Verb-particle constructions in Romance: a lexical-syntactic account

1. Introduction
It has been pointed out that verb-particle constructions fascinate syntacticians because they do
not fall neatly within the distinctions between syntax and morphology and between idioms
and compositional constructions. As a result, one can find different proposals in a vast
literature, which is mostly about Germanic languages (e.g., see Deh et al. (2002) and
McIntyre (2007), for a review).1 More recently, verb-particle constructions have also attracted
the attention of Romance linguists since Italian verbi sintagmatici (phrasal verbs) like those
in (1) turn to be quite productive in this Romance language as well (e.g., see Grcia 1988;
Simone 1996; Masini 2005, 2006; Iacobini and Masini 2007; Iacobini 2009; Cini 2008,
among others).

(1)

buttare gi throw down, uscire fuori exit out, correre via run away, tirare su
bring up, lavare via wash away, etc.

In this paper, we deal with some important differences between Germanic verb particle
constructions and Romance ones. For example, we want to call into question one recent
important claim found in Iacobini and Masini (2007): it is evident that Italian does not
conform to Talmys generalization, since it behaves more like English than Spanish. 2 Masini
1

Two renowned proposals are the Complex Predicate approach (Johnson 1991; Neeleman 1994; Stiebels and

Wunderlich 1994; Zeller 2001) and the Small Clause approach (Kayne 1985; Hoekstra 1988; den Dikken 1995;
Ramchand and Svenonius 2002, Mateu 2008, i.a.).
2

As shown below in Section 4, they refer to Talmys (1991, 2000) highly influential typology of motion

expressions, with its dichotomy of verb-framed languages like Spanish (where path is expressed as a semantic
component of a motion verb) and satellite-framed languages like English (where path is expressed as a
satellite).
1

(2005, 2006), Iacobini and Masini (2007), and Iacobini (2009) provide an interesting
descriptive account of how verb-particle constructions like those in (1) emerged in Italian.
Unfortunately, there is, however, a glaring omission in their descriptive works: i.e., they do
not address what we argue is the most important difference between Italian and Germanic
phrasal verbs. By addressing this crosslinguistic point in the present paper, we reach a
conclusion that is in fact opposite to theirs: Italian verbi sintagmatici resemble Germanic
phrasal verbs but only superficially. That is to say, when a more abstract level of analysis is
adopted (i.e., in our present case, the one provided by Hale and Keysers (2002) theory of lsyntax),3 Italian can be shown to behave more like Spanish than English in the relevant sense
that, for example, both Romance languages consistently obey the Talmian generalization that
non-directional manner verbs do not coappear with (non-adjunct) paths in Romance (see
Section 4 below). Accordingly, we will argue, for example, that there is a principled
explanation for contrasts like the one exemplified in (2): the ungrammaticality of (2b) shows
that there is no Italian counterpart of dance away. Of course, one could say that idiosyncrasy
is expected if phrasal verbs are formed in the lexicon (i.e., some are possible, some are not).
However, we will show that there is a systematic explanation of this difference.

(2) a. Gianni corso via.

Gianni is run

away

Gianni ran away.

b. *Gianni danzato via.
Gianni is danced

away

Gianni danced away.

By contrast, Masini (2005) and Iacobini and Masini (2007) adopt Goldbergs (1995) surface-based

Construction Grammar approach to argument structure.

2

We claim that Italian phrasal verbs like those in (1) are possible in this Romance language
precisely because their verbs already encode or involve directionality, which is further
specified by the particle; in striking contrast to that, such a restriction does not hold in
Germanic: accordingly, examples like those in (3) are impossible in Italian because the verb
does not involve directionality, this meaning component being only encoded in a true Path
satellite. Unfortunately, Masini (2005, 2006), Iacobini and Masini (2007), and Iacobini (2009)
do not offer any general explanation of why verb-particle constructions like those in (2b) and
(3) are impossible in Italian.

(3) a. John worked his debts off.

b. John danced the night away.

Interestingly, Masini (2005: 167) claims that the existence of Italian phrasal verbs like lavare
via (wash away) or raschiare via (scrape away) in (4) depends on the removal sense of the
verbs involved (cf. 5), but she misses the crucial observation that what seems to be an
idiosyncratic restriction on removal verbs in (4) is actually related to a more general fact of
Italian: i.e., its verb-framed nature with respect to Path; that is, when dealing with the
particular via case, Masini (2005) and Iacobini and Masini (2007) are not successful in
explaining what (4a,b) and (2a) have in common that makes them possible in Italian, while
(2b) and (3) are not. As noted, there is a Talmian generalization involved here: Italian verbs
like correre, lavare or raschiare can be expected to enter into verb-particle constructions like
those in (2a) and (4) because these verbs can acquire directionality. In contrast, examples like
those in (2b) and (3) are expected to be impossible in Italian, since their verbs do not encode
nor involve any directionality component.

(4) a. Gianni ha lavato via

la macchia.

Gianni has washed away

the stain

Gianni washed the stain away.

b. Gianni ha raschiato
Gianni has scraped

via

la vernice.

away

the paint

Gianni scraped the paint away.

(5) a. [V [P via]]
b. V= agentive verb of removing
c. to remove by V
Masini (2005: 167)

Our point is then clear: one cannot simply state that Italian behaves more like English than
Spanish on the basis of surface facts, without having examined the differences between
Germanic and Romance in any detail (see Section 4 below). Moreover, in the next section we
show that verb-particle constructions is not a quirk of Italian, but this phenomenon is also
spread within other Romance languages with different degrees of productivity (see also
Iacobini 2009; Mateu and Rigau 2009, i.a.). Once again the Talmian prediction is that
Germanic phrasal verbs like those in (2b) and (3) should not be found in those other Romance
languages that have verb-particle constructions. We will show that such a prediction is borne
out.

To advance our conclusion, we claim that, unlike English, Italian (and, more generally,
Romance) prevents pure (i.e., non-directional) manner verbs from taking Paths as
complements, whereby the relevant structural meaning component in the Romance examples

of verb-particle constructions (the apparently problematic examples in (2a) and (4) included)
will be shown to be Path, rather than Manner. Accordingly, our conclusion will be that Italian
does conform to Talmys (1991, 2000) generalization concerning Romance languages: i.e.,
they lack the so-called Co-event pattern (see Section 4 below).

