<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-2109">
  <Title>German Particle Verbs and Pleonastic Prepositions</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="57" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 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 difference in case assignment also causes a different interpretation of the semantics of the prepositional phrase: if the preposition governs the dative it expresses a locative relation (1), while the accusative goes together with a directional interpretation (2).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  (1) Das Bild hcurrency1angt [PP an der Wand].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Det Picture hang-3Sg [PP on[?]dir Detdat wall].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 'The picture hangs on the wall.' (2) Sie hcurrency1angt das Bild [PP an die Wand].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  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 implicitly include directional information and can change the aspectual mode and argument structure of their base verbs. Particle verbs can be differentiated according to whether they allow for a pleonastic combination with the particle in question and the resulting syntactic and semantic effects. null Olsen (1998) refers to this phenomenon as the Pleonastic Directional, where the verb particle already 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 directional PPs, while in (3) the main verb (without particle) combines with a directional PP and in (4) only the particle verb is used.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  (3) Sie steigt [PP in das Auto].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> She climb-3SG [PP into+DIR Det car].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> 'She gets into the car.' (4) Sie steigt ein.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> She climb-3SG Part+DIR.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> 'She gets in.' (5) Sie steigt [PP in das Auto] ein.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10">  She gets [PP into+DIR Det car] Part+DIR.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> 'She gets into the car.' The problem is that it is not clear what licenses  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 directional 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 represented 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 suppress the verb particle. The question which of the two is selected rst, the particle verb or the preposition, is discussed controversially. In a speakeroriented 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Particle verbs with pleonastic PPs exhibit another interesting property: some of them only allow for pleonastic prepositions governing dative PPs while others trigger the accusative, and some particle verbs can even go together with both cases. The underlying reasons for those case preferences are not completely clear.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> It is obvious that there are certain verb classes whose semantics seem to in uence the case assigned by the preposition. This is strongly connected with the in uence of directional information concerning the case preference of the particle verb. Particle verbs which express directional information trigger PPs in the accusative, while particle verbs whose semantics contain no directional component never combine with an accusative PP.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> But why are there also particle verbs which are able to combine with both cases? The aim of this paper is to give an explanation for this phenomenon, based on data gained through corpus research. Section 2 describes characteristic features of spatial prepositions and particle 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).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> The last section summarizes the main results established in this paper.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>