Stative Inquiries: Causes, Results, Experiences, and Locations 2020040070, 2020040071, 9789027207920, 9789027260512

Citation preview

Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today 264

Stative Inquiries Causes, results, experiences, and locations

Alfredo García-Pardo

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Stative Inquiries

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) issn 0166-0829 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see benjamins.com/catalog/la

Founding Editor Werner Abraham Groningen University / Universität Wien

General Editors Werner Abraham Groningen University / Universität Wien

Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Josef Bayer

University of Konstanz

Cedric Boeckx ICREA/UB

Terje Lohndal

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Christer Platzack

Guglielmo Cinque

University of Lund

Liliane Haegeman

Cambridge University

University of Venice

Ian Roberts

Lisa deMena Travis McGill University

Sten Vikner

University of Aarhus

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Groningen

Ghent University

Volume 264 Stative Inquiries. Causes, results, experiences, and locations by Alfredo García-Pardo

Stative Inquiries Causes, results, experiences, and locations

Alfredo García-Pardo Purchase College

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/la.264 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2020040070 (print) / 2020040071 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 0792 0 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6051 2 (e-book)

© 2020 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

Table of contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Preface

ix

List of tables

xi

Abbreviations

xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

Chapter 2 Aktionsart and argument structure: A state of the art

9

Chapter 3 Stative causatives

59

Chapter 4 Stative participles

99

Chapter 5 Stative psychological and locative verbs

173

Chapter 6 Conclusions

235

Bibliography

241

Index

257

Acknowledgments

This book has been many years in the making and has benefited from the help of too many people to list here. I offer my apologies in advance to those who I inevitably leave out. The Department of Linguistics at the University of Southern California provided a stimulating environment in which to develop and refine the ideas advanced in this work. I particularly thank María Luisa Zubizarreta and Roumyana Pancheva for their interest in my work, their constructive criticism and constant support. The audiences of the Chicago Linguistics Society (2014), the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (2015) and the Linguistic Society of America (2018), among others, provided much helpful feedback in preliminary parts of this work. In retrospect, I know this book would not exist without Gema Chocano, who sparked my interest in generative grammar, and María Jesús Fernández Leborans, who introduced me to lexical aspect. I am grateful to the editors Werner Abraham, Elly van Gelderen and Kees Vaes for their interest in my work and their help throughout the publication process. My gratitude also goes to my generous informants and to an anonymous reviewer for insightful feedback. The support and love of my parents, Alfredo and Carmen, has been crucial to make this book happen: I dedicate it to them.

Preface

Within the literature on event types, there is a well-established distinction between dynamic eventualities, which involve some sort of change, and stative eventualities, which do not. Recent neo-constructionist theories seek to derive event types and the interpretation of event participants – thematic roles – from the syntax of the verb phrase – argument structure. These models uniformly assign a privileged status to dynamic events either in focus or in the theoretical tools they assume, relegating states to a secondary status within the theory and as worthy objects of empirical research. However, states are not as different from events as it may seem: upon closer inspection, aspectual and thematic notions generally assumed to be ex- clusive to dynamic events, like agentivity, causativity and resultativity, can apply to states as well. More strikingly, a rich variety of thematic roles can be found within stative predicates (Experiencer/ Stimulus, Figure/ Ground, Initiator/ Resultee…), which raises the non-trivial question of how this diversity can be derived from an impoverished structure. This monograph addresses stative predicates within a general theory of event types from a neo-constructionist prism. I analyze a set of Spanish verbs, the gobernar ‘govern’-type and argue that they are derived by a bi-phrasal structure that is unambiguously interpreted as a stative causative eventuality, i.e. two states related causally. In so doing, I enrich the typology of event types taxonomically and theoretically, the latter by integrating stative causatives within a comprehensive syntactic model of event structure. I also explore adjectival passives as a case study of derived statives. I show how these constructions are truly stative – and not perfective or resultative, as is often argued. The underlying participle is fed by different kinds of stative structures – unaccusative or causative. The former is lexicalized by typical telic verbs – i.e. verbs of change with an endpoint, e.g. break – whereas the latter is lexicalized by stative causative verbs – the gobernar-type. This explains many properties of adjectival passives crosslinguistically, and reinforces the idea that states also come in different types crosscategorially. Finally, I uncover a series of crosslinguistic grammatical parallelisms between stative object-experiencer psychological verbs (e.g. worry, amaze…) and locative

x

Stative Inquiries

verbs (e.g. surround, cover…). I argue that they share a uniform structure, articulated by a birrelational preposition. This structure denotes an abstract relation between two entities that can be understood as locative or psychological depending on the lexical type of verb that lexicalizes it. I argue that the thematic interpretation of the arguments of these stative predicates arises as an entailment from their event structure, in the spirit of the neo-constructionist program.

List of tables

2.1 The aspectual features of event types in Smith (1991) 2.2 Classic event types and their tests 3.1 Typology of event types in Fábregas & Marín (2017) 3.2 Event types and their tests 4.1 English participles in Embick (2004) 4.2 Cut-short and full-fledged participles in Spanish 4.3 Syncretic participles in Spanish 4.4 Properties of estar-PPrts, bare-PPrts and perfect E-PPrts 4.5 Greek -menos and -tos participles 4.6 Change-of-state verbs in Chichewa with stative and passive 4.7 Non-change-of-state verbs in Chichewa with stative and passive 5.1 Psych effects crosslinguistically 5.2 Psych effects with stative locative verbs 5.3 Comparing stative causatives with stative psych and locative verbs 5.4 Marín’s (2011) classification of OEPVs 5.5 Agentivity, aspect and psych effects with OEPVs 6.1 Grimshaw’s (1990) typology of nominalizations

Abbreviations

acc Adj-PPrt agr APass appl AS AspQP B-PPrt cause caus CCF CIP cl dat DEPV det dom EA E-PPrt EP ES f gen IA impf imp indir inf ins irreg maintain m neg nom

Accusative case Adjectival past participle Agreement Adjectival passive Applicative Argument structure Aspect of quantity Phrase Bound past participle Causal relation Causative morpheme Crucial contributing factor Clause-internal phase Clitic Dative case Dative-experiencer psych verb Determiner Direct object marking External argument Eventive past participle Event participle Event structure Feminine marker Genitive case Internal argument Imperfective aspect Imperative mood Indirect causative Infinitive Instrumental case Irregular Maintenance relation Masculine marker Negation Nominative case

xiv Stative Inquiries OEPV Pass pass Perf pfv pl poss ptcp PPrtP PPrt pst pres refl reg R-PPrt RRC RUTAH SEPV sg s-o-q SP stat StC sbjv T/‍SM Tr U-PPrt UTAH VPass V-PPrt

Object-experiencer psych verb Passive Passive morphology Perfect Perfective aspect Plural Possessive Participle Participle Phrase Past participle Past tense Present tense Reflexive Regular Resultative past participle Reduced relative clause Relativized Uniformity of Thematic Assignment Hypothesis Subject-experiencer psych verb Singular Subject of quantity State Phrase Stative Stative causative Subjunctive mood Target/Subject matter Transitive Unbound past participle Uniformity of Thematic Assignment Hypothesis Verbal passive Verbal past participle

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Setting the stage

The last decades have witnessed substantial progress in our understanding of Aktionsart – i.e. the temporal contour of an event – and its connection to the syntax of the verb and its argument structure – i.e. the projection of the event participants in the syntax. For instance, it has been noted that the properties of the direct object determine the telicity of the whole predicate with verbs of consumption and creation, as the contrast in (1) shows (Verkuyl 1972, Dowty 1979, Krifka 1992, a.o.). It has also been observed that the addition of an adjective, a small clause or a PP to an otherwise atelic verb creates a resultative predicate, as in (2) (Talmy 1985, Hoekstra 1992, Mateu 2002, Wechsler 2005, Zubizarreta & Oh 2007, a.o.). In addition, the different base-generation position of the single argument of intransitive verbs (i.e. the Unaccusativity Hypothesis, see Perlmutter 1978, Burzio 1986, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, for specific proposals and unaccusativity tests in different languages) has been often argued to correlate with the (a)‍telicity of the whole predicate (Dowty 1991, van Hout 2004, Borer 2005b, a.o.) (e.g. (3)). Syntax, then, effectively builds aspectually-relevant event structure configurations.

(1) a. John {ate/drew} three apples {*for an hour/in an hour}.   (Quantized object, telic) b. John {ate/ drew} apples {for an hour/ *in an hour}.   (Non-quantized object, atelic) (2) a. Mary hammered the metal (flat).  b. Mary ran (her shoes ragged).  c. Mary pushed the cart (to the end of he road).  (3) a. Carl {arrived/ died/ fell}.  b. Harriet {laughed/ sang/ worked}. 

(Adjectival resultative) (Small clause) (Terminal PP) (Unaccusative, telic) (Unergative, atelic)

These configurations not only determine the temporal meaning of the verb, but also the interpretation of its arguments, as it has often been observed (Tenny 1987, 1992, Hale & Keyser 1993, a.o.). In (2a), for instance, the bare object the hammer does not necessarily undergo a change, but only a process of being hammered: however, the addition of flat forces a resultative reading in which the hammer

2

Stative Inquiries

undergoes a change of state. Similarly, in (2c), the cart undergoes a change of location with a well-defined endpoint when it appears with a PP; without the PP, the cart may not even move from the pushing. Some objects are not even licit without an aspectual delimiter (cf. *Mary ran her shoes, see Simpson 1983, Smith 1983, Carrier & Randall 1992 for discussion). Crucially, Aktionsart effects can also be observed within verbal morphology. For instance, deadjectival verbs – roughly corresponding to Dowty’s (1979) “degree achievements” – are telic if the base adjective is closed-scale (e.g. (4a)) but atelic if the base adjective is open-scale (e.g. (4b)), unless we can infer a contextually-relevant endpoint (Hay et  al. 1999). With respect to deadjectival and denominal verbs, Hale & Keyser (2002) have argued that they are derived via relational syntactic structures with aspectual meaning. In their proposal, the derived telic verbs are syntactically isomorphic to their underived counterparts with the light verbs become or put, which head a telic structure (a “terminal coincidence relation”, in their terminology) (e.g. (5a–b)). Atelic denominal verbs also have the same structure as their counterparts with the light verb do, which heads an atelic syntactic constellation (e.g. (5c)). (4) a. They filled the glass {*for two seconds/ in two seconds}. b. The sea level lowered {for two days/ *in two days}. (5) a. The sky cleared. (cf. The sky became clear) b. They corraled the horses. (cf. They put the horses in a corral) c. Peter danced. (cf. Peter did a dance)

The picture that emerges, then, is that verbal morphology directly determines the Aktionsart of the resulting predicate precisely because it is syntax. That is, verbs are not taken from the lexicon with an encoded meaning, but rather, they are built in the syntax and as such are subject to syntactic principles and restrictions, and are interpreted compositionally just as they are built compositionally. This view regarding event and argument structure has thrived within recent syntactic-oriented approaches to morphology such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, Marantz 1997), Hale & Keyser’s (1993, 2002) L-syntax, Nanosyntax (Ramchand 2008, Starke 2009) or the Exo-Skeletal model (Borer 2005a, b, 2013). Although their technical implementations and their views on the syntax-lexicon interface differ, they share the common assumption that words, just like sentences, are syntactic objects. This research program is known as neo-constructionism, whose main tenets can be stated as in (6).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

(6) Main tenets of neo-constructionism: a. Argument structure determines the event structure of the verb. b. Thematic interpretation of arguments is an entailment from event structure. c. Deverbal words are derived syntactically from verbal structure.

1.2

Goals and scope of this monograph

The overarching goal of the present monograph is to study the morphosyntax and semantics of stative predicates in the light of the neo-constructionist research program outlined in Sections 1.1 and integrate them in a comprehensive syntactic model. I explore how stative predicates come about, i.e. what syntactic primitives determine their aspectual and thematic meaning and how roots lexicalize such structure. I focus on three different types of stative verbs – stative causatives, object-experiencer psychological verbs and locative verbs – and stative past participles derived from verbs. My guiding questions can be stated as in (7). (7) Research questions of this monograph: a. What syntactico-aspectual primitives derive the subclasses of stative verbs? b. How do stative event structures assign thematic interpretation to verbal arguments? c. What is the structural relationship between stative participles and their verbs?

Stative verbs are an important area of inquiry because they are generally assumed to simply be impoverished versions of dynamic verbs, and as such they have not received as much attention in the core neo-constructionist literature as dynamic verbs.1 Notions like agency, causativity and resultativity are often assumed to belong to the eventive  – as opposed to stative  – domain. My goal with respect to question (7a) is show that these notions can pertain to states too, once we adopt a 1.  But see Husband (2012), Jaque (2013), Roy (2013) for notable exceptions. Jaque (2013) provides a syntactic account of the different types of Spanish stative predicates. While I do not necessarily agree with his overall system, the empirical work Jaque conducts is excellent and I acknowledge it here. Husband (2012), Roy (2013), on the other hand, focus on the Stage-Level vs. Individual-Level distinction (Carlson (1977)), as both types of predicates are found within stative predicates. The present book will not have much to say about this distinction, since the stative predicates under study are all Stage-level. For more studies about the Individual vs. Stagelevel distinction in Spanish from a neo-constructionist perspective, and its relation to aspect, see Arche (2006, 2012), Fábregas & Marín (2015a), García-Pardo & Menon (2020), a.o.

3

4

Stative Inquiries

more inclusive view of stativity and a better understanding of what the properties of aspectual operators are and how they interact temporally with the events they manipulate. I show how my proposal simplifies the taxonomy of events and their syntactic primitives and thus the overall architecture of the VP. Another challenge for a simplified view of stative predicates is the fact that their arguments display a rather rich array of thematic roles – Holder, Possesor, Experiencer, Stimulus, Figure, Ground, Agent and so on. If thematic roles are derived from event structure, and stative predicates have an impoverished event structure, then this thematic richness becomes a puzzle. I address question (7b) by looking at stative psychological and locative verbs. I propose a syntactic account that derives these possible thematic roles from the aspectual structure of the verbal predicate, by showing how some thematic roles can be collapsed into a generalized one (e.g. Experiencer and Ground location into a more abstract relational role) while others are simply world-knowledge effects (e.g. agentivity). An essential domain to explore stativity from a neo-constructionist perspective are stative deverbal words. Since the assumption is that both Aktionsart and words are derived in the syntax, it is crucial to understand what the aspectual operators at play are, how they interact with verbal eventive structure and, in short, how they deliver different types of stative predicates crosscategorially. This issue is addressed in question (7c), which tackles the effects that the base Aktionsart has on building the derived state as well as the cross-linguistic variation within derived states. As it progresses, this work weaves a neo-constructionist account of these stative predicates with well-defined syntactic primitives and a particular conception of their interface with semantics and the lexicon. It not only derives the stative predicates discussed here, but it also makes testable predictions regarding the possible types of states crosslinguistically in terms of meaning and morphosyntactic complexity. The main language under focus is Spanish (Castilian variety), my mother tongue. However, since I work from a universalist perspective, I also undertake comparison with other languages to further support my proposal. 1.3

Structure of this book

Chapter 2. Aktionsart and argument structure: A state of the art This chapter introduces the canonical aspectual classification of events and their relevant tests as applied to Spanish, which I will adopt for the remainder of the monograph. I further provide some historical background regarding the



Chapter 1.  Introduction

decomposition of verbs in the syntax in connection to Aktionsart, constrasting it with atomic models that encode aspectual types in the root or in dedicated verbal heads. This chapter also discusses the main current neo-constructionist models, leading up to the first-phase syntax framework developed by Ramchand (2008), whose core postulates I adopt for the remainder of this work. Chapter 3. Stative causatives I focus on the understudied set of verbs exemplified in (8). These verbs are sporadically and inconsistently classified in the literature as either activities or states, since they appear to show traits of both aspectual types.

(8) gobernar ‘govern’, vigilar ‘surveil’, controlar ‘control’, proteger ‘protect’, presidir ‘preside’…

I argue that these verbs are complex stative predicates that form a causative-resultative configuration. I analyze them syntactically as having a bi-phrasal syntax, where the external argument is introduced by initP and the internal argument by resP, and where the root lexicalizes both init and res heads (e.g. (9b)). These two projections are stative and their syntactic combination delivers a causative state, where the state denoted by initP is the causing state and the state denoted by resP is the result state. By entailment from this aspectual configuration, the subject of the causing state, Berta, will be interpreted as an Initiator, while the subject of the result state, el país, will be a Resultee. (9) a. Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ b. initP Berta Initiator



init′

init resP

el país res′ Resultee res

XP

I compare my proposal to more complex analyses that assume either a richer ontology of event types (Maienborn 2005, Fábregas & Marín 2017) or a richer array of aspectual operators (Neeleman & van de Koot 2012). I show how it is both

5

6

Stative Inquiries

feasible and more desirable both for theoretical and empirical reasons to keep a binary classification of eventualities (event and state) and a single relation cause between such eventualities, which may be stative or eventive. My proposal differs from recent ones that sever the external argument from the introduction of cause. I discuss how my account is compatible with such proposals. Chapter 4. Stative participles This chapter explores the formation of adjectival participles in Spanish. First, I disentangle attributive and predicative participles and conclude that only the latter are uniformly adjectival. I argue that adjectival participles may be derived from either stative causative verbs, discussed in Chapter  3 (e.g.  (10a)), or telic verbs (e.g. (11a)). I show that the former projects a full argument structure (e.g. (10b)), whereas the latter only projects resP, which in isolation is interpreted as a nonresultative state (e.g. (11b)). This is due, I argue, to the stativity requirement that participial adjectivization imposes on its base verbal predicate. (10) a. La ciudad está protegida. the city is protected ‘The city is protected.’ AdjP b. initP

Adj



init

resP

(11) a. La ciudad está destruida. the city is destroyed ‘The city is destroyed.’ b. AdjP Adj

resP

My analysis of adjectival participles derived from telic verbs as being adjectivized verbal states stands in stark contrast to current accounts that posit a full event argument structure for the base verb, and an aspectual operator that delivers the stative meaning (e.g. Bosque 2014 for Spanish). I show how my proposal is theoretically simpler and fares better with the data. I conclude this chapter with a discussion of the crosslinguistic typology of adjectival passives and a proposal to account for their parametric differences.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Chapter 5. Stative psychological and locative verbs This chapter focuses on stative object-experiencer psychological verbs (e.g. (12)) and challenges the received view that they assign an inherent Experiencer θ-role to their object. I start off by reviewing psych effects, i.e. the special grammatical behavior observed for these verbs. I then provide evidence that the class of stative locative verbs (e.g. (13)) also show the same psych effects crosslinguistically. This provides negative evidence for the view that Experiencer objects are linked to any special grammatical behavior, given that the objects of locative verbs, oftentimes inanimate, are clearly not Experiencers. (12) preocupar ‘worry’, asombrar ‘amaze’, aterrar ‘terrify’, aburrir ‘bore’, molestar ‘annoy’… (13) rodear ‘surround’, cubrir ‘cover’, flanquear ‘flank’, bloquear ‘block’, cercar ‘fence’, obstruir ‘obstruct’…

I propose, following Landau (2010) for object-experiencer psychological verbs, that both verb types have a common structure (e.g.  (14)) that involves a silent preposition PΨ that assigns oblique case to its object. I argue that this preposition does not assign an inherent thematic role; rather, the abstract relation between the two arguments is interpreted as spatial or psychological depending on the conceptual meaning of the verb that lexicalizes such structure, as illustrated in (14b) and (15b). (14) a. La crisis aterra a las familias. the crisis frightens dom the families ‘The crisis frightens families.’ b. VP V aterra

PP La crisis Stimulus

P′ PΨ



a las familias Experiencer

(15) a. La sábana tapa la entrada. the sheet hides the entrance ‘The sheet hides the entrance.’

7

8

Stative Inquiries

b.

VP La sábana Figure

V′ V tapa

PP PΨ



la entrada Ground

I also argue against the received view that psych effects only take place with nonagentive psych verbs, but disappear with agentive psych verbs. I show that the factor at play is aspectual, not thematic: stative psychological and locative verbs show psych effects, whereas eventive – i.e. dynamic – ones do not; Agentivity has no relevant grammatical status in these constructions. Chapter 6. Conclusions I present the overall conclusions of my work. I synthesize my main findings and discuss remaining puzzles and future directions.

Chapter 2

Aktionsart and argument structure A state of the art

2.1

Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the classic event types originally proposed by Vendler (1957) and the tests that I adopt to diagnose each type, as applied to Spanish. For my discussion, I take the seminal work of Vendler (1957) as a starting point. I review critically his classification as well as other variations thereof, and I conclude with a provisional two-way distinction between states and events and, within the latter, a further two-way distinction between activities and telics. This classification will be augmented in Chapter 3, when I add stative causatives to the state types. I further provide a literature review of syntactic approaches to verbal aspect. Currently, we find two main views: lexicalism and neo-constructionism – though the latter has been quickly gaining ground to the former in the past decades. Lexicalism, broadly, contends that the temporal meaning of verbs and the thematic interpretation of arguments is encoded in the lexical entry of the verb (Chomsky 1981, Grimshaw 1990, Smith 1991, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, Olsen 1994, 1997, Kearns 2000, Grimshaw 1990, Reinhart 2000, 2002, Reinhart & Siloni 2005, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 2005, Rappaport-Hovav & Levin 2010, a.o.). Neo-­ constructionism, on the other hand, argues that the aspectual meaning of the verbs and the thematic interpretation of their arguments are determined in the syntax (Harley 1995, Marantz 1999, Travis 2000, Cuervo 2003, Lin 2004, Folli & Harley 2005, Borer 2005b, Ramchand 2008, Lohndal 2014, Acedo-Matellán 2016, a.o.). My goal in this section is to review the genesis and development of decompositional (neo-constructionist) approaches to verb structure, rather than make the case for a neo-constructionist view of grammar more generally (see Baker 1985, Marantz 1997, Borer 2005b, Ramchand 2008, Acedo-Matellán 2016, Fábregas 2016, Bruening 2018, a.o., for convincing arguments against lexicalism). In so doing, I advocate the main traits of the syntactic model that I adopt in this book, namely: (i) There is an isomorphism between event structure and VP structure, so that each VP corresponds to a single event, and which exploits its combinatorial possibilities to derive all and only all the event types we observe in natural language; (ii) thematic roles are not grammatical primitives, but entailments read off

10

Stative Inquiries

event structure. This is important, since not all neo-constructionist accounts agree on this point: Some authors resort to ‘flavors’ of v heads to encode complex eventualities and/or endow verbal heads with inherent thematic assignment features (Harley 1995, Cuervo 2003, Folli & Harley 2005, Kratzer 2005, Kallulli 2006a, b, Schäfer 2008, Legate 2014, Alexiadou 2014, Alexiadou et al. 2006, 2015, a.o.). This chapter is structured as follows. Sections 2.2 presents the Vendlerian event typology and the relevant tests for Spanish. Sections 2.3 presents an overview of the core syntax-oriented approaches to event structure, namely L-syntax in Section 2.3.2, the XS-model in Section 2.3.3 and first-phase syntax in Section 2.3.4. Sections 2.4 synthesizes the take-away points of the chapter. 2.2

The classic event types

I present below the classic event types that are generally discussed in the literature. A short terminology note is in order: following Bach (1986), I will use the term eventuality to refer to all events in general, regardless of aspectual classification. Also, I will use the term event, unless otherwise noted, to refer to dynamic eventualities (telics and activities) and state to stative (i.e. nondynamic) eventualities.1 Another important note on terminology: I use the terms event type, Aktionsart, lexical aspect and inner aspect interchangably, all referring to the temporal contour or constituency of the eventuality. The term event structure, in this work, is similar to the latter terms but it commits to Aktionsart having a certain structure, i.e. a set of primitives that have meaningful relations with each other. 2.2.1 States States are predicates that hold in time, but do not take time, in the words of Taylor (1977: 206). In other words, they do not encode any kind of internal change or dynamicity, but are really static throughout the timespan where they hold. Dowty (1979) neatly illustrates this defining trait of states with his subinterval property, defined as follows: if a non-dynamic (i.e. stative) predicate is true at an interval I, it will also be true at every subinterval of I, down to instants. For instance, in (16), if it is true at a certain time interval that Alberto hates pollution or that Victoria owns five estates, it will also be true at any instant within that interval, i.e. they have the subinterval property. 1.  In this I depart from Bach (1986), for whom eventualities other than states were, simply, ‘non-states’. Atelic non-states would be ‘processes’ and telic non-states would be ‘events’. See also footnote 2.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



(16) a. b.

