German Particle Verbs Research Articles

An inquiry into the semantic transparency and productivity of German particle verbs and derivational affixation

Abstract This study addresses the relation between morphological productivity and semantic transparency. Using distributional semantics, we compare German word formation using particles with derivational word formation. We observed that derivational suffixes, but not particles, tend to make strong independent semantic contributions to their carrier words. In two-dimensional t-SNE maps, complex words show clustering by affix, but not by particle. Furthermore, the semantic vectors of suffixed words are predictable from their base words with higher accuracy than is possible for particle verbs. For particle verbs, but not affixed verbs, semantic similarity within the set of complex words correlated negatively with the number of types. Furthermore, only for particle verbs, a greater number of observed types predicted a reduced probability of observing unseen types. We propose that particle verbs primarily serve the onomasiological function of labeling, resulting in relatively idiosyncratic semantic vectors. By contrast, words sharing derivational affixes form distinct clusters in semantic space while maintaining strong and consistent semantic relations with their base words. This enables these words to serve not only as labels, but also allows them to be used with an anaphoric function in discourse.

Particle verbs with weg- in German: a constructional analysis

The aim of this paper is to provide an analysis of German particle verbs with the particle weg- ‘away’ as in Tattoos weglasern (lit. ‘to laser tattoos away’ within the framework of Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Ziem & Lasch, 2013). The meaning of German weg-verbs often being non-compositional, morpho-lexical approaches turn out to be unable to properly account for the meaning of weg-constructions. The constructionist approach allows us to shed light on the relationship between morphology and syntax within weg-constructions and to account for both lexicalised and non-lexicalised instances of verbs with weg-. The analysis is based on the distinction between transitive and reflexive weg-constructions, which can occur as caused-motion and resultative constructions. The discussion of various variants of the German weg-construction suggests that the weg-constructions under investigation are linked to each other in a family of constructions.

Aufhören (‘stop’) activates hören (‘hear’) but not Musik (‘music’)

Abstract This study examines whether the lexical processing of German particle verbs differs from their processing in a semantic network. To this end, we explored whether the processing of particle verbs induces access to the stem (Experiment 1) and to a semantic associate of the stem (Experiment 2). In two cross-modal priming experiments, participants listened to particle verbs that were (a) semantically transparent (e.g. anhören, ‘listen to’), (b) semantically opaque (e.g. aufhören, ‘stop’), or (c) form-related (e.g. aushöhlen, ‘mold’) with respect to their stem (e.g., hören, ‘hear’). Participants made lexical decisions about visually presented stems (e.g., hören, ‘hear’) and about semantic associates to the stem (e.g., Musik, ‘music’) in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Relative to form controls, semantically transparent and opaque particle verbs induced equivalent stem priming (Experiment 1), indicating that the lexical processing of particle verbs occurs via the stem regardless of semantic transparency. However, neither semantically transparent nor opaque particle verbs primed semantic associates of the stem (Experiment 2). These findings indicate that stem access during lexical processing does not extend to a semantic level where the meaning of the stem is processed. We discuss these findings regarding present models of lexical processing.

When morphological structure overrides meaning: evidence from German prefix and particle verbs

ABSTRACTA key question in the study of lexical processing has been whether the semantic transparency of multimorphemic words affects processing. Previous studies of English and French prefixed words have found that words with greater semantic transparency show greater morphological constituent activation. Studies of German, however, have shown constituent activation that is unaffected by semantic transparency. We report two cross-modal priming experiments that examined the underlying causes of this between-language difference. Experiment 1 investigated German particle verbs, in which the particle can be separated from the verb stem. Experiment 2 investigated prefix verbs, which (as in English and French) cannot be separated from the verb stem. Results showed that semantically transparent and opaque prefix and particle verbs induced equivalent priming relative to form controls. This indicates structured representations for all categories. We discuss these findings in relation to a language user’s experience with the particular properties of word types.

German particle verbs: Compositionality at the syntax-semantics interface

Particle verbs represent a type of multi-word expression composed of a base verb and a particle. The meaning of the particle verb is often, but not always, derived from the meaning of the base verb, sometimes in quite complex ways. In this work, we computationally assess the levels of German particle verb compositionality, with the use of distributional semantic methods. Our results demonstrate that the prediction of particle verb compositionality is possible with statistical significance. Furthermore, we investigate properties of German particle verbs that are relevant for their compositionality: the particular subcategorization behavior of particle verbs and their corresponding base verbs, and the question in how far the verb particles can be attributed meaning by themselves, which they contribute to the particle verb.

The Acquisition of Prefix and Particle Verbs in German: Evidence from CHILDES

German prefix and particle verbs differ in their morphological composition and morpho-syntactic behavior (see Zeller 2001). This project investigates errors children do (not) make in the acquisition of these verb types using semi-automatically extracted CHILDES data from one child (1.9 to 4.0). The results support our prediction that children distinguish prefix and particle verbs: Prefix verbs are not split. Perfective ge- is not inserted between prefix and root. ge- is not attached before the particle. Verb dropping only occurs with particle verbs. Contrasting stress patterns could be explored as the reason for the child’s ability to distinguish these verb types.

