literatuur bij houden drie euro bij betalen	to keep up to date to keep up to date with the literature to pay three Euros as extra charge
binnen	binnen sijpelen een subsidie binnen halen	to seep inside to obtain a subsidy
boven	boven komen boven liggen	to come upstairs/on top to lie on top
buiten	buiten komen buiten sluiten	to come outside to shut out
door	iets door snijden door lopen de vakantie ergens door brengen	to cut something through to continue to walk to spend the vacation somewhere
in	iets in brengen iets in dienen iets in schatten	to insert something to submit something to estimate something
langs	bij iemand langs gaan iets ergens langs brengen	to briefly visit someone to deliver something somewhere
*mee	iets aan iemand mee delen aan iets mee doen iets meenemen	to inform someone of something to partake in something to take something along
*na	iemand na lopen over iets na praten iemand na praten	to run after someone to talk something over to parrot
om	iets om draaien iemand om kopen om komen	to turn something around to bribe someone to die in an accident or a calamity
onder	iets onder binden ergens onder duiken iets onder verdelen	to fasten something (under the feet) go into hiding somewhere to classify something
op	iets op schrijven op houden kinderen op voeden	to put down (on paper) to stop to raise children
over	over stromen over steken een tekst over schrijven	to flood to cross to copy a text
rond	rond rijden een nieuwtje rond vertellen rond draaien	to drive around to spread an item of news around to turn/spin (around)
tegen	iets tegen houden iets tegen spreken iemand tegen komen	to stop something to object to/argue with something to meet someone
toe	toe stromen iemand toe dekken iets toe geven	to crowd towards to tuck something in to admit something
tussen	iets tussen werpen	to interpolate
uit	iets uit kotsen iets uit sluiten iets uit zenden	to throw up to exclude something to broadcast
voor	iets voor binden iets voordoen	to put on something to demonstrate
voorbij	voorbij lopen/rijden/vliegen iemand voorbij streven	to pass to outstrip someone

Besides the particles in Table 9, which clearly have an adpositional counterpart, Dutch has many other elements that are traditionally considered adverbs but that resemble particles in that they may occur in a fixed combination with certain verbs. Moreover, many of them resemble adpositional phrases in that they may express a change of location or direction. A small sample is given in (76); we refer to De Haas & Trommelen (1993:ch.2, sub 6.3.2) for more cases.

heen gaan

'to die'

weg lopen

'to walk away'

neer dalen

'to come down'

terug gaan

'to go back'

thuis komen

'to come home'

verder komen

'to make headway'

verder lopen

'to continue to walk'

voort lopen

'to continue to walk'

vooruit komen

'to make headway'

weer keren

'to return'

k.	Jan komt	in de gevangenis	terecht.
	Jan comes	in the prison	terecht
	'Jan will end up in prison.'

In addition, De Haas & Trommelen (1993:ch.2, sub 6.3.3) give a large set of complex particles. Since these complex forms behave just like the simple ones, we will not discuss them here, but confine ourselves to giving a list. The first subset involves particles that are formed with achter/voor +P as their first member and that denote a location, direction or time. All forms can also be used as prepositions with the exception of the particles in (77b). Note that the particles achteraf/vooraf in (77a) are temporal in nature.

a.	achteraan/ vooraan	'in the back/front'
	achterin/ voorin	'in the back/front'
	achterom/ voorom	'around the back/front'
	achterop/ voorop	'on the back/front'
	achteruit/ vooruit	'backwards/forwards'

b.	achteraf/ vooraf	'afterwards/beforehand'
	achterna	'after'
	omhoog/omlaag	'upwards/downwards'

The second subset in (78) involves particles denoting a state. The particles P + een in (78a) alternate with the construction P + elkaar'each other'; cf. Hij frommelde de papieren in elkaar/ineen'He crumpled the papers.'

a.		aaneen'on end'
		bijeen'together'
		dooreen'higgledy-piggledy'
		opeen'on each other'
		uiteen'apart'

b.		achterover(liggen) 'to lie on the back'
		voorover (liggen)'to lie on the front'
		onderuit (liggen)'to lie flat'
		omver (duwen)'to push over'

