Proceedings of the Third ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions, pages 57–64,
Trento, Italy, April 2006. c©2006 Association for Computational Linguistics
German Particle Verbs and Pleonastic Prepositions
Ines Rehbein
NCLT
School of Computing, DCU,
Dublin, Ireland
irehbein@computing.dcu.ie
Josef van Genabith
NCLT,
School of Computing, DCU,
Dublin, Ireland
josef@computing.dcu.ie
Abstract
This paper discusses the behaviour of Ger-
man particle verbs formed by two-way
prepositions in combination with pleonas-
tic PPs including the verb particle as a
preposition. These particle verbs have a
characteristic feature: some of them li-
cense directional prepositional phrases in
the accusative, some only allow for loca-
tive PPs in the dative, and some parti-
cle verbs can occur with PPs in the ac-
cusative and in the dative. Directional par-
ticle verbs together with directional PPs
present an additional problem: the par-
ticle and the preposition in the PP seem
to provide redundant information. The
paper gives an overview of the semantic
verb classes in uencing this phenomenon,
based on corpus data, and explains the un-
derlying reasons for the behaviour of the
particle verbs. We also show how the re-
strictions on particle verbs and pleonastic
PPs can be expressed in a grammar theory
like Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG).
1 Introduction
The subject of this paper are German particle verbs
with pleonastic prepositions (5). In German there
are nine two-way prepositions which can either
govern the accusative or the dative: an, auf, hinter,
in, neben, currency1uber, unter, vor and zwischen. The dif-
ference in case assignment also causes a different
interpretation of the semantics of the prepositional
phrase: if the preposition governs the dative it ex-
presses a locative relation (1), while the accusative
goes together with a directional interpretation (2).
(1) Das Bild hcurrency1angt [PP an der Wand].
Det Picture hang-3Sg [PP on−dir Detdat wall].
’The picture hangs on the wall.’
(2) Sie hcurrency1angt das Bild [PP an die Wand].
She hang-3Sg Det picture [PP onto+dir Detacc wall].
’She hangs the picture on the wall.’
The two-way prepositions combined as pre xes
with a verb form the so-called particle verbs (also
called separable pre x verbs). The particles im-
plicitly include directional information and can
change the aspectual mode and argument struc-
ture of their base verbs. Particle verbs can be dif-
ferentiated according to whether they allow for a
pleonastic combination with the particle in ques-
tion and the resulting syntactic and semantic ef-
fects.
Olsen (1998) refers to this phenomenon as the
Pleonastic Directional, where the verb particle al-
ready saturates the directional requirement of the
verb and therefore there should be no need for a
further preposition offering the same directional
information. However, example (5) shows that
pleonastic directionals can in fact occur with di-
rectional PPs, while in (3) the main verb (without
particle) combines with a directional PP and in (4)
only the particle verb is used.
(3) Sie steigt [PP in das Auto].
She climb-3SG [PP into+DIR Det car].
’She gets into the car.’
(4) Sie steigt ein.
She climb-3SG Part+DIR.
’She gets in.’
(5) Sie steigt [PP in das Auto] ein.
She gets [PP into+DIR Det car] Part+DIR.
’She gets into the car.’
The problem is that it is not clear what licenses
57
the directional preposition in cases such as (5) and
why it is not supressed by the verb particle.
The base verb in (3) licenses a directional PP,
which is part of the argument structure of the verb.
If there is a verb particle which saturates this di-
rectional requirement (4), then the realisation of
the PP is optional. Wunderlich (1983) argues that
particle verbs require a stereotype or contextually
given object equal to the internal argument of the
prepositional relation, which can be reconstructed
from the context and therefore can be omitted.
If the directional information is already repre-
sented by the particle, then the question arises
what licenses the directional PP. It could be argued
that the particle should suppress a directional PP
or, conversely that the directional PP should sup-
press the verb particle. The question which of the
two is selected  rst, the particle verb or the prepo-
sition, is discussed controversially. In a speaker-
oriented view the particle verb will be selected
 rst, while the theory of linear sentence processing
claims that the particle, which is only encountered
at the end of the sentence, should be omitted.
Particle verbs with pleonastic PPs exhibit an-
other interesting property: some of them only
allow for pleonastic prepositions governing da-
tive PPs while others trigger the accusative, and
some particle verbs can even go together with both
cases. The underlying reasons for those case pref-
erences are not completely clear.
