1 Introduction Phrasal verbs 2 1 There has

1. Introduction: Phrasal verbs 2

(1) There has been a long debate concerning particle verbs in English (Chomsky (1957), Bolinger (1971), Frasier (1974), among others). 3

(2) Syntactic structures a. [V NP Prt] order is basic. b. [V Prt NP] order is basic. c. It differs, depending on the meaning 4

(3) Historical development of away a. b. c. d. It was onweg (on + way). It also became an adverb. It also became a P. Then, it also functions as a particle. 5

(4) a. Particle is an example of grammaticalization because it optionally take an argument or it never take any argument (valency reduction). b. Also, particles lose an original meaning (semantic bleaching). 6

Grammaticalization or Lexicalization? a. ‘highly-idiomatic’ constructions (e. g. bring up ‘rear’) are the result of lexicalization. 7

b. ‘semi-idiomatic’ constructions (e. g. chatter away) (aspectual meaning) are grammaticalized from the directional meaning. 8

Questions a. What processes are involved in the grammaticalization of particles? b. Is it possible to analyze these processes syntactically, e. g. Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) analysis of grammaticalization? 9

Grammaticalization involves the creation of new functional material, either through the reanalysis of existing functional material or through the reanalysis of lexical material. (7) (Roberts and Roussou (2003: 2)) 10

(8)Successive upward reanalysis along the functional hierarchy is thus how we define grammaticalization path. (Roberts and Roussou (2003: 202)) 11

Purposes of this talk a. investigate syntactic and semantic properties of V + away. b. account for them under the syntactic treatement of aktionsart. c. Look at the historical development of V + away with aspectual meaning. 12

Assumptions a. [Init. P Init [Proc. P Proc [Res. P R ]]] (Ramchand (2008)) b. Asp head within VP (cf. Travis (1994, 2010), 藤田・松本 (2005), Ogawa and Niinuma (2013)) 13

Proposals a. [Init. P Init [Asp. P Asp [Proc. P Proc [Res. P R ]]]] (Ogawa and Niinuma (2013)) b. Directional away -> R position. c. Aspectual away -> Asp head. d. compatible with Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) ‘upward reanalysis. ’ 14

2. Properties of the particle away 15

(Mc. Intyre (2011)) a. Under certain syntactic conditions, particles need not, or may not, be verb-adjacent. b. Particles differ from other elements fulfilling condition (a) in that they form a kind of ‘close union’ with a verb whose precise nature differs from theory to theory. c. Most, if not all, particles are (or are at least formally related to) complementless prepositions (or ‘directional/locational adverbs’ in traditional terms). 16

Directional away (13) a. directional away combines with motion verbs b. From this, the directional away metaphorically gained the meaning ‘removal. ’ (Shimada (1985)). 17

(14) are unaccusatives (16) Unaccusative past participles can be used as nominal modifiers with active meaning, while unergative past participles cannot a. unaccusative: the melted snow, the departed guests, the fallen soldiers b. unergative: *the shouted victim, *the slept child, *the hesitated leader 20

(14) are unaccusatives (17) a. b. c. d. the backed away boy the ran away boy the gone away boy the walked away boy (cf. http: //www 3. unine. ch/files/content/sites/andrew. mcintyre/files/shared/mcintyre/3. argstr. genf. pdf) 21

(18)a. Directional away is allowed only when there is an internal argument. resultatives? ? 22

Particles/resultatives a. Resultatives must be objectoriented (Levin and Rappaport (1995: 34) b. Particles in Old English are all resultatives (Los et al. (2012)). 23

Internal argument realization (20) a. The dog barked (*me). b. The dog barked me away. (21) a. *The jogger ran the pavement. b. The jogger ran the pavement thin. 24

Selection of internal arguments (22) clear {up / away} (the dishes) (cp. clear *(the dishes)) (Cappelle (2005)) (23) a. John washed off the dirt. b. *John washed the dirt. 25

Summary (24) directional away shares the properties of resultative secondary predicates. 26

2. 2. Aspectual away The aspectual use of away with verbs that do not refer to translocational motion Bolinger (1971: 104 -5), Brinton (1985: 165 -67), Jackendoff (1997: 539 -40; 2002: 77 -78), Mc. Intyre (2001 b: 132) and Rice (1999: 237 -39). 27

