Phrasal Verbs Tesis

Phrasal Verbs
Topics in English Linguistics

78
Editors
Elizabeth Closs Traugott

Bernd Kortmann
De Gruyter Mouton
Phrasal Verbs
The English Verb-Particle Construction
and its History
by
Stefan Thim
De Gruyter Mouton
Doctoral dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg

(originally submitted under the title Phrasal verbs in transition: a diachronic and
comparative study of the English verb-particle construction)
ISBN 978-3-11-025702-1
e-ISBN 978-3-11-025703-8
ISSN 1434-3452
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Acknowledgments
This book is the published version of my doctoral dissertation at the
Friedrich-Alexander-Universitt, Erlangen (2009). I am greatly indebted to
Angelika Lutz, my Doktormutter, for her invaluable criticism, advice and
encouragement throughout the writing of the dissertation. For various kinds
of professional support I also wish to thank Minoji Akimoto, Renate Bauer,
Hartmut Burmeister, Claudia Claridge, David Denison, Klaus Dietz, Philip
Durkin, Marion Elenbaas, Teresa Fanego, Mechthild Habermann, Thomas
Herbst, Andrew James Johnston, Dieter Kastovsky, Lucia Kornexl, Svenja
Kranich, Bettelou Los, Robert Mailhammer, Ferdinand von Mengden,
Donka Minkova, Horst Haider Munske, Eva-Maria Remberger, Hans
Sauer, Herbert Schendl, Hildegard L.C. Tristram, Theo Vennemann, Ilse
Wischer and Nuria Yez-Bouza. During the very early phase of the dissertation I stayed as a visiting scholar at the Research Unit for Variation
and Change in English at Helsinki University, and I would like to thank
Terttu Nevalainen and her colleagues, especially Arja Nurmi, Helena
Raumolin-Brunberg and Matti Rissanen. I gratefully acknowledge funding
for the stay from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Elizabeth Traugott has been a marvellous editor, who deserves the highest
praise for the feedback she has provided. All remaining errors are of course
mine. And last, but by no means least, I thank my family and friends for
putting up with me for all the years, and for their love and support.
Berlin and Erlangen, August 2012
Stefan Thim
Contents
Acknowledgments
List of figures
List of tables
Abbreviations
1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Introduction
Aims
The term phrasal verb
Contrast, comparison, history
Structure of this study
2.
2.1.
2.2.
Present-day English and other Germanic languages

Phrasal verbs: some examples
Semantic characteristics
2.2.1. Three semantic types
2.2.2. Compositional constructions
2.2.3. Aspectual constructions
2.2.4. Idiomatic constructions
Syntactic characteristics
2.3.1. Transitivity and serialization
2.3.2. Particles and prepositions
2.3.3. Phrasal-prepositional verbs
Further observations
2.4.1. Cranberry verbs
2.4.2. Nominalisations
2.4.3. Other word formations
2.4.4. Prefix verbs and phrasal verbs
2.4.5. Group-verbs etc.
2.4.6. Replaceability by a simple verb
2.4.7. Variation and style
Verb-particle constructions in other present-day
Germanic languages
2.5.1. Basic word order
2.5.2. Particle position
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
v
x
xi
xii
1
1
2
3
8
10
10
11
13
14
16
19
20
21
26
28
30
30
30
34
34
36
40
42
45
47
48
viii
Contents
2.6.
Phrasal verbs as periphrastic word formations

2.6.1. Verbs plus particles?
2.6.2. Periphrastic word formation
2.6.3. Further pros and cons
2.6.4. Phrasal verbs as constructions
Conclusion
2.7.
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
4.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
5.
5.1.
55
56
62
67
69
72
The development of postposed particles

Preverbs
3.1.1. Preverbs in non-Indo-European languages
3.1.2. Preverbs in Indo-European
The development of English word order
3.2.1. Word order in earlier Germanic
3.2.2. Word order in Old English
3.2.3. The rise of Modern English word order
The position of the particle in medieval English
Conclusion
74
75
78
81
89
89
93
100
103
115
Writing the history of the phrasal verb

A classic study: Kennedy (1920)
4.1.1. The rise of the phrasal verb
4.1.2. Colloquiality, informality, nativeness
4.1.3. The impact of Kennedys study
Some textbooks and language histories
4.2.1. The pitfalls of history
4.2.2. Coverage in CHEL I and II
Lexicographic coverage: a characteristic example
4.3.1. BosworthToller and other older dictionaries
4.3.2. The Middle English Dictionary
4.3.3. The Oxford English Dictionary
4.3.4. The Dictionary of Old English
4.3.5. Concluding remarks on the historical dictionaries
Conclusion
117
117
118
120
123
124
124
126
131
132
135
138
140
143
143
Word formation, sound change and semantics

Changing prefix inventories in English
5.1.1. The Old English prefixes
5.1.2. The prefixes in Middle English and beyond
145
145
146
153
Contents
5.2.
ix
Preverbs and particles in medieval English

5.2.1. On sound change and word formation
5.2.2. Some comparative evidence
5.2.3. Prefix variation in Old English
5.2.4. Particle semantics in medieval English
5.2.5. Some conclusions
An outlook to modern English
5.3.1. Etymology and integration
5.3.2. Phrasal verbs in 15th- and 16th-century English
Conclusion
158
158
165
171
176
183
185
185
192
195
197
197
6.3.
6.4.
Frequency, style and attitudes

Counting phrasal verbs
6.1.1. Quantitative long-term developments from
Middle English to the 20th century
6.1.2. Early Modern English frequencies
6.1.3. Relative frequencies of particles
6.1.4. Quantitative long-term developments
Style and attitudes
6.2.1. Text type and frequency
6.2.2. Pre-1800 evidence for colloquiality?
6.2.3. An example: Samuel Johnson
6.2.4. James Cook rewritten and John Dryden revised
The colloquialization conspiracy: a first suggestion
Conclusion
197
205
210
211
214
215
218
221
226
233
245
7.
7.1.
7.2.
Conclusion
Summary
Outlook
247
247
252
5.3.
5.4.
6.
6.1.
6.2.
References
255
Index
293
List of figures
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
Semantic classification of phrasal verbs

Subtypes of complex predicates
The transitive verb-particle construction with its
two allostructions
Paths of adpositions and preverbs
Positional changes and their causes
Development of the order verb-particle from
early Old English to late Middle English
13
65
72
88
104
112
Semantic development of verb-particle

constructions
Etymologies of phrasal verbs (types) in English
letters, 14501600
193
Development of phrasal verbs (Konishi 1958)

Phrasal verbs in English plays (Spasov 1966)
Development of phrasal verbs, 16401740
199
201
206
183
List of tables
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs compared

Group-verbs in present-day English
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Word order in early West Saxon

OV and VO orders in English
97
101
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Old English verb prefixes and their etymologies

Old English verb prefixes: overview
Modern English verb prefixes
151
152
154
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Phrasal verbs in two corpora

Phrasal verbs in the Corpus of Early English
Correspondence
Phrasal verbs per 1,000 words in three corpora
Relative frequencies of particles in three corpora
Frequencies of phrasal verbs in nine corpora
209
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
27
37
210
210
211
213
Abbreviations
Short titles of editions
For full bibliographic information on editions used see the list of references
at the end of the book. Where examples are retrieved from the Dictionary
of Old English (DOE) or the Dictionary of Old English Corpus, the references follow the DOE conventions.
CHom I = lfrics Catholic Homilies: The first series (Clemoes 1997)
CHom II = lfrics Catholic Homilies: The second series (Godden 1979)
Hom = Homilies of lfric: A supplementary collection (Pope 196768)
LS = lfrics Lives of the Saints (Skeat 18811900 [1966])
Ancient Laws (Thorpe) (Thorpe 1840)
Ancr (Nero) = The English Text of the Ancrene Riwle (Day 1952)
ApT = The Old English Apollonius of Tyre (Goolden 1958)
AV = The Authorised Version of the English Bible 1611 (Wright 1909)
Bede = The Old English Version of Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the
English People (Miller 18901898)
Beowulf (Dobbie 1953)
BlHom = The Blickling Homilies (Morris 18741880 [1967])
Chaucer (Benson 1988) [GP = General Prologue; Mel = The Tale of
Melibee; MT = The Millers Tale]
ChronA = The Parker Chronicle (Plummer 18921899 [cf. Bately 1986])
ChronE = The Peterborough Chronicle (Plummer 18921899 [cf. Irvine
2004])
ChronF = The Domitian Bilingual (Dumville 1995)
CP = King Alfreds West Saxon Version of Gregorys Pastoral Care (Sweet
1871)
Ex = Exodus (Krapp 1931)
GD = The Old English Translation of Gregorys Dialogues (Hecht 1900
1907)
Gospels = The Old English Version of the Gospels (Liuzza 1994)
Herbarium = The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de Quadrupedibus
(de Vriend 1986)
LawIne = Ines Laws (Liebermann 1903)
LS 5 (InventCrossNap) = Invention of the Cross (Napier 1894)
Mk = Mark (CCCC 140) in The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon,
Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions (Skeat 18711887)
Abbreviations
xiii
MtGl (Ru) = Matthew (MS Rushworth) in The Holy Gospels in AngloSaxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions (Skeat 18711887)
Or = The Old English Orosius (Bately 1980)
PsGlG (Rosier) = The Vitellius Psalter (Rosier 1962)
St Marg = Seinte Marherete: e Meiden ant Martyr (Mack 1934)
Tatian (Sievers 1892)
T-Chron [B and F] = The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Thorpe 1861 [cf. Taylor
1983 and Dumville 1995])
WHom = The Homilies of Wulfstan (Bethurum 1957)
Wulfila = Die Gotische Bibel (Streitberg 2000 [1919])
Grammatical abbreviations
Grammatical category labels in interlinear morphological glosses are
printed in small capitals (GEN for genitive, etc.). The interlinear glosses
follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules and provide relevant structural information rather than complete morphological descriptions.
*
?
1,2,3
abl
acc
adv
art
aux
comp
cop
dat
dem
det
fem
gen
imp
inf
int
N
neg
ungrammatical /
unattested
acceptability doubtful
first, second, third
person
ablative
accusative
adverb
article
auxiliary
complementizer
copula
dative
demonstrative
determiner
feminine
genitive
imperative
infinitive
interrogative
noun
negation, negative
nom
NP
O
part
perf
pl
pres
pret
prt
pst
ptcp
rel
S
sg
subj
trans
V
V-1
V-2
V-3
V-F
VP
nominative
noun phrase
object
partitive
perfect
plural
present
preterite
particle
past
participle
relativizer
subject
singular
subjunctive
transitive
verb
verb first
verb second
verb third
verb final
verb phrase
xiv
Abbreviations
Data from the British National Corpus (BNC)

Data cited in this study have been extracted from the British National
Corpus (version 3, 2007, <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/>), distributed by
Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
All rights in the texts cited are reserved.
Quotations taken from the BNC are followed by the text identifier and the
sentence number (e.g. Eke out the little pleasures.A5X_39).
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1.
Aims
Phrasal verbs have long been regarded as being among the most characteristic features of the English language. As early as 1712, Michael Mattaire
in his English Grammar described the basic syntactic peculiarities of the
English verb-particle construction. A few decades later Samuel Johnson
and Robert Lowth one the most influential lexicographer and the other
the most influential grammarian of the 18th century directed their attention to the phrasal verb. Johnson writes in the Preface to A Dictionary of
the English Language (1755):
There is another kind of composition more frequent in our language than perhaps in any other, from which arises to foreigners the greatest difficulty. We
modify the signification of many verbs by a particle subjoined; as to come off,
to escape by a fetch; to fall on, to attack; to fall off, to apostatize; to break off,
to stop abruptly; to bear out, to justify; to fall in, to comply; to give over, to
cease; to set off, to embellish; to set in, to begin a continual tenour; to set out, to
begin a course or journey; to take off, to copy; with innumerable expressions of
the same kind, of which some appear wildly irregular, being so far distant from
the sense of the simple words, that no sagacity will be able to trace the steps by
which they arrived at the present use. (Johnson 1755: n.pag.)
Thus, while the term phrasal verb appears to be a coinage of the first half
of the 20th century, the construction itself has attracted linguistic attention
for the last 300 years or so.
In the 20th century phrasal verbs came to be one of the favourite topics
not only of grammarians and lexicographers, but also of authors of popular
style guides; only few properties of English are commonly seen as more
typical of the language than the phrasal verb. The above quotation from the
Preface to Johnsons dictionary shows that this view goes back at least to
the middle of the 18th century, when many of the modern notions concerning the distinctive properties of the English language were first expressed. So powerful have these notions been that one obvious question has
in fact rarely been asked, namely: how English are the phrasal verbs
really? One aim of the present study is to explore this question. The other
aim is to trace the evolution of the Modern English phrasal verb from its
early history up to the present. Obviously, both aims are closely connected,
Introduction
since the peculiarities of the Modern English construction are bound to remain indistinct unless one is ready to adopt a historical, contrastive and
cross-linguistic perspective.
The dichotomy of synchrony vs. diachrony has led to deplorable limitations of linguistic interests and insights throughout much of the 20th
century. Over the past years, the traditional dichotomy has been transcended by a large body of usage-based functionalist, variationist and
typological research, whose stance has been summed up by Bybee (2010:
104) as follows: Language change is not just a peripheral phenomenon
that can be tacked on to a synchronic theory; synchrony and diachrony have
to be viewed as an integrated whole. Thus the wide scope of the present
study does not exclude the language of today, which I regard as essentially
situated in a historical variational space (see e.g. Oesterreicher 2001 and the
references provided there). In the following chapters a description of the
main characteristics of the verb-particle construction in present-day English
will be taken as a starting point from whence the development of its structural properties will be sketched in the light of previous research and of
traditional attitudes. I have come to believe that many of the problems of
analysis which have beset the discussion of phrasal verbs for a long time
are best solved within a constructional framework, not least if historical
developments are to be accounted for as well; the present study is decidedly
functionalist (cf. e.g. Dik 1997, Traugott 2003a, Croft 2006, Fischer 2007,
Haspelmath 2008 and 2010, Bybee 2010 and Smirnova & Mortelmans
2010). But evidence from studies adhering to other linguistic persuasions
will be taken into account wherever this is appropriate for the discussion at
hand. Recent monographs containing discussions of various aspects of the
phrasal verbs include Claridge (2000), Deh (2002), Hampe (2002), Gries
(2003), Cappelle (2005), Elenbaas (2007), Waibel (2007) and Matsumoto
(2008). Bacchielli (1999) and Deh (2003) provide select bibliographies.
1.2.
The term phrasal verb is rarely ever used except with respect to English,
where it is sometimes applied not only to phrasal verbs as described by
Samuel Johnson in the quotation at the beginning of this introduction, but
also to other verbal constructs, most notably prepositional verbs (cf. the
discussion below, Chapter 2.3.2). It seems that the term was originally
coined with respect to English alone and it is probably first found in Smith
(1925), where it is attributed to one of the editors of the OED, Henry
Bradley (18451923):
The term phrasal verb was suggested to me by the late Dr. Bradley; not, as he
wrote, that he was satisfied with it, or would not welcome any alternative that
he could feel to be an improvement. But, as he said, one cannot write of these
verbs without some workable description; and although the word phrasal is
perhaps objectionable in formation, it fills a want, and is sometimes indispensable. (Smith 1925: 172, fn.1)
Characteristically, the term is introduced in a chapter on English idioms,

where Smith calls the phrasal verbs one of the most striking idiosyncrasies
of our language, despite adding the observation that they correspond to
the compound verbs in synthetic languages (Smith 1925: 172).
But the type of construction discussed in the present study also goes by
a rather large number of other names. This is ultimately due to the fact that
it straddles the conventional boundary of morphology and syntax and that it
has no place in Latin school grammar. Consequently, there is no traditional
term for it. Together with the tendency in linguistics to coin new terminology this has led to a plethora of designations, e.g. verb-adverb
combination, particle verb, verb-particle combination, verb-particle construction, discontinuous verb, merged verb, separable verb, two-word verb,
separable compound, poly-word verb, etc. (cf. the long list provided by
Carstensen 1964: 306308). Of course, the choice of terminology often reflects theoretical preferences, or characteristic features of the authors
linguistic classifications. For a long time the interest in the history of
phrasal verbs was a rather marginal area, though, and most studies have
tended to concentrate on a small number of topics. Thus, so far some points
like the relative position of verb and particle in Old English have
received a lot of attention, while others have received considerably less
attention. The first major study of the Modern English phrasal verb and its
history is a short monograph by Kennedy (1920) on the verb-adverb
combination, although in retrospect Harrisons (1892) study of separable
prefixes in Old English can perhaps be taken to mark the beginning of the
diachronic research tradition in English historical linguistics.
1.3.
Although from the very beginning the use of the term phrasal verb implies
that the construction is distinctively English, there are comparable verbal
constructions in other languages, as already noted by Smith (1925). The
most obvious parallels can be found in other Germanic languages. Cf. e.g.
present-day German aufgeben give up, which, like its English translation,
Introduction
consists of a particle (auf, cognate to up) and a verb (geben, cognate to

give):
(1)
Present-day German
Alexander gab das Cellospielen auf
Alexander gave the cello:playing
up
Alexander gave up playing the cello.

But neither syntactically nor semantically are there always one-to-one correspondences. Cf. e.g. the German verb aufmachen open (particle auf and
verb machen, cognate to make) in the following example:
(2)
Present-day German
Wenzel sagt dass Eva
die Tr
aufmachen wird
Wenzel
the door
up:make:INF AUX:3SG
says
COMP
Eva
Wenzel says that Eva will open the door.

In the modern Germanic languages the distribution of pre- and postposition
of the particle is entirely rule-governed. In those Germanic languages
where the particle may either follow the verb as in the first example or precede the verb as in the second example it has long been customary to call
such particle verbs separable prefix verbs, a term which obviously cannot
be applied to present-day English, where the particle is always separated
and behind the verb. In studies with a comparative focus the more neutral
term particle verb (or verb-particle construction) is now well-established.
Consequently, in this study this term will be used from a comparative and
contrastive point of view, while the term phrasal verb will be reserved for
the Modern English verb-particle construction and its peculiarities, especially where the discussion is restricted to English.
In Old English, the particle may occur before or after the verb, as in the
present-day Continental West Germanic languages, where the alternation
between pre- and postposed particles has been historically more stable than
in English. Cf. the repeated use of Old English ut-gan go out in the following example (note that eod- is the regular suppletive preterite of gan
go in Old English):
(3)
Old English (CHom II, 1 [012700 (10.256)f.])

Ga
ut of am ofne and cuma
go:IMP.PL out of
the
oven and
to me
come:IMP.PL to me
Hi
rrihte
ut
eodon
they
immediately
out
go;PRET:PL
Come out of the oven and come to me; they immediately came out.
Thus the primary syntactic development in the English construction is one
towards almost exceptionless postposition of the particles. And while many
details of the development have not been fully explained, there is now general agreement that this development is connected to the changes in the
basic word order in the history of English. But the normally post-verbal
position of the particle in present-day English also has close correspondences in other present-day Germanic languages. Taken together, such
parallels in a group of genetically related languages can be regarded as a
clear indication of common historical origins. Although shared features
may in principle also be the result of convergence and contact, in the present case common ancestry is the only viable explanation.
Similarly, the semantic properties of the particle verbs in the various
present-day Germanic languages are very much alike. However, in this
respect in all the languages the modern stages differ significantly from their
earliest stages, where typically compositional combinations of verbs of
motion and spatial particles are found, e.g. Old English forfran (literally:
travel/move away or by):
(4)
Old English (LS 5 (InventCrossNap) [53])

& ferde for on his weig
and went forth on
his way
and went forth on his way

Although the non-spatial and non-compositional combinations are slower
to emerge, they are also already found in Old English. Thus forfran is
frequently found in the figurative sense die:
(5)
Old English (LawIne [38])

& fere
se ceorl for
and go:PRES.SUBJ.SG the man
forth
and if the man dies

Cf. the semantically corresponding phrasal verb pass away in present-day
English. This is of course an instance of the readily intelligible and crosslinguistically wide-spread metaphor life is a journey (cf. e.g. Lakoff 1993
and the overview in Croft & Cruse 2004: Ch. 8, with further references),
used euphemistically. In fact, all non-literal senses of the verb-particle
Introduction
constructions may be reasonably assumed to have developed out of such

metaphorical (or metonymical) uses. The observation that forgn with its
equivalent literal meaning go forth does not seem to be used in the sense
die suggests that this metaphorical use of forfran is lexicalized in Old
English (note that forgn in its turn is also used as a gloss of Latin procedere, progredi, praeterire, etc.); cf. DOE s.vv. for and for-gn.
The particle in Old English may either precede or follow the verb, cf.
example (3) above. In general, this is entirely independent of the meaning
of the Old English verb-particle construction, as a comparison of the following two examples to the preceding examples (4) and (5) shows:
(6)
Old English (CHom I, 10 (G) [260.65])

e big sume weige st r se hlend
REL
by
some way
sat
there the Saviour
for ferde
forth went
who was sitting by the way where the Saviour passed by

(7)
Old English (WHom 20.2 [9])

feower geara fce r
he
for ferde
four
forth went
years
time
before he
four years before he died

On the whole, the semantic developments in the Germanic languages are
rather similar and follow the same paths; consequently, the inventories of
particles in the various Germanic languages show a considerable, nonaccidental etymological and semantic overlap.
Moreover, there is a kind of competition between particle verbs and prefixed verbs (i.e. verbs with inseparable prefixes), which in all the
Germanic languages represent an older type. At closer inspection, though,
this older type turns out to be the likely result of even older verb-particle
combinations with the particles in preverbal position, i.e. typical instances
of Indo-European preverbs in a position predictable from the basic verborder in Germanic. Considering the high probability of OV as the basic
word order in Proto-Germanic this is, again, not particularly surprising. In
some of the Germanic languages there is a strong tendency for this older
type to recede, most notably in the Scandinavian languages, while this tendency is considerably weaker in the Continental West Germanic languages.
In English, a further complication lies in the abundant influx of borrowed
verbs from French and Latin in the centuries following the Norman Conquest. Quite a few of these are partly synonymous with particle verbs,
while the new verbal prefixes borrowed into the language via these loanwords have traditionally been taken to seal the demise of many of the older
inherited prefixes. This has been a remarkably confused discussion for a
long time. But nevertheless it is worth being spelt out in some detail, since
it is closely connected to the question of the lexical status of the English
verb-particle construction from Old English to present-day English, in particular with regard to its stylistic classification. In this context etymological
considerations come into play and one must seek an answer to the question
why the majority of English verb-particle constructions contain monosyllabic verbs of Germanic descent, while there seem to be restrictions on
the use of borrowed and/or polysyllabic verbs.
At this point a brief note on the use of period labels in this study may be
appropriate. The periodisation of languages into old, middle and new
periods, or even more subtle distinctions, is a tricky issue (cf. Lass 2000).
For English the older threefold division has now been largely replaced by a
fourfold division into Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English,
Late Modern English. Usage as to the extent of these periods may differ
considerably. This is particularly true with respect to the distinction
between Early Modern English and Late Modern English (the most recently
introduced term), which has been drawn in the literature variously between
the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 19th century. Likewise, there is
no consensus when present-day English begins and whether or not it is
part of Late Modern English (cf. e.g. Grlach 1994: 8 and Beal 2004: xi
xiv). But the traditional distinction between Old and Middle English is also
problematic, despite the seemingly straightforward extra-linguistic watershed marked by the Norman Conquest (cf. Lutz 2002a). In the present
study the periodization is as follows: Old English (all English texts before
1100), Middle English (up to 1500, subdivided into early Middle English
up to 1340 and late Middle English after 1340, cf. Horobin & Smith 2002),
Early Modern English (up to 1700), Late Modern English (up to 1945,
following Beal 2004, and thus excluding present-day English). Where finer
distinctions are not necessary, medieval English will be used as a cover
term for Old and Middle English, while Modern English is used as a
broad cover term for post-medieval English (as opposed to either medieval
English or to other Germanic languages). This distinction seems useful in
particular with respect to the history of the phrasal verbs, where most
research is concerned with either the medieval or the modern period, but
rarely with both and where, moreover, the research issues in the former differ markedly from those in the latter.
Introduction
1.4.
The study is organized as follows. Chapter 2 is devoted to a discussion of

particle verbs in present-day English and in other Germanic languages and
serves as a point of reference for the ensuing historical and cross-linguistic
explorations. First the basic semantic and syntactic characteristics of
phrasal verbs in present-day English are outlined and criteria for distinguishing phrasal verbs from other verbal structures are established. Also, a
number of traditional characterizations of the phrasal verb will be called
into question. In a contrastive survey of the other contemporary Germanic
languages it is then investigated to what extent the English phrasal verb is
structurally remarkable from a synchronic perspective, and what systematic
parallels there are across the modern Germanic languages. In the remainder
of the chapter arguments are put forward in favour of analysing phrasal
verbs as periphrastic word formations in a constructional framework.
Chapter 3 is concerned with the history of the Modern English postposed particles. A cross-linguistic and comparative discussion of preverbs
reveals that the Old English prefix verbs typically represent a more advanced stage in the development of complex predicates, where formerly
independent preverbal particles have fused with verbal stems, while the Old
English separable prefix verbs represent a younger and less advanced
stage of what is essentially the same path of development. The remainder of
the chapter contains to a discussion of changes in English word order and
their connection to the decline of particles in preverbal position.
Chapter 4 critically examines the ways in which the history of the
phrasal verbs has been portrayed in the English research tradition of the
20th century, where many traditional beliefs about the construction have
hardly ever been put to the test. I will also examine the connections of this
to the treatment of particle verbs in the historical dictionaries, which can be
shown to provide insufficient and often misleading coverage.
In Chapter 5 the interplay of phonological, morphological and semantic
reasons for the loss of native prefixes in medieval English is explored and
once again comparative evidence from other Germanic languages is taken
into consideration. For a satisfactory and coherent account of the history of
the phrasal verbs, it will be necessary to analyse their development in relation to the fate of the native prefixes and in relation to the transfer and
integration of borrowed lexical material in the centuries after the Norman
Conquest. Building on the discussion of preverbation in Chapter 3, it is
shown that prefix verbs and particle verbs tend to develop along functionally equivalent lines. In this context the vexed question is discussed to
what extent the older prefixes were replaced by particles and borrowed pre-
fixes respectively, and how the characteristic etymological and semantic

properties of the Modern English phrasal verbs can be explained.
In Chapter 6, the historical reasons for the common perception of
phrasal verbs as particularly English, colloquial and informal are
explored. The first part of the chapter offers a critical survey of quantitative
approaches to the development of phrasal verbs in the Modern English
period. In the remainder of the chapter it is demonstrated that up to the end
of the 18th century attitudes towards the phrasal verb are neutral, and this
observation is confirmed by a discussion of a number of 17th- and 18thcentury texts. Consequently, I will argue that the common perception of the
construction type is rooted in the English normative tradition in a more
complex way than has hitherto been assumed.
Chapter 7 provides a summary of results and of open issues, and an
outlook to future research.
Chapter 2
The present chapter provides a descriptive reference point for the historical
analysis of phrasal verbs. The focus will be on their central semantic, syntactic and stylistic properties in present-day English and on their overall
role in the lexicon, and it will be argued that phrasal verbs are best treated
as periphrastic word formations, particularly if cross-linguistic evidence is
taken into account, as a brief contrastive examination of similar, and indeed
cognate, constructions in other present-day Germanic languages will show.
2.1.
Phrasal verbs are made up of two components: a verb and a particle which
is typically homonymous with an adverb or a preposition (for significant
modifications of this preliminary characterisation, see Section 2.6 below).
In present-day English, phrasal verbs show a number of distinctive semantic, syntactic and prosodic characteristics. Some of these characteristics can
be seen in the following examples (all from the BNC):
(1)
He nearly gave up, not knowing what to do next.BM0_104
(2)
I gave up the job there and then and headed for Brazil.APC_2470
(3)
I can see why you gave the job up!HYU_264
(4)
I thought that I was being stupid, so I gave it up.B0U_368
(5)
Eventually he gave it up, stood up and put on his hat.B0U_368
(6)
Beneficial insects such as ladybirds, horseflies and lacewings are

encouraged, not killed off, so that they eat up harmful aphids.BN4_1763
(7)
If we eat out my favourite meal is oysters and caviar followed by

asparagus with melted butter.CEK_4661
(8)
This other bloke came in and joined im.CKE_1916
(9)
The hours burned by on the green screen, and when they finally
flopped in Lucys living room, sipping brandy, a key turned in the
lock and in came the charmingly dishevelled one and only
son.A0L_1418
11
(10) If hed been going to hang up on me, something made him change
his mind and could be it was something I said.FAP_3057
Examples (1)(4) contain the phrasal verb give up in different syntactic
configurations. It may be used intransitively as in (1), or transitively as in
(2)(5). In the transitive constructions, the object may follow the particle as
in (2) or precede it as in (3); pronominal objects, however, usually precede
the particle as in (4) and (5). Semantically, give up is clearly idiomatic,
since its meaning cannot be inferred from the individual lexical meanings
of its components give and up. However, as the other examples show, the
degree of idiomaticity may vary compare give up in (5) with stand up and
put on in the same sentence and with kill off and eat up in (6) and eat out in
(7). In example (8) at last, come in is entirely compositional from the meaning of the simple verb come and the directional particle in. Directional
particles like in in (8) can also occur in sentence-initial position, as the
inversion construction in (9) shows. Finally, verb and particle may be
followed by a preposition and form more complex constructions, the
phrasal-prepositional verbs, as in (10). Phrasal word formation is a
productive process in English. But while the number of verbal elements in
the construction is unrestricted, the number of particles is rather small, and
all of them are homonymous with prepositions or with spatial adverbs. A
list for present-day English would at least include the following particles:
aback, aboard, about, above, across, after, ahead, along, apart, around,
ashore, aside, astray, asunder, away, back, behind, by, down, forth, forward(s), home, in, off, on, out, over, past, round, through, to, under, up (cf.
e.g. the lists in Cowie & Mackin 1975, McArthur & Atkins 1992 or Quirk
et al. 1985: 16.2).
But not every phrasal verb will show all of these typical characteristics
exemplified so far, and not all of the characteristics are observable in the
above examples, as a more systematic look at the English phrasal verb will
show.
2.2.
Verb-particle combinations may be highly polysemous; quite commonly,

the meanings range on a cline from purely compositional to highly idiomatic:
(11) Wed better take in the childrens toys.
(12) They supplement their income by taking in students.
12
(13) Ive taken in your trousers, because they were too loose.
(14) Grammar takes in syntax and morphology but not phonology.
(15) I thought we might take in a show after dinner.
(16) I was too tired to take in what she was saying.
(17) Im not surprised he was taken in: hes as gullible as a child.
These examples from Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 284) are arranged
according to their relative compositionality. Such clines are commonly the
result of linguistic change, with older and more recent forms continuing to
co-exist. A direct comparison of take in carry inside in (11) and take in
deceive in (17) shows the well-known development from concrete to
abstract meaning; cf. the further discussion of lexicalization processes
below. Not all phrasal verbs show the full range of idiomaticity as take in
in these examples some will be purely compositional in all uses while
others will appear as non-compositional combinations only. These can be
assumed to have undergone a lexical development from compositional to
non-compositional, with the earlier, compositional meanings lost, while the
later non-compositional meanings fossilize (a more detailed treatment of
this topic will be provided in the historical discussion in Chapters 3 and 5
below).
In another widespread type of phrasal verbs, the particle may function as
an aspectualizer, e.g.:
(18) Newcomen got round this difficulty by fitting a leather skirt on top of
the piston, this being kept supple by filling it up with water.EED_299
(BNC)
(19) While Charles listened to all this good advice, he drank up his glass
of champagne and felt a bit better. ACE_2531 (BNC)
(20) Abraham talked on, not noticing her lack of attention.GW8_176 (BNC)
(21) She chatted away, her hands illustrating her words.CDX_1644 (BNC)
At first sight the different semantic types exemplified here may seem rather
random and disordered, but they can be divided into three major semantic
categories.
13
2.2.1. Three semantic types

Although it is not always possible to draw clear-cut distinctions, it seems
useful to distinguish between three, albeit somewhat idealised, semantic
types of phrasal verbs, which have been characterized as literal, aspectual and non-compositional (or idiomatic); cf. the tripartite semantic
division in Knig (1973: Ch. 9.4), who takes up comparable earlier classifications by Bolinger (1971), Fraser (1965 and 1966), Live (1965) and
Makkai (1972) but adds the caveat that it is often difficult to distinguish
between adverbial, aspectualizing and idiomatic uses (Knig 1973: 98).
However, this threefold categorization is better subdivided as shown in
Figure 2-1, since both the combinations with a directional and the combinations with an aspectualizing particle are semantically compositional and
contrast with the non-compositional combinations whose meanings cannot
be inferred from their parts.
In keeping with much of the literature, the compositional type with
directional particles will here be simply referred to as compositional,
while the compositional type with aspectual particle will be referred to as
aspectual. With the non-compositional combinations, it is by definition
not possible to assign particular meanings to the particles. In the following
sections, each of these types will be dealt with in some more detail and
thereby (if only implicitly) treated as if they were separate categories. At
closer inspection, though, it turns out that both the compositional vs. noncompositional and the directional vs. aspectual particles are more properly
to be seen along clines reflecting both their synchronic meaning and their
diachronic development (for a comprehensive discussion of particle
semantics in present-day English, see Cappelle 2005: Ch. 8; cf. also Dirven
2001).
verb-particle combination
compositional
directional particle
aspectual particle
Figure 2-1. Semantic classification of phrasal verbs
non-compositional
14
Another well-known semantic classification, proposed by Bolinger

(1971), will not be used here (for a discussion of Bolingers model, see
Hampe 2002). In his discussion of stereotyping, Bolinger makes a twofold distinction: (i) between first-level metaphor, where the literal
(adverbial) meaning of the particle is changed, and second-level metaphor, where the meaning of the whole phrasal verb is non-literal, and (ii)
between first-level stereotype, where the meaning of the combination is
additive, and second-level stereotype, where the meaning of the combination cannot be inferred from the meaning of its parts (Bolinger 1971: 113
114). Bolingers model, which has not met with widespread acceptance, has
a number of inherent problems. These include his choice of terms (e.g. it is
usually metonymy rather than metaphor that plays a role in the semantic
changes in question, cf. the discussion in Chapter 5 below) but also his
choice of categories (which e.g. explicitly include figurative use, a process
not specific to phrasal verbs, but not the aspectual combinations).
2.2.2. Compositional constructions
In the compositional constructions, the verb combines with a directional
particle and the whole construction is transparent from the meaning of its
constituents, e.g.:
(22) Well it reminds me when I was in a shop on the High Street for many
years and a little boy and girl came in with a, with an Alsatian dog, a
puppy.KM3_748 (BNC)
(23) Fold forward and remove the four bolts which go into the floor and
carry the seat out.AN2_1732 (BNC)
The formation of such compositional constructions is a process whose
productivity can be illustrated by the exchangeability of verbs and particles
(cf. the similar examples discussed in Jackendoff 2002: 74):
(24)
George
tossed
took
put
carried
threw
the food
up.
in.
away.
back.
out.
In such syntagms, the paradigmatic insertion of any verb and any particle
seems possible, as long as the combination of verb and particle allows an
15
interpretation of motion through space, with the particle expressing the direction and the verb expressing the kind of the verbal action.
Characteristically, the directional particles in the compositional constructions can be replaced by directional prepositional phrases:
(25) George carried the food into the house.
The directional particles can be fronted, cf. the inverted order in (26) with
the particle in sentence-initial position. Again, directional prepositional
phrases can also occur in this position, cf. (27).
(26) Then the door opened, and in came Felix, Sophie, and Agatha.H8G_451
(BNC)
(27) Into the shop came a young and very hot couple, leaving their bicycles outside.H9Y_83 (BNC)
Particles preceding the object can never be replaced in such a way, though.
Thus George carried in the food is possible but *George carried into the
house the food is impossible.
It deserves to be pointed out that only the compositional combinations
show the full range of syntactic properties typical of phrasal verbs, and that
the restriction of the syntactic possibilities clearly goes along with different
semantic properties. This is why an exclusion of the compositional combinations from the phrasal verbs seems problematic. Quirk et al. (1985:
16.2 et passim), who would seem to advocate such an approach, do not
provide any kind of explanation why the syntactic properties they list are
also (and only) possible with other kinds of combinations of verb and particle. In fact, by excluding the compositional combinations from the phrasal
verbs by definition (since phrasal verbs are multi-word verbs and these in
turn are defined as idiomatic), Quirk et al. (1985) somehow fail to provide
an account of their syntactic properties at all, which they do not discuss
elsewhere either. Cf. the rather self-contradictory discussion by one of the
co-authors of the grammar:
Multi-word verbs are combinations of verbs with other words that form an
idiomatic unit, inasmuch as the meaning of the combination cannot be
predicted from the meaning of the parts In free combinations [treated as a
sub-category of phrasal verbs, which in their turn are treated as a sub-category
of multi-word verbs, ST], the verbs and the particles are both transparent in
meaning. (Greenbaum 2000: 11.18)
16
The problem here is connected to the dubious category multi-word verb

(cf. Section 2.4.5 below).
2.2.3. Aspectual constructions
As is well known, the enormous literature on aspect and aktionsart is characterised by considerable terminological confusion (cf. e.g. Brinton 1988:
Ch. 1 and Bumann 2008: s.vv., and the references there; see also Comrie
1976, the contributions in Vetters & Vandeweghe 1991 and Binnick 2001).
Kortmann (1991) suggests drawing the distinction along the following
lines:
ASPECT: grammatical category; non-deictic; concerned with situation-internal
time; presentation of some situation as incomplete/in progress/existent (from
within) or complete (from without) at a given point/period in time;
AKTIONSART: lexical category; non-deictic; concerned with situation-internal
time; temporal constitution inherent in the meaning of the verb (whether simplex, complex, or verbal syntagm) or predicate. (Kortmann 1991: 19)
Here these definitions are adopted, while the term aspectualizer is used as a
cover term for both aspect and aktionsart marking, not least since the
observation that the difference between aspect and aktionsart is one of
grammatical vs. lexical coding along a (synchronic and diachronic) cline
appears to be very much in favour of Sasses proposal to altogether
abandon the term aktionsart. This would also seem to fit in with the constructional approach taken here (cf. Section 2.6.4 below):
Aspectuality is always a matter of the correlation of lexical semantics and TAM
[viz. tenseaspectmood] categories, and can be ordered along a continuum
from zero lexical and maximal grammatical distinctions to maximal lexical and
zero grammatical distinctions. (Sasse 1991: 44)
Consequently the use of aktionsart should be seen as a mere shorthand for

lexical aspect (for a comprehensive discussion of the aspectual impact of
the particles, see Cappelle 2005: Ch. 8).
Aspectual constructions might be treated as a sub-group of the compositional constructions, since their meaning is usually fully transparent and
readily understandable ad hoc formations are possible, e.g.:
(28) And having another baby to use the clothes up seems a little extravagant.K4P_1490 (BNC)
17
But the particles in these constructions are not directional but aspectual and
they typically mark telic aktionsart, as shown by Brinton (1985), cf. e.g.
(29) and (30):
(29) He used our supplies.
(30) He used our supplies up.
Clearly, the difference between (29) and (30) with the added particle up is
that in the second sentence the verbal event of the first sentence is presented as directed towards a final stage that is not expressed by the simple
verb (although completion may in principle be part of the meaning of a
simple verb, e.g. He finished our supplies), i.e. the particle introduces the
concept of a goal or an endpoint to durative situations which otherwise
have no necessary terminus (Brinton 1985: 160). Thus completely in (31)
only serves to intensify the particle in a largely synonymous sentence (cf.
Peters 1993 on intensification):
(31) He used our supplies completely up.
An apparently redundant use of aspectualizing particles is possible, as in
(32) or (33), where the aktionsart meaning of the particle is already present
in the simple verb:
(32) Chico finished up his drink.HTU_3724 (BNC)
(33) so they didnt come, and I didn't go out and Gemma came up and
I was sitting there talking and they had a drop, drop of wine and I
had one with erm and Gemma finished her biscuits up KC2_1222
(BNC)
This is not normally encountered with the directional particles, i.e. pleonastic constructions (as in *He entered the room in) are less common,
although not impossible:
(34) The hugely distended stomach had to be decompressed before it
could be returned back into the abdomen, and the defect in the left
hemidiaphragm (65 cm) was repaired with 2-;0 silk sutures.FT2_1308
(BNC)
Conversely, fronting of the particle is not possible with the aspectualizing
particles (e.g. *Up he ate).
18
Quite clearly it is up that is the most central aspectualizer among the

particles, both in terms of frequency and of meaning. Besides up, a rather
restricted set of other particles can be used as aspectualizer, e.g. down as in
the following example:
(35) Spitting it on to the floor, he raised the half-empty bottle to his lips
and drank down the fiery vodka in great gulps, as if to drown the
useless curses which rose in his throat.CDA_602 (BNC)
(36) She swallowed down a mouthful of wine.JY9_1827 (BNC)
As these examples with down indicate, the distinction between compositional and aspectual may be somewhat blurry, since the particle in (35) and
(36) is both directional and aspectual. In fact, this overlap provides the context for the development of aspectualizing particles out of spatial ones; cf.
the discussion in Chapter 5 below.
The particles out, over and through are also found as telic aspectualizers, e.g.:
(37) With that beat I needed a really stomping guitar line to go with it so I
worked it through in my head and then worked out the chords on
the piano.C9L_2186 (BNC)
(38) Bill Murray spent 50,000 on setting up his restaurant at Telegraph
Hill, near Exeter, Devon, two years ago but said the business started
to go downhill when he handed it over to a manager to run.A0C_167
(BNC)
Not all aspectualizing particles are telic, though. The two particles on
and along, for example, may function as continuative (i.e. atelic) aspectualizers, e.g.:
(39) Abraham talked on, not noticing her lack of attention.GW8_176 (BNC)
(40) In the end, Mungo reasoned that the old man had probably been
driving along, had somehow caught a glimpse of him, and had taken
a short cut from the road.ACV_152 (BNC)
Away is near-synonymous to on, too, but in addition it tends to intensify the
verbal event, e.g.:
19
(41) Breeze talked away for all she was worth as she cut bread-andbutter in the draughty old kitchen, but she knew that her sister wasnt
really listening.BMU_665 (BNC)
To sum up, in the aspectual combinations the particles are used in a
semantically transparent way, which may overlap considerably with the
literal, i.e. directional, use of the particles. Another specific characteristic
of the aspectual combinations is the occurrence of pleonastic combinations, where the aspectual value of the particle is also part of the aktionsart
of the verb alone.
2.2.4. Idiomatic constructions
Brinton & Traugott (2005: 32) point out that the term lexicalization has
been used variously in the literature. In its broadest sense, the term may
refer to synchronic word formation processes, more narrowly to fusion with
decreasing compositionality but also to processes of separation with increasing autonomy. Here the term will be used in a more narrow sense, but
broadly enough to encompass institutionalized uses of phrasal verbs which
are not idiomatic, and I will refer only to those lexicalized combinations as
idiomatic whose meaning is non-transparent (on idiomatization and lexicalization cf. e.g. Brinton & Traugott 2005 or Bumann 2008: s.vv. and the
references there, and see the discussion of idiomaticity in Chapter 6 below).
Thus the idiomatic constructions are different from the two preceding
groups in that their meaning cannot be inferred from the meaning of their
elements; they belong, quite unambiguously, to the lexicon, as a few examples suffice to show:
(42) My husband actually said to me that giving up smoking was easy
because hes done it plenty of times.JJP_385 (BNC)
(43) In the following extract we see that an equally offensive act is one in
which a soft teacher tries to assert authority, but when challenged
gives in.ECN_742 (BNC)
(44) Farmers, sailors, and chemists get by perfectly well on the basis of
everyday experience, without recourse to Aristotelian logic.ABM_469
(BNC)
(45) He could not make it out, nor could he trust his own memory.BNF_1301
(BNC)
20
(46) After she hangs up on Mark, Martha takes a deep breath and dials a
London number.HGU_3802 (BNC)
For the idiomaticity of a construction there is some syntactic evidence.
With the idiomatic constructions, the positional variants typically tend to be
more restricted, cf. (45) above and the following example:
(47) * and out he made it.
This last property is shared with the aspectual combinations, although the
reason for this is more evident in the case of the present category: since no
clearly identifiable meaning can be ascribed to the particle, it is unlikely to
be focalised in an inversion.
Similarly, coordination of either of the elements in idiomatic phrasal
verbs usually results in zeugma, as in (48) and (49), while it is common
with compositional combinations, as in (50):
(48) ??He could not make it out or up.
(49) ??He could not make and carry it out.
(50) Oh well I think Ill just play with the tab and make it pop in and out
a few times.H61_413 (BNC)
Idiomatic phrasal verbs are certainly the type that has attracted most attention, in particular in the more popular literature (e.g. in style guides, etc.)
and in the teaching of English as a foreign language (cf. the discussion of
this in Section 2.5 and in Chapter 6). But clear-cut boundaries between the
three semantic classes are virtually impossible to draw, since very often
literal, aspectual and idiomatic combinations are highly contiguous. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that even though non-compositionality may be
the prototypical semantic characteristic of the phrasal verbs, it is only in the
compositional (transitive) phrasal verbs where the full range of syntactic
properties is displayed.
2.3.
The basic syntactic characteristics of the phrasal verbs are well-known and
have been amply described in the literature. The syntactic description in
this section draws on the criteria long established for the analysis of phrasal
verbs in the classic modern studies on the subject, starting with van Dongen
(1919) to Wood (1956), T.F. Mitchell (1958), Live (1965), Fraser (1965,
21
1966, 1970, 1974, 1976), Bolinger (1971), Sroka (1972) and Pelli (1976);
for a critical overview of the pre-1970s classifications, see Lipka (1972:
Ch. 1 and the relevant section in his bibliography) and Carstensen (1964),
who provides a useful concise examination of the earlier literature and discusses the criteria for phrasal verbs established there. More recent
approaches operating with small clauses and intransitive prepositions,
which challenge the notion of phrasal verbs in English, will be discussed
towards the end of the present section.
2.3.1. Transitivity and serialization
Phrasal verbs may be intransitive, as in the following examples (cf.
Jackendoff 2002: 6973):
(51) Your children will grow up.
(52) The whole house blew up.
(53) My mother freaked out.
The intransitive phrasal verbs given as examples in these sentences clearly
belong to the class by virtue of their idiomatic meaning. But intransitive
constructions of the kind He went away will also be regarded as phrasal
verbs in this study, although viewing these intransitive non-idiomatic cases
in isolation one could argue in favour of an analysis as verbs with adverbial
complements rather than phrasal verbs, where the particle away would be
analysed analogous to to the National Gallery in He went to the National
Gallery; cf. Knigs (1973: 9.1.2) examination of the fuzzy distinction
between verb particle and directional adverb. Studies of the phrasal verb
are often remarkably reluctant to discuss this issue, which is frequently
decided on by fiat. But although an exclusion of this type can make sense
from a syntactic point of view, a study with a focus on the phrasal verb
(and in particular one concerned with the history of the construction)
should, to my mind, include this type, also because it provides the diachronic input to the development of aspectual and idiomatic meanings.
With transitive phrasal verbs, if the object is a full noun phrase the object may come either before the particle, as in examples (54)(56), or after
the particle,1 as in examples (57)(59) (i.e. joined vs. split order in terms
1
Note that this and similar statements are used here only as convenient
descriptions of the order of the elements, which are handier to use than, e.g.,
22
of Lohse, Hawkins & Wasow 2004; other current designations include

continuous vs. discontinuous order, but also less readily intelligible distinctions like construction0 vs. construction1 used by Gries 2003).
(54) I can put out the announcement.G0P_253 (BNC)
(55) They never blew up the houses.ANU_761 (BNC)
(56) He had left out Peter.
(57) I can put the announcement out.
(58) They never blew the houses up.
(59) He had left Peter out.
However, if the object is a pronoun, it will normally precede the particle:
(60) I put it out.
(61) They blew them up.
(62) he had left him out H9D_3243 (BNC)
(63) *I put out it.
(64) *They blew up it.
(65) *He had left out him.
It seems that the position of the object is connected to a number of factors,
including its weight. Thus Quirk et al. (1985: 1154) state that the particle
tends to precede the object if the object is long, or if the intention is that the
object should receive end-focus; cf. the following examples (based on
Jackendoff 2002):
(66) Lila looked up the answer to the question that was on everyones
mind.
the order may be V O prt or V prt O. They are not meant, however, as a
commitment to what constitutes the normal or the underlying order, let
alone an implicit commitment as to whether it is the particle or the object that
moves; i.e. in the present context the statement that the particle may precede
the object and the statement that the object may follow the particle are
interchangeable.
23
(67) *Lila looked the answer to the question that was on everyones mind
up.
(68) Lila looked it up.
(69) *Lila looked up it.2
(70) He left out hm (not hr).
The position of the objects in the example (5) above and in similar
instances can thus be accounted for in principle; a more precise description
of the factors governing the choice between the two positional variants is,
however, considerably more intricate in detail and no analysis has so far
gained general acceptance. Generative approaches in particular have been
very much concerned with accounting for the serialization alternatives typical of the transitive construction and there the issue, being a major
touchstone for theory-internal skirmishes, seems far from resolved (cf. e.g.
Deh 2002 or Farrell 2005). Among the detailed studies devoted to the
subject of particle placement in present-day English, Deh (2002) argues
that the neutral order is verb-particle-object and that the choice of one
order rather than the other depends on the news value (Deh 2002: 77) of
the object, while Gries (2003) describes particle placement as a constructional alternation which depends on a number of variables and which can
be explained by a statistical multifactorial analysis of these variables. Gries
in particular provides an exhaustive list of the criteria suggested so far in
the literature; but cf. also Cappelle (2009), who argues in favour of a free
variation in an allostructional analysis (see Section 2.6 below). Moreover,
prepositional complements may not intervene between the verb and the
particle, thus:
(71) Sim ran away to the city.
(72) Please look out for Harry.
(73) Jill grew up into a strong woman.
(74) *Sim ran to the city away.
(75) *Please look for Harry out.
(76) *Jill grew into a strong woman up.
2
This is a possible construct, but not in the intended sense; cf. Section 2.3.2
below.
24
This remains true in nominalisations (cf. Section 2.4 below): phrasal verbs
can be nominalised, but in nominalisations, a prepositional complement
always follows the particle, thus: The rapid looking up of the information
is important or The prompt sending out of the reports is commendable, but
not *The rapid looking of the information up is important and *The prompt
sending of the reports out is important; although of-NP is the counterpart
of the direct objects in such nominals, it behaves as a PP with respect to
particle position, just the way it looks (Jackendoff 2002: 72).
An adverbial modifier like right or completely can precede the particle.
However, this is only possible if the particle follows the object (see
Jackendoff 2002: 7073 for more examples and for a more detailed discussion), e.g.:
(77) Ill look the answer right up.
(78) Please shut the gas completely off.
(79) *Ill look right up the answer.
(80) *Please shut completely off the gas.
Other syntactic characteristics are noticeably tied to the semantic makeup of the verb-particle combination and involve fronting of the particle and
growing rigidity of word-order. Thus the particle may immediately precede
the verb, as in (81); cf. also (9) above.
(81) A tap is turned, a pressure of 120 pounds per square inch applied to
the piston, and up goes the end of the coach as easily as though it
were a dolls house.B2S_161 (BNC)
In such sentences with a fronted particle, the subject follows the verb if it is
a full noun phrase. This is one of the noticeable exceptions from subjectverb order in declarative sentences in present-day English. If the subject is
a pronoun, though, it will immediately precede the verb:
(82)
(and ) up it goes.
But fronting of the particle is of course only possible in compositional

combinations with a directional particle.
Just as the placing of heavy noun phrases is evocative of the Law of
Growing Members, the occurrence of other positional variants could be
characterized as predictable from Behaghels First Law, since in these cases
growing semantic compositionality goes along with syntactic adjacency
25
(Behaghel 1909, 1930 and 1932: 1426). Quite clearly in many cases the
syntactic properties depend on the semantics of the phrasal verb. Cappelle
(2009) argues that apparently the degree of lexicalization plays a role in the
choice between joined and split order, with a tendency for ad hoc formations to appear in split order, while idiomatic combinations show a clear
tendency to appear in joined order. But this tendency is mainly a correlation
between idiomatic combinations and joined order, while there is no comparably strong correlation between compositional combinations and split
order (cf. Lohse, Hawkins & Wasow 2004: 256).
On the whole, the positional variability of verb and particle decreases
with the degree of idiomatization, both absolutely, as in the case of particle
fronting, and relatively, as with respect to the alternative between joined
and split order. Some phrasal verbs only allow one sequence of elements,
especially in those cases where the phrasal verb and the object form an
idiomatic phrase. Thus in give up hope the particle normally precedes hope
as in (83), while the acceptability of (84) is highly doubtful; conversely, in
laugh ones head off the particle will be placed in final position as in (85),
while the order in (86) is again highly doubtful:
(83) By the time I had almost given up hope, a telegram arrived.G3B_1882
(BNC)
(84) ??By the time I had almost given hope up, a telegram arrived.
(85) By this time Irene was emitting a steady gurgle of contentment, when
she wasnt laughing her head off.FYV_985 (BNC)
(86) ??By this time Irene was emitting a steady gurgle of contentment,
when she wasnt laughing off her head.
This is confirmed by a search of the BNC, where sequences as in (84) and
(86) are not attested (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 16.4n. for more examples).
Other idiomatic phrases contain passive phrasal verbs and occur in the
passive only, e.g. fed up with something:
(87) Im convinced half of them dont actually open, theyre just designed
as offensive weapons for use by psychopaths fed up with not getting
a seat on the tube.HWL_938 (BNC)
There is nothing particularly remarkable about this: syntactic restrictions
are a well-known property of idioms (cf. e.g. Burger 2007: 1632), which
can be observed here in idioms containing phrasal verbs.
26
2.3.2. Particles and prepositions

A distinction between phrasal, prepositional and phrasal-prepositional
verbs was first suggested by T.F. Mitchell (1958) and has since found its
way into many reference accounts of English; for a fuller description see
e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: Ch. 16), Biber et al. (1999: Ch. 5) and Huddleston
& Pullum (2002: Ch. 4; but note that the classification there diverges
considerably from other reference grammars). The discussion in Quirk et
al. (1985: 16) is somewhat diffuse and fails to provide a coherent
syntactic analysis, but it is quite valuable as a repository of examples (cf.
the critical evaluation by Mahler 2002, with further references, and the
arguments put forward against prepositional verbs by Klotz 2000: 5360).
Here prepositional verbs will not be treated as a sub-category of phrasal
verbs. This conflation is sometimes encountered in English linguistics and
lexicography, where one can find a distinction between phrasal verbs with
prepositions (i.e. prepositional verbs) and phrasal verbs with adverbs (i.e.
phrasal verbs). Nevertheless a comparison of the phrasal verbs with the
prepositional verbs serves to illustrate their specific syntactic properties. At
first sight the underlined strings in the following sentences may seem to be
quite similar:
(88) The following day the then Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi,
called on the King and they exchanged views on bilateral matters.HKS_3008 (BNC)
(89) The silence returned, and he switched on the light.CKB_368 (BNC)
However, a closer look reveals that the two examples contain constructions
which differ considerably. In (88), on is a preposition and may be analysed
as part of a prepositional verb call on (but see the caveat below). In (89), on
is a particle that belongs to a phrasal verb switch on.
The differences are highlighted by a number of well-known contrasts
exemplified in Table 2-1. The prepositional verb may be analysed either as
She looked at the book or as She looked at the book some of the permutations in the table above could be taken to support the first analysis, others
to support the second. However, in either case (and in the first case it might
be advisable to abandon the term prepositional verb altogether), at would
be analysed as a preposition. But the particle of the phrasal verb is clearly
distinct from a preposition, despite similarities as in a. and b.; the positional
characteristics illustrated in c. to f. have already been discussed above.
27
Table 2-1. Phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs compared

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
phrasal verb
She looked up the number.
( the number) which she looked up
*She looked carefully up the number.
She looked the number up.
She looked it up.
*She looked up it.
*( the number) up which she looked
*It was up the number that she looked.
Which number did she look p?
prepositional verb
She looked at the book.
( the book) which she looked at
She looked carefully at the book.
*She looked the book at.
*She looked it at.
She looked at it.
( the book) at which she looked
It was at the book that she looked.
Which book did she lok at?
The differences in g. and h., involving pied-piping and clefting, are noteworthy since they provide further evidence that the particle and the object
do not form a prepositional phrase. Prosodic evidence for this is added in i.:
prepositions are normally unstressed, except for contrast. On the basis of
these differences, tests for the distinction between phrasal and prepositional
verbs can be established (see, e.g., Quirk et al. 1985: 16.16). Thus He
turned on his supporters can be read as either containing a phrasal verb
excite or a prepositional verb attack (Quirk et al. 1985: 16.6 note a.):
(90) He trned n his supprters.
He excited his supporters.
(91) He trned on his supprters.
He attacked his supporters.
The prosodic differences indicated by the acute accents show that turn on
excite in example (90) is a phrasal verb, while turn on attack in (91) is a
prepositional verb; the syntactic properties of each are according to the
respective options which are set out in Table 2-1.
At this point a brief note on terminology seems appropriate. It has been
variously suggested analysing the particles of phrasal verbs as intransitive
prepositions (cf. e.g. Aarts 1997: Ch. 9), and this notion has found its way
into Huddleston & Pullums grammar (2002), where one particularly unfortunate choice of both terminology and analysis can be found. The
authors first abolish the term phrasal verb (as applied to both phrasal and
prepositional verbs), pointing out that they do not form syntactic constituents belonging to the category verb (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 274),
only to introduce a new category verb-particle-object construction, viz.
transitive compositional phrasal verbs. Intransitive compositional phrasal
28
verbs are categorized by them as verbs with intransitive prepositions.

Both categories may then be lexicalised as verbal idioms containing intransitive prepositions (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: Ch. 4, 6.3), a term
which is also meant to include combinations with aspectualizing particles.
But these can hardly said to be always lexicalized and the analysis of their
particles as prepositions would be in need of further explanation. The
whole analysis follows from the authors determination to apply the concept of intransitive preposition to the analysis of English (Ch. 7, 2.4),
which in this case at least results in an extremely unwieldy classification.
But such analyses entirely fail to account for the syntactic differences
exemplified in the present section; cf. e.g. Standops (1999: 253) critique of
Aarts proposals (1997: Ch. 9). The most detailed discussion of the issue is
by Cappelle (2005; see also 2004), who reaches the following conclusion:
(i) particles have different distributional properties from PPs, (ii) they
cannot be simply analysed as reduced PPs, and (iii) they do not always
have the same meaning as formally related directional PPs. Calling them
prepositions blinds us to these facts (Cappelle 2005: 101). All in all there
is little benefit to be derived from replacing the term particle by intransitive
preposition, especially from a historical point of view (cf. the discussion in
Chapter 3 below) and consequently the term will not be used in the following. Similarly, approaches will be discounted here which further do
away with phrasal verbs by postulating the existence of small clauses (as in
den Dikken 1995 and Svenonius 1994, besides Aarts 1989 and 1992); cf.
the arguments against a small clause analysis in Booij (1990).
2.3.3. Phrasal-prepositional verbs
Phrasal-prepositional verbs are phrasal verbs with prepositional complements. Normally the term is reserved for constructions showing a certain
degree of idiomaticity, e.g.:
(92) English winemakers are always having to put up with this kind of
jibe, despite possessing a viticultural heritage which dates back to the
Romans.ECT_3201 (BNC)
(93) Ruth had called to see Mrs Johnson, looked in on one or two of the
other neighbours, and was halfway up the hill to the churchyard
before Maria caught up with her.CB5_1015 (BNC)
29
Like the simple prepositional verbs, the phrasal-prepositional verbs can

form a passive (although the acceptability of sentences containing such
passives may vary):
(94) On the other hand, public relations is often looked down on by the
media as messengers with stories that hold no interest and which will
be presented in the wrong way at the wrong time and in the wrong
situation.EVF_1281 (BNC)
(95) There is, however, a widespread opinion that this is not the case, and
that illness in old age is just one of those things to be put up
with.B01_688 (BNC)
In prepositional passives, the subject corresponds to the prepositional
object in the active sentence (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 16.9 and Huddleston
& Pullum 2002: 6.3.2) and phrasal-prepositional verbs will normally
show preposition stranding as in (94) and (95). This is also true of relative
constructions:
(96) He said it as if books were some terrible bore which everybody had
to put up with but which werent of the slightest use.B0U_1411 (BNC)
Like the simple phrasal verbs, some phrasal-prepositional verbs take a
direct object, e.g.:
(97) Could the real purpose of Sandras visit to the doctors be to fix her
up with contraception?ANY_196 (BNC)
(98) So let me in on the secret.G1S_346 (BNC)
These transitive phrasal-prepositional verbs cannot occur in the prepositional passive (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 6.3.2), but passives where
the direct object in the active sentence corresponds to the subject in the passive sentence are possible, as in (99); in (100) the corresponding active
construction is given, in (101) an example attested in the BNC:
(99) John was astounded to learn Carol had entered him in the competition only mum Linda was let in on the secret.K4C_724 (BNC)
(100) ( she) had let mum Linda in on the secret.
(101) There was no way I was going to let my children in on this
one.CB8_1127 (BNC)
30
2.4.
This section concludes the basic descriptive overview of the present-day

English phrasal verb and points to a number of additional peculiarities
which will be relevant in the further discussion.
2.4.1. Cranberry verbs
Sometimes the verb element of a phrasal verb occurs only as part of that
particular phrasal verb, i.e. there is no corresponding simple verb, e.g.:
(102) To finish the planting scheme, there are tiny species which can eke
out an existence in a teaspoonful of soil.ACY_487 (BNC)
For these (cf. also e.g. mete out or fob off) the term cranberry verbs, in
allusion to the morphological term cranberry morphs (cf. e.g. Fleischer
2000: 893), might be appropriate. Such lexicalised cranberry verbs are
similar to a different type of phrasal verbs, which, however, are typically
fully transparent, e.g.:
(103) At the moment, there is no suggestion, no-one can provide any evidence that Andrew Gilligan has sexed up the story.
(<http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s906996.htm>)
Cf. Section 2.6.1 below for a more detailed discussion of this particular
type of phrasal verb. But although eke out and sex up are similar to each
other with respect to the fact that there are no corresponding simple verbs
*to eke or *to sex (although there is a simple verb sex, this is unlikely to be
the basis of sex up; cf. OED s.v.), they are otherwise different. This difference can be seen in the semantic make-up of such verbs: while the first type
is always lexicalized and semantically opaque, the second type is just the
opposite, since it is typically a transparent derivation.
2.4.2. Nominalisations
Phrasal verbs can be nominalised, but some of these nominalisations seem
quite irregular compared to other word formations in English, and some are
of limited productivity. These are the options (for a phrasal verb V prt with
V verb and prt particle):
V prt
V prter
Ver prt
Ver prter
Ver prterer
prtV
prtVer
Ving prt
31
e.g. drop-in
e.g. drop-inner
e.g. dropper-in
e.g. dropper-inner
e.g. dropper-innerer
e.g. outbreak
e.g. bystander
e.g. dropping in
The formations with -er are, like other deverbal -er suffixations, typically
(but not necessarily) agent nouns, while the suffixless formations are typically (but again not necessarily) action nouns; that is to say, the semantics
of these formations are entirely in line with the semantics of other (nonphrasal) deverbal nominalisations in English. The morphological analysis
of these patterns is open to dispute, and some or even all of them would not
be regarded as nominalisations of phrasal verbs by some authors; cf. the
discussion in Schmid (2005: 128130) and see Marchand (1969) for a
discussion of the various types (which however is scattered throughout the
handbook: 2.352.48 combinations with locative particles as first
elements, 2.49.6 type looker-on, 4.30 -er suffixation, 5.9.1 type
showoff, 5.9.2 type blackout).
The various positions of the suffix -er in the formation of agent nouns is
particularly remarkable; but it is curious that despite the proliferative literature on the phrasal verbs this has rarely been the subject of specialized
studies. Indeed, so far no one has investigated in detail the factors influencing the choice of one of these constructions over the others, nor are the
reasons for the existence of these constructional alternatives entirely clear
(but cf. Chapman 2008 and Denison 2008). Bauer (1983: 288289) summarizes the issue as follows:
There is great difficulty in forming -er subject nominalizations from phrasal
verbs, and there are five competing patterns. The first is to add -er to the verbal
base before the particle, as in dropper-in, finder-out, seer-off. The second, a
very rare one, is to add -er to the particle, as in come-outer. The third is to prepose the particle and add the -er to the verb, as in onlooker The fourth is to
add the -er to both the verb and the particle, as in breaker-inner, cleaner-upper.
The fifth is to omit the particle completely, as in waiter (from to wait on somebody) Of these, the first and fourth tend to feel very clumsy, and as a result
tend to be used mainly in colloquial speech; the second, as I said, is very rare,
because the suffix seems to be added in the wrong place; the third and the fifth
both lose the coherence of the verb + particle unit: in particular the fifth would
probably not be connected with the phrasal verb [I have therefore not included
32

it in the list above; cf. the discussion in Section 2.3.2, ST]. Both the awkwardness of the patterns and the fact that there is such a wide choice of patterns
provide excellent reasons for avoiding the problem if possible, and the conversion option allows the whole problem to be avoided. One result is that the
converted form drop-in sounds less colloquial than the -er form dropper-in.
As Bauers discussion shows, this topic deserves closer examination.

Moreover, in very many cases speakers do not seem to feel comfortable
with any of the alternatives involving -er, as the following example from an
internet chat on the subject of dropping in on people shows:
(104) I think cel [sic] phones have made dropping in obsolete. I always call
first as do all my friends. Even the one friend Ive had for ages who
has always been a dropper-in (drop-inner? dropper-inner?) now
calls first.
(<http://metachat.org/index.php/2008/02/02/do_you_drop_in>)
Perhaps this kind of insecurity reflects the fact that phrasal verbs are at an
interface3 of syntax and morphology, and that they seem to constitute constructional units: with other verbs (simple and compound), suffixes of
deverbal nominalisation are attached4 to the verbal stem, preceding the inflectional ending, and the normal order is lexical stem derivational suffix
inflectional suffix. Thus each such -er-suffixation creates an irregularity:
v-er prt places the derivational suffix in an infixal positional highly uncommon in English (in a purely syntactic analysis, this is, of course, not an
irregularity; but then the alternative positions of the suffix would remain
unaccountable); v prt-er does not attach the deverbal suffix to the verbal
stem; in v-er prt-er, the suffix is both behind the verbal stem and at the
end of the whole verb (i.e. regular), but it also combines both irregularities,
3
4
I take the notion of interface to be merely a convenient metaphor; cf. the

discussion below.
Here and elsewhere this term is meant to refer to linguistic structure and not
to processes, in line with Haspelmaths (2002: 21) caveat: it is often
convenient to describe morphological patterns as if they were the results of
events Linguists use such process terms very often. They talk about
elements being affixed to bases, about a complex word being derived from
(i.e. built on the basis of) a simpler one, or about one affix replacing another
one. It is important to keep in mind that these process terms are purely
metaphorical, and that they do not refer to any actual events or processes.
33
plus an irregular double suffixation. This is even more so the case with
triple -er suffixation, e.g.:
(105) I give up on so many things when theyre not going my way. I am a
giver upperer in the worst way.
(http://birdynumnum.livejournal.com, entry for 2008-04-21)
The other types of nominalisations are likewise subject to restrictions.
The pattern v prt is now restricted to action nouns, where it is quite productive. Otherwise the use of particles in pre-position occurs mainly in
lexicalised formations and in ad hoc formations on the basis of compositional (directional) phrasal verbs, while other present-day English ad hoc
formations will typically show a particle in post-position, as in example
(105); cf. also Section 2.4.4 below.
In the highly regular derivations in -ing and -ed, the suffix is always
attached to the verbal element, e.g.:
(106) This engagement, in the commencement of his second year at the
bar, and the dropping in of occasional fees, must have raised his
hopes; and he now abandoned the scheme of becoming a provincial
barrister.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scott,_1st_Earl_of_Eldon>)
(107) The dropped-in classes then provide any required extra capabilities
and help fulfill at least the first two requirements listed earlier.
(<http://weblogs.java.net/blog/editors/archives/2006/07/middle_of_
the_c.html>)
(108) Believe it or not this is the broken up lathe bed in this wheelbarrel.
(<http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/scrapiron04.html>)
But as example (108) shows it is clearly the past participle form of the
phrasal verb that provides the basis for such word formations, and not a
distinct and fully lexical suffix -ed (in that case we would expect *breaked
up). If the -ing-formations are taken to be similarly based on the -ing form,
then the position of the suffix with -ing- and -ed- formations is not particularly noteworthy and forms like *drop-inning are not to be expected.
34
2.4.3. Other word formations

Phrasal verbs can also be involved in word formations with -able
(and -ability), but again it seems that speakers feel slightly uncomfortable
with such word formations, e.g.:
(109) Going to miss him so much, but were pretty much unbreakupable
(haha) by this point so were sweet.
(<http://oohmamah.livejournal.com>)
(110) What you got with the uber was a sagging, hard to solo on, hard to
cut in a mix (because it has no high mids which is what marshall is
all about), and unbreakupable (new word) bland clean channel.
(<http://acapella.harmony-central.com/archive/index.php/t-1782692.
html>)
But unlike noun formations, such adjective formations never seem to show
final position of the particle, i.e. ??breakableup is quite unlikely. In fact,
not even the depths of the world wide web yielded a single instance of this
and similar constructions.
2.4.4. Prefix verbs and phrasal verbs
The relationship of prefix verbs and phrasal verbs plays a major role in the
discussion of the history of the phrasal verbs (cf. the following chapters). In
present-day English verbal prefixation and the formation of phrasal verbs
are in general separate processes. However, it is worth pointing out that a
number of verbal prefixes are homonymous with particles of phrasal verbs,
and in a few instances the prefix verb and the phrasal verb are synonymous,
e.g.:
(111) His remarks, downplayed by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, provoked an uproar among UK right-wing Conservative
politicians.HLG_1148 (BNC)
(112) In July 1985 two serious disturbances occurred in Handsworth, but
both were played down and went unreported in the media.AS6_303
(BNC)
Very often, however, the prefix verbs will not be replaceable by corresponding phrasal verbs and vice versa, e.g.:
35
(113) Weve just been overcharged for this sandwich.K26_544 (BNC)

(*Weve just been charged over for this sandwich.)
(114) The words came over clearly but cautiously.BNN_60 (BNC)
(*The words overcame clearly but cautiously.)
Note that (111) and (113) are structurally completely equivalent, also with
regard to stress (cf. LPD s.vv. downplay and overcharge, where both are
shown to carry primary stress on the second and secondary stress on the
first element).
It has been argued that verbs labelled prefix verbs in the present
section are instances of verbal compounding (cf. e.g. Marchand 1969: 108
121). Adams (1973: 113127) treats such formations in a chapter on compounds containing particles, but then explicitly labels out- a prefix, while
the status of some elements discussed in that context remains somewhat
vague (see also the more detailed discussion in Schmid 2005: 128130).
Since the first elements in these formations are often semantically clearly
and systematically distinct from the homonymous adverbs and since they
do not normally carry primary stress, they will be regarded here as prefixes
although a clear distinction between compounding and affixation is notoriously difficult to draw (cf. e.g. ten Hacken 2000). Marchand (1969: 108)
claims that on the whole these prefix verbs are not a productive class in
present-day English any longer: With verbs, combinations are no longer
freely possible. But Marchands discussion is not free from inconsistencies. It is hard to see why he treats out-, over- and under- separately as
elements of compound verbs (1969: 96100) while these elements are then
again treated besides down-, in- and up- as instances of what he classifies
as combinations with locative particles as first elements (the other particle
elements after-, back-, by-, forth-, off-, on- and through- do not combine
productively with verbs in present-day English, cf. Marchand 1969: 108
121). Formations with down-, out-, over- and under- are clearly productive
(e.g. downplay, outclass, overcharge, underestimate) and such prefixes are
semantically distinct from the homonymous adverbs, but not necessarily
from the particles of phrasal verbs, as examples (111) and (112) show (cf.
the more detailed discussion of their productivity by Scheible 2005 and
Schrder 2008). Somewhat confusingly, Marchand characterizes the
preparticles in his compound verbs as follows:
Derivatively [!] productive verbal particles, however, are not used with any of
the meanings the particles have as independent adverbs This attitude of the
language towards full words as preverbs is probably one of the reasons why the
types underline and overshadow, where the particle has a locative meaning
36

(weakened as it is) have long ceased to be productive. Another reason is that
locative adverbs have come to be placed after the verb. Even the weakened
locative meaning of the preceding types seems to have made the particle
undesirable for verbal composition. Such a reduction of the full word value
brings the locative particles nearer to prefixes with which they also have the
stress pattern in common. (Marchand 1969: 100)
Bauer (1983) cites outachieve, overachieve, overbook, overeducate and

overmark as [r]ecent examples (Bauer 1983: 208209). Adams (2001:
100109), however, claims that although the group of verbs like, e.g.,
download, upgrade etc. looks deceptively similar, these word formations
are probably best regarded as denominal conversions rather than prefix or
compound formations. Verbal prefixation with up- is decidedly archaic and
does not really seem to exist outside lexicalized formations (e.g. uphold,
uproot, upset), although many formations of this type seem to date from as
late as the 19th century (e.g. upbreak, uplift, uptake; cf. Marchand 1969:
121).
On the whole, however, the formation of prefix verbs with prefixes
homonymous to the particles of the phrasal verbs is a relatively marginal
process in present-day English, especially when compared to the formation
of phrasal verbs, although this finding is easily obscured by the considerable number of lexicalized instances of such prefix verbs.
2.4.5. Group-verbs etc.
It has been variously suggested that the phrasal verbs should be analysed as
a subset of a larger class labelled group verbs or multi-word verbs (classic proposals include Cowie & Mackin 1975 and Vestergaard 1977).
Although it is certainly sensible to study the development of the phrasal
verbs in regard to the development of various kinds of composite predicates
in English,5 it is worth pointing out that the complex verbal constructions
Brinton & Akimoto (1999: 2) distinguish between two main types of

composite predicates, namely phrasal verbs and complex verbs, which are
characterized by a tripartite structure consisting of a verb of general actional
meaning , the indefinite article and a deverbative noun. It is often
observed (following Bolinger 1971: 45) that what these constructions tend to
have in common is their analyticity and semantic spreading, i.e. both syntax
and semantics are unpacked from one into two or more words (cf. e.g.
Brinton 1996, where this is identified as increasing segmentalization). For a
37
Table 2-2. Group-verbs in present-day English (according to Denison 1998: 222)

[Od direct object, Oprep prepositional object, 2nd prt second particle]
Od
Oprep
Label
intransitive phrasal
verb
transitive phrasal verb
prepositional verb
phrasal-prepositional
verb
2nd prt Examples
EAT out, WISE up

CLEAN sth. out, MESS sth.
up
INSIST on sth., DEAL with
sth.
HANG up on sb., GET
away with sth.
TAKE sth. out on sb., PUT
sth. over on sb.
TAKE
sb.
for
sth.,
SUSPECT sb. of sth.
(COME on over, GET back
in)
GET sth. over with, (READ
sth. back out)
variously referred to as group-verbs, complex verbs, multi-word-verbs

etc. constitute a syntactically, semantically and stylistically heterogeneous
group whose members do not have more in common than the fact that they
may be seen as verbal constructs consisting of more than one word (in fact,
for the complex predicates it is indeed not even necessary for any of the
elements to be a verb). This is reflected in the fact that there is no
consensus as to what ought to be included among such a group of verbal
constructions. Let us therefore have a quick look at some classifications of
group-verbs and then turn to the reasons why phrasal verbs will not be
treated as a subset of them in the present study. E.g., Denison (1998: 221)
defines group-verbs as multi-word lexical item[s] with verbal function
and suggests a classification of group-verbs in English as shown in Table
2-2 (cf. also Denison 1981 and 1984). Note that this classification rests
somewhat arbitrarily on syntactic criteria alone (kind of object and number
of particles) and that it excludes some types of constructions others would
discuss under this heading, notably constructions containing light verbs of
the kind have a drink. The numerous problems connected to this
highly critical discussion of the research tradition on group verbs and
related topics, see van Pottelberge (2001).
38
classification will not be discussed here in detail; suffice it to point out that
it is quite dubious whether all these constructions should be identified as
lexical items: e.g., one could argue that suspect someone of something is
not one lexical item, but rather an instance of the lexical item suspect with
the two complements someone and of something, since there are hardly two
different verbs in He suspected murder and in He suspected the gardener of
the murder. On the whole, this chart does little more than to show that
English verbs may be followed by particles, objects and prepositions, and it
confuses the periphrastic word formation observable in the phrasal verbs
(cf. the discussion in Section 2.6 below) with the valency properties of the
prepositional and other verbs listed in the table.
In Claridge (2000: Ch. 3), a sixfold division among multi-word verbs is
drawn: phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs, phrasal-prepositional verbs,
verb-adjective combinations (e.g. break open), verbo-nominal combinations (e.g. take a walk), and verb-verb combinations (e.g. let go). But the
reason for treating them together is based on the mere intuition that these
sub-classes exist and that they must somehow be connected:
I would like to draw attention to a general problem concerning all the categories above It is actually a (vicious?) circle we are moving in: we all know in
some way what, e.g., a phrasal verb is, but a full and theoretically adequate
proof of this intuitive knowledge seems impossible. If in doubt, I will therefore
trust my intuitions more than I will trust any kind of test. (Claridge 2000: 40
41)
The term multi-word verb itself is taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 16)
and it really seems that the ultimate reason for discussing the constructs in
question together is provided by the classification in Quirk et al. (1985), to
which Claridges classification corresponds (cf. also the critique in Section
2.2.2 above). Claridge (2000: 4244) mentions four arguments in favour of
a distinct class of multi-word verbs:
i.
the multi-word verbs are all representative of the analytic trend in English;
ii. they have often been assigned to the idiom section while they should
really be treated as a separate class;
iii. some of them share other features like lexicalization or the development of aspectual meanings;
iv. there are synonymous simple verbs for most multi-word verbs.
But these arguments do not provide a sufficient basis for regarding labels
such as group verbs etc. as more than a convenient shorthand for diverse
constructions which may but need not share a set of common properties.
39
E.g., it is questionable whether come in (e.g. She came in) or let go (e.g.
She let go) are indicative of analytic drift: what would be the more synthetic alternative in Old English? Moreover, it will be shown in Chapters 3
and 5 below that verb-particle combinations could even be regarded as a
first step towards greater syntheticity rather than analyticity. But even if
group verbs were all to be seen as instances of analytic drift, these constructions develop from widely divergent sources, and historical studies in
particular would seem to be well advised to focus on these individually different developments rather than lumping them together on the basis of a
label whose explanatory value is quite dubious (unless one would be prepared to regard drift as an independent force causing linguistic change for
which there is not the slightest evidence). Also, the observation that
constructions are not really idioms cannot possibly be a criterion for establishing a separate class and the logic of this criterion is in fact circular
(multi-word verbs which have been assigned to the idiom section and do
not belong there are, hence, multi-word verbs). Lexicalization is
obviously not a property of the compositional phrasal verbs, and neither is
aspectualization a property of the prepositional verbs. (For a discussion of
the unsuitability of the existence of synonymous simple verbs as a criterion,
see the next section.) The only reason to justify discussing some of these
different verbal constructions together would seem to be a focus on specific
diachronic processes, like e.g. lexicalization or aspectualization, which
characterize some members of each of these construction types (see the
overview provided by Traugott 1999 and the discussion in Chapter 5
below). Moreover, the major common property of the multi-word verbs is
idiomaticity, cf. e.g. the classification in Quirk et al. (1985: 16.2) or also
in Biber et al. (1999: 5.3); this seems to have been first suggested in
Kruisinga (1925) and Poutsma (1926). But proposals to define phrasal
verbs as a subset of multi-word verbs are seriously hampered by the fact
that idiomatic phrasal verbs are just one of the three major semantic categories of phrasal verbs. Synchronically, these share specific syntactic characteristics (cf. the outline above); historically, aspectual and idiomatic phrasal
verbs develop on the basis of the compositional ones (cf. Chapter 5 below).
Here phrasal verbs will therefore be treated independently; the underlying historical processes may be decidedly more diverse than the wholesale
reference to analytic drift and similar notions may imply. Moreover,
except for the prepositional verbs such multi-word-verbs are very common in quite a few synthetic languages, and they exist for example in
Greek and Turkish (cf. also the discussion of preverbs in the agglutinative
Kartvelian and Finno-Ugric languages in Chapter 3 below). One might perhaps best view these constructions as being connected by resemblances
40
which may but need not apply to all of them and which predictably result in
rather divergent classifications.
2.4.6. Replaceability by a simple verb
One criterion that is frequently encountered in characterizations of the
phrasal verbs is their replaceability by a simple synonymous verb. It was
already shown by Bolinger (1971) that this belongs with a number of criteria which are of little or no value for a definition of the phrasal verb. For a
summary of the communis opinio on the etymology and semantics of the
phrasal verbs, cf. e.g. Dixon (1991: 275):
The vast majority of phrasal verbs are based on monosyllabic roots of Germanic origin, almost all belonging to the types MOTION (e.g. bring, carry), REST
(sit, stand), AFFECT (cut, kick, scrape), GIVE (give, get, have), MAKING (make,
let), or the grammatical verbs be and do. The resulting phrasal verbs are distributed over a wider range of types; some of them have quite abstract and
specialised meanings.
McArthur (1992: s.v. phrasal verb) gives examples such as (115) and
(116):
(115) They used up/consumed all the fuel.
(116) The soldiers moved forward/advanced.
In such pairs, the phrasal verbs (here: use up and move forward) are said to
contrast with Latinate simple verbs (here: consume and advance), which are
commonly characterized as more learned and stylistically elevated than
their phrasal counterparts of Germanic origin; cf. Chapter 5 below for a
more detailed discussion of the impact of the etymological provenance of a
simple verb on its selection as part of a phrasal verb. For the time being it
may suffice to point out that the two arbitrarily picked examples from
McArthur (1992) indicate that the story must be more complex than that,
since the four simple verbs use, move, consume and advance are all, in fact,
from French.
It is by no means possible to find synonyms (or near-synonyms) for all
phrasal verbs; as a criterion, this includes both too little and too much, as
Bolinger (1971: 6) observes, who adduces the following counter-examples:
(117) The plane took off.
41
(118) He broke out with a rash.

