Contrasting English and German: some trends and perspectives

Manuscript University of Muenster, September 2009

F. Panitz

1. General considerations

Although English and German are relatively closely related in typological terms, it has often been noted that both languages follow decidedly different strategies in encoding and distributing information. Verbs are a case-in-point. As already mentioned, where in German we find many prefixed verbs, English employs simple verbs or verbs with postposed particles, as in:

(1)a. blow out the candle - die Kerze ausblasenb. turn off the radio – das Radio ausschaltenc. break the vase – die Vase zerbrechen

Note that while the German prefix can be separated in a and b, the productive component zer- in c is not separable:

(1)a’. Er blies die Kerze aus. ‘He blew out the candle’.b’. Er schaltete das Radio aus. ‘He turned the radio off’.c’. *Er brach die Vase zer-. ‘He broke the vase’.

We also see that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the morphological strategies in both languages. Thus, in c a simple English verb corresponds to a morphologically complex German verb. Also, morphologically complex English particle verbs may find simple verbs as their counterparts in German, as in:

(2) The White Sox beat up on the Rangers [...].(WBBR Sports, 5-9-99)

(3) Die White Sox schlugen die Rangers.

On the one hand, in English there seems to be less specific information packed into the verb itself than in German, as in:

(4)John broke the vase. - Die Vase zerbrach. (-brach → inf. brechen ‘break’)

1

The rope broke. - Das Seil zerriß. (-riß → inf. reißen ‘tear’)The engine broke. - Die Maschine ging kaputt. (literally: ‘went broken’)

On the other hand, due to the large variety of historical origins of the English vocabulary, there are many different words available where this is not the case in German, yielding such doublets as extinguish - blow out, terminate – end (Bolinger 1971: 5-7).

The reasons for the language-specific amount of information encoded in verbs lie at least in part in some general properties of English grammar that contrast with German. These properties affect language-internal information distribution and can roughly be summarised as follows (based on Hawkins 1986: 121 / 1992, Fischer 1997: ch. 5, Kortmann 1999: 126 ff., Kortmann & Mair 1992):

English German

· less word-order freedom · more word-order freedom· finite verb in V2 · verb-final position of finite verb in subclauses· more movement across · less movement across phrase phrase boundaries boundaries· more semantic roles per · less semantic roles per grammatical grammatical function function· less grammatical morphology · more grammatical morphology· no full-fledged case system · full-fledged case-system· more restrictions on use of · less restrictions on use of tenses tenses· aspect grammaticalized by the · no grammaticalized aspect Progressive form

Less word order freedom in E can particularly be exemplified by stronger restrictions on the placement of PP-adjuncts in English compared to their German PP-counterparts as well as corresponding German case-marked NP equivalents (Hawkins 1986: ch. 3.1)1:

(5)a. *To his brother Peter gave for Christmas the book. b. Seinem Bruder gab Peter zu Weihnachten das Buch.

c. *Peter gave for Christmas (to) his brother the book.d. Peter gab zu Weihnachten seinem Bruder das Buch.

1 The examples are taken from Hawkins (1986: 38-39) who says that he has adapted them from Bierwisch (1963: 31; ibid.). Although the English and German sentences in each pair are implicitly regarded as translation equivalents by Hawkins, it is clear that for Christmas is not equivalent to zu Weihnachten, compare e.g. Are you going home for Christmas? with Fährst du über Weihnachten [?zu Weihnachten] nach Hause? (from PONS-Collins).

2

Greater word-order variation in German also shows up in the final placement of finite verbs in German subclauses, whereas in English here the verb-second order (verb behind the subject) is maintained:

(6) Buffy said [(that) she wanted to get drunk that night in the first place].(6’) Buffy sagte, [daß sie sich diesen Abend sowieso betrinken wollte].

Particularly in the government-binding paradigm it has been assumed that in movements from deep (D) to surface (S)-structure verbs move from the final position in subclauses to the verb-second position in German, making the SOV subclause order the basic one (Grewendorf 1988: ch. 10, Haider & Prinzhorn 1986: 2, von Stechow & Sternefeld 1988: 39). Thus we have the following contrast suggesting that there will be less movement in English than in German:

English:(7) that Buffy wanted to get drunk that night in the first place.(7’) Buffy wanted to get drunk that night in the first place.

German:(8)

daß Buffy sich diesen Abend sowieso betrinken wollte. (word order at D-structure)

(8’) Buffy wollte sich an diesem Abend sowieso betrinken. (word order at S-structure)

While there seems to be less movement in English in general, there is more movement across phrase boundaries in English (extraction), which in English, but not in German occurs in environments of non-strictly subcategorised infinitive subclauses, at least according to Hawkins (1986: 91), who claims:

“Extractions out of non-strictly subcategorised infinitival phrases with e.g. um ... zu (‘in order to’ and ohne ... zu (‘without ... ing’) are completely impossible in German, but possible in English [...]”.

This is supposedly exemplified by sentences like the following (1986: 97):

(9) Whatj did hei come [in order PROi to pick up__j ]?

/ *Wasj kam eri, [um PROi abzuholen __ j]?

(10) ?Whatj did hei drive [without PROi observing __j ]? /*Wasj ist eri gefahren, [ohne PROi zu beachten__j]?

PRO represents the empty subject of the subordinate clause (see e.g. Haegeman 1994: ch. 4.2); the wh- element in English can be moved out of the object position of the subordinate infinitive clause. Hawkins concedes that judgements

3

of native English speakers differ with regard to the acceptability particularly with regard to sentences like e’, however (ibid.). The tendency to extract more in English may be attributed to the observation by Berg (2002) that the English sentence structure has become more hierarchical in the course of its history. Thus, the movements could be incorporated in raising configurations without resulting in ambiguities or difficulties in processing the sentences, because of the clear hierarchy inherent in their structure (by contrast to German).

Justice (1987: ch. 9) postulates different (typical) hierarchies for English and German. A typical German sentence is seen as a “nest of boxes”, reflecting extensive bracketing structures in the sense that elements on one level function as brackets for elements on lower levels:

(11)Sie kamen an

mit Verspätungeiner ungewöhnlich großen infolge des Sturmes

plötzlich losgebrochenenin der Nacht vorangegangenen

‘They arrived late because of the storm which suddenly came up last night’

The verb plus its separable particle are in bold types (kamen ... an; inf. ankommen ‘arrive’). While such sentence structures also occur in English, elements typically do not become quite as deeply embedded (examples from Justice):

(12)Reagan conferred with Arafat in the Oval Office yesterday.

or so I heard from a ‘usually reliable source’if you’ll pardon the expression

(13)What for?

did you bring upthat book out of

I didn’t want to be read to

The structures clearly do not look as hierarchical as their German counterparts. We note in the second example that the elements on the same level do not reflect the same degree of cohesion as in the German sentence (except for the phrasal verb bring ... up). Thus compare What ... for or that book ... out of, which are not really cohesive and well-formed (i.e. complete) phrase structures if taken by themselves, with mit ... Verspätung ‘delayed’, einer ... ungewöhnlich großen ‘an exceptionally long’, or infolge des ... Sturmes ‘because of the storm’ which do

4

form cohesive units. The phrasal verbs which function as “brackets” in English are usually effective within local domains by contrast to the German prefixed verbs, which typically embrace the whole sentence.

One may now conclude the following: if German verbs as well as other phrasal elements function as “brackets” for large embedding structures, the VP nodes are processed relatively high in the sentence tree, provided that we have top-down processing as Berg (2002) assumes and Justice entails. One may also claim that different degrees of fusion amongst the prefixes and the stems are more significant to the global sentence structure in G than in the case of English verb stems and particles, where embedding only affects the immediate local syntactic environment.

More semantic roles per grammatical function in E particularly show up in connection with a greater choice of subjects (see e.g. Beedham 1982: 6, Hawkins 1982):

(14) Your dollar buys 1 Euro 10 Cents.(14’) Für ihren Dollar bekommen sie 1 Euro 10 Cents.

This has particularly given rise to the (albeit questionable) claim that English verbs are more elastic and semantically vague, because they occur in more contexts than their German counterparts, as already mentioned. This is in turn connected to the fact that less grammatical morphology in English yields more temporary ambiguities, as can be seen by the so-called “garden-path” sentences (Hawkins 1992):

(15)

is stupid. Changing places

are something I don’t like.

(15’)

Den Wohnort zu wechseln ist blöd. / g’’. Orte, die sich ändern, sind etwas, das ich nicht mag.

(16)

are a pain in the neck. Focus matters

a lot in linguistics.

(16’) Fokus nervt. / l’’. Fokus ist in der Sprachwissenschaft sehr wichtig.

There is more case-syncretism in English and thus no full-fledged case system, as opposed to German (e.g. Welte 1987: 21):

5

(17) Ich verhaute ihn. / I beat him up.(18) Ich gab ihm den Hammer. / I gave him the hammer.

In English, the loss of information by case syncretism contrasts with more specific meanings associated with word order, as e.g. represented by the ‘dative alternation’:

(19) I gave him the hammer. / Ich gab ihm den Hammer.(20) I gave the hammer to him. / *Ich gab den Hammer ihm (/zu ihn).

On the one hand, it seems reasonable to assume that more restrictions on word order in English make word order more significant to meaning in English than in German (because it is rarer, it becomes more significant where it occurs), but on the other hand word order in German becomes a more productive and relevant tool in expressing meaning than in English:

(21)Du selbst kannst denken. ‘You can think for yourself’.Denken kannst du selbst. ‘It is thinking, which you can do for yourself.’Selbst du kannst denken. ‘Even you can think.’

Contrary to the case system, the English tense system is more restrictive and thus appears to be more diversified (see e.g. Vater 1997: 59):

(22) He was (/*has been) in the Party in 1933.(23) Er war 1933 in der Partei / Er ist 1933 in der Partei gewesen.

(24) Tomorrow this time she’ll have passed her test. (future perfect)(25) Morgen hat sie den Test um diese Zeit bestanden. (present perfect: hat ... bestanden)(26) Morgen wird sie den Test um diese Zeit bestanden haben. (future perfect) In example 22 the present perfect is not interchangeable with the simple past, because there is reference to a definite time (in 1933). In German the Präteritum (preterite or “past tense”) and Präsensperfekt (“present” perfect) are interchangeable, however (in o’), notwithstanding often assumed unique pragmatic functions associated with each form.2 In fact, the perfect has become

2 Thus compare e.g. Rauh (1983: 270): “As has been demonstrated again and again the boundaries between semantics and pragmatics are blurred, though the difference between e.g. the Preterite and the Present Perfect or the Future Tense and the Immediate Future can only be positively described on the level of pragmatics. Selecting the one or the other form in many cases only depends on the speaker’s attitude [...].”

Benveniste (1974 / 1971: 266ff.), Declerck (1991: 17), Weinrich (1964: 70), Thieroff (1992), and many more both highlight the functional-pragmatic dimension of tenses (albeit often only implicitly) and its strong connection with semantic (invariable) meanings.

Two groups of tenses are usually distinguished. The first group includes those that are primarily used in narration and which express “past” time reference in the widest (even

6

more common than the preterite in such environments where reference to a definite time is made. In p both the future perfect and the present perfect can be used to refer to the ‘past in the future’, where in English only the future perfect is possible.

This can again be seen in light of the claim that English verbs are semantically more vague (or even ambiguous): the tighter tense system makes up for “lost” (temporal) verb meanings, although the above examples do not really show the German verbs to be more specific in this respect, unless we regard be- in bestanden (inf. bestehen ‘pass’) as an aspectual marker of resultativity.

Finally, we find grammaticalized aspect in form of the progressive in E and no grammaticalized aspect in German (see e.g. Comrie 1976: 8):

(27) When I came into the room the president was writing a letter.(28) Als ich in den Raum trat, schrieb der Präsident (gerade) einen Brief.(29) Als ich in den Raum trat, war der Präsident dabei, einen Brief zu schreiben.

Together with the assumption that English verbs are often semantically more vague and thus syntactically more elastic than German ones, the above phenomena warrant certain generalisations. We can assume that more word-order freedom in German leads to the necessity to make verbs more precise, i.e. to pack more specific information into the verbs. This has given rise to a number of corresponding hypotheses which resemble those introduced earlier. For example, similarly to our “explicitness / complexity hypothesis”, according to what may be called the “explicitness- or vagueness hypothesis” (see e.g. Plank 1984, Hawkins 1986) the semantic content of verb lexemes in English is generally less explicit than in German, once more presenting scenarios like the following as the default case:

(30)a. The house comes with a swimming-pool a’. *Das Haus kommt mit einem Swimming-Pool

metaphoric) sense (Weinrich’s “erzählende” Tempora; Deckerck’s “past time-sphere” tenses). Narrative tenses in German include, for example: Konjunktiv-Präteritum (conditional or past subjunctive: er würde singen ‘ he would sing’), Präteritum (preterite: er sang ‘ he sang / was singing’), and Plusquamperfekt (pluperfect: er hatte gesungen ‘he had sung’). These tenses are characterized by the fact that distance between the speaker’s perspective and the eventualities which are related is expressed (see e.g. Andersson 1989).

Narrative tenses are said to contrast with a second group which are primarily used in argumentation and direct speech due to their “present” time reference or ‘closeness’ with regard to the speaker’s perspective (“besprechende” Tempora according to Weinrich), as e.g. German Präsens (er singt ‘he sings / is singing’) and Präsensperfekt (“present” perfect: er hat gesungen ‘he had sung’).

While the Präteritum (past tense) in German would thus be classified a “narrative” tense, the Präsensperfekt (present perfect) is a tense of “argumentation”. This suggests a difference in terms of speaker’s intention and attitude between the two (in Rauh’s sense above), despite their interchangeability in contexts of definite time reference.

7

a’’. Das Haus hat einen Swimming-Pool, or: Das Haus ist mit einem Swimming-Pool ausgestattet.

b. sit on a chair ‘auf einem Stuhl sitzen’b’. sit for a painter ‘Modell sitzen’b’’. sit for an exam ‘eine Prüfung ablegen (/*absitzen)’b’’’. the car sat in the garage ‘das Auto war (/*sitzt) in der Garage’b’’’’. the parcel is sitting in the hall ‘das Päckchen liegt (/*sitzt) in der Halle’b’’’’’. the food sits heavy on the stomach ‘das Essen liegt (/*sitzt) schwer im Magen’b’’’’’’ the red car sits in the pole position ‘das rote Auto ist / liegt (/*sitzt) an der Spitze’

...

While the verb come in English can carry the meaning ‘be- equipped with’, this is not possible in German. We therefore conclude that English come is semantically less explicit and more vague than G kommen. Similarly sit, which is less explicit with regard to domain-specifics. But note again that at the same time sit encodes certain relatively abstract meanings more consistently throughout different domains (e.g. ‘be- positioned somewhere in a stable way’), thus supporting the “incorporation / consistency hypothesis” introduced earlier. According to Hawkins (1986: 29), less explicitness (in terms of domain-specific meanings) has a direct bearing on the wider range of arguments that English verbs can take, as e.g. be seen by the following examples from Plank (1984: 132):

(31)to close a door / a window / a road / a bridge / a conference eine Tür / ein Fenster / *eine Straße / *eine Brücke /?eine Konferenz schließen.

But, as already mentioned, at least for some cases the notion of greater vagueness of verbs in English cannot be generalized (Burgschmidt & Götz 1974: 235-237; Fischer 1997: ch. 5.1):

(32)krabbeln crawl (child; insects)

scurry, scuttle (insects) (Bugschmidt & Götz, p. 235)

springen jumpleapboundspringvaultsaltatescip... (Burgschmidt & Götz, p. 241)

(sich) erinnern remember (something) = sich erinnernremind (a person of something) = jemanden an etwas erinnern

8

erklären declareexplain

English here is more specific in terms of process specification (crawl, scurry; declare, explain), and it marks intensity (leap, jump; cf. a giant leap / ?jump; a great leap / ?jump forward) as well as result meaning (remember something) by contrast to goal-oriented processes (remind somebody of s.th.).

Besides German verbs that are less specific than their English counterparts, we find German examples that are at least as ambiguous as the beginnings of English garden-path sentences:

(33)a. Grüne wählen (newspaper headline) b. Die Japaner mögen die Koreaner nicht. / Die Koreaner mögen die Japaner nicht.c. Ich habe mich schon sehr lange auf den Besuch Ihrer großen Nation gefreut.

