the emergence of verb-particle constructions in italian; locative and actional meanings

8/11/2019 The Emergence of Verb-particle Constructions in Italian; Locative and Actional Meanings

1/34


2/34

1 Introduction

The paper deals with verbparticle constructions (hereinafter VPC), i.e. complexpredicates formed by a verbal base and a modifying post-verbal particle. In recent

decades, a lot of interest has been devoted to these constructions and investigationhas been focused mostly on Germanic languages, where the pattern is veryproductive and widespread in use1.In this paper, we will show that VPCs also exist in Italian (see some examples in 1)and provide an overview of the phenomenon (Sects. 2.1 and 2.2).

(1) venire giu lit. come down to come down

portare via lit. take away to take away

mettere sotto lit. put under to run over

The presence of VPCs in Italian challenges the well-known generalization aboutframe-based languages and satellite-based languages expounded in Talmy (1985)(cf. Sect. 2.3), which raises the question of the controversial diachronic development ofthese constructions (Sect. 2.4) and of their relationship with the system of verbalprefixes regarding the expression of locative and aspectual meanings (Sect. 2.5).

Inthis paper,we provide original dataabout theAktionsartproperties of Italian VPCs,which have not been investigated so far. Section 3 first illustrates the results of theanalysis and then expands on a specific case, the particle via away, which will be seen tohave developed anAktionsartvalue. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications ofour results and give an account of Italian VPCs in terms of Construction Grammar

(Fillmore, Kay, & OConnor, 1988; Goldberg, 1995, 2003, 2006). In particular, we adoptthe constructionist account of Dutch separable complex verbs put forward in Booij(2002a, b) expanding it to cover Italian VPCs. Furthermore, we give a constructionistaccount of the emergence of the viaverb-particle pattern withAktionsartfunction.

The paper therefore has two goals. On the one hand, it aims at contributing to thestudy of VPCs in general by extending the research to a new language, i.e. Italian,which also offers new scope for typological and diachronic research. On the otherhand, besides being further evidence for the locative-to-actional semantic shift ofparticles and VPCs proposed in Brinton (1988), it shows the ongoing formation of anew construction, exemplified by the subclass of VPCs with via, which functions as

an overt technique ofAktionsartmarking. As we will see, the emergence of ItalianVPCs in general, and of the via class in particular, can be accounted for by aConstruction Grammar approach in a very straightforward way.

2 An overview of Italian VPCs

Traditionally, Italian VPCs are quite a neglected topic. In recent years, however,they have succeeded in catching the attention of scholars. After seminal articles bySchwarze (1985) and Simone (1997), a number of studies emerged on the matter (cf.Venier, 1996; Antelmi, 2002; Jezek, 2002; Iacobini, 2003; Jansen, 2004; Masini, 2005,to appear).

1 Cf. Haiden(2002) for a comparison between the various types of VPCs within the Germanic linguisticfamily, Deheet al. Eds., (2002) for an up-to-date discussion of the main theoretical issues concerningVPCs in Germanic languages, and Booij & van Marle(Eds.),(2003) for an overview of preverbs in otherlanguages, such as Estonian, Old French, Udi, Georgian and Northern Australian languages.

156 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


3/34

Although this attention on Italian VPCs is relatively recent, the phenomenon isnot a contemporary innovation since it was already attested in Ancient Italian texts(cf. Meyer-Lubke, 1899, Sect. 370; Jansen, 2004; Masini, to appear). One can findsome traces of VPCs also in Latin, in particular in those cases where the particle

strengthens the locative value of a prefix that is semantically weakened, e.g. retroregredi (Cic. Bell. Afr. 50,2), retroreverti (Lucr. 1,785); forasexire (Lucr. 3,772)(cf. Hofmann & Szantyr, 1965, pp. 797799). However, we cannot speak of a pro-ductive system of VPCs for the Latin language. Rather, VPCs here represent amarginal and stylistically marked phenomenon with respect to prefixation.

Furthermore, VPCs are widespread in some Italian dialects, especially northerndialects (cf. De Mauro, 1963, pp. 381382; Rohlfs, 1983, p. 46; Telmon, 1993, pp.120121 and references therein). In some of these varieties they represent a privi-leged way to express locative meanings (cf. e.g. Vicario, 1997, who gives an accountof VPCs in Friulian from the earliest documents in the 14th century to their

increasing use in the present day). However, VPCs are also present in central (cf.Rohlfs, 1969, Sect. 918 for Tuscan) and southern dialects (cf. Cini, 2002, pp. 147148), although they are less frequent.

The remarkable feature of present-day Standard Italian is that VPCs are by now awidespread lexical resource and their diffusion depends very loosely on diatopic ordiamesic factors. Some VPCs alternate with synthetic synonyms, e.g. entrare/andaredentro to enter, to go in(to), and sometimes represent the less formal variant.Others represent original lexicalizations of certain concepts, e.g. restare fuorito stayoutside/to be excluded, which could not be expressed by any synthetic form. Fur-

ther, VPCs are the new emerging means of expressing spatiality within the Italianverbal system (see Sects. 2.32.5).In the following sections, we shall give a preliminary description of Italian VPCs in

terms of structure (Sect. 2.1) and semantics (Sect. 2.2). Then we briefly discuss theposition of Italian VPCs with respect to Talmys typological classification (Sect. 2.3).Finally, we pass on to the diachronic development of Italian VPCs (Sect. 2.4) andtheir relationship with verbal prefixation (Sect. 2.5).

2.1 Syntactic properties

One might classify quite different constructions as VPCs depending on the criteriaused, since particles may form more or less cohesive units with the verbal bases (cf.Brinton, 1988, pp. 16364). In particular, VPCs are quite similar to combinations ofverb plus a prepositional or adverbial phrase. Besides this, within the VPC itself onecan recognize a series of different - though closely related - configurations. In whatfollows, we provide a description of the constructional range in which Italian VPCsare to be found and indicate the configurations we have taken into account.

Our corpus (cf. Sect. 3.2) consists of VPCs that correspond to the minimal VPCconfiguration exemplified in (2)2. This structure consists of a simple (non-pronominal,

non-reflexive) verbal base (V), which can be both intransitive (2a) and transitive (2b,c)2 In our analysis, we selected VPCs that correspond to the minimal configuration in (2) mainly fortwo reasons. First, the configuration in (2) is by far the most common and less controversial inclassification in both diachronic and implicational terms. Second, we wanted to carry out the analysison a coherent corpus in terms of type of verbal bases (mostly motion verbs) and particles. Inparticular, it was important to include only locative particles, in order to check the occurrence of themetonymic locative-to-actional reinterpretation identified in Brinton (1988) (cf. Sect. 3.1).

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 157

1 3


4/34

and a post-verbal modifying particle (P), which corresponds to a locative adverb. TheVPC itself may be both intransitive (2a) and transitive (2b,c). In the latter case, thedirect object normally occurs to the right of the particle.

(2) [ [ ]V [ ]P ]VPCP = LOCATIVE ADVERB

a. [[andare]V [su]P ]VPC lit. go up to go up, to ascend

b. [[mettere]V [giu]P ]VPC lit. put down to put down

c. [[mandare]V [avanti]P ]VPC lit. send forward to run (e.g. a business)

It is interesting to note that, whereas the addition of the particle does not normallyaffect the [] transitive feature, the argument structure of VPCs may be differentfrom that of their verbal bases. A quite regular minor change is illustrated in (3).Here the particle su in (3b) absorbs the indirect (locative) argument (sul fuoco) ofthe verbal base (metti) (whereas the direct argument il caffeis not affected). This istestified by the agrammaticality of (3c)3.

(3) a. Metti il caffe sul fuoco

put.IMPER the coffee on.the fire

Put the coffee on the stove

b. Metti su il caffe

put.IMPER on the coffee

Put on the coffee

c. *Metti su il caffe sul fuoco

put.IMPER on the coffee on.the fire

A major argument structure change is the passage from a transitive and/orunergative verbal base to an unaccusative VPC. The passage is marked by the choiceof the auxiliary verb:

(4) a. Il piccione ha volato da Roma a Pisa

the pigeon have.3SG fly.PART.PAST from Rome to Pisa

The pigeon flew from Rome to Pisa

b. Il piccione e volato via

the pigeon be.3SG fly.PART.PAST awayThe pigeon took wing

Besides the minimal configuration in (2), Italian VPCs display a number of otherpossibilities. For instance, apart from reflexive forms (5a), one may find differentkinds of pronominal verbs in V position (5b).

(5) a. far-se-la sotto

do-reflexive.PRT-pronominal.PRT under

to quake in ones boots

b. ber-ci sopra

drink-locative.PRT up

to drink to forget something

3 In the examples that follow we make use of the following abbreviations (in alphabetical order): 1 =first person; 2 = second person; 3 = third person; ACC = accusative; FUT = future; IMPER =imperative; INF = infinite; PART.PAST = past participle; PRT = particle; SG = singular. When tenseis not marked, it is to be interpreted as present tense.

158 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


5/34

Some VPCs obligatorily occur with a complement usually preceded by theprepositiona to, as in (6).