(26 a) “aspectual away emphasizes atelicity” (26)a. (Jackendoff 1997: 541). 28

(26) b. away expresses continuation in those cases where the verb refers to an atelic event (“durative situations, which can be continued”) but iteration in those cases where the verb refers to a punctual (instantaneous) or telic event (“which cannot be continued”) (Brinton (1985: 166)) 29

Some examples (27) a. Are you all knitting away furiously for Christmas? b. … a traditional fairground music organ playing merrily away. c. So, here I sit, laboring away like the dutiful little web designer I am. (Cappelle (2005)) 30

Aspectual away cannot have a direct object, but instead it can take PPs. 31

Examples (32) a. He was scrubbing away at the floor. (cp. He was scrubbing the floor) b. I was typing away at my report. (cp. I was typing my report) c. She smoked away at her cigarette. (cp. She smoked her cigarette) 32

Cappelle (2005) If the object of the preposition effectively disappears as a result of the activity, aspectual away comes close in meaning to the directional away. (29) 33

(30)a. Slowly but surely you can whittle away at the fat stores from all over the body. (aspectual away) b. It will help tighten your buttock muscles and whittle away the flab around your hips. (directional away) 34

Atelicity versus telicity (31) a. I whittled away at my excessive pounds {for /*in} two months (aspectual away) b. I whittled away my excessive pounds {in /*for} two months (directional away). 35

*Stative verbs (32) aspectual away cannot combine with clearly stative verbs (Jackendoff (1997)) *hear away, *know away, *remember away , *resemble away, etc. 36

A counterexample? A: Do you want me to talk /recite (my lesson) / tell this joke) or not? B: Sure, talk / recite (it) / tell (it) away! 37

Nagano (2007) “the empty object it has no semantic function at all. ” -> not transitive verbs! 38

Properties of aspectual away (35) a. It is compatible with intransitive verbs. b. Thus the particle cannot take an internal argument. c. The whole event denotes an activity, hence atelic. d. It cannot co-occur with stative verbs. 39

Interim Summary (36) a. away with the directional meaning requires an argument. b. away with the aspectual meaning cannot have any argument. 40

3. An analysis 41

3. 1. Assumptions a. [Init. P Init [Proc. P Proc [Res. P R ]]] (Ramchand (2008)) b. Asp head within VP (Travis (2010), 藤田・松本 (2005), Ogawa and Niinuma (2013)) 42

VP structure [Init. P Init [Asp. P Asp [Proc. P Proc [Res. P R ]]]] Ogawa and Niinuma (2013)) 43

A different morphological Case or preposition on a Location DP or Theme DP affects the telicity of the event denoted by the verb. (39) 44

Evidence for Asp head (40) a. Mary ran towards the store for 3 hours/*in 3 hours. b. Mary ran to the store in 3 hours/*for 3 hours. (Travis (2010: 110)) 45

Evidence for Asp head 2 (41) a. b. Anne rakensi talo-a tunni-n/*tunii-ssa. Anne build house-Part hour-Acc/*hour-inessive ‘Anne was building a/the house for an hour/*in an hour. ’ Anne rakensi talo-n vuode-ssa/*vuode-n. Anne build house-Acc year-inessive /*year-Acc ‘Anne built a/the house in a year/*for a year. ’ (Ritter and Rosen (2001: 436)) 46

If the event delimiter moves to [Spec, Asp. P] and undergoes feature checking with Asp, it is not surprising that a DP or a PP which plays the same grammatical function shows a different morphological realization. (Ogawa and Niinuma (2013)) 47

Proposal (43) a. the directional away is located in R and it takes an argument NP. b. the aspectual away is located in Asp and it causes a type coercion so that it is not compatible with the Res. P. 48

Travis (2010) (44) We are solving the problem. Travis suggests that a (DO/CAUSE) zero morpheme adds to V 1, which would transform the Achievement into an Accomplishment. (45) 49

*Stative verbs [Res R ] -> structure for stative verbs Incompatible with Asp head! 50

3. 2. Historical development of particles (47) a. Particles in OE had the resultative meaning. b. projecting preverb > optionally projecting preverb > non-projecting preverb > prefix > (zero) (Los et al. (2012)) 51

Questions (48) a. What is the connection between nonprojecting particle and activity? 52