It is obvious that there are certain verb classes
whose semantics seem to in uence the case as-
signed by the preposition. This is strongly con-
nected with the in uence of directional informa-
tion concerning the case preference of the particle
verb. Particle verbs which express directional in-
formation trigger PPs in the accusative, while par-
ticle verbs whose semantics contain no directional
component never combine with an accusative PP.
But why are there also particle verbs which are
able to combine with both cases?
The aim of this paper is to give an explana-
tion for this phenomenon, based on data gained
through corpus research. Section 2 describes char-
acteristic features of spatial prepositions and par-
ticle verbs. Section 3 presents a novel corpus-
based typology of verb classes triggering different
case for pleonastic prepositions, accounting for
regularities in their observed behaviour. Section
4 provides a novel account of particle verbs with
their pleonastic prepositions using the framework
of Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2000).
The last section summarizes the main results es-
tablished in this paper.
2 Characteristic Features of Particle
Verbs and Spatial Prepositions
Spatial prepositions are binary relations between
two entities, where one of the entities is located
with respect to a region de ned by the second en-
tity, speci ed through the preposition. The mean-
ing of a two-way preposition depends on the case
of the PP: if it is in the dative, its reading will be
interpreted as a static, non-directional localisation,
while the accusative triggers a directional interpre-
tation. In the latter case the preposition implies a
change of location of the theme referent from an
unspeci ed region into the neighbouring region of
the relatum (Witt, 1998).
In this paper we only deal with spatial prepo-
sitions, ignoring lexicalised prepositions without
semantic content, as in (6):
(6) Sie wartet auf den Bus.
She wait-3Sg for Det bus.
’She is waiting for the bus.’
Dalrymple (2001) refers to (6) as idiosyncratic
case, because the lexical form of the preposition
is not related to the semantic role of the argu-
ment, while oblique arguments which are marked
according to the semantic role of the argument are
assigned semantic case. Particle verbs formed by
two-way prepositions always have a semantic con-
tent.
The semantics of verb particles basing on spa-
tial prepositions is equivalent to the semantics of
the prepositions. They are also binary, but the in-
ternal argument of the relation is not explicitly ex-
pressed in the argument structure of the complex
verb, but can be omitted (see examples (3) and
(4)). The semantics of the particle is integrated
into the semantics of the base verb which requires
a directional complement.
In example (5) both particle verb and pleonastic
PP occur together. Here the PP speci es the im-
plicit reference object of the particle verb, and its
relation of localisation is congruent with the direc-
tional semantics of the particle.
These characteristic features of particle verbs
and spatial prepositions are constitutive for the
classi cation into semantic verb classes given in
Section 3.
58
3 Corpus-Based Classi cation of Particle
Verbs with Pleonastic Prepositions
The classi cation of particle verbs with pleonas-
tic prepositions into semantic verb classes is based
on the proposals by Witt (1998) extented by the
results of our own corpus research.1 Witt’s clas-
si cation only considers particle verbs with the
particle ein-. He divides them into three ma-
jor groups: compositional formations, regular for-
mations and non-compositional formations, which
can be further subclassi ed into more  ne-grained
subclasses (Figure 1).
1. Compositional Formations
(a) Verb bases are causative Verbs of Localisation
(b) Verb bases are (static) Verbs of Localisation
(c) Verb bases are intransitive Verbs of Motion
(d) Verb bases are transitive Verbs of Motion
(Transport Verbs)
2. Regular Formations
(a) Verb Bases are Activity-Verbs
(b) Verb Bases are ’eingravieren (to engrave)’-Verbs
3. Non-Compositional Formations: Extensions
of Meaning
(a) Verb Bases are ein-Verbs with the meaning:
’downward, inward, into itself’
(b) Verb Bases are ein-Verbs with the meaning:
’to enclose something’
Figure 1: Witt’s (1998) classi cation of particle
verbs with ein-
In contrast to Witt, our classi cation includes all
two-way prepositions as verb particles. As we are
trying to explain the behaviour of particle verbs in
regard to their ability to combine with pleonastic
PPs, we divide the corpus data into the following
groups: particle verbs licensing pleonastic PPs in
the accusative only (Group A), particle verbs li-
censing pleonastic PPs in the dative only (Group
B) and particle verbs which are able to govern ei-
ther accusative or dative PPs (Group C).
Each of these groups can be divided into a num-
ber of subgroups, formed by different semantic
verb types. Figure 2 gives an overview of our clas-
si cation scheme.