Although the meanings of the particles are sometimes quite remote from predicatively used adpositional phrases, they share at least one syntactic property with them. First, Section 1.1.2.2, sub II A, has discussed that the addition of a predicative PP may turn a regular intransitive verb into an unaccusative verb. As a general rule, the particles in Table 9 have the same effect. Take the case of af studeren'to graduate'. While studeren'to study' in (79a) has all the characteristics of a regular intransitive verb, the particle verb afstuderen'to graduate' in (79a') has the properties of an unaccusative verb: the (b)-examples show that whereas studeren takes the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense, afstuderen takes zijn; the (c)-examples show that whereas the past/passive participle gestudeerd cannot be used as an attributive modifier of a noun that corresponds to the subject of the clause, af gestudeerd can; the (d)-examples, finally, show that whereas studeren allows impersonal passivization, afstuderen does not.

a.		Jan studeert	vlijtig.
		Jan studies	diligently

a'.		Jan studeert	snel	af.
		Jan graduates	quickly	prt.

b.		Jan heeft/*is	vlijtig	gestudeerd.
		Jan has/is	diligently	studied

b'.		Jan is/*heeft	snel	afgestudeerd.
		Jan is/has	quickly	prt.-graduated

c.	*	de	vlijtig gestudeerde	jongen
		the	diligently studied	boy

c'.		de	snel	afgestudeerde	jongen
		the	quickly	prt.-graduated	boy

d.		Er	wordt vlijtig	gestudeerd.
		there	is diligently	studied

d'.	*?	Er	wordt	snel	afgestudeerd.
		there	is	quickly	prt.-graduated

In (80) we give similar examples involving weg'away', which is taken from the set of particles in (76): like predicative pre- or postpositional phrases, the particle changes the intransitive verb lopen into an unaccusative verb.

a.		Jan liep	snel.
		Jan walked	fast

a'.		Jan liep	snel	weg.
		Jan walked	quickly	away

b.		Jan heeft/*is	snel	gelopen.
		Jan has/is	fast	walked

b'.		Jan is/*heeft	snel	weg	gelopen.
		Jan is/has	quickly	away	walked

c.	*	de	snel	gelopen	jongen
		the	fast	walked	boy

c'.		de snel	weg	gelopen	jongen
		the quickly	away	walked	boy

d.		Er	wordt	snel	gelopen.
		there	is	fast	walked

d'.	*?	Er	wordt	snel	weg gelopen.
		there	is	quickly	away walked

Second, the addition of a predicative PP may license as its logical subject an argument that is not selected by the verb; cf. Section 1.1.2.2, sub IIB. The examples in (81) show that the addition of a particle may have the same effect, and therefore show that the particle is also predicative in nature, despite the fact that it is not always clear what property the particle denotes; see Section 1.3.1.5, sub II, for a more extensive discussion of the semantics of particles.

a.	Jan speelt	de band	*(af).
	Jan plays	the tape	prt.
	'Jan parrots the girl.'

b .	Jan praat	het meisje	*(na).
	Jan talks	the girl	prt.
	'Jan Jan parrots the girl.'

c.	Jan kots	zijn eten	*(uit).
	Jan throws	his food	prt.
	'Jan throws his food up.'

d.	Jan vocht	zijn ontslag	*(aan).
	Jan fought	his dismissal	prt.
	'Jan challenged his dismissal.'

There are other elements that are sometimes considered verbal particles that do not have an adpositional counterpart, like the element samen'together' in (82a). It does not seem to be the case, however, that samen acts as a particle in the same sense as the elements discussed above, since it differs not only in meaning but also exhibits a different syntactic behavior. In contrast to the particles in (79) and (80), the addition of samen does not change a regular intransitive verb like werken'to work' into an unaccusative one: the verb selects the auxiliary hebben in the perfect-tense construction in (82b), the past/passive particle in (82c) cannot be used as an attributive modifier of a noun that corresponds to the subject of the clause, and the impersonal passive construction in (82d) is fully acceptable.

a.	Marie en Jan	werken	al	jaren	samen.
	Marie and Jan	work	already	for.years	together
	'Marie and Jan are already cooperating for years.'

b.		Jan en Marie	hebben/*zijn	al	jaren	samen	gewerkt.
		Jan and Marie	have/are	already	for.years	together	worked

c.	*	de	samengewerkte	vrienden
		the	cooperated	friends

d.		Er	wordt	al	jaren	samen	gewerkt.
		there	is	already	for.years	together	worked

The element samen also crucially differs from run-of-the-mill verbal particles in that it can readily be separated from the verbs in clause-final position: dat Jan en Peter samen aan dit project hebben gewerkt'that Jan and Peter worked on this project together'. It therefore seems safe to dismiss the claim that samen functions as a verbal particle in examples such as (82a).