(6) a. correre dietro a qualcuno lit. run behind to someone

to pursue, to court

b. passare sopra a qualcosa lit. pass on to something

to pass, to forgive, to let something pass

Sequences of particles like the ones exemplified in (6) are structurally ambiguous,since they can be interpreted either as VPCs that govern a prepositional phrase, or asVPCs with a complex preposition in P position (here dietro a and sopra a). In thefirst case, the nominal element is part of the prepositional phrase, in the latter it is tobe interpreted as a direct argument.

Cases like (7) are also problematic, for different reasons. Even if (7a) contains a

sequence that might be regarded as a complex preposition (fuori da), the possibilityto split the sequence by interposing the nominal element (gli occhiali) (cf. 7b)seems to suggest that tirare fuori actually functions as a VPC and dalla borsa as anindirect argument. However, it is also possible to interpose gli occhiali between Vand P (7c).

(7) a. Carlo tira fuori dalla borsa gli occhiali

Charles pull.3SG out from.the bag the glasses

b. Carlo tira fuori gli occhiali dalla borsa

Charles pull.3SG out the glasses from.the bag

c. Carlo tira gli occhiali fuori dalla borsaCharles pull.3SG the glasses out from.the bag

Charles gets the glasses out of the bag

Amongst VPCs one may also find constructions in which the P position is filled byelements other than locative, mainly temporal (8a) or manner (8b) adverbs.

(8) a. fare presto lit. do early to hurry up

b. finire malelit. finish badly to come to a bad end

Incidentally, VPCs should be distinguished from verbs governing a particular

preposition (9). The latter cannot be used without a nominal complement (9b), and,moreover, the particle does not contribute to the meaning of the whole construction(cf. Simone, 1997).

(9) a. Conto su di te

rely.1SG on of you.ACC

I rely on you

b. *Conto su

rely.1SG on

VPCs are characterized by morphosyntactic cohesion and fixity. These propertiesprovide evidence for considering VPCs as multi-word expressions that are to bedistinguished from other similar sequences such as verb plus prepositional oradverbial phrase, which are less cohesive and more flexible.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 159

1 3


6/34

First of all, Italian VPCs can be separated only by clitics (10a) and lightconstituents (10b), but not by heavy lexical constituents, as (11) illustrates4.

(10) a. Hai rischiato di metter-lo sotto

have.2SG risk.PART.PAST of put.INF-him under

You risked bumping into him

b. Devi guardare sempre avanti

must.2SG look.INF always ahead

You must always look to the future

(11) a. Irene ha buttato via la bambola

Irene have.3SG throw.PART.PAST away the doll

Irene threw the doll away

b. ??Irene ha buttato la bambola via

Irene have.3SG throw.PART.PAST the doll away

Furthermore, adverbs may have scope on the whole construction, but not on theparticle alone, even if they interpose between V and P (12).

(12) Mario tira sempre fuori argomenti interessanti

Mario pull.3SG always out topics interesting

Mario always comes up with interesting topics

The topicalization of the particle and its left-dislocation with the construction

e... che it is... that are normally unacceptable (13)5

.

(13) a. Luigi e` saltato fuori allimprovviso

Luigi be.3SG jump.PART.PAST out suddenly

Luigi suddenly popped up

b. *Fuori Luigi e saltato allimprovviso

Out Luigi be.3SG jump.PART.PAST suddenly

c. *E` fuori che Luigi e saltato

allimprovviso

be.3SG out that Luigi be.3SG jump.PART.PASTsuddenly

4 In the spoken language one may find occasional examples of interposition between V and P of thedirect object expressed by a lexical element, like in the following case: Spero che non mandino lepagine indietro I hope they wont send the pages back (similar in structure to the one reported in11b). Such examples are comparable with object shift phenomena in English. As is known, objectshift was a later innovation in English with respect to the rise of post-verbal particles, which wereoriginally more bound to the verb (other Germanic languages with less strict word order than

English do not allow a similar freedom of placement for the constituents of a complex verb). Theparticle position in current English is influenced by a number of variables, and their dynamics havebeen investigated in several contributions (among the most recent: Dehe2002, pp. 103207, 2005;Gries, 2003; Lohse, Hawkins, & Wasow, 2004; Farrel, 2005). In our view, the occasional examples ofobject shift in the Italian spoken language (a subject not yet investigated) might be regarded not asanomalous cases, but rather as traces of a potential development of VPCs, i.e. of their ability toadjust to the communicative needs of speakers.5 Such expressions are not attested in the LIP corpus, the major reference corpus for spoken Italian.

160 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


7/34

Moreover, when used in coordinating structures, VPCs behave as constituents.Example (14a) shows that the nominal arguments la scacchieraandi pezziare in factthe direct arguments of the VPC, which is not true of (14c), where scacchiera nuovaandscacchiera vecchia are part of prepositional phrases.

(14) a. Max portera su la scacchiera e Yuri

___ i pezzi

Max bring.FUT.3SG up the chessboard and Yuri

___ the pieces

Max will bring the chessboard and Yuri the pieces

b. *Max portera su la scacchiera e Yuri

su i pezzi

Max bring.FUT.3SG up the chessboard and Yuri

up the pieces

c. Max gioca sulla scacchiera nuova e Yuri

su quella vecchia

Max play.3SG on.the chessboard new and Yuri

on that old

Max plays on the new chessboard and Yuri on the old one

d. *Max gioca sulla scacchiera nuova e Yuri

___ quella vecchia

Max play.3SG on.the chessboard new and Yuri

___ that old

In conclusion, we can say that, generally speaking, Italian VPCs display a par-ticular syntactic behaviour that sets them apart from other free syntactic structures.The previous studies on Italian VPCs adopt different theoretical approaches, but allof them agree that VPCs are part of the larger family of multi-word expressions. Ofcourse, the delimitation of the phenomenon is not always clear-cut, but this followsfrom the fact that Italian presents a set of related constructions in post-verbalposition expressing locative meanings (cf. Sect. 2.4). Like other multi-word expres-sions, VPCs are the result of a lexicalization process that integrates the semantics of

the constituting elements, which consequently lose their lexical autonomy. The factthat VPCs display a partial fixity of the elements (e.g. verb and particle can beseparated by light constituents or clitics) might also be due to the characteristics ofthe verbal head. Voghera (1994) notes that, amongst all Italian multi-word phe-nomena, verbs resist the loss of lexical autonomy most strongly. This is due to thepresence of a rich suffixal inflection, which prevents the complete fusion between theverb and the following element.

2.2 Semantic properties

The semantics of VPCs is often traced back to the following tripartite classification(cf. Deheet al. Eds., 2002, pp. 1317):6

6 The semantic properties of VPCs are dealt with in several authoritative works such as Bolinger(1971), Dixon (1982), Lindner (1983), Brinton (1988) and, more recently, Stiebels (1996), Ludeling(2001), McIntyre (2001, 2002, 2005), Jackendoff (2002a), Muller (2002), Gries (2003), Blom (2005).

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 161

1 3


8/34

(a) locative meanings, due to the fact that VPCs originate from the combination ofmotion verbs and locative elements;

(b) idiomatic meanings, due to semantic bleaching of compositional verbparticlecombinations;

(c) aspectual and/or actional meanings, with particular reference to telicity andduration.

While previous studies on Italian VPCs deal with points (a) and (b), aspectualmeanings have not yet been investigated. In fact, this is the subject of our analysis inSect. 3. Let us now concentrate on the first two points.

Italian VPCs mainly express locative meanings. The particle may function as adirection marker, especially with Manner verbs (15a), but also with non-Mannerverbs that do not lexicalize the motion direction such as in (15b)7.

(15) a. saltare fuori lit. jump out to jump out, to pop up

b. andare dentro lit. go in to enter

When added to Path verbs, particles may strengthen the locative information alreadypresent in the verbal base, as in (16).

(16) entrare dentro lit. enter in to enter

uscire fuori lit. exit out to exit

Besides transparent cases, Italian VPCs also display more idiomatic meanings:

(17) mettere dentro lit. put inside to imprison

fare fuori lit. do out to kill

Examples like those in (17) are to be regarded as individual non-systematic cases ofsemantic bleaching, which do however testify the high degree of establishmentof these constructions in Italian (i.e. their lexical status). Therefore, the expression oflocative meanings should be regarded as the primary function of post-verbal parti-cles. This is also testified by the fact that polysemous VPCs usually maintain theirlocative meanings besides the new idiomatic ones, as illustrated in (18).

(18) buttare giu(lit. throw down): to throw down, to knock down, to swallow, to

undergo, to write down, to get down, to blow upon, to weaken

2.3 Typological remarks

Italian VPCs are an interesting typological issue. Following Talmy (1985, 2000), it isclaimed that IndoEuropean languages display two basic lexicalization patterns forverbal roots: Motion + Manner/Cause or Motion + Path. The two patterns aretypically exemplified by Germanic and Romance languages, respectively: the former,defined as satellite-framed languages, lexicalize the Manner or Cause of the

motion event in the verbal root and express the Path information by means ofsatellites; the latter, defined as verb-framed languages, typically lexicalize the Path

7 The locative meanings expressed by the particles of our corpus are sketchily shown in Table 5. Asfor the definition of Path and Manner verbs and in general for our classification of verbal bases seeSect. 3.3.

