Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang

158 Bettelou Los
e. He threw all the documents containing incriminating evidence in the
dustbin.
f. He threw in the dustbin all the documents containing incriminating
evidence.
The fact that the particle away derives from the Prepostitional Phrase on weg and
was therefore of the same category as the predicate in the dustbin further supports
a diachronic link, as we will discuss in the next section. The main difference
between the particle and predicate constructions in (1) is the fact that the second
order, V – Predicate – NP, as in (1d), is a marked one, and most probably the result
of extraposition of the NP. Biber et al. (1999: 930) note that (1c) is the regular order
(“by far the most common option”), and we will refer to this order as the ‘predicate
order’. Biber et al. conclude that the other order, as in (1d and 1f), is triggered
by considerations of end-weight; note that (1f), with its long NP, is acceptable,
whereas (1d) is not. In the case of particles, however, it is the V – Particle – NP
order that is the most frequent one. We will refer to this order as the ‘particle
order’, and alternations such as (1a)–(1b), where end-weight is not a trigger, as
‘particle syntax’. Biber et al. note that there is no single factor that governs the
selection of one particular order over the other: end-weight is one, but there are
others. They note that the ‘particle order’ is linked with a high degree of idiomaticity
of the combination, as in (2a), whereas the ‘predicate order’ tends to occur
primarily with particles with literal, spatial meanings, as in (2b) (both examples
from Biber et al. 1999: 933):
(2) a. Now carry out the instructions. (Fiction)
b. The Germans carried the corpse out. (Fiction)
They note that in (2b) “the result of the action is that ‘the corpse is out’, while it
certainly is not true that ‘the instructions are out’ as a result of the action in idiomatic
[(1a)]” (Biber et al. 1999: 933). Such resultative meanings are typical of predicates,
as we will see below, which explains the tendency for such spatial particles to
have ‘predicate’ orders. I will argue in this chapter that these, and other similarities
between particles and predicates point to a diachronic relationship. The ‘particle
order’ of (1b) is a morphosyntactic sign that the predicate has grammaticalized:
from a phrase (XP), it has become a head (X 0 ), allowing incorporation into the
verb so that verb and particle express a single verbal action and function as a single
lexeme. ‘Particle syntax’ is not restricted to particle verb combinations but may
include V + AP and V + PP combinations as illustrated in (3) (see also Fraser 1965:
82ff, Bolinger 1971: 37ff, Quirk et al. 1985: 734, 1167; Claridge 2000: 66–70, 153
& Denison 1981: 36–37). The items in (4), once PPs, now appear to be adverbs or
adjectives. Such a lexicalisation from phrase to head of the predicate shows that
the complex predicate construction is grammaticalizing.