(T.V. series Immer wenn er Pillen nahm, 1969)

Example a could either mean ‘vote Green’ or ‘the Greens cast their ballots’. This is due to ambiguity of both the lexeme wählen and of the grammatical form of the verb, which may either be the third person plural in the present tense, or the imperative. The meaning of both sentences in b is either ‘the Japanese don’t like the Koreans’ or ‘the Japanese are not liked by the Koreans’. Here the German surface case forms remain ambiguous, and word order does not serve to resolve the ambiguity. Example c could either mean ‘I have been looking forward to visiting your country for a long time’ or ‘I have been looking forward to the visit by (representatives of) your country’, the last one applying a metonymic reading to ihrer großen Nation (‘your great country’ for ‘representatives of your great country’). Again, the (surface) case form does not resolve the ambiguity.

It may thus also be doubted whether the explicitness or vagueness hypothesis can be generalised, which has not surprisingly been questioned (“explicitness controversy”, see e.g. the discussion by Kortmann & Meyer 1992: 155). Most notably Rohdenburg (1992) mentions such phenomena as the use ofprepositions, infinitives, and participles, where the English elements should be regarded as being more explicit (i.e. less vague or ambiguous) than their German counterparts, witness the use of um in the following:

(34) das Geheimnis um das Schiff Marie-CelesteIch komme um 5 Uhr. Ich fahre um das Haus herum.

Different expressions have to be used in English in each case:

(35) The mystery surrounding the ship ...I’ll arrive at 5 o’clock.

9

I drove around the house.

Kortmann & Meyer (1992: 159) thus claim that English shows more explicitness regarding optional elements, such as prepositional adjuncts or attributes of noun phrases, while German tends to be more explicit with regard to verbs. More explicit verb meanings mean greater restrictions on the semantic roles of the arguments (“restrictiveness hypothesis”; ibid.).

One should finally mention the performance hypothesis by Hawkins (1992), according to which greater explicitness of German verbs can be explained at least in part by their final positioning in the basic SOV structure, which shows up on the surface in subclauses:

(36)..., daß Karl den Saal verließ

This contrasts with SVO in the same context in English:

(37)Carl left the hall. / ... (that) Carl left the hall.

If we take the SOV structure in German as basic, by contrast to SVO in English, we may conclude that in German there seems to be a greater need to resolve remaining ambiguities in the final position (in which verbs appear in the “basic” word order). Since verbs occur in this position more often in German than in English, the burden of resolving the ambiguities and vagueness is carried by the verbs in these cases. This can be taken to account for the restrictions on their uses in German, e.g. in:

(38)daß der Wohnwagen drei Leute *schläft (the verb would be too vague) / daß der Wohnwagen drei Leute aufnehmen kann (verb + modal verb specific enough to resolve ambiguities and remaining vagueness).

What the whole discussion amounts to is a controversy on how semantic and syntactic information is distributed amongst the linguistic elements of a sentence. It will thus be one major goal of any contrastive studies of the English and German lexicon to investigate to what extent structure-driven patterns of information distribution will actually have an impact on the structure of lexical fields, or, more specifically, it will have to be asked whether generalisations concerning the information contents of verbs in terms of more or less “explicitness” will be borne out at all.

10

2. Lexical Contrasts

On the inter-language level (relations between two languages) we find more or less direct translations of expressions, but the range of meanings associated with the sign and its translations will in most cases not be identical (different “values” according to de Saussure), as in the following (cp. Coseriu 1969: 108-109, Geckeler 1971: 102):

French: louer / English: rent

German: mieten German: vermieten

French louer or English rent can either correspond to German mieten (‘rent s.b.’s apartment’) or vermieten (‘rent to s.b.’). The German words have different values, because their range of meanings is delimited within the system of signs in a different way, and their invariant meanings differ compared to the French and English counterparts. By contrast to mieten, vermieten has an inseparable prefix.

Although English and German are relatively closely related in typological terms, they are said to follow different strategies concerning how information content is distributed over the lexicon (see e.g. Kortmann & Meyer 1992). In particular, a number of common English verbs (both result and simple process verbs) correspond to more than one German verb, and it seems tempting to regard the pattern “one English verb corresponding to several German verbs” as a default case with English verbs “neutralising” German meaning differences (cp. e.g. Plank 1984). For example, we have verbs like put with its translations setzen, stellen, legen. Similarly:

(39)Engl. German

set legen (‘set the stones on top of each other’) vereinbaren / festlegen (‘set a date’) einstellen (‘set the clock’), etc.

run laufen / rennen (‘run a mile’) leiten / führen (‘run a business / factory’), ...

introduce vorstellen (a person) einführen (methods, devices) einsetzen (new means of transport, devices), amongst others.

Notwithstanding that relatively common English verbs tend to neutralise German contrasts, sometimes more specific English verbs are available in the vicinities of the neutralising elements, as in the case of put:

11

(40)set, lay, place, put setzen, stellen, legen

This can be summarised as:

The neutralisation hypothesis:

(a) Common English verbs tend to neutralise contrasts expressed by different German verbs.(b) This does not exclude the existence of more specific English verbs besides the

neutralising element in the same context.

As (b) already suggests, counter-examples to the pattern “one English verb, several German verbs” may be likely, at least under certain conditions, witness e.g. G erklären with its E translations declare and explain, or:

(41)German English

laufen turn out (in: Es läuft nicht gut ‘Things don’t turn out well’) work (in: Diese Uhr / Maschine läuft nicht ‘This clock / machine doesn’t

work’)run (in: Er läuft eine Meile ‘He’s running a mile’) walk/go (in: Ich laufe eben zum Eckladen ‘I’ll just walk/go to the corner-

store’)(...)

It would not be feasible to regard these as “less common” verbs than e.g. introduce mentioned earlier, thus relegating the pattern “several E verbs, one G verb” to the realm of “exceptional” cases. The relation of such patterns to the “neutralisation hypothesis”, should it hold as a universal principle at all, needs careful examination. In the above example at least different types of process specification are made more explicit in English than in German (run, walk, go as opposed to work), but we have similar process distinctions in German as well: (42)Diese Maschine arbeitet nicht. ‘this machine isn’t operating’Diese Maschine läuft nicht. ‘this machine doesn’t work’Diese Uhr *arbeitet / läuft nicht. ‘this clock doesn’t work’

Perhaps more importantly, the idiomatic things don’t turn out well as translation of es läuft nicht gut marks a situation as a result event where in German we refer to a process (läuft nicht gut, literally ‘doesn’t walk well’). Considering the other translations of laufen (run, work, ...), which are process verbs, English is thus more explicit in distinguishing between different process and result conceptualisations linguistically here.

12

Where there is only one verb yielding several translations, the language with the single verb is semantically more vague, and concerning the verb’s potential contextual uses more “elastic” than the translations. Hawkins (1986: 28) claims that at least with regard to grammatical relations German speakers are forced to make semantic distinctions where English speakers are not. For example, English verbs more freely occur with different semantic roles of their arguments, as in The engine broke, My guitar broke a string, I broke the vase. In German different verbs, entirely different sentence structures or at least prefixed variants will have to be used in each case to be able to have the same range of semantic roles of the subject, cf. Die Maschine ging kaputt, An meiner Gitarre zersprang eine Saite, Ich ließ die Vase fallen. German thus tends to exhibit a closer matching between meaning differences and differences in surface form, at least in these examples. Extending this notion to the structure of the lexicon we could again say that in English a single verb is likely to be used in contexts where in German we would have to choose different verbs3 and German is more “explicit” or even “precise” in encoding lexical meaning (see e.g. Plank 1984: 325). One may suspect that in “complex” cognitive environments (cp. Rohdenburg 1999) different meanings tend to be made more explicit by choosing different verbs in German:

The explicitness hypothesis / complexity hypothesis:

In complex cognitive environments differences in meaning are made more explicit in German.

However, the language with a single verb in more contexts encodes certain combinations of general core meanings more clearly and consistently by single lexical items, since these combinations which are “invariably” associated with a single verb occur in more contexts and very likely in more domains. The different contexts where a verb can be used then seem to have a specific combination of clearly defined abstract meanings in common. One would therefore regard English as being more consistent and precise in expressing certain combinations of meanings by single lexical items (see e.g. Fischer 1999: 240) even throughout different semantic domains, which brings us to:

The incorporation hypothesis / consistency hypothesis:

English verbs tend to incorporate abstract meanings. They tend to express combinations of general meanings in a more consistent way throughout more domains than German verbs.

Another fact to be considered is language-specific textual interpretation associated with verbs and their meanings. For example, the question of total or

3 Provided that encoding strategies in the lexicon and grammar run parallel which may be doubted; see below.

13

partial synonymy of translations arises where different translations of a single E verb alternate within short text units:

(43)[...] much heavier rolling-stock was introduced on the Anglo-Scottish expresses over the East Coast route. The Great Northern Railway had already introduced the ‘Atlantic’ type of engine in 1898 but the first North Eastern move towards larger engines than the 4-4-0 lay in the 4-6-0 type, introduced by Wilson Worsdell in 1899, [...].(O.S. Nock: Railways at the Turn of the Century, p. 174; my italics and bold types)

[...] entlang der Ostküste [wurde] wesentlich schwereres Rollmaterial eingeführt. Die Great Northern Railway hatte schon 1898 Lokomotiven der “Atlantic“-Bauart eingesetzt [...] aber als erste ging die North Eastern zu grösseren Maschinen als die 2B, nämlich zur 2C über. Sie wurde von Wilson Worsdell im Jahr 1899 eingeführt [...]. (O.S. Nock: Eisenbahnen um die Jahrhundertwende, p. 198; my italics and bold types).

Here we wonder whether the different translations are just stylistically motivated (avoidance of repetition) or whether they point to actual differences in meaning. In a Saussurian framework in the sense above the latter would be answered in the affirmative. Indeed, in this example the English verb introduce is connected with at least three context-dependent meanings to which each German verb relates in a specific way:

(44)introduce(a) ‘use (from a certain time on), operate’

much heavier rolling-stock was introduced (b) ‘acquire (for the Great Northern Railway)’

The ‘Great Northern Railway had already introduced the ‘Atlantic’ type of engine in 1989

(c) ‘invent / design / construct / built’ the 4-6-0 type, introduced by Wilson Worsdell in 1899

The meanings are connected by the fact that the actual use of rolling stock is presented as the result of acquisition, construction, or invention. This constitutes the invariant meaning of the term introduce. The two German verbs relate to the context-dependent meanings (a) – (c) above in a sense that at least in this context einsetzen seems closer to ‘use, operate’ and einführen to ‘acquire’ or ‘invent / design’. The following illustrate this tendency:

(45)neue Züge während der Ausstellung einsetzen / *einführen ‘use / operate new trains during the trade fair’neue Züge von der Ausstellung an einsetzen / *einführenIf meant as: ‘start operating new trains from the trade fair on’.neue Züge mit der Vertragsunterzeichnung einführen (/?einsetzen) If meant as: ‘acquire new trains with the signing of the contract’.

14

neue Züge nach der Vertragsunterzeichnung einsetzen (/*einführen)‘operate new trains after the signing of the contract’ This provides us with a seemingly neat picture (einsetzen in ‘operate’ contexts, einführen for ‘acquire’), but in the potential ‘acquire’ context The ‘Great Northern Railway had already introduced ... actually einsetzen is used as a translation, which renders more unambiguously an ‘operate / use’ reading in German than in connection with English introduce. We therefore highlight more the aspect of actually operating the new rolling stock in German. This suggests that the English contextual meanings become at least re-interpreted, if not completely disambiguated in a way not necessarily warranted by the original version in using either one of the German verbs available. It leads us to:

The contextual re-interpretation hypothesis:

Different possible German translations of English verbs induce different re-interpretations of context-dependent meanings.

The now following facts serve as a basis for a further working hypothesis. Here the data shows that English and German follow different strategies in encoding ‘result’ meaning, and they suggest that English is more consistent in expressing the difference between ‘process’ and ‘result’ reference by oppositions of simple verb lexemes:

(1) Particularly German result verbs are often prefixed variants of simple verbs (Eichinger 2000), for example in die Vase zerbrechen (break the vase); umfallen (fall); umbringen (‘kill’). The contrast between result and process meanings is thus expressed by prefixing and not in simple-verb paradigms, as in aufessen (‘eat up’: signifying a result) and essen (‘eat’: specifying a process without commitment to a result). As already indicated, this is similar to the English strategy in eat (process reference) vs. eat up (result reference), but in English we also find particularly many partial simple-verb synonyms that differ in terms of result vs. process meaning (Tobin 1993), as in advance peace (result reference) vs. promote peace (goal-oriented process); succeed somebody (resultant situation) vs. follow somebody (goal-oriented process); break the vase (focus on a result) vs. smash/shatter the vase (process specification); make coffee (yielding a result) vs. do the coffee (reference to the process involved). These differences are not necessarily expressed by simple verb oppositions in German. Instead, German does not encode these oppositions in the lexicon at all (Kaffee machen)4, or it involves prefixing patterns and other morphological

4 Gisa Rauh pointed out to me that, arguably, specific process verbs are available in German here, as in Ich koche mal schnell den Kaffee (‘I’ll do the coffee in a moment’) where kochen (literally: ‘cook’) contrasts with machen ‘make’ in Ich mache mal schnell den Kaffee ‘I’ll make the coffee in a moment’. We have to consider, however, that the German contrast is not expressed by an opposition in terms of such general verbs as English do vs. make. The German distinction thus does not appear to be a systematic across-the-board distinction like

15

strategies on a relatively inconsistent basis, thus compare: die Vase zerschmettern / zerschlagen / zerhauen / umschmeißen / kaputt machen / fallen lassen which all involve process or cause specification regardless of the morphological encoding strategies, or den Frieden fördern / voranbringen / ein Stück voranbringen; jemanden folgen / nachfolgen which express result meaning, but again show no clear morphological strategy in both involving periphrastic constructions and prefixing. It may be questioned whether similar clear-cut “minimal” word pairs as in English can be identified in German here.

(2) Prefixed and non-prefixed variants of verbs in German do not necessarily form oppositions in terms of ‘process’ and ‘result’, as in the case of umbringen ‘kill’ vs. bringen ‘bring’.

(3) Possibly even more so than English postposed particles, many alleged German ‘result’ prefixes are not even consistent in expressing result meaning (Plank 1981), thus we have: Holz zerhacken (chop wood) (reference to a process); ein Bein brechen / *zerbrechen / *abbrechen (break a leg) (result implied, but no prefix in G).

(4) English is more consistent in encoding result as opposed to process meaning by closed class elements and grammatical forms (Comrie 1976), as e.g. in: John was writing a letter (on-going process) vs. John wrote a letter (existence of the completed letter as a result); I went to New York in 1983 (no commitment to a result such as current relevance at the speech time) vs. I have been to New York before (current relevance as a resultant state). This indicates that English is more consistent in expressing the contrast between a commitment to a result and indifference with regard to potential results in general, yielding:

The Result Hypothesis:

Simple verbs in English are more systematic in expressing result conceptualisations (and possibly other similarly abstract conceptualisations) than German ones. Differences between quasi-synonyms are likely to be differences in terms of process and result reference in English.

the English make - do contrast, particularly since den Kaffee kochen (lit.: ‘cook the coffee’) may be interpreted as a metonymic ‘result’ expression in the sense of HEATING UP THE COFFEE IS MAKING IT. This would be a clear ‘result’ reading, thus blurring the alleged contrast between machen (‘result’) and kochen (‘process’).

16

3. The role of ‘result’ and goal-orientation in English and German

As indicated above, many differences between English and German are even more subtle than the ones already discussed. Hence they are more difficult to analyse. For example, differences in verb meaning as in the following example can be revealed by considering the textual context only:

(46)[A female police investigator talking to the head of a youth hostel, who is alleged to tolerate drug deals and happens to be her lover:] “[...] On July the ninth, a call was made [...] to your hostel [...] it wasn’t to the payphone you’ve got in the hallway, the one that people use to do their drug deals.”“They don’t use that phone to make drug deals,” Will said, “I think you’ll find that dealers prefer their own mobile phones.”(French, Nicci: The Red Room, p. 292) Here make drug deals and do drug deals appear to be synonymous at first sight. Following Fowler (1965: 136-137) we will most likely explain the above alternation by giving stylistic explanations (avoiding repetition, choice of informal register etc.). Persson (1989) would call the two expressions “synonyms” if they could be replaced without changing the meaning of the expressions, and “variants” if they yielded a difference in meaning. Duffley (1999), Swan (1995: 162-163), and Tobin (1993) will probably claim that they are “variants” in the above sense (or only partial synonyms), because replacing them would yield at least a slightly different meaning, and indeed there is a decisive difference concerning the environments they occur in. While the payphone ... people use to do their drug deals represents a general statement regarding the situation in the hostel, with the sole intention of the speaker to identify a specific telephone, They don’t use that phone to make drug deals occurs as part of a defense strategy: the head of the hostel takes it for granted that the investigator assumes that drug deals are actually carried out and hence completed via one of his payphones. No such commitment to ‘result’ meaning is made in connection with do drug deals. We see that the meanings of the signs here interact with their pragmatic functions regarding speech acts (see e.g. Thomson & Martinet 1986). Given the fact that there are differences in meaning which influence the most likely pragmatic functions, one may now ask whether there are expressions in German that point to exactly the same difference:

(47)A.: „... das Telefon, an dem die Leute ihre Drogendeals machen / abschließen / tätigen /

abwickeln.“ B.: „Sie schließen / wickeln an diesem Telefon keine Drogendeals ab ...“

„Sie tätigen / machen and diesem Telefon keine Drogendeals ...“

17

It is questionable whether the German verbs involved here reflect exactly the same difference in meaning as make and do in the English textual environment. In connection with prepositions there are indications that E makes result reference more explicit than German. For example, we have a tendency to express path-goal/result schemata where this would not necessarily be the case in German:

(48)a. The Yanks take a loss to the Minnesota Twins. (WBBR ’On the Weekend’, 4-8-00)b. Die Yanks verloren gegen die Minnesota Twins.