The organization of the paper is as follows: in section 2 we show that verb-particle

constructions are not a quirk of Italian but a Pan-Romance phenomenon. Section 3 contains
our present l-syntactic analysis of Romance phrasal verbs, which is argued to be similar to the
one of complex verbs like It. imbottigliare to bottle. In section 4 we deal with the important
differences between Romance vs. Germanic phrasal verbs within the context of Talmys
(1991, 2000) typology of motion expressions. Section 5 contains some concluding remarks.

2. Romance phrasal verbs: a Pan-Romance phenomenon

In this section, we show that the presence of phrasal verbs in Romance languages is
productive and non-sporadic (see also Iacobini 2009). To begin with, it is interesting to point
out that the presence of verb-particle constructions is widely attested in Old Romance
languages, as shown by the data from Old Spanish in (6) (from the CORDE data base), Old
Catalan in (7) and Old French in (8) (see Dufresne, Dupuis and Tremblay 2003; Rouget and
Tremblay 2003; Burnett and Tremblay 2007).4

(6) a.

echar fuera throw out (Nebrija, A. de (1492) Gramtica castellana, 24V)

b.

echar arriba throw up (Herrera, G. A. de (1513) Obra agricultura, 2)

c.

echar delante throw forward (Pineda, J. de (1589) Dilogos familiares de la

agricultura cristiana, IV, 174)

Actually, verb-particle constructions were already common in pre-classical Latin: see Iacobini (2009: 37) for

examples from Plautus (254-184 BC).

5

d.

venir delante come forward (c 1400) Biblia Escorial I-j-4: Pentateuco, 136R)

e.

volver atrs turn back (Annimo (15751580) Relaciones topogrficas de los

pueblos de Espaa, 469)

f.

subir arriba rise/raise up(Annimo (1293) Gran Conquista de Ultramar. ms. 1187
BNM)

(7) a. anar defora go out (Sant Gregori (1340) Dilegs, 24v

b. gitar fora throw out(Sant Gregori (1340) Dilegs, 5v)
c. metre sus put up (Annim (XVc.) Curial e Gelfa, 155)
d. pujar sus rise up (Pere IV (XIVc) Crnica, 201)
e. tirar defora throw out(Sant Gregori (1340) Dilegs, 1.19)
f. tornar amunt turn up( 1357-60, Llibre de Cort Reial mallorqu, 242)
g. treure sus draw up (1357-60, Llibre de Cort Reial mallorqu, 277)
h. venir dessus come over (R. Muntaner (1325-1328), Crnica, CCXLIX)

(8) a. aller ariere to go back

b. aller avant to go forward
c. courir su to pursue, to attack
d. mettre sus to put on
e. issir fors to go out

According to Rouget and Tremblay (2003), while during Middle Ages, French had an
extensive system of separated particles used to modify the aspectual/locative value of verbs
(e.g.: issir hors), during the Renaissance, such constructions had almost completely

disappeared.5 Interestingly, this was not the fate of Italian, Spanish, Catalan, and other
Romance languages, which still show a rich range of verb-particle constructions at present. In
order to show that phrasal verbs are productive in Romance languages other than Italian, it is
interesting to see that some examples from Dantes dialect (see Masini 2006: 87-99) can also
be found in Catalan and Spanish: see (9). See also Calvo Rigual (2008) and Mateu and Rigau
(2009), for more data and additional discussion.6

(9)

Dantes dialect

Catalan

Spanish

andare avanti go ahead

anar endavant

ir/salir adelante

andare fore go out

anar fora

ir fuera

andare suso/su go up

anar amunt

ir arriba

buttare fuori throw out

tirar fora

echar fuera

discendere gi/giuso descend baixar avall

bajar abajo

down
gittare gi throw down

tirar avall

echar abajo

mettere avanti put ahead

tirar endavant

sacar adelante

tirare su throw up

tirar amunt

echar arriba

uscire fuori exit out

sortir fora

salir fuera

Nevertheless, nowadays phrasal verbs are used in less formal registers and non-standard French: sauter dessus

to jump up, courir aprs lit. to run after: to pursue, aller en arrire go back, revenir en arrire come back,
etc. (see Iacobini 2009: 22, and references therein).
6

Some verbi sintagmatici can often acquire a metaphorical use based on their basic locative meaning. For

instance, It. tirare su throw up can mean build (a building) and comfort someone, while Old Fr. mettre sus
(lit. to put on) meant to accuse, and Cat. tirar endavant throw ahead and Sp. sacar adelante bring ahead
mean to get something off the ground, to keep something going or to give ones family a good start in life.
The fact that the meaning of verb-particle constructs like It. andare avanti is literal (go ahead) or figurative (to
make progress) will be claimed to be irrelevant with respect to their associated l-syntactic analyses (see Section
3).

Phrasal verbs are also present in other Romance languages, as shown in the sample in (10):
(10)

a. Friulan (Vicario 1995): l fur to go out, l su to go up, l vie to go away,

mont su to go up, etc.
b. Piedmont (Iacobini 2009): all via to go away, bt gi to throw down, tira
avanti to throw ahead, i.e., to manage, etc.
c. Sardinian (Iacobini 2009): besari a foras to exit out, andarei abbasciu to go
down/to fall, fuliare foras to throw away, etc.
d. Sicilian (Iacobini 2009, from Amenta 2008): iri avanti to go ahead, ittari fuori
to throw away, mttiri iusu to put down, etc.
e. Venetan (Beninc and Poletto 2006): ndar fora go out, buttar fora throw out,
tirar su bring up, saltar fora jump up, i.e., crop up, vegner fora come out, etc.

Although examples in (9) and (10) show that phrasal verbs are productive in Romance
languages, it is true that Italian and other languages such as Venetan and Friulan can indeed be
considered exceptional among other Romance Languages since they have developed a pattern
where the verb is not a motion verb:7 e.g., lavare to wash, pulire to clean, fregare to rub,
grattare to scrape, eliminare to eliminate, etc., and also mangiare to eat, bevere to
drink, fumare to smoke, etc.; see the examples in (11) through (13). Two particles can
typically go with these verbs in Italian: via away and fuori fora.8 However, what will be
shown to be crucial in the next sections is that this innovative pattern is allowed in Italian
(and other languages such as Venetan and Friulan) as long as the verbal basis involves an
7

Interestingly, these examples are not attested in Dantes works (see Masini 2006), whereby they can be

considered as a more recent innovation.

8

The preposition via (from Latin via(m)) is not available in other Romance languages, while fuori is indeed

present in these languages, but it only combines with motion verbs (see 9).
8

abstract directionality component. By contrast, Germanic languages are not subject to this
lexical restriction, whereby their verb-particle constructions are much more diverse.

