The Verb-Particle Alternation in the

Scandinavian Languages
Peter Svenonius
CASTL, University of Troms
August 27, 2005
Leikanger

The Characteristics of the Construction

1.1

Particle Shift

(1)

English: Particle shift is optional, sensitive to information structure (Bolinger

1971, Svenonius 1996a, Dehe 2002)
a. The dog tore his cap off.
b. The dog tore off his cap.

(2)

Pronouns precede the particle (Fraser 1976)

a. The dog tore it off.
b. *The dog tore off it.

(3)

Modifiers prevent particle shift (Emonds 1976)

a. The dog tore the cap right off.
b. *The dog tore right off the cap.

(4)

Complements prevent particle shift (Svenonius 1996b)

a. The dog tore the cap off his head.
b. *The dog tore off the cap his head.
c. *The dog tore off his head the cap.

(5)

Cross-Scandinavian variation (Taraldsen 1983a;b, Svenonius 1994; 1996c)

a. Danish: No particle shift, discontinuous VDPPrt order (Herslund 1984)
b. Faroese: Particle shift restricted (Sandy 1976, Svenonius 1996c)
c. Icelandic: optional particle shift, as in English (Thrainsson 1979, Collins and
Thrainsson 1996)
d. Norwegian 1: optional particle shift, as in English (
Afarli 1985)
e. Norwegian 2 (e.g. Romsdal): Particle shift obligatory with full DP (but pronoun always precedes particle) (Sandy 1976)
f. Swedish 2: Obligatory particle shift with idiomatic particle verbs, even with
pronouns, but optional particle shift with pronouns with spatial particle verbs
(Vinka 1999)
g. Swedish 1: Obligatory particle shift, continuous VPrtDP order (Toivonen
2003)

1.2

Microparametric variation

(6)
Danish
Faroese
Icelandic
English
Norwegian 1
Norwegian 2
Swedish 2
Swedish 1

Heavy-DP < Prt DP < Prt

yes
yes
no
sometimes
no
optional
no
optional
no
optional
no
no
no
no
no
no

pronoun < Prt

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
sometimes
no

DP < PP
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

1.3

Swedish

(7)

DP follows bare Prt (Teleman et al. 1999)

a. Hunden sliter av mossan.
the.dog tears off the.cap
The dog is tearing off the cap
b. *Hunder sliter mossan av.
the.dog tears the.cap off

(8)

pn follows bare Prt (Platzack 1998)

a. Hunden sliter av den.
the.dog tears off it
The dog tears it off
b. *Hunden sliter den av.
the.dog tears it off

(9)

DP precedes PP: P doesnt shift away from a complement (Noren 1996, Toivonen
2003)
a. Hunden slet mossan av husse.
the.dog tore the.cap off owner
The dog tore the cap off its owner
b. *Hunden slet av mossan husse.
the.dog tore off the.cap owner

(10)

Modifiers require Prt to remain post-DP (Prt is PP) (Vinka 1999)

a. Hunden slet mossan ratt av.
the.dog tore the.cap right off
The dog tore the cap right off
b. *Hunden slet ratt av mossan.
the.dog tore right off the.cap

(11)

Unlike English: a P complement (Ground) can precede the object (Figure)

(Svenonius 2003)
Hunden slet av husse mossan.
the.dog tore off owner the.cap
The dog tore the cap off its owner

2
2.1

Identifying the Verb-particle Construction

Swedish

(12)

In Swedish, the word order is almost invariably VPrtDP, which gives the same
string as a PP complement to V

(13)

a. We ran up a hill.
b. *We ran a hill up.

(14)

a.
b.

(15)

Sometimes considered to be particle verbs, in Swedish

a. Jag h
aller av henne.
I hold of her
I like her
b. Vi hoppade i vattnet.
we jumped in the.water
We jumped in the water

(16)

No such particle verbs in English

a. I yearn for her.
b. *I yearn her for.
c. We jumped in the water.
d. *We jumped the water in.

