Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

Номер: 5-3
Год: 2017
Страницы: 63-66
Журнал: Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук

Ключевые слова

отделяемые глагольные частицы, префикс, морфология, синтаксис, отделяемость, словообразование, вторичная предикация, немецкий язык, Particle verbs, prefix, morphology, syntax, separability, word formation, second predication, German

Просмотр статьи

⛔️ (обновите страницу, если статья не отобразилась)

Аннотация к статье

Глаголы c отделяемыми частицы представляют собой спорный и активно дискутируемый феномен немецкого языка. В некотором смысле данные конструкции ведут себя как слова, но так же в некоторой степени и как фразы, что является основанием для теоретических исследований взаимодействий между морфологией и синтаксисом. Ученым, анализирующие глаголы с отделяемыми частицами как фразовые конструкции, необходимо принимать во внимание тот факт, что данные конструкции обладают способностью к словообразованию. Морфологические исследования, с другой стороны, должны учитывать отделяемость данных глагольных соединения.

Текст научной статьи

The particle verbs are controversially discussed phenomenon of the German. These are quite common costructions that consist of a preverb and a verb, adjacent in V-final sentences but separated in other configurations, as exemplified in (1). (1) a. daß der Student die Studie anfängt that the student the study on (preverb)+catches(V ) “that the student begins the study.” b. Der Student fängt die Studie an. the student catches(V) the study on (preverb) “The student begins the study.” These constructions behave like words in some sense, but sometimes they behave more like phrases, which make them a good test case for theories about syntax-morphology interface. There seems to be a shared intuition among speakers of German about which constructions should be called particle verbs, at least for the “core case”. [4] But how do speakers of German distinguish particle verbs intuitively? What is at the roots of thus intuition? It can be assumed that this intuition is sensitive to the fact that those constructions that we call particle verbs are not fully transparent and that are to a lesser or greater degree lexicalized. This again might be due to the fact that many of those elements that we call particles are highly ambiguous. Some of them have adverb, adjective, or prepositional readings. Particle verbs are interesting because they show a behavior that is ambiguous between that of phrases and that of words. Accordingly, some researchers have analyzed them as phrasal constructions [3; 5; 8] and others have analyzed them as morphological objects [1; 7]. In either analysis it is difficult to account for the ‘untypical’ behavior. Those researchers that analyze particle verbs as phrasal constructions have to account for the fact that they undergo productive word formation, for instance. Morphological analyses, on the other hand, have to account for the separability of particle verbs. But still what are particle verbs? There is no generally agreed definition or even consensus on the notion of particle verbs. Nevertheless most people would probably agree with the following rough approximation: Particle verbs are constructions that consist of a verb and a preverb and that behave like words in some respects and like syntactic constructions in others. The problem that is investigated in this paper is already visible in this characterization. Structure problem deals with the structural properties of particle verbs. The question is: if particle verbs behave like words in some respects and like phrasal constructions in others, are they structurally words that are formed in morphology and that behave like phrases under certain circumstances? Or are they phrasal constructions that sometimes behave like words? The constructions (2) below are considered typical particle verbs. What they have in common is, roughly speaking that (a) they consist of a verb and something else in front of it (which can be called preverb, particle or prefix) and (b) that they are lexicalized, or non-transparent. 2. a. an (preverb)+fangen(V) ® anfangen “to begin” b. auf (preverb)+hören(V) ® aufhören “to stop, to finish” c. zu (preverb)+hören(V) ® zuhören “to listen” Particle verbs are, however, not simply lexicalized verbal compounds. Although the preveb and the verb are obligatorily adjacent in V-final sentences (V-final being the structure of subordinate clauses and the underlying sentence structure in German), they have to be separated under V-second or V-first, as shown for anfangen in (3). Here the verb moves to its designated position and the preverb obligatorily stays clause-final [3]. 3. a. daß die Erzählung anfängt. that the story on+catches “that the story begins.” b. Die Erzählung fängt an. the story catches on. “The story begins.” c. *Die Erzählung anfängt. The problem is immidiately obvious. The separability of particle verbs seems to suggest that they are not ’words’ but rather syntactic constructions consisting of a verb and a “a phrasal preverb”. [5:3] Why should such statement be assumed? First, words are generally not separable. And, second, in German there are similar constructions consisting of clearly phrasal constituentes and verbs that behave like particle verbs with respect to the placement of the secondary predicate, like, e.g., resultative constructions or certain adverbial constructions. Let me illustrate this with one example of a resultative construction. In (4) the resultative AP weich “soft” or the PP zu Brei “to mush” behave just like the preverb in (3): they are strictly adjacent to the verb in V-final sentences, while under V-second, only the verb moves and the resultative predicate stays clause-final. (4). a. daß die Mutter die Kartoffeln {weich/ zu Brei} kocht. that the mother the potatoes {soft/ to mush} boils. “that the mother boils the potatoes {soft/ to mush}.” b. Die Mutter kocht die Kartoffeln {weich/ zu Brei}. the mother boils the potatoes {soft/ to mush} “The mother boils the potatoes {soft/ to mush}.” c. *Die Mutter {weich/ zu Brei} kocht die Kartoffeln. However, particle verbs have word-like properties as well, and they are generally felt to be words. [5:3]. One factor for this might be the non-transparency of constructions like the ones in (2) but there are other factors as well which can be notice here: word formation and modification of the preverb. Particle verbs undergo productive word formation, as shown in (5a), just like simplex verbs (5b). The adjective unafgekocht, “unboiled”, is formed by prefixing the negation prefix un- to the past participle aufgekocht, “boiled”, from aufkochen, “to bring to a boil”. The adjective abwaschbar “washable” is a suffix derivation with the suffix -bar from abwaschen, “to wash”. Resultative constructions, on the other hand, are often assumed to not undergo productive word formation processes (5c). (5) a. unaufgekocht “unboiled” aufkochen “to bring to the boil” abwaschbar “washable” abwaschen “to wash off” b. ungekocht “uncooked” kochen “to cook” waschbar “washable” waschen “to wash” c. *unweichgekocht “unsoftboiled” weich kochen “to boil soft” *weichkochbar “softboilable” weich kochen “to boil soft” The preverbs in particle verbs also behave like parts of words rather than like phrasal constituents in that they cannot be modified. Compare (6a) and (6b). In (6a) the preverb auf cannot be modified by the degree particle zu, “too”, whereas the resultative predicate weich in (6b) can. (6) a. *Die Mutter kocht die Milch zu auf. the mother boils the milk too on. b. Die Mutter kocht die Kartoffeln zu weich. the mother boils the potatoes too soft. “The mother boils the potatoes too soft.” It is often claimed that only words can undergo word formation processes like un- prefixing and -bar derivation. It is also claimed that it is not possible to modify parts of words [6; 7]. Thus, the fact that the separable complex verbs can undergo productive formation and that the preverbs cannot be modified could easily be explained if separable complex verbs were to be analyzed as words and preverbs consequently as parts of words. Particle verbs are therefore good test cases for the relationship between syntax and morphology, and it is exactly this dilemma that has initiated most research about particle verbs [3; 4; 5; 7; 8].

Научные конференции


(c) Архив публикаций научного журнала. Полное или частичное копирование материалов сайта возможно только с письменного разрешения администрации, а также с указанием прямой активной ссылки на источник.