(119) He hauled off and hit me.
In (117), departed would be too unspecific; in (118), erupted would be
ludicrous; for (119), Bolinger (1971: 6) concludes, there is no synonym
that I am aware of, unless we admit He upped and hit me. Moreover, due
to the replaceability of to eat dinner by to dine, of to make a mistake by to
err etc. this criterion would yield rather undesirable results. Even worse,
and unnoticed by Bolinger, the staple examples for synonymous pairs of
simple and phrasal verbs obscure the fact that simple synonyms are really
the exception rather than the rule for both the compositional and the
aspectual combinations, cf. e.g. an example like (116) above and the
following phrasal verbs:
(120) The soldiers rode forward.
(121) The soldiers pushed forward.
(122) The paper floated down.
(123) We scrambled up.
Perhaps one could come up with synonymous Latinate simple verbs, but
these would be unlikely to be an established part of the English lexicon.
Considering the replaceability of some phrasal verbs by simple Latinate
verbs as a property of the phrasal verbs means putting the cart before the
donkey. Rather, the wealth of synonyms is a characteristic property of the
English lexicon which is ultimately due to the extent of borrowing from
French, Latin and other languages in Middle and Early Modern English and
not a defining property of the phrasal verbs alone (cf. the discussion of this
aspect from a historical point of view in Chapters 5 and 6 below).
Bolinger (1971: 17) also discusses a rather ingenious way of defining
phrasal verbs: Phrasal verbs can be defined by simply listing them, but he
adds immediately: it has never been suggested that such a list might be
exhaustive. For one thing, it is continually being added to. Of course this
observation is simply a consequence of the fact that phrasal verb formation
is a productive process in English (cf. Section 2.6 below), apart from the
obvious difficulty that such a list would also have to be established on the
basis of criteria of some kind (see e.g. the discussion of productivity in
Bauer 2003a: Ch. 5 and the overview in Koefoed & van Marle 2000 and the
references there). I will likewise entirely exclude a discussion of the passivization test, which can be useful in dealing with prepositional verbs, in
42
order to distinguish them from less lexicalized combinations of verb and

prepositional phrase, but with the phrasal verbs, the test hardly does more
to than confirm transitivity, which is not likely to be in doubt (Bolinger
1971: 7).
2.4.7. Variation and style
Variation and style of the phrasal verbs in present-day English have only
rarely been subject to in-depth studies, and it is remarkable that up until
very recently linguistic research has by and large contented itself with reproducing the often impressionistic assessments popularized in style guides
since the beginnings of the 20th century.
Bolinger (1971: 17) finds these British English examples (taken from
Hill 1968) not acceptable in his own American English:
(124) We have a comedian here who takes the Prime Minister off wonderfully.
(125) They became very poor, so they sold out their big house and went to
live in a cheap hotel.
Bolingers observation points to two related aspects: First, phrasal verbs
may have variety-specific properties in different varieties of English (cf.
also Schneider 2004 on the structural nativization of phrasal verbs in world
Englishes). Second, there are phrasal verbs in British English which do not
occur in American English. But it has been suggested repeatedly that the
use of phrasal verbs in British English is somehow due to influence from
American English, cf. e.g. the remarks s.v. phrasal verb by Gower (Fowler
1965) and by Burchfield (Fowler 1996). Such a suggestion may be quite
dubious. Indeed, such an assumed American influence is extremely unlikely before the 20th century, whereas phrasal verbs had been used widely
in British English before that time, and even before the very existence of
the American continent was known to the English (cf. Chapters 3 to 6
below). Thus that presumptive American influence is perhaps better interpreted as concomitant with the notion that phrasal verbs are colloquial,
rather than as a factor in the development of phrasal verbs in British English (cf. the discussion in Chapter 6 below).
In their discussion of phrasal verbs, Quirk et al. (1985) repeatedly point
out their informality, e.g.: phrasal verbs are usually informal ( 16.3).
But among the examples they provide ( 16.34) are go astray, reel back,
touch down (of a plane), or turn on (the light), etc. None of the examples
43
they give seems to be particularly colloquial, nor would such an impression

be supported by a search of the BNC; cf. the following examples:
(126) Blasts from weapons went astray or were turned back to their
sources so that the warlock seemed to be using his/her assailants as
puppets to fight themselves.CM4_2611 (BNC)
(127) The years reeled back, her old saggy breasts seemed to respond and
she crossed the room without realising it, wrapping both her children
in the Chinese spread and taking them into her arms like a mediaeval
St Anne with Virgin and Child.A6J_1431 (BNC)
(128) The plane touched down at Hangchow, where we were exhorted to
eat a rather mediocre dinner at the airport before continuing our
flight.KAL_65 (BNC)
(129) Wandering out again like an unhappy ghost, she went into her workroom, turned on the light and stared at the bench.H9V_2134 (BNC)
In these instances one is reminded of Bolingers discussion of the replaceability of phrasal verbs by synonymous simple verbs (cf. Section 2.4.6
above), which here again would produce semantically or stylistically unsatisfactory results.
This is not to say that the claim that many phrasal verbs in present-day
English tend to be colloquial would be altogether wrong. Quite clearly,
very many of them do belong to the more informal or colloquial registers
of the language, as in the following two examples (see Chapter 6 below for
a critical discussion of colloquiality as a linguistic concept):
(130) I said, Oh for Chrissakes, shut up I know youre trying to be nice
to me and help me, but please dont because youre just giving me a
headache.FR5_2416 (BNC)
(131) But once they were engaged, there was nothing she could do to turn
him on.K54_2040 (BNC)
The view that many phrasal verbs in present-day English tend to be colloquial also seems to be supported by the figures for their occurrences in
the four registers conversation, fiction, news, and academic prose
given in Biber et al. (1999):
The distribution patterns of phrasal verbs closely matches that for lexical verbs
generally except that academic prose has fewer than would be expected.
Thus, rather than being a marked feature of conversation, phrasal verbs are
44

notably rare in academic prose. In their place, academic prose shows a much
greater reliance on derived verbs and more specialized verbs generally. (Biber
et al. 1999: 409)
And similarly for the most common phrasal verbs:

Overall, conversation and fiction show much greater use of the most common
phrasal verbs than news and academic prose. The difference is especially noteworthy for intransitive phrasal verbs, which are extremely common in conversation and fiction, but extremely rare in news and academic prose. One reason
for this is that most phrasal verbs are colloquial in tone. (Biber et al. 1999: 409)
But a closer look at Table 5.14 in Biber et al. (1999), which provides an
overview of the most common phrasal verbs in the four registers, raises the
question whether it is always colloquiality that accounts for the relative
lack of phrasal verbs in academic prose and of the most common phrasal
verbs in both news and academic prose (since Biber et al. 1999 visualize
their findings with dots and beams only, it is not possible to reproduce their
exact figures). One reason why, for example, get up or sit down are much
more frequent in conversation and fiction than in news and academic prose
is clearly to do with their meaning and not with their colloquiality, since
academic texts referring to people getting up or sitting down will predictably be rather rare. This seems also corroborated by the inverse observation
that make up and carry out are much more frequent in news and academic
prose than in conversation and fiction: the occurrence of these phrasal verbs
is clearly determined by subject matter (carry out an experiment etc.), not
by style. Among the frequent phrasal verbs, take up, take on, look up, set
up, take off, take over and turn out are also relatively rare in conversation.
If these were colloquial phrasal verbs, one could expect them to be frequent rather than infrequent in conversation. With others, e.g. shut up or
come on, the connection to colloquiality is more plausible. But with very
many of the remaining ones, the figures are quite inconclusive. Thus find
out is just as frequent as give up in the news register, but much more
common in the conversation register; this may but need not point to a stylistic difference. More importantly, the overall infrequency especially of the
intransitive phrasal verbs in academic prose need not be connected to their
avoidance as being colloquial, but rather with the preference of formal
Latinate verbs, and this would not necessarily entail the conclusion that the
phrasal verbs are informal. The question whether these frequencies in
present-day English have anything at all to do with colloquiality will be
addressed in the historical discussion in Chapter 6 below.
45
In many instances phrasal verbs are stylistically neutral, as is the case in

very many of the examples given so far: turn on the light or look up a word
in the dictionary can by no stretch of the imagination be labelled informal. In some cases they may even be distinctly formal, like call forth in
the following example:
(132) Each of these is lexically distinct, in that it has, for instance, different
typical contrasts (e.g. long-sleeved for (a) and nude for (b)), and the
two readings are called forth by different types of context.FAC_876
(BNC)
Marks (2005c) concludes rather sensibly from a lexicographers perspective: Some phrasal verbs are informal, and some are formal, but most are
neutral; in this respect they are not different from other categories of
vocabulary. Both the characterisation of phrasal verbs as colloquial and
the claim that they can be substituted by (typically more formal) simple
verbs at best only describe tendencies, which are far from being unequivocal defining properties.
2.5.
Particle verbs in other present-day Germanic languages
In all present-day Germanic languages there are verb-particle constructions

which are very similar to the English phrasal verbs, cf. the following
examples (objects are underlined):
(133) Swedish (Braunmller 1999: 65)
Vi mlade ver tapeten med grn frg.
We painted over the wallpaper with green paint.
(134) Danish (Braunmller 1999: 65)
Vi malede tapetet over med grn farve.
We painted the wallpaper over with green paint.
(135) Norwegian (Askedal 1994: 262)
Boka kjem ut i neste veke.
The book comes out next week.
(136) Icelandic (Thrinsson 1994: 175)
Fjldi manns tk bkurnar fram.
Many people took the books out.
46
(137) Faroese (Barnes & Weyhe 1994: 211)

Hann las brvid upp.
He read the letter out.
(138) Dutch (Booij 2002b: 21)
Hans belde zijn moeder op.
Hans rang his mother up.
(139) West Frisian (Hoekstra 2001: 93)
De plysie siket it hs troch.
The police search the house through.
(140) German
Iss die Qualle auf.
Eat the jellyfish up.
(141) Yiddish (Jacobs, Prince & van der Auwera 1994: 407)
Ikh heyb on.
I heave on (i.e. start).
The similarities are quite striking and point to their shared historical origins
which will be discussed in detail in the historical account in Chapter 3.
From a contrastive point of view, there are such remarkable parallels in
principle on the one side and variation in detail on the other. Let us therefore have a brief exemplary look at the major parallels and discrepancies in
order to place the English construction within its wider Germanic context.
The discussion in this section is restricted to the standard varieties of the
languages in question; Luxembourgeois and Pennsylvania German will not
be discussed here, but the general observations in this section also apply to
these two languages.
The three main semantic types of phrasal verbs discussed above for
English (i.e. compositional, aspectual and idiomatic combinations) may
indeed be found in each of the present-day Germanic languages, as
examples (133)(141) indicate. Although the examples are restricted to one
per language, every present-day Germanic language has all three semantic
types (cf. e.g. the contributions in Knig & van der Auwera 1994). Thus
example (136) from Icelandic is compositional, with the corresponding
English gloss take out, while example (140) from German is aspectual,
again with the corresponding English gloss eat up. Example (141) from
Yiddish is idiomatic and would yield a literal translation *heave on. For a
semantic account of the particles in one Germanic language, see e.g. the
description of German separable prefixes in Fleischer & Barz (1995:
5.3.3.3).
47
2.5.1. Basic word order

As regards element order, there is significant variation among the Germanic
languages, both with respect to the relative order of verb and particle and
with respect to the relative order of the particle and an object. Quite clearly,
though, in all the Germanic languages the relative order of verb and particle
is connected to the basic word order (cf. Holmberg & Rijkhoff 1998). Discussing basic word order is beset with pitfalls, since any statement depends
on what elements are seen as constitutive of word order, in what kind of
clauses, and on the basis of what kind of theoretical framework, so that a
simple collection of descriptive data for different languages can turn into a
lengthy journey. To take one example, reference grammars of Modern
German (e.g. Eisenberg 2006, Engel 1988, Helbig & Buscha 2001, Sitta
1998) describe the position of elements in the clause primarily with respect
to the sentence brace, which in declarative main clauses with a finite main
verb and a separable prefix (i.e. a verb particle) is established by the verb
and the particle; i.e., these grammars do not explicitly describe the position
of the particle in such clauses, but rather the position of all other elements
relative to verb and particle (for contrastive and typological discussions of
the sentence brace, word order and particle verbs in present-day German,
see the contributions in Lang & Zifonun 1996, with further references).
The brief discussion here focuses on the position of the verb in declarative main and subordinate clauses, especially with regard to the V-2
phenomenon; cf. e.g. Harbert (2007: 398): the V-2 phenomenon is the
requirement, apparently holding under at least some circumstances in all of
the GMC [viz. Germanic] languages, that the final verb of the clause be no
further from the beginning of the clause than second position (not counting
conjunctions). Holmberg & Rijkhoff (1998: 79) characterize V-2 as
perhaps the most salient special feature of the Germanic languages,
distinguishing Germanic from all the other modern European languages.
Among the present-day Germanic languages, Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian and
German may be characterized as V-2/V-F, i.e. (leaving aside the details of
the sentence brace and various exceptions, which, however, do not affect
the validity of the general distinction) in declarative main clauses the finite
verb is in second position (V-2), but in subordinate clauses the verb is in
final position (V-F). The other Germanic languages may be characterized
as V-2 or V-3, i.e. the finite verb either must follow the first element
immediately (V-2), or there may be another intervening element (V-3). The
Continental West Germanic languages (i.e. all except for English) are often
labelled OV languages (since they have the order object-verb in all
clauses not affected by the V-2 rule), while English and the Scandinavian
48
languages may be labelled VO languages (since practically all main and

subordinate clauses only have the order verb-object; for Yiddish, cf. fn. 6
below). As is well-known, English is rather strictly V-3 and SVO (i.e. the
verb may normally be preceded only by the subject and by an additional
adverbial: the verb may be the second or the third element, but it must follow the subject, and consequently English is the only Germanic language
without pervasive V-2); the Scandinavian languages, though, are normally
V-2 (i.e. the subject need not precede the verb, but the verb must not be
preceded by more than one element: the verb must be the second element;
but subordinate clauses tend to be V-3; cf. Askedal 2005). But the topic is
rather intricate in detail and, as Harbert (2007: 398) points out, has been
treated as the central problem of GMC syntax in recent years, and its
analysis has been the subject of a vast literature; cf. e.g. Askedal (1995),
Braunmller (1982 and 1999), Knig & van der Auwera (1994) and Harbert (2007: 398415).
2.5.2. Particle position
In those languages where the word order is strictly VO (V-2 or V-3), the
particle will normally follow the verb, while in the languages with a mixed
VO/OV (V-2/V-F) order, the particle will precede its verb in final position
but follow its verb in non-final position. By inference, one way of summarizing the positional properties of the particles in all Germanic languages
could be to observe that the particle will normally precede its verb when it
is final, but follow the verb in all other cases.6
Thus Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian and German show preverbal position of
the particle in subordinate clauses and, more generally, wherever the verb is
clause-final; cf. the following examples from Afrikaans (i) and their German equivalents (ii):
6
One exception to this appealingly simple rule (which, it should be stressed, is

an observation and not an explanation), can be found in Yiddish, where we
find sentences such as Er vet avek-ikn dem briv He will off-send the letter
(but Er ikt avek dem briv He sends off the letter; examples from Jacobs
2005: 239, following den Besten & Moed-van Walraven 1986), where the
exceptional order may be interpreted as one of several remnants of earlier
OV. But be that as it may, Yiddish with its rather special history among the
Germanic languages, especially with respect to its contact languages, may be
the exception that proves the rule; cf. e.g. Jacobs, Prince & van der Auwera
(1994) and in particular Jacobs (2005).
(142) i. Ek skakel
ii. Ich schalte
I
turn
49
die lig
nou af.
das Licht jetzt aus.
the light
now
off
Im turning the light off now. 7

(143) i. Ek het vergeet
om
ii. Ich habe vergessen,
I
have forgotten
die lig
af te skakel.
das Licht auszuschalten.
(for)
the light
off-to-turn
I forgot to turn off the light.

(144) i. Ek skal
die lig
afskakel.
ii. Ich werde das Licht ausschalten.
I
will
the light
off-turn
Ill turn off the light.

The traditional term separable prefix verb for the particle verbs in these
languages is rather unfortunate for a number of reasons. These reasons have
been listed succinctly by Booij (2002a and b) for Dutch, but they apply
equally to Afrikaans, Frisian and German: The basic reason why SCVs
[viz. separable complex verbs, which include particle verbs] have to be
considered as word combinations, and not as prefixed words, is that they
are separable (Booij 2002a: 206). By the same token, Mahlers (2002)
proposal to analyse the particles as affixes (prefixes in Old English and suffixes in Modern English) should be treated with a good degree of caution,
especially since his evocation of functionalist principles is, to my mind, not
a satisfactory argument in favour of adding to the great terminological confusion by labelling an element which may stand separated before or after
the verb as prefix, a term commonly (and sensibly) reserved to bound
morphemes in pre-position (cf. e.g. the definition by Marchand 1969:
3.1.2.1). Mahlers (2002: 527) claim that particle verbs consist of a free
lexical morpheme and a bound derivational morpheme is not only empirically dubious (e.g. eke out, come in: eke is not free, and in is not bound) but
also methodologically: For one thing, it is not sufficiently justified by the
observation that prefix is a functional and particle a structural term so
that the derivational function of affixes can be structurally realized by particles since it does not follow from this that the function of a particle needs
to be prefix. It also introduces implicitly the assumption that tmesis is a
7
The Afrikaans examples are from Donaldson (1993: 374), their German
translations are mine; note the partly different orthographic conventions in the
two languages when the particle precedes the verb. For parallel examples
from Frisian, see e.g. Tiersma (1985: 109).
50
historical process operating on verbs and their prefixes rejected in IndoEuropean linguistics for the same reason: prefixes develop out of particles,
not vice versa (cf. e.g. Baldi 1979 and the relevant studies discussed in
Chapter 3 below, especially Kuryowicz 1964: 171 and the overview in
Fritz 2005: 2235). In the Germanic languages, the particle in preverbal
position differs from an inseparable prefix in that it is stressed; also, the
infinitival particle TO and the past participle prefix GE-8 stand between the
particle and the verb. This order is a further strong argument against
analysing the particles of the separable prefix verbs as prefixes since the
normal order of affixes in any kind of derivation is inflectional prefixes
derivational prefixes root derivational suffixes inflectional suffixes;
derivation creates lexemes, inflection creates forms of lexemes, as Booij
(2007: 71) reminds us. Bybee (1985) provides ample cross-linguistic evidence for this observation, which confirms Greenbergs relevant
universalist claim (1966); for a cross-linguistic discussion see also Hall
(2000). Thus we have, for example, two prosodically distinct German verbs
berfahren pass over, traverse as in (145) with a separable prefix, i.e. a
verb-particle construction, and berfahren to run someone down (with a
car, bike etc.) as in (146) with an inseparable prefix, with different meaning and syntax:
(145) Er hat versucht, frh berzufahren.
he
has tried
early over-to-drive
He tried to pass over early.

(146) Er hat versucht, einen Hund zu berfahren.
he
has tried
dog
to over-drive
He tried to run down a dog.

Likewise, similarly parallel prefix and particle verbs are always possible in
Swedish, where the prefix verbs tend to be figurative, e.g. Skogsarbetarna
brt av alla grenar och kvistar break off (branches and twigs from a tree)
vs. Polisen avbrt diskussionen break off (a discussion) (examples from
Braunmller 1999: 77; cf. also Svenonius 1996: 19 for examples from
Danish and Norwegian). But, again, this corresponds to English and the
other West Germanic languages, where prefix verbs of the type outrun also
exist. Moreover, this is entirely in line with cross-linguistic evidence from
8
The small capital letters here indicate reference to the infinitival particles
cognate to English to and the past participle prefixes cognate to German gein all Germanic languages.
51
non-Indo-European languages, where similar pairings are well-attested (cf.

e.g. the discussion of Georgian preverbs by Harris & Campbell 1995: 95;
for a description of the usage in Swedish and for a comparison between
English and Swedish, see also Lindelf 1935: 258261). Frisian is reported
to prefer verb-particle constructions to inseparable prefix verbs also in
cases where German and Dutch have the latter, e.g. Frisian oerride as in in
hn oer te riden to run down a dog vs. German berfahren as in (146)
above and Dutch overrijden as in een hond to overrijden; cf. Hoekstra
(2001: 93). Theoretical implications of the relation between meaning and
separability are also discussed by van der Auweras (1999), with respect to
verbal prefixation in Dutch.
In English and the North Germanic languages, on the other hand, the
particle always follows the verb, with some minor exceptions like the
fronting of particles discussed above, cf. examples (9), (81) and (82) (for
the order of verb and particle in the Scandinavian languages, see examples
(133)(137) above and (148)(153) below). In this respect, word order patterns in these languages are identical. As in all the Germanic languages,
though, (inseparable) prefix verbs may occur, and especially in the Scandinavian group there may be considerable overlap between these and the
particle verbs. Cf. e.g. the Norwegian example (135) from Nynorsk with a
postposed particle and the following synonymous example from Bokml
(Askedal 1994: 262):
(147) Boken
book
utkommer i neste uke.

out-comes
in next week
The book is going to come out next week.

Moreover, there is some remarkable cross-Scandinavian variation with
respect to the order of particle and object. In Norwegian and in Icelandic
the rules are just like the rules in English. Thus we find the familiar English
pattern also in sentences such as (148)(151) from Norwegian (i) and from
Icelandic (ii) (examples (148)(153) are from Svenonius 1996: 1118):
(148) i. Vi kastet
ut
ii. Vi hentum t
we threw
out
hunden.
hundinum.
dog
i. & ii. We threw out the dog.
52
(149) i. Vi kastet
hunden
ut.
ii. Vi hentum hundinum t.
we threw
dog
out
i. & ii. We threw the dog out.

(150) i. Vi kastet
den
ii. Vi hentum honum
we threw
it
ut.
t.
out
i. & ii. We threw it out.

(151) i. *Vi kastet
ut
ii. *Vi hentum t
we
threw
den.
honum.
out it
(Cf. English *We threw out it.)

But in Danish (iii) and Swedish (iv), the positional options are more
restricted; cf. (152) and (153), and also examples (133) and (134) above:
(152) iii. Boris
flyttet
mblene
Boris
moved
furniture
around
numret
upp.
number
up
iv. *Johan skrev

Johan
(153) iii. *Boris

iv. Johan
iii.
iv.
wrote
rundt.
flyttet rundt mblene.

skrev upp
numret.
Boris moved the furniture around.

Johan wrote down the number.
According to Svenonius (1996: 4.3), the rules in Faroese seem to be

similar to those in Danish (but Holmberg & Rijkhoff 1998: 86 state they
are similar to those of Icelandic; considering the genealogical proximity to
Icelandic and the heavy influence from Danish none of these statements
seems implausible, but Faroese positional syntax is not a particularly wellstudied topic, cf. Braunmller 1999: 5.5.1 and in particular Thrinsson et
al. 2004). In Danish only the order objectparticle is possible, but in Swedish only the order particleobject is possible, even in cases where it is not
normally possible in English, cf. the following Swedish examples (from
Holmes & Hinchliffe 1994: 656):
(154) Skriv
write
upp
det!
up
it
Write it down!
(155) Jag
I
ringer upp
dem.
ring
them
up
53
I will ring them up.

(156) Lt
let
mig
stnga
av
me
close
off it
den.
Let me switch it off.

That is to say, the English rule that requires pronoun objects to stand
between the verb and the particle does not exist in Swedish, where the
particle precedes all kinds of objects.
Similarly, the serialization rules in the Continental West Germanic
languages (except for Yiddish, where the straightforward identification as a
West Germanic language is problematic) are not completely alike, despite
the correspondences in principle. For example, a number of serializations in
Dutch (i) are not possible in German (ii) (examples from van der Auwera
1995: 88; cf. there for examples of some further differences):
(157) i. om het boek
for
the book
terug te sturen
back to send
ii. um das Buch zurckzuschicken

for
the book
back-to-send
i. & ii. in order to send back the book

(158) i. om het boek
for
the book
terug te kunnen sturen

back to can
send
om het boek
te
kunnen
terug sturen
for
to
can
back send
the book
ii. um das Buch zurckschicken zu

for
the book
back-to-send
to
knnen
can
i. & ii. in order to be able to send back the book

(159) i. dat ik
that I
hem op
wilde
bellen
him
wanted
ring
up
dat ik
hem wilde
that I
him
ii. dass ich ihn

that I
him
opbellen
wanted
up-ring
anrufen
wollte
on-call
wanted
i. & ii. that I wanted to ring him up

But although these examples may be taken as evidence that the separable
preverbs are less free in German than in Dutch, as van der Auwera (1995:
87) observes, it is worth pointing out that the relative order of verb, particle
54
and object remains predictable from their general positional properties in

Germanic.
To conclude, the verb-particle construction is a common property of the
Germanic languages, with considerable semantic and syntactic correspondences between the different members of the Germanic family: the
semantic and syntactic properties of the English phrasal verbs are in essential aspects identical to those of the particle verbs in the other Germanic
languages. Moreover, as will be argued in Chapter 6 below, their stylistic
properties are likewise very similar. Studies of the English verb-particle
construction would be well advised to bear these observations in mind, and
to distinguish between general Germanic and specific English characteristics of the phrasal verbs. Although this may sound like a complete truism,
very many accounts of the English phrasal verbs are seriously hampered by
the misconception that the phrasal verbs are particularly English. Similarly, Olsen (1997) states:
Alle germanischen Sprachen haben Partikelverben ausgebildet. Insofern stellen
Partikelverben ein gesamtgermanisches Phnomen dar, einzelsprachliche Ausprgungen der Partikelverben drfen daher nicht als eine isolierte Spracherscheinung behandelt werden ein zu eng gefater Blick [kann] gerade in
bezug auf das Englische zu verzerrten Ergebnissen ber das Wesen der
Partikelverben in dieser Sprache verleiten. (Olsen 1997: 45)
[Particle verbs have developed in all Germanic languages. Thus particle verbs
are a common Germanic phenomenon, and the particle verbs in any of these
languages should not be treated as an isolated linguistic characteristic in
particular with respect to English, a focus which is too narrow may lead to distorted results regarding the nature of the particle verbs in the language.]
One striking aspect in this connection is to do with English lexicography. There is a considerable number of specialized dictionaries of phrasal
verbs (cf. Herbst & Klotz 2009; the inverted commas are meant to indicate
that often in these dictionaries the term also covers prepositional verbs and
even other kinds of verbal constructions), usually aimed at learners of
English as a foreign language, most notably vol.1 of Cowie & Mackins
Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English (1975, new ed. 2006 as
Oxford Phrasal Verbs Dictionary for Learners of English), but also e.g.
Meyer (1975), McArthur & Atkins Dictionary of English Phrasal Verbs
and their Idioms (1992), Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary (2000), Macmillan Phrasal Verbs Plus (2005) Cambridge Phrasal Verbs Dictionary
(2006), etc. These dictionaries very much reflect (and promote) the view
that the phrasal verb is a separate and particularly difficult area of the English lexicon, which is quite characteristic of the language. As will be argued
55
below, it is only this kind of evaluation of the construction that is typical of

English, rather than the construction itself (cf. the discussion in Chapters 5
and 6 below). Promoting such a view has, of course, also a commercial
aspect, considering the enormous market for reference tools for English as
a foreign language. But at closer inspection such dictionaries may turn out
to be quite superfluous, since lexicalized phrasal verbs have their place in
the general dictionaries of the language (including learners dictionaries)
there are no comparable dictionaries of particle verbs in the other Germanic
languages, and in none of them this seems to constitute a lexicographic gap.
2.6.
How, then, should the English phrasal verbs best be analysed? In the
remaining part of this chapter it will be argued that an effective approach
for a study like the present one is to treat verb-particle constructions in
English, as in the other Germanic languages, in terms of word formation,
namely as periphrastic word formations, which in a typological and historical perspective form a subset of the widely attested class of complex predicates. This approach has a threefold advantage. The invocation of
periphrasis takes into account the fact that phrasal verbs are not just
words (cf. the discussion of typical and atypical words in Schmid 2005:
2528). This is obvious in English, where it is a minimum requirement for
a phrasal verb that it consists of a verb and a particle, which are always
separated, but it also applies to the other Germanic languages. The
argument is slightly more complex for the present-day Continental West
Germanic languages, where particle verbs may sometimes look like one
word (cf. the examples in the preceding section); but there, too, a good
case can be made against the classification of particle verbs as words (more
precisely: as ordinary word formations), cf. the discussion below.
In the English tradition the syntactic status of the phrasal verbs as colligations has traditionally been stressed (for the use of the Firthian term with
respect to phrasal verbs, see T.F. Mitchell 1958). The semantics of the
phrasal verbs has often been whole-heartedly assigned to the field of idiomaticity (or of phraseology); cf. Sinclairs well-known criticism that the
decoupling of lexis and syntax leads to the creation of a rubbish dump that
is called idiom, phraseology, collocation and the like (Sinclair 1991:
104). The image of the rubbish dump is regularly invoked in corpus- (that
is, electronic corpus-) oriented studies of the phrasal verb, and it usually
leads to some very general kind of statement that phraseology, and hence
the phrasal verbs, are worthy of our linguistic attention, cf. e.g. the
56
introductions (et passim) in Claridge (2000) or Waibel (2007). But

although it is certainly true that phraseology is worthy of linguistic
attention and that discarding the phrasal verbs to the idioms section seems
to have had a rather detrimental effect on their study for long, it might be
more important to point out that the very treatment of phrasal verbs in the
English tradition is based on a complete linguistic and cultural
misperception which stresses the idiosyncrasy and the particular
Englishness of the construction type (see Chapter 6 below), while actually
little of this can be convincingly argued to be the case (cf. the discussion of
the Germanic parallels in Section 2.5 above and in Chapter 3 below; for a
general discussion of the similarities and differences between word
formation and phraseology, see Barz 2007).
Consequently the decision to treat phrasal verbs as periphrastic word
formations also underlines the observation that they are not just idioms.
Rather, both compositional subtypes can be described as absolutely regular
and largely predictable, and they are structurally and semantically quite
comparable to other, indisputable types of word formation. The varying
degrees of schematicity of such morphosyntactically complex structures
indicate different stages in their constructionalization (on phrasal verbs as
constructions, see Section 2.6.4 below). The idiomatic phrasal verbs can
then be regarded as equivalent to other idiomatic instances of word
formation, where non-compositionality is widely encountered in lexicalized
formations. And last, discussing the phrasal verbs as periphrastic word
formations on a par with the particle verbs in the other Germanic languages
opens up comparative and diachronic perspectives which remain closed to
studies stressing their lexical and syntactic idiosyncrasies, in particular with
respect to the long-term development in English, where the conditions in
Old English are quite comparable to those in the present-day West Germanic (OV-) languages; cf. the discussion in the following chapters. In fact,
many issues surrounding the development and the status of the phrasal
verbs in English will turn out to be wild goose chases once the phrasal
verbs are described as more regular and less exotic.
2.6.1. Verbs plus particles?
First let us briefly illustrate why phrasal verbs cannot simply be regarded as
syntactic combinations of verbs and adverbial particles, even if one confines the analysis to present-day English.
Defining the elements of the phrasal verb by referring to their function
within the construction is indispensable if one wishes to account satisfacto-
57
rily for the productivity of the construction. For example, in the following
short text an incident which led to the ad hoc formation of a phrasal verb
terrace out is reported:
(160) On a teacher-training course held by a lakeside a few years ago, the
tutors gathered every evening for beer on a terrace overlooking the
lake. After a few days of this routine, I asked one of my colleagues if
he was coming down to the terrace and he replied Oh, I dont know,
I think Im just about terraced out. (quoted from Marks 2005a)
Claiming that this is a formation of the kind [terrace (lexical verb)] + [out
(particle)] is rather unsatisfactory. It presupposes a lexical verb terrace as
one part of the construction. But such a verb does not exist, nor is it clear
what should be its meaning (there is, in fact, a verb terrace, which, however, cannot provide the basis for this phrasal verb, cf. OED s.v. terrace v.).
In the context of (160) that verb could only be explained as a conversion of
the noun terrace. Thus, in that case one would have to posit a conversion of
the noun terrace into a verb terrace with no clearly identifiable sense
before the formation of the phrasal verb, where the whole ad hoc formation
would adopt a readily intelligible compositional meaning virtually out of
nowhere. It seems considerably more plausible (and, what might be crucial,
more economical) to abandon the idea of a lexical verb terrace as part of
the above construction altogether, and to state that terrace here simply
functions as the verbal element in a verb-particle construction. In other
words, it is a verb only by dint of being part of the phrasal verb.
And terrace out is not an isolated instance, as the following examples
show; here the first two are well established in the language, while the third
is more likely to be a nonce formation:
(161) He completely sexed up his appearance and attitude.
(http://iamboigenius.com/trey-songz-passion-pain-pleasure-albumreview/)
(162) A lot of heavy manual labour and chiropody also happens after
meals, but no one bigs up those connections. (The Observer, 18
September 2011)
(163) Furnitured out : Im absolutely exhausted just now because
weve spent seven hours looking at furniture and household items to
order for the flat.
(http://newtonstheories.blogspot.com/2006/08/furnitured-out.html)
58
Similarly, it doesnt take long to think up contexts for the following, at first
sight slightly absurd, ad hoc formations: I have homered myself up. We
garden-gnomed away. She has happied me in. It comes as no surprise that
it is impossible to give an exhaustive list of the verb elements found in the
phrasal verb: the formation of phrasal verbs is a productive process in
present-day English whose application is not restricted to the word class
verb. Cappelle (2007) has therefore argued that phrasal verbs should
rather not be regarded as simple combinations of verbs and particles and
sums up the issue as follows:
While it is true that phrasal verbs always contain an element capable of carrying verbal inflection, this element need not actually be a verb outside the
combination. Indeed, many phrasal verbs are based on an element from another
word class a noun or an adjective By allowing non-verbs to fill the slot,
the English language sanctions many new creations, some of which are here to
stay while others have a more transient existence. (Cappelle 2007: 43)
Cappelle argues in favour of analysing such phrasal verbs as constructional

idioms (cf. below), and clearly a pattern like [to be _ -ed out] to have had
enough of _ is productive in present-day English, cf. e.g. a sentence like
Im coffeed out I have had enough coffee. It follows from these observations that the elements of the construction are to be defined functionally,
i.e. the verb element of a phrasal verb is whatever may be morphologically marked as finite in the construction, while the verbal status is
conferred through combination with the particle. Thus phrasal verb
formation does not involve the prior conversion of simple words belonging
to other word classes into verbs: functionally speaking, the process in
question here is derivation.
Moreover, there are other aspects which are inconsistent with a syntactic
approach to the phrasal verbs. For example, such an approach leaves completely unspecified what the particle actually is (except for being
indeclinable, which is the defining property of all particles). As an
adverbial complement, its positional properties would be different from all
other such elements in English, so that one would have to posit an adverbial
sub-class particle complement (or the like), which would take us back to
the start. The semantic properties of the particles would be quite different
from other English adverbs. Even in the compositional combinations the
particles are semantically rather abstract and connected to the internal
spatial or temporal constituency of the verbal event (i.e. they indicate
direction or aspect). Nevertheless it seems clear that typically the compositional combinations of directional particles and verbs are more akin to
compounds than to affixations and that we can observe the well known
59
cline from compounding to derivation (as in the clearly derivational function of the particles in certain constructs discussed above) in phrasal verb
formation as well (see Section 2.6.2 below). The common observation that
compositional phrasal verbs can often be replaced by simple verbs is also
of interest here: the meaning encoded by the particles clearly tends to be so
general that it is found incorporated in other, common, simple verbs. And
although non-compositional constructions could be assigned to phraseology
primarily because of their intransparent semantics (which however is also a
common feature of lexicalized word formations), their internal
constituency, which is rule-governed and predictable, would render their
classification as belonging to phraseology rather uncommon. Cf. the
discussion in Barz (2007), or the array of topics covered in Burgers (2007)
introduction to phraseology, where it would be quite difficult to tell where
the phrasal verbs (or, since Burger concentrates on German, the German
particle verbs) could be fitted in.
The claim that particles of phrasal verbs are functionally equivalent to
affixes receives further support from another observation, which has
already been mentioned above (cf. Section 2.4.4): there is a considerable
overlap between the postposed particles in phrasal verbs and a number of
homonymous prefixes in prefix verbs: down, out, over, under and to some
extent also in and up may be synonymous as prefixes and particles (cf. the
examples in 2.4.4). That is to say, seen from a functional perspective, it
may be quite irrelevant whether the particle is preposed (as an affix) or
postposed (in a phrasal verb), and thus it may well be argued that this
remains true in those cases where prefixes identical to the particles do not
exist any longer. The basic processes in question are compounding and
derivation, while the obligatory postposition of separated particles in the
phrasal verbs is the result of long-term changes in English serialization (cf.
the discussion in Chapters 3 and 5 below).
In addition to the derivational function discussed so far, the particles of
phrasal verbs have another property which is commonly associated with
derivational affixes, namely their capacity to effect changes in the transitivity (or rather: the argument structure) of a verb (cf. e.g. Cappelle 2007
and the references given there). This may be seen as a strong argument in
favour of regarding the particles as functionally equivalent to derivational
affixes (cf. Booij 2002ab). If the phrasal verbs are regarded as a kind of
word formation, this is only to be expected, since it is a well known fact
that the valencies of derivations are not necessarily identical to those of
their bases. Cf. e.g. the overview in Haspelmath & Mller-Bardey (2004);
in the present context, their remarks on the general features of valencychanging morphology are of particular interest:
60

Valency-changing categories generally have many of the properties that are
considered as characteristic of derivation they often exhibit formal and
semantic idiosyncrasies and arbitrary restrictions on productivity combinations of the verbal root and the valency-changing morpheme show a tendency
toward lexicalization Finally valency-changing can sometimes be combined
with other word-classes, especially adjectives and nouns. (Haspelmath &
Mller-Bardey 2004: 1139)9
E.g., the verb bark does not select animate objects (i.e. *bark someone is
impossible), while the phrasal verb bark off does, cf. the following
example:10
(164) Could coyotes have come down from the hills and attacked him?
Possibly. But in the past, he and his canine buddy always barked
them off.
(<http://www.stpns.net/view_article.html?articleId=1014871101436
1804>)
The derivational force of the particle in bark off is underlined by a comparison with German, where the phrasal verbs would be translated by an
(inseparable) prefix verb: bellen bark vs. (jemanden) verbellen bark
(someone) off. Similarly, dream (ones life, the day, etc.) away also corresponds to a prefix verb with ver-, while other phrasal verbs correspond to
(separable) prefix verbs in German, e.g.:
(165) He is just slowly dreaming his life away.
(<http://wyrrdkona.blogspot.com/2005/11/death-of-hamster.html>)
9
10
Their explanation for this runs as follows: That valency changing categories
are located more toward the derivational end on the derivational-inflectional
continuum is closely related to their function In Bybees (1985: 13) terms,
valency-changing categories are highly relevant to the verbs meaning, i.e.
their semantic content directly affects the semantic content of the verb stem
Highly relevant meanings like those that change valency are most likely to
be derivational (Haspelmath & Mller-Bardey 2004: 11391140; their
emphasis).
Typical instances of the type of phrasal verbs in question have received a lot
of attention in Construction Grammar (cf. Section 2.6.4 below), while some
generativists would regard [someone off] as a small clause; but cf. e.g. We
danced the night away, where a small clause analysis positing [the night
away] would be decidedly weird, in particular in view of the possibility of We
danced away (all night).
(166) (Wer nach ewiger Jugend strebt,) vertrumt

(who seeks eternal youth)
away-dreams
61
sein Leben.
his life
Whoever seeks eternal youth dreams away his life.

(<http://sprueche.mobi/geburtstag/geburtstagssprueche.php>)
(167) Schmutzige Wsche wirft
dirty
clothes
er
weg.
throws he
away
He throws away dirty clothes.

(<http://www.gezegen.de/Magazin/shortnews/Entertainment/4,4,991
9,Chris-Brown-zieht-taeglich-neue-Unterwaesche-an---SchmutzigeWaesche-wirft-er-weg.htm>)
Characteristically there is no one-to-one correspondence between phrasal
verbs and German (inseparable) prefix verbs. More often than not, phrasal
verbs correspond to separable prefix verbs (i.e. German particle verbs),
while the categorial overlap between the types is illustrated by instances
such as throw away German wegwerfen (particle verb), but also
vergeuden (prefix verb) as in Er vergeudet seine Zeit (Hes throwing away
his time, where a translation with wegwerfen, although conceivable, would
be unidiomatic). Likewise, compare run someone over German
(jemanden) berfahren (prefix verb, inseparable) and take/drive someone
over German (jemanden) berfahren (particle verb, separable). Note that
*run someone is impossible, i.e. again the argument structure of the simple
verb is different from the argument structure of the phrasal verb (and cf. the
parallel behaviour of the prefix verb outrun [someone]).
This is not to claim, however, that particle verbs (and in particular the
English phrasal verbs) are simply a sub-category of ordinary word
formation; quite clearly, phrasal verbs stand at an interface of different linguistic levels and this is why they could be treated from different angles in
the literature syntactic, morphological, lexical, phraseological (cf. Olsen
1997: 47, who points out that since they are accessible to syntactic and
hence non-morphological rules, particle verbs are exceptional words from a
traditional point of view). But there are strong parallels to word formation
processes, and from a historical, from a comparative Germanic and from a
wider cross-linguistic point of view the formation of particle verbs is
inextricably linked to unambiguous types of verbal word formation. Moreover, as a consequence of the functional parallels to word formation the
relationship between verb and particle can be expressed conveniently in
established morphological terms and also without terminological leaps
resulting in diachronic and cross-linguistic pseudo-problems. What is perhaps the most persistent of such problems will be discussed in Chapters 4
62
to 6 below, namely the idea that there is something like a rise of the
phrasal verbs in the Middle English period.
2.6.2. Periphrastic word formation
I will basically follow Booijs suggestion, originally made for Dutch (1990,
2002ab), to regard particle verbs as periphrastic word formations. That the
particles are more or less affixal in nature had already been observed by
Bolinger (1971: 112). But although such an approach has been suggested
repeatedly if at times only implicitly it has never gained wider popularity in English linguistics (but cf. also Kruisinga 1932 and Mahler 2002).
The standard accounts of English word formation usually have very little to
say about the formation of phrasal verbs. Typically, the phrasal verbs are
either tacitly excluded, or their exclusion is explained with reference to the
separation of verb and particle.
Thus Marchand (1969: 3.1.4), in his classic study on word formation
in English, comments briefly on what he describes as the tendency to form
postparticle verbs from the 14th century onwards in his account of verbal
prefixation, but deals only with deverbal nominalisations of the type a
break-up etc. Otherwise he leaves out the formation of phrasal verbs altogether, just like e.g. Koziol (1972), Kastovsky (1982), Bauer (1983), and
more recently Plag (2003) and Schmid (2005). Kastovsky (1982: 70)
excludes the phrasal verbs from his discussion but uses the idiomatic
phrasal verbs as an example in his discussion of formatives, i.e. minimal
formal units which can be isolated on the basis of their syntactic and/or
phonological characteristics but whose meaning cannot be established.
Adams (1973) argues explicitly against including the phrasal verbs into her
study of English word formation:
Phrasal verbs, combinations of verbs and adverbs like to build up, to take over,
and prepositional verbs, combinations of verb and preposition, like to laugh at
are both word-like and phrase-like, and are in fact sometimes called semicompounds, for instance by Kruisinga (1932). Though they often form a
semantic unit, and may be equivalent to a single-verb item their constituents
are interruptible by the inflections of the verb, and in the case of transitive
phrasal verbs, by an object as well. But unlike some other semi-compounds
these verbs are uniform in their syntactic behaviour, and are not subject to
closer unification of their elements with the passage of time. (Adams 1973: 9)
The arguments against the treatment of phrasal words from a word formation perspective rest ultimately on the fact that in English the particles
63
are not adjacent to the verb. E.g. Allerton (2004: 97) finds if they [viz. the
phrasal verbs] did not so clearly consist of two words, they could even be
accommodated quite nicely with compound lexemes. However, this
observation can be easily accommodated if the phrasal verbs are identified
as periphrastic word formations. Periphrasis is a well-known morphological
phenomenon, and once the objection to lexical periphrasis is abandoned,
there is little reason to continue treating phrasal verb formation as outside
the scope of word formation. As Haspelmath (2000: 661) points out, insofar as derivation may also be regular, periphrasis within derivation is
certainly not unimaginable, even though it is not normally called periphrasis (see Haspelmath 2000 on periphrasis in inflection, derivation and
syntax). Similarly, Booij (2010: 21) notes that phrasal constructs may
express morphological properties and presents periphrasis as a major
argument in favour of constructional approaches to morphology (see also
Section 2.6.4 below, but cf. also Mller 2002, 2008 for a critical discussion
of some of the relevant problems with respect to particle verbs in German
and other languages). Strang (1962: 157) observes (in the context of a discussion of the English phrasal and prepositional verbs) that just as we treat
of complex forms in conjugation, we are compelled by lexical and other
evidence to recognise the existence of units, functioning and conjugated as
verbs, consisting of two or three words which may not even always follow one another in unbroken sequence, but does not follow up on this
observation. Booij & van Kemenade (2003) express comparable views in
their discussion of preverbs (cf. also Chapter 3 below), where they observe:
Since PV-V [viz. preverb-verb] combinations express various aspectual
notions, and have gained in frequency at the expense of the older bound aspectual prefixes, we might think of them in terms of a derivational type of
periphrasis. Are we justified in extending the notion of periphrasis to word
formation? Let us point out that, at a more general level, there are good arguments for locating certain syntactic patterns in the lexicon, although they are
productive Periphrasis may then be seen as a specific subcategory of
construction, since the periphrastic forms compete directly with synthetic
morphological forms: they must be used instead of a synthetic form for the
expression of certain kinds of information This is clearly the case for inflectional periphrasis. Is it also the case for PV-Vs: do they compete with
derivational morphology? it appears that preverbs have taken over the function of verbalizing prefixes the development seems to warrant quite clearly
the notion of derivational periphrasis. (Booij & van Kemenade 2003: 78)
Implicitly this has also often been acknowledged in the description of those
Germanic languages where, unlike present-day English, preverbal particles
64
may immediately precede the verb (cf. e.g. Ronneberger-Sibolds 2004

classification of the German particle verbs as word formations). More
explicitly, Fleischer (2000: 892) concludes that the German particle verbs
should be classified on semantic, functional and distributional grounds as
derivations, especially when compared to the prototypical (bound) verbal
prefixes of German. Considering the discussion in the preceding section,
where the structural and semantic parallels of the construction in the different present-day Germanic languages were pointed out, it seems clear that
Fleischers arguments for German are likewise valid for English, especially
his observation that a derivational function is not necessary for all such
particles to render their analysis as word formations plausible. From this
point of view, the particles are strongly reminiscent of affixoids, intermediate between compounding and affixation, long discussed in German
linguistics. In his critical assessment of the term ten Hacken (2000: 355)
lists the following criteria put forward for the identification of an element
as an affixoid: (i) increased productivity, (ii) decreased semantic specificity, (iii) etymological and formal link to an existing free stem. Interestingly, the term has now come to be rather avoided (most notably in
Fleischer & Barz 1995), mainly because it establishes a static synchronic
(pseudo-)category for a diachronic process (i.e. the cline between compounding and affixation). But see e.g. Malkiel (1978) on the overlap
between prefixation and composition from a typological point of view and
cf. the critical assessment in Schmidt (1987) and the discussion by Donalies
(1999): this ties in nicely with the cross-linguistic evidence. From a typological perspective, phrasal verbs are ultimately a subset of the widely,
though not universally, attested class of complex predicates, which have
been discussed both in Indo-European studies and with respect to other,
non-Indo-European languages. Ackerman & Webelhuth (1998) provide a
cross-linguistic categorization of complex predicates as shown in Figure
2-2. They summarize their observations as follows:
several languages possess predicates consisting of a verbal stem and some element which precedes it. The preceding element can be either bound like a
standard prefix (or the first member of a compound) or is separable from the
verbal stem under some syntactic conditions. Despite formal differences concerning separability of the pieces of the compositions, many of the same lexical
semantic, argument valence, case government, and grammatical effects are evident irrespective of the prefixal (compound) or preverbal status of the element
accompanying the verb. That is, in an intuitive sense we are confronted by the
same phenomenon independent of whether we encounter a synthetic or an analytic expression type. (Ackerman & Webelhuth 1998: 13)
65
(complex) predicate
properties
inseparable-particle-predicate
properties
separable-particle-predicate
properties
Figure 2-2. Subtypes of complex predicates (according to Ackerman & Webelhuth 1998: 6)
For a general discussion of complex predicates from a cross-linguistic

perspective, cf. Ackerman & Webelhuth (1998), while Harris & Campbell
(1995: 9296) discuss the typical paths of development of preverbs (the
cross-linguistic and comparative evidence will be discussed in more detail
in Chapter 3 below). More specifically with respect to English, Olsen
(1997) has pointed out that there are two kinds of complex verbs in English
prefix verbs (with real bound prefixes) and particle verbs. The bound
verbal prefixes in present-day English (a-, be-, co-, contra-, counter-, de-,
dis-, en-, fore-, inter-, mal-, mis-, out-, over-, pre-, re-, sub-, trans-, un-,
under-, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: App. I) are treated exhaustively in the
relevant handbooks (cf. the references above and cf. also the historical
discussion in Chapters 4 and 5 below).
In terms of word formation, phrasal verbs can then be analysed as compounds (compositional phrasal verbs: combination of a verb and a spatial
particle), but also as derivations in those cases where the meaning of the
particle is different from the meaning of the free adverb (in particular in
aspectual combinations) or has a clearly derivational function, as in the
examples (160)(163) above. In the non-compositional combinations, the
two elements are formatives of a semantically non-transparent, lexicalised
complex construction.
Sometimes linguistic wheels are reinvented. Carstensen (1964) provides
a reference to a somewhat obscure publication by Shluktenko (1955),
which, originally written in Russian in 1954 and published in a German
translation in the GDR by the Society for German-Soviet Friendship in
1955 has predictably been rather neglected in studies of the English phrasal
verb. Shluktenkos study, it seems to me, could have easily become one of
the classics in the field, had it been published in a more accessible place.
Indeed, some of the issues raised in the article show that Russian scholarship in the 1950s was quite advanced in the discussion of phrasal verbs
66
(Shluktenko inter alia refutes the notions of intransitive prepositions and

of prepositional verbs in English!), and therefore it is worth quoting Carstensens summary and his evaluation of Shluktenkos position at length:
Shluktenko meint, da es sich bei dem von ihm untersuchten Typ to stand
up nicht um Verb+Adverb handele, sondern um eine Zwischenbildung
zwischen Wort und Wortgruppe, fr die O.S. Achmanowa die Termini Wortquivalent und analytisches Wort vorgeschlagen habe. Shluktenko sieht in der
Partikel berhaupt kein unabhngiges Wort, und er hat berzeugend dargestellt,
da diese zweite Komponente des Wortverbandes die Funktion eines wortbildenden Morphems erfllt und dessen abstrakten Charakter besitzt, obwohl ihre
Position nicht immer fest ist. Er stellt berdies eine groe hnlichkeit zwischen
diesen postpositiven Elementen und Prfixen fest, die fr ihn wichtiger ist als
die Unterschiede (die entgegengesetzte Position im Wort und die mgliche
Trennung der Postposition vom Verb). Er nennt unsere Partikel daher ein postpositives Prfix, Teil eines analytischen Wortes, ein Morphem, das
abstrahierte, funktionelle Bedeutung besitzt und das ein Hauptmittel zur interverbalen Wortbildung darstellt Shluktenkos Darstellungen berzeugen sehr,
obwohl es eigenartig anmutet, ein dem Verbum nachgestelltes Morphem als
Prfix zu bezeichnen. Entscheidend ist die berlegung, da es sich um einen
festen Bestandteil des Verbums handelt. Die Frage nach der Wortart ist auch
damit irrelevant geworden. (Carstensen 1964: 327; cf. Shluktenko 1955, in particular 232235)
[According to Shluktenko the type to stand up he has studied is not a verb plus
an adverb, but rather an intermediate formation between a word and a word
group, for which O.S. Achmanowa suggested the terms word equivalent and
analytic word. Shluktenko does not regard the particle as an independent word
at all and he has shown convincingly that this second part of the word combination functions as a derivational morpheme with its abstract character,
although it is not always positionally fixed. He also observes a great similarity
between these postpositional elements and prefixes, which he regards as more
important than their differences (different positions in the word and the separability of the postposition from the verb). He therefore calls our particle a postpositional prefix, a part of an analytic word, a morpheme with abstract,
functional meaning and a major means of interverbal word formation
Shluktenkos account is very convincing, although it appears strange that a
morpheme following a verb should be called a prefix. What is decisive is that it
is considered as an integral part of the verb. This as well renders irrelevant the
question of word class.]
For arguments in support of Carstensens scepticism towards identifying

the particles as prefixes, cf. the terminological discussion above. Also, to
give credit where it is due, T.F. Mitchell (1958: 103) in his influential
article in which he establishes the distinction between phrasal and prepo-
67
sitional verbs points out: It is the word-class approach that explains the
tendency, for example, to regard the particle component of the English
phrasal verb as either preposition or adverb rather than as of one grammatical piece with the verbal component; but Mitchell goes on to analyse the
construction as a colligation on a par with the prepositional verb rather
than, la Shluktenko, as a periphrastic word formation. The present study,
it should be obvious, would reject Mitchells use of colligation (in its
Firthian definition as [m]utual accompaniment of grammatical categories, cf. Mitchell 1958: 103 fn. 3) as a cover term for both phrasal and
prepositional verbs as too diffuse and regard the former in terms of word
formation and the latter in terms of valency.
2.6.3. Further pros and cons
Some arguments against the analysis of phrasal verbs as periphrastic word
formations have been already discussed. It seems to me that the functional
parallels to other verbal word formations and the reference to the possibility
of morphological periphrasis are strong arguments in favour of the view
here suggested.
However, a number of other arguments against considering phrasal
verbs as periphrastic word formations could be put forward, and in the
present section these will be discussed briefly. I will first summarize each
argument and then provide a commentary. The first two arguments are
based on observations on de-phrasal-verbal word formations (cf. Section
2.4 above):
i.
The input to word formation is typically provided by words, not by

phrases. But it may be provided by phrases. Thus de-phrasal-verbal
word formation is not an argument in favour of the status of phrasal
verbs as words (cf. Booij 2002b: 27). It follows that in the present
context this kind of observation is not relevant.
ii. Since internal affixation is normally impossible in English, the occurrence of -er suffixes attached to the verb element and followed by
plural endings may be seen as an indication of the syntactic status of
phrasal verbs, e.g. *hands-bag vs. runners-up (cf. Elenbaas 2007: 17).
But this is only true of nominalisations in -er and -ing (cf. Jespersen
1936: 2.512.52), where the plural -s always follows the derivational suffix (i.e. *runner-ups), irrespective of its position (cf. runuppers, not *runs-upper) while the affixless nominalisations are
entirely regular (i.e. drop-ins, never *drops-in); that is to say, the
grammatical suffix -s immediately follows the last derivational suffix
68
added to the base, as usual in English the comparison to formations

like handbag (but *handsbag) is irrelevant.
Two other arguments to be discussed here are to do with stress and with the
position of morphological heads:
iii. In a typical English compound, the first element is stressed. But in
phrasal verbs, the particle carries stress, and thus the phrasal verbs cannot be word formations (cf. Emonds 1993). This is a schematic
application of Chomsky & Halles (1968) compound stress rule, which
is quite problematic in itself (cf. Olsen 2000: 899900); moreover this
argument tacitly implies that the stress rules of nominal compounds
apply for verbal compounds. But since there are practically no
unambiguous verbal compounds in English which could be used for a
comparison (cf. Marchand 1969: 100), this argument is untenable.
Schmid (2005: 137), in a brief overview of verbal compounding, mentions particle compounds as the only instances: overlook or underline.
Both verbs carry their primary stress on the second element. See also
Plag (2003: 154155), who argues that most formations which look
like verbal compounds are, in fact, back-formations or conversions,
except for copulative verb-verb compounds (e.g. stir-fry), where stress
is often but by no means always on the first element.
iv. As compounds, phrasal verbs would violate the Righthand Head Rule.11
Therefore, they cannot be word formations (cf. Elenbaas 2007: 17); a
stronger version of this claim might be: phrasal verbs do not have a
head at all, and thus they cannot be word formations (cf. Plag 2003:
136). Again, this is a problematic conclusion on the basis of dubious
premises. The Righthand Head Rule is not a universal linguistic law,
but a simple observation and in many languages it does not apply, or at
least not generally since even in the languages where righthand heads
are the rule, there are well-attested exceptions; cf. e.g. Aronoff (2000:
200201), Bauer (2003a: 177182) and Booij (2007: 5355 and 75
78). In the context of the present study, Booijs observations are particularly noteworthy:
11
The Righthand Head Rule dates back in substance at least to Jespersen

(1905), while the term was coined by Williams (1981); see Aronoff (2000),
who also provides a brief discussion of the concept head (and the related
concept feature percolation) in generative morphology. For a highly critical
evaluation of the use of heads in syntactic theory, see Matthews (2007).
69
The generalization expressed by the RHR [viz. Righthand Head Rule] has a
historical explanation. In languages with right-headed phrases, the univerbation of such phrases has lead to the emergence of right-headed compounds. Subsequently, some right constituents of compounds have
developed into suffixes Thus, such suffixes could start functioning as
morphological heads. On the other hand, prefixes often derive from words
functioning as left, non-head constituents of compounds or from preverbal
adverbs. Due to their origin from words in a (morphological or syntactic)
non-head position, such prefixes do not function as heads either. (Booij
2007: 5455)
Ultimately, all such arguments are connected to the basic fact that particle
verbs are phrasal, and quite clearly a purely morphological treatment of
these constructions would be inadequate (put differently, phrasal verbs
violate lexical integrity, i.e. the generative notion that syntactic rules
cannot operate on word formations; cf. e.g. Aronoff 2000: 199200).
2.6.4. Phrasal verbs as constructions
The functional arguments in favour of periphrastic word formation need to
be complemented by an account for their other construction-specific properties, since the word-formational properties of the phrasal verbs do not
account satisfactorily for their characteristic syntactic features. Regarding
the phrasal verbs as (quasi-)word-formational constructions with specific
syntactic features dispenses with the fundamentally fruitless issue whether
they should be assigned to morphology or to syntax; this issue may be
taken to be essentially a reflection of the traditional division of linguistic
subdisciplines, with respective terminologies which are designed for the
discussion of the core phenomena of each such subdiscipline but which
fail in the description of intermediate phenomena.
The traditional notion of construction has come to play a major role in
a number of approaches grouped together rather loosely under the heading
of Construction Grammar. This is not the place for a comprehensive introduction to Construction Grammar, let alone a discussion of the differences
between various constructionist approaches. For a good overview and for
further literature, see the contributions in Fischer & Stefanowitsch (2007),
Stefanowitsch & Fischer (2008) and Lasch & Ziem (2011). For diachronic
Construction Grammar, see Bergs & Diewald (2008) and Trousdale &
Gisborne (2008). Booij (2010) is concerned with Construction Morphology
and includes a discussion of separable complex verbs in Dutch. The
common denominator of the different approaches to Construction Grammar
70
is the basic tenet that linguistic signs, i.e. conventional pairings of form and
meaning, are the central elements of linguistic structure; such pairings are
called constructions. Thus the use of the term concurs with pre-generative
discussions of linguistic structure, most notably perhaps with Pauls views
(see Paul 1995 [1920]: 109 et passim; cf. the discussion in Feilke 2007: 65
66). The question whether a construction belongs with syntax, morphology,
or the lexicon is of secondary importance only, since constructions are seen
along a gradient from the lexical to the syntactic. That is to say, there is no
strict categorial division between lexicon and syntax, but rather one of
degree, which is reflected semantically in a continuum from rich and
specific (lexical) to abstract and general (syntactic) meaning (cf.
Bybee 1985).12 The implications of such a view of language for the description of phrasal verbs become obvious in the definition of constructions
given by Goldberg (1995; see also Goldberg 2006):
Phrasal patterns are considered constructions if something about their form or
meaning is not strictly predictable from the properties of their component parts
or from other constructions. That is, a construction is posited in the grammar if
it can be shown that its meaning and/or its form is not compositionally derived
from other constructions in the language. In addition, expanding the pretheoretical notion of construction somewhat, morphemes are clear instances of
constructions in that they are pairings of meaning and form that are not
predictable from anything else. (Goldberg 1995: 4)
More explicitly Bybee (2010: 77) singles out phrasal verbs as an example
of expressions which follow general grammatical patterns but have
lexicalized conventionalized combinations. Despite theoretical divergences, current Construction Grammar approaches can be characterized as
mono-stratal, non-derivational and non-modular. The insistence on nonderivationality has led Gries (2003) in a study of particle placement to
suggest the classification of joined and split order as two completely different constructions (viz. [V prt NP] and [V NP prt]) rather than one
category verb-particle construction (cf. Gries 2003: 140). From the per12
Construction Grammar thus ties in with other current linguistic trends which
concentrate on intermediate phenomena and processes, in particular the
interest in grammaticalization and lexicalization (cf. e.g. the overview in
Brinton & Traugott 2005, which, despite its title, is an introduction to both
processes) and the strongly increased interest in phraseology (cf. Burger et al.
2007). For a discussion of Construction Grammar vis--vis phraseology, see
Feilke (2007), and of Construction Grammar vis--vis grammaticalization,
see Diewald (2007).
71
spective of Gries study, which focuses on the factors affecting the choice
of one order over the other, this seems to make sense. However, I do not
see how Gries accounts for the fact that the two orders are linked by
affecting the same lexical units, and it does not seem satisfactory to claim
that the sentences John picked up the book and John picked the book up do
not contain the same verb-particle construction; Gries (2003: 141) says so
explicitly. But he restricts the use of this term to particle placement (while
otherwise using the terms phrasal verb and verb phrase, without ever
clearly defining them). In this case one can certainly agree that the two
sentences above contain two different verb-particle constructions, but
who (including generative linguists) would ever have claimed otherwise?
Moreover, Gries somewhat downplays the fact that his multifactorial analysis cannot account for at least about one fifth (cf. Gries 2003: 123) of the
orders in his small sample, i.e. there remains a sizeable portion of instances
where the two orders are in free variation.
Cappelle (2006: 18) has pointed out that the two orders may be seen as
variant structural realizations of a construction which is partially underspecified and suggests analysing the positional alternatives as what he
calls allostructions, obviously in analogy to allophones, -morphs, etc.
Griess approach is, in effect, not too far away from Cappelles, since Gries
in his introduction points out that the alternation is an instance of allosentences, i.e. semantically equivalent but formally and pragmatically
divergent sentence pairs (Gries 2003: 1, with reference to Dane 1964
[1966] and Lambrecht 1994). Cappelle (2006) provides a critical evaluation
of both the generative view (viz. that one order is derived from the other,
cf. e.g. Deh 2002) and the extreme constructionist position (viz. that the
two orders are unrelated constructions, cf. Gries 2003) and argues as
follows:
generative approaches suffer from a rather pointless search for a basic, underlying pattern from which the other pattern is then purported to be derived.
Although the existence of an unmarked pattern and a more marked variant
should certainly not a priori be excluded, there do not seem to be any convincing arguments for considering the continuous order as basic. Even if there were,
there still would not be any cogent (theory-external) grounds for positing a
transformational link between this ordering and the discontinuous ordering
Extreme constructionalism tries to do away with alternations by studying the
constructions linked by any alternation in their own right Just because the
two orderings are not linked by a truly Chomskyan transformation, it does not
necessarily mean that language users are not aware of their relatedness.
(Cappelle 2006: 1112)
72

[VP, trans V {prt} NPdirect O {prt}]
[VP, trans V prt NPdirect O]
[VP, trans V NPdirect O prt]
Figure 2-3. The transitive verb-particle construction with its two allostructions
(according to Cappelle 2006)
Cappelle points out that it seems odd to assign idiomatic expressions like
throw the baby out with the bath water and throw out the baby with the
bath water to two different, and unrelated, constructions (among the other
examples he mentions make {up} ones mind {up}, pull {up} ones socks,
put {out} feelers {out} or turn {back} the clock {back}): the fact that even
such an otherwise fixed idiom has two formal manifestations, or
allostructions , adds weight to the assertion that acknowledging a link
between, in this case, the V Prt NP ordering and the V NP Prt
ordering seems the right thing to do (Cappelle 2005: 462).
But this is not the reintroduction of transformational rules by the backdoor. None of the two allostructions is regarded as basic; rather, the choice
of one variant over the other may (but need not, as the unexplained
instances in Gries corpus show) be conditioned by other, mainly
discourse-functional factors. Cappelle represents the positional variants of
the transitive phrasal verb as in Figure 2-3. Booij (1990: 61) thus
characterises particle verbs as phrases that are created in the lexicon and,
following Jackendoff (see e.g. Jackendoff 1997) regards them as
constructional idioms, a term I will not adopt here because of its
connection to Jackendoffs particular views and the implied model of
language. In line with Cappelles suggestion, I will therefore regard the
English phrasal verb as one construction characterized by the properties
outlined at the beginning of the present chapter, and the relative order of
particle and direct object as allostructional.
2.7.
Conclusion
In this chapter it has been attempted to characterize the phrasal verb in

present-day English with respect to its syntax, semantics and style, both
from a language-internal perspective and from a contrastive perspective in
the context of other contemporary Germanic languages.
The presentation has been necessarily eclectic, in part because of the
nature of the present study, which does not primarily aim at solving syn-
Conclusion
73
chronic problems in the analysis of present-day English, but also because of

the vast literature on the topic, which can be covered only selectively even
by studies focusing on the present-day language alone. However, I have
tried to provide a sufficiently detailed description and also to emphasize a
number of issues which are sometimes neglected in discussions of the
phrasal verbs in present-day English and/or which to me seem to be misrepresented in the literature. In the last section I have put forward the view
that verb-particle constructions can be characterised as periphrastic word
formations on a cline from compounding to derivation and that their specific positional properties can be explained as allostructional variation.
So far the discussion has been strictly synchronic, although the crosslinguistic comparison mainly with the other present-day Germanic
languages has, implicitly, already opened up a diachronic perspective,
which will be pursued in more detail in the following chapters.
Chapter 3
What has traditionally been referred to as the rise of the phrasal verbs is,
syntactically, the loss of positional variability of the particle in relation to
the verb. In Modern English the particle always follows the verb, with
some well-described exceptions. But in Old English and to some extent still
in Middle English, the particle may both precede the verb, as in example
(1), and follow the verb, as in example (2):
(1)
swa swa se blinde clypode, e big sume weige st r se hlend

forferde
as the blind man cried, who was sitting by the way as the Saviour
passed by
(CHom I, 10 (G) [260.65])
(2)
& ferde for on his weig

and went forth on his way
(LS 5 (InventCrossNap) [53])
Just as in Modern Dutch or German (cf. Chapter 2 above), this is clearly

connected to the factors clause type and finiteness, although compared to
the Modern West Germanic V-2/V-F languages particle placement in Old
English appears to be more flexible and less rigidly governed by other
syntactic properties of the clause. This is also the case in the older stages of
the other Germanic languages (cf. the discussion below). Consequently the
situation in Old English appears to be comparatively messy. In fact, this is
a well-known characteristic feature of Old English syntax and in particular
word order, which has been pointed out often: although it is not too difficult to observe general tendencies or rules, it is then just as easy to find a
bewildering array of counterexamples and apparent exceptions. This, of
course, is not to say that Old English word order is free. Such a claim
would be entirely unfounded in view of the regularity of certain orders and
of the apparent impossibility of others (cf. the discussion in Section 3.2.2
below). Nevertheless the Old English particle verbs behave in many ways
essentially identical to the particle verbs in other Germanic V-2/V-F languages. In the following the discussion from Chapter 2 will be continued,
where contrastive evidence from other present-day Germanic languages
Preverbs
75
was examined and the regularity of the situation in present-day English was
shown.
This chapter, then, will be devoted to a description of the positional
properties of verbs and particles in Old and Middle English and of the syntactic changes involved in the loss of preverbal position of the particles. I
will argue that there are good arguments in favour of postulating a distinct
class of Old English particle verbs which are not just free combinations of
verb and adverb or preposition, and which are diachronically related to
(inseparable) prefix verbs. This approach seems even more plausible if
diachronic and cross-linguistic observations are taken into account, which
we will therefore turn to first.
3.1.
Preverbs
The Old English particles analysed by some authors as separable prefixes

are also used in contexts where it may seem more appropriate to analyse
them as prepositions or postpositions, or as adverbs. The foundation for the
discussion was laid in a seminal article by Mitchell (1978), the title of
which deserves being quoted here: Prepositions, adverbs, prepositional
adverbs, postpositions, separable prefixes, or inseparable prefixes, in Old
English?. The article demonstrates the enormous difficulties in arriving at
a clear-cut classification of the elements in question (cf. the extensive bibliography in Mitchell 1978 and the discussion in Mitchell 1985: 1060
1080). Although Mitchell prefers the use of pre-/postposition and
adverb (and of prepositional adverb when referring to a particles
potential of being used both as an adposition and an adverb), he concludes:
For we have reached the boundaries where the kingdoms of the preposition, the
adverb, the separable prefix, and the inseparable prefix, meet and melt into one
another. We had better be micle mearcstapan here, not insisting on any one of
the four terms but recognizing that, as Campbell puts it (OEG [viz. Campbell
1959], 78), we have in fact a system of separable prefixes like those of Dutch
and German in embryo, at any rate. (Mitchell 1978: 50)
From a diachronic and comparative perspective, Mitchells observation,

the question whether or not Old English has separable prefixes is largely
terminological (1978: 21), is of little help, though. It fails to take into
account the cross-linguistically well-attested category of preverbs, which
would help to explain the apparent categorial indeterminacy of at least
some Old English particles, prefixes, adverbs, prepositions and
postpositions. Despite its enormous erudition, the discussion serves to
76
obscure the issue in this respect almost as much as it elucidates it, not least
since Mitchell also discusses the position of prepositions and adverbs
which quite clearly are not separable prefixes in relation to their adjacent
noun phrases rather than to clause type. The terminological confusion discussed by Mitchell is to some extent the result of category confusion, as
Denison (1981: 4950) points out, who suggests using prefix, adverb,
and preposition as mutually exclusive occurrences of particles (which he
prefers as the cover term for all three to Mitchells prepositional adverb).
But Denisons discussion sidesteps some of the relevant issues since it
appears to be based on the assumption that if there are good reasons against
the classification of elements as separable prefixes, there can be only
adverbs and prepositions left. This approach implies essentially a very
traditional parts-of-speech analysis, which is bound to yield inadequate
classifications for most languages (cf. Haspelmath 2010). With regard to
Old English, it is unsatisfactory to classify elements as either adverbs or
prepositions on the basis of their occurrence in different clause types.
Preverbal position typically occurs in subordinate clauses and postverbal
position typically in main clauses, but otherwise there is no discernible difference between such particles. Denison (1981: 5760) therefore concedes
that he cannot offer a satisfactory analysis of what he must call doublets
in his framework, viz. cases like wifon fon wi etc., where he must either
posit synonymous doublets, or regard compounds and collocations as
forming a cline, or abandon his terminology. Rejecting the third alternative,
he states that the assumption of separable prefixes would not help to
remedy the dilemma and suggests tentatively the adoption of the second
alternative for a synchronic analysis and the first for a diachronic one,
which may even represent the intuitions of Anglo-Saxon speakers
(Denison 1981: 60). In sum, although Denisons arguments against the
classification of the particles as prefixes can be accepted as valid, his further conclusions need not be accepted, even if that leaves the particles in
question without a more specific traditional label. Fischer et al. (2000:
182), in their discussion of verb-particles in Old and Middle English, conclude: As it is not our intention to try to resolve this terminological puzzle,
it seems best to use particle as the most neutral term. But the matter is
far from being purely terminological and from a lexical point of view it
matters considerably whether or not there are separable prefix verbs like
those of Dutch or German in Old English (cf. the discussion of the coverage in the historical dictionaries in Chapter 4 below).
In comparative linguistics the particles have long been characterized as
preverbs, a term which is particularly useful because it serves to avoid the
rather fruitless terminological discussion of word-class status and under-
Preverbs
77
lines the diachronic and cross-linguistic peculiarities of verb particles and

their development. Let us therefore now turn briefly to a more general discussion which takes into account the evidence for preverbs in other
languages. Booij & van Kemenade (2003) give the following general characterisation of preverbs:
The notion preverb is a traditional descriptive notion in Indo-European linguistics. It refers to morphemes that appear in front of a verb, and which form a
close semantic unit with that verb. In many cases, the morpheme that functions
as a preverb can also function without a preverbal context, often as an adverb or
an adposition. Most linguists use the notion preverb as a cover term for preverbal words and preverbal prefixes. The preverb may be separated from the
verb whilst retaining its close cohesion with the verb, which is called tmesis.
It may also develop into a bound morpheme, that is, a prefix inseparable from
the verb, with concomitant reduction of phonological form in some cases. If the
preverb has become a real prefix, we may use the more specific notion of
complex verb, whereas we take the notion complex predicate to refer generally to multi-morphemic expressions with verbal valency different types of
complex predicates represent various kinds of mismatches in the syntactic and
morphological coding of complex events and verbal valency, and thereby challenge our view of the architecture of the grammar, and the relation between
syntax, morphology, and the lexicon. (Booij & van Kemenade 2003: 1)
The occurrence of preverbs is by no means restricted to the Indo-European

languages (on preverbs in Indo-European, see Hackstein 1997 and 2003
and the references provided there). Indeed, preverbs may be found in very
many typologically quite distinct and genetically unrelated languages.
Moreover, despite their traditional name (which, as we shall see below, is
connected to the serialization rules of Proto-Indo-European and its oldest
attested languages), preverbs may also occur in postverbal position in some
languages, as parts of separable complex verbs. The discussion by Booij
& van Kemenade (2003), alongside the articles collected in the same
volume, provides further literature and a useful overview of preverbation.
The term separable complex verb suggested by Booij & van Kemenade
will not be used here, though, because as will become clear below it implies
putting the cart before the horse with respect to the development of such
constructions. Incidentally, note that I am not claiming that preverbs exist
as a category, which would be pointless since linguistic categories do not
really exist anyway see Haspelmath (2007). But the assumption of that
category may provide fruitful cross-linguistic insights on the development
in English, despite Haspelmaths scepticism on the issue of comparing
structures. Below, I illustrate preverbs in non-Indo-European languages and
then turn to their development in Indo-European.
78
3.1.1. Preverbs in non-Indo-European languages

A good example of the typical processes at work in the development of
verb-particle constructions is the development of verb-particle constructions in the Kartvelian languages (cf. Harris & Campbell 1995: 9496).
Kartvelian is unlikely to be genetically related to Indo-European (or to any
other language family), and for its earlier stages there is a considerable
body of historical evidence from Georgian (see Harris 1991; the diachronic
syntax of Kartvelian is discussed by Harris 1985).
In the Kartvelian language Svan there are eight different preverbs (cf.
Deeters 1930: 1524; for a brief characterisation of the two languages to be
discussed here, Georgian and Svan, see Campbell 1991). Four of those are
(inseparable) prefixes, while the other four are adverbial particles which
may occur before or after the verb: sga in, i up, on, u down, under,
and ka out, from. In preverbal position, these particles may either precede
the verb immediately, or be separated from it by a number of unstressed
elements, typically other particles; the latter case is an instance of tmesis.1
Thus we find both the position in (3) and the one in (4) (the examples are
from Deeters 1930: 17 and 15; see also Harris & Campbell 1995: 94).
(3)
(4)
aad
sga
s/he.go
in
sgad
[< sga aad]
in=s/he.go
The Svan prefixes, on the other hand, always occur as affixes, immediately
adjacent to the verb. In this position they have been subject to morphological fusion and to substantial phonological changes. That the particles have
also undergone partial fusion in preverbal position testifies to the regularity
of the morphonological development (cf. Harris 2003: 64 and the discussion below). Accordingly, where both types of preverbs precede a simple
1
The term tmesis is used here only as a shorthand for preverbal positions of
preverbs which do not precede the verb immediately, and it is not used in the
traditional sense, where it implies that the elements between the preverbs and
the verbs interrupt an originally unbroken sequence; cf. e.g. Bumann (2008:
s.v.) and Fortson (2004: 140) for the history of the term, which is originally
based on the notion that the occurrence of tmesis in archaic Homeric Greek is
somehow deviant from the situation in later classical Attic. Cf. also the
discussion of tmesis and Wackernagels Law in Latin in Section 3.1.2 and in
Gothic in Chapter 5 below.
Preverbs
79
verb, the sequence is always particleprefixverb, as is to be expected. The

overall development in Svan is summarized by Harris & Campbell (1995)
as follows:
One set of adverbs in Svan were reanalyzed as optionally separable elements
of the verb, contributing to the meaning of the verb. Frequently, but not always,
they occurred immediately before the verb or separated from the verb by
another element Phonological change made these elements proclitic to the
verb when immediately pre-verbal Earlier the same changes had taken
another set along the same path from adverb to verbal proclitic. (Harris &
Campbell 1995: 95)
The higher age of the prefixes is also witnessed by the fact that they have
undergone semantic changes which have resulted in a partial loss of spatial
meaning (cf. Deeters 1930: 1924).
The development of such semantic changes can be observed in
genetically related Georgian. Different to Svan, in Old Georgian the
particles occur in preverbal position only; their status as particles (rather
than prefixes) in Old Georgian is, however, clear from their other syntactic
characteristics (cf. Harris & Campbell 1995: 95). The three main semantic
types as discussed in Chapter 2 above for the present-day English verbparticle construction can be found and the overall development goes from
preverbal literal (i.e. spatial) particles in Old Georgian to prefixes in
Modern Georgian. Contrastive observations with respect to the parallel
developments in Kartvelian and in Indo-European are discussed in Schmidt
(1969), where evidence for the adverbial etymologies of the Kartvelian
preverbs is also provided (cf. also Cherchi 1994 and 1997 and the discussion in Harris 2003: 6366). In particular with respect to the development
of verb-particle constructions in English, it is remarkable that some of these
prefixes may be either phonologically reduced or semantically changed, so
that the conclusion that morphological and semantic changes may occur
independent of each other could be justified (cf. the discussion of Old and
Modern Georgian forms and meanings in Harris & Campbell 1995: 96).
This observation is particularly noteworthy in view of widespread claims to
the contrary in the grammaticalization literature (cf. e.g. Bybeee & Dahl
1989: 65), although of course the general tendency for a co-occurrence of
morphological and semantic reduction is hardly to be doubted (cf. the discussion of grammaticalization and preverbation by van der Auwera 1999
and the general discussions in Bybee 1985 or Hopper & Traugott 2003).
There are very similar typological parallels in other language families
which are genetically unrelated to both Kartvelian and Indo-European. For
example, van den Berg (2003) discusses preverbs in Dargi, an East
80
Caucasian language. Kolehmainen (2006), in the context of a contrastive

study of particle verbs and prefix verbs in Finnish and German, deals with
preverbs in Finno-Ugric languages. The following examples show the use
of particle verbs in Estonian (Ackerman 2003: 14): 2
(5)
Ktt
laskis
hunter
shoot:PRET.3SG rabbit:PART
jnest.
The hunter shot a rabbit.