1The corpora used for the research are the text basis
of the Digital Dictionary of German Language (DWDS)
(http://www.dwds.de/textbasis) and the corpora
of the Institute of German Language (IDS) in Mannheim
(http://www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2).
1. Group A (combine only with accusative PPs)
(a) Verb bases are (static) Verbs of Localisation
(b) Verb bases are intransitive Verbs of Motion
(c) Verb bases are transitive Verbs of Motion
(Transport Verbs)
(d) Verb bases are Verbs of Perception
(e) Verb bases express a Change of State
2. Group B (combine only with dative PPs)
(a) Verb bases are (static) Verbs of Localisation
(b) Verb bases are intransitive Verbs of Motion
(c) Verb bases are (causative) Verbs of Position
3. Group C (combine with accusative and dative PPs)
(a) Verb bases are intransitive Verbs of Motion
(b) Verb bases are transitive Verbs of Motion
(Transport Verbs)
(c) Verb bases express an Inclusion into an
Environment, Institution or Abstract Area
(d) Verb bases express Effects of Action
(eingravieren-Verbs)
Figure 2: Classi cation of particle verbs with two-
way prepositions
3.1 Group A
The verbs in Group A licence PPs in the accusative
and have a directional reading. Group A includes
Verbs of Motion, Verbs of Localisation, Transport
Verbs, and two further subgroups: verbs whose
meaning can be interpreted as a Direction of Per-
ception and verbs which express the Localisation
of a Change of State.
Verbs of Motion include einfahren ’to drive
into’ or aufspringen ’to jump on’ and can be de-
 ned as follows: there is an X which undergoes
a change of location, whereby X is in a particu-
lar manner of motion and moves in the speci ed
direction into a not further speci ed neighbour re-
gion which is de ned through the relatum.
Verbs of Localisation licencing PPs in the ac-
cusative are rather rare. Only one example is
attested in the corpus: einmcurrency1unden ’to discharge
into’. Here an X is described, which can be lo-
calised relativ to a Y in a particular direction. The
rarity of those verbs is probably due to the more
static character of localisation, which contradicts
the implicit directional reading of the accusative
case marking.
Transport Verbs such as eingie en ’to pour
in’, einfcurrency1uhren ’to insert’ and also verbs with more
metaphorical readings like einbinden (in die Kon-
59
ventionen einbinden, ’to weave sth into social con-
ventions’), can be de ned in the following way:
there is an X which causes a change of location
for a Y, whereby Y is set into a particular manner
of motion and is moved in a speci ed direction.
Direction of Perception verbs include
einfcurrency1uhlen ’to empathise’, einsehen ’to see’ or
einhcurrency1oren ’to listen’.
Localisation of a Change of State verbs in-
clude aufblcurrency1ahen ’to bloat’, aufheizen ’to heat up’,
angleichen ’to conform to something’ or aufrun-
den ’to round up’. Here the particle expresses the
direction to the changed, new state.
All particle verbs in Group A can be interpreted
as having a directional reading.
3.2 Group B
Particle Verbs in Group B licence pleonastic PPs
in the dative. They can be divided into the fol-
lowing subgroups: Verbs of Localisation, Verbs of
Movement and Position Verbs.
Verbs of Localisation also occur in Group A,
but here they have a static, non-directional inter-
pretation of localisation. Examples for this are
verbs like einquartieren ’to quarter’, anstehen ’to
queue’, au iegen ’to bear on’ or zwischenlagern
’to store temporarily’.
(7) anPARTstehen
(PART + to stand→to queue).
More formally they can be described as follows:
There is an X which is in a particular state (e.g.
in the state of standing) and can be localised in a
speci c relation to a reference object.
Verbs of Motion include vorfahren ’to drive
up’ or hinterherhecheln ’to pand after someone’.
They can be de ned as follows: there is an X
which undergoes a change of location, whereby X
is in a particular manner of motion, moving into
the speci ed direction relative to the position of
the relatum. These verbs clearly include an im-
plicit direction, but in comparison to the Verbs of
Motion in Group A their reading allows for the
possibility that X is already in the same region as
the relatum, while the verbs in Group A describe
the intrusion of an X from the outside into a not
further speci ed neighbour region.
Verbs of Position include aufstellen ’to array’,
aufbahren ’to lay out’ or hinterlegen ’to deposit’.
