Skip Navigation



Journal of Semantics Advance Access published online on March 14, 2005
Journal of Semantics, doi:10.1093/jos/ffh019
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/4/401    most recent
ffh019v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McIntyre, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Received August 20, 2003
Revised December 8, 2004

Article

The Semantic and Syntactic Decomposition of get: An Interaction Between Verb Meaning and Particle Placement

Andrew McIntyre 1*

1 Universität Leipzig

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Andrew McIntyre, E-mail: mcintyre{at}rz.uni-leipzig.de


  Abstract

VPs with get and a PP/particle provide an argument for lexical decomposition in syntax. Get (and German kriegen) has a ‘hindrance’ reading, which does not denote causative events and resembles manage in that the result is portrayed as hard to achieve, and in that possibility operators do not affect the meaning under negation: I didn't (=couldn't) get the key in. These effects surprisingly follow from an analysis where hindrance-get VPs are nothing more than inchoatives of have-VPs of the type have the key in. In get out one's wallet, we see another reading which is genuinely causative and is not found with German kriegen. Hindrance-get VPs (like VPs with have, want and need, which decompose with HAVE, and unlike causative get and other causative-agentive verbs) disallow particle-object order (get/take out your wallet vs. *get/have/want/need in the key). The effects of semantics on word order are shown to be unmysterious only if the HAVE predicate in the meaning of hindrance-get is a syntactic head.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.