*zu den

While English conceptualises the event of loosing as a figurative movement with a subsequent resultant state (‘the loss is at the Twins since the Yanks took it there’), German makes reference to force dynamics by using gegen ‘against’. English may also conceptualise an eventuality as such figurative movement where reference in German remains purely stative:

(49)a. [We want] honesty to the White House. (George W. Bush on WBBR, 4-8-00)b. Wir wollen Ehrlichkeit im Weißen Haus (/?in das Weiße Haus).

(50)a. the president to S.’s hospital. (WBBR hospital commercial, 13-8-00)b. der Präsident des S.-Krankenhauses (/*zum S. Krankenhaus).

The a-examples conceptualise a path-goal schema, while the German b-examples are stative and non-directional.

A strong tendency to present goal-focused and result-focused conceptualisations as ‘direction’ comes to the surface in all of the English examples. Similarly:

(51)a. Be first to the market-place while your ideas are still hot. (WBBR commercial 11-8-00)b. Seien Sie der erste am (/*zum) Markt solange Ihre Ideen heiß sind.c. We understand you’re in [/*to] the market for a new car.

(Mitsubishi-commercial WBBR 11-8-00)d. Wenn wir richtig verstehen, schauen Sie sich am Markt wegen eines neuen Autos um.

English here makes use of a path-goal schema in a (by to) or c (by for: directional orientation), where in German again only pure state reference occurs without directional components:

18

(52)a. be first to the market place b. you’re in the market for a new car

tr ‘market place’ ‘m.place’‘new car’

‘to’ ‘in’ ‘for’c. am Markt (wegen)

‘Markt’wegen: signifying reason for this arrangement

‘am’

Closely connected with this one observes the tendency in English to express focus, integrality (“togetherness”), and perspectives where this is not necessary in German:

(53)a. Twenty seconds is plenty of time to a thief. (AFN public-service announcement 1999)

(‘time’ and ‘thief’ seen from the outside)

b. Twenty seconds is plenty of time for a thief.(focus is on the thief: ‘plenty of time’ characterises the thief as beneficiary)

c. 20 Sekunden sind viel Zeit für einen / *zu einem Dieb. In example a we refer to the fact that 20 seconds are a lot of time in objective terms. The situation of possible burglary is presented as an integrated whole, of which the 20 seconds are an integral part. In b, by contrast, ‘plenty of time’ constitutes the amount time which the thief will find at his disposal as seen from his perspective. The focus is therefore on the thief who is characterised as beneficiary, and his view of the situation is highlighted. In the original public-service announcement, version a was probably chosen because it sounds more objective. German does not encode this difference systematically here5, thus note the awkwardness of example a below:

(54)a. 20 Sekunden sind viel Zeit ?im Hinblick auf einen Dieb.

(situation seen from perspective of the speaker, i.e. from the outside)b. 20 Sekunden sind viel Zeit für einen Dieb.

(focus on the thief’s point of view)

5 In other contexts, the difference is maintained in German, however, as in:a. new approaches to the prevention of cancer (WBBR news, Dec. 02) a’. neue Ansätze zur / der / in der Krebsvorbeugung (generic characterisation of the approaches)b. new approaches for the prevention of cancerb’. neue Ansätze für die Krebsvorbeugung (signifying the purpose of the approaches)

19

We can thus interpret to as expressing “togetherness” in the sense that a situation is seen holistically, while for highlights one perspective or component part of that situation. This concerns prepositions, not verbs. It becomes relevant here, because a particular close affinity between the relational conceptualisations of prepositions and verbs can be found in English, as examples like the following show:

(55)You have to up the chances and up the excitement. (Conan O’Brian Show 28-8-99)

The prepositional element takes over entirely the function of a verb in expressing a relation between agent and affected object. Should there be a tendency for result conceptualisations to be expressed more explicitly in English than in German by using prepositions, it thus seems feasible ask whether this should not be the case in connection with verbs as well. Indeed, many verbs in English systematically distinguish between ‘process’ and ‘result’ reference and quasi-synonyms often form contrasts in this respect (examples from Tobin 1993):

(56)a. This is how it ended. (reference to process leading to a result)a’. ?This is how it finished.

b. the beginning of the end (‘end’ as process with duration)b’.the beginning of the *finish

c. He finished off first. (reference to the result)c’. *He ended off first. (reference to a process)

In a (This is how it ended) we refer to a process and its specifications, i.e. to the process that led to the eventual termination of something, for example, a relationship. Ended is adequate to express semantic focus on the process phase, while finished seems infelicious. The same is shown by the derived nominalizations in b (the beginning and the end): only end may express focus on the process here, of which we particularly highlight the beginning, not finish. By contrast, in c (He finished off first) we concentrate on the fact that somebody was the winner of a race (as a result). Focus is thus on the result and finish becomes adequate.

Also, note those cases where result orientation is marked by the verb lexeme itself, whereas in German we need additional prepositional adjuncts or complex predicate complements involving particles, as in:

(57)They made it an all-talk station.Sie machten aus ihr eine Talk-Radiostation. (aus: literally ‘out of’)Sie wandelten sie in eine Talk-Radiostation um. (literally: ‘transfer / change ... into’)

20

Again, the expression of the result conceptualisation involved seems to be more part of the verb lexeme itself in English than in German.

Result schemata in the sense of cognitive linguistics are largely presented as being motivated by the following metaphor: REACHING A (RESULT) STATE IS ARRIVING AT A LOCATION (see e.g. Radden 1995: 23). Both English and German incorporate deictic meanings in such conceptualisations, as conveyed by come in the following (examples are from Radden 1995, G translations are mine6):

(58)a. All good things come to an end.a’. Alle guten Dingen kommen einmal zum Ende.

b. The postwar period is coming to a close.b’. Die Nachkriegszeit kommt nun zu ihrem Ende.

There are many cases where English encodes meaning in deictic terms where this is not the case in German (again, Radden’s examples, translations are mine):

c. Thatcher’s postwar era had come to nought. c’. Die Thatcher-Nachkriegsära hat sich in nichts verflüchtigt.

d. She had come to realise that he couldn’t be trustet.d’. Sie begann (/*kam dahin) einzusehen, daß sie ihm nicht trauen konnte.

e. Postwar European order is coming apart.e’. Die europäische Nachkriegsordnung fällt (/*kommt) auseinander.

While English uses the goal location as deictic perspective in all of these examples, in German other perspectives are conveyed, and additional points serve as “ground” against which the conceptualised movement is measured: in c’ in nichts verflüchtigt ‘dissolved into nothing’ we view the event from the source perspective (movement: in ‘into something’ as seen from the outside), in begann einzusehen ‘started to realise’ the event is presented as inchoative, i.e. relative to the temporal source location which serves as ground, and in e’ fällt ... auseinander ‘fell apart’ the source is again the ground (aus, literally ‘out of’). Here auseinanderfallen functions as a single verb and grounding is conveyed by prefixes (“satellites” in the sense of Talmy 1985). In English deictic perspective is expressed consistently by come in the above examples, while German is more

6 Radden (p. 33) also points out that this clearly has to be seen as a typological universal by which we classify languages. Thus, Russian uses reflexives “anti-causative” constructions in such contexts, where ‘the lecture comes to an end’ would be translated as ‘the lecture ends itself’ (lekcija končajetsja) and thus contrasts with both English and German. Radden (ibid.) calls the deictic meanings inherent in verbs like come and go “focus”, however (by contrast to strictly speaker-oriented “deixis”), a view to which I do not subscribe, see 3.3.4 for details.

21

consistent in marking the source as ground by various means, most notably satellites (separable or inseparable prefixes). Moreover, where German does use deictic kommen ‘come’, English tends to use more specific verbs:

(59)a. Sein Auftritt kam gut an. (resultant impression)a’. His performance was greatly appreciated.

b. Das kommt darauf an ob ... (reference to a process of deliberation)b’. It depends on whether ...

c. Das kommt dabei raus! (result seen with regard to a process)c’. This is what this leads to! In these examples English makes more specific reference to the nature of the process that leads to the result in b’ and c’, while in a’ more specific reference is made to the nature of the result itself. We thus arrive at the following preliminary assumption: verbs in German are more precise in the sense that they impose greater restrictions on the semantic types of arguments they take (and arguably show more specific meaning content), while English verbs express certain types of abstract conceptualisations such as deictic perspective in a more systematic way. Particularly in ‘result’ contexts at least some English verbs tend to be more specific by the semantic content incorporated in the lexeme. We may generalise this as the “result hypothesis” already mentioned. The three concepts focus, deictic perspective / viewpoint, and temporal grounding introduced above will clearly have to be kept apart. Consider, for example:

(60)a. You can bring a friend (to my party).a’. *Du kannst einen Freund bringen.a’’. Du kannst einen Freund mitbringen.

The German prefix mit- expresses path grounding, i.e. it connects the figure involved with the movement along the path. In English grounding does not show up directly, but the optional PP contains to, which presents the figure with regard to the goal location (see our earlier analyses). This means that the goal serves as ground here. Note that we may find the same PP with bring and take. Both therefore have to be considered cases of goal grounding with the potential grounding properties incorporated in the verb. While the deictic perspective associated with bring is the goal location, take has the source location as its deictic viewpoint, however. This shows us that the expression of deictic viewpoint or perspective is not the same as temporal grounding and that we have to keep these notions apart. The other important concept is semantic focus. Thus, we may say that in English verbs like kill or slaughter place the focus on

22

the process phase. This shows up in collocations like That’s killing me! which clearly signify the process phase. If we compare kill to the German verb töten, we notice that such collocational uses are not possible, hence: *Das tötet mich. We may therefore conclude that E kill focuses on the process, while G töten may only focus on the result.

4. A closer look at the lexicon and morphology

4.1 General considerations

Theoretically there are three possible inter-language relations amongst lexical items: (a) one English expression corresponds to exactly one German expression - a case of complete English-German equivalence. (b) One English expression corresponds to several German expressions. In these cases we have English - German divergence. (c) As a third possibility, several English expressions correspond to one German expression, which marks a case of English - German convergence (see e.g. Hüllen 1971: 3 ff.). We can assume that complete E-G equivalence on the inter-language level is probably as hard to find as complete synonymy on the intra-language level.

4.2 English-German divergence

4.2.1 Typical patterns as reflected in dictionaries

In bi-lingual dictionaries typically E-G divergence patterns like the following can be found, and these occur particularly in connection with result verbs (based on PONS-Collins):

(61)

E: produce German: herstellen, erzeugen

produce crops die Ernte abwerfenproduce coal Kohle fördern produce a book ein Buch schreiben produce a sculpture eine Skulptur anfertigen produce one’s masterpiece sein Meisterwerk hervorbringen produce a pistol eine Pistole ziehen produce one’s wallet seine Brieftasche hervorholen produce a play ein Bühnenstück inszenieren produce bitterness Bitterkeit hervorrufen

Similarly:

23

E: shift G: bewegen

shift the nail, the screw den Nagel, die Schraube loskriegen shift the cork den Korken rauskriegen shift furniture Möbel verrücken shift one’s arm den Arm wegnehmen shift one’s office das Büro verlagern shift boulder, rubble Müll, Schutt wegräumen shift the scenery Kulissen schieben shift one’s ground seinen Standpunkt ändern shift someone from an opinion jemanden von einer Meinungabbringenshift one’s weight from foot to foot sein Gewicht von einem Fuß zum anderen verlagern shift the blame onto somebody else die Schuld auf einen anderen schieben

One simple English verb corresponds to several German verbs here. The German “equivalents” do not unify the same fields as the English item. Many of the German verbs are prefixed. This once more shows how this strategy is much more common in German than in English. As already suspected in chapter 1, we will therefore have to discuss to which extent different morphological strategies have a bearing on the language-specific structure of word fields and how these differences are reflected in inter-language divergence and convergence patterns.

4.2.2 German prefixes and English particles

4.2.2.1 German prefixes as Aktionsart-markers

Arguably, the prefixes make the German verbs more specific. This can be supported by the fact that the choice of prefixes is not random. Rather, it represents a systematic selection, as in the above examples, where we find:

(62)hervor- ‘source grounding’; ‘out of’; ‘goal deixis’ los- ‘source grounding’; ‘away from’raus- ‘source grounding’; ‘out of’weg- ‘source grounding’, ‘away from’ab- ‘source grounding’, ‘away from (a path)’ ver- ‘result meaning’, (here:) ‘source grounding’, ‘focus on the object and its distribution’

The concepts expressed are primarily spatial concepts that become metaphorized, as in hervorbringen ‘produce’, literally ‘bring forth’. Brinton (1988:203) observes a historical change from purely spatial meanings in the Old-Germanic languages to “aspectual”, or rather ‘Aktionsart-’ meanings in modern Germanic languages. She uses Old English as an example, where the Germanic spatial meanings were still apparent, while in Modern German the meanings associated with prefixes are said to be predominantly aspectual (ibid.):

24

(63)OE prefix Meaning Gothic cognate Modern German cognate

a- ‘away, out’ us-, uz-, ur- er-be-, bī- ‘about, around’ bi- be-, bei-for- ‘forth, away’ fra, fair, faur- ver-full- ‘full’ fulla- voll-ge- ‘together’ ga- ge-of- ‘off, away’ af- ab-tō- ‘apart, away’ dis- zer-þurh- ‘through’ þairh durch-forð- ‘towards’ fort-ofer- ‘over’ ufar- über-up- ‘up, away’ iup- auf-ūt ‘out, away’ ut- aus-ymb- ‘around’ um-

This also shows that German prefixes are historically connected to meanings which involve spatial grounding which is the orientation of an event with regard to a point in time, typically the source or the goal of the event. Eichinger (1989, 2000) claims that Aktionsart-meanings (i.e. event types), aspect (in the sense of temporal perspectivization) and spatial meanings are expressed by Modern German prefixes. He gives a taxonomy along the following lines:

Meanings of Prefixes:

1. object focus: be-, ent-, as in: beenden ‘end’, entleeren ‘empty’, entbinden (von) ‘free s.b. / s.th. from’, entzücken ‘delight someone’2. aspectual orientation: er, ver-, zer-, as in: erreichen ‘reach’, verletzen ‘hurt’, zerlegen ‘put apart’3. negation: miss-, as in: missverstehen ‘misinterpret’, missbrauchen ‘misuse’

Eichinger (2000: 230) sets these inseparable prefixes apart from separable prefixes, which he calls “particles” (the list is slightly adapted, E translations are mine):

(64)particle topological dimensional aspectual

ein einsitzen (be imprisoned)eintauchen (dive)

(indulge in)einsteigen (step on, enter) einschlafen (fall asleep)einpacken (pack)

aus aussteigen (leave) ausfüllen (fill out)auspacken (unpack) ausleeren (empty)

25

auf aufliegen (sit, lie on) auffliegen (be caught)aufblühen (blossom)auftreten (occur) aufheben (pick up) aufschreien (cry out)auflegen (hang up)

ab (abliegen) absinken (sink) abfahren (leave)abreisen (leave) abstellen (put) abklingen (peter out)abladen (unload)

vor vorstehen (head) vorrücken (advance) vorarbeiten (work in) vortreten (step forward) vorschieben (shift)

nach nachlaufen (run after) nacharbeiten (make up)

zu zuordnen (allot)

bei beistehen (stand by (s.o.’s side))beilegen (enclose)

an anbinden (tie, connect) anfahren (start (the engine))

Similarly to the prefixes, the “particles” may encode spatial meaning (aussteigen – Er stieg aus; nachlaufen – Er läuft ihr nach etc.). They also express Aktionsart (einschlafen – Er schief ein; aufblühen – Die Blume blüht auf; ausfüllen –Er füllt das Formular aus), and particles determine the argumentframe of the verb (Er schläft einen guten Schlaf – Er schläft (*einen guten Schlaf) ein; Er steht dem Unternehmen vor – Er steht (*dem Unternehmen)).7

Although these particles are separable from the verb, co-occurrences of particles and prefixes are often subject to restrictions:

(65)vorbehandeln ‘prepare’*anbehandeln ‘start treating s.th.’nachbehandeln ‘add finishing touches’vorverschieben ‘delay’nachverleimen ‘glue together again’*nachversprechen ‘promise once more’nachvertonen ‘dub (a movie)’

*anverrücken ‘move s.th. against s.th.’*ausbeschreiben ‘describe s.th. in its entirety’

7 Härtl & Witt (1998: 13) point out that particles as in Ingrid legte ihre Folien auf ‘I. put her transparencies on (the overhead projector)` have to be kept apart from anaphoric adverbials, as in Ingrid legte ihre Folien darauf ‘I. put her transparencies on (it)’. In the second case darauf anaphorically refers to a location that can be made explicit (darauf → auf den Projektor), while auf is more like a truncated prepositional phrase (auf(legen) → auf den Projektor legen). Furthermore, while there is an infinitive auflegen, it seems questionable whether we should still regard ?darauflegen as a simple verb – this shows that we are actually dealing with a continuum from bound prefixes (like ver-, be-) via independent particles (as auf above) to anaphoric adverbials (like darauf); also see below.

