Belgian Journal of Linguistics - Volume 18, Issue 1, 2004

The principal goal of this paper is to show that spatial PPs in English and Dutch have a layered internal structure. In these languages, we find PP constructions containing multiple Ps, which can be analyzed as having a layered PP structure. That is, [+locational] PP headed by lexical P is embedded in [±directional] pP headed by functional p. Following van Riemsdijk (1990) and Emonds (2001), I further propose that in English, both [+locational] P and [±directional] p are head-initial, while in Dutch, the former is head-initial and the latter, head-final. This layered PP analysis has two desirable consequences for Dutch spatial PPs. First, it can account for the preposition-postposition alternation. This alternation is explained when we assume that an unambiguously [+directional] postpositional phrase is derived by the head-initial [+locational] P moving to adjoin to the morphologically covert [+directional] p which is head-final. Second, given this internal structure of Dutch spatial PPs and the Head Movement Constraint (Travis 1984), a contrast between the availability and unavailability of P-to-V incorporation can be readily accounted for. In [-directional] phrases, the preposition cannot undergo movement to adjoin to V since it cannot adjoin to the intermediate head, i.e., the morphologically covert [-directional] p. In contrast, the [+locational] P within a [+directional] pP can undergo incorporation into V because it can adjoin to the morphologically covert [+directional] p on its way to V.

Although the distinction between verb-preposition combinations (e.g., They fought over the money) and prima facie similar transitive verb-particle combinations (e.g., They handed over the money) is well known, some grammarians have taken the view that particles are in fact a sort of prepositions all the same, namely, intransitive ones. While this view is not faulty in itself, I do not subscribe to any of three related claims, namely (i) that directional particles and full directional PPs have the same syntactic distribution, (ii) that directional particles are shortened versions of full PPs, and (iii) that the use of a directional particle only differs from the use of a formally related full directional PP in leaving the reference object (i.e., the ‘landmark’ in Cognitive Grammar terms) understood. I argue that, since even directional particles can be quite different from their prepositional counterparts, it follows that we should consider all particles as a class distinct from prepositions.

This paper discusses the internal structure of adpositional phrases and provides evidence for the view that, even when analyzing one single language, distinct syntactic patterns need to be set up in order to cope adequately with the data. The focus of the paper is on prepositions of movement in French. It is shown that, for a the case at hand, at least six patterns need te be distinguished. Section 1 presents the standard view of prepositions as the lexical head of a PP; in section 2, it is shown that this view is appropriate for handling most instances of prepositions of movement. The remainder of this paper discusses various cases where the standard view does not hold. Section 3 deals with two instances where prepositions of movement do not have the properties of a head, namely, when they function as case markers or as co-heads to the noun. Sections 4–6 treat three additional patterns; they involve the use of prepositions as nonsubordinating interpositions, as particles tightly linked to the higher predicate, and as specifiers of another preposition. The final section (7) will present a number of conclusions that may be drawn from these observations.

This paper describes the syntactic properties of three types of locative complements in Czech that are compatible with verbs of movement. The distinction between these complements (each with its own interpretation) is made in the first place on the basis of several formal criteria (in particular, involving the rich Czech morphology), and, in addition, on semantic criteria. It is examined whether there exists sufficient correspondence between these criteria, and in particular, to what extent they can satisfactorily classify locative complements into essential and circumstantial ones. It is shown that there is no clear-cut distinction between these two categories of locative complements with Czech movement verbs. Furthermore, the syntactic role of the locative complements is shown to depend mainly on the verb, but also on other elements of the sentence. Finally, on the basis of several examples, it is argued that, on the one hand, the form of the complement does not predict its syntactic role and interpretation and, on the other hand, that two different forms can share the same syntactic role and interpretation.

In Dutch, adpositional arguments and adjuncts which are semantically close to the verb easily form pronominal adverbs made up of an adverb like er ‘there’ or daar ‘there’ and an adposition (e.g., erin [there.in], daarop [there.on]). Such a semantically close relation typically exists between the verb and objects or adjuncts of direction and place: direction and place narrowly delimit the type of action or situation described by the verb. Moreover, even though there is a wide range of adpositions that can follow the verb to express direction or place, the choice of the adposition is dependent on the verb meaning. This justifies the easiness with which objects and adjuncts of direction and place pronominalize. Pronominal adverbs corresponding to objects of direction and place differ, however, from those corresponding to adjuncts of direction and place, in that the former are more likely to occur as separate forms. The explanatory motivation, it is shown in this paper, is that the adposition (i.e., the second part) of a pronominal adverb of an object of direction or place needs to immediately precede the verbal end group, in accordance with the inherence principle.

This paper argues that the distribution of the prepositions in and on suggests that they are unable to express direction and can only indicate the goal in certain specific contexts, often those in which the direction is expressed by the verb. This analysis of in and on is in direct contradiction to previous analyses of PP that have assumed that these prepositions can be both locative and directional. The significance of the distribution of in and on for analyses of the syntax of PP is discussed. Distributional facts suggest that while into and onto must be regarded as prepositions of movement and PP as an independent domain of telicity, in and on are not themselves prepositions of movement but rather can only have a goal interpretation in certain specific circumstances. An alternative account of PP is put forward whereby in and on are the surface manifestations of a syntactically atelic PP and, in those contexts where they are able to indicate the goal, this must be due to factors external to PP, probably to particular combinations of semantic features at the interpretive interface or in some cases to pragmatic or contextual factors.