(11)

a. Riuscirai

manage-FUT.2SG

lavare via

to wash

il

away

sudore.

the sweat

You will manage to wash the sweat away.

b.

Voglio

lavare via

want.1SG

wash

the my

away

miei

peccati.
sins

I want to wash my sins away.

c. Lavi fuori le scatole del
wash out

the box

of.the

pranzo ogni

giorno.

lunch

day

every

Wash up your lunch box every day.

d. Devono
must-3PL

raschiare

via

la sporcizia.

scrape

away

the dirt

They have to scrape out the dirt.

e. Lintonaco
the plastering

stato mangiato

via

dalla umidit.

is been eaten

away

by the humidity

The plastering was completely damaged by the humidity.

f.

Lui ha bevuto via il

vino

ad un tiro.

he has drunk

wine

in one go

away the

He drank the wine up all at once.

(12)

a. S-ciopa fora tuto.

(Venetan: Beninc and Poletto 2006: 11)

(it) burst out everything

Everything is going to burst.

b. El se

ga magn fora i

schei.

(Beninc and Poletto 2006: 13)

he REFL has eaten out the money

He spent his money.

(13)

Al

bevt fr dute la butilie di bessl.

he has drunk out all

(Friulan: Vicario 1995: 191)

the bottle alone

He drank the bottle up on his own.

Once the existence of phrasal verbs is vindicated as normal within Romance languages, we
still have to explain how they can be analyzed, a non-trivial matter as we will see immediately
in the next section.

3. On the l-syntax of verbi sintagmatici and related preverb constructions

Before dealing with the l(exical)-syntax of Romance phrasal verbs, it will be useful to briefly
sketch out Hale and Keysers (1998, 2002) basic elements of argument structure, whose
theory is assumed here:9 in particular, our present analysis of Romance phrasal verbs will be
shown to be grounded on their conception of bipartite matrices associated to l-syntactic heads.

As is well-known, argument structure is conceived of by Hale and Keyser as the syntactic

configuration projected by a lexical item, that is, argument structure is the system of structural
relations holding between heads (nuclei) and the arguments linked to them. Their main
assumptions can be expressed as follows: argument structure is defined in reference to two
possible relations between a head and its arguments, namely, the head-complement relation
and the head-specifier relation. A given head (i.e. x in 14) may enter into the following
9

See also Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) for an excellent review of Hale and Keysers (1993, 2002) theory of

l(exical)-syntax.
10

structural combinations in (14): these are its argument structure properties, and its syntactic
behavior is determined by these properties.10

(14)

a.

b.

c.

d. x

The main empirical domain on which Hale and Keysers hypotheses have been tested includes
unergative denominal verbs like dance in (15a), transitive location verbs like shelve in (15b)
or transitive locatum verbs like saddle in (15c), and (anti)causative deadjectival verbs like
clear in (15d). Unergative verbs are argued to be hidden transitives in the sense that they
involve merging a non-relational element (typically, a noun) with a verbal head (see 16a);
both location verbs (e.g. shelve) and locatum verbs (e.g. saddle) involve merging the
structural combination in (14b) into the one of (14a): see (16b). Finally, unaccusative verbs
involve the structural combination in (14c), the causative one involving two structural
combinations, i.e. the one depicted in (14c) is merged into the one in (14a): see (16c).11

(15)

a. John danced.
b. John shelved the book.
c. John saddled the horse.
d.

10

The strong winds cleared the sky / The sky cleared.

According to Hale and Keyser (2002), the prototypical or unmarked morphosyntactic realizations of the x head

in English are the following ones: V in (14a), P in (14b), Adj in (14c), and N in (14d).
11

See Hale and Keyser (2002: Chap. 6) on why unaccusatives of the arrive type do not causativize. See also

Zubizarreta and Oh (2007: 192; fn. 14).

11

(16)
a.

V
V

N
dance

b.

V
V

P
DP

the {book/horse}

N
{shelf/saddle}

c.

V
V

V
DP

the screen V

V
A
clear

The external argument is argued to be truly external to argument structure configurations: for
example, Hale and Keyser typically appeal to this proposal when accounting for why
unacusative structures can be causativized (cf. 15d), while unergatives ones cannot (e.g.,
*Mary danced John; cf. Mary made John dance). Accordingly, the external argument can be

12

claimed to occupy the specifier position of a functional projection in so-called s(entential)syntax.12

On the other hand, applying the so-called Conflation operation to (16a) involves copying the
full phonological matrix of the noun dance into the empty one corresponding to the verb.13
Applying it to (16b) involves two steps: the full phonological matrix of the noun
{shelf/saddle} is first copied into the empty one corresponding to the preposition; since the
phonological matrix corresponding to the verb is also empty, the conflation applies again from
the saturated phonological matrix of the preposition to the unsaturated matrix of the verb.
Finally, applying the conflation process to (16c) involves two steps as well: the full
phonological matrix of the adjective clear is first copied into the empty one corresponding to
the internal verb; since the phonological matrix corresponding to the external verb is also
empty, the conflation applies again from the saturated phonological matrix of the inner verb to
the unsaturated matrix of the external verb.

Interesting for our present purposes is Hale and Keysers (1998: 13) claim that there can be
bipartite phonological matrices associated to relational heads in l-syntax. In particular, they
point out that in English verbs like shorten or thicken, the verbal matrix is bipartite,
consisting of an empty phonological matrix together with a following overt matrix. The empty
matrix is given phonological substance (and thereby eliminated) through conflation, resulting
12

According to Hale and Keyser, the term s(entential)-syntax is used to refer to the syntactic structure assigned

to a phrase or sentence involving both the lexical item and its arguments and also its extended projection
(Grimshaw 1991; 2005) and including, therefore, the full range of functional categories and projections
implicated in the formation of a sentence interpretable at PF and LF.
13

Conflation is no longer viewed by Hale and Keyser (2002: Chap. 3) as an operation akin to Bakers (1988)

Incorporation, but rather is said to be subsumed by (semantic) Selection when dealing with denominal verbs like
those in (15a) and (15b).
13

here in a derived verb made up of an adjectival root followed by a suffix. For example, in
(17) is represented the l-syntax of an unaccusative construction like the sauce thickened,
previous to the conflation of A into V.

(17)

The sauce thickened.

