句動詞の統語構造 ： away を中心 に

1. 句動詞の統語構造：awayを中心に 盛岡大学 新沼　史和 niinuma@morioka-u.ac.jp

2. 1. Introduction: Phrasal verbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Assumptions • [InitPInit [ProcPProc[ResPR ]]] (Ramchand (2008)) • Asp head within VP (cf. Travis (1994, 2010), 藤田・松本 (2005), Ogawa and Niinuma (2013))

14. Proposals • [InitPInit [AspPAsp [ProcPProc [ResPR]]]] (Ogawa and Niinuma (2013)) b. Directionalaway -> R position. c.Aspectualaway -> Asphead. • compatible with Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) ‘upward reanalysis.’

15. 2. Properties of the particle away

16. (McIntyre (2011)) • 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).

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

18. (14) intransitive verbs back away（あとずさりする）, boltaway（急いで去る）, breakaway（仲間から外れる）, goaway（去る）, runaway（逃げる）, slipaway（こっそり逃げる）, walkaway（立ち去る）

19. (15) transitive verbs beataway（打ち払う）, breakaway（こわして取り除く）, burnaway（焼き払う）, cutaway（切り取る）, easeaway（そっと取り除く）, pullaway（引き離す） washaway（流し去る）

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

21. (14) are unaccusatives (17) a. the backed away boy b. the ran away boy c. the gone away boy d. the walked away boy (cf. http://www3.unine.ch/files/content/sites/andrew.mcintyre/files/shared/mcintyre/3.argstr.genf.pdf)

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

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

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

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

26. Summary • directional awayshares the properties of resultative secondary predicates.

27. 2.2. Aspectual away The aspectual use of away with verbs that do not refer to translocationalmotion Bolinger(1971: 104-5), Brinton (1985:165-67), Jackendoff (1997: 539-40; 2002: 77-78), McIntyre (2001b: 132) and Rice (1999: 237-39).

28. (26a) (26)a. “aspectual away emphasizes atelicity” (Jackendoff1997: 541).

29. (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))

30. Some examples (27) • Are you all knitting awayfuriously for Christmas? • … a traditional fairground music organ playingmerrily away . • So, here I sit, laboring awaylike the dutiful little web designer I am. (Cappelle (2005))

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

32. 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)

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

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

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

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

37. 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!

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

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

40. Interim Summary (36) • awaywith the directional meaning requires an argument. • awaywith the aspectual meaning cannot have any argument.

41. 3. An analysis

42. 3.1. Assumptions • [InitPInit [ProcPProc [ResP R ]]] (Ramchand (2008)) • Asp head within VP (Travis (2010), 藤田・松本 (2005), Ogawa and Niinuma (2013))

43. VP structure [InitPInit [AspPAsp [ProcPProc [ResP R ]]]] Ogawa and Niinuma (2013))

44. (39) Adifferent morphological Case or preposition on a Location DP or Theme DP affects the telicityof the event denoted by the verb.

45. Evidence for Asp head (40) • Mary ran towardsthe store for 3 hours/*in 3 hours. • Mary ran tothe store in 3 hours/*for 3 hours. (Travis (2010: 110))

46. Evidence for Asp head 2 (41) a. Anne rakensitalo-atunni-n/*tunii-ssa. Anne build house-Part hour-Acc/*hour-inessive ‘Anne was building a/the house for an hour/*in an hour.’ b. Anne rakensitalo-nvuode-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))

47. If the event delimiter moves to [Spec, AspP] 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))

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

49. Travis (2010) (44) We are solving the problem. (45)Travis suggests that a (DO/CAUSE) zero morpheme adds to V1, which would transform the Achievement into an Accomplishment.

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