162 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


9/34

and (optionally) provide the Manner or Cause through adjuncts. This situation isshown in Table 1.

Given this background, it is evident that Italian does not conform to Talmysgeneralization, since it behaves more like English than Spanish. Of course, this doesnot mean that Italian lacks verbal roots incorporating Path. Rather, it means thatthis is not the privileged way of realizing Path in present-day Italian8. Indeed, Italiandisplays a hybrid (and to a certain extent redundant) system of motion verbs.Table 2 gives an example of this state of affairs: the English VPCs with the verb to gocan be translated into Italian with both a synthetic form and an analytic form with apost-verbal satellite.

The picture becomes more complex if we take into account the diachronic per-spective. As a matter of fact, many Italian synthetic motion verbs derive from prefixed

Latin verbs, which were productively formed in that language9

. However, incontemporary Italian, the vast majority of these verbs can no longer be analysedmorphologically and cannot be derived according to productive word formation rules.

Table 2English VPCs with to go and their Italian counterparts

English

to go

Italian

andare

Verb root + satellite Verb root Verb root + satellite

to go after inseguire andare/correre dietro

to go ahead procedere/continuare andare avantito go away andarsene andare viato go back (ri)tornare andare/tornare indietroto go down scendere andare giu

to go for avventarsi andare/lanciarsi controto go in entrare andare dentroto go on continuare andare avantito go out uscire andare fuorito go (a)round girare andare attornoto go up salire andare su

Table 1The lexicalization of motion events (adapted from Talmy, 1985)

Language Family Components of a motion event typically represented in the verb

Verb Root Satellite

Romance Motion + Path

(e.g. Spanish poner, meter, subir)

Germanic Motion + Manner/Cause

(e.g. Englishto roll, to blow, to throw)

Path (e.g. English to run out)

8 For typological considerations about the way Italian lexicalizes Path and Manner verbs, cf. Wienoldand Schwarze (2002).9 Latin can in fact be classified as a satellite-framed language with inseparable prefixes as satellites.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 163

1 3


10/34

2.4 The origin of Italian VPCs

In our view, the proliferation of VPCs in Italian and their imposition as the main wayof expressing verbal locative meanings can be interpreted as the development of a

diagrammatic technique of overt locative marking, which is due to the morphose-mantic bleaching of Latinate prefixed motion verbs and to the loss of productivity ofverbal prefixation in the domain of spatiality.

The passage from the Latin to the Italian situation is sketched in Table 3: the leftcolumn contains examples of transparent Latin prefixed verbs with locative mean-ings, the central one shows the (no longer analysable) Italian forms inherited fromLatin and the right column illustrates the correspondent analytic forms (VPCs),which can be considered the true Italian formations10.

The establishment of VPCs also refers to a general tendency of contemporary Italiantowards analyticity and is supported by the presence of a quite elaborate set of prepo-

sitions (that substitute some of the functions of Latin cases) that are used very efficientlyfor the expression of syntactic and locative relations. In addition, the passage from theLatin SOV to the Italian SVO word order helped to reanalyse the locative relators inpost-verbal position (especially when the landmark is not expressed) as modifiers of theverbal head. Moreover, the entrenchment of the VPC scheme was also fostered by thefrequent use of a network of different constructions built around a locative element(particle, preposition or adverb) (cf. Jansen, 2004 for further details on this, and Vincent,1999 for the diachronic development of Romance prepositional phrases).

This viewis generally opposed by supporters of the so-called Germanic hypothesis,

who believe that Italian VPCs may depend on a syntactic calque from German (cf.Meyer-Lubke, 1899, Sect. 482; Rohlfs, 1969, Sects. 916, 918). The Germanic hypoth-esisis based upon thefollowing observations: (a)VPCs are nottypical of classicalLatin;(b) they virtually do not occur in major modern Romance languages (except for Italian);(c) they occur in central and northern Italian dialects, increasingly so as one nears theAlps; (d) they are frequently employed in Rhaeto-Romance and in Ladin (where theyare almost the sole system of expression of verbal locative meanings). Hence the con-clusion that VPCs entered the Italian language through Romance Alpine dialects,which, in turn, imported such a structure by way of contact with the German language.Due to the authority of Meyer-Lubke and Rohlfs and the scanty attention paid to

Italian VPCs up to recent years, the Germanic hypothesis is still quite popular.

Table 3Synthetic and analytic verbs of motion in Latin and Italian

Latin Italian Latinate forms Italian VPCs

ascendere

to ascend

descendere

to descend

salire scendere andare su andare giu

inire

to enter

exire

to go away

entrare uscire andare dentro andare fuori

10 Apart fromsalireto ascend, which is of IndoEuropean origin and constitutes a good example oflexicalization of the Path into the verbal root, scendereto descend anduscireto exit depend on thebleaching of the prefix, whereasentrareto enter derives from the Latin intrareto go inside, whichis formed from the preposition intrainside. This word formation pattern is no longer productive inItalian. Therefore, even ifentrarepresents striking similarities with the prepositionentro within, itcannot derive synchronically from the latter.

164 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


11/34


12/34

It is also necessaryto consider thecontribution of dialects in relation to theparticularhistory of the Italian language. Italian was mainly a written language for many cen-turies, and it was not before the second half of the 20th century that it became thelanguage spoken by the majority of Italians. Many recently introduced traits of the

Italian language that are drawn from its spoken form or from the informal register areexamples of trends which are well integrated into the functioning of the language, buthave been long excluded from or marginalized by normative grammar. VPCs may beseen as one such instance (cf. Jansen, 2004 for similar arguments).

In conclusion, we think that the development and the establishment of VPCs in Italianis better explained in terms of an internal change. This is mainly due to the restructur-ation of the satellite function, i.e.to the relationshipsand balancing between prefixes andparticles with respect to the expression of locality (and, as we will see, aspectuality) in theverbal system. In the following section we will focus on this relationship.

2.5 Particles and prefixes: their synchronic and diachronic relationship

2.5.1 Locative meanings

Italian verbal prefixes with locative meanings are rather limited in number comparedto Latin. Table 4 compares the rich system of verbal prefixes with locative meaningsin Latin (exemplified by the derivatives of the verbal bases ducoto pull and mittoto send) and the Italian prefixed derivatives of the verb portare to bring/take.

On the one hand, it is interesting to see that the number of empty cells in theportare

column is rather high. Moreover, all derivatives fromportareare of Latin origin: theirfirst recordings in Italian date back to several centuries ago and their meanings arelargely non-compositional. Furthermore, none of the prefixes in combination withportare areproductively used in preverbalposition in the Italian language (cf. Table 5).On the other hand, it is worth noting that the verbportare isinvolvedinaseriesofVPCs(cf. 19), that incidentally fill some of the empty spaces in Table 4.

(19) portare addossoto wear, portare appresso to take with one, portare

avanti to further/bring upfront, portare giu to bring down(stairs),

portare indietroto bring back, portare sopra to take up(stairs),

portare sotto to take down, portare su to bring up(stairs), portarevia to take away

The quantity of verbal prefixes and the quantity of meanings conveyed by prefixesnotably decreased in the passage from Latin to Romance languages (and until thepresent day; cf. Ludtke, 1996). This factor has been partially overshadowed by thehigh frequency of a number of prefixed verbs of Latin origin that play an importantrole in the present-day Italian lexicon. However, in a recent study on the produc-tivity of verbal prefixes in Italian (based on a dictionary corpus), Iacobini (2005)shows that about 70% of existing prefixed verbs that are attested for the first time in

the 20th century are derived by means of only four prefixes, i.e. ri-, de-, dis- ands-.These convey the following meanings: iterative (ri-), opposite (dis-), privative andreversative (de-, dis-, s-)13. What is more, Iacobini (2005) shows that only 8% of the

13 This tendency is confirmed by Gaeta and Ricca (2003), a quantitative study on the productivity ofItalian derivational affixes based on a daily press corpus (in the period 19961998) of about 75millions tokens.

166 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


13/34

prefixed verbs coined in the 20th century are formed by prefixes that can expresslocative meanings.

Table 5 shows the locative meanings conveyed by Italian prefixed verbs. The tablealso compares the range of locative meanings expressed by verbal prefixes with those

Table 4Latin and Italian verbs with locative prefixes

Prefixes Latin Italian

duco to pull mitto to send portare to

bring/take(12th century)

ab- away abduco amitto asportare to

remove

(14th century)

ad- to, toward adduco admitto apportare to

produce

(13th century)

ante- ahead, forward antemitto circum- around, on all sides circumduco circummitto

de- from, down deduco demitto deportare todeport

(14th century)

dis- apart disduco ex- out educo emitto esportare to

export

(15th century)

in- in, on, against induco immitto importare to

import to be

important(14th century)

inter- between intermitto intro- internally introduco intromitto ob- toward, against obduco omitto per- through, thoroughly perduco permitto prae- before praemitto praeter- beyond praeterduco praetermitto pro- in front of, forth produco promitto retro- backwards retroduco

se- aside seduco sub- under subduco submitto sopportare

to tolerate

(13th century)super- above superduco trans- across traduco transmitto trasportare

to transport

(14th century)

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 167

1 3


14/34

14 Table 5 distinguishes between productive and unproductive prefixes: the former are marked by anunderscore. Question marks (?) indicate doubtfully productive prefixes. Grey cells highlightmeanings that cannot be productively expressed by prefixation.

