Three forms of English verb particle constructions

Punske, Jeffrey

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.013

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wurmbrand (2000) suggested that transparent and opaque verbs are each reflected by a different underlying syntactic structure: opaque VPCs would be associated with the complex-head structure while transparent VPCs would be represented by the small clause structure. Punske (2013) has even suggested the existence of three structures by proposing two different kinds of small clause structures. However, Brehm and Goldrick (2017) showed that VPCs may be associated with multiple syntactic structures along a gradient, rather than with only one of two discrete categories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do French–English Bilinguals Pull Verb Particle Constructions Off? Factors Influencing Second Language Processing of Unfamiliar Structures at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important challenge in bilingualism research is to understand the mechanisms underlying sentence processing in a second language and whether they are comparable to those underlying native processing. Here, we focus on verb-particle constructions (VPCs) that are among the most difficult elements to acquire in L2 English. The verb and the particle form a unit, which often has a non-compositional meaning (e.g., look up or chew out), making the combined structure semantically opaque. However, bilinguals with higher levels of English proficiency can develop a good knowledge of the semantic properties of VPCs (Blais and Gonnerman, 2013). A second difficulty is that in a sentence context, the particle can be shifted after the direct object of the verb (e.g., The professor looked it up). The processing is more challenging when the object is long (e.g., The professor looked the student’s last name up). This shifted structure favors syntactic processing at the expense of VPC semantic processing. We sought to determine whether or not bilinguals’ reading time (RT) patterns would be similar to those observed for native monolinguals (Gonnerman and Hayes, 2005) when reading VPCs in sentential contexts. French–English bilinguals were tested for English language proficiency, working memory and explicit VPC semantic knowledge. During a self-paced reading task, participants read 78 sentences with VPCs that varied according to parameters that influence native speakers’ reading dynamics: verb-particle transparency, particle adjacency and length of the object noun phrase (NP; 2, 3, or 5 words). RTs in a critical region that included verbs, NPs and particles were measured. Results revealed that RTs were modulated by participants’ English proficiency, with higher proficiency associated with shorter RTs. Examining participants’ explicit semantic knowledge of VPCs and working memory, only readers with more native-like knowledge of VPCs and a high working memory presented RT patterns that were similar to those of monolinguals. Therefore, given the necessary lexical and computational resources, bilingual processing of novel structures at the syntax-semantics interface follows the principles influencing native processing. The findings are in keeping with theories that postulate similar representations and processing in L1 and L2 modulated by processing difficulty.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do French–English Bilinguals Pull Verb Particle Constructions Off? Factors Influencing Second Language Processing of Unfamiliar Structures at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an alternative analysis (Figure 1, right), the particle is fully separate from the verbal head, having the option to form a “Small Clause” with the VPC’s object (e.g., den Dikken, 1995; Hoekstra, 1988). Current syntactic frameworks propose that both representations exist in English, dividing VPCs into two or more separate classes with different syntactic structures and associated differences in meaning and/or historical origin (Punske, 2013; Wurmbrand, 2000; Zeller, 2002).…”

Section: Semantic and Structural Variability In Vpcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing discrete and gradient category structure in language: Insights from verb-particle constructions.

Brehm¹,

Goldrick²

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current work uses memory errors to examine the mental representation of verb-particle constructions (VPCs; e.g., make up the story, cut up the meat). Some evidence suggests that VPCs are represented by a cline in which the relationship between the VPC and its component elements ranges from highly transparent (cut up) to highly idiosyncratic (make up). Other evidence supports a multiple class representation, characterizing VPCs as belonging to discretely separated classes differing in semantic and syntactic structure. We outline a novel paradigm to investigate the representation of VPCs in which we elicit illusory conjunctions, or memory errors sensitive to syntactic structure. We then use a novel application of piecewise regression to demonstrate that the resulting error pattern follows a cline rather than discrete classes. A preregistered replication verifies these findings, and a final preregistered study verifies that these errors reflect syntactic structure. This provides evidence for gradient rather than discrete representations across levels of representation in language processing. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

“…Punske (2013) argues that the structural properties of the Latinate particles are different from (most) other English particles in that they are structurally higher and the particle selects the ROOT (not the other way around). This structural relationship explains why they are prefixes along with a battery of other properties.…”

Section: Head Movement and The Particle-nominalization Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, following Punske's (2013) analysis of Latinate particle constructions we have a relatively straightforward way to distinguish between particle constructions that can be derived nominals and those that cannot: if the particle selects and embeds the ROOT, then they may participate in derived nominalization. If the ROOT selects the particle, then they may not.…”

Section: Head Movement and The Particle-nominalization Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Punske

2016

Can. J. Linguist.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I show that Embick's (2010) cyclic head approach to regular morphology alone cannot account for the freely available variations in the realization of nominalizers in English nominalizations involving overt verbalizers. Instead, I offer an account of the regularity effects using the technology of Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2007a, 2007b. Using this analysis, I derive both the variable nominalization patterns and the restrictions on particles and results in derived nominals from Sichel (2010). By treating regularity as the by-product of extant morphosyntatic operations, we can better explain the distribution of regular and irregular nominalizers and account for particle/result restrictions in English derived nominals.

show abstract

Three forms of English verb particle constructions

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

How Do French–English Bilinguals Pull Verb Particle Constructions Off? Factors Influencing Second Language Processing of Unfamiliar Structures at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

How Do French–English Bilinguals Pull Verb Particle Constructions Off? Factors Influencing Second Language Processing of Unfamiliar Structures at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

Distinguishing discrete and gradient category structure in language: Insights from verb-particle constructions.

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About