V
DP

the sauce
V
[] [-en]

A
THICK

We claim that it is natural to apply a similar analysis to Romance complex denominal and
deadjectival verbs like the ones exemplified in (18), where the prefix has been argued to be a
Path marker (e.g., cf. Di Sciullo (1997), Acedo-Matelln and Mateu (2008), among others).
For example, complex denominal verbs like It. imbottigliare (il vino) bottle (the wine) can
be analyzed as in (19): first the full matrix of the nominal root is conflated with the null part
of the bipartite P, the complex P+N being then conflated with the upper null verbal matrix.
Accordingly, the main difference between Romance location verbs like It. imbottigliare
(INbottle) and English ones like to bottle is reduced to the fact that the former typically
involve a bipartite P head, while the latter do not (cf. (16b)).14

(18)

a. It. imbottigliare; Cat. embotellar; Fr. embouteiller: to bottle

b. It. allargare; Cat. allargar; Sp. alargar: to enlarge

(19)
14

Location verbs like Engl. imprison could also be analyzed following the Romance pattern in (19).
14

[]
DP

il vino
P

N
BOTTIGLIA

[in-]

[]

The following natural step is to assume that the analysis of Romance verb-particle
constructions is not so different from the one of complex verbs in (19). In both cases we are
dealing with a Prepositional-like Path marker: the main difference has to do with the
realization of the preverb, as a prefix or as a particle. Going then back to the examples under
the present study (e.g., see 20), a bipartite matrix for the P head can also be claimed to be
involved in Romance phrasal verbs (e.g., see (21): It. lavare via la macchia wash away the
stain).

(20)

a.

It. entrare dentro, lit. enter in; uscire fuori, lit. exit out;

b.

It. buttare gi throw down; lavare via wash away

(21)
V
V

[]
DP

(la macchia)
P

LAVA

15

[]

[via]

Interestingly, the l-syntactic analysis in (21) can be claimed to provide us with an explanation
of the fact that the list of verbs that enter into Italian verb-particle constructions is reduced to
those verbs encoding or involving directionality: for example, in the derivational formation of
the verb lavare wash in its directional use in (21), its corresponding root LAVA acquires the
abstract directionality component associated to the null P element before conflating with the
upper null verbal head (cf. the parallelism between (21) with (19)).

Moreover, the present analysis could also be claimed to shed some light on the contrast in
(22) (see Masini 2005; 2008). It is often pointed out that, unlike what happens in Germanic,
the particle in Italian must be adjacent to the verb. We can then relate this fact to the bipartite
nature of the P element in (21), where the directional particle coappears with a null element
that turns out to be conflated with the verb (see Section 4 for the analysis of Germanic phrasal
verbs, which are shown to involve a different pattern).

(22)

a. *Gianni ha

lavato la macchia

via.

Gianni has washed the stain

away

Gianni washed the stain away.

b.

Gianni ha

lavato via

Gianni has washed away

la macchia.
the stain

Gianni washed the stain away.

As pointed out above, it is the case that the verbal bases of Romance verb-particle
constructions involve a directional meaning; otherwise, we argue that the existence of these
constructions in a Romance language like Italian would be impossible, as predicted by Mateu
16

and Rigaus (2002, 2009) l-syntactic reformulation of Talmys (1991, 2000) typology. We deal
with this prediction in the next section.

4. Why Romance phrasal verbs do not involve Talmys (1991, 2000) Germanic co-event
pattern
In this section, we show to what extent it is mistaken to claim (i) that Italian phrasal verbs do
not conform to Talmys (1985, 1991, 2000) generalization with respect to Romance languages
and (ii) that they are similar to Germanic phrasal verbs (cf. Grcia 1988; Simone 1996;
Masini 2005; Iacobini and Masini 2007; Iacobini 2009, among others).

As is well-known, Talmy points out that the Germanic family belongs to the class of so-called
satellite-framed languages, whereas the Romance one belongs to that of verb-framed
languages. Consider some paradigmatic examples of his typology in (23), where the Path is a
prepositional satellite around the verb in (23a), whereas it has conflating status in the Spanish
example in (23b):

(23)

a. The bottle floated into the cave.

b. La botella entr en la cueva flotando.
the bottle entered in the cave floating
The bottle entered the cave floating.

As argued by Talmy, English can typically be taken as an example of satellite-framed

language, whereas Spanish can typically be regarded as an example of verb-framed language.
To put it in Talmys (1985) terms, (23a) involves conflation of Motion with Manner, or
alternatively, in Talmys (1991) terms, (23a) involves conflation of MOVE with a

17

[EVENT]. In contrast, the corresponding counterpart of (23a) in a Romance language

SUPPORTING

like Spanish (see 23b) involves a different lexicalization pattern, i.e. conflation of Motion
with Path, the Manner component (or the Co-event) being expressed as adjunct.

Before dealing with the question as to whether Romance phrasal verbs are counterexamples to
Talmys typology, it will be useful to show how the relevant canonical patterns exemplified in
(23) are analyzed in our present l-syntactic framework. In particular, our proposal is that the
relevant l-syntactic analyses of (23a) and (23b) can be depicted as in (24) and (25),
respectively.15

(24)

The Co-event pattern

V
DP

The bottle
V
FLOAT

Pdir
V

Pdir

[]

inloc-to

Ploc
Ploc
in-

(25)

DP
the cave

The Path pattern

V
DP

La botella
V

15

Pdir

For the syntactic distinction between directional vs. locative prepositions, see Koopman (2000), Hale and

Keyser (2002), den Dikken (2006), Zubizarreta and Oh (2007), and Mateu (2008), among others.
18

Pdir

Pdir

Ploc

entr
Ploc
en

DP
la cueva

The so-called Co-event pattern of Germanic languages is to be related to the fact that, for
example, the complex P element into in (24) is not conflated with the verb, this null verb
being allowed to be merged with the so-called {Manner constituent/

[EVENT]}. To

SUPPORTING

put it in our present l-syntactic terms,16 the non-conflating (i.e., satellite) nature of into
allows the phonologically null unaccusative verb to be merged with the root FLOAT, as
depicted in (24). As a result, this unaccusative V(erb), whose configurational/constructional
meaning is that of Change (see Hale and Keyser 2002; Zubizarreta and Oh 2007), turns out to
be associated with an additional embedded meaning, that of floating, where the root encodes
what Talmy (1991, 2000) refers to as Co-event.
Concerning (25), the conflation of the complex directional P element into a null unaccusative
verb in a Romance language like Spanish gives a Path verb (entrar enter), the adjunct
flotando (floating) being merged outside the main argument structure (see Mateu & Rigau
(2009), for additional discussion).17

16

See also Mateu and Rigau (2002), McIntyre (2004), and Zubizarreta and Oh (2007), for similar analyses.