Table 5Locative meanings expressed by verbal prefixes and post-verbal particles14

Prefixes and prefixed verbs Locative meanings Particles and VPCs

ante-, pre-, pro- ANTERIOR, BEFORE avanti

anteporre, premettere,progredire

andare a.

retro-, re-/ri- (?) BACK indietroretrocedere, rifluire andare i.

BEHIND appresso, dietro

andare a./d.

contra-/contro-, ob- OPPOSITE SIDE, AGAINST addosso, contro

contrapporre, occludere andare a./c.

giusta- NEAR accanto, vicinogiustapporre andare a./v.

FAR lontanoandare l.

fra-, infra-, inter-, intro-, tra- BETWEEN, INWARDS dentro

frammischiare, inframmettere, andare d.interporre, introdurre,

trascegliere

ab-, de-(?), dis-, e-/es-,

estra-, estro-(?),

OUTSIDE, AWAY fuori, via

andare f./v.s-, se-

abdurre, deportare,

disperdere,

emergere, espatriare,

estrapolare,

estromettere, sbarcare,

separare

sopra-/sovra-, sor- ON, ABOVE, UP, OVER sopra, susopraelevare, sovrapporre,

sorpassareandare s./s.

sotto-(?) UNDER, BELOW sotto, giusottoscrivere andare s./g.

per-, trans- ACROSS, BEYOND oltre

trasferire, perforare andare o.

circum-/circom- AROUND intorno, attorno

circumnavigare, circondare andare i./a.

168 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


15/34


16/34

Diachronically, the rich and complex system of prefixes used in Early andClassical Latin to render verbs telic had already broken down in the Latin language,in the very first centuries of the Christian era16. Therefore, there is a temporal gapthat separates the emergence of VPCs from the collapse of Latin aspectual prefixes.

This can be taken as a crucial difference to Germanic languages. Here there was along period of overlapping (and thus competition) between the fading system ofnative prefixes (that expressed both locative and aspectual meanings) and the newparticle system, which, starting from locative meanings in combination with motionverbs, also came to express Aktionsart, even with non-motion verbs (cf. Hiltunen,1983; Brinton, 1988 for the English language).

Nowadays, Italian verbal prefixes do not normally convey actional meanings. In-deed, the only means of actional marking in contemporary Italian seems to beparasynthetic verb formation (Iacobini, 2004)17. What remains to be investigated isthe relationship between VPCs and Aktionsart, which is dealt with in the following

section.

3 Semantics and Aktionsart

While the last section provided a state-of-the-art overview of the phenomenon ofVPCs in Italian, this section is intended as the most innovative part of our contri-bution. In Sect. 2.2, we showed that Italian VPCs display two of the types ofmeanings conveyed by Germanic VPCs: locative and idiomatic. This part aims at

improving our knowledge of the actional and/or aspectual semantics of these con-structions in present-day Italian through the analysis of 165 Italian VPCs.First of all, we will outline the view of aspect and Aktionsart adopted in the

analysis and give a brief description of our corpus. Afterwards, we will pass on to theillustration of the results. Finally, we will focus on one specific case that, in our view,nicely illustrates the passage from a locative to an actional function: the particle viaaway.

3.1 Basic assumptions on aspect and Aktionsart

The domain of aspectuality is at the centre of a heated theoretical debate (cf. Sasse,2002 for a comprehensive review). Our study of the actional properties of ItalianVPCs does not intend to take part in this debate, since it is essentially empirical innature and aims at finding further evidence for a specific path of semantic devel-opment. Indeed, we aim to show that, with respect to verbal bases, Italian VPCsdisplay not only different locative values, but also different actional properties.

16 Classical Latin did not employ aspectual particles: preverbs were joined to verbs as prefixes (cf.Vincent, 1999). The role of prefixes in Aktionsart changes in the Latin verbal system and their

decline is studied in Haverling (2003). Cf. also Romagno (2003) for the interplay of actional prefixesand thematic structure in Latin.17 Parasynthesis with ad- and in- expresses ingressive change of state (cf. Iacobini, 2004). It isimportant to note that these two prefixes cannot be productively preposed to verbs, and thereforecannot be considered as verbal prefixes. Egressive meaning may be expressed by de-, dis-, s-(whichare normally used with privative and reversative values) through a reinterpretation of their ablativemeaning. Most linguists include the iterative meaning (that in Italian is productively expressed by ri-)among the aspectual ones.

170 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


17/34

However, this empirical perspective has not prevented us from taking for grantedsome basic theoretical and terminological assumptions about aspect and Aktionsart.These assumptions are largely based on Bertinetto (1986, 1997) and Brinton (1988),and can be summed up as follows:

Aspect Aktionsart (bidimensional approach): while aspect is a matter of view-point distinctions (of the perfective/imperfective type) of an event on behalf of thespeaker and is typically expressed morphologically by means of inflection,Aktionsart is essentially rooted in the lexical semantics of verbs and concerns theintrinsic temporal nature of the event according to a limited number of relevantbinary features such as telicversus atelic, durativeversus non-durative, static versusdynamic events. Of course, even if aspect and Aktionsart express distinct semanticproperties, it is their intersection that contributes to determining the generalaspectual properties of a sentence;

Actional features(non-holistic representation of the event): the classification adoptedin the analysis is the refinement of Vendlers (1967) classification put forward byBertinetto (1986) and is based on underlying binary semantic features such as [dura-tive], [telic], [dynamic], thus distinguishing five actional classes (see Table 6);18

Diagnostic tests: in order to assign each verb to one actional class we used diag-nostics tests based on both the compatibility with different kinds of adverbials (e.g.,in X timeorfor X time), and on semantic compatibility, such as those worked out byKlein (1969); Terminology: in accordance with the bidimensional approach, we distinguishbetween aspectand Aktionsart; aspectual and aspectuality are used to refer to the

aspectual domain in general, whereasactionalrefers toAktionsartonly;eventis usedas a cover term for both dynamic and static delimitations in the aspectual domain; A compositional view of Aktionsart: Aktionsartis not a pure lexical property, butresults from many interacting factors at both the lexical and the clausal level, i.e. it iscompositional;19 a typical example of recategorization of the actional value of a verbis the passage from Activity to Accomplishment by the addition of a nominal phrasewith certain characteristics (+determinate, +singular, cf. Bertinetto, 2001, p. 182) indirect object position, for instance: to draw (Activity) fi to draw the circle(Accomplishment).

Table 6Actional classifications by Vendler (1967) and Bertinetto (1986)

Vendler (1967) Bertinetto (1986) Durative Telic Dynamic

Accomplisment Risultativo + + +

Activity Continuativo + ) +

Achievement Trasformativo ) + +Achievement Puntuale ) ) )States Stativo + ) )

18 We decided to adopt Bertinettos classification for two reasons: first, this classification was elab-orated on Italian data and, second, it proposes to split the Achievement class on the basis of thetelicity (and dynamicity) feature, which is the most relevant in our analysis.19 In some cases, not only the verbal phrase is involved, but the whole argument structure of the verb.For example, in constructions with unaccusative verbs, also the subject may affect the Aktionsart.Therefore, at least in these cases,Aktionsartis a property to be assigned at a clause-level rather thanat a phrasal level.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 171

1 3


18/34

Finally, we should mentiontelicity, which is the key feature in our analysis. Amongactional features, telicity is one of the most sensitive to the context of occurrence.For example, the presence of an object may often contribute to telicize the predicateby indicating the endpoint of the activity. The very same function can be provided by

prefixes in Dutch (20) or by particles in English (21):20

(20) schrijven to write [telic]

op-schrijvenlit. up-write to write down [+telic]

over-schrijvenlit. over-write to copy [+telic]

(21) to write[telic]

to write down [+telic]

to write up [+telic]

We define a telic event as an event which has a necessary endpoint, which neces-

sarily includes a goal, aim, or conclusion (Brinton, 1988, p. 26). In this perspective,any indication of endpoint may contribute to the telic reading of the predicate. Ofcourse, those locative particles indicating movement oriented towards a specific goalmay come to imply attainment of the goal (telic events), whereas particles thatexpress stasis or direction without a specific endpoint may contribute to indicateatelic events (cf. Fig. 1).