26

*vorbetreten ‘enter before s.o. else’

The restrictions suggest that combination is not possible where it results in some form of semantic redundancy, although it is hard to find such redundancy in ill-formed examples like *vorbetreten ‘enter before s.o.’ (vor- ‘before’ + be- ‘object focus’ + -treten ‘step’). The restrictions may also be an indication of the fact that particles and prefixes may fill the same syntactic slot (thus excluding each other).

Prefixes and particles differ in terms of connectedness or “fusion” with the verb stem. For example, the particle in hinaustreten ‘step outside’ is more transparent than the inseparable prefix in betreten ‘enter’, since the meaning of be- is much more opaque than the spatial expression hinaus-. Eichinger (1989: 354 ff.) shows that most separable prefixes (particles) establish coherent semantic subsystems, as in:

temporal deixis:vorbestellen ‘order in advance’ bestellen ‘order’ nachbestellen ’re-order’

BEFORE DEICTIC CENTER AFTER

Talmy’s notion of grounding also plays a role (cp.3.3.5):

spatial grounding:hereinholen ‘take inside’ - holen ‘pick up’ - hineinholen ‘take (bring) inside’(GOAL as ground) (SOURCE as ground)

NB: the deictic viewpoint is the GOAL perspective in all cases of holen.

Hundsnurscher (1968) observes that the ability to refer to coherent semantic sub-systems leads to the tendency to form morphological substitutions. Parts of a prefixed verb then become substituted to form another word, provided that the new morphemes (and particles) belong to the same semantic sub-system as the original ones (also see Becker 1993). This not only applies to separable German prefixes (particles), but also to English prefixed verbs (German examples from Becker 1993: 186):

(66)einpacken - auspacken pack – unpackeinschließen - ausschließen include – excludeeinklammern - ausklammern put in brackets – put outside brackets / excludeeinhaken - aushaken hook – unhookeinfädeln - ausfädeln filter into the stream of traffic – slip out of ...eintragen - austragen fill in – eraseeinfassen - ausfassen put a fence around a patch of land –

remove a fence from ...einrahmen - ausrahmen frame – remove a frame fromeinspannen - ausspannen to fit / put in a frame – remove from a frame

27

The predominant morphological derivation process in German as presented here is not of the form A > BA (with B being the prefix), but rather BA > CA, i.e. one word constituent becomes substituted, according to Becker. The above items mark opposites, i.e. a systematic relation holds between the first and the second item. Systematic semantic relations also apply in pairs that are not strictly opposites, like:

(67)aufschreiben - niederschreiben

As could be seen in the chart above, substitution of prefixes to yield systematic semantic contrasts is possible for the E prefixed items as well, for example, in overestimate – underestimate, upgrade - downgrade. It is not possible with most particle verbs, however:

(68)bring up a point – *bring down a pointrun down the business activities – ?run up the business activitiesstep down from a post - *step up to a postwrite something down – *write s.th. up (on a board)

In fact, the inability to form opposites along the lines

(69)*He came up and down with a idea.*He brought up and down a point.

represents a test to prove that we are dealing with particle verbs, and not with verbs followed by a simple prepositional phrase, as in:

(70)He walked up and down the hill.She stepped on and off the radio.

The stronger tendency to form morphological substitution in connection with German separable prefixes (particles) thus reflects a tendency towards more systematic semantic relations amongst the particles in German, as opposed to English particles whose meanings seem more opaque and idiosyncratic in these cases. Some German prefixes, most notably inseparable ones like be-, ver-, ent- or miss-, do not have systematic counterparts which establish clear-cut systems either, however.

Rauh (1999) shows that at least some German separable prefixes (particles) like auf-, an-, über – have meanings that are directly derived from the meanings of the corresponding prepositions. One may deduce from this that systematic

28

relations amongst the prepositions also mean systematic relations amongst the prefixes. More specifically, Rauh claims that the meanings of particles (separable prefixes in G) are associated with the prototypical meanings of prepositions via meaning chains, but contrary to earlier approaches (cp. Brugman 1981, Lakoff 1987) she does not consider the way such chaining takes place universal. Instead, Rauh sees meaning chains as being motivated by the positions of the linguistic elements in their respective language-specific lexical fields. For example, we may have a particle meaning that can potentially be derived from the corresponding preposition via a chain, but the resulting meaning may already be expressed by another particle. In this case the potential meaning chain will not be realised, although a corresponding chain may exist in other languages. Besides discussing German particles, Rauh applies the idea of language-specific chaining to English particles like on (turn on the radio), whose meanings she also regards as being derived from the respective prepositions. For example, in the case of the particle in turn s.th. on, the ‘continuation’ sense of on is analysed as being linked to the ‘contact’ sense of the preposition on (as in on the surface): ‘continuation’ is seen as ‘contact’ of a state with a reference time.

With respect to German auf the following prototypical meanings are given (p. 111; slightly abbreviated by me, my emphases)8:

(71)

prototypical meanings according to Rauh (1999):

auf

for stative contexts:· theme object and reference object are related spatially· location of the theme object is specified relative to the reference object · vertical relation: the theme object is higher than the reference object· contact between the theme object and the reference object· the reference object is conceptualised as a horizontal surface· the reference object supports the theme

for dynamic contexts:· movement of the theme object towards a goal (the reference object)

8 Although (the preposition!) auf can often be translated as on (auf dem Berg; on the hill) Rauh (p. 112) sees a fundamental difference between the two in the sense that auf may signify movement (er stand auf ‘he stood up’, er schoß auf den Fuchs ‘he shot at the fox’), while on is limited to stative ‘contact’ senses and its derivations, hence he stood up / *on, or the hunter shot at / *on the fox. Case selection makes the stative or dynamic uses of auf explicit in German, thus we have Er schoß auf den Laster (Accusative) ‘he shot at the van’, vs. Er schoß auf dem Laster (Dative) ‘he shot (while standing) on the van’ (also cp. Wollmann 1996: 32 ff.).

29

· spatial relation between the theme and the reference object after completion of movement· a space is specified relative to the reference object where the theme object is located after movement

(rest identical with the stative meanings except for the first point there)

With these prototypical meanings, particle meanings like the following are said to be directly associated:

a) contact, support, horizontal surface of the reference object:etwas aufbringen ‘apply (paint)’, aufdrucken ‘print s.th. on s.th.’, aufprägen ‘emboss / stamp’, auflackieren ‘varnish’, aufpausen ‘trace (on s.th.)’, ...

b) movement towards a goal, vertical relation, support:ergative: aufsteigen ‘climb up’, auftauchen ‘to surface’, aufrappeln ‘recover’, aufstehen ‘get up’, aufstreben ‘aspire’, ...

causative: etwas aufsetzen ‘put s.th. on’, aufrichten ‘erect’, aufhieven ‘heave s.th. up’, aufhebeln ‘break ‘s.th open (with a lever)’, aufhängen ‘hang s.th. on s.th.’, etwas aufheben ‘pick s.th. up (from the ground)’, ...

We also see less prototypical meanings along the following lines (amongst others):

movement towards a goal, vertical relation, support;plus: repeatedly locating the object on the vertical dimension:etwas auftürmen ‘pile up’, aufstapeln ‘stack up’, aufstocken ‘build more storeys onto’9, aufhäufeln10 ‘make a heap’

look or glance as goal-oriented movement:aufsehen / aufschauen / aufblicken ‘look up’,

upward movement (i.e. goal-oriented) re-interpreted as ameliorization:etwas aufbessern ‘improve’, aufarbeiten ‘refurbish’, auffrischen ‘polish / brush up’, jemanden aufmuntern / aufheitern ‘cheer someone up’, ...

auf as a general marker of perfectivity (derived from ‘goal-oriented movement’):aufessen ‘eat up’, aufbrauchen ‘use up’, auftauen ‘de-frost’, auflassen ‘abandon’, ...

9 The verb aufstocken can also mean ‘build another (i.e. one) storey onto a building’ (according to Collins-PONS). In this case it would not denote repeated action.10 This verb aufhäufeln is not in my vocabulary, neither could it be found in the bilingual dictionaries consulted here. It contrasts with aufhäufen ‘pile up’ in that the latter means ‘pile up in large amounts’. It may be questioned whether aufhäufen necessarily denotes ‘repeated action’, as e.g. in Die Arbeit häufte sich vor mir auf ‘I had work piling up in front of me’, while aufhäufeln probably will.

30

The system of meaning chains advocated by Rauh can account for certain intra-language contrasts (translations based on Collins-PONS):

(72)

etwas aufbringen vs. etwas anbringen ‘apply (e.g. paint)’ ‘fix s.th. on s.th’, ‘post s.th (on a wall)’(surface seen as horizontal) (surface seen as vertical)

etwas aufkleben vs. etwas ankleben‘glue s.th’ ‘post on a wall’(horizontal surface) (vertical surface)

etwas aufnageln vs. etwas annageln‘nail on’ ‘nail on’(horizontal surface) (vertical surface)

etwas aufnähen vs. etwas annähen ‘sew on’ ‘sew on’, ‘sew up’(horizontal surface) (vertical surface)

This would indeed point in the direction of relatively systematic delimitation of the ranges of possible prefix-uses in German due to interaction with other prefixes, whose ranges of application are also systematically delimited. At least the translations in Collins-PONS indicate that distinctions like aufnageln vs. annageln are not reflected in English (nail on as translation for both of them). Similarly: aufnähen vs. annähen, which are both translated as sew on.

The field-dependent meaning chains leading from prototypical prepositional meanings to more or less derived prefix (particle) meanings do not directly explain the role of different degrees of fusion amongst the prefixes and the stems, however. One may perhaps say that greater fusion amongst stem and particle leads to a higher degree of abstraction and thus movement away from the most prototypical meanings connected with the prefix (e.g. in cases where ‘perfectivity’ becomes in turn re-analysed as ingressiveness or egressiveness, as in aufhören ‘end’, aufgeben ‘give up’, aufmerken ‘suddenly pay attention to’ and where the stems lose their original meanings).

The last point becomes particularly relevant, since German prefixed verbs reflect the iconic proximity principle, according to which elements that stand more closely together or that cannot be separated are closer connected in meaning than elements that do not stand together or which can be separated

31

(Givón 1995, ch.1-2).11 This particularly applies to the “double particle” verbs (Eichinger 2000: 165-167), where the two particles form inseparable units, as in:

(73)hinwegrasen (hin +weg +rasen) – ‘buzz off’ - *Er wegraste hin.hinaustragen (hin + aus + tragen) – ‘carry outside’ – *Er austrug den Eimer (‘the bucket’) hin.hervortreten (her + vor + treten) – ‘step forward’ – *Er vortrat her. As already indicated, there is a continuum in terms of fusion from prefixed verbs with inseparable prefixes, via particle verbs (in Eichinger’s sense) with separable particles, to two-word compounds as:

(74)anhaben ‘wear’ (separable particle an ‘at’)recht haben ‘be right’ (noun Recht ‘justice’)

(sich) verliegen ‘hurt ones' back while sleeping’ (inseparable result prefix ver-)einliegen ‘lie in a new bed until it becomes more comfortable’ (separable particle ein ‘in’)falsch liegen ‘be wrong about s.th.’ (predicate adjective falsch ‘wrong’)

kaputt analysieren ‘analyse until it becomes unclear’ (predicate adjective kaputt ‘broken’)

(compare e.g. Ackema 1995: 316 ff. for an analysis of similar constructions in Dutch). To summarize, German particles and prefixes constitute similar syntactic

categories (hence the widespread collocation restrictions) but their use is highly sensitive to the proximity principle. In general we find that the inseparable and separable prefixes (particles) systematically encode lexical content where mutual replacement is possible within these two categories. Greater restrictions on the semantic types of arguments in German are largely due to the semantic content of the prefixes.

4.2.2.2 German prefixed verbs as holistic constructions

One may doubt whether prefixes, which are used extensively in German, make verbs more specific, however. Instead, there are indications that separable and inseparable prefixes are to be seen as integral parts of lexemes and that many prefixed verbs are to be analysed more or less holistically (in an idiomatic way, if you will). Thus, Becker (1993: 187) makes the point that morphological

11 The idea of varying degrees of fusion with the stem is taken to its extreme by Kunsmann (1973: 129), albeit in a transformational framework, where the German verb mißtrauen ‘mistrust’ is analyzed as being derived from an underlying double-prefix verb mißvertrauen, wherby ver+trauen (G vertrauen ‘trust’) become “collapsed” to yield mißtrauen on the surface.

32

substitution sometimes yields new lexemes which cannot be analysed compositionally anymore (ibid.):

(75)

a. V b. V?

Part V Part Vauf- brechen auf- - deckenbe- gehen be- - treten

The stem in aufdecken ‘reveal / uncover’ is metaphorical (-decken ‘(un)cover’ for ‘reveal’) and betreten is metonymical (-treten ‘hit the ground’ for ‘appear’), but both uses are relatively opaque compared to the examples in a. Substitution of the prefix by a “systematic” counterpart may not yield systematic and expected results, as in

(76)auslaufen ‘run out of’ (of liquid) - einlaufen ‘shrink’ (dress / clothing)

While in the case of aus- ‘out’ the verb laufen ‘run (liquid)’ is still recognisable, the stem becomes more opaque in connection with ein- (literally:) ‘into’ in einlaufen (‘shrink’).

To account for how prefixed German verbs fit into word fields, the relationships amongst them as well as to simple verbs may be interpreted in two ways: a) verbs with the same stem that differ in their prefix are simply two independent lexemes that have nothing in common, i.e. we should analyse them holistically, not compositionally, as two entirely different words, or, b) the prefixes are simply a way of expressing something in a systematic manner that modifies a common verb core, i.e. prefixed expressions in German should be analysed compositionally. If a) (the holistic interpretation) applies, the occurrence of prefixed verbs in English - German divergence patterns is to be seen as an indication that the implication of Hawkins’s findings concerning English verbs’ being semantically vague (see 1.4 and below) applies. Should b) hold (systematic relations between prefixed verbs that have the same stem), this statement would at least require some modification.

There are strong arguments in favour of a) (holistic interpretation), however. Thus, most prefixes in G are obligatory in order to express the eventuality concept involved. For example, the simple verb treten (‘hit’) attains a completely different meaning than betreten (‘enter’). We can say that -treten in betreten functions like a bound morpheme, provided we want to regard it as a morpheme at all. We should therefore include complex items like betreten ‘enter’, or even clearer: aufhören ‘stop’, as single-word expressions in word

33

fields in the sense that they are semantically lexicalized but morphologically still transparent to a certain degree. The same is true of the following examples:

(77) a. Er versaute den Tisch. ‘He messed up the table’.b. *Er saute den Tisch.

The morphemes ver- and -sauen are bound morphemes here (object and result focus of ver-, -sauen derived from Sau ‘sow’) the verb, although complex, functions like a single lexical item. The lexical content of German prefixes gets typically fused with the stem in the sense that both do not really function independently. We shall thus regard verbs like versauen as holistic result verbs.

