Particle verb constructions — small-clause analysis

@cite{dendikken-1995} @cite{baker-1988}

@cite{dendikken-1995} analyses verbal particles as ergative small-clause heads. The book's primary focus is complex particle constructions (make John out a liar, ch. 2), with applications to triadic constructions and Dative Shift (ch. 3-4) and to applicatives and transitive causatives (ch. 5). All four phenomena instantiate a SC-in-SC structural template [VP V [SC1 Spec [XP Prt [SC2 NP {AP/NP/PP/VP}]]]] (book p. 269).

This file formalises only the simplex case (John looked up the information) of ch. 2.4, and only the surface SC after NP-movement to SpecSC. It does not capture:

• The SC-in-SC structure for complex PVCs (the book's main contribution). Encoding nested small clauses cleanly is pending substrate work on SmallClause itself; current structure SmallClause has no recursion-friendly shape.

• Overt P-to-V head incorporation. @cite{dendikken-1995} (§2.4.3) argues that English does not feature overt particle incorporation. Two arguments (book p. 89, citing Emonds 1993:243, fn. 27): (i) V+Prt sequences like brush off lack the English compound stress pattern found on N 'brush off and V 'baby sit; (ii) inflection attaches to V alone, e.g. Are your friends pushin' the car? (V push + -in' participle), not to a putative [V+Prt] complex. Right-Hand Head Rule also forbids right-adjoining the particle to V. What den Dikken calls "verb-particle reanalysis" is an LF operation (cosuperscripting / Government Transparency Corollary, @cite{baker-1988}), not formation of an overt complex head. Encoding LF reanalysis requires substrate distinct from formComplexLI.

• A weight-based derivation rule (pronoun → split / heavy → continuous). This is @cite{kayne-1985}'s account, which @cite{dendikken-1995} (§2.4.5) explicitly refutes (citing Diesing & Jelinek 1993). den Dikken's own account of the pronoun ban derives from LF reanalysis interacting with pronominal cliticization, again pending the LF reanalysis substrate.

The empirical pattern (pronoun_split = good, pronoun_continuous = bad, heavy_continuous = good, heavy_split = bad) is recorded in ParticleVerbs.Data as theory-neutral data; explanations from any particular account (den Dikken, Kayne, Construction Grammar, processing) are property of the corresponding study file.

Simplex PVC: surface SC after NP-movement

For a simplex PVC John looked the information up (the V-NP-Prt order), the surface structure has the DP raised to SpecSC and the particle as the SC head. Note this is the output of NP-movement — den Dikken's D-structure has the DP as the complement of the (ergative) particle, with SpecSC empty. The current SmallClause shape forces a subject field, so we record the post-movement form.

def Phenomena.Constructions.ParticleVerbs.Studies.Dendikken1995.pvToSmallClause (pv : ParticleVerb) (dpId prtId : ℕ) : Minimalist.SmallClause

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

theorem Phenomena.Constructions.ParticleVerbs.Studies.Dendikken1995.pvc_pred_is_P (pv : ParticleVerb) (dpId prtId : ℕ) : (pvToSmallClause pv dpId prtId).predCat = Minimalist.SCPredCategory.P

All PVC small clauses have predicate category P.

Connection to canonical SC shape

The two trivial unfolding theorems above are convenience aliases. The load-bearing structural fact about pvToSmallClause is its tree shape once converted to a SyntacticObject via SmallClause.toSO — a 2-leaf binary tree (subject + predicate). This is the shape consumed by any file that wants to compose PVC SCs into larger structures (e.g. embedUnderV for the full [VP V [SC DP Prt]] analysis, as used by HaddicanEtAl2026.pvc_sc). Stated as rfl over the canonical shape so that downstream files can rewrite without unfolding pvToSmallClause.

theorem Phenomena.Constructions.ParticleVerbs.Studies.Dendikken1995.pvToSmallClause_toSO_shape (pv : ParticleVerb) (dpId prtId : ℕ) : (pvToSmallClause pv dpId prtId).toSO.shape = FreeCommMagma.of () * FreeCommMagma.of ()

Any PVC small clause is a 2-leaf binary tree (subject + predicate).

theorem Phenomena.Constructions.ParticleVerbs.Studies.Dendikken1995.pvToSmallClause_consistent (pv : ParticleVerb) (dpId prtId : ℕ) : (pvToSmallClause pv dpId prtId).predicate.headCat = (pvToSmallClause pv dpId prtId).predCat.toCat

The predCat field of pvToSmallClause agrees with the predicate.headCat reading — the well-formedness invariant consumed by SmallClause.toSO_isSmallClause. Discharged via the outerCat_leaf substrate simp on the mkLeafPhon-built predicate (which is structurally a leaf SO).

theorem Phenomena.Constructions.ParticleVerbs.Studies.Dendikken1995.pvToSmallClause_isSmallClause (pv : ParticleVerb) (dpId prtId : ℕ) : Minimalist.IsSmallClause (pvToSmallClause pv dpId prtId).toSO

The PVC small clause satisfies IsSmallClause — the companion predicate over raw SyntacticObjects. Discharges via the well-formedness invariant + the SC-side round-trip lemma.