German Particle Verbs with auf . Reconstructing their Composition in a DRT-based Framework??

German Particle Verbs with auf . Reconstructing their Composition in a DRT-based Framework??

Ground Arguments in German Particle Verbs: A Comparison with Dutch and English

I discuss the following three topics with respect to German particle verbs with a ground argument. First, I consider the difference between anlächeln and zulächeln ‘smile at’ in German. In the former the accusative argument represents a ground, whereas in the latter the dative argument is licensed by inalienable semantics. Second, I discuss why a ground can be expressed by a dative in the German verb zueilen ‘hurry toward’, whereas in the corresponding Dutch verb toesnelln the preposition naar or op ‘to’ is necessary. This difference is due to the fact that German has a low dative. Finally, I consider the question of why expressions like ∗pour the glass in or ∗load the truck on are not allowed in English, whereas the corresponding expressions are possible in German and Dutch. This results from a difference in the syntactic structure of particle verbs in the languages.*

Verb-Particle Explorations (review)

Reviewed by: Verb-particle explorations ed. by Nicole Dehé et al. Nina Rojina Verb-particle explorations. Ed. by Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban. (Interface explorations 1.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002. Pp. 388. ISBN 3110172283. $101.40 (Hb). The aim of the book is to provide analyses of Germanic constructions known as verb-particle constructions, phrasal verbs, particle verbs, and the like from different perspectives. The following articles present syntactic, morphological, and semantic analyses of particle verbs. Geert Booij, ‘Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation’ (21–41), discusses the behavior of particle verbs and introduces the idea of periphrastic word formation. Booij treats particle verbs as constructional idioms. Bert Cappelle, ‘And up it rises: Particle preposing in English’ (43–66), using examples, analyzes grammatical constraints on particle preposing and identifies different functions of such constructions (e.g. ‘focus preposing’, ‘presentative preposing’, ‘proposition affirmation’). Ray Jackendoff, ‘English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax’ (67–94), presents an overview of the basic facts of English particle verbs and distinguishes between verb-particle idioms and directional, aspectual particles, ‘time-away constructions’, verb-particle idioms with out, and NP + Particle constructions. He suggests that the particles in these constructions have identical syntax (the autonomy of syntax) and argues against a binary branching hypothesis in favor of a triply-branching VP. Andrew McIntyre, ‘Idiosyncrasy in particle verbs’ (95–118), claims that idiosyncratic particle verbs are derived by composition of the meanings of particle and verb and discusses noncompositional particle verbs, suggesting that the latter are licensed by idiosyncratic rules. Stefan Müller, ‘Syntax or morphology: German particle verbs revisited’ (119–39), argues that the fronting of particles is possible [End Page 342] in German and suggests a syntactic analysis of particle verbs where particles are treated as part of the predicate complex. Ad Neeleman, ‘Particle placement’ (141–64), presents word order data in English and Dutch and argues that these languages are ‘identical in all relevant respects’ and different only in the setting of the OV/VO parameter. Neeleman suggests complex predicate analysis for the particle verbs in English and Dutch. Fabrice Nicol, ‘Extended VP-shells and the verb-particle construction’ (165–90), suggests an extended VP-shell analysis of particle verbs (a modified version of Richard Larson’s proposal) and differentiates split constructions (V + NP + Particle) and merged constructions (V + Particle + NP), proposing structures and analyses for these types of constructions. Ida Toivonen, ‘Swedish particles and syntactic projection’ (191–209), analyzes Swedish particle verbs and argues that Swedish particles are nonprojecting words. Jaap Van Marle, ‘Dutch separable compound verbs: Words rather than phrases?’ (221–32), studies Dutch separable and defective compound verbs from a morphological point of view, arguing that these sets of verbs are morphological entities. Jochen Zeller, ‘Particle verbs are heads and phrases’ (233–67), analyzes particle verbs in Dutch, English, German, and Norwegian and suggests that particle verbs can be represented as heads and phrases. Zeller discusses the status of particle verbs from different theoretical perspectives (incorporation, parallel morphology, and autolexical syntax). A few of the articles analyze particle verbs from statistical and psycholinguistic points of view. Stefan Gries, ‘The influence of processing on syntactic variation: Particle placement in English’ (269–88), studies the factors which can influence the choice of using V-Prt-NP or V-NP-Prt constructions. He proposes the processing hypothesis in order to explain the speaker’s choice for a particular construction. Dieter Hillert and Farrell Ackerman, ‘Accessing and parsing phrasal predicates’ (289–313), review some psycholinguistic analyses of Germanic and Hungarian particle verbs and examine the word-/ sentence-level processing of verb-particle constructions during comprehension. Anke Lüdeling and Nivja de Jong, ‘German particle verbs and word formation’ (315–33), review the status of particle verbs and argue that particle verbs are phrasal and not distinguishable from similar constructions. Testing the comprehension of particle verbs, they observe that opaque and transparent particle verbs have formal access representations in the mental lexicon...