(17)

Developing Swedish-specific diagnostics for particle-verbs (Svenonius 2003): HNPS,

PP-constituency, P-incorporation
a. Vi hallde i mjolken.
we poured in the.milk
We poured in the milk
b. Vi hoppade i vattnet.
we jumped in the.water
We jumped into the water

(18)

HNPS
a. Vi m
aste halla i med det samma tre bagare med mjolk.
we had.to pour in with the same three cartons of milk
We had to pour in at once three cartons of milk
b. *Vi m
aste hoppa i med det samma 3000 liter mjolk.
we had.to jump in with the same 3000 liter milk
(We had to jump inat once3000 liters of milk)

(19)

Incorporation
a. Mjolken blev
ihalld.
the.milk became in.poured
The milk was poured in
b. *Vattnet blev
ihoppat.
the.water became in.jumped

We ran up a bill.
We ran a bill up.

(20)
Stress on P
HNPS
P-DP Constituency
P-V in Passive

hoppa i
yes
no
yes
no

Stress on P
HNPS
P-DP Constituency
P-V in Passive

Locative PP
no
no
yes
no

(21)

(22)

2.2

halla i
yes
yes
no
yes
Directional PP
yes
%
yes
no

Particle
yes
yes
no
yes

By these diagnostics, Swedish has more particles than English (or Norwegian?);
e.g. ihjal (exx. here from Toivonen 2003)
a. Erik har slagit ihjal
ormen.
Erik has beaten to.death the.snake
Erik has beaten the snake to death
b. Erik har slagit ormen
blodig.
Erik has beaten the.snake bloody
Erik has beaten the snake bloody

Danish

(23)

In Danish, the order is almost invariably VDPPrt

a. Boris skruede musikken ned.
Boris turned the.music down
Boris turned the music down
b. Boris skrev kontrakten under.
Boris wrote the.contract under
Boris signed the contract

(24)

This is the same order as in small clauses

a. I consider the runner out.
b. *I consider out the runner.
c. They want the cat in.
d. *They want in the cat.

(25)

Apart from shift, a diagnostic not available in Danish, how can we decide whether
what we are looking at is a verb-particle construction?

(26)

Verb-particle constructions in English, Icelandic, Norwegian (and Swedish, following the diagnostics just presented) are resultative; they denote some sort of
change of state in the object.
a. I threw the dog out = I caused the dog to go out, by throwing
b. They put the party off = They caused the party to go to delayed, by
deliberate action
c. We gave our hobbies up = We caused our hobbies to go out of our lives,
by voluntary action

(27)

Non-resultative constructions are not verb-particle constructions

a. I consider the runner out = I caused the runner to go out, by considering
b. They want the cat in = They cause the cat to go in, by wanting
4

c.
d.

We jumped in the water = We caused the water to go in, by jumping

He yearns for her = He causes her to go to his desire-world, by yearning

(28)

In addition, verb-particle constructions are frequently idiomatic, whereas verbs

do not readily form idioms with small clause predicates

(29)

Furthermore, subjects of small clauses pass certain subjecthood tests, whereas

the post-verbal DP (the object) of the verb-particle construction typically does
not

Incorporation

(30)

There are prefixed verbs in North Germanic (and in English), but the patterns
are generally unproductive and by and large, particles do not prefix onto active
verbs
a. English: outsource, undergo, overturn, ...
b. Norwegian: p
ast
a, undertegne, inng
a, ...

(31)

Deverbal nouns and adjectives formed from particle verbs are always prefixed
(though not in English)
a. g
a ut go out utgang exit *gang ut
b. laste ned download nedlasting downloading *lasting ned
c. trekke inn pull in inntrukket pulled in *trukket inn A

(32)

In Swedish, passive participles also incorporate particles, obligatorily

a. Mjolken blev
ihalld.
the.milk became in.poured
The milk was poured in
b. *Mjolken blev
halld i.
the.milk became poured in

(33)

a.