(6)
Ktt
on
jnese
hunter
COP.3SG
rabbit:GEN down
maha
lasknud.
shoot:PERF
The hunter has shot (down) the rabbit.

(7)
Ktt
laskis
hunter
shoot:PRET.3SG rabbit:GEN down
jnese
maha.
The hunter shot (down) the rabbit.

Similar structures can be found in Finnish and Hungarian, and although
their recognition in the literature seems to depend to a considerable extent
on the linguistic traditions of describing the individual languages, their
structural and semantic properties again match those of other languages
with verb particles (cf. the discussion in Kolehmainen 2006: 214220 and
the references given there). Depending on the respective traditions, the
identification of preverbs in Finno-Ugric is in part a terminological issue,
along the lines familiar from the discussion of Old English and other Germanic languages (cf. also Kiefer & Honti 2003). While the particle verbs in
Hungarian are traditionally referred to as prefix verbs and in Estonian as
compound verbs, they have been subject to only very little attention in
Finnish, where such constructions appear to have been rather neglected and
treated as a phraseological phenomenon, if at all. But the striking parallels
across the various Finno-Ugric languages as discussed by Kolehmainen
(2006) make it quite likely that despite these terminological differences the
particle verb is a common inherited property of the language family, comparable to the situation in Germanic. However, in the past for each of these
languages language contact was claimed to have played a role in the development (for Finnish: with Swedish and German, for Estonian and for
Hungarian: with German). But such proposals are highly speculative; e.g.
in Hasselblatt (1990) the presumptive calques announced in the title of the
2
Adapted from Lavotha (1960: 104); I have slightly altered the glosses
according to Lavotha (1973: 107). For further literature on Estonian, see
Kolehmainen (2006: 217219).
Preverbs
81
study turn out to be structural and semantic parallels in German and Estonian, which are assumed but by no means shown to be borrowings in
Estonian on the basis of the observation of German influence elsewhere in
the language. Most inseparable prefix verbs in the Finno-Ugric languages
indeed seem to be Germanic calques, where the prefixal elements are
unproductive. Wlchli (2001) discusses preverbs in Latvian and Livonian
as part of a Baltic areal continuum and Kiefer & Honti (2003) take preverbation to be a Slavic-Uralic-Georgian areal phenomenon. In the light of
the comparative evidence presented by Kolehmainen, it seems quite
unlikely, though, that the particle verbs in these languages are the result of
language contact in historical time. For a general discussion of the methodological issues involved in the assumption of language contact as an
explanation of linguistic change, see Lass (1997: Ch. 4) and also the discussion in Chapter 5 below.
The reasons why in some languages there are verb-particle constructions
while they are absent in others are not particularly well understood it
seems that this issue has not been dealt with in detail at all in the linguistic
literature so far. But on the basis of the evidence put forward so far, it is
clear that the emergence of such constructions is a cross-linguistically
widely attested instance of convergent evolution (cf. Lass 1997: 119) which
is observable in several unrelated languages. The Australian Aboriginal
language Warlpiri provides an extreme case of preverbation (cf. Hale,
Laughren & Simpson 1995). Warlpiri has only about 120 simple verbs and
makes extensive use of preverbation to form new verbs. Semantically, these
verbs again range from fully compositional to fully idiomatic. Syntactically, the preverb either immediately precedes the simple verb or it is
separated from it by an unstressed auxiliary (i.e., again, tmesis), but since
word order in Warlpiri is quite free, the preverb may also follow the verb,
especially if the preverb is highly productive and if the construction is noncompositional (see also Nash 1982 and 1986 and Simpson 1992). The
parallels to the Germanic languages are quite striking, even more so since
Warlpiri is typologically very different and since in this case language
contact, sprachbund and similar explanations are completely out of the
question.
3.1.2. Preverbs in Indo-European
In the Indo-European languages, we find ample evidence for the emergence
of prefix verbs and verb-particle constructions out of adverb-verb syntagmata. For Indo-European, verb-particle combinations have been discussed
82
by Kuryowicz (1964: Ch. 7), Watkins (1963 and 1964) and Pinault (1995)
(cf. also the general bibliographical discussion of Indo-European syntax by
Fritz in Meier-Brgger 2003: IV.A and Fritz 2005 on Homeric Greek, including a brief overview of older Indo-European research on preverbs). In
the present-day Romance languages such constructions do not seem to be
widespread (cf. e.g. Harris & Vincent 1988), but Masini (2006) and
Iacobini & Masini (2006) describe verb-particle constructions in Italian (in
particular in the Northern Italian dialects). Dufresne, Dupuis & Tremblay
(2003) discuss particle verbs in Old French, and Vincent (1999) explores
the development from Indo-European via Latin to the earlier stages of the
Romance languages. The contributions in Rousseau (1995) provide an
overview of preverbs in the languages of Europe; see also Booij & van
Kemenades (2003) general introduction to the topic from a cross-linguistic
perspective. C. Lehmann (1995) summarizes the typical process as follows:
Indo-European languages testify abundantly to the following alternative: an
adverb which mediates between a verb and an NP may find either its
relationship to the NP or the one to the verb tightened. In the former case, it
becomes an adposition, in the latter, a preverb. It is true that there are IndoEuropean languages such as German, where the same elements may function
now as adverb, now as preposition, now as preverb; and we cannot exclude the
possibility that such a situation obtained in Proto-Indo-European as well.
Nevertheless, the evidence of the earliest Indo-European languages, Hittite and
Vedic, suggests that there was a class of elements whose primary function was
that of an adverb, and, as it appears, in a diachronic sense, could function also
as either adpositions or preverbs. (C. Lehmann 1995: 98)
Haase (2001: 737739), in his discussion of the typical development of

case endings out of such nouns, assumes the following path of grammaticalization: relational noun > localizer > adposition > local case (> ); cf.
also the discussions by Bybee (1985) and by C. Lehmann (1983 and 1995)
and the overview in Hopper & Traugott (2003). In Hittite, such adverbs are
apparently still completely ambivalent (C. Lehmann 1995: 98; see also
the discussion in Starke 1977: 127131). Etymologically the Hittite preverbs are nouns, and so are at least some of the preverbs in many
languages; cf. also Wilhelms (2002) discussion of the emergence of preverbs between the oldest and younger attestations of Hittite and the
overview and further literature given in Hoffner & Melchert (2008: 294
301). Even if the arguments against the assumption of three distinct categories adverb, preverb and postposition are valid (which e.g. Hoffner &
Melchert 2008 doubt, though), it is remarkable that the serialization rules
for such particles and verbs appear to be largely identical including
Preverbs
83
tmesis with intervening negators, pronouns or locatival phrases to those

in languages with unambiguous preverbs (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008:
296). For a brief overview of Hittite and its position among the IndoEuropean languages, see Fortson (2004: Ch. 9); parallel developments in
Tocharian and other Indo-European languages are discussed in Hackstein
(1997 and 2003).
Vedic represents a more advanced stage of the development than Hittite.
In Vedic there is already a strong tendency for the particle to attach to and
in certain contexts even to fuse with the verb (C. Lehmann 1995; on the
relation of particles and adverbs in Indo-European and the problems of
reconstruction connected to this somewhat neglected topic, see Dunkel
1992, on the issue of distinguishing between preverbs and prepositions in
Indo-European, see Kuryowicz 1964: 171178, and for lists of Proto-IndoEuropean adverbs and prepositions and their cognate forms in various languages, see e.g. Beekes 1995: 218223). In Latin such preverbs have either
become prefixes, via cliticization to and subsequent fusion with the verb, or
prepositions, e.g.:
(8)
Caesar
milites
castris
educit.
Caesar[NOM.SG]
soldier:ACC.PL
camp:ABL.PL
out-lead:3SG.PRES
Caesar leads the soldiers out of the camp.

(9)
Caesar
milites
ex
castris
ducit.
Caesar[NOM.SG]
soldier:ACC.PL
out
camp:ABL.PL
lead:3SG.PRES
Caesar leads the soldiers out of the camp.

Cf. the discussion by C. Lehmann (1995: 99); in earlier records of Latin,
though, there is evidence for the stage preceding the fusion of preverb and
verb, as the following remark by the grammarian Festus on the language of
early Latin prayers testifies:
(10) Sub vos placo in precibus fere cum digitur significat id quod supplico
ob vos sacro in quibusdam precationibus est pro vos obsecro ut
sub vos placo pro supplico.
[Sub vos placo, which is said usually in prayers, means the same as
supplico ob vos sacro in certain prayers compares to vos obsecro
as sub vos placo to supplico.]
This statement was already discussed by Delbrck (1893: 665); cf. also
Booij & van Kemenade (2003) and Vincents (1999) account of the later
development of preverbs and prepositions (with a focus on the latter) out of
84
adverbial particles in the Romance languages and its theoretical implications. Watkins (1964: 1039) points out that [b]y the time of our earliest
extended records, the univerbation of P [preverb] and V [verb] is an
accomplished fact But clear traces remain of an earlier stage preceding
the univerbation; that commonly described as tmesis, and he explains the
position of the cliticized intervening elements as due to Wackernagels
Law.
The development of prefixes out of originally independent words
depends crucially on word order, though; cf. the examples (3) and (4)
above from Svan, where this is nicely shown: quite naturally, immediate
adjacency is a necessary condition for morphological fusion. This observation is already clearly expressed in the older literature on Indo-European
morphosyntax, cf. e.g. the classic discussion of preverbs and prepositions in
Indo-European by Delbrck (1893), who stated:
Aus meiner Darstellung drfte sich ergeben haben, dass es die ltere Aufgabe
der Prpositionen war, die Handlung des Verbes nach Massgabe des ihnen
innewohnenden Sinnes nher zu bestimmen. Trat nun zu dem so bestimmten
Verbum ein geeigneter Kasus, so konnte sich zwischen ihm und der Prposition
ein nheres Verhltnis entwickeln Da die traditionelle Wortstellung im
Indogermanischen die gewesen sein wird, dass die Prposition vor dem
Verbum stand, vor ihr aber der Kasus (da ja das Verbum gewohnheitsmssig
am Satzschluss stand), so ergiebt sich als natrliche Stellung der Prposition
die Stellung hinter dem Kasus, den sie bestimmt Die Prp. war in der
Ursprache im Hauptsatze jedenfalls nicht mit der Verbalform, zu der sie
innerlich gehrt, verschmolzen Dieser Zustand ist im Altindischen
geblieben, in anderen Einzelsprachen aber hat sich allmhlich eine Annherung
der Prp. und der Verbalform vollzogen, so dass im nachhomerischen
Griechisch, im Lateinischen, Germanischen, Baltisch-Slavischen die
Verbundenheit der regelmssige Zustand ist. (Delbrck 1893: 664665)
[It should have become clear from my discussion that it was the older task of
the prepositions to modify the action of the verb according to their inherent
meanings. When a verb which was modified in such a way was then accompanied by a suitable case, a closer relationship could develop between it and the
preposition Since it will have been the traditional word order in IndoEuropean that the preposition preceded the verb and the case preceded the
preposition (since the verb would usually be at the end of the sentence), the
natural position of the preposition would be after the case it governs At any
rate in main clauses of the proto-language the preposition had not merged with
the verb to which it inherently belongs This state has remained in Old Indic,
but in other languages the preposition and the verb by and by have drawn closer
to each other, so that they are regularly united in post-Homeric Greek, in Latin,
in Germanic, and in Balto-Slavic.]
Preverbs
85
Despite his slightly confusing choice of terminology (see also W.P. Lehmann 1993: 227228), Delbrcks discussion leaves little doubt as to the
basic processes deducible from the older Indo-European sources (cf. also
Hirt 1928: 23). In his discussion of univerbation (i.e. the development
from preverb to prefix) and word order change in Vedic and in Insular
Celtic, Hock (1991: 338) notes that univerbation is the morphological
counterpart of Behaghels Law, by which elements forming a single lexical
unit become a single word. Hackstein (1997) has shown that Delbrcks
assumptions are supported by more recent evidence from Tocharian, which
like Hittite was unknown to Delbrck. Although in the present context only
the evolution of preverbs is of immediate interest, Delbrcks diachronic
comparative observations go a long way towards explaining the messy situation in Old English which seems to have puzzled Mitchell (1978) so
much; the Old English data necessarily yield an unwieldy synchronic
analysis with a fair degree of layering, which proves to be a snapshot of a
fairly orderly and widely-attested diachronic process (cf. Hopper 1991 and
e.g. the overviews in Hopper & Traugott 2003: Ch. 5 and in Brinton &
Traugott 2005: 143 on layering). Characteristically, Mitchells paper,
despite providing more than ample references to the older Anglicist
literature on his topic (cf. Mitchell 1978: fn. 2), does not contain a single
reference to the comparative tradition, let alone more theoretically-inclined
studies. Delbrcks traditional comparative account serves to explain the
emergence of postpositions and of prefixes out of frequent syntactic strings
oblique noun phrase adverbial particle final verb phrase, where for the
emergence of postpositions the reanalysis of the noun-particle sequence as
a prepositional phrase is relevant, and for the emergence of prefixes the
morphological fusion of the preverb and the verb. The two processes can be
schematically represented as follows:
(11) N.OBLIQUE particle V > [N.OBLIQUE adposition] V
> N.OBLIQUE [preverb V]
> N.OBLIQUE [prefix-V]
Of course in principle the verb may co-occur with either the oblique noun
phrase or the adverbial particle alone (but cf. Behaghels claim, contra
Delbrck, that the particles originally belong with the noun rather than the
verb, 1924: 518). While Delbrck remarks on the positional requirements
for the process and in particular on its connection to the usual order of elements in Indo-European (cf. the quote above), the wider implications of
these observations for the developments of preverbs in the Germanic languages seem to have been made explicit only after the relative ordering of
elements had become a major topic of typological research. Following
86
Greenbergs pioneering study (1966), in particular W.P. Lehmann (1973)

and Vennemann (1974a) suggested the correlation of word order parameters with ideal language types (cf. the overview and further literature in
Askedal 2001 and see Siewirska 1993 for a cross-linguistic discussion of
factors relevant to the establishment of word order; for a highly critical discussion of the generalizations proposed by Lehmann and Vennemann, see
Comrie 1981: Ch. 4).
There can be little doubt that the basic word-order in Proto-IndoEuropean was OV (for reasons for the reconstruction of Proto-IndoEuropean as an OV language and a detailed discussion of the connected
methodological issues, see W.P. Lehmann 1993: 187233). This is clearly
reflected in some of the more archaic daughter languages, in particular in
their oldest attestations (despite the arguments put forward by Friedrich
1975). Consequently, from a typological point of view, one would expect
the use of postpositions rather than prepositions, and indeed the most
archaic attestations of Indo-European languages provide evidence for the
early emergence of postpositions, either quite regularly (as in Hittite), or in
archaic traces (as e.g. in Greek and Latin). See Gamkrelidze & Ivanov
(1995: Ch. 6) and cf. e.g. the overview in Fortson (2004: Ch. 7 [for the
emergence of adpositions] and Ch. 8 [for word order]) and the references
given there. On the interplay of prosody, syntax and semantics in the
development of Indo-European prepositions, see Hackstein (2011). Note
that the development of preverbs and the underlying diachronic assumptions made in the present section fully meet Clacksons (2007: 159)
prerequisites for syntactic reconstruction discussed in his critical assessment of the limits of syntactic reconstruction.
Evidence of archaic OV is, of course, also visible in the Germanic languages, whose history is characterized by a long-term development towards
VO structures (for discussions of the basic word order of Proto-Germanic,
see e.g. W.P. Lehmann 1972, Hopper 1975, Braunmller 1982, Gerritsen
1984, Lass 1994, Faarlund 2001 and Harbert 2007, among others). In the
present context it needs to be remembered that this development implies a
major change in the conditions which are relevant for the development of
preverbs. This observation supplies the essential explanation for the developments in English, in particular in comparison to the other Germanic
languages. Wherever OV order disappears, the adverbial particles will tend
to follow rather than to precede the verb. Synchronically, this is reflected
by the serialization rules in the present-day Germanic languages, as the discussion in Chapter 2 above has shown. Diachronically, there is cumulative
and convergent evidence for archaic OV structures (cf. the discussion in
Hock 1991: 609621) with intervening adverbial particles, which continue
Preverbs
87
to intervene after the change to VO; so far I have not come across a fully
satisfactory discussion (let alone explanation) of this observation. For a
general overview of the issues involved in the discussion of such implicational typological tendencies and their relationship to the explanation of
syntactic change, see Dryer (1995), while Harris & Campbell (1995) provide a rather critical discussion of typological approaches towards the
explanation of word order change (1995: Ch. 8), but their discussion does
not invalidate the observations of the present section.
Thus both the development of preverbs into prefixes and the later development into postverbal particles in verb-particle constructions appear to be
connected to more general developments in word order. The typical paths
of development of preverbs and of adpositions discussed so far can, then,
be summarized as in Figure 3-1 below, in which the dotted arrows indicate
developments connected to word order change; elements characteristic of
different stages may co-exist due to layering. This path of development
clearly shows typical characteristics of grammaticalization processes (cf.
e.g. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994, C. Lehmann 1995 and Hopper &
Traugott 2003). Like the development of adpositions, the emergence of
preverbs goes along with decategorialization and loss of syntactic freedom
of the original adverbial particles, whose semantics becomes more abstract
and relational, although the original meaning tends to persist for a long
time, at least in traces. Conceivably a long-term result of this, the concomitant prosodic weakening may lead to phonetic attrition and even complete
loss (cf. also the discussion in Chapter 5 below). On the reconstruction of
(Indo-European) syntax and the relationship of adpositions and preverbs,
see also Hackstein (1997); cf. also the overview and discussion of a number
of different models accounting for the paths of development of preverbs in
Kolehmainen (2006: 152162). Figure 3-1 is not exhaustive with respect to
the further development of postpositions, which may also become inflections later on (cf. e.g. the discussion of this grammaticalization path by C.
Lehmann 1985, where the interplay of synchronic variation and diachronic
change is also focused on). For the later development of English prepositions, see Lundskr-Nielsen (1993) and Iglesias-Rbade (2011) and the
references provided there. In the context of the present chapter, Lehmanns
(1985: 312314) argument that the loss of one grammaticalized element
cannot be taken to explain the grammaticalization of another, functionally
equivalent, element seems particularly noteworthy, which, mutatis
mutandis, also holds in the lexicon for the loss of prefixes and the
development of verb-particle constructions in the case at hand.
88

[O] adverbial particle [V]
adposition
preverb
postposition
prefix
preposition
postverbal particle
OV
VO
Figure 3-1. Paths of adpositions and preverbs
The native prefixes of English, as those of other languages, reflect an

earlier OV stage, while the postverbal particles are characteristic of the
more recent VO stage, which was reached in English by the late Middle
English period. This observation ties in nicely with the well-known traditional claim that the order of elements in word formations reflects the word
order in clauses; typically, the former can be observed to be more conservative than the latter and has indeed often been used for its
reconstruction. But, as Harris & Campbell (1995: 200210) show, this
hypothesis has never been subject to closer empirical scrutiny in a range of
languages with a long history of transmission, and it turns out on closer
inspection to be beset with methodological pitfalls:
There is reason to believe that in at least some instances a compound pattern
may represent a borrowed pattern, a word order more than one stage back, or a
sequence created for the purpose of distinguishing compounds from their
phrasal equivalents. On the basis of these considerations, we conclude that
compounds do not necessarily reflect the phrasal word order of the immediately
preceding period. Compounds are therefore not a reliable guide to reconstruction. (Harris & Campbell 1995: 210)
The diachronic development of preverbs in English can be seen in the

wider context of a cross-linguistically well-attested path of development
(cf. the more detailed discussion in Chapter 5 below), and the continued
existence of separable prefixes with their mixed pre- and postverbal
positions in the present-day Continental West Germanic languages turns
Preverbs
89
out as the expected situation in mixed OV/VO languages. For a discussion

of preverbs in Proto-Germanic and in the earliest attestations of Germanic,
see in particular Hopper (1975: 4043). The development in German is
discussed by Harnisch (1982) and Hinderling (1982), the development in
North Germanic is discussed by Faarlund (1995). More generally, the topic
is also discussed in Erben (2006: 136139), cf. there for further literature.
For a critical assessment of older approaches to the syntactic description of
Old and Middle English preverbs (in particular with regard to word-order),
see Denison (1981: 111132); de la Cruz (1977) provides a valuable
overview of the Indo-European parallels of the development in Germanic
and specifically in English. In the light of the evidence discussed so far, it
does come as quite a surprise that even a study as historically aware and
cross-linguistically well-informed as Harbert (2007) presents the particle
verbs as a particular Germanic phenomenon, and among the particle verbs
in the Germanic languages the phrasal verbs as a particularly English one.
This is no doubt the case because Harbert relies on the often unfounded and
ill-conceived information from studies concentrating on English alone (cf.
Harbert 2007: 3640 and 366367). But of course the identification of
cross-linguistic patterns of change cannot act as a satisfactory substitute for
a more detailed description of the development in English, and this is what
we will turn to next.
3.2.
The changes in the position of the particle, then, ought to be seen in connection to other positional changes in the clause, which will be sketched in
the following as far as they are relevant to the development of the English
verb-particle construction.
3.2.1. Word order in earlier Germanic
Despite significant disagreement in detail, there is a broad consensus in the
literature that the word order in the earliest attestations of Germanic is a
mixed OV/VO type. This observation applies not only to the order of finite
verbs and objects, but also to that of other kinds of head-dependent relations (such as the relative order of nouns and adpositions touched upon in
the preceding section). As in the preceding chapter, I am not going to
engage here in the discussion of basic word order in the generative sense,
where one order is assumed to be derived from another in the synchronic
90
analysis; consequently it should be clear that terms like V-2 shift will be
understood here as historical processes rather than as synchronic operations
on another, underlying order. For an overview of the relevant issues in
generative grammar (as far as the history of English is concerned) and for
further literature, see Denison (1993), Fischer et al. (2000) and Roberts
(2007). For arguments against explaining all results of historical change by
way of generative synchronic rules or constraints and in favour of considering typological parallels and historical and functional explanations, see
e.g. Fischer (2008).
The most common positions of the finite verb in Old English are V-2
and V-F, depending to a significant extent although by no means exclusively on clause type, cf. the discussion of V-2/V-F orders in the presentday Germanic languages in Chapter 2 and the general references given
there. The explanation of the change from the order of clause elements
found in Old English to the rather strict SVO order in present-day English
may well be the most hotly contested area of English historical syntax, and
the mere description of the situation in Old English provides formidable
problems. The discussion in the present section will therefore be restricted
to a brief sketch of some main lines of development and to a review of the
literature, as far as this appears relevant to the history of the phrasal verbs.
Consequently the general changes in word order will be treated here as
background information (as far as this is here possible; Denisons remark,
[i]t is indeed a difficult subject, both from the point of view of the data
and of assessing all the different and often incompatible studies which have
been published [1987: 139], still holds true). Neither their full description
nor their explanation is the object of the present study; for an overview of
the discussion and for further literature, see Traugott (1992), Fischer
(1992), Denison (1993), Fischer et al. (2000) and Fischer & van der Wurff
(2006). The issue whether the establishment of VO order is connected to
the history of V-2 will be left aside here. A number of fairly influential
(mainly generative) studies of the development of English word order,
however, concentrate on the loss of OV and what they regard as the rise
and fall of V-2 as essentially separate phenomena (cf. e.g. the division of
the topic in Fischer et al. 2000 and the discussion of competing accounts in
Denison 1993). This appears to be justified by the occurrence of VO orders
which are not strictly V-2 and vice versa, but in my view it neglects the
overwhelming frequency of orders which are both VO and V-2 (as long as
they are not V-F) and the chronological parallelism of both developments.
The arguments put forward in Fischer et al. (2000: 83) are, to my mind, not
entirely persuasive, since they take the simultaneous synchronic occurrence
of V-2 and what may be regarded as OV in the mixed type present-day
91
Germanic languages as evidence against the historical connection between

V-2 and VO. It may be more appropriate to view both the establishment of
V-2 and the loss of OV as subject to the complex interplay of discourse
factors such as topicalization, verb-fronting and extraposition of heavy
objects, and to look into the subsequent grammaticalization of frequent
orders as central to the development. For a general account of Old English
word order along these lines, cf. Traugott (1992: 273281) and e.g. the
more specific proposals in Strang (1970) and Stockwell (1977), or the more
comprehensive studies by Fourquet (1938), Reszkiewicz (1966) and
Kohonen (1978); see also Hinterhlzl & Petrova (2009). Note also that all
attempts to describe (let alone explain) Old English word order on the
assumption that there is a base order OV and an additional V-2 constraint
fail to account in a satisfactory way for very many details, cf. the comments
by Denison (1987: 153). But since this hardly makes a difference to the
discussion of the verb-particle construction, the issue will for now not be
pursued any further.
Between the earliest attestations of (Northwest) Germanic and Old English, there are some significant changes in the relative frequencies of the
word order patterns. In the Northwest Germanic runic corpus (3rd to 7th
centuries AD), there are both V-F and VO orders, as in the following
examples (12)(14) from the early 5th century (the present syntactic
discussion of the earliest evidence is based on Lass 1994: 217224; for the
sake of convenience I have followed the regularized presentation of these
examples in Antonsens study of the runic inscriptions 1975: 2425, for a
closer transliteration, see Antonsens discussion of the corpus of inscriptions 1975: 2989).
(12) [me]z
me:DAT
Woduride
staina
W:DAT
stone:ACC three daughters:NOM made:PL
rijoz dohtriz
dalidun
For me, Woduridaz, three daughters made the stone.

(13) ek
I
Hlewagastiz Holtijaz
horna
tawido
H:NOM
horn:ACC
made:SG
I, Hlewagastiz Holtijaz, made the horn.

(14) ek
I
Hagustaldaz hlaiwido
mago
H:NOM
son:ACC my:ACC
buried:SG
minino
I, Hagustaldaz, buried my son.

On the basis of the runic evidence it can thus be concluded that VO is
already in existence in the earliest Germanic texts, as shown by example
(14). Due to the peculiarities of the runic evidence, the identification of the
92
position of the verb with regard to subject and object is possible in 34

instances only (Antonsen 1975: 2425). The material in the corpus is
entirely prepositional but otherwise largely postmodifying; cf. Antonsen
(2002: Ch. 13), where the usefulness of the runic evidence for the study of
early Northwest (rather than just North) Germanic is evaluated. V-F as in
examples (12) and (13) appears to be the clearly dominant order: V-F order
occurs in about 70 per cent and VO is found in about 20 per cent of all
clauses, while the remaining ten per cent are VSO (excluding verb-initial
imperatives); there is no evidence for subordinate clauses in the corpus. But
two out of three possible instances of VSO are without a subject, as in
example (15) which somehow begs the question as to their interpretation.
(15) tawo
laodu
prepare:1SG invitation:ACC
I prepare an invitation.
On the whole, these observations tie in nicely with OV as the reconstructed
order for Proto-Germanic (and also for Indo-European), and with the long
term-developments in the histories of the individual Germanic daughter
languages. The positional changes can be observed to be fully on their way
already in the somewhat later North Germanic runic inscriptions, where
V-2 has become the frequent type (cf. Antonsen 1975: 25). But it would be
misleading to claim that the messiness of the situation in Old English contrasts with clear-cut word order rules in the other early Germanic
languages. Rather, in all of them the regularities of V-2 and (where
retained) V-F increase in the course of their histories, which lends some
support to the notion that here in general more rigid orders represent more
advanced stages in the grammaticalization of pragmatically regulated discourse orders; cf. the discussion below. The loss of OV occurs in the
various Germanic languages to different degrees. While some, like Dutch
and German, have residual OV orders in subordinate clauses, others, like
Yiddish and Icelandic, are V-2 throughout (cf. the discussion of asymmetric and symmetric V-2 languages in Harbert 2007: 400404). For a
brief overview of the history of analysing V-2 orders in Old English and
other Germanic languages (which goes back to the 19th century), see e.g.
Stockwell (1990: 92, fn. 6).
93
3.2.2. Word order in Old English

Despite the plethora of studies dealing with the development of Old
English word order, only little attention has been given to the word order of
the earliest English texts (which is to some extent surely to do with the fact
that many of the earliest texts do not really lend themselves easily to the
study of word order). In the earliest Old English texts there appears to be
still a considerable amount of V-F clauses (both main and subordinate), but
there is also a general increase in VO structures and also in V-2, as in the
other Germanic languages. And as in the other Germanic languages, that
increase is more marked in main clauses, while V-F tends to remain in
subordinate clauses. In the earliest Old English texts, Lass (1994: 221)
observes a syntax not far removed from NWGmc [viz. Northwest
Germanic], though with a somewhat different distribution of certain order
types, and towards the early 9th century he observes a more distinct drift
away from dominant OV order (Lass 1994: 224); cf. e.g. the discussions
of the syntax of Cdmons Hymn from the early 8th century by Lass
(1994) and by Nielsen (1998), where the language is shown to be very
much of a transitional type from OV to VO.
The following example from Alfreds preface to the Cura Pastoralis
shows some of the typical word orders in early West Saxon (late 9thcentury): 3
a gemunde ic hu sio ws rest on Ebriscgeiode funden & eft, a hie
Creacas geliornodon, a wendon hie hie on heora agen geiode ealle, & eac
ealle ore bec. & eft Ldenware sw same, sian hie hie geliornodon, hie hie
wendon ealla urh wise wealhstodas on hiora agen geiode. & eac ealla
ora Cristna ioda sumne dl hiora on hiora agen geiode wendon.
[I also remembered then that the law was first composed in Hebrew and that
later, when the Greeks learnt it, they translated it completely into their own language, and also all other books. And afterwards the Romans, too, when they
had learnt them, had them all turned into their own language through wise
translators. And likewise all other Christian peoples translated some part of
them into their own languages.]
Quoted after the normalized version in Mitchell & Robinson (2001), except
for the Tironian sign (& in the example), which I have used to replace the
editorial ond (since it is possible that this sign is not always used as an
abbreviation for a conjunction at all, but rather simply marks the beginning of
a new sentence in the manuscript; cf. Mitchell 1985: 1724).
94
This passage is quite instructive since it contains three times the phrase
(hie) wendon on hiora agen geiode (they) translated [a text] into their
own language, but each time with different positions of verb and object
marked by underlines in the following examples (in (16) the underlined
pronoun hie is acc.sg.fem., anaphoric to , in (17) it is acc.pl., anaphoric to
bec):
(16) a
then
wendon hie
hie
on heora agen geiode ealle
turned
it
on
they
their
own
language all
Then they translated it completely into their own language.

(17) hie
hie
wendon ealla urh
wise wealhstodas
they
them
turned
wise
on
hiora agen geiode
on
their
all
through
translators
own language
They had them all turned into their own language through wise
translators.
(18) &
eac ealla ora Cristna ioda sumne
and also all
dl
other Christian peoples some:ACC part[ACC]
hiora
on hiora
agen geiode
wendon
DEM.GEN.PL
on
own
turned
their
language
And likewise all other Christian peoples translated some part of

them into their own languages.
Bean (1983), in her study of the development of Old English word order,
takes such examples as evidence that the picture of the overall development
from OV to VO is considerably blurred by stylistic factors, and she takes
the three different orderings to be a means to avoid monotony (Bean
1983: 123). But, as Denison observes in his discussion of Beans material,
the orderings are far from random (Denison 1987: 141; for a fuller
appraisal of Beans study and its methodological and factual shortcomings
see Denison 1987 and 1993: 4748). Rather, they represent what may be
expected as being entirely normal in Old English and not for stylistic, but
for syntactic reasons. Thus (18) is V-F, which at that time is the normal
order in subordinate clauses, but which is also quite common in clauses
introduced by and, ac or ne, as in the example (see Mitchell 1964 for a full
discussion of the special status of such clauses with regard to word order in
Old English and for a thorough criticism of earlier studies which fail to take
this into account). This is an instance where the word order in Old English
deviates noticeably from the word order in the present-day Germanic
V-2/V-F languages (cf. the more extensive overview in Mitchell 1985:
95
17191732 et passim and Denison 1987: 144146 for the possible implications of this peculiarity). Conversely, a typical V-2 context is provided by
(16), where the verb follows the sentence-initial adverb a (for a discussion
of word order, clause type and the role of sentence-initial elements, see
Andrew 1940; for a discussion of a with respect to clausal syntax, see in
particular Blockley 2001 and van Kemenade & Los 2006 and the references
given there). In principle V-2 is independent of the length of the sentenceinitial element, e.g. (cf. Traugott 1992: 274):
(19) On s
on
caseres
DEM.GEN.SG
dagum
ws gehaten
emperor:GEN.SG day:DAT.PL REL was
called
Licinius | wear astyred mycel ehtnys
ofer a Cristenan
Licinius
over
was
stirred
great
persecution
the Christians
In the days of the emperor who was called Licinius | [there] was
stirred a great persecution over the Christians.
(LS, Forty Soldiers [000300 (4)])
More typically, though, there is a very strong tendency for light (short,
given) elements to come early and for heavy (long, new) elements to
come late (cf. Reszkiewicz 1966 and Kohonen 1978). This view seems to
be accepted in principle by anyone working on the topic. But although this
is in line with Behaghels Laws (cf. Behaghel 1909 and 1924) and although
this appears to be intuitively plausible, the exact nature of lightness vs.
heaviness has to date rarely been pinned down (cf. the discussion in
Denison 1993: 3941 and Pintzuk & Taylor 2006). With regard to clauseinitial positions, this is most noticeable with pronouns, which will precede
the verb even in cases where a corresponding full noun phrase would be
found after the verb. Thus (18) provides another typical order, in which a
light pronominal object precedes the verb in what is arguably still a marginal instance of a V-2 clause. Full nominal objects, on the other hand, are
normally postverbal in main clauses, while in subordinate (and coordinate)
clauses they may both precede and follow the verb. This had already been
commented on by Mitchell (1964: 119); for a full analysis of pronouns as
syntactic clitics, see van Kemenade (1987), but cf. also Stockwell (1990).
But there are quite a few cases which resist neat interpretation along the
line sketched here, e.g.:
(20) illice word Maria heold
such
words Mary
held
arfniende on hyre heortan.

pondering
on her
heart
Mary kept and pondered such words in her heart.

(Hom I, 2 [009300 (197.214)])
96
It thus seems clear that the word order in Old English is neither entirely
free nor as restricted as e.g. the word order in present-day Dutch and German, despite the general similarities. Maybe neither V-2 (or VO) nor V-F
are rules of Old English grammar to date there is no account of Old English syntax which would succeed in accommodating these tendencies with
the countless possible (and indeed attested) exceptions; a look into any of
the desperate attempts (especially those in which V-2 and OV are taken to
be real) to formulate satisfactory rules is instructive. It is indeed much
more likely that Old English word order had better be explained as the
interplay of a variety of factors and that consequently a multi-factorial
analysis of the attested corpus would yield better results than the search for
tidy little trees. In principle this suggestion was made already by Denison
(1987: 155), but so far little has been done in this direction; for a discussion
of the role of pragmatic discourse factors in the development of English
word order and for more recent literature, see Seoane (2006).
In a short representative sample of early West Saxon of the late 9th
century (Denison 1987), the most common word orders in main and subordinate clauses respectively were as shown in Table 3-1.4 In this sample,
V-F is highly typical of subordinate clauses and V-2 is highly typical of
main clauses, but V-2 also occurs in subordinate clauses where the first
element is not the object (note how the figures would be distorted if main
clauses introduced by and, ac or ne were not counted separately). V-F in
main clauses only occurs if they are introduced by a conjunction.
Moreover, main clauses without an overt subject always have the verb in
first position in the sample (as e.g. Foron a up be Temese [ChronA 894]
[They] travelled then up along the Thames), while in the other clauses
with the verb in initial position it is immediately followed by the subject (as
e.g. Ws Hsten a r cumen mid his herge [ChronA 894] Then Hsten
had come there with his army). On the basis of such evidence, it is
justified to conclude that in main clauses the verb rather consistently
precedes the object (consonant with both V-2 and VO orders) as the
unmarked order, just as V-F is the unmarked order for subordinate clauses.
Denisons sample consists of the entries for 892898 in the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, MS A (Bately 1986). The table disregards a number of rarer orders
in the sample; for a more detailed description of the sample and the principles
on which the analysis was carried out, see Denison 1987: 142144, fnn. 67);
X stands for any element except subject and verb, XO further excludes
objects.
97
Table 3-1. Word order in early West Saxon (according to Denison 1987: 143)
main clauses
and/ac/ne
subordinate clauses
VSX
XOVS
47
SVfiniteXVnon-finite
SVX
13
11
17
SXV
10
53
SXVX
11
(others)
Further evidence for this claim is provided by potentially ambiguous

sentences like & a burgware hie gefliemdon [Chron A 894] and the
citizens put them to flight, where subject and object are morphologically
indistinct and the order SOV (rather than OSV) is used, despite the
otherwise observable tendency for pronouns to be placed early in the clause
(cf. Denison 1987: 147). As a result of the emergence of V-2 in earlier
Germanic, Old English shares with the other West Germanic daughter
languages the clausal brace, whereby finite and non-finite verbs become
separated, e.g.:
(21) Foron we sceolan mid
therefore we must:PL
with
ealle mod &

all
mgene to Gode
mind and power
to God
gecyrran
turn:INF
Therefore we must turn to God with all our mind and power.
(BlHom 97. 26)
There is a decided lack of studies of the clausal brace in Old English;
Mitchell (1985) does not have a lot to say about it (Intervention by other
elements produces patterns which are certainly not acceptable in MnE
[Modern English] but which certainly do not fall with OE examples of S
V, which requires S () Vv; Mitchell 3910), and the few pertinent
titles tend to have been written by scholars with a background in Germanic
philology. Implicitly, the topic is of course dealt with in many discussions
of V-2 vs. OV orders. Yet a description on the basis of the clausal brace
might actually be superior with respect to descriptive adequacy (cf.
Haspelmath 2010). The clausal brace can be seen as the result of the finite
98
verb no longer being in final position, while the non-finite verb remains in
its old position at the end of the clause. And although it seems plausible to
assume that it is a result of the V-2 development, it is not a necessary one,
since the brace is hardly ever found in the North Germanic languages,
which are all V-2; it is tempting to speculate that there is a connection
between this observation and the loss of OV in these languages (cf.
Vennemann 1974b and 1984, Stockwell 1977 and the overview in Lass
1994). Moreover, in Old English the clausal brace is not obligatory, e.g.:
(22) We willa secgan eow sum bigspell
we want:PL tell:INF you some example
We want to tell you an example/a parable.

(CHom I 14.1212.6)
Fischer et al. (2000: 142) observe that the position of object pronouns after
the non-finite verb, as in this example, appears to be only possible from late
Old English onwards. It has been suggested that exbraciation is the relevant
factor in Old English (cf. Stockwell 1977), and indeed this would fit in very
well with the nearly complete loss of the clausal brace after the Old English
period and also with the long-term tendency for late position of objects,
which is already observable in Old English. Conversely, the first position in
V-2 clauses is most frequently occupied by a or by the subject. Cf. Stockwell (1977 and 1984) for a plausible scenario for the factors relevant to the
emergence and later development of the Old English order; note also
Stockwells interesting hypothesis that the apparent operation of V-2 in
early Old English may be actually quite deceptive and may be the result of
a thematic fronting of verbs. This would provide a good explanation for the
many apparent exceptions to V-2 and also tie in with Vennemanns
(1984) observation that V-2 and the sentence brace become fully grammaticalized only later (and never quite in English); but cf. also Stockwell &
Minkova (1991). Van Kemenade (2003) argues that the position of short
sentence-initial adverbs like a and of subjects is completely independent
of the position of the finite verb and suggests that the exclusive occurrence
of negative-initial V-F clauses in the older poetic records provides evidence
for a more archaic (i.e. less advanced V-2) word order pattern in these
texts. Here again the finite verb undergoes positional change, while the
position of other elements remains fairly stable and regulated by weight (cf.
the positional differences between pronominal and full subjects with
respect to the sentence-initial adverbs discussed in van Kemenade 2003:
363366, and cf. Lenker 2010 for a detailed diachronic discussion of the
use of a and other adverbial connectors).
99
It is, of course, easy to see how this kind of distribution may lead
eventually to the SVO order of present-day English, where both the
postverbal position of the object and the preverbal position of the subject
are fully grammaticalized, but the exact details of the emergence of SVO
must still be characterized as rather obscure. It is possible that the fixing of
word order is connected to the loss of inflectional morphology; however,
this loss cannot account for the emergence of SVO rather than V-2 (or any
other order, for that purpose), as the comparison with other present-day
Germanic languages with a comparably poor inflectional morphology
shows. Similarly, the loss of inflectional morphology may well be a necessary condition for the development towards fixed word order, but it is by no
means a sufficient one, as the comparison with Icelandic shows; cf. e.g. the
discussion of the development of English direct vs. indirect object marking
and the loss of post-head genitives by Allen (2006), who also considers
comparative evidence from Faroese. The development of the V-2/V-F distinction has direct consequences for the development of particle placement,
as Vennemann (1984) has observed:
the clausal brace owes its existence to the coexistence of verb-second and verblate syntax. Since this coexistence continues in German, enhanced by the
strengthening of verb-late syntax to verb-last syntax in coordinate clauses, the
clausal brace has always thrived and even gained length in German. Contrariwise, since verb-late syntax was given up in Scandinavian and, for a
intermediate period, in English in favor of generalized verb-second syntax, the
clausal brace lost its support, Behaghels First Law made its power felt, and the
brace has been on the decline for centuries, with exbraciation, i.e. rightward
transposition from the brace, as the mechanism of brace reduction. In English,
where the assimilation of subordinate clauses to main clauses was executed
with the greatest thoroughness, the reduction of the clausal brace has been carried out to the greatest extreme of all the Germanic languages, with only traces
surviving in pronominal object embracing, unmarked indirect object placement,
and simple adverb embraciation. (Vennemann 1984: 634)
Vennemanns observation that the clausal brace becomes more rigid in the
course of time (although with noticeable diastratic variation) receives further support from Schmidts (1998) and Roelckes (1998) observations on
the development of the clausal brace in German and its varieties (cf.
Schrodt 2004: S 183284 on the clausal brace in Old High German).
The connection between verb placement and particle position is, of course,
what might have been expected on the basis of the striking correspondences
between these factors found in the present-day Germanic languages. Here it
becomes clear, though, that this connection is ultimately not fortuitous but
100
epiphenomenal to historical changes in the positions of verbs and object

(for an account of the reverse change in Chinese from SVO to SOV, which
was concomitant with the emergence of postpositions, verbal suffixes and
agglutinative tendencies, see Li & Thompson 1974). In the light of such
observations, it becomes very questionable indeed whether there is such a
thing as the rise of postverbal particles, as some discussions of the topic
suggest, and this question will be dealt with shortly.
3.2.3. The rise of Modern English word order
But let us first return briefly to the more general long term developments in
English word order. Table 3-2 below shows an early and rough attempt at
describing the overall tendencies in the development of English word order
(Fries 1940; percentages in the second column sic). Fries does not elaborate
on his database (neither on its size nor on the texts included) but since his
observations are in principle confirmed by later research on the changes in
word order it seems admissible to reprint his figures here as an illustration
of the long-term development. More reliable figures are difficult to procure,
for the reasons identified by Fischer (1992: 371372): It will not be possible to provide exact percentages and tables since the amount of research
devoted to Middle English word order is still scanty and, more problematically, shows great methodological variation. Thus, since reliable in-depth
studies of word order in Middle English are surprisingly scarce, much of
the discussion of the developments presented here will remain somewhat
vague, not least also because of the considerable complexity of the Middle
English dialect situation. The generative discussions of some of the
relevant changes, by Kroch & Taylor (2000), Trips (2002), Roberts (2007)
or S. Fischer (2010) all rely on a rather small set of data available through
electronic corpora. Fries table shows very clearly, though, that by the end
of the Middle English period OV order is almost completely lost. But, as
we have seen in the preceding discussion of Old English word order, it is
necessary to distinguish between different clause types, since the loss of
OV is already well under way in Old English main clauses, where it is only
left as a (quantitatively) marginal word order, which may be restricted to its
use as a focusing device. In fact, already in early Middle English the use of
OV may be considerably more restricted than Fries figures indicate. For
the first half of the 12th century, Mitchell (1964) in his study of word order
in the Peterborough Chronicle finds that in subclauses 28 per cent of the
word orders would be impossible in present-day English in the First
101
Table 3-2. OV and VO orders in English (according to Fries 1940: 201)

c.1000
c.1200
c.1300
c.1400
c.1500
OV
52.5%
52.7%
>40%
14.3%
1.87%
VO
47.5%
46.3%
<60%
85.7%
98.13%
Continuation (11221131), and only 12 per cent in the Second Continuation (11321154), in stark contrast to a mere 41 per cent of ostensibly
modern word orders in late Old English. Similar results have been
reported by Palmatier (1969) for the Ormulum (late 12th century), while
MacLeish (1969) finds that in late Middle English the brace construction is
extremely rare in main clauses while it does occur in subordinate clauses,
especially with pronominal objects. But Palmatier and MacLeish do not
draw finer distinctions between various types of clauses, despite Mitchells
(1964) demonstration that these distinctions are of essential importance in
medieval English. With all these studies it is rather difficult to use them for
more than the general impressions. Criticizing Clarks claims as to the
modernity of the syntax of the Second Continuation of the Peterborough
Chronicle (Clark 1958: lxvi), Mitchell is rather keen on stressing the continuity in word order between Old English (cf. also the remarks in Mitchell
1985: 39483951) and the language of the Peterborough Chronicle and
leaves it largely undiscussed whether his old orders in the Peterborough
Chronicle are really old or just orders which appear to be old but really
follow different and more modern ordering principles (cf. the discussion in
Fischer 1992: 372373 and also the criticism in Denison 1993: 3435).
Likewise, Stockwell & Minkova (1991: 368) draw attention to the inherent
contradiction between Mitchells claim that the syntax is archaic and his
observation that the incidence of old orders in subordinate clauses has
decreased significantly. Thus while V-F is already marginal in Old English
main clauses, it becomes rapidly marginal in Middle English in all kinds of
clauses. Already Reszkiewicz (1962) in his study of word order in the late
Middle English Book of Margery Kempe had observed that SOV occurs
only once in a subordinate clause with a pronominal object, while SvO(V)
and OvS(V) (i.e. verb second with clausal brace) are still frequent with all
types of objects (Reszkiewicz 1962: 39). On the whole, it seems that the
deviations from SVO (V-2, SOV, OSV, etc.) increasingly come to be used
as stylistically marked and archaic orders; cf. the overview in Fischer
(1992: 372375). Fischer summarizes the Middle English development as
follows:
102
These facts reveal a clear tendency towards SVO in both main and subclauses.
The vestiges of SOV order that remain give us some idea about the underlying
causes of the development. The far greater frequency of preverbal pronominal
objects was already apparent in Old English and has been connected with
ordering principles related to weight (cliticization) and theme-rheme structure,
which are themselves presumably interrelated Thus, NPs that are light (pronominals) and represent given information (pronominals are usually anaphoric)
tend to occur early in the phrase, whereas heavy NPs and NPs containing new
information tend to occur late. The question is why this multivariable but
pragmatic Old English system was slowly being replaced by an almost
invariable one in the later periods. (Fischer 1992: 373374)
It is remarkable, though, that V-2 continues for a considerably longer time

than all the other variants deriving from Old English. But OV orders are
still current at the end of the 14th century, e.g.:
(23) the hooly blisful martir for to seeke, that hem hath holpen whan
that they were seeke. (Chaucer, GP, 18)
to seek the holy blessed martyr, who (has) helped them when
they were ill.
(24) A clerk hadde litherly biset his whyle, but if he koude a carpenter
bigyle (Chaucer, MT, 3300)
A scholar had wasted his time, unless he could deceive a carpenter.
(25) by whiche thynges I may my persone and myn hous so kepen and
deffenden that myne enemys shul been in drede myn hous for to
approche. (Chaucer, Mel 1334)
thus I can protect and defend myself and my house in such a
manner that my enemies will be afraid of approaching my house.
As these examples indicate, where OV is still found it tends to occur with
object pronouns and in subordinate clauses, as in (23), and there are also
subordinate clauses with full objects with a clausal brace, as in (24). As
(25) shows, the clausal brace may also occur in main clauses. The use of
OV is not restricted to poetic language, as these examples from Chaucer
may misleadingly indicate (cf. MacLeish 1969 for more examples of the
full range of positional variants in late Middle English). However, OV
becomes rare in English early in the Early Modern English period, except
for poetic registers (V-2 still exists in a number of present-day English constructions whose historical continuity to Old English is clearly visible,
while the emergence of dummy subjects coincides with the loss of V-2, cf.
e.g. Fischer 1992: 376). For the persistence of V-2 patterns in Early
103
Modern English, see e.g. Jacobsson (1951) or Bkken (1998), for a

discussion of present-day English V-2 constructions which are not the
direct historical reflexes of earlier V-2, see Stockwell (1984); cf. also
Nevalainen (1997) on Early Modern English developments. Trips (2002)
provides an interesting in-depth study of the development from OV to VO
in the early Middle English dialects, where she is rather quick to attribute
the changes to Scandinavian influence. Her argument rests largely on
anachronistic parallels in the later Scandinavian languages, including Old
Norse, and the historical input available from Old English is consistently
downplayed; this criticism also goes for other syntactic studies positing
language contact with Old Norse as a relevant factor, which tend to present
the language contact scenario in such a way that is fits their contact agenda,
e.g. Kroch & Taylor (2000) or Kroch, Taylor & Ringe (2000). On the
whole, old V-2 disappears last in clauses introduced by short adverbial
elements, where it was most regular in Old English (cf. the typical Old
English orders in main clauses introduced by a, re, ne, etc.), which
lends some support to the notion that SVO is the result of the generalization
of frequent patterns.
3.3.
The development of the position of the particle in verb-particle constructions can be seen as an immediate consequence of the development of the
more general patterns of word order described so far (even if this claim had
better be phrased somewhat more carefully, cf. the discussion of some of
the unresolved issues below).
In general the changing position of the particle is clearly connected to
the loss of OV and the related changes described in the preceding section.
Consequently, what appears to be a positional change of the particle (from
pre- to postposition, etc.), on closer inspection turns out to be a set of
positional changes of the elements of the verb phrase and of the postpositional trends observable in objects. Approaches like Von Schons (1977),
where the particle rather than the other elements of the clause is assumed to
shift (Von Schon 1977: 222 assumes a First Particle Shift to postverbal
position after finite verbs in the 7th century and a Second Particle Shift
after non-finite verbs some centuries later) have been roundly criticized
for their linguistic, methodological and philological shortcomings (see e.g.
Denison 1981: 113114 and 118132) and will not be discussed here
further.
104
O prt V v
>
v O prt V
(>
prt V v O)
>
v V O prt
OV
>
v V prt O
v prt V O
VO
V-2
extraposition
vV > vV
Figure 3-2. Positional changes and their causes
Based on the observation that the historical development of order within

the clause is mainly to do with the changes in the position of the finite verb
and the subsequent emergence of the clausal brace, which in its turn
becomes dissolved by the exbraciation of brace-internal elements, the
overall development of the orders of verbs and particles in relation to
objects can be summarized as in Figure 3-2 (with the general positional
changes below and their consequences for particle position above the dotted line; v finite verb, V non-finite verb). Although somewhat idealized
in its neatness, this general path of development ties in completely with the
cross-linguistic observations discussed above, the comparative reconstruction of changes in early Germanic word order, the historical evidence from
other Germanic languages and the long-term changes observable in English
(the regularities shown in the figure also apply when there is no object or
no non-finite verb). Moreover, it is characterized by considerable explanatory elegance, since it derives the basic positional properties of the verbparticle construction from other, well-attested developments in the overall
organization of English clauses, while it also accounts for the absence of
certain patterns, like e.g. prt-O-V (cf. Hiltunen 1983a: 117); i.e., this is an
explanation, since it identifies the relevant causal factors in the change
the fact that the reasons in the development of these factors in their turn are
open to dispute is irrelevant in the present context.
Although most treatments of the Old English particle verbs devote some
space to listing the differences between particle verbs and inseparable prefix verbs (cf. e.g. the relevant sections in Denison 1981, Hiltunen 1983a,
Mitchell 1985 or Fischer et al. 2000), all such criteria can be reduced to the
simple observation that prefixes are unstressed and fused to the verbal
stem, while particles are not (see also the discussion of this in Chapter 5
below). Problems of analysis are mainly to be encountered in cases of synchronic layering, where a preverb may be both a free particle and an
105
inseparable prefix (cf. Section 3.1 above). It seems that such criteria are
usually of more relevance to the identification of prefixes than of particles
(cf. e.g. Mitchell 1985: 10721073), and the parallels to the situation in
the present-day Continental West Germanic languages are obvious. However, the following differences between particle verbs and prefix verbs
regarding word order are nevertheless worthy of being pointed out again,
especially since they may serve to illuminate some of the characteristics of
the Old English particle verbs which are not predictable in detail by a comparison with the present-day continental West Germanic languages: First,
the negative particle ne and the infinitival particle to always immediately
precede the finite verb; thus with preverbal particles the order is prt-ne/to-V
(cf. examples (29) and (32) below), while the corresponding order with prefixes is ne/to-prefix-verb. Moreover, other elements as well may intervene
between the preverbal particle and the verb, most notably modals, stranded
prepositions and pronouns (cf. examples (30) and (31) below), while once
again the prefixes are by definition inseparable; by contrast, cf. van der
Auweras (1995) comparative discussion of preverbs in present-day Dutch
and German.
Indeed, the positional properties of a vast majority of verb-particle constructions found throughout the history of English confirm the validity of
the diachronic path sketched above. Hiltunen (1983a) has studied the
largest corpus of Old English texts with respect to particle verbs so far. His
corpus contains twelve Old English and fifteen early Middle English texts
with the aim of including the chief variants of prose style between c. 800
and 1250 (Hiltunen (1983a: 31). With few exceptions, most later studies
have tended to rely on the material available in Hiltunens study, which,
although there is no reason to doubt the empirical soundness of his description, is in some respects somewhat unwieldy, especially since Hiltunen
basically accepts Mitchells procedure (cf. e.g. Mitchell 1964, and still
1985) of distinguishing between different positional variants with reference
to four frames of the type S.V., SV, SV and V.S.. This, as we
have seen above, does not quite capture the relevant factors for the description of the position of clause elements, although it can often be transposed
into more appropriate terms. But many of his statistics are, due to this classificatory weakness, not as illuminating as one could wish, especially since
they do not distinguish between finite and non-finite verbs. The following
examples are taken from Hiltunen (1983a); the glosses are mine.
In Old English the oldest order objectparticleverb occurs typically in
subordinate clauses, e.g.:
106
(26) He bebead
he
implored
him, on Godes naman, t
he
him
he
on
Gods
one
cwelmbran hlaf
DET.ACC.SG
deadly:ACC
name
aweg
loaf[ACC] away
that
bre
carry:PRET.SUBJ.SG
He implored him, in the name of God, to carry away the deadly

loaf.
(CHom ii 162.23)
In subordinate V-F clauses, this pattern is extremely regular and there is
hardly a single solid exception. Hiltunen (1983a: 116) finds only four
instances with a postposed particle in his sizeable corpus. But of these one
is not V-F (his example 15), one involves the adverb togdere (his
example 17), which had perhaps better be not classified as a part of a verbparticle construction, and in the remaining two the particle is followed by a
prepositional phrase, which might be a special case anyway (cf. the
discussion in Fischer et al.: Ch. 6). As is to be expected considering the
diachronic factors responsible for the ordering, the rule also holds for
intransitive verbs, as in (27), and for those instances where the sequence
prtV is interrupted by an intervening element, as in (28)(31):
(27) for on
a feawan
because of the few
hfdon
REL
there out [away-]flown:PST.PTCP
ut
oflugon
eft
had:PRET.PL afterwards
because of the few who had flown out from there afterwards
(Or 96.3)
(28) Uton we foron
geencean hwylc handlean
let.us we therefore remember
we him
what recompense we him
for to berenne habban

forth to carry:INF have:PRES.PL
Let us therefore remember what recompense we have to offer him.

(BlHom 91.13)
(29) form hio
because
DEM
nanne swetne
wsm for ne
no:ACC sweet:ACC fruit
bring
forth NEG brings
because it does not bring forth sweet fruit

(CP 341.23)
(30) r
he
before he
ut
wolde
faran to gefeohte
out wanted
go:INF to fight:DAT
before he wanted to go out to the fight

(Or 232.4)
(31) &
a ut
he
and then out he
gan
107
wolde
go:INF wanted
and then he wanted to go out

(Bede 396.29)
Since V-2 and exbraciation first and foremost apply in main clauses, the
sequences v-prt-O and v-O-prt are typically found there, e.g.:
(32) a
ahof
Paulus up his heafod
there raised
Paulus up
his head
Paulus raised his head.

(BlHom 187.35)
(33) He nam up Sca Kyneburh & S. Kynesui e
he
took
up
lgen in Castra
St. Cyneburh and St. Cyneswith REL lay:PL in Castor
He exhumed St. C. and St. C., who were buried at Castor.

(ChronE 117.33 [963])
But non-finite verbs at the end of the clausal brace continue to have preverbal particles, e.g.:
(34) a
then
nolde
he
adun
asceotan
NEG-wanted
he
down
shoot:INF
He did not want to fall down.

(CHom i, 170.25)
(35) Ws he
was
he
rest
up
ahefen
of m huse
first
up
taken
of the
house
He was first taken up from the house.

(Bede 288.13)
In V-F main clauses with the verb in final position, the particle will likewise be typically found in preverbal position, e.g.:
(36) he
he
mid mildheortnesse hine up ahof

with compassion
him
up
took
He raised him with compassion.

(ApT 18.9)
As is to be expected from the general tendencies of word order change discussed above, this is fundamentally a relic order (also with regard to the
verb), which is recessive already in Old English. Conversely, the spread of
108
VO orders in subordinate clauses goes along with the expected re-ordering

of verb and particle, e.g.:5
(37) t he wearp t sweord onweg t he on handa hfde
that he threw
that sword
away
that he on hand
had
that he threw away the sword which he held in his hand

(Bede 38.20)
(38) for an e se stream ber
because
aweg Placidum
the stream carries away Placidus
because the stream carries Placidus away

(CHom ii, 160.5)
(39) foram e him
because
him
burston ut
burst
butu his eagan
out both
his eyes
because both his eyes fell out

(LS i 422.120)
And in clauses introduced by and, ac or ne, the order of verb and particle is
quite regular according to the position of the verb. Thus we find a preverbal
particle in (40), where the verb follows the object, but a postverbal particle
in (41), where the verb precedes the object:
(40) &
micele here hue mid
and much
army booty with
him
aweg
them away
lddon
led:PL
and took much war-booty away with them

(ChronE 111.13 [943])
(41) &
efsones he
and soon after he
let him
ut
urhc wrse red
let
out
through worse
him
advice
and soon after, on worse advice, he let him out

(ChronE 276.12 [1140])
This touches upon a number of highly contested issues in historical syntax,

which must be left undiscussed here. Especially in those approaches where
the particle is believed to mark the base position of the verb evidence from
subordinate clauses like the one given in these examples has led to some
discussion over the question whether this is due to extraposition of objects
(cf. van Kemenade 1987) or to V-2 (cf. Pintzuk 1991 and the brief overview
in Fischer et al. 2000: 194197); as the phrasing of my description shows, I
tend to follow Pintzuks thorough analysis on this point.
109
There is, however, one relatively rare order which cannot be accounted for
easily by the general processes outlined above. In a few V-2 clauses with a
finite particle verb the particle occurs preverbally (e.g. example (42) from
Hiltunen 1983a: 118, example (43) from Fischer et al. 2000: 187, and
example (44) from Koopman 1985: 95). Elenbaas in her discussion of verbparticle constructions in the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old
English Prose (which contains 1.5 million words) only finds 24 clear
examples of this order (cf. Elenbaas 2007: 191), while Hiltunens
classification renders it impossible to draw any solid conclusions on the
basis of his figures.
(42) t heo onweg adyde a gemynd ara
that DEM away
did
DET
treowleasra
memory DET.GEN.PL faithless:GEN.PL
cyninga
king:GEN.PL
that it removed the memory of the faithless kings

(Bede 154.10)
(43) Stephanus upastah urh
Stephanus up-rose
his blod gewuldorgebeagod
through his blood glory-crowned
Stephanus ascended, crowned with glory through his blood.

(CHom I, 3.56.31)
(44) and aweg geldde micelne dl s
and away led:SG
folces
to his rice
big:ACC part DET.GEN.SG peoples to his realm
and led away a great part of the people to his realm

(CHom II, 18.21)
So far no entirely satisfactory explanation has been offered for the preverbal position of particles in V-2 clauses, and the discussions in the
literature tend to be rather vague and adhoc-ish. The first principled
account was attempted by Koopman (1985), who assumed that the verb and
the particle are generated under a single node in the order prtV and are
moved together. However, this obviously creates problems with the analysis of the other orderings (cf. the critique of Koopmans suggestion in
Denison 1991: 3638 and in Elenbaas 2007: 151152). Another analysis,
mentioned but not adopted by Fischer et al. (2000: 187) would consist in
analysing such instances as (inseparable) prefixes. This however, is clearly
unjustified in view of the separability of these combinations of verbs and
particles in all other cases where they appear, while Elenbaas (2007: 191)
proposed scenario of the option of particle incorporation, by which the
particle undergoes head-movement and attached [sic] to the left of the
110
(lexically decomposed) verb merely rephrases the problem in theoretically

more consistent terms. Her earlier suggestion that prt-V-O orders reflects
basic word order with an extraposed object (Elenbaas 2007: 166167)
appears to be historically more appealing. It can be pointed out, though,
that these clauses very typically contain rather long elements after the verb,
and for want of a better solution they had perhaps be seen best as V-F
clauses with a postposed heavy object. This suggestion in fact ties in with
the typical exbraciation of objects, cf. the discussion above and the
description of weight ordering as a fundamental property of Old English
syntax in Reszkiewicz (1966) and the quantitative analysis in Pintzuk &
Taylor (2006).
It seems that there is a tendency for Old English scribes to write particles and verbs as one word if the particle immediately precedes the verb,
cf. e.g. example (43). This point, which has been noted for long but never
been pursued in detail, is clearly in need of further investigation (cf. Gneuss
1973: 18). The issue is usually obscured by the modern editions. But why
should the spelling of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts be relevant for a modern
linguistic analysis? Although this kind of information is typically normalized in one way or the other by modern editors and subsequently in the
electronic corpora as well (including the DOE Corpus, cf. the discussion in
Chapter 4 below), here is a case where modern linguists have the opportunity to catch a glimpse of native speaker intuitions of a dead language.
The evidence may turn out to be inconclusive on closer inspection, but
simply ignoring it would be careless (note that otherwise the Anglo-Saxon
scribes decisions on what constitutes a word boundary are in general
tacitly accepted unless there is good reason for not doing so). In this
context it may also be relevant that Anglo-Saxon scribes tended to use
spacing in Old English glosses to indicate the morphological structure of
glossed Latin words, as Kornexl (2003) points out. Cf. also the discussions
of the position of the role of textual evidence as the very basis of language
history by Fischer (2004) and Lass (2004), and Fleischers (2009) exemplary analysis of palaeographical clues to prosody in Old High German
manuscripts, which also includes a discussion of word separation. Minkova
(2008: 26) takes an example like (43) as evidence that up could be a prefix, or it could be a particle, and the word-order tests for OE allow both
interpretations. Indeed, based on this sentence alone this observations
would be fully justified (in fact, an analysis of up as a prefix would presumably be more appropriate). But considering that there is elsewhere in
the Old English corpus very little unambiguous evidence for prefix status
of up, but a lot of evidence in favour of its particle status, Minkovas claim
does not appear to be fully justified (although the development of up into a
111
prefix is possible in principle, as its further history shows, cf. the discussion
in Chapter 4 below).
The long-term loss of preverbal particles, then, can be seen in Figure 3-3
below, which summarizes the positional developments observed by Hiltunen (1983a) in his study of verb-particle constructions in Old and Middle
English. Although Hiltunen does not distinguish between finite and nonfinite verbs in the different clause types, the overall tendency is very clear
from the percentages shown in the figure. The category main clauses
(principal clauses in Hiltunens terminology) also comprises coordinated
clauses; consequently, the figures for the main clauses proper are really
higher (cf. the discussion of word order in different clause types above and
the figures for the individual clause types in Hiltunen 1983a: 106110). Of
course, these figures reflect the loss of V-F orders and the establishment of
SVO by the end of the Middle English period.
The findings of Elenbaas (2007) detailed quantitative study of the
development of the particle position in the Middle English period based on
the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English confirm the general
trends noted here. Between the periods M1 (11501250) and M3 (1350
1420) the percentage of postverbal particles in main clauses goes up from
93.3 to 98.4 per cent, in coordinate main clauses from 96.7 to 100 per cent
and in subordinate clauses from 87.3 to 99.6 per cent (cf. Table 5 in Elenbaas 2007: 239, where the figures, however, are in part slightly at odds with
those given in her subsequent discussion) i.e., already at the beginning of
the Middle English period postverbal position of the particles is clearly
dominant in all clause types and it becomes the norm by the end of the
period. In fact, on closer inspection it turns out that Elenbaas corpus hardly
yields a single unambiguous example of a preverbal particle: there are
practically no instances of preposed particles which are not immediately
adjacent to the verb (there appear to be altogether only two tokens in her
1.2-million word corpus; each of these two occurrences is likely to be due
to stylistic factors, cf. the examples given in Elenbaas 2007: 243 and 261).
The majority of the remaining instances, where the particle is immediately
adjacent to the verb, are either of doubtful relevance (e.g. close translations
from Latin) or may in fact be analysed as prefix verbs. At any rate it seems
beyond doubt that after the early Middle English M1 period there is
hardly any solid evidence for preverbal particles in the corpus. Taking into
account the corroborative evidence from earlier studies discussed above,
there is therefore good reason for the assumption that by late Middle English preverbal particles have become marginal in English and that their
occurrence is conditioned exclusively by stylistic rather than syntactic factors.
112

100
92
80
87
58
60
main clauses
........ subordinate clauses
44
40
33
20
13
0
eOE
lOE
eME
Figure 3-3. Development of the order verb-particle from early Old English to
late Middle English (according to Hiltunen 1983a: 111)
Already in the Second Continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle

Denison (1981: 136) finds that [i]n seventeen cases out of nineteen, the
particle follows the verb and that [i]n both of the cases where it precedes
the verb, the verb is finite and clause-final and the clause is a coordinate or
subordinate one. Contrary to Old English usage, the particle normally
follows the verb in this 12th-century text, e.g.:6
(45) at he
that he
neure mare sculde cumen ut

never
more should come
out
that he would never come out

(ChronE 1140.45)
(46) he suor
at he
he swore that he
ealle his castles sculde iiuen up

all
his castles should give
up
He swore that he would give up all his castles.

(ChronE 1140.40)
The last example provides evidence for the sequence O-v-V-prt and is
extremely difficult to classify; cf. Denisons observation that this is about
the only justification for Von Schons assumption of particle shifts (1981:
137). This kind of evidence provides a formidable obstacle to neat correla6
Examples quoted after Denison (1981: 136137), who following Mitchell

(1964) analyses (45) as an instance of SV, although this analysis
somehow begs the question, since the clause could be just as well seen as an
instance of SVO.
113
tions between general word order rules and the position of the particle, and
in the literature there is a marked reluctance to discuss this observation in
detail. One possible explanation may be that the position between the pronominal subject and the verb is a focus position in subordinate clauses; cf.
the quantificational constituents neure mare in (45) and ealle his castles in
(46), where this would be conceivable. (And cf. the corresponding reverse
order in Old English, as e.g. in Heo of genim one scruf & one teter
[Herbarium 46.6.957, quoted after Elenbaas 2007: 166; lit. it off-takes the
scabies and the eczema], where a long object is extraposed while the particle remains in preverbal position.) The implication of this proposal,
though, would be that these clauses are quite modern to start with (with the
order v-V-prt) and then turn into a pseudo-archaic type of SV through
topicalization; obviously, this suggestion is very much on the speculative
side.
In the more recent early Middle English Ormulum (late 12th century),
Denison finds 512 verb-particle constructions altogether, of which only 28
(i.e. six per cent) have preposed particles; these appear almost without
exception with non-finite verbs in subordinate clauses, i.e. where they
would be also expected in Old English. But even more than in the Second
Continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle, in the Ormulum this order is
clearly exceptional, and it is possibly triggered by metrical factors (cf.
Denison 1981: 180). Also, the Ormulum is from a different dialect area
than the Peterborough Chronicle and it may very well be that this difference is due to diatopic rather than diachronic factors. And 300 years or so
later, in a selection from the Paston Letters, Denison (1981: 139) finds no
evidence at all for preposed particles except in a handful of formulaic participle constructions (e.g. a-bovyn wreten, etc.).
In sum, all the orders typical of present-day English essentially already
exist in Old English. This applies also to the marked orders with topicalized
particle, which, however, are attested only rarely in Old English, e.g.:
(47) Ut eode se sdere his sd
out went the sower
his seed
to sawenne
to sow
Out went the sower, to sow his seed.