The de nition states that there is an X which
causes a Y to change its position, whereby Y is
in a particular manner of motion, moving into a
speci ed direction. The focus hereby is not on the
movement but on the result of the event.
The verbs in Group B normaly have a nondi-
rectional, static interpretation, but they may also
allow for a directional interpretation, if theme ref-
erent and relatum are both positioned in the same
speci ed region (8).
(8) Sie stellt die Leiter [PP auf dem Podest] auf.
She put-3-Sg Det ladder [PP on Det platform] Part.
’She puts the ladder up on the platform.’
Here it is not the direction of a motion which is
described by the particle (the ladder may already
have been lying on the platform), but a change of
the orientation of the referent in relation to the re-
latum (the ladder has changed its orientation and
is in a more or less vertical position now).
3.3 Group C
Group C consists of particle verbs which can be
followed by a pleonastic PP in the accusative or
dative. The subgroups of Group C include Verbs
of Motion like einsickern ’to soak into’, ein-
marschieren ’to march in’, anspcurrency1ulen ’to be washed
up’ or vorladen ’to subpoena’, and Transport
Verbs such as aufhcurrency1angen ’to hang’, einschieben
’to insert’, einrcurrency1aumen ’to place in’ or andocken ’to
dock’. Group C also consists of verbs which ex-
press an Inclusion into an Environment, Institu-
tion or Abstract Area like eingliedern ’to incor-
porate’, zwischenschalten ’to interpose’, aufrei-
hen ’to string’ or auffcurrency1adeln ’to bead’. Another
verb group which belongs to Group C are verbs
which express the Localisation of Effects of Ac-
tion like einprcurrency1agen ’to impress’, einbrennen ’to
burn-in’, eintcurrency1atowieren ’to tattoo’ or aufdrucken
’to imprint’.
The following example illustrates the semantic
effect of the choice of case for the PP for the verbs
in Group C:
(9) sickert in die Erde ein
soak.3.Sg in Det.Acc soil PART
’soaks into the soil’
(10) sickert in der Erde ein
soak.3.Sg in Det.Dat soil PART
’soaks the soil’
Example (9) describes an event where an X
60
(rainwater) undergoes a directed motion during
which it enters into the region of the reference ob-
ject Y (the soil). In (10) the situation is different:
X is already located in the region of Y and now
is in the process of soaking through that region.
Figure 3 gives an illustration of the two examples.
Figure 3: Illustration of examples (9) and (10)
Characteristic for the verbs in Group C is their
directionality reading when going together with a
pleonastic PP in the accusative. When they are
combined with the dative, the particle still has its
directional character, but in contrast to the parti-
cle verbs in Group A the directionality does not
include an intrusion into another region but can
be interpreted as a movement inside of the region
given by the reference object.
Summarizing the results we can say that for
Group C the particle can have different functions
which in uence the choice of case marking for the
PPs governed by the verb. If the particle has a
nondirectional reading, then only PPs in the dative
are allowed. If the particle expresses directional
information, then a further analysis is needed: it
has to be examined whether the semantics of the
particle verb includes the intrusion into a new re-
gion speci ed by the preposition. In this case the
PP has to be in the accusative. If the semantics of
the verb does not express an intrusion into a new
region, then the dative is chosen. Only particle
verbs whose semantics allow for a directional and
a locative interpretation belong to group C.
In Section 2 we noted that the semantics of the
verb particle is equivalent to the semantics of the
preposition, and that the PP speci es the implicit
reference object of the particle verb. However, this
is only true for PPs with accusative case marking.
The prepositions in PPs which are in the dative ex-
press a locative relation rather than a direction, so
their reference object can not be the same as the
one implicitly included in the verb particle. On the
syntactic level this results in them having a differ-
ent grammatical function: the accusative PP can
be considered as a verb complement, while the da-
tive PP is a free adjunct, modifying the informa-
tion of the verb particle. Therefore only accusative
PPs are  pleonastic .
4 Description of Particle Verbs with
Pleonastic Prepositions in LFG
This section will show how the framework of Lex-
ical Functional Grammar (LFG) can be used to
describe the particular behaviour of particle verbs
and pleonastic prepositions.
4.1 Short Introduction to LFG
LFG has a layer of representation for constituent
structure (c-structure), where surface information
is expressed through CFG trees, and a func-
tional layer (f-structure) for expressing grammat-
ical functions such as subject, object and adjunct.