[+] III. Differences between intransitive adpositions and particles

The following subsections discuss several differences between intransitive adpositions and verbal particles.

[+] A. Position with respect to the verbs in clause-final position

The most conspicuous difference between intransitive adpositions and verbal particles is that the former must precede the verbs in clause-final position, whereas the latter may intervene between these verbs. Example (83a), for example, is ambiguous between a reading in which voor is used as an intransitive adposition meaning “in front (of something)”, and a reading in which voor is used as a particle, in which case the combination voor staan means “to be leading (in a game)”. Example (83b) can only have the latter meaning.

a.	dat	Jan	voor	lijkt	te staan.	intransitive adposition or particle
	that	Jan	in.front	seems	to stand
	'Jan seems to be standing in front (of, e.g., the house).'
	'Jan seems to be leading in the game.'

b.	dat	Jan	lijkt	voor	te staan.	particle only
	that	Jan	seems	in.front	to stand
	'Jan seems to be leading in the game.'

[+] B. PP-over-V

The examples in (84) show that, like adverbially used prepositional phrases, adverbially used intransitive adpositions may undergo PP-over-V, albeit that the result is somewhat marked for some speakers due to “lightness” of the intransitive adposition achter; PP-over-V is normally applied to relatively “heavy” constituents.

a.	dat	Jan graag	<achter het huis>	speelt <achter het huis>.
	that	Jan gladly	behind the house	plays
	'that Jan likes to play in the back/behind the house.'

b.	dat	Jan graag	<achter>	speelt <%achter>.
	that	Jan gladly	behind	plays
	'that Jan likes to play in the back/behind (e.g., the house).'

The examples in (85) , on the other hand, show that particles like voor behave like predicatively used adpositional phrases like voor het huis in that they must precede their verbal associate: this is not really surprising, of course, given that the examples in (79) to (81) have already shown that particles are in fact predicative phrases, which must likewise precede the verb they are selected by.

a.	dat	Jan <voor het huis>	staat <*voor het huis>.
	that	Jan in.front.of the house	stands
	'that Jan is standing in front of the house.'

b.	dat	Jan <voor>	staat <*voor>.
	that	Jan prt.	leads
	'that Jan is leading the game.'

[+] C. Topicalization

It is easier to topicalize intransitive adpositions than particles, which is probably related to the fact that particles have little semantic content of their own and topicalization is normally used to emphasize some constituent, as in example (86a), in which contrastive accent is indicated by small capitals. But even when particles may induce meaning differences, topicalization seems to be disfavored; this is clear from the fact that voor and achter are preferably interpreted as locational intransitive adpositions in example (86b).

a.	Voor	heb	ik	een woonkamer	en	achter	een werkkamer.
	in.front	have	I	a living.room	and	behind	an office
	'The living room is in the front and the office in the back (of the ground floor).'

b.	#	Voor	staat	Jan en	achter	staat	Marie.
		in.front	stands	Jan and	behind	stands	Marie
		Intended reading: 'Jan is leading the game and Marie isnʼt leading the game.'

Nevertheless, if the locational interpretation is unlikely and the context is sufficiently contrastive, topicalization seems to give rise to a fully acceptable result; cf. Hoeksema (1991a/1991b) and Bennis (1991).

a.	Op	komt	de zon	in het oosten;	onder	gaat	hij	in het westen.
	up	comes	the sun	in the east	down	goes	he	in the west
	'The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.'

b.	In ademen	we	zuurstof	(en	uit	kooldioxide).
	in breathe	we	oxygen	and	out	carbon dioxide
	'We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.'

Note that the acceptability of the topicalization is clearest when the particle verb is finite and the verbal part thus occupies the second position of the clause. If the second position of the clause is filled by an auxiliary, as in (88), VP-topicalization seems preferred to topicalization of the particle.

a.	??	In hebben	we zuurstof	geademd	(en	uit	kooldioxide).
		in have	we oxygen	breathed	and	out	carbon dioxide

b.	?	In geademd	hebben	we zuurstof	(en	uit geademd kooldioxide).
		in breathed	have	we oxygen	and	out breathed carbon dioxide

[+] D. Progressive aan het + V construction

The examples in (89) show that intransitive prepositions and verbal particle differ in that only the latter can be adjacent to the main verb in the progressive aan het + V construction; whereas the verbal particle voor in voorlezen'to read aloud' can precede or follow the sequence aan het, the intransitive preposition voor must precede it.

a.	Jan is de kinderen	het boek	<voor>	aan het <voor>	lezen.
	Jan is the children	the book	prt.	aan het	read
	'Jan is reading the book to the children.'

b.	De kinderen	zijn	<voor>	aan het <*voor>	spelen.
	the children	are	in.front	aan het	play
	'The children are playing in front (of, e.g., the house).'