(Mk (C) 4.3)
(48) Up armde Abraham a
up
rose
Abraham
then
Up rose Abraham!
(Ex 411)
114
Fischer & van der Wurff (2006: 191) claim that in Old English particles in
initial position occur only in poetry, cf. example (48). And indeed an
example like (47) (from Hiltunen 1983a: 121) cannot be taken as
unambiguous counterevidence to that claim, since ut eode here translates
Latin exivit (cf. Roberts 1936: 476). Whether this is sufficient ground for
dismissing the example as irrelevant, as Roberts does, is hard to judge,
though (for further examples, see Denison 1981: 140143, who discusses
some examples from Old English poetry and several examples from early
Middle English onwards, noting that as in Modern English the particles are
uniformly used literally, usually in combination with verbs of motion).
With regard to the position of postverbal particles and objects, there is no
evidence at all in Old and Middle English for pronominal objects which
follow a postposed particle. This order may have been possible under the
very restricted conditions where it is also possible in present-day English.
However, considering the wealth of evidence available for Old English, it
seems safe to conclude that otherwise this order was impossible in Old
English. The lack of evidence for this ordering can be taken as further confirmation for the hypothesis discussed above that extraposition of heavy
objects was an essential factor in the dissolution of the clausal brace
observable in the history of English. In other words, the orders in the
Middle English examples (49) and (50) are among the last relics of the
clausal brace in English, while (51) is in line with the otherwise almost
complete loss of the brace in English (cf. Section 3.2.2 above).
(49) &
heo
and they
holden
hire up
held
her
up
and they held her up

(Ancr. (Nero) 62.34)
(50) &
hef
hire honden up
and raised her hands
up
and raised her hands

(St Marg. (1) 22.9)
(51) heo hef
up hire hond
she raised up
her hand
she raised her hand

(St Marg. (1) 19.22)
What makes this suggestion plausible is the comparison to German with its
strengthening of the brace, where exbraciation as in example (51) only
appears to be possible with very heavy objects. That is to say, with regard
115
to the position of particles, English has been extremely conservative

throughout its history, while the order of other elements has been subject to
considerable (and sometimes not fully explained) changes. But if we look
at any Old English sentence with an S-V-O order, or any other order which
would also be possible in present-day English, the position of the particle
will be highly likely to be identical as well, cf. e.g. examples (33), (38) and
(41) above, etc. The reasons for the apparent lack of complete synchronicity of the disappearance of preverbal particles and the establishment of
SVO remain to be explained, though.
It is probably fair to state that most syntactic studies of verb-particle
combinations in Old and Middle English are primarily concerned with the
relative positions of verb and particle as a means of establishing the
underlying word order; i.e., what is at stake there is not the history of the
phrasal verbs but the history of English word order. But although many of
these studies provide valuable insights into the syntactic aspects of the
development, there has been a considerable degree of concentration in the
literature on a few topics while others have been largely ignored. E.g., there
are hardly any in-depth studies at all of the development of the positional
properties of adverbials, despite Hoppers (1975: 7374) claim that in early
Germanic the positional behaviour of directional complements is identical
to that of preverbs. In other words, although the main changes in English
word order are intrinsically connected to changes in the order of verbs and
objects, it is possible and indeed quite likely that there are a number of
changes affecting other clause elements. But as yet there is little research
on such issues, and without it a satisfactory explanation of the lack of synchronicity may very well be beyond our reach.
3.4.
Conclusion
In this chapter it has been argued that throughout the history of English the
position of the particle has remained essentially fixed, and that what
appears as positional shifts of the particles is really epiphenomenal to
positional changes of other elements of the clause, most notably the finite
verb. From this perspective the positional characteristics of English
particles are entirely in line with those of other Germanic languages, and
the comparative observations made in the preceding chapter fully tie in
with the evidence from earlier Germanic and from Old English discussed in
the present one. There is very little reason to assume that the remaining
problems of the history of particle placement, which are mainly to be found
in late Old English and early Middle English, are an exception to this
116
observation, and these problems had best be regarded as problems

connected to verb and object position in an intermediate stage from a language characterized by mixed V-2/V-F to a strict SVO language.
Moreover, the development to be observed in the history of English ties
in completely with the cross-linguistically well-attested development of
preverbs and can therefore be characterized as highly regular in almost
every respect, both from a comparative and a typological point of view.
Chapter 4
The notion that the phrasal verbs are at the same time both typically Germanic and uniquely English is deeply rooted in the linguistic literature,
where it has been traditionally taken for granted since the beginnings of the
linguistic interest in the construction. The present chapter thus begins with
a brief discussion of the first systematic synchronic and diachronic study of
the phrasal verb, which has exerted a continual, if at times only implicit,
influence ever since, as the subsequent discussion of the treatment of
phrasal verbs in some widely-used handbooks and in the historical dictionaries will show.
4.1.
More than by any other publication, the study of phrasal verbs has been
shaped by Kennedys monograph on The Modern English verb-adverb
combination (1920), which is the first in-depth account of the topic and
which despite its title it is also strongly concerned with history.1 Strang
(1970: 275) calls Kennedys study the standard work on the subject; cf.
e.g. the more recent similar characterization by Fischer (1992: 398), among
many others. As regards its influence, the only serious contender would
probably be Bolingers (1971) seminal study of phrasal verbs in presentday English, which provides a considerably more sophisticated linguistic
analysis than Kennedys study (which, however, is among the only 16 titles
cited by Bolinger). But Kennedy sets the agenda for all subsequent research
and he is the first to discuss virtually all the questions addressed in later
studies up until today: e.g., the development of the English pattern from
early Germanic onwards and the connection of the process to the long-term
1
Kennedys short bibliography very much reflects the little interest the topic
had excited in the earlier literature. He refers to Koch (1891), Harrison
(1892), Eitrem (1903), Webster (1909), Rickard, Shockley & Pratt (1909
1910), Ellinger (1910), Kirkpatrick (1912), Curme (1914) and the NED (viz.
OED1, incomplete in 1920); he does not mention the accounts by 18th
century grammarians (cf. the discussion in Chapter 6 below). On the older
grammatical traditions in German and Swedish, see Tiisala (2008) and
McLelland (2008), who, focusing on various kinds of adverbs, also discuss
verb particles and provide further literature.
118
typological shift from syntheticity to analyticity in English, the position of

the particle, characteristic features of the verb elements like their etymologies and their length, and the functions of the particles. He also discusses
the relation of phrasal verbs to synonymous hard words and, in a more
speculative vein, their overall status in the lexicon.
Not surprisingly, many points of Kennedys study are now superseded.
But both some of his basic assumptions and some of his findings have
rarely been questioned in later research. To my mind it should be viewed
rather critically that there is an undercurrent of tacit assumptions about
phrasal verbs in most subsequent 20th-century research. The present section will be deliberately selective, and the focus in the following will be on
those aspects which have become the received wisdom in many studies of
the phrasal verbs, although at closer scrutiny they turn out to be rather
dubious. In particular, Kennedy discusses the development of the English
verb-particle construction on the basis of the scanty earlier literature and of
his own collection of data. But his study is almost completely ahistorical in
some essential respects. He takes as his point of departure observations on
contemporary English, which in itself is of course an entirely acceptable
procedure. But these observations are then simply mapped onto the past
and the question whether there were differences in the course of history is
hardly ever raised. This applies to a few comparatively minor points of the
study, but also to the central assumptions on the diachronic syntactic and
stylistic properties of the construction.
4.1.1. The rise of the phrasal verbs
As regards syntax, Kennedy describes some of the typical characteristics of
the present-day English phrasal verb, including the post-verbal position of
the particle. Kennedys description is not quite correct, though, since he
states that non-pronominal objects always follow the particle except when
they are very short while pronominal objects may never follow the particle.
Consequently his examples for exceptions from these rules in earlier
periods are misleading, since the supposedly more irregular historical usage
would be perfectly conceivable in present-day English as well. Also,
although Kennedys study is clearly devoted to phrasal verbs (in the sense
the term is used in the present study), he does not distinguish systematically
between phrasal and prepositional verbs, and a few of his examples belong
to the latter group.
On the whole Kennedy observes a long-term increase in the frequency
(both type and token) of the construction. Relying on Curmes (1914)
119
discussion of the origins of verbal compounds in Germanic, he claims

that the tendency to stress an adverbial particle following the verb more or
less closely, worked, during the Old English and early Middle English
periods, toward the elimination of the verb with unstressed, inseparable
particle and the gradual increase of the verb-adverb combination (Kennedy 1920: 11). In a small number of sample texts, then, Kennedy observes
a marked increase in separable combinations at the end of the Middle English period, at the expense of inseparable formations from native material.
In Old English he counts very few separable combinations as opposed to a
high number of inseparable ones, and in Middle English the overall number
of separable combinations (i.e. phrasal verbs) seems to remain rather low,
but an assessment of the situation is difficult, he states, because of the
French lexical influence and because of the differences in text types.
Nevertheless, Kennedy speculates that the development of the phrasal verbs
was slowed down by the influx of Romance compounds (i.e. prefixed
verbs). By the fifteenth century, the combination begins to show real
strength, altho [sic] it is evidently a part of the language of the common
man, even as it has been ever since (Kennedy 1920: 13).
Kennedys account of the rise of the phrasal verbs is seriously flawed by
the fact that all constructions with a particle or a prefix in preverbal position are counted as compounds while only those instances where the
particle is in postposition are counted as verb-adverb combinations; he
concludes that in Old English occurrences of the verb-adverb combination
are practically nil (Kennedy 1920: 12). That is to say, the post-verbal position of the particle is quite ahistorically taken as an unchanging
characteristic of the construction. As a result, Kennedys discussion creates
the impression that the phrasal verb is a new phenomenon in English and
something specific to this language alone, i.e. that there is a rise of the
phrasal verb from the Middle English period onwards. To take just one
prominent example (among very many others) of the popular afterlife of
such notions: Burchfield (Fowler 1996, s.v. phrasal verb) states that the
earliest example known to me is to give up to surrender, which is
recorded in 1154 [t]he type thrived in the centuries that followed.
Moreover, the frequencies are based on a quite eclectic selection of texts,
and Kennedy counts only those particles which occur in Modern English.
But of course these observations do in no way reflect actual Old English
usage (cf. the discussion in Chapter 3 above and see Kennedy 1920: 1114
for his exact figures; a chart with these figures and with percentages is provided in Konishi 1958: 120). The inventory of particles is also subject to
diachronic change, and whilst some of the Old English particles have
disappeared from this inventory, others have entered it. Counting only the
120
particles from the Modern English inventory in a diachronic sample will

thus quite predictably result in an observed increase of the frequencies, but
this observation will be completely meaningless in regard to the quantitative development of the construction type. One example is the exclusion of
phrasal verbs with the particle forth from his diachronic frequencies
because of its loss of productivity in contemporary English, which seems
acceptable in a study devoted to Modern English until one realizes that
this exclusion must have considerably slanted his historical figures for the
relative frequencies of the construction type as a whole (which also used to
be referred to in the literature for a long time, cf. Section 4.1.3 below; for
an analysis of the decline of forth, see Akimoto 2006).
Meaningful statements about the overall quantitative development of the
verb-particle construction should be based on counts of all particle verbs in
the respective samples (i.e. with all types of particles used, and with the
particles preceding and following the verb) in mutually comparable text
types. Kennedys counts meet none of these requirements. Since there is
also no later study of the developments from Old English to Modern English which would meet all of them, it can only be asserted that so far longterm changes in the frequency of occurrence of the English particle verbs
are not known. Yet, ever since Kennedys study changes in the frequencies
of phrasal verbs within different periods have often been posited. This is
not to say that there is definitely no increase. Indeed, considering the loss
of many Old English (inseparable) prefixes which were in part functionally
equivalent to some of the particles, this is even quite likely, cf. Chapter 5
below. But as many other claims regarding the development of the
construction, this has not been subject to a thorough examination. For a
more detailed discussion of the problems the quantitative analyses of the
development of phrasal verbs have had to face, see Chapter 6 below.
4.1.2. Colloquiality, informality, nativeness
Kennedy is clearly of the opinion that the phrasal verbs are by and large
colloquial:
The development of these combinations is essentially a process of the common,
relatively uneducated mind; the verbs and the combining particles are
mainly of native, Anglo-Saxon stock and are in daily use by all classes of
English-speaking people. On the other hand, the words that are being displaced,
such as collapse (break down), comprehend (catch on), eliminate (cut out),
issue (give out) were introduced into the language, for the most part, through
scholarly influence. Many of these words are directly chargeable to the
121
artificial increase of our vocabulary by that school of embellishers who

flourished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Perhaps the common man
is not to be blamed for avoiding the use of a vocabulary which has never really
been his, and for utilizing in the expression of certain ideas his own familiar
word stock. It is, in other words, a movement from the ground up. (Kennedy
1920: 40)
Despite the reference to the borrowing of hard words in Early Modern English, the discussion very much creates the impression that this has always
been the case in the history of English, or at least since the putative rise of
the construction in Middle English. Characterisations of the construction as
stylistically low, colloquial, etc. are all-pervasive in his discussion, and
even though Kennedy concedes that this need not always be the case, the
essentially colloquial character of the construction remains a recurrent
theme, e.g.: colloquial combinations (5), many are frankly colloquial or
even slang (10), [w]hen the fifteenth century is reached it is evidently
part of the language of the common man, as it has been ever since (13),
plebeian verb-adverb combination (13), seems to be an important
element in that shop-talk or English of the common man (17), likely
to be familiar to the speaker possessed of a limited vocabulary (29), and so
forth. On the whole Kennedy wavers between tolerance and condemnation:
The history of the development, and the strength of it in modern colloquial
usage, render it entirely impossible to brush aside the matter as current slang
and colloquialisms. On the other hand one hesitates to encourage too freely the
use of many of these combinations because of the responsibility of the trained
and far-sighted student of English for the maintenance of certain standards in
usage. (Kennedy 1920: 42)
It seems that Kennedy takes for granted that phrasal verbs must be stylistically marked, although his examination of the linguistic evidence does not
really lend any unbiased support to such a notion. This is particularly striking with respect to the relationship of phrasal verbs and synonymous
Latinate verbs, which until today remains one of the most popular
misconceptions in regard to the lexical status of the phrasal verbs (cf. e.g.
the characterisation by McArthur 1992 discussed in Chapter 2 above):
Much of the difference, indeed, between the speech of the majority of those
who pretend to be fairly educated and of the few who take a real pride in the
precision and dignity of their English lies in the use, on the one hand, of the
verb-adverb combination and, on the other, of the less common but more exact
synonym. (Kennedy 1920: 34)
122
It is clear from the very phrasing that what is actually described here is the
avoidance of phrasal verbs by pedantic speakers; hence the deliberate use
of Latinate verbs should be regarded as the marked case, not the use of
phrasal verbs. But in the context of a discussion which invokes mere linguistic laziness of the average speaker (Kennedy 1920: 34) as an
explanatory factor for the use of phrasal verbs, this is easily overlooked.
Kennedy continues immediately with a list of phrasal verbs which are said
to be characteristic of the indifferent user of English as opposed to the
simple verbs used by the average man of fairly good education. But such
lists which have remained a stereotypical feature of the discussion of
phrasal verbs are extremely problematic for a number of reasons already
discussed in Bolinger (1971): Kennedys examples contain non-compositional uses like e.g. cough up (vs. pay) or dig in (vs. apply oneself) while
the compositional ones typically do not even have a Latinate counterpart.
Many of such pairs can only be regarded as synonyms by a very wide
application of the term (e.g. hang out vs. reside or chip in vs. contribute,
where the contexts for paradigmatic substitution are extremely limited).
Another problematic aspect which seems to be consistently ignored in the
discussion is the fact that the existence of etymologically distinct synonyms
is a characteristic property throughout the English vocabulary (cf. e.g. the
overview in Hughes 2000) and not just of phrasal vs. simple Latinate verbs,
and that therefore such suggestive pairings are in themselves quite useless.
For example, another item on Kennedys list is blow in vs. spend; but the
OED s.v. blow v.1 shows that the sense spend, squander is first and foremost an American slang expression found with the simple verb blow, from
which a synonymous phrasal verb is derived. It would be unjustified to
posit on the basis of this or similar pairs that all simple non-Latinate verbs
in English are colloquial etc., and it seems likewise unjustified to claim
that the synonymous phrasal verb provides evidence for the colloquiality of
phrasal verbs as a whole. Most importantly, Kennedy (1920: 34) states that
he has found synonymous simple verbs which could be used to
advantage for only 110 out of the 826 phrasal verbs he examined. In other
words, probably no more than one seventh of the phrasal verbs in Kennedys sample could be replaced by stylistically more elevated simple
verbs, and presumably only in certain senses.
The observations on the typically Germanic etymologies of the phrasal
verbs are closely connected to their stylistic classification; this again is
connected to the observation that their verb elements are typically monosyllabic:
123
The reasons for the predominance of native, monosyllabic verbs in combination

are clear, I am sure. In the first place, they are not only less cumbersome in the
combining, but for the sake of a certain speech rhythm seem to call for weaker
syllables to accompany them. Then again the native Teutonic verbs (and I
include those of Scandinavian origin) are used more commonly, as a rule, and
are more likely to be familiar to the speaker possessed of a limited vocabulary.
(Kennedy 1920: 29)
As for the first part of this explanation, it is hard to tell what is meant by
the characterisation of native (viz. Germanic) monosyllabic verbs as less
cumbersome in the combining, while the speech rhythm can only be
invoked in those cases where there seems to be no apparent difference in
meaning between the simple verb and the simple verb plus particle (e.g.
meet vs. meet up). What seems more relevant in the present context,
though, is the reference to the speaker possessed of a limited vocabulary,
which of course is again a mere invocation of the simplicity and colloquiality of phrasal verbs rather than an explanation; it is typically the noncompositional phrasal verbs which have Latinate synonyms, and these
phrasal verbs are by definition lexicalized (e.g. knowing give and up does
not provide access to the meaning of give up, and this phrasal verb is therefore just as lexicalized as the synonymous surrender). Thus the statement is
once again one that can only make sense if it is taken to mean that the
speaker with a limited vocabulary knows fewer Latinate words which is
first and foremost a statement about the status of the Latinate parts of the
English vocabulary (cf. the collection of Early Modern English opinions on
the issue in Jones 1953). But even this statement is a circular one, which
detects limitations in a speakers vocabulary only where these limitations
affect the Latinate parts of the English lexicon, which are traditionally the
hard ones, while the native elements of the lexicon are plain or
simple. Hence the paradoxical situation that the phrasal verbs are at the
same time simple (when used by native speakers) and difficult (when
acquired by learners of English as a foreign language), which seems
inextricably connected to the long-established notion of the particular
Englishness of the phrasal verbs, as the discussion in Chapter 6 below
will show.
4.1.3. The impact of Kennedys study
Despite the critical observations made so far, Kennedys study is impressive as the pioneering work which marks the beginnings of a linguistic
research tradition in the history of the phrasal verbs. Kennedy manages to
124
provide a by and large convincing first overview, especially in view of the

lack of more specialized historical studies. What is problematic, though, is
the uncritical acceptance of many of Kennedys assumptions in the later
literature on phrasal verbs, and this is also the reason why Kennedys study
has been discussed here in more detail than would otherwise have been
justified for a study published more than 90 years ago. Often the continued
impact of Kennedys study will only be apparent at closer scrutiny;
although some recent studies still rely explicitly on his results, others will
do so only indirectly by referring the reader to more recent studies which in
their turn, directly or indirectly, rely on Kennedy.
4.2.
A short representative review of the treatment of phrasal verbs in the

general literature shows that Kennedys assumptions have continued to
prove a recurrent theme in a rather confused discussion.
4.2.1. The pitfalls of history
Let us begin with a look at how a well-known older textbook presents the
history of phrasal verbs in Old and Middle English. Quoting extensively
from Mustanoja (1960: 348349), Strang (1970: 153), in the context of
her discussion of the development of the Middle English prepositions,
stresses the importance of influence from Old Norse and Old French and of
experimental exuberance (Strang 1970: 275) for their development (the
reference to Mustanoja resurfaces in Fischers 1992 discussion of syntactic
developments in Middle English, cf. Section 4.2.2 below). The reasons for
the development of the prepositions are unknown, Strang says, but it somehow must have had something to do with the phrasal verbs:
It is not easy to understand the complex forces which led to these shifts of
balance, and perhaps we shall never have the knowledge to penetrate them
completely. But one factor clearly is of the highest importance, though itself of
complex and not wholly understood provenance. This is the development of the
verb-particle combination (phrasal verb), in which the particle may be a preposition or an adverb. Such combinations were virtually unknown in OE [viz. Old
English], which used particles with verbs in separable prefix form The
separable use gave rise to many patterns in which the particle followed the
verb, and for some reason this arrangement came increasingly to be preferred.
(Strang 1970: 275)
125
But Strang does not offer any evidence for the close connection between
changes in the inventory of prepositions and the rise of the phrasal verbs.
The assumptions that the phrasal verbs somehow took the place of the Old
English separable prefix verbs (i.e. that they are a new development) while
at same time the phrasal verbs are, basically, separable prefix verbs with
postverbal particles (i.e. they are a positionally restricted version of them)
is another problematic aspect only one of these two assumptions can be
true. Strang (1970: 275) argues that the occurrence of give up surrender as
early as 1154 suggests that phrasal verb must have been deeply
entrenched before that time; note that Burchfield (Fowler 1996) adduces
the same example from the Peterborough Chronicle to suggest the opposite
(cf. the quote in Section 4.1.1 above). Following Kennedy (1920), Strang
goes on to propose that the development may at first have been restrained
by the influx of new loan compounds from French and by stylistic reasons,
since the verb-particle combinations seem always to have had the air of
colloquiality that still often clings about them (Strang 1970: 276). It is not
entirely clear from this statement whether it is also meant to apply to the
Old English particle verbs. In this case it would be quite unfounded, if only
because of the lack of lexical alternatives. Even in regard of the Middle
English situation the assumption of colloquiality is based on very scanty
evidence such as Kennedys somewhat anecdotal statements and can hardly
be used as an explanation for the slow growth of lexicalized combinations,
especially since colloquiality seems a somewhat problematic concept with
respect to Old and early Middle English (cf. Kastovsky 1992: 5.1.2 and
5.3.2.1 and Tristram 2004).
Strangs discussion provides a typical example of the treatment of
phrasal verbs in the historical handbooks and in the textbooks: there
appears to be a common conviction that the phrasal verbs are somehow
particularly English (which is bolstered by the observation that they
typically contain verbs of Germanic descent and by the presumptive
difficulties they pose for learners of English as a foreign language) and that
their development may somehow have been influenced by language contact. Although those convictions have hardly ever been put to the test, they
persist in the literature, as e.g. the following characterisations in a more
recent introduction to Middle English show:
An interesting case, demonstrating the impact of Norse and also (indirectly)
French, is to do with the development of the phrasal verb. Phrasal verbs are a
characteristic English formation that developed during the ME [viz. Middle
English] period; they consist of a verb-particle formation of the model GIVE
UP, SIT DOWN and so on. These verbs seem to derive from OE [viz. Old
English] verbs such as bistandan STAND BY, but their increase in use during
126
the ME period probably derives from interaction with Norse. Strang (1970:
276) notes that there is a stylistic restriction on the use of the phrasal verbs
even now: The verb-particle combinations seem always to have had the air of
colloquiality that still often clings to them. (Horobin & Smith 2002: 75)
The main syntactic innovation in the verb phrase during the ME period was the
rise of two kinds of construction: the impersonal verb and the phrasal verb
The latter construction, still common in PDE [viz. present-day English], consists of a verb followed by another element which seems closely tied to it
semantically, for example GET UP, WAKE UP, LOOK UP. Typically, as mentioned on p. 75 above, phrasal verbs in PDE are rather colloquial in register;
typically also, they tend to have formal-register near-synonyms, cf. ARISE,
AWAKE, CONSULT. (Horobin & Smith 2002: 99)
These two quotes from Horobin & Smith (2002) contain a representative
selection of the most common preconceptions regarding the phrasal verbs:
their Englishness, the putative influence of one or more contact languages,
their stylistic restriction to colloquial registers and their rise as an innovation in Middle English. Taken together, the two quotes also provide a
typical example of the widespread anachronistic and circular reasoning
with regard to the issue of colloquiality: although the second quote refers to
colloquiality in present-day English, in the first quote it is not only claimed
that this has always been the case, but it is also implied (with reference to
Strang 1970, who also merely claims this) that the colloquiality of the
phrasal verbs was more marked in Middle English. Similar remarks can be
found in Horobin (2007: 119), where the presumed colloquiality in Middle
English is illustrated by two putatively colloquial examples from Chaucer.
But in both passages the phrasal verbs are surrounded by French
borrowings, which Horobin surely would not wish to label as colloquial;
again, the procedure is circular. And as the comparative discussion in the
preceding chapter has demonstrated, there is little reason prima facie to
characterize the phrasal verb either as a particularly English construction or
as a Middle English innovation. This also goes both for the assumption of
language contact as a relevant factor in their development (see Chapter 5
below) and for the anachronistic assumption of colloquiality (which will be
discussed in more detail in Chapter 6).
4.2.2. Coverage in the Cambridge History of the English Language (CHEL
I and II)
In CHEL I, Kastovsky (1992) in the chapter on the lexicon discusses lexical
aspects of the development of the phrasal verbs on the basis of earlier
127
studies. Kastovsky (1992: 5.1.3.1) presents the Old English particle verbs
as part of the associative vocabulary of Old English, in contrast to the
phrasal verbs as typical of the dissociated vocabulary of Modern English
(see Leisi 1985: Section 12, but cf. Sanchez 2008, where it is shown that
Leisis claims are to be taken with a considerable degree of caution). But
one must doubt whether this distinction is applicable to the phrasal verbs,
where new lexical units are formed on the basis of integrated material. In
this respect phrasal verbs are not essentially different from the verbal
prefixations Kastovsky (1992: 295296, examples 5ar) quotes. Kastovsky
(1992: 298) points to the complete collapse of the OE morphophonemic
system because of its rapidly growing opacity and the ensuing
phonological, morphophonemic and morphological restructuring at the end
of the OE and the beginning of the ME period, whose details still await a
systematic investigation and assumes that the growing semantic opacity of
many Old English elements of word formation must be seen as the ultimate
cause of the loss of the Old English prefixes. I.e., in this account the
phrasal verbs came to replace the Old English prefix verbs because the prefixes had lost their semantic transparency:
As Horgan (1980) and Hiltunen (1983[a]) have shown, the system of prefixes,
in particular those occurring with verbs, was already at the end of the tenth century in a state of advanced decay, because many prefix-verb combinations were
no longer transparent. With many verbal prefixes, e.g. a-, ge-, o-, it is impossible to establish consistent meanings, and frequently there does not seem to be
any meaning difference at all between the simplex and the prefixed form. This
points to a considerable weakening of the meaning of these prefixes, especially
of a-, be-, ge-, and the prepositions/adverbs for and of. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the OE prefix and preparticle system was an easy victim for both
the Romance invasion of the lexicon and the rise of the postparticle (phrasal)
verbs in ME. (Kastovsky 1992: 377)
This assumption rests at least in part on problematic conclusions drawn

from earlier studies, e.g. by Horgan (1980).2 In this context Kastovsky also
discusses the status of verbal loan formations ( 5.2.1.5.3). Loan formations may result in knotty problems to a morphemic analysis of prefix
2
Horgan had shown that among different copies of the Old English Cura
Pastoralis (Bodleian MS Hatton 20, Junius transcription of British Museum
MS Cotton Tiberius B xi, Cambridge, Trinity College MS R 5.22 (717) and
Cambridge University Library MS Ii 2.4) some prefixes are interchangeable
with others and concluded that the variation on the part of the copyist was
deliberate, and presumably stylistic, since no actual change in meaning seems
to be involved (Horgan 1980: 130).
128
verbs where they are based on lexicalized Latin formations like instruere
instruct or praeferre prefer, which are rendered in Old English as
ontimbran and foreberan respectively. However, Kastovsky claims, in such
cases the prefixes are redundant or without specific meaning and play the
role of mechanically imitating the Latin model (for a critical discussion of
such a view of the role of calquing in Old English, see Johnston 2011 and
the references given there). Kastovsky (1992: 314) also raises the question
whether this process was facilitated by the semantic bleaching of the Old
English prefixes at the time the loan translations were formed, or whether
the resulting word formations themselves destabilized the prefix system,
by adding more and more instances of morphosemantically opaque
formations to the numerous already existing ones and he speculates that
the two factors may well have operated together in the radical loss of OE
verbal prefixes in the subsequent period. With regard to Scandinavian
influence, Kastovsky remains somewhat vague and undecided, in keeping
with the usually vague and contradictory statements in the literature:
the phrasal verb type come on, make up including muck up, muck about,
where the verbs themselves are of Scandinavian origin (Poussa 1982: 73)
seems to be due to Scandinavian influence (Logeman 1906), or was at least
strengthened by a parallel Scandinavian pattern (Hiltunen 1983[a]: 424), while
its ultimate origin has been attributed to a Celtic substratum (de la Cruz
1972[d]: 171ff.). (Kastovsky 1992: 320)
Cf. Chapter 5 below for further discussion of the issues raised here. On the
whole, verb-particle constructions clearly belong to the lexicon in CHEL I.
In the chapter on syntax (Traugott 1992) the subject is not treated at all; in
the light of the prominent place of the topic in the discussion of the
development of English word order it is remarkable that particle verbs are
excluded from the explicit syntactic discussion in that volume, although the
topic is alluded to in some places, e.g. in the discussion of preposition
stranding (230232, cf. her examples 156 and 157). In contrast, the syntax
chapter in the more recent companion textbook to CHEL (Fischer & van
der Wurff 2006) discusses the development in some detail (cf. the
references in Chapter 3 above).
The chapter on syntax in CHEL II (Fischer 1992) includes the development of phrasal verbs ( 4.9). The phrasal verbs, Fischer states, almost
completely replace the Old English prefixed verbs (386). Mostly relying
on Kennedy (1920), Mustanoja (1960), Strang (1970), Hiltunen (1983a and
1983c) and the contribution by Burnley (1992) in the same volume, she
presents the development as a conflux of lexical and syntactic factors, and
she states that the inseparable prefixes were replaced as a type by the
129
phrasal verbs. If I interpret it correctly, Fischer implies that the phrasal

verbs replaced the inseparable prefix verbs after they had disappeared:
Since most Old English prefixes disappeared (cf. ch. 5 [viz. Burnley
1992], Section 5.2.11), this type was presumably simply replaced by a new
verb-particle combination (Fischer 1992: 386). According to her, the
phrasal verbs may have been partly due to influence from Old French and
Old Norse models, but they may also be seen as the native continuation of
the Old English separable prefix verbs. Fischer does not elaborate on the
details of the presumed combination of native and foreign factors and the
assumption of language contact as playing a role in the development
remains speculative. She attributes this assumption erroneously to Mustanoja (1960: 362363), where the topic is not discussed. I assume the
intended reference is to Mustanoja (1960: 348349), which is also quoted
in this connection by others (e.g. by Strang 1970; cf. the discussion above).
But that passage from Mustanoja (1960) is not at all about foreign influence on the development of the phrasal verbs but about the influx of
foreign prepositions and their influence on the native prepositional system.
There is only one reference to prefixes (Mustanoja 1960: 352). But again,
Mustanoja does not make any statement regarding the development of the
phrasal verbs and his remarks on the mutual interchangeability of prepositions (Mustanoja: 350352) are superseded by the more recent literature
(cf. Dietz 2005 and the references given there). Fischer also does not comment on further details in her sketch of the syntactic development, which
however seems to rest on the assumption that the elements subject to the
positional changes are not semantically opaque, as is suggested by
Kastovskys account in the preceding volume.
In the chapter on the Middle English lexicon in CHEL II, Burnley
(1992), like Kastovsky in CHEL I, mentions the rise of the phrasal verbs in
connection to language contact, namely among what he regards as the
effects of incomplete bilingualism, which are probably due to the
influence of Scandinavian (Burnley 1992: 422). He also claims that
Scandinavian influence contributed to the development of particled verbs
in Middle English (Burnley 1992: 444), again without offering any evidence. Kastovskys phrasing, on the other hand, is remarkably guarded (cf.
the quote from Kastovsky 1992: 320 above). But despite using similar
hedges, Burnleys presentation leaves little doubt that he assumes a connection with Scandinavian influence. Note the suggestive argumentation: The
earliest of the extensive use of verb+preposition/adverb colligations as
phrasal verbs on the model of Old Norse is in the Peterborough Chronicle:
gyven up (probably with Scandinavian initial /g/), faren mid, leten up and
tacen to. The Ormulum contains numerous examples (Burnley 1992: 422
130
423). But none of this is real evidence of Scandinavian influence, and it

remains quite unclear whether the Scandinavian influence caused the
development or whether it only contributed to it. Compounding, Burnley
states, is less productive in Middle English than it used to be in Old English
(1992: 441). Burnley (1992: 5.2.8) treats all separable verb-particle
combinations in Old English as compounds and gives no criteria for distinguishing between separable and inseparable formations, and after a general
characterisation of verbal compounds, he states that the types of Old
English were redistributed into the two types inseparable particle+verb
compounds and phrasal verbs and that nominal compounds were derived
of these two types (Burnley 1992: 5.2.9), without going any further into
the details of the development.3 He concludes:
This emphasis upon the particled verb as the focus of derivation is symptomatic
of the change which took place during the fifteenth century by which the formation of verbs became concentrated on the production of particled verbs, and
compound verbs ceased to be productive as a type of word formation. (Burnley
1992: 445)
Unlike Kastovsky (1992), Burnley does not present a list of the relevant
prefixes or particles, and most of the details of change mentioned by him
remain somewhat vague. No connection is established between the history
of the phrasal verbs and the fate of the Old English (inseparable) prefixes.
In Middle English, Burnley states, prefixation as a means of word formation was in retreat (1992: 446): on the one hand, many Old English
prefixes became unproductive and, on the other, new prefixes through
borrowing from Latin and French did not become productive until the end
of the Middle English period (Burnley 1992: 5.2.1113). As a result,
Middle English until the fifteenth century was somewhat depleted in its
range of productive prefixes (Burnley 1992: 447). Thus, with respect to
the causes of the development Burnleys account seems at odds with the
In the older literature the term compound verb may be applied to all kinds of
particle verbs, including phrasal verbs (cf. e.g. the use in Curme 1914), but
independent of this terminological issue the use in the dictionary de facto
excludes the postpositional variants. Altogether it seems that the use of the
term compound in connection with the English particle verbs tends to
coincide with considerable confusion as regards their structural properties; cf.
the characteristic statement by Nielsen (2005: 116), who claims that the OE
compound verbs with an adverb or preposition preceding the verbal base were
partly continued and partly (co-existing with and) replaced by phrasal
(particled) verbs in Middle English.
131
preceding chapter in CHEL II on syntax, where Fischer points out the

continuity with Old English and the ultimately syntactic reasons behind the
emergence of verbs with normally postposed particles.
In sum, there seems to be little disagreement as to the factors which may
have played a role in the history of the phrasal verbs, although their respective evaluation may differ considerably. But taken together, consulting
CHEL I and II leaves one with a somewhat hazy view of the development
of the phrasal verbs: What are the mechanisms of change? And what
exactly changes? But before we try to untangle the details of the
development in the next chapter, it seems appropriate to offer a brief overview of the lexicographic coverage of particle verbs in the relevant
historical dictionaries, which are quite likely to have contributed to the considerable confusion found elsewhere in the literature. Conversely, the
unsatisfactory lexicographic treatment may also be assumed to be the result
of the incomplete accounts in the earlier literature.
4.3.
The present section, then, discusses the treatment of particle verbs in Old
and Middle English in the standard historical dictionaries of English, viz.
most notably for Old English BosworthToller (published 18821898;
Supplement from 1921), for Middle English the MED (19522001), and
across the individual periods also the OED (substantially still 18841928).
Until comparatively recently, with the publication of the first fascicles of
the DOE, these were the main lexicographic aids available to scholars
working on the subject (for a general overview of the English historical
dictionaries, see Thim 2011b and the references given there). In none of
these historical dictionaries the existence of particle verbs is satisfactorily
acknowledged and there are striking parallels between the deficiencies of
the lexical accounts discussed above and of those of the lexicographic
coverage to be discussed in the present section.
The present section does not aim at providing a full critical analysis of
the coverage of particle verbs in the historical dictionaries but rather a very
selective discussion of a typical example, with the aim to demonstrate the
almost predictable limitations imposed by the dictionaries on the older
research. The Old English verb forfran already introduced in Chapter 1
above may serve as an example of the lexicographic practice typical of the
older historical dictionaries (the selection of a particle verb with forth is
132
due in part to the inclusion of the DOE in the discussion, which so far does
not provide coverage beyond the letters AG).4
4.3.1. BosworthToller and other older dictionaries
The treatment in BosworthToller and its Supplement is quite characteristic. The coverage of the verb is spread over two entries (s.vv. forferan and
for-geferan):5 s.v. forferan the senses go forth, depart, die; decedere,
defungi, mori, expirare are given. In the eight sample quotations, the
particle precedes the verb immediately and the consistent spelling as one
word adds to the impression of an inseparable prefix verb. Thus Bosworth
Toller s.v. feran contains only a cross reference to for-[feran] and is rather
consistent in its de facto treatment of the combination as an inseparable
prefix verb. Consequently there is also no cross reference between this
entry and the entry for for-geferan (i.e. for-gefran), which in fact would
provide good evidence for the analysis of the construction as a particle
verb:
for-geferan go forth, depart, die; decedere, mori: ara monige
forgeferdon on Drihten many of whom died in the Lord.
If forfran was an inseparable prefix verb, one would not expect the prefix
GE- to intervene between the prefix and the verb. It would, of course, be
conceivable in principle that forgefran is a distinct prefixation (of a verb
gefran), but this would be a rather unsatisfactory explanation in the light
of the separability of for in both cases, the synonymy of both
4
Dietz (2004: 596600) points out several of the limitations of older research
on Old English prefixes, which may be due to the authors reliance on the
dictionaries, but also to their use of small or unrepresentative corpora. With
respect to the status of Old English for Dietz (2004: 608609) points out that
it occurs predominantly in glosses of Latin prefixed verbs and he suggests
that it is therefore problematic to label for as a native Old English prefix and
that it had better be classified as a particle. Although this observation on the
predominant occurrence in calques is certainly true (cf. DOE s.v. for-), it has
no direct bearing on the present discussion where the focus is on the
lexicographic coverage of such formations as verb-particle constructions
rather than on their limited productivity because of their status as calques.
The stem vowel of the verb is erroneously presented as short in Bosworth
Toller but emended to a long vowel () in the Supplement. In the examples
from BosworthToller the dictionarys use of acute accents to indicate vowel
length will be followed.
133
fran/gefran and forfran/forgefran, the general characteristics of Old

English ge- (cf. e.g. the discussion in Kastovsky 1992: 377380 and the
comparative evidence discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 above; see also the
discussions of related lexicographic problems by Butler & Mitchell and by
Sauer in Bammesberger 1985). The Supplement to BosworthToller, however, acknowledges Old English evidence for the verb with postposed
particle by referring to fran for die s.vv. fran and for. The
supplementary entry for for, which has almost tripled in size compared to
BosworthToller, contains the following sub-entry (6a):
of death and decay: Gif ceorl and his wf bearn hbben gemne and fre se
ceorl for (and the husband die).
Moreover, the Supplement also adds s.v. fran (I.2b):

of going from this world, to depart this life: Frdon for Tatwne and Bida
Gif ceorl and his wf bearn hbben gemne and fre se ceorl for.
Crucially, there is no cross reference to the entry for forfran and no

substantial change s.v. forfran. Also note in the two preceding examples
that part of the entry for fran reduplicates the supplementary entry for
for, again without cross reference. Thus, while the meaning die of the
whole combination is haphazardly connected to either the simple verb or
the particle in postposition, the postposed variant is in no way marked as
related to the preposed one. Since this example shows the common practice
in BosworthToller and its Supplement, it is clear that the existence of the
particle verb in Old English is far from being obvious in the dictionary, let
alone systematically recorded, and it is easy to see how this procedure may
have resulted in the impression first voiced by Kennedy (1920: 12) that in
Old English occurrences of the verb-adverb combination are practically
nil. A satisfactory solution would be a single entry for for(ge)fran
which points out the possibility of pre- and postposition of the particle. The
example is typical. In many instances the Modern English glosses of the
Old English headwords in BosworthToller are highly suggestive of
remarkable diachronic continuities. With respect to verbs listed as
beginning with for- alone one finds no less than 65 verbs with Modern
English glosses involving forth, including the considerable number of cases
where the selection or the form of the headword in the dictionary seems
problematic and also including the glosses with particles other than forth if
they follow a gloss involving that particle (but not including the one-word
glosses which often follow the ones involving particles and which are
typically connected to non-literal and lexicalized senses).
134
As with forfran discussed here in greater detail, many of these

apparent prefix verbs correspond throughout quite systematically to verbparticle sequences. How lexicographers of Old English who must have
been familiar with the conventions of German dictionaries could present
such forms as distinct from identical particle verbs with the particle in postverbal position is hard to explain, and the overall impression is very much
comparable to a hypothetical dictionary of Modern German covering a
particle verb fortfahren s.vv. fortfahren and fortgefahren for the preverbal
position of the particle and s.vv. fahren and fort for the postverbal position.
But nevertheless this procedure is expressly defended by Campbell (1972:
v) in the preface to the Enlarged Addenda and Corrigenda to the Supplement, with no apparent reason except for a reference to the tradition of
the Dictionary. These findings seem to confirm Kornexls (1994: 447, fn.
68) suspicion that one might surmise that the relative scarcity of compound verbs in dictionaries of Old English to some extent at least results
from Modern English structures unconsciously shaping the criteria applied
to this previous stage of the language by present native speakers.
Remarkably, Greins earlier dictionary of the vocabulary of the AngloSaxon poets (18611864) offers a more satisfactory solution since it lists
for faran s.v. for (5) and gives as one example (among others): frdon ~
onon; i.e. Grein treats the particles as adverbs rather than prefixes and
consequently his presentation avoids the inconsistencies characteristic of
the later period dictionaries (although his treatment of other particles is
sometimes a bit confusing, though; cf. e.g. the classification s.v. up). It
comes as no surprise that Greins dictionary is not listed in Kennedys
(1920) bibliography (just as Mtzners, 18781896, cf. below). Conversely,
Bordens much later Old English dictionary (1982, compiled on the basis
of several earlier dictionaries and glossaries) is very unsatisfactory with
regard to particle verbs since in this dictionary they are completely
indistinguishable from inseparable prefix verbs, even after perusal of the
entries for the particle verb, the simple verb, and the particle (cf. e.g. again
s.vv. forfran, fran, for). The same criticism applies to the widely-used
Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary by Clark Hall (first published in 1894,
most recent edition 41960), which, moreover, lists the particle verb s.v.
forfran, implying () that it is a prefix verb which may be preceded
by ge-.
135
4.3.2. The Middle English Dictionary

For Middle English, coverage of particle verbs in the Middle English Dictionary (MED) is in principle very similar to the older dictionaries of Old
English, and hence the same criticism applies in those cases where the
particles may still both precede and follow the verb (i.e. typically, but by no
means exclusively, in early Middle English). Again there is no cross
reference between the entries for forth-fren and fren, although it seems
quite clear from the two entries taken together that in early Middle English
forth-fren with pre- and postposed particle is a single verb. In Middle
English, the Old English verbs forfaran and forfran seem to have
almost completely merged into a mixed paradigm and are therefore both
treated in the MED in one entry, just as the Middle English continuations of
the simple verbs. It is therefore admissible to use the MED entries for
(forth-)fren to continue the discussion of the lexicographic treatment of
Old English (for-)fran (cf. the spelling variants and the morphological
explanations given in the MED s.vv. fren and forth-fren). Thus s.v. forthfren the senses pass away, die; travel, go out, fare forth, issue out,
advance (in age), pass (of a period of time) are given, i.e. the Old English
literal and figurative senses of the verb are continued, e.g.:6
(1)
On es ilces geares for ferde se eadig biscop Ernulf of Roueceastre

(a1126 Peterb. Chron. an.1124)
(2)
Go we ane narewe pa []ar for fare [] wel litel folc (a1225

(?c1175) PMor (Trin-C) 344)
(3)
I forthferde To walke, as I yow telle may ((a1393) Gower CA 1.98)
Characteristically, in this entry none of the sample quotations contains the

particle in postposed position and the separability of the particle is marked
only implicitly, although it might be more obvious to the casual user than
in the older dictionaries of Old English, due to the spelling of some of the
examples in two separate orthographical words, but also due to the
morphological information provided at the beginning of the entry, where
the past participle variants -fre(n, -ivre(n and -ivred are given, with the
GE- (i-) prefix as a strong indication of separability of particle and verb. But
this sign is likely to be interpreted correctly only by users who are aware of
6
It has not been possible to reproduce all of the diacritics used in the MED; in
particular combinations of two diacritics, e.g. macron plus dot below, had to
be omitted here. The abbreviations of the sources have been retained as used
in the MED.
136
the comparative Germanic evidence anyway and who consult the dictionary
also s.v. fren and s.v. forth-; cf. e.g. the more confusing treatment with a
separate and unrelated entry for the GE- variant in BosworthToller
discussed above (for a discussion of the position of GE-prefixes between
preposed particle and verb in other Germanic languages, see Chapter 5
below). S.v. fren, users will find examples of the verb with postposed
particles (or, more precisely, only with the postposed particle), e.g.:
(4)
Ic ne mihte na faren for on in rende (a1175 (?OE) Bod. Hom.

18/1) [s.v. fren (6a)]
(5)
Esau ferde for eden to Seyr (a1325 (c1250) Gen. & Ex. 1836)
[s.v. fren (2a)]
(6)
Fare forthe and fech as ou seggez (c1400 (?c1380) Cleanness

621) [s.v. fren (6c)]
S.v. forth-, the particle is characterised as the first element of compound

verbs, but, again, without reference to the possibility of postposition, and
consequently no cross reference to the synonymous postposed uses, e.g.
s.v. forth adv.:
forth-, stressed prior member of cpd. verbs and action nouns [OE for-].
Examples: forth-bringen bring forth, bring up [cp. L prdcere]; -comen come
forth; -cume departure; -gn go forth, advance; -gang progress; -lden lead
out, carry out; -passen proceed; -sth departure.
Once again the example is typical of the practice in the dictionary, cf. e.g.
MED s.vv. forth-bringen (vs. bringen forth s.vv. bringen and forth, cf. Old
English for-bringan), forth-callen ([m]odeled on L pr-vcare), forthcasten, forth-clpen, forth-comen, forth-dn, forth-drauen, forth-fillen,
forth-gangen, forth-gn, forth-lden, forth-nimen, forth-passen, forthsheuen, forth-wsen, forth-wten. A much earlier dictionary of Middle English (Mtzner 1885) treats the particle in a considerably more satisfactory
way:
Seit frhester Zeit finden wir zahlreiche lockere oder uneigentliche Zusammensetzungen mit der Partikel for, von denen die mit Zeitwrtern hufig auch
eine Trennung mit Umstellung der Partikel zulassen, whrend die Partikel
anderweitig, namentlich an Substantiven, ihre Stellung behauptet. (Mtzner
1885: s.v. for)
137
[Since the earliest time there have been numerous loose compoundings with
the particle for. Among these the ones with verbs often allow the particle to be
separated and moved, while otherwise the particle, in particular next to nouns,
retains its position.]
This is the best explanation to be found in a dictionary to date (but cf. the
strikingly similar though somewhat hazier statement in the OED quoted
below). What renders treatment in the MED perhaps even more confusing
than the Old English dictionaries discussed so far is the fact that sometimes, without apparent reason, there is a cross reference to the simple verb
(e.g. s.vv. forth-nimen or forth-passen), sometimes odd bits of etymological
information (e.g. s.v. forth-wenden: [f]rom wenden go) and twice (with
respect to particle verbs involving forth) even an explicit cross reference to
the postposed variant: s.vv. forth-bren ([a]lso bren forth) and forth-tn
([a]lso tn forth).
As a result of these practices, it is very difficult to draw conclusions
about the morphological, syntactic and semantic status and development of
one or more particle verbs on the basis of the MED. It is also usually very
hard to tell whether at some point the preposed particle became an inseparable prefix and also what the semantic relationship of such a prefix verb
and a possibly still existing particle verb (presumably at that time one with
postposed particle only, i.e. a phrasal verb) might have been; cf. the observation made by Burnley (1992) reported in Section 4.2.2 above that in the
Middle English period there is a redistribution of the Old English particle
and prefix verbs and the more detailed discussion in Chapter 5. Indeed, in
the case of forth-fren it seems on the basis of the dictionary evidence that
in Middle English the metaphorical meaning die becomes a property of
the verb with preposed particle, while the spatial meaning continues to be
found with the particle in pre- and in postposition (as witnessed by the
absence of examples with postposed particles in the sense die in the
dictionary, cf. the representative examples quoted above and see also OED
s.v. fare v.1 12, where there is no mention of fare forth die after early
Middle English), a finding which is strongly reminiscent of the typical
distribution in some present-day Scandinavian languages discussed in
Chapter 2 above. But this impression would certainly need a considerably
more thorough analysis of the Middle English sources than can be provided
here. The crucial point to be made in the present context is that the structure of the MED renders this kind of information extremely difficult to
unearth, and almost completely invisible to anyone who is not actively
looking for it. Another case in point is forth-fillen, where neither the MED
nor the OED offer any evidence of a postposed particle. Moreover, all
138
quotations s.vv. in both dictionaries are from the late 14th century or later,
and it seems that forth- in this formation had better be analysed as an
(inseparable) prefix. But on the basis of the explicit information given in
the MED, it is indistinguishable from the many particle verbs with forth.
4.3.3. The Oxford English Dictionary
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) offers a comparatively satisfactory
treatment of particle verbs. It is obvious that the likely reasons for the
positional characteristics of the construction were not yet known to the
editors of the OED (although at the time of publication of the entries for the
letter F the reasons for the positional properties could have been known to
them due to the publication of Harrisons study in 1892). Nevertheless the
relationship between the preposed and the postposed variant tends to be
pointed out in its entries, not only implicitly (via cross references), but also
explicitly.7 Thus, to return to the example of forfran etc., the relevant
entry in the OED (NED vol. IV.1, published in 1901) reads as follows:
1
Forthfare, v. Obs. [OE. forfaran, f. FORTH adv. + faran to go: see FARE v. ]
1. intr. To go forth, go away, depart, journey.
c888 K. LFRED Boeth. xxxiii. 4 Swa tte hi er e for fara e eftcuma.
a1200 Moral Ode 340 Go we .. ene wei grene er for-fare lutel folc. a1300 E.
E. Psalter x[i]. I, I sal forth fare, ife I wil, als a sparwe into e hil. 13.. K. Alis.
6936 Sorwe and care That day thei letten forth fare.
2. To decease, die.
O. E. Chron. an. 571, On am ilcan eare he forfor. a1175 Cott. Hom. 225.
Noe lefede .. nion hund eare and fifti, and he a forferde. c1205 LAY. 11458
enne u beost for faren. c1320 Cast. Love 218 Atte laste he moste dyen and
for-fare. c1350 Will. Palerne 5266 emperour was for-fare faire to crist.
And s.v. fare there is the following sub-entry:

1
12. Fare forth (analytical form of OE. forfaran). See FARE v. and FORTH.
a. To go forth, depart, start.
c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 225 To heueriche hie sulle fare for mid ure drihte.
1375 BARBOUR Bruce III. 345 All hyr cumpany, Lap on thar horss, and furth thai
far. c1400 Melayne 206 Rowlande .. Fares forthe with Baners brade. 1647 H.
7
Apart from the comparatively good coverage of the particle verbs in medieval
English, the OED is also quite strong on Modern English phrasal verbs,
which are recorded with remarkable reliability (cf. e.g. its coverage of Early
Modern English phrasal verbs established in Thim 2006a).
139
MORE Song of Soul I. I. xxvi, Like Doves so forth they fore. 172738 GAY Fables
I.I. xiv. 5 Forth he fares, all toil defies. 1853 KINGSLEY Hyapatia xxi. 258 Before
sunrise .. Raphael was faring forth gallantly.
b. To go on, advance, with respect to either space or time. In the latter
sense also quasi-impers.
134070 Alex. & Dind. 939 Whan he is fare so for fer in his age. c1350 Will.
Palerne 3260 It was for [to] nit faren bi at time.
c. To go by, pass by. Obs.
a1225 Leg. Kath. 1629 Pinen, e fare for in an hondhwile.
But although the OED relates the preposed and the postposed variants to
each other, it is also clear that this is again not done in an entirely systematic fashion, especially since, as the sample entries show, this is not
done in a consistent and reciprocal way. Thus the cross references s.v.
forthfare are quite satisfactory, especially when one bears in mind that the
OED is not a dictionary of Old English, but a historical dictionary of the
post-Anglo-Saxon language (cf. Stanleys 1987 discussion of the treatment
of Old English in the OED). These cross references relate the verb both to
Old English forfaran and to the entries for fare and forth; s.v. fare (12.
fare forth), and the user is even given an explicit remark on the nature of
the Modern English phrasal verb as the analytical form of the Old English verb and again a cross reference to forth, where in its turn (s.v. forth D.
Forth- in composition) medieval English particle verbs are characterised as
follows: In OE. and ME. the combinations of forth adv. with vbs. are
hardly to be considered compound verbs; whether the adv. precedes or follows the vb. depends on euphonic or other conditions which do not affect
the sense. On the basis of the combined evidence presented in the OED it
is indeed possible to establish a more coherent historical picture than with
any of the period dictionaries. But then again the information is altogether
provided rather obliquely. Even leaving aside the somewhat dubious
explanation of the status and the positional properties of forth provided s.v.,
it is not easy to deduce from these entries that both the obsolete prefix verb
forthfare and the phrasal verb fare forth are ultimately derived from one
Old English particle verb, especially since the references to Old English
forfaran in the entries for both verbs do not make it explicit at all that it is
a particle verb. Rather, they create the impression of a prefix verb, an
impression which seems to be played up even further by the characterisation of the phrasal verb as the analytical form of that Old English verb
(since that characterisation can only make sense if the variant with the
particle in preposition is regarded as synthetic: i.e., an analysis which could
be sound for Modern English is inappropriately applied to Old English).
140
The claim in The Oxford Companion to the English Language, [c]itations

[of phrasal verbs] date from Middle English (McArthur 1992: s.v. phrasal
verb), is a typical consequence and it shows clearly the connection between
the characteristic lexicographic weaknesses and the wide-spread and misleading textbook accounts of the development of the phrasal verbs.
4.3.4. The Dictionary of Old English

Initially the treatment of particle verbs in the Dictionary of Old English
(DOE, as yet incomplete) had been quite unsatisfactory as well, largely in
line with the various older historical dictionaries discussed so far. However,
after Kornexl (1994: 447) argued in favour of a different treatment of particle verbs in the dictionary, namely as a well-established morphological
pattern in Old English, the editors decided on a change in the treatment of
such verbs. Among the weaknesses pointed out by Kornexl, the haphazard
lemmatization of particle verbs with postposed particle is of particular
interest in the present context. Thus in the following example (which is also
mentioned by Kornexl 1994: 448, fn. 70) the DOE records the first particle
verb s.v. beforan as an adverbial use of the particle (no cross reference to
the entry for beforan-cuman glossing praevenire), while the second
particle is recorded s.v. fter as a preposition (there is no entry for ftercuman):
(7)
ga ge beforon; ic eow cume fter

go ahead; I will follow you
[literally: go you before; I you come after]
(GD 1 (C) [12.88.20])
Where the particle precedes the verb, there may be a separate entry for a
compound verb; e.g. for the structurally completely equivalent verbs
beforan-gn and fter-gn, there are separate entries. However, apparently
still in the tradition of BosworthToller, these entries cover only the
postpositional variants. Moreover, the treatment of these verbs is again
quite unsystematic; cf. e.g. the following example, which is cited as evidence for fter-gn (s.v.), but not included in the count for occurrences of
beforan-gn:
(8)
a mengu onne a e beforan eodan & a e fter eodun

cleopadun cwende ge-hl sunu dauies
141
those who went ahead and those who followed

[literally: before-went after-went]
(MtGl (Ru) 21.9)
This is another example of the sometimes rather dubious handling of
particle verbs in the DOE: the dictionary prints beforaneodan and
ftereodun, but the edition (Skeat 1887, expressly referred to in the citation) prints a space between the particles and the verbs, while it remains
quite unclear on the basis of both what the manuscript evidence is. Normally, however, the DOE would follow the entirely inconsistent
conventions of the editions (cf. Gneuss 1973: 18, Jenkyns 1991: 388,
Wetzel 1991: 223225, Kornexl 1994: 446 and Dietz 2004: 597). That is to
say, like the older dictionaries the DOE in the early fascicles does not
recognize a connection between pre- and postverbal particles, let alone a
separate category of particle verbs.
Although the editors of the DOE have decided to follow Kornexls
(1994: 447) plea for a more generous inclusion of adverb plus verb formations as headwords in the subsequent fascicles, the coverage of particle
verbs in the DOE is still not entirely satisfactory. On the whole the main
improvement in comparison to the older practices lies in the consistent
insertion of cross references intended to establish explicit connections
between the preposed and the postposed variants, e.g.:
for Adv. Some of the adverb and verb collocations cited here have
elsewhere been taken as compounds.
for- in verbal quasi-compounds, mainly element-by-element glosses of Latin
pro-, where for may be taken as either adverb or prefix.
for-fran Vb. Some instance of the compound have elsewhere been taken
as adverb and verb.
But it is altogether unclear in particular in the light of the cross references

why s.v. for-fran there are only quotations with the preposed particles,
while s.v. for (A.6.a.i) there are only quotations with the postposed
particle. Thus despite the commendable cross references, the particle verbs
are once again separated into compounds and phrases (or collocations)
depending on the position of the particle. There are 41 cross references to
quasi-compound verbs s.v. for-, but none to for-fran; that is, the verb
can also not be regarded as sufficiently covered by the reference to a Latin
model (and such references to Latin prefix verbs would not account for the
positional properties of calqued particle verbs anyway). It must, of course,
be conceded to the editors that the satisfactory classification of such
142
elements is not an easy task, as pointed out by Mitchell (1978) long before
the appearance of the first fascicle: How best to deal with these problems
in future dictionaries and glossaries remains a difficulty [t]he editors of
the new Dictionary of Old English have a problem here! (Mitchell 1978:
51). The limitations of the DOE and the DOEC for syntactic research have
been discussed in more detail by Koopman (1992), who is particularly concerned about the absence of variant manuscript readings and who shows
that therefore important syntactic information is likely to be overlooked.
Quite obviously, this applies also to variants involving pre- and postposition of the particle, or the use of particle verbs vis--vis simple verbs.
But there is little doubt that at least the treatment of for-fran could be
considerably improved if it were not distributed across various entries, and
that the overall quality of the DOE would likewise benefit greatly from the
consistent adoption of such an approach throughout the dictionary. Again it
is especially the lack of consistency and explicitness which is problematic.
Thus the coverage of other particle verbs with for is much better, cf. e.g.
s.v. for A.5.a.ii (for (be)cuman to come forth/out; to emerge appear),
which gives quotations with both preposed and postposed particles. But
then again, it is not clear why the construction should be treated s.vv. for,
for-, for-cuman and cuman. Of course in this way the editors of the DOE
can avoid taking a clear stance on the question how they actually classify
the Old English particle verbs, but the users of the dictionary would be well
served with a less cautious policy which does not result in the distribution
of connected information across several different entries.
Similar observations have been made by Wetzel (1991) in his review of
the first fascicle of the DOE:
Bei allen Schwierigkeiten der Abgrenzung im einzelnen sollte hier darauf
geachtet werden, da gleichartig gelagerte Flle tatschlich gleichartig behandelt werden und Doppelaufnahmen vermieden werden. S.v. dragan wird S. 555
im Zitat LawGer 9 me mig myxendincgan ut dragan in bereinstimmung
mit der Edition ut dragan gefhrt, bei den Querverweisen (S. 556) daneben
auch t-dragan. Nach Konsultation von Hall (tdragan LL 454,9 [=LawGer
9] ist immerhin vorstellbar, da obige Stelle im Band des Buchstabens U unter
t-dragan ein weiteres Mal verbucht werden wird. (Wetzel 1991: 224225)
[Despite all difficulties of drawing individual distinctions, care should be
taken that equivalent cases are also treated equivalently and that double inclusions are avoided. S.v. dragan on p. 555 in the quotation LawGer 9 me mig
myxendincgan ut dragan corresponds to the edition and has ut dragan,
while the cross references (p. 556) also have t-dragan. Consulting Hall
(tdragan LL 454,9 [=LawGer 9], one can at least imagine that the quote
143
from above will be included once more in the volume for the letter U under tdragan.]
Cf. also Kornexls (1994: 425) more general criticism: In complex cases,
what seems to be most important is consistency in treatment and clarity of
presentation one would at times wish for a more detailed and precise
description of editorial policies and practices. I am, however, somewhat
sceptical whether Kornexls plea for a more liberal inclusion of particle
verbs as headwords in the dictionary is sufficient. The appropriate treatment of such constructions depends crucially on the recognition that both
the preposed and the postposed variants need to be included in one entry,
where it should be made explicit that the preposed particles are distinct
from inseparable prefixes. Similarly, although it is an interesting and
lexicographically relevant piece of information whether a verb is a calque,
the lemmatization of such verbs should in my view depend on the separability of the prefix/particle rather than on its etymology.
4.3.5. Concluding remarks on the historical dictionaries
To sum up, it should have become evident that the coverage of Old and
Middle English particle verbs in the main historical dictionaries is far from
satisfactory, and it seems plausible that the perception of the long-term
lexical development of the English phrasal verbs was considerably influenced by the inconsistencies and deficiencies which can be found in all
of them, including the most recent ones. Although the typical users of such
dictionaries can be assumed to be fairly knowledgeable about the history of
English, it is unlikely that on the basis of the English historical dictionaries
these users will be able to adequately perceive the lexical status of the Old
and Middle English particle verbs especially since the standard textbooks
accounts of their history are similarly unsystematic and inadequate.
4.4.
Conclusion
In the preceding Chapter 3, which dealt with the development of the positional characteristics of the English verb-particle construction, with a strong
focus on cross-linguistic parallels, it had been argued that the development
of the English construction is rather unremarkable compared to the
development of preverbs in other languages. But as has been shown in the
present chapter, ever since Kennedy (1920), the loss of preverbal particle
position has been referred to as the rise of the phrasal verbs, which are
144
portrayed as syntactically, semantically and lexically exceptional. Moreover, the analysis of the major historical dictionaries revealed that they fail
to document the Old and Middle English particle verbs sufficiently and
transparently, and thus contribute to the wrong impression that phrasal
verbs are an essentially new structure which fully emerges only towards the
Modern English period.
Chapter 5
As has been shown in the preceding chapter, the assumption of specifically
English properties of the verb-particle construction in English has traditionally played a prominent role in the research literature, and the notion is
widespread that there must have been a rise of the phrasal verb, which
may be only explainable as the result of language contact or at least that
the development of some characteristics of the English phrasal verb cannot
be explained language-internally. In the light of the comparative data from
other Germanic languages, of the cross-linguistic parallels from genetically
unrelated languages and of the diachronic syntactic development discussed
in Chapters 2 and 3, this is a rather surprising state of affairs. In the present
chapter it will be shown that such a view is in fact quite unfounded, not
only with regard to the syntactic properties of the phrasal verb as a construction type in English, but also with regard to its lexical and semantic
properties. The bulk of this chapter, then, will be devoted to identifying the
main factors in the development of the Modern English construction type
systematically.
5.1.
Since the relationship between the Old English prefix verbs and the particle
verbs has been a constant concern in the literature it is relevant in the present context to attempt to establish criteria for distinguishing between
prefixes and particles in the historical corpus, and to establish an inventory
of Old English preverbs. Perhaps more importantly, though, the connections between the loss of many native prefixes and the development of the
particle verbs ought to be delineated, especially since the Modern English
phrasal verbs are in many ways functionally equivalent to the older prefix
verbs. De la Cruz (1975: 7778) provides the following list of prefixed
verbs in the Ancrene Riwle (early 13th century) and its translation into
Modern English by Morton (1853):
gefor-
i clumben
i streihte
urswoluwe
uoruret
climbed up
outstretched up
swalloweth up
frets away
146
be-
to-
a-

vorworpen
uorkeoruen
bilepped
binimen
bileauen
to blowen
tospret
tofleoted
towarpled
adruwe
a cwenchen
avleie
cast away
cut off
wrapped up
take away
leave off
blown up
stretches out
flits away
shaken off
drieth up
put out
driveth away
Examples of this kind suggest that the Modern English particles are in
many ways functionally equivalent to older native prefixes, in particular
with regard to their aspectualizing function, which the prefixes have in
most of the above examples and which in the Modern English translation is
consistently expressed by the particles (see e.g. Brinton 1988: 202214 for
further examples of Old and Middle English prefix verbs and their Modern
English equivalents).
One important question in regard to the development of the particle
verbs concerns the way in which older native prefixes came to be replaced
by particles. It has often been claimed that the prefixes were somehow
ousted by the particles. But as will be argued in this section, the traditional
views of the relationship between the development of the prefixes and of
the phrasal verbs in English are in many respects quite unsatisfactory, and
alternative explanations will be examined. Although a full-scale exploration
of the topic is beyond the scope of this chapter, the characteristic semantic
paths of development of preverbs will be considered, and the emergence of
non-literal verb-particle constructions in the history of English will be
sketched out.
5.1.1. The Old English prefixes
General criteria for distinguishing between prefixes and particles are wellknown from the morphological and syntactic literature (see also Chapter 3
above). They can all be reduced to the simple observation that the former
are inseparable and fused to the verbal stem, while the latter may occur in
positions which do not immediately precede the verb. This goes along with
prosodic and semantic differences which are quite similar to those found in
the present-day Continental West Germanic languages (cf. the more
147
detailed discussion of the relevant changes in Section 5.2 below). But

although there is solid evidence in principle in the Old English corpus for
these differences, they are often impossible to establish for individual
instances, not least because reliable test criteria are often difficult to apply
to historical language stages.
It must be assumed that the changing inventory of Old English prefixes
and the concomitant loss of invariably bound forms reflects the general
patterns of development of preverbs discussed in the Chapter 3, where the
emergence of prefixes was shown to characteristically result in synchronic
layering of cognate affixes and free forms. On the basis of the observation
that all invariably bound prefixes are unstressed in Old English and of the
comparative evidence from other Germanic languages, where verbal prefixes are unstressed even in those cases where there are homonymous free
forms, it seems justified to use lack of stress as a criterion for prefix status
in Old English as well. This approach has been criticized by Minkova
(2008: 25) as circular, but this criticism may be admissible from a purely
phonological point of view only. Minkova is right in pointing out that the
mere reference to the stress patterns in Dutch and German is an insufficient
means to establish the stress patterns of Old English. If however the comparative evidence, the diachronic development and the syntactic criteria for
free forms are also taken into account, the plausibility of the identification
of unstressed and inseparable prefixes is greatly enhanced by evidence
from other Germanic languages on the one hand and from the distinct and
systematic phonological and morphological differences in the further
development of stressed and unstressed syllables on the other. There
remains little ground for the possibility that productive verbal prefixes were
stressed in Old English, despite Minkovas (2008: 2526) contention,
[t]he syntactic criteria used to establish separability of the particles in the
modern languages do not work well for Old English, for which she
refers to Fischer et al. (2000), whose views on this matter appear to be
exactly the opposite, though.
Positive evidence for stress in Old English is only to be gathered from
the poetry, as in the following passage from Beowulf (for the use of metrical evidence for the establishment of the inventory of prefixes, see Dietz
2004):
(1)
/ sie sio br gearo | dre

be
the byre
ready
gefned / onne we ut
at once done
when
cymen |
we out come
Let the byre be ready, speedily prepared, when we come out.

(Beowulf 31053106)
148
As the underlining in l. 3106 indicates, alliteration provides clear evidence

for stress on the particle (ut cymen) while the prefix in the preceding halfline precedes a stressed verbal stem (gefned) and is thus quite unlikely to
be stressed. On the basis of such evidence, an inventory of invariably
unstressed verbal prefixes can be established, and the available evidence
attests to the inseparability of these prefixes beyond doubt; cf. the general
discussions by Harrison (1896: 58) and Campbell (1959: 32), and see also
the discussion of Old English and Germanic stress in prefix and particle
verbs by Blbring (1902: 2630) and the comparative discussion by Leinen
(1891). Elenbaas (2007: 112131) provides an overview of some Old English prefixes, but her etymological and semantic statements are almost
entirely based on various rather dated reference tools (mostly Clark Hall
1960, but also Hiltunen 1983a) and are not always wholly reliable (cf. e.g.
the conflation of etymologically and functionally distinct for- and fore-).
Kastovsky (1992: 375) in his discussion of Old English word formation
does not attempt to distinguish between inseparable prefixes and particles
but only identifies those elements as genuine prefixes for which no
homonymous free forms exist. This schematic approach is unsatisfactory,
though, since it results in a classification of invariably inseparable and
unstressed t- or be- together with separable and stressed adun and up
rather than with inseparable and unstressed a- and ge-, etc., which in the
light of the present discussion turns out to be undesirable on phonological,
morphological and syntactic grounds. The inventories provided below in
(2) for the prefixes and in (3) for the particles are based on the discussion
in Dietz (2004) and supplemented by a critical survey of the sources I have
used for Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below. Thus the following invariably inseparable and unstressed verbal prefixes can be established for Old English
(for their etymologies, see Table 5-1):1
(2)
a-, t-, an-/on-, be-, ed-, fer-, for-, fr-, full-, ge-, mis-, o-, ot-,
samod-, te-, t-, un-/on-
I will draw no distinction between strong and weak forms of the prefixes
(cf. e.g. Campbell 1959: 3031), since there is little evidence in Old
Vowel length is marked only in t- in order to distinguish it from the particle

t, cf. (3). The prefix an-/on- towards, away given in (2) derives from ProtoGermanic *anda-, the particle an-/onon given in (3) from Proto-Germanic
*ana.
149
English for synchronically productive strong-weak allomorphy (cf.