Brinton (1988, pp. 191199) suggests that the actional values expressed byparticles should be explained in terms of metonymic extension from one domain(spatial movement) to another domain which is conceptually related (eventstructure) (cf. Sect. 4 for a theoretical account of this mechanism). Interestingly,also Talmy (2000, p. 231) identifies a conceptual correlation between motionevents and other kinds of events such as, for instance, the temporal one: Thisconceptual analogy motivates a syntactic and lexical analogy: to a great extent ina language, aspect is expressed in the same constituent type as Path (+Ground),and often by homophonous forms. Thus, in accordance with the general typology,the core schema of an event of temporal contouring appears in the main verb inverb-framed languages, while it appears in the satellite in satellite-framed lan-guages. In conclusion, we may speak of tendentially telic particles and tenden-tially atelic particles, as a consequence of their bounded or unbounded spatial

meaning.

andare dentrolit. go in to enter andare attornolit. go around to wander about

Fig. 1From locative to aspectual meanings

20 Examples taken from Boogaart (2004, p. 1172), who rightly observes that none of the prefixes orparticles mentioned marks telicity per se: Aktionsart is a property that refers to the whole con-struction and therefore results from the interaction between the semantics of the verb and thesemantics of the satellite (prefix/particle).

172 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


19/34

3.2 The corpus

Our corpus consists of 165 VPCs listed in two major Italian dictionaries, i.e.GRADIT and DISC. The verbal bases in the corpus amount to 54. Some of them

occur with only one particle (e.g.entrareto enter), while others combine with ten oreven more particles (e.g.andareto go,mettereto put). Most verbal bases are verbsof motion or location, though not all of them can be ascribed to this macro-class, aswe will see. The particles involved amount to 19. A complete list is provided in (22).

(22) accanto next to, addosso on, appresso nearby, behind, attorno

around,avanti forward, contro against, dentro in(side), dietro

behind, fuori out(side), giu down, indietro back(wards), intorno

around,lontano far away, oltre beyond, sopra on, sotto under,

su up, via away, vicino near

The whole corpus was analysed according to the basic assumptions outlinedabove. Section 3.3 lays out the results of our investigation.

3.3 The results

The main results of the analysis are reported in Table 7, which illustrates types andpercentages of telicity shifts that occur in the passage from verbal bases to VPCs.The table also details the numbers of VPCs involved in each kind of shift accordingto the semantic class of the verbal base.

Following the typology of motion events in Talmy (1985, 2000), we distinguishbetween:

(a) verbs expressing Location (BEL) (e.g. stare to stay);(b) verbs expressing Motion, which consist of three subgroups, all containing both

Non-Agentive (NA) and Agentive (A) verbs:

Pathverbs (e.g.entrareto enter, uscireto exit): only a limited number of ItalianPath verbs are involved in VPCs and, as we will see, most of them combine withonly one particle (which denotes the same direction of the verbal base and thusfunctions as an emphasiser).

Mannerverbs (e.g.correreto run, saltareto jump): apart from NA motion verbslike correreto run or volare to fly, this includes two sub-groups of A verbs, i.e.

Table 7Telicity changes

V fi VPC % Motion and location verbs Non-

Motion

Total

Path Manner Generic BEL

+TEL fi +TEL 42.8% No changes 10 12 30 13 65

108 TEL fi

T EL 28.3% 71.1% 1 2 1 26 13 43 TEL fi +TEL 11.2% Telicization 4 8 3 2 17

32TEL fi +TEL 9.8% 21% 2 13 15

TEL fi TEL 6.6% Detelicization ) ) 5 ) 5 10

12+TEL fi TEL 1.3% 7.9% ) ) ) ) 2 2

Total 100% 15 24 52 26 35 152

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 173

1 3


20/34

verbs of throwing (e.g.gettareto throw,buttareto throw) and verbs of removing(e.g. tagliare to cut, grattare to scrape).

Generic verbs (e.g. andare to go, mettere to put):21 this class presents only twoNA verbs (the deictic verbs andare to go and venire to come), which however

combine with quite a number of particles, and a series of A verbs including, amongthe others, verbs of putting (e.g. mettere to put, porre to put) and verbs ofsending and carrying (e.g. mandare to send, portare to bring/take).

(c) verbs expressing meanings other than motion: the Non-Motion class includesverbs of various kinds (e.g. avere to have, dare to give, fare to do) and istherefore the most heterogeneous class.

Let us discuss the results shown in Table 7 in more detail. The first columnillustrates the telicity changes in the passage from the verbal base to the VPC. We

assigned three values to both verbal bases and VPCs: +TEL, TEL, TEL22

. Inorder to make the results clearer, we excluded the cases in which the VPC was aTEL item (which is why the total number of VPCs in Table 7 is 152 instead of 165).The missing data, however, would not change the overall picture. Given this, we canidentify three main types of telicity changes:

absence of telicity change; telicization; detelicization.

As one may notice from the data in the percentage column, in the great majority of

casestelicity does not change(71.1%): over 40% of VPCs (out of the total) have telicbases that remain telic, whereas almost 30% have atelic bases that remain atelic.Within the +TEL fi +TEL group most verbal bases are Motion verbs. Here we candistinguish two main functions of the post-verbal particles with respect to thesemantics of the verbal base, namely: directional marking and making the telosexplicit (cf. also below). This last strengthening operation might be due to theopacity of the base (which is no longer morphologically analysable) or to somecommunicative need of explicitness23.

As expected, in the TEL fi TEL group almost all verbal bases belong to the

BEL group, which typically contains stative verbs. Here the particles do not affecttelicity, rather their main function is to specify the location of the event, like in essere

21 Since Talmy (1985, 2000) focuses on the kinds of lexicalization patterns for verbal roots, he does notexplicitly speak of Generic verbs. However, this category is quite implicit in his work. Indeed, hespeaks of generic verbs with reference to the English verbsto putandto go(cf. Talmy 2000, p. 284)and defines the English verbsto putandto takeas suppletive forms of a single more general and non-directional putting notion, where the specific form that is to appear at the surface is determinedcompletely by the particular Path particle and/or preposition present (Talmy, 1985, p. 71).22

The presence of the value TEL is in line with the aspectual multivalence proposed by Brinton(1988, p. 31), i.e. the ability of a single lexical verb to name different situation types depending uponthe structures with which it combines. Cf. also Bertinetto (2001, p. 182): [...] most predicates mayhave more than one actional classification.23 For similar considerations, see Traugott (1982, p. 252), who suggests that the particle serves tomake a covert endpoint overt, and Lindner (1983, p. 169 ff.), who says that the particle serves toprofile the goal. Antelmi (2002, p. 107, footnote 14) speaks of rideterminazione [redetermina-tion].

174 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


21/34

viato be away, out of town. Furthermore, many of these verbs have metaphoricalmeanings, e.g. essere giulit. be down to be depressed.

In the light of these first data, we might be induced to say that, generally speaking,the presence of particles does not affect the verbal bases in a systematic way, since

the vast majority of VPCs display no telicity changes. However, there are also quitea number of verbs that do change their telicity.

As for thetelicizationcases (21%), the verbal bases mainly belong to Manner andGeneric motion verbs, where the particle usually behaves as a direction or pathmarker24. This seems to suggest that there is a simultaneity of functions of theparticle: the function as a path marker and the function as a telos indicator. This iswell illustrated in the examples in (23):

(23) tirare to pull (Generic, Agentive) fi tirare fuori to take out

andare to go (Generic, Non-Agentive) fi andare via to go away

sbattere to dash/throw (Manner, Agentive) fi sbattere fuori to throw outsaltare to jump (Manner, Non-Agentive) fi saltare giu to jump down

Almost all these cases contain tendentially telic particles (cf. Sect. 3.1), i.e. particlesthat inherently refer to a specific spatial endpoint and thus contribute to the overalltelic meaning of the VPC25. This confirms the expectation that telicization doesactually occur in the presence of telic particles.

Finally, we may find also few cases ofdetelicization(7.9%). Interestingly enough,most of the verbs involved in this process are Non-Motion verbs (see also below).However, there are also a few detelicization cases with Generic verbal bases.

Here, the particles used are actually of the tendentially atelic type (cf. Sect. 3.1), i.e.particles that denote a direction without specifying any endpoint, e.g. addossoon,appresso nearby, behind, attornoaround,indietroback(wards). Even though theexamples of this kind are too few to make any serious generalizations regarding theinteraction between the detelicizing process and the type of particles involved, thisalso seems to confirm the correctness of the metonymic process outlined in Sect. 3.126.

In order to understand better the role of the semantics of verbal bases in theseprocesses, we will now turn to the relationship between telicity changes and semanticclasses. Table 8 shows the percentages of changes within each semantic class.

24 Quite convincing syntactic evidence of this telicization process is the fact that some verbs, afterturning into VPCs, become unaccusative (cf. the example below and example 4 in Sect. 2.1). In fact,many scholars argue for a connection between unaccusativity and telicity.

