Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1996. Vol. 1. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 24)

Péter Antonyi: Phrasal verbs: an attempt at a syntactic account

well be the case with Larson's analysis of 'heavy NP shift' transformations, too (see in 2.2). Thus, as we have seen, by and large the same tendencies (rules?) and determining factors (conditions?) seem to be at work in both Larson's original version of the VP-shell hypothesis and my application of it to phrasal verbs. However, even in the light of Larson's hypothesis, the main distinction between (transitive) phrasal and prepositional verbs is still basically valid since the former are double object constructions, whereas the latter are not. The status of the particle in these structures is also different. As for phrasal verbs it is a PP (phrase), whereas it is a P (lexical category) in prepositional verbs (i.e.we must have an NP complement in the PP in this case) so the traditional names happen to be relevant, not only in the original sense but with reference to the category of the particle (a phrase (PP) vs a preposition (P)). References Akmajian, A, R A Demers, and R M Harnish (1984). Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. Cambridge (Massachusetts): The MIT Press. Bolinger, D (1971). The Phrasal Verbs in English. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press. Larson R K (1988). 'On the Double Object Construction'. In: Linguistic Inquiry

, Volume 19. Number 3. 1988. (The MIT Press.) p. 335-391. Quirk, R and S Greenbaum (1973). A University Grammar of English. Harlow: Longman. Radford, A (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sroka, K A (1972). The Syntax of English Phrasal Verbs. The Hague: Mouton. 104