17

As can be inferred from the English translation of the Spanish example in (23b), a similar analysis holds for

the Romance pattern involved in enter the cave floating (versus cf. the Germanic one: float into the cave).
Accordingly, the Path lexicalization pattern is also found in (the Romance lexicon of) English: for additional
discussion and examples, see Talmy (1985, 2000) and Mateu (2002).
19

Given this Talmian background,18 next we show why it makes more sense to claim that
Romance phrasal verbs belong to the (otherwise typologically expected) Path pattern rather
than to the (Germanic) Co-event pattern. Indeed, such a claim is coherent with the main
descriptive generalization introduced above: Romance languages (and more generally, socalled verb-framed languages) systematically lack complex resultative(like) constructions
where the verb is crucially non-directional, i.e., the verb does not involve directionality (e.g.,
see the examples in (26)). Basically, our account of this descriptive fact is that Talmys verbframed languages lack the l-syntactic pattern in (24) since in these languages it is the Path
(and not an independent/external root) what typically provides the relevant null verb with
phonological content.

(26)

a. John danced into the room.

b. John danced away.
c. John danced the puppet across the stage.

18

See Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) for an insightful alternative account of these crosslinguistic differences, which

is based on Snyders (2001) Compounding Parameter: according to them, Romance cannot use the relevant
Compound Rule (Merge two lexical categories of the same categorical type) to compose Manner and Directed
Motion in the way Germanic does (cf. Mateu and Rigau (2002) and McIntyre (2004)). See also Horrocks and
Stavrou (2007) for another explanation of the parametric differences which is mainly based on the observation
that languages that grammaticalize viewpoint aspect in their verb morphology (e.g., Greek and Romance) reject
resultative-like constructions like those in (26). For reasons of space, here we cannot enter into reviewing these
two alternative accounts.
Similarly, it would take us too far afield to review the vast literature where Talmys typology has been
criticized and/or refined (see Beavers et al. (2009), for a recent attempt). As pointed out above, our present goal
is much more modest: i.e., to work out to what extent Romance phrasal verbs are similar to Germanic ones.
Unlike other authors (e.g., Beavers et al. (2009)), we conclude that they are not in an important sense related to
Talmys typology.

20

d. John danced the night away.

e. John outdanced Mary.
f.

John danced his debts off.

g. John danced his feet sore.

h. John danced his way into a wonderful world.

Despite their surface similarity, our claim is then that the lexical syntax of Italian verbi
sintagmatici is different from the l-syntax of those English phrasal verbs that involve the
Talmian Co-event pattern. As pointed out in the previous section, the verbal basis of Romance
verb-particle constructions encodes or involves a directional meaning, which is further
specified through a prepositional-like element. In contrast, as can be shown by the English
examples in (27), this restriction does not hold in Germanic. Such an observation is crucial in
order to properly understand the truly relevant differences between Italian and English.19

19

Unfortunately, Talmy often grounds his typology on surface facts, whereby he mistakenly admits that Northern

Italian dialects are an exception to his typological classification of Romance languages. See Talmy (2000:145;
fn. 60): Southern Italian dialects have a Path conflation pattern, Northern dialects have a Co-event conflation
pattern, and central dialects, including standard Italian, have both patterns in parallel, with discourse factors
determining the pattern used.
However, it is the case that even Northern Italian dialects can be claimed to lack the Germanic Co-event
pattern (see also Masini (2005) and Iacobini (2009) for interesting arguments against the so-called Germanic
hypothesis according to which the origin of Italian phrasal verbs depends on a calque from the German
language). As expected, Northern Italian dialects lack examples like the ones in (26) or (27), which shows the
requirement that Talmys Co-event pattern (and, more generally, all his descriptive lexicalization patterns) be
formulated within a more explanatory theory. In our present case, we assume that Hale & Keysers (2002) theory
of l-syntax can provide us with the adequate level of abstraction to deal with Talmys typology (see Mateu and
Rigau 2002; 2009).

21

(27)

a. John danced the night away.

b. John outdanced Mary.
c. John worked the night away.
d. John outworked Mary.

As noted, examples like those in (27) are not to be found in Romance: this should not be
surprising since in these cases the verbal basis does not lexically involve a directional
meaning. Rather the Germanic constructions exemplified in (27) involve a complex lsyntactic structure like the one in (28) where the phonological matrix of the relevant null verb
has been saturated by the full one of an independent root, 20 the P(ath) being here a complete
satellite.21

(28)

The Co-event pattern

V
V

DANCE

DP

[]
P

away

We think that Talmys (1991, 2000) descriptive term satellite is quite misleading when dealing
with the differences between Germanic and Romance phrasal verbs. Since the particle is a
prepositional-like satellite in both linguistic families, both patterns of phrasal verbs could in
20

For more discussion on so-called Manner conflation, see Mateu (2002, 2008), Mateu and Rigau (2002,

2009), McIntyre (2004), Harley (2005), Zubizarreta and Oh (2007), Acedo-Matelln and Mateu (2008), i.a.
21

See Svenonius (1994), Hale and Keyser (2002), and Mateu (2008), among others, for the claim that

intransitive particles like the one exemplified in (28) incorporate their Ground complement (X).
22

principle be classified as satellite-framed. Given this, we prefer to use Talmys expression

Co-event pattern rather than the more usual satellite-framed pattern when referring to the
Germanic pattern. Accordingly, we surmise that the relevant typological difference is not the
one exemplified by light verbs plus a directional satellite (both families have this type: e.g.,
go away / It. andare via), but the one exemplified by pure (i.e., non-directional) manner verbs
plus a satellite, the latter being present in Germanic but not in Romance (e.g., float/dance/
away vs. It. *galleggiare/ballare/ via). Following this trend, consider the clear contrast in
(2), repeated below in (29), which, as argued by Folli and Ramchand (2005), can be
accounted for by positing that correre to run (unlike danzare to dance) optionally encodes
a Result: according to their dual classification of Italian manner of motion verbs in (30), the
verbs in (30a) optionally encode a R(esult) feature, while the ones in (30b) do not.

(29)

a. Gianni corso via.

Gianni is run

(cf. It. Gianni ha corso Gianni ran)

away

Gianni ran away.

b. *Gianni danzato via.
Gianni is danced

away

Gianni danced away.

