How depictives and appositive adjectives are different
Herman Heringa∗, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
TABU-dag, 11-06-2009
1.
Introduction
Depictives and appositive adjectives look very similar. The only apparent distinction is
the comma-intonation of appositive adjectives that is absent in depictives.
(1)
a.
b.
John arrived home, drunk.
[appositive adjectives]
They dragged Mary, totally unconscious, into the ambulance.
(2)
a.
b.
John arrived home drunk.
[depictives]
They dragged Mary unconscious into the ambulance.
1.1
Characteristics
(3) Criteria for depictive secondary predication (Schultze-Berndt & Himmelmann 2004:
77-8):
a. A construction contains two separate predicative elements, the main
predicate and the depictive, and the state of affairs expressed by the
depictive holds within the time-frame of the eventuality expressed by
the main predicate.
b. The depictive is obligatorily controlled, i.e. there exists a formal relation
to one participant of the main predicate, the controller, which is usually
interpreted as a predicative relationship (i.e. the depictive predicates an
eventuality of the controller). The controller is not expressed separately
as an argument of the depictive.
c. The depictive makes a predication about the controller which is at least
in part independent of the predication conveyed by the main predicate,
i.e. the depictive does not form a complex or periphrastic predicate
with the main predicate.
d. The depictive is not an argument of the main predicate, i.e. it is not
obligatory.
e. The depictive does not form a low-level constituent with the controller,
i.e. it does not function as a modifier of the controller.
f. The depictive is non-finite (i.e. not marked for tense or mood
categories), or the dependency of the depictive on the main predicate
is indicated in other formal ways.
g. The depictive is part of the same prosodic unit as the main predicate.
Ad (3a): The predication time of appositive adjectives does not have to coincide with that
of the main predicate:
∗
I thank Aysa Arylova and Radek Šimík for data from Russian and Czech. Thanks also to Caroline
Heycock, Mark de Vries, Jan-Wouter Zwart and the members of the CLCG syntax seminar for comments
and suggestions.
1
(4)
a.
b.
John left the party sad. (Geuder 2002: 183)
John, usually sad, left the party happy.
Ad (3b): depictives differ in this respect from adverbials. Depictives modify participants;
adverbials modify processes.
(5)
a.
b.
John left the room angry, # although he was actually faking his displeasure.
John left the room angrily, although he was actually faking his displeasure.
In German this is reflected in word order (Geuder 2002: 181).
(6)
a.
b.
daß Hans den Raum traurig
that Hans the room sad
'that Hans left the room sad.'
daß Hans traurig den Raum
that Hans sad
the room
'that Hans left the room sadly.'
verließ.
left
verließ.
left.
Ad (3d): depictives differ from small clause constructions; depictives are no argument of
the main verb.
(7)
a.
b.
Ivan returned home (healthy).
I consider Ivan *(intelligent).
(8)
a.
b
Mary drank her coffee (black). (Rapoport 1999: 654)
Jones prefers her coffee *(black).
Ad (3e): the depictive and its antecedent are not a semantic unit either. (8a) entails that
Mary drank her coffee, whereas (8b) does not entail that Jones prefers coffee.
Ad (3g): this does not apply to appositive adjectives. Clearly, they are separated from the
matrix intonation contour.
Subject-oriented depictives are outside object-oriented depictives in English and Russian
(Richardson 2007):
(9)
a.
b. *
Onai
s”jela mjasok
syrymk
She:NOM ate
meat:ACC raw:INSTR
‘She ate the meat raw naked.’
Onai
s”jela mjasok
goloji
She:NOM ate
meat:ACC naked:INSTR
Dutch has the inverse order:
2
goloji .
naked:INSTR
syrymk
raw:INSTR
(10) a.
b. *
1.2
dat zij het vlees naakt rauw
that she the meat naked raw
dat zij het vlees rauw naakt at.
at.
ate
[Dutch]
Case marking: aspect and modification level
East-Slavic (Russian/Belarusian/Ukranian):
depictives (Richardson 2007: 106):
(11)
sameness/instrumental
alternation
in
Ivan
prišel domoj iz
bol'nicy zdorovyj / zdorovym.