Alberto detesta la contaminatión. Alberto detests the contamination ‘Alberto detests pollution.’ Victoria posee cinco fincas. Victoria owns five estates ‘Victoria owns five states.’

2.2.2 Activities Unlike states, activities are predicates that encode internal change: they are dynamic predicates. As such, they do not have the subinterval property: they need a minimal interval to be evaluated. For instance, a driving or a rocking (e.g. (17)) must be evaluated at a minimal interval of time for the action to count as a driving or a rocking, as opposed to a mere sitting inside a car or a being in contact with a cradle. (17) a. b.

Berta condujo el coche. Berta drove the car ‘Berta drove the car.’ Carlos meció la cuna. Carlos rocked the cradle ‘Carlos rocked the cradle.’

2.2.3 Telics Telic predicates are those that denote an endpoint or telos.2 Take the sentences in (18) as an illustration: the verbal predicates dibujar un círculo ‘draw a circle’ and cerrar la puerta ‘close the door’ have endpoints, namely, the completion of the circle and the complete closure of the door. (18) a. b.

Juana dibujó un círculo. Juana drew a circle ‘Juana drew a circle.’ Pedro cerró la puerta. Pedro closed the door ‘Pedro closed the door.’

2.  Telics correspond to what Kenny (1963) called Performances and Mourelatos (1978), Bach (1986), Verkuyl (1989), Parsons (1990) called Events.

11

12

Stative Inquiries

2.2.4 The tests Throughout the decades of study of verbal aspect, many tests have been adduced for discerning between the different event types. In this section I will present the ones I deem relevant and reliable for Spanish and leave out those that are either not applicable to Spanish or are in fact unreliable. Indeed, some of the classic tests are not conclusive: such is the case of the progressive, which, although generally assumed to tell apart between states and events (Lakoff 1970), can actually be found across all event types (Leech 1970, Comrie 1976, Verkuyl 1989, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995: 70, and see discussion in Sections 3.2.2.1 and 5.5.2). The battery of agentivity tests (complements of persuade or force, possibility to appear in the imperative, etcetera) belong also in this group; originally assumed to tell apart events and states (Lakoff 1970), they are unreliable since there are many eventive predicates that are not agentive (Dowty 1979, Verkuyl 1989, Filip 1999, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 2005, a.o.)3 and also many stative predicates that can be agentive as well (e.g. Dowty’s 1979 agentive states, and see Sections 3.3.3 and 5.5 for further discussion). I have divided the tests into smaller sections according to what event types they tell apart. 2.2.4.1 Events vs. states Here I present the tests that can tell apart events from states. First, events and states have different readings in the present tense, as noted by Kenny (1963). Events have a habitual reading in the present tense (e.g. (19a–b)), whereas states have an ongoing, non-habitual interpretation (e.g. (19c)). (19) a. b. c.

David diseña su propia ropa. David designs his own clothes ‘David designs his own clothes.’ Berta baila flamenco. Berta dances flamenco ‘Berta dances flamenco.’ María sabe geografía. María knows Geography ‘María knows Geography.’

Another test that differentiates events from states comes from their different readings in the perfect. As some authors have noted (e.g. Iatridou et al. 2001, Portner 2003), states give rise to a universal reading in the presence of a temporal adverbial headed by since: such modifier specifies a left boundary for the eventuality and asserts that the eventuality holds between that left boundary and the reference time, 3.  In Levin and Rappaport-Hovav’s words, agentivity seems “orthogonal to aspectual classification, with agentive and nonagentive predicates being found in every aspectual class” (2005: 89).



Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure

which is the right boundary. However, events in the perfect cannot give rise to a universal reading and they are out in the presence of a since-adverbial.4 (20) a. b. c.

Juan ha pintado su casa (* desde ayer). Juan has painted his house   since yesterday ‘Juan has painted his house (*since yesterday).’ Fernando ha paseado al perro (* desde las seis de la tarde). Fernando has walked dom.the dog   since the six of the evening ‘Fernando has walked the dog (*since 6 pm).’ Laura ha vivido en Londres desde 2009. Laura has lived in London since 2009 ‘Laura has lived in London since 2009.’

De Miguel (1999) notes that the Spanish aspectual periphrasis parar de + V.inf ‘stop V-ing’ does not allow for states (e.g. (21a)): another periphrasis, dejar de + V.inf ‘stop V-ing’ must be used instead to express cessative aspect (e.g. (21b)). Events, on the other hand, readily accept the parar de + V.inf periphrasis (e.g. (21c)). (21) a. * Julia paró de {saber inglés/ conocer Roma/ odiar a Julia stopped of know-inf English know-inf Rome hate-inf dom Luis/ ser alta/ tener sed}. Luis be-inf tall be-inf thirsty (‘Julia stopped {speaking English/knowing Rome/hating Luis/ being tall/ being thirsty}.’) b. Julia dejó de {tener sed/ odiar a su primo}. Julia stopped of have-inf thirst hate-inf dom her cousin ‘Julia stopped being thirsty/ hating her cousin}.’ c. Julia paró de {andar un momento/ construir la casa cuando Julia stopped of walk-inf a moment build-inf the house when llegaron las lluvias}. arrived the rains ‘Julia stopped {walking for a moment/ building the house when the rains came}.’  (de Miguel 1999: 3012)



4.  However, we can have a universal reading for events if they appear in the progressive: compare (ia) and (ib) with (20a) and (20b), respectively. (i) a. Juan ha estado pintando su casa desde ayer. Juan has been painting his house since yesterday ‘Juan has been painting his house since yesterday.’ b. Fernando ha estado paseando al perro desde las seis de la tarde. Fernando has been walking dom.the dog since the six of the evening ‘Fernando has been walking the dog since 6 pm.’

13

14

Stative Inquiries

The synthetic future in Spanish can have an epistemic reading in addition to its temporal reading (Gili Gaya 1961 calls it the ‘future of probability’). It seems, however, that this reading is only licensed with stative predicates as in (22a): both activities and telics disallow the epistemic reading, as (22b) and (22c) show, respectively. (22) a. Un kilo de manzanas costará cinco euros. a kilo of apples cost-fut five euros ‘A kilogram of apples will cost five euros.’ ✓ Temporal reading: a kilogram of apples will cost five kilos at some point in the future. ✓ Epistemic reading: It is my guess that a kilogram of apples costs five kilos. b. Juan mecerá la cuna. Juan rock-fut the cradle ‘Juan will rock the cradle.’ ✓ Temporal reading: Juan will rock the cradle at some point in the future. ✗ Epistemic reading: It is my guess that Juan rocks the cradle. c. Esther pintará un retrato. Esther paint-fut a portrait ‘Esther will paint a portrait.’ ✓ Temporal reading: Esther will paint a portrait at some point in the future. ✗ Epistemic reading: It is my guess that Esther paints a portrait.

Conditional sentences with the main clause in the future tense and the dependent clause in the present tense (i.e. the Spanish counterpart of English’s ‘type-1 conditionals’) constitute another test to tell apart states and events (Gómez Vázquez & García Fernández 2013, Jaque 2013). When the dependent clause has a state as its main predicate, can get both a prospective and present reading for such predicate (e.g. (23a)). However, only the prospective reading is available with both activities (e.g. (23b)) and telics (e.g. (23c)). (23) a. Si Sara tiene un amante, su novio se pondrá celoso. if Sara has a lover her boyfriend refl put-fut jealous ‘If Sara has a lover, her boyfriend will get jealous.’ ✓ Prospective reading of the dependent clause: if Sarah were to have a lover in the future, her boyfriend will get jealous. ✓ Present reading of the dependent clause: If Sarah currently has a lover, her boyfriend will get jealous. b. Si David baila con María, Daniela se enfadará. if David dances with María Daniela refl get.angry-fut ‘If David dances with María, Daniela will get angry.’ ✓ Prospective reading of the dependent clause: David will dance with María at some point in the future, and then Daniela will get angry.



Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure

✗ Present reading of the dependent clause: David currently dances with María, and then Daniela will get angry. c. Si María construye una casa, Pedro se alegrará. if María builds the house Pedro refl get.happy-fut ‘If María builds the house, Pedro will be happy.’ ✓ Prospective reading of the dependent clause: If María builds a house at some point in the future, then Pedro will be happy when she is done. ✗ Present reading of the dependent clause: If María is currently building a house, Pedro will be happy when she is done.

Along similar lines, Jaque (2013) argues that the expression may have a prospective and present reading with stative verbs (e.g. (24a)). This is not the case with activities and telic verbs, which only allow for a prospective reading (e.g. (24a) and (24b), respectively). (24) a. Espero que vivas en Madrid. hope-1sg that live-sbjv.2sg in Madrid ‘I hope that you live in Madrid.’ ✓ Prospective reading: I hope that you live in Madrid at some point in the future. ✓ Present reading: I hope that you currently live in Madrid. b. Espero que corras en la maratón. hope-1sg that run-sbjv.2sg in the marathon ‘I hope that you run in the marathon.’ ✓ Prospective reading: I hope that you run the marathon at some point in the future. ✗ Present reading: I hope that you are currently running the marathon. c. Espero que repares el ordenador. hope-1sg that repair-sbjv.2sg the computer ‘I hope that you repair the computer.’ ✓ Prospective reading: I hope that you repair the computer at some point in the future. ✗ Present reading: I hope that you are repairing the computer.

A remark needs to be made about these last three tests, so as to avoid confusion: as Jaque (2013) notes, when eventive verbs appear in the progressive form or are interpreted habitually, they pattern as states. I show that for the synthetic future in (25), conditional sentences in (26) and espero que ‘I hope that’ constructions in (27). (25) a. Pedro estará comiendo una ensalada. Pedro be-fut eating a salad ‘Pedro will be eating a salad.’ ✓ Temporal reading: Pedro will be eating a salad at some point in the future. ✓ Epistemic reading: Pedro is probably eating a salad right now.

15

16

Stative Inquiries

b. Pedro conducirá un taxi. Pedro drive-fut a taxi ‘Pedro will drive a taxi.’ ✓ Temporal reading: Pedro will drive a taxi at some point in the future. ✓ Epistemic reading: It is my guess that Pedro drives a taxi. (26) a. Si Pedro está fregando los platos, su anfitrión se enfadará. if Pedro is washing the dishes his host refl get.mad-fut ‘If Pedro is washing the dishes, his host will get mad.’ ✓ Prospective reading of the dependent clause: if Pedro is washing the dishes at some point in the future (e.g. when we arrive home), her host will get mad. ✓ Present reading of the dependent clause: If Pedro is currently washing the dishes, her host will get mad. b. Si Pedro escribe novelas, ganará mucho dinero. if Pedro writes novels win-fut.3sg much money ‘If Pedro writes novels, he will make a lot of money.’ ✓ Prospective reading of the dependent clause: if Pedro writes novels in the future, he will make a lot of money. ✓ Present reading of the dependent clause: If Pedro currently writes novels, he will make a lot of money. (27) a. Espero que estés trabajando. hope-1sg that are-sbjv.2sg working ‘I hope that you are working.’ ✓ Prospective reading: I hope that you are working at some point in the future. ✓ Present reading: I hope that you are currently working. b. Espero que comas verduras. hope-1sg that eat-sbjv.2sg vegetables ‘I hope that you eat vegetables.’ ✓ Prospective reading: I hope that you eat vegetabes at some point in the future. ✓ Present reading: I hope that you currently eat vegetables.

2.2.4.2 Telic vs. atelic The classic test for telicity comes from Vendler’s original work. He notes that telic predicates can take in x time modifiers, expressing the time it takes for the event to be accommplished, but not for x time modifiers, since these modifiers do not entail a completion (e.g. (28a)). Atelic predicates, conversely, do not accept in x time modifiers because they do not take time, but merely go on or hold for some



Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure

time period, and thus accept for x time modifiers. I provide examples for activities (28b) and states (28c). (28) a. b. c.

Pedro construyó una carretilla {en dos horas/ *durante dos horas}. Pedro built a wheelbarrow in two hours for two hours ‘Pedro built a wheelbarrow {in two hours/ *for two hours}.’ Carlos empujó la carretilla {*en dos horas/ durante dos horas}. Carlos pushed the wheelbarrow in two hours for two hours ‘Carlos pushed the wheelbarrow {*in two hours/ for two hours}.’ Ester tuvo un coche rojo {*en dos años/ durante dos años}. two years Ester had a car red in two years for ‘Ester had a red car {*in two years/ for two years}.’

A caveat is in order about the for x time test. It may actually be possible with telic predicates in two cases. First, if the telic predicate has an associated result state that can be conceived as temporary, a for x time phrase is licit in the sentence. I provide an example in (29), adapted to Spanish from Dowty (1979: 250).5 The second case is when the telic event is interpreted as being repeated numerous times throughout the timespan denoted by the for x time phrase (what McDonald 2008 calls the sequence of identical events interpretation). This is illustrated in (29b), under the interpretation that Carlos kept throwing the ball up to the roof repeatedly for two hours (say, the ball kept rolling back down and Carlos grabbed it and threw it up again).6 (29) a. El sheriff de Nottingham encarceló a Robin Hood durante cuatro The sheriff of Nottingham jailed acc Robin Hood for four años. years ‘The sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood for four years.’ b. Carlos lanzó el balón al tejado durante dos horas. Carlos threw the ball to.the roof for two hours ‘Carlos threw the ball to the roof for two hours.’

5.  Dowty takes this example from Morgan (1969) and McCawley (1973), who in turn attribute it to Robert I. Binnick. 6.  I must add that, at least in my dialect, the sequence of identical events interpretation comes about more naturally with a progressive, as in (ii). (ii) Carlos estuvo lanzando el balón al tejado durante dos horas. Carlos was throwing the ball to.the roof for two hours ‘Carlos threw the ball to the roof for two hours.’

17

18

Stative Inquiries

A test that also features in Vendler (1957) is the How long did it take? test. According to Vendler, that question, along with its associated answer, is only possible with telics. I illustrate the test for English in (30) and (31), adapted from Vendler (1957: 145). (30) a. How long did it take him to draw the circle? b. It took him 20 seconds to draw the circle. (31) a. # How long did it take him to push the cart? b. # It took him 20 seconds to push the cart.

Interestingly, I observe that this test translates to (Castilian) Spanish with two different verbs, llevar and tardar ‘take’, which provide two different diagnostics. The first one, llevar, is similar to Vendler’s view of English take in that it diagnoses telicity: with telics, the verb llevar is licit (e.g. (32)), but not so with activities and states (e.g. (33)). (32) a. b.

¿Cuánto le llevó a Imanol reparar el ordenador? How.much him took dat Imanol repair the computer ‘How long did it take Imanol to repair the computer?’ A Imanol le llevó dos horas reparar el ordenador. dat Imanol him took two hours repair the computer ‘It took Imanol two hours to repair the computer.’

(33) a. * A Juan le llevó dos horas conducir el coche. dat Juan him took two hours drive the car ‘It took Juan two hours to drive the car.’ b. * A César le llevó dos años vivir en Londres. dat César him took two years live in London ‘It took César two years to live in London.’

The verb tardar, although very similar in meaning, crucially diagnoses different aspectual properties. Unlike llevar, tardar is possible with all event types. This is so because temporal predicates with tardar do not denote the time that goes by in the development of an eventuality from its inception until its culmination (hence the restriction to telic events), but rather, the time that it passes from a contextually relevant point until the eventuality takes place. For instance, in (34), it is not necessarily the case that Pablo took two hours to draw a circle since he took the pencil and started drawing (arguably a very long time for a circle to be drawn), but rather, that he did not get to complete the circle until two hours after a contextually relevant time (e.g. when his teacher told him that he should draw a circle). (34) a. ¿Cuánto tardó Pablo en dibujar el círculo? How.much took Pablo in draw the circle ‘How long did it take Pablo to draw the circle?’



Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure

b. Pablo tardó dos horas en dibujar el círculo. Pablo took two hours in draw the circle ‘It took Pablo two hours to draw the circle.’

With atelic eventualities, crucially, the reading is not one of culmination, but rather one of inception. For instance, (35a) means that after the contextually relevant time point (e.g. when we all gathered together), half an hour elapsed until Carlos began his talking. The sentence does not mean, crucially, that the talking went on for half an hour until a culmination point was reached. The same inceptive reading happens with stative predicates (e.g. (35b)). (35) a. b.

Carlos tardó media hora en hablar. Carlos took half hour in talk ‘It took Carlos half an hour to start talking.’ Juan tardó varios años en confiar en Diego. Juan took several years in trust in Diego ‘It took Juan several years to trust in Diego.’

Another telicity test, taken from Kenny (1963), is the different entailments from the progressive to the perfect: telic predicates in the progressive do not entail their perfect counterpart (e.g. (36a)) whereas atelic predicates do entail it (e.g. (36b)). (36) a. b.



Pedro está dibujando un círculo ↛ Pedro ha dibujado un círculo. Pedro is drawing a circle   Pedro has drawn a circle ‘Pedro is drawing a circle ↛ Pedro has drawn a circle.’ Carlos está acariciando al perro → Carlos ha acariciado Carlos is petting dom.the dog   Carlos has petted al perro. dom.the dog ‘Carlos is petting the dog → Carlos has petted the dog.’

Dowty (1979) noted that the adverb almost has two readings with telic predicates but only one with activities.7 For instance, with the telic predicate in (37a), there is the reading where Eva had the intention of painting a picture but ended up not doing anything at all, but also the reading where Eva started painting the picture but did not finish it completely. However, activities only allow for the former reading (e.g. In (37b), there is only the reading in which Pedro thought about whistling but didn’t do it). States do not seem to allow almost modification at all (e.g. (37c)).

7.  For precision’s sake, Dowty (1979) restricted this claim regarding scope ambiguity of almost to telic accomplishment verbs (discussed in Section 2.2.5.1). Achievement verbs do not show the ambiguity, according to him. However, I show this is incorrect in Section 2.2.5.2.

19

20 Stative Inquiries

(37) a. Eva casi pinta un cuadro. Eva almost paints a picture ‘Eva almost painted a picture.’ b. Pedro casi silba. Pedro almost whistles ‘Pedro almost whistles.’ c. * Laura casi sabe geografía. Laura almost knows Geography (‘Laura almost knows Geography.’)

Morgan (1969), McCawley (1973), Dowty (1979) note similar effects with the adverb again: it is ambiguous with telics but unambiguous with atelics. In (38a), for instance, we have two readings: the external reading, where Juan has performed the action of closing the door before, and the internal reading, which merely says that Juan brings the door back to a closed state, without him necessarily having performed the action of closing it previously (Dowty 1979: 252). Atelic eventualities as in (38) do not show that ambiguity. (38) a. b. c.

Juan cerró la puerta de nuevo. Juan closed the door of new ‘Juan closed the door again.’ Carmen acarició al gato de nuevo. Carmen petted the cat  of  new ‘Carmen petted the cat again.’ Pedro cree en Dios de nuevo. Pedro believes in God of new ‘Pedro believes in God again.’

2.2.5 Two types of telic predicates Within telic predicates, we can distinguish two subtypes: Accomplishments and achievements. I will discuss the two subtypes below, with a particular attention to achievements, given that it is an event type whose defining properties, in my opinion, have been and still are often misunderstood. 2.2.5.1 Accomplishments In Vendler’s classic work, accomplishments are defined as predicates that develop in time up to an endpoint. This is contrasted with activities, which develop in time in a homogeneous way such that any subpart thereof is like the whole. I provide examples in (39).



(39) a. b.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure

Juana escribió el artículo. Juana wrote the article ‘Juana wrote the article.’ Carlos paseó al perro hasta el final del puente. Carlos walked dom.the dog until the end of.the bridge ‘Carlos walked the dog up to the end of the bridge.’

As noted in Dowty (1979), accomplishment verbs behave like activities in the absence of a direct object or a prepositional complement (e.g. (40)). (40) a. b.

Juana escribió {durante horas/ *en una hora} Juana wrote for hours in one hour ‘Juana wrote {for hours/ *in one hour}.’ Carlos paseó al perro {durante horas/ *en una hora} Carlos walked dom.the dog for hours in one hour ‘Juana wrote {for hours/ *in one hour}.’

Also, as noted by many authors (Verkuyl 1972, Bach 1986, Krifka 1989, a.o.), the direct object or the prepositional complement has to have certain properties for the accomplishment reading to emerge: the direct object must specify some quantity thereof (41) and the prepositional complement needs to specify an endpoint (42). (41) a. b.

Juana escribió el artículo {* durante horas/ en una hora}. Juana wrote the article   for hours in one hour ‘Juana wrote the article {*for hours/ in one hour}.’ Juana escribió artículos {durante horas/ *en una hora} Juana wrote articles for hours in one hour ‘Juana wrote articles {for hours/ *in one hour}.’

(42) a. Carlos paseó al perro hasta el final del puente {* durante Carlos walked dom.the dog until the end of.the bridge   for horas/ en una hora}. hours in one hour ‘Carlos walked the dog up to the end of the bridge {*for hours/ in one hour}.’ b. Carlos paseó al perro por el parque {durante horas/ *en Carlos walked dom.the dog around the park for hours in una hora} one hour ‘Carlos walked the dog around the park {for hours/ *in one hour}.’



Accomplishments, then, are activity verbs with a quantized direct object or a terminal prepositional phrase as a complement. In this sense, the telicity of accomplishment predicates is compositional, since it is construed by the syntax, and

21

22

Stative Inquiries

these verbs are therefore aspectually ambiguous between activities and accomplishments (see also Mittwoch 1991, who particularly emphasizes this point). 2.2.5.2 Achievements In his classic work, Vendler contrasts accomplishments with achievements. While this author takes accomplishments to be predicates that take time to develop before reaching their endpoint – as discussed in Section 2.2.5.1 – he views achievements as punctual predicates that cannot be said to denote ongoing processes (e.g. in the Example (43b), someone can be said to be engaged in running a race for a certain time period, but a winning cannot develop in time: it has to be punctual). (43) a. John wrote a letter.  b. John won the race. 

