3rd Workshop on Aspect and Argument Structure of Adjectives and Participles (WAASAP 3)
Université Lille 3 (France)XXXXXJune 13th , 2016
(5) La ciudad está protegida {por los ciudadanos/ con barricadas/ valerosamente}.
with barricades courageously
the city
is protected {by the citizens
Argument structure in adjectival passives:
an aspect-based approach
‘The city is protected {by the citizens with barricades courageously}.’
→ Research question: What is behind this asymmetry? I.e. Under what conditions are external argument(EA)-oriented modifiers allowed or disallowed in APass?
Alfredo García-Pardo
(University of Southern California)
[email protected] // [email protected]
■ Main claims:
– The asymmetry is Aktionsart-based:
* APass derived from telic/change-of-state VPs disallow EAs.
* APass derived from stative causative VPs allow EAs.
1 Introduction
– The reason: the formation of APass must preserve the core aspectual structure of the
underlying VP.
• This paper focuses on Spanish adjectival passives (APass) as in (1) and (2).
(1) La ciudad está destruida.
the city
is destroyed
(2) La ciudad está protegida.
the city
is protected
‘The city is destroyed.’
‘The city is protected.’
* Stative causative VPs are inherently formed with the EA-introducing projection.
* Change-of-state VPs are formed without the EA-introducing projection.
• Roadmap:
• There is a growing consensus in the literature that participles are built in the syntax, not
in the lexicon (Kratzer 2000; Anagnostopoulou 2003; Embick 2004; Bruening 2014,a.o.).1
(3)
AP
A
– Section 2 discusses previous accounts for Spanish.
(Adapted from Embick 2004: 367)
– Section 3 presents my proposal.
– Section 4 compares my proposal with existing accounts for other languages.
vP
v
p
– Section 5 discusses a cross-linguistic typology of APass regarding argument structure.
OPEN
– Section 6 concludes the talk.
• The participle is built from verbal structure, which introduces a complex eventuality and
presumably argument structure.
2 Previous accounts
→ A puzzle: agent-oriented modifiers (by-phrases, instruments, adverbs...) are sometimes
disallowed in APass (eg. (4)) and sometimes allowed (eg. (5)).
• APass in Spanish do not generally allow agent-oriented modification (Gómez-Torrego
1988; Bosque 1990; Marín 2000, focusing on by-phrases). See (6), repeated from (4).
(4) La ciudad está destruida *{por el ejército/ con bombas/ vilmente}.
with bombs foully
the city
is destroyed *{by the army
(6) La ciudad está destruida *{por el ejército/ con bombas/ vilmente}.
with bombs foully
the city
is destroyed *{by the army
(‘The city is destroyed {by the army/ with bombs/ foully}.’)
1 But see Wasow (1977); Levin & Rappaport (1986); Horvath & Siloni (2008); Meltzer-Asscher (2011), for the view
(‘The city is destroyed {by the army/ with bombs/ foully}.’)
that APass are formed in the lexicon
1
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
• The same has been observed for other languages:
b. El abrigo está agujereado por las polillas.
the coat is perforated by the moths
– German (Rapp 1996; Gehrke 2012) (eg. (7), from Rapp 1996:246 (via Gehrke 2012))
‘The coat is eaten-up by moths.’
– Hebrew (Borer & Wexler 1987; Meltzer-Asscher 2011) (eg. (8), from Meltzer-Asscher
2011:819)
(From Hengeveld 1986)
c. El camino está cortado por los manifestantes.
the road
is cut
by the demonstrators
– English (Embick 2004; McIntyre 2013, 2015) (eg. (9))
‘The road is cut by the demonstrators.’
(7) Der Mülleimer ist {*von meiner Nichte / *langsam / *genüsslich / *mit der
niece / *slowly / *pleasurably / *with the
the rubbish-bin is {*by my
Heugabel} geleert.
hayfork emptied
(From Navas-Ruiz 1987)
• A similar view has been expressed for APass in English (McIntyre 2013, 2015), German
(Rapp 1996) and Hebrew (Meltzer-Asscher 2011).
• As it stands, the state-relevance explanation relies on unclear pragmatic notions.
• It also has a lot of counterexamples (eg. (12)).
(8) ha-mexonit rexuca (*al-yedey maks / *be-tsumetxlev / *be-cinor).
the-car
washed (*by
Max / *in-attention / *in-hose
(12)
(‘The car is washed by Max / carefully / with a hose.’)
(9) *The glass is broken {by John / with a hammer / violently}.
a. La cortina está rasgada (??por el gato / ??con un cuchillo de sierra).
the curtain is torn
(??by the cat / ??with a knife
of saw
b. La arena está pisoteada (??por unos niños).
the terrain is stomped (??by some kids
• But agent-oriented modifiers are sometimes allowed in APass (eg. (10), repeated from (5))
c. Este problema está resuelto (??por el mejor alumno de la clase)
This problem is solved (??by the best student of the class
(10) La ciudad está protegida {por los ciudadanos/ con barricadas/ valerosamente}.
the city
is protected {by the citizens
with barricades courageously
→ The state-relevance hypothesis will not be very helpful.
‘The city is protected {by the citizens with barricades courageously}.’
2.2 Atelicity
• This has been long observed in traditional and descriptive grammars of Spanish.