On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German (review)

Reviewed by: On particle verbs and similar constructions in German by Anke Lüdeling Gary H. Toops On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. By Anke Lüdeling. (Dissertations in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2001. Pp. xiv, 178. ISBN: 1-575863-01-4. Cloth $65.00. Paper $23.00. Lüdeling’s examination of German ‘particle verbs’ includes verbs traditionally regarded as having so-called separable prefixes (ankommen ‘arrive’, abfahren ‘depart’, anlachen ‘laugh at, deride’) as well as verbs occurring together with fixed manner adverbs (wach küssen ‘wake with a kiss’, kaputtmachen ‘break’, etc.). In the introduction to this somewhat revised version of her doctoral dissertation, L reveals that her work has led her to conclude that particle verbs as such do not actually exist and that ‘what people call particle verbs are lexicalized phrasal constructions’ (ix–x). Nevertheless, L indulges the reader with the following working definition: ‘Particle verbs are constructions that consist of a verb and a preverb and that behave like words in some respects and like syntactic constructions in others’ (1). According to the author, there are two basic problems associated with the notion of German particle verbs: One is the ‘structure problem’ concerning the question of whether particle verbs are morphological objects or phrasal constructions; the other is the ‘delimitation problem’ concerning the question of how particle verbs can be distinguished from similar (surface) constructions. To obviate these problems in the course of her examination, L adopts as a convenient construct the cover term ‘preverb verb constructions [PVCs]’ (22–23). In the second of six chapters, ‘Particle verbs in syntax, semantics, and phonology’, L demonstrates that a given preverb may or may not be subject to adverbial modification (cf. Sie machten die Tür zum Balkon ganz auf ‘They opened the door to the balcony all the way’ vs. *Sie führten das Stück ganz auf ‘They performed the play all the way’). She formulates a test whereby an element is a phrase or an independent word if it can be modified. L maintains that the separable prefix auf of aufmachen ‘open (up)’ in the former sentence is modifiable by an adverb like ganz ‘completely, all the way’ because it is semantically independent or transparent while in the latter German sentence, the same preverb auf of aufführen ‘perform, put on’ cannot be adverbially modified because it lacks semantic independence (56–57). Observations such as these lend support to L’s assertion that German particle verbs do not constitute a uniquely delineable class (119, 129, 138, and passim). In Ch. 3, ‘Particle verbs in morphology’, L concedes that it is ‘difficult to assert the category of a prefix’. Reasoning, however, that separable prefixes historically developed from prepositions, with which many of them remain homophonous, L argues that a number of separable prefixes ‘have the semantic content of a preposition’ (71). In Ch. 4, ‘Strange words or strange phrases?’, L further maintains that prefixes (or particles) ‘are never syntactic complements, but always secondary predicates or adverbs’ (135). In Ch. 5, ‘Preverbs as secondary predicates or adverbs’, L demonstrates that all PVCs (see above) lend [End Page 812] themselves to a phrasal analysis even if they do not constitute a uniform class of constructions. She maintains that, structurally, preverbs appear in two distinct positions—either as sisters to V or as V′ adjuncts (159). On the whole L’s argumentation is precise, thorough, and easy to follow. In the span of only 164 pages, L manages to subject PVCs to an impressive array of diagnostics. Equally impressive is her facility in citing and providing clear summaries of the work of others as it relates to her own discussion of the relevant facts. Gary H. Toops Wichita State University Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

Solving the bracketing paradox: an analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs

Inflectional affixes are sensitive to morphological properties of the stems of the verbs they attach to. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the inflectional material is combined with both the verbal stem of simplex verbs and the verbal stem of particle verbs. It has been argued that this leads to a bracketing paradox in the case of particle verbs since the semantic contribution of the inflectional information scopes over the complete particle verb. I will discuss nominalizations and adjective derivation, which are also problematic because of various bracketing paradoxes. I will suggest a solution to these paradoxes that assumes that inflectional and derivational prefixes and suffixes always attach to a form of a stem that already contains the information about a possible particle, but without containing a phonological realization of the particle. As is motivated by syntactic properties of particle verbs, the particle is treated as a dependent of the verb. The particle is combined with its head after inflection and derivation. With such an approach no special mechanisms for the analysis of particle verbs are necessary.

Morphology of German particle verbs

The fact that inflectional affixes always attach to the verbal stem leads to the bracketing paradox in the case of particle verbs since the semantic contribution of the inflectional information scopes over the complete particle verb. I will discuss nominalizations and adjective derivation, which are also problematic because of various bracketing paradoxes. I will suggest a solution to these paradoxes that assumes that inflectional and derivational prefixes and suffixes always attach to a form of a stem that contains the information about particles already, but without containing a phonological realization of the particle. The particle is a dependent of the verb and is combined with its head after inflection and derivation. With such an approach no rebracketing mechanisms are necessary.