Questions (48) b. How can the particle away, which was a resultative secondary predicate, gain the continuative meaning? 53

Proposal (49) a. Particles, which were located in R, had an argument. b. Particles had an argument optionally. c. Particles do not have an argument at all. 54

Proposal (49) d. The verb can omit the direct object, so that the aktionsart of the verb changes from accomplishment to activity. e. Finally, they became an aspectual head. 55

Empty Objects and Telicity (50) a. John is eating. (activity) b. John is eating an apple. (accomplishment) 56

Empty Objects and Telicity (51) a. John was eating for an hour/ *in an hour. (activity) b. John ate an apple in an hour/ *for an hour. (accomplishment) 57

(52) Omission of the direct object often serves to turn an accomplishment verb to activity. (cf. Rice (1988), Goldberg (2001)) 58

Predictions (54) Directional away > object omission > aspectual away 59

4. Corpus (COHA) Data 60

61

62

• Intransitive V + aspectual away has developed recently. 63

4. 2. Examples 64

4. 2. 1. Eat 65

66

67

68

69

4. 2. 2. wash 70

71

72

73

74

4. 2. 3. burn 75

76

77

78

79

4. 3. Other examples 80

4. 3. 1. hammer 81

82

hammer away (at) せっせと働く He hammered away at the task. 83

(55) a. they found your father and these worthy lairds hammering away, with pain and labor, to make themselves mutually understood, … (1834) b. and right merrily I hammer away at the thousand-times-repeated accompaniment. (1839) 84

4. 3. 2. blaze 85

86

(56) blaze away ポンポン発射する a. the moment that we faced about, blazing away upon us, and running to the next house … (1823) b. as Sambo blazed away at' em out o' the stone-mill, … (1833) 87

4. 3. 3. puff 88

89

(56) puff away 〜を吹き払う/ （タバコを）ぷかぷか吸う a. a breath of love and all is puffed away. (1817) b. and after deliberately clearing his throat and puffing away the smoke from his nose, … (1827) 90

5. Findings (57) a. The particle away combined with transitive verbs earlier than with intransitive verbs. (cf. Ishizaki (2010, 2012)) b. Object omission has developed earlier than the intransitive verb with the particle away. 91

6. Relationship among other languages 92

Aoki (2010): V + kiru (58) a. V 2 kiru had the meaning with “cutting” in Old Japanese; i. e. it functioned as a main verb. 93

Aoki (2010): V + kiru b. In Middle Japanese, V 2 kiru gained the “completive” aspectual meaning. However, it is allowed to concatenate with the “change-of-state” verbs. 94

Aoki (2010): V + kiru • c. In Modern Japanese, both meanings are allowed, and V 2 kiru with the aspectual meaning can concatenate with any verb (tsukai-kiru, ‘run-complete, ’ hasiri -kiru ‘run-complete’). 95

V 2 as an aspectual head Asp (60) VP NP V 2 V 1 (cf. Nishiyama and Ogawa (2011), Ogawa and Niinuma (2011), Fukuda (2012), Kageyama (2012)) 96

If we combine Aoki’s (2010) analysis with recent treatment of Aspect head in V-V compounds in Japanese, V 2 is grammaticalized and V 2 became an aspectual head. 97

Tasnim (2013) • V 2 in Bengali also is grammaticalized into an aspectual head. 98

Particles in Dutch (63) a. Particles in Dutch also underwent the grammaticalization process . b. Particles in Dutch become a prefix. (Booij (2002), Los et al. (2012)) 99

Suffixation in English? (64) a. …because they were of the same nationality I go awayed a breastwork to influence me because of one bad experience. (http: //studentessays. blogspot. jp/search? q=awayed) b. … after the French and Germans have drive awayed the United States. (http: //www. askscripts. info/article/4076 -tokyo__march_5_kyodo___se. html) 100

English, Dutch, Japanese, and Bengali (65) underwent the similar grammaticalization process but a. the elements that undergo grammaticalization are different. b. the timing of the grammaticalization are also different. 101

7. Conclusion 102

(66) a. valency reduction as well as aspectual shift from accomplishment to activity make it possible to grammaticalize the particle away. 103

b. This analysis is compatible with Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) syntactic view of grammaticalization. 104

Thank You Very Much!! 105