(1) volare (intransitive, aux. avere have) fi volare via (intransitive, aux. essere be)a. Luccello ha volato per due ore The bird flew for two hours (TEL)

b. Luccello e` volato via The bird flew away (+TEL)

Our corpus displays a number of cases like the one in (1).25 The most representedtendentially telic particlesin our corpus are (in decreasing order):via away,dentro in(side), fuori out(side), su up and giu down.26

Here we will limit ourselves to noting that the supposed atelic character of some particles seems tohold also with non-motion verbs. Consider for example the following set of VPCs formed with thebase guardare to look, see, watch: guardare avanti to look forward, guardare indietro to lookbackwards,guardare lontano to foresee. Here, we have a verbal base (guardare) that can expressboth an Activity (e.g.guardare la TVto watch TV) and an Accomplishment when accompanied bya specific, bound object (e.g. guardare un filmto watch a movie). Since the particlesavanti/indietro/lontanoonly denote a direction, and not an endpoint, they cannot be interpreted as a specific, boundobject to look at and, consequently, cannot enhance the potential telicity of the verbal base.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 175

1 3


22/34


23/34

especially prone to combine with this class too. Indeed, it contains some of the verbalbases that combine with the highest number of particles, i.e.andareto go,veniretocome, mettere to put, portare to take/bring. As with Manner verbs, particlesfunction either as pure direction markers when the verbal base is telic (e.g. porre giu

to put down), or as a direction and/or telicity marker when the base is TEL (e.g.andare su to go up(wards), portare via to take away).

Finally, we turn to Location (BEL) and Non-Motion verbs, which display verydifferent results. The former appear to be rather insensitive to the presence ofparticles, which is due to the fact that BEL verbs are mostly stative and cannotdelineate a process. Within this group, all outputs are atelic VPCs that often havemetaphorical or idiomatic meanings, such as essere giuto be depressed,stare/esserefuori to be mad, crescere dentro to grow as a person and dare giu to beat. Thelatter group, however, is rather heterogeneous. Indeed, it seems difficult to identifyany noticeable regularity within this group, apart from the fact that, as for other

classes, most examples do not display any telicity changes and that, as alreadymentioned, many have non-literal meanings (e.g. mangiare fuori to have a mealout, vedere lontanoto foresee). However, the combination of particles with Non-Motion verbs implies that the construction extends beyond the domain of spatiality,and therefore testifies to the productivity and pervasiveness of the construction inpresent-day Italian.

In conclusion, we can notice that the Italian particle system seems to be particu-larly productive with Manner and Generic verbs of motion (both Agentive and Non-Agentive). Telicity changes are also mostly connected with these two classes. This

stresses the primary locative function of Italian particles, which is summarized in (25).(25) a. P + telic base fi direction marker (Manner/Generic)

telos strengthener (Path)

b. P + atelic base fi direction marker (Manner/Generic)

telos marker (Manner/Generic)

In cases like (25b), the particle may point to the endpoint of the process, which canbe reinterpreted as telicity marking. Furthermore, the +TEL feature of the wholeVPC can strengthen this association between the particle and the telicity feature. Inthe next section, we will see that, although Italian does not present a coherent system

of actional particles, there are some traces of regularity in this sense.

3.4 The via case

Our investigation has shown that most VPCs do not change telicity with respect totheir verbal bases. This may lead to the conclusion that Italian particles are not properactional markers, or rather not yet. However, if we exclude the unvaried group, wefind quite a number of telicity changes, and most of them indicate a passage towardstelicity. This largely depends on the presence oftendentially telic particles such asdentro

in(side),fuori

out, giu

down, su

up andvia

away/off (see the upper partof Table 9). To a much lesser extent, also tendentially atelic particles (e.g. addossoon,appressonearby, behind, attornoaround,indietrobackwards) seem to play arole in detelicization cases (see the lower part of Table 9).

As a result, particles do indeed play a role in determining the Aktionsartof theVPC: the expectations about the correspondence between type of particle and typeof telicity change are broadly matched.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 177

1 3


24/34

Moreover, on further examination, one may find some areas of regularity orsubregularity. As we have already noted, tendentially telic particles are often in-volved in telicization cases. In particular, the particle via away seems to telicizeManner and Generic verbs regularly, meaning approximately removing, as ingrattareto scrape, lavareto wash and raschiareto scrape27. Most of these verbalbases may denote both the activity and its result, but the successfulness of theactivity can never be taken for granted. Consider for instance the sentences in (26).

(26) a. Marco raschia la vernice

Marco scrape.3SG the paint

Marco scrapes the paint

b. Marco raschia via la verniceMarco scrape.3SG away the paint

Marco scrapes the paint off/away

c. Marco raschia la vernice, ma questa non

Marco scrape.3SG the paint, but this not

si stacca

itself detach.3SG

Marco scrapes the paint, but it doesnt peel off

d. *Marco raschia via la vernice, ma questa non

Marco scrape.3SG away the paint, but this notsi stacca

itself detach.3SG

Marco scrapes the paint off, but it doesnt peel off

Table 9Actional contribution of particles

Telicization Generic tirare to pull TEL tirare fuori

to pull out

+TEL

tirare to pull TEL tirare giu to

pull down

+TEL

Manner saltare to

jump

TEL saltare dentro

to jump in

+TEL

volare to fly TEL volare via to

fly away

+TEL

Path passare to

pass

TEL passare via to

fade away

+TEL

passare to

pass

TEL passare su

to drop by

+TEL

Detelicization Generic portare to

bring

TEL portare appresso

to take with one

TEL

Generic andare to go TEL andare attorno

to wander about

TEL

Manner correre to run TEL correre indietro

to come back

by running

TEL

27 Even thoughtagliareto cut and togliereto remove are already telic, tagliare viato cut-off andtogliere viato take off emphasize the result and become non-durative.

178 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


25/34


26/34

(33) spostare to move away fi spostare via to move away

[] come spostare via il bicchiere mentre tentano di riempirtelo []

[] (it is) like moving away a glass while someone tries to fill it up []

(34) cancellare to delete fi

cancellare via to delete[] il Papa si convinse a fare cancellare via quasi tutti gli affreschi []

[] the Pope persuaded himself to have almost all the frescos

destroyed []

(35) cassare to eliminate fi cassare via to eliminate

[] in settimana hanno cassato via alcune mie affermazioni

dal Forum []

[] this week they eliminated some of my statements on the

Forum []

(36) eliminare to eliminate fi eliminare via to get rid of[] pereliminare via questo assurdo []

[] in order to get rid of this absurdity []

More interestingly, the particle viaalso occurs with a series of atelic Manner verbs:

(37) fregare to rub fi fregare via to rub up/off/away

Cerchi di fregare via lo schifo che hai addosso []

You try to rub off that filth on you []

(38) graffiare to scratch fi graffiare via to scratch offFate attenzione a non graffiare via la vernice []

Be careful not to scratch off the paint []

(39) raspare to rasp fi raspare via to scrape off/away

[] resina (da raspare via una volta indurita) []

[] resin (to scrape off once it stiffens) []

(40) scartavetrare to sand fi scartavetrare via to sand off

[] ho scartavetrato via lattack

[] I sanded off the glue

(41) sfregare to rub fi sfregare via to rub off/away

Un personaggio che tenta di sfregare via la melassa []

One character that tries to rub off the melasses []

(42) strofinare to rub fi strofinare via to wipe off

[] voi dovrete strofinare via le macchie

[] you will have to wipe off the stains

In examples from (37) to (42), there is no AWAY meaning implicit in the bases.

Given this, one might think that via here functions as a mere directional marker.However, the semantics of the VPCs in (37)(42) seems to be more complicated andcan be approximately reworded as succeeding in removing something by V-ing. Letus take the sentence in (43).

180 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


27/34

(43) Luigi ha raspato via la resina

Luigi scraped off the resin

Herevia does not add a directional information to the rasping action itself. Instead,

the locative interpretation emerges more clearly if we insert a located object, as in(44):

(44) Luigi ha raspato via la resina dalla maglietta

Luigi scraped the resin off the T-shirt

In this case the combination ofvia and da defines the landmark and helps bringingthe locative interpretation in the foreground. The supposed semantic differencebetween (43) and (44) is further supported by a syntactic clue: while in (44) thedirect object (la resina) may be interposed between V and P (cf. 45a), in (43) this isnot possible, as (45b) shows.

(45) a. Luigi ha raspato la resina via dalla maglietta

b. *Luigi ha raspato la resina via

Therefore, the two constructions are certainly closely related but yet different: while(44) is compatible with a locative reading, the meaning of (43) is not purely locative.In fact, the addition of the particle via does not denote the direction of theaction, but the fact that the action has a telos. In other words, it makes the verbalbase telic.

In conclusion, if we look at the data in more detail and take into account classes of

verbs with common semantic features, it is possible to identify some regularities inthe way particles modify the Aktionsartof the verbal bases. The discussion aboveshowed that the particle viacombines semi-productively with a subclass of Mannerverbs, thus producing an actional effect of resultativity and successfulness. In thenext section we will give a theoretical interpretation of these results.

4 Theoretical implications

The popularity of VPCs over the last decade, especially amongst generative gram-marians, has been mainly due to their ambiguous structural status between wordsand phrases (cf. the introduction in Deheet al. Eds., 2002). The basic question forthe generative approach was: are VPCs morphological or syntactic in nature? Thisdemarcation problem is of course the by-product of the modular architecture of thegrammar in which components are autonomous and subsequent. Consequently, thedifferent proposals to unravel the puzzle were based on syntactic and semanticcriteria that aimed at demonstrating the word-like or phrase-like status of theseconstructions. A number of technical solutions were put forward to account for theproperties of VPCs, from the Small-Clause analysis (cf., among others, den Dikken,

1995) to the non-projecting word proposal for particles (cf. Toivonen, 2003).However, at present, generative grammarians have not reached a general agreementon the kind of structure to assign to VPCs.