[+] E. Word formation

Intransitive adpositions and particles differ with respect to word formation. The former are never part of a complex word, whereas the latter can be; the examples in (90) and (91) show that many of the particle verbs in Table 9 can be the input for word formation.

aan + steken

'to light'

a'.

aansteker

'lighter'

na + praten

'to parrot'

b'.

naprater

'parrot'

op + voeden

'to raise'

c'.

opvoeding

'education'

over + stromen

'to flood'

d'.

overstroming

'flood'

aan + steken

'to infect'

a'.

aanstekelijk

'contagious'

om + kopen

'to bribe'

b'.

onomkoopbaar

'incorruptible'

op + blazen

'inflate'

c'.

opblaasbaar

'inflatable'

op + lossen

'to solve'

d'.

onoplosbaar

'unsolvable'

op + merken

'to note'

e'.

opmerkzaam

'observant'

[+] F. Co-occurrence restrictions and coordination

The examples in (92) show that intransitive adpositions can readily co-occur, as in (92a), and be coordinated, as in (92b).

a.	Jan speelt	boven	graag	achter.
	Jan plays	above	gladly	behind
	'Upstairs, Jan likes to play in the back.'

b.	De kinderen	spelen	zowel	boven	als	achter.
	the children	play	both	above	and	behind
	'The children play both upstairs and in the back.'

The examples in (93) show that juxtaposition and coordination of verbal particles normally lead to severely degraded results and that, as a result, a clause cannot contain more then one single verbal particle. The differences in acceptability are probably due to the fact that the intransitive adpositions in (92) are used as regular locational adverbial phrases, whereas the particles in (93) constitute an inherent part of the meaning of the particle verb; cf. Subsection II.

a.	*	Jan staat	op	voor.
		Jan stands	up	in.front
		Intended meaning: 'Jan is standing up and heʼs leading the game.'

b.	*	Jan staat	zowel	op	als	voor.
		Jan stands	both	up	and	in front
		Intended meaning: 'Jan is standing up and heʼs leading the game.'

However, example (94a) seems to show that the ban on coordination is lifted if the particles are antonyms. In principle, two analyses are possible for this example: either we are dealing with coordination of the two particles in and uit, as in the representation in (94b), or with coordination of the two particle verbs inademen'inhale' and uitademen'exhale' with backward conjunction reduction, as in the representation in (94b').

a.	Je	moet	rustig	in en uit	ademen.
	you	must	calmly	in and out	breathe
	'You must breathe in and out calmly.'

Je moet rustig [in en out] ademen.

b'.

Je moet rustig [[in ademen] en [uit ademen]].

It is not easy to decide which of these two analyses is the correct one, and it may in fact be the case that they are both correct. That the analysis in (94b) may be correct is clear from the acceptability of example (95a): whereas the analysis in (95b) is unproblematic, the conjunction-reduction analysis in (95b') is untenable given that the infinitive in the first conjunct conjuncts is not licensed by being in the domain of a modal verb.

a.		dat	je	rustig	in en uit	moet	ademen.
		that	you	calmly	in and out	must	breathe

dat je rustig [in en uit] moet ademen.

b'.

dat je rustig [[in ademen] en [moet uit ademen]].

That the analysis in (94b) may be correct is at least suggested by the acceptability of example (96a). We have added a percentage sign to the analysis in (96b), because Standard Dutch normally does not allow complex phrases to permeate the verbs in a verb cluster. If this restriction is indeed absolute, the analysis must be as given in (96b'). We leave it to future research to investigate whether it is possible to provide more conclusive evidence in favor of the conjunction-reduction analysis.

a.		dat	je	rustig	moet	in en uit	ademen.
		that	you	calmly	must	in and out	breathe

dat je rustig moet [in en uit] ademen.

b'.

dat je rustig moet [[in ademenen] en [uit ademen]].

The discussion above has shown that coordination of particles is normally excluded, unless the particle are antonymous and, of course, are associated with the same verbal part. This seems to support the earlier suggestion that the ban on coordination is not syntactic but semantic in nature. For completeness' sake, example (97) shows that intransitive adpositions and particles can readily co-occur.