In the f-structure each argument of a predicate is
assigned a particular grammatical function. This
two-level representation is based on the idea that
while surface representations may differ consider-
ably between various languages, f-structures tend
to be more abstract and invariant representations.
The correspondence between the two layers is
many-to-one: different nodes in the c-structure
may be associated with the same f-structure com-
ponent. The c-structure is determined by phrase
structure rules as in (11), while the annotation in
(12) links the c-structure categories to the corre-
sponding grammatical functions in the f-structure.
(11) S→ NP VP
(12) (↑SUBJ)=↓ ↑=↓
LFG is a non-transformational theory, syntactic
phenomena are treated locally through the speci -
cation of rules and constraints in the lexicon.
4.2 Using LFG to Describe Particle Verbs
with Pleonastic Prepositions
The LFG formalisation developed here follows
and substantially extends the treatment of particle
verbs and prepositional phrases in the LFG gram-
mar for German in (Berman and Frank, 1996) and
(Butt, King, Ni no and Segond, 1999).
4.2.1 Berman & Frank (1996)
Figure 4 shows the lexical entry for the German
particle verb einfahren ’to drive into’ as described
in (Berman and Frank, 1996).
61
fahren V
(↑PRED)=’EINFAHREN<↑SUBJ), (↑OBL DIR)>’
(↑FORM)=c EIN
(↑VERBTYPE)=PARTICLE VERB
...
ein PART
(↑FORM)=EIN
Figure 4: Lexical entry for einfahren ’to drive in’
(Berman and Frank, 1996)
The predicate (PRED) shows the argument
structure of the verb, while the attribute VERB-
TYPE explicitly describes the verb as a particle
verb. The FORM attribute contains the lexical
form of the particle and is formulated as a con-
straint (=c) to check that the particle is lexically
 lled. The particle itself has no PRED value of its
own but is analysed as part of the complex verb.
German prepositional phrases can either occur
as prepositional objects or as adjuncts. Accord-
ing to Berman and Frank (1996) the second group
is further subdivided into adjuncts which are sub-
categorized by the verb and free adjuncts. Accord-
ingly, in the analysis of (Berman and Frank, 1996),
each two-way preposition has three lexical entries.
In their analysis, prepositional objects are gov-
erned by the verb and have no PRED attribute of
their own. The lexical form of the preposition and
also its case are determined by the verb. The value
of the PCASE attribute is assigned the lexical form
of the preposition, while the preposition is not able
to subcategorize an object.2
As for adjuncts subcategorized by the verb no
particular preposition is selected in (Berman and
Frank, 1996), but the verb determines the seman-
tic content of the preposition (eg: LOC, DIR). The
preposition has its own PRED attribute and sub-
categorizes an object (Figure 5).
auf P
(↑PRED)=’LOC<↑OBJ)>’
(↑PCASE)=LOC
(↑PDET)=-.
Figure 5: Lexical entry (Berman & Frank, 1996)
for preposition auf ’on’ (adjunct subcategorized
by the verb)
Free adjuncts on the other hand must have the
2Prepositional objects are of no concern here, because the
paper deals with spatial prepositions which always have a se-
mantic content.
semantic content LOC. Like the  rst type of ad-
juncts they have their own PRED attribute and
subcategorize an object, but their semantic content
is de ned by the ROLE attribute (Figure 6).
auf P
(↑PRED)=’OBL LOCAL<↑OBJ)>’
(↑ROLE)=LOCAL
(↑OBJ AGR CAS GOV)=+
(↑OBJ AGR CAS OBL)=+
(↑PDET)=-.
Figure 6: Lexical entry (Berman & Frank, 1996)
for auf ’on’ (free adjunct)
4.2.2 Formalisation of Group C Verbs
We concentrate on the formalisation of the par-
ticle verbs in Group C which can either licence a
pleonastic PP in the accusative or a PP in the da-
tive. Extending the analysis in (Berman and Frank,
1996) we provide two f-structure con gurations,
depending on the case of the governed PP.
Figure 7 shows the f-structure for example (9).
Here the pleonastic PP in the accusative saturates
the argument OBL DIR subcategorized by the par-
ticle verb. Figure 8 gives the f-structure for exam-
ple (10), where the particle verb combines with a
dative PP.