(30)

a. [+V, (+R<esult>)] verbs

b. [+v, +V] verbs

correre (run)

galleggiare (float)

rotolare (roll)

camminare (walk)

rimbalzare (bounce)

galoppare (gallop)

scivolare (glide, slide)

danzare (dance)

gattonare (crawl)

nuotare (swim)

23

saltare (jump)

sciare (ski)

volare (fly)

passeggiare (walk around)

saltellare (hop)

vagabondare (wander)

(ex. from Folli and Ramchand 2005)

Our present proposal is that Folli and Ramchands (2005) [+R(esult)] feature can in fact be
related to our more general Talmian P(ath) component.22 As predicted by Talmys typology,
Italian pure manner verbs (e.g., verbs like It. danzare to dance or camminare to walk) do
not involve directionality, whereby they are excluded from complex telic path of motion
constructions: cf. It. *danzare via vs. okdance away; It. *camminare via vs. okwalk away, etc.
On the other hand, the existence of complex verbs like It. correre via run away (see 31a)
must not be taken as a true counterexample to Talmys typology (at least as we reformulate it
here) since correre in the unaccusative structure can also be claimed to involve P(ath) (or
R(esult), in Folli and Ramchands terms: see 30a). In other words, dance away falls under the
Co-event pattern (cf. its corresponding l-syntactic analysis in (28)), while It. correre via run
away can be claimed to fall under the Path/Result pattern in (31b). That is to say, our present
analysis of unaccusative phrasal verbs like It. correre via is not so different from the analysis
of transitive phrasal verbs like It. lavare via wash away (see Section 3): the P head
associated to the complex verb correre via (and other verbs in (30a) found in this use) has a
bipartite matrix as well (see 31b); the root X in (31b) is first copied into the null part of the
P(ath) head, and the resulting complex is then conflated with the upper null V. 23
22

Following the localist hypothesis, which is assumed by Talmy (1991, 2000), it is interesting to point out that

Result can be understood as an abstract variant of Path (for an l-syntactic reinterpretation of this hypothesis,
see Mateu (2008)).
23

Our claim is then that there is a similar explanation for the existence of unaccusative phrasal verbs like It.

correre via run away and transitive phrasal verbs like It. lavare via wash away: both types of directional
manner verbs acquire the P(ath) component in l-syntax. However, for an alternative analysis of the unaccusative
24

(31)

a. Gianni corso via.

Gianni is run

away

Gianni ran away.

b.

V
DP

Gianni
V

[]
P
[]

CORS-

[via]

Accordingly, the Italian verbs in (30a) have two different l-syntactic structures available: the
unaccusative one in (31b), where the verb acquires a Path/Result component, and the less
complex unergative one in (32b), where the verb does not encode Path/Result. In contrast, the
use of those Italian verbs in (30a), see Zubizarreta and Oh (2007: chap. 3), who explore the following hypothesis
in (i):
(i)

Italian recruits the auxiliary position designated for a class of restructuring verbs in order to
compose directed motion and manner (in some lexically restricted cases <cf. 30a>)

For reasons of space, we will not review their analysis here: we will limit ourselves to pointing out that in
Zubizarreta and Ohs (2007: chap. 3) analysis the parallelism between transitive phrasal verbs like lavare via and
unaccusative ones like correre via remains unaccounted for. By contrast, Folli and Ramchands (2005) analysis
could account for this parallelism by positing that both correre-type verbs and lavare-type verbs optionally
encode the [+R(esult)] feature in their lexical entry:
(ii) a.

Gianni ha lavato la camicia.

([+Result] is not involved in the activity use)

Gianni washed the shirt.

b.

Gianni ha lavato via la macchia.

([+Result] is involved in the accomplishment use)

Gianni washed the stain away.

25

Italian verbs in (30b) only allow the unergative l-syntactic structure in (32b), which
corresponds to Hale and Keysers creation structure in (16a): e.g., [V DO dance].24

(32)

a. Gianni ha corso.
Gianni ran.

b.

V
V

Interestingly, the following data in (33) drawn from Sorace (2000: 875-876) seem to point to
the fact that the verb correre in its unaccusative use encodes Path/Result. The unaccusative
use of correre is not fully excluded in cases where there is an adjunct locative or adverbial
phrase: according to Sorace, the auxiliary essere is marginally possible in (33a-b). We take
this fact as evidence that the verb correre in its unaccusative use acquires the Path/Result
component in l-syntax. In contrast, those pure (i.e., non-directional) manner verbs like It.
nuotare to swim or danzare to dance do not follow this pattern (see 34): i.e., the verbs in
(30b) only have an unergative/transitive use, whereby the auxiliary essere is excluded in all
contexts.

(33)

a. Gli atleti

svedesi hanno corso/?sono corsi alle

the athletes Swedish have run/

24

are run at.the

Olimpiadi.
Olympic-Games

Our Italian consultants have told us that it is not the case that all verbs in the list in (30a) (e.g., gattonare

crawl) can be found in unaccusative contexts (contra Folli and Ramchand 2005). For those speakers, gattonare
would then be included in the list in (30b). Since we are dealing with lexical-syntactic facts, this kind of
variation is expected. See also Zubizarreta and Oh (2007: 196; fn. 37), for similar remarks.

26

The Swedish athletes ran at the Olympic Games.

b. Gianni ha corso/ corso velocemente.
Gianni has run /is run

fast

Gianni ran fast.

(Sorace 2000: 875-876)

(34)

a. Gli atleti

{hanno nuotato/*sono

the athletes have swum/

are

nuotati} alle

Olimpiadi.

swum at.the

Olympic-Games

The athletes swam at the Olympic Games.

b.

Gianni {ha/*} nuotato velocemente.

Gianni has/is

swum quickly.

Gianni swam quickly.

On the other hand, if our analysis of the Germanic vs. Romance differences is on the right
track, the interesting contrasts in (35) through (38) can also be explained on the basis that the
Romance verbal bases in these examples do involve a directional component, while the
English corresponding ones do not: indeed, this would account for why the directional phrase
cannot be omitted in the English examples.

(35)

a. John washed the stain ??(away).

b. Gianni ha lavato (via) la macchia.

(Italian)

Gianni has washed away the stain

Gianni washed the stain away.

(36)

a. John wiped the fingerprints *(from the table/away).

27

b. Juan freg las huellas

(de la mesa).

(Spanish)

Juan wiped the fingerprints (of the table)

Juan wiped the fingerprints from the table.

(37)

a. John wiped the dust *(from the table).

b. Jean a

essuy la poussire

Jean has wiped the dust

(de la table).

(French)

(of the table)

Jean wiped the dust from the table.

(38)

a. John wiped the stains *(from the door).

b. En Joan freg les taques (de la

porta).

(Catalan)

the Joan wiped the stains (of the door)

Joan wiped the stains from the door.