• Two main explanations have been given in the literature to this respect (often intertwined):
• Participles derived from atelic verbs freely allow event-related modifiers (Fernández-Ramírez
1951; Gómez-Torrego 1988; Conti-Jiménez 2004, a.o. also focusing mostly on by-phrases).
2.1 State relevance
(13)
• By-phrases are only possible if they somehow pertain to, are relevant for, or are detectable
in the result state, or contribute to maintaining the result state (Bull 1965; Navas-Ruiz
1987; Hengeveld 1986; Bosque 1990).
(11)
‘The ranch is enclosed by a fence.’
(Spanish, from Mendikoetxea 1999:1624)
b. El garaje está vigilado por el guarda.
the garage is surveilled by the guard
a. El documento está firmado por el embajador.
the document is signed by the ambassador
‘The document is signed by the ambassador.’
a. La finca está cercada por una valla.
the ranch is enclosed by a fence
‘The garage is surveilled by the guard.’
(From Hengeveld 1986)
2
(Spanish, from Gómez-Torrego 1988)
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
• As far as I am aware, aspect-based approaches have not been pursued for the literature
in other languages, but it has been pointed out for English (see the "event-in-progress"
participles discussed in McIntyre (2013)).
(16)
V’
V
VP
b. e1 → e2
→ I will pursue this view here.
• CoS VPs may be transitive: this involves a higher layer, vP (or initP, in Ramchand) which
introduces an EA and a non-dynamic subevent.
• The Aktionsart approach does need to be worked out, for two main reasons:
i) As it stands, it is purely descriptive.
• Again, the subevent introduced by vP is interpreted as causing the lower sub-event and
the EA, by entailment, is the "causer" of the event ("initiator" in Ramchand)
ii) The type of atelic predicates that allow event-related modification is still ill-understood,
since activities (eg. (14), from Luján 1981:199) and simple states (eg. (15)) are generally
disallowed in APass.
(14) *La carreta está empujada.
*the cart
is pushed
a.
→ A crucial point: my vP is not Kratzer’s (1996) VoiceP, as later followed by many others: although both introduce an EA, my vP also introduces another stative subevent (like Ramchand’s initP, and unlike Kratzer’s VoiceP, which integrates the EA thematically with the
subevent in VP via Event Identification).
(15) *Pedro está amado.
*Pedro is loved
(17)
3 The proposal
a. El vaso se rompió.
the glass SE broke
‘The glass broke.’
b.
3.1 Two Aktionsart types in APass
• There are two Aktionsart types allowed in Spanish APass (García-Pardo 2014):
VP
V
RP
– Change of state (CoS)
R’
DP
– Stative causatives (StCs)
El vaso
3.1.1 Change-of-state (CoS) verbs
R
p
ROMPER
c. ∃e,s [e → s & Subject (el vaso,s) & ROMPER(s)]
(18)
• CoS verbs denote a change-of-state, semantically decomposed into a process and a result
state (Moens & Steedman 1988; Parsons 1990,a.o.)
a. Juan rompió el vaso.
Juan broke the glass
‘Juan broke the glass.’
• They are formed syntactically: a bipartite verb phrase, with a higher VP denoting a dynamic sub-event and a lower VP denoting a state, which I call R(esult)P following Ramchand (2008).
• The subevents are interpreted as being causally related from their syntactic contiguity:
the higher subevent brings about the lower subevent (Hale & Keyser 1993; Ramchand
2008). The idea is represented in (16), where "→" stands for the causal relation).
3
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
b.
b.
vP
DP
Juan
v’
DP
VP
v
vP
V
Carmen
v’
RP
v
RP
DP
DP
R’
el vaso
p
R
la empresa
R’
R
p
DIRIGIR
c. ∃s1 ,s2 [s1 → s2 & Subject(Carmen,s1 ) & Subject(la empresa,s2 ) & DIRIGIR(s2 )]
ROMPER
c. ∃s1 ,e,s2 [s1 → e → s2 & Subject(Juan,s1 ) & Subject(el vaso,s2 ) & ROMPER(s2 )]
3.2 Argument structure asymmetries
3.1.2 Stative causative (StC) verbs
→ Crucial prediction of this analysis (see also García-Pardo 2016):
• StC verbs denote a stative causation, semantically decomposed into two causally related
states, temporally coextensive (Kratzer 2000; Arad 2002; García-Pardo 2014, 2016,a.o.).
– StC verbs cannot have unaccusative variants: vP is involved in building a StC VP (eg.
(20)).
• StCs are also formed syntactically, via an RP and a vP (García-Pardo 2016). This structure
gives us:
– CoS verbs can have unaccusative variants: vP is not involved in building a CoS structure
(eg. (21)).
– Two states (denoted bt vP and RP) that are causally related (by their syntactic contiguity)
(20)
– Lack of dynamicity (no VP)
/ controló / habitó}.
b. *El museo (se) {protegió / vigiló
*the museum (SE {protected / surveilled / controlled / inhabited
• Three main types of StCs:
(21)
– Object-experiencer psych verbs (aterrar ‘terrify’, impresionar ‘impress’, irritar ‘irritate’...)
– "Location" verbs (rodear ‘surround’, cubrir ‘cover’, obstruir ‘obstruct’...)
a. Los niños {rompieron / abrieron / reventaron / deformaron} la ventana.