Minkova 2008: 2627 and the references given there).
All the prefixes listed in (2) are of common Germanic descent, and
about half of them are found as prefixes in all Germanic languages. For
these there are typically (though not necessarily) no corresponding free
forms in Old English, cf. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below (for a detailed comparative case study see also Dietz 2005). Almost one half of the prefixes in (2)
have ceased to be productive by late Old English, the prefixes fr- and tebecame unproductive already in pre-Old English.
However, other forms (e.g. of-, ofer-, on-, under-, t-, urh-) may be
either stressed or unstressed in preverbal position, and in these cases the
inventory of prefixes overlaps considerably with particles and also with
prepositions and adverbs (cf. the overview in Hiltunen 1983a: 192216,
and the discussion in Chapter 3 above and the references there).
In (3), I provide a core inventory of Old English adverbial particles:
(3)
an/on, abutan, (a)dun, fter, (be)foran, behindan, fore, for, fram,

geond, in(n), mid, nier, of, ofer, ongean, onweg/aweg, under, t,
urh, up(p), ut, wi, wier, ymb(e)
This list is not meant to be exhaustive, not least because the status of some
forms is not entirely clear (cf. Kastovsky 1992 and Dietz 2004).
To some extent the particles overlap with inseparable prefixes and with
prepositions with respect to both form and meaning. All the Old English
particles listed in (3) are spatial. Many of them continue being used in verbparticle constructions in Modern English; for becomes increasingly rare in
the course of the Modern English period, while to is quite rare in verbparticle constructions already in Old English. For a discussion of the
development of for, see Akimoto (2006) and the references given there
(and also the discussion of the lexicographic coverage of forth in Chapter 4
above), while the marginal status of to is discussed by Elenbaas (2007:
144145), who states that to is not found in verb-particle constructions in
present-day English (it is certainly no longer productive, but it is found in
idiomatic constructions like e.g. come to etc., cf. OED s.v. to).
Some elements like fter-, fore- or for- occur in (inseparable) loan
translations of Latin prefix verbs, but rarely (or sometimes never) in independent native prefix formations (cf. DOE s.vv.). Minkova (2008) criticizes
Dietz assumption that this is evidence of morphological opacity, and she
points out justly that calquing would in itself be evidence that these are
perceived as independent morphological entities (Minkova 2008: 43).
Nevertheless the value of such formations as evidence for Old English
150
prefixation remains open to debate (cf. also the insightful discussion of Old
English calques by Johnston 2011).
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below provide an overview of the Old English verb
prefixes, based on my critical scrutiny of BosworthToller, Dietz (2004),
DOE, the DOE Corpus, EWA, Kastovsky (1992), KlugeSeebold, Koziol
(1972), W.P. Lehmann (1986), and on the MED. The most salient observation in the present context is that the inventories of the older prefixes are
etymologically largely synonymous with the more recent particles, and this
is of course exactly what is to be expected in the light of the discussion of
the cross-linguistic properties of preverbs in Chapter 3.
Thus the Old English pure prefixes listed in (2) above mostly have
spatial etymologies, as shown in Table 5-1, and with few exceptions these
have developed also into aspectualizing or intensifying meanings in Old
English, as we shall see below. (The term pure prefixes is used differently
by de la Cruz 1975, who only includes a-, be-, ge-, for-, of-, on- and toamong them. Following this practice, Hiltunen 1983a includes only these
prefixes in his discussion and consequently his discussion of the Old English prefixes is somewhat limited. Since most later studies of the Old
English particle verbs rely to some extent on Hiltunens database, this tends
to apply to their coverage as well.)
Table 5-2 offers a simple summary of the semantic development of the
prefixes. But their individual histories are in part highly intricate and resist
straightforward listing; cf. the detailed (though at times somewhat dense)
discussion in Dietz (2004) and the references given there.
Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the inventory of Old English
verb prefixes provided in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 is its radical difference from
the Modern English one. With the exception of five prefixes (be-, mis-,
over-, un-, under-, marked * in the penultimate column of Table 5-2), all
Old English prefixes are no longer fully productive in Modern English. But
the loss of productivity of prefixes begins even before early Old English
(the prefixes marked ), and already at the end of the Old English period
many other prefixes have ceased being productive (the prefixes marked ),
while others lose their productivity in the course of the Middle English
period (the prefixes marked ). For a general discussion of the problems
connected to establishing productivity in a historical corpus, see e.g.
Kastovsky (1992: 355361) and the more detailed discussion by Cowie &
Dalton-Puffer (2002). The loss of productivity in Middle English proceeds,
as in Old English, with different speed in different dialects (cf. e.g. Koziol
1972: 197289).
151
Table 5-1. Old English verb prefixes and their etymologies

Old English prefix
atan-/onan-/onbeedfer-/forforefrfullgegeondmisofoferonge(a)n
osamodtetturhun-/onunderwi(er)ymb(e)-
Proto-Germanic (**),
West Germanic or
pre-Old English (*)
**uz
**at
**ana
**anda
**i
**i, **i
*fur
**fur
*fra
**fulla
**a
Gothic jaind
**missa
**aa
**uer(i)
Old High German ingagan
**una
*samu
*te
*tuz
*t
*urh, *erh
**und/anda
**under
**wira
**um-i
etymology
out
at, to
to, in, on
away (towards)
by
back (again)
away
in front, before
forward, away
full
near, at, with
there
wrong
off
over
towards, against
away
together
apart
apart
towards
through
away (towards)
below
against
around
Note that the term bleaching is used in Table 5-2 as a general cover term
for the loss of the literal, mostly spatial, meaning and the often concomitant
emergence of new, more abstract meanings (on the complex semantic
interplay of t- and o-, see Dietz 2004: VII and cf. DOE s.v. t); cf. also
the discussion in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.4 below.
152
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
()
*
()
*
*
not productive after pre-Old English

not productive after Old English
not productive after Middle English
productive in Modern English
further development if
productive after OE
productivity
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
bleaching
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
literal meaning in OE
common Germanic prefix
atan-/onan-/onbeedfer-/forforefrfullgegeondmisofoferonge(a)n
osamodtetturhun-/onunderwi(er)ymb(e)-
homonymous particle
Table 5-2. Old English verb prefixes: overview

(OE = Old English, ME = Middle English,
ModE = Modern English)
ME at
ModE be
ME fore
ME fulME i
ModE misME ofModE overME again
ME toME toME thurghModeE unModE underME withME umb(e)-
153
5.1.2. The prefixes in Middle English and beyond

Although many Old English prefixes have been lost, the prefix inventory of
Modern English is larger than the Old English one. This is mainly due to
the considerable influx of Romance loans in the centuries after the Norman
Conquest, which provided the basis for the increasing productivity of borrowed affixes from late Middle English onwards (cf. Dietz 2002, Schaefer
2006 and Lutz 2002b and 2008).
In Table 5-3, I provide an overview of the Modern English verb prefixes
and their history which is based on my critical survey of the handbooks on
English word formation. Although often in need of corrections in detail,
they can be regarded as sufficiently reliable for the general contrastive
overview intended here. The chief sources are Marchand (1969) and Koziol
(1972) (which, however, are at times completely at odds), and I have crosschecked them against the more recent but less detailed discussions in Quirk
et al. (1985), Bauer (1983) and Schmid (2005) for present-day English and
Nevalainen (1999) for Early Modern English and also in part for earlier and
later periods (cf. the overview in Nevalainen 1999 and the references given
there). Unfortunately, the articles in the CHEL volumes on Middle English
and on Late Modern English (Burnley 1992 and Algeo 1998) do not
provide very much relevant information. Consequently Table 5-3 is considerably less exhaustive than might appear at first sight. Rather, it is the
result of an evaluation and a critical comparison of the available reference
works, where many problems remain undiscussed, which would deserve
(and, in view of the extant literature, in fact would seem to be in need of)
more detailed separate studies.
At first sight the most remarkable observation is the considerable
increase in prefix types from Middle English onwards. This observation,
however, is somewhat misleading since the productivity of most of these
prefixes is subject to significant restrictions. The new prefix formations are
typically restricted to formal and technical registers, while the more common verbs with borrowed prefixes are typically not English prefix
formations, but rather were already borrowed as prefix verbs (and consequently provided the model for the analogical rise of the borrowed
prefixes). Moreover, when they are spatial, the borrowed prefixes only
restrictedly combine with native verbs (cf. e.g. Marchand 1969, Koziol
1972 and Schmid 2005).
154
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
()
+
+
()
+
+
+
productivity in
Modern English
post-Middle
English borrowing
+
+
+
+
+
productivity in
Middle English
Middle English
from French or
Latin
aabadbackbecircumcocontracounterdedes-/disdownenenterexfor-1
for-2
forehyperhypoin-1
in-2
interintromalmis-1
mis-2
nonoboffoutoverparaper-
Germanic
Table 5-3. Modern English verb prefixes (prefixes whose productivity is limited
or doubtful are marked ; prefixes of Germanic descent which are
productive in Middle English are in bold type)
+ since late Middle English

+ but increasingly marginal
+
since 17th c.
+ since Early Modern English
+ since 18th c.
since Middle English
+ since late Middle English (?)
in 15th16th c. only
+ since 16th c.
since Early Modern English
(merged with for-1)
+ Early Modern English only
+
+ (~ in-1)
since 17th c.
+
(merged with mis-1)
since Late Modern English
very rare after Middle English
+

postprepro-/porresubsupersurtransununderupwith-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
155

+ since 15th c.
+ after Middle English
after Middle English
+ after Middle English
+
+
since Middle English
decreasing since Old English
It is remarkable how ready many authors are to offer simple causal

explanations for the connection between the developments of prefixes and
particles which at closer inspection turn out to be rather unsatisfactory.
E.g., referring to a claim made by Hiltunen (1983a: 92), Claridge (2000:
86) states in her overview of the literature on the rise of the phrasal verb
that the rise of the phrasal verb is also connected with the fall of another
construction, OE prefix verbs. The latters very sudden decline to almost
zero productivity and use by early ME left a slot to be filled by the newer
analytic constructions. Already Samuels (1972: 163) had discussed the
development as a major example of the combined working of push- and
drag-chain processes of replacement, glossing rather broadly over diachronic inconsistencies and morphological and semantic details; note
however that Samuels sees the process as gradual rather than sudden. But
although such claims are not entirely unfounded as far as there is indeed a
connection between the loss of preverbal affixes and the development of
the phrasal verbs, their premises are quite mistaken, as a closer look at the
productivity of the prefix inventories in Middle English, especially in comparison to the development in Old English, shows (cf. Tables 5-1 and 5-2
above). One very remarkable and perhaps rather unexpected finding is
worth being pointed out: the number of productive prefixes of Germanic
origin in Middle English is actually higher than the number of productive
prefixes of Romance origin, and there are even new Germanic prefixes in
Middle English, while the Romance prefixes very typically only become
productive in late Middle English or even later, in Early Modern English
(see also Dalton-Puffer 1996 and Dietz 2002).
This is not to say that Burnleys (1992) claim mentioned in the preceding chapter that Middle English became depleted of productive prefixes in
comparison to Old English would be fully justified. Since many of the Old
156
English prefixes had already become (or were about to become) unproductive in the course of the Old English period (cf. Table 5-2 above) the
pattern we can observe is rather one of continued loss and renewal.
Although this topic appears to be in need of further study, it can be safely
concluded that prefixation as a native word formation type remained productive in Middle English. Moreover, as Schrder (2008) has shown, the
remaining native prefixes continue to be used as a productive means of
verbal word formation to a considerably greater degree than had traditionally been assumed.
The Middle English borrowings, then, cannot have ousted the Old English prefixes for a number of reasons, and each of these reasons would in
itself be sufficient to preclude that possibility. With regard to the native
prefixes, it emerges that some were already lost before the influx of French
borrowings began, while others were in the process of being lost. As is
indicated in Table 5-3, this applies not only to the productivity of these
prefixes, but also to their semantics. Many of the originally spatial preverbs
had more or less lost their spatial meaning already in Old English. As we
shall see below (Section 5.2.4), the Old English prefix verbs were typically
semantically equivalent to the non-spatial phrasal verbs in Modern English,
while spatial meaning was already typically expressed by the adverbial
particles. Although this is identified correctly by Kastovsky (1992: 377),
his metaphorical description of the development is misleading (cf. the discussion in Chapter 4 above). For a critical overview of the metaphorical
characterisations of the loss of Old English prefixes and the often inherently contradictory explanations for the development, see Lutz (1997: 258
261), where it is also criticized that the traditional treatments of Old English verb formation fail to include satisfactory discussions of the particle
verbs. The post-medieval development of the adverbial particles in English
word formation shows the relationship of word order and morphologisation
of affixes quite clearly and thus underlines the validity of the general paths
of change discussed in Chapter 3 above. The syntactically conditioned disappearance of preverbal particles coincides with the loss of the emergence
of new native prefixes, cf. Marchand (1969: 109): Those particles which
by the 15th century had not acquired the character of inseparable prefixes
could no longer precede verb forms, except the nominal ones (verbal substantives and participles). Although he nevertheless treats those prefixes in
his chapter on compounding, Marchand correctly notes their phonological
and semantic characteristics, which unambiguously identify them as prefixes (cf. also Hackstein 2011 on the emergence of unstressed prefixes out
of stressed preverbs in Indo-European).
157
The analogical formation of borrowed prefixes, on the other hand, is

unaffected by either the presence or the absence of native ones, especially
since the borrowed prefixes have a different, complementary role in the
English lexicon (cf. also the discussion in Chapter 6 below). Schaefer
(2006: 272) stresses that these borrowings ought to be seen in the context
of the intensive elaboration of the vernacular by enhancing the vocabulary
with a more appropriate word, that is, appropriate for new types of discourse in the vernacular. Supportive evidence for this claim can also be
found in the other Germanic languages, cf. in particular the loss of native
prefixes in the North Germanic languages, where later new prefixes were
formed on the basis of German loans, while in the Continental West Germanic languages almost identical sets of Latin- or Greek-derived prefixes
were adopted despite the continued productivity of native prefixes. This is
not to say, however, that the degree of integration of borrowed items in
these languages were not different from each other and from English (see in
particular the discussion in Lutz 2002b and 2008 and the references given
there).
These conclusions have been obscured so far by the mode of presentation of borrowings and prefixes in the handbooks, where Germanic-based
prefixes are usually treated separately from Romance-based prefixes, which
are usually ascribed to the Middle English period because the borrowed
verbs containing these prefixes are mostly first attested in Middle English.
In the English research tradition, Germanic prefixes are treated as a particularly Old English phenomenon, Romance prefixes in the context of
Middle English borrowing, and phrasal verbs as a new and particularly
English phenomenon. The changes in word order are usually almost
entirely neglected by studies of word formation, although these changes
play a central role in the development of verbal prefixation and in the
emergence of phrasal verbs. Thus, what is missing is a treatment of the different types of word formation in a coherent and systematically related
way. Such a discussion would also have to describe the historical development of new particle types, including those with a Romance etymology
(e.g. apart), the persistence of some Old English particles and the emergence of new, Germanic-based prefixes in Middle English, a topic which so
far has been almost entirely neglected in the literature. A truly thorough
account of the development will also have to consider the relationship to
the loss of the native verbal suffixes, as has been exemplarily demonstrated
by Peters (2006) with regard to Old English -ettan; cf. Bauers (2003b) discussion of the possible typological implications of the loss of Old English
prefixes (where, however, the connection to particle verbs is not explored).
Similarly, the connection between the loss of verbal suffixes and the
158
development of derivational prefixes in the history of German is discussed

in Erben (2006: 136137). Broad metaphorical generalizations which point
to the loss of vitality of the inherited prefixes and the adoption of new, borrowed prefixes as both the cause and the gap-filling result of the demise of
the old prefixes will predictably be of little help for a deeper understanding
of the development.
5.2.
This leaves us with the task of actually accounting for the loss of the
majority of the Germanic prefixes towards Modern English. As has been
shown in the preceding section, the loss of the native prefixes is by no
means a sudden phenomenon at the beginning of the Middle English
period. Moreover, the common explanations of the disappearance of those
prefixes are either rather vague and metaphorical or too general to be of
explanatory value. This is true in particular of those accounts which see the
loss of prefix verbs and their substitution by phrasal verbs as due to the
drift of English towards greater analyticity, as e.g. suggested by van der
Gaaf (1930), Konishi (1958) or Hiltunen (1983a). Claridge (2000: 87)
justly observes that the suggestion that the general trend towards analytic
constructions disfavoured the synthetic prefixal constructions may be
true, [but] it contains a certain amount of circularity, which disqualifies it
as a reason. Unless one were to identify this drift as an independently
operative force in language change (for which there is no evidence at all),
one would still have to explain more precisely what the driving forces
behind the loss of the prefixes are. Moreover, one would also have to
explain why new (native and borrowed) prefixes (i.e. synthetic forms)
occur in this drift towards analyticity.
5.2.1. On sound change and word formation
In most descriptions of the loss of native prefixes reference is made to the
loss of vitality of the native prefixes and to the greater vitality of the new
Romance prefixes, e.g. by Baugh & Cable (1993: 137138) and Koziol
(1972: 192); see the critical discussion in Lutz (1997: 259), who observes
that the older studies create the impression that the native prefixes were
both ousted by the Romance borrowings and doomed anyway. How can
such a loss of vitality be described more precisely? Traditionally it had
been seen in connection to the fading of semantic content of the prefixes
(cf. Kastovsky 1992: 377 and the references given there), but although the
159
abandonment of prefixes is not unlikely to be connected to their semantic

development, this cannot have been the only causal factor in the development in English, as a closer look at the Old English prefixes on the
following scale of semantic independence (based on Minkova 2008: 30)
serves to show:
be-, ge-, for-, of-, on-, to-, and-, ed-, mis-, un-, ... geond-, ofer-, urh-, wier-, ymbleast independent
most independent
What is represented here (apparently on the basis of Horgan 1980, Hiltunen

1983a: 5591 and Wedel 2001) as semantic independence is, in fact, a synchronic and diachronic cline from the etymological, typically spatial,
meaning (most independent) to no apparent meaning at all, up to the point
where simple and prefixed verb may be synonymous, or where etymologically different, even antonymous prefixes may become interchangeable.
The cline thus shows what Minkova identifies as the desemantization of the
particles. In fact, although the process of desemantization of many prefixes
was clearly well under way in Old English and continued in Middle English, the scale shows clearly that this process cannot be correlated to the
loss of prefixes in a straightforward manner: the five prefixes on the left
side of the scale were largely desemanticized (Minkova 2008: 30)
already in Old English. But Minkovas conclusion that there is a clear correlation between the semantic and prosodic weakness of the prefixes is
misleading: as a comparison with Tables 5-2 and 5-3 above shows, some of
the semantically least independent prefixes continue to exist in English well
beyond the Old and even the Middle English period, while conversely some
of the semantically most independent ones are abandoned rather early. A
case in point are the two leftmost (i.e. the least independent) prefixes
shown above, be- and ge-: while be- continues in English as a productive
prefix until today, ge- was lost in Middle English, and this process is
clearly very much under way already in Old English (on Wedels 1997 and
2001 view that ge- was used systematically as a marker of perfectivity in
Old English, see the discussion in Section 5.2.3 below).
Lutz (1997) presents an alternative explanation with directed sound
change in unaccented syllables as the ultimate cause of the demise of many
Old English verbal prefixes. Thus the major factor leading to the loss of
native prefixes is to be found in the phonotactically determined destabilization of the prefixes, and she shows that those prefixes were lost whose
phonotactic structure rendered them prone to weakening and loss of
160
pretonic consonants. This is in principle not dissimilar to an earlier

suggestion by Marchand (1969: 130), where, however, just as in the other
traditional accounts of the development, the phonological details of the loss
of some prefixes are not explored systematically and in greater detail.
Depending on their phonotactic stability, different Old English prefixes
were abandoned at different times between Old English and Early Modern
English, and the surviving native prefixes and the new borrowed prefixes
are, characteristically, quite similar with regard to their stable phonotactic
structure. Lutz (1997: 260) therefore argues that it is not possible to
explain the decline of the Old English means of prefixing on the basis of
the assumption that prefixation as a means of deriving complex verbs from
simplex verbs has been given up altogether (see there for a short summary
of the underlying theoretical assumptions, and cf. also Lutz 1991 and
1992). The effects of sound change on the unaccented syllables of the prefixes can be summarized as follows:
phonetic attrition in unaccented syllables morphological decay
loss of prefixes
lexical gaps
new verbs
(with phonotactically
more stable structures)
Thus the development of the Old English preverbs can be seen as ultimately caused by changes in other areas of linguistic structure: phonology
(affecting the development of the Old English inseparable prefixes) and
syntax (since the changes in English word order towards strict SVO
resulted in the general loss of preverbal particles; cf. the discussion in
Chapter 3 above). This model is in accord with the cross-linguistically
attested model of the development of preverbs proposed in Chapter 3
above, where the long-term development of preverbs along a diachronic
cline discourse > syntax > morphology > morphophonemics > zero was
shown; cf. also Givns (1979: 209) classic model of change from discourse to zero as a unidirectional cline (but see e.g. Traugott 2003b: 630
631 for a critique of this as a model of grammaticalization).
A clear case of loss due to phonetic attrition is provided by the prefix
ge-, which has already been touched upon briefly. It was shown already by
Pilch (1955) that its loss was ultimately caused by phonetic attrition (with
subsequent paradigmatic levelling and complete loss):
161
Jedoch schafft der bergang e->i- die Voraussetzungen fr die phonetische

Abnutzung unseres Prfixes und leitet damit indirekt seinen Untergang ein.
I- traf nmlich hufig mit gleichem oder hnlichen Vokal im Hiatus zusammen.
Mit diesem wurde es kontrahiert und fiel aus, z.B. hi iseo > hiseo > hi seo.
Damit entstanden auf rein phonetischem Wege aus alten Kompositis neue, unprfigierte Formen, und zwar vorzglich nach vokalisch auslautenden
Proklitika. (Pilch 1955: 3940)
[The transition from e->i-, however, creates the conditions for the phonetic
attrition of our prefix and thus leads indirectly to its demise, since i- frequently
was in hiatus with an identical or similar vowel with which it coalesced and it
was then elided, e.g. hi iseo > hiseo > hi seo. In this purely phonetic manner
new, unprefixed forms developed out of old compounds, mainly after old proclitics that ended in a vowel.]
Pilch (1955: 3848) provides a detailed analysis of the successive stages of

development (for a thorough discussion of the older literature on the
semantics of Old English ge-, see Lindeman 1965 and 1970 and cf. also the
discussion by Wischer 2004 and Wischer & Habermann 2004). But in the
literature the loss of ge- is widely ascribed to semantic weakening, which,
as we have seen, is rather unlikely considering the retained but similarly
desemanticized prefix be-, while the distribution and spread of the phonetic
reduction of ge- (> Middle English i- > ) ties in with the general phonotactic developments observable in English. Cf. e.g. the discussion of
Kastovskys (1992) account in Chapter 4 above and the more detailed discussion in Lutz (1997: 277278) and the references given there. Hiltunen
(1983a: 65) states that although there seems to be a decline in the use of
gein the course of Old English (though his data tend to resist a more
straightforward claim), little changes in the semantics of the prefix. But
nevertheless Minkova still assumes that functional loss is a precondition
for its phonological demise (2008: 30). In this context a comparison with
the development of the two prefixes ge- and be- in German is instructive
(cf. Habermann 1994; for the more recent literature, see Erben 2006). In
present-day German, ge- has entirely ceased being productive as a derivational affix, and it is fully grammaticalized as a past participle marker,
while in Early New High German it still has a marginal derivational function (Habermann 1994: 372388). The prefix be- has retained a
considerable number of derivational meanings, although Habermann observes a tendency in Modern German for this prefix to become more
grammatical as well (see Habermann 1994: 255293; for an overview of
the derivational uses of be- in present-day German, see Fleischer & Barz
1995: 320321). English be-, on the other hand, loses most of its
162
derivational meanings in the course of the Early Modern English period.

Marchand (1969: 148) states that [i]t is only with the shade of overloadedness, disparagement, or ridicule, that be- is a productive morpheme in
Present-day English. Erben (2006: 138) points out that in German the
functional growth of native prefixation is the result of the complex historical interplay of various written discourse traditions from the Middle Ages
onwards (see there for further literature). In contrast, the corresponding discourse traditions in English favoured the use of Romance loans; cf. the
discussion of the role of discourse traditions in Schaefer (2006) and the
comparative assessment of the role of word formation and borrowing in
English and German in Lutz (2002b and 2008).
The approach suggested here accounts well for the loss of prefixes containing phonetically weak consonants such as o-, where the inherently
weak consonant /--/ occurs in a positionally weak final position in an unaccented syllable. The consequent replacement of the prefix in later Old
English by the inherently stronger prefixes of- and t- ties in nicely with
other phonotactically conditioned replacements of dental fricatives from
late Old English onwards, just as the later abandonment of the positionally
equally weak but inherently stronger labiodental fricative in of-. Another
phonotactic factor must be taken into account for the loss of t-, namely
that some formations with this prefix would have resulted in unacceptable
consonant clusters after resyllabification of Old English /t$/ to /$t/
in Middle English, e.g. atbear carry off (*/tb-/), atfall fall away (*/tf-/),
atglide slip away (*/tg-/), atcome get away (*/tk-/), etc. In those cases
where the resultant consonant cluster was phonotactically acceptable the
morphological structure was bound to become obscure, e.g. atren run
away (?a$tren), atshoot (?a$tshoot), etc. Thus, the plosive would either
be lost altogether just like ed- with the phonetically weaker lenis plosive
/-d-/ already in Old English (due to the phonotactic vulnerability of plosives in pretonic position, Lutz 1997: 273) or be subject to resyllabification. In any case, the prefix was eventually reduced to word-initial pretonic
/-/, which was phonetically indistinct from other unstressed elements, in
particular the formerly distinct but similarly weakened prefixes a-, on- and
of-. See Lutz (1991: 94116 and 1997: 267270) for more examples. Dietz
(2004: 573579) argues that prefix substitution was due to semantic factors
at least in the case of t- substituting o-. But his argument rests on the
assumption that the substitution of o- by the etymologically converse
prefix t- (and sometimes vice versa) must have been due to mutual influence. He does not elaborate on the details of this mutual influence, but his
discussion of tberan vs. oberan in Beowulf shows that the prefixes become synonymous as soon as the origin or the goal of the verbal action is
163
specified; the semantic convergence does not explain why it is o- (and not
t-) which is abandoned first.
The developments of wi- and to- call for more detailed comment, since
the former is abandoned considerably later than would otherwise be
expected with regard to its phonotactic structure (and it still exists in
present-day English in a small number of lexicalized formations, e.g. withdraw), while for the disappearance of the latter no phonotactic explanation
at all is at hand. Lutz (1997: 274275) suggests that wi- resisted destabilization for longer than expected due to a combination of various factors:
First, from late Old English onwards the dental plosive in the preposition
mid was phonotactically weakened (> mi), and the preposition was
gradually replaced by wi (while the Old English preposition wi was
entirely abandoned and replaced by against); consequently, the dental
fricative of the Middle English prefix with- was formally identified with
that of the preposition with (< OE mid), whose fricative must have been
stronger than that of OE with- (Lutz 1997: 275). Second, the onset /w/ and
the nucleus /i/ contributed to the greater phonotactic stability of the prefix.
And third, it is conceivable that the existence of the homonymous preposition provided formal support for the prefix. With regard to to-, Lutz (1997:
278279) assumes that this prefix was abandoned due to the rise of the toinfinitive and the avoidance of repetition (on the rise and spread of the toinfinitive, see e.g. Fischer 1992: 4.6.2, Fischer et al. 2000: Ch. 7 and Los
2005). But although both hypotheses are not implausible, they clearly show
that just like in the cases where attrition was to result in homonymic
clashes a wider functional perspective is often necessary to account for the
ultimate loss of the prefixes in a satisfactory way. Thus, although it is clear
that nearly all of the Old prefixes which were eventually lost were subject
to phonetic attrition, this in itself does not always provide a sufficient
explanation for their complete disappearance. It is notable that, quite
typically, phonotactically conditioned phonetic attrition led to homonymic
clashes, as in the case of ymb- (> Middle English um-/em-), fore- (> Middle
English for-), which provides an explanation for the abandonment of one or
more of these homonyms. But although homonymy has been used
extensively as an explanation of linguistic loss in the older structuralist
tradition, it should be stressed that homonymy in itself is never sufficient as
an explanation of loss, unless the homonymic elements occur in identical
contexts (see e.g. Samuels 1972: 6775 et passim, de la Cruz Cabanillas
1999 and Hopper & Traugott 2003: 102103). In the cases at hand
homonymy destroys the former paradigmatic distinctions between the
prefixes and thus greatly impairs their communicative value by rendering
them dysfunctionally ambiguous. Consequently, their replacement by less
164
ambiguous elements can be ultimately ascribed to the phonological changes

which rendered them homonymous.
Altogether it seems clear, though, that the semantic development of the
prefixes is unlikely to be the sole, let alone the primary driving force
behind the abandonment of many of the native prefixes in the history of
English, although the loss of semantic content is likely to have acted as a
complementary factor to the abandonment of destabilized prefixes and also
as an independent factor, as the abandonment of phonotactically stable but
semantically extremely diffuse /-/ from various sources in Middle English
shows. Since verbal prefixation remains productive as a word formation
type in English, the loss of older prefixes must be regarded as the sum of
individual losses, each of which must be explained individually.
There is no evidence for the particles ousting the prefixes in the sense
that they were a causal factor in their disappearance. Rather, as soon as the
formation of new prefixes was blocked by the loss of the necessary preverbal input, this pattern of attrition and replacement could be continued
only by using the now postverbal particles or, alternatively, by analogical
formation of borrowed prefixes. Several details of the loss of the Old English prefixes are still in need of further exploration, although the major
contributing factors have already been identified in the literature. Nevertheless, as we have seen there appears to be a recurrent pattern of phonetic
attrition and desemantization, up to the point of complete loss of morphological and semantic substance. Moreover, this process sets in as early as
pre-Old English and is therefore quite unlikely to be essentially connected
to external factors entering the scene in the course of the history of English.
In the context of the present section it is worth stressing this observation
again, since it is inextricably connected to the development of the verbparticle construction. The relationship between the prefix verbs and the
phrasal verbs is thus clearly much less vexed than has often been assumed
in the literature, and at closer inspection even the presumed loss of vitality
of the prefixes turns out to be rather doubtful, since the particles turn out to
be their functional and semantic equivalents in almost every respect, with
two significant differences, namely first with regard to their positional
properties, which, as has been shown in Chapter 3 above, must be assumed
to prevent their development into preverbally bound affixes, and second
with the fact that they are stressed. These two factors work together not
only to prevent phonetic attrition of the particles, but also to effect a higher
degree of prosodic and semantic salience.
165
5.2.2. Some comparative evidence

A more-than-cursory, in-depth study of the lexical developments of at least
a representative number of particle verbs is conspicuously absent from the
literature and would be highly desirable. Apart from the information
available in the OED, very little and practically nothing systematic has
been undertaken in this direction so far (for an overview of the changing
semantic properties of the particles in medieval English, see Hiltunen
1983a: Part IV). The present study as well is not primarily concerned with
the development of individual lexical items. With the morphological and
phonological discussion of the preceding sections in mind, we will now
turn to a brief general overview of the major semantic paths in the development of the English verb-particle construction. As has been argued in
the discussion in Chapter 3, these paths are quite similar for all kinds of
preverbs, with a high degree of cross-linguistic consistency, and in English
just as in the other Germanic languages the long-term changes observable
in separable prefix verbs and in particle verbs are largely identical.
To start with, let us therefore return briefly to the typical path of
development of preverbs sketched in Chapter 3 above. The viability of the
model sketched there is provided by the Germanic preverb GE- (ProtoGermanic *a). The particle is not attested in its probable etymological
sense near, at, with, together in any Germanic verb (cf. W.P. Lehmann
1986: s.v. ga), but evidence for the etymological meaning of GE- is found
outside verbal prefixation in nominal formations (cf. e.g. KlugeSeebold
s.v. ge-). The development from free form to bound affix via preverbal particle is nevertheless evident from a comparative perspective. In all modern
Germanic languages where GE- still exists it has been a bound affix
throughout recorded history, as e.g. in present-day Dutch and German,
where the prefix ge- has undergone grammaticalization as a past participle
marker. But the situation is different in morphologically more archaic
Gothic, where the cognate preverb ga has not yet been subject to complete
morphological fusion with the verbal stem. Gothic ga is synchronically
both a bound derivational affix, which may occur in fully lexicalized formations, and a residually free particle (BrauneHeidermanns 2004: 217a
Anm.2; cf. there for further references). Moreover, it seems that already in
Gothic bound ga- has a marked tendency to become largely desemanticized, while the aspectualizing meaning tends to be associated with the
freer particle.
Although the exact function of ga is difficult to establish, it has been
known for long that ga can be an aspectualizer in Gothic, but it can also be
used as a transitivizing derivational affix. However, in other cases ga seems
166
to be semantically almost empty, as the synonymous use of some verbs

with and without the preverb shows (cf. e.g. Streitberg 1920: 194200).
The classic example of aspectualizing ga- is durative bairan bear vs. perfective ga-bairan give birth. But although relatively straightforward
examples such as this do by no means form the bulk of the Gothic evidence, Streitberg insisted that all Gothic preverbs have always an
aspectualizing function comparable to the one found in Slavic (cf. Streitberg 1891). His proposal sparked one of the most furious debates in the
history of linguistics, in the course of which it became clear that his views
cannot be reconciled with the Gothic data (see Lloyd 1979 for a critical discussion of the older literature, and Lindemann 1970 and Brinton 1988:
199202 et passim with particular reference to English; cf. also the bibliography in W.P. Lehmann 1986 and BrauneHeidermanns 2004: 217a
Anm.3). Leiss (1992: Section 2.5 and 2002a: 1114), who is quite determined to present the development of GE- as the loss of an old aspect
system, simply claims that this is the case and glosses over an enormous
amount of difficulties in analysing the Gothic and other Germanic data, and
seems not to consider the possibility that the Germanic aspectualizers have
never formed a fully coherent system of aspect marking, as e.g. the typological observations by Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994: 8788) would
suggest. To my mind, her examples show that the assumption of systematic
aspectual verb pairs in Gothic (and corresponding pairs involving verbonominal combinations in Modern German) cannot be upheld. The semantic
interpretation of her examples seems arbitrary, just like the selection of
examples, while the semantic motivations for the common Germanic
development she suggests is similarly based on little persuasive evidence.
This applies especially to the geographical distribution of the disappearance
of aspectualizing particles, which Leiss notes but for which she cannot
offer an explanation. In contrast, the phonological, morphological and
syntactic reasons suggested here serve to explain this development very
well (see also the discussion below); for a critique of similar arguments
with respect to Old High German put forward by Schrodt (2004), see
Fleischer (2006).
In the present context the details of the analysis of Gothic ga- must be
ignored, and it suffices to state the largely uncontested observation that the
Gothic preverbs may have aspectualizing values, while no reassessment of
the discussions of the issue will be undertaken (which Lloyd 1979: 8 summarizes by stating that Streitbergs critics have been far more successful,
however, in demolishing or at least badly denting his theory than in
developing a more satisfactory one). In Gothic, then, ga is regularly
separated from the verb by clitic particles in Wackernagel position, as e.g.
167
ga-saian see in the following example from Wulfilas Bible translation

(after van Kemenade & Los 2003: 98; the example as quoted here is
slightly altered following Streitberg 2000 [1919] and Fortson 2004: 313):
(4)
ga- u-
a-
sei
ga- INT- anything- see:PRET.3SG.SUBJ
whether he saw anything

(Wulfila, Mark 8:23)
Van Kemenade & Los (2003) seem to take the intervention of a clitic particle as evidence against independent morphological status of the preverb,
and they argue that this may have been the driving force behind the development towards bound affix status of ga- (and if I work out their
argument correctly, other Gothic preverbs as well), where the particle was
supposedly reanalysed as a bound morpheme if learners had otherwise no
evidence for independent ga- (van Kemenade & Los 2003: 99). But this
interpretation is unnecessarily complicated, since it is much more economical to analyse the possibility of tmesis with ga- as a relic from an earlier
independent usage (which is acknowledged by van Kemenade & Los),
while the preverb had otherwise already become a prefix. Moreover, they
do not take the morphonological evidence against their analysis seriously
(although they refer to it [113, n. 12]) and they ignore the fact that clitic
particles in Gothic normally follow full words only (cf. e.g. Streitberg 2000
[1919]: s.v. u- and Fortson 2004: 313314). In fact, van Kemenade & Los
do not comment at all on the fact that the intervening particles occur in
Wackernagel position, which affords a serious obstacle to a reanalysis of
the clause-initial particle as a prefix, and their parallels from non-IndoEuropean languages are somewhat doubtful and of little help in a
synchronic analysis of the Gothic data. Moreover, Gothic also offers evidence for layering of older and younger preverbs, which is particularly
noticeable in the co-occurrence of synonymous doublets, e.g.:
(5)
atta
us-gaggands ut
but father out-going
bad
out asked
ina
him
But his father, coming out, pleaded with him.

(Wulfila, Luke 15:28)
This kind of construction may be interpreted as evidence that the prefix is
about to lose its original spatial meaning, or at least that semantic bleaching
has already affected the prefix to such an extent that reinforcement through
doubling occurs; cf. Gtti (1974: 3542), and see also Dietz (2004: 584
168
586) discussion of doubled prefixes in Old English and the discussion

below, where it is argued that at least in Old English the particle does not
reinforce the prefix. In the translation of the Greek Bible text usgaggan and
utgaggan may also be used interchangeably (cf. Streitberg 2000 [1919]:
s.vv.). Evidence like (5) for the relative order of the two preverbs shows the
greater degree of fusion of us- with the verb: us- is always closer to the
verb than ut-; also, if both preverbs precede the verb, only the sequence utus-verb is attested, but never *us-ut-verb. That is to say, some Gothic preverbs, like us, are close to becoming fully bound affixes (with concomitant
semantic changes), while others, like ut, are positionally freer adverbial
particles (cf. van Kemenade & Los 2003: 102); cf. the more detailed discussion of usgaggan vs. utgaggan by Gtti (1974: 41) which despite some
corrections in detail supports Kemenade & Los general argument: Ich
meine, da utgaggan ein Versuch ist, die Bewegungsrichtung im Prfix
deutlich auszudrcken, wie das etwa bei ingaggan der Fall ist. Es ist
denkbar, da wir hier den Beginn einer Entwicklung fassen knnen, an
deren Endpunkt eine deutliche Scheidung der beiden Verben usgaggan und
utgaggan steht [I think that utgaggan is an attempt at clearly expressing
the spatial direction in the prefix, as is the case with ingaggan. It is conceivable that we can perceive here the beginning of a development which
ultimately leads to a clear distinction between the two verbs usgaggan and
utgaggan.]. A particularly remarkable instance of identical doubling is
found with ga, which invariably precedes the verbal stem:
(6)
ga ga-leikon
ga
sik
ga-liken:INF oneself
change oneself
Cf. also in-galeikon, mi-galeikon, airh-galeikon (Streitberg 2000 [1919]:
s.vv.), where ga- appears to have fused with the stem completely there is
no simple verb *leikon attested in Gothic (but of course the corpus of
Gothic texts is rather small) while the particles retain their meanings as
free forms. This also explains the sequence of elements in clauses like the
following:
(7)
ga-h
an mi
ga-and then with
169
[ga-]sandedidum imma broar

[ga-]send:PRES.1PL him
brother
and then we are sending with him a brother2

(Wulfila, II Cor. 8:18)
A comparison between the two mss. containing the Gothic text shows (cf.
Streitberg 2000 [1919]: 311) that only one of them (ms. A) has gasandedidum, while the other (ms. B) has the simple sandedidum.
Desemantization can likewise be observed with other Gothic prefixes, e.g.
fra away and us out. In contrast to ga, however, these two prefixes have
retained their etymological spatial meaning to a larger extent. The more
archaic nature of the Gothic corpus shows also in the fact that Gothic only
has nine prefixes, while the higher numbers of prefixes in the more recent
old Germanic dialects reflect the secondary, post-Proto-Germanic
development of these prefixes (cf. BrauneHeidermanns 2004: 217a).
Old English fr- and a- are cognate to Gothic fra- away and us- out
(cf. W.P. Lehmann 1986: s.vv., EWA s.vv., and DOE s.vv.) and occur only
as bound affixes. Like ge-, they are abandoned at some point in the history
of English (cf. Table 5-2 above). Moreover, the prefixes in Old English
share practically all characteristics with their Gothic cognates, except that
the Old English prefix system is clearly representative of a more advanced
stage of the Germanic preverb development. In contrast to the situation in
Gothic, the Old English prefixes are invariably bound, and fr- and a- have
lost their etymological spatial meaning almost completely; fr- has even
ceased being productive already in early Old English, while a- continues
being used throughout the Old English period, possibly as an intensifier
(this is at least the common interpretation of this largely desemanticized
prefix, cf. e.g. de la Cruz 1975 and Hiltunen 1983a; but cf. the discussion
below). As in Gothic, GE- is semantically perhaps the most elusive of all
productive prefixes in Old English, and it seems that it is often added to a
simple verb without any change of meaning at all. However, throughout the
early Germanic dialects it can be used as an aspectualizer, as the following
parallel passages from three entirely independent Bible translations (Wedel
1997: 327) indicate; the correspondences are even more remarkable if it is
considered that the three Germanic translations are not based on the same
text, not even the same language (the Gothic text is a translation from
Greek, the Old English and Old High German ones from Latin):
2
On gah- (with -h < Proto-Indo-European *kwe and) in this example, see

BrauneHeidermanns (2004: 24 Anm.2 and 218).
170
(8)
Gothic (Wulfila, John 17:12 and Luke 2:19):

(i) an was mi im in amma fairau, ik fastaida ins in namin
einama.
(ii) i Maria alla gafastaido o waurda, agkjandei in hairtin
seinamma.
(9)
Old English (Gospels, John 17:12 and Luke 2:19):

(i) a ic was mid him ic heold hi on inum naman.
(ii) Maria geheold ealle as word on hyre heortan smeagende.
(10) Old High German (Tatian 178,4 and 6,6):

(i) mit diu ih uuas mit in, ih hielt sie in thinemo namen.
(ii) Maria uuarliho gihielt allu thisu uuort ahtonti in ira herzen.
(i)
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy Name.
(AV John 17:12)
(ii) But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her
heart. (AV Luke 2:19)
The parallel use of GE- in these three examples appears to offer evidence
for a consistent and systematic use of GE- in Gothic, Old English and Old
High German, possibly to express perfective aspectual meaning (cf. also
the comparative discussion of verbal prefixation and aspectuality in Old
English and Old High German by Wischer & Habermann 2004). Nevertheless this example is less cogent than it might appear at first sight, since
the Gothic translation renders Greek -, and the Old English and the Old
High German ones render Latin con-, and each of these prefixes is the literal translation of Gothic ga-, at least in its etymological spatial sense.
Wedels examples of GE- formations which do not translate prefixed verbs
(2001: 328) are more persuasive, although, as in similar postulations of
aspect in Gothic, there is little discussion of a representative amount of
individual examples which could serve to demonstrate the actual existence
of such an aspect distinction. Leiss (1992: 64) concludes (with reference to
Rice 1932) from the observation that there is no consistent one-to-one
correspondence between the prefixes in Greek and those in the Gothic
translations that the Gothic prefixes cannot be translations of the Greek
ones and takes this as an argument in favour of regarding them as aspectualizers. But this argumentation does not appear to be entirely justified,
since she does not take into account the fact that the prefix inventories of
the two languages are quite different to start with, nor does she discuss the
possibility of lexicalized prefix formations in Gothic which need not be
parallel to the Greek verbs, or the possibility that the higher number of
171
prefix verbs in the Gothic translation might be a typical translation phenomenon (cf. e.g. the occurrence of loan formations in Old English
translations from Latin). Leiss also does not mention Rices (1931: 122
123) observation that ga- very consistently appears to translate desemanticized prefixes of Greek whose perfectivizing value is far from indisputable.
Thus, in default of more systematic investigations, the issue cannot be regarded as settled, while the arguments in favour of systematically
aspectualizing preverbs in Gothic run a strong risk of circularity. Following
Lloyd (1979), Wedel (2001) claims that Old English ge- always expresses
such aspectual contrasts, and indeed his analysis of gein Cynewulfs
Elene provides evidence that the prefix can be used to express aspectual
contrasts (more specifically, what he calls complexive aspect; see also
Wedel 1997). But his very examples show that this is in fact not systematically the case, just as he does not show how the use of gein examples (6)
(8) above is representative of systematic expression of aspectual contrasts
in the respective languages. Wedels interpretations of the text in favour of
this hypothesis are imaginative but not convincing. Cf. e.g. his analysis of
hyrdon vs. gehyrdon (Wedel 2001: 208209), where an aspectual difference is very hard to make out in two otherwise identical clauses Hwt we
t (ge)hyrdon urh halige bec except for an aspectual contrast construed
on the basis of the presumptive aspectual meaning of the prefix: the
approach is circular.
5.2.3. Prefix variation in Old English
With respect to Old English, it becomes clear through material collected by
Hiltunen (1983a) that the assumption of systematically aspectualizing prefixes is untenable (see also e.g. Pilch 1955: 4546, Sprockel 1973: 38 and
Horgan 1980: 128; for an overview of the often contradictory views on the
semantics of ge-, see Lindemann 1965). Hiltunen had carried out a comparison of the use of gein identical contexts in different manuscripts and
had discovered considerable variation in the occurrence of the prefix, e.g.:3
Quoted after Hiltunen (1983a: 56). Hiltunen explores the use of a few
prefixes in a small number of texts only; his results are therefore far from
being exhaustive, but they appear to be sufficiently reliable and representative
to be used here as an extended example of the semantic and functional
overlaps observable in Old English. For more examples, see also Ogura
(2002: Ch. V and App. II).
172
(11) (i) t he him sylfum geagna a enunge

GD H (35.6)
(ii) t he agna him sylfum a enunga
GD C and O (35.5)
(translating officium apostolici nostri domini sibimet usurpare
indoctus praesumpsit)
(12) (i) he gesprc to him
Mk L (4:33)
(ii) hi spreoca to him
Mk R (4:33)
(iii) he sprc to him
Mk C and H (4:33)
(translating talibus multis parabolis loquebatur eis)
(13) (i) & oft gehergode on Peohtas
(ii) & oft hergode on Peohtas
and often made raids on the Picts
ChronE 875 (75.1)

ChronA 875 (74.1)
Hiltunen finds very little systematic variation among the manuscripts and
none that can be shown to be connected to diachronic, dialectal or stylistic
factors; there is hardly any evidence for a consistent preference or dispreference for the use of gein individual manuscripts. Hiltunen concludes:
it is not often possible to determine the exact value of ge-. In many contexts
there is no apparent reason for its presence or absence In terms of verb
forms, ge- is most commonly found with past tense forms, in particular the
simple past. But, as we have seen, it is difficult to assess the significance of this
in more precise terms. Beyond these tendencies the use of ge- seems haphazard.
Some stylistic values may have been involved, but it is not possible to pin them
down to anything very concrete either. (Hiltunen 1983a: 65)
Thus Horgans (1980) suggestion that prefix substitution in parallel texts

may be due to stylistic factors cannot be confirmed either, see also the discussion above. Hiltunen (1983a: 62) also finds it difficult to confirm
Samuels (1949) claim that already in Old English ge- is a clear past marker
(although, it should be added, Samuels is concerned with the Lindisfarne
glosses and what he assumes to be parallels to Old Norse there). That claim
had already been disproved by Lindemann (1970), whose claims as to the
lexical derivational function of the prefix cannot be confirmed with Hiltunens data either, though. The findings thus seem to support the model of
the diachrony of gein Old and Middle English suggested by Pilch (1955),
whom Hiltunen seems not to have consulted. The observation that the loss
or substitution of native prefixes occurs first in the Northern dialects must
be seen as a strong (and probably conclusive) argument against the possibility of French influence (via the borrowing of French verbs). More
importantly, however, there is little evidence for an increase of the variable
173
use of the prefix within the Old English period. Together with the
observation that towards Middle English GE- is increasingly used as a past
participle marker (the function which is to become fully grammaticalized in
Dutch and German), this can be regarded as conclusive proof that semantic
factors cannot have caused the disappearance of this native prefix, as is
often claimed in the literature (cf. Chapter 4 and Section 5.2.1 above).
The other Old English prefixes can likewise be subject to prefix variation, although to lesser degrees (see below). The prefix which is most
similar to gein this respect is a-, but other prefixes also vary in their
occurrence among the parallel texts, e.g.:
(14) (i) e heo fedde
GD C and O (70.8)
(ii) e heo afedde
GD H (70.9)
(translating ecce enim gallinas, quas nutrit, vulpis comedit)
(15) (i) & bebead m l him
(ii) & he him bead
(translating et praecipebat eis)
(16) (i) & lmar abb hi ltan aweg
(ii) & lmar abbod hi farleton aweg
and they led away Abbod lmar
Mk L and R (8:18)
Mk C and H (8:18)
ChronE 1011 (8.18)
T-ChronF 1011 (267.16)4
Moreover, prefix variation is not confined to the presence versus absence of

individual prefixes; as is to be expected from the examples above, there is a
certain amount of interchangeability among the semantically weaker prefixes. Again this occurs mostly with ge- but also with the other
semantically bleached prefixes, e.g.:
(17) (i)
het Eadweard cy[ni]ng atimbran a norran burg

ChronA 913 (96.19)
(ii) het Eadweard cing getimbran a norran burh
T-ChronB 913 (816.12)
King E. had the fortress in the north built
Hiltunen takes the variant reading of MS F of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

from Thorpes edition (i.e. T-ChronF in the list of short titles); Plummers
reading is confirmed by the facsimile edition (ChronF in the list of short
titles) now available (at 63v).
174
(18) (i) & swie bebead him

(ii) & he him swye forbead
(translating et vehementer cominabatur eis)
Mk L and R (3:12)
Mk C and H (3:12)
However, this kind of variation is rare and restricted, in line with the
general semantic tendencies of prefix variation:
As a rule we may assume one prefix can be substituted for another only if
the contents of the two are not contradictory; i.e. there must be at least a partial
overlap between the items. Ge- poses few problems in this respect its use did
not change much from eOE [viz. early Old English] to lOE [viz. late Old English]. The same applies to a- However, some signs of the incipient decline of
ge- and a- may be seen even in the present material. One such sign is the tendency in GD (H) and Mk (CH) to use be-, for-, on-, or to-, instead of ge-, most
probably because of their greater expressiveness. This does not mean that
ge- and a- would always have been semantically empty, only weaker and less
distinctive than the other prefixes. Thus, because semantic fading is more a
feature of ge- and a- than of the other items, other explanations must be sought
for their decline Gradually, as the non-prefixed variants take over, the coexistence grows less and less permissible. (Hiltunen 1983a: 84)
Lindemanns (1970) hypothesis that genuine prefixes are by definition

interchangeable in Old English because of their abstract meaning was
highly implausible even before the consideration of further empirical evidence. The available evidence, then, fully serves to disprove it (see also
Hiltunen 1983a: 55). The scale of semantic independence of Old English
prefixes suggested by Minkova (2008: 30; cf. the discussion above) is
clearly reflected by the possibility of omission or alternation of the prefixes. At the same time, Hiltunens findings also provide further support for
the viability of the reasons for the long-term weakening discussed in Section 5.2.1 above. But the (semantically) more independent prefixes tend to
retain their etymological spatial meaning (cf. e.g. BosworthToller s.vv.
geond-, ofer-, urh-, wier-, ymb-) and, moreover, these typically
secondary (i.e. not common Germanic and thus younger) prefixes show
considerably less developed aspectualizing functions, if at all. Brinton &
Traugott (2005: 125) claim that the Old English particles are already
aspectual while the verbal prefixes more consistently express concrete
spatial meanings. But this is historically unfounded (cf. also Table 5-2
above), and the scenario is chronologically unlikely and supported by
dubious examples (e.g. be- glossed round and to- glossed motion
towards), which are not supported by Brintons (1988: 204212) earlier
discussion of prefix meanings in Old English (see also the discussion in
175
Section 5.2.4 below). Just like in the Gothic examples discussed at the
beginning of the present section, in Old English the weakening process is
marked with the older prefixes and fully ties in with the cross-linguistic
properties of spatial preverbs (cf. Chapter 3 above). Wedels (2001) hypothesis that some Old English prefixes (and in particular ge-) systematically
function as aspectualizers is, as has been shown so far, demonstrably
wrong. But Wedels observations also point in a more appropriate
direction:
The prefix [ge-] was, thus, used to achieve aspectual contrast. And, indeed, in a
narration not all events are of equal importance. By alternating wherever possible between the prefixed and the unprefixed verbal forms, Cynewulf was
able to make his narration more vivid. He used the unprefixed forms for the
background information and reserved the prefixed verbal forms for the major
events. (Wedel 2001: 210)
Again, the assumption of aspect distinctions made here is circular (for a

discussion of and further literature on the discourse-pragmatic approach to
aspect which is here implicitly taken by Wedel, see Binnick 2001: 562). In
the light of the Old English data investigated by Hiltunen (1983a), it had
better be argued that the evidence discussed by Wedel may support a path
of development running from spatial meaning to telicity to semantic emptiness, possibly as the reference to major events indicates via boosting.
This suggestion would tie in with Lenkers (2008) discussion of Old English booster prefixes (for a full discussion of boosters, see Peters 1993; for
more recent literature, see the references provided by Lenker 2008).
Although Lenker is concerned with adjective boosters, her analysis can also
be applied to the development of the English preverbs, especially since
there are considerable etymological and functional parallels. Etymologically, prototypical boosters are spatial adverbs, and in fact the Old
English inventories of verbal prefixes discussed so far and of adjective
booster prefixes overlap considerably. As we shall see, these stages of
development are also to be found with the particle verbs, with the difference that the younger preverbs there involved continue to be found in
Modern English in all their successively developed meanings. The diachronically conditioned synchronic semantic layering of the particles can
thus be taken as further evidence that the above sketched development of
the older prefixes, of which in English only the later stages are attested, is
essentially correct, which, of course, is the expected result in view of the
cross-linguistic evidence.
176
5.2.4. Particle semantics in medieval English

As has been shown so far, on the whole there is little reason to assume that
any Germanic language has ever developed systematic aktionsart marking
comparable to the one found in the Slavic languages; at least this cannot be
established on the basis of the historical evidence (but see Haverling 2003
on the loss of aktionsart marking in Romance; on the analysis of Slavic
aspect as lexical derivational aktionsart marking, see Dahl 1985: 27 et
passim). However, it is also remarkable that in all Germanic languages prefixes and particles are used to some extent as aspectualizers, which is a
consequence of the specific spatial semantics of these prefixes and particles. In the light of the cross-linguistically widely attested considerable
variation in the expression of aspectual distinctions, it is not entirely surprising that no Germanic language has ever developed systematic aktionsart
marking. And despite well-documented tendencies towards the derivational
expression of aspectual contrasts, there is certainly no need for such a system anyway, as a cross-linguistic comparison shows. Sasse (1991: 43)
observes: It is clear that there are aspectual types of states of affairs which
are universal, but not universally lexicalized. Moreover, it is clear that there
is a universal tendency to systematically express the conceptual distinction
of situation and situation change, at least for certain types of states of
affairs (his emphasis); see also the more recent discussion in Sasse (2006).
Moreover, systematic aktionsart marking may in fact break down once it
has been established, as has been shown e.g. by Haverling (2003) with
respect to Early and Classical Latin as opposed to the Romance daughter
languages. However, this is not to say that synchronically the Old English
prefixes and particles are functionally and semantically equivalent, as suggested by Brinton (1988). Despite their identical etymologies the Old
English prefixes and particles are clearly at different stages in the development of preverbs, not just with respect to morphological fusion, but also,
and perhaps more importantly, with respect to their meaning. Van Kemenade & Los (2003) justly criticize Brinton (1988) for arguing in favour of
such a view, and they point out that in particular the frequent occurrence of
prefixparticle doublings shows that it looks as though the inseparable
prefixes, phonologically weak as they are, are in the process of losing their
distinctive meaning and cease to encode W in the R-LCS [viz. a secondary
predicate in the resultative lexical conceptual structure] (van Kemenade &
Los 2003: 105). Moreover, there is little support for Brintons (1988: 185)
claim based on the older literature, [t]hough many of the modern postverbal particles are the etymological counterparts of the verbal prefixes, it
seems clear that the system of post-verbal particles represents a new
177
development , not a continuation in any direct way of the older system of

prefixation, which neglects the comparative evidence for the emergence of
preverbs and the syntactic factors relevant in the English development discussed in Chapter 3 above, while the claims concerning the sudden loss of
productivity of native prefixes by early Middle English are similarly
unfounded (see Section 5.1.1 above).
Although the greater degree of prosodic and semantic salience characteristic of the particles diachronically underlies the co-occurrence of
prefixes and particles which is common in Old English (cf. also the data
from Gothic discussed above), this co-occurrence synchronically only
rarely results in semantic doubling (i.e. in pleonasm), although this has
been frequently stated (or implied) in the literature (cf. e.g. Samuels 1972:
164, Hiltunen 1983a: 9899, Denison 1985: 4448, Brinton 1988: 215216
et passim, Claridge 2000: 87, van Kemenade & Los 2003: 101103 and
Elenbaas 2007: 114115 and 146). Similarly, Leiss (1992: 71 and 257258)
has argued that the doubling of the aspectualizing function of verbal prefixes and verbo-nominal combinations (Funktionsverbgefge) in Modern
German correlates with the long-term weakening of the aspectualizing
function of the prefixes (see also Leiss 2002a and b; but see van
Pottelberge 2001: 223230 for a critique of Leiss argumentation and for
further literature).
It is remarkable that the recurrent stock examples in the literature are
restricted to a small set of prefixes and particles. What is more, quite a few
of them only exemplify the possibility of co-occurrence of prefixes and
particles, but hardly the intensification of the prefix meaning through the
particle. Some of these doubtful examples may look conclusive, but at
closer examination such certainties tend to evaporate. To take one example,
Brinton (1988: 217) claims that the particle off often reinforces a
weakened - verbal prefix. At first glance the evidence she provides seems
valid: although Old English a- is etymologically not quite identical to off,
both the considerable semantic overlap and the meaning of at least some
a-prefixations do not preclude that possibility. This seems to receive further
support from the example she gives:
(19) Gif man cealf of adrife
If someone drives off a calf
(Ancient Laws (Thorpe) i, 72, 1)
However, verbs with the prefix a- also co-occur with other particles, e.g.
(examples from the DOE):
178
(20) Aaron ahfde his hand upp on gebedum

A. raised his hand up in prayers.
(LS (Pr Moses) 26)
(21) a clypodon hi ealle, kyrrieleyson, up ahafenum handum wi
heofonas weard
Then they all cried, Kyrie Eleison, with their hands raised up
towards heaven.
(LS (Basil) 450)
(22) He adune astah
He went down.
(PsGlG (Rosier) 71.6)
(23) & t gode mod e sio hlo ful oft aweg adrief t gemynd re
medtrymnesse geedniwa
and the good mood, which the health very often drives away, the
memory of sickness restores
(CP 36.255.16)
(24) & he him anweald sealde untrumnessa to hlanne, &
deofolseocnessa ut to adrifanne
and he gave him the power to heal sickness, and to drive out the
devil-sickness
(Mk 3.15)
Conversely, these particles also co-occur with other prefixes, e.g.:
(25) & Bryttas him wi gefuhton. & hfdon sige. & hi bedrifon ut on
ane ea. & manige adrencton
and the Britons fought with them, and won, and they drove them out
on a water, and many drowned
(ChronE 890.5)
Although Brinton (1988: 217223) also uses some of these examples, she
does not remark on the contradictory nature of her evidence. Surprisingly,
the extent, spread and finer details of this use have never been investigated
in detail, despite the fact that it is mentioned in most studies of the Old
English verb-particle construction. Such examples show that the cooccurrence of prefixes and particles can hardly be explained satisfactorily
by pointing out that the weak prefixes are semantically reinforced (cf.
Brinton 1988: 221) by the particles, unless one argues that a- means up,
off, away, out, down, etc. simultaneously, while mutatis mutandis
179
the same is true of be- and ge-, etc. But all the studies mentioned above in
fact postulate several or even all of these senses for a- (and similarly for the
other desemanticized prefixes). Plainly, if all these prefixes can mean anything, there is nothing to reinforce to start with. Only those prefixes seem to
participate in this pattern of prefix/particle doubling which are largely
desemanticized anyway and which not only tend to be mutually interchangeable, but also completely omissible (cf. BosworthToller or, where
applicable, the DOE, s.vv. the respective simple vs. prefixed verbs; on the
little investigated topic of double prefixation cf. also Dietz 2004: 584586).
Kastovsky (1992) remarks about the meaning of a-:
In view of the vagueness of the meaning of the prefix, which only occurs with
verbs or deverbal adjectives, it is difficult to give precise semantic patterns, and
in many instances it does not seem to have added anything to the meaning of
the stem, cf. abacan/bacan bake, abarian/barian lay bare, aberan/beran
bear. In some instances it seems to denote out, e.g. aberstan burst out,
abrdan spread out, acleopian call out; in others, it seems to add an intensifying or completive element, e.g. abeatan beat to pieces, acalan become
frost-bitten, adrygan dry up. But in the overwhelming majority of instances,
its meaning is no longer transparent. (Kastovsky 1992: 378)
One must therefore conclude that the reinforcement of earlier but semantically weakened prefixes by particles is unlikely to have been a factor of
major relevance in the development of the verb-particle construction, nor in
the co-occurrence of both prefixes and particles.
However, what both the older prefixes and the younger particles share is
their propensity for developing into aspectualizers, which is ultimately
based on their shared spatial etymologies. This topic has been discussed in
some detail by Brinton (1988), who argues at length that the development
is essentially based on metonymical processes:
The prefixes and particles occur first in contexts in which spatial meanings are
primary, with verbs of motion or of physical action. In many of these contexts,
though, both spatial and aspectual meanings are possible. This is the locus for
change in focus from spatial to non-spatial meaning Once such a change in
meaning from spatial directionality to situational boundedness has taken place,
the prefixes and particles can then occur freely in combinations in which spatial
meanings are impossible [T]he shift described here is metonymic, not metaphoric. The particles do not assume figurative value, nor does the combination
of verb and particle effect some figurative shift. There seems to be no indication that the prefixed or phrasal verb is used metaphorically any more often
than simple verbs. (Brinton 1988: 197198)
180
For an overview and critique of the traditional views of the process as

fading, figurative extension and metaphorization, see Brinton (1988: 191
193); for a useful survey of the older scholarly opinions concerning the
aspectual nature of the particles, see also Appendix B in Brinton (1988).
But it seems somewhat unfortunate that Brinton (1988: 58) argues that the
aspectualizing function of the particles is fully established in their earliest
attestations, and it has been justly pointed out by Traugott (1991: 223) that
this claim is close to circularity without further analysis. In fact, there is
very little support in favour of Brintons panchronic conflation of spatial
and aspectual meaning in prefixes and particles, and the particles are very
clearly first and foremost spatial in Old English (see Diensberg 1990: 192
193). Traugott (1991: 225), moreover, argues that metonymy is only a
secondary factor in the emergence of aspectualizing particles. Rather,
Traugott states, the metonymy results from linguistic inference arising
out of the use of spatial terms rather than from the abstract linguistic
organization; for a fuller discussion of the role of pragmatic inferences in
semantic change, see Traugott & Dasher (2002). Likewise, Brintons
(1988: 225) contention that postverbal position of the particle is a prerequisite for the emergence of aktionsart meaning is unfounded; cf. Allens
(1990: 248) critique of this assumption: It is difficult to understand why
post-verbal position should be seen as a syntactic peculiarity of aktionsart
markers, and Brinton has not established that the post-object position as a
possibility for the aktionsart particles post-dates their first usage with such
meanings. In fact, Brinton does not take into account the syntactic factors
involved in the loss of preverbal particle position, while her hypothesis
concerning the connection between serialization and semantics rather
undermines her contention that the prefixes and the particles are
functionally equivalent.
The path of change from spatial to aspectual meaning outlined here has
been confirmed in numerous cross-linguistic studies, cf. e.g. by Bybee &
Dahl (1989):
To be located spatially in an activity is also to be located temporally in an
activity, so that from the beginning the meaning of such constructions has
temporal implications. Gradually the locative meaning weakens while the temporal implications stabilize, giving rise to the aspectual meaning. (Bybee &
Dahl 1989: 81)
In fact, the historical development from spatial to more abstract meaning is

probably the single most consistent finding of typologically oriented
research into the emergence of semantic generalizations; see e.g. Bybee &
Pagliuca (1985) on the role of semantic generalizations in grammaticaliza-
181
tion processes, and Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994: 6) on alternative terminologies, including bleaching, a term which had perhaps better be
avoided if the emergence of new albeit more abstract meaning is focused
on. For discussions of the universal path from spatial to temporal, aspectual
and other types of more abstract meaning, see e.g. Traugott (1978), Heine,
Claudi & Hnnemeyer (1991), Traugott & Knig (1991) and the overview
in Hopper & Traugott (2003). A short overview of the relevant cognitive
processes is provided in Diewald (1997: Ch. 3); for cross-linguistic attestation see in particular Heine & Kuteva (2002).
In contrast to the native prefixes, where much of the syntactic and
semantic development is only accessible indirectly through the comparative
method, the history of the particles can be observed in the historical corpus;
see e.g. Brinton (1988: 204214) for examples of the less desemanticized
prefixes used both with literal and aspectual meaning. The examples containing particles adduced so far easily serve to show that the typical
meaning of the Old English particles is spatial, and the typical meaning of
the Old English verb-particle construction is transparent. Brinton &
Traugotts (2005: 124125) claim that already in Old English the particles
must have been grammaticalized as markers of aspect is therefore somewhat misleading, considering that the vast majority of particle tokens in
Old English will have been spatial (while the associated claim that the prefixes express spatial meanings, is clearly wrong, see Section 5.2.3 above).
But the critical contexts for the metonymical shift from spatial to aspectual
meaning are certainly present in the Old English verb-particle constructions, cf. the following examples, which are arranged in a sequence from
fully literal to fully aspectual:5
(26) Hi eodon a ut to am inran gate.
They then went out to the inner gate.
(LS (Martin) 1158)
(27) a wearp se broor t glsene ft ut.
then the brother cast out the glass barrel
(CHom II, 11 104.25)
Quoted from Brinton (1988: 222223), with slightly different translations

supplied (cf. also Diensberg 1990 and Reichl 1995); see Brinton (1988: 216
233) for a more detailed discussion and more examples with out and other
particles.
182
(28) deofolseocnessa ut to adrifanne

to drive out the devil-sickness
(Mk 3.15)
(29) & lett agan ut hu fela hundred hyda wron innon re scire
and let them find out how many hundreds of hides were in the shire
(ChronE 1085.26)
This development of out is further continued in Middle English, where the
particle assumes a mostly aspectualizing function already noted by Denison
(1985: 5657): the semantic development of out is a straightforward matter either of metonymy from a resultative spatial sense or the metaphorical
use of a particular collocation; cf. MED s.v. out(e), e.g.:
(30) Marrch wass a Neh all gan ut till ende. (?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 1892)
(31) Evere come out uvel sponnen wolle. (?a1300(c1250)
Prov.Hend.(Dgb 86) st.37)
(32) I wol breke out fram at baret. (a1375 WPal.(KC 13) 486)
(33) Now, lorde, lach out my lyf, hit lastes to longe. (c1400(?c1380)
Patience (Nero A.10) 425)
(34) e deuyll putyth owth e fyre of charyte. (a1500 GRom.(Glo 22)
779/13)
Cf. also De Smets (2010) discussion of the history of out and the consequences of its collocational and semantic overlap with forth, where it is
argued that inter-particle interference may also play a role in the development of individual particles. Los (2004) regards forth and on as
grammaticalized secondary predicates and argues that their path of
development is from resultative to durative to event-modifying meaning.
For a discussion of the history of complex predicates in Dutch, see Blom &
Booij (2003).
The threefold semantic categorization of verb-particle constructions in
present-day English discussed in Chapter 2 above can thus be graphically
represented as in Figure 5-1 as the result of two historical processes: first,
the metonymical evolution of aspectualizing meaning observable in the
particles, and second, the further lexicalization of individual complex
words (cf. C. Lehmann 1989 and Blank 2001), with accompanying increase
in semantic non-compositionality.
183
verb-particle combination
compositional
directional particle
non-compositional
aspectual particle
Figure 5-1. Semantic development of verb-particle constructions
The second of these two processes has not been subject to a detailed historical investigation, despite the discussions of the lexicalization of some
Old and Middle English particle verbs in de la Cruz (1972b) and in Hiltunen (1983a: 192220). For a general account of the development of
phrasal verbs and other types of complex predicates in the history of English, see Traugott (1999).
But there can be little doubt that the generalizations based on a critical
survey of the literature which have been offered in the present section
would benefit from more detailed analyses of a large number of verbs and
particles. Like the present study, earlier studies have been content with
providing discussions of individual particles and verbs; the OED offers
good histories of individual phrasal verbs (cf. Chapter 4 above), and it
seems a promising project to use the information contained there and in the
other historical dictionaries for a much more comprehensive lexicalhistorical survey (cf. the discussion in Matsumoto 2008: 125141).
Moreover, a synchronic-diachronic study of the type undertaken for German particle verbs by Habermann (1994) could serve to shed more light on
the overall development of different subtypes of aspectual meaning. But it
seems that a prerequisite for studies of this kind in English would be the
abandonment of the preoccupation in English studies with the mutual relationship of phrasal verbs and Romance loans (see Section 5.3 below).
5.2.5. Some conclusions
In the light of the foregoing discussion, it can be explained in principle why
the Old English prefix verbs are very often best translated with a Modern
English phrasal verb. As we have seen, this cannot simply be taken as an
184
indication that the phrasal verbs ousted the prefix verbs at some point in the
history of English; the native prefixes successively ceased being productive, while the spatial particles developed aspectual functions. But the
relationship between these two developments is clearly a contiguous one,
rather than a causal one. Talmy (e.g. 1985, 1991 and 2000) has classified
English, like the other Germanic languages, as a satellite-framed language,
which prototypically uses directional particles to encode the motion-path
(as opposed to e.g. the modern Romance languages). It is conceivable that
the enormous productivity of the verb-particle construction type in the
Germanic languages (and the cross-linguistically well-attested emergence
of aspectualizing functions out of path-expressing satellites) is connected to
this typological trait of the language. More recently, however, Beavers,
Levin & Tham (2010: 369) have argued that Talmys typology results
from numerous converging factors, including the overlap of path/manner
(or rather manner/result) encoding in the verbs obligatoriness, and the
independent availability of various means of encoding manners and paths,
combined with certain preferences for certain non-verbal encoding
possibilities in other words, that the phenomenon is ultimately epiphenomenal (cf. also Slobin 2006). Nevertheless the approach may yield
interesting results for the historical analysis of English, especially with
respect to the borrowing and integration of Romance verbs after the Norman Conquest and the pleonastic particles discussed below.
With regard to the possibility of Scandinavian influence, there is no
reason for the assumption that language contact may have had any impact
on the development of the verb-particle construction in English. It has also
been suggested that the development may have been influenced by language contact with Celtic or French, but these suggestions are generally
(and justly) regarded as unfounded (cf. the discussions in Diensberg 1983
and by Veselinovi 2006). In his methodological discussion of language
contact as an explanation of language change, Lass (1997) demonstrates
that any attempt to show extensive contact influence must be bolstered by
examples that could not have happened any other way (Lass 1997: 207).
This requirement is not fulfilled by either the peculiarities of the contact
situation between speakers of Old Norse and of Anglo-Saxon, nor by the
mere existence of particle verbs in Old Norse (Thim 2008a). The suggestive references to North Germanic parallels which are so typically
encountered in the literature (cf. e.g. the speculations in Kastovsky 1992,
Burnley 1992 and Horobin & Smith 2002, which were mentioned in Chapter 4 above; for full bibliographical references, see Thim 2008a) only serve
to show that verb-particle constructions are a common phenomenon in all
Germanic languages, while there is nothing in that development in English
185
which cannot be explained as language-internal. Lutz (1997: 262, fn. 8)

argues that Scandinavian influence has been effective in a more global
manner, namely by way of accelerated reduction of unaccented syllables
(including inflectional endings) in the Scandinavianized Northern dialects
of English, which must have resulted in a likewise accelerated fixing of
word order in those dialects. As far as the reduction of unaccented
syllables goes, this account ties in nicely with the dialectal evidence and it
serves to explain the consistently earlier phonotactic attrition of the
unstressed prefixes in the Northern dialects (cf. the discussion in Section
5.2.1 above). With regard to the fixing of word order, however, the link
between the loss of inflectional morphology and fixed word order, although
plausible at first sight, has so far not been demonstrated conclusively, and
there is considerable comparative evidence that the two developments are
not necessarily connected (cf. e.g. the discussion in Allen 2006 and the
references there).
On the whole it is not clear which of the properties of the English
particle verbs should actually derive from language contact, since each of
them can be explained as the result of long-term language-internal
developments characteristic of all Germanic languages, as in very many,
perhaps even all, other languages with comparable preverbs (cf. the
discussion in Chapter 3 above).
5.3.
An outlook to Modern English
The essential characteristics of the Modern English phrasal verb can be

regarded as fully developed by late Middle English. But as is well-known,
the Middle English period is also characterized by an unprecedented influx
of Romance loans, which has traditionally always been seen in connection
to the development of the phrasal verbs, both in regard to their internal
etymological structure and in regard to their overall stylistic role in the
lexicon.
5.3.1. Etymology and integration
As has already been noted, descriptions of the Modern English phrasal verb
rarely fail to make the observation that one of its characteristic features is
its typically Germanic (West Germanic or Old Norse) etymology. But as
with many other statements in this context, attempts at actually substantiating it have been rare.
186
Thus, what can we actually say about the etymologies of Modern English phrasal verbs? Claridge (2000: 116) counts 326 different simple verb
elements (types) among the phrasal verbs in the Lampeter Corpus (1640
1740). In 62 per cent of these the simple verbs are of Germanic descent and
in 32 per cent of Romance (i.e. Latin or French) descent (see also the list
of phrasal verbs supplied in Claridge 2000: App. I). The remaining verbs
(18 types) are of unclear etymology according to the OED, which Claridge
uses to establish the etymological origins (although the etymologies in the
OED are now rather dated and certainly not reliable in all details, for the
distinction between native and Latin- or French-derived verbs the information provided there can be regarded as sufficiently reliable). Claridge
(2000: 116) concludes that there is hardly anything unexpected to be
found in that area in her corpus, but the very observation that about one
third of all phrasal verb types in the corpus do not conform to the stereotypical characterizations of phrasal verbs as etymologically Germanic
deserves some attention. Conversely, one might also wonder why there are
more phrasal verbs with Germanic etymologies than phrasal verbs with
Romance etymologies. But this question is virtually absent from the literature, so that both the reasons for the prevalence of Germanic verb types and
those for the existence of the non-Germanic ones (in this case, as many as
one third of the verb types) are left unexplained.
But in the light of the discussion both in this and in the preceding chapters, it would seem odd if borrowed simple verbs did not participate in the
formation of phrasal verbs, since the formation of verb-particle constructions has always been a productive process in English. Although there are
some restrictions on morphological productivity according to etymological
provenance in English (see e.g. Marchand 1969, Bauer 1983, Nevalainen
1999 and Schmid 2005), such restrictions are unlikely to be fully operative
in the case at hand, since borrowed verbs participate rather frequently in the
formation of particle verbs. This is still true in present-day English. In a
spot-check of phrasal verbs in Cowie & Mackin (1975), Lutz (1997: 286
287) presents clear evidence for the etymologically mixed character of
Modern English phrasal verbs (bold type marks non-Germanic items, the
provenance of non-Anglo-Saxon items is given in brackets, with F =
French, L = Latin, ON = Old Norse):
by
down
off
out
come ~, drop ~, get ~ (ON), lay ~, pass ~ (F)

break ~, close ~ (F), come ~, get ~ (ON), go ~, grind ~, jot ~
(L/G), keep ~, pass ~ (F), put ~, set ~, shut ~
feed ~, freeze ~, go ~, keep ~, lay ~, pay ~ (F), play ~, tail ~, take ~
(ON), marry ~ (F), pass ~ (F)
beat ~, carry ~ (F), check ~ (F), clean ~, fade ~ (F), leave ~, move
up
about
across (F)
apart (F)
away
forward
over
187
~ (F), pass ~ (F), point ~ (F), rule ~ (F), work ~

act (L), bolster ~ , book ~, clear ~ (F), dress ~ (F), dry ~, foul ~,
get ~ (ON), keep ~, open ~, pass ~ (F), set ~,
bring ~, carry ~ (F), go ~, play ~, push ~ (F), set ~
come ~ , file ~ (F), get ~ (ON), put ~ , press ~ (F)
fall ~, pull ~ (F), put ~, set ~, take ~ (ON), tell ~
back ~, carry ~ (F), die ~ (ON), drain ~, fade ~ (F), keep ~, pass ~
(F), tear ~, wear ~
bring ~, carry (F), look ~, push ~ (F), put ~, step ~
boil ~ (F), gloss ~ (L), leave ~, move ~ (F), pass ~ (F), take ~ (ON)
Clearly, non-Germanic simple verbs may combine easily with the Germanic particles, but also vice versa, as the particles across and apart of
French descent show. Incidentally, this is also true to a large extent of present-day English prefixes and verbs. Although there is a certain tendency
for etymologically consistent prefixes and bases, it appears more likely,
Lutz argues, that combinability is ultimately driven by stylistic considerations which subsume the remaining native prefixes like be- and
mis- together with the larger number of borrowed ones (cf. Table 5-3
above) as marked for formality (cf. Lutz 1997: 285286). Moreover, the
non-Germanic elements appear to be typically borrowed from French. As
de la Cruz (1972c: 2227) shows, such hybrid formations occur already in
early Middle English, and Diensberg (1983: 255) takes this as evidence for
the lexical integration of such borrowings and the general productivity of
the construction. Lutz therefore concludes:
It is true that the lexical influence of French (and of Latin) was enormous, not
only on the more formal registers but also upon colloquial English As
regards the verbs, this lexical influence makes itself felt in an impressive
number of straightforward Romance loans, Romance formations and etymologically mixed verbs in all registers of English. (Lutz 1997: 287)
It thus seems clear that as a construction type the phrasal verbs are in principle insensitive to the etymological provenance of their elements as long
as these elements are either inherited from (West) Germanic or borrowed
from Old Norse and in particular from French. The fact that the occurrence
of verbs borrowed from Old Norse in verb-particle constructions is by no
means particularly high furnishes another, if only marginal, argument
against the assumption of Scandinavian influence on the development of
the construction (see also Thim 2008a for a fuller discussion of fallacious
examples containing Norse-derived simple verbs in support of that assumption).
188
But what about verbs borrowed from Latin? As will be discussed in

more detail in the next chapter, the Latin borrowings in English can to a
large extent be described as abstract and ideational. In other words, verbs
borrowed from Latin are hardly ever among the verbs of motion or of
physical action identified by Brinton (1988: 197) as the typical input to the
formation of verb-particle constructions (cf. Section 5.2.4 above). Hence
the failure of so many Latinate verbs to combine with spatial particles is
only to be expected, just like the suitability of semantically rather untypical
Latin borrowings to occur in verb-particle constructions nevertheless, cf.
e.g. act in the list illustrating the etymologically mixed character of the
Modern English phrasal verbs provided above. With regard to the relationship of Germanic- vs. French-derived simple verbs as part of verb-particle
constructions, it would be worthwhile to explore whether their proportion
corresponds to the overall proportion of native verbs vs. French borrowings
in the English lexicon. In his assessment of the etymological origins of the
lexicon of Modern Standard English, Scheler (1977) finds a consistently
higher proportion of French borrowings for the overall lexicon than the one
third noted by Claridge (2000) and Thim (2006b; cf. the discussion in Section 5.3.2 below) for late Middle English to Late Modern English phrasal
verbs. But Scheler does not distinguish between different word classes, and
in fact in comparison to other word classes the number of verbs which were
borrowed from French is actually disproportionally low (see Dekeyser
1986). The major factor determining the appearance of a simple verb in a
verb-particle construction is its meaning, and only indirectly its etymological provenance. Moreover, very many of these borrowed verbs are prefix
verbs, with the spatial or aspectual meaning associated with the English
particles already expressed by the prefix. Cf. e.g. Serjeantsons (1935)
examples of Latin verbs borrowed in Middle English:
accede, adjure, admit, combine, commend, commit, conclude, confide, discuss,
dissent, distend, exclude, expend, immix, import, infect, interest (Serjeantson
1935: 260261)
And cf. also the list of verbs borrowed from Latin in Early Modern English
which were to become permanent additions to the English lexicon in Baugh
& Cable (1993):
adapt, alienate, assassinate, benefit, consolidate, disregard, emancipate, eradicate, erupt, excavate, exert, exhilarate, exist, extinguish, harass, meditate
(Baugh & Cable 1993: 161)
189
As these examples show, adding a particle would in most instances be

likely to result in some kind of pleonasm. This is most obvious in the case
of some of the borrowed prefix verbs, e.g. combine, exclude, eradicate,
etc., in the lists above, where verb-particle constructions are possible but
tend to be avoided (e.g. ?combine together, ?exclude out, ?eradicate out),
while with others spatial or aspectual semantics typically added by the particles appear to be semantically incongruent with the verb meaning. These
last points become particularly obvious in a contrastive analysis of English
verbs borrowed from (late medieval) Latin and their German equivalents.
Lutz (2008: 10) has drawn up a list of such verbs in order to illustrate the
different degrees of integration of Latin borrowings in the two languages
(borrowings are in italics, German prefixes and particles are underlined):
distract
frustrate
include
interrupt
magnify
prevent
promote
prosecute
reject
remit
reprehend
subdivide
subjugate
submit
subscribe
substitute
supplicate
suppress
testify
ablenken
vereiteln, durchkreuzen, frustrieren
einschlieen, umfassen
unterbrechen
vergrern
verhindern
frdern, untersttzen
verfolgen
ablehnen, verwerfen
vergeben, erlassen, aufschieben
tadeln, kritisieren
unterteilen
unterjochen, unterwerfen
unterwerfen, unterbreiten, vortragen
(unter)zeichnen, beitragen, subskribieren
einsetzen, ersetzen, substituieren
anflehen
unterdrcken, niederschlagen, abstellen
(be)zeugen, attestieren
As this list shows, in German very systematically native prefix and particle
verbs are used where English has borrowed from Latin. The fact that some
of these verbs are, in fact, loan formations (on Latin models) is not only
relevant to the evaluation of the role of borrowing in English and German,
as Lutz (2008: 11) points out, but it also shows that transfer and integration
of the loans depend on bilingual individuals who can analyse the Latin
verbs as semantically equivalent to complex Germanic ones (for the
typological backgrounds to this difference between Germanic and Romance
languages, cf. the brief discussion in Section 5.2.5 above).
190
It is likely that a number of factors contribute both to the general avoidance of pleonastic particles and to their occasional occurrence. The general
explanation sketched so far presumably accounts for the vast majority of
instances, or perhaps rather for the fact why most verbs borrowed from
Latin are indeed unlikely candidates for verb-particle constructions, unless
pleonastic use of the particle is tolerated. But why pleonastic particles were
sometimes used with these verbs is not easy to tell, and explanations so far,
although not necessarily wrong, fail to be fully satisfactory. C. Lehmann
(2005: 130) hypothesizes: Yet other examples evince a desire to equip a
naked noun, verb or adjective with a companion so that it need not stand
alone. The word alone seems too weak. But although one half of his
examples (past experience, resulting effect, unexpected surprise, return
back, sink down, fall down, repeat again, fly through the air) contain
phrasal verbs, the explanation C. Lehmann (2005: 131) offers is not completely sufficient: In some cases, this horror vacui may be motivated
purely phonologically, by reasons of rhythmic euphony This variety [of
pleonasm] may be called phatic pleonasm. The modifier is not stressed and
in most cases cannot even be stressed because there is no possible contrast. But this does not apply to the phrasal verbs he adduces as examples,
and, more importantly, it does not explain why this kind of pleonasm is
clearly much more of an exception than the rule (while the factors conditioning the exceptions remain rather vague). Cf. C. Lehmann (2005: 119
123) for a terminological discussion of various types of linguistic redundancy, where it is argued that pleonasm should not be confused with
superfluity or uselessness, since it fulfils a number of diverse communicative functions; cf. also Traugott & Knig (1991: 191): The fundamental
process we see at work is a principle of informativeness or relevance,
essentially the principle: Be as informative as possible, given the needs of
the situation. Lehmanns observation that the phenomenon ought to be
seen as a particular type of linguistic redundancy, which is characteristically associated with borrowing, seems to point in an appropriate direction
in the present context:
Borrowing an item presupposes some degree of knowledge of the donor language, and the item is borrowed precisely for its properties. The most one can
say is that the speaker wants to make sure, within the means of the code he is
currently using, that the item has the properties needed in the discourse. The
most transparent way of guaranteeing this is the application of a productive
operation whose operator confers just the desired property Safety pleonasm
evinces a basic insecurity in the control of the code. Since none of us is the
master of the norm, we do not have full certainty of the meaning of a word and
the service it can do in our speech. Therefore we prefer to play it safe and to
191
combine it with another sign which should also contribute the desired meaning
and of which we feel a little more sure. (C. Lehmann 2005: 148149)
This general characterization, then, helps to shed some light on the pleonastic use of particles, and in particular the use of particles with borrowed
verbs, whose exact meaning is more likely to have been connected to the
basic insecurity in the control of the code Lehmann refers to. In Margaret
Pastons Letters (written between 1441 and 1478), five per cent of all
phrasal verbs are pleonastic (see Thim 2011a for details). Already MllerSchotte (1955: 365366) had discussed the use of pleonastic particles in
texts from throughout the Modern English period and also pointed out
remarkable stylistic parallels to the German Chancery style. In a corpus of
18th-century letters, Denison (2007: 124) notes the following examples of
pleonastic phrasal verbs: adjourn out, declare off, inquire out, repair up,
return back. These are all impossible (or at least highly doubtful) in
present-day English, and Denison speculates that this is to do with a
phonological constraint which is operative in present-day English but
weaker in 18th-century English; namely that the typical simple verbs in
verb-particle constructions are stressed on the first syllable. But what is
visible in present-day Standard English is the result of the normative dislike
of pleonasm (cf. the discussion in the next chapter). This is much more
likely to be heeded by speakers using Latinate verbs, which, for the reasons
outlined above, are also much more likely to give rise to pleonastic combinations. The occurrence of such pleonastic particles in informal 18thcentury letters is likely to be the result of the communicative strategies outlined here. Each of Denisons examples contains a borrowed verb with a
prefix-like element at the beginning, and his argumentation is not entirely
convincing. He adduces piss off / cheese off / put off vs. annoy off as arguments in favour of the constraint, but does not discuss the fact that his
annoy and annoy off are synonymous and therefore stylistically incongruent, whilst piss and piss off are not. The precise nature of the factors at
work in the selection of pleonastic particles remain to be explored. I agree
with Lehmanns conclusion:
Older textbooks teach that language changes because we adapt it to new needs.
Younger textbooks teach that it changes because the language acquisition
device comes up with an original analysis of the input. Pleonasm and
hypercharacterization confirm what Coseriu said long ago : Language
changes because we create it every day. We have to do so to the extent there is
no ready-made language that we could rely upon. (C. Lehmann 2005: 149150)
192
Nevertheless a more precise analysis of the factors governing the occurrence of pleonastic forms in historical texts seems desirable. For presentday English, Hampe (2002) has demonstrated convincingly that apparently
redundant particles may play an important role from a cognitive point of
view, which tended to be overlooked by earlier discussions:
redundancy in verb-particle constructions must be regarded as a form of conceptual overlap. In contrast to the truth-based notion of redundancy, conceptual
overlap is a gradable concept. More specifically, the particles refer to elements
which are already parts of the conceptual bases of the respective simple verbs
Rather than inserting completely new conceptual material, the particles
profile material already (to some degree) activated. (Hampe 2002: 246; her
italics)
The history of this type, which Hampe calls superlative verbs, remains to
be studied in detail, though.
5.3.2. Phrasal verbs in 15th- and 16th-century English
By way of concluding this chapter let us have a brief look at the use of
phrasal verbs in a sample of 15th- and 16th-century English texts, i.e. texts
written at the beginning of the Modern English period (based on Thim
2006b). An electronic full-text search for phrasal verbs with the particles
back, down, forth, out and up of the 15th- and 16th-century letters contained in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (1,026,247 words
altogether; for a description of the corpus, see Nevalainen & RaumolinBrunberg 1996 and 2003 and Nurmi 1998) can serve to confirm the general
observations on the percentage of French borrowings in verb-particle constructions. Cf. Figure 5-2, which refers to the type count of the simple verbs
combining with the five particles. With regard to token count, however, the
situation changes dramatically, and a mere five per cent of French-derived
simple verbs remain, while the native simple verbs make up almost 95 per
cent of all occurrences. For a more detailed discussion of the data, see Thim
(2006b) and cf. also the discussion of some of the quantitative results
obtained in that study in Chapter 6 below.
Likewise, in the smaller corpus of Margaret Pastons letters of the 15th
century, there are 81 per cent Germanic and 19 per cent French types, while
the French tokens make up 9 per cent of the corpus (cf. Thim 2011a: 362).
Such figures are a consequence of the fact that a very small number of
simple verb types is involved in the majority of phrasal verb tokens in the
corpus (cf. Thim 2006b: 216).
193
28%
French
1%
Germanic
Latin
71%
Figure 5-2. Etymologies of phrasal verbs (types) in English letters, 14501600