(Accomplishment) (Achievement)

Vendler treats achievements on a par with states, on the basis that neither one of them are processes that go on in time: the former happen at a single point in time and the latter merely hold during a certain time period. More radically, Verkuyl (1989) argues that achievements and states form a natural class. The view of achievements as a distinct aspectual class defined in terms of temporal punctuality has been very influential since Vendler (1957) (Mourelatos 1978, Bach 1986, Smith 1991, Ramchand 2008, Travis 2010, to name a few: two notable exceptions to this trend are Pustejovsky 1991 and Borer 2005b).8 However, it turns out that we do not have reliable tests for distinguishing accomplishments from achievements in terms of punctuality. A classic test from Vendler (1957) was the unacceptability of the progressive with achievements, but has been since challenged by many (Leech 1970, Comrie 1976, Vlach 1981, Parsons 1990, Verkuyl 1989, Borer 2005b) who noted that both accomplishments and achievements can appear with the progressive. The same situation goes for Spanish, and I illustrate it below in (44). As we can see, the paradigm is far from exceptional. (44) a. b.

Pedro está llegando a casa. Pedro is arriving at home ‘Pedro is arriving home.’ María está muriéndose. María is dying-refl ‘María is dying.’

8.  Pustejovsky (1991) argued that the aspectual structure of accomplishments and achievements is identical and they only differ in terms of agentivity, accomplishments being agentive and achievements being non-agentive. Borer (2005b) also claims that the temporal structure of these two types is not distinct: for her, achievements are merely verbs that are lexically specified for telic structure.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



c. d. e. f.

El árbol se está cayendo. the tree refl is falling ‘The tree is falling down.’ La empresa está logrando sus objetivos. the company is achieving its goals ‘The company is achieving its goals.’ Carmen está reparando el ordenador. Carmen is repairing the computer ‘Carmen is repairing the computer.’ Víctor está ganando la maratón. Víctor is winning the marathon ‘Víctor is winning the marathon.’

The fact that the achievements in (44) accept the progressive should not be surprising, however, once we take a closer look. Take (44e) for instance. The transition from a computer being broken to being repaired is intuitively instantaneous, but there is nonetheless a previous, preparatory process that leads to the computer being fully functional again.9 It seems that such preparatory process should be grammatically represented somehow, given that the progressive can access it. See also Borer (2005b), for a critique along these lines. Another test that purportedly diagnoses the punctual nature of achievements is the lack of scope ambiguities with almost (Dowty 1979). (45) John almost noticed the painting.

However, it turns out that many achievement verbs do in fact show a scope ambiguity with almost, as shown in (46) for its Spanish counterpart casi. It needs to be noted that the different scenarios in (46) are grammatically relevant, i.e. they diagnose a true ambiguity. Evidence for this is that when the predicate is in the progressive (e.g. (47)), it is only compatible with the second scenario in (46), i.e. that in which casi modifies the result state – entailing that the process part of the event has indeed begun, hence its compatibility with the progressive. (46) a. Pedro casi repara mi ordenador. Pedro almost repairs my computer ‘Pedro almost repaired my computer.’ 1. It was almost the case that Pedro got to repair my computer (but in the end another technician was assigned to repair my computer) 9.  Rothstein (2012) actually classifies repair as an accomplishment, and rightly so, if one adscribes to the view that accomplishments take time but achievements are instantaneous. But note well that repair does not behave like an accomplishment in that its telicity is not compositional, i.e. that verb is inherently telic.

23

24

Stative Inquiries

2. Pedro worked on my computer and he almost repaired it, but stopped working on it without returning it to a functional state. b. Sara casi llega a Londres ayer. Sara almost arrives in London yesterday ‘Sara almost arrived in London yesterday.’ 1. It was almost the case that Sara started her journey to London, which, had she started, would have taken her to London yesterday. 2. Sara was on her way to London and close to arriving, but something came up that prevented her from arriving yesterday. (47) a. b.

Pedro está reparando mi ordenador. Pedro is repairing my computer ‘Pedro is repairing my computer.’ Only compatible with scenario 2 in (46a). Sara está llegando a Londres. Sara is arriving at London ‘Sara is arriving in London.’ Only compatible with scenario 2 in (46b).

The ambiguity of almost, then, cannot be a defining trait of achievements as an instantaneous eventuality. Intuitively, the reason that it is hard to see a scope ambiguity with notice in (45) is that it does seem to happen instantaneously or, at least, in an extremely short amount of time (i.e. when one runs into a painting, one typically notices it right away). For discussion of other classic tests for achievements that also collapse under further scrutiny, such as the it took x time test or the start/ stop Ving test (Dowty 1979), the reader is refered to Borer (2005b) for discussion. Instead, I take the defining trait of achievements to be that their telicity is not compositional, unlike accomplishments. That is, the verb does not require syntactic satellites for a telic reading to arise: achievement verbs denote a change of state, and as such they have an inherent endpoint. In other words, they are lexical resultatives. In fact, I take so-called instantaneous achievements to not be aspectually different from other change-of-state of verbs like destroy or open, which are often not classified as achievements but nonetheless are not distinct with respect to grammatical tests. (48) a. b.

Marta cerró la puerta rápidamente. Marta closed the door quickly ‘Marta closed the door quickly.’ Isabel rompió el espejo con un candelabro. Isabel broke the mirror with a chandelier ‘Isabel broke the mirror with a chandelier.’

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



2.2.6 Against semelfactives Another event type that has been proposed in the literature is that of semelfactives, such as knock or cough. Originally proposed by Smith (1991), semelfactives are defined as atelic, instantaneous events. Smith notes that these verbs can be coerced into a derived activity, where the eventuality is interpreted repetitively (i.e. in (49), the for-phrase covers a time interval with multiple instances of a coughing, and similarly, the progressive in (50) focuses in part of a composite process with repeated events of coughing or knocking). (49) John coughed for 5 minutes. (50) a. John was coughing. b. Bill was knocking at the door. 

(Smith 1991: 56)

Smith proposes a system of binary aspectual features for modeling event types (see Table 2.1), in which activities are only distinguished from semelfactives in terms of the value of the [±DURATION] feature. Both are [−STATE] and [−TELIC] (since they are neither stative nor telic) but activities are [+DURATION] and semelfactives are [−DURATION]. Table 2.1  The aspectual features of event types in Smith (1991) [±STATE]

[±TELIC]

[±DURATION]

States

+

−

+

Activities

−

−

+

Accomplishments

−

+

+

Achievements

−

+

−

Semelfactives

−

−

−

Rothstein (2004) adopts a different view, and claims that semelfactives are actually instantaneous telic events, essentially achievements: the durative reading is derived by S-summing, an operation that puts together a series of punctual events. Ramchand (2008) takes a similar position and proposes that semelfactives are special in that they are ambiguous between an achievement and an activity reading. If Rothstein and Ramchand were correct, however, and semelfactives were achievements, we would expect the progressive version of these sentences to be aspectually ambiguous as well. However, it turns out not to be the case. In (51a), the reading is not one in which Juan is about to jump, but one in which he is already jumping, i.e. he is either up on the air or he is in the midst of a series of jumps. Crucially, we find the opposite situation with achievements: in (51b), the only reading is one in which Juan is about to arrive home: he is walking towards

25

26 Stative Inquiries

it and he is only a short distance away. The moment he gets home, we can no longer talk about him arriving home, much less can we talk about him being in the middle of arriving home again and again. (51) a. b.

Juan está saltando. Juan is jumping ‘Juan is jumping.’ Javi está llegando a casa. Javi is arriving at home ‘John is arriving home.’

Ramchand (2008) also argues that, for semelfactives of motion, there must be an associated result that denotes the endpoint of the distance traveled by virtue of that motion, which can furthermore be expressed explicitly by a locative PP (e.g. (52)). (52) Katherine jumped in the lake/on the table. 

(Ramchand 2008: 79)

However, it is easy to construe scenarios for these verbs in which no distance is traveled, as we can see in the examples in (53) for English and Spanish. The idea that semelfactives inherently encode telicity, then, is further weakened. (53) a. b.

John jumped in place. Elías saltó sin moverse del sitio. Elías jumped without moving-refl of.the place ‘Elías jumped in place.’

I conclude that semelfactives are in fact pure activity verbs, and that their perceived temporal punctuality is, as was the case with achievements, a matter of world knowledge rather than a grammatical difference. 2.2.7 Interim summary A summary of my discussion in this section is provided in Table 2.2. Table 2.2  Classic event types and their tests Tests

Telics

Activities

States

In x time-phrases

✓

✗

✗

Llevar x tiempo ‘to take x time’

✓

✗

✗

Terminative reading with tardar ‘to take’

✓

✗

✗

Scope ambiguity with almost

✓

✗

✗

Scope ambiguity with again

✓

✗

✗

For x time-phrases

✗

✓

✓

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



Table 2.2  Classic event types and their tests (continued) Tests

Telics

Activities

States

Progressive entails perfect

✗

✓

✓

Inceptive reading with tardar ‘to take’

✗

✓

✓

parar de + V.inf ‘stop V-ing’

✓

✓

✗

Habitual reading in the present tense

✓

✓

✗

Universal reading in the perfect

✗

✗

✓

Ambiguity in the future

✗

✗

✓

Ambiguity with conditionals

✗

✗

✓

Ambiguity with espero que ‘I hope that’

✗

✗

✓

2.3

Modeling Aktionsart in the syntax

In classic Government and Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986a,b), the syntax of a transitive VP is typically represented as in (54), with the direct object as complement of V and the subject in (Spec,IP), or, alternatively, as in (55), with the subject in (Spec,VP) under the VP-internal subject hypothesis, see Fukui & Speas 1986, Tikagawa 1986, Kuroda 1988, Koopman & Sportiche 1985, 1988, 1991, a.o.). (54)

IP Subject

I′ I

VP V

(55)

Object

VP Subject



V′ V

Object

The standard model assumes that verbs are stored in the lexicon with syntacticosemantic relevant information with respect to their categorial classification (i.e. verb), the syntactic arguments it can take (c-selection), the kind of entity that the arguments need to denote (s-selection), the thematic roles that it assigns and the arguments that it assigns them to (the θ-grid). All this information constitutes the lexical entry of the verb (e.g. (56)) and it determines the D-structure of the VP,

27

28

Stative Inquiries

insofar as there are well-formedness conditions that syntax must obey for a syntactic representation to be licit which must be read off the lexical entry of the verb (e.g. the Projection Principle and the Theta-criterion).10 (56) Lexical entry of eat: category c-selection s-selection θ-grid θ-roles V NP entity x Agent NP entity y Theme

As is immediately apparent, this model remains silent regarding Aktionsart, and so does, for the most part, current standard Minimalist theory (Chomsky 1995, 2001, 2008). To be sure, all types of Aktionsart can be found in transitive configurations (e.g. (57)), or in intransitive ones for that matter (e.g. (58)).11 The syntactic structures in (54) or (55), however, do not differentiate between event types, but assume a common syntax for sentences like those in (57). Nor do lexical entries like that in (56) specify or model in any way what the aspectual properties of the resulting predicate will turn out to be. (57)

a. b. c. d.

Peter respected the law.  Mary pushed the cart.  Charles ate the cake.  Sarah touched the wall. 

(58) a. Dinosaurs existed.  b. Mary sang.  c. Charles arrived. 

(State) (Activity) (Accomplishment) (Achievement) (State) (Activity) (Achievement)

The strategies of theoreticians who have done research on the grammatical properties of Aktionsart could be divided into four main groups as in (59), depending on whether they take the lexicon or the syntax to be the locus of aspectual meaning (a) and b) vs. c) and d)) and whether such calculation is done via 10.  Chomsky (1981) defines the Projection Principle and the Theta-criterion as in (iii) and (iv), respectively.

(iii) Projection Principle: Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and D- and Sstructure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items.  (From Chomsky 1981: 29)

(iv) Theta criterion: i. Each argument bears one and only one θ-role. ii. Each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.  (From Chomsky 1981: 36) 11.  Accomplishments cannot be found in intransitive configurations since, as I discussed in Section 2.2.5.1, they are parasitic on a direct object: An intransitive ‘accomplishment’ verb is an activity.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



meaningful grammatical features or in a compositional, structural fashion (a) and c) vs. b) and d)). (59) Main types of accounts for Aktionsart. a. Aspectual features in the lexicon: verbs carry aspectual features as part of their lexical entries (Smith 1991, Olsen 1994, 1997, Kearns 2000, a.o.). b. Lexical structure: the lexical entry of a verb contains aspectuallymeaningful structural configurations (the resemblance of those structures to syntax proper varying within proposals)  (Grimshaw 1990, Pustejovsky 1991, Hale & Keyser 1993, Travis 2010, a.o.). c. Aspectual features in the syntax, i.e. in functional heads with specific aspectual values  (Harley 1995, Marantz 1999, Cuervo 2003, Lin 2004, Folli & Harley 2005, a.o.). d. Syntax proper: syntax builds aspectually-meaningful syntactic configurations   (Borer 2005b, Ramchand 2008, Acedo-Matellán 2016, a.o.).

The classification of the works in (59) is not meant to be absolute and categorical, as many of these Aktionsart are actually hybrid to some extent, but I do believe that they are representative of the aforementioned current approaches to event structure. Since my main concern is presenting the case for a structural approach to Aktionsart, in particular one framed in syntactic terms, I will focus my literature overview on those kinds of approaches, from the lexicalist ones to the current syntactic ones. 2.3.1

Origins of verbal decomposition

The idea that verbs are not grammatical atoms, but rather, that they are composed of structure, however defined, has been present since the beginnings of the research on event structure. The earliest work on verbal decomposition, as far as I am aware, comes from Generative Semantics, which proposed that the deep syntactic structure of a verb was composed by its smaller abstract semantic components. Particularly famous is McCawley’s decomposition of the verb to kill. According to him, the deep structure of x kills y would be as in (60). Grammatical transformations would then rearrange this elements into a well-formed syntactic constituent that would license the lexical insertion of kill at the relevant point of the derivation.

29

30

Stative Inquiries

(60)

S CAUSE

x

S

BECOME

S S

NOT ALIVE



y

Inspired by the work on Generative Semantics (as well as in Montague’s logic system), Dowty (1979) proposes an aspect calculus system to derive the classic event types. He argues that states are the basic type of predicate, and different aspectual operators derive the more complex event types. For him, the aspectual operators operate over propositions, and the resulting verbs are complex sentences. Dowty’s operators are presented in (61), simplifying somewhat for expository purposes. BECOME takes a proposition and denotes a transition (the proposition does not hold immediately before time t but holds at time t). The operator CAUSE introduces a causative relation between two propositions, following a counterfactual analysis of causation (Lewis 1973). Finally, DO takes an individual and a proposition and says that such proposition is directly controlled by the agent. The logical structures of the classic event types in Dowty’s system are provided in (62). (61) a. BECOME ϕ is true at t iff ϕ is true at t and false at t–1. (Dowty 1979: 76) b. [ϕ CAUSE ψ] is true iff ϕ is a causal factor for ψ   (Adapted from Dowty 1979: 108) c. □[DO(α, ϕ)↔ϕ∧under the unmediated control of the agent (ϕ)] (where α is an individual and ϕ is a sentence)   (Adapted from Dowty 1979: 118) (62)

a. b. c. d.

States: No operators Activities:s1 [DO x S2] Accomplishments:s1 [s2[DO x S3] CAUSEs4[BECOME S5]] Achievements:s1 [BECOME S2]

Pustejovsky (1991) continues the tradition of representing aspectual meaning in semantic structures. He assumes a model of the lexicon-syntax interface where verbs are semantically specified with respect not only to event structure, but also to subcategorization frames and argument structure (see also Grimshaw 1990, Williams 1981, Chomsky 1981). Like Dowty, he takes states to be the most basic event type. For activities (he calls them ‘processes’), he is inspired by Dowty’s subinterval account (see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) and models them as a temporal

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



sequence of events. For telics, he is also builds on Dowty in representing them as ‘transitions’ from the non-existence of an eventuality to the existence of such eventuality. I illustrate his lexical-conceptual structures in (63), taken from Pustejovsky (1991: 40). (63) a. State (S): a single event, which is evaluated relative to no other event Examples: be sick, love, know Structural representation: S

e b. Process (P): a sequence of events identifying the same semantic expression Examples: run, push, drag Structural representation: P e1…en c. Transition (T): an event identifying a semantic expression, which is evaluated relative to its opposition Examples: give, open, build, destroy Structural representation (where E is a variable for any event type): T



¬E1

E2

2.3.2 L-syntax: Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) 2.3.2.1 An overview of the model In their seminal work (starting in 1993 and crystallizing in their 2002 book), Hale & Keyser put forth the hypothesis that argument structure, derivational morphology and the interpretation of arguments obey and can be derived by syntactic principles. Although their main concern is deriving patterns of argument structure, and not event types per se (especially in their 2002 book), their work nonetheless lays the foundation for a study of verbal syntax as the determining source of argument structure configurations and aspectual and thematic interpretation. Hale & Keyser assume a L(exical)-syntax with the lexical categories V, N, A and P as heads in its inventory. Such heads, they argue, project distinct argument structure configurations that are defined in syntactic terms, as in (64).

31

32

Stative Inquiries

(64) The fundamental relations of argument structure  (Hale & Keyser 2002: 12) a. Head-complement: If X is the complement of a head H, then X is the unique sister of H (X and H c-command one another). b. Specifier-head: If X is the specifier of a head H, and if P1 is the first projection of H (i.e. H′, necessarily non-vacuous), then X is the unique sister of P1.

Given these relations, Hale and Keyser propose that there are four possible lexical structures, shown in (65). We can have heads that only take a complement (65a), heads that take both a complement and a specifier (65b), heads that require a specifier but cannot project it, so it needs to be the complement of another head that can project a specifier (Head* in (65c)). A final option is a head that takes neither a complement nor a specifier (65d). Languages may vary crosslinguistically with respect to what lexical category projects these configurations, but the typical pattern in English is, for the examples in (65): (a) V; (b) P; (c) A; (d) N. (65) The structural types of lexical argument structure  a. Head

Comp Head Head b. Spec



(Hale & Keyser 2002: 13)

c.

Head Head



Comp

Head* Spec

Head* d. Head

Head* Comp

Hale & Keyser (2002) show how many argument structure patterns can be explained resorting to their structural types. They take an intransitive pair of verbs like clear and laugh in (66) for illustration. (66) a. The screen cleared. b. The children laughed.

Hale and Keyser argue that these verbs have a different l-syntax. The first one is derived from an adjective A (clear), which requires a specifier via a separate head, in this case a verbal host. The subject in the specifier of V is the screen. The adjective is verbalized by conflation, a morphological process that copies the phonological matrix of a head complement into the head that governs it (V, in this case). The

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



second one, illustrated in (67b), is derived from a lexical N (laugh), which has the monadic structure of (65d), and is selected by a specifierless V. Note that V does not project a specifier in itself (unless required by its complement, as in (65c) and (67a)), i.e. it has the l-structure in (65a). (67) a. V DP

V V

the screen

b.

clear 

V V



A

(Hale & Keyser 2002: 16)

N laugh 



(Hale & Keyser 2002: 15)

These distinct structures explain the asymmetries in transitivization patterns: as shown in (68), clear may transitivize (e.g.  (68a)) but laugh cannot (e.g.  (68b)). Transitivization, Hale & Keyser (2002) argue, is derived by a matrix V (V1) that takes another V (V2) as a complement, introduces a subject (truly external to lsyntax, in the relevant sense) and assigns accusative case to the subject of its complement V2 (i.e. the internal argument) (e.g. (69)). (68) a. I cleared the screen. b. * The clown laughed the children. (69) a. V1

V2

V1

V2

DP V2

the screen

b.

(Hale & Keyser 2002: 17)

V2 V2



clear 

V1 V1

A

N laugh 

(Hale & Keyser 2002: 15)

33

34

Stative Inquiries

Hale and Keyser argue that denominal locative verbs like shelve have a similar structure as the deadjectival verbs of (67a), only that in this case the specifier is provided by a locative P of terminal coincidence, denoting a change of location of a Figure (in the specifier of P) to a Ground (the N complement of P). The lexical head is verbalized thanks to a V that takes P as a complement, with which the lexical N head conflates, along with P. I provide an example in (70). (70) a. Peter shelved the books. V b. P

V DP

P P

the book



N shelf 



(Hale & Keyser 2002: 31)

Hale & Keyser (1993) make the crucial claim that the structural configurations of lexical heads are in fact event structure configurations, and that the interpretation of the arguments of these heads are entailments from the event structure they appear in and nothing more. Each of the heads in the lexical syntax denote a separate subevent, and when two heads are combined in the syntax the interpretation between the two subevents is one of implication. Take a sentence such as (71a), with the structure in (71b) (from Hale & Keyser 1993: 72). (71) a. The cook thinned the gravy. VP b. NP

V′

(The cook) V

VP NP (The gravy) V





V′ AP thin

Given that thin is a deadjectival verb, the lexical head is A and it is a complement of V. The complementation structure is depicted in (72a). Hale & Keyser (1993) assume that lexical heads are associated with a distinct notional type: the lexical head A denotes a state and the lexical head V an event. The resulting semantic

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



relation is that of an event implicating a state, i.e. a change of state (see (72b), where ‘→’ denotes the implication relation, e an event and s a state). (72) a.

V′ V

AP thin

b. e → s 

(Hale & Keyser 1993: 72)

The internal argument, the gravy, is interpreted as a theme (an entity undergoing change), the authors argue, by virtue of having a syntactically unambiguous relation with the complementation structure in (72a) (it is in the specifier of the higher projection, as you can see in (73a)). The thematic relation of the internal argument with respect to the complex (semantic) event structure denoted by the (syntactic) complementation structure is represented as ‘>’, n being the type of nouns (see (73b)). (73) a.

VP NP

V′

(The gravy) V

AP thin

b. n > (e → s) 

(Hale & Keyser 1993: 73)

The complementation structure of the higher and lower VPs (represented in (74a)), in turn, has the denotation in (74b), where the relationship is again one of implication, understood in this case as a causal relation between two events. (74) a.

V′

V b. e1 → e2 

VP

(Hale & Keyser 1993: 69)

The external argument in (Spec,VP), by its unambiguous syntactic relation with the lower structure, is interpreted as an agent: it is the entity implicated in the causing eventuality.

35

36

Stative Inquiries

(75) a.

VP NP

V′

(The cook) V b. n > e1 → e2

VP

With respect to stative verbs, Hale & Keyser (1997, 2002) hypothesize that they fall in two types: the first type is comprised of denominal verbs like respect (e.g. (76)), whose stativity is derived from a central coincidence P (e.g. (77)).12 The fact that sometimes these verbs may have event-like properties, for them, stems from the fact that there is verbal structure on top of P.13 (76)

a. b. c. d. e.