/ opened / shattered / deformed
the kids {broke
the window
b. La ventana {se rompió / se abrió / reventó / se deformó}.
the window {SE broke / SE opened / shattered / SE deformed
– Other verbs like gobernar ‘govern’, dirigir ‘direct’, proteger ‘protect’, vigilar ‘surveil’...)2
(19)
a. Los expertos {protegieron / vigilaron / controlaron / habitaron} la fábrica.
the experts {protected / surveilled / controlled / inhabited the factory
a. Carmen dirige la empresa.
Carmen directs the company
3.3 Aspect-preservation in APass
‘Carmen directs the company.’
• APass formation does not alter the Aktionsart of the base VP.
2 See Fábregas & Marín (to appear) for an alternative analysis of these verbs.
– APass derived from CoS VPs derive an anteriority reading for the process subevent:
4
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
(26) La ciudad está protegida {por los ciudadanos/ con barricadas/ valerosamente}.
with barricades courageously
the city
is protected {by the citizens
(22) La ciudad está destruida.
the city
is destroyed
X Anteriority reading: The city is in a current state of destruction,brought about
‘The city is protected {by the citizens with barricades courageously}.’
by a previous event.
× Progressive reading: The city is currently being destructed (i.e. the process
event holds at reference time).
■ Interim summary:
• There are two types of resultative Aktionsart types allowed in APass:
– APass derived from StCs VPs derive an progressive reading for the causing subevent (i.e.
there is no coercion into a CoS subevent):3
i) CoS: built with VP (dynamic process) and RP (result state). No EA.
ii) StCs: built with vP (causational state) and RP (result state). EA obligatory.
(23) La ciudad está protegida.
the city
is protected
• The Aktionsart and argument structure of the verbal input are preserved in APass
X Progressive reading: The city is currently being protected (i.e.
the causing
state holds at reference time).
× Anteriority reading: The city is in a current state of protection, brough about
by a previous event.
3.4 Building the APass
• I assume that APass are built with a head Adj, with two functions (see Kratzer 2000):
• Note that both readings are resultative: the APass predicates of a result state in both cases:
in the anteriority reading there is a change of state and in the progessive reading there is
stative causation.
– Morphosyntactic: It is an adjectivizer. Derives an adjective from a verb.
– Semantic: It is a stativizer. It derives a predicate of the result state of the underlying
eventuality.
• This is predicted by the hypothesis in (24):
* Adj also existentially closes the process/causing state argument, and in the case of
StCs, the agent argument too.
(24) Aspect Preservation Hypothesis (see Fábregas et al. 2012 for nominalizations):
The lexical aspect of a verb is preserved under adjectivization.
• I assume that Adj carries a [+R] feature that requires checking with an R(esult) head.4
• If Aktionsart is syntactically built, with the argument structure asymmetries we discussed,
and adjectivization preserves Aktionsart...
→ This derives the restriction of APass against non-resultative VPs (i.e. activities and simple states)
→ ...then the same argument structure asymmetries regarding the EA should carry over to
the APass.
• Adj attaches right after Aktionsart is built, effectively barring the verb phrase for projecting further, eg. vP in the case of CoS verbs.5
• This is indeed the case: see (25) for CoS and (26) for StCs, repeated from (4) and (5).
• I provide examples of the structure of APass from CoS VPs in (27) and APass from StC VPs
in (28).
(25) La ciudad está destruida *{por el ejército/ con bombas/ vilmente}.
with bombs foully
the city
is destroyed *{by the army
(‘The city is destroyed {by the army/ with bombs/ foully}.’)
4 See Folli & Harley (2014) for an analysis of the verb-framed vs. satellite-framed typology that also involves a [+res]
3 The same effects holds in languages like English, Hebrew or German. These facts are often overlooked by authors
feature.
5 Thus, I do not assume that typically agentive verbs (i.e. that do not anti-causativize, eg. murder, baptize...) neces-
who posit anteriority semantics (eg. in the form of a temporal operator) as an intrinsic and the only part of the
meaning of APass in general (eg. Bruening (2014)). These accounts cannot be correct, as (23) shows.
sarily impose the projection of vP, unlike Alexiadou et al. (2006) or Ramchand (2008).
5
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
(27)
a. La ciudad está destruida.
the city
is destroyed
ii) VoiceP: introduces an EA syntactically, and takes a vP complement. It can be active or
passive.
‘The city is destroyed.’
b.
• But note: EA-oriented modifiers are licensed by vP, not VoiceP. They are merged as adjuncts to vP.
AdjP
Adj
VP
V
(29)
RP
DP
a. La ciudad está protegida {por los ciudadanos/ con barricadas/
the city
is protected {by the citizens
with barricades
valerosamente}.
courageously
‘The city is protected {by the citizens with barricades courageously}.’
R’
b.
p
R
DESTRUIDA
c. λs ∃e [e → s & Subject(la ciudad,s) & DESTRUIDA(s)]
AdjP
la ciudad
(28)
Adj
a. La ciudad está protegida.
the city
is protected
vP
‘The city is protected.’
b.
AdjP
Adj
XP
vP
vP
v
RP
v
RP
La ciudad protegida
DP
R’
la ciudad
p
{por los ciudadanos/
con barricadas/
valerosamente...}
3.4.2 On the base position of the subject
R
PROTEGIDA
c. λs2 ∃s1 ,x [s1 → s2 & Subject(x,s1 ) & Subject(la ciudad,s2 ) & PROTEGIDA(s2 )]
• It has been argued that the subject of the APass (i.e. its thematic internal argument) is
truly an EA.