Even if we establish that prefixes in German are integral parts of single-lexeme verbs and and that these expressions can best be interpreted holistically, we may still ask whether the presence of such prefixes really points to less semantic vagueness. Some authors doubt this. Thus, following Durrell (1992: 93- 96), Fischer (1997: 303) regards prefixes simply as a way of allowing verbs to project more (not less!) semantic roles on the accusative complements, as in:

(78)

accusative addressee-complement made possible by prefix:anlügen ‘lie to somebody’ (vs. intransitive: lügen ‘lie’)belügen ‘lie to somebody’ anflunkern ‘tell stories / make up stories’ (vs. intransitive flunkern)(eine Frau) anmachen, anbaggern ‘harass (a woman)’ (also: beneficiary?)

accusative goal – complement made possible by prefix:beziehen ‘move into a place’ / ‘cover (a bed with sheets)’besichtigen ‘visit (a location)’

But even here it could be concluded that we need the prefix to make a verb match the clear-cut case-system, at least as far as the accusative case is concerned. At first sight the thesis of less semantic vagueness, less room for ambiguities and as a result stronger restrictions on the semantic types of complements that verbs take in German may thus hold. We would then expect English - German divergence as a general tendency.

4.2.2.3 English phrasal particles as counterparts of germanic prefixes

Phrasal particles in English are often seen as the etymological counterpart of the Germanic prefixes (Curme 1913/14). They form an integral part of the English lexicon. For example, as translations for G trennen, in Collins-PONS the following items are listed amongst others):

34

(79)

(sich) trennen - take away (from)- separate- sever- detach- take off- remove- unpick, undo- split up

Verbs like take away, take off and split up are considered phrasal verbs or particle verbs, similar to constructions like turn off the radio, run down business activities (Sroka 1972: ch. 1). The items are formally identical with prepositions, but particles can be distinguished from them by linguistic tests (Bolinger 1971: ch. 1). For example, phrasal verbs can be accompanied by a prepositional phrase like any single verb: take something away from somebody, split up the sum into several smaller amounts. The particle may also not be fronted together with a NP that follows it. Thus we have Down the hill rolled the wheel-chair in the case of prepositional phrases, but not Down the business activities he ran in the case of particles. Another test is object placement between verb and particle as in take off a patch from the dress / take a patch off from the dress; turn the radio on / turn on the radio. This is only possible with particles, but not with prepositions, as in step on the radio / *step the radio on (see e.g. Bolinger 1971, ch. 1, Kilby 1984: ch. 6, Radford 1984: ch. 2.5). The test only applies to transitive verbs, and even here it does not apply to all particle verbs, however.

Possible object placement between verb and particle suggests several alternative syntactic interpretations of phrasal constructions, here contrasted with a non-phrasal PP complement in a:

35

(80)

non-phrasal (V + PP):

a. VP

V PPstep on the radio

phrasal:

b. VP c. VP

verb NP verb Sthe radio turn

V Part NP Part (Adjective)turn off the radio off

phrasal ( “backward” movement analysis d. → e., cp. e.g. Hawkins 1994: 71-71; for a “forward” movement analysis e. → d. see e.g. Kunsmann 1973: 152 ff. based on Legum 1968):

d. VP e. VP

V NP Part V Part NPturn the radio off turn off the radio

In b (from Kilby 1984: 99) the particle is part of the verb, c (adapted from Bolinger 1971: 91) corresponds to the analysis of resultative constructions discussed in 2.3, where the particle is seen as an adjective in a secondary predication. Diagram c may well apply where resultant state expressions of the type The radio is off are implied by phrasal verbs, but it may be out where this is not possible, as in the bring up an idea - *An idea is up. Diagrams d –e show how the relation between V-Obj-Part (trurn the radio off) and V-Part-Obj (turn off the radio) have also been described in terms of “backward” particle movement from the final position (Emonds 1976) or even “forward” movement from in-between the verb and the object NP into the position after the object NP (compare e.g. Kunsmann 1973 based on Legum 196812). Following the

12 Legum also points to the fact that sentences like John ran away seem to be derived from sentences of the form John ran away to Europe. Here away is said to be a particle because it can be modified by an additional directional PP. Analyzing away as a particle that can occur without the following PP also implies an incorporation rule where the particle (away), the following preposition (to) and the NP from inside the PP (Europe) become incorporated in a

36

“backward” movement approach (movement into the position between verb and object NP), Hawkins (1994: 70-71; 180 ff.) shows that preferences concerning the moved or unmoved variant are at least in part performance-driven, i.e. dependent on the amount of material in-between the verb and the object NP, which results from the movement (more material in case of complex particle phrases is more difficult to process, cf. John turned the radio on and off → *John turned on and off the radio)13. Dehé (2002) claims that particle placement is largely determined by the way in which we present information in terms of functional properties of the context (e.g as parts of given-new or theme-rheme dichotomies).

The translations for (sich) trennen above show that similarly to the German prefixed verbs, English verb + particle constructions are an integral part of the English vocabulary and should be considered lexical units that stand in paradigmatic opposition with simple verbs as well as with each other. Disregarding their exact syntactic status, the particles are therefore similar to German prefixes, because they modify the meaning of the verb and determine the argument frame of the verbs.

Semantic analyses also suggest that the meanings of the particles are similar to those of the German prefixes (see e.g. Brinton 1988: ch. 4). Thus we have:

(81)

spatial concepts: bring forth an idea, bear out a hypothesis, carry out a plan

aspectual meaning:cut away at the bread (atelic)cut off a piece of bread (telic)

object focus:run a factoryrun down a factory (focusing on terminal state of the factory)

hammer (intransitive; activity verb)hammer out an agreement (transitive, achievement verb)

The above meanings correspond to the semantic categories used by Eichinger (2000) for German prefixes. In addition, metaphoric extension of the spatial meanings can be observed (Lindner 1983), as with German prefixes.

Despite the semantic resemblance of English particles to German prefixes, Brinton (1988: 185) rejects the idea of simply regarding phrasal verbs in English as a replacement of the old Germanic prefixes:

single particle element. In the case of transitive verbs incorporation applies after forward movement.13 Also compare Kunsmann (1973: 156).

37

“From Old English to Early Modern English, the language underwent an important structural shift, from a productive system of verbal prefixes to a new system of post-verbal particles. In this shift, phrasal verbs as well as prepositional verbs came to be the functional equivalents of the older prefixed verbs [...] Though many of the modern post-verbal particles are the etymological counterparts of the verbal prefixes, it seems now clear that the system of post-verbal particles represents a new development [...], not a continuance in any direct way of the older system of prefixation, nor the ‘survival of the primordial phrasal verb’ of Proto-Indo-European.”

The remaining prefixes in English are therefore not semantic equivalents of newer particles, but have to be regarded as a complementary system. In German, by contrast, separated particles are simply syntax-driven variants of the prefixed forms, as already shown:

(82), daß er das Haus einriß. ‘that he broke down the building’Er riß das Haus ein. ‘he broke down the building’

In English the prefixed verbs do not bear the same relation with separated particles. Forming a particle verb out of a prefixed verb is either impossible or yields expressions with different meanings: overrun − run over; underestimate - *estimate under; uphold - *hold up., overdo s.th. − do s.th. over, overlook s.th. − look s.th. over. While prefixed verbs and particle constructions are thus syntactic variants in German, in English particle verbs and prefixed verbs form complementary systems in encoding meanings. For example, by contrast to the typical meanings of ‘completion / result’ of English phrasal verbs (see below), typical meanings expressed by English prefixed verbs are: excess (overdo), lack (underestimate s.th), defeat (overrun, outweigh), persistence (uphold), or converseness (undo, unravel).

Even more so than the German prefixed verbs, English phrasal verbs have been considered expressing ‘result’ meaning of some sort. For example, Kilby 1984: 102) notes:

“... all phrasal verbs have resultative meaning of some sort – i.e. they specify a state of affairs which results from the action denoted by the verb.”

Similarly, Bolinger (1971: 99-100) talks about “perfective meaning as manifested in a resultant situation” (in connection with up), and Lipka (1972: 182) considers die out, write out or puzzle out as “completive”, and verbs like burn out or live out as “terminative”. Kennedy (1920: 24) sees “exhaustion and extinction” as meanings in blind out, die out, wear out, and Curme (1931: 381) observes “terminative slant” in verbs like pay off, write off and sleep off (for a more extensive listing of such ‘result’ meanings in connection with phrasal verbs see e.g. Brinton 1988: 243 ff.).

As in the case of German prefixes and particles, other aspectual meanings besides ‘completion / result’ may also be expressed, as e.g. ingressiveness, e.g.

38

in set out (Lipka 1972: 182) or continuative meaning, as in cut away at the bread; roll along down the river, but in general the range of aspectual meanings seems more restricted to ‘result’ and ‘ingressive’ conceptualisations than in German.

Bolinger (1971: Ch. 8), Traugott (1978) and Brinton (1988: ch. 6) consider phrasal particles to be an integral part of the English aspectual system, together with other “aspectualizers” like the catenatives begin, continue, stop and used. While the latter are said to mark “aspect” in the sense of perspectivizing situations (Brinton 1988: 235), the particles are seen as Aktionsart-markers (ibid.; Bolinger 1971: 98).

Traugott (1978: 393) points to the fact that despite metaphorized spatial concepts in connection with particles like up and down, these particles do not form coherent sub-systems when used as aspectual markers. Traugott thus contrasts the coherent sub-system in the vertical dimension, as expressed by up ‘earlier’ vs. down ‘later’, with neutralisation of such differences in connection with purely aspectual uses of the same items:

(83)

temporal:They came up with a good idea. (‘earlier’)They came down with an agreement. (‘later’)

aspectual:He drank up his beer.He drank down his beer. (contrast neutralised)

While there is a difference in meaning in the temporal examples, there is only a slight difference in the aspectual sentences in the sense that drink down induces (slight) negative connotations, as opposed to up (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: ch. 4). Similarly, in the following, no Aktionsart-distinction is established at all:

(84)He wrote up the report. (‘completed the report’)He wrote down the report. (‘completed the report’; down as dimensional marker)

As opposed to German, where particles (prefixes) tend to form coherent sub-systems, we therefore observe a tendency of the English Aktionsart-particles not to form apparent coherent oppositions and therefore semantic subsystems in English.

This is in line with the fact that meanings of phrasal verbs are considered idiomatic or at least to some degree opaque (Bolinger 1971, Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs 1989: ix), and the constructions are fixed and stereoptyped, or, as Bolinger (p. 110) puts it:

“The parts of these combinations can no longer be freely assembled and disassembled”.

39

In the Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1989: ix) it is highlighted that the resulting constructions form lexical units without special grammatical status:

“The fact that a particular verb + particle construction is idiomatic need not affect its grammar.”

By contrast, Gries (1998) provides empirical evidence in the form of corpus analyses in favor of a functional account of particle placement. Gries shows that particles are treated like independent words in terms of pragmatic word order functions. For example, final placement in John brought him back (/ * John brought back him) is supposed to signal less consciousness raising, while constructions of the type John brought back peace (?/ John brought peace back) is said to signal ‘more consciousness raising’, i.e. more attention is required to process the sentence. The pragmatic dimension of particle placement in English has also been highlighted by Bolinger (1971: 123):

(85)a. They found out the assassin.b. They found the assassin out.

While in a the sentence is about finding out the identity of the assassin, in b the identity is already presupposed due to the final positioning of the particle.

To summarise these observations: verb + particle constructions in English are similar to German prefixes because they cover similar ranges of meanings. Similarly to German prefixing the resultant constructions form lexical units. Also, as in the case of German prefixed verbs the resulting meanings can be analysed as “locative meanings” and most forms express metaphoric extensions of such concepts.14 By contrast to German, the range of Aktionsart meanings is more limited to resultative and ingressive concepts, although other aspectual meanings may also be expressed. In addition, phrasal verbs show a high degree of idiomaticity; at least in comparison with German separable prefixes (particles) whose meanings do not become opaque in many cases, and where opaqueness of inseparable prefixes has to be attributed to a high degree of fusion with the stem. All in all the question whether the constructions are “idiomatic” plays a greater role in English than in German, since we are dealing with multi-word constructions in English. In addition, pragmatic factors play a greater role in the use of verb-particle constructions in English, and English particles, albeit “aspectual” (Aktionsart-) markers, establish less coherent semantic sub-systems than German separable prefixes.

14 Brinton (1988: ch. 5) disagrees and claims that most phrasal verbs are actually metonymic. Examples like come up with an idea seem to support this: The act of approaching somebody stands for communicating with that person.

40

4.2.3 Alleged closer matching of meaning and form in German

Looking at our initial lists of the English verbs produce and shift and their German translations in 4.2.1 above, we note that a relatively large number of the German verbs included in our list do not involve prefixes:

(86)

produce crops die Ernte abwerfenproduce coal Kohle fördern produce a book ein Buch schreiben produce a sculpture eine Skulptur anfertigen produce one’s masterpiece sein Meisterwerk hervorbringen produce a pistol eine Pistole ziehen produce one’s wallet seine Brieftasche hervorholen produce a play ein Bühnenstück inszenieren produce bitterness Bitterkeit hervorrufenshift the nail, the screw den Nagel, die Schraube loskriegen shift the cork den Korken rauskriegen shift furniture Möbel verrücken shift one’s arm den Arm wegnehmen shift one’s office das Büro verlagern shift boulder, rubble Müll, Schutt wegräumen shift the scenery Kulissen schieben shift one’s ground seinen Standpunkt ändern shift someone from an opinion jemanden von einer Meinungabbringenshift one’s weight from foot to foot sein Gewicht von einem Fuß zum anderen verlagern shift the blame onto somebody else die Schuld auf einen anderen schieben

The meaning differences expressed by the German items (and thus the sub-division of the word field) can therefore not be determined by the prefixes alone. Similarly, we found only a few of the English translations of German items to be particle verbs, with varying syntactic status of the particle-like element. Again, it cannot be the particles alone that subdivide the word field in English, and particles as well as prefixes are similar in this respect.

What we do note are greater restrictions on the number of domains that each of the verbs cover in German. The English verbs listed unify more fields. This can be seen as an indication of greater ambiguity or vagueness, as already mentioned (see Hawkins 1986: 122). Given this assessment, English - German divergence in the sense of Hüllen (see 4.1 above) would have to be regarded as the “normal” case, i.e. one English lexical unit corresponding to several German ones. Plank (1984: 312) provides evidence like the following for this:

41

(87)

1. the affected - effected distinction:dig a hole - ein Loch grabendig potatoes - Kartoffeln ausgrabendig the garden - den Garten umgraben

In German we encode the distinction effected object vs. affected object by using graben (effected) vs. ausgraben (affected). This distinction is not encoded by different lexemes in English.

In the case of ‘clothing’ verbs, the range of objects is more restricted in connection with G anziehen ‘put on something’:

(88)

2 clothingput on a coat - einen Mantel anziehenput on a tie - eine Krawatte *anziehen / umbindenput on a mask - eine Maske *anziehen / anlegenput on a hat - einen Hut *anziehen / aufsetzen

The examples show that the type of object is more clearly defined in German. Plank (1984: 313) also observes a stronger tendency to more systematically encode the difference between dressing and undressing in English. Despite this he claims that the German verbs encode “more” than the English ones. This, according to Plank, also applies to the way in which verbs encode the following phenomena (some of these already mentioned):

(89)

3. positioning something (p. 315)put - setzen (in a firm position)

- stellen (upright position) - legen (vertical position)

4. killing (p. 317)shoot down (animals or human-beings) - erschießen (human beings only)

- abschießen (animals only)5. teaching / training (p. 319)

train - erziehen (children, students)- anlernen (apprentices, workers in general)- drillen (military, sports)- trainieren (sports, aviation, military)- abrichten (animals)

6. closing s.th. close the road - absperrenclose the bridge - sperren

42

close a river - aufdammenclose a meeting - schließen / zum Abschluß bringenclose the door - schließen

7. cooking (p. 330), e.g.:cast - gießen (liquid)

- werfen (solid)- schütten (powder)

We see that at least in the above examples the English verbs are less specific than the German translations.15 As already mentioned in 1.4, further evidence supports this with regard to verbs. For example, the greater tolerance to temporary ambiguities in so-called garden-path sentences in English as mentioned in chapter 1 can be seen as an indication of collapsing several meanings into one lexeme:

(90)a. This door opens new possibilities. - Diese Tür eröffnet uns neue Möglichkeiten.b. This door opens quite easily. - Diese Tür kann leicht geöffnet werden.c. My guitar broke a string. - Eine Saite meiner Gitarre brach.d. My guitar broke the world record. - Mit meiner Gitarre wurde der Weltrekord gebrochen.e. My guitar broke Ø. -Meine Gitarre ging kaputt.f. Changing places is stupid. - Ich mag es nicht, den Wohnort zu wechselng. Changing places are something I don’t like. - Ich mag es nicht, wenn sich Orte

verändern.