A new theoretical perspective has been recently put forward by Booij (2002a, b),who claims that separable complex verbs in Dutch are a case of periphrastic wordformation, i.e. lexical items that behave functionally as complex words but display a

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 181

1 3


28/34

phrasal structure28. Technically speaking, these complex verbs are regarded as con-structional idioms (cf. Goldberg, 1995; Jackendoff, 1997, 2002b), i.e. semi-specifiedsyntactic structures with a (partially) non-compositional meaning that are stored inthe lexicon and display a limited productivity. As Booij himself recognizes, his pro-

posal is in line with the basic tenets of Construction Grammar (cf. Fillmore, Kay &OConnor 1988; Goldberg, 1995, 2003, 2006), which claims that language consists of anetwork ofconstructions, i.e. form-meaning pairings (hence, signsin the Saussureansense) differing in size and complexity. Constructionist approaches therefore rely ona view of the language faculty that is non-modular in nature and allow for a gradual,non clear-cut division between syntax, morphology and the lexicon. This scalar visionof grammar allows us to leave the demarcation problem (phrasal versus morpho-logical) in the background, due to the non-strict separation between what we tradi-tionally refer to as the modules of the grammar. In the following discussion, we referto both the analysis of VPCs proposed in Booij (2002a, b) (and further developed in

Blom, 2005) and to the Construction Morphology framework elaborated in Booij(2005a, b). In Construction Morphology, [w]ord formation patterns can be seen asabstract schemas that generalize over sets of existing complex words of a particularmorphological shape, and specify how new complex words can be created (Booij,2005a, p. 1). Construction Morphology can be considered an implementation ofConstruction Grammar that aims at accounting for morphological issues and for allthose phenomena which are traditionally considered on the boundary of morphologyand syntax, such as verb-particle constructions29: in fact, VPCs are neither morpho-logical nor syntactic objects, they are simply constructionswith a phrasal form and a

unitary semantics that makes them close to words.This kind of approach allows us to account for both idiosyncratic, occasional VPCs(which are to be analysed as listed phrasal lexical items), and verbparticle patternsthat display a certain degree of productivity. In the latter case, the construction issemi-specified, i.e. there is a free slot for the verb and a specified slot for the particle.The whole construction is of course associated with a meaning. Take for example theDutch example in (46) and the corresponding Italian example in (47), where theparticlesop and su express their basic directional meanings:

(46) [[op]P V]VPC (example adapted from Blom 2005, p. 176)

to cause Y to become up by V-ingde tafel optillen to cause the table to become up by V-ing

(47) [V [su]P]VPC

The difference between the two constructions lies in the fact that in (47) V stands forboth transitive and intransitive verbs. In the former case, we will have the samecausative interpretation as in the Dutch example:

(48) tirare su le braccia lit. pull up the arms to raise the arms

whereas in the latter case, we will have a Non-Agentive semantics, like in (49):

(49) correre su lit. run up to run up(wards)

28 The idea that we need to include lexical items with phrasal structure in the lexicon is also stated,among others, in Jackendoff (1997, 2002b).29 VPCs are not the only topic addressed by Booij in his papers. Indeed, he deals with a number ofissues traditionally considered as boundary phenomena, such as periphrasis.

182 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


29/34

Of course, the A/NA information has to be added to the construction in (47), whichtherefore gives rise to two different, though related constructions:

(50) [VA [su]P]VPC to cause Y to become up by V-ing

(51) [VNA [su]P]VPC to V upwards

This type of pattern with locative meaning is the basic configuration of Italian VPCsand doubtlessly the more productive. As already mentioned, we believe that theemergence of such constructions in Italian is related to the loss of the system ofverbal prefixes in the passage from Latin to Italian. In fact, this productive systemwas already declining in Late Latin. The need to fill a gap in the system and the largeuse of these formations in the spoken language led to the entrenchment (cf. Lan-gacker, 1987) of the pattern itself for the expression of location in the verbal system.

The results of the semantic analysis in Sect. 3 showed that particles seem to have

some actional side-effect on the verbal bases, but cannot yet be considered as properAktionsartmarkers. Notwithstanding this, a deeper analysis of a specific particle (viaaway) revealed that its actional effect on a particular class of Manner verbs isstrikingly regular. Some of these verbs (such asasportareto take away orrimuovereto remove) are telic and incorporate the meaning AWAY in the verbal root.Others (such asfregareto rub orgraffiareto scratch) are either atelic or TEL anddo not incorporate the meaning AWAY. Whereas in the former case the particle viahas the effect of stressing the resultativity of the verbal root (2736), in the latter ithas a clear telicizing function (3742).

In constructionist terms, this can be interpreted as the rise of a new construction

with actional function such as (52):

(52) [V [via]P]VPC to successfully remove something by V-ing

where V = Manner verb of wiping/scratching (either TEL or TEL)

The rise of this new constructional meaning might be traced back to two factors.First, the particle via occurs very often with telic verbs of removing (examples 2736). In these contexts,via has the role of making the telosovert and emphasizing theresultativity of the action. This frequent use with telic contexts might have had animportant role in the creation of the new constructional meaning in (52), since it

strengthens the feeling that via is linked to telic situations.Second,via has inherent telicizing properties, i.e. is a tendentially telic particle(cf.

Sect. 3.1). As we already mentioned, its telicizing character derives from its originallocative meaning by means of metonymic extension. From the point of view ofConstruction Grammar, this can be easily accounted for in terms ofinheritance links(cf. Goldberg, 1995). According to the constructionist framework developed inGoldberg, the set of constructions that form the linguistic competence of the speakeris not a mere list, bur rather an organized network. Constructions are related to eachother by a set of inheritance links, that establish specific semantic relationships be-tween the different structures, such as the polysemy link or the metaphorical

extension link. Goldberg (1995, p. 77) also states that [s]ince links are objects in thepresent system, a type of link that recurs often throughout the grammar can be saidto have a high type frequency [] and is therefore predicted to be productivelyapplied to new cases which share the relevant factors associated with the existingcases. In other words, systematic semantic connections contribute to create newconstructions or new constructional meanings.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 183

1 3


30/34


31/34

Furthermore, from the point of view of linguistic theory, it implies that:

(a) constructions are not static objects but can change or emerge gradually, whichcreates an important link between Construction Grammar in general and studieson grammaticalization and/or lexicalization;

(b) the emergence of new constructions or of new constructional meanings largelydepends on cognitive processes, such asmetonymic extension, which confirms thecrucial role of the cognitive sphere in language.

This state of affairs can be effectively examined using the constructionist approachput forward by Goldberg (1995). This was implemented by proposing a metonymicinheritance link to account for the emergence of the actional verbparticle patternswith via.

References

Antelmi, D. (2002). Il verbo senza significato: possibilita` di slittamento del contenuto lessicale suelementi di tipo nominale. Rivista italiana di linguistica e di dialettologia 4, 97117.

Bertinetto, P. M. (1986). Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dellindicativo.Florence: Accademia della Crusca.

Bertinetto P. M. (1997). Il dominio tempo-aspettuale: demarcazioni, intersezioni, contrasti. Turin:Rosenberg & Sellier.

Bertinetto, P. M. (2001). On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: theperfective-telic confusion. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, & M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semanticinterfaces: reference, anaphora and aspect(pp. 177210). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Blom, C. (2005). Complex predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and diachrony. PhD dissertation, Vrije

Universiteit Amsterdam (LOT Publications Series 111).Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Boogaart, R. (2004). Aspect and Aktionsart. In G. Booij, Ch. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.),

Morphologie/morphology: Ein internationals Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An inter-national Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation (Vol. 2, pp. 11651180). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.

Booij, G. (2002a). Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of GermanicLinguistics,14(4), 301329.

Booij, G. (2002b). Separable complex verbs in dutch: a case of periphrastic word formation. InN. Deheet alii (Eds.), 2141.

Booij, G. (2005a). Construction Morphology. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Booij, G. (2005b). Construction-dependent morphology.Lingue e linguaggio,4(2), 163178.

Booij, G. & J. van Marle (Eds.) (2003). Yearbook of morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Brinton, L. J. (1988). The development of English aspectual systems. Aspectualizers and post-verbalparticles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cini, M. (2002). I verbi sintagmatici negli etnotesti dellALEPO. In G. Marcato (Ed.) La dialetto-logia oltre il 2001 (Quaderni di dialettologia 6). (pp. 143150). Padua: Unipress.

Dehe, N. (2002).Particle verbs in English. syntax, information structure and intonation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dehe, N. (2005). The optimal placement of up and ab - a comparison. Journal of ComparativeGermanic Linguistics, 8, 185224.

Dehe, N. et al. (Eds.) (2002). Verb-particle explorations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.De Mauro, T. (1963). Storia linguistica dellItalia unita. Bari: Laterza.Dikken, M. den (1995). Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions .

Oxford: Oxford University Press.DISC = Dizionario italiano Sabatini Coletti. (1997). Florence: Giunti Multimedia.Dixon, R. (1982). The grammar of English phrasal verbs. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2(1),

142.Dufresne, M., Dupuis F., & Tremblay, M. (2003). Preverbs and particles in old French. Yearbook of

Morphology, 2003, 3360.Durante, M. (1981).Dal latino allitaliano moderno. Saggio di storia linguistica e culturale. Bologna:

Zanichelli.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 185

1 3


32/34

Farrel, P. (2005). English verb-preposition constructions: constituency and order. Language, 81(1),96137.

Fillmore, Ch. J., Kay, P., & OConnor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammaticalconstructions: the case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501538.

Foulet, L. (19461947). Leffacement des adverbes de lieu. Romania, 69, 179.

Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2003). Italian prefixes and productivity: a quantitative approach. ActaLinguistica Hungarica, 50(12), 93112.Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive

Studies, 7(5), 219224.Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.GRADIT = Grande dizionario italiano delluso. (1999). Tullio De Mauro editor in chief, Turin:

UTET.Gries, S. T. (2003).Multifactioral analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of particle placement. London:

Continuum.Gsell, O. (1982). La rosas dattan ora - les roses da` fora` - le rose danno fuori: Verbalperiphrasen mit

Ortsadverb im Ratoromanischen und im Italienischen. In S. Heinz, & U. Wandruszka (Eds.),Fakten und Theorien. Festschrift fur Helmut Stimm (pp. 7185). Tubingen.

Haiden, M. (2002). Verb particle constructions. Aston University, Ms. (available at http://www.univ-lille3.fr/silex/equipe/haiden/particle/case_117_vepa.htm).

Haverling, G. (2003). On prefixes and actionality in classical and late Latin. Acta Linguistica Hun-garica,50(12), 113135.

Hiltunen, R. (1983). The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Theevidence from some old and early middle English texts. Turku:Turun Yliopisto.

Hofmann, J. B., & Szantyr, A. (1965). Lateinische syntax und stylistik = Lateinische Grammatik.Zweiter Band, by Leumann, Hofmann & Szantyr (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II.2.2),Munich.

Iacobini, C. (2003). Lindicazione di valori locativi a partire da basi verbali. Seminar held at theUniversity of Roma Tre (Department of Linguistics), 13 November 2003.

Iacobini, C. (2004). Parasintesi. In M. Grossmann, & F. Rainer (Eds.),La formazione delle parole initaliano (pp. 165188). Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Iacobini, C. (2005). I verbi italiani come base di derivazione prefissale. In M. Grossmann, & A. M.Thornton (Eds.),La formazione delle parole. Atti del XXXVII Congresso Internazionale dellaSLI (pp. 289307). Rome: Bulzoni.

Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Jackendoff, R. (2002a). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In

N. Deheet al (Eds.), 6794.Jackendoff, R. (2002b). Foundations of language. Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Jansen, H. (2004). La particella spaziale e il suo combinarsi con verbi di movimento nellitaliano

contemporaneo. In P. DAchille (Ed.), Generi, architetture e forme testuali (pp. 129144). Atti

del VII Convegno SILFI. Florence: Franco Cesati editore.Jezek, E. (2002). Lo sfondamento di un confine tipologico. Il caso dei verbi complessi nellitaliano. InP. Cordin, R. Franceschini, & G. Held (Eds.),Parallela 8. Atti dellottavo incontro italo-austriacodei linguisti. Lingue di confine, confini di fenomeni linguistici.(pp. 289308). Rome: Bulzoni.

Klein, H. G. (1969).Das Verhalten der telischen Verben in den romanischen Sprachen erortert an derInterferens von Aspekt und Aktionsart. Dissertation, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat,Frankfurt am Main.

Kramer, J. (1981). Die Ubernahme der deutschen und der niederlandischen Konstruktion Verb +Verbzusatz durch die Nachbarsprachen. In W. Meid, & K. Heller (Eds.), Sprachkontakt alsUrsache von Veranderungen der Sprach- und Bewusstsseinsstruktur (pp. 129140). Innsbruck:Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft.

Kramer, J. (1987). Tedeschismi e pseudo-tedeschismi nel ladino e altrove. Quaderni Patavini di

Linguistica, 6, 930.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.

LIP = De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli M., & Voghera, M. (Eds.) (1993). Lessico di frequenzadellitaliano parlato. Milan: Etas Libri.

Lindner, S. J. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions. Bloomington:Indiana University Linguistics Club.

186 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

1 3


33/34

Lohse, B., Hawkins, J. A., & Wasow, T. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particleconstructions. Language,80(2), 238261

Ludeling, A. (2001). On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI Publi-cations.

Ludtke, J. (1996). Gemeinromanische Tendenzen IV. Wortbildungslehre. In G. Holtus et al.(Eds.),

Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik (vol. 2(1), pp. 235272). Tubingen: Niemeyer.Mair, W. N. (1984). Transferenz oder autonome Bildung? Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, 100,408432.

Masini, F. (2005). Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the case of Italianverb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 145173.

Masini, F. (to appear). Diacronia dei verbi sintagmatici in italiano. To appear in Archivio Glotto-logico Italiano.

McIntyre, A. (2001). German double particles as preverbs: morphology and conceptual semantics.Tubingen: Stauffenburg.

McIntyre, A. (2002). Idiosyncrasy in Particle Verbs. In N. Deheet al (Eds.), 95118.McIntyre, A. (2005). The semantic and syntactic decomposition ofget. An interaction between verb

meaning and particle placement.Journal of Semantics, 22(4), 401438.Meyer-Lubke, W. (1899). Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, IV Syntax. Leipzig.Muller, S. (2002). Complex predicates: verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs

in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Rohlfs, G. (1969).Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Turin: Einaudi; revised

version ofHistorische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihre Mundarten. Bern: FranckeVerlag 19491954.

Rohlfs, G. (1983). Romanische Lehnubersetzungen aus germanischer Grundlage: materia romana,spirito germanico. Munchen: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Romagno, D. (2003). Azionalita` e transitivita` : il caso dei preverbi latini. Archivio GlottologicoItaliano,88(2), 156170.

Sasse, H.-J. (2002). Recent Activity in the Theory of Aspect: Accomplishments, Achievements, orjust Non-Progressive State? Linguistic Typology, 6, 199271.

Schwarze, Ch. (1985). Uscire e andare fuori: struttura sintattica e semantica lessicale. In A.

Franchi de Bellis, & L. M. Savoia (Eds.),Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana duso. Teoriee applicazioni descrittive (pp. 355371). Atti del XXIV Congresso Internazionale della SLI.Rome: Bulzoni.

Simone, R. (1997). Esistono verbi sintagmatici in italiano? In T. De Mauro, & V. Lo Cascio (Eds.),Lessico e grammatica. Teorie linguistiche e applicazioni lessicografiche. (pp. 155170). Rome:Bulzoni.

Stiebels, B. (1996).Lexikalische argumente und Adjunkte: zum semantischen Beitrag verbaler Prafixeund Partikeln. Studia Grammatica 39. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Stiebels, B., & Wunderlich, D. (1994). Morphology feeds syntax. Linguistics, 32, 919968.Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.),

Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume III. Grammatical Categories and theLexicon(pp. 57149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: typology and process in concept structuring, Vol. 2 .Cambridge: MIT Press.

Telmon, T. (1993). Varieta` regionali. In A. A. Sobrero (Ed.), Introduzione allitaliano contempo-raneo. (pp. 93149). Rome-Bari: Laterza.

Toivonen, I. (2003). Non-projecting words. A case study of Swedish particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Traugott, E. C. (1982). From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-

Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectiveson Historical Linguistics(pp. 245271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.),The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. (pp. 624647). Oxford: Blackwell.

Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Id (pp. 97121). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca N.Y.:Cornell University Press.

Venier, F. (1996). I verbi sintagmatici. In P. Blumenthal, G. Rovere, & Ch. Schwarze (Eds.),Lexikalische Analyse Romanischer Sprachen (pp. 149156). Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Vicario, F. (1995). Sul tipo a da afara , a veni napoi: verbi con avverbio in rumeno. Revue de

Linguistique Roumaine,40(4), 149164.Vicario, F. (1997). I verbi analitici in friulano. Milan: Franco Angeli.

Morphology (2006) 16:155188 187

1 3


34/34

Vincent, N. (1999). The Evolution of C-Structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo-European toRomance. Linguistics, 37(6), 11111153.

Voghera, M. (1994). Lessemi complessi: percorsi di lessicalizzazioni a confronto. Lingua e Stile, 29,185214.

Wienold, G., & Schwarze, Ch. (2002). The lexicalization of movement concepts in French, Italian,

Japanese and Korean: Towards a realistic typology. Arbeitspapier 112, Fachbereich Sprach-wissenschaft Universitat Konstanz.

188 Morphology (2006) 16:155188

the emergence of verb-particle constructions in italian; locative and actional meanings

Documents