John feared the truth. John knew the truth. John admired the truth. John liked the truth. John respected the truth. 

(Hale & Keyser 2002: 208)

12.  The same stative structure can be found with an overt P in sentences like (v), which has the structure in (vi).

(v) With [Annan in Baghdad], we can relax. P P

DP Annan



(vi) 

P

N

in

Baghdad 

(Hale & Keyser 2002: 220)

13.  However, the tests that Hale & Keyser (2002) adduce in favor of their event-like properties are far from conclusive. They argue that they may appear in the imperative (e.g. (viia)), in the progressive (e.g.  (viib)) and accept in x time phrases (e.g.  (viic)). I already mentioned in Section 2.2.4 that neither the imperative nor the progressive are valid eventivity tests (see also Sections 3.2.2.1 and 5.5 of this monograph). The in x time phrase in (viic)), moreover, makes reference to the beginning of the state, rather a change-of-state. Note that if it were really a change-of-state/telic reading, it should be possible to have a reading in the progressive in which that change-of-state were about to take place. But that is not the case: a sentence like (viii) can only mean that the troops already respect the commander, not that they are about to. (vii)

a. Respect your parents. b. He is liking his new job. c. The troops respected their new commander in minutes.   (Hale & Keyser 2002: 210)

(viii) The troops are respecting their new commander.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



(77)

V V

P P

DP the truth

P

N respect 



(Hale & Keyser 2002: 210)

The second type are copula-like verbs with a measure phrase complement (e.g.  (78)). Without giving an explicit syntactic analysis, the authors claim that these verbs are inherently stative, being copula-like (in fact, all the verbs in (78) can be substituted with the copula be) are inherently stative, i.e. stativity in these cases is not derived by a central coincidence P, but by a subset of the V category. (78)

a. b. c. d.

That house costs fifty thousand dollars. This bull weights one ton. Two and two equals four. Three books comprise the entire collection.  (Hale & Keyser 2002: 214)

Stativity, then, can be derived in three different ways: either a P with a central coincidence value, a subset of the V category (the copula-like V heads) and the extended projection of the A in its stative use, as shown in (79). (79) a. We found [the sky clear]. b. δ δ

DP the sky





δ

A clear 

(Hale & Keyser 2005: 24)

Observing that the same argument structure configurations, as defined in (64), may have different aspectual meanings (for instance), Hale & Keyser (2002, 2005) reach the conclusion that argument structure and aspect are by large independent of each other. In their own words, aspect is orthogonal to argument structure. Whenever we deal with questions of interface and interaction in this domain, we observe that argument structure is for the most part autonomous. Its properties and characteristics are strictly local, being defined in terms of the structural relations of complement and specifier. To be sure, any argument structure configuration associated with an actual predicate

37

38

Stative Inquiries

in sentential syntax will be interpreted in terms of one or another aspectual type (achievement, accomplishment, etc.) and its arguments will be associated with one or another aspectual role (measure, path, terminus, etc. (Tenny 1994)). But argument structure is a distinct and separate component of grammar.  (Hale & Keyser 2002: 225)

2.3.2.2 Critical assessment Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) is a seminal work in the study of argument structure, and a giant step towards neo-constructionism. Although their model is assumed to be one of lexical structure within the lexicon, and hence prior to syntax proper, they nonetheless show how phenomena such as grammatical category, derivational morphology, aspectual interpretation and thematic interpretations can be derived by syntactically-constrained argument structure configurations. This is the crucial difference with other lexicalist decompositional models (Dowty 1979, Grimshaw 1990, Pustejovsky 1991) whose proposed structures do not conform to the same combinatorial and well-formedness principles as those of syntax proper, and it is in this sense that Hale & Keyser’s work is a door to neo-constructionist accounts. As I read their series of work, however, there are two Hale and Keysers with altogether different views regarding the aspectual and thematic interpretation of the structures. Their first article from 1993, as I commented in the previous section, attacked θ-theory and claimed that it has no place in the theory. What we call “θ-roles” are interpretive entailments from the event structure of the predicate, syntactically built, and it is also the syntactic position of the arguments which determines their relation with respect to that event structure. Doing away with θ-theory and constraints such as the θ-criterion, and deriving the notional θ-roles from independently motivated principles, is indeed a welcome consequence for the theory.14 Hale & Keyser (1993), as we also saw, associated grammatical category with the semantic types from which articulated event structure is built (A denotes states, V denotes events, and so on). This can hardly be correct, because aspectual types cut across categories, as they themselves acknowledge in their 2002 book:15 the V 14.  A precursor of the idea that θ-roles are not relevant for the syntax and that they should be associated to aspectual meaning (in the lexicon) can be found in Tenny (1992). In her words, “the syntax proper does not need to “see” thematic roles. It only “sees” certain syntactic/aspectual structures the thematic roles are associated with.” (1992: 2) 15.  This observation actually goes as far as Dowty (1979), who noted that “in addition to verbs, adjectives and nouns also split into stative and non-stative categories, according to whether the progressive can be used when they appear as predicative adjectives and predicate nominals. Cf. John is being careful vs. *John is being tall, John is being a hero vs. John is being a grandfather.” (130, ft. 6)



Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure

category may denote events and states (e.g. (80) and (81)), but also the other core predicational categories, i.e. adjectives (e.g.  (82) and (83)) and nouns (e.g.  (84) and (85)). This makes the authors reach the conclusion (contra their original 1993 work, although they do not make the connection explicit) that aspect and argument structure are mostly independent of one another. (80) Stative verbs a. The book costs five dollars. b. Peter fears his parents. (81) Eventive verbs a. Mary jumped across the river. b. John churned the butter. (82) Stative adjectives a. Hans is handsome. b. A weekly newspaper. (83) Eventive adjectives a. Mary was being unkind. b. Carmen is usually quite generous. (84) Stative nouns a. The love towards your neighbor. b. Your fear of guns is warranted. (85) Eventive nouns a. The violent fight between the gangs. b. My cousin’s long wedding party.

I find this to be a most unfortunate conclusion. As I see it, making the claim that aspect and argument structure are independent of each other seriously jeopardizes their original proposal regarding event structure construal and with it their argument against θ-theory. That is, if argument structure does not correlate with aspectual meaning, where does aspect come from? If it is not in the syntax and not in the lexicon, where is it? Is event structure (and with it “thematic structure”, in their sense) construed in an independent grammatical module? If so, the structural properties of Aktionsart building, whichever they turn out to be, would no longer correlate, presumably, with those of syntax (e.g. a feature-based system à la Smith 1991). This is the worst theory, not only because it would assume a separate grammatical module, undesirable by Occam’s razor, because it takes us back to models such as Generative Semantics, whose highly semantically decomposed structures were not grammatically justified.

39

40 Stative Inquiries

Another option is that aspect were just part of the conceptual meaning of the root. If so, then we would not need a separate grammatical module and aspect would be interpreted merely from the lexical semantics of the verb. But argument structure configurations do show important correlations with aspect. I already discussed the determining effects of syntactic complements such as DPs and PPs in Section 2.2.5.1, but even with the argument structure types that Hale & Keyser (2002) discuss there are aspectual patterns that can be drawn from them. Look at their patterns in (86) and (87), from Hale & Keyser (2002: 1) (and see also (66) and (68)). (86) a. The pot broke. b. I broke the pot.  (87) a. The engine coughed. b. * I coughed the engine. 

(Unaccusative – Transitive) (Unergative)

As Hale & Keyser (2002) discussed, the verbs break in (86) and cough in (86) pattern differently with respect to causativization because cough is an unergative verb and it already has an external argument, whereas break is unaccusative so an external argument can be added on top of the internal argument. But note that, in addition, the unergative verbs that Hale and Keyser discuss seem to be consistently activities aspectually (i.e. atelic, e.g. (88a)), whereas the unaccusative verbs they discuss are change-of-state verbs (i.e. telic, e.g. (88b)).16 (88) a. cough, dance, sneeze, laugh…  b. break, thin, clear, open… 

(Atelic) (Telic)

Hale & Keyser’s (2002) claim that aspect and argument structure are independent misses these crucial generalizations. Their original 1993 work is much more insightful in this respect, as I have argued. Some of their 1993 claims, however, need to be reconsidered and rectified, such as the association of lexical category with a distinct semantic type, which we saw makes the wrong predictions.

16.  See Borer (2005b) on this point, who argues in detail that unaccusativity correlates with telicity.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



2.3.3 Borer’s (2005b) XS-model 2.3.3.1 An overview of the model Borer (2005b) puts forth a grammatical framework that posits the syntax as the sole source of aspectual meaning.17 The model is neo-constructionist in that the grammatically-relevant properties of the verb and the verb phrase (i.e. argument structure, event structure, thematic interpretation…) are not built from the properties of the lexical root, as lexicalist approaches (also known as projectionist in Rappaport-Hovav & Levin 1998 or endo-skeletal in Borer 2005a) would have it, but rather, they emerge from the syntax, which builds structure independently from the lexical root. Borer metaphorically names her approach as the Exo-Skeletal (XS) model, capturing the idea that, as with exo-Skeletal organisms, it is the “properties of the ‘outside’, larger structure which ultimately determine the overall ‘shape’ of what is within, rather than the other way around” (Borer 2005a: 15). Borer assumes an extremely impoverished lexicon  – or encyclopedia, as the author calls it  – formed by items known as listemes which contain phonological information and conceptual meaning that is not grammatically relevant. Listemes, then, do not have any information regarding event, argument or thematic structure, or grammatical category for that matter. Borer gives support for her theory with data as in (89): although the word siren is usually a noun, it can nonetheless function as a verb in a multiplicity of argument structure configurations. A lexicalist model would have to assume that the verb siren has multiple entries specifying these legitimate argument structure configurations, and there would also need to be a separate entry for the nominal use of siren. The same would apply to all the lexical items that showed these alternations, which results in a plethora of lexical entries in the lexicon  – and the redundancy and learnability issues associated with it. (89)

a. b. c. d. e.

The fire stations sirened throughout the raid. The factory sirened midday and everyone stopped for lunch. The police sirened the Porsche to a stop. The police car sirened up to the accident. The police car sirened the daylights out of me.   (From Clark & Clark 1979, apud Borer 2005a: 8)

In a neo-constructionist model, instead, the pattern in (89) is derived by resorting to the very limited number of possible argument structure configurations that the combinatorial properties of syntax allows. A listeme like siren, given that it does 17.  Borer (2005b) is part of a trilogy that develops a neo-constructionist model (the XS-model) for grammatical structure. The trilogy also studies the nominal domain (Borer 2005a) as well as word-formation (Borer 2013).

41

42

Stative Inquiries

not have any grammatical information that imposes restrictions on its syntactic realization, can, in principle, be inserted under any of those structures, effectively deriving patterns like those in (89). It can also be inserted under nominal structure, in which in case we would have the noun siren (as in the annoying police siren, for instance). In the XS-model, syntax is composed of functional projections whose head contain categorial information as well as open values that need to be assigned range (the open value is represented as ⟨e⟩ and the category label as a subscript to its right). Range assignment can be done indirectly by Spec-Head agreement (90a), provided the syntactic phrase in the specifier has the relevant grammatical properties, or directly by either a functional morpheme (f-morph) (90b) or an abstract feature that can be given a phonological representation (90c). Range assignment is represented by a superscript in (90). The burden of the syntactic derivation, then, is placed in functional material and the structural relations they enter with each other: listemes give conceptual content to the resulting syntactic structures, but do not give rise to them nor do they impose conditions on them, contra lexicalist accounts. (90) a. [xp YP1 [x’ ⟨e1⟩X]] b. [xp Spec [x’ f-morph2⟨e2⟩X]] c. [XP Spec [X’ ⟨head feature3⟩ ⟨e3⟩X]]

Borer proposes that telic structure is licensed (in English and similar languages) via a quantity DP. A quantity DP, in Borer’s terms, is a DP that projects a quantity phrase #P, whose job in the nominal structure is to assign quantity to mass nouns or count nouns, whose head is assigned range by functional items such as three, much or few. If a DP lacks a #P (essentially bare plurals and bare mass nouns), the nominal predicate will be homogeneous, i.e. cumulative and divisive. For instance, the homogeneous nominal predicate salt (91a) is cumulative in that salt plus salt is still salt, and divisive in that a subset of salt is still salt as well. Quantity predicates (e.g. (91b)) are not homogeneous because they do not have those properties: three flowers plus three flowers is not three flowers, but six, just like a subset of many books (in a particular context) may no longer count as many books.18 (91) a. salt, vodka, apples, books…  Non-quantity DPs b. Three flowers, the glass, many books, some water…  Quantity DPs 18.  These notions are formalized in Borer (2005a) as follows: (ix) a. Quantity P is quantity iff P is not homogeneous b. P is homogeneous iff P is cumulative and divisive i. P is divisive iff ∀x[P(x)→∃y(P(y)∧y yj. The intermediate reading, then, is derived by having again scope between VoiceP and vP.

Chapter 2.  Aktionsart and argument structure



(113) a. John sank the ship slowly. b. John made the ship sink slowly. 

(From Martin & Schäfer 2014: 220)

As I see it, however, this argument only goes through if the higher causing event in question is assumed to be eventive (i.e. dynamic). Remember that Dowty modeled his lexical causatives via relations between sentences, in which the ‘causing event’ of accomplishments was an eventive sentence with the do predicate (i.e. for Dowty, (113a) would be paraphrased as John did something that caused the ship to become sunk). Parsons (1990) and Hale & Keyser (1993) seem to believe the causing eventuality to be dynamic as well. But Ramchand’s causing eventuality (initP) is a state, and dynamic adverbs like quickly cannot modify states (e.g. *John knows Math quickly). Manner adverbs, therefore, are not a (solid) argument against event decomposition. Another piece of data that speaks strongly in favor of a three subevent decomposition comes from locative adverbs. Parsons (1990) noted that the PP behind the museum in (114) is ambiguous between a reading where it locates the agent (114a) and the theme (114b). He took this as evidence that causative sentences were bieventive, under the standard assumption in event semantics that locative modification is modification of an event argument (Davidson 1967). Crucially, however, the locative has a resultative reading, which describes the endpoint of the kite as a result of the flying. I include it in (114c). (114)

Mary flew the kite behind the museum.  a. Mary was behind the museum. b. The kite was behind the museum. c. The kite ended up behind the museum.

(From Parsons 1990: 118)

These data are clearly consistent with Ramchand’s model. In reading (114a), the locative attaches to initP; in reading (114b), it attaches to procP; in reading (114c) it attaches to resP. As it turns out, a model that does not assume a minimal degree of complexity for the VP both for its syntax and its semantics will inevitable be unable to capture many important empirical facts. 2.4

Conclusions

This chapter has provided an overview of the current state of the art in the study of Aktionsart, and in particular in its syntactic modeling in generative work. I have begun with illustrating the classic typology of event types (starting with Vendler) and I have discussed the relevant aspectual diagnostics as they apply to Spanish, given that it will be the main language under study in this work. In so doing, I

57

58

Stative Inquiries

have argued against the existence semelfactives as a distinct event type as well as against a characterization of achievements based on temporal punctuality: rather, achievements are simply change-of-state verbs, whose process part may be conceived of as shorter or longer. I have then presented some of the most influential syntactic accounts in the literature regarding Aktionsart. The discussion has by not means comprehensive, since there are many important monographs that I have not been able to discuss for reasons of space (e.g. Cuervo 2003, McDonald 2008, Travis 2010, a.o.). I have instead focused on those that I believe seminal for the study of Aktionsart: First, (i) L-syntax, for showing how lexical verbs can be decomposed into syntactic structures, which derive and constraint possible argument structure configurations. A crucial contribution of this model is to show that aspectual meaning can be derived from these argument structures and how the interpretation of arguments is determined by the position they occupy in an aspectually-meaningful structure, and hence θ-roles can be done without entirely. Second, the XS-model, for the radical separation of the syntax and the lexicon in the study of event structure: the former creates argument structure with a certain formal interpretation, the latter merely modifies that structure, but is not its source. Last, first-phase syntax, for integrating the best intuitions of the two previous models into a system that assumes some minimal grammatical specification for the root and a syntax that derives argument structure and event types in a systematic and elegant manner. The literature review of this chapter has made the case for a decompositional view of the syntax of the VP, in particular one in which argument structure complexity mirrors event complexity. In so doing, I have defended the viability of deriving Aktionsart and θ-roles from argument structure with the minimal theoretical assumptions and a single level of representation – syntax. I have also argued, following others, that conflating category and aspectual meaning is a wrong move: states and events cut across all the traditional lexical categories. As it turns out, however, the reference works within this research program have not analyzed stative predicates in sufficient depth, often implicitly or explicitly severing them from the verbal domain – e.g. the XS-model or L-syntax – or simply relegating them to the simplest unit of analysis – first-phrase syntax. In what follows, I put forth a view of states that puts them on a par with events in terms of syntactic and eventive complexity. Departing from the groundwork laid in this chapter, I show how the different syntactic primitives of event structure can operate in deriving different kinds of stative predicates with distinct aspectual interpretations, just as we have seen for eventive predicates. This inclusive view of states, in turn, sheds light on the properties of certain verbs whose aspectual classification in the classic Aktionsart typology has proven problematic. The following chapter presents a case study in question, analyzing a set of Spanish verbs that I label stative causatives.

Chapter 3

Stative causatives

3.1

Introduction

The previous chapter presented the traditional classification of event types, where four distinct types were presented: states, activities, accomplishments and achievements. There is a set of verbs, however, that does not seem to fully fit into any of these four categories, i.e. the Aktionsart tests do not give conclusive results for a clear-cut classification. The verbs in question are exemplified in (115) and I refer to them as govern-type verbs. These verbs are disconcerting from a Vendlerian standpoint because they show properties usually associated to events (e.g. agentivity) and states (e.g. habitual reading in the present tense), and also to atelic (e.g. acceptability of for-phrases) and telic predicates (e.g. formation of adjectival passives, to be discussed in depth in Chapter 4). (115) Govern, surveil, protect, control, direct, preside, reign, supervise…

Although these verbs have not received adequate attention in the literature until very recently (Fábregas & Marín 2012, 2017), their oddity has not gone unnoticed. In his classic work, Vendler discusses how activities and other non-stative event types can become ‘states’ in the habitual present tense (e.g. Are you smoking? vs. Do you smoke?), he notices the following about the verb to rule: Now the curious thing is that while cabdrivers – that is, people of whom one can always say that they drive a cab-sometimes are actually driving a cab, rulers-that is, people of whom one can always say that they rule a country-are never actually ruling a country, i.e. they are never engaged in the specific activity of ruling a country comparable to the specific activity of driving a cab. Vendler (1957: 151)

Dowty (1979) also noticed the existence of these verbs, and was also unsure about how to classify them. In his discussion of how his system could account for the different event types and thematic interpretations (see Section 2.3.1), he goes as follows when discussing activities:

B. Activities 1. Simple activities: DO(α1,[πn (α1,…,αn)]). (John is walking.) 2. Agentive Stative Causatives (?): [DO(α1,[πm (α1,…,αm)])

60 Stative Inquiries

CAUSE ρn (β1,…,βn)]. (The existence of this class was suggested to me by Harmon Boertien and would include examples like He is housing his antique car collection in an old barn, which are agentive and presumably causative but do not entail any change of state.) Dowty (1979: 124)

As it turns out, the classic typology of Aktionsart is not sufficient in light of these verbs and it needs to be rethought. This chapter will review critically the only piece of work (to my knowledge) that has focused on characterizing these verbs aspectually and I will provide an alternative analysis. In a nutshell, I argue that these verbs are stative causatives. They are formed syntactically via an initP and a resP projection (Ramchand 2008, see Section 2.3.4), which introduce a state each and are glued together via a causal relation. My account is schematized in (116). (116) a. b. c.

Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ [initP Berta [init’ gobierna [resP el país [res’ gobierna ]]]] s1 → s2

My account adopts a view of cause (‘→’) as a generalized relation between eventualities that arises configurationally, including between two states. In this light, I review critically the proposal in Neeleman & van de Koot (2012) that there is an additional relation maintain in the event structure ontology that applies to govern-type verbs. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 3.2 reviews critically Fábregas & Marín’s (2017) analysis of these verbs. Section 3.3 articulates my proposal, while Section 3.4 defends the view of a generalized cause relation for event semantics. Section 3.5 discusses its compatibility with previous accounts for the syntax of the VP. Finally, Section 3.6 concludes the chapter. 3.2 3.2.1

Non-dynamic events: Fábregas & Marín (2017) An overview of Fábregas & Marín (2017)

Fábregas & Marín (2017) (starting in Fábregas & Marín 2012) focus on the Aktionsart properties of the Spanish verbs in (117). Let us call them the gobernar ‘govern’-type verbs. (117) a. aguantar ‘bear’, mantener ‘maintain’, sostener ‘support’, sujetar ‘hold’, sustentar ‘support’. b. conservar ‘preserve’, cuidar ‘take care’, guardar ‘keep (safe)’, preservar ‘preserve’, proteger ‘protect’, resguardar ‘shelter’.



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

c. controlar ‘control’, coordinar ‘coordinate’, dirigir ‘direct’, gobernar ‘govern’, presidir ‘head’, supervisar ‘supervise’, vigilar ‘oversee’. d. bloquear ‘block’, evitar ‘avoid’, impedir ‘prevent’, inhibir ‘inhibit, prohibir ‘forbid.

The authors show that these verbs are atelic, like activities and states. They do not allow in x time phrases (e.g. (118a)), they are incompatible with the periphrasis terminar de ‘finish’, compatible only with telic predicates (e.g. (118b)). (118) a. * Juan conservó el recuerdo en un mes. Juan kept the souvenir in one month (‘Juan kept the souvenir in one month.’) b. * Juan terminó de {sujetar/ preservar/ coordinar/ prohibir} lo. Juan finished of holding preserving coordinating forbidding it (‘Juan finished {holding/preserving/coordinating/forbidding} it.’)

However, classifying them as either states or activities proves difficult. On the one hand, they behave like states in the following respects. First, they are not compatible with the periphrasis parar de ‘to stop’, but with dejar de ‘to stop’, just like stative verbs (e.g. (119a), and remember the discussion in Section 2.2.4.1). Also, these verbs fulfill the strict subinterval property (Bennett & Partee 1972, Rothstein 2004; see also Section 2.2.1). Govern-type verbs are also incompatible with velocity adverbials (e.g.  (119b)). Also, like states, gobernar-verbs do not have a habitual reading in the present tense. Finally, these verbs allow passive participle formation with the copula estar (e.g. (119d)), a trait of telic verbs and states, but not of activities (Marín 2000, 2004; see also Chapter  4 for a thorough analysis of this construction). (119) a. Juan {??/*paró/ dejó} de {aguantar/ conservar/ supervisar/ inhibir} Juan finished left of holding preserving coordinating forbidding lo. it (‘Juan stopped {holding/preserving/coordinating/forbidding} it.’) b. * Juan gobierna España rápidamente. Juan rules Spain quickly (‘Juan rules Spain quickly.’) c. Juan dirige la empresa (ahora). Juan directs the company now ‘Juan directs the company now.’ d. España está gobernada por un inconsciente. Spain isestar ruled by an irresponsible ‘Spain is ruled by an irresponsible person.’