Sentences c-d and f-g also show again that English verbs tend to occur in more domains at the same time than German ones, i.e. they are syntactically and semantically more elastic, as, for example:

(91)break a leg - ein Bein brechenbreak a rope - ein Tau zerreißenbreak a tendon - einen Sehnenriß habenbreak the vase - die Vase zerbrechen / kaputtmachen

And once more there are relatively ordinary verbs in English that denote an event and its opposite at the same time16, as in:

15 Compare once more Hawkins (1986: 121): “ [...] the surface forms (morphologically and syntactic) of German are in a closer correspondence with their associated meanings [...] There is greater ambiguity (and/or vagueness) of surface forms in English, i.e. greater collapsing of semantic distinctions and of different semantic types onto common surface forms. The result is more of a one-to-one mapping between form and meaning in German, with distinct forms carrying distinct meanings to a greater extent [...].”

16 The same tendency can be seen in connection with adjectives like terrific, as in:a terrific headache = ‘terrible headache’ G: fürchterliche Kopfschmerzen a terrific concert = ‘phantastic concert’; G: ein fantastisches Konzert

43

(92)dust (the furniture) = ‘remove dust from’ G: abstaubendust (the cake) = ‘cast sugar on the cake’ G: bestreuen (mit Zucker)

seed = ‘sow with seeds’ G: säen= ‘extract seeds from (a grapefruit)’ G: entkernen

skim = ‘become covered with a film or scum’, as in:The oil skimmed the water. G: verunreinigen

= ‘remove from the surface of liquid’, as inskim the mild, also figuratively: skim the surface

G: abschöpfen

In German this is largely limited to verbs where the opposite readings belong to completely different semantic (sub-) domains of polysemous prefixed verbs (a-d below), or such opposite readings occur in connection with very specific verbs, as in f-g below (German examples from Lutzeier (1997: 390-391):

(93)a. Die Regierung hält Wahlen ab (abhalten ‘hold elections’)

‘The government is holding elections.’b. Der Mantel hält Nässe ab (abhalten ‘keep away’)

‘The coat keeps the water away.’c. Die Firma stellt neue Arbeitskräfte ein. (einstellen ‘hire’)

‘The company is hiring new employees.’d. Die Firma stellt die Produktion von Mikroskopen ein. (einstellen ‘discontinue’)

‘The company is discontinuing its production of microscopes.’

f. Er köpft sein Ei zum Frühstück.literally: ‘literally: decapitate the egg’, i.e. ‘cut the egg’ (with a knife)

g. Die Maschine köpft die Nadel.‘put a head on the needle’

By contrast, in English also converse processes from the same domain may be denoted, as in:

(94)rent an apartment from somebody ‘mieten’rent an apartment to somebody ‘vermieten’

The above evidence seemingly provides a neat picture supporting Hawkins’s findings as well an explanation of Plank’s data: English surface structures leave

terrific success = ‘unbelievable/tremendous success’ G: unglaublicher Erfolg).

44

greater room for semantic interpretation, at least with respect to the phenomena mentioned above, but yet again simple examples shatter this picture:

(95)Ich leihe mir ein Buch. - I borrow a book.I leihe dir ein Buch. - I lend you a book.

When there is contradictory evidence that shows a closer match between meaning and form in English instead of German, this may be regarded as a compensatory strategy to make up for the lack of explicitness of the English case system, as in the last example. More explicitness in English grammar, such as explicit marking of adverbs by –ly, can be interpreted as a strategy to make up for a lack of explicitness in verbs and verbal (as well as adjectival) inflections. According to Fischer (1997: 299) the explicit marker –ly in English makes clear that the elements thus marked characterise the verb rather than its complements. Since verbs in German are said to be already semantically more specific than English ones, there does not seem to be the need for explicit marking of adverbs.

Similarly, the existence of the aspectual form marking progressiveness in English possibly functions as a strategy of making up for less semantic explicitness of the verb lexemes themselves, and, as already discussed in the introduction, Rohdenburg (1990) points to what he interprets as stronger restrictions on the use of prepositions in English, which can also be regarded as a “compensatory” strategy, and more restrictive uses of the present perfect can be seen in a similar light.

4.3 English - German divergence in relation to convergence and equivalence

Arguably, such cases of E-G convergence (several English lexemes, one German lexeme) are less common, but in German – English dictionaries we find at least as many E-G convergence patterns listed as there are divergence patterns, as for example (also compare the examples in 1.4):

(96)

E17: split (up) G: spalten.cleave chop dividebifurcate

Many simple English verbs can converge into complex (prefixed) German verbs:

17 The denominal verbs rift and fissure might also fall into this group, although they are not mentioned in all dictionaries.

45

(97)

E: link G: verbindenconnect join couple

Use of the English variants here depends on the type of things that are denoted by the object:

(98)link spaceships Raumschiffe verbinden connect appliances Geräte (miteinander) verbinden join things together Sachen verbinden connect ideas Ideen (miteinander) verbinden couple ideas Ideen (miteinander) verbinden

To base such analyses on data gained from dictionaries is problematic (Schneider 1988: ch. 5). Normally, E-G dictionaries will tend to give as many German expressions for one English expression as possible. G-E dictionaries, by contrast, tend to give several English expressions for one German expression. To get a comprehensive picture, both types of data sources will have to be combined. This then points to another problem: divergence or convergence in many cases only represents a part of more complex meaning relations. Let us look at the standard example of put again. The English term functions as a hyperonym for set, lay, and place. This makes it a cover term for the three German expressions setzen, stellen, legen as well (such a cover term or hyperonym is not available in German). At the same time, for example setzen, which is taken to be more specific than E put, may in turn be translated into at least put, lay, place, or set in E, as in:

(99)

G setzen: E translations:etwas auf die Rechnung setzen put s.th. on the bill auf etwas setzen lay a bet on somethingseine Hoffnungen in jemanden setzen place / put one’s hopes in somebodyjemanden an Land setzen set somebody ashore

We find a similar situation with stellen , i.e. several possible E translations besides put:

(100)

G stellen: E translations:

46

etwas auf den Tisch stellen put something on the table jemanden unter seine Aufsicht stellen place somebody under one’s care die Uhr stellen set the clock

And, legen behaves similarly:

(101)

G legen: E translations:Ich legte den Blumenstrauß auf den Tisch I put the flower bouquet on the table eine Frau aufs Kreuz legen lay a woman eine Hand auf die andere legen place on hand over the other Er legte die Steine vorsichtig aufeinander. He set the stones carefully on top of each other. In the same way, each of the E verbs correspond to more than one German verb, as, for example:

(102)

E place: G translations:place a person at a table .... an den Tisch setzenplace s.b. under one’s care .... unter seine Aufsicht stellenplace one hand over the other .... auf die andere Hand legen

...........

This yields something like the following network-like inter-language convergence / divergence pattern:

47

(103)

put

setzen

stellen

legen

lay

place

relations:

hyponymy (intralanguage)

divergence and convergence (interlanguage) set

hyponymy (interlanguage)

Following former analyses (see e.g. Durrell 1980), we can indeed regarded put as an element that fits into the slot of a hyperonym for the three German verbs as well as the other English expressions shown here, because E put is the most neutral term with regard to movement, manner, and resultant position involved in the events expressed (see e.g. Pauwels 2000 for details). In addition, each of the hyponymic (troponymic) German terms corresponds to several of the English expressions, not just put.

We will also have to add other expressions to the above inter-language correspondence-patterns. For example, not in all cases either legen, setzen, or stellen would be appropriate translations of put:

(104)

E put: G translations other than setzen, stellen, legen:

put the lid on the box den Deckel auf die Schachtel tun put something in the drawer etwas in die Schublade legen he put his hands in his pocket er steckte seine Hand in die Tasche put the dog in the kitchen den Hund in die Küche bringen put a bullet through one’s head sich die Kugel geben /

sich eine Kugel in den Kopf jagen put a glass to one’s lips ein Glas zu seinen Lippen führen

The large number of different translations for put points to its status as a hyperonym, i.e. to vagueness in meaning. For the specific German items, unique invariant meanings can be (more or less) identified. Two specific meaning components become relevant with German legen, for instance:

48

(105)

G. legen:(a) careful movement(b) horizontal extension of the object in its resultant position

Because of this we have: Ich lege den Strauß auf den Tisch ‘I put the flower bouquet on the table’ (i.e. not in a vase; it is lying on the table); Ich lege den Modellwagen auf den Tisch ‘I put the model railway coach on the table’ (i.e. carefully; it is most likely not standing on its wheels but lying on one of its sides).

For E lay we get:

(106)

E. lay(a) active involvement of the actor, and (b) horizontal extensions of the objects involved in their resultant position (e.g. carpet all over the floor), and possibly (c) a covering sense (which gives rise to metaphoric extension)

as shown in:

(107)lay one’s hands on someone ‘jemanden erwischen’lay the floor with carpets ‘den Boden mit Teppich auslegen’ lay the table ‘den Tisch decken’ lay/put the blame on someone ‘jemanden die Schuld geben’ lay a bet on something ‘auf etwas setzen’.

Note that in none of these contexts G legen would be appropriate. But now specific meanings are closely connected with the German verbs that are not necessarily part of the invariant meaning of lay:

(108)auslegen – ‘covering the whole floor with carpet; not on a preliminary basis’decken – ‘laying the table in an aesthetic, clearly defined way’(die Schuld) geben – ‘deliberately passing on the blame to s.b.’(eine Wette) setzen – ‘irrevocably placing the bet on a number, horse, etc.’.

These look like invariant meanings of the verbs in German. In the case of English lay, they may at best be seen as contextually activated “messages”, if

49

they show up at all. There is thus no clear hyponymy relation between lay and the German items.

4.4 Preliminary contrastive characterisation of verb fields

The above field exhibits the first two of the following relations observed by Plank (1984: 331):

Inter- language relations concerning object-agreement restrictions of verbs according to Plank

1984:

• [...] firstly, two or more verbs in German may correspond to a single English verb lacking the object-oriented meaning component found with its German counterparts [...]

[as: put vs. setzen, stellen, legen; F. P.]

• [...] secondly, English may have verbs with object-agreement requirements similar to those of their German counterparts, but may have additional, and perhaps more commonly used, verbs which neutralize this object-oriented meaning opposition [...]

[as: lay, place, set with similar, but not identical object-agreement requirements compared to legen, stellen setzen, as opposed to “neutralizing” put; F. P.]

• [...] thirdly, parameters referring to semantic classes of objects may have a more prominent status in the structure of lexical fields of predicates in German than in the corresponding fields in English [...]

[as in the case of the translations of E link; F. P.].

We can now combine the above characterisations by Plank with our preliminary findings in the following way:

Preliminary Contrastive Characterisation of Verb Meanings and Meaning Relations:

E Gless object-oriented meaning more object-oriented meaningmore hyponymy less (unambiguous) hyponymymore field unification less field unificationmore markedness oppositions more domain restrictionsparticles as Aktionsart-markers mainly separable prefixes as Aktionsart markersparticles with idiomatic meanings separable prefixes forming semantic sub-systemsinseparable prefixes with prefixes with Aktionsart- and dimensionalspecial meanings meanings(variable) incorporation of particles position of verb morphemes subject to syntactic in the pragmatic sentence structure restrictions and the proximity principle

50

Concerning the intra- and inter-language relations in terms of convergence, divergence, and hyponymy, we establish that interlanguage divergence does not necessarily correspond to interlanguage “hyponymy”.

5. Bibliography

Abraham, Werner (1990): “A Note on the Aspect-Syntax Interface”. – In: M. Mascaro & M. Nespov (eds.): Progress in Linguistics. Dordrecht, 1-11.

Abraham, Werner (1991): “Tense-Aspect-Modus. A Question of Lexicon as well as Grammar”. – In: Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6 (Perspectives on Aspect and Aktionsart), ed. by Carl Vetters, Willy Vanderweghe et al., 133-150.

Abraham, Werner (1992): “Contrastive Linguistics vs. Linguistic Typology: Middles and Syntactic Ergatives”. – In: Mair, Christian, M. Markus et al. (eds.), 39-63.

Abraham, Werner (1993): “Ergativa sind Terminativa”. – In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, Band 12, 1993, Heft 2,157-184.

Ackema, Peter (1995): Syntax below Zero. Utrecht: OTS Publications (Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht University).

Andersson, Sven Gunnar (1978): Aktionalität im Deutschen. Eine Untersuchung unter Vergleich mit dem russischen Aspektsystem. II. Korpusanalyse. Mit einem Exkurs über Aktionalität im deutschen Verbalsystem. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.

Andersson, Sven Gunnar (1989): “Zur Interaktivität von Temporalität, Modalität, Aspektualität und Aktionsart bei den nichtfuturischen Tempora im Deutschen, Englischen und Schwedischen”. – In: Werner Abraham & Th. Janssen (eds.): Tempus – Aspekt – Modus. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 245-289.

Aphek, Edna & Yishai Tobin (1988): Word Systems in Modern Hebrew: Implications and Applications. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Bache, Carl (1985): Verbal Aspect. Odense University Press.

Bailey, D.R., J. Feldman et al. (1997): “Modelling Embodied Lexical Development”. – In: Proceedings of the 19th Cognitive Science Society Conference. University of California, Berkeley.

Battistella, Edwin L. (1990): Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Black, Max (1962): Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Burgschmidt, Ernst & Dieter Götz (1974): Kontrastive Linguistik Deutsch / Englisch. München: Max Hueber Verlag (Hueber Hochschulreihe 23).

51

Bauer, L. (1990): “Be-heading the Word.” – In: Journal of Linguistics 26, 1-31.

Baumgärtner, Klaus (1967): ”Die Struktur des Bedeutungsfeldes”. - In: Moser, Hugo & Hans Eggers et al. (1967): Satz und Wort im heutigen Deutsch. Probleme und Ergebnisse neuerer Forschung. Jahrbuch 1965/66. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwannn (=Sprache der Gegenwart Band I).

Becker, Thomas (1993): “Morphologische Ersetzungsbildungen im Deutschen”. – In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 12, 1993, Heft 2, 185,217.

Beedham, Christopher (1982): The Passive Aspect in English, German and Russian. Tübingen: G. Narr Verlag (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 186).

Behrens, Heike (1999): “Was macht Verben zu einer besonderen Kategorie im Spracherwerb?“ – In: Meibauer, Jörg & M. Rothweiler (eds., 1999), 32-50.

Belletti, A. (1988): “The Case of Unaccusatives”. – In: Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-34.

Benedict, H. (1979): “Early Lexical Development: Comprehension and Production“. – In: Journal of Child Language 6, 183-200.

Benson, Morton et al. (1986): Lexicographic Description of English. Amsterdam, ...: J. Benjamins.

Benveniste, Emile (1974 / 1971): Probleme der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. München: List Verlag (original: Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris : Gallimard).

Berg, Thomas (2002): “The Historical Development of English Sentence Structure”. – In: Bublitz, Wolfram et al. (eds.): Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur / Philology, Typology and Language Structure. Festschrift für Winfried Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 110-136.

Bergerhoff, Siegfried (1966 / 1937): Studien zum Englischen Wortschatz der Gegenwart. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation (Bochum-Langendreer Verlag Heinrich Pöppinghans O. H.-G.).

Bierwisch, Manfred (1963): Grammatik des Deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (studia grammatica 2).

Bierwisch, Manfred (1988): “On the Grammar of Local Prepositions”. – In: Bierwisch, M. et al. (eds.): Syntax, Semantik und Lexikon. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (studia grammatica 29), 1-65.

Binnick, Robert I. (1991): Time and the Verb. A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York, ...: Oxford University Press.

Blanke, Gustav H. (1973): Einführung in die semantische Analyse. München: Max Hueber Verlag (Hueber Hochschulreihe 15).

Bloom, L. (1970): Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

52

Boeder, Winfried & Chr. Schroeder (2000): “Relational Coding in Turkish Noun Phrases: Syntax, Derivational Morphology, and ‘Linking’ by Means of Participles”. – In: Johanson, Lars (ed.): Turkic Languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 153-204.

Boeder, Winfried & Gerd Hentschel (eds., 2001): Variierende Markierung von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs. Oldenburg: BiS, Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgiensia 4).

Bolinger, Dwight (1971): The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bolinger, Dwight (1980): Language. The Loaded Weapon. The Use and Abuse of Language Today. London: Longman.

Braine, M.D.S. (1963): “The Ontogeny of English Phrase Structure: The First Phase”. – In: Language 39, 1-13.

Brinton, Laurel J. (1988): The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. Cambridge, ...: Cambridge University Press.

Brugman, Claudia (1981): The Story of ‘over’: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. Berkeley, University of California (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics).