(according to Thim 2006b)
All these simple verbs (viz. come, send, set, fall, take, bring, go, lay, make,
put, give and break) in Margaret Pastons letters clearly belong to the core
inventory of the English lexicon and are of Germanic descent. Hence it
becomes clear that the statements concerning the typical etymological
structure of phrasal verbs need to be expressed more precisely than usual.
With regard to the token frequency of occurrence, it is certainly true that
the vast majority of phrasal verbs contain simple verbs of Germanic
descent, while with regard to the types, French-derived simple verbs make
up almost one third of all phrasal verbs (cf. also the almost identical results
obtained by Claridge 2000 for a later corpus discussed in Section 5.3.1
above). In this context, it is also remarkable that all of the 159 simple verbs
occurring as parts of these phrasal verbs are still current in present-day
English, while each of them appears to be well-integrated in Early Modern
English. This was confirmed by consultation of the OED s.vv. the simple
verbs (for a full list of these verbs, cf. Thim 2006b: Appendix). Hence it
must be concluded that Germanic simple verbs represent the core inventory
of phrasal verbs in the corpus, and while not all Germanic simple verbs are
highly productive, all the highly productive ones are Germanic. Moreover,
pleonastic particles, although altogether quite rare, were typically found
with the borrowed verbs, although not exclusively, e.g. (the abbreviations
used for the identification of the sources are those used in the Corpus of
Early English Correspondence; cf. the references given above):
(35) neuer ceasing to lift up my handes and hart with deuout [prayers] for
your most prosperous safe and sure succes in this voiage
(RO1 1594 ELIZABETH1 110)
194
(36) Wherfore his Grace thought hit best that my Lord Steward shold
advaunce forth and bryng his hole army as nere to gether as he
myght
(A 1522 T TMORE 260)
(37) he showlde rather retorne back againe then to continue theare
(CA 1594 T WCECIL 155)
While (35) contains the native verb lift in combination with a pleonastic
directional up, (36) and (37) provide evidence for the more typical case of
borrowed simple verbs in combination with a pleonastic particle expressing
a directional orientation already present in the semantics of the simple verb.
Perhaps more importantly, though, the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the phrasal verbs in present-day English as described in Chapter
2 above are fully developed in this corpus of late Middle English/Early
Modern English texts. It thus turns out that from late Middle English
onwards, phrasal verbs as a construction type have remained almost
entirely unchanged. This is also why the data from Thim (2006b) need not
be discussed here further, since it would be rather pointless to amass
examples which are identical to present-day verb-particle combinations,
while there simply are no significant differences (cf. also Thim 2011a,
where all phrasal verbs found in the 15th-century corpus of Margaret Pastons letters are quoted in context).
This, however, does not apply to the development of individual phrasal
verbs; thus Denison (1998: 223) quotes the following examples of phrasal
verbs from 19th-century literature which are now obsolete:
(38) Whats going forward?6
(39) You have been bred up in the country.
(40) and shrugging up his shoulders
(41) And, oh, have you mended up all the open pens in the study?
(42) hastily checking herself up
Cf. also the 18th-century examples discussed in Section 5.3.1 above, and
cf. Nevalainen (1999: 424) for examples of Early Modern English phrasal
verbs which have ceased to exist in present-day English. Thus evidence for
6
This does exist in present-day English, though not in the sense Whats going
on? as in this example (and cf. also adverbial going forward in the future).
195
a constant turnover of the inventory is easily come by, as opposed to the

generally accepted view of a constant increase in phrasal verb types from
late Middle English onwards (cf. the following Chapter 6 for a more
detailed and decidedly sceptical discussion of any strong version of that
view), although a more detailed investigation of this topic is to be desired
for the future. This also applies to the development of phrasal-prepositional
verbs, for which hardly any systematic historical information has been
gathered so far, except for the general assumption of a diachronic increase,
cf. e.g. Denison (1998: 223). Interestingly, Denison (1998: 224) also discusses the overall increase of prepositional verbs (cf. there for further
literature on the topic), but his approach to group-verbs seems to prevent
him from establishing a connection between the two developments. In the
approach taken here, where phrasal verbs are regarded as periphrastic word
formations, the issue, of course, tends to disappear altogether, at least as far
as the history of the verb-particle construction is concerned: there is no
reason why the increasing use of prepositions to satisfy the argument frame
of the verb should not affect simple and complex verbs alike, while that
increase, worthy of attention as it is, has no direct connection to the history
of the verb-particle construction.
5.4.
Conclusion
In this chapter the emergence of the Modern English verb-particle construction has been examined from a morphological, lexical and semantic
point of view.
I have argued that a language-internal account of the history of the English verb-particle construction is possible and, what is more, decidedly
more plausible than assumptions of external influences. In this context an
evaluation of the long-term loss of most of the native (Germanic) prefixes
has shown that the loss of the native prefixes was in principle independent
of the development of the particles (and also of the establishment of
borrowed prefixes), although the particles, with their similar spatial etymologies, were bound to take similar paths of semantic development. As a
consequence, preverbs which came to be fused with the verbal base have
been largely replaced by preverbs which, due to syntactic changes, by now
occur separated from the verb, in postverbal position.
As a construction type, particle verbs turn out to be rather insensitive to
the etymological origins of their components, as long as the meaning of a
simple verb does not preclude its combination with spatial or aspectual
particles. This is the case with many borrowings from Latin, which clearly
196
prefer combining with Latinate prefixes. However, the preference of the

Latinate verbs for etymologically congruent prefixes is also, and perhaps
more importantly, connected to their special status in the post-medieval
English lexicon, a topic we will return to in the next chapter.
Chapter 6
A number of studies have focused on the quantitative development of
phrasal verbs from the late Middle Ages onwards. Some of these studies
are mainly concerned with an overall diachronic quantification of phrasal
verbs in the English lexicon, while others have tried to take into account
considerations of variationist aspects connected to their occurrence in different text types, registers, or national varieties. Once again it seems that
many of such investigations take for granted the notion that there is something like a rise and subsequent spread of the phrasal verb in English, and
quite clearly all of them are confident that the phrasal verbs have always
been stylistically marked as low, informal, or colloquial. In the following it will be argued that on closer scrutiny many of the results turn out
to be rather inconclusive and that so far a satisfactory quantitative account
of the history of the phrasal verbs remains to be written. In particular, the
common stylistic evaluation of phrasal verbs throughout the history of
English must be regarded with a considerable degree of caution and the
quantitative observations adduced in its favour are far from persuasive.
This will become clear through a representative discussion of the normative
tradition and of the linguistic practice of a number of style-conscious
authors from between the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 20th
century.
6.1.
Let us begin with a discussion of a number of studies which provide figures

for the overall frequencies of phrasal verbs in various texts since the late
Middle Ages.
6.1.1. Quantitative long-term developments from Middle English to the
20th century
As so often Kennedy (1920) sets the pace for much of 20th-century
research (cf. the discussion in Chapter 4 above). Thus, his influence is also
noticeable in Konishis (1958) study of the long-term developments in
English. For medieval English, Konishi relies entirely on the figures given
198
by Kennedy, and he explicitly connects the development of the phrasal

verbs to the analytic tendency in English, where the development of the exclusively postpositional pattern is seen to engage in an interplay with the
loss of inseparable verbal prefixes during and after the Old English period
and the influx of Romance loanwords in Middle English, which he describes as the long history of struggle between the native compound verb
and the verb-adverb combination and the sudden inrush of a multitude of
Romanic compound verbs since the fourteenth century (Konishi 1958:
119). Konishi also follows Kennedy in connecting the phrasal verbs to what
he calls the ordinary conversation of the masses, which is taken as the
primary explanation for the quantitative developments from Middle English
onwards:
Kennedy wishes to emphasize in view of certain conclusions that the development of the verb-adverb combination would have been much more rapid had it
not been weakened for some generations or even centuries, by the adoption into
the English language of numerous Romantic [sic] verbs. Certainly this is true of
written English or the formal speech of the educated people, but, I venture to
say, it is not true of the ordinary conversation of the masses to whom these
combinations mainly belong. The inrush of Romanic verbs had been strong
enough to check the growth of the phrasal verbs, indeed, but at the same time I
must add that it had been strong enough to drive out the native compounds
which stood firm in the way of the combination. In other words, I would rather
say, the verb-adverb combination had succeeded in conquering its original
enemy by the hands of the newcomer, so that the obstacle had been got out of
the way for its startling progress at the early period of Modern English.
(Konishi 1958: 119121)
In the present context it is significant that Konishi extends the somewhat

adhoc-ish line of stylistic reasoning in his rather metaphorical narrative to
the later periods of the language. In the OED entries for ten frequent simple
verbs, he observes a marked and steady increase in first quotations for
phrasal verbs between the 13th and the 17th century, which is followed by
a slump towards the 18th century; only in the 19th century is there again an
increase. The long-term development, then, is represented as in Figure 6-1
below.
The wave in Figure 6-1 suggests a continuous development, which
Konishi (1958: 121123) explains with references to the respective linguistic spirits of the age and contemporary stylistic norms and attitudes. Since
his figures are based on the first quotations of phrasal verbs or new senses
of existing ones every 50 years in the OED quotations, their validity
depends crucially on the dictionarys coverage.
199
Figure 6-1. Development of phrasal verbs (Konishi 1958: 125)
But although the treatment of verb-particle constructions in the OED is

superior to that in other historical dictionaries (cf. Chapter 4 above),
statements concerning the development of the English lexicon in different
periods need to be taken with a fair degree of caution if they are based on
the OED (i.e. a considerable portion of such statements made in the course
of the 20th century). Even though the OED database, with its strong literary
bias, can be assumed to be relatively homogeneous, the coverage of the
dictionary is remarkably uneven, as Schfer (1980 and 1989) has shown.
This applies to the numbers of sources used for the compilation of the dictionary, which vary enormously over time. According to Schfer (1980);
the 16th century is relatively poorly covered and there is a considerable
increase in the 17th century, while for the 18th century again fewer sources
were used. The increase in 19th-century sources reflects the origins of the
OED in the second half of that century. Schfer has also demonstrated that
some sources were read much more closely than others. Hoffmann (2004)
has shown that not only the number of quotations in the OED is unevenly
distributed across time, but also the average length of the quotations: there
is a slow but steady increase, and the Modern English part of the quotation
corpus is altogether considerably larger. As a result of these and some other
peculiarities of the OED, the history of the English lexicon has often been
distorted, due to a confusion of the substantial vagaries of the
200
lexicographical coverage and the real history of the language (cf. Brewer
2000, Mugglestone 2005 and Thim 2011b). In other words, it is very problematic to draw conclusions about long-term changes in the productivity of
late medieval and Modern English phrasal verbs on the basis of the OED
entries, unless the peculiarities of the dictionarys documentation are taken
into account. Konishis figures really reflect the quantitative diachronic
makeup of the OED, rather than the development of the phrasal verbs in the
language.
A later study, however, seems to confirm Konishis findings. Using a
very different (but still a literary) database, Spasov (1966) observes a longterm increase in the use of phrasal verbs between late medieval and 20thcentury English. Counting the incidence of phrasal verbs in samples of 300
verbs in each of 46 plays, Spasov concludes that there is a steady increase
in the use of phrasal verbs since Renaissance times (Spasov 1966: 23),
which he illustrates as shown in Figure 6-2.
But just like Konishis figures, Spasovs look decidedly less cogent on
closer inspection. His samples are rather small and it is not quite clear what
they are representative of. On the whole, the graph creates an impression of
growth. But there is nothing in Spasovs data which would justify the rise
towards the group of Mysteries and Miracle Plays, since his counts start
with them. There is also no reason for the two following groups, Shakespeares Contemporaries and Shakespeare to be ordered successively,
when in fact the plays in the former group were, on average, written later
than the ones in the latter (the average date of composition for the eight
plays by Shakespeare is 1599, while the average date of composition for the
eight plays by his contemporaries is 1609). There seems to be indeed an
increase towards the Restoration group, which is taken as evidence for a
steady overall increase; the decrease in the two subgroups for the 18th
century (in particular in the three plays used as samples for the second half
of the century), though, is explained away by a wholesale reference to stylistic predilections. Spasovs explanations for the frequencies are, once
again, in line with the traditional narrative:
The only considerable drop, as seen in the above scheme, is to be observed in
the 18th century, and that particularly in the second half when writers seem to
fight shy of phrasal verbs. But then, it should be remembered that it is not
improbable that in certain periods writers may not have reflected the real state
of affairs in the language, following the fashion of the day or personal likes and
dislikes. On the whole, authors whose language is based on popular speech are
apt to use a larger number of phrasal verbs than those who introduce refined or
sophisticated speech in their works. (Spasov 1966: 22)
201
Figure 6-2. Phrasal verbs in English plays (Spasov 1966: 21)
In other words, if the number of phrasal verbs increases, this is taken to

reflect the general trend in the real language, and if it decreases, it is taken
to be merely a writers personal predilection, or the result of the linguistic
taste of the time. After the 18th century, the evidence for an overall
increase towards the 20th century appears to be somewhat more robust, and
seems to be corroborated by more extensive data (cf. the discussion below).
But the apparently crucial developments in the 19th century are left unaccounted for, since there is a gap of more than a hundred years in the
coverage, and most of the 19th century is not covered at all (the last play
from the 18th century is from 1777, while the first play from the Pre-IWorld-War group is from 1885). With regard to a small additional sample
of 20th-century novels the reason for one character having 17% phrasal
verbs in all his verbs in the first three chapters is, predictably, explained
with the authors attempt at making the figure more true to life, while the
complete absence of phrasal verbs in the speech of another character in
these chapters makes her language more individual (Spasov 1966: 23).
Despite its weaknesses, Spasovs analysis, just like the long-term account
offered by Kennedy (1920), has been perpetuated by Bolinger (1971: xi, fn.
1) in his very brief historical reference to Spasovs findings.1 Nonetheless
1
In the past the book must have been rather difficult to procure. E.g. both Pelli
(1976: 43) and Claridge (2000: 97) state that they could not consult it, and
both (Pelli 1976: 126 and Claridge 2000: 98) reproduce the graph from
Bolinger (1971: xi, fn. 1). Although the decline in frequency observed by
202
one cannot but agree with Martins (1990: 32) critique, Spasovs study
tantalizes the curiosity but does not satisfy it. But although the older
quantitative studies are unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted as a reliable
basis for any kind of observation on the development of the phrasal verbs,
Kennedy (1920), Konishi (1956) and Spasov (1966) continue being quoted
extensively in the literature, where they tend to be regarded as reliable
sources (cf. e.g. the references in Hiltunen 1994, Claridge 2000 or Elenbaas
2007 and the uncritical use in the handbooks), and in several instances the
chain of quotes seems to turn into a game of Chinese whispers (cf. also the
discussion of Drydens presumptive replacements of phrasal verbs in Section 6.2.4 below).
Among the long-term studies, only Martin (1990) seems to provide a
more dependable overview. Being an unpublished dissertation, the study
appears to have had virtually no impact at all on the subsequent historical
research on phrasal verbs. Martins corpus consists of private letters written
between the 15th and the 20th century, and her quantitative analyses are
based on the first one hundred phrasal verbs (tokens) found in the subcorpora for each century. This is, of course, a problematic procedure, not
least since it is hard to see why the large number of correspondents
announced in the descriptions of the sub-corpora should be needed for such
a small number of phrasal verbs and what the criteria for the selection of
individual informants/letters within these sub-corpora were; here again
representativeness is an issue. But with regard to absolute numbers of
phrasal verbs investigated over time, Martins study is as yet unsurpassed.
Her diachronic corpus consists of six sub-corpora for British English (15th
20th century, one for each century) and three for American English (18th
20th century). The choice of letters as the basis of the corpus is motivated
by the assumption that their language is closer to the vernacular of ages
past than any other available linguistic record (Martin 1990: 47), although
she is aware that the functional domains of letter writing may have changed
considerably over time (Martin 1990: 9798); see e.g. Schaefer 1996 for a
critical examination of such claims with regard to the 15th-century Paston
Letters. On the whole, the corpus attempts to include informal letters,
ideally holographs written by writers of comparable socio-economical
status and to avoid the overrepresentation of idiolectal features; for a more
Spasov for the 18th century is one of the central concerns of their studies,
both do not cover the whole 18th century because of their corpora, and they
must rely on Bolingers somewhat casual description of Spasovs database
and his results; cf. also the discussion below.
203
detailed account, see Martin (1990: 5773), where, however, no

information is provided as to which letters exactly were included in the
corpus (e.g. for the Paston Letters there is just a list of the members of the
Paston family whose letters were used rather than a list of the individual
letters).
Of interest here are Martins results for the overall density in texts, i.e.
the ratio of number of phrasal verbs to number of overall words (Martin
1990: 79) where she finds a considerable long-term increase, but on the
whole little difference between British and American English:
Phrasal verbs density in informal letters has increased over the centuries, as
expected. This is to say that the letters of today, at least those studied, feature
almost five times as many phrasal verbs as those of five centuries ago. Unexpected was the similarity of British and American trends, particularly in the
20th century, when density is virtually identical. This finding does not support
the common perception of Americans as the heavy users of the phrasal verb
form. (Martin 1990: 100)
The percentages presented by Martin are mostly based on estimated figures

for the overall number of words in the texts which make up the corpus (for
the details of the quantitative procedure, see Martin 1990: 7879). It
appears, then, that there is little evidence for the universal assumption that
phrasal verbs are more typical of American English than of British English.
This is a topic decidedly in need of more thorough investigation, as the
somewhat different results obtained by Rohdenburg (2009) for at least
some phrasal verbs attest. But to date even the genesis of the assumption of
a difference between the two varieties (which must lie somewhere in the
19th century) is unclear, and statements like the one in Fowler s.v. phrasal
verbs (1996, ed. Burchfield), [i]t is clear that the use of phrasal verbs
began to increase in a noticeable manner in America from the early 19c.
onward. From there, many have made their way to Britain during the 20c.,
are, although not necessarily wrong, as yet not supported by persuasive
evidence. Interestingly, though, the figures obtained by Martin seem to confirm some of the general trends posited by Konishi (1956) and Spasov
(1966) on the basis of their unrepresentative and generally rather problematic corpora. Overall, the incidence of phrasal verbs rises from 0.2% in
the 15th century (corroborated by the figures in Thim 2011a) to 1.1% in the
20th century. There is only a very slow but steady increase between the
15th and the 17th century; i.e. the dramatic rise shown by Konishis figures
is quite predictably not confirmed by Martins more balanced corpus, but
there is support for the general trend towards greater frequency observed by
Spasov. In the 18th century, then, the figures remain steady, and in the
204
British sub-corpus there is even a slight decrease at the end of the century,
which however is considerably less marked than in Spasovs study, while
the figures for the American sub-corpus remain quite stable throughout the
18th century. This would seem to confirm my assessment that the 18thcentury dip claimed by Konishi merely reflects the coverage in the OED.
Again this may not be taken as evidence for the claim that phrasal verbs are
more typical of American English in general, since in both varieties there is
an increase in the 19th century which Martin (1990: 102) characterizes as a
skyrocketing one (cf. also Smitterbergs 2008 figures for the 19th century). That increase, moreover, appears to be decidedly steeper for British
English, to the point that the absolute figures for the 19th century are considerably higher in British English than in American English, while the
absolute figures for the 20th century appear to be identical in both varieties.
Martin does not give any absolute figures for the overall token incidence of
the phrasal verbs in her sub-corpora, so that one has to rely on her Figure 1
(Martin 1990: 103) for these observations especially since she does not
comment on the 19th-century divergence between British and American
English in her data at all. Moreover, since there is a gap of 70 years
between the 18th-century and the 19th-century sub-corpus, it is
impossible to make any more detailed statements about the developments
in the two varieties on the basis of these data. One problematic aspect of
Martins study is that the respective sub-corpora for the 15th to 20th centuries are restricted to the following periods: 14401479, 15331573, 1637
1661, 17601790, 18601890, 19751987 (Martin 1990: 56), although the
chart with the results creates the impression of a continuous development,
as in the earlier studies discussed above. Thus the results can be used only
for the establishment of rough diachronic tendencies, and the exact figures
are not provided. But nevertheless on the whole the observation that a
rather dramatic increase occurs in the course of the 19th century appears to
be a very robust, yet so far totally unexplained, finding (but cf. Section
6.1.4 below).
These findings are also borne out by Pellis (1976) study of phrasal
verbs in 68 American dramas published between 1765 and 1972. Pellis
corpus of approximately 1.25 million words is divided into six sub-periods
(Pelli 1976: 17) and it shows the beginnings of a considerable increase
around the middle of the 19th century, while his overall percentages tally
nicely with those of Martin. Albeit not at odds with any of the other studies
discussed here, his data would seem to offer new challenges of interpretation, which shall not be addressed here in greater detail, e.g.: why is there a
decrease in his last period compared to the preceding one? And, more intriguingly in the light of the previous observations on the late 18th-century
205
dip: why is there a slight decrease after the first period is the late 18thcentury dip a phenomenon of the long 18th century? If so, there would
seem to be some grounds for the assumption that the development of
phrasal verbs in the late 18th century may indeed be seen in connection to
extra-linguistic factors. Martins assumption that the American development simply lags behind the British one because Americans used to carry
a cultural chip on their shoulder (Martin 1990: 108) seems rather problematic, not least because she does not offer any comparable British data
which could be used to justify that claim. Pellis explanations for his
figures follow the predictable traditional pattern of referring to informality,
common people and colloquiality. We will return to this in Section 6.2
below.
6.1.2. Early Modern English frequencies
Compared to the little attention Late Modern English in particular the
19th century has received, the Early Modern English period has been
given a fair deal of attention, and there are a number of studies which are
based on extensive corpora, most notably those by Hiltunen (1994) and
Claridge (2000). But the figures for Early Modern English vary considerably among the different corpora, and also within them, and often no
clear correlation between date of composition, text type, and social
variables can be established. With all the studies discussed here, the mutual
comparability is an issue. In brief, comparisons between these studies yield
at best vague approximations since they are based on corpora containing
widely different texts, but also because there are differences in the authors
categorizations of elements as phrasal verbs.
Claridge (2000) is based on the Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts, which contains 1,172,102 words in complete texts from the
Tract Collection in the Founders Library of the University of Wales, Lampeter. The tracts are non-literary prose texts covering a variety of topics,
which serve as the basis for the sub-division of the corpus in the domains
Science, Economy, Religion, Law, Politics and Miscellaneous.
These groups are of roughly even size for the ten decades covered by the
corpus and information on the socio-economic status of the authors is provided as far as possible, with the aim to facilitate socio-historical research
(for a more detailed description of the corpus, see Claridge 2000: Ch. 2).
The Lampeter Corpus covers the period 16401740, i.e. the time when
Konishis and Spasovs data suggest a drop in frequency.
206
Figure 6-3. Development of phrasal verbs per 1,000 words in the Lampeter
Corpus, 16401740, per decade (according to Claridge 2000: 178)
Figure 6-3 shows the distribution of phrasal verbs over time Claridge finds
per 1,000 words of text. With respect to quantitative changes within the
period covered by the corpus, Claridges findings are quite inconclusive, so
that on the basis of her data no safe statements on the development of
phrasal verbs between 1640 and 1740 can be made:
Another point regarding frequencies concerns the question of linguistic change
, in particular Konishis (1958) and Spasovs (1966) claim of the decline of
phrasal verbs in the period in question. This is connected with the question of
suitability of the Lampeter Corpus for this investigation. While nothing can be
said about phrasal-prepositional verbs, because their overall frequency is too
low phrasal verbs, on the other hand, produce a rather erratic graph, which
failed to point to either stability or any clear development. Thus, the above
authors suggestion can neither be repudiated nor substantiated on the basis of
the present data. However, the pres??ent [sic] result may be taken as an indication that their data base was too small to really warrant such a claim.
(Claridge 2000: 277; her italics)
Thus, the lines of development assumed by Konishi (1958) and Spasov

(1966), which, as we have seen above, are open to doubt anyway, cannot be
confirmed by a more detailed study of a considerably larger corpus, and
both the increase thought to be observed in the Early Modern period and
the drop towards the 18th century are possibly quite fortuitous (but cf. Section 6.3 below). Moreover, the erratic graph produced by the data in
207
Claridges Lampeter Corpus is a clear indication that even in a relatively

homogeneous corpus any diachronic snapshot of the frequencies of phrasal
verbs may be completely unrepresentative. In the case at hand, for a comparison per decade the figures are not statistically significant anyway
(Claridge 2000: 176177), and for the time being it must be concluded that
there is no reliable evidence at all for quantitative diachronic changes
between the middle of the 17th and the middle of the 18th century. But it
also seems that there is no other factor which can be convincingly connected to the use of phrasal verbs in the texts of the corpus, and this is also
true of their occurrence in other corpora, as will be argued in Section 6.2
below.
Hiltunen (1994) discusses phrasal verbs in the Early Modern English
part of the Helsinki Corpus, which contains 551,000 words in three subcorpora (15001570, 15701640, 16401700) of roughly even size, with
texts drawn from various text types.2 Hiltunens discussion is restricted to
phrasal verbs containing the particles away, back, forth, off, out and up, of
which there are altogether 851 instances in the corpus. His brief comparison of the relative frequencies of occurrence of phrasal verbs in the
Early Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus and the present-day
English London-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (LOB)3 suggests that by and large the
relative order of frequencies of combination is similar in both corpora and
that the most common collocations tend to be made up of the same lexical
items in both periods (Hiltunen 1994: 134). Since the two corpora differ in
size and with respect to the kinds of texts included, more far-reaching
2
The Helsinki Corpus has been used for a very large number of studies and is
certainly among the best-described corpora; its merits and limitations are
quite well known and it is therefore not necessary to discuss it here in greater
detail. For further information, see e.g. Kyt, Ihalainen & Rissanen (1988),
Rissanen (1992 and 1994), Kyt (1993), Rissanen, Kyt & Palander-Collin
(1993), and also the VARIENG bibliography online (<http://www.helsinki.fi/
varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/bibliography.html>).
LOB contains roughly one million words in 500 texts of approximately even
length; together with the Brown University Corpus of American English (the
Brown Corpus), it marks the beginning of electronic corpus research
tradition in English linguistics; both corpora were published in 1961 and were
compiled on the same principles. For a description of LOB, see in particular
Johansson (1978); for an overview of corpus linguistics and the use of LOB
and the Brown Corpus, cf. e.g. McEnery & Wilson (2001), Lindquist (2009)
or Mukherjee (2009). Hiltunen does not provide any figures for LOB except
for the comparison of a number of frequent individual phrasal verbs.
208
conclusions are not drawn, although Hiltunen thinks it possible that most of
the different frequencies of occurrence may be due to the different subject
matters of the texts included in the two corpora rather than represent diachronic developments. Nevertheless the material suggests a general
tendency for combinations with forth to have decreased and for combinations with out to have increased in frequency since the Early Modern
English period. Without discussing diachronic developments within the
Early Modern English period, Hiltunen establishes three groups of phrasal
verbs according to particle frequencies in his corpus (<100: back, off, forth;
>100: down, away; >200: out, up). Claridge (2000: 172) provides normalised figures for phrasal verbs with the six particles studied by Hiltunen on
the basis of his figures for the Helsinki Corpus and compares them to those
for the Lampeter Corpus used by herself. This comparison is summarized
in Table 6-1 below. Again, a comparison of these corpora shows that diachronic frequencies cannot be taken to offer more than very rough
approximations. Since the Lampeter Corpus is almost exactly twice as big
as the Early Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus, one might perhaps expect that the absolute numbers of phrasal verbs found in the two
corpora would behave correspondingly. But on the basis of these figures it
appears that most phrasal verbs are, in fact, about twice as frequent in the
Lampeter Corpus (i.e. the absolute figures are four times higher) than in the
Helsinki Corpus, with those containing the particle forth being the only
noticeable exception. Since there is no increase to be observed within the
period covered by the Lampeter Corpus, one conceivable explanation
would be that these figures reflect a dramatic increase which takes place
before 1640 but considerably after 1500. But this would be in contradiction
to Konishis, Spasovs and Martins findings (even if the figures provided
by Konishi are normalized with respect to the coverage of the OED) and it
would hardly be borne out by the diachronic developments to be observed
in the Helsinki Corpus either. Also, in the small Early Modern English corpus covering the period 15001700 used in Thim (2006a), the phrasal verbs
tend to be even more frequent than in the Lampeter Corpus (cf. Section
6.1.3 below).
A comparison with 15th- and 16th-century letters contained in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) confirms the impression that
the figures from the Lampeter Corpus seem to be out of line and, perhaps
more remarkably, that there is again little reason to assume an increase on
the basis of a comparative evaluation of these figures and those provided by
the other corpora.
209
up
down
in
forth
off
away
back
home
on
Helsinki
Corpus
15001700
Lampeter
Corpus
16401740
out
Table 6-1. Phrasal verbs in two corpora
209
228
125
84
57
127
21
932
992
427
323
196
356
335
84
254
Table 6-2 below summarizes the occurrence of phrasal verbs with one of
the particles out, up, down, forth and back in a sample from the Corpus of
Early English Correspondence (originally discussed in Thim 2006b); cf.
also the etymological and semantic discussion of phrasal verbs in the corpus in Chapter 5 above. For a description of the corpus, see e.g. Nevalainen
& Raumolin-Brunberg (2003), who also discuss a number of Early Modern
English changes in progress on the basis of the corpus, and cf. also the pilot
studies using the corpus in Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg (1996). The
sample from the corpus used here contains the full 15th- and 16th-century
material with the exception of the Paston Letters: 246,055 words from the
Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler and 780,192 words from
the copyrighted material contained in the non-public version of the corpus,
i.e. 1,026,247 words altogether. This part of CEEC is thus about one tenth
smaller than the Lampeter Corpus; the texts it contains are on average 200
years older. The figures in Table 6-2 are based on a WordCruncher analysis
of the corpus, where I have searched for all spelling variants of the particles; on this basis the phrasal verbs were thus retrieved. The five particles
discussed here were selected since they are of high, medium and low frequency and can be assumed to be fairly representative of the use of phrasal
verbs in the corpus (cf. the more detailed discussion of these data in Thim
2006b).
Table 6-3 provides a comparison between CEEC, the Helsinki Corpus
and the Lampeter Corpus. Taking into account their different sizes, it is
remarkable that there is no significant difference between the occurrences
of phrasal verbs in CEEC and the Helsinki Corpus, despite the differences
in diachronic coverage and text types, while some phrasal verbs in the
Lampeter corpus are approximately twice as frequent. Stylistic differences
between the texts in the corpora might offer an explanation for these
findings, but we shall see in Section 6.2 below that this is not the case.
210
Table 6-2. Phrasal verbs in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence

CEEC
15th16th century
out
up
down
forth
back
429
499
226
127
41
Table 6-3. Phrasal verbs per 1,000 words in three corpora

CEEC
15th16th century
Helsinki Corpus
16th17th century
Lampeter Corpus
16401740
out
up
down
forth
back
0.48
0.49
0.22
0.12
0.39
0.37
0.41
0.23
0.15
0.38
0.79
0.85
0.36
0.16
0.72
6.1.3. Relative frequencies of particles

The relative frequencies of the different particles in the historical corpora
are an indication that the figures discussed so far are not completely random. The results of a comparison of the seven particles covered in each of
the studies by Hiltunen (1994), Thim (2006a) and Claridge (2000) are
summarized in Table 6-4. As the table shows, the relative frequencies in
particular those of the more frequent particles in the two large corpora are
almost identical. Indeed, the most notable exception is forth, whose frequency is considerably lower in the Lampeter Corpus than in the other two
corpora (but cf. also the figures for away). Since forth is subject to a longterm decrease, which can be assumed to be well under way in the 18th
century (cf. OED s.v. and Akimoto 2006), the lower frequency in a corpus
where the earliest texts are 140 years younger than the earliest texts in the
other two corpora is likely to be a result of this trend. Hiltunen (1994) and
Claridge (2000) do not provide information on the developments of individual particles within the periods covered by their corpora, so that a more
precise statement on the basis of their data is not possible. The Everyday
English corpus (EvE) first used in Thim (2006a), on the other hand, is too
small for any observations on developments taking place within the period
it covers. It is rather small (c. 36,000 tokens from Cusack 1998), and
although the overall correspondences to the other corpora as regards the
relative frequencies of the particles may be taken as an indication that the
use of phrasal verbs in EvE can be regarded as representative, the size of
the corpus renders it problematic with respect to the rarer particles (cf. e.g.
the figures for back).
211
Table 6-4. Relative frequencies of particles in three corpora

Helsinki Corpus
15001700
Everyday English
15001700
Lampeter Corpus
16401740
out
up
down
forth
off
away
back
total
0.25
0.27
0.14
0.09
0.07
0.15
0.02
851
0.23
0.34
0.16
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.04
170
0.25
0.27
0.12
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.02
3645
While the texts in EvE were never intended for being printed and tend to be
quite remote from the norms of the emerging standard, the tracts in the
Lampeter Corpus are all by definition printed, and were in fact typically
written for print publication. The texts in the Helsinki Corpus, on the other
hand, include diverse text types such as letters, handbooks, bible translations, etc. On the whole the use of phrasal verbs in these three rather
different corpora matches the long term trends in the relative frequencies of
the individual particles and is, moreover, characterised by a high degree of
consistency. But the absolute numbers of phrasal verbs (or rather: their frequencies relative to the size of the corpus) generally do not seem to offer
any significant insights. This conclusion receives support both from quantitative long-term comparisons and from stylistic considerations, two topics
we will turn to in the following sections.
6.1.4. Quantitative long-term comparisons
A diachronic comparison of frequencies of phrasal verbs since the 15th
century can be attempted on the basis of a number of studies; an overview
is provided in Table 6-5 below. A meaningful interpretation of the figures
given in Table 6-5 is extremely difficult. It is, of course, possible that some
or even all of these studies cannot be relied on. But with the exception of
Biber et al. (1999), in each of these studies the criteria for classification as
phrasal verb are quite similar, and there is little reason to doubt the general
reliability of the counts. Biber et al. (1999) use the Longman Spoken and
Written English Corpus (LSWE) as the basis of their quantitative analyses.
But the figure for phrasal verbs quoted here from Biber et al. (1999: 408) is
problematic for a number of reasons, in particular since it is not quite clear
from their discussion what is actually classified as a phrasal verb. It seems
that for intransitive phrasal verbs the defining criterion is idiomaticity,
while for transitive phrasal verbs it is the positional properties of the
particle and the object (Biber et al. 1999: 404409). This is a somewhat
212
unfortunate definition (cf. also the discussion in Chapter 2 above), and the
examples given in the grammar are also not entirely consistent: e.g. go in is
adduced as an example of a free combination (i.e. not a phrasal verb),
while walk in and move in are treated as examples of activity intransitive
phrasal verbs. Since some transitive compositional phrasal verbs will have
been excluded from the count, it seems that the figure quoted here should
be slightly higher; the other studies quoted in this table have included in
their counts all verb-particle constructions independent of their semantics.
But although it is claimed that the corpus findings for the phrasal verbs are
based on an analysis of the whole corpus (Biber et al. 1999: 1134), this
does not seem to imply the truly Herculean task of a thorough and dependable count and analysis of all phrasal verbs in a corpus of that size. Even if
one were to leave aside the extremely low figure given for LSWE in Biber
et al. (1999), one would have to account in some way or another for the fact
that the frequency of phrasal verbs in Shakespeares English (Castillo
1994) is apparently higher than in the English of present-day university
students (Waibel 2007). And even if that observation could be explained
somehow by referring to some peculiarity of Shakespeares language (cf.
the discussion below), one would have to account for the fact that mid17th-century authors of tracts (Claridge 2000) use almost as many phrasal
verbs as those students, while the 20th-century texts in LOB (Johansson &
Hofland 1989) and in Martins letter corpus (1990) contain a considerably
higher number of phrasal verbs. But it seems very dubious to identify diachronic frequencies which look like the one given in Table 6-5 as an overall
increase. On the basis of these figures alone, there is only one conclusion to
be drawn. If we are to ignore the gross differences between these corpora,
we cannot use any of their results for statements on the diachronic developments in English, unless the counts in some of them could be shown to
be wrong. If, on the other hand, we are to take them seriously, we must
admit that the figures are completely inconclusive.
Plag, Dalton-Puffer & Baayen (1999), in a study of the productivity of
suffixes in different present-day English registers, show that morphological
productivity may be dependent on register and that the productivity of individual morphological elements may vary considerably across registers, for
which it seems difficult to find simple explanations. With respect to phrasal
verbs, there is of course the possibility that the figures are distorted by stylistic factors which account for the different frequencies in different text
types and hence in the different corpora. A brief look at the arguments put
forward in favour of such an explanation shows that this has not been
demonstrated convincingly, cf. Section 6.2.1 below.
213
Table 6-5. Frequencies of phrasal verbs in nine corpora (tokens per 1,000 words)4
14401479
14411478
c1600
15001700
16401650
16401740
18001900
1960
19751987
present day
present day
[some] Paston Letters (Martin 1990)

Margaret Pastons letters (Thim 2011a)
Shakespeare (Castillo 1994)
EvE (Thim 2006a)
Lampeter Corpus (Claridge 2000), one decade
Lampeter Corpus (Claridge 2000), complete
CONCE (Smitterberg 2008)
LOB (Johansson & Hofland 1989)
private letters (Martin 1990)
LSWE Corpus (Biber et al. 1999)
LOCNESS (Waibel 2007)
2.0
1.9
6.5
5.8
4.5
3.6
5.9
8.6
10.9
1.4
5.2
As matters stand, it seems that many statements made so far about the
quantitative diachronic development of the phrasal verb as a construction
type throughout the Modern English period are meaningless. One could of
course try to arrive at new long-term comparisons by analysing the
development of phrasal verbs in a very large diachronic corpus. The work
would be enormous, though, especially since it would be problematic to
look at only a selection of particles or phrasal verbs (typically those which
are easily retrievable with a concordance program, as has been done in a
number of studies). Since the inventories of particles and of verbs are subject to change, the frequency of the construction type can only be
reasonably established by an analysis of all of them; note that the homonymy of some of the particles to some highly frequent prepositions would
render an electronic access inadvisable in an untagged corpus. One could
only hope for significant insights, I would suggest, if such a long-term
quantification also included a transparent semantic classification and thus
4
CONCE: Corpus of Nineteenth-century English (seven genres), period 1

(18001830, 346,176 words) and period 3 (18701900, 298,796 words).
LOB: based on the figures given in Johansson & Hofland (1989) for the
tagged Corpus. LOCNESS: the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays
contains 324,304 words in essays written by British pupils and British and
American university students (the figures in Waibel 2007 exclude the essays
written by pupils, and there remain 90 essays by British students and 207
essays by American students; the corpus as used by Waibel then contains
263,974 words. LSWE: the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus
used in Biber et al. (1999) contains over 40 million words in 37,244 texts,
which are subdivided into four major register categories (conversation,
fiction, news and academic prose).
214
managed to trace the development of aspectual and idiomatic constructions

over time. This would also be necessary for the establishment of changes in
their productivity (cf. e.g. Baayen & Renouf 1996, Plag 1999, Bardal
2008 and Bybee 2010); none of this has been done in any of the studies of
the history of phrasal verbs available so far. It will be argued in the following section that counting phrasal verbs in order to find out about their
history may to some extent be beside the point anyway (cf. also Adamsons
1998: 592 critique of similar quantifying approaches). Looking at the
changing frequencies of phrasal verbs in the history of English has always
been connected to the idea that there is something like a rise of the phrasal
verb. And even if there is a diachronic increase in the use of phrasal verbs,
this is hardly an instance of colloquialization of Late Modern English (pace
Mair 2006). Rather, it had better be regarded as an indication of an ongoing
de-formalisation of the language, as the discussion of some stylistic considerations in the following sections will show, where I will argue that
particle verbs are a stable property of common English, and that it is quite
likely that by and large the frequencies described in the literature so far
cannot be explained simply with reference to general patterns of growth,
and only indirectly with reference to diastratic and diaphasic factors (cf.
Thim 2006a). This may have changed to some extent in the course of the
19th century, when it seems that phrasal verbs are increasingly regarded as
symbolic of colloquial styles; see also Smitterberg (2008), whose figures
suggest changing frequencies in individual text types rather than an overall
increase of the construction type. Moreover, although an overall increase
between the late Middle Ages and today is quite possible, this had better
not be seen in connection to the particular Englishness of the construction, as the comparison with German shows, where considerable patterns of
growth have been reported (cf. Habermann 1994 for Early New High
German and Herbers 2002 for Middle High German), though not fully
explained.
6.2.
Style and attitudes
The general opinion on the stylistic evaluation of the phrasal verbs in the
history of English has been summed up nicely by Konishi (1958):
With the gradual establishment of Modern English analytic language this wordformation has made remarkable progress through the propitious process of the
colloquial speech of the uneducated. (Konishi 1958: 119)
Style and attitudes
215
This of course echoes Kennedys views (1920), and similar statements will
be found in practically any other publication on the history of the phrasal
verb. It is therefore unnecessary to give extensive references to the literature here: this view is more or less taken for granted in every single title on
the subject. Moreover, this view is also commonly encountered in grammars and popular style guides for present-day English (often with
unreliable historical background information; cf. e.g. the discussion of the
treatment in McArthur 1992 and in Biber et al. 1999 in Chapter 2 above).
In the preceding section several attempts at explaining the frequencies
of phrasal verbs by referring to their presumptive stylistic properties have
already been discussed. Typically such connections are drawn on an ad hoc
basis, in order to explain diachronic patterns of growth or decline in corpora which on closer inspection turn out to be rather speculative anyway.
Interestingly, phrasal verbs appear never to be mentioned in general discussions of colloquial Middle or Early Modern English (at least I am not
aware of phrasal verbs being mentioned in such studies; cf. e.g. the complete absence of phrasal verbs in the comprehensive discussions by Grlach
1999 and Adamson 1999). This in itself could, of course, simply be a
weakness of the extant research, but it could also be an indication that
looking at phrasal verbs with a determination to see them as colloquial
might be misguided.
The present section has a number of related concerns. First, it will be
shown that the evaluations of phrasal verbs in different historical text types
attempted so far are not convincing and that here again the explanatory
value of such attempts has been quite low. There is also very little reason to
assume that phrasal verbs in general were regarded as being stylistically
marked by speakers of English before the middle of the 18th century, and it
is quite likely that they were perceived as colloquial only from the 19th
century onwards.
6.2.1. Text type and frequency
As has been shown in the preceding section, the older historical studies of
the phrasal verbs tend to introduce stylistic considerations whenever diachronic changes need to be accounted for. An increase is typically
attributed to a long-term tendency, while a decrease is attributed to stylistic
peculiarities of the texts at the point in time in question. For example, if the
percentage of phrasal verbs in the 20th-century LOB is higher than in the
17th-/18th-century Lampeter Corpus, this is taken to reflect an overall
increase, but if the percentage in Shakespeare is higher than in the
216
Lampeter Corpus, this is taken to reflect Shakespeares extraordinary linguistic inventiveness (Claridge 2000: 125); cf. also the discussion by
Hiltunen (1999: 158160). This observation, however, does not apply to
studies which focus on Old English alone, where the status of the particle
verbs as a completely unmarked feature of the language seems never to
have been seriously questioned (except implicitly in statements on the status of phrasal verbs throughout the history of English, which, however,
typically assume a rise of phrasal verbs sometime in the Middle English
period; cf. the discussion in Chapter 4 above). Any other view would be
decidedly in need of explanation in the light of the syntactic, lexical and
comparative evidence, and indeed such a view has, to my knowledge, never
been seriously voiced. Since there is no reason to assume a rise of the
phrasal verb in the Middle English period (except in the sense that the
English particle verbs are subject to syntactic and semantic changes, which
is clearly not what is implied by the traditional metaphorical characterisations of the development), the traditional attitude regarding the phrasal
verbs as colloquial is, then, confronted with the question of when the
phrasal verbs did become colloquial (Thim 2007). But this question has
hardly ever been asked, let alone been answered. Rather, it seems that the
colloquiality in historical texts is simply taken for granted, even if the evidence does not support that assumption. This is particularly true for the
analyses of Early Modern English corpora by Hiltunen (1994), Claridge
(2000) and Blake (2002); for a more detailed discussion of these three
analyses, see Thim (2006a: 298300).
Hiltunen (1994) in his study of phrasal verbs in the Helsinki Corpus
(Early Modern English part, 15001700) finds a rather unexpected distribution of phrasal verbs in the eight different text types of the corpus and
concludes that the phrasal verb can be employed for a variety of purposes
beside that of conveying overt informality (Hiltunen 1994: 139). But Hiltunen does not provide a single example of the use of a phrasal verb as a
marker of overt informality, nor does the distribution of phrasal verbs
across the text types necessarily imply such a connection. The distribution
is as follows (100% = all phrasal verbs in the corpus): official correspondence 2.9%, statutes 7.2%, sermons 9.7%, private letters 11.5%, trials 12%,
Bible 17.2%, fiction 18%, handbooks 21.5% (Hiltunen 1994: 135139).
Although the sermons, private letters and trials are characterized as
basically very interactive in character (Hiltunen 1994: 137), there are
considerably more phrasal verbs in the Bible, in fiction and in handbooks.
Perhaps the frequency in the Bible may be attributed to Tyndales (and subsequent translators) preference for the native idiom (Hiltunen 1994:
137); but cf. Lutz (2002b), where it is shown that, in particular in com-
Style and attitudes
217
parison to Luthers German translation of the Bible, Tyndale actually uses a

high number of Latinate loans, which can be regarded as evidence for the
higher degree of integration of non-Germanic lexical items in English. But
no ready stylistic explanation for the high frequencies in fiction and in
handbooks can be offered, nor for the relatively low frequencies in private
letters and in sermons.
Similar observations apply to Claridges (2000) data. Although she
mentions the possibility that the use of phrasal verbs in the Lampeter Corpus may not be connected to informality at all (cf. e.g. Claridge 2000: 103
104 or 172, fn. 4) and although her discussion of the corpus findings does
not make such a connection very likely, she does not conclude that there is
simply no evidence in the corpus for a particular informality of the phrasal
verbs. The frequencies are not connected to a stylistic evaluation of individual texts, but to ad hoc explanations as to why texts with higher
frequencies might be more colloquial (cf. Thim 2006a: 299): the lowest
number of phrasal verbs is found in the texts labelled Politics, the highest
number in the texts labelled Economy. Six Royal Society authors writing
on Science show widely divergent frequencies, from very low to extremely high. In sermons the proportion of phrasal verbs is higher than in
other religious texts, but lower than in Economy, Law, Miscellaneous,
and about as high as in Science. In two texts containing real dialogue
(printed tracts containing transcripts of court proceedings), it is higher than
in fictitious dialogue. Women seem to use fewer phrasal verbs than men,
but no clear correlation between the authors educational/social background
and the use of phrasal verbs can be established. Claridges conclusion
(2000: 197) that phrasal verbs in the corpus are typical of colloquial language and of texts directed at a wider audience is therefore hard to accept,
and the same would seem to go for Smitterbergs (2008: 276281) suggestions for the remarkably uneven distribution of phrasal verbs in various
19th-century genres.
Blake (2002) in his discussion of phrasal verbs in Shakespeares English
notes the use of phrasal verbs in elaborately formal poetry (2002: 32) and
labels them as informal in the very same sentence. A comparison between
the use of phrasal verbs in the Quarto and First Folio editions of Richard III
yields a number of instances where one edition has a simple verb while the
other has a phrasal verb or where both editions have different phrasal verbs.
Some of the examples Blake (2002: 3435) quotes are problematic as
instances of phrasal verbs, since he uses the term in a rather loosely-defined
way. Nevertheless it is clear that the general impression holds true that
there are some significant changes with respect to phrasal verbs between
the two editions. But while he ascribes changes from simple verb to phrasal
218
verb between Quarto and Folio to the informality of phrasal verbs, he takes
the considerable number of instances where the verb element is changed
but the particle remains as evidence that the particle can carry more
semantic weight than the verb. With regard to the question of foreign
influence on the genesis of the phrasal verbs, Blake argues that what he
sees as their colloquial origins may speak against the possibility of foreign
influence. But this argument is based on the assumption that phrasal verbs
in Early Modern English must have been colloquial and it extrapolates
from that assumed colloquiality in Early Modern English to the situation
500 years earlier, in early Middle English.
To sum up, I suggest that in previous studies little conclusive evidence
has been offered that phrasal verbs have always been colloquial. It must
now be asked whether any actual contemporary evidence for the colloquiality of the phrasal verbs in the older periods of the language can be
found.
6.2.2. Pre-1800 evidence for colloquiality?
None of the studies on phrasal verbs in Early Modern English discussed so
far provides any evidence for explicit contemporary views on the phrasal
verbs as being informal or colloquial, despite the fact that from the 16th
century onwards there is a considerable number of contemporary discussions of the status of the English language.
All through the 16th and the 17th century phrasal verbs play practically
no overt role at all in stylistic considerations, as their complete absence in
the 16th- and 17th-century sources available in Jones (1953) attests; cf. also
(especially for the 17th to the 18th century) the discussions by Sderlind
(1964), McIntosh (1986), Adamson (1998 and 1999) and Grlach (1999),
and see Cohen (1977) and Michael (1970) for an overview of English
grammars before 1800. Historical attitudes towards phrasal verbs have been
investigated in particular in Hiltunen (1983b), Brinton (1996) and Claridge
(2000: Ch. 8). The present discussion of the grammatical tradition draws on
these studies and on the material available in the Dictionary of English
Normative Grammar 17001800 (Sundby, Bjrge & Haugland 1991) and
in Knappe (2004); on the study of English grammars and usage between the
late 18th and the 20th century, see Finnegan (1998). Attitudes towards
phrasal verbs in the grammatical and the lexicographic tradition of the late
18th and the 19th century were almost entirely neglected until recently
(Thim 2006c and 2008b and Wild 2008).
Style and attitudes
219
From the 18th century onwards phrasal verbs get noticed by grammarians and lexicographers, but there is little reason to assume that they
were subject to negative prescriptivist attitudes much before the end of the
18th century. This is for example shown in Hiltunen (1983b), an overview
of the treatment of phrasal verbs in a representative selection of 43 grammars published between 1586 and 1839. Hiltunen has surveyed two
grammars from the end of the 16th century, eleven from the 17th century
and 26 from the 18th century (cf. the full list in Hiltunen 1983b:
Appendix). Claridge (2000: Ch. 8) has surveyed a similar selection of
grammars and a number of dictionaries and textbooks, and her results by
and large confirm Hiltunens. Interestingly, both have found a considerable
number of instances where phrasal verbs are used in these works, e.g. in
definitions in the dictionaries or in sample sentences in the grammars, but
never in the context of prescriptive verdicts against the construction.
Especially for the 17th century the evidence turns out to be largely
negative, and Hiltunen concludes:
The Latin tradition must have impeded many of them from taking up constructions so alien to Latin in their accounts of English. At best one may speak of a
latent awareness of the existence of the English phrasal constructions in the
works of the sixteenth and seventeenth-century writers. In some cases (e.g.
Wallis [1653] and Mige [1688]), this awareness materializes when English
and Latin are contrasted. Miges grammar is the earliest of those examined
which specifically draws attention to the structural differences between the two
languages in the use of prepositions, recognizing the analytical constructions
as single units. (Hiltunen 1983b: 378379)
It is only in the 18th century that phrasal verbs begin to be treated more
regularly as syntactically and semantically distinct from free combinations
of verbs and adverbs, as e.g. the grammars by Mattaire (1712), Lowth
(1762) and Wiseman (1767) testify. But still the discussion of phrasal verbs
(in whatever context) is not the norm, as many other grammars from
throughout the 18th century show, where they are neglected (cf. Hiltunen
1983b: 379). Mattaire appears particularly advanced in his insightful comments on the lexical and syntactic characteristics of phrasal verbs, as the
following passage from his grammar shows (see Section 6.3 below for a
discussion of the linguistic terminology employed by Mattaire and Lowth
in this and the following example and its implications for their linguistic
analyses):
The English prepositions may compound words by being put after, without
governing a word; as to go on, to go out, to run in The Particle, which com-
220
pounds the verb by following it, does not always go next to the verb; but the
Noun, which is governed by the verb, is often placed between The pronoun
ever goes between. (Mattaire 1712: 110111)
Indeed the description of the syntactic and semantic properties of the

phrasal verb offered by Mattaire remains unsurpassed for more than a century to come. But neither Mattaire nor any other grammarian of the 18th
century makes any explicit statement on the stylistic value of the phrasal
verb. For example, fifty years after Mattaire, Robert Lowth, the most influential English grammarian of the 18th century, describes the phrasal verb as
follows:
Verbs are often compounded of a Verb and a Preposition and this composition sometimes gives a new sense to the Verb But in English the Preposition
is more frequently placed after the Verb, and separate from it like an Adverb; in
which situation it is no less apt to affect the sense of it, and to give it a new
meaning; and may still be considered as belonging to the Verb, and as a part of
it. As, to cast, is to throw: but to cast up, or to compute, an account, is quite a
different thing So that the meaning of the Verb, and the propriety of the
phrase, depend on the Preposition subjoyned. (Lowth 1762: 128129)
As is well known, Lowth served as the prescriptive bogeyman of modern

descriptive linguistics for a very long time; for a critical discussion of this
practice, see in particular Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006a) and her discussion of Aitchisons (1981: 2324) stereotypical account of Lowth as a
complacent eccentric. Such an account shows little familiarity with the
history of normative grammar in the 18th century; this is typical of the
persistent prejudice and preconceptions concerning the aims and intentions of the normative grammarians (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2006a:
552). Cohen (1977: 8485) had already pointed out that Lowth is prescriptive only with regard to his insistence on following what he determines
to be established (and approved) usage, and he repeatedly acknowledges
different customs among existing languages (see also Tieken-Boon van
Ostade 2006b for a brief overview of the beginnings of the English normative tradition in the 18th century). But clearly Lowth does not proscribe the
use of phrasal verbs; in fact, he does not even comment on their stylistic
value at all. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006a: 552) shows that Lowths
grammar was so popular because it gave its readers exactly what they were
looking for, a respected norm to imitate if they wished to improve their
position in society. The absence of any kind of proscription of the
construction in Lowths grammar can hence be taken as an indication that
around the middle of the 18th century phrasal verbs were not yet associated
Style and attitudes
221
with colloquiality or informality. Clearly, phrasal verbs were not evaluated

at all.
The examples from various other grammars quoted by Hiltunen (1983b:
379383), where phrasal verbs are described with varying degrees of
linguistic precision, but never with the slightest hint of stylistic censure,
show that Lowths treatment is quite typical. Thus Hiltunens conclusion
that the 18th-century grammarians normative approach also entailed the
stigmatization of phrasal verbs because of their very difference from the
Latin model (1983b: 384389) is surprising; at least it cannot be substantiated with actual evidence from 18th-century grammars. The same is true of
Brintons (1996: 189) claim, based on the discussion in Hiltunen (1983b),
that phrasal verbs seem to have evoked the objections of traditionalists as
early as the eighteenth century. What Brinton means by referring to
traditionalists is not clear, and there appear to be no explicit objections
from anyone at that time (but cf. Section 6.3 below for a discussion of
possible indirect consequences of normative verdicts on the phrasal verbs).
6.2.3. An example: Samuel Johnson
In the lexicographical tradition it is also in the 18th century that phrasal
verbs are first systematically noticed, and again they are described, but by
no means proscribed. The best-known lexicographic comment from the
18th century is from the Preface to Samuel Johnsons dictionary (1755; cf.
the quote at the beginning of Chapter 1) and Johnson has sometimes been
brought forward as a witness for negative attitudes towards phrasal verbs in
the 18th century, e.g.:
There are many examples of a negative attitude towards the use of phrasal
verbs, see e.g. Tucker [1961], p. 83, where James Harris Philological Inquiries
in Three Parts (1781, pp. 1056) is quoted. The great lexicographers, Dr Johnson and Noah Webster, were also strongly against phrasal verbs, although both
of them listed many such combinations in their Dictionaries. But it has to be
kept in mind that phrasal verbs were more of a novelty in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than they are today. Still, the negative attitude
towards them has not altogether vanished. (Hiltunen 1983b: 384385)
[Phrasal verbs are] an area which, for many writers, marks an expert knowledge
of English, and which has therefore attracted considerable interest down the
centuries. According to Samuel Johnson in the 18th century (Rambler No. 203),
for example, it is an area where even native speakers produce colloquial barbarisms, licentious idioms and irregular combinations of which he has
laboured to clean the language. (Ahulu 1995: 29)
222
We shall see shortly that there is little evidence at all for claims like the
ones given in these two quotations. But unfounded beliefs about Johnsons
negative attitude towards phrasal verbs appear to have been fairly widespread for some time. Thus we find Jowett (1951) in a short popular article
on phrasal verbs in present-day English state as follows:
[Phrasal verbs] are the speech of the man in the street rather than of the pedant
the language of every Tom, Dick and Harry rather than that of Thomas,
Richard and Henry. As one might expect, such collocations were not liked by
Samuel Johnson, who thought them vulgar. The great lexicographer hated such
verbs as bind up, bring in, look on, and went so far as to declare to come by (to
obtain) to be an irregular and improper use, though finding this phrase in
Hooker, Shakespeare, Bacon, and Dryden. Johnson, of course, had scant
respect for the linguistic standards of Tom, Dick, and Harry. An educated
speaker of English is, however, constantly required to choose the level at which
he shall speak, and to suit language to context and occasion. It is much more
natural to say He came into the room, picked up a book, looked at it casually,
put it down, and went out than He entered the room, seized a book, examined
it, discarded it and departed indeed, in the latter sentence two of the verbs
used, seized and discarded, are inappropriate but are yet more suitable than
any other single verb which I have been able to substitute for them. (Jowett
1951: 154)
For one thing, this passage is yet another example how 18th-century
authors can be made responsible at will for any kind of prescriptivist
attitude, but it is quite instructive for a number of reasons; incidentally,
although Johnson does quote examples from the authors mentioned by
Jowett s.v. come by, the negative verdict on the construction is mysteriously absent from the entry (cf. also the discussion of the entry below). In
particular, the passage is symptomatic of the authors dilemma to decide
whether the phrasal verbs are proof of the virility and versatility of the
English verb and one of the glories of our tongue, or whether they have
yet to be subjected to a severe testing process before being finally
accepted or rejected by the language (Jowett 1951: 153 and 156). In the
context of the present section, such statements seem even more relevant
because they imply that the 20th-century perception of phrasal verbs as
colloquial (or stylistically marked in a similar way) has a considerable historical background, and that there is evidence for the colloquial status of
verb-particle constructions after the mid-18th century and for the disapproval they met from an author as eminent and influential as Johnson, but
also from other commentators.
None of this is supported by actual contemporary evidence, though. In
the verdict alluded to by Hiltunen (1983b: 384385) in the quote above,
Style and attitudes
223
Harris (1781) disapproves of monosyllables, not of phrasal verbs (cf. the

discussion in Section 6.3 below). The passage from Johnson which Ahulu
(1995: 29; cf. the quotation at the beginning of the present section) refers to
reads as follows:
Whatever shall be the final sentence of mankind, I have at least endeavoured to
deserve their kindness. I have laboured to refine our language to grammatical
purity, and to clear it from colloquial barbarisms, licentious idioms, and
irregular combinations. Something, perhaps, I have added to the harmony of its
cadence. When common words were less pleasing to the ear, or less distinct in
their signification, I have familiarized the terms of philosophy by applying
them to popular ideas, but have rarely admitted any word not authorized by
former writers; for I believe that whoever knows the English tongue in its present extent, will be able to express his thoughts without further help from other
nations. (Samuel Johnson, The Rambler, no. 208, 1752 [Bate & Strauss 1969:
318319])
It is quite impossible to find anything here that would permit the establishment of an explicit connection to phrasal verbs; neither is there anything in
the rest of the essay that would suggest such a connection. Note also that
the quote in question is from number 208 of the Rambler, not from number
203, and that Ahulus statement in its turn appears to be based on a misquotation of Johnson by Konishi (1956: 128).
Johnsons linguistic practice does not allow us to draw such conclusions
either. No. 203 of the Rambler is not at all concerned with linguistic issues.
It is a short text of slightly less than 1,300 words, which is concerned with
happiness and the transience of life. It contains the following phrasal verbs
(quoted after the critical edition by Bate & Strauss 1969):
(1)
when time has abated the confidence with which youth rushes out
to take possession of the world, we endeavour, or wish, to find
entertainment in the review of life
(2)
No man past the middle point of life can sit down to feast upon the
pleasures of youth without finding the banquet embittered by the cup
of sorrow
(3)
he may enjoy the nobler pleasure of looking back upon distress

firmly supported
(4)
with whom he had planned out amusements for his later years
(5)
we must soon lie down in the grave with the forgotten multitudes
of former ages
224
(6)
who, like us, shall be driven away
(7)
They whose souls are so chained down to coffers and tenements
(8)
When this vacuity is filled up
Thus it is quite clear that Johnsons linguistic practice does not preclude the
use of phrasal verbs. Of course there can be a difference between an
authors practice and his normative advice. But again, Johnsons attitude
towards phrasal verbs seems to be essentially descriptive, as the quote from
the Preface to his dictionary shows (cf. Chapter 1 above), and there is no
indication of a particular stylistic evaluation of phrasal verbs.
An analysis of a characteristic dictionary entry shows that they are in
fact treated accordingly. S.v. come there are the following sub-entries for
phrasal verbs in Johnsons dictionary:
16. To COME about. To come to pass; to fall out; to come into being. Probably
from the French venir a bout 17. To COME about. To change; to come
round 22. To COME in. To comply; to yield; to hold out no longer 24. To
COME in. To arrive at a port, or place of rendezvous 25. To COME in. To
become modish; to be brought into use 26. To COME in. To be an
ingredient; to make part of a composition 27. To COME in for. To be early
enough to obtain: taken from hunting, where the dogs that are slow get nothing
28. To COME in to. To join with; to bring help 29. To COME in to. To
comply with; to agree to 33. To COME off. To deviate; to depart from a rule
or direction 34. To COME off. To escape 35. To COME off. To end an
affair; to be dismissed with our lot 36. To COME of from. To leave; to
forbear 37. To COME on. To advance; to make progress 38. To COME
on. To advance to combat 39. To COME on. To thrive; to grow big 40.
To COME over. To repeat an act 41. To COME over. To revolt 42. To
COME over. To rise in distillation 43. To COME out. To be made publick
44. To COME out. To appear upon trial; to be discovered 45. To COME
out with. To give a vent to; to let fly 46. To COME to. To consent or yield
50. To COME up. To grow out of the ground 51. To COME up. To make
appearance 52. To COME up. To come into use, as a fashion comes up. 53.
To COME up. To amount to 54. To COME up to. To rise to 55. To
COME up with. To overtake.
Although this is a long entry (the relevant sub-entries are quoted here in full
except that the sample quotations are left out), it is a representative one
with respect to phrasal verbs: in Johnsons dictionary, phrasal verbs are
hardly ever marked as stylistically low or informal and in this respect
Johnsons dictionary is similar to earlier monolingual English dictionaries.
Among the more than 1,000 branded words in English dictionaries before
Style and attitudes
225
Johnson which Osselton (1958) discusses, there are eight phrasal verbs
branded as low, colloquial, etc., but there is a considerably greater
number of simple words where this applies. Likewise, in her analysis of
Johnsons dictionary, Knappe (2004) counts 1,663 phraseological units,
of which only 63 have a usage label at all. This corresponds almost exactly
to the percentage of usage labels for non-phraseological entries, and there is
only a very small number of individual phrasal verbs that are criticized,
while the use of phrasal verbs in the definitions is also a typical feature of
the whole dictionary. See e.g. Knappe (2004: 429450) for a discussion of
the copious literature on Johnsons dictionary; Knappe also provides a
helpful overview of other pre-1800 lexicographic approaches to phraseology including, in the classification of her study, phrasal verbs. For the
exceptionally full coverage of phrasal verbs and other types of word
formation in Johnsons dictionary compared to earlier dictionaries, cf. Stein
(1984) and Osselton (1995); a brief account of the development of usage
labels in English dictionaries is provided by Cassidy (1997). In fact,
Osselton (1986) has shown that Johnsons dictionary is the first
monolingual English dictionary which treats phrasal verbs systematically
and that for the selection of phrasal verbs Johnson relies on a range of
earlier bilingual dictionaries, where phrasal verbs were treated much more
extensively than in contemporary monolingual dictionaries.
The claim that Johnson disapproved of phrasal verbs cannot be upheld.
On the whole, Samuel Johnsons attitude, his usage, and his lexicographic
practice do not justify the claim that he was strongly against phrasal
verbs, as suggested by Hiltunen (1983b) in the quote above. On the contrary, there are strong indications that Johnson uses and treats them as
unmarked elements of the English lexicon; the same is true of Webster.
This has been discussed in more detail by Osselton (1986), Claridge (2000:
208210), Knappe (2004) and Thim (2007). Wild (2008) provided an
extensive analysis of phrasal verbs labelled colloquial, familiar, popular
and phrasal verbs with proscriptive labels in Johnson (1755), Webster
(1828) and OED1. Moreover, the case of Johnson is representative, both of
the 18th century practice and of its misrepresentation in the linguistic
literature in regard to the phrasal verbs. There is no contemporary
opposition to the phrasal verb as a construction type in the 18th century,
neither in the dictionaries nor in the grammars or in other accounts of the
language. As a look through the material available in Sundby, Bjrge &
Haugland (1991) proves, there is no opposition to the phrasal verbs in principle, but only against individual phrasal verbs. Indeed, where 18th century
grammarians describe phrasal verbs, they tend to do so with a completely
neutral attitude.
226
6.2.4. James Cook rewritten and John Dryden revised

Why should the examples from literary language discussed here be relevant
with regard to the development in Standard English in general, one might
ask. From the Early Modern period onwards, both are inextricably connected:
The rise of a national Standard language in the period 14761776 had its
literary counterpart in the formation of a national literature, embodied in the
works of those whom influential opinion identified as the nations best
authors. Indeed, the codifying of language and the canonising of literature
were not merely simultaneous but symbiotic processes, with the best authors
being quarried for instructive examples as much by grammarians and language
teachers as by rhetoricians and literary critics. (Adamson 1999: 539)
A discussion of what kind of changes were introduced with respect to

phrasal verbs by two style-conscious authors will cast further light on contemporary attitudes and practices. One text is from the second half of the
17th century, the other from the second half of the 18th century, and I will
discuss the two texts in reverse chronological order.
McIntosh (1986: 105114) compares the manuscript of James Cooks
journal of the voyage of the Endeavour to Tahiti and New Zealand (1770),
which was probably never intended for publication, to John Hawkesworths
published version of Cooks journal from 1773 (quoted in McIntosh 1986
after Beaglehole 1955). Hawkesworth, a friend of Johnsons, had received a
considerably better education than Cook, who had risen from lowly origins
(cf. McIntosh 1986: 105106). Fanny Burney observed about Hawkesworths conversation, He has an amazing flow of choice of words &
expressions All he says is just,proper, & better expressd than most
written language (quoted in Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2006b: 258).
McIntosh (1986: 106) finds that Hawkesworth never meets lower-class
language in Cook but he removes it; the following two parallel passages
are among the examples she provides:
a. Cooks manuscript:
one need hardly wish for a better was the Access to it from the Eastward less
dangerous, but this difficulty will remain untill some better way is found out
than the one we came, which no doubt may be done was it ever to become an
object to be lookd for
b. Hawkesworths version:
better would not need to be desired, if the access to it, from the eastward, were
less dangerous: that a less dangerous access may be discovered, I think there is
Style and attitudes
227
little reason to doubt, and to find it little more seems to be necessary, than to
determine
It is obvious that Hawkesworth rewrites Cooks manuscript version extensively, and a comprehensive discussion of his rewrite would go far beyond
the scope of the present discussion (cf. e.g. the use of passives in the manuscript). But one of the changes Hawkesworth makes affects the phrasal verb
find out, which he replaces by discover. How can this replacement of a
phrasal verb be explained in the light of my claim that there is no evidence
for colloquiality of the phrasal verbs, and in view of the absence of prescriptive censure directed against them? Claridge (2000), who also
discusses this example from McIntosh (1986), notes that the replacement
favours Latinate over Germanic (native) vocabulary, and interprets this as
evidence that phrasal verbs tended to be identified with more colloquial
and less prestigious styles (Claridge 2000: 219). But McIntosh, in her discussion of this passage, had already offered a different analysis of the
rewritten version:
Gone is the old-fashioned conditional, in its place an if clause with the correct
form of the verb, the subjunctive. Gone is the unspecific and possibly inaccurate abstraction difficulty, and the common verb found gives way to the
slightly more genteel discovered. Gone is the [way] we came to come a
way is a bourgeois idiom at best and could be accused of redundancy Gone
is the ambiguous which referring to an entire event, not to a single substantive;
gone is the awkward repetition of be done become be lookd for.
(McIntosh 1986: 106; her square brackets)
That is to say, Hawkesworth has produced a formal text for publication,

which meets the contemporary stylistic requirements on every linguistic
level from the lexicon to textual structure, and McIntosh thus concludes:
Without exception, so far as I know, the genteel John Hawkesworth corrects or
omits all solecisms and archaisms and colloquialisms he finds in journals by the
lower-middle-class James Cook. (McIntosh 1986: 114)
To some extent this seems to involve the preference of Latinate over native
vocabulary. McIntosh points out that what is affected here is the simple
verb find because of its status as a native word, i.e. what is favoured is not
the simple over the phrasal verb, but rather the Latinate over the native
verb. It must be added, though, that McIntoshs explanation is not entirely
satisfactory, since Hawkesworth re-introduces the simple verb find almost
immediately afterwards ( and to find it little more seems to be
necessary). But still the passage cannot be taken as evidence for
228
Hawkesworth avoiding phrasal verbs, as another passage shows (quoted

from McIntosh 1986: 107):
a. Cooks manuscript:
Another custom they have that is disagreeable to Europeans which is eating lice
a pretty good stock of it which they generally carry about them.
b. Hawkesworths version:
as they live in a hot country, and have no such thing as a comb, they are not
able to keep their heads free from lice, which the children and common people
sometimes pick out and eat: a hateful custom, wholly different from their manners in every particular.
Here Hawkesworth even inserts phrasal verbs in the course of his extensive
rewriting of the manuscript (pick out; and cf. similarly Hawkesworth using
take away not in Cooks manuscript in another passage quoted by McIntosh
1986: 109). Evidently he is not averse to phrasal verbs in general. It seems
more plausible to suggest that the introduction of discover (in combination
with the Latinate noun access replacing way) may indeed be part of a
deliberate Latinisation of the text, as the other replacements indicate.5 But
this does not necessarily go along with the avoidance of Germanic vocabulary, as the use of the synonymous find immediately afterwards shows,
while the omission of the particle unless fortuitous may in this case be
explained as the avoidance of redundancy (cf. the more detailed discussion
of this factor in Section 6.3 below), but certainly not as the avoidance of
phrasal verbs, as the use of other phrasal verbs in the revised text show.
The characterization of phrasal verbs as colloquial or informal on the
basis of this or similar examples is thus rather problematic, particularly in
view of the negative evidence from prescriptive writings and the inconclusive evidence from the quantitative analysis of larger corpora.
It seems that such characterizations address the issue from the wrong
perspective. What is at stake here is stylistic value of the Latinate borrow5
As Andrew James Johnston points out to me (p.c.), it is conceivable that the

choice of discover is ideologically motivated and part of Hawkesworths goal
of celebrating Cook as a deliberate discoverer. Seen from this perspective, the
reason for the substitution of find out is to be found in the different prestige
value that is connotatively associated with discover. I find this suggestion
very appealing. In addition, the use of discover also establishes a link to the
title of the book (The journals of Captain James Cook on his voyages of discovery), which can easily be imagined to be a strong reason for Hawkesworth
to introduce that verb.
Style and attitudes
229
ings in English as opposed to the native vocabulary, whose different and

complementary expressive properties have been described by Adamson
(1999) as follows:
What Cheke and other mid-sixteenth-century purists perhaps did achieve by
resisting the latinate invasion and defending the dignity of native Saxon
English was to develop a general awareness of the etymological origin of words
and an appreciation that the Saxon and latinate elements in the word-stock had
different and complementary expressive properties these properties relate
directly to the conditions in which the two layers of the lexicon are learned.
Saxon words are typically learned early, learned through speech and in the
context of physical experience. Hence no one needs to be told the meaning of
light or strong; they consult their memories of all the experiences with which
the world is connected. Words like illumine or energial, by contrast, are learned
late, learned through education and interpreted by reference to explicit definition. They are therefore associated not only with a formal, public style but also
with a range of meaning that is primarily abstract and ideational, whereas
Saxon words are associated with private and intimate discourse and their
semantic range is characteristically experiential. (Adamson 1999: 573)
For the tendency to prefer Latinate vocabulary in certain contexts, for

which there is ample evidence throughout the Modern English period, see
e.g. the discussions in Nevalainen (1999), Grlach (1999) and Adamson
(1999), or the overview of contemporary attitudes and practices in Grlach
(1994) and Barber (1997). Crucially, the phrasal verb is affected by this
development only indirectly, since the majority of phrasal verbs contain
simple verbs of Germanic origin, while the compositional combinations of
verbs of motion and directional particles are characteristically not abstract
and ideational. Interestingly, this had already been tentatively suggested by
Hiltunen (1994) in his discussion of the distribution of phrasal verbs in the
Early Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus, when he proposed that
[t]he low frequency [in statutes and official letters] may indicate a preference for Latin-based verbs in the official documents generally (although
this is not shown by the present data) (Hiltunen 1994: 136), while he
observed a tendency to employ phrasal verbs when the action denoted by
the combination is itself in the foreground (Hiltunen 1994: 139). This ties
in with my detailed analysis of the use of phrasal verbs in a small corpus of
everyday English texts from 1500 to 1700 (Thim 2006a, cf. Section 6.1.3
above), where it is shown in detail that the choice of phrasal verbs depends
to a considerable degree on the topic (and not on the style) of the texts and
the semantics of the phrasal verbs: phrasal verbs tend to be particularly frequent in descriptions of spatial events (where there is hardly ever a lexical
230
alternative), while there is no observable tendency to avoid phrasal verbs in

more formal texts, although they tend to be rarer in more abstract types of
discourse.
But even in heavily Latinized texts there is an enduring use of nonLatinate vocabulary. Adamson (1999) explains the context of this as
follows:
Perhaps because the grand style was so clearly defined in functional rather than
formal terms and because its function was so clearly understood to be persuasion or moving, most renaissance writers ground the magniloquent latinate in
the homely Saxon. In a trivial sense, they have no choice: since the closed class
words of English have remained almost exclusively Germanic, even the
most ardent Latiniser is bound to produce a hybrid text. It is only in the open
class that significant choice can be made and at this level, from the midsixteenth century onwards, the norm for the grand style is to interweave latinate
and Saxon Styles which, by contrast, collocate latinate with latinate tend
to appear in parodies rather than instances of the grand style, as the marker of
an affectate discourse or a speaker out of touch with reality. (Adamson 1999:
574)
In the light of this analysis, we can now address the changes made by
John Dryden in the subsequent editions of his Essay of Dramatick Poesie
(1st edn. Q1 from 1668, 2nd edn. Q2 from 1684; cf. Monk et al. 1971).
It has been claimed repeatedly that Dryden avoided phrasal verbs, and the
changes in the Essay have been taken as the main evidence for that claim.
Indeed, for the second edition (Q2, 1684), Dryden himself undertook a
thorough revision of the text, which Ker (1900: I.xxxv) characterizes as
Drydens most elaborate piece of criticism, and the most careful of his
prose works (cf. the Textual Notes in Monk et al. 1971 for further details).
According to Bately (1964: 268), [t]hese corrections are of considerable
interest to the linguist and emphasize Drydens consciousness of language,
more particularly correct language; cf. also Simon (1963). An analysis of
the changes is therefore particularly instructive with regard to late 17thcentury norms of correctness. McIntosh characterizes the sociolinguistic
implications of the revision of the Essay as follows:
It was written for an upper-class readership, to defend English literary culture. Dryden composed and revised it with fastidious care. The effect of about
80 percent of his revisions for the second edition of 1684 is to make his language less colloquial, more correct, or more up-to-date it shows us a writer
actively distancing himself from lower-class norms, and so provides an opposite end to what then becomes a sociolinguistic spectrum of language.
(McIntosh 1986: 12)
Style and attitudes
231
As we will see, the differences in phrasal verbs between the first and the
second edition of the Essay can be seen as part of his conscious attempt at
producing a text in a heightened style rather than as evidence for avoidance of phrasal verbs altogether. And indeed, the claim that Dryden avoids
phrasal verbs does not become true through continuous repetition in the
linguistic literature. This has become a bit of a chimaera in the literature on
phrasal verbs. E.g. Claridge (2000: 1999) quotes Von Schon (1977: 37) as
evidence for Dryden replacing phrasal verbs by Latinate synonyms in his
manuscripts, while this claim made by Von Schon (Dryden repeatedly
crossed out a phrasal verb in his manuscripts in order to replace it with a
Latinate synonym) in its turn rests on Konishi (1958: 122), where, however, it is merely observed that Dryden replaced two phrasal verbs by
Latinate synonyms in the reprint of one essay.
A look through the subsequent editions of the Essay reveals that there
are four instances where Dryden changed a phrasal verb. To render the
comparisons easier, the passages in question are here in italics. Consequently Drydens italicisations, mostly proper nouns, are printed here in
roman type like the rest of the examples:
(9)
But what will Lisideius say if they themselves acknowledge they are
too strictly tid up by those lawes [Q1] / bounded by those laws [Q2],
for breaking which he has blamed the English? (Dryden 1668/1684
[Monk et al. 1971: 51])
(10) when by experience they had known how much we are bound up
[Q1] / limited [Q2] and constrained by them (Dryden 1668/1684
[Monk et al. 1971: 51])
(11) but when ere they endeavour to rise up [Q1] / rise [Q2] to any
quick turns and counterturns of Plot (Dryden 1668/1684 [Monk et
al. 1971: 53])
(12) But when, by the inundation of the Goths and Vandals into Italy new
Languages were brought in [Q1] / introduced [Q2], and barbarously
mingled with the Latine (Dryden 1668/1684 [Monk et al. 1971:
70])
Dryden replaces two phrasal verbs by simple Latinate verbs in (10) and
(12), and he replaces one phrasal verb with a more precise (and less metaphorical) simple verb in (9). Although the verb bound is of Romance origin
(cf. OED s.v.) this can hardly have been clear to Dryden the verb could
just as well be Germanic. In the fourth instance he omits the particle but
leaves the verb as it stands. As will be argued below, the two latter
232
substitutions are likely to be connected to Drydens pursuit of perspicuity

