Is Particle Inversion in English a Root Phenomenon?
Many constructions in which an element is preposed, such as topicalization, VP preposing , negative inversion, and locative inversion are root phenomena, i.e., only possible in main clauses (Emonds1970, 1976) and certain subordinate clauses such as asserted complement clauses, non-strictive relative clauses (Green 1976, Hooper & Thompson 1973), and peripheral adverbial clauses (Haegeman 2010).
Particle inversion is a type of particle preposing* in which the verb particle is fronted and immediately followed by the verb:
1. The president walked in → In walked the president.
2. A baby popped out → Out popped a baby.
Particle inversion is typically directional and so is often presented alongside directional locative inversion**, in which the fronted constituent is a full path PP:
3. Down the street rolled the baby carriage.
Given this parallel, particles are sometimes analyzed as intransitive prepositions (Emonds 1970, Jackendoff 1973). However, Capelle (2002) argues that there are differences between particles and prepositions. For example, non-locational PPs cannot be preposed, while some non-locational particles can be.
4. *Without stopping danced the rhythm in his head.
5. On and on danced the rhythm in his head.
(from Cappelle, 2002, p.44 )
Nevertheless, like locative inversion, particle inversion creates non-canonical word order and is therefore labeled root phenomenon (Emonds 1970, Green 1976, Hooper & Thompson 1973) .
In this paper, I argue that particle inversion is not in fact a typical root phenomenon. Preliminary research suggests that particle inversion can appear in presupposed complement clauses of emotive factive predicates in which other root phenomena, such as VP preposing, would not be permitted:
6. *Sally plans for Gary to marry her, and it bothers me that marry her he will.
(from Hooper & Thompson, 1973, their number 102, p.479)
7. A few hours later his mates were amazed when out came Bob with his arm reattached ready to go back to work.
Conversely, some examples of particle inversion are unacceptable, even in subordinate clauses that should allow root phenomena, such as asserted complement clauses:
8. *I noticed that in walked John.
(from Emonds,1970, his example 23, p.16)
9. John said that in walked two men.
And although 7 above suggests that certain emotive factives are compatible with particle inversion in their subordinate clause, some examples are unacceptable.
10. *I was surprised when up trotted the dog.
(from Emonds,1970, his example 23, p.16)
In the presentation, I discuss these observations of particle inversion and, by taking a more fine-grained look at the construction’s use, offer sematic and pragmatic explanations for the (un)acceptability of its use in subordinate clauses.
* Particle preposing includes constructions in which only the particle is fronted, such as “off they went” and “away the ship sailed”. Although equally as interesting, there is no inversion of the verb, so this presentation will not be concerned with sentences such as these.
** Both particle inversion and directional locative inversion often referred to by Emonds (1970) and Hooper & Thompson (1973) as directional adverb preposing.