Bublitz, Wolfram, Manfred von Roncador & Heinz Vater (eds., 2002): Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur / Philology, Typology and Language Structure. Festschrift für Winfried Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag / Festschrift for Winfried Boeder on the Occasion of his 65th

Brithday. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

Bußmann, Hadumod (1983): Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag (Kröners Taschenausgabe Band 452).

Burzio, L. (1986): Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Calbert, Joseph (2000): Givón’s Functional Approach. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oldenburg.

Calbert, Joseph & F. Panitz (2000): “Case Variation in Arabic”. – In: Boeder, W. et al. (eds., 2001), 135-152.

Chafe, Wallace L. (1971): Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Chang, Nancy, Daniel Gildea et al. (2002): A Dynamic Model of Aspectual Composition. Research paper. International Computer Science Institute and University of California, Berkeley.

Chomsky, Noam (1986): Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1992): A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (Occasional Papers in Linguistics).

53

Chomsky, Noam (1993 / 1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Berlin, ...: Mouton de Gruyter.

Clark, Eve V. (1973): “Nonlinguistic Strategies and the Acquisition of Word Meanings”. – In: Cognition 2, 161-182.

Clark, Eve V. (1974): “Normal States and Evaluative Viewpoints”. – In: Language 50, 316-331.

Clark, Eve V. (1993): The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1989). London, ...: Collins.

Comrie, Bernard (1976): Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).

Cook, Vivian J. (1982): Kategorisierung und Fremdsprachenerwerb. (Gegenwärtige Probleme und Aufgaben der Fremdsprachenpsychologie.) Leipzig: Karl Marx University.

Cook, Vivian, J. (1996): Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 2nd edition. London, ...: Arnold.

Cooper, David (1986) : Metaphor. Oxford : Blackwell.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1969) : Einführung in die Strukturelle Linguistik. Authorized transcripts of lectures held during the 1967/68 fall term at the University of Tübingen, compiled by Gunter Narr and Rudolf Windisch.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1976): ”Vers un typologie des champs lexicaux”. - In: Cahiers de Lexicologie 27, 30-51.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1970): Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung des Wortschatzes. Tübingen: G. Narr (2. Auflage 1973).

Cruse, D.A. (1986): Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, ...: Cambridge University Press (= Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).

Curme, George O. (1913/14): “The Development of Verbal Compounds in Germanic”. – In: Publications of the Modern Language Association 39, 320-361.

Curme, George O. (1931): Syntax. A Grammar of the English Language, vol. 3. Boston: D.C. Heath.

Dahl, Østen (1985): Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Daniel, A. (2001): Lernerwortschatz und Wortschatzlernen im bilingualen Unterricht. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Declerck, Renaat (1977): “Some Arguments in Favour of a Generative Semantics Analysis of Sentences with an Adverbial Particle or a Prepositional Phrase of Goal.” – In: Orbis 26, 297-340.

54

Declerck, Renaat (1991) : Tense in English. Its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.

Dehé, Nicole (2002): Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, Information Structure, and Intonation. Amsterdam, ... : Benjamins (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, 59).

de Saussure, Ferdinand (1967 / 1931): Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechahaye. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co (German translation by Herman Lommel).

de Saussure, Ferdinand (1989 / 1968 / 1931): Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique par Rudolf Engler. Tome 1. Wiesbaden : Otto Harrassowitz.

Deutschbein, M. (1939): “Aspekte und Aktionsarten im Neuenglischen”. – In: Neuphilologische Monatsschrift X (1939), 129 ff. and 190 ff.

Dirven, René & Günter Radden (1977): Semantische Syntax des Englischen. Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion (= Schwerpunkte Linguistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 13).

Diver, William (1969): “The System of ‘Relevance’ in the Homeric Verb”. – In: Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12, 45-68.

Dowty, David R. (1972): Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Dowty, David R. (1979): Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Dubois, J. et al. (1974) : Allgemeine Rhetorik. Groupe Mu. München: W. Fink.

Duffley, Patrick J. (1999): “The Use of the Infinitive and the –ing after Verbs Donoting the Biginning, Middle and End of an Event”. – In: Folia Linguistica XXXIII/3-4, 1999, 295-331.

Durrell, Martin (1988): ”Some Problems of Contrastive Lexical Semantics”. - In: Hüllen et al. (eds., 1988), 230-241.

Durrell, Martin (1992): Using German. A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eichinger, Ludwig M. (1989): Raum und Zeit im Verbwortschatz des Deutschen. Eine valenzgrammatische Studie. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten 224).

Eichinger, Ludwig M. (2000): Deutsche Wortbildung. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Emonds, J.E. (1976): A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.

Engelberg, Stefan (2000): Verben, Ereignisse und das Lexikon. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten 414).

55

Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997): The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erteschik-Shir, N. & T.R. Rapoport (1997): “A Theory of Verbal Projection”. – In. G. Matos & M. Miguel (eds.): On Interfaces in Linguistic Theory: Selected Papers from the International Conference on Interfaces in Linguistics, Oporto, November 1995. Lison: APL/Edicoes Colibri, 129-148.

Erteschik-Shir, N. & T.R. Rapoport (2000): Bare Aspect: a Theory of Syntactic Projection. Talk held at the International Round Table “The Syntax of Tense and Aspect”; Université de Paris, 7 November 2000 <www.bgu.ac.il/~shir/paris.htm>.

Fellbaum, Christiane (1993): ”English Verbs as a Semantic Net”. - In: George A. Miller & Richard Beckwith et al. (1993), 40-61.

Fellbaum, Christiane & Derek Gross et al. (1993): ”Adjectives in WordNet”. - In: George A. Miller & Richard Beckwith et al. (1993), 26-39.

Fillmore, Charles F. (1971) : Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington, Ind. : Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Fillmore, Charles F. (1996) : Argument Structure: Causative ABC Constructions. Berkeley. <http:www.isci.berkeley.edu/-kay/beg/5/lec05.html> as of 15-3-00.

Fischer, Klaus (1997): German-English Verb Valency. A Contrastive Analysis. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 422).

Fischer, Klaus (1999): “Englische und Deutsche Satzstrukturen: ein valenztheoretischer Vergleich mit statistischen Anmerkungen”. – In: Sprachwissenschaft 1999, 221-255.

Fischer, Mary W. (1980): Deutsche und Englische Funktionsverbgefüge: ein Vergleich. Dissertation Georgetown University 1978, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International 7814083.

Flämig, W. (1965): “Zur Funktion des Verbs. IIIa: Aktionsart und Aktionalität“. – In: Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Leipzig), Heft 2, 4-12.

Fowler, H. W. (1965): A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edition revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. Guild and Oxford University Press.

Garey, Howard (1957): “Verb Aspect in French”. – In: Language 33, 91-110.

Geckeler, Horst (1971): Strukturelle Semantik und Wortfeldtheorie. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Gentner, D. (1978): “On Relational Meaning: The Acquisition of Verb Meaning”. – In: Child Development 49, 988-998.

Gentner, D. (1982): “Why Nouns are Learned before Verbs: Linguistic Relativity versus Natural Partioning”. – In: S. A. Kuczaj II (ed.): Language Development. Vol. 2: Language, Thought, and Culture. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 301-334.

56

Gerling, Martin & Norbert Orthen (1979): Deutsche Zustands- und Bewegungsverben. Eine Untersuchung zu ihrer semantischen Struktur und Valenz. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag (Studien zu deutschen Grammatik 11).

Givón, Talmy (1990): Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vols. 1+2. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins.

Givón, Talmy (1993): English Grammar. A Function Based Introduction. Vol.1. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins.

Givón, Talmy (1995): Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins.

Gleitman, Leila (1990): “The Structural Sources of Verb Meaning”. – In: Language Acquisition 1, 3-55.

Goeke, Dieter & Joachim Kornelius (1984): Wortfelder aus bemessenen Ordnungen. Ein empirischer Beitrag zur Wortfeldforschung. WVT - Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, GmbH.

Golinkoff, R.M. & C.B. Mervis & K. Hirsch-Pasek (1994): “Early Object Labels: The Case for Developmental Framework. – In: The Journal of Child Language 21, 125-155.

Górska, Elzbieta (2002): “Alternate Construals, Iconicity, and Grounding: The Case of Nominals with the Noun part”. – In: Folia Linguistica XXXVI/3-4, 313-334.

Green, Georgia M. (1989): Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Grewendorf, Günther (1988): Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 33).

Gries, Stefan Thomas (1998): Particle Movement: A Cognitive and Functional Approach. Arbeiten aus dem Forschungskolloquium Kognitive Linguistik. Seminar für Englische Sprache und Kultur Universität Hamburg & Department of American Studies Eötövös Loránd University, Budapest (= C.L.E.A.R. No. 24, 1998).

Gropen, J. & S. Pinker et al. (1991): “Syntax and Semantics in the Acquisition of Locative Verbs. – In: Journal of Child Language 18, 115-151.

Guillaume, Gustave (1945): L’architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques. Copenhagen : Munksgaard.

Guillaume, Gustave (1971) : Leçons de linguistique, 1948-1949, Série B : psycho-systematique du language : principes, méthodes et applications 1. Québec, Paris : Presses de l’université Laval - Klinchsieck.

Haegeman, Liliane (1994): Introduction to Government & Binding Theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Härtl, Holden & James Witt (1998): ”Lokale Konzepte und Partikelverben in einem Modell der Sprachproduktion”. - In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 17, 1, 3-34.

57

Haider, Hubert & M. Prinzhorn (1986): “Introduction”. – In: Haider, H. & M. Prinzhorn (eds.): Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht, ...: Foris Publications (Publications in Language Sciences 21), 1-6.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1975): Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language Development. London: Edward Arnold.

Hamann, Cornelia (1991): “Semantics and Pragmatics – the Case of Temporal Conjunctions”. – In: Linguistische Berichte 136, 403-407.

Haspelmath, Martin (1993): ”More on the Typology of Inchoative, Causative Verb Alternations”. - In: B. Comrie & M Polinsky (eds.): Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam, 87-120 (= Studies in Language Companion Series 23).

Hatch, E. & C. Brown (1995): Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education. Cambridge, ...: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, John A. (1982): “Syntactic-Semantic Generalizations Uniting Contrasting Rules in English and German”. – In: Lohnes, Walter F. W. & Edwin A. Hopkins (eds.): The Contrastive Grammar of English and German. Ann Arbor: Karoma,197-214.

Hawkins, John A. (1986): A Comparative Typology of English and German Unifying the Contrasts. London, ...: Croom Helm.

Hawkins, John A. (1992): ”A Performance Approach to English/German Contrasts”. - In: Christian Mair & Manfred Markus (eds.): New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics / Neue Ansätze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik Vol. I. Innsbruck, 115-136.

Hawkins, John A. (1994): A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 73).

Hentschel, Gerd (2001a): “On Defining ‘Variable Marking’ or ‘Marking Variation with Nominal Groups”.- In: Boeder, Winfried & Gerd Hentschel (eds.): Variierende Markierung von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs. Oldenburg: BiS (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 4), 15-28.

Hentschel, Gerd (2001b): “Dative or Prepositional Marking of Noun Phrases in the Context of Russian Adjectival Experiencer Predicates”. – In: Boeder, W. et al. (eds., 2001), 171-200.

Herweg, Michael (1989): “Ansätze zu einer semantischen Beschreibung topologischer Präpositionen”. – In: Habel, C., M. Herweg et al. (eds.): Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Sprache und Raum. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 99-127.

Herweg, Michael (1990): Zeitaspekte. Die Bedeutung von Tempus, Aspekt und temporalen Konjunktionen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts Verlag.

Hirtle, Walter (1975): Time, Aspect and the Verb. Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec.

Hirtle, Walter (1982): Number and Inner Space: A Study of Grammatical Number in English. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.

58

Hüllen, Werner & Rainer Schulze (eds., 1988): Understanding the Lexicon. Meaning, Sense and World Knowledge in Lexical Semantics. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= LA 210).

Hundsnurscher, Franz (1968): Das System der Partikelverben mit aus in der Gegenwartsprache. Göppingen: Kümmerle (Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik Nr.2).

Ingram, David (1989): First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray (1983): Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, Ray (1990, 1991): Semantic Structures. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.

Jakobson, Roman (1936): “Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre“. – In: Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6, 240-288.

Jakobson, Roman (1965): “Quest for the Essence of Language”. In: Diogenes 51, 1965, 21-37.

James, Carl (1980): Contrastive Analysis. Longman.

Justice, David (1987): The Semantics of Form in Arabic. Amsterdam, ...: J. Benjamins.

Karcher, Günther L. (1979): Kontrastive Untersuchung von Wortfeldern im Deutschen und im Englischen. Frankfurt a.M., ...: Peter Lang (= Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe XIV Angelsächsiche Sprache und Literatur, Vol. 68).

Kastovsky, D. (1977): “Word Formation, or: At the Crossroads of Morphology, Syntax, and the Lexicon”. – In: Folia Linguistica 10, 1-33.

Kauschke, Christina (1999): „Früher Wortschatzerwerb im Deutschen: Eine empirische Studie zum Entwicklungsverlauf und zur Komposition des kindlichen Lexikons“. – In: Maibauer, Jörg & Monika Rothweiler (eds., 1999): Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag (=UTB für Wissenschaft 2039), 128-156.

Kennedy, Arthur G. (1920): The Modern English Verb-Adverb Combination. Stanford University Press (also: 1967, New York: AMS Press Inc.).

Kilby, David (1984): Descriptive Syntax and the English Verb. London, ...: Croom Helm.

Kittay, E. (1987): Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Klein, H.W. & W. Friedrich (1968): Englische Synonymik. München: Max Hueber Verlag (3., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage).

König, Ekkehard (1996): “Kontrastive Grammatik und Typologie“. – In: Lang, Ewald & Gisela Zifonun (eds.): Deutsch – typologisch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Jahrbuch 1995), 31-54.

Kortmann, Bernd (1999): Linguistik: Essentials Anglistik, Amerikanistik. Berlin: Cornelsen (Studium Kompakt).

59

Kunsmann, Peter (1973): Verbale Gefüge. Transformationsgrammatische Untersuchungen im Deutschen und Englischen. München: Max Hueber Verlag (Linguistische Reihe 14).

Lakoff, George (1987): Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, ...: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (1980): Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, ...: The University of Chicago Press.

Lang, E. (1994): “Semantische vs. konzeptuelle Struktur: Unterscheidung und Überschneidung“. – In: Schwarz, M. (ed.): Kognitive Semantik. Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr, 25-40.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991): Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Cognitive Linguistics Research; 1).

Lascarides, Alex, Ted Briscoe, et al. (1995): ”Order Independent and Persistent Typed Default Unification”. In: Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 1-90.

Leech, Geoffrey (1985): Semantics. The Study of Meaning. Second edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin (repr., 1st printing 1981).

Legum, S. (1968): “The Verb-Particle Construction, Basic or Derived”. – In: B. Darden et al. (eds.): Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, 50-62.

Lehmann, Christian 1989): “Language Description and General Comparative Grammar.- In: Graustein, Gottfried & Gerhard Leitner (eds.): Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer (LA 226), 133-162.

Lehrer, Adrienne (1974): Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam, ...: Holland.

Lehrer, Adrienne (1990): “Prototype Analysis and its Implications for Lexical Analysis”. – In: S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.): Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London, ...: Routledge.

Leitner, Gerhard (1974): Denominale Verbalisierung im Englischen. Eine Analyse der Derivation im Rahmen der Generativen Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Lenz, Barbara (1995): un-Affigierung. Unrealisierbare Argumente, unausweichliche Fragen, nicht unplausible Antworten. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 50).

Lenz, Friedrich (1997): Diskursdeixis im Englischen. Sprachtheoretische Überlegungen und lexiko-grammatische Analysen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (LA 369).

Levin, B. & M. Rappaport (1995): Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 26, Cambridge, MA.

Levinson, Stephen (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.

60

Lindner, Susan J. (1983): A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions with out and up. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Lindstromberg, Seth (1998): English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins.

Lipka, Leonhard (1972): Semantic Structure and Word-Formation: Verb-Particle Constructions in Contemporary English. München: Wilhelm Fink.

Lipka, Leonhard (1980): ”Methodology and Representation in the Study of Lexical Fields”. - In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.): Perspektiven der lexikalischen Semantik. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Semantikkolloquium vom 2. - 3. Dezember 1977. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, 93-114 (= Gesamthochschule Wuppertal Schriftenreihe Linguistik Band 2).

Lipka, Leonhard (1990): An Outline of English Lexicology, Lexical Structure, Word Semantics, and Word-formation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Lutzeier, Peter Rolf (1995a): ”Lexikalische Felder - was sie waren, was sie sind und was sie sein könnten”. - In: Gisela Harras (ed.): Die Ordnung der Wörter. Kognitive und lexikalische Strukturen. Berlin, ...: Walter de Gruyter, 4-29 (= Institut für deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 1993).