The ungrammaticality of the English examples in (35a) to (38a) would then run parallel to
that of (39). As shown by Hoekstra (1988), the resultative PP/AP is compulsory in (39)
because it is the Small Clause Result predicate (and not the verb) that licenses the direct
object as its argument.

(39)

a. John danced the night *(away).

b. John *(out)danced Mary.
c. He talked us *(into a stupor).
d. The dog barked the chickens *(awake).

28

Mutatis mutandis, we argue that the English PPs in (35a) to (38a) have the same function the
resultative PP/AP has in (39): the presence of PP/PartP is compulsory in (35a) through (38a)
in order to license the direct object, which expresses the stuff that is removed. 25 In contrast,
the Romance verb in (35b) through (38b) can be argued to incorporate the abstract predicative
head of the SC-like resultative structure which encodes the Path/Result. Given this, the
Romance counterpart of wipe in (35b) through (38b) means remove/get out: cf. John [V+Pi
[SC {the stain/the fingerprints/the dust} Pi]]. No further PP is then necessary in (35b) to (38b)
to license the SC predicate, since such a licensing is carried out via the incorporation of the
Path/Result head of the SC into the verb. We claim that the Small Clause Result-based
account just presented can be provided with a more explanatory power by using Hale and
Keysers (2002) theory of l-syntax. In particular, we argue that the English examples in (35a)
to (38a) involve the l-syntactic pattern depicted in (40).

25

For metonymy reasons, wash the stain without the directional PP (see (35a)) could be coerced to have an

additional reading where the internal argument is not the removed stuff but the surface, i.e., it could have a
reading similar to the one involved in wash the shirt, the latter corresponding to a different pattern (i.e.,
[PROVIDE [the shirt WITH a wash]]; see Hale and Keyser (2002) and Mateu (2002)).
See also Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998: 118-122), for an alternative semantic explanation of the illformedness of examples like the one in (ia):
(i)

a.

John swept the crumbs *(off the table). (Cf. John wiped the fingerprints *(away/from the table))

b.

John swept the floor.

(Cf. John wiped the table)

Interestingly, John swept the crumbs is grammatical in Romance: e.g., Sp. John barri las migas, John swept
the crumbs. Since sweep in (ia) lacks a directional component, the Path PP is obligatory in English. In contrast,
Sp. barrer to sweep is a directional manner verb in barrer las migas, whereby the Path PP is not necessary in
Spanish. As predicted by Talmys typology, Sp. barrer but not Engl. sweep is allowed to acquire a Path
component in the directional context of barrer las migas (cf. quitar las migas get+out the crumbs) but not in
the activity context of barrer el suelo sweep the floor (see ib).

29

(40)

The Co-event pattern

V
V

WASH

SCRAPE

DP

the stain
the dirt

??/*(away/off/)

The Germanic l-syntactic pattern in (40) should be distinguished from the Romance one in
(41), where the Italian verb lavare can be claimed to acquire an abstract directionality
component (see Section 3). We claim that the former involves the Germanic Co-event pattern
whereby it is not found in Romance, as predicted by Talmys typology: given this, the
Germanic l-syntactic pattern in (40) should be clearly distinguished from the Romance one in
(41). Despite appearances, we claim that no continuum but a discrete structural difference is
involved here.

(41)

The Path pattern

V
V

lavare i
raschiare i

DP

la macchia
la sporcizia
[]

30

LAVA i
(via)

RASCHIA i

Another similar piece of empirical evidence that we are dealing with two different patterns is
provided by the following contrast in (42): while the Path/Result particle in the English
construction in (42a) is compulsory (see Folli and Harley (2005)), this is not the case in
Italian: examples like the ones in (42c) and (42d), which were found via a Google search, are
judged as well-formed by our native consultants of Italian (pace Folli and Harley 2005).
Accordingly, the l-syntactic structures for these constructions can be claimed to be different:
i.e., the Co-event pattern is involved in (43), while the Path pattern is the relevant one in (44).

(42)

a. The sea ate the beach *(away).

b. Il mare si
the sea

REFL

mangiato

via

enormi quantit di sabbia.

is eaten

away big

quantity of sand

The sea ate a big quantity of sand away.

c.

ok

Il mare

the sea

ha mangiato una buona parte della costa.

has eaten

big

part of.the shore

The sea ate a big part of the shore away.

d.

ok

Il mare ha mangiato gran parte di spiaggia

sabbiosa ed ha lasciato...

the sea has eaten

sandy

big

part of beach

and has left

The sea ate a big part of the sandy beach away and left

(43)
V
V
EAT

P
V

DP

the beach
P
*(away)
31

(44)
V
V

mangiare i
DP

parte di spiaggia
P
[]

MANGIA i
(via)

To conclude, it is worth emphasizing that Hale and Keysers (1998, 2002) syntactic theory of
argument structure has allowed us to provide an abstract single explanation for the
crosslinguistic contrasts in (35) to (38) and (42), which involve apparently different lexicalsemantic classes (i.e., removal and consumption).

5. Concluding remarks
We have shown that verb-particle constructions are not a quirk of Italian but can also be found
in other Romance languages (see also Iacobini (2009) and Mateu & Rigau (2009)). We agree
with Iacobinis (2009: 25) claim that <Italian> differs from the other major Romance
languages not in the type of structures used to express motion events but in their frequency
and usage. However, there is an important methodological difference between Iacobini and
Masinis (2007) Construction Grammar approach and our l-syntactic account: frequency and
usage are not essential factors that guide our present account. In other words, what is crucial
for us is not the actuation fact that phrasal verbs are more frequent and productive in Italian
(dialects) rather than in other Romance languages, but the competence fact that Romance
phrasal verbs are not of the Germanic Co-event type: i.e., Romance systematically lacks the

32

Germanic type that involves a pure (non-directional) manner verb plus a non-adjunct
Path/Result (e.g., see (3); cf. (26)). Quite importantly, we argue that this systematicity is not
due to frequency, usage or other performance factors but to a structural one, which is related
to our present l-syntactic reformulation of Talmys (1991, 2000) typology of motion events.
Accordingly, we have shown to what extent it is mistaken to claim that Romance verb-particle
constructions are exceptional with respect to Talmys (1985, 1991, 2000) typological
classification of Romance languages (see Masini (2005, 2006), Iacobini (2009) and Masini
and Iacobini (2007)). We doubt that surface-based approaches to verb-particle constructions
like the Goldbergian ones provided by Masini (2005) and Iacobini & Masini (2007) can
account for the relevant Germanic vs. Romance differences in an adequate way. In contrast,
we hope that the present abstract (i.e., non-surface-based) l-syntactic explanations for these
contrasts will contribute to show the usefulness of syntactic approaches to argument structure
(cf. Hale and Keyser 2002; Ramchand and Svenonius 2002; Zubizarreta and Oh 2007; Mateu
and Rigau 2002, i.a.).