Skrapet m
aste bli
utkastat.
the.scrap had.to become out.thrown
The scrap had to be thrown out
b. *Skrapet m
aste bli
kastat ut.
the.scrap had.to become thrown out

(34)

This is not true of other varieties, e.g. Danish

a. Hunden blev
smedet ud.
the.dog became thrown out
The dog was thrown out
b. *Hunden blev
udsmedet.
the.dog became out.thrown

(35)

Since all varieties of Scandinavian have obligatory incorporation in deverbal adjectives, adjectival constructions must be distinguished from (eventive) passives
a. Brdet ble
skjrt opp av Jens.
the.bread became sliced up by Jens
The bread was sliced by Jens
b. Brdet var ferdig oppskjrt (*av Jens).
the.bread was ready up.sliced by Jens
The bread was already sliced
5

(36)

Controlling for this factor, several varieties of Norwegian, including the Leikanger
dialect, have incorporation in the passive
a. Trea
vart
nedhogne.
the.trees became down.chopped
The trees were chopped down
b. ??Trea
vart
hogne ned.
the.trees became chopped down

(37)

Other dialects, for example Troms dialect, do not

a. Trrne ble
hogd
ned.
the.trees became chopped down
The trees were chopped down
b. ??Trrne ble
nedhogd.
the.trees became down.chopped

(38)

Does incorporation pattern with anything?

(39)
Danish
Faroese
Icelandic
English
Norwegian 1
Norwegian 2
Swedish 2
Swedish 1

3.1
(40)

pronoun < Prt

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
sometimes
no

Incorporation
no
sometimes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes

Agreement
Norwegian dialects with incorporation in the passive tend to have agreement on
passive participles, like Swedish; Norwegian dialects without incorporation tend
not to have agreement
a. Hunden er bunden Hundane er bundne
the.dog is tied
the.dogs is tied.pl
The dog is tied The dogs are tied (Leikanger)
b. Bikkja e bunde Bikkjen e bunde
the.dog is tied
the.dogs is tied
The dog is tied The dogs are tied (Troms)

(41)
Danish
Faroese
Icelandic
English
Norwegian 1
Norwegian 2
Swedish 2
Swedish 1
(42)

DP < Prt
yes
sometimes
optional
optional
optional
no
no
no

Incorporation Agreement
no
no
sometimes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

Faroese is a potential counterexample, and Icelandic seems to be a straightforward counterexample. But is it?

(43)

Agreement in Mainland Scandinavian is triggered by A-movement

a. Tre journalister blev
arresterade.
three journalists became arrested.pl
Three journalists were arrested
b. Det blev
tre journalister arresterade.
it became three journalists arrested.pl
There were three journalists arrested
c. %Det blev
arrestert tre journalister.
it became arrested three journalists
There were three journalists arrested

(44)

Not so Icelandic

a.
rr bla amenn voru settir var hald.
three journalists were set.pl in custody
Three journalists were arrested

a voru settir rr bla amenn var hald.

b.
it were set.pl three journalists in custody
There were three journalists arrested

(45)

Incorporation also seems to be tightly linked to A-movement

(46)

Swedish
a. Det blev
m
anga trad nedhuggna.
it became many trees down.chopped.pl
There were many trees chopped down
b. Det blev
hugget ned m
anga trad.
it became chopped down many trees
There were many trees chopped down

(47)

Leikanger
a. Det vart
mange tre nedhogne.
it became many trees down.chopped.pl
There were many trees chopped down
b. Det vart
hogge ned mange tre.
it became chopped down many trees
There were many trees chopped down

(48)

Faroese
ni ur}
a. Ta blivu nogv tr {?ni urhgd/hgd
it became many trees down.chopped/chopped down
There were many trees chopped down
b. Ta blivu hgd
ni ur nogv tr.
it became chopped down many trees
There were many trees chopped down