61

62

Stative Inquiries

On the other hand, the authors argue, gobernar-verbs also pattern as activities, and not as states, according to other diagnostics. They allow the progressive (e.g. (120a)) and, furthermore, they allow manner and place modifiers (e.g. (120b) and (120c), respectively). Also, they can be antecedents of happen-anaphors (e.g. (120d)) and complements of perception verbs (e.g. (120e)). (120) a. b. c. d. e.

Juan está gobernando España. Juan is ruling Spain ‘Juan governs Spain.’ Juan sujetó el cuadro firmemente. Juan held the picture firmly ‘Juan held the picture firmly.’ Juan vigila a Luis desde su despacho. Juan surveils dom Luis from his office ‘Juan surveils Luis from his office.’ Juan supervisaba a Luis. Esto sucedía mientras… Juan supervised dom Luis. This happened while… ‘Juan supervised Luis. This happened while…’ Vi a Juan sujetar el cuadro. I.saw dom John hold the painting ‘I saw John hold the painting.’

Given that this last set of properties have been typically associated not just to activities, but to (non-stative) events more generally, these authors argue that this event type is characterized by being eventive, but not dynamic. For them, an event is an eventuality that can appear in the progressive, take manner and place modifiers and be an antecedent of happen, as opposed to states. Dynamicity is only a possible, but not a necessary property of events, against the standard view. In their syntactic analysis, v encodes an event and introduces an external argument. The internal argument is introduced by a central coincidence preposition (Pcc), which is stative (Hale & Keyser 2002). The event encoded in v is interpreted as maintaining the lower subevent encoded in Pcc. The verb starts off as a complement of Pcc and is ultimately verbalized by v. The structure is provided in (121). For an event to be dynamic, these authors argue, v needs to have a generalized Path complement, understood as “the type of semantic object that can define abstract movement across a dimension”. In the spirit of Hale & Keyser (2002) and Ramchand (2008), they propose that a Path can be of three types: i) a nominal complement that provides mereological divisions for the event, as in (122a) (and see Ramchand‘s analysis of Accomplishments on Section 2.3.4); ii) an underlying scalar adjective, giving rise to a deadjectival verb that denotes change along the scale of the adjective, as in (122b); iii) a preposition denoting change of location, as in (122c).



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

(121) Non-dynamic events (gobernar-type verbs) v DP

v v

PCC DP

PCC PCC



X

(122) Dynamic events (Types of generalized Paths) a. John painted the wall. v D/N v b. The screen cleared. v A v c. John pushed the cart to the window. v



v

PPath

The structure in (121) cannot be dynamic because the central coincidence P does not denote a path along which a change or movement could be defined. Again, the structure is not stative, either: a strictly stative structure with a central coincidence P (e.g. The parrot is in the cage) should have the structure in (123), with a verbalizer St denoting a state, not an event. (123)

St DP

St St

PCC DP



PCC PCC

X

To summarize, I provide an overview of the typology of Aktionsart these authors assume, and the test they adduce in its favor, in Table 3.1.

63

64 Stative Inquiries

3.2.2 Review of Fábregas & Marín (2017) Fábregas & Marín (2017) constitutes a very important piece of work on Aktionsart. Its main merit, as I read it, has been to broaden and redefine the empirical scope of this area of research. While it is undeniable that there has been substantial theoretical progress in our understanding of event structure in the past decades, the empirical domain has remained, for the most part, unchanged, the majority of authors assuming the Vendlerian distinction between states, activities and telics. Yet Fábregas & Marín (2017) show convincingly and systematically that the traditional typology falls short when faced with this class of verbs (the gobernar-type), which straddle between activities and states according to the standard diagnostics. Notwithstanding, I find their theoretical implementation somewhat problematic. The idea that dynamicity is induced by a generalized Path complement of a v head may appear sound in the light of the examples provided in (122), where the event denotes change along a scale that is provided by the Path complement. However, there are plenty of dynamic verbs which do not appear to have a Path complement at all. Such is the case of intransitive activities in general, as shown in (124a). Also, activity verbs that are typically associated with a kind of Path do not necessarily require that Path to be dynamic. Such is the case of verbs of bodily motion like correr ‘run’, which, although typically associated with spatial Paths (e.g. tres kilómetros ‘three kilometers’, a la tienda ‘to the store‘…), can appear in configurations where their notional Path can not only be absent, but explicitly denied, and Table 3.1  Typology of event types in Fábregas & Marín (2017) Tests

Atelic States

Telic Events

Non-dynamic In x time-phrases

✗

✗

Complement of terminar de ‘finish’

✗

Complement of parar de ‘stop’

✗

Velocity adverbiais

✗

Dynamic ✗

✓

✗

✗

✓

✗

✓

✓

✗

✓

✓

Habitual reading in the present tense

✗

✗

✓

✓

Participles with estar ‘to be’

✓

✓

✗

✓

The progressive

✗

✓

✓

✓

Manner modifiers

✗

✓

✓

✓

Place modifiers

✗

✓

✓

✓

Antecedents of happen-anaphors

✗

✓

✓

✓

Complements of perception verbs

✗

✓

✓

✓

Agentivity

✗

✓

✓

✓



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

yet dynamicity is preserved (e.g. (124b), where it is asserted that there is no spatial displacement in the running). For these reasons, positing a covert Path projection in these dynamic constructions is not only unjustified, but problematic. (124) a. b.

Pedro {canta/ silba/ trabaja/ juega/ grita/ habla/ escupe…}. Pedro sings whistles works plays screams talks spits ‘Pedro Juan {sings/ whistles/ works/ plays/ screams/ talks/ spits…}. Carlos estaba corriendo rápidamente sin moverse del sitio. Carlos was running quickly without moving from.the place ‘Carlos was running quickly in place.’

3.2.2.1 Eventivity tests? I furthermore have my doubts that the evidence separating states from non-­ dynamic events is too compelling. Let us focus on each test separately. Regarding the progressive, a closer look reveals that stative verbs do allow the progressive, albeit with less ease than eventive verbs. The sentences in (125) are all completely natural in Spanish. Furthermore, it turns out that gobernar-type verbs do not always allow the progressive easily: the sentences in (126) are rather odd without an adequate context (intuitively, a context that sets the eventuality as part of a more transitory or contextually salient stage). It looks like the progressive is not as sensitive as previously thought in terms of the Aktionsart of the verb (in line with Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995),1 and its restrictiveness with states may turn out to be an epiphenomenon of a pragmatic constraint of this particular construction. (125) a. b. c. d. e.

Daniel está viviendo en Caracas ahora. Daniel is living in Caracas now ‘Pedro lives in Caracas now.’ Estoy deseando que prohíban el tabaco. be-prs.1sg wishing that forbid-sbjv.3pl the tobacco ‘I hope they ban cigarettes.’ Estamos dudando entre irnos de vacaciones en junio o en agosto. be-prs.1pl doubting between going of vacation in June or in August ‘We are unsure as to whether to go on vacation in June or in August.’ Estoy teniendo problemas para encontrar un reloj nuevo. be-prs.1sg having problems to find a watch new ‘I am having trouble finding a new watch.’ A Pedro le está doliendo la cadera últimamente. dat Pedro him is hurting the hip lately ‘Pedro has been having hip pain lately.’

1.  In Levin & Rappaport-Hovav’s words: “The ability to be used in the present progressive is not a test for nonstativeness, but rather is a test for a non momentary predicate”. (1995: 170)

65

66 Stative Inquiries

f. La película me está gustando. the movie me is liking ‘I am enjoying the movie.’ (126) a. # Putin está gobernando Rusia. Putin is governing Russia (‘Putin is governing Russia.’) b. # Bill Gates está dirigiendo Microsoft. Bill Gates is directing Microsoft (‘Bill Gates is directing Microsoft.’) c. # La sal está conservando la carne. the salt is conserving the meat (‘The salt is conserving the meat.’) d. # Estas columnas están sosteniendo el tejado. these columns are holding the roof (‘These columns are holding the roof.’)

Another test that does not seem to give clear results upon closer inspection is the impossibility of states of being antecedents of happen. While I agree with these authors that stative verbs are generally out as antecedents of happen, we can nonetheless find counterexamples (e.g. (127)). More problematically, it turns out that gobernar-verbs do not really show a significantly greater ability to be antecedents of happen in comparison to stative verbs. The authors themselves acknowledge this, arguing that there are further (unclear) pragmatic constraints that prevent these verbs from being antecedents of happen (e.g. (128)) but also eventive verbs (e.g. (128)). If this is so, then the possibility of being an antecedent of happen is not a test for telling apart states and events. (127) a. El niño estuvo toda la tarde sin hablarnos. Esto sucedió the kid was all the afternoon without talking-us this happened porque le quitamos la consola. because him remove-prs.1pl the console ‘The kid did not speak to us all afternoon. This happened because we took the console away from him.’ b. Pedro tiene gripe. Esto le sucede por no cuidarse. Pedro has flu. This him happens for not take.care-refl ‘Pedro has the flu. This happened to him because he doesn’t take care of himself.’



(128) a. b.

La columna apoyaba el techo. ??Esto sucedía mientras… the column supported the roof this happened while.. Juan apoyaba a María. Esto sucedía mientras.. Juan supported dom María this happened while…



(129) a. b.

Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

El asteroide volaba por el universo. ??Esto sucedía mientras… the asteroid flew around the universe this happened while.. El pájaro volaba en el jardín. Esto sucedía mientras.. the bird flew in the garden this happened while…

The eventivity test regarding the possibility of being a complement of perception verbs is not without problems either. First, as Fábregas and Marín themselves acknowledge, it is not true that all eventive verbs can be complements of perception verbs (see, e.g. Ramchand 2005: 365) (e.g. (130)). (130) a. * Vi a Juan darse cuenta del error. saw-1sg dom Juan give.refl count of.the error (‘I saw Juan notice the mistake.’) b. * Pedro vio a María decidir su castigo. Pedro saw dom María decide his punishment (‘Pedro saw María decide his punishment.’)

More problematically, gobernar-verbs cannot be complements of perception verbs with as much ease as these authors claim. The evidence they present is given in (131). However, I note that changing the subject (132a,d) or the object (132b,c) degrades the sentences to the point of ungrammaticality and many gobernarverbs, like gobernar itself, hardly allow it at all. The authors remark that perception verbs require of their complement not only that it be eventive, but that the event it denotes has some sort of external manifestation (remember Vendler’s quote on page 59 about the difficulty of pointing out what specific actions verbs like governing involve). But this is not essentially different from the eventive verbs in (130), which are also out because events such as noticing and deciding are hardly perceptible. One wonders, then, whether perception verbs really disallow stative verbs as complements or their acceptability – or lack thereof – is solely determined by whether the eventuality, stative or eventive, can be perceived.2

2.  Although stative verbs cannot indeed be complements of perception verbs as a general rule, this does not extend to non-verbal predicates. As you can see in (xva), stative adjectival predicates are grammatical as complements of perception verbs provided the copula is not included. Note also that adjectival predicates that denote individual-level properties (Carlson 1977), which go with the copula ser in Spanish, are ungrammatical as complements of perception verbs with and without the copula (xvb). Perhaps the restrictions of perception verbs have not to do so much with the event vs. state divide, but with whether the predicate is individual-level or stage-level (as the predicate in (xva), which takes the stage-level copula estar). Since stative verbs denote individual-level predicates (Kratzer 1995), their unavailability as complements of perception verbs, even when they denote perceptible states (e.g. (xvc)), would be explained.

67

68 Stative Inquiries

(131) a. b. c. d.

Vi a Juan sujetar el cuadro. saw-1sg dom Juan hold the painting ‘I saw Juan hold the painting.’ Vi a Juan cuidar a María. saw-1sg dom Juan take.care dom María ‘I saw Juan take care of María.’ Vi a Juan dirigir el tráfico. saw-1sg dom Juan direct the traffic ‘I saw Juan direct traffic.’ Vi a Juan impedir un robo. saw-1sg dom Juan prevent a theft ‘I saw Juan prevent a theft.’

(132) a. * Vi el clavo sujetar el cuadro. saw-1sg the nail hold the painting (‘I saw the nail hold the painting.’) a Juan cuidar sus modales. b. ? Vi saw-1sg dom Juan take.care his manners (‘I saw Juan mind his manners.’) c. ? Vi a Juan dirigir la compañía. saw-1sg dom Juan direct the company (‘I saw Juan direct the company.’) d. * Vi los escombros impedir el paso. saw-1sg the debris prevent the pass (‘I saw the debris block the way.’)

The final test that the authors propose to differentiate gobernar-verbs from stative verbs is the availability of manner and place modifiers. Indeed, stative verbs appear to disallow such modifier, as we can see in (133). (133) a. * Juan posee una finca ostentosamente. Juan owns a ranch ostentatiously (‘Juan owns a ranch ostentatiously.’) (xv) a. Vi a Pedro (*estar) muy triste. saw-1sg dom Pedro be very sad ‘I found Pedro very sad.’ b. *Vi a Juan (ser) esquimal. saw-1sg  dom Juan be Eskimo (‘I saw Juan (be) an Eskimo.’) c. *Vi a Juan vivir en una casa amarilla. saw-1sg  dom Juan live in a house yellow (‘I saw Juan live in a yellow house.’)



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives 69

b. * María sabe matemáticas en Roma. María knows Math in Rome (‘María knows Math in Rome.’)

However, recent work in English argues that stative verbs do allow manner and place modification, their limited availability being due to pragmatic factors. Ernst (2016), arguing against Maienborn’s (2007) distinction between Kimian and D(avidsonian) states,3 shows that the reason that states typically disallow locatives is because there is a pragmatic constraint, stated in (134), where the subscript ck stands for contextual knowledge. (134) The state-location default axiom (SLDA): informal version: In sentences where focus on a locative expression is possible, in all defaultck worlds, if an individual is in a state at some location, then that individual would be in that state at any location.  (Ernst 2016: 242)

Although his data is drawn for English, I observe that they apply to Spanish as well, so I will be using Spanish examples to illustrate. The idea, then, is that (135) is out because that location is irrelevant to the individual being in that state, since if Roberto were to go anywhere else, his state of knowing Math would remain unchanged. However, when there is a salient variability in the context – i.e. when the context implies that the state may not hold in every location, or not hold to the same degree – locatives become fine, as we can see in (136). (135) * María sabe matemáticas en Roma. María knows Math in Rome (‘María knows Math in Rome.’)

3.  Maienborn (2005, 2007) proposes that there are two kinds of states, ontologically distinct: Kimian states (e.g. be, know, own, resemble, weigh…), which she defines as “abstract objects for the exemplification of a property P at a holder x and a time t″, and D-states (e.g. sit, stand, lie, wait, gleam, sleep…), which contain a Davidsonian event argument. Maienborn claims that the defining properties of eventualities are that they are perceptible (thus can be complements of perception verbs), can be located in space (hence the possibility of locative modification) and can vary in the way they are realised (i.e. they allow manner modification). Although Fábregas and Marín followed Maienborn in their early work on gobernar–verbs, characterizing them as transitive D(avidsonian) states (Fábregas & Marín 2012), they end up rejecting for three reasons: (i) gobernar-verbs are typically agentive, unlike D-states such as dream, wait or lie; (ii) it is theoretically undesirable to introduce a new entity in the aspectual ontology (the Kimian state); (iii) the so-called D-states actually may denote changing situations (e.g. gleam), whereas their gobernar-verbs, due to their lack of dynamicity, cannot. This monograph sides with these authors and others (Ramchand 2005, Ernst 2016, a.o.) in that all eventualities, stative or eventive, contain an event variable.

70 Stative Inquiries

(136) a. b. c.

La silla está muy inestable en esta parte del suelo. the chair is very unstable in this part of.the floor ‘The chair is very unstable on this part of the floor.’ Sorprendentemente, el niño estuvo callado en el avión. amazingly the baby was quiet in the plane ‘Amazingly, the baby was quiet on the plane. Catalina es más rápida en Los Ángeles que en la cima del Catalina is more fast in Los Angeles than in the summit of.the Everest. Everest ‘Catalina is faster in Los Angeles than in the summit of the Everest.’ d. Nuestro perro es callado en la ciudad, pero ruidoso en nuestra casa Our dog is quiet in the city but noisy in our house de campo. of countryside ‘Our dog is quiet in the city but noisy in our countryside house.’

With regards to manner modification, the author argues that the reason that manner adverbs are at first sight unavailable with stative verbs is because manner modification is more readily available with predicates that are conceptually complex, or multidimensional. Stative verbs are much less conceptually complex than dynamic predicates, the author argues, since they lack properties such as change through time, beginning points, endpoints, causation and result. Be as it may, manner modification of stative verbs is far from impossible, if the right dimension of the property denoted by the verb is identified.4 I provide examples in (137). 4.  The author argues that stative adjectives are easier to be adverbially modified than stative verbs, since adjectives are generally more multidimensional than stative verbs, which typically merely denote mental states or abstract relationships. He groups the type of manner adverbs possible with stative adjectives into three main semantic classes: (i) adverbs that connect to speaker’s or subject’s attitudes (xvia); (ii) characterization of subparts of the property that describes the adjective (xvib); (iii) other adverbs such as those that characterize prototypical properties of the adjective, exocomparatives and temporal ones (xvic).

(xvi)



a. pleasantly archaic, obnoxiously idiosyncratic, eerily reminiscent, confusingly different, repellently wicked, tediously slow, mysteriously beautiful, disturbingly weird, paranoically suspicious, calmly busy, happily sore, smugly delighted, exuberantly hairy… b. evenly blue, patchily opaque, smoothly luminous, regularly curvilinear, randomly distributed, complexly dense, flexibly strong, loudly insistent, massively stable, sinuously elegant, stiffly erect, dully reflective, violently carnivorous, gracefully slender, fluidly graceful, gorgeously pregnant…



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

(137) a. b. c. d.



Estos zapatos casan perfectamente. these shoes match perfectly ‘These shoes match perfectly.’ Sandra pertenece al club fortuitamente. Sandra belongs to.the club fortuitously ‘Sandra belongs to the club fortuitously.’ Juan ama a su novio abiertamente. Juan loves dom his boyfriend openly ‘Juan loves his boyfriend openly.’ María posee las casas solapadamente, mediante empresas María owns those houses covertly, via companies fantasma. ghost ‘María owns those houses covertly, via shell corporations.’

Under this light, we can also make sense of the relative permissiveness of manner adverbs in gobernar-verbs with respect to stative verbs: gobernar-verbs are conceptually more complex than classic stative verbs. For instance, they have an agentivity component that other states do not, and as such they allow manner adverbs oriented to the agent (e.g. (138)). On the other hand, since gobernar-verbs do not denote dynamic change, they do not allow velocity adverbials (e.g. (139)). Note that these considerations are reminiscent of Vendler’s quote at the beginning of this chapter on page 104), regarding the conceptual impoverishment of verbs like govern with respect to dynamic activities like write or paint. (138) a. b.



Pedro gobierna el país prudentemente. Pedro governs the country prudently ‘Pedro governs the country prudently.’ Sandra protege su bolso celosamente. Sandra protects her purse zealously ‘Sandra protects her purse zealously.’

c. openly contemptuous, quietly demonstrative, brazenly ambitious, ostentatiously wealthy, frankly interested, studiously unkempt, unobtrusively attentive, classically feminine, characteristically democratic, prototypically avian, similarly intricate, differently dangerous, identically intense (reactions), consistently attentive, enduringly rich (musical heritage), lastingly penetrating (smell)…

However, the data on manner adverbs with English stative adjectives that Ernst presents cannot be easily carried over to Spanish, for reasons that are not clear to me. I leave the issue here for further research, noting that it may turn out to be a syntactic restriction against adverbial modification with attributive adjectives in Spanish in general.

71

72

Stative Inquiries

(139) a. * Catalina cuida sus negocios rápidamente. Catalina takes.care her businesses quickly (‘Catalina takes care of her businesses quickly.’) b. * Pedro sujeta el libro despacio Pedro holds the book slowly (‘Pedro holds the book slowly.’)

In short, the evidence presented in Fábregas & Marín (2017) to classify gobernarverbs as non-dynamic events, as opposed to states and dynamic events, is not too strong under closer scrutiny. The test they adduce to classify nondynamic eventualities in two types, eventive and stative, do not hold much water since the they can be shown to be sensitive to factors different from eventivity. Rather, gobernarverbs pattern as states according to other tests. And yet I believe that these authors are right in positing the gobernar-class as a separate aspectual type, different from activities and states proper. In the following section I will outline my proposal for these verbs. 3.3

My proposal

I have shown in the preceding section how the tests adduced in Fábregas & Marín (2017) to support an eventive vs. stative distinction within nondynamic predicates were not really valid, and hence there is no good reason to assume that events come in two types according to dynamicity: rather, states are eventualities defined by their lack of dynamicity, whereas events are eventualities defined by having dynamicity, as in the received view. Since these tests are the ones by which gobernar-verbs patterned with events proper,5 I conclude that gobernar-verbs are in fact stative. 3.3.1

Defining traits of gobernar-verbs

However, gobernar-verbs do not behave like classic states in several crucial respects. The first test is the ability to form adjectival passives with estar ‘to be’: although the authors follow Marín (2000, 2004) in that only stative and telic verbs are good inputs for adjectival passives, the situation is actually more restrictive: only telics and gobernar-verbs are good inputs for adjectival passives, whereas

5.  See my discussion on agentivity in Section 5.5.



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

activities and states are out.6 I provide examples of well-formed adjectival passives with telics and gobernar-verbs in (140a) and (140b), respectively, and ill-formed adjectival passives with states and activities in (140c) and (140d), respectively. (140) a. La ciudad está destruida. the city is destroyed ‘The city is destroyed.’ b. El museo está protegido. the museum is protected ‘The museum is protected.’ c. * Pedro está amado. Pedro is loved (‘Pedro is loved.’) d. * La cuna está mecida. the cradle is rocked (‘The cradle is rocked.’)

A second property that separates gobernar-verbs from classic stative verbs is the possibility of having different scope readings with the adverb again, a property they share with telic verbs. A sentence such as (141) is thus ambiguous between a wide scope and narrow scope reading of the adverb. This phenomenon has not been previously observed for gobernar-verbs, as far as I am aware. (141)

La presa impide el paso de agua de nuevo. the dam preventes the pass of water of new ‘The dam prevents the flow of water again.’ 1. Wide scope reading (again > dam: The dam prevented the flow of water in the past, stopped doing it at sometime and now it is doing it again. 2. Narrow scope reading (dam > again): The flow of water was prevented in the past (e.g. by some debris), that situation stopped and now there is a dam that prevents the flow of water.

6.  The situation is actually a bit more complex for adjectival passives. Within atelic verbs, not only gobernar-verbs are good inputs, but also locative verbs like obstruct or cover and object-experiencer psychological verbs such as worry or amuse, which I discuss in Chapter 5 (e.g. (xvii)). (xvii) a. La finca está rodeada por tres colinas. the ranch is surrounded by three hills ‘The ranch is surrounded by three hills.’ b. Pedro está preocupado por la crisis económica. Pedro is worried by the crisis economic ‘Pedro is worried by the economic crisis.’ However, my discussion of adjectival passives on Chapter 4 will not focus on the constructions in (xvii), which I take to be instances of locative alternation. See Section 6.3 for more discussion.