References
Acedo-Matelln, Vctor & Jaume Mateu. 2008. The path from satellite-framed Indoeuropean
to verb-framed Romance: A lexical-syntactic account. Paper presented at X Diachronic
Generative Syntax Conference, Cornell University, 7-8 August.
Amenta, Luisa. 2008. Esistono i verbi sintagmatici nel dialetto e nellitaliano di Sicilia? In
Monica Cini (ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle variet dialettali. Stato
dellarte e prospettive di ricerca, 159-174. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

33

Beavers, John, Tham Shiao Wei & Beth Levin. 2009. The typology of motion expressions
revisited. To appear in Journal of linguistics 46(3).
Beninc, Paola & Cecilia Poletto. 2006. Phrasal verbs in Venetan and regional Italian. In
Frans Hinskens (ed.), Language Variation-European Perspectives, 9-22. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Burnett, Heather & Mireille Tremblay. 2007. Variable-behavior Ps in Old French. Paper
presented at Going Romance, Amsterdam.
Burnett, Heather & Mireille Tremblay. 2009. Variable-behavior Ps and the location of PATH
in Old French. In Enoch O. Aboh, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer & Petra
Sleeman (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Calvo Rigaul, Cesreo. 2008. I verbi sintagmatici italiani, con appunti contrastivi con lo
spagnolo e il catalano. In Carmen Gonzlez Royo & Pedro Mogorrn Huerta (eds.),
Estudios y anlisis de fraseologa contrastiva: lexicografa y traduccin, 47-66.
Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
Cini, Monica. (ed.). 2008. I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle variet dialettali. Stato
dellarte e prospettive di ricerca. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Deh, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.). 2002. Verb-particle
explorations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles. On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative
constructions. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. Ms.,
CUNY Graduate Center; to appear in Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The
cartography of prepositional phrases. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

34

Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 1997. Prefixed verbs and adjunct identification. In Anna-Maria Di

Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions, 52-73. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English.
In Paula Kempchinksy & Roumyana Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries, 95-120.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Folli, Raffaella & Gillian Ramchand. 2005. Prepositions and Results in Italian and English:
An Analysis from Event Decomposition. In Henk Verkuyl, Henriette De Swart &
Angeliek Van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 81-105. Dordrecht: Springer.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument
structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grcia, Llusa. 1988. Pi lo mandi gi, pi ti tira su: costruzioni italiane con particella e
predicati complessi. ATI Journal 53. 31-51.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms. Brandeis University [revised version in Jane
Grimshaw. 2005. Words and Structure. 1-71. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications].
Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical
expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The
view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53-109.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. Ms.
MIT. Downloadable at: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/events/tributes/hale/index.html
Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument
structure. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation,
and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport

35

(eds.), The syntax of aspect. Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, 42-64.
Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74. 101-139.
Horrocks, Geoffrey & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal
culmination. Lingua 117. 605-644.
Iacobini, Claudio. 2009. The role of dialects in the emergence of Italian phrasal verbs.
Morphology 19. 15-44.
Iacobini, Claudio & Francesca Masini. 2007. The emergence of verb-particle constructions in
Italian: locative and actional meanings. Morphology 16. 155-188.
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9. 577-636.
Kayne, Richard S. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. In Jacqueline Guron, HansGeorg Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation, 101-140.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The
structure of Dutch PPs. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads.
204-260. London: Routledge.
Masini, Francesca. 2005. Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the case of
Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18. 145-173.
Masini, Francesca. 2006. Diacronia dei verbi sintagmatici in Italiano. Archivio Glottologico
Italiano 91(1). 67-105.
Masini, Francesca. 2008. Verbi sintagmatici e ordine delle parole. In Monica Cini (ed.). I
verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle variet dialettali. Statto dellarte e prospettive di
ricerca, 83-102. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

36

Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics

interface. Bellaterra: Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona dissertation. Downloadable
at http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-1021103-173806/
Mateu, Jaume. 2008. On the l-syntax of directionality/resultativity: The case of Germanic
preverbs. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke, & Rick Nouwen (eds.),
Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, 221-250. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Mateu, Jaume & Gemma Rigau. 2002. A minimalist account of conflation processes:
Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. In Artemis Alexiadou (ed.),
Theoretical Approaches to Universals, 211-236. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Mateu, Jaume & Gemma Rigau. 2009. Romance paths as cognate complements: a lexicalsyntactic account. In Pascual Jos Masullo, Erin ORourke & Chia-Hui Huang (eds.),
Romance Linguistics 2007, 227-242. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells.
Linguistics 42(3). 523-571.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2007. Particle verbs and argument structure. Language and Linguistics
Compass 1(4). 350-367.
Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex predicates. Utrecht University doctoral dissertation.
Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. 2002. The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the
verb-particle construction. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), Proceedings
of WCCFL 21, 387-400. Somerville, MA: Casacadilla Press.
RappaportHovav,Malka&BethLevin.1998.Buildingverbmeanings.InMiriamButt&
William Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments. Lexical and compositional
factors,97134.Stanford:CSLIPublications.

37

Real Academia Espaola. Banco de datos (CORDE) [on line]. Corpus diacrnico del
espaol.http://www.rae.es
Rouget, Franois & Mireille Tremblay. 2003. Variation in 16th century French: a quantitative
analysis of Rabelaisstyle and aesthetics. Paper presented at the 16th International
Conference on Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen, 11-15 August.
Simone, Raffaele. 1996. Esistono verbi sintagmatici in italiano? Cuadernos de Filologa
Italiana 3. 47-61.
Snyder, William. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex
predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77. 324-342.
Son, Minjeong. 2007. Directionality and resultativity: the cross-linguistic correlation
revisited. Nordlyd 34. 126-164.
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language
76(4). 859-890.
Stiebels, Barbara & Dieter Wunderlich. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle
verbs. Linguistics 32. 913-968.
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and
Scandinavian languages. University of California at Santa Cruz dissertation.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In
Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 3), 57-149.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. In Laurel A. Sutton,
Christopher Johnson & Ruth Shields (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Anuual Meeting of
the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480-519. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and process in concept
structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

38

Vicario, Federico. 1997. I verbi analitici in friulano. Milano: Franco Angeli.

Zeller, Jochen. 2001. Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zubizarreta, Mara Luisa & Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and
motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

39