PRED einsickern < SUBJ,OBL DIR >
OBL DIR




PRED in < OBJ >
PART−FORM ein
PCASE DIR
PSEM +
OBJ
bracketleftBigg PRED Erde
SPEC die
CASE acc
bracketrightBigg










Figure 7: sickert [ PP in die Erde ]ACC ein
’soaks into the soil’
In contrast to Figure 7 the dative PP in Figure
8 does not contribute any information to the argu-
ment OBL DIR subcategorized by the verb but is
represented in the adjunct set. The verb particle
saturizes the OBL DIR argument, and the PRED
attribute of the object of OBL DIR is assigned the
value PRO. This enables the PRED value to be-
have like a variable which can be uni ed with any
other value as in Figure 8, where both the particle
and the pleonastic prepositional phrases add infor-
mation to OBL DIR:OBJ:PRED.
62











PRED einsickern < SUBJ,OBL DIR >
OBL DIR




PRED in < OBJ >
PART−FORM ein
PCASE DIR
PSEM +
OBJ
bracketleftbigg
PRED PRO
CASE acc
bracketrightbigg




ADJ









PRED in < OBJ >
PCASE LOC
PSEM +
OBJ
bracketleftBigg PRED Erde
SPEC der
CASE dat
bracketrightBigg




















Figure 8: sickert [ PP in der Erde ]DAT ein
’soaks (through) the soil’
4.2.3 Lexical Entries and Grammar Rules
In the f-structure in Figure 7 the pleonastic PP
is subcategorized by the particle verb. Figure 9
shows the corresponding lexical entry for the verb.
To prevent a locative PP in the dative from  ll-
ing in the object position of the verb argument the
lexical entry speci es that the object has to be as-
signed accusative case.
einsickern V
(↑PRED) = ’einsickern<(↑SUBJ,↑OBL DIR)>’
(↑OBL DIR:PART-FORM) = ein
(↑OBL DIR:OBJ:CASE) = acc
Figure 9: Lexical entry for einsickern ’to soak’
However, as shown in example (4) the pleonas-
tic PP can be omitted. In this case the argument
OBL DIR subcategorized by the particle verb is
provided by the particle ein- whose lexical entry is
given in Figure 10.
ein PART
(↑PRED) = ’in<(↑OBJ)>’
(↑PART-FORM) = ein
(↑PCASE) = DIR
(↑PSEM) = +
(↑OBJ PRED ) = PRO
Figure 10: Lexical entry for the particle ein
In contrast to (Berman and Frank, 1996), in our
representation the particle is assigned the PRED
value ’in’ in the lexicon. The cause for the diver-
gence between the lexical form of the particle and
its PRED value is due to the fact that the particle
ein- historically is derived from the preposition in
and regarding its semantic features is comparable
to the other two-way prepositions where particle
and preposition have the same lexical form.
The attributes PSEM and PCASE are added to
the representation of the verb particles in Berman
and Frank (1996). They are derived from the at-
tribute set for prepositions, indicating the anal-
ogy in the semantics of particle and preposition.
PSEM always has the value ’+’ for particle verbs
formed by spatial prepositions, because they al-
ways have a semantic content. The attribute
PCASE expresses the directionality in the seman-
tics of the verb particle ( (↑PCASE) = DIR).
The predicate of the particle licences an object
and behaves like a directional preposition. How-
ever, the object position is not lexically  lled and
therefore is assigned the predicate value ’PRO’.
We also want to model the behaviour of the par-
ticle verb governing a locative PP in the dative
(Figure 8). The lexical entry of the particle verb
(Figure 9) explicitly requires accusative case as-
signment and prevents the locative dative PP from
 lling in the object position of the verb argument.
The locative dative PP is attached to the adjunct
set in the grammar rule shown in Figure 11.3
VP→ V ↑=↓
PP * ↓epsilon1 (↑ADJ)
(↓OBJ CASE)negationslash= acc
(PP (↑OBL DIR) =↓)
PART (↑OBL DIR) =↓.
Figure 11: Grammar Rule specifying restrictions
on particle verbs with pleonastic PPs
The  rst PP in the grammar rule models the be-
haviour of a particle verb combining with one or
more locative PPs in the dative. The constraint
(↓OBJ CASE)negationslash= acc ensures that this part of the
rule will not be applied to a pleonastic PP with ac-
cusative case assignment.4
The second PP in the grammar rule captures a
pleonastic PP in the accusative. The restriction
that this PP has to be in the accusative is speci ed
in the lexical entry for the particle verb (Figure
10). The last part of the rule expresses that the verb
particle PART is also mapped to the OBL DIR ar-
3For expository purposes we use a simple VP rather than
a topological analysis.