(cf. the discussion in the next section).
But Dryden also kept phrasal verbs even in sentences which he otherwise changed. Thus we find substitutions like the following, where the
sentence is rendered more explicit, while the phrasal verb is kept:
(13) which in reason might render him more wary another time, and
make him punish himself with harder fare and courser cloaths to get
it up again [Q1] / to get up again what he had lost [Q2] (Dryden
1668/1684 [Monk et al. 1971: 43])
In the 105 lines of the dedicatory epistle alone, there are four phrasal verbs,
which Dryden kept in all editions (cf. Monk et al. 1971: 36; this line count
includes only Drydens text and not the long quotations from other authors
in the text):
(14) Seeing then our Theaters shut up, I was engagd in these kind of
thoughts with he same delight with which men think upon their
absent Mistresses (Dryden 166884 [Monk et al. 1971: 3])
(15) It was an honour which seemd to wait for you, to lead out a new
Colony of Writers from the Mother Nation (Dryden 166884
[Monk et al. 1971: 4])
(16) Sometimes, like a Schollaer in A Fencing-Scool I put forth my self
(Dryden 166884 [Monk et al. 1971: 5])
(17) And yet, my Lord, this war of opinions, you well know, has fallen
out among the Writers of all Ages (Dryden 166884 [Monk et al.
1971: 5])
Similarly, in the Essay proper there is no indication for Dryden avoiding
phrasal verbs, cf. the following two examples from the beginning (again in
all editions):
(18) after which, having disingagd themselves from many Vessels which
rode at Anchor in the Thames, and almost blockt up the passage
towards Greenwich, they orderd the Watermen to let fall their Oares
more gently (Dryden 166884 [Monk et al. 1971: 8])
(19) Eugenius lifting up his head, and taking notice of it, was the first
who congratulated to the rest that happy Omen of our Nations
Victory (Dryden 166884 [Monk et al. 1971: 9])
Style and attitudes
233
It is particularly noteworthy that Dryden leaves lift up in (19) unchanged,

although he did change the similarly pleonastic rise up in (11). And Dryden
continues using phrasal verbs throughout the Essay (e.g. cry out, grow up,
run out, set out, come in, etc.). Thus, once again, there is but little evidence
for the avoidance of phrasal verbs in Drydens Essay and, by implication,
no evidence for the colloquiality of the phrasal verbs. Rather, the development of the phrasal verbs in Modern English should be seen in the
context of other developments, mainly such as are connected to prescriptive
attitudes and stylistic ideals, and that any discussion which looks at the
phrasal verbs in isolation is doomed to failure.
6.3.
I should now like to suggest how the stylistic views of phrasal verbs current
in the 20th century may have come about. This suggestion will allow us to
avoid the inconsistencies and paradoxes we have encountered in the discussion of so many of the traditional accounts of the history of the phrasal verb
in Modern English. Clearly, different factors have played a role in the
development, which can therefore be characterized as a colloquialization
conspiracy. Not least because the prescriptive attitudes of the 19th century
are as yet fairly unchartered ground and far from being easily accessible,
parts of the present sketch will remain to be completed in the future,
though. Attitudes towards the vernacular in the Early Modern period have
long been extensively documented and the prescriptive tradition of the 18th
century has been subject to intensive research over the last years, but the
19th-century sources are as yet difficult to access (cf. Grlach 1998), and
there is nothing comparable to e.g. Leonard (1929), Jones (1953), Sundby,
Bjrge & Haugland (1991) or Knappe (2004); cf. also the bibliographical
survey provided by Gneuss (1996). A concise overview of attitudes
towards English in the 19th century is given in Mugglestone (2006).
In the revised edition of Drydens Essay of Dramatick Poesie, the
avoidance of stranded prepositions and the changes in prepositions, conjunctions and relative pronouns are much more notable than the omission
of phrasal verbs. Bately (1964), in her discussion of Drydens usage and the
changes in the second edition of the Essay, places these revisions in a wider
context within the chronology of his works:
After 1672 Dryden ceases to use prepositions at the end of a sentence in prose
(they are in fact not found after the Essay of Dramatic Poesy), but continues to
use them at the end of a clause, exceptionally before a colon and in other
234
related positions. However, this usage too shows a sharp decrease after 1672.
(Bately 1964: 271)
This observation ties in nicely with Drydens well-known attitude towards

stranded prepositions, made explicit in his criticism of Ben Jonson as follows, in the Defence of the Epilogue: Or, An Essay on the Dramatique
Poetry of the last Age, printed as an appendix to The Conquest of Granada (1672) (Loftis et al. 1978; cf. Knorrek 1938):
The preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which
I have but lately observd in my own writings. (Dryden 1672 [Loftis et al.
1978: 208])
In Section 6.2.2 it has already been noted that the particles of the phrasal
verbs tend to be treated as prepositions in contemporary grammars. Even
Mattaire (1712: 110111), in his very precise description of the positional
properties of the phrasal verbs, refers to the particles also as prepositions
(cf. the quotation in Section 6.2.2), and this is also done by Lowth in his
discussion (cf. the quotation from Lowth 1762: 128129 in Section 6.2.2
above). This is entirely in line with the usage in other contemporary grammars and remains current in the English grammatical tradition up until the
20th century; it is due to the absence of an established terminology for such
elements in the Latin-based grammatical tradition (on that tradition, cf. the
studies quoted above).
In the Latin tradition praepositio is used as a cover term for both prepositions and prefixes, and thus even where the phrasal verbs are treated
among the compounds as by Mattaire and many others the particles will
consequently be classified as prepositions. In his discussion of the topic,
Sundby (1995: 3135 and 9092) points out that those particles which are
synonymous to adverbs only appear to have been subject to the same classification due to analogy: By analogy with (e.g.) on, over, which are also
used as preparticles but are still prepositions, that name is transferred to
prefixes For similar reasons, particles (= prepositions and adverbs
mainly) include prefixes (Sundby 1995: 91); see also Michael (1970) and
Vorlat (1975), where the history of the terminological tradition is treated in
greater detail. The first critical observation involving phrasal verbs found
so far needs to be seen in this context. Knappe (2004: 473 fn. 80) mentions
a remark by Obadiah Walker from 1659 on the infelicity of the English,
by reason of Prepositions disjoyned from the Verb; Walker suggests using
Latin loans instead, e.g. import and intervene rather than bring in and come
between. The remark is therefore not, as Knappe claims, one of the few
overt stylistic criticism[s] of phrasal verbs (Knappe 2004: 473 fn. 80)
235
since it is neither a stylistic criticism, nor one of phrasal verbs. What

Walker actually criticises is the fact that English has a particle and a preposition where the corresponding Latin verbs have prefixes; but since all three
would be termed praepositiones in classical Latin grammar, it is inferred
that the English ones are in the wrong position. With respect to the
phrasal verbs, this excessive reliance on the model of Latin appears to have
had little impact on subsequent grammarians and is, as far as one can see,
by and large without parallels.
With respect to Dryden, this could offer another part of the explanation
of his avoidance of some phrasal verbs in the revised/rewritten versions
while other phrasal verbs are left unchanged or even introduced. Dryden
does not seem to change a phrasal verb if the object follows the particle, i.e.
in those cases where the sequence is identical to the ordinary sequence of
verb + preposition + noun, as examples (15) to (19) in Section 6.2.4
above show. Cf. also Dryden (166884 [Monk et al. 11, 13, 23]): and helps
out his numbers, we shall take up more time this Evening; but with more
swiftness then it brought them on, etc. But Dryden does change the order
with a pronominal object in (13), where he replaces the pronoun with a full
noun phrase. He also tends to change the phrasal verb where it is not
followed by an object, as in (9) to (12). That this is not done in an entirely
consistent way, as seen in (14), ties in with Batelys (1964) analysis of
Drydens usage with respect to real stranded prepositions, which is not
entirely consistent either.
The avoidance of placing particles in sentence-final position, as a hypercorrect application of the normative rules against sentence-final
prepositions, may well have played a part in the avoidance of phrasal verbs
altogether, and it may also have had some indirect impact on the later association of phrasal verbs with colloquiality (for a general discussion of the
influence of normative notions on 17th- to 19th-century English see Auer
2006). For the time being this must remain a mere (if, to my mind, plausible) hypothesis to be tested on the basis of a considerably larger corpus.
There is no denying that stranded prepositions continued to be a stylistic
concern well into the 20th century, as a look into popular style guides from
throughout the 20th century confirms. In a usage guide as recent as The
New Fowlers Modern English Usage (ed. Burchfield 1996), it is stated in
the section on history of attitudes that the myth of the illegitimacy of
deferring prepositions had clearly been destroyed by the end of the 19c.,
while in a final verdict it is concluded that [i]n most circumstances, esp.
in formal writing, it is desirable to avoid placing a preposition at the end of
a clause or sentence, where it has the appearance of being stranded
(Fowler 1996 s.v. prepositions). But the end of the 19th century is
236
presumably the heyday of that myth, and Burchfields advice is in essence

identical to the 18th- and 19th-century stance on the issue. The advice
given earlier by Gowers (1954: 139), [d]o not hesitate to end a sentence
with a preposition if your ear tells you that that is where the preposition
goes best, is clearly more progressive, but the very treatment of the matter
is evidence of the stylistic uneasiness associated with stranded prepositions
(cf. also the discussions by Fowler 1931: 92 or Partridge 1954: s.v. preposition at end). Gowers (1954: 139) warning, [s]ometimes, when the final
word is really a verbal particle, and the verbs meaning depends on it, they
form together a phrasal verb and to separate them makes nonsense,
seems to offer additional evidence that the stylistic uneasiness concerning
stranded prepositions may indeed have had some influence on the use of
phrasal verbs.
As Batelys study shows, although Dryden appears to have tried to
avoid stranded prepositions after 1672, his avoidance of preposition
stranding correlates directly with the kind of texts he produces:
Dryden, then, seems to have come to avoid prepositions at the end of the sentence, or rather, after their expected regimen, in all those constructions where
they could occur in normal English, the extent of this avoidance being determined by such considerations as the closeness to conversation of the medium
used and the type of subject-matter. (Bately 1964: 273274)
Thus, some stranded prepositions can still be found in his later comedies,
but in his non-dramatic verse they are virtually absent after 1672, and
Bately goes on to suggest that the avoidance strategy even results in a
tendency for the complete omission of the prepositions in passive clauses.
From the late 17th century onwards preposition stranding clearly had
become a growing concern for style-conscious writers, and from the second
half of the 18th century, it developed into one of the targets of prescriptivism. Lowth (1762) makes the following observation:
This is an idiom, which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in
common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but
the placing of a preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as
more perspicuous, and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style.
(Lowth 1762: 127128)
Until recently 17th- and 18th-century usage of and attitudes to preposition

stranding have received surprisingly little attention, despite being one of the
major issues in the prescriptive tradition. Yez-Bouza (2006 and 2008a
and b) has shown that there is a decrease in preposition stranding in the
237
second half of the 18th century, and this is very likely due to the influence
of normative grammars:
The analysis of the occurrence of stranded prepositions in six formal and
informal genres has shown a drastic decrease in frequency in the course of the
eighteenth century, the reasons being, evidently, the stigmatisation of the vernacular idiom; as such, the development is part of the stylistic drift towards a
more literate prose style during the eighteenth century this shift was not so
much an expression of a genuine grammatical change internal to the language,
but rather the result of the chief prescriptive ideals of correctness and politeness. (Yez-Bouza 2006: Conclusion)
Another factor which may have played a role is connected to the typical
monosyllabic structure of the verbs and the particles. Harris (1781) advises
against placing monosyllables at the end of a sentence as follows:
It has been called a fault in our Language, that it abounds in Monosyllables.
care should be had that a sentence end not with a crowd of them, those especially of the vulgar, untunable sort, such as, to set it up, to get by and by at it,
etc. for these disgrace a Sentence that may be otherwise laudable, and are like
the Rabble at the close of some pompous Cavalcade. (Harris 1781, quoted after
Tucker 1961: 83)
That is to say, although Harris does not proscribe the use of phrasal verbs,
his attack involves a sequence of monosyllabic words typical of phrasal
verbs, as his examples show. Ever since the Renaissance the English monosyllables had been subject to very different stylistic judgments (cf. e.g. the
discussion of the sources in Jones 1953) and it is not altogether clear
whether monosyllabicity is really likely to have had a direct impact on the
perception of phrasal verbs; cf. in particular Oldireva Gustafssons (2008)
discussion of the impact of different rhetorical parameters on attitudes
towards and use of monosyllables at the end of a clause. However, as Tony
Fairman has suggested (p.c.), the social implications of Harris choice of
words (the rabble vs. the cavalcade) may be rather strong and indicate
an association of the knowledge of pompous and polysyllabic high
words with a high position on the socio-economic scale, which may be
demonstrated by stylistic choices unavailable to speakers at the lower end
of the socio-economic scale (cf. also Yez-Bouzas reference to politeness
as a factor influencing the use of stranded prepositions quoted above). But
the situation is likely to be considerably more complex, as Adamsons
(1998) discussion of the changing status of the Latinate vocabulary and the
emergence of a middle style as a stylistic ideal shows:
238
Whereas Mrs Malaprop [Sheridan, 1775] is ridiculous because she cannot

manage vocabulary derived from the classical languages, Mr Micawber
[Dickens, 1850] is ridiculous precisely because he can. Dickenss satire of
him echoes Maculeys criticism of Johnson for avoiding strong plain words in
favour of unnatural bombast, and both form part of a strenuous campaign in
favour of Saxon-English which, by the end of the nineteenth century, had
largely succeeded in driving latinate vocabulary out of the literary lexicon. By
the mid-twentieth century, it was being evicted from its refuge in academic and
administrative discourse The consequence for literature has been a
narrowing of vocabulary range and a loss of expressive contrast between plain
and elevated language. (Adamson 1998: 609)
For the time being, this issue will therefore have to remain unsettled, but it
is noteworthy that in Pellis study of phrasal verbs in American plays there
is a remarkable increase in types and tokens after 1815 (see Pelli 1976:
Chapter 9). If this can be taken to be parallel to the overall increase in
phrasal verbs in the 19th century observed in other studies, in the light of
Adamsons analysis it is quite likely that that increase is due to changing
literary norms rather than to a sudden growth of the construction type.
The Appendix to Lindley Murrays successful English Grammar (1st
edn. 1795; 26th edn. 1815) aimed at assisting young persons to write with
perspicuity and accuracy (Murray 1815: 274). Murray writes:
The fifth rule for the strength of sentences is, to avoid concluding them with an
adverb, a preposition, or any inconsiderable word. Agreeably to this rule, we
should not conclude with any of the particles, of, to, from, with, by. For
instance, it is a great deal better to say, Avarice is a crime of which wise men
are often guilty, than to say, Avarice is a crime which wise men are often
guilty of. This is a phraseology which all correct writers shun; and with
reason. For as the mind cannot help resting a little, on the import of the word
which closes the sentence, it must be disagreeable to be left pausing on a word,
which does not, by itself, produce any idea. For the same reason, verbs which
are used in a compound sense, with some of these prepositions, are, though not
so bad, yet still not proper conclusions of a period: such as, bring about, lay
hold of, come over to, clear up, and many other of this kind; instead of which,
if we can employ a simple verb, it always terminates the sentence with more
strength. Even the pronoun it should, if possible, be avoided in the conclusion:
especially when it is joyned with some of the prepositions; as with it, in it, to it
Besides particles and pronouns, any phrase, which expresses a circumstance
only, always appears badly in the rear of a sentence. (Murray 1815: 306307;
his italics)
Adamson (1999) thoroughly discusses the central role of perspicuity as a

post-Restoration stylistic ideal and explains the rise of that negative attitude
239
towards stranded prepositions in the context of the neo-classical stylistic

quest for perspicuity (cf. also the invocation of the principle in the quotation from Lowth 1762 given above):
increasingly the Natural Order was equated with the English order But
these preferences were justified by an appeal not only to norms of English
usage but to universal reason, and where the Natural Order of conversational
practice turned out to be at odds with the Natural Order of rational grammar,
the latter was often preferred. Hence Drydens revision of his own style to
reduce the practice of preposition-stranding Although very common in
spoken English, preposition-stranding was regarded by some as a violation of
the logic by which a preposition was so called because it was pre-posed, its
natural place being in front of the word it governs. (Adamson 1999: 603604)
The modern usage guides mentioned above unanimously create the impression that the verdict was invented by Dryden and never really heeded by
anyone afterwards a good example how both the reasons for and the
impact of post-Restoration attitudes to linguistic issues were
misrepresented throughout much of the 20th century. Adamsons suggestion ties in nicely with Batelys (1964) analysis of the reasons for the
avoidance, who had convincingly refuted the notion that the avoidance of
stranded prepositions may have been influenced by the application of rules
of Latin grammar to English, for which there is indeed no contemporary
evidence at all in the case at hand (cf. Bately 1964: 274276), as the comment on the matter by Mige in his grammar of English shows: Ainsi la
Preposition devient (sil mest permis de le dire) une Postposition. Le Discours en est plus coulant, je lavou, & cest a lImitation de lOre terms
des Latin (Mige 1685: 114, quoted after Bately 1964: 275). The enduring
impact of the principle of perspicuity in the 19th and 20th century can,
moreover, be seen in continued negative attitudes towards pleonastic particles. These have come in for a considerable amount of criticism ever since
the 18th century, and again it seems to be Dryden who, although he does
not appear to have taken an explicit stance against them, is among the first
to reduce this kind of redundancy (albeit not consistently, cf. example (19)
above), as the correction of rise up in the first edition to a simple rise in the
subsequent editions of the Essay shows, cf. (11) above.
In 18th-century grammars, then, such particles are frequently criticized
and sometimes labelled improper, vulgar, absurd, etc., as the examples
in Sundby, Bjrge & Haugland (1991: 375376) show: advance forward,
approach near labelled absurd; combine together, cover over labelled
improper, etc. (for further examples see Sundby, Bjrge & Haugland
1991: 375376). There is a continued concern about the abuse of such
240
superfluous elements in 20th century usage guides and in popular opinion

(cf. also Mller-Schotte 1955). Again, the 19th-century attitudes are as yet
difficult to access, but there is clearly a tradition which runs from the 18th
century up to the present day. Moreover, in this context it should be
remembered that many of the 18th-century grammars, dictionaries and
handbooks continued to be used (and published) throughout the 19th century; cf. e.g. Gneuss (1996: 40), who points out that as far as works
intended to describe or teach the living language are concerned, it would
make little sense to draw a clearly defined line between the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. In the 20th century, warnings against superfluous
particles are voiced for example in the influential usage guides by Gowers
(1954 and 1973 ed. Fraser) and Fowler (1965 ed. Gowers and 1996 ed.
Burchfield); cf. also the contemporary voices collected by Foltinek (1964).
The English grammatical tradition of the Renaissance appears to be silent
in this regard, perhaps not quite surprisingly considering the central
stylistic position of copia (cf. Adamson 1999). But from the 18th century
onwards superfluous elements are criticised as expletives, pleonasms,
tautologies, redundancies (cf. Sundby, Bjrge & Haugland 1991: 347),
and still in the mid-20th-century Gowers (1954) treats such superfluous
elements as instances of padding (and thus continues the Early Modern
metaphorisation of style as clothing). Interestingly, 20th-century British
commentators (including linguists, e.g. Barber 1964: 140141) are unanimous in their condemnation of the phenomenon as a recent development,
for which American influence is to be blamed; see Mittins et al. (1970: 45
47) for an overview of the earlier 20th-century usage guides and for a discussion of the low acceptability of the stereotypically mentioned meet up
with among British English informants (cf. also Brinton 1996 and Mair
2006: 16). Considering the abundant evidence for such uses in pre-1800
British English, that view is open to some doubt, though.
In the 18th century phrasal verbs in general tend to be regarded as idiomatic in the full range of meaning of the term as found in the contemporary
literature. We have already encountered the use of the term in Johnsons
derogatory phrase licentious idioms in the Preface to his dictionary, and
also the mistaken claim that Johnson had used that phrase with regard to
phrasal verbs. Earlier, Dryden in his Dedication to Troilus and Cressida
had been troubled by the dangers of idiomatic writing:
But how barbarously we yet write and speake, your Lordship knows, and I am
sufficiently sensible in my own English. For I am often put to a stand, in considering whether what I write be the Idiom of the Tongue, or false Grammar,
and nonsence couchd beneath that specious Name of Anglicisme; and have no
241
other way to clear my doubts, but by translating my English into Latine, and
thereby trying what sence the words will bear in a more stable language.
(Dryden 1679 [Novak & Guffey 1984: 222])
But, as Knappe (2004: 451478) has shown in her thorough analysis of the
use of idiom(atic) in the pre-1800 linguistic tradition, the term idiom
is not automatically equated with an anomaly that must be corrected
(Knappe 2004: 456); rather, despite frequent occurrence in pejorative contexts, idiom(atic) is used primarily in the definition given by Johnson as
follows:
A mode of speaking peculiar to a language or dialect; the particular cast of a
tongue; a phrase; phraseology. (Johnson 1755: s.v. idiom)
Obviously, in the light of this definition phrasal verbs can be regarded as

idiomatic due to their specific syntactic properties, and also due to their
potential for semantic non-compositionality. The fact that phrasal verbs are
cross-linguistically quite unremarkable is irrelevant here, since the crosslinguistic parallels, which continue to be unknown to many current English
linguists, cannot be expected to have been noted (let alone systematically
explained) by 18th-century observers. Sundby, Bjrge & Haugland (1991:
18) point out: idiom in the sense figurative expression is almost a pejorative term with the grammarians, who were uneasy about the unitary
meaning of multi-word lexemes and the syntactical constraints on them
(cf. also Voitls 1969: 197205 discussion of the history of the term idiom).
Moreover, the procedures of syntactic analysis available to the grammarians were almost bound to reinforce a view of phrasal verbs as oddities, as
Knappe (2004: 467) concludes in her discussion of Lowths syntactic
analyses: In the grammars, then, the functional members of the word
classes as seen in their potential phraseological complexity is persistently
undermined by the procedure prevalent in the parsing exercises. But, as
Knappe (2004: 472) also points out, there is a different (and, as I would
argue, complementary) strand of tradition to be found in comparative
studies which had long before the 18th century treated the noncompositional phrasal verbs as a problem to be covered in pedagogical
grammars and dictionaries (see Knappe 2004: 455 for a list of positive connotations of the term, in particular in contexts where idiomatic use is
opposed to violations committed by foreigners, or, more generally, where
violations of established usage are criticized).
Echoing Johnsons observations, the notion that phrasal verbs are idiomatic is expressed clearly by Anselm Bayly in his Plain and Complete
Grammar of the English Language (1772):
242
Besides this composition by prefixing the preposition, there is another, peculiar

to the English, by subjoining it, as, cast off, up, down; set out, go in, go in unto,
come out, come out from among: This method not only modifies the signification of words, oftentimes with a wilderness and equivocation that may be
diverting to the natives, though perplexing to foreigners; but also renders the
construction difficult and disputable even to our best writers, who do not agree
in the use of the preposition before the noun. (Bayly 1772: II.76, quoted after
Sundby, Bjrge & Haugland 1991: 94)
Here we have the central themes of the common perception of the phrasal
verbs up until today: Englishness (as witnessed by the reference to
foreigners) and irregularity, which are both connected to idiomaticity. The
Germanic analogues and the history of the construction are, of course,
likely to have been quite unknown to the contemporary commentators, who
were mostly familiar with Latin and French (cf. also the extensive discussion of bilingual dictionaries and foreign language grammars in Knappe
2004). The idiomatic, moreover, had already been connected to the colloquial at the beginning of the 18th century, as Joseph Addisons (1712)
caveat to the poet shows:
If Clearness and Perspicuity were only to be consulted, the Poet would have
nothing else to do but to cloath his Thoughts in the most plain and natural
Expressions. But, since it often happens, that the most obvious Phrases, and
those which are used in ordinary Conversation, become familiar to the Ear, and
contract a kind of Meanness by passing through the Mouths of the Vulgar, a
Poet should take particular care to guard himself against Idiomatick ways of
speaking. (The Spectator 285, 26 January 1712 [Bond 1965: 10])
The key terms here are perspicuity and idiomaticity. Phrasal verbs may
violate the principle of perspicuity in several ways, while at the same time
they are idiomatic. Cf. also the definition given in the OED s.vv. idiom
and idiomatic, where the chain of associations which leads from typical of
a specific language to illogical or colloquial is clearly visible:
[s.v. idiom] The form of speech peculiar or proper to a people or country; own
language or tongue In a narrower sense: That variety of a language which is
peculiar to a limited district or class of people; dialect A form of expression,
grammatical construction, phrase, etc., peculiar to a language; a peculiarity of
phraseology approved by the usage of a language, and often having a signification other than its grammatical or logical one.
[s.v. idiomatic] Peculiar to or characteristic of a particular language; pertaining
to or exhibiting the expressions, constructions, or phraseology approved by the
243
peculiar usage of a language, esp. as differing from a strictly grammatical or

logical use of words; vernacular; colloquial.
It seems plausible that phrasal verbs may thus have become stereotypically
associated with [t]he uttered speech of private life, to borrow Wylds
definition of colloquiality (1936: 359).
I have avoided in this chapter entering on a discussion of the term colloquiality itself; Wylds use of the term appears to be among the more
sensible ones. No doubt the major problem with the term is its extremely
vague use throughout most of the linguistic literature, where it is typically
associated with low and informal styles if not explicitly, then, more
often, by collocation and context. Compare, for example, Murrays famous
diagram in the General Explanations of the OED (xxiv), where colloquial is placed below the common core of the language right on the way
to slang below (and note that the first paragraph of that text, which could
by no stretch of the term be labelled colloquial, contains as many as three
phrasal verbs: shade off, fade away, widen out). But Wylds application of
the term in his book is itself is so vague as to render the term altogether
useless. Thus he includes formulas used in beginning and ending letters
(Wyld 1936: 361) in his discussion, although even in Wylds definition a
less colloquial textual element is hardly imaginable, but also dialogue,
complimentary banter, oaths, euphemisms in other words, the
width and vagueness of its application renders the term well nigh vacuous
and virtually useless for linguistic discussion. Cf. also Mosers (1969) discussion of the German equivalent Umgangssprache in the context of
German dialectology, where the distance from the linguistic norms of the
standard and, in a hierarchizing metaphor, a position below standard and
above dialect is a defining property of the term. But such views can
hardly be reconciled with more recent approaches to language standardization or with the insights of variationist sociolinguistics of the last decades
(cf. e.g. Petyt 1980, Hudson 1996 or Wardhaugh 2006 for general introductions to these topics and for further references). On closer inspection,
the term colloquial appears to create more problems than it solves. This is
also true of its German equivalent umgangssprachlich, which is identical in
meaning, and in claims to the contrary it is overlooked that the presumptive
differences between the two terms in the German and in the English traditions are simply the result of different dialect situations (cf. e.g. the
different definitions in Bumann 1990 s.v. and 2008 s.v.). Moser acknowledged the problems in his conclusion (1969: 228), but he nevertheless tried
to integrate the term in his model of a hierarchically ordered diastratic,
diatopic and diaphasic linguistic space (Moser 1969: 230231). In fact, the
244
metaphorical placing of colloquiality on a cultural and linguistic level from

top to bottom remains an essential characteristic of the term in most
contexts where it is applied (see Kenyon 1948 for a critical discussion of
this practice). Moreover, as Kenyons (1948: 2829) discussion of definitions and examples of colloquiality in the literature shows, even his
careful application of the term as a functional variety of standard English,
which is used chiefly in conversation (Kenyon 1948: 28) can hardly be
applied to the phrasal verbs as a construction type in general, since that
would completely disagree with the use of phrasal verbs in all kinds of
texts. Rather, the connection of phrasal verbs to colloquiality appears similar to mistaken claims with regard to the reduction of vowels in unstressed
syllables in colloquial pronunciation, while, as Kenyon (1948: 30) justly
points out, that reduction is typical of all natural English speech styles, be
they colloquial or not.
As we have seen in the present chapter, there is good reason to assume
that throughout the history of English phrasal verbs have always had a
place in the common core of the language, as defined in the introduction
to the OED:
The English vocabulary contains a nucleus or central mass of many thousand
words whose Anglicity is unquestioned; some of them only literary, some of
them only colloquial, the great majority at once literary and colloquial, they
are the Common Words of the language. (OED, General Explanations, xvii)
And this may indeed account for an increase of phrasal verbs in 20thcentury English which, if by anything, is characterized by an impetus
towards common speech style in all genres; cf. Baileys (1992) description
of the long-term trends in the development of English since the Renaissance:
The ideal English thus became centered firmly in a conceptual midpoint
between the florid and the inarticulate, the aristocracy and the folk, the overly
learned and the uneducated. Subsequent disputes turned to the issue of just
what sort of English lay in the middle ground and just which expressions from
intellectual and geographical voyagers would be admitted to it. (Bailey 1992:
57)
But the assignment of the phrasal verbs to the colloquial speech of the
uneducated (cf. Konishi 1958 quoted at the beginning of Section 6.2)
seems hardly justified.
Conclusion
6.4.
245
Conclusion
In this chapter some space has been devoted to a discussion of John Drydens Essay of Dramatick Poesy, no doubt one of the most style-conscious
and elaborate prose texts ever written in English. In the literature on phrasal
verbs, that essay has been repeatedly adduced as evidence for Drydens
presumptive avoidance of phrasal verbs. The implication, of course, is that
Dryden avoided phrasal verbs because of their informality, or colloquiality, a notion which has traditionally been used to describe the stylistic
value of phrasal verbs throughout their history. But it turned out on closer
inspection that there is very little evidence for this claim. In those cases
where Dryden actually removed phrasal verbs for the second edition of the
Essay, it is highly likely that the removal was the result of a more general
conscious effort to produce a text which was logical, abstract, ideational,
and perspicuous. But this did not preclude the use of phrasal verbs as such,
as the goodly number of phrasal verbs which remained unchanged in the
second edition shows. More importantly, the example of Dryden appears to
be representative: there is no evidence to be found for the presumptive
colloquiality or informality of the phrasal verbs neither in linguistic
practice nor in metalinguistic comments.
It is likely that the traditional view of the phrasal verbs as a particularly
English and colloquial construction is beginning to take off in the 18th
century as the indirect result of a number of metalinguistic and stylistic
factors; I have tentatively characterized the operation of these factors as a
colloquialization conspiracy, which is inextricably connected to the widespread explicit classification of phrasal verbs as idiomatic from the 18th
century onwards. But, as has been argued throughout this study, this is a
misconception deriving from an imperfect recognition of the diachronic and
cross-linguistic regularity of the construction, which was bound to be
overlooked by 18th-century observers.
In the light of this suggestion, it is also possible to offer an explanation
why the various quantitative studies discussed in the first part of this chapter are so hopelessly inconclusive, especially where they attempt to
correlate the use of phrasal verbs to stylistic factors. Primarily, the use of
phrasal verbs as a specific construction type has never really been a stylistic
issue at all. However, it is likely that the use of phrasal verbs has been
influenced indirectly by the choice of Latinate verbs, which well into the
19th century were deemed the appropriate choice for the high registers of
English. It remains to be explored in further studies whether this has indeed
been the case, and whether this may offer an explanation for the apparent
246
increase in the use of phrasal verbs in the course of 19th century, which
coincides with the extension of the middle style in English writing.
Chapter 7
Conclusion
Ever since the 18th century, phrasal verbs have been regarded as specifically idiomatic and English. But even a cursory look at other Germanic
languages indicates that this view is in need of some explanation, since
there are corresponding constructions in all these languages. Thus, one
main concern of this study has been to examine the actual degree of Englishness of the phrasal verb. More space, however, has been devoted to the
discussion of the long-term diachronic development of particle verbs in
English, with a strong focus on comparative and cross-linguistic considerations. From this discussion it has emerged that there is in fact very little
reason to see anything specific in the English development, which essentially runs parallel to that in the other Germanic languages. Without
exception, the syntactic, semantic and stylistic characteristics of the English
verb-particle construction are merely epiphenomenal to other characteristic
features of the language. What is particularly remarkable in English, I
therefore suggest, is the attitude towards the construction, rather than the
construction itself.
7.1.
Summary
Chapter 2 provided an analysis of the verb-particle construction in presentday English and other Germanic languages. It turned out that from a contrastive perspective the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the
construction are remarkably similar in all present-day Germanic languages,
including English. In all these genetically related languages, the relative order of verb and particle depends fundamentally on the word order of the
clause. Thus, since word order in Modern English is normally strictly V-3
(SVO), the postverbal position of the particle is entirely in line with the
position of the particle in the other Germanic languages, where the particle
may precede the verb, but only in clauses with a different word order.
Likewise, the semantic types of English particle verbs are also found in all
other present-day Germanic languages. Some previous classifications of the
English phrasal verbs have been rejected as unsatisfactory in this study. In
particular, the viability of group verbs as a distinct class in English has
proved doubtful, since the various types of verbal constructions subsumed
under that heading have only little in common. With regard to phrasal
248
Conclusion
verbs, at any rate, the criteria proposed in favour of their inclusion in such a
class can be shown to be inadequate, since they do not sufficiently capture
the syntactic, semantic and lexical characteristics of the construction. I have
suggested that this is also true of arguments presented more recently in
favour of analysing the particles as intransitive prepositions. From a functional point of view the English particle verbs had better be analysed as
periphrastic word formations, contrary to the traditional practice in studies
of English word formation, where phrasal verbs have always been excluded
from the discussion. Thus, particle verbs and prefix verbs can be regarded
as cross-linguistically widely attested subtypes of complex predicates.
Moreover, the analysis of phrasal verbs in terms of word formation helps
explain some of their properties which otherwise remain unaccounted for,
like their derivational force, and which again are also found with the particles in other Germanic languages. In line with recent work in Construction Grammar, I have put forward arguments in favour of a constructional
approach to these periphrastic word formations and in favour of treating the
specific positional properties of the English construction as instances of
allostructional variation.
In Chapter 3 the development of the postverbal particle position was explored. Like the particles in the present-day Continental West Germanic
languages discussed in the preceding chapter, the Old English particles may
precede or follow the verb depending on clause type. In syntactic discussions which focus on Old English alone, the classification of these
particles presents formidable problems, due to the partial homonymy of
prepositions, postpositions, adverbs and prefixes in Old English. To some
extent this belongs with a well-known set of problems in analysing dead
languages, where typically neither speaker intuitions nor syntactic tests are
available. Crucially, however, this partial categorial indeterminacy is also
an instance of layering, where a synchronic analysis provides a snapshot of
a systematic diachronic development. A discussion of cross-linguistic and
comparative evidence from several non-Indo-European and Indo-European
languages has revealed that the development in English can be regarded as
an instance of the widely attested evolution of preverbs, which accounts for
the history both of the inseparable prefix verbs and of the particle verbs.
There is evidence for this in a wide array of genetically unrelated languages, where the decategorialization of adverbs (typically derived from
formerly independent relational nouns) can be observed in syntagmatic
strings in which adverbs are preceded by oblique nouns and followed by
simple verbs. Such adverbs may develop either into adpositions or into verb
particles which tend to fuse with the verbal base and consequently to
develop into prefixes. In the Indo-European languages there is ample
Summary
249
attestation for such developments, which depend crucially on word order in

the clause: wherever the position of the verb changes from clause-final to a
position earlier in the clause, the preverb comes to occur in postverbal
position. Consequently, the positional properties of the particles must be
regarded as epiphenomenal to other syntactic developments. Evidence from
Germanic to medieval English serves to show that this is indeed the case in
the history of English, where the loss of preverbal particles is ultimately
caused by the typologically significant long-term loss of basic OV order
between Proto-Germanic and Modern English. The systematic correspondences found in the present-day Germanic languages have thus received a
coherent historical explanation. This also explains the decreasing formation
of new native prefixes in the history of English, since the necessary input of
particles immediately preceding the verb is lost as well. On the whole, both
developments are therefore entirely in line with the other Germanic languages.
In Chapter 4 a critical evaluation of the research tradition showed that
many of the traditional assumptions have rarely been subject to scrutiny
and that they are often unsatisfactory; although there is general agreement
on the factors which may have played a role in the development, their discussion has often been rather confused. In many ways Kennedys (1920)
pioneering monograph has had a sustained influence on later studies, where
many of Kennedys claims have continued to be accepted as evidence. As a
result, up until today the relevant handbooks speculate about the reasons for
what they present as the rise of the phrasal verb in Middle English,
although there is hardly any evidence which would suggest anything but a
continuous development from pre-Old English to present-day English. To a
considerable extent this situation is due to the widespread neglect of insights into the syntactic causes of the loss of preverbal particles in the
literature on historical word formation and lexicology. In the syntactic literature, on the other hand, there is but little interest in the lexical evaluation
of the development. Also, the coverage of Old and Middle English particle
verbs in the relevant historical dictionaries is far from satisfactory. It is
likely that the insufficient coverage in the dictionaries is the result of (but
presumably also a contributing factor to) the failure of older studies to present a sufficiently coherent account of the emergence of the phrasal verb.
Chapter 5 was devoted to sketching such a coherent account, examining
the history of the English verb-particle construction from a morphological,
lexical and semantic point of view. Clearly the development of the particle
verbs is inextricably connected to the history of the prefix verbs, both the
native, Germanic ones and the borrowed, Romance ones. This relationship
has been portrayed in much of the literature in a more or less vaguely
250
Conclusion
metaphorical fashion, and it has often been claimed that the older native
prefixes were somehow ousted by the borrowed prefixes and replaced by
the particles. But such accounts cannot be accepted as valid, since the longterm loss of the majority of the native prefixes in the history of English is
ultimately caused by morphonological factors which are quite independent
of the adoption of borrowed prefixes, as the chronology of the development
shows. From pre-Old English onwards native prefixes are subject to progressive phonetic attrition and a recurrent pattern of desemantization, but
up until the Middle English period new Germanic prefixes continue to
emerge, following the path of development described in Chapter 3. These
younger Old English prefixes tend to be homonymous with free particles.
When in the course of the Middle English period the particles stop occurring in preverbal position, their further development into bound affixes is
prevented. In all other respects, however, the particles have turned out to be
fully equivalent to the prefixes, as the semantic developments of native prefixes and particles has shown. Thus, the evolution of the typical semantic
properties of verb-particle constructions corresponds to that of the native
prefixes. This, of course, was only to be expected in the light of the comparative evidence (cf. Chapter 3). Further support has come from a
discussion of preverbs in Gothic, which represent an earlier Germanic stage
in the development of the oldest bound prefixes in Old English. In the light
of this discussion it has also become clear why there are functional and
semantic parallels between the Old English preverbs and the particles of the
Modern English phrasal verbs, while the assumption of language contact as
a directly relevant factor in the development has turned out to be entirely
unnecessary and implausible. The adoption of borrowed prefixes, on the
other hand, must be seen in the context of the elaboration of the vernacular
for written discourse, which is heavily dependent on Latin and French
models and which, due to the long-term political and cultural consequences
of the Norman Conquest, strongly favours the use of Latinate items. This
explains also the often noted etymological and prosodic characteristics of
the Modern English phrasal verbs. Thus the frequently mentioned etymological and phonological constraints on phrasal verbs are most likely to be
epiphenomenal, too.
Chapter 6 connected to the central concerns of the study in several
ways. In it the emergence of the specifically English attitudes towards the
phrasal verb was discussed and various topics which had already been
introduced in earlier chapters were taken up more systematically, in
particular the wide-spread stylistic characterizations of phrasal verbs as
colloquial and informal. Following Kennedys (1920) ahistorical reasoning
examined in Chapter 4, quantitative studies of the development have
Summary
251
unanimously taken such characterizations for granted, and they have been
very much concerned with showing a diachronic increase assumed to be
linked both to the presumptive rise of the construction in Middle English
and to its stylistic peculiarities. At closer inspection, however, these studies
have turned out to be inconclusive in almost every respect, and even the
figures they present in support of an increase in phrasal verbs from the late
Middle Ages onwards can be shown to be based on methodologically
dubious procedures. Studies based on evidence from the OED merely
reflect the peculiarities of the dictionary, rather than any quantitative developments in the language. The connections the quantitative studies try to
establish between the development of phrasal verbs and stylistic and/or
social variables also lack persuasive force: although there is some evidence
which actually suggests an overall long-term increase in the use phrasal
verbs (in particular in the 19th century), so far no viable explanation for
this has been put forward. Following up on the discussion in Chapter 5, I
have therefore presented an alternative explanation and suggested that the
use of phrasal verbs has essentially never been a stylistic issue. On the basis
of a critical analysis of attitudes towards the construction, I have argued
that there is no pre-1800 evidence for its presumed colloquiality at all.
What is significant is the use of Latinate vocabulary and its connection to
changing stylistic ideals rather than the use of phrasal verbs. Moreover, a
representative examination of the use of phrasal verbs by a number of styleconscious 17th- and 18th-century authors has shown that these authors use
phrasal verbs quite freely in highly elaborate texts. Likewise, there is no
evidence for the negative attitudes towards phrasal verbs which have been
widely ascribed to these authors in the literature. Rather, the traditional
view of phrasal verbs as a typically English and particularly colloquial construction has its roots in the 18th century as the indirect result of a number
of metalinguistic and stylistic factors, which I have described as a colloquialization conspiracy. Relevant factors include the normative verdicts
against preposition stranding, monosyllables and pleonasm. Since the diachronic and cross-linguistic regularity of the construction was bound to be
overlooked by the early grammarians and lexicographers, phrasal verbs
have been regarded as idiomatic from the 18th century onwards, and I have
suggested that connotations of idiomaticity have played a crucial role in
their subsequent characterization as English, irregular and colloquial.
252
Conclusion
7.2.
Outlook
Phrasal verbs are far from being wildly irregular, as Samuel Johnson had
characterized them in the quote from the Preface to his Dictionary (1755)
which was given at the very beginning of this study. But of course,
engaging in a battle against a linguistic assessment made more than 250
years ago would in itself hardly justify a study of any length, were it not for
the enduring afterlife of such views in the modern linguistic discussion.
Contrary to such wide-spread claims, this study has shown that phrasal
verbs are neither specifically English, nor the result of language contact,
nor a Middle English innovation; they are also not irregular, colloquial, or
informal. Note that this characterization refers to phrasal verbs as a type of
construction. That any of these points may apply to any individual phrasal
verb as to any other English verb is of course completely indisputable.
But many English verb-particle constructions simply belong to the common
core of the English lexicon, and in essence no special explanation is necessary for their development, which in fact can be regarded as highly regular,
in particular when it is viewed from a cross-linguistic and comparative perspective.
More importantly, perhaps, this clears the way for more detailed studies
of many topics which have not been discussed here, or which were touched
upon only in passing. By way of concluding this study, let me mention a
few such topics.
First, it should be worthwhile to include the particle verbs in a largerscale historical study of verbal word formation, which looks into the
changing structural and discursive properties of different types of verbal
affixation in English. Some initial proposals in this direction have been
made in the preceding Chapters 5 and 6, where it was argued that many of
the borrowed prefixes and many of the particles belong to distinct and
complementary functional domains. But so far there have been only rudimentary explorations of the historical emergence of this Modern English
situation. Rather than relying on quantitative factors of the kind so popular
in historical corpus linguistics, such a description would be likely to benefit
greatly from approaching the subject in a more quality-oriented way, which
takes into account the development of discourse traditions and their historical implementation in English.
The semantic development of the verb-particle construction has been
sketched here only in principle. So far we know only little about the exact
ways in which individual particles acquire their respective aspectualizing,
derivational or valency-changing properties, and even less about historical
patterns in the emergence of new idiomatic phrasal verbs. To me it seems
Outlook
253
that all these issues provide prime examples of constructionalization and

can be discussed most fruitfully in the context of surface based exemplar
models of language which do not believe any longer in the reality of
boundaries between syntax, morphology and the lexicon. At any rate, a
consistent semantic and functional classification of the construction would
also be a necessary condition for quantitative diachronic and variationist
studies of the productivity and of changing type and token frequencies. The
lack of such a systematic classification is one reason why the figures discussed in Chapter 6 do not help to establish significant insights on the
development of the phrasal verb. Diachronic counts of individual particles
without distinction between their compositional, aspectual, idiomatic, derivational uses etc. are not likely to produce useful data.
Other topics which would deserve a detailed examination include the
history of nominalized phrasal verbs, 19th-century usage and attitudes, or
the development of variety-specific uses. The use of pleonastic particles has
been discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. As we have seen, this has attracted a
good deal of prescriptive censure in Late Modern English. From the 19th
century onwards this has been attributed to American influence. But since
there is evidence for pleonastic uses from throughout the history of the
phrasal verbs, this view would seem to be in need of further explanation.
The combination of borrowed verbs with pleonastic particles, on the other
hand, has sometimes been seen as a means to ease their integration. That
view appears to be more plausible, but I would argue that it is the cognitive
profiling created by such particles which ultimately underlies their use in
combinations with all kinds of verbs, and that the combination with borrowed verbs is just a subset of that use. A thorough historical study of this
phenomenon would therefore ideally cover the whole history of the language. The relevant issues have been discussed in various places in the present study. Most prominently, they include the relation of prefix and
particle semantics in Old and Middle English (for Old English, the use of
pleonastic particles with simple verbs has so far been investigated nowhere
in the literature), the combination of particles with borrowed verbs mainly
from French and Latin in Middle English and Early Modern English, and
the impact of the normative dislike of pleonasm on usage in the Standard
varieties of the language. Of course, this would also deserve scrutiny with
respect to non-Standard varieties and conceivable differences to the Standard. Clearly, all work in this area would be facilitated if the lexicographic
deficits criticized in Chapter 4 were to be satisfactorily addressed.
None of these suggestions for further research is of course likely to surprise anyone familiar with the relevant historical research on German,
where particle verbs have traditionally been treated in the context of word
254
Conclusion
formation and where these developments have been studied in considerably

more detail. Thus, as a last point, I should like to suggest an extension of
comparative research, which has tended to concentrate on the Germanic
languages in their earliest attestations, to the more recent periods of their
histories. It has been one major aim of this study to argue that such a reorientation of historical research on the English verb-particle construction
is indeed likely to yield fruitful new insights.
References
Aarts, Bas. 1989. Verb-preposition constructions and small clauses in English.
Journal of Linguistics 25. 277290.
Aarts, Bas. 1992. Small clauses in English: The non-verbal types. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Aarts, Bas. 1997. English syntax and argumentation. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Ackerman, Farrell. 2003. Aspectual contrasts and lexeme derivation in Estonian: A
realization-based morphological perspective. In Yearbook of Morphology 2003,
ed. Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1331.
Ackerman, Farrell & Gert Webelhuth. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford:
CSLI Publications.
Adams, Valerie. 1973. An introduction to Modern English word-formation. London: Longman.
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Longman.
Adamson, Sylvia. 1998. Literary language. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4: 17761997, ed. Suzanne Romaine. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 589692.
Adamson, Sylvia. 1999. Literary language. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 14761776, ed. Roger Lass. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 539653.
Ahulu, Samuel. 1995. Variation in the use of complex verbs in international English. English Today 11. 2834.
Aitchison, Jean. 1981. Language change: Progress or decay? London: Fontana.
Akimoto, Minoji. 2006. On the decline of after and forth in verb phrases. In Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 15002000, ed. Christiane
Dalton-Puffer, Nikolaus Ritt, Herbert Schendl & Dieter Kastovsky. Bern: Lang.
1131.
Algeo, John. 1998. Vocabulary. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4: 17761997, ed. Suzanne Romaine. Cambridge: Cambridge
Allen, Cynthia L. 1990. Review of Laurel J. Brinton, The development of English
aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Journal of Linguistics 26. 245250.
Allen, Cynthia L. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In The handbook
of the history of English, ed. Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los. Oxford:
Blackwell. 201223.
Allerton, David. 2004. The analysis of fixed expressions in a text. In Phraseological units: Basic concepts and their application, ed. David Allerton, Nadja
Nesselhauf & Paul Skandera. Basel: Schwabe. 87105.
Andrew, S.O. 1940. Syntax and style in Old English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reissued New York: Russell & Russell, 1966.)
256
References
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions.

Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 2002. Runes and Germanic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Aronoff, Mark. 2000. [History of morphological research II: Research traditions in
the 20th century:] Generative grammar. In Morphologie: Ein internationales
Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation), vol. 1, ed. Geert Booij, Christian
Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim &
Stavros Skopeteas. Berlin: de Gruyter. 194209.
Askedal, John Ole. 1994. Norwegian. In The Germanic languages, ed. Ekkehard
Knig & Johan van der Auwera. London: Routledge. 219270.
Askedal, John Ole. 1995. Geographical and typological description of verbal constructions in the modern Germanic languages. In Drei Studien zum
Germanischen in alter und neuer Zeit, ed. John Ole Askedal & Harald
Bjorvand. Odense: Odense University Press.
Askedal, John Ole. 2001. Conceptions of typological change. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, ed. Martin
Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible. Berlin:
de Gruyter. 16241640.
Askedal, John Ole. 2005. [The typological development of the Nordic languages
II:] Morphology and syntax. In The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Lnaguages, vol. 2, ed. Oskar Bandle
et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. 18721886.
Auer, Anita. 2006. Precept and practice: The influence of prescriptivism on the
English subjunctive. In Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from
15002000, ed. Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Nikolaus Ritt, Herbert Schendl &
Dieter Kastovsky. Bern: Lang. 3353.
Auwera, Johan van der. 1995. Les prverbes du Nerlandais: Une comparaison
avec lAllemand. In Les prverbes dans les langues dEurope: Introduction
ltude de la prverbation, ed. Andr Rousseau. Lille: Presses Universitaires du
Septentrion. 7794.
Auwera, Johan van der. 1999. Dutch verbal prefixes: Meaning and form, grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Boundaries of morphology and syntax, ed.
Lunella Mereu. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 121136.
Baayen, R. Harald & Antoinette Renouf. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive
lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72. 6996.
Bacchielli, Rolando. 1999. An essential bibliographical guide to the synchronic
and diachronic study of verb-particle combinations (phrasal verbs) in English.
In SLIN Newsletter 20, 421 and 21, 1423 (also on the internet: <www.unibg.
it/anglistica/slin/pvbib.htm>).
Bkken, Bjrg. 1998. Word order patterns in Early Modern English: With special
reference to the position of the subject and the finite verb. Oslo: Novus.
Bailey, Richard W. 1992. Images of English: A cultural history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References
257
Baldi, Philip. 1979. Typology and the Indo-European prepositions. Indogermanische Forschungen 84. 4961.
Bammesberger, Alfred (ed.). 1985. Problems of Old English lexicography: Studies
in memory of Angus Cameron. Regensburg: Pustet.
Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic change in present-day English. Edinburgh:
Oliver.
Barber, Charles. 1997. Early Modern English. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Bardal, Jhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure
in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barnes, Michael P. & Eivind Weyhe. Faroese. In The Germanic languages, ed.
Ekkehard Knig & Johan van der Auwera. London: Routledge. 190218.
Barz, Irmhild. 2007. Wortbildung und Phraseologie. In Phraseologie: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenssischen Forschung (Phraseology: An
International Handbook of Contemporary Research), vol. 1, ed. Harald Burger,
Dmitrij Dobrovolskij, Peter Khn & Neal R. Norrick. Berlin: de Gruyter. 27
36.
Bate, W.J. & Albrecht B. Strauss (eds.). 1969. The Yale Edition of the Works of
Samuel Johnson, vol. 5: The Rambler (part 3). New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Bately, Janet M. 1964. Drydens revisions in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy: The
preposition at the end of the sentence and the expression of the relative. The
Review of English Studies 15. 268282.
Bately, Janet M. (ed.). 1980. The Old English Orosius. EETS SS 6.
Bately, Janet M. (ed.). 1986. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A collaborative edition,
general eds. David Dumville & Simon Keynes, vol. 3: MS A (A semidiplomatic edition with introduction and indices). Cambridge: Brewer.
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bauer, Laurie. 2003a. Introducing linguistic morphology. 2nd edn. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Bauer, Laurie. 2003b. English prefixation: A typological shift? Acta Linguistica
Hungarica 50. 3340.
Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 1993. A history of the English language. 4th
edn. London: Routledge.
Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language. 5th
edn. London: Routledge.
Bayley, Anselm. 1772. A plain and complete grammar with the English accidence.
London: Ridley. (Repr. Menston: Scolar Press, 1974.)
Beaglehole, J.C. (ed.). 1955. The journals of Captain James Cook on his voyages
of discovery. 8 vols. and a portfolio, ed. from the original mss. Vol. 1,1: The
voyage of the Endeavour: 17681771. (Repr. 1999.) Woodbridge: Boydell
Press.
Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in modern times 17001945. London: Arnold.
258
References
Bean, Marian C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English.
London: Croom Helm.
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331377.
Beekes, Robert S.P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von
Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110142.
Behaghel, Otto. 1924. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. 2:
Die Wortklassen und ihre Wortformen (B. Adverbium C. Verbum). Heidelberg: Winter.
Behaghel, Otto. 1930. Von deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift fr Deutschkunde
44. 8189.
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. 4:
Wortstellung Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.
Benson, Larry D. (general ed.). 1988. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd edn. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Berg, Helma van den. 2003. Spatial prefixes in Dargi (East Caucasian). Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 201225.
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language
change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Besch, Werner, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger (eds.).
19982004. Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen
Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 4 vols. 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Besten, Hans den & Corretje Moed-van Walraven. 1986. The syntax of verbs in
Yiddish. In Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages, ed. Hubert Haider
& Martin Prinzhorn. Dordrecht: Foris. 111135.
Bethurum, Dorothy (ed.). 1957. The Homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward
Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:
Longman.
Binnick, Robert I. 2001. Temporality and aspectuality. In Language Typology and
Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, ed. Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible. Berlin: de
Gruyter. 557567.
Blake, Norman F. 2002. Phrasal verbs and associated forms in Shakespeare. Atlantis 24. 2539.
Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 1, ed. Martin Haspelmath,
Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible. Berlin: de Gruyter.
15961608.
Blockley, Mary. 2001. Aspects of Old English poetic syntax: Where clauses begin.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
References
259
Blom, Corrien & Gert Booij. 2003. The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch:
A case study in grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 6191.
Bolinger, Dwight 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bond, Donald F. (ed.). 1965. The Spectator, vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Booij, Geert. 1990. The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable
complex verbs in Dutch. In Yearbook of Morphology 1990, ed. Geert Booji &
Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Foris. 4563.
Booij, Geert. 2002a. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert. 2002b. Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic
word formation. In Verb-particle explorations, ed. Nicole Deh, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2141.
Booij, Geert. 2007. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Gert & Ans van Kemenade. 2003. Preverbs: An introduction. In Yearbook of
Morphology 2003, ed. Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1
11.
Booij, Geert & Jaap van Marle (eds.). 2003. Yearbook of Morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Borden, Arthur R. 1982. A Comprehensive Old English Dictionary. Washington:
University Press of America.
BosworthToller = Joseph Bosworth & T. Northcote Toller. An Anglo-Saxon
Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 18821898); Supplement by T.
Northcote Toller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19081921); Enlarged addenda
and corrigenda to the Supplement by Alistair Campbell (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972).
BrauneHeidermanns 2004 = Braune, Wilhelm. 2004. Gotische Grammatik: Mit
Lesestcken und Wrterverzeichnis. 20th edn. by Frank Heidermanns.
Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Braunmller, Kurt. 1982. Syntaxtypologische Studien zum Germanischen. Tbingen: Narr.
Braunmller, Kurt. 1999. Die skandinavischen Sprachen im berblick. 2nd edn.
Tbingen: Francke.
Brewer, Charlotte. 2000. OED sources. In Lexicography and the OED: Pioneers
in the untrodden forest, ed. Lynda Mugglestone. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 4058.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1985. Verb particles in English: Aspect or aktionsart? Studia
Linguistica 39. 157168.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Attitudes toward increasing segmentalization: Complex
and phrasal verbs in English. Journal of Linguistics 24. 186205.
260
References
Brinton, Laurel J. & Minoji Akimoto. 1999. Introduction. In Collocational and

idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, ed. Brinton
& Akimoto. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 120.
Brinton, Laurel J. & Minoji Akimoto (eds.). 1999. Collocational and idiomatic
aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language
change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blbring, Karl D. 1902. Altenglisches Elementarbuch, 1. Teil: Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Burchfield 1996 (see Fowler 1996)
Burger, Harald. 2007. Phraseologie: Eine Einfhrung am Beispiel des Deutschen.
3rd edn. Berlin: Schmidt.
Burger, Harald, Dmitrij Dobrovolskij, Peter Khn & Neal R. Norrick (eds.). 2007.
Phraseologie: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenssischen Forschung
(Phraseology: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research), vol. 1.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Burnley, David. 1992. Lexis and semantics. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 2: 10661476, ed. Norman F. Blake. Cambridge:
Bumann, Hadumod (ed.). 1990. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd edn.
Stuttgart: Krner.
Bumann, Hadumod (ed.). 2008. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th edn.
Stuttgart: Krner.
Butler, Sharon & Bruce Mitchell. 1985. Some lexicographical problems posed by
Old English grammar words. In Problems of Old English lexicography: Studies
in memory of Angus Cameron, ed. Alfred Bammesberger. Regensburg: Pustet.
7989.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and
form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bybee, Joan L. & sten Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in
the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51103.
Bybee, Joan L. & William Pagliuca. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the
development of grammatical meaning. In Historical semantics historical
word-formation, ed. Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton. 5983.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Cambridge Phrasal Verbs Dictionary. 2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Campbell, Alistair. 1972 (see BosworthToller)
References
261
Campbell, George L. 1991. Compendium of the worlds languages. 2 vols. London: Routledge.
Cappelle, Bert. 2004. The particularity of particles, or why they are not just intransitive prepositions. In Adpositions of movement, ed. Hubert Cuyckens, Walter
de Mulder & Tanja Mortelmans. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 2957.
Cappelle, Bert. 2005. Particle patterns in english: A comprehensive coverage.
K.U. Leuven: PhD dissertation. <http://www.kuleuven-kortrijk.be/nl/
Onderzoek/Letteren/OnderzoekTaalkunde/FEST/DescriptiveEnglishGrammar/
bert-cappelle/bert-cappelle-proefschrift.pdf>.
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for allostructions. Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications Constructions,
special vol. 1. <http://www.constructions-online.de/articles/specvol1/683/
Cappelle_Particle_placement.pdf>.
Cappelle, Bert. 2007. When wee wretched words wield weight: The impact of
verbal particles on transitivity. In Collocations and Idioms 1: Papers from the
First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, Finland, 1920 May
2006, ed. Marja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
4154.
Cappelle, Bert. 2009. Can we factor out free choice? In Describing and modeling
variation in grammar, ed. Andreas Dufter, Jrg Fleischer & Guido Seiler. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 183201.
Carstensen, Broder. 1964. Zur Struktur des neuenglischen Wortverbandes. Die
Neueren Sprachen N.F. 13. 305328.
Cassidy, Frederic G. 1997. The rise and development of modern labels in English
dictionaries. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America
18. 97112. (Repr. in Lexicography: Critical concepts, ed. R.R.K. Hartmann,
Routledge: London, 2003, vol. 3, 255269.)
Castillo, Concha. 1994. Verb-particle combinations in Shakespearean English.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 95. 439451.
Chapman, Don. 2008. Fixer-uppers and passers-by: Nominalization of verbparticle constructions. In Studies in the History of the English Language IV:
Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change, ed.
Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Donka Minkova. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 265
300.
CHEL = The Cambridge History of the English Language. 19922001. 6 vols.,
general ed. Richard Hogg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cherchi, Marcello. 19941997. Verbal tmesis in Georgian. 1994 (part I) and 1997
(part II). [Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del
Mediterraneo Antico: Sezione Linguistica] 16 and 19. 33115 and 63137.
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York:
Harper & Row.
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English: A corpusbased study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
262
References
Clark, Cecily (ed.). 1958. The Peterborough Chronicle 10701154. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Clemoes, Peter (ed.). 1997. lfrics Catholic Homilies: The first series. EETS SS
17. 1997.
Cohen, Murray. 1977. Sensible words: Linguistic practice in England 16401785.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Colman, Fran. 1991. What positions fit in? In Historical English syntax, ed. Dieter
Kastovsky. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 51102.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and
related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cowie, Anthony Paul & Ronald Mackin. 1975 [2006]. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, vol. 1: Verbs with prepositions and particles [2nd edn.
Oxford Phrasal Verbs Dictionary for Learners of English, 2006, ed. Colin
McIntosh]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cowie, Clare & Christiane Dalton-Puffer. 2002. Diachronic word-formation and
studying changes in productivity over time: Theoretical and methodological
considerations. In A Changing world of words: Studies in English historical
lexicography, lexicology and semantics, ed. Javier E. Daz Vera. Amsterdam:
Rodopi. 410437.
Croft, William. 2006. Evolutionary models and functional-typological theories of
language change. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. Ans van
Kemenade & Bettelou Los. Oxford: Blackwell. 6891.
Croft, William & David Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge:
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1972a. The origins of the Germanic phrasal verb. Indogermanische Forschungen 77. 7396.
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1972b. Transference and metaphor in Middle English verbs
accompanied by a locative article. Orbis 21. 114135.
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1972c. The Latin influence on the development of the English
phrasal verb. English Philological Studies 13. 143.
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1972d. A syntactical complex of isoglosses in the northwestern end of Europe (English, North Germanic and Celtic). Indogermanische
Forschungen 77. 171180.
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1975. Old English pure prefixes: Structure and function. Linguistics 145. 4781.
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1977. Synchronic-diachronic remarks on the nature of prefixation. Orbis 26. 262292.
Cruz Cabanillas, Isabel de la. 1999. The conflict of homonyms: Does it exist?
Cuadernos de Investigacin Filolgica 25. 107116.
Curme, George O. 1914. The development of verbal compounds in Germanic.
Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 39. 320361.
Cusack, Bridget (ed.). 1998. Everyday English 15001700: A reader. Edinburgh:
Dahl, sten. 1985. Tense and aspect sytems. Oxford: Blackwell.
References
263
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dane, Frantiek. 1966 [1964]. A three-level approach to syntax. In Lcole de
Prague daujourdhui, ed. Frantiek Dane, Karel Horlek, Vladimir Skalika,
Pavel Trost & Josef Vachek. Prague: Academia. [Repr. University of Alabama
Press, 1966.] 225240.
Day, Mabel (ed.). 1952. The English text of the Ancrene Riwle. Ed. from Cotton
MS Nero A.xiv, on the basis of a transcript by J.A. Herbert. EETS 225.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the
phrasal verb particles out and forth. In Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, ed. Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 75104.
Deeters, Gerhard. 1930. Das karthwelische Verbum: Vergleichende Darstellung
des Verbalbaus der sdkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert & Petters.
Deh, Nicole. 2002. Particle verbs in English: Syntax, information structure and
intonation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Deh, Nicole (ed.). 2003 . Verb-particle constructions: A bibliography. <http://
ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/dehe/bibl/PV.html>.
Dekeyser, Xavier. 1986. Romance loans in Middle English: A re-assessment. In
Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, ed. Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 253266.
Delbrck, Berthold. 18931900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen
Sprachen in 3 parts (part 1: 1893; part 2: 1897; part 3: 1900). Vol. 35 of
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen:
Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen
(Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Albanischen, Lateinischen,
Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen
und Altkirchenslavischen by Karl Brugmann & Berthold Delbrck. Strassburg:
Trbner.
Denison, David. 1981. Aspects of the history of English group-verbs: With particular attention to the syntax of the Ormulum. University of Oxford:
unpublished PhD thesis.
Denison, David. 1984. On get it over with. Neophilologus 68. 271277.
Denison, David. 1985. The origins of completive up in English. Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen 86. 3761.
Denison, David. 1987. On word order in Old English. In One hundred years of
English studies in Dutch universities: Seventeen papers read at the Centenary
Conference, Groningen, 1516 January 1986, ed. G.H.V. Blunt, E.S. Kooper,
J.L. Mackenzie & D.R.M. Wilkinson. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 139155.
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London:
Longman.
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language,
vol. 4: 17761997, ed. Suzanne Romaine. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 92329.
264
References
Denison, David. 2007. Syntactic surprises in some English letters: The underlying
progress of the language. In Germanic language histories from below (1700
2000), ed. Stephan Elspa, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche. Berlin: de Gruyter. 115127.
Denison, David. 2008. Patterns and productivity. In Studies in the History of the
English Language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change, ed. Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Donka Minkova. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter. 207230.
Diensberg, Bernhard. 1983. Zur Genese und Entwicklung des neuenglischen
Phrasal Verbs. Folia Linguistica Historica 4. 247270.
Diensberg, Bernhard. 1990. English phrasal verbs expressing aspect and aktionsart? [Review article of Laurel J. Brinton, The development of English aspectual
systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)]. Folia Linguistica Historica 11. 187197.
Dietz, Klaus. 2002. Lexikalischer Transfer und Wortbildung am Beispiel des
franzsischen Lehngutes im Mittelenglischen. In Historische Wortbildung des
Deutschen, ed. Mechthild Habermann, Peter O. Mller & Horst Haider
Munske. Tbingen: Niemeyer. 381405.
Dietz, Klaus. 2004. Die altenglischen Prfixbildungen und ihre Charakteristik.
Anglia 122. 561613.
Dietz, Klaus. 2005. Die altenglischen Nominalprfixe - und o-, das Verbalprfix
a- und ihre althochdeutschen Entsprechungen: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden
Wortbildung der altgermanischen Sprachen. Sprachwissenschaft 30. 147.
Diewald, Gabriele. 1997. Grammatikalisierung: Eine Einfhrung in Sein und
Werden grammatischer Formen. Tbingen. Niemeyer.
Diewald, Gabriele. 2007. Konstruktionen in der diachronen Sprachwissenschaft. In
Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie, ed. Kerstin Fischer
& Anatol Stefanowitsch. Rev. 2nd edn. [1st edn. 2006]. Tbingen: Stauffenburg. 79103.
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, part 1: The structure of
the clause. 2nd, rev. edn., ed. Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and
causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dirven, Ren. 2001. The metaphoric in recent cognitive approaches to English
phrasal verbs. Metaphorik.de 1. 3954. <http://www.metaphorik.de/01/Dirven.
pdf>.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic
principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dobbie, Elliot Van Kirk (ed.). 1953. Beowulf. In The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records,
vol. 4: Beowulf and Judith. London: Routledge.
DOE = Dictionary of Old English. 1986. Ed. by Angus Cameron, Ashley C.
Amos & Antonette diPaolo Healey. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies. <http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/>. (Dictionary of Old English in Electronic Form AF. 2003. Center for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.)
References
265
DOE Corpus = Antonette diPaolo Healey (ed.). 1997. Dictionary of Old English
Corpus online. <http://www.hti.umich.edu/english/oec/>.
Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Donalies, Elke. 1999. Prfixverben, Halbprfixverben, Partikelverben, Konstitutionsverben oder verbale Gefge? Ein Analyseproblem der deutschen
Wortbildung. Studia Germanica Universitatis Vesprimiensis 3. 127143.
Dongen, W.A. van. 1919. He put on his hat and He put his hat on. Neophilologus 4. 322353.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1995. Word order typology. In Syntax: Ein internationales
Handbuch zeitgenssischer Forschung (An International Handbook of Contemporary Research), vol. 2, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow,
Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10501065.
Duden 2005 = Der Duden, vol. 4: Die Grammatik. 7th edn. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.
Dufresne, Monique, Fernande Dupuis & Mireille Tremblay. 2006. Preverbs and
particles in Old French. In Yearbook of Morphology 2003, ed. Geert Booij &
Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 3360.
Dumville, David (ed.). 1995. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A collaborative edition,
general eds. David Dumville & Simon Keynes, vol. 1: Facsimile of MS. F: The
Domitian Bilingual. Cambridge: Brewer.
Dunkel, George E. 1992. Die Grammatik der Partikeln. In Rekonstruktion und
relative Chronologie: Akten der der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31. August 4. September 1987, ed. Robert Beekes,
Alexander Lubotsky & Jos Weitenberg. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der University Innsbruck. 153181.
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. 2 vols. (vol. 1: Das
Wort; vol. 2: Der Satz). 3rd edn. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Eitrem, H. 1903. Stress in English verb+adverb groups. Englische Studien 32. 69
77.
Elenbaas, Marion. 2007. The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English
verb-particle combination. Utrecht: LOT.
Ellinger, J. 1910. ber die Betonung der aus Verb+Adverb bestehenden englischen
Wortgruppen. In Programm der k. k. Franz-Joseph-Realschule in Wien.
[Quoted in Kennedy 1920 and in Bacchielli 1999; n.p., n.pag.; cf. the review by
Albert Eichler in Zeitschrift fr sterreichische Gymnasien 64, 1913, at 185.]
Emonds, Joseph. 1993. Projecting indirect objects. The Linguistic Review 10. 211
263.
Engel, Ulrich. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Groos.
Erben, Johannes. 2006. Einfhrung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre. 5th edn.
Berlin: Schmidt.
EWA = Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Althochdeutschen, ed. Albert L. Lloyd &
Otto Springer [et al.]. 1988 . 10 vols. [published so far: vol. 13 (to fstslag)].
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
266
References
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1995. De la prposition au prverbe en Nordique. In Les prverbes dans les langues dEurope: Introduction ltude de la prverbation,
ed. Andr Rousseau. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. 6175.
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. From ancient Germanic to modern Germanic Languages. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International
Handbook, vol. 2, ed. Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher
& Wolfgang Raible. Berlin: de Gruyter. 17061719.
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. English verb-preposition constructions: Constituency and
order. Language 81. 96137.
Feilke, Helmut. 2007. [Syntaktische Aspekte der Phraseologie III:] Construction
Grammar und verwandte Anstze. In Phraseologie: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenssischen Forschung (Phraseology: An International
Handbook of Contemporary Research), vol. 1, ed. Harald Burger, Dmitrij
Dobrovolskij, Peter Khn & Neal R. Norrick. Berlin: de Gruyter. 6376.
Finegan, Edward. 1998. English grammar and usage. In The Cambridge History of
the English Language, vol. 4: 17761997, ed. Suzanne Romaine. Cambridge:
Fischer, Kerstin & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.). 2007. Konstruktionsgrammatik:
Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Rev. 2nd edn. [1st edn. 2006]. Tbingen:
Stauffenburg.
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language,
vol. 2: 10661476, ed. Norman F. Blake. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 207408.
Fischer, Olga. 2004. Grammar change versus language change: Is there a difference? In New perspectives on English historical linguistics: Selected papers
from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 2126 August 2002, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology,
ed. Christian Kay, Simon Horobin & Jeremy Smith. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
3163.
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Olga. 2008. Is there life beyond generative syntax? Beitrge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 130. 199235.
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff (eds.).
2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, Olga & Wim van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax. In A History of the English
Language, ed. Richard Hogg & David Denison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 109198.
Fischer, Susann. 2010. Word order change as a source of grammaticalization.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fleischer, Jrg. 2006. Zur Methodologie althochdeutscher Syntaxforschung. Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 128. 2569.
Fleischer, Jrg. 2009. Paleographic clues to prosody? Accents, word separation,
and other phenomena in Old High German manuscripts. In Information structure and language change: New approaches to word order variation and
References
267
change, ed. Roland Hinterhlzl & Svetlana Petrova. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter. 160189.
Fleischer, Wolfgang. 2000. Die Klassifikation von Wortbildungsprozessen. In
Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung
(Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation),
vol. 1, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas. Berlin: de Gruyter. 892
897.
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Irmhild Barz. 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 2nd edn. Niemeyer: Tbingen.
Foltinek, Herbert. 1964. Die Wortverbindung Verbum +up oder out im modernen
Englisch. Moderne Sprachen 8. 94104.
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV. 2004. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fourquet, Jean. 1938. Lordre des lments de la phrase en germanique ancien:
tudes de syntaxe de position. Strasbourg: Publications de la Facult des Lettres de lUniversit de Strasbourg.
Fowler, Henry Watson. 1931. The Kings English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Fowler, Henry Watson. 1965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edn.
rev. by Ernest Gowers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fowler, Henry Watson. 1996. The new Fowlers Modern English Usage. 3rd edn.
by Robert William Burchfield. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fraser, Bruce. 1965. An examination of the verb-particle construction in English.
Cambridge, MA: M.I.T PhD dissertation.
Fraser, Bruce. 1966. Some remarks on the verb-particle construction in English. In
Report of the Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a Transformational Grammar. Foundations of
Language 6. 2242.
Fraser, Bruce. 1974. Review of Dwight Bolinger, The phrasal verb in English
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Language 50. 568575.
Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements. (Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Series 1.) Butte: Journal
of Indo-European Studies.
Fries, Charles C. 1940. On the development of the structural use of word-order in
Modern English. Language 16. 199208.
Fritz, Matthias A. 2005. Die trikasuellen Lokalpartikeln bei Homer: Syntax und
Semantik. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Frost, William & Vinton A. Dearing (eds.). 1987. The Works of John Dryden, vol.
5: Poems: The works of Virgil in English, 1697. Berkeley: University of California Press.
268
References
Gaaf, W. van der. 1930. The passive of a verb accompanied by a preposition. English Studies 12. 124.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & Vjaeslav V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the
Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language
and a proto-culture, part 1: The text. (With a preface by Roman Jakobson,
English version by Johanna Nichols, ed. by Werner Winter.) Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Gerritsen, Marinel. 1984. Divergent word-order developments in Germanic languages: A description and tentative explanation. In Historical syntax, ed. Jacek
Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton. 107135.
Givn, Talmy. 1979. Understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Gneuss, Helmut. 1973. Guide to the editing and preparation of texts for the Dictionary of Old English. In A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Roberta
Frank & Angus Cameron. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 924.
Gneuss, Helmut. 1996. English language scholarship: a survey and bibliography
from the beginning to the end of the nineteenth century. Birminghamton, NY:
Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies.
Godden, Malcolm (ed.). 1979. lfrics Catholic Homilies: The second series.
EETS SS 5.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in
language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grlach, Manfred. 1994. Einfhrung ins Frhneuenglische. 2nd edn. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Grlach, Manfred. 1998. An annotated bibliography of 19th-century grammars of
English. With a foreword by Ian Michael. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grlach, Manfred. 1999. Regional and social variation. In The Cambridge History
of the English Language, vol. 3: 14761776, ed. Roger Lass. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 459538.
Grlach, Manfred. 2001. Eighteenth-century English. Heidelberg: Winter.
Gtti, Ernst. 1974. Die gotischen Bewegungsverben: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung
des gotischen Wortschatzes mit einem Ausblick auf Wulfilas bersetzungstechnik. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Goolden, Peter (ed.). 1958. The Old English Apollonius of Tyre. London: Oxford
University Press.
Gowers, Ernest. 1954. The complete Plain Words. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office.
Gowers, Ernest. 1973. The complete Plain Words. 2nd rev. edn. by Bruce Fraser.
London: Her Majestys Stationery Office.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 2000. The Oxford Reference Grammar, ed. Edmund Weiner.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966 [1963]. Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Grammar, ed.
Joseph H. Greenberg. 2nd edn. Cambridge: MIT Press. 73113.
References
269
Grein, C.W.M. 18611864. Sprachschatz der angelschsischen Dichter. Erster

Band: AG (1861); zweiter Band: HZ. Eigennamen. Nachtrge (1864). Kassel: Wigand.
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study
of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
Haase, Martin. 2001. Lokalkasus und Adpositionen. In Language Typology and
Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 1, ed. Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible. Berlin: de
Gruyter. 736740.
Habermann, Mechthild. 1994. Verbale Wortbildung um 1500: Eine historischsynchrone Untersuchung anhand von Texten Albrecht Drers, Heinrich
Deichslers und Veit Dietrichs. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hacken, Pius ten. 2000. Inflection and derivation. In Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: An
International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation), vol. 1, ed. Geert
Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, in collaboration with Wolfgang
Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas. Berlin: de Gruyter. 349360.
Hackstein, Olav. 1997. Prverb, Post- und Prposition im Tocharischen: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der urindogermanischen Syntax. Tocharian and IndoEuropean Studies 7. 3560.
Hackstein, Olav. 2003. Reflexivpronomen, Prverbien und Lokalpartikel in indogermanischen Sprachen. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 10. 6995.
Hackstein, Olav. 2011. Proklise und Subordination im Indogermanischen. In Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg,
ed. Thomas Krisch & Michael Lindner, with Michael Crombach & Stefan Niederreiter. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 192202.
Hale, Kenneth L., Mary Laughren & Jane Simpson. 1995. Warlpiri. In Syntax: Ein
internationales Handbuch zeitgenssischer Forschung (An International Handbook of Contemporary Research), vol. 2, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von
Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1430
1451.
Hall, Christopher J. 2000. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation. In Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung
vol. 1, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas. Berlin: de Gruyter. 535
545.
Hall, J.R. Clark. 1960. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 4th edn., with a supplement by Herbert D. Meritt. (1st edn. 1894.) Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (Repr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.)
Hampe, Beate 2002. Superlative verbs: A corpus-based study of semantic redundancy in English verb-particle constructions. Tbingen: Narr.
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
270
References
Harnisch, Karl-Rdiger. 1982. Doppelpartikelverben als Gegenstand der