[Russian]
Ivan:NOM arrived home from hospital healthy:NOM / healthy:INSTR
'Ivan arrived home from the hospital healthy.'
Instrumental: bounded in time
Sameness: unbounded in time
Hinterhölzl (2001): bounded (stage level):instr/same; semi-bounded: instr; non-bounded
(individual level):impossible
Examples from Pereltsvaig (2007):
(12) a.
b.
c.
Ja videl Vanju
{serditym / serditogo}.
I saw Vanya:ACC angry:INSTR / angry.ACC
'I saw Vanya angry.'
Ja videl Vanju
{molodym / *molodogo}.
I saw Vanya:ACC young:INSTR / young:ACC
'I saw Vanya young.'
Ja videl Vanju
{*umnym / *umnogo}.
I saw Vanya:ACC intelligent:INSTR / intelligent:ACC
intended: '*I saw Vanya intelligent.'
Depictive nouns are rare; they occur obligatorily with instrumental case (Pereltsvaig
2007):
(13) a.
b.
On
vernulsja {ugrjumym / ugrjumyj}.
He:NOM returned gloomy:INSTR / gloomy:NOM
“He returned gloomy.”
On
vernulsja {geroem / *geroj}.
He:NOM returned hero:INSTR / *hero:NOM
“He returned a hero.”
Appositive adjectives can be on the individual level:
(14) a.
Peter, really smart, won the quiz.
b. * Peter won the quiz really smart.
Difference in interpretation if both sameness and instrumental are possible:
3
(15)
Ivan
prišel
domoj iz
bol'nicy zdorovyj/ zdorovym.
Ivan:NOM arrived home from hospital healthy:NOM / healthy:INSTR
‘Ivan arrived home from the hospital healthy.’
Instrumental Case marking on the adjective: 'perfective aspect'
a. The healthy state is a change of state: he went to the hospital unwell
and returned healthy (cured).
b. The healthy state is perceived as complete.
c. The subject came home from the hospital healthy, but he is not
necessarily healthy at the time of this utterance, i.e. the healthy state
holds true at a particular point in time.
Case agreement on the adjective: 'imperfective aspect'
a. No change of state implied: the adjective simply describes his state.
b. No interpretation that the antecedent's healthy state is complete, e.g.
he might be feeling a little dizzy.
c. The antecedent could still be healthy at the moment of the utterance,
i.e. the healthy state does not hold true at a particular point in time
only.
Appositive adjectives always get the same case as their antecedents (Richardson 2007):
(16)
Druz'ja priveli Ivana
domoj p'janymi / p'janogoi
[Russian]
friends brought Ivan:acc home drunk:instr / drunk:acc
'Friends brought him home drunk.'
a. Appositive interpretation (Case agreement)
b. NP modifier/attribute interpretation (Case agreement)
c. Depictive interpretation (instrumental Case or Case agreement)
Pseudocleft test for attributive interpretation (can also be used for appositive
interpretation):
(17) a.
Kogoi druz'ja priveli
who:ACC friends brought
b. * Kogoi druz'ja priveli
who:ACC friends brought
domoj home
domoj home
(tak
so
(tak
so
èto)
this
èto)
this
[Ivana
Ivan:ACC
[Ivana
Ivan:ACC
p'janogo]i
drunk:ACC
p'janym]i
drunk:INSTR
Note that in small clause constructions the predicate always gets instrumental case in
East-Slavic:
(18)
Ja sĕitaju Ivana
*(umnym) / *umnogo.
I consider Ivan:ACC intelligent:INSTR / intelligent:ACC
'I consider Ivan intelligent.'
In West-Slavic (Czech, Slovak, Slovene), both depictives and appositive adjectives
always get the same case as their antecedent.
4
(19)
Pomohl jsem Honzovi,
totálně opilému, přes ulici.
Helped I
Honza:DAT totally drunk:DAT over street
‘I helped Honza, totally drunk, cross the street.’
[Czech]
Depictives can agree with their antecedents in gender and number (Schultze-Berndt &
Himmelmann 2004: 63). In Russian, this happens always, independent of agree / Instr
case marking:
(20) a.
b.
c.
1.3
Franca ha traversato il corridoio scalza. [Italian, Napoli 1975: 414]
Franca AUX crossed
the hall
barefoot:F:SG
'Franca crossed the hall barefoot.'
On vypil čaj xolodnym.
[Russian, Nichols 1978: 115]
he drank tea cold:M:SG:INSTR
'He drank the tea cold.'
My tancuem p'janye /
p'janymi.
[Russian, Richardson 2007: 132]
we dance
drunk:PL:NOM / drunk:PL:INSTR
'We are dancing drunk. / We dance drunk.'
Antecedents
The depictive's antecedent cannot be in PP (Bailyn and Rubin 1991):
(21)
Ivani
posmotrel na Borisak golymi/*k .
Ivan:NOM looked
at Boris naked:INSTR
‘Ivan looked at Boris naked’ (only Ivan can be naked).
Accusative antecedents are restricted for depictives (Richardson 2001, 2003):
(22) a.
b.
Druz'ja
priveli ego
domoj p'janymi (/p'janogoi ).
friends:NOM brought him:ACC home drunk:INSTR (/drunk:ACC )
‘Friends brought him home drunk’ (‘he’ is drunk).
Ivani tolknul
Borisak
p'janymi/*k .
Ivan:NOM pushed Boris:ACC drunk:INSTR
‘Ivan pushed Boris drunk’ (only Ivan can be drunk).
Dative antecedents for depictives occur only in dative subject constructions (Richardson
2007):
(23) a.
Jai
dal emuk
den'gi p'janymi/*k .
I:NOM gave him:DAT money drunk:INSTR
‘I gave him money drunk’ (only I can be drunk).
5
b. * Mnei vse
nadoedaet trezvymi.
I:DAT everything bores
sober:INSTR
(intended interpretation) ‘Everything bores me (when I'm) sober.’
c.
Mnei ne rabotaetsja p'janymi (/p'janomui ).
I:DAT NEG work
drunk:INSTR (/drunk:DAT )
‘I can't seem to work drunk.’
Note: Bailyn (2001) states that (23a) is better if the depictive gets dative case.
In English, depictives cannot be related to indirect objects.
(24) a. * Mary gave Johni the book drunki.
b. * Pete told Billi the story tiredi
There seem to be exceptions, however:
(25) a.
b.
c.
De kachel geeft mij naakt minder warmte dan gekleed. [Dutch]
the heater gives me naked less
warmth than dressed
'The heater gives me less warmth when I am naked than when I am dressed.'
De kou is mij naakt pas opgevallen.
the cold is me naked only struck
'I didn't notice the cold until I was naked.'
Het water beviel mij naakt beter.
the water pleased me naked better
'I liked the water better when I was naked.'
Note that indirect objects can be controllers of PRO.
(26)
I wrote himi a letter to PROi show his mother.
Appositive adjectives, on the other hand, can be related to elements in dative and genitive
as well (Pereltsvaig 2007):
(27) a.
b.
1.4
Ivan
pomog Olegu
pjanomu.
Ivan:NOM helped Oleg:DAT drunk:DAT
“Ivan helped Oleg, (who was) drunk.”
Ivan
dožidalsja Olega
trezvogo.
Ivan:NOM waited.for Oleg:GEN sober:GEN
“Ivan waited for Oleg, (who would be) sober.”
In VP or not in VP?
Depictives are in VP, shown with VP-fronting (Roberts 1988):
(28) a.
John wanted to leave the room happy and leave the room happy he did.
a'. * John wanted to leave the room happy and leave the room he did happy.
6
b.
John wanted to drink the beer flat and drink the beer flat he did.
b'. * John wanted to drink the beer flat and drink the beer he did flat.
Appositive adjectives do not show this behaviour.
(29) a. * John wanted to leave the room, happy, and leave the room, happy, he did.
a'. John wanted to leave the room, happy, and leave the room he did, happy.
b. * John wanted to drink the beer, flat, and drink the beer, flat, he did.
b'. John wanted to drink the beer, flat, and drink the beer he did, flat.
Depicitives are included in VP-ellipsis. Appositive adjectives are not.
(30) a.
a’.
b.
b’.
John ate the meat raw and Bill did eat the meat raw too (*cooked).
John ate the meat, raw, and Bill did eat the meat too(, cooked).