The syntactic realization of Dutch PPs is the result of an interaction of several factors. These include: the form of the complement (full NP or pronoun) and its semantics (animate or inanimate), the spatial semantics of the PP (directional or locative), and idiosyncratic lexical properties associated with particular prepositions. This paper presents a non-transformational approach to Dutch PP syntax that assumes multiple lexical entries for each adposition to produce the wide variety of PP structures observed. The lexical entries are systematically organized in an inheritance hierarchy with two major binary dimensions of variation, POSITION (preposition vs. postposition) and DIRECTIONALITY (directional vs. non-directional), with further partitions for different complement types (involving animacy and various possibilities for pronominalization). After showing how the proposed system accounts for the internal syntactic structure of Dutch adpositional phrases, the paper turns to some issues of external PP syntax, in particular the P-stranding phenomena found in Dutch.

This paper describes the aspectual uses of two Catalan prepositions: cap (a) ‘toward, by’ and fins (a) ‘up to, as far as’. Against some accounts of these prepositions in the literature, I claim that their basic meaning is not associated with motion, but with non-dynamic notions such as ‘orientation’ and ‘bounding’. Particularly, I argue that the preposition cap (a) expresses ‘orientation toward a reference point’, whereas fins (a) expresses ‘final boundary’. These senses license the aspectual uses of these prepositions, which, with some restrictions, contribute to express situation types in sentences. In their aspectual uses, cap (a) and fins (a) convey that the speaker has conceptualized a particular situation either as a discrete or as a non-discrete entity. In the first case, he/she has applied summary scanning; in the second, he/she has used dimensional scanning. Fins (a) imposes a final boundary on a situation and, thus, it favors a discrete interpretation of the situation that is being described. In contrast, cap (a) does not conceptualize final bounding, thus favoring a non-discrete interpretation.

Among their different uses, the prepositions vers ‘toward’ and contre ‘against’ can both express the spatial relation of orientation or direction between two entities (figure and ground), although they provide two different ways of presenting this relation. This study tries to show how these two prepositions operate in French and what differences they convey with regard to the interpretation of the spatial relation they encode. Vers and contre are found in similar types of syntactic construction involving the same subsets of verbs, mostly directional motion verbs. But it appears that contre involves a particular way of dealing with spatial direction as it generally expresses a physical tension between two forces (force and counterforce) opposing each other, sometimes with just a counterbalance effect but quite often resulting in rough contact (and even violent impact). Contre can then be taken as a more specialized preposition than vers, as it brings in some specific features concerning tension, opposition, and even aggressiveness.

In this paper, we argue against the view that prepositions designate motion. We make the case for prepositions such as to and through being associated with spatial properties in addition to a functional element. The functional element arises as a consequence of our daily interaction with the spatial configuration associated with the particular preposition. While to is associated with a spatial configuration in which a TR is oriented in the direction of a LM, its functional element is that of the LM constituting the TR’s goal. Due to the integration of spatial and functional elements with sentential context, particularly motion verbs, a movement reading is derived. Previous scholars have assumed this is due to the preposition itself. With regard to through, its semantics are associated with a spatial configuration involving contiguous locations from one side of a bounded LM to the other. The functional element is that of path, which, while correlating with motion, is distinct from it. The notion of motion which often arises in sentences involving through is due to the integration of the spatial and functional character of through with other sentential prompts for movement such as motion verbs. In essence, we argue for carefully articulating the nature of conventional content associated with prepositions, including both spatio-geometric and functional content, and for teasing apart distinct and distinguishable (albeit related) concepts such as orientation, path, trajectory, goal, and motion.

Basque, a language spoken on both sides of the western Pyrenees, has rich lexical and grammatical resources for expressing space. It has five different locational cases and over thirty locational postpositions, mostly spatial nouns which can take any of the locational casesuffixes. The five locational cases of Basque are locative -n, ablative -ti(k), allative -ra(t), terminative allative -raino, and directional allative -rantz. Most accounts of locational cases are good sources for descriptive as well as etymological information. However, when it comes to explaining and understanding conceptualizations of space and motion in Basque, these studies do not offer any insights. They usually provide a list of different grammatical and semantic usages, but no explanation for their motivation, their internal structure and organization, or their linguistic realization. These three issues will be the main focus of this paper. Taking Cognitive Linguistics as my theoretical framework, I will argue that the different polysemous senses, spatial and non-spatial, of Basque locational cases can be understood as complex lexical networks organized around central spatial prototypical meanings. These prototypical meanings are structured by means of image schemas and their role bindings. The other senses of locational cases are motivated semantic extensions deriving from the prototypical spatial senses and linked to them by means of compositional polysemy and cognitive mechanisms such as metaphor.

Previous research has revealed that polysemy patterns observed in spatial adpositions may correlate systematically with differences in the aspectual perspective that the speaker takes on the spatial event as a whole. Given the close interaction in the sentential context of the spatial adposition, the verb, the case marking, and the functional properties of the trajector and landmark, I claim that the perspectivization of a spatial event depends on the conceptualization of every single internal conceptual entity making up that event as a whole. In this paper, I want to explore the systematic general regularities that underlie and structure the path concepts conventionally associated with German durch ‘through’ and über ‘over’. After a brief presentation of the cognitive construal operations that are at work in German adpositions, I propose three different, yet interrelated Gestalts of path, which are schematic with respect to the path concepts specified by durch and über alike. They are incomplete traversal, complete traversal, and obstacle/boundary traversal. It is shown that these three schematic Gestalts vary substantially with respect to the aspectual properties of the complex motion events to which they belong.