4The Kleene * notation indicates zero or more occurences
of PP.
63
gument of the complex verb and so is able to satu-
rate the argument structure of the verb.
The formalisation in Figure 8 and 9 is consistent
with the analysis that the particle has an implicit
reference object which is identical to the object of
a pleonastic PP in the accusative, but not to the
object of a dative PP. The formalisation gives an
adequate description of the behaviour of particle
verbs in Group C, but it does not suppress the li-
cencing of a pleonastic accusative PP for verbs in
Group B which combine with locative PPs in the
dative only. This problem is solved through the
speci cation of a constraint (=c) in the lexical en-
tries for all particle verbs in Group B (Figure 12).
vorfahren V
(↑PRED) = ’vorfahren<(↑SUBJ,↑OBL DIR)>’
(↑OBL DIR:PART-FORM) = vor
(↑OBL DIR:OBJ:CASE) = acc
(↑OBL DIR:OBJ:PRED) =c PRO
Figure 12: Lexical entry for vorfahren ’to drive
up’ (Group B)
The constraint checks that the predicate of the
object in the OBL DIR f-structure is instantiated
with the value ’PRO’. For all cases where the pred-
icate is lexically realised, the constraint fails and
thus the interpretation of pleonastic accusative PPs
in the OBL DIR position for Group B verbs is sup-
pressed.
5 Conclusions
The aim of this paper is to explain the behaviour of
German particle verbs formed by two-way prepo-
sitions and their ability to combine with pleonastic
PPs. A classi cation of particle verbs based on se-
mantic criteria was given, illustrating the restric-
tions imposed on their behaviour. It was shown
that particle verbs occurring only with accusative
PPs (Group A) always have a directional read-
ing including the intrusion of the theme referent
into a region speci ed by the relatum. Particle
verbs which can not combine with an accusative
PP (Group B) either have a static, nondirectional
reading or describe a directed movement where
the referent already may be present in the region
speci ed by the relatum.
Syntactically this results in the fact that the
accusative PP is able to saturate the argument
OBL DIR subcategorized by the particle verbs in
Group A. The dative PP functions as an adjunct
(Group B). Here the verb particle saturates the di-
rectional OBL DIR argument required by the verb.
Group C verbs allow both accusative and dative
PPs. Only particle verbs governing PPs in the ac-
cusative are pleonastic, but the PP either modi es
or adds new information to the inherent argument
structure of the particle verb and therefore is not
suppressed by the verb particle.
Our formalisation describes the behaviour of
particle verbs concerning their ability to licence
pleonastic PPs. The semantic criteria restricting
the behaviour of the particle verbs are embed-
ded into the LFG representation and enable us
to model the semantic differences on a syntactic
level.

References
Judith Berman and Anette Frank. 1996. Deutsche und
franzcurrency1osische Syntax im Formalismus der LFG. Max
Niemeyer Verlag, Tcurrency1ubingen.
Joan Bresnan. 2000. Lexical-Functional Syntax.
Blackwell.
Miriam Butt, Tracy Holloway King, Mar· a-Eugenia
Nino and Fr·ed·erique Segond. 1999. A Grammar
Writer’s Cookbook. CSLI Publications, Stanford,
California.
Mary Dalrymple. 2001. Syntax and Semantics. Lexical
Functional Grammar, volume 34. Academic Press,
San Diego, California.
Junji Okamoto. 2002. Particle-Bound Directions in
German Particle Verb Constructions. Projektbericht
V: Typological Investigation of Languages and Cul-
tures of the East and West. (Part II).
Susan Olsen. 1998. Semantische und konzeptuelle
Aspekte der Partikelverbbildung mit ein-. Stauffen-
burg, Tcurrency1ubingen.
James Witt. 1998. Kompositionalitcurrency1at und Regularitcurrency1at,
In: Olsen, Susan (ed). Semantische und konzeptuelle
Aspekte der Partikelverbbildung mit ein-. Stauffen-
burg, Tcurrency1ubingen.
Dieter Wunderlich. 1983. On the Compositionality of
German Pre x Verbs. In: R. Bcurrency1auerle, Ch. Schwarze
and A. von Stechow (eds.) Meaning, Use and Inter-
pretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin.