73

74

Stative Inquiries

This scope ambiguity, interestingly, does not carry over to classic stative verbs. Sentence (142) is not ambiguous: the adverb again necessarily takes scope over the subject. That is, (142) cannot mean that Pedro was loved before by someone else and now David loves him, but only that David loved Pedro before, somehow he stopped loving him at some point, and then fell back in love with him. (142)

David ama a Pedro de nuevo. David loves dom Pedro of new ‘David loves Pedro again.’

Another characteristic property of gobernar-verbs is their inability to participate in the transitive-unaccusative alternation: these verbs are strictly transitive (Fábregas & Marín 2012, 2017), as we can see in (143). This is a trait that they seem to share with classic states (144), but not with telic verbs (145) or activities (146).7 (143) a. El ejército protege la ciudad. the army protects the city ‘The army protects the city.’ b. * La ciudad (se) protege the city refl protects (‘The city protects.’) (144) a. Gabriel respeta las leyes. Gabriel respects the laws ‘Gabriel respects the laws.’ b. * Las leyes (se) respetan the laws refl respect (‘The laws respect.’) (145) a. b.

Pedro rompió la ventana. Pedro broke the window ‘Pedro broke the window.’ La ventana se rompió. the window refl broke ‘The window broke.’

el balón. (146) a. Laura botó Laura bounced the ball ‘Laura bounced the ball.’ 7.  In Spanish and many other languages, the unaccusative variant of the transitive-unaccusative alternation is sometimes marked with reflexive morphology (see Vivanco 2015 for a recent overview). the examples in (143) and (144) include optional reflexive morphology to show that their ungrammaticality is not due to the presence or absence of such morphology.



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

b. El balón botó. the ball bounced ‘The ball bounced.’

The empirical picture that emerges from the discussion in Section 3.2.2.1, as well as here, is given on Table 3.2. Tests 1–3 characterize gobernar-verbs as atelic, as already shown in Fábregas & Marín (2017). Tests 4–6 characterize gobernar-verbs as non-dynamic, as also shown in Fábregas & Marín (2017). Tests 7 and 8 differentiate gobernar-verbs from classic states and, crucially, pattern them with telics. Test 9 patterns states and gobernar-verbs together. Table 3.2  Event types and their tests Tests

Telics

Activities

Gobernar-verbs

States

1. In x time-phrases

✓

✗

✗

✗

2. For x time-phrases

✗

✓

✓

✓

3. Progressive entails perfect

✗

✓

✓

✓

4. Universal reading in the perfect

✗

✗

✓

✓

5. Subinterval property

✗

✗

✓

✓

6. Habitual reading in the present tense

✓

✓

✗

✗

7. Scope ambiguity with again

✓

✗

✓

✗

8. Participles with estar ‘to be’

✓

✗

✓

✗

9. (Anti-)‍causative alternation

✓

✓

✗

✗

3.3.2 The syntax of gobernar-verbs I propose that gobernar-verbs have a Ramchandian syntactic structure as in (147b), from Example (147a), and an event semantics decomposition as in (147c). (147) a. Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ initP b. init′

DP Berta

init

resP res′

DP el país





res

XP

75

76

Stative Inquiries

c. λs ∃s1,s2 [s = (s1 → s2) & gobierna(s1) & Initiator(Berta,s1) & gobierna(s2) & Resultee(el país,s2)]

In plain English, the formula in (147c) says that we have a stative event composed of two sub-states, s1 and s2, such that s1 causes s2. By virtue of this relation, the event participant associated with s1 is interpreted As an Initiator and the event participant associated with s2 is interpreted as a Resultee. Gobernar-verbs, then, lexicalize init and res heads, but not proc. The immediate consequence of this is that the structure cannot be dynamic, since only procP encodes a dynamic event in the VP decomposition. On the other hand, the presence of initP and resP, in a compositional approach such as first-phase syntax, will create a complex stative eventuality, composed of two sub-states (both initP and resP are stative projections in Ramchand’s system). Ramchand follows Hale & Keyser (1993) in that verbal projections that are in a head-complement relation (e.g. (148a)) give rise to a causative relation between the eventualities that such projections denote, the eventuality from the higher projection being interpreted as bringing about/ causing the eventuality from the lower projection (the causal relation represented with ‘→’ in (148b), as well as in (147c)). At the end, the result is a macroevent e composed of smaller subevents that are causally related (see (148a), where e stands for either a stative or eventive eventuality). By the Event Composition Rule, then, the configuration initP > resP derives a stative causative predicate, i.e. an eventuality composed of two sub-states that are related causally.8 (148) a. b. c.

V′ V

VP

e1 → e2 (Hale & Keyser 1993: 69) Event Composition Rule: e = e1 → e2 e consists of two subevents, e1, e2 such that e1 causally implicates e2  (Ramchand 2008: 44)

A remark is in order about this structure: Fábregas & Marín (2017) review a similar proposal made by García-Pardo (2015), who proposes that gobernar-verbs are 8.  The notion of stative causation in the Aktionsart literature has been developed by authors like Pylkkänen (2000), Arad (1998b) and Rothmayr (2009) to account for the stative readings of aspect-alternating verbs such as object-experiencer psychological verbs (e.g. worry, amuse, frighten…) and locative verbs (e.g. surround, cover, obstruct…). My analysis of gobernar-verbs differs from these in crucial respects: I posit a transitive syntax for stative causatives while these authors assume an unaccusative syntax. Also, I do not bar the possibility of an agentive subject, unlike these authors do for their stative causative structures. See Chapter 5 for an analysis of object-experiencer and locative verbs, and particularly Section 5.4.3, where I argue that these verbs are not causative in Spanish.



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

formed via two stative heads, which syntactically combined give rise to a stative causative configuration. I show the structure in (149). Fábregas & Marín (2017) reject this analysis on two main grounds: i) that it could not explain why gobernarverbs pass eventivity tests; ii) that combining two stative heads together would be an instance of Vacuous Projection. (149)

VP VP

VST DP



V′ VST

√

Their first objection is refuted in Section 3.2.2.1, where I show that the eventivity tests are too inconsistent to warrant a separation of non-dynamic predicates into either stative or eventive. With respect to the second point, I concur that the analysis in García-Pardo (2015) has problems of its own, which I will not get into here for reasons of space. However, I do believe that the basic idea can be translated to Ramchand’s (2008) system, as I do here. In her first-phase syntax, she does not propose that init and res are formally the same head: for instance, she explicitly proposes that init is higher than res in the universal ordering of verbal heads and that initP assigns accusative case, unlike res (2008: 56). In isolation, it is true that both initP and resP equally denote a state. However, although Ramchand does not discuss stative causatives in her work, nothing in her architecture explicitly prevents an initP > resP configuration: in fact, stative causatives are a natural extension of her system. As I see it, the burden is on detractors of a syntactically derived stative causative configuration (Ramchandian or not) to show why it is not viable. 3.3.3 Deriving the properties of gobernar-verbs In Section 3.3.1, I presented what I considered to be the defining traits of gobernar-verbs. These were the scope ambiguity with again, the availability of adjectival passives and agentive subjects and the impossibility of undergoing the transitiveunaccusative alternation. In this section I show how my proposed structure can account for that phenomena. As far as I can tell, Fábregas & Marín (2017) can account for that phenomena too, except for one: the anti-causativization pattern. The scope effects of again are captured by positing that the adverb again may attach in the syntax either above both initP and resP (the wide scope reading in (150a)) or between initP and resP (the narrow scope reading in (150b)) (see also von Stechow (1995) for the original proposal that the scope ambiguities with

77

78

Stative Inquiries

almost in change-of-state verbs is derived by the different attachment height of the adverb). Fábregas & Marín’s proposal can also derive the scope ambiguity in the syntax, given that they posit two different syntactic projections that host the event and the associated result state (v and Pcc, respectively). (150) Scope ambiguity of again with stative causatives a. Wide scope: again > initP > resP b. Narrow scope: initP > again > resP

The availability of adjectival passives can be explained by the fact that gobernarverbs have an associated result state. If adjectival passives are resultative constructions, in the sense that they denote the result state of the underlying eventuality within the participles (from a process event or a causing state, as with gobernarverbs), then it is no mystery that gobernar-verbs can be good inputs for adjectival passives (see also Kratzer (2000) and footnote 40). I encode the result state in a Ramchandian resP, whereas Fábregas & Marín (2017) encode it in Pcc, but the notion is the same. My proposal also explains the (anti-)‍causativization facts, i.e. the strict transitivity of these verbs. Since stative causatives inherently involve an initP projection, it follows that an external argument must necessarily be introduced in the structure. This is something not predicted in Fábregas & Marín (2017). Remember that their proposed structures involve a v head for events, which can then be dynamic or not depending on their P complement, as shown in (151). (151) Structures for events in Fábregas & Marín (2017) a. Non-dynamic events (Gobernar-type verbs) v DP

v v

PCC

DP b. Dynamic events

…

v DP

v v



Path DP

…



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

If this v head is the same in both structures, then it is a mystery why change-ofstate verbs or activities can participate in the alternation (remember (145) and (146)) but gobernar-verbs cannot. That is, why must v necessarily introduce a subject when its complement is a Pcc, but not when its complement is a Path? If this v head is the same in both structures, then it is a mystery why change-of-state verbs or activities can participate in the alternation (remember (145) and (146)) but gobernar-verbs cannot. That is, why must v necessarily introduce a subject when its complement is a Pcc, but not when its complement is a Path (i.e. with dynamic verbs that can undergo the transitive-unaccusative alternation)? Their proposal needs to stipulate this since, as it stands, it cannot derive it naturally.9 A final word about agents. The fact that animate subjects in these constructions are typically agents is straightforwardly explained by the complex causative structure that I propose for these verbs: simply put, an animate causer is naturally interpreted as an agent. Fábregas & Marín (2017) characterize the relationship between the event and the associated result as maintain, rather than cause, but, terminology aside, it is equally easy to see how animate subjects in the maintain relation can be agents. See Section 3.4.2 for specific criticism of the notion of maintain. I do want to emphasize, however, that the possibility of having an agentive subject does not constitute an argument in favor of the non-dynamic event analysis in Fábregas & Marín (2017). It is known at least since Dowty (1979) that some stative verbs such as sit, stand and lie can be perfectly agentive with human subjects. Also, recent work on locative verbs (surround, cover, block…), which can have a changeof-location as well as a stative reading, shows that the stative version can equally have agentive subjects (García-Pardo 2016b). Agentivity and eventivity are thus separate notions, and neither one implicates the other. The same conclusion is 9.  The question remains that simple states seem to be unable to undergo the alternation either. This has a straightforward explanation in Ramchand’s framework. For her, simple states are instances of initP, which in isolation denotes merely a state, not a causational subevent. Since the transitive-unaccusative alternation is derived in her model by the presence vs. absence of initP, it is immediately obvious that a transitive stative verb cannot have an unaccusative counterpart. (xviii) a. Berta sabe geografía. Berta knows Geography ‘Berta knows Geography.’ initP b. init′

DP Berta



init sabe

DP geografía

79

80 Stative Inquiries

reached in Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (2005), who defend that agentivity is “orthogonal to aspectual classification, with agentive and nonagentive predicates being found in every aspectual class” (2005: 89). 3.3.4 Comparison with atomic approaches In Section 2.3, I discussed that there are two main approaches in the literature with respect to the modeling of Aktionsart in the syntax: atomic and decompositional. Atomic approaches posit different types or “flavors” of v heads that semantically encode the different event types, simple or complex. Decompositional approaches, on the other hand, assume that event complexity mirrors syntactic complexity, inasmuch as eventualities are built compositionally in the syntax. My account of gobernar-verbs clearly belongs to the latter kind of approach: the stative causative relation is built compositionally via two state-denoting projections, initP and resP. In this section, I will compare my account of stative causatives to an atomic one. An atomic approach would then posit that the stative causative meaning would be incoded in a syntactic head, call it vcause. Atomic models generally come in two types with respect to the syntactic relation they assume between the Aktionsart-denoting heads: it is either introduced in a separate projection (Kratzer 1996, 2000, Alexiadou et  al. 2006, Schäfer 2008, a.o.) or it is introduced by the same head (Arad 2002, Folli & Harley 2005, a.o.). I adapt these two approaches to stative causatives in (152), where I assume that the internal argument is introduced as complement of the root, as is standard in these approaches. The structures correspond to the sentence in (147a), repeated below for convenience. (147a) Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ (152) a. Atomic approach (I): External argument and cause in separate projections VoiceP Voice′

DP Berta

vP

Voice vCAUSE

√P √GOBIERNA



DP el país



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

b. Atomic approach (II): External argument and cause in the same projection vP v′

DP Berta

vCAUSE

√P √GOBIERNA



DP el país

As it turns out, neither one of these atomic approaches is a good fit for stative causatives and, in particular, for gobernar-verbs. The first approach in (152a) cannot explain why it is that gobernar-verbs do not anticausativize, i.e. why could we not have unaccusative versions of these verbs by omitting VoiceP. A way around this would be to stipulate that these heads come with some feature that required the projection of VoiceP. But if so, it would be very suspicious that a whole event type required such feature and other event types, like change-of-state verbs, did not. The second option illustrated in (152b) would appear to better capture the properties regarding anticausativization: by having the projection of vcause also introduce the external argument, we would capture the obligatory transitivity we have observed in gobernar-verbs. However, note that this account runs into the opposite problem with respect to the previous one: the mistery now is why change-of-state verbs or activities may anti-causativize, which would require suppresion of the external argument (e.g. by not projecting a specifier). Furthermore, it is unclear how this second approach would capture the scope ambiguity with again. If, as we saw, again can scope either over the result state with its internal argument or higher up, over the causing state with its external argument, then we run into complications to capture both readings syntactically in a structure where the external argument and the result state are introduced in the same projection. Atomic accounts, in short, are ill-equipped to capture the syntactic properties of gobernar-verbs. 3.4

Against maintain: cause and the temporal relation between events

In this work, following proposals starting with Lewis (1973), I am taking the linguistic expression of causation – which I refer to as cause from now on – to be a relation between events. In linguistic theory, it is generally assumed (but seldom explicitly defended) that cause requires a temporal sequence of the causing event

81

82

Stative Inquiries

and the caused event, mainly because the study of cause has focused on dynamic predicates and, in particular, change-of-state verbs. However, some authors have argued that stative predicates can indeed involve a cause relation between states, in which there would not be temporal sequencing but rather temporal coextensivity (Pylkkänen 2000, Arad 1998b, 2002, Kratzer 2000).10 That is, the caused/result state does not hold after the causing state holds, but rather both states hold strictly at the same time interval. Although, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first work where a stative causation approach has been explicitly defended for gobernar-verbs, there is precedent of a piece of work that, arguing against the notion of stative causation, briefly considers gobernar-type verbs in English  – let us call them govern-verbs  – and ultimately rejects a causative analysis of these. Such work is Neeleman & van de Koot (2012) and I will review it critically in what follows. 3.4.1 cause and temporal sequencing: Neeleman & van de Koot (2012) Neeleman & van de Koot (2012) discuss how causation is represented in language. They define causation not just as a strictly linguistic notion, but as a general one, as in (153) – basing their definition on Lewis (1973). (153) a. Causation is a relation between two events: a causing event and a caused event. b. Causation has a temporal dimension: the causing event must precede the caused event. c. Causation is counterfactual: if the causing event had not occurred, the caused event would have not occurred either.   (Neeleman & van de Koot 2012: 21)

For them, causative verbs  – i.e. those that lexically encode causation  – are linguistically composed of two ingredients, (154a) and (154b) below. Under this view, note, causation is a composite relation, which arises when these two factors combine together. (154) Linguistic components of causative verbs: a. A crucial contributing factor (CCF), merged externally. b. The culmination of an event in either an end state or in a resultant activity.

10.  These authors mostly drew their data from stative object-experiencer psychological verbs and, to a lesser extent, locative verbs. However, I will argue in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.3 that these two verb types do not have a cause component in their stative version.



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

Let us illustrate their proposal with the examples in (155). (155) a. John broke the window. b. John spun the bottle. c. John fell.

For Neeleman & van de Koot (2012), only (155a) and (155b) are causative. Both have a culmination of an event: in the case of the change-of-state verb in (155a), the culmination is an end state, that of the window being broken; in the case of the activity verb in (155b), the resultant activity is the bottle spinning. Also, both have a CCF, John, whose participation is crucial for the resultant eventualities to come about: he does something that either causes the window to break or the bottle to spin. Sentence (155c), however, is not causative: although there is a culmination of an event in a result state, there is no apparent CCF.11 The authors then move to the set of verbs whose Spanish analogues I have been discussing in this chapter (i.e. gobernar-verbs). They give the examples in (156). (156)

a. b. c. d.

The wall protects the city. John’s uncle supports him financially. The beam carries the wall above it. The sheriff upholds the law.  (Neeleman & van de Koot 2012: 39)

They argue that, although these verbs indeed have a CCF, they cannot be analyzed as causative because they lack the temporal dimension presented in (153b). Instead, they argue, the relation at play with these verbs is one of maintenance, which they define in (157). (157) a. Maintenance is a relation between two eventualities: a maintaining state or event and a maintained state. b. Maintenance lacks a temporal dimension: the maintaining state or event must be contemporaneous with the maintained state. c. Maintenance is counterfactual: if the maintaining state or event were absent, the maintained state would not exist either.   (Neeleman & van de Koot 2012: 38–39)

Like other causative verbs, these verbs have a result state, which in their case is a maintained state (e.g. the state of a city being kept safe by means of a protection). Thus, the authors claim, these verbs can be assigned very similar semantic

11.  But see Section 3.5.2, for the view that unaccusative change-of-state verbs do have a cause component.

83

84

Stative Inquiries

representations: cause verbs would have the lexical semantics in (158a) and maintain verbs would have that in (158b). (158) a. λyλx [[e x[s … y …]] & x = CCF] b. λyλx [[s x[s… y …]] & x = CCF] 

(Neeleman & van de Koot 2012: 41)

The maintaining eventuality, the authors argue, can be construed as either a state or an event. For instance, in a sentence like (156a) the maintaining eventuality is clearly a state (that of the wall being in a strategic location for the protection to hold); in a sentence such as the cavalry protects the city, on the other hand, the reading of the maintained eventuality is eventive: the cavalry is presumably riding around the city to keep it protected. 3.4.2 Problems with Neeleman & van de Koot (2012) As I see it, the reductive view of cause as necessarily involving temporal sequencing of the eventualities involved leads into several empirical and theoretical problems. First of all, the requisite of temporal sequencing between the causing event and the caused event was not included in the original definition of cause by Lewis (1973), despite Neeleman & van de Koot’s (2012) claim to the contrary: all that was present in Lewis’ original work were points (153a) – causation as a relation between events – and (153c) – causation as counterfactual. It is perfectly legitimate, of course, to adopt a definition of cause that excludes temporal coextensivity, as the authors do. Doing so, however, raises many problematic questions. First, one wonders what to do with transitive activities: they claim that sentences like (155b) are causative: something done by John, the CCF, brings about the resultant activity of the bottle spinning. The activity done by John (e.g. holding the bottle from both sides, twisting his hands and letting go) precedes the spinning of the bottle (i.e. the bottle spins once the participation of John in the whole eventuality is concluded). However, many other transitive activities (in fact, the majority of them) actually involve temporal coextensivity between the causing event and the resultant activity, as (159). (159)

a. b. c. d.

John drove the car. John rocked the cradle. John shook the shakers. John wheeled the wheelbarrow.

Sentence (159a), for instance, cannot mean that John did something and after he did that the car moved around as a result: John has to be actively involved throughout the resultant activity. Under the proposal in Neeleman & van de Koot (2012), the relation involved should be maintain, rather than cause. But maintain is



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

defined as maintaining a state, not an event, so this definition should at least be reworked to accomodate resultant events as well. A related issue is that, if, as Neeleman & van de Koot (2012) contend, maintain verbs can also have an eventive (dynamic) maintaining eventuality (e.g. the cavalry protects the city), then it is confusing what the difference between these eventive versions and change-of-state verbs would be. In other words, the issue is how we would derive the Aktionsart differences between maintain verbs with a dynamic maintaining event and change-of-state cause verbs with a dynamic maintaining event: under Neeleman & van de Koot’s (2012) account, their lexical semantics would be as in (158a). (158a) λyλx [[e x[s … y …]] & x = CCF]

A way around this would be to assume that maintain verbs never actually have dynamic maintaining events, and that the purported eventive readings with sentences like the cavalry protects the city merely involve world-knowledge about what cavalries usually do (this is indeed my take on the matter). The deeper problem of their proposal, as I see it, is that their definition of cause and maintain is partly Aktionsart-based  – cause requires temporal sequencing, maintain requires temporal coextensivity  – yet in no way do cause and maintain determine Aktionsart in this account – and it is not clear what does determine Aktionsart. In other words, cause and maintain are mere descriptors of different Aktionsart configurations between events that otherwise have the same property, i.e. “causal” dependency, defined counter-factually. One wonders, then, what is to be gained theoretically from positing both a cause and a maintain relation, or what explanatory power such a take has. As a final observation, note that their proposal also fails to capture the external argument asymmetries between govern-verbs and change-of-state verbs noted in this chapter: a lexical semantics such as those in (158) does not derive why governverbs do not allow for external argument suppression but (some) change-of-state verbs do. 3.4.3 An alternative proposal As discussed in the previous section, there appears to be no good reason to assume both a cause and a maintain relation. Let us reject the idea and assume, as I already suggested in Section 3.3.2, that cause does not require temporal sequencing, but also allows temporal coextensivity: what it cannot allow for, of course, is temporal precedence of the result event over the causing event, because it would be nonsensical (an observation also made by Neeleman & van de Koot 2012). In Ramchand’s model, as we discussed, events are built compositionally in the syntax

85

86 Stative Inquiries

through event-denoting projections that, in combination with each other, derive causal relations between them (see (148), repeated below). (148) a. b. c.