Wortbildungslehre und Richtungsadverbien als Prpositionen: Ein
syntaktischer Versuch. In Tendenzen verbaler Wortbildung in der deutschen
Gegenwartssprache, ed. Ludwig M. Eichinger. Hamburg: Buske. 107133.
Harris, Alice C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. Orlando: Academic
Press.
Harris, Alice C. 2003. Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi. In Yearbook
of Morphology 2003, ed. Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
6178.
Harris, Alice C. (ed.). 1991. The Kartvelian languages. (Vol. 1 of The indigenous
languages of the Caucasus, general ed. John A.C. Greppin.) Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, James. 1781. Philological inquiries in three parts. (3 vols.) London:
Nourse. (Repr. New York: AMS, 1975.)
Harris, Martin & Nigel Vincent (eds.). 1988. The Romance languages. London:
Croom Helm.
Harrison, Thomas Perrin. 1892. The separable prefixes in Anglo-Saxon. (PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University.) Baltimore: Murphy. (Repr. College Park:
McGrath, 1970.)
Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. Periphrasis. In Morphologie: Ein internationales
Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation), vol. 1, ed. Geert Booij, Christian
Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim &
Stavros Skopeteas. Berlin: de Gruyter. 654664.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories dont exist: Consequences
for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 119132.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic
universals. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Theresa Biberauer. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 75107.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Framework-free grammatical theory. In The Oxford
handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 341365.
Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Mller-Bardey. 2004. Valency change. In Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung
vol. 2, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros
Skopeteas, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim. Berlin: de Gruyter.
11301145.
Hasselblatt, Cornelius. 1990. Das estnische Partikelverb als Lehnbersetzung aus
dem Deutschen. Wiesbaden. Harrassowitz.
Haverling, Gerd. 2003. On prefixes and actionality in Classical and Late Latin.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 113135.
References
271
Hecht, Hans (ed.). 19001907. Bischof Wrferths von Worcester bersetzung der
Dialoge Gregors des Grossen ber das Leben und die Wundertaten italienischer Vter und die Unsterblichkeit der Seelen, aus dem Nachlasse von Julius
Zupitza, nach einer Kopie von Henry Johnson. 2 vols. 1900 (1. Abt.), 1907 (2.
Abt). Leipzig (vol. 1) and Hamburg (vol. 2): Bibliothek der Angelschsischen
Prosa 5. (Repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965).
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hnnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim Buscha. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch
fr den Auslnderunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
Herbers, Birgit. 2002. Verbale Prfigierung im Mittelhochdeutschen: Eine
semantisch-funktionale Korpusanalyse. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Herbst, Thomas & Michael Klotz. 2009. Syntagmatic and phraseological dictionaries. In The Oxford History of English Lexicography, ed. A.P. Cowie, vol. 2:
Specialized dictionaries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 219244.
Hill, Leslie A. 1968. Prepositions and adverbial particles: An interim classification, semantic, structural, and graded. London: Oxford University Press.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983a. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb: The evidence from some Old and early Middle English texts.
Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983b. Phrasal verbs in English grammar books before 1800.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84. 376386.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1994. On phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: Notes on lexis
and style. In Studies in Early Modern English, ed. Dieter Kastovsky. Berlin:
Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in Early Modern English.
In Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of
English, ed. Laurel J. Brinton & Minoji Akimoto. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
133165.
Hinderling, Robert. 1982. Konkurrenz und Opposition in der verbalen Wortbildung. In Tendenzen verbaler Wortbildung in der deutschen
Gegenwartssprache, ed. Ludwig M. Eichinger. Hamburg: Buske. 81106.
Hinterhlzl, Roland & Svetlana Petrova (eds.). 2009. Information structure and
language change: New approaches to word order variation and change. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hirt, Hermann. 1928. Indogermanische Grammatik, part 4: Doppelung Zusammensetzung Verbum. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd rev. edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoekstra, Jarich F. 2001. Standard West Frisian. In Handbook of Frisian
studies/Handbuch des Friesischen, ed. Horst Haider Munske. Tbingen:
Niemeyer. 8398.
272
References
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the OED quotations database as a corpus: A linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 28. 1730. <http://icame.uib.no/ij28/
hoffmann.pdf>.
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, part 1: Reference grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Holmberg, Anders & Jan Rijkhoff. 1998. Word order in the Germanic languages.
In Constituent order in the languages of Europe, ed. Anna Siewierska. Berlin:
Holmes, Philip & Ian Hinchliffe. 1994. Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar.
London: Routledge.
Hopper, Paul J. 1975. The syntax of the simple sentence in Proto-Germanic. The
Hague: Mouton.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to
grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, ed.
Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1735.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horgan, Dorothy. 1980. Patterns of variation and interchangeability in some Old
English prefixes. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84. 127130.
Horobin, Simon & Jeremy Smith. 2002. An introduction to Middle English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Horobin, Simon. 2007. Chaucers language. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hckel, W. 1968. Einige Fragen des Wortverbandes im Englischen. Fremdsprachen 12. 252260.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar
of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, Richard A. 1996. Sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, Geoffrey. 2000. A history of English words. Oxford: Blackwell.
Iacobini, Claudio & Francesca Masini. 2006. The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: Locative and actional meanings. Morphology 16. 155188.
Iglesias-Rbade, Luis. 2011. Semantic erosion of Middle English prepositions.
Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Irvine, Susan. 2004. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A collaborative edition, general
eds. David Dumville & Simon Keynes, vol. 7: MS E (A semi-diplomatic edition
with introduction and indices). Cambridge: Brewer.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin the night away. Language 73. 534595.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In Verb-particle explorations, ed. Nicole Deh, Ray
Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 67
94.
Jacobs, Neil. 2005. Yiddish: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References
273
Jacobs, Neil, Ellen Prince & Johan van der Auwera. 1994. Yiddish. In The Germanic languages, ed. Ekkehard Knig & Johan van der Auwera. London:
Routledge. 388419.
Jacobsson, Bengt. 1951. Inversion in English: With special reference to the Early
Modern English period. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Jenkyns, Joy. 1991. The Toronto Dictionary of Old English resources: A users
view. The Review of English Studies n.s. 42. 380416.
Jespersen, Otto. 1905. Growth and structure of the English language. (2nd rev.
edn. 1912.) Leipzig: Teubner.
Jespersen, Otto. 1936. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part
3: Syntax (vol. 1). 4th edn. Heidelberg: Winter.
Johansson, Stig. 1978. Manual of information to acompany the LancasterOslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers (in collaboration with Geoffrey N. Leech & Helen Goodluck). Oslo: Department of
English, University of Oslo. <http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/lob/index.
htm>.
Johansson, Stig & Knut Hofland. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary
and grammar based on the LOB Corpus, vol. 2: Tag combinations and word
combinations. Oxford: Clarendon.
Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2 vols. London.
(Repr. New York: AMS, 1967.)
Johnston, Andrew James. 2011. Calques and culture: Revisiting an issue in Old
English lexical morphology. In More than words: English lexicography and
lexicology past and present (Essays presented to Hans Sauer on the occasion of
his 65th birthday: part I), ed. Renate Bauer & Ulrike Krischke. Frankfurt am
Main: Lang. 6779.
Jones, Richard Foster. 1953. The triumph of the English language: A survey of
opinions concerning the vernacular from the introduction of printing to the
Restoration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Jowett, W.P. 1951. On phrasal verbs. English Language Teaching 5. 152157.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. Dsseldorf: Bagel.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In The Cambridge History of
the English Language, vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066, ed. Richard Hogg.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 290408.
Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of
English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kemenade, Ans van. 2003. Word order in Old English prose and poetry: The position of finite verbs and adverbs. In Studies in the history of the English
language: A millennial perspective, ed. Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 355371.
Kemenade, Ans van & Bettelou Los. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and
English. In Yearbook of Morphology 2003, ed. Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle.
Dordrecht: Kluwer. 79117.
274
References
Kemenade, Ans van & Bettelou Los. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax
in Old and Middle English. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. Ans
van Kemenade & Bettelou Los. Oxford: Blackwell. 224248.
Kennedy, Arthur Garfield. 1920. The Modern English verb-adverb combination.
Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Kenyon, John S. 1948. Levels of speech and colloquial English. The English Journal 37. 2531.
Ker, W.P. (ed.). 1900. Essays of John Dryden. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kiefer, Ferenc & Lszl Honti. 2003. Verbal prefixation in the Uralic languages.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 137153.
Kirkpatrick, John. 1912. Handbook of idiomatic English: As now written and
spoken; containing idioms, phrases, and locutions; adapted for students and
travellers of all nationalities. Edinburgh: Thin [also published elsewhere].
Klotz, Michael. 2000. Grammatik und Lexik: Studien zur Syntagmatik englischer
Verben. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.
KlugeSeebold = Friedrich Kluge. 2002. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der
deutschen Sprache. 24th edn. by Elmar Seebold. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Knappe, Gabriele. 2004. Idioms and fixed expressions in English language study
before 1800. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Knorrek, Marianne. 1938. Der Einflu des Rationalismus auf die englische
Sprache: Beitrge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der englischen Syntax im 17.
und 18. Jahrhundert. Breslau: Priebatsch.
Koch, C. Friedrich. 1891. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache, vol. 3:
Die Wortbildung der englischen Sprache, zum Drucke besorgt von Richard
Wlker. Kassel: Wigand.
Koefoed, Geert & Jaap van Marle. 2000. Productivity. In Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: An
International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation), vol. 1, ed. Geert
Kohonen, Viljo. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious
prose around 1000 and 1200 AD: A quantitative study of word order in context.
bo: bo Akademi.
Kolehmainen, Leena. 2006. Prfix- und Partikelverben im deutsch-finnischen
Kontrast. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Knig, Ekkehard. 1973. Englische Syntax, vol. 2: Struktur des einfachen Satzes.
Frankfurt am Main: Athenum Fischer.
Knig, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). 1994. The Germanic languages.
London: Routledge.
Konishi, Tomoshichi. 1958. The growth of the verb-adverb combination in English: A brief sketch. In Studies in English grammar and linguistics: A
miscellany in honour of Takanobu Otsuka, ed. Kazuo Araki, Taiichiro Egawa,
Toshiko Oyama & Minoru Yasui. Tokio: Kenyusha. 117128.
References
275
Koopman, Willem F. 1985. The syntax of verb and particle combinations in Old
English. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985, ed. Hans Bennis & Frits Beukema. Dordrecht: Foris. 9199.
Koopman, Willem F. 1992. The study of Old English syntax and the Toronto Dictionary of Old English. Neophilologus 76. 605615.
Kornexl, Lucia. 1994. Progress in historical lexicography: The Dictionary of Old
English. Anglia 112. 421453.
Kornexl, Lucia. 2003. Unnatural words? Loan formation in Old English glosses.
In Language contact in the history of English, ed. Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur
Mettinger. 2nd edn. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 195216.
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. The triad tense-aspect-aktionsart. Perspectives on aspect
and aktionsart (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6), ed. Carl Vetters & Willy
Vandeweghe. 930.
Koziol, Herbert. 1972. Handbuch der englischen Wortbildungslehre. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.
Krapp, George Philip (ed.). 1931. Exodus. In The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records,
vol. 1: The Junius Manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Verb-object order in early Middle English.
In Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, ed. Susan Pintzuk, George
Tsoulas & Anthony Warner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 132163.
Kroch, Anthony, Ann Taylor & Donald Ringe. 2000. The Middle English verbsecond constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In
Textual parameters in older languages, ed. Susan C. Herring, Pieter van
Reenen & Lene Schsler. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 353391.
Kruisinga, Etsko. 1925. A handbook of present-day English, part 2: English accidence and syntax. 4th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Kruisinga, Etsko. 1932. A handbook of present-day English, part 2: English accidence and syntax. 5th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Kuryowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Kyt, Merja. 1993. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English
Texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts. 2nd edn. University of Helsinki: Department of English.
Kyt, Merja, Ossi Ihalainen & Matti Rissanen (eds.). 1988. Corpus linguistics:
Hard and soft. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and
thought, ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202
251.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus,
and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lang, Ewald & Gisela Zifonun (eds.). 1996. Deutsch: Typologisch. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Lasch, Alexander & Alexander Ziem (eds.). 2011. Konstruktionsgrammatik III:
Aktuelle Fragen und Lsungsanstze. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.
276
References
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution.
Journal of Linguistics 26. 79102.
Lass, Roger. 1994. Old English: A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge:
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lass, Roger. 2000. Language periodization and the concept of middle. In Placing
Middle English in context, ed. Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen, Pivi
Pahta & Matti Rissanen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 741.
Lass, Roger. 2004. Ut custodiant litteras: Editions, corpora and witnesshood. In
Methods and data in English historical dialectology, ed. Marina Dossena,
Roger Lass & Maurizio Gotti. Bern: Lang. 2148.
Lavotha, dn. 1960. szt Nyelvknyv. Budapest: Tanknyvkiad.
Lavotha, dn. 1973. Kurzgefate estnische Grammatik [German translation of
Lavotha 1960, by Hans-Hermann Bartens]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lehmann, Christian. 1983. Latin preverbs and cases. In Latin linguistics and linguistic theory: Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin
Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 145161.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20. 303318.
Lehmann, Christian. 1989. Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung. Zeitschrift
fr Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42. 1119.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Revised and expanded version; 1st published version [draft version from 1982]. Mnchen:
LINCOM Europa.
Lehmann, Christian. 2005. Pleonasm and hypercharacterisation. In Yearbook of
Morphology 2005, ed. Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Springer.
119154.
Lehmann, Winfried P. 1972. Proto-Germanic syntax. In Toward a Proto-Germanic
syntax, ed. Frans van Koetsem & Herbert L. Kufner. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
239268.
Lehmann, Winfried P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49. 4766.
Lehmann, Winfried P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the 3rd
edn. of Vergleichendes Wrterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist;
with bibliography prepared under the direction of Helen-Jo J. Hewitt. Leiden:
Brill.
Lehmann, Winfried P. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.
Leinen, Rudolf. 1891. ber Wesen und Entstehung der trennbaren Zusammensetzung des deutschen Zeitwortes mit besonderer Bercksichtigung des
Gotischen und Althochdeutschen. Strassburg: Heitz.
Leisi, Ernst. 1985. Das heutige Englisch: Wesenszge und Probleme. 7th edn. Heidelberg: Winter.
References
277
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1992. Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2002a. Die Rolle der Kategorie des Aspekts im Sprachwandel im
Deutschen: Ein berblick. In Grammatische Kategorien aus sprachhistorischer
und typologischer Sicht: Akten des 29. Linguisten-Seminars (Kyoto, 2001), hg.
von der Japanischen Gesellschaft fr Germanistik. Mnchen: Iudicium. 925.
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2002b. Der Verlust der aspektuellen Verbpaare und seine Folgen
im Bereich der Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. In Grammatische Kategorien
aus sprachhistorischer und typologischer Sicht: Akten des 29. LinguistenSeminars (Kyoto, 2001), hg. von der Japanischen Gesellschaft fr Germanistik.
Mnchen: Iudicium. 2641.
Lenker, Ursula. 2008. Booster prefixes in Old English: An alternative view of the
roots of ME forsooth. English Language and Linguistics 12. 245265.
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history
of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Leonard, Sterling Andrus. 1929. The doctrine of correctness in English Usage
17001800. Madison: University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature.
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1974. Historical change of word order: A
case study in Chinese and its implications. In Historical linguistics I: Syntax,
morphology, internal and comparative reconstruction (Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 2nd7th September 1973), ed. John M. Anderson & Charles Jones. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. 199217.
Liebermann, Felix (ed.). 1903. Das Gesetzbuch der Knige AlfredIne. In Die
Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. 1: Text und bersetzung. Halle: Niemeyer.
Lindelf, Uno. 1935. English agent-nouns with a suffixed adverb. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 36. 257 282.
Lindelf, Uno. 1937. English verb-adverb groups converted into nouns. Helsinki:
Akademische Buchhandlung.
Lindemann, J.W. Richard. 1965. Old English preverb ge-: A re-examination of
some current doctrines. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 64. 6583.
Lindemann, J.W. Richard. 1970. Old English preverbal ge-: Its meaning. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1972. Semantic structure and word-formation: Verb-particle
constructions in contemporary English. Mnchen: Fink.
Liuzza, Roy M. (ed.). 1994. The Old English version of the Gospels, vol. 1: Text
and introduction. EETS 304.
Live, Anna H. 1965. The discontinuous verb in English. Word 21. 428451.
Lloyd, Albert L. 1979. Anatomy of the verb: The Gothic verb as a model for a unified theory of aspect, actional types, and verbal velocity. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
278
References
Loftis, John, David Stuart Rodes & Vinton A. Dearing [et al.] (eds.). 1978. The
Works of John Dryden, vol. 11: Plays: The Conquest of Granada, Marriage ala-mode, The Assignation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Logeman, Henri. 1906. On some cases of Scandinavian influence in English.
Archiv fr das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 117 (n.s. 17).
2946 (I-III) and 268286 (IV-V).
Lohse, Barbara, John A. Hawkins & Thomas Wasow. 2004. Domain minimization
in English verb-particle constructions. Language 30. 238261.
Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary. 2000. Ed. Adam Gadsby. Harlow: Longman.
Los, Bettelou. 2004. From resultative predicate to event-modifier: The case of forth
and on. In New perspectives on English historical linguistics: Selected papers
from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 2126 August 2002, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology,
ed. Christian Kay, Simon Horobin & Jeremy Smith. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
83102.
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. (Facs. repr.
Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)
LPD = John C. Wells. 1990. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. London: Longman.
Lundskr-Nielsen, Tom. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English: A study of
prepositional syntax and the semantics of At, In and On in some Old and Middle English texts. Odense: Odense University Press.
Lutz, Angelika. 1991. Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonantenvernderungen in der
Geschichte des Englischen. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Lutz, Angelika. 1992. Lexical and morphological consequences of phonotactic
change in the history of English. In History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, ed. Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu
Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 156166.
Lutz, Angelika. 1997. Sound change, word formation and the lexicon: The history
of the English prefix verbs. English Studies 78. 258290.
Lutz, Angelika. 2002a. When did English begin? In Sounds, words, texts and
change: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 711 September 2000, ed. Teresa Fanego & Elena Seoane. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 145
171.
Lutz, Angelika. 2002b. Sprachmischung in der deutschen und englischen
Wortbildung. In Historische Wortbildung des Deutschen, ed. Mechthild
Habermann, Peter O. Mller & Horst Haider Munske. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
407437.
Lutz, Angelika. 2008. Types and degrees of mixing: A comparative assessment of
Latin and French influences on English and German word formation. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 13. 131165.
Mack, Frances M. (ed.). 1934. Seinte Marherete: e meiden ant martyr. Re-ed.
from MS. Bodley 34, Oxford, and MS. Royal 17A xxvii, British Museum.
EETS 193.
References
279
MacLeish, Andrew. 1969. The Middle English subject-verb cluster. The Hague:
Mouton.
Macmillan Phrasal Verbs Plus. 2005. Oxford: Macmillan.
Mtzner, Eduard. 18781896. Altenglische Sprachproben: Nebst einem Wrterbuche. Zweiter Band: Wrterbuch. Erste Abtheilung: AD (1878); zweite
Abtheilung: EH (1885); dritte Abtheilung: Imisbileven (1896, with Hugo
Bieling). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Mahler, Andreas. 2002. This is the kind of thing up with which I will not put:
Einige Beobachtungen zu Syntax und Morphologie komplementierter multiword verbs im Englischen. Anglia 120. 508533.
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: history, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.
Malkiel, Yakov. 1978. Derivational categories. In Universals of human language,
vol. 3: Word structure, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University
Press. 125149.
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English wordformation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. 2nd edn., completely revised
and enlarged. Mnchen: Beck.
Marks, Jonathan. 2005a. Phrasaled out? Dont worry! Help is at hand. In MED
Magazine 32. <http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/July
2005/32-Feature-Phrasaled-out.htm>.
Marks, Jonathan. 2005b. Phrasal verbs international. In MED Magazine 33.
<http://www.macmillandictionary.com/med-magazine/September2005/33Feature-PV-Int.htm>.
Marks, Jonathan. 2005c. The truth revealed: Phrasal verbs in writing and speech. In
MED Magazine 34. <http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/
October2005/34-Feature-PV-Spoken-Written.htm>.
Martin, Pamela. 1990. The phrasal verb: Diachronic development in British and
American English. Columbia University New York: PhD thesis. (Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms International.)
Masini, Francesca. 2006. Diacronia dei verbi sintagmatici in Italiano. Archivio
Glottologico Italiano 91. 67105.
Matsumoto, Meiko. 2008. From simple verbs to periphrastic expressions: The
history of composite predicates, phrasal verbs, and related constructions in
English. Bern: Lang.
Mattaire, Michael. 1712. The English Grammar. (Facs. repr. Menston: Scolar
Press, 1967.)
Matthews, Peter H. 2007. Syntactic relations: A critical survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McArthur, Tom (ed.). 1992. The Oxford companion to the English language.
McArthur, Tom & Beryl Atkins. 1992. Dictionary of English Phrasal Verbs and
their Idioms. 14th edn. London: Collins.
280
References
McEnery, Tony & Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus linguistics. 2nd edn. Edinburgh:
McIntosh, Carey. 1986. Common and courtly language: The stylistics of social
class in 18th-century English literature. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
McLelland, Nicola. 2008. Approaches to the semantics and syntax of the adverb in
German foreign language grammars. Beitrge zur Geschichte der Spachwissenschaft 18 (Themenheft: Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie, Teil II). 3758.
MED = Middle English Dictionary. 19522001. 13 vols. Ed. Hans Kurath & Sherman M. Kuhn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Electronic MED:
<http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/>.)
Meier-Brgger, Michael. 2003. Indo-European linguistics. With contributions by
Matthias Fritz and Manfred Mayrhofer. Translated by Charles Gertmenian.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Meyer, George A. 1975. The Two-word Verb: A Dictionary of the VerbPreposition Phrases in American English. The Hague: Mouton.
Michael, Ian. 1970. English grammatical categories and the tradition to 1800.
Mige, Guy. 1685. Nouvelle mthode pour apprendre langlois. London: Thomas
Bassett. (Facs. repr. Menston: Scolar Press, 1970.)
Miller, Thomas (ed.). 18901898. The Old English version of Bedes Ecclesiastical
History of the English People. With a translation and introduction. 4 vols.
EETS 95, 96, 110, 111.
Minkova, Donka. 2008. Prefixation and stress in Old English: In memoriam
Richard Hogg (19442007). Word Structure 1. 2152.
Mitchell, Bruce. 1964. Syntax and word-order in The Peterborough Chronicle
11221154. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 65. 113144.
Mitchell, Bruce. 1978. Prepositions, adverbs, prepositional adverbs, postpositions,
separable prefixes, or inseparable prefixes, in Old English? Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen 79. 240257.
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mitchell, Bruce & Fred C. Robinson. 2001. A guide to Old English. 6th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mitchell, T.F. 1958. Syntagmatic relations in linguistic analysis. Transactions of
the Philological Society. 101118.
Mittins, W.H., Mary Salu, Mary Edminson & Sheila Coyne. 1970. Attitudes to
English usage: An enquiry by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne Institute
of Education English Research Group. London: Oxford University Press.
Monk, Samuel Holt, A.E. Wallace Maurer & Vinton A. Dearing [et al.] (eds.).
1971. The Works of John Dryden, vol. 17: Prose 16681691: An Essay of Dramatick Poesie and shorter works. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Morris, Richard (ed.). 18741880 [1967]. The Blickling Homilies. 3 vols. [repr.
1967 in one vol.]. EETS 58, 63, 73.
References
281
Morton, James. 1853. The Ancren Riwle: A treatise on the rules and duties of
monastic life. London: Camden Society.
Moser, Hugo. 1969. Umgangssprache: berlegungen zu ihren Formen und zu ihrer
Stellung im Sprachganzen. Zeitschrift fr Mundartforschung 27. 215232.
Mller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mller, Stefan. 2008. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einfhrung.
2nd edn. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2005. Lost for words: The hidden history of the Oxford English Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2006. English in the nineteenth Century. In The Oxford history of the English language, ed. Lynda Mugglestone. Oxford: Oxford
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2009. Anglistische Korpuslinguistik. Berlin: Schmidt.
Mller-Schotte, Hans. 1955. Pleonastische Verberweiterungen im Englischen. Die
Neueren Sprachen N.F. 4. 363367.
Murray, Lindley. 1815. English Grammar: Adapted to the different classes of
learners. With an appendix, containing rules and observations for assisting the
more advanced students to write with perspicuity and accuracy. 26th edn. [1st
edn. 1795]. York: Wilson and Sons.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part 1: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique.
Napier, Arthur S. (ed.). 1894. Invention of the cross. In History of the holy roodtree: A twelfth century version of the cross legend. EETS 103.
Nash, David. 1982. Warlpiri preverbs and verb roots. In Papers in Warlpiri grammar in memory of Lothar Jagst, ed. Stephen Swartz (work-papers of SIL-AAB,
series A, vol. 6). Berrimah: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 165216.
Nash, David. 1986. Topics in Warlpiri grammar. New York: Garland.
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. Recycling inversion: The case of initial adverbs and
negators in Early Modern English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 31 (A
festschrift for Roger Lass on his sixtieth birthday). 203214.
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 14761776, ed. Roger Lass.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 332458.
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.). 1996. Sociolinguistics
and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. 1998. The continental backgrounds of English and its insular
development until 1154. Odense: Odense University Press.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. 2005. From dialect to standard: English in England 1154
1776. Odense: Odense University Press.
282
References
Novak, Maximillian E. & George R. Guffey (eds.). 1984. The Works of John Dryden, vol. 13: Plays: All for Love, Oedipus, Troilus and Cressida. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Nurmi, Arja (ed.). 1998. Manual for the Corpus of Early English Correspondence
Sampler CEECS. New ICAME Corpus Collection CD-ROM [1999]. Bergen:
The HIT-Centre.
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. NED (= OED1) = A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. 10 vols. Ed. James A.H. Murray, Henry Bradley,
William A. Craigie & Charles T. Onions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 18841928.
Reedited [under the title The Oxford English Dictionary, being a corrected reissue, with supplement], with introduction, supplement and bibliography by
William A. Craigie & Charles T. Onions. 13 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1933. Supplement ed. by Robert W. Burchfield. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 197286. OED2 = The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edn. 20 vols., reset with corrections, revisions and additional vocabulary, prepared by John A.
Simpson & Edmund S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 [CD-ROM
Version 1.0, 1992; CD-ROM Version 2.0, 1999. Oxford: Oxford University
Press]. OED3 = 3rd edn. Ed. John A. Simpson. OED Online,
<http://www.oed.com>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 .
Oesterreicher, Wulf. 2001. Historizitt Sprachvariation, Sprachverschiedenheit,
Sprachwandel. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, ed. Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf
Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible. Berlin: de Gruyter. 15541595.
Ogura, Michiko. 2002. Verbs of motion in medieval English. Cambridge: Brewer.
Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa. 2008. Phonaesthetic assessment of words in 18thcentury prescriptions and later. In Perspectives on prescriptivism, ed. Joan
Beal, Carmen Nocera & Massimo Sturiale. Bern: Lang. 83112.
Olsen, Susan. 1997. ber den lexikalischen Status englischer Partikelverben. In
Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale, ed. Elisabeth Lbel & Gisa Rauh.
Tbingen: Niemeyer. 4571.
Olsen, Susan. 2000. Composition. In Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch
zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation), vol. 1, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann &
Joachim Mugdan, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros
Skopeteas. Berlin: de Gruyter. 897916.
Osselton, N.E. 1958. Branded words in English dictionaries before Johnson. Groningen: Wolters.
Osselton, N.E. 1986. Dr Johnson and the English phrasal verb. In Lexicography:
An emerging international profession, ed. Robert Ilson. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 716.
Osselton, N.E. 1995 [1990]. The character of the earliest English dictionaries.
Chapter 1 in his Chosen words: Past and present problems for dictionary
makers. Exeter: University of Exeter Press [originally published in 1990 as
English lexicography from the beginning up to and including Johnson in
Wrterbcher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires: Ein internationales Handbuch zur
References
283
Lexikographie, vol. 2, ed. Franz Josef Hausmann, Oskar Reichmann & Herbert
Ernst Wiegand, Berlin: de Gruyter, 19431953].
Palmatier, Robert Allen. 1969. A descriptive syntax of the Ormulum. The Hague:
Mouton.
Partridge, Eric. 1954. The concise usage and abusage: A modern guide to good
English. London: Hamilton.
Paul, Hermann. 1995 [1920]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th edn. (Repr.
1995.) Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Pelli, Mario G. 1976. Verb-particle constructions in American English: A study
based on American plays from the end of the 18th century to the present. Bern:
Francke.
Peters, Hans. 1993. Die englischen Gradadverbien der Kategorie booster.
Tbingen: Narr.
Peters, Hans. 2006. The Old English verbal suffix ettan. In Language and text:
Current perspectives on English and Germanic historical linguistics and philology, ed. Andrew James Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan Thim.
Heidelberg: Winter. 241254.
Petyt, K.A. 1980. The study of dialect: An introduction to dialectology. London:
Deutsch.
Pilch, Herbert. 1955. Der Untergang des Prverbs ge- im Englischen. Anglia 73.
3764.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1995. Le problme du prverbe en Indo-Europen. In Les
prverbes dans les langues dEurope: Introduction ltude de la prverbation, ed. Andr Rousseau. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. 3559.
Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in
Old English word order. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis.
Pintzuk, Susan & Ann Taylor. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. Ans van Kemenade &
Bettelou Los. 249278.
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English
derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Plag, Ingo, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Harald Baayen. 1999. Morphological
productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics 3.
209228.
Plummer, Charles (ed.). 189299. Two of the Saxon Chronicles parallel. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Pope, John C. (ed.). 196768. Homilies of lfric: A supplementary collection. 2
vols. EETS 259, 260.
Pottelberge, Jeroen van. 2001. Verbonominale Konstruktionen, Funktionsverbgefge: Vom Sinn und Unsinn eines Untersuchungsgegenstandes.
Heidelberg: Winter.
284
References
Poussa, Patricia. 1982. The evolution of early standard English: The creolization
hypothesis. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 14. 6985.
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reichl, Karl. 1995. Review of Laurel J. Brinton, The development of English
aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988). Anglia 113. 8084.
Reszkiewicz, Alfred. 1962. Main sentence elements in The Book of Margery
Kempe: A study in major syntax. Wrocaw: Zakad Narodowy Imienia
Ossoliskich.
Reszkiewicz, Alfred. 1966. Ordering of elements in late Old English prose in
terms of their size and structural complexity. Wrocaw: Zakad Narodowy
Imienia Ossoliskich.
Rice, Allan Lake. 1932. Gothic prepositional compounds in relation to their Greek
originals. (University of Pennsylvania dissertation.) Language Dissertations
published by the Linguistic Society of America (Supplement to Language) 11.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Rickard, T.A., W.H. Shockley & A.E. Pratt. 19091910. Standardization of English in technical literature. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy for 190910. [Quoted in Kennedy 1920; n.pag.]
Rissanen, Matti. 1992. The diachronic corpus as a window to the history of English. In Directions in corpus linguistics, ed. Jan Svartvik. Berlin: de Gruyter.
185205.
Rissanen, Matti. 1994. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. In Corpora across
the centuries, ed. Merja Kyt, Matti Rissanen & Susan Wright. Amsterdam:
Rodopi. 7379.
Rissanen, Matti, Merja Kyt & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.). 1993. Early English
in the computer age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Murat H. 1936. The antiquity of the Germanic verb-adverb locution.
Journal of English and Germanic Philology 25. 466481.
Roelcke, Thorsten. 1998. Typologische Unterschiede in den Varietten des
Deutschen. In Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen
Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, vol. 1, ed. Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar
Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger, 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10001013.
Rohdenburg, Gnter. 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Current issues in
Late Modern English (Papers presented at the 3rd International Conference on
Late Modern English, held at the University of Leiden in 2007), ed. Ingrid
Tieken-Boon van Ostade & Wim van der Wurff. Bern: Lang. 301329.
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 2004. [Systeme morphologischer Struktur:
Sprachskizzen:] Deutsch (Indogermanisch: Germanisch). In Morphologie: Ein
References
285
internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation), vol. 2, ed. Geert
Rosier, James L. (ed.). 1962. The Vitellius Psalter. Ed. from British Museum MS
Cotton Vitellius E.xviii. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rousseau, Andr (ed.). 1995. Les prverbes dans les langues dEurope: Introduction ltude de la prverbation. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Samuels Michael L. 1949. The ge- prefix in the OE gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels. Transactions of the Philological Society 47. 62116.
Samuels Michael L. 1972. Linguistic evolution: With special reference to English.
Sanchez, Christina. 2008. Consociation and dissociation: An empirical study of
word-family integration in English and German. Tbingen: Narr.
Sasse, Hans-Jrgen. 1991. Aspect and aktionsart: A reconciliation. Perspectives on
aspect and aktionsart (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6), ed. Carl Vetters &
Willy Vandeweghe. 3145.
Sasse, Hans-Jrgen. 2006. Aspect and aktionsart. In Encyclopedia of language and
linguistics, 2nd edn., editor-in-chief Keith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. 535538.
Sauer, Hans. 1985. Die Darstellung der Komposita in altenglischen
Wrterbchern. In Problems of Old English lexicography: Studies in memory of
Angus Cameron, ed. Alfred Bammesberger. Regensburg: Pustet. 267315.
Schfer, Jrgen. 1980. Documentation in the O.E.D.: Shakespeare and Nashe as
test cases. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schfer, Jrgen. 1989. Early Modern English lexicography. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schaefer, Ursula. 1996. The late Middle English Paston Letters: A grammatical
case in point for reconsidering philological methodologies. In Proceedings of
the Anglistentag 1995, Greifswald, ed. Jrgen Klein & Dirk Vanderbeke.
Tbingen: Niemeyer. 313323.
Schaefer, Ursula. 2006. Textualizing the vernacular in late medieval England: Suggestions for some heuristic reconsiderations. In Language and text: Current
perspectives on English and Germanic historical linguistics and philology, ed.
Andrew James Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan Thim. Heidelberg:
Winter. 269290.
Scheible, Silke. 2005. Upgrading, downsizing and co.: Revitalizing a moribund
word-fomation pattern in present-day English? Arbeiten aus Anglistik und
Amerikanistik 30. 177200.
Scheler, Manfred. 1977. Der englische Wortschatz. Berlin: Schmidt.
Schmid, Hans-Jrg. 2005. Englische Morphologie und Wortbildung: Eine Einfhrung. Berlin: Schmidt.
Schmidt, Gnther Dietrich. 1987. Das Affixoid: Zur Notwendigkeit und Brauchbarkeit eines beliebten Zwischenbegriffs der Wortbildung. In Deutsche
Lehnwortbildung, ed. Gabriele Hoppe, Alan Kirkness, Elisabeth Link, Isolde
Nortmeyer, Wolfgang Rettig & Gnther Schmidt. Tbingen: Narr. 53101.
286
References
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1969. Zur Tmesis in den Kartvelsprachen und ihren typologischen Parallelen in indogermanischen Sprachen. In To George Akhvlediani,
ed. Shota Dzidziguri et al. Tbilisi: University. 96105.
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1998. Versuch einer geschichtlichen Sprachtypologie des
Deutschen. In Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen
Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, vol. 1, ed. Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar
Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger, 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter. 9931000.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2004. How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in
World Englishes. World Englishes 23. 227249.
Schrodt, Richard. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II: Syntax. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Schrder, Anne. 2008. Investigating the morphological productivity of verbal prefixation in the history of English. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 33.
4769.
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2003. Preverbs as an open word class in northern Australian
languages: Synchronic and diachronic correlates. In Yearbook of Morphology
2003, ed. Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 145177.
Seoane, Elena. 2006. Information structure and word order change: The passive as
an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English. In The handbook
of the history of English, ed. Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los. Oxford:
Blackwell. 360391.
Serjeantson, Mary S. 1935. A history of foreign words in English. London: Kegan
Paul.
Shluktenko, J.A. 1955. ber die sogenannten zusammengesetzten Verben vom
Typ stand up in der englischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Sowjetwissenschaft:
Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Abteilung, ed. by the Zentralvorstand der
Gesellschaft fr deutsch-sowjetische Freundschaft. Vol. for 1955 (2). 223235.
[.. . 1954.
stand up . 5. 105
113. German translation by G. Riegel, revised by H.H. Bielfeldt.]
Sievers, Eduard (ed.). 1892. Tatian: Lateinisch und Altdeutsch mit ausfhrlichem
Glossar. 2nd edn. Paderborn: Schningh. (Repr. 1966.)
Siewierska, Anna. 1993. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word
order. In Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenssischer Forschung
(An International Handbook of Contemporary Research), vol. 1, ed. Joachim
Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann. Berlin:
de Gruyter. 826846.
Simon, Irne. 1963. Drydens revision of the Essay of Dramatic Poesy. The Review of English Studies 14. 132141.
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sitta, Horst. 1998. Der Satz. In Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 6th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 609858.
References
287
Skeat, Walter (ed.). 18711887. The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian,

and Old Mercian versions. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 18811900 [1966]. lfrics Lives of the Saints. 4 vols.
(Repr. 1966 in 2 vols.) EETS 76, 82, 94, 114.
Slobin, Dan I. 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Space in languages: Linguistic
systems and cognitive categories, ed. Maya Hickmann & Stphane Robert.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 581.
Smirnova, Elena & Tanja Mortelmans. 2010. Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte
und Theorien. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Smith, Logan Pearsall. 1925. Words and idioms: Studies in the English language.
London: Constable.
Smitterberg, Erik. 2008. The progressive and phrasal verbs: Evidence of colloquialization in nineteenth-century English? In The dynamics of linguistic
variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, ed. Terttu Nevalainen,
Irma Taavitsainen, Pivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
269289.
Sderlind, Johannes. 1964. The attitude to language expressed by or ascertainable
from English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Studia Neophilologica 36.
111126.
Spasov, Dimiter. 1966. English phrasal verbs. Sofia: Naouka i Izkoustvo.
Sprockel, Cornelis. 1973. The language of the Parker Chronicle, vol. 2. The
Hague: Nijhof.
Sroka, Kazimierz A. 1972. The syntax of English phrasal verbs. The Hague: Mouton.
Standop, Ewald. 1999. Syntaxtheorie und englische Syntax quantum vis. Anglia
117. 236258.
Stanley, Eric G. 1987. Old English in The Oxford English Dictionary. In Studies
in lexicography, ed. Robert Burchfield. 1935.
Starke, Frank. 1977. Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Adverbien im
Althethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Kerstin Fischer (eds.). 2008. Konstruktionsgrammatik II:
Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.
Stein, Gabriele. 1984. Word-formation in Dr Johnsons Dictionary of the English
Language. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 6.
66112.
Stockwell, Robert P. 1977. Motivations for exbraciation in English. In Mechanisms
of syntactic change, ed. Charles N. Li. (2nd printing 1980.) Austin: University
of Texas Press. 291314.
Stockwell, Robert P. 1984. On the history of the verb-second rule in English. In
Historical syntax, ed. Jacek Fisiak. The Hague: Mouton. 575592.
Stockwell, Robert P. 1990. Review of Ans van Kemenade, Syntactic case and
morphological case in the history of English (Dordrecht: Foris, 1987). Lingua
81. 90100.
288
References
Stockwell, Robert P. & Donka Minkova. 1991. Subordination and word order
change in the history of English. In Historical English syntax, ed. Dieter
Kastovsky. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 337348.
Strang, Barbara M.H. 1962. Modern English structure. London: Arnold.
Strang, Barbara M.H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1891. Perfective und imperfective actionsart im germanischen. Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 15.
70177.
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5th and 6th edn. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 2000 [1919]. Die Gotische Bibel. 7th edn. [based on the 2nd
edn. 1919] with a supplement by Piergiuseppe Scardigli. 2 vols. (vol. 1: Der
gotische Text und seine griechische Vorlage: Mit Einleitung, Lesarten und
Quellennachweisen sowie den kleineren Denkmlern als Anhang; vol. 2:
GotischGriechischDeutsches Wrterbuch). Heidelberg: Winter.
Sundby, Bertil. 1995. English word-formation as described by English grammarians 16001800. Oslo: Novus.
Sundby, Bertil, Anne Kari Bjrge & Kari E. Haugland. 1991. A dictionary of English normative grammar: 17001800. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Svenonius, Peter Arne. 1994. Dependent nexus: Subordinate predication in English
and the Scandinavian languages. University of California, Santa Cruz: Ph.D.
dissertation.
Svenonius, Peter Arne. 1996. The verb-particle-alternation in the Scandinavian
languages. Ms., University of Troms. 36pp.
Sweet, Henry (ed.). 1871. King Alfreds West Saxon version of Gregorys Pastoral
Care. 2 vols. EETS 45, 50.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms.
In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 57149.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
ed. Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher Johnson & Ruth Shields. Berkeley: Berkeley
Linguistics Society. 480519.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tanabe, Harumi. 1999. Composite predicates and phrasal verbs in The Paston Letters. In Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the
history of English, ed. Laurel J. Brinton & Minoji Akimoto. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 97132.
Taylor, Simon. 1983. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A collaborative edition, general
eds. David Dumville & Simon Keynes, vol. 4: MS B (A semi-diplomatic edition
with introduction and indices). Cambridge: Brewer.
Thim, Stefan. 2006a. Phrasal verbs in everyday English, 15001700. In Language
and text: Current perspectives on English and Germanic historical linguistics
References
289
and philology, ed. Andrew James Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan
Thim. Heidelberg: Winter. 291306.
Thim, Stefan. 2006b. Phrasal verbs in late Middle and Early Modern English:
Combinations with back, down, forth, out, and up. In Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 15002000, ed. Christiane Dalton-Puffer,
Nikolaus Ritt, Herbert Schendl & Dieter Kastovsky. Bern: Lang, 213228.
Thim, Stefan. 2006c. When did the phrasal verbs become colloquial? Paper read at
the 14th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Bergamo,
2125 August 2006.
Thim, Stefan. 2007. Lexicalization, usage and attitude: The colloquialization of the
verb-particle construction in Late Modern English. Paper read at the 3rd Late
Modern English Conference, Leiden, 30 August1 September 2007.
Thim, Stefan. 2008a. The rise of the phrasal verb in English: A case of Scandinavian influence? In Anglistentag 2007 Mnster: Proceedings of the Conference
of the German Association of University Teachers of English 29, ed. Klaus
Stierstorfer. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. 291304.
Thim, Stefan. 2008b. There is another kind of composition more frequent in our
language than perhaps in any other: The Englishness of the phrasal verbs.
Paper read at the 15th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Munich, 2430 August 2008.
Thim, Stefan. 2011a. On the phrasal verbs in some Paston Letters. In More than
words: English lexicography and lexicology past and present (Essays presented
to Hans Sauer on the occasion of his 65th birthday: part I), ed. Renate Bauer &
Ulrike Krischke. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 355385.
Thim, Stefan. 2011b. Historical dictionaries of English. Lexicographica 27. 6399.
Thorpe, Benjamin (ed.). 1840. Ancient laws and institutes of England. 2 vols. London: Commission on the Public Records of the Kingdom.
Thorpe, Benjamin (ed.). 1861. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle according to several
authorities. 2 vols. Rolls Series. London: Longman, Green, Longman &
Roberts.
Thrinsson, Hskuldur. 1994. Icelandic. In The Germanic languages, ed. Ekkehard
Knig & Johan van der Auwera. London: Routledge. 142189.
Thrinsson, Hskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jgvan Lon Jacobsen & Zakaris
Svabo Hansen. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Trshavn:
Froya Frskaparfelag.
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2006a. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism and the
norm of correctness. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. Ans van
Kemenade & Bettelou Los. Oxford: Blackwell. 539557.
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2006b. English at the onset of the normative tradition. In The Oxford history of the English language, ed. Lynda Mugglestone.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 240273.
Tiersma, Pieter M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Tiisala, Seija. 2008. Adverbs and particles in Swedish grammars from the 17th and
18th century. Beitrge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 18 (Themenheft:
Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie, Teil II). 101134.
290
References
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1978. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in

language. In Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, ed. Joseph
H. Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 369400.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1991. Review of Laurel J. Brinton, The development of
English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Studies in Language 15. 221226.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English
Language, vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066, ed. Richard Hogg. Cambridge:
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. A historical overview of complex predicate types.
In Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of
English, ed. Laurel J. Brinton & Minoji Akimoto. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
239260.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003a. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In
Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective, ed.
Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1949.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003b. Constructions in grammaticalization. In The
Handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda.
Oxford: Blackwell. 625647.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic
change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Ekkehard Knig. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of
grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1:
Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, ed. Elizabeth Closs Traugott
& Bernd Heine. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 189218.
Trips, Carola. 2002. From OV to VO in early Middle English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Tristram, Hildegard L.C. 2004. Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England, or what was
spoken Old English like? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 40. 87110.
Trousdale, Graeme & Nikolas Gisborne (eds.). 2008. Constructional approaches to
English grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tucker, Susie. 1961. English examined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vennemann, Theo. 1974a. Language type and word order. Acta Universitatis
Carolinae, Philologica 5, Linguistica Generalica I, 219229.
Vennemann, Theo. 1974b. Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX
via TVX. In Historical Linguistics I: Syntax, morphology, internal and comparative reconstruction (Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 2nd7th September 1973), ed. John M.
Anderson & Charles Jones. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 339376.
Vennemann, Theo. 1984. Verb-second, verb-late, and the brace construction. In
Historical syntax, ed. Jacek Fisiak. The Hague: Mouton. 627636.
Veselinovi, Elvira. 2006. How to put up with cur suas le rud and the bidirectionality of contact. In The Celtic Englishes IV, ed. Hildegard L.C. Tristram.
Potsdam: Potsdam University Press. 173190.
References
291
Vestergaard, Torben. 1977. Prepositional phrases and phrasal verbs: A study in

grammatical function. The Hague: Mouton.
Vetters, Carl & Willy Vandeweghe (eds.). 1991. Perspectives on aspect and
aktionsart (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Vincent, Nigel. 1999. The evolution of C-structure: Prepositions and PPs from
Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics 37. 11111153.
Voitl, Herbert. 1969. Probleme der englischen Idiomatik. Germanisch-Romanische
Monatsschrift N.F. 19. 194212.
Von Schon, Catherine Virginia. 1977. The origin of phrasal verbs in English. New
York State University: unpublished dissertation. (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.)
Vorlat, Emma. 1975. The development of English grammatical theory 15681737:
With special reference to the theory of parts of speech. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Vriend, Hubert Jan de (ed.). 1986. The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de
Quadrupedibus. EETS 286.
Waibel, Birgit. 2007. Phrasal verbs in learner English: A corpus-based study of
German and Italian students. Freiburg University: doctoral dissertation. <http://
www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/3592>.
Wlchli, Bernhard. 2001. Lexical evidence for the parallel development of the Latvian and Livonian verb particles. In The Circum-Baltic languages: typology
and contact, vol. 2: Grammar and typology, ed. sten Dahl & Maria
Koptjevskaja-Tamm. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 413441.
Walker, Obadiah. 1659. Some instructions concerning the art of oratory: Collected
for the use of a friend of a young student. London: J.G. for R. Royston.
Wallis, John. 1653. Grammatica Lingu Anglican. (Repr. Menston: Scolar Press,
1969.)
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics. 5th edn. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of
the syntax of the Old Irish Verb. Celtica 6. 149.
Watkins, Calvert. 1964. Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of
Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 2731, 1962, ed. Horace G. Lunt. The
Hague: Mouton. 10351042 [with a discussion, 10431045].
Webster, Noah. 1828. An American Dictionary of the English Language. (Facs. ed.
on CD-ROM, San Francisco: Foundation of American Christian Education,
1995.)
Webster, Noah. 1909. Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language. Ed. William Torrey Harris (editor-in-chief) & Frederic Sturges Allen
(general editor). London: Merriam.
Wedel, Alfred R. 1997. Verbal prefixation and the complexive aspect in Germanic. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 98. 321332.
Wedel, Alfred R. 2001. Alliteration and the prefix gein Cynewulfs Elene.
Journal of English and Germanic Philology 100. 200210.
292
References
Wetzel, Claus-Dieter. 1991. Bemerkungen zur ersten Lieferung des Dictionary of

Old English. Indogermanische Forschungen 96. 218237.
Wild, Kate. 2008. Phrasal verbs in Late Modern English. Paper read at the 15th
International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Munich, 2430
August 2008.
Wilhelm, Christopher. 2002. Old Hittite postpositions: A fuzzy problem. In New
Insights in Germanic Linguistics III, ed. Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr.
New York: Lang. 273288.
Williams, Edwin S. 1981. On the notions lexically related and head of a word.
Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245274.
Wischer, Ilse. 2004. Old English prefixed verbs and the question of aspect and
aktionsart. In Anglistentag 2003 Mnchen: Proceedings of the Conference of
the German Association of University Teachers of English 25, ed. Christoph
Bode, Sebastian Domsch & Hans Sauer. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
7184.
Wischer, Ilse & Mechthild Habermann. 2004. Der Gebrauch von Prfixverben zum
Ausdruck von Aspekt/Aktionsart im Altenglischen und Althochdeutschen.
Zeitschrift fr Germanistische Linguistik 32. 262285.
Wiseman, Charles. 1764. A Complete English Grammar on a new plan: For the
use of foreigners. London: Nicol.
Wood, Frederick T. 1956. Verb-adverb combinations: The position of the adverb.
English Language Teaching 10. 1827.
Wright, William Aldis (ed.). 1909. The Authorised Version of the English Bible
1611, vol. 5: The New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wyld, Henry Cecil. 1936. A history of modern colloquial English. 3rd edn. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Yez-Bouza, Nuria. 2006. Prescriptivism and preposition stranding in eighteenthcentury prose. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 6.
<http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/preposition%20stranding.htm>.
Yez-Bouza, Nuria. 2008a. Preposition stranding in the eighteenth century:
Something to talk about. In Grammars, grammarians, and grammar-writing in
eighteenth-century England, ed. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 251278.
Yez-Bouza, Nuria. 2008b. To end or not to end a sentence with a preposition:
An eighteenth-century debate. In Perspectives on prescriptivism, ed. Joan Beal,
Carmen Nocera & Massimo Sturiale. Bern: Lang. 237264.
Index
ad hoc formation 16, 25, 33, 57, 58
Addison, Joseph 242
adposition 75, 77, 82, 8589, 248;
see also adverb, postposition,
preposition, preverb,
serialization
adverb(ial particle) 3, 10, 11, 1314,
21, 26, 3536, 56, 58, 62, 65,
6667, 69, 7579, 8188, 99,
106, 115, 117, 119, 124, 127,
129, 130, 133, 134, 140, 141,
149, 156, 168, 175, 219, 220,
234, 238, 248
adverbial, clause-initial 95, 98, 99,
103
affix 32, 49, 50, 59, 62, 67, 78, 147,
153, 155, 156, 161, 164, 165,
167169, 250, 252
affixation vs compounding 35, 58,
64, 67
affixoid 64
Afrikaans 4749
ahistorical 118119, 250; see also
anachronistic
aktionsart 1617, 19, 176, 180; see
also aspect(ualizer)
allostruction 23, 7173, 248
American English see varieties of
Modern English
American influence see varieties of
Modern English (American
English)
anachronistic 103, 126; see also
ahistorical
analytic(ity) 36, 38, 39, 66, 138, 139,
155, 158, 198, 214, 219
vs synthetic(ity) 3, 39, 118, 139,
158; see also drift
Anglo-Saxon 76, 110, 120, 139, 184,
186; see also English (Old
English)
areal features 81
aspect(ualizer) 1214, 1621, 28,
3841, 46, 58, 63, 65, 146,
150, 165166, 169, 170171,
174184, 188189, 195, 214,
252, 253
attitudes 2, 9, 198, 216, 218219,
221222, 224225, 226, 229,
233, 234, 236, 237240, 247,
250, 251, 253; see also
normative tradition
attrition, phonetic 87, 160161, 163
164, 185, 250; see also
phonotactics
Bayly, Anselm 241242
Behaghels Laws 2425, 85, 95, 99
Bible (translation) 167169, 211,
216217
bleaching 128, 151152, 167, 173,
181
BNC see British National Corpus
boosters 175; see also intensification
borrowing 68, 41, 81, 88, 121, 126,
156, 157, 162, 172, 184, 186
195
of particles 187
of prefixes 130, 153154, 156
158, 160, 164, 187, 195
of verbs compared to other word
classes 188
see also calque, Celtic, contact,
Englishness, French, hard
word, Latin, Latinate
vocabulary in English, loans,
Norse, Romance
BosworthToller 131134, 136, 140,
150
brace (construction) see clausal
brace
Bradley, Henry 23
294
Index
British English see varieties of

Modern English
British National Corpus (BNC) xiv
Brown Corpus 207
calque 8081, 128, 132, 141, 143,
149150; see also borrowing,
loans
CEEC see Corpus of Early English
Correspondence
Celtic 85, 128, 184
clausal brace 47, 97102, 104, 107,
114115
clitic 79, 8384, 95, 102, 161, 166
167; see also Wackernagels
Law
cognitive profiling 253
colligation 76, 129
collocation 55, 76, 141, 182, 207,
222, 230, 243
colloquiality 9, 3132, 4245, 120
122, 125, 126, 187, 197, 205,
214218, 221223, 225, 227
228, 230, 233, 235, 242245,
250252
term 243244
colloquialization 214
colloquialization conspiracy 233,
245, 251
common core of the English lexicon
193, 243244, 252
compositionality 5, 1115, 1820,
2425, 27, 33, 39, 41, 46, 56
59, 65, 70, 81, 122123, 182
183, 212, 229, 241, 253
compound 3, 32, 3536, 5859, 62
64, 6869, 73, 76, 80, 88, 119,
125, 130, 136137, 139141,
156, 161, 198, 220, 234
compound stress see stress
CONCE see Corpus of Nineteenthcentury English
conceptual overlap 192; see also
doubling, pleonasm,
redundancy, superfluity
construction (Construction
Grammar) 2, 8, 58, 60, 63, 69
72, 248
constructionalization 56, 253
contact 5, 48, 8081, 103, 126, 129,
145, 184185, 250, 252; see
also borrowing
convergence 5, 81
conversion 36, 5758, 68
Cook, James 226228
copia 240
corpora 55, 100, 105106, 110, 132,
191, 202213, 228, 252;
see also British National
Corpus, Brown Corpus, Corpus
of Early English
Correspondence, Corpus of
Nineteenth-century English,
Dictionary of Old English
Corpus, Everyday English
(15001700), Helsinki Corpus,
Lampeter Corpus, LondonOslo/Bergen Corpus, Longman
Spoken and Written English
Corpus, Louvain Corpus of
Native English Essays, PennHelsinki Parsed Corpus of
Middle English, York-TorontoHelsinki Parsed Corpus of Old
English Prose
Corpus of Early English
Correspondence (CEEC) 192
193, 208210
Corpus of Nineteenth-century
English (CONCE) 213
correctness 230, 237
cranberry verbs 30
Danish 45, 50, 52
Dargi 79
decategorialization 87, 248
Delbrck, Berthold 8385
derivation 30, 3233, 35, 4950, 58
60, 6367, 73, 130, 158, 160
162, 165, 172, 176, 248, 252
Index
desemantization 159, 161, 164165,
169, 171, 179, 181, 250; see
also semantic weakening
dictionaries
bilingual 225, 242
historical 8, 76, 117, 131144,
183, 199, 249; see also
BosworthToller, Dictionary
of Old English, Oxford English
Dictionary, Middle English
Dictionary
of phrasal verbs 5455
phrasal verbs in pre-19th century
dictionaries 218219, 221, 225,
251; see also Johnson,
lexicographer, lexicography,
normative tradition
Dictionary of Old English (DOE)
131132, 140143, 150152
Dictionary of Old English Corpus
110
directional particle see spatial
particle
discourse tradition 162, 252
DOE see Dictionary of Old English
doubling 167168, 176177, 179;
see also pleonasm
drama 204; see also plays,
Shakespeare
drift 39, 93, 158, 237; see also
analyticity
Dryden, John 202, 222, 226, 230
236, 239241, 245
Dutch 4649, 51, 53, 62, 69, 7476,
92, 96, 105, 147, 165, 173, 182
Early Modern English see English
education (educated and uneducated
speakers) 120122, 198, 214,
217, 222, 226, 229, 244
elaboration 157, 250
English
14th-century 62, 102, 138
15th-century 154156, 192, 194,
202204, 208211
295
16th-century 154, 192, 199, 208

210, 218219
17th-century 7, 9, 154, 197, 198
199, 203, 207, 210, 212, 215,
218219, 226, 230, 235236,
251
18th-century 1, 9, 117, 154, 191,
194, 198207, 210, 215, 218
222, 225, 226, 233, 237, 239
242, 245, 247, 251
19th-century 7, 36, 194, 198
199, 201, 203205, 214215,
217, 218, 233, 235236, 238,
239240, 245246, 251, 253
as a foreign language 1, 20, 54
55, 123, 125, 241242
Early Modern English 7, 103,
121, 123, 138, 153155, 160,
162, 188, 193194, 198, 205
209, 215216, 218, 226, 233,
240, 253
Late Modern English 7, 153154,
188, 214, 253
Middle English 7, 41, 62, 7476,
8889, 100103, 105, 111
115, 119, 121, 124126, 129
130, 131, 135137, 140, 143
144, 146, 150, 152159, 161
164, 172173, 177, 182183,
185, 187188, 194195, 197
198, 215216, 218, 249253;
see also Middle English
Dictionary
Old English 38, 7476, 80, 85,
89115, 119120, 124125,
127137, 139144, 145157,
159164, 168178, 180181,
183, 198, 216, 248250, 253;
see also Anglo-Saxon,
BosworthToller, Dictionary
of Old English
periodization 7
present-day English 2, 5, 7, 8, 75,
79, 90, 99, 101, 103, 113115,
118, 126, 149, 153, 162, 163,
296
Index
182, 186, 191194, 207, 212,

215, 222, 249
Standard English 188, 191, 211,
226, 244
see also varieties of Modern
English
Englishness 56, 123, 126, 214, 242;
see also colloquiality, English
as a foreign language, idiom,
irregularity
Estonian see Finno-Ugric
etymology 67, 9, 40, 64, 79, 82,
118, 122, 137, 143, 148, 150
151, 159, 162, 165, 169170,
174176, 177, 179, 185188,
193, 195196, 209, 229, 250
EvE see Everyday English (1500
1700)
Everyday English (15001700) 210
211, 213, 229
exbraciation 9899, 104, 107, 110,
115; see also clausal brace
exemplar models 253
Faroese 46, 52, 99
Festus 83
figurative use 5, 14, 50, 135, 139,
180, 241
Finnish see Finno-Ugric
Finno-Ugric 39, 8081
foreigner see English as a foreign
language
formality 9, 4245, 120, 126, 153,
187, 191, 197, 198, 202203,
205, 214, 216218, 221, 224,
227230, 237, 243, 245, 250,
252; see also colloquiality,
style
French
influence on English 6, 4041,
119, 124126, 129130, 154,
156, 172, 184, 186188, 192
193, 250, 253
language 82, 242
frequency 79, 85, 9092, 98, 102

102, 161,
of phrasal verbs 1, 44, 63, 118
120, 193, 197201, 203, 205
217, 220, 229, 237, 253
Frisian 4649, 51
fronting 15, 17, 2425, 51, 91, 98
functionalism 2, 49, 90
Funktionsverbgefge 177
fusion 8, 19, 78, 8385, 105, 146,
165, 168, 176, 195
generativism 23, 60, 68, 69, 70, 71,
90, 100
Georgian 51, 7879, 81; see also
Kartvelian
German 64, 7576, 8082, 92, 100,
115, 117, 134, 147, 158, 161
162, 165, 173, 189, 191, 214,
217, 243, 253
Early New High German 161,
214
Middle High German 214
Modern German 74, 166, 177
Old High German 110111, 166,
169, 170
present-day German 34, 4651,
53, 5961, 105, 165
Germanic 38, 40, 4556, 61, 63, 64,
72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 8486, 89
94, 97, 99, 104105, 115, 117,
119, 122123, 125, 136, 145,
147149, 152, 154, 155, 157,
158, 165166, 169, 174, 176,
184189, 192193, 195, 227
231, 242, 247250, 254; see
also native
North Germanic 51, 89, 9193,
98, 157, 184
Proto-Germanic 6, 86, 89, 92,
148, 151, 169, 249; see also
Runic
West Germanic 4, 6, 47, 50, 53,
5556, 74, 88, 9193, 97, 105,
146, 151, 157, 185, 187, 248
Index
297
see also Afrikaans, Danish,

Dutch, English, Faroese,
Frisian, German, Gothic,
Icelandic, Luxembourgeois,
Norse, Norwegian,
Pennsylvania German, Runic,
Scandinavian, Swedish,
Yiddish
Gothic 151, 165171, 175, 177, 250
grammar, normative see normative
tradition
grammaticalization 70, 79, 87, 91
92, 99, 160161, 165, 173,
180182
Greek 39, 78, 82, 84, 86, 157, 168
171
group-verb 3639, 195, 247; see also
multi-word verb
inflectional morphology 32, 50, 60

loss 99, 185
informality see formality
inseparable prefix see prefix
(inseparable)
integration of borrowed items 8, 157,
184, 187, 189, 217, 253
intensification 1718, 150, 169, 177;
see also boosters
interchangeability of prefixes 127,
159, 168, 173174
intransitive preposition see
preposition
inversion 11, 15, 20; see also
fronting
irregularity 1, 221223, 242, 251,
252
Italian 82
hard word 118, 121, 123

Harris, James 221, 223, 237
Harrison, Thomas P. 3, 117, 138
Hawkesworth, John 226228
Helsinki Corpus 207211, 216, 229
Hittite 8283, 8586
homonymic clash 163
Hungarian 80; see also Finno-Ugric
Johnson, Samuel 12, 221226, 238,

240241, 252
Jonson, Ben 234
Icelandic 4546, 5152, 92, 99

ideational 188, 229, 245
idiom 3, 28, 3839, 5456, 216, 221,
223, 227, 236237, 240242,
245, 247, 251
idiomatic (semantic type of phrasal
verb) 2, 1113, 15, 1921, 25,
46, 56, 62, 81, 149, 211, 214,
252253
idioms containing phrasal verbs 25,
72
Indo-European 6, 50, 64, 77, 7879,
8187, 89, 92, 156, 248
Proto-Indo-European 77, 8283,
86, 169
inference 180
Kartvelian 39, 7879; see also

Georgian, Svan
Kennedy, Arthur Garfield 3, 117
125, 128, 133, 134, 143, 197
198, 201202, 215, 249, 250
Lampeter Corpus 186, 205211,
213, 215217
Late Modern English see English
Latin 78, 8284, 86, 176, 219, 221,
235, 241242, 250
borrowed from 6, 41, 130, 154,
157, 186190, 193, 195, 229,
234, 235
grammar 3, 219, 234235, 239
translated from 6, 110111, 114,
128, 132, 141, 149, 169174
see also normative tradition
Latinate vocabulary in English 40
41, 44, 121123, 188, 191,
196, 217, 227231, 237238,
245, 250251
298
Index
Latvian 81
layering 85, 87, 104, 147, 167, 175,
248
letters 192194, 202203, 208, 211,
213, 216217, 229, 243; see
also Paston Letters
lexicographer 1, 45, 134, 219, 221
222, 251; see also dictionaries
lexicography 26, 55, 131, 133, 135,
140, 143, 149, 218, 221, 225,
253; see also dictionaries
lexicalization 6, 12, 19, 25, 28, 30,
36, 3839, 42, 55, 56, 59, 60,
70, 123, 125, 128, 133, 163,
165, 170, 176, 182183
light verb 37
literal use 6
literary language 199200, 226, 230,
238, 244
Livonian 81; see also Finno-Ugric
loans 6, 125, 127128, 149, 153,
157, 162, 171, 183, 185, 187,
189, 198, 217, 234; see also
borrowing, calque
LOB see London-Oslo/Bergen
Corpus
London-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (LOB)
207, 212213, 217
LOCNESS see Louvain Corpus of
Native English Essays
Longman Spoken and Written
English Corpus (LSWE) 211
213
Louvain Corpus of Native English
Essays (LOCNESS) 213
Lowth, Robert 1, 219221, 234, 236,
239, 241
LSWE see Longman Spoken and
Written English Corpus
Luther, Martin 217
Luxembourgeois 46
Mattaire, Michael 1, 219220, 234
metaphor 5, 6, 14, 137, 156, 158,
179180, 182
metonymy 6, 14, 179182

Middle English see English
Middle English Dictionary (MED)
135138, 150
middle style 237, 244, 246
Mige, Guy 219, 239
monosyllabic verbs 7, 40, 122123,
237
monosyllables 223, 237, 251; see
also preposition stranding
morphonological factors 78, 167,
250
motion 5, 15, 40, 114, 179, 188, 229
motion-path 184
multi-word verb 1516, 3639; see
also group-verb
multifactorial analysis 23, 71, 96
Murray, James 243
Murray, Lindley 238
native 8, 88, 119, 120, 123, 129, 132,
145146, 149, 153, 156160,
162, 164, 172173, 181, 184,
186, 187189, 192, 194, 195,
198, 216, 227 , 229, 249251;
see also Germanic, Englishness
nominalisation 24, 3033, 62, 67,
253
Norman Conquest 68, 153, 184,
250
normative (grammar/tradition) 9,
191, 197, 220221, 224, 237,
251, 253; see also prescriptive
tradition, proscription, style
guides
Norse (Old Norse) 103, 124126,
129, 172, 184187; see also
Scandinavian
Norwegian 45, 5051
OED see Oxford English Dictionary
Old English see English
Old High German see German
Old Norse see Norse
Index
opacity
morphological 149
semantic 30, 127, 129
order see serialization
Ormulum 101, 113, 129
OV see serialization
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) 2,
117, 131, 137, 138140, 183,
186, 198200, 204, 208, 210,
242244, 251
palaeographical clues to prosody in
Old High German 110; see
also spelling and
morphological boundaries
particle see adverb, postposition (of
particle), prefix (separable),
preposed particle, preverb,
serialization (of particle and
object), verb-particle
construction
particle shift 103, 112
particle verb, term 34
Paston Letters 113, 191194, 202
203, 209, 213
path (of change) 6, 8, 65, 79, 82, 87
88, 146, 156, 250
semantic 165, 175, 180182, 195
syntactic 104105
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of
Middle English 111
Pennsylvania German 46
perfectivizer 171; see also
aspectualizer
periodization see English
periphrasis 55, 63, 67
periphrastic word formation see
word formation (periphrastic)
persistence 102, 157
perspicuity 232, 236, 238239, 242,
245
Peterborough Chronicle 100101,
112113, 125, 129
phonological constraints on verbparticle combinations 191, 250
299
phonotactics 159160, 162164, 185

phrasal verb
in American English see varieties
in British English see varieties
rise 62, 74, 90, 100, 118119,
121, 125127, 129, 143, 145,
155, 197, 200, 216, 249, 251
term 24
phrasal-prepositional verb 11, 26,
2829, 3738, 195, 206
phraseology 5556, 59, 61, 70, 80,
225, 238, 241242
plain language 238, 242
plays 200201, 238; see also drama
pleonasm 19, 177, 184, 189194,
233, 239240, 251, 253; see
also doubling, redundancy,
superfluity
poetry 114, 147, 217, 234
politeness 237
polysyllabic verbs 7, 237
postposition (adposition) 4, 59, 75,
82, 8588, 100, 248
postposition (of particle) 4, 5, 51, 59,
66, 103, 106, 114, 119, 130,
131, 133, 135143, 198, 239
predicate (complex/composite) 8, 16,
3637, 6465, 77, 182183,
248
prefix
bound 49, 6365, 77, 147, 164
165, 167169, 250
inseparable 6, 5051, 6061, 65,
75, 7778, 81, 104105, 109,
119120, 128130, 132, 134,
138, 143, 146149, 156, 160,
176, 198, 248
inventory 65, 145, 147157, 170,
175
loss of prefixes 8, 87, 120, 127
128, 145, 147, 150, 155164,
177, 180, 195, 198, 249250;
see also attrition (phonetic)
separable 3, 4, 8, 4647, 4950,
53, 6061, 6465, 69, 7577,
300
Index
79, 88, 119, 124125, 129

130, 148
prefix verb see prefix, preverb
prefixoid see affixoid
preposed particle 59, 111, 113, 133,
136139, 141143
preposition 1011, 26, 67, 7576,
8286, 88, 92, 105, 124125,
127, 129130, 140, 149, 163,
195, 213, 219, 220, 242, 248
intransitive 21, 2728, 38, 66,
248
Latin terminology (praepositio)
234235
stranding 29, 105, 128, 233239,
251; see also Dryden,
monosyllables
see also adposition, preverb
prepositional adverb 7576
prepositional passive 29
prepositional phrase 15, 85, 106
prepositional verb 2, 11, 2629, 37
39, 4142, 54, 6263, 6667,
118, 195
present-day English see English
prescriptive tradition 219220, 222,
228, 233, 236237, 253; see
also normative tradition,
proscription, style guides
preverb 6, 8, 35, 39, 48, 5051, 53,
6365, 7589, 104105, 115
116, 143, 145147, 149150,
156, 158, 160, 164169, 171,
175177, 185, 195, 248250;
see also Delbrck, FinnoUgric, Gothic, Greek, Hittite,
Indo-European, Kartvelian,
Latin, Latvian, tmesis,
Tocharian, Wackernagels
Law, Warlpiri
preverbal particle 6, 8, 48, 50, 63
64, 69, 7579, 105, 107109,
111, 113, 115, 119, 134, 143,
149, 156, 160, 164165, 180,
249250
productivity 11, 14, 30, 3536, 41,

5758, 60, 6364, 81, 120,
130, 132, 147, 149, 150, 152
157, 159, 161162, 164, 169,
177, 184, 186187, 190, 193,
200, 212, 214, 253
pronominal object 11, 95, 99, 101,
102, 114, 118, 235
proscription 220, 221, 237; see also
normative (grammar/tradition),
prescriptive tradition, style
guides
prosody 27, 50, 8687, 110, 146,
159, 164, 177, 250; see also
stress
purism 229
quantitative approaches 9, 110, 111,
120, 192, 197198, 200, 202
203, 206207, 211, 213214,
228, 245, 250253
redundancy 17, 128, 190, 192, 227
228, 239240; see also
doubling, pleonasm,
superfluity
register 4344, 102, 126, 153, 187,
197, 212213, 245
Renaissance 200, 230, 237, 240; see
also English (Early Modern
English)
replacement
of phrasal verbs 34, 4041, 43,
59, 122, 202, 227228, 231
of prefix (verb) 8, 127130, 146,
155, 162164, 195, 250
Righthand Head Rule 6869
rise of the phrasal verb see phrasal
verb (rise)
Romance
influence on English 119, 127,
153, 155, 157158, 162, 185
187, 198, 231, 249
languages 82, 84, 176, 183, 184,
189
Index
see also French, Italian, Latin
Runic 9192; see also ProtoGermanic
satellite-framed see motion-path
Scandinavian 6, 4748, 51, 99, 103,
123, 128130, 137, 184185,
187; see also Norse
schematicity 56
semantic types of phrasal verbs 13
20
semantic weakening 127, 161, 175,
177; see also desemantization
sentence brace see clausal brace
separable prefix see prefix, preverb,
tmesis
serialization
and idiomaticity 15, 2425, 81
(basic) word order 56, 4748,
77, 81, 84, 8587, 88
English word order 8, 59, 74, 90
103, 128, 156157, 160, 185,
235, 239, 247, 249
extraposition 91, 104, 108, 114
in subordinate clauses 4748, 76,
9297, 99, 101102, 105106,
108, 111113
multifactorial analysis 23
V-2 4748, 74, 9099, 101104,
107109, 116
V-3 4748, 247
V-F 4748, 74, 9094, 96, 98
99, 101, 106107, 110111,
116
of particle and object 46, 11,
2125, 4754, 7072, 103116
of verb and particle 51, 8889,
103116
OV 6, 47, 56, 8694, 9698,
100104, 249
SVO 48, 90, 99103, 11, 112,
115, 116, 160 247
VO 48, 8694, 96, 101, 103104,
108, 110
see also clausal brace, fronting,
301
inversion, postposition (of

particle), preposed particle
Shakespeare, William 200, 212213,
215217, 222
Slavic 81, 84, 166, 176
small clause 21, 28, 60
spatial adverb/particle/prefix/preverb
5, 7, 11, 18, 65, 79, 137, 149
151, 153, 156, 159, 167170,
174176, 179182, 184, 188
189, 195
spelling and morphological
boundaries
in Afrikaans, Dutch and German
4951, 53
in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts
110111; see also
palaeographical clues to
prosody in Old High German
sprachbund 81
Standard English see English
standardization 243
stereotype (Bolinger) 14
stranded preposition see preposition
stranding
stress 27, 3536, 50, 68, 78, 81, 104,
119, 136, 147149, 156, 162,
185, 190, 191, 244; see also
prosody
structural nativization see varieties
of Modern English
style 7, 10, 37, 40, 4245, 54, 72, 94,
101, 111, 118, 121122, 125
126, 127, 172, 185, 187, 191,
197198, 209, 211, 214215,
217218, 220222, 224, 226
240, 243244, 245246, 247,
250251; see also formality,
colloquiality, middle style
style guides 1, 20, 42, 215, 235,
239240; see also normative
tradition, prescriptive tradition,
proscription
suffix 3133, 50, 67, 69, 100, 157,
160, 212
302
Index
superfluity 190, 240; see also

conceptual overlap, doubling,
redundancy, pleonasm
superlative verbs 192
Svan 7879, 84; see also Kartvelian
SVO see serialization
Swedish 45, 5053, 80, 117
synchrony vs. diachrony
(dichotomy) 2
synonymy with a simple verb 6, 38
41, 43, 118, 121123, 126,
166, 191, 228; see also
replacement of phrasal verbs
synthetic(ity) 3, 39, 63, 64, 118, 139,
158; see also analytic(ity) vs
synthetic(ity), drift
telicity 1718, 175; see also
aspect(ualizer)
text type 119, 197, 205, 207, 209,
211212, 214216
tmesis 49, 7778, 81, 8384, 167;
see also preverb
Tocharian 83, 85
tracts see Lampeter Corpus
transitivity 11, 2021, 23, 2729, 37,
42, 44, 62, 72, 106, 165, 211
212
Turkish 39
Tyndale, William 216217
typology 2, 47, 55, 64, 77, 79, 85
87, 90, 116, 118, 157, 180,
184, 189, 249
univerbation 8485
usage guides see normative tradition,
style guides
V-2 (etc) see serialization

valency 38, 5960, 67, 77, 252
varieties of Modern English
American English 42, 122, 202
205, 207, 213, 238, 240, 253
British English 42, 202205, 213,
240
non-Standard 253
structural nativization 42
variational space 2
variationist approaches 2, 197, 243,
253
Vedic 8283, 85
verb-particle construction, term 34
vernacular 157, 202, 233, 243, 250
VO see serialization
vulgarity 222, 237, 239, 242
Wackernagels Law 78, 84, 166167
Walker, Obadiah 234235
Warlpiri 81
Webster, Noah 117, 221, 225
Wiseman, Charles 219
word formation (periphrastic) 8, 10,
38, 5573; see also affix,
compound, derivation,
nominalisation, periphrasis etc
word order see serialization
Yiddish 46, 48, 53, 92
York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed
Corpus of Old English Prose
109

Phrasal Verbs Tesis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Phrasal Verbs Tesis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Phrasal Verbs

Topics in English Linguistics

Elizabeth Closs Traugott

Doctoral dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg

Berlin and Erlangen, August 2012

Present-day English and other Germanic languages

Phrasal verbs as periphrastic word formations

The development of postposed particles

Writing the history of the phrasal verb

Word formation, sound change and semantics

Preverbs and particles in medieval English

Frequency, style and attitudes

Semantic classification of phrasal verbs

Semantic development of verb-particle

Development of phrasal verbs (Konishi 1958)

Phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs compared

Word order in early West Saxon

Old English verb prefixes and their etymologies

Phrasal verbs in two corpora

Data from the British National Corpus (BNC)

The term phrasal verb

The term phrasal verb

Characteristically, the term is introduced in a chapter on English idioms,

Contrast, comparison, history

consists of a particle (auf, cognate to up) and a verb (geben, cognate to

Alexander gave up playing the cello.

Wenzel says that Eva will open the door.

Old English (CHom II, 1 [012700 (10.256)f.])

Contrast, comparison, history

Old English (LS 5 (InventCrossNap) [53])

and went forth on his way

Old English (LawIne [38])

and if the man dies

constructions may be reasonably assumed to have developed out of such

Old English (CHom I, 10 (G) [260.65])

there the Saviour

who was sitting by the way where the Saviour passed by

Old English (WHom 20.2 [9])

four years before he died

Contrast, comparison, history

Structure of this study

The study is organized as follows. Chapter 2 is devoted to a discussion of

Structure of this study

fixes respectively, and how the characteristic etymological and semantic

Phrasal verbs: some examples

He nearly gave up, not knowing what to do next.BM0_104

I can see why you gave the job up!HYU_264

I thought that I was being stupid, so I gave it up.B0U_368

Eventually he gave it up, stood up and put on his hat.B0U_368

Beneficial insects such as ladybirds, horseflies and lacewings are

If we eat out my favourite meal is oysters and caviar followed by

This other bloke came in and joined im.CKE_1916

Phrasal verbs: some examples

Verb-particle combinations may be highly polysemous; quite commonly,

Present-day English and other Germanic languages

2.2.1. Three semantic types

Figure 2-1. Semantic classification of phrasal verbs

Present-day English and other Germanic languages

Another well-known semantic classification, proposed by Bolinger

Present-day English and other Germanic languages

The problem here is connected to the dubious category multi-word verb

Consequently the use of aktionsart should be seen as a mere shorthand for

Present-day English and other Germanic languages

Quite clearly it is up that is the most central aspectualizer among the