Voor	heb	ik	een plant	neer	gezet.
in.front	have	I	a plant	down	put
'Iʼve put a plant down in the front.'

[+] G. Conclusion

We conclude this subsection with a brief illustration of the first four tests for particle verbs on the basis of the potentially problematic case in (98a), adapted from Hoeksema (1991a). Although the Van Dale dictionary lists voorstemmen as a particle verb, the fact that the element voor can be replaced by the PP voor het voorstel shows that we cannot a priori exclude the possibility that we are dealing with an intransitive adposition. Example (98b) suggests, however, that the Van Dale analysis of voor as a verbal particle is indeed the correct one: the element voor differs markedly from the PP voor het voorstel in that it cannot undergo PP-over-V, but must occur to the left of the main verb.

a.	Voor (het voorstel)	stemde	alleen	de oppositie.
	in.favor.of the proposal	voted	just	the opposition
	'Only the opposition voted in favor of the proposal.'

b.	dat de oppositie	<voor (het voorstel)>	stemde <voor *(het voorstel)>.
	that the opposition	in.favor.of the proposal	voted
	'that the opposition voted in favor of the proposal.'

Example (98b) thus strongly suggests that voorstemmen is indeed a particle verb, and this is also supported by the fact that voorstemmen can be the input for agentive er-nominalization; the noun voorstemmer is also listed in the Van Dale dictionary and a Google search on this form resulted in numerous hits.

[+] IV. Particle verbs versus P + V compounds

Subsections II and III have shown that particle verbs exhibit several of the properties of compounds. First, the meaning of a particle verb is not compositionally determined; it is normally impossible to fully predict the meaning of a particle verb on the basis of the meaning of the constituent parts, which is also a typical property of compounds. Second, table (75) has shown that there are particle verbs that involve verb forms that are only attested in combination with one specific particle; this seems problematic for an analysis according to which the verb selects the particle in the same way as it would select other adpositional phrases, given that selection generally involves entire classes of entities, not just a single word or phrase. Finally, examples (90) and (91) show that many particle verbs can be the input to morphological processes, which is normal for (complex) words, but much less common for phrases. However, there are also several problems for the claim that particle verbs are complex words. We will make this clear by comparing particle verbs to undisputed P + V compounds like voorzien'to anticipate' and overzien'to calculate'.

[+] A. Verb second

The easiest way of distinguishing particle verbs from P + V compounds is by considering main clauses in which the verb in question is finite and thus occupies the second position in the clause. When we are dealing with a particle verb, we get a split pattern, that is, the particle is stranded in clause-final position; when we are dealing with a compound, on the other hand, the split pattern is not possible.

a.	Jan <*over>schreef	de antwoorden <over>.	particle verb
	Jan prt. wrote	the answers
	'Jan copied the answers.'

b.	Jan <over>zag	de consequenties	niet meer <*over>.	compound
	Jan over saw	the consequences	no longer
	'Jan could no longer calculate the consequences.'

[+] B. Clause-final verb clusters and te-infinitives

If the clause contains a clause-final verb cluster, as in (100a), the particle may either precede the complete cluster or be left-adjacent to the main verb; the P+V compound in (100b), on the other hand, cannot be split by the auxiliary.

100

a.	dat	Jan de antwoorden	<over>	wil <over>	schrijven.	particle verb
	that	Jan the answers	prt.	wants	write
	'that Jan wants to copy the answers.'

b.	dat	Jan de consequentie	niet <*over>	kon	<over>zien.	compound
	that	Jan the consequences	not prt.	could	see
	'that Jan couldnʼt calculate all the consequences.'

In te-infinitives like (101), the particle must precede the infinitival marker te. This marker cannot, however, permeate the P + V compound; see Section V7 for more extensive discussion of word order in verb clusters and te-infinitives.

101

a.	Het	is verboden	[om	de antwoorden	<over>	te <*over>	schrijven].
	it	is forbidden	COMP	the answers	prt.	to	write
	'It is forbidden to copy the answers.'

b.	Het	is moeilijk	[om	alle consequenties	<*over>	te <over>zien].
	it	is difficult	COMP	all consequences	prt.	to see
	'It is difficult to calculate all the consequences.'