V′ V

VP

e1 → e2  (Hale & Keyser 1993: 69) Event Composition Rule: e = e1 → e2 e consists of two subevents, e1, e2 such that e1 causally implicates e2  (Ramchand 2008: 44)

In this framework, crucially, cause (represented as ‘→’ in Ramchand’s framework) builds Aktionsart-configurations: in fact, it is the only ingredient that glues events together to build aspectually-meaningful macroevents. Since cause, in and of itself, does not define temporal relations, Ramchand posits that there are additional temporal coherence conditions on causally-related events. I present them in (160) and (161), slightly modified from Ramchand (2008).12

12.  Ramchand’s proposal on temporal coherence is given in (xix) and (xx). (xix) Init-Proc Coherence: Given a decomposition e1 → (e2 → e3), e1 may temporally overlap e2. (xx) Proc-Res Coherence: Given a decomposition e1 → (e2 → e3), e3 must not temporally overlap e2 (although they may share a transition point).  (From Ramchand 2008: 130) Ramchand’s definition of the Proc-Res coherence in (xx) is weaker than that stated in (161). Ramchand argues that whether the process event necessarily abuts the result state or not depends on whether the same root lexicalizes both heads (e.g. break in John broke the glass) or just the proc head, the res head being null or identified by a separate element (e.g. the activity verb run in a resultative construction such as Mary ran her shoes ragged). In the former case, the temporal dependence regarding the transition point is strict; in the latter case, it is not. Ramchand states this requirement in (xxi). (xxi) Temporal dependence and lexical identification Temporal dependence is required by subevents identified by the same lexical content.  (From Ramchand 2008: 131) I leave aside this issue here, since I will be focusing on verb phrases in which the root lexicalizes all the eventive heads. For the different temporal readings of resultatives, and the temporal effects of the different lexicalization possibilities within the first-phrase, the reader is referred to Ramchand (2008, 2014). Also note, finally, that the definition of the Init-Proc coherence is in harmony with the empirical observation that, with transitive activity verbs, the participation of the external argument in the eventuality may either precede the process or overlap it fully as well as partially. This was a problem with Neeleman & van de Koot’s (2012) analysis of causa-



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

(160) Init-Proc Coherence: Given a decomposition s → e, s may temporally overlap e. (161) Proc-Res Coherence: Given a decomposition e → s, s must not temporally overlap e, but they share a transition point.

How about stative causatives? Following Ramchand’s reasoning for the temporal interpretation of the sub-events in the first-phase syntax, could propose a temporal coherence condition for stative causatives as in (162). (162) Init-Res Coherence: Given a decomposition s1 → s2, s1 and s2 are temporally coextensive.

This coherence condition ensures that, in an event decomposition such as (147c), repeated below, the causing state and the result state are interpreted as temporally coextensive, such that, when the causing state ceases to hold (i.e. the state of Berta as an initiator of the governing event), so will the result state (i.e. the country will no longer be in a governed state). (147) a. b. c.

Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ [initP Berta [init’ [resP el país [res’ ]]]] λs ∃s1,s2 [s = s1 → s2) & gobierna(s1) & Initiator(Berta,s1) & gobierna(s2) & Resultee(el país,s2)]

These conditions, as far as I can tell, are descriptively adequate. Yet the issue remains as to whether they have to be simply stipulated, or they can be derived naturally from the internal constituency of events and states. The issue of how to formally characterize events vs. states has been tackled by many authors, most notably from an interval semantics approach (Bennett & Partee 1972, Dowty 1979, Rothstein 2004, a.o., and see the brief discussion in Section 2.2.1). The challenge here is how to formalize them in an event semantics framework such as the one pursued in the present work, given that the event arguments are not associated to temporal arguments in the first-phase syntax. A possible route would be to define events vs. states in terms of whether or not they decompose into smaller different subparts, recasting in event-mereological terms the idea from interval semantics that predicates of events are true up to minimal temporal subintervals, whereas predicates of states are true up to instants. tion as strictly involving temporal precedence of the causing event over the caused event, as we discussed in Section 3.4.2 (see in particular the examples in (159)).

87

88

Stative Inquiries

Events are divisible since their subparts are distinct (they involve change), whereas states are indivisible since they have no discernible subparts.13 Delivering a coherent proposal to this matter falls beyond the scope of this monograph, and so I leave it aside for future research. 3.5

Compatibility with other accounts of cause and the external argument

In this section I present two recent approaches to the syntax of cause and the external argument and discuss how they fit with the proposal put forth in this chapter. The first one to be discussed is that of Harley (2013), who separates the semantic introduction of the external argument from its syntactic introduction. The second one is that of Pylkkänen (2002), who separates cause from the syntactic introduction of the external argument. 3.5.1

VoiceP ≠ vP

Recently, Harley (2013) – and see also Harley (2017) for further development – has proposed that the introduction of an external argument in the syntax is separate from semantic transitivity. She contends that VoiceP is responsible for projecting the external argument in the syntax, in (Spec,VoiceP), but not of introducing it semantically: rather, causational/agentive semantics are encoded in vP, the complement of Voice. In this she departs from authors like Chomsky (1995), Kratzer (1996), Marantz (1984, 1997), Harley (1995), Folli & Harley (2005), a.m.o., who assume a bipartite structure for the VP as in (163), where the projection that introduces the external argument also introduces it semantically. Harley’s tripartite proposal is sketched in (164). (163) The Kratzer-Marantz approach vP/VoiceP EA



v/Voice′ v/Voice′ x…

√P/VP

13.  See also Hallman (2015) for the recent proposal that states denote moments of time, and are thus unbreakable into smaller subparts.

Chapter 3.  Stative causatives 89



(164) The Harley (2013) approach VoiceP EA

Voice′ Voice



vP v x…

√P

Evidence for her proposal comes from the interaction of order and meaning between applicative and causative morphemes in Hiaki. Assuming the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985), whereby the linear order of morphemes directly correlates with their syntactic position, Harley notes that the applicative morpheme -ria, head of an AppP which introduces applicative arguments in its specifier, follows the causative morpheme of the lexical verb (e.g. (165), where the causative morpheme -te is glossed as vo). This is unexpected, given that it is independently known that the applicative argument in Hiaki is syntactically below the external argument but above all other arguments. (165) Santos Maria-ta kari-te-ria Santos Maria-acc house-vo-appl ‘Santos is building a house for Maria.’ 

(Harley 2013: 43)

A similar effect happens with the causative suffix -tua, which expresses a similar meaning to that of a periphrastic/analytical causative. Once again, the applicative morpheme -ria follows the causative affix (e.g.  (166)), which means that ApplP is actually sandwiched between the external argument and the causative morpheme.14 The structure then has to be like in (167). (166) Nee usi-ta avion-ta ni’i-tua-ria-k. I child-acc plane-acc fly-caus-appl-pfv ‘I made the (model) plane fly for the child.’ 

(Harley 2013: 45)

14.  Harley warns us, with respect to (166), that the applicative argument cannot be interpreted as pertaining to the flying event, but to the causing event. An sentence such as The plane flew for the child is not possible in Hiaki because the subject needs to be agentive for an applicative argument to be licit.

90 Stative Inquiries

(167)

VoiceP DP

Voice′

Nee

Voice

ApplP DP

Appl′ vP

ili usi-ta

Appl −ria

VoiceP

Voice′

DP avion-ta



v −tua

vP √ ni’i

Voice v

Harley also notes that passives causatives with -tua are perfectly licit (e.g. (168)). The causative morpheme is present and yet the Causer argument is syntactically absent (Hiaki does not even have by-phrases). Similarly, passives of verbs with the overt causative morpheme -te are allowed. These data are then at odds with the view in which the same projection introduces causative semantics and the external argument. (168) a. b.

Aapo kaa yo’o-taka kuna-tua-wa-k. 3sg not old-being marry.f-caus-pass-pfv ‘She was made to marry/married off when she wasn’t very old.’ Ume yoeme(m) hi’ibwa-tua-wa. the.pl man-(pl) eat-caus-pass ‘The men are being fed’ (Lit: ‘The men are being made to eat.’)   (Harley 2013: 52)

(169) Aman kari-te-wa There house-vo-pass ‘Houses are being built there.’ 

(Harley 2013: 53)

Further evidence for this tripartite structure comes from a type of indirect causative built with the morpheme -tevo (e.g.  (170)), which has the peculiarity that it precludes the projection of a Causee, and so we get a passive-like interpretation despite not having passive morphology. Note that passives of sentences with -tevo are indeed possible (e.g. (171)). The fact that the Theme Santos becomes the



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

subject of the passive, strongly suggests that the Causee, which should intervene between the passive morphology and the Theme, is truly syntactically absent. The complement of -tevo, then, is not VoiceP but vP. (170) a. b. (171)

Nee kari-te-tevo-k. I house-make-caus.indir-pfv ‘I had a house built’  (implied: by somebody) Nee uka avion-ta ni’i-tua-tevo-k. I the plane-acc fly-caus-caus.indir-pfv ‘I had the plane flown.’ (implied: by somebody)  (Harley 2013: 51)

Santos hitto-tevo-wa-k. Santos medical.care-caus.indir-pass-pfv ‘(Somebody) had Santos treated.’ (Lit: ‘Santos was caused to be treated.’) 

(Harley 2013: 51)

Harley’s (2013) proposal could appear to be at odds with my own. I have claimed in this chapter that the introduction of the external argument is inherently linked to the stative subevent, which in a configurational account is one of the ingredients of causational meaning. However, they are compatible: initP could be posited not to project a specifier in the syntax, and hence not to be able to project an external argument by itself (like Harley’s causative vP). It must, however, introduce an external argument semantically, as well as introduce a stative subevent, so that the data I have presented here that evidence the inherent link between the external argument and the stative subevent can be captured. The external argument would be introduced syntactically by VoiceP, as in Harley’s work.15 The structure would look as in (172), examplified from (147a), repeated below. The VP in the example is a stative causative, but the VoiceP > initP articulation is assumed to be the same for any other verbal predicates that contain initP in their decomposition, regardless of Aktionsart (i.e. transitives and unergatives). The semantic composition is provided in (173).

15.  Recently, Ramchand (2018) has updated her 2008 system to include a separation between the head that introduces causational semantics (init) and the introduction of the external argument, and she explicitly points out the compatibility of her view with Harley’s proposal. However, Ramchand (2018) argues that the projection introducing the external argument should not be Harley’s VoiceP (as I assume in (172)), but rather EvtP, which is conceived as a rather different semantico-pragmatic creature. In Ramchand (2018, 2019), EvtP takes abstract event descriptions – i.e. devoid of spatiotemporal or worldly information – and grounds them in particular situations – i.e. in specific times and worlds. I refer the reader to the aforementioned works for a more detailed discussion, as nothing crucial about this update hinges on the argumentation put forth in this chapter.

91

92

Stative Inquiries

(147a) Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ (172)

VoiceP Voice′

DP Berta

initP

Voice

init

resP res′

DP el país



res

XP

(173) a. ⟦initP⟧ = λxλs∃s1,s2 [s = (s1 → s2) & gobierna(s1) & Initiator(x,s1) & gobierna(s2) & Resultee(el país,s2)] b. ⟦Voice⟧ = λPλx [P(x)] c. ⟦VoiceP⟧ = λs∃s1,s2 [s = (s1 → s2) & gobierna(s1) & Initiator(Berta,s1) & gobierna(s2) & Resultee(el país,s2)]

Harley’s proposal, then, is perfectively compatible with mine. What I commit to, to be clear, is to the impossibility of having cause and the (semantic) external argument introduced by different syntactic projections. In other words, what I contend is that a structure such as (174) does not exist in natural language  – which is in line with Harley’s view, as she claims that v introduces the external argument semantically. (174)



x (x = external argument)

s

…

(s = causing event)

In the following section, I examine another line of research that extends the cause relation to unaccusative (change-of-state) predicates, and discuss how it fits with the general architecture of event structure argued for this far.



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

3.5.2 Unaccusative cause There is a considerable body of work that proposes that unaccusative verbs have a cause component, indeed present in all change-of-state verbs (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, Chierchia 2004, Pylkkänen 2002, Kratzer 2005, Alexiadou et al. 2006, a.m.o.). I take as a point of departure the syntactic proposal in Pylkkänen (2002). Pylkännen proposes that change-of-state verbs are derived with a CauseP that denotes a relation between events (a process event and a result state). An example is given in (175). VoiceP, on the other hand, introduces an Agent and relates it to the causing event, in the lines of Kratzer (1996) (see (176), adapted from Pylkkänen 2002: 79). (175) a. The ice melted. CauseP

Cause

VP V melt

DP

the ice b. c. λe∃e′ [cause(e,e′) & Theme(the ice,e′)]

(176) a. John melted the ice.

VoiceP Voice′

DP John

Voice

CauseP VP

Cause V melt

DP

the ice b. c. λe∃e′ [Agent(e,John) & cause(e,e′) & Theme(the ice,e′)]

Pylkkänen (2002) presents evidence from adversity causatives in Japanese, which cannot introduce external arguments with by-phrases despite having over causative morphology (e.g.  (177)). However, they can nonetheless appear with a by-phrase naming a causing event (e.g.  (178)). This suggests that, although the external argument is syntactically and semantically absent, there is nonetheless causational semantics.

93

94 Stative Inquiries

(177) * Taroo-ga Hanako-ni-yotte musuko- o sin-ase-ta Taroo-nom Hanako-by son-acc die -cause-past ‘Taro’s son was caused to die on him by Hanako.’  (Pylkkänen 2002: 83) (178) Taroo-ga sensoo-ni-yotte musuko-o sin-ase-ta Taroo-nom war-by son-acc die-cause-past ‘Taro’s son was caused to die on him by the war.’  (Pylkkänen 2002: 82)

More evidence for this kind of approach to change-of-state verbs is given by Alexiadou et al. (2006). They note that, although English unaccusatives do not allow by-phrases introducing agents or PP-instruments (e.g. (179a)), they nonetheless allow PPs headed by from which name the causing event (e.g. (179b)). They note that the same effect takes place in German (e.g. (180)). (179) a. * The window broke by John/with a stone. b. The window cracked/ broke from the explosion.   (Alexiadou et al. 2006: 182) (180) a. Die Vase zerbrach *von Peter/ *mit dem Hammer the vase broke *by Peter/ *with the hammer b. Die Vase zerbrach durch ein Erdbeben the vase broke through an earthquake  (Alexiadou et al. 2006: 184–185)

These approaches, note well, are fundamentally different from Harley’s (2013) account (despite Harley’s acknowledgment of their similarity). In Harley’s account, the projection below VoiceP does not just have causative semantics, but also an implicit external argument. However, in these unaccusative cause accounts, the projection below VoiceP does not introduce an external argument neither syntactically nor semantically. For instance, the applicative -ria discussed by Harley (2013) is incompatible with unaccusative predicates (e.g. (181)). This means that Appl cannot take Pylkännen’s CauseP as a complement, i.e. CauseP is not Harley’s causative vP. (181) * Uu tasa Maria-ta hamte-ria-k. the cup Maria-acc break.intr-appl-pfv ‘The cup broke for/on Maria.’ 

(Harley et al. 2009: 44)

What the unaccusative cause projection account does is to derive Dowty’s (1979) and Parsons’s (1990) CAUSE and BECOME operators from a single one, cause. Under a Dowty-Parsons view, change-of-state verbs are derived by a BECOME operator that denotes a transition to a result state: whether the verb is transitive or not depends on whether it has a CAUSE operator. In an event semantics as that of Parsons, having CAUSE, aside from entailing the introduction of an Agent, also



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

means having an extra subevent. Under this view, unaccusative change-of-state verbs would have two subevents and transitive ones would have three. I exemplify this in (182)). (182) The Dowty-Parsons view: a. John broke the glass. ∃e,e′,e″[Agent(John,e) & cause(e,e′) & BECOME(e′,e″) & Theme(the glass,e″) & break(e″)] b. The glass broke. ∃e,e′ [BECOME(e,e′) & Theme(the glass,e′) & break(e′)]

Pylkkänen’s generalized cause approach, on the other hand, posits two subevents in both cases (e.g. (183)). cause subsumes what was traditionally understood as BECOME, in that it implicates a process event that culminates in a result state, understood in causal terms (this account is, again, restricted to change-of-state verbs). It also subsumes the classic CAUSE operator, in that, although it does not involve an external argument per se, it introduces a causing event, in which an external argument can be integrated thematically (e.g. by Kratzer’s (1996) Event Identification). (183) The generalized cause view: a. John broke the glass. ∃e,e′[Agent(John,e) & CAUSE(e,e′) & Theme(the glass,e′) & break(e′)] b. The glass broke. ∃e,e′[& cause(e,e′) & Theme(the glass,e′) & break(e′)]

The generalized cause approach, as far as I can tell, is also compatible with firstphase syntax. Note that, although Ramchand’s model involves a maximum of three subevents, as in Parsons, she does not assume two different operators, CAUSE and BECOME, but rather a single cause/ “lead to” relation, which glues subevents together. In the first-phase syntax model, there are two cause relations in a transitive change-of-state VP (the causational subevent in which the initiator external argument is involved, which brings about the process subevent, and the causational process that leads to the result state). In an unaccusative change-of-state configuration, we only have two subevents (the process and the result state) and a single cause, i.e. essentially Pylkkänen’s generalized view of cause. I represent it schematically in (184). (184) a. [ procP [ resP ]] b. e1 → e2 

(where ‘→ ‘ represents the cause relation)

Pylkännen’s approach to cause, note well, is fundamentally atomic, in that cause is encoded in a dedicated functional projection, CauseP. In first-phase syntax, on

95

96 Stative Inquiries

the other hand, the cause semantics arise configurationally from the combination of proc and res. The configurational approach has the welcome advantage that it does not need to posit multiple projections with multiple operators (e.g. DoP with a do operator for activities, MaintainP with a maintain operator for stative causatives, and so on and so forth). 3.6

Conclusions

This chapter has analyzed gobernar-verbs (e.g. (147a)) as a separate aspectual class and has argued that they are stative causatives. I have argued that this verb type is built by a transitive VP structure composed of two syntactic projections: initP, which introduces the external argument, and resP, which introduces the external argument, as in (e.g. (147b)). This structure is interpreted semantically as a complex stative predicate built up of two causally-related sub-states: a causing state and a caused or result state. The causing state has the external argument as its subject, by virtue of which it is interpreted as an Initiator, whereas the result state has the internal argument as its subject, by virtue of which it is interpreted as a Resultee (e.g. (147c)). (147) a. Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ initP b. DP Berta

init′ init

DP el país

resP res′ res

XP

c. λs ∃s1,s2 [e = (s1 → s2) & gobierna(s1) & Initiator(Berta,s1) & gobierna(s2) & Resultee(el país,s2)]

I contrasted my proposal to others that assume further subdivisions between events and states  – namely states, non-dynamic events and dynamic events, as in Fábregas & Marín (2017) – or different flavors of cause depending on the Aktionsart of the predicate  – essentially Neeleman & van de Koot’s (2012) view. I argued that it is theoretically simpler and empirically more adequate to preserve



Chapter 3.  Stative causatives

the classic distinction between states and events in terms of dynamicity, which combined with a single generalized cause relation, can generate all the Aktionsart and argument structure configurations without any additional stipulations. My proposal also gives further support to the view that agentivity can be found across all aspectual classes.16 Furthermore, I committed to a view of the VP where the introduction of the external argument is inherently linked to causative semantics – or more accurately, to the subevent introduced by init, which is interpreted as causative if it merges with further verbal projections. In this light, I analyzed other work that severs cause from the introduction of the external argument, notably Pylkkänen (2002) and Harley (2013). I concluded that they were in fact compatible with mine, inasmuch as they allow to preserve the claim that both the external argument variable and the causative subevent are introduced by the same projection and thus cannot be severed. This chapter also puts forth a more inclusive view of resultativity than is generally found in the literature. Lexical resultatives are not just change-of-state verbs like break or open – or verbs of scalar change, in the sense of Rappaport-Hovav & Levin (2010) – but also stative causative verbs like the govern-type analyzed here, and are derived by the same state-denoting projection. Whether this state is interpreted as brought about by a previous event or simply maintained depends on its configuration with respect to the other eventive projections that comprise the VP. In the following Chapter 4, I further explore the view of event structure developed here in the realm of derivational morphology. I present a case study of stative participles in Spanish – with discussion of other languages as well – and analyze the interaction of participle formation with the Aktionsart and argument structure of resultative verbs.

16.  See also Section 5.5 for further discussion on agentivity with stative object-experiencer psychological verbs.

97

Chapter 4

Stative participles

4.1

Introduction

This chapter focuses on adjectival passives in Spanish. I illustrate them in (185) for Spanish, where the participial adjectives appear in predicative position linked to their subject by the copular verb estar ‘to be’. (185) El vaso está {lleno/ roto/ cascado/ coloreado/ escondido/ vigilado/ the glass is full broken cracked colored hidden surveilled protegido…}. protected ‘The glass is {full/ broken/ cracked/ colored/ hidden/ surveilled/ protected…}.’



These constructions are often called adjectival passives in the English literature, given that these participles behave as adjectives according to many diagnostics (e.g. they allow un-prefixation and they are selected for by verbs like seem or remain, which select for adjectives). The terms stative passive and resultative passive are often used, given that stative participles are typically taken to denote results from previous events, especially when the base verb is telic. In the first decades of generative grammar, it was believed that adjectival participles were derived by lexical rules prior to their projection in the syntax (Wasow 1977, Levin & Rappaport 1986), and such view is still upheld by some researchers (Horvath & Siloni 2008, Meltzer-Asscher 2011). The main evidence in favor of this view is that adjectival passives may have specialized idiomatic meaning from base verbs that do not have that meaning in their active or passive form (e.g. (186a), from Horvath & Siloni 2008: 123). Another argument is that the adjectival participle does not work syntactically like a passive in that the Theme subject seems to be the external argument, and by-phrases are not allowed (e.g.  (186b), from McIntyre 2013: 7). (186) a. Written in water, cast in stone, my lips are sealed, the die is cast… b. The door seemed broken/opened/painted (*by Mary).

However, recent work has challenged the claim that adjectival passives are lexically derived. Starting with Embick (2004), many authors working on syntactic

100 Stative Inquiries

approaches to morphology have gradually argued that adjectival participles are not as different from verbal passives in terms of their syntactic complexity. Aside from having a root (Kratzer 2000), Embick (2004) proposed that adjectival participles contain a verbal projection vP that introduces change-of-state semantics and verbalizes the root. Other authors argue that these participles further project a VoiceP that introduces an implicit external argument (McIntyre 2013, Hallman 2013, Bruening 2014 for English, Doron 2013 for Hebrew, Alexiadou et al. 2014 for German…). Their main evidence comes from the possibility of having by-phrases and instrumentals in adjectival passives (e.g. (187), from Bruening 2014: 380). (187) a. …for 300 years these gardens were unseen, except by the favoured few. b. The radioactive nucleotides are so small that they remain unseen, even with the most powerful microscope.

Some authors go even further and propose that, in addition to this full-fledged argument structure, adjectival participles further project Pass(ive)‍‍P and PerfP/ AspP, which build a verbal passive and introduce perfective or resultative aspect, respectively. On this account, adjectival participles would be even richer than verbal participles in terms of the structure they contained. This is the take in Bosque (2014) and, partially, in Alexiadou et al. (2015), Anagnostopoulou (2017). The full syntactic articulation of an adjectival participle, under this view, would be as in (188). (188)

AdjP Adj

PerfP PassP

PerfP Pass

VoiceP vP

Voice



v

√

This chapter examines the grammar of stative participles with particular attention to how their stativity comes about, and in what sense they are resultative. The central claim is that there are two types of stative participles: The first one is derived from stative causative verbs (see Chapter 3) and contain a full-fledged initP and resP configuration (e.g. (189)). The second one is derived from a telic root that only lexicalizes a resP (e.g. (189)). This truncated structure, I argue, is stative but not resultative, since there is not a process event represented in the structure. Stative participles are not passive or perfective either: they lack the relevant functional projections.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 101



(189) a. La ciudad está vigilada. the city isestar surveilled ‘The city is surveilled.’ b. AdjP

estar ‘be’ Adj

initP init

DP

resP res′

la ciudad



XP

res



(190) a. La ciudad está destruida. the city isestar destroyed ‘The city is destroyed.’ b. estar ‘be’

AdjP Adj

DP la ciudad





resP res′ res

XP

I also show that past participles in attributive position, as in (191) – also known as reduced relatives in the literature – have very different properties from predicative past participles with estar ‘to be’ (e.g.  (185)). The former are eventive verbal participles (e.g.  (192)), whereas only the latter are true stative adjectival participles as in (189) and (190). This distinction is often blurred or overlooked (Bosque 2014, Bruening 2014, a.o.), but it is crucial for a proper characterization of stative participles. (191) El vaso {lleno/ roto/ cascado/ coloreado/ escondido/ vigilado/ the glass full broken cracked colored hidden surveilled protegido…}. protected ‘The {full/broken/cracked/colored/hidden/surveilled/protected…} glass.’