Lutzeier, Peter Rolf (1995b): Lexikologie. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Lutzeier, Peter Rolf (1997): “Gegensinn als besondere Form lexikalischer Ambiguität”. – In: Linguistische Berichte 171/1997, 381- 395.

Lyons, John (1977): Semantics. Vols. I + II. Cambridge.

Magusson, Ulf & Gunnar Persson (1986) : Facets, Phases and Foci. Studies in Lexical Relations in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International (Acta Universitatis Umensis – Umea Studies in the Humanities 75).

Mair, Christian, M. Markus et al. (eds.): New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics, Neue Ansätze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik. Prceedings of the Conference Held at the Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, Austria, 10-12 May 1991. Vol I. University of Innsbruck (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Anglistische Reihe Band 4).

Markman, E. & J.E. Hutchinson (1984) : “Children’s Sensitivity to Constraints on Word Meaning: Taxonomic vs. Thematic Relations”. – In: Cognitive Psychology 16, 1-27.

Matthews, Richard (1987): “Present Perfect Tenses: Towards an Integrated Functional Account”. – In: Schopf, A. (ed.): Essays on Tensing in English Vol. 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 111-176.

McNeill, D. (1970): “The Development of Language”. – In: P. Mussen (ed.): Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, vol. 1, 1061-1161.

Meara, P. (1996): “The Vocabulary Knowledge Framework”. – In: Vocabulary Research Group. Virtual Library University of Wales Swansea. <http: // www. swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres/vlibary/pom96d.htm> (as of 2-7-02),

61

Meyer, Matthias (1992): Das englische Perfekt. Grammatischer Status, Semantik und Zusammenspiel mit dem ‘Progressive’. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Miller, George A. (1972): ”English Verbs of Motion: A Case Study in Semantics and Lexical Memory”. - In: Melton, A.W. & E. Martin (eds.): Coding Processes in Human Memory. Washington, 335-372.

Miller, George A. (1993): ”Nouns in WordNet: A Lexical Inheritance System”. - In: George A. Miller & Richard Beckwith et al (1993), 10-25.

Miller, George A. (1995): Wörter. Streifzüge durch die Psycholinguistik. Translated by Joachim Grabowski and Christiane Fellbaum. Frankfurt a.M.: Zweitausendeins. See also: Miller, George A. (1991): The Science of Words. New York: Scientific American Library.

Miller, George A. & Richard Beckwith et al. (1993): Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database. On-line ms.: Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University (revised edition).

Milsark, G. (1974): Existential Sentences in English. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation MIT Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Napoli, Donna Jo (1994): “Resultatives”. – In: Asher, R.E. (ed.): The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol 7. Oxford: Pergamon, 3562-3566.

Nedjalkov, Vladimir (1976): Kausativkonstruktionen. Tübingen: G. Narr (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 4).

Nedjalkov, Vladimir & Sergej Je. Jaxontov (1988): “ The Typology of Resultative Constructions”. – In: Nedjalkov, V. (ed.): Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins, 3 - 432.

Nedjalkov, Vladimir (2002): “A Typology of Principle Types of Inceptive Predicates”. – In: Bublitz et al. (eds.) 2002, 137-156.

Nelson, K. (1973): “Structure and Strategy in Learning to Talk”. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development 38, no. 149.

Öhman, Suzanne (1951): Wortinhalt und Weltbild. Vergleichende und methodologische Studien zu Bedeutungslehre und Wortfeldtheorie. Stockholm: Kungl. Boktryckeriet P.A. Norstedt & Söner.

Osgood, Charles, E. (1952): “The Nature of Measurement of Meaning”. – On: Psychological Bulletin 49, 197-237.

Palmer, F. R. (1986): Semantics. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press (reprint of the second edition 1981, first edition 1976).

Panitz, Florian (1998): Die temporalen Elemente des Englischen und deren Zeitbezug in fiktionalen narrativen Texten. Tübingen: Niemeyer (LA 377).

62

Panitz, Florian (2002): “Of Mice and Men: then und and then in der Übersetzung Englisch – Deutsch”. In: Bublitz, W. et al. (eds.): Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur / Philology, Typology and Language Structure. Festschrift für Winfried Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 71-84.

Parsons, Terence (1990): Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, Mass., ...: MIT Press.

Partee, Barabara H. & Alice ter Meulen et al. (1990): Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht, ...: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pauwels, Paul (2000): Put, Set, Lay and Place: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Verbal Meaning. München: LINCOM Europa (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 19).

Peirce, Charles S. (1986 / circa 1897): “Ground, Object and Interpretant”. – In: Hartshorne, Charles and Paul Weiss (eds.): Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. – Volume II: Elements of Logic. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. From an unidentified fragment, c. 1897, 134-138.

Perlmutter, D. (1978): “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”. – In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4, 157-189.

Plank, Frans (1981): Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 13).

Plank, Frans (1984): “Verbs and Objects in Semantic Agreement: Minor Differences between English and German that might Suggest a Major one”. – In: Journal of Semantics 3: 30, 305-360.

Persson, Gunnar (1989): Deep and Profound: A Study in So-Called Synonymy. Umea: Umea University.

Pinker, S. (1984): Language Learnability and Language Development. – Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Pustejovsky, J. (1995): The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pess.

Radden, Günter (1985): “Spatial Metaphors Underlying Prepositions of Causality”. – In: Parotté, Wolf & René Dirven (eds.): The Ubiquity of Metaphor. Metaphor in Language and Thought. Amsterdam, ...: John Benjamins, 177-207).

Radden, Günter (1988): “The Concept of Motion”. – In: Hüllen, Werner, et al. (eds.): Understanding the Lexicon. Meaning, Sense and World Knowledge in Lexical Semantics. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 380-394.

Radden, Günter (1989): “Das Bewegungskonzept to come and to go”. – In: Habel, Ch. et al. (eds.): Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Sprache und Raum. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 228-248.

Radden, Günter (1992): “The Cognitive Approach to Natural Language”. – In: Pütz, Martin (ed.): Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam, ...: John Benjamins, 513-541.

63

Radden Günter (1995): Motion Metaphorized: The Case of Coming and Going. Seminar für Englische Sprache und Kultur, Universität Hamburg & Department of American Studies Eötövös Loránd University, Budapest (= C.L.E.A.R. No. 5).

Radford, Andrew (1988): Transformational Grammar. A First Course. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).

Rappaport, M. Hovav & Beth Levin (1998): “Building Verb Meanings”. – In: Butt, Miriam & W. Geuder (eds.): The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, 97-134.

Rauh, Gisa (1981): “On coming and going in English and German”. – In: Papers in Contrastive Linguistics 13, 1981, 53-68.

Rauh, Gisa (1983): Tense as Deictic Categories. An Analysis of English and German Tenses”. – In: G. Rauh (ed.): Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: G. Narr, 229-275.

Rauh, Gisa (1999): “Language-Specific Mental Models: The Case of English on and German auf”. – In: B. Mißler & U. Multhaup (eds.): The Construction of Knowledge, Learner Autonomy and Related Issues in Foreign Language Learning. Essays in Honour of Dieter Wolff. Tübingen: Stuffenburg Verlag Brigitte Narr GmbH, 109-125.

Reah, Danuta (1998): The Language of Newspapers. London, ...: Routledge (Intertext series).

Reichmann, Oskar (1969): Deutsche Wortfeldforschung. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Sammlung Metzler, Realienbücher für Germanisten).

Renicke, Horst (1950): “Die Theorie der Aspekte und Aktionsarten”. – In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sparche und Literatur 72, 150-193.

Reyle, Uwe (1986): Zeit und Aspekt bei der Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprachen. Dissertation Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Linguistik; published as LILOG-Report 9, IBM Deutschland GmbH., Stuttgart.

Richards, I. A. (1936): The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.

Rips, L. J., E. Shoben et al. (1973): “Semantic Distance and the Verification of Semantic Relations”. – In: Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 1-20.

Rodriguez-Bachiller, B. (1989): Learning the Conceptual Boundaries of Difficult Lexical Pairs. Paper presented at the first conference of the Columbia School of Linguistics, 23-25 August, 1989.

Rohdenburg, Günter (1990): “Aspekte einer vergleichenden Typologie des Englischen und Deutschen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Buch von John A. Hawkins“. – In: C. Gnutzmann (ed.): Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt a.M., ...: Peter Lang, 133-152.

Rohdenburg, Günter (1992): “Bemerkungen zu infiniten Konstruktionen im Englischen und Deutschen“. – In: Chr. Mair & M. Markus (eds.): New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics / Neue Ansätze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik. Bd. 1. Innsbruck, 187-207.

64

Rohdenburg, Günter (1999): “Auswirkungen eines Komplexitätsprinzips im Englischen“. – In: Otto Spillmann & Ingo Warnke (eds.): Internationale Tendenzen der Syntaktik, Semantik und Pragmatik. Akten des 32. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Kassel 1997. Franfurt: Peter Lang, 421-427.

Rosch, Eleonor (1977): “Human Categorisation“. – In: Warren, N. (ed.): Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Rot, Sándor (1988): On Crucial Problems of the English Verb. Frankfurt a.M.: Verlag Peter Lang.

Sacker, Ulrich (1983): Aspektueller und resultativer Verbalausdruck im Französischen, Italienischen, Russischen und Deutschen. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 210).

Sapir, David (1977): “The Anatomy of Metaphor”. – In: J.D. Sapir & J. C. Crocker (eds.): The Social Use of Metaphor. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2-32.

Schlachter, W. (1961): “Ein Aktionsartkriterium im Deutschen”. – In: Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 17, 1-51.

Schneider, Edgar W. (1988): Variabilität, Polysemie und Unschärfe in der Wortbedeutung. Band 1+2.Tübingen: Niemeyer (LA 196/197).

Schön, Donald A. (1979): “Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy”. – In: Andrew Ortony (ed.): Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, 254-283.

Schopf, Alfred (1984): Das Verzeitungssystem des Englischen und seine Textfunktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= LA 140).

Seidl, Jennifer / W. McMordie (1978): English Idioms and How to Use them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seitel, Peter (1969) : “Proverbs: A Social Use of Metaphor”. In: Genre 2, 143-161. (Reprinted in W. Mieder / A. Dundes (eds., 1981): The Wisdom of Many. New York: Garland, 122-139.)

Seitel, Peter (1977): “Saying Haya Sayings: Two Categories of Proverb Use”. – In: D. Sapir & J. Crocker (eds.): The Social Use of Metaphor, chapter 3.

Simpson, Jane (1983): “Resultatives”. – In: Levin, L., M. Rappaport et al. (eds.): Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 143-157.

Singleton, D. (1999): Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge, ...: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Carlota S. (1991): The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht, ...: Kluwer Academic Publishers (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 43).

Snell-Hornby, Mary (1983): Verb-descriptivity in German and English. A contrastive study in semantic fields. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung.

65

Sroka, K. (1972): The Syntax of English Phrasal Verbs. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

Steedman, M. (1996): “Temporality”. – In: Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier, North Holland.

Steinitz, Renate (1975): “Sind alle Ichoativa inchoativ?” – In: Linguistische Studien. Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 18, 1-74.

Swan, Michael (1995): Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Talmy, Leonard (1985): “Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure and Lexical Forms”. – In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.): Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge, London, ...: Cambridge University Press, 57-150.

Taylor, Kenneth A. (1988): “We’ve got you Coming and Going“. – In: Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 493-513.

Tenny, Carol (1987): Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation.

Thieroff, Rolf (1992): Das finite Verb im Deutschen. Tempus – Aspekt – Modus – Distanz. Tübingen: G. Narr.

Thelin, Nils B. (1990): “Verbal Aspect in Discourse: On the State of the Art”. – In: N.B. Thelin (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-88.

Thomson, A. J. & A. V. Martinet (1986): A Practical English Grammar. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tobin, Yishai (1990): Semiotics and Linguistics. London, ...: Longman.

Tobin, Yishai (1992): “Contrastive Linguistics: A Sign-oriented Point of View”. – In: Mair, Christian, M. Markus et al. (eds.): New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics, Neue Ansätze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, Austria, 10-12 May 1991. Vol I. University of Innsbruck (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Anglistische Reihe Band 4), 311-335.

Tobin, Yishai (1993): Aspect in the English Verb: Process and Result in Language. London, ...: Longman.

Tobin, Yishai (1994): Invariance, Markedness and Distinctive Feature Analysis: A Contrastive Study of Sign Systems in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins.

Tobin, Yishai (1998): One size does not fit it all: A semantic analysis of ‘small / large’ vs. ‘little / big’. Paper read at the XXXI annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, St. Andrews / Scotland.

Tobin, Yishai (1999): “Till vs. Until: A Sign-Oriented Approach”. – In: Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée No. 8, 426-435.

66

Tomasello, Michael (1992): First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge, ...: Cambridge University Press.

Tortora, Christina M. (1998): “Verbs of Inherently Directed Motion are Compatible with Resultative Phrases”. – In: Linguistic Inquiry 29/ 2, 338-345.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1978): “On the Expression of Spatio-Temporal Relations in Language”. – In: J. C. Greenberg (ed.): Universals of Human Language, vol. 3, Word Structure. Stanford, C.A.: Stanford University Press, 369-400.

Trier, Jost (1931): Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. Band 1 (Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter (2. Auflage 1973).

Trier, Jost (1968): Altes und Neues vom sprachlichen Feld. Mannheim, ...: Dudenverlag (Duden-Beiträge zu Fragen der Beschreibung, der Grammatik und des Stils, Heft 34).

Tyler, S. (1988): The Said and the Unsaid. New York: Academic Press.

van Schooneveld, C.H. (1987): “Linguistic Structure and Auto Poiesis”. – In: Pomorska, K. et al. (eds.): Language, Poetry and Poetics. New York, ...: Mouton de Gruyter, 123-142.

van Schooneveld, C.H. (1988): “Paradigmatic Structure and Syntactic Relations”. – In: Tobin, Y. (ed.): The Prague School and its Legacy. Amsterdam, ...: John Benjamins, 109-121.

van Schooneveld, C.H. (1989): “Pragmatic Oppositions and Syntactic Relations: Tenses and Moods in Ancient Greek”. – In: Y. Tobin (ed.): From Sign to Text: A Semiotic View of Communication. Amsterdam, ...: J. Benjamins (Foundations of Semiotics 20), 99-121.

von Stechow, Arnim & Wolfgang Sternefeld (1988): Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Ein Lehrbuch der generativen Grammatik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Vater, Heinz (1992): Einführung in die Zeit-Linguistik. Hürth-Efferen: Gabel Verlag (KLAGE, Kölner Linguistische Arbeiten – Germanistik 25).

Vater, Heinz (1997): “Hat das Deutsche Futurtempora?” – In: Vater, Heinz (ed.): Zu Tempus und Modus im Deutschen. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (Linguistisch-Philosophische Studien, Band 19), 53-69.

Vendler, Zeno (1967): Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Verkuyl, H. J. (1993): A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge University Press.

von Stechow, Arnim & Wolfgang Sternefeld (1988): Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Ein Lehrbuch der generativen Grammatik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Wanner, Anja (1999): Verbklassifizierung und aspektuelle Alternationen im Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= LA 398)

Waugh, Linda R. (1982): “Marked and Unmarked: A Choice between Unequals in Semiotic Structure”. – In: Semiotica 38 – 3 / 4, 1982, 299-318.

67

Weinrich, Harald (1964): Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (Sprache und Literatur 16).

Welte, Werner (1987): “On the Concept of Case in Traditional Grammars”. – In: Dirve, R. & G. Radden (eds.): Concepts of Case. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag, 15-27.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1985): Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1988): The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam, ...: Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1996): Semantics. Primes and Universals. Oxford, ...: Oxford University Press.

Witte, J. (1997): Compositional Semantics for Resultative Separable Prefix Constructions in German. Proceedings HPSG 4.

Wittek, Angelika (1999): “Zustandsänderungsverben im Deutschen – Wie lernt das Kind die komplexe Semantik?“ – In: Maibauer, Jörg & Monika Rothweiler (eds.): Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag (=UTB für Wissenschaft 2039), 278-295.

Wolters: “Compositional Semantics of German Prefix Verbs”. In: Proceedings of EACL 99. <acl.ldc.upenn.edu/E/E99/E99-1038.pdf>

Wunderlich, Dieter & Ingrid Kaufmann (1989): Lokale Verben und Präpositionen – semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte. Arbeitspapier im DFG-Projekt “Räumliche Lokalisierung”, Universität Düsseldorf.

68