Bill left sad and Mary did leave sad too (*happy).
Bill left, sad, and Mary did leave too(, happy).
1.5 More differences
Depictives are just adjectives; their appositive counterparts can include high adverbs and
certain subordinators:
(31) a. * Bill left the hospital fortunately healthy.
b. * Bill left the hospital though still ill.
c.
Bill, fortunately healthy, left the hospital.
d.
Bill, though still ill, left the hospital.
Negation in the matrix always scopes over depictives (Geuder 2000: 187). Appositives
are outside the scope of negation. (cf. Schultze-Berndt & Himmelmann 2004)
(32) a.
b.
c.
Bill didn't leave angry at John.
Bill didn't leave, angry at John.
Bill, angry at John, didn't leave.
Appositive adjectives are more flexible than depictives wrt their position in the sentence.
(33) a.
b.
c.
John, drunk, knocked at the door.
John knocked, drunk, at the door.
John knocked at the door, drunk.
(34) a. * John drunk knocked at the door.
b. * John knocked drunk at the door.
c.
John knocked at the door drunk.
7
Summary: differences between depictives and appositive adjectives
Depictives
Appositive adjectives
Intonation
integrated in matrix contour
comma intonation
Time
coincides with main predicate doesn’t coincide with main
Modification level
stage only
individual / stage
Case in Russian
agree / instrumental
agree
Antecedent
no PP, restricted IO
fine with PP, IO
VP fronting/ellipsis
included in VP
excluded from VP
High adverbs /
impossible
possible
subordinators
Negation scope
inside
outside
2.
Analysis for depictives
What we need to account for:
• Predication relation between depictive and antecedent
• Relation to main predicate (time coincides)
• Optional / not an argument of main predicate (contra small clause)
• Impossibility of PP antecedents
• Case marking (dichotomy sameness/Instr in Russian)
2.1
Previous analysis: Richardson (2007)
Adjunction of depictives at either VP or vP, resulting in object-oriented and subjectoriented depictive respectively:
vP
vP
Onai
she
AP
v'
v
goloji
naked
VP
VP
AP
V
NP
s''jela mjasok
eat
meat
syrymk
raw
• Predication relation: the antecedent c-commands the depictive.
Does it?
• Relation to main predicate: adjunction to (extended) VP
• Optional: adjunction
• Impossibility PP antecedent: antecedent inside PP cannot c-command depictive
(adjoined to (extended) VP).
8
• Case marking: the depictive probes for the antecedent to agree and share its casefeature.
Instrumental is assigned by the head of an extra layer in the adjoined AP: AspP.
Asp bears a [±bound] feature. [+bound] assigns structural Instr case. AP has case
valued and therefore does not share features with the antecedent.
Problems:
• No difference with adverbials: modification participant
• Object does not c-command depictive
• Dutch word order
Alternatives:
• Use Small Clause with PRO instead of bare AP (eg. Legendre 1997). Problem:
leaves c-command problem for PRO.
• Use Small Clause, adjoin to bar-level, and generate object in SpecVP (cf. Bailyn
2001, Markman 2008). Problem: object in SpecVP may be solution for Russian,
but unlikely for English.
2.2 Roll-up analysis
Mirror image word order Dutch vs. English/Russian suggests roll-up for English/Russian:
depictives are generated higher up and the VP moves over the depictives, taking along
the lowest depictive. Dutch only moves the Object (cf. Koster 1999):
(35) a.
b.
... ate the meat raw naked.
... het vlees naakt rauw at.
the meat naked raw ate
naakt
naked
rauw
raw
ate
at
the meat
het vlees
Problem: no difference with adverbials: modification participant
Solution: Small Clause with PRO.
Problem: Object does not c-command PRO.
Solution: Short Object Shift for both languages. No V-to-v movement in Dutch (cf.
Broekhuis 2008).
9
TP
T
PROi Pred
vP
nakedi
shei
v
PROk
Pred
VP
rawk
ate
the meatk
• Predication relation: PredP with PRO subject, c-commanded by antecedent
• Relation to main predicate: PredPs attached to (extended) VP
• Optional: 'adverbial' position
• Impossibility PP antecedent: antecedent inside PP cannot c-command PRO inside
PredP, even if it PP moves over the PredP
• Gender / Number agreement: PRO gets features from antecedent. PRO is in
predication configuration with depictive
• Case marking: heads assign case to sisters and everything included (Matushansky
2008). Pred assigns instrumental; v assigns accusative; T assigns nominative. AspP
inside PredP can assign [± bound]. If several features are assigned to one element,
PF decides which to spell out:
Subject-oriented: nom + instr + bound => instr
nom + instr - bound => nom
Object-oriented: nom + acc + instr + bound => instr
nom + acc + instr - bound => acc
3. Analysis for appositive adjectives
Depictives
Intonation
integrated in matrix contour
Time
coincides with main predicate
Modification level
stage only
Case in Russian
agree / instrumental
Antecedent
no PP, restricted IO
VP fronting/ellipsis
included in VP
High adverbs /
impossible
subordinators
Negation scope
inside
10
Appositive adjectives
comma intonation
doesn’t coincide with main
individual / stage
agree
fine with PP, IO
excluded from VP
possible
outside
TP
DP
T
vP
DP
ParP*
Johni
Par
CP
VP
ate
C
TP
though
PROi
DP
ParP*
DP
the meatk
Par
PredP
CP
ti
Pred
AP
drunki
C
TP
while
PROk
PredP
tk
Pred
AP
rawk
Parenthetical construal (starred):
special kind of merge
triggered by Par-head
no dominance relation
non-restrictive meaning
Analysis:
• Intonation + secondary level interpretation: parenthetical construal
• Predication relation: complete CP (positions for subordinators, high adverbs),
including PredP with PRO coreferent with antecedent.
• Relation to main predicate: no relation; modifying antecedent directly. Not per se
related to time of main event.
• Optional: adjunction, parenthetical construal
• Possibility PP: Closely related to antecedent and therefore possible for antecedents
in all functions.
• Case marking: Heads assign case to sister and everything it includes. PF decides
which of several features to spell out.
• Scope negation: parenthetical construal.
• Exclusion from VP: parenthetical construal.
11
Problems:
How can the depictive's position be flexible? What explains the difference between
subjects and other elements in that respect?
How can case features pass where scope can’t?
Why do appositives never get instrumental case?
References
Bailyn, J. (2001). The syntax of Slavic predicate case. In: G. Jäger et al. (eds.) Papers on
predicative constructions. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 125.
Bailyn, J. and E. Rubin (1991). The unification of Instrumental case assignment in
Russian. In: A. Toribio and W. Harbert (eds.) Cornell University Working Papers in
Linguistics. 9: 99-126.
Broekhuis, H. (2008). Derivations and Evaluations. Object Shift in the Germanic
Languages.
Geuder, W. (2002). Oriented Adverbs. Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs.
PhD Dissertation. Universität Tübingen.
Hinterhölzl, R. (2001). Semantic constraints on case assignment in secondary adjectival
predicates in Russian. ZAS papers in Linguistics 22, 99-112.
Koster, J. (1999). The Word Orders of English and Dutch: Collective vs. Individual
Checking. In: W. Abraham (ed.) Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik
43, 1-42.
Legendre, G. (1997). Secondary predication and functional projections in French. Natural
Language and linguistic Theory 15: 43-87.
Matushansky, O. (2008). A Case Study of Predication. In: F. Marušič and R. Žaucer (eds.)
Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions from Formal Description of
Slavic Languages 6.5. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 213-239.
Markman, V. (2008). The Case of Predicates (Revisited): Predicate Instrumental in
Russian and Its Restrictions. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16 (2): 187-246.
Napoli, D.J. (1975). A global agreement phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 413-435.
Nichols, J. (1978). Secondary predicates. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 114-127.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2007). Copular sentences in Russian. A theory of intra-clausal relations.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Rapoport, T.R. (1999). Structure, Aspect, and the Predicate. Language 75 (4): 653-677.
Roberts, I. (1988). Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 703-710.
Richardson, K. (2007). Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rothstein, S. (2006). Secondary predication. In: M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.)
The Syntax Companion: Blackwell: Oxford.
Schultze-Berndt, E. & N. Himmelmann, (2004). Depictive secondary predicates in
crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8, 59-131.
12