102 Stative Inquiries

(192) a. La ciudad destruida. the city destroyed ‘The destroyed city.’ PassP b. Pass

initP procP

init

proc

resP

DP la ciudad





res′ res

XP

The structure of this chapter is as follows. Section 4.2 presents a state of the art in the study of adjectival passives in Spanish. In Section 4.3, I present the data that shows the systematic differences between predicative and attributive participles. Section 4.4 puts forth my theoretical proposal. In Section 4.5, I discuss by-phrases and agent/ event-oriented modifiers in adjectival passives derived from telic verbs, which are potential counterexamples for my theory. Section 4.6 undertakes a review of previous accounts for other languages and compares them to my own, and extends the scope of the proposal with a discussion of the parametric differences between adjectival passives crosslinguistically. Section 4.8 presents the conclusions of this chapter. 4.2

Adjectival passives in Spanish: A state of the art

For this overview, I take as a point of departure the series of works by Bosque (1990, 1999, 2014). He proposes the classification for Spanish past participles shown in (193). Note, to avoid potential confusions, that Bosque classifies both resultative (R-PPrts) and eventive (E-PPrts) participles as verbal participles. This is unlike what is generally assumed in the literature, where Bosque’s R-PPrts, while claimed to be complex in eventive terms, are assumed to be adjectival and often labeled adjectival passives; what the received literature calls verbal passives is for him a subset of verbal participles (V-PPrts), which he calls eventive participles (E-PPrts).1 I will respect Bosque’s (2014) terminology for the overview of his work 1.  I intuit that his choice of classification obeys the received view that associates event structure with grammatical category: since resultative participles appear to have argument structure and

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 103



in the present section, but in the remainder of this chapter I will stick to the classic distinction between verbal and adjectival passives. I also refer to the latter as stative or resultative interchangeably.2 How exactly adjectival passives are stative and resultative will be developed in my analysis in Section 4.4. (193) Classification of Spanish past participles in Bosque (2014) Adjectival (Adj-PPrts) Past Participle (PPrts)

Eventive (E-PPrts) Bound (B-PPrts)

Verbal (V-PPrts) Resultative (R-PPrts)



Unbound (U-PPrts)

The author (1990, 1999) further makes a morphological distinction between what he calls participios truncos “cut-short participles” and full-fledged participles, or PPrts proper, illustrated in Table 4.2. Cut-short participles are perfective adjectives that have verbal roots and used to be full-fledged verbal participles in previous stages of the language, i.e. they could appear in verbal passives. These participles are derived from telic verbs and have lost the even-tive meaning of such verb and they only denote its final state: Bosque labels such participles perfective adjectives in his 1990, 1999 works and Adj-PPrts in his later 2014 article.3 Bosque argues that the shared perfectivity of perfective adjectives and participles can be shown by their ability to appear in absolute constructions (e.g. (194)). However, the eventive defectiveness of perfective adjectives, as opposed to that of participles, becomes apparent when we test them against instrumental, agentive and manner modifiers (e.g. (195)).

aspectual complexity, it would follow that they must be verbal. See Chapter 2 and particularly Section 2.3.2.2, where I criticize this view at length. 2.  This is unlike Embick’s (2004) terminology for English, who distinguishes between stative and resultative depending on their event complexity. See footnote 4.1. 3.  See Embick (2004) for a similar discussion for English. I show his classification of English participles in Table  4.1, from Embick (2004: 358). His stative participles are Bosque’s (2014) Adj-PPrts.

104 Stative Inquiries

Table 4.2  Cut-short and full-fledged participles in Spanish (adapted from Bosque 1990, 1999) Cut-short

Regular

descalzo ‘barefoot’

descalzado lit: ‘barefooted’

desnudo ‘naked’

desnudado ‘undressed’

despierto ‘awake’

despertado ‘awaken’

disperso ‘dispersed’

dispersado ‘dispersed’

enfermo ‘sick’

enfermado ‘sickened’

exento ‘exempt’

eximido ‘exempted’

flojo ‘loose’

aflojado ‘loosened’

limpio ‘clean’

limpiado ‘cleaned’

liso ‘flat’

alisado ‘flattened’

lleno ‘full’

llenado ‘filled’

maduro ‘ripe’

madurado ‘ripened’

sano ‘healthy’

sanado ‘healed’

seco ‘dry’

secado ‘dried’

suelto ‘loose’

soltado ‘let.loose’

sujeto ‘fixed’

sujetado ‘fixed’

vacío ‘empty’

vaciado ‘emptied’

(194) a. b.

{Llenado/ lleno} el vaso hasta el borde, … filled full the glass up.to the edge   ‘The glass (being) {filled/full} up to the top, …’ Una vez {seca/ secada} la toalla,… one time dry dried the towel ‘Once the towel was {dry/ dried}, …’

Table 4.1  English participles in Embick (2004) Root

Stative

Resultative

Eventive passive

√bless

bless-èd

bless-ed

bless-ed

√AGE

ag-èd

ag-ed

ag-ed

√ROT

rott-en

rott-ed

rott-ed

√SINK

sunk-en

sunk-∅

sunk-∅

√shave

(clean)-shav-en

shav-ed

shav-ed

√OPEN

open-∅

open-ed

open-ed

√EMPTY

empty-∅

empti-ed

empti-ed

√DRY

dry-∅

dri-ed

dri-ed

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 105



c. Ya {fijo/ fijado} el tornillo,… already fixed fixed the nail ‘The nail being already fixed, …’  (195) a. b. c.

(From Bosque 1999: 280)

Un cartel {fijado/ *fijo} con una brocha. A poster sticked stuck with a brush ‘A poster {sticked/ *stuck} with a brush.’ Instrumental Un cartel {fijado/ *fijo} por el bedel de la facultad. A poster sticked stuck by the janitor of the school ‘A poster {sticked/ *stuck} by the school janitor.’ Agentive Un cartel {fijado/ *fijo} con más esfuerzo de lo que parecía. A poster sticked stuck with more effort of which than seemed ‘A poster {sticked/ *stuck} with more effort than expected.’ Manner  (From Bosque 1999: 280)

Note that there are irregular participles that look morphologically “cut-short” yet syntactically and semantically function as V-PPrts too (e.g.  (196)). Conversely, there are participles that do not have a “cut-short” form but can nonetheless function as Adj-PPrts as well, i.e. without eventive implications (e.g. Table 4.3). What we never get are roots whose cut-short participles work as V-PPrts and their regular participles as Adj-PPrts. (196) Irregular participles in Spanish Abierto ‘open’, absuelto ‘absolved’, adscrito ‘adhered’, cubierto ‘covered’, descrito ‘described’, dicho ‘said’, disuelto ‘dissolved’, encubierto ‘covered.up’, escrito ‘written’, frito ‘fried’, hecho ‘done’, impreso ‘printed’, inscrito ‘inscribed’, muerto ‘dead/died’, provisto ‘equipped’, puesto ‘put’, resuelto ‘resolved’, roto ‘broken’, satisfecho ‘satisfied’, visto ‘seen’, vuelto ‘returned’. Table 4.3  Syncretic participles in Spanish (from Bosque 1999: 55) Participle

Meaning as a verbal participle

Meaning as an adjectival participle

aislado

‘isolated’

‘alone’

alargado

‘lengthened’

‘long’

animado

‘encouraged’

‘lively’

callado

‘silenced’

‘quiet’

complicado

‘complicated’

‘difficult’

divertido

‘amused’

‘funny’

educado

‘educated’

‘cultured, learned’

elevado

‘raised, upgraded’

‘high’ (continued)

106 Stative Inquiries

Table 4.3  (continued) Participle

Meaning as a verbal participle

Meaning as an adjectival participle

equivocado

‘confused, taken wrong’

‘wrong’

limitado

‘limited’

‘short’

ocupado

‘occupied’

‘busy’

reducido

‘reduced’

‘small’

resumido

‘resumed’

‘short’

Within V-PPrts, the first distinction is drawn between E-PPrts and R-PPrts. EPPrts appear in verbal/ eventive passives, which take the auxiliary ser ‘to be’ in Spanish. They can be formed from any aspectual type of verb, i.e. eventive or stative, so long as the verb is transitive (e.g. (197)).4 (197) El rey fue {aborrecido/ perseguido/ ejecutado/ desterrado} (por the king wasser abhorred persecuted executed banished by sus súbditos). his subjects ‘The king was {abhorred/ persecuted/ executed/ banished} (by his subjects).’

R-PPrts, on the other hand, are formed with estar ‘to be’, and they can be formed both from transitive verbs and from unaccusative verbs (e.g. (198a)), but not from unergative verbs (e.g. (198b)). (198) a. La fruta está {guardada/ pintada/ podrida/ desaparecida}. the fruit isestar put.away painted rotten disappeared ‘The fruit is put away/ painted/ rotten/ disappeared}.’ b. * Juan está {trabajado/ nadado/ bailado}. Juan isestar worked swum danced (‘Juan is {worked/ swum/ danced}.’)

R-PPrts are stative predicates derived from eventive verbs, which come to denote the result state of these verbs. Bosque (2014) argues for a notion of resultativity that is derived as an interaction of a hidden have, with perfect semantics, and the Aktionsart of the base verb. If the base verb is telic, they give rise to B-PPrts which are characterized as having a retrospective reading, i.e. the result state follows the main action denoted by the verb (e.g. (199a)); if the base verb is atelic, they give rise to U-PPrts and the reading of the result state is simultaneous with the main action (e.g. (199b)).

4.  Note that this makes the term “eventive” passive a bit confusing – i.e. verbal passivization does not make a stative predicate “eventive”.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 107



(199) a. b.

El niño está {castigado/ atrapado}. the child isestar grounded trapped ‘The child is {grounded/ trapped}.’  La ciudad está {vigilada/ rodeada}. the city isestar surveilled surrounded ‘The city is surveilled/ surrounded}.’ 

B-PPrts

U-PPrts

Although not very specific about the structure, Bosque (2014) argues that AdjPPrts are devoid of eventive and argument structure (e.g. (200)). R-PPrts, on the other hand, contain a VP with an internal argument, which may be telic or atelic, and thus derive a B-PPrt or an U-PPrt, respectively. R-PPrts contain an AspP that encodes perfect aspect (Bosque calls it a “hidden” have). Now, the underlying VP may be unaccusative (e.g.  (201)) or transitive, which I represent as a VoiceP in (202). If it is transitive, the R-PPrt contains an additional passive projection, hosting a “hidden” be (e.g. (202)). (200) Adj-PPrts (No argument structure) AdjP

Adj

√

(201) Unaccusative R-PPrts PPrtP AspP

Prt

VP (a)telic

Asp have



(202) Transitive R-PPrts PPrtP AspP

Prt

PassP

Asp have

VoiceP

Pass be



Voice

VP (a)telic

108 Stative Inquiries

Bosque largely ignores E-PPrts in his work. Although the focus of this chapter will be adjectival passives (Bosque’s R-PPrts), I will nonetheless argue that attributive participles are actually verbal passives without a copula – i.e. Bosque’s E-PPrts. In Section 4.3, I compare the different properties of attributive and predicative participles and in Section 4.4 I present the analysis in terms of verbal vs. adjectival passives. 4.3

Comparing predicative and attributive participles

In this section I am going to analyze in depth the properties of PPrts in predicative and attributive position. I also refer to the former as estar-PPrts and the latter as bare-PPrts. According to Bosque’s (2014) proposal, predicative PPrts with the copula estar are R-PPrts with complex eventive structure and two abstract morphemes: a passive be and a perfect have. This effectively means that the sentences in (203) should be equivalent in syntactico-semantic terms, at least in terms of event and argument structure and temporal meaning. (203) a. b. c.

La cortina está rasgada. the curtain isestar torn ‘The curtain is torn.’ La cortina rasgada. the curtain torn ‘The torn curtain.’ La cortina ha sido rasgada. the curtain has been torn ‘The curtain has been torn.’

The goal of this section is to show that this is incorrect. PPrts with estar as in (203a) do not host abstract passive and perfect morphology, and not even changeof-state structures. Bare-PPrts as in (203b), on the other hand, do contain complex event structure and passive morphology. However, I show that are not really perfects aspectually speaking, so we cannot claim that they are identical to sentences like (203c) either. 4.3.1 Change-of-state structure? As we introduced in the previous section, Estar-PPrts have Aktionsart restrictions that verbal participles do not have. I have argued in the past (García-Pardo 2016a, 2017) that only verbs that have a resultative component in their event decomposition are good inputs for adjectival passives. This includes telic verbs (e.g. (204)),



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 109

but also stative causative verbs (e.g. (205)), which contain a causative-resultative configuration (see Chapter 3). Also good inputs for estar-PPrts are object-experiencer psychological verbs (e.g. (206a)) and locative verbs (e.g. (206b)), discussed at length in Chapter 5.5 Activity verbs (e.g. (207a)) and the rest of stative predicates (e.g. (207b)), on the other hand, cannot form estar-PPrts. (204) El libro está {destrozado/ acabado/ pintado/ encuadernado}. the book isestar destroyed finished painted bound ‘The city isestar {destroyed/ finished/ painted/ bound}.’ (205) Los trabajadores están {vigilados/ controlados/ protegidos/ supervisados}. the workers are surveilled controlled protected supervised ‘The city isestar {surveilled/ controlled/ protected/ supervised}.’ (206) a. b.

Pedro está {preocupado/ aburrido/ impresionado/ asombrado}. bored impressed astonished Pedro isestar worried ‘Pedro is worried/ bored/ impressed/ astonished}.’ La ciudad está {rodeada/ flanqueada/ cubierta/ cercada}. The city isestar surrounded flanked covered sieged ‘The city is {surrounded/ flanked/ covered/ sieged}.’

(207) a. * El perro está {acariciado/ aplaudido/ mecido/ rascado}. applauded rocked scratched the dog isestar petted (‘The dog is {petted/ applauded/ rocked/ scratched}.’) b. * El rey está {odiado/ aborrecido/ respetado/ mirado}. the king isestar hated abhorred respected looked (‘The king is {hated/ abhorred/ respected/ looked}.’)

If R-PPrts inherit the Aktionsart of the base verb, we should expect the estar-PPrts in (204) to pass telicity tests. This prediction is not borne out, however: EstarPPrts fail all the telicity tests that can be applied to PPrts: they do not accept in x time modification (e.g.  (208a)) and they do not show scope ambiguities with the adverbs again (e.g. (208b)) and almost (e.g. (208c)). Also, only the state, but not the process event, is locatable in time and space (e.g.  (208d) and (208e), respectively).6 This does not happen with bare-PPrts, which pass all those tests successfully and which permit the temporal and spatial location of the underlying process event (e.g. (209)). 5.  I will by large ignore estar-PPrts derived from object-experiencer psychological verbs and locative verbs in this chapter. See Section 6.3 for some discussion. 6.  With respect to the spatio-temporal unlocatability of the process event, see von Stechow (1998), Gehrke (2012) for the same observation for German adjectival passives, also known as zustandspassiv. We will deal with these more at length in Section 4.5.

110 Stative Inquiries

(208) a. * La casa está pintada en cuatro días. the house isestar painted in four days (‘The house is painted in four days.’) b. El espejo está cascado de nuevo. the mirror isestar cracked of new ‘The mirror is cracked again.’ ✓ Narrow scope reading (again > state): The mirror is once again in a cracked state. ✗ Wide scope reading (again > event): The mirror has undergone a cracking event once again. c. La casa está casi construida. the house isestar almost built ‘The house is almost built.’ ✓ Narrow scope reading (almost > state): The house has begun, and it is close to being completed. ✗ W  ide scope reading (almost > event): The construction of the house was almost begun. d. El espejo está cascado {*hace dos horas/ desde hace dos horas}. the mirror isestar cracked makes two hours from makes two hours (‘The mirror is cracked two hours ago/ The mirror has been cracked for two hours.’) e. La ropa está planchada en mi dormitorio. the clothes areestar ironed in my bedroom ‘The clothes are ironed in my bedroom.’ ✓ The clothes are currently in my bedroom, in an ironed state. ✗ The clothes underwent an ironing event in my bedroom. (209) a. Una casa pintada en cuatro días. a house painted in four days ‘A house painted in four days.’ b. Un espejo cascado de nuevo. a mirror cracked of new ‘A mirror cracked again.’ ✓ Narrow scope reading (again > state): The mirror is once again in a cracked state. ✓ Wide scope reading (again > event): The mirror has undergone a cracking event once again. c. Una casa casi construida. a house almost built ‘An almost built house/ A house that was almost built.’ ✓ Narrow scope reading (almost > state): The house has been begun, and it is close to being completed.



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 111

✓ Wide scope reading (almost > event): The construction of the house was almost begun. d. Un espejo cascado {hace dos horas/ desde hace dos horas}. a mirror cracked makes two hours from makes two hours ‘A mirror cracked two hours ago/ A mirror that has been cracked for two hours.’ e. La ropa planchada en mi dormitorio. the clothes ironed in my bedroom ‘The ironed clothes/ clothes ironed} in my bedroom.’ ✓ The clothes are currently in my bedroom, in an ironed state. ✓ The clothes underwent an ironing event in my bedroom.

This is an intriguing paradox of estar-PPrts: although, intuitively, a sentence like el espejo está cascado ‘the mirror is cracked’ means something like the mirror is in a result state of having (been) cracked, it so happens that we cannot find the process subpart when we rummage within the PPrt. Note that it does not suffice to explain this puzzle away by saying that the PPrt is stativized: even if it is stativized, its underlying telic structure should be detected by linguistic tests if it is really present in the structure: otherwise it is nothing more than a stipulation.7 4.3.2 External arguments Another issue are external arguments. If estar-PPrts are passive, the underlying vP should perforce be transitive, however modelled. In García-Pardo (2017), I argue that there is an aspectual split within estar-PPrts in this sense: PPrts derived from stative causative verbs contain an implicit external argument, whereas PPrts derived from telic verbs do not (see Fernández-Ramírez 1951, Gómez-Torrego 1988, Bosque 1999, Fernández-Leborans 1999, Conti-Jiménez 2004 for a precedent of this obsevation). Evidence for this is that PPrts derived from stative causative 7.  For instance, the progressive and the perfect have been argued to be stativized predicates (see Vlach 1981, Moens 1987, Parsons 1990, Kamp & Reyle 1993 for the progressive, and Parsons 1990, Kamp & Reyle 1993, Nishiyama & Koenig 2010, Kamp et al. 2015 for the perfect). As we can see in (xxii), when the base verbs for these forms are eventive they nonetheless retain their eventive properties, diagnosed by the posibility of dynamic manner adverbs (e.g. (xxiia)) and in x time modifiers (e.g. (xxiib)). (xxii) a. María está corriendo muy rápido. María is running very fast María is running very fast.’ b. Pedro ha reparado el ordenador en tres horas. Pedro has repaired the computer in three hours ‘Pedro has repaired the computer in three hours.’

112 Stative Inquiries

verbs allow by-phrases unrestrictedly (e.g. (210)) as well as agent-oriented modifiers such as intentional adverbs (e.g. (211)) and instrumentals (e.g. (212)). (210) a. b.

El recinto está custodiado por diez guardias de seguridad. the precinct isestar surveilled by ten guards of security ‘The precinct is surveilled by ten security guards.’ Portugal está gobernado por Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Portugal isestar governed by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa ‘Portugal is governed by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.’

(211) a. b.

Los trabajadores están vigilados implacablemente. the precinct isestar surveilled relentlessly ‘The security guards are relentlessly surveilled.’ El restaurante está dirigido inteligentemente. the restaurant isestar directed intelligently ‘The restaurant is intelligently directed.’

(212) a. b.

Los presos están vigilados con cámaras de seguridad. the prisoners areestar surveilled with cameras of security ‘The prisoners are surveilled with security cameras.’ Los aviones están coordinados con alta tecnología the planes areestar coordinated with high technology ‘The planes are coordinated with high technology.’

The opposite situation is found in PPrts derived from telic verbs. These participles do not allow by-phrases (e.g. (213)), agent-oriented adverbs (e.g. (214)) and instrumentals (e.g. (215)) (but see Section 4.5 for further discussion). (213) a. * Los neumáticos están rajados por un ladrón. the tires areestar slashed by a thief (‘The tires are slashed by a thief.’) b. * La puerta está abierta por Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. the door isestar opened by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (‘The door is opened by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.’) (214) a. * La ciudad está implacablemente bombardeada. bombarded the city isestar relentlessly (‘The city is relentlessly bombarded.’) b. * La mesa está inteligentemente barnizada. the table isestar intelligently varnished (‘The table is intelligently varnished.’) (215) a. ?? La puerta está forzada con una barra de hierro. the door isestar forced with a bar of iron (‘The door is forced with an iron bar.’)

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 113



b. ?? La pared está quemada con una antorcha. the wall isestar burned with a torch (‘The wall is burned with a torch.’)

Bare-PPrts, on the other hand, show no such Aktionsart restrictions. By-phrases are perfect with PPrts derived from telic verbs (e.g. (216)), as are agent-oriented adverbs (e.g. (217)) and instruments (e.g. (218)). (216) a. b.

Los neumáticos rajados por un ladrón. the tires slashed by a thief ‘The tires slashed by a thief.’ La puerta abierta por Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. the door opened by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa ‘The door opened by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.’

(217) a. b.

Una ciudad implacablemente bombardeada. a city relentlessly bombarded ‘A relentlessly bombarded city.’ Una mesa inteligentemente barnizada. a table intelligently varnished ‘An intelligently varnished table.’

(218) a. b.

Una puerta forzada con una barra de hierro. a door forced with a bar of iron ‘A door forced with an iron bar.’ Una pared quemada con una antorcha. a wall burned with a torch ‘A wall burned with a torch.’

4.3.3 Passives A well-known property of verbal passives, first noted in Baker et  al. (1989) for English, is that they give rise to the so-called disjoint reference effect: the internal argument and the external argument cannot be coreferential. The same effect takes place in Spanish: verbal passives cannot have an external argument coreferent with its internal argument (promoted to subject position), as (219) shows. (219) El niño fue vestido. the kid wasser dressed ‘The kid was dressed.’ ✓ Disjoint reading: