Extraction out of adjectival secondary predicates in English and Spanish: A nanosyntactic account

Antonio Fábregas 1  and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández 2
  • 1 Universitet i Tromsø Institute of Language and Culture HSL Fakultet N-9037, Tromsø, Norway
  • 2 University of Seville Departamento de Filología Inglesa (Lengua Inglesa) C/ Palos de la Frontera s/n 41004 Sevilla, Spain

Abstract

In this article, we explore the conditions under which prima facie adjectival adjuncts projected as depictive modifiers inside verbal phrases allow extraction. Building on the analysis of gerund clauses proposed in Fábregas and Jiménez-Fernández (in press), we argue that their empirical behaviour shows that, whenever these adjectival constituents license extraction, they are projections of PathP that form a verbal complex with the verb inside a single syntactic domain. This forces the conclusion that adjunct adjectives must be projected as PathPs, and in the last part of the paper we show that this proposal in fact explains two properties of these elements without further stipulations: they always receive a stage level interpretation, and cannot combine with pure stative verbs.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Arche, M. J. (2012). On the aspectuality of the individual-level/stage-level dichotomy. Borealis, 1, 109-132.

  • Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Borgonovo, C. (1994). The parametric syntax of gerunds. (Doctoral dissertation). Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

  • Borgonovo, C. (1996). Gerunds and perception verbs. Languages et Linguistique, 22, 1-19.

  • Borgonovo, C. and Neeleman, A. (2000). Transparent adjuncts. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 199-224.

  • Bowers, J. (2000). Predication. In M. Baltin and C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 299-333). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Brucart, J. M. (2010). La alternancia ser/estar y las construcciones atributivas de localización. In A. Avellana (Ed.), Actas del V Encuentro de Gramática Generativa (pp. 115-152). Neuquén: EDUCO.

  • Camacho, J. (2012). Ser and estar: The individual/stage-level distinction and aspectual predication. In J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (pp. 453-477). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133-166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Demonte, V. (1987/1988). Remarks on secondary predicates: C-command, extraction and reanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 6, 1-39.

  • Demonte, V. 1991. Temporal and aspectual constraints on predicative APs. In H. Campos and F. Martínez-Gil (Eds.), Current studies in contemporary Romance linguistics (pp. 413-450). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Demonte, V. and Masullo, P. J. (1999). La predicación: Los complementos predicativos. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 2461-2525). Madrid: Espasa.

  • Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Fábregas, A. and Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. (in press). Extraction from gerunds and the internal syntax of verbs. Linguistics.

  • Fábregas, A. and Marín, R. (2012). State nouns are Kimian states. In I. Franco, S. Lusini, and A. Saab (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2010 (pp. 41-65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Fábregas, A. and Marín, R. (in press). Severing dynamicity from eventivity. Linguistics.

  • Gallego, Á. (2010). On the prepositional nature of non-finite verbs. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 9, 79-102.

  • Haegeman, L., Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L., and Radford, A. (2014). Deconstructing the Subject Condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review, 31(1), 73-150.

  • Hale, K. (1986). Notes on world view and semantic categories. Some Warlpiri examples. In P. Muysken and H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and projections (pp. 233-254). Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Hale, K and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20 (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, events and licensing. (Doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Huang, J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. (Doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. (2009). On the composite nature of subject islands: A phase-based approach. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 22, 91-138.

  • Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. (2012a). What information structure tells us about individual/stage predicates. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-32.

  • Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. (2012b). A new look at subject islands: The phasehood of definiteness. Anglica Wratislaviensia, 50, 137-168.

  • Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. and Tubino, M. (2014). Variación sintáctica en la causativización léxica. Revista Española de Lingüística, 44(1), 7-37.

  • Kempchinsky, P. (2000). Aspect projections and predicate type. In H. Campos, E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front, and T. J. Walsh. (Eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millenium (pp. 171-187). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

  • Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125-175). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Levin, B. and Rappaport-Hovav M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Maienborn, C. (2003). Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen. Berlin: Akademie Vorlag.

  • Mateu, J. (2002). Argument structure: Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.

  • Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Piñón, C. (1997). Achievements in event semantics. In A. Lawson and E. Cho (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT VII (pp. 276-293). Ithaca (NY): CLC Publications.

  • Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47-81.

  • Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. (Doctoral dissertation), MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Rothmayr, A. (2009). The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10(1), 80-126.

  • Stowell, T. (1995). Remarks on clause structure. In A. Cardinaletti and M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 28: Small clauses (pp. 271-286). San Diego: Academic Press.

  • Truswell, R. (2007). Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua, 117, 1355-1377.

  • Vendler, Z. (1967). Facts and events. In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 122-146). Itaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Verkuyl, H. J. (1993). A theory of aspectuality. The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Zwart, J.-W. (1993). Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. (Doctoral dissertation). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search