3.4.1 Splitting the EA-introducing projection
– English (Levin & Rappaport 1986)
– Russian and Hebrew (Borer 2005)
• In (28b), I posit a specifierless vP. In fact, I advocate to split the EA-introducing projection
in two (see Harley 2013 for a precedent)
• In Spanish there is no evidence for an unaccusative vs. unergative analysis of the subject
(see Gehrke 2012 who reports the same situation for German), so I remain neutral to this
respect.
i) A causative vP: introduces an EA semantically but not syntactically (and, in my view, an
additional subevent as well).
6
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
• If we pursue the externalization approach, two syntactic proposals have been made in the
literature that can be adapted to my own (I have no particular preference for one or the
other)
4 Comparison with previous accounts. EA in all languages?
• APass have been claimed to have an implicit EA in the following languages:
– The internal argument is an null anaphor PRO that is bound by a higher, externallymerged subject (Hallman 2013) (eg. (30a))
– English: Hallman (2013); McIntyre (2013, 2015); Bruening (2014)
– The internal argument is a λ-abstractor operator that moves to Adj and creates an open
position for a subject (eg. (30b)) (McIntyre 2013; Bruening 2014)
– Hebrew: Meltzer-Asscher (2011); Doron (2013)
(30)
a.
– Spanish: No proposals (that I know of)
AdjP
EXTERNAL
SUBJECTi
• Evidence: EA-oriented modifiers may in fact appear in APass in these languages.
• I will organize this evidence in two sections:
Adj’
Adj
4.1 EA-oriented modifiers with StCs
vP/VP
RP
v/V
PROi
• Although mostly overlooked, many of the data argued for an implicit EA actually involves
StCs, which my analysis explains.
R’
R
b.
– German: Alexiadou et al. (2014, 2015)
By-phrases are often said to be OK if they modify the state directly or apply to the state
directly (Rapp 1996, 1997; Gehrke 2012, 2013; Meltzer-Asscher 2011; McIntyre 2013; Alexiadou et al. 2015,a.o.), and remember section 2.1 for Spanish.
p
AdjP
EXTERNAL
SUBJECT
→ But really what they modify is the causative subevent of StCs, temporally coextensive with
its result state, i.e. there is no such result-oriented by-phrases. The result-state-relevance
for by-phrases is not a well-formedness condition, but a by-effect of the aspectual meaning of StCs, because the two stative subevents are temporally coextensive.
λx...
Adj’
OP
Adj’
Adj
(31)
vP/VP
‘He is impressed by the music.’
(2015:899))
RP
v/V
tOP
(German, from Rapp (1996,1997) via Gehrke
b. ha-ictadion šamur al-yedey šotrim
xamušim.
the-stadium guarded by
policemen armed
R’
R
a. Er ist von der Musik beeindruckt.
he is by the music impressed
p
‘The stadium is guarded by armed policemen.’
Meltzer-Asscher 2011:823)
(Hebrew, from
c. The road remained {blocked by police/ supported by pylons}. (English, from
McIntyre 2013:7)
7
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
• Nonetheless, other result-state-relevant modifiers reported in the literature are true resultoriented modifiers (I assume they adjoin to RP).
(32)
• Gehrke proposes that APass denote result states of event-kinds (cf. Carlson (1977) for kind
entities in the nominal domain)
a. The dog is tied up with a rope (*by a policeman).
b. The car is all sprayed with paint (*yesterday).
(33)
4.2.1 The well-established event kinds hypothesis
(English, from McIntyre 2015)
N.B. Gehrke only focuses on APass derived from CoS verbs.
a. El tesoro está enterrado {en el jardín/ *desde un helicóptero}
the treasure is buried
in the garden *from a helicopter
• Event-related modification in German APass is only possible if they refer to well-established
event kinds in the community of speakers.
b. Una estantería sujeta a la pared {con un clavo/ #con un martillo }
a
shelf
fixed to the wall {with a nail #with a hammer
• Gehrke notes that in German, event-related modifiers in APass such as instrumentals and
by-phrases cannot be specific. Eg. the indefinites in (35a) and (35b) cannot have a specific
reading, as shown by the ungrammaticality of refering to them as concrete entities in the
discourse.
‘A shelf fixed to the wall {with a nail/ #with a hammer}.’ (Spanish, from Bosque
1990:192)
(35)
• The data suggest that languages like Hebrew, German and English actually behave like
Spanish.
a. Die Karte ist mit [einem Bleistift]1 geschrieben. *Er1 ist blau.
the card is with ]a
*he is blue
pencil
written
(German, from Gehrke 2015:904)
→ My analysis could plausibly be extended to these languages too.
b. Die Zeichnung ist von [einem Kind]1 angefertigt. *Es1 hat rote Haare.
the drawing is by ]a
child produced *it has red hairs
4.2 EA-oriented modifiers with CoS
(German, from Gehrke 2015:904)
• But this is not enough: these non-specific indefinites also need to be contextually wellestablished within the community of speakers, eg. (36) are out because there is no wellestablished event kind of a niece emptying a trash can or a man opening a door, as opposed to a writing of a letter with a pencil or a drawing by a kid in (35).
• A final challenge: by-phrases in APass derived from CoS verbs (eg. (34), repeated from
(11))
(34)
a. El documento está firmado por el embajador.
the document is signed by the ambassador
(36)
‘The document is signed by the ambassador.’
a. *Der Mülleimer ist von einer Nichte geleert.
*the rubbish-bin is by a
niece emptied
intended: ‘The rubbish bin is emptied by a niece.’
b. El abrigo está agujereado por las polillas.
the coat is perforated by the moths
(German, from Gehrke
2015:923)
b. *Die Tür ist von einem Mann geöffnet.
*the door is by a
man opened
‘The coat is eaten-up by moths.’
intended: ‘The door is opened by a man.’
→ How are by-phrases possible in (34) if these APass have no vP?
(German, from Gehrke 2015:923)
• Gehrke further points out that proper names may actually be possible in by-phrases, but
again, they are subject to the well-established event kind constraint: the proper name
needs to refer to someone noteworthy among the community of speakers, eg. the event
of Chomsky citing a manuscript vs. Sandberger citing it in (37).
• A possible solution is found in the event-kind hypothesis developed in a series of works
by Gehrke (2011, 2012, 2013, 2015)
8
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
(37) Das Manuskript ist von {Chomsky/ ?Sandberger} zitiert.
the manuscript is by {Chomsky ?Sandberger cited
‘The manusript is cited by {Chomsky/ (Sandberg)}.’
2015:914 via Maienborn 2009)
hem
trobat pis,
que començarem a reformar molt
c. *Per fi
*for final have.1SG found apartment that begin.FUT.1PL to renovate very
aviat.
soon
(German, from Gehrke
intended: ‘At last we have found an apartment, which we will begin to renovate
soon.’
(Catalan, from Espinal and McNally 2011:95)
• I note that the same contrasts hold in Spanish:
(38)
a. La carta está escrita {a lápiz/ *con este lápiz}.
the letter is written {by pencil *with this pencil
• Espinal (2010): pseudo-incorporated bare nouns in Spanish and Catalan are bare NPs
(i.e.they have no NumP or DP projection).
b. El abrigo está agujereado {por las polillas/ *por estas diez polillas.
the coat is perforated {by the moths *by these ten moths
• Note that this structural impoverishment is parallel to my structures: CoS verbs in APass
only have VP, not vP.
c. El documento está firmado {por el embajador/ ??por Pepito}.
the document is signed {by the ambassador ??by Pepito
6
• In fact, these pseudo-incorporated bare nouns are not true arguments of the verb, but
rather, as property-denoting expressions (they lack DP) they modify the transitive verb
they appear with (Espinal 2010).
• Gehrke (2015) proposes that event-related modifiers in APass involve pseudo-incorporation
with the participle: although syntactically independent, they share semantic properties
with incorporation.
→ We therefore could think of EA-oriented modifiers in APass in the same way.
• Gehrke makes an analogy with event-related modifiers in APass and some bare nouns in
internal argument position in Spanish and Catalan that have also been argued to involve
pseudo-corporation (Espinal & McNally 2011).
1. Argumental EA-oriented modifiers: they are licensed syntactically by vP and semantically by the open argument. Found in APass derived from StCs (and in verbal passives
in general).
• Espinal & McNally (2011): Pseudo-incorporated bare nouns in Spanish and Catalan name
institutionalized or conventionalized activities (eg. apartment-hunting in (39a)). Like
the nouns in APass modifiers, these bare nouns cannot introduce discourse referents(eg.
(39b-c)).
(39)
2. Non-argumental (event-kind) EA-oriented modifiers: they are not licensed by vP, but
they instead pseudo-incorporate to VP, showing the typical restrictions on pseudo-incorporation already discussed. I assume they attach to VP syntactically7 .
• There is prosodic evidence from German that there are two types of by-phrases (Schlücker
2005; Gehrke 2012):
a. Busco
pis/
Busco
piso.
look.for.1SG apartment look.for.1SG apartment
‘I am looking for an apartment.’ (Catalan/Spanish, from Espinal and McNally
2011:88)
1. VP-adjuncts that do not form a prosodic unit with the participle. They are my vPmodifiers (i.e. with StCs).8
hi
vam
regalar l’any
b. Avui porta
faldilla1 . *La1
*it.ACC her.DAT AUX.PAST.1PL give.INF the-year
today wear.3SG skirt
passat.
last
– The neutral stress falls on the participle (eg. (40a)).
2. V-adjuncts. form a prosodic unit with the participle. They are my CoS modifiers.
– The neutral stress falls on the modifier (eg. (40b)).
intended: ‘Today she is wearing a skirt. We gave it to her as a present last year.’
(Catalan, from Espinal and McNally 2011:94)
7 But see Gehrke (2015), who proposes that event-related modifiers attach to PrtP (the projection that carries par-
ticipial morphology) right before adjectivization.
8 See Gehrke (2012), who already notes that these types of modifiers are only possible with stative verbs.
6 See Massam (2001) for coinage of the term for Niuean.
9
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
(40)
a. Er ist von der Musík beEINdruckt.
he is by the music impressed
• Anagnostopoulou (2003); Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (2008): Greek adjectival passives
have VoiceP. Alexiadou et al. (2015) claim it is a non-active VoiceP, which does not project
a specifier.
b. Die Zeichnung ist von einem KIND angefertigt.
the drawing is by a
child made
• In Alexiadou et al. (2015) they extend the analysis to Swedish and Russian.
• I conclude that in Spanish these two types of EA-oriented modifiers exist as well.
• They propose the following cross-linguistic typology:
1. Restrictive languages: German, Hebrew, English (and Spanish).
■ Summarizing:
2. Permissive languages: Greek, Swedish, Russian.
• Modification in APass derived from CoS verbs falls in two types:
• Adapted to my proposal, we would have the following structures:9
– Result-oriented modifiers (adjuncts to RP)
– EA-oriented (event-kind) modifiers: restricted, pseudo-incorporated to VP.
(42) APass in permissive languages
AdjP
• EA-oriented modifiers in CoS APass are not licensed by vP/VoiceP.
Adj
VoiceP
Voice
vP
5 Crosslinguistic extensions
VP
v
• Other languages seem to have an EA in APass derived from CoS (see Anagnostopoulou
2003; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2008; Alexiadou et al. 2015 for Greek; Paslawska &
von Stechow 2003 for Russian and Larsson 2009 for Swedish; see Alexiadou et al. 2015 for
an overview).
V
R
(43) APass in restrictive languages
• I provide examples for Greek in (41) (from Anagnostopoulou 2003:18-19)
(41)
RP
p
a. Derived from CoS verbs
AdjP
a. To psari itan tiganismeno apo tin Maria.
the fish was fried
by the Mary
Adj
‘The fish was fried by Mary.’
b. To thisavrofilakio itan prosektika anigmeno/ skopima
paraviasmeno.
the safe
was cautiously opened
deliberately violated
VP
V
R
‘The safe was cautiously opened/ deliberately opened.’
c. Ta malia tis basilisas
ine xtenismena me xrisi xtena.
the hair the queen-GEN are combed
with golden comb
RP
p
9 Alexiadou et al. ’s (2015) proposal differs in important respects from Anagnostopoulou (2003) and Alexiadou &
‘The hair of the queen is combed with a golden comb.’
BLANK SPACE
Anagnostopoulou (2008) and, in my opinion, it has several non-trivial drawbacks, so I do not pursue their approach here. Their proposal is discussed at length in the Appendix.
10
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
b. Derived from StC verbs
AdjP
Adj
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. Structuring Participles. Pages 33–41 of: Chang, C. B., &
Haynie, Hannah J. (eds), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
vP
v
R
RP
p
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The Properties of Anticausatives Crosslinguistically. In: Frascarelli, M. (ed), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,187-211.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Gehrke, Berit, & Schäfer, Florian. 2014. The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua, 149, 118–138.
• The crosslinguistic typology could then be reduced to the c-selectional properties of Adj,
i.e. to whether it can take VoiceP or not (but see also Hallman, today).
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6 Conclusions
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. Participles and Voice. In: Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M., & von Stechow, A. (eds), Perfect
Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-36.
• I have argued for the following:
Arad, Maya. 2002. Universal Features and Language-Particular Morphemes. In: Alexiadou, A. (ed), Theoretical
Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15-39.
– The asymmetry regarding event-related modification is Aktionsart-based.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense, Vol. II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
– EA-related modifiers are fully possible with APass derived from StC verbs because they
include an implicit EA in their aspectual structure (encoded in vP)
Borer, Hagit, & Wexler, Kenneth. 1987. The Maturation of Syntax. In: Roeper, T., & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter
Setting and Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel, 123–172.
* The observation that by-phrases in APass need to be result-oriented or be relevant to
the result state is just a by-effect of the aspectual structure of StCs.
Bosque, Ignacio. 1990. Sobre el aspecto en los adjetivos y en los participios. In: Bosque, Ignacio (ed), Tiempo y
aspecto en español. Madrid: Cátedra, 177-214.
– EA-related modifiers are generally not possible with APass derived from CoS verbs because they do not have vP (and hence no implicit EA)
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 32, 363–422.
* When EA-related modifiers are possible, they are pseudo-incorporated to the VP. Positing vP/VoiceP to account for these modifiers overgenerates a lot.
Bull, William. 1965. Spanish for Teachers. New York: Ronald Press.
• Theoretical implications:
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Pub.
New York: Garland, 1980. (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series.)].
– If I am correct, the recent work advocating for an implicit EA in all APass (and its structural representation via v/Voice) in Spanish and analogous languages should be reconsidered (McIntyre 2013; Alexiadou et al. 2014; Bruening 2014; Alexiadou et al. 2015,a.o.)
Conti-Jiménez, Carmen. 2004. Construcciones pasivas con estar. ELUA, 18, 21–44.
Doron, Edit. 2013. The interaction of adjectival passive and voice. In: H. Borer, A. Alexiadou, & Schäfer, F. (eds),
The Roots of Syntax and the Syntax of Roots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
– Aktionsart is crucial to explain these argument structure asymmetries, and this study
adds further evidence for the syntactic reality of Aktionsart (and of derivational morphology).
Embick, David. 2004. On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 35: 3, 355–92.
Espinal, María Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua, 120,
984–1009.
– Even further, it provides evidence that not only internal arguments, but also external
ones play a role in building meaningful Aktionsart configurations (contra the extended
assumption that EAs are somehow external to the ‘lexical’ Aktionsart-building domain
and do not play a role in it) (see also García-Pardo 2016).
Espinal, María Teresa, & McNally, Louise. 2011. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and
Catalan. Journal of Linguistics, 47, 87–128.
11
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
Fábregas, Antonio, & Marín, Rafael. to appear. On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish. Linguistics.
Levin, Beth, & Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The Formation of Adjectival Passives. Linguistic Inquiry, 17: 4, 623–61.
Fábregas, Antonio, Marín, Rafael, & McNally, Louise. 2012. From Psych Verbs to Nouns. In: Telicity, Change and
State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 162-184.
Luján, Marta. 1981. The Spanish copulas as aspectual indicators. Lingua, 54, 165–210.
Maienborn, Claudia. 2009. Building ad hoc properties: On the interpretation of adjectival passives. In: Riester, A.,
& Solstad, T. (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13. University of Stuttgart, 31-46.
Fernández-Ramírez, Salvador. 1951. Gramática española. El verbo y la oración. Vol. 4. Madrid: Arco Libros.
Folli, Raffaella, & Harley, Heidi. 2014 (December). Against deficiency-based typologies: Manner-alternation parameters in Italian and English. Talk given at Going Romance 28.
Marín, Rafael. 2000. El componente aspectual de la predicación. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 153–
197.
García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2014. The aspectual composition of adjectival passives. In: 50th Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistics Society (CLS50).
García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2016. Decomposing Stative Causatives. Ms, USC.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2013. Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In: Alexiadou, Artemis, & Schäfer,
Florian (eds), Non-Canonical Passives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21-42.
Gehrke, Berit. 2011. Stative passives and event kinds. In: Reich, I., Horch, E., & Pauly, D. (eds), Proceedings of Sinn
und Bedeutung 15. Saarbrücken, Universaar: Saarland University Press, 241-257.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2015. Event modifiers in (German) adjectival participles: Remarks on Gehrke (this issue). Natural Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33, 939–953.
Gehrke, Berit. 2012. Passive states. In: Demonte, V., & McNally, L. (eds), Telicity, Change and State. A CrossCategorial View of Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185-211.
Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 2011. Adjectival passives in Hebrew: evidence for parallelism between the adjectival and
verbal systems. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 815–855.
Gehrke, Berit. 2013. Still puzzled by adjectival passives? In: Folli, R., Sevdali, C., & Truswell, R. (eds), Syntax and its
Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175-191.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In: Bosque, I., & Demonte, V. (eds), Gramática
descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, ch. 25. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1575-1630.
Gehrke, Berit. 2015. Adjectival participles, event kind modification and pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory, 33, 897–938.
Moens, Marc, & Steedman, Mark. 1988. Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference. Computational Linguistics,
14: 2, 15–28.
Gómez-Torrego, Leonardo. 1988. Perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Arco Libros.
Navas-Ruiz, Ricardo. 1987. Usos de ‘ser’ y ‘estar’. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Librería.
Hale, Kenneth L., & Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. In:
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (eds), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53-109.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Hallman, Peter. 2013. Predication and movement in passive. Lingua, 125, 76–94.
Paslawska, Alla, & von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. In: Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M., & von
Stechow, A. (eds), Perfect explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 307–62.
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua, 34–57.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1986. Copular verbs in a functional grammar of Spanish. Linguistics, 24, 393–420.
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Horvath, Julia, & Siloni, Tal. 2008. Active lexicon: Adjectival and verbal passives. In: Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Rothsten, Susan, & Danon, Gabi (eds), Generative Approaches to Hebrew Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
105-136.
Rapp, Irene. 1996. Zustand? Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten "Zustandspassiv". Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 15(2), 231–265.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In: Rooryck, Johan, & Zaring, Laurie (eds),
Phrase structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109-37.
Rapp, Irene. 1997. Partizipen und semantische Struktur. Zu passivischen Konstruktionen des 3. Status. Tübingen,
Stauffenburg Verlag.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In: Conathan, Lisa J., Good, Jeff, Kavitskaya, Darya, Wulf, Alyssa B., &
Yu, Alan C. L. (eds), Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley
Linguistics Society, 385-99.
Schlücker, Barbara. 2005. Event-related modifiers in German adjectival passives. In: Maier, E., Bary, C., & Huitink,
J. (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9. Radboud University Nijmegen, 417-30.
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In: Culicover, P. W., T.Wasow, & Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal
syntax. New York: Academic Press, 327-60.
Larsson, Ida. 2009. Participles in time: the development of the Perfect tense in Swedish. Ph.D. thesis, Göteborg
University.
12
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
(46)
Appendix A An alternative analysis: Alexiadou et al. (2015)
A.1 Alexiadou et al. ’s (2015) proposal
‘The tires are still inflated by Mary.’
b. Ta lastixa ine (*akoma) fuskomena me tin tromba.
the tires are (still)
inflated
with the pump.
• Assumption (syntactizing Gehrke’s analysis): event kinds only get instantiated when verbal structure is directly embedded under Tense and Aspect.
‘The tires are (*still) inflated with the pump.’
• Alexiadou et al. (2015) take up Kratzer (2000)’s distinction between target and resultant
state passives (they do not discuss the correlation between Aktionsart and event-related
modification).
c. To thisavrofilakio itan (*akoma) prosektika anigmeno.
the safe
was (still)
cautiously opened
‘The safe was (*still) cautiously opened.’
• German-type (i.e. Restrictive-type) APass lack Asp and thus the event does not get instantiated (hence the event-modification incompatibilities shown in (9)), repeated as (47)).
A.1.1 A brief detour: Kratzer’s (2000) typology of APass
– Target-state APass: they retrieve a transitory target state from the event structure of
the underlying VP (i.e. a derived Aktionsart, cf. (44b)). Since the state they denote is
transitory, they accept still (cf. (44a)).
(44)
(47) Der Mülleimer ist (*von meiner Nichte / *langsam / *genüsslich /*mit der
the rubbish-bin is by
my
niece / slowly
/ pleasurably /
with
Heugabel) geleert.
the
hayfork emptied
a. Die Geisslein sind immer noch versteckt.
the little.goats are still
noch hidden
• Target state passives (all languages): they allow still and event-related modifiers. To make
sense that target state passives freely allow by-phrases and other Voice modifiers, and that
such modifiers must relate or modify the consequent state directly, they posit a VoiceHOLDER
phrase introducing the result state above the adjectivizer, so that Tense and Aspect can locate it and modify it (cf. (48), from Alexiadou et al. 2015:181).
b. ńRńs ∃e [R(s)(e)]
– Resultant state APass: they deliver properties of times true of any time following the
runtime of the event (i.e. a Perfect aspect operator, cf. (45b)). Resultant state passives
do not accept still, since the completed event will be over forever after, i.e. its “resultant
state” of being over is permanent (cf. (45a)).
(45)
a. Ta lastixa ine (*akoma) fuskomena apo tin Maria.
the tires are (still)
inflated
by the Mary
(48)
a. Das Theorem ist (*immer noch) bewiesen.
the theorem is (*still) noch proven
a. To stadio ine akomi perikiklomeno apo tin astinomia.
the stadium is still surrounded
by the police
‘The stadium is still surrounded by the police.’
b. ńP ńt ∃e [P(e) & τ(e) ≤ t]
b. O skilos ine akomi demenos me skini.
the dog is still tied
with leash
A.1.2 Back to Alexiadou et al. ’s (2015) proposal
‘The dog is still tied with a leash.’
c. To stadio ine akomi filagmeno prosektika.
the stadium is still guarded carefully
• Greek-type (i.e. Permissive-type) APass are derived with an Asp operator denoting a Perfect of Result (i.e. (45)). A is merely an adjectivizer. Since Asp takes directly verbal structure (a specifierless VoiceP in their account) then the event gets instantiated.
‘The stadium is still carefully guarded.’
d. Ta axladia ine akomi voutigmena sto
krasi.
the pears are still soaked
in.the wine
• Support: still is ungrammatical with event-related modifiers in Greek-type languages (cf.
(46), from Alexiadou et al. 2015:158)
‘The pears are still soaked in wine.’.
13
Alfredo García-Pardo
WAASAP 3
• The relevant structures from Alexiadou et al. (2015) are provided below:
(49)
(50) Das Theorem ist (*immer noch) bewiesen.
the theorem is (*still) noch proven
a. Greek-type resultant state passives
AP
A
• But it is unclear how the structure in (49b) is resultant since it lacks the perfect operator
Asp (cf. (45b)). Of course, they do not want to say that there is Asp in German APass,
since it is Asp what they claim to license event-oriented and spatio-temporal modifiers in
Greek-type APass (i.e. the permissive languages).
AspP
Asp
• Their account for target states in (49c) has the following problems:
VoiceP
VoiceAGENT
– It does not predict which predicates will be able to form target state passives
vP
v
– It does not explain how agent-oriented modifiers (eg. by-phrases, instrumentals...) are
licensed, since their VoiceHOLDER introduces the subject of a result state, and not that
of a causative event.
RootP
b. German-type resultant state passives
AP
A
– It makes the wrong predictions: namely, that "target state" sentences like (51) should
allow any agent-oriented or spatio-temporal modifier, contrary to fact.
VoiceP
(51)
VoiceAGENT
b. The car is still hidden in the garage (*yesterday). (English, from McIntyre 2015)
vP
v
• Some final remarks on the target vs. resultant state distinction:
RootP
– The relevant tests to differentiate between the two kinds of APass is NOT the (un-) grammaticallity of still, but whether the underlying telic event is locatable in time and space
and accepts event-related modifiers or not.
c. Target state passives (all languages)
VoiceP
VoiceHOLDER
– Intuitively, event-related modifiers are out in the presence of still not because of structural differences within APass, but because they clash with the presupossition triggered
by still that the proposition will stop holding at a later time. With APass we have a stative predication of the result sub-event of the VP, which follows temporally that of the
causative sub-event to which event-modifiers apply (in the case of telics). In the case
of stative causatives, the two sub-events are temporally coextensive and hence not incompatible with the presuppositions triggered by still.
AP
A
vP
v
a. The dog is still tied up with a rope (*by a policeman).
RootP
A.1.3 Problems with Alexiadou et al. (2015)
– See also García-Pardo (2014) for a more detailed critique of Kratzer’s target vs. resultant
state distinction for APass, which he claims is not real.
• The “resultant” vs. “target” distinction is diagnosed, since Kratzer, by acceptability of still.
This view leads to AAS to assume that German APass that refuse still are “resultant” states,
as in (50) (repeated from (45a)).
14