(49)

No incorporation in the absence of A-movement

a. *Det blev
nedhugget
m
anga trad.
it became down.chopped many trees
b. ??Det vart
nedhogge
mange tre.
it became down.chopped many trees
c. *Ta blivu ni urhgd
nogv tr.
it became down.chopped many trees
7

(50)

Icelandic has agreement without A-movement, and no incorporation in the passive

a. Trein
voru hoggin
ni ur.
the.trees were chopped.pl down
The trees were chopped down

a voru hoggin
b.
ni ur morg tre.
it were chopped.pl down many trees
There were many trees chopped down

(51)

Hence, a possible generalization: There is incorporation in the passive if and

only if there is A-sensitive participle agreement

(52)
Danish
Faroese
Icelandic
English
Norwegian 1
Norwegian 2
Swedish 2
Swedish 1

Incorporation A-sensitive Agreement

no
no
sometimes
?
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

Conclusion

(53)

Regarding the Verb-particle construction: There is microparametric variation

along a range of parameters
a. Particle shift
b. Shift with pronouns
c. Shift with full PPs
d. Incorporation under passive
e. Incorporation in deverbal forms
f. The inventory of particles

(54)

Some of these parameters seem to be interrelated, or related to other factors (e.g.

participle agreement)

(55)

In order to compare constructions cross-linguistically, some theoretically sophisticated understanding of the contruction is necessary

(56)

Conceivably, Swedish has developed a distinct particle system, in which case

some of what I have taken as diagnostics (e.g. resultativity) are really additional
points of microparametric variation.

(57)

a.

b.

(58)

Jag tycker om henne.

I think about her
I like her
Vi gick p
a bussen.
we went on the.bus
We got on the bus

Ultimately, cross-linguistic comparison will be necessary to determine where

there are accidental gaps

References

Afarli, Tor A. 1985. Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions.

Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8 1: 7598.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma.
Collins, Chris and Hoskuldur Thrainsson. 1996. VP-internal structure and object shift
in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27 3: 391444.
Dehe, Nicole. 2002. Particle Verbs in English: Syntax, Information Structure, and Intonation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root,
Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformations. Academic, New York.
Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The Verb-Particle Combination in English. Academic Press, New
York.
Herslund, Michael. 1984. Particles, prefixes, and preposition stranding. Topics in Danish
Syntax (Nydanske Studier & Almen Kommunikationsteori 14) .
Noren, Kerstin. 1996. Svenska partikelverbs semantik . Acta Universitatis Gothobergensis,
Gothenberg.
Platzack, Christer. 1998. Svenskans inre grammatik: Det minimalistiske programmet.
Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Sandy, Helge. 1976. Laust samansette verb i vestnordisk: ein samanliknande leddstillingsanalyse for islandsk, frysk og romsdalsm
al. Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English
and the Scandinavian Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Svenonius, Peter. 1996a. The optionality of particle shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 4775.
Svenonius, Peter. 1996b. Review of den Dikken 1995, Particles. Language 74: 816820.
Svenonius, Peter. 1996c. The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages.
Ms. University of Troms; available at www.ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000046.
Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Swedish particles and directional prepositions. In Grammar
in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003 , edited by Lars-Olof
Sigur sson, vol. II, pp. 343
Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlog Josefsson, and Halldor A.
351. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University, Lund.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1983a. Parametric Variation in Phrase Stucture: A Case Study.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Troms.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1983b. Some phrase structure dependent differences between
Swedish and Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 9: 145.
Teleman, Ulf, Steffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenske Akademiens Grammatik . Norstedts, Stockholm.
Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Garland, New York.
Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Particles. Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Vinka, Mikael. 1999. Predicative and non-predicative verb particle constructions. In
WCCFL 18 Proceedings, edited by S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, and P. Norquest,
pp. 570585. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Ma.