[+] C. Formation of the past/passive participle

In the case of particle verbs, the past/passive participle is prefixed by ge-, and the particle precedes this prefix. This prefix ge- does not arise, however, if we are dealing with a P + V compound. In this respect, P + V compounds behave like verbs prefixed with be-, ver- and ont-; cf. for example verrassen'to surprise': heeft <*ge->ver<*ge->rast'has surprised'.

102

a.	Jan heeft	de antwoorden	over	*(ge-)schreven.	particle verb
	Jan has	the answers	prt.	written
	'Jan has copied the answers.'

b.		Jan heeft	niet	alle	consequenties	over(*ge-)zien.	compound
		Jan has	not	all	consequences	overseen

[+] D. Topicalization

Topicalization of particles is possible with antonym pairs like inademen'to breathe in' and uitademen'to breathe out' in (103a), provided that the particle receives contrastive accent; cf, subsection IIIC. Topicalization of the P-part of P + V compounds, on the other hand, is never acceptable, and thus also holds for antonym pairs like onderschatten'underestimate' and overschatten'overestimate' in (103b).

103

a.		In ademen	we	zuurstof	(en	uit	kooldioxide).	particle verb
		in breathe	we	oxygen	and	out	carbon dioxide

b.	*	Onder	schat	Marie	zichzelf	(en	over	de anderen).	compound
		under	estimates	Marie	herself	(and	over	the others)

[+] E. Stress

Word stress is always on the particle part of a particle verb, whereas in P + V compounds it is always on the verbal part; this is shown in (104), in which we have indicated word stress by means of small capitals.

104

Particle verbs	P+V compounds
DOOR lopen 'to walk on'	doorLOpen 'to attend (a school)'
ONDER duiken 'to go into hiding'	onderNEmen 'to undertake'
OVER schrijven 'to copy'	overZIEN 'to calculate'
VOOR schrijven 'to prescribe'	voorZIEN 'to anticipate'

[+] F. Conclusion

The data in Subsections A through E show that, despite the fact that particle verbs have certain properties of compounds, the particles and the verbs sometimes also behave like syntactic constituents in their own right. The proper analysis of particle verbs is, however, still the subject of an ongoing debate: the traditional assumption that particles are part of the particle verb has been defended again recently by, e.g., Neeleman (1994b), Neeleman and Weerman (1993/1999); the assumption that the particle is a syntactic constituent in its own right has been defended by, e.g., Bennis (1991), Den Dikken (1995), and Zeller (2001). Koopman (1995) and Den Dikken (2003) reconcile the two views by assuming that the particle syntactically incorporates into the verb. Booij (2010) reconciles the two views within construction grammar by claiming that the phrasal and the compound structure co-exist.

References:

Bennis, Hans1991Theoretische aspekten van partikelvoorpplaatsing IITabu2189-95
Bennis, Hans1991Theoretische aspekten van partikelvoorpplaatsing IITabu2189-95
Booij, Geert2010Construction morphologyOxford/New YorkOxford University Press
Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
Dikken, Marcel den2003When particles don't part
Haas, Wim de & Trommelen, Mieke1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvormingSDU Uitgeverij
Haas, Wim de & Trommelen, Mieke1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvormingSDU Uitgeverij
Haas, Wim de & Trommelen, Mieke1993Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvormingSDU Uitgeverij
Hoeksema, Jack1991Theoretische aspekten van partikelvooropplaatsingTabu2118-26
Hoeksema, Jack1991Nogmaals PartikelvoorpplaatsingTabu21141-144
Hoeksema, Jack1991Theoretische aspekten van partikelvooropplaatsingTabu2118-26
Koopman, Hilda1995On verbs that fail to undergo V-secondLinguistic Inquiry26137-163
Neeleman, Ad1994Complex predicatesUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred1993The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultativesNatural Language & Linguistic Theory11433-475
Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred1999Flexible syntax. A theory of case and argumentsStudies in Natural Language & Linguistic TheoryDordrecht/Boston/LondonKluwer
Zeller, Jochen2001Particle verbs and local domainsLinguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 41Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: P + VAdpositionAdpositionsCompoundConjunctionConjunction ReductionContrastive FocusCoordinationDeadjectival VerbDenominal VerbDifferences with intransitive adpositionDifferences with verbal particleFocusIntransitive AdpositionPP-over-VParticipleParticleParticle VerbParticle Verb versus P+V compoundPast/passive ParticiplePseudo-intransitive VerbStressVerbVerb ClusterVerb-SecondVerbal ParticleWordWord formationWord Orderachternaafmee (stranded form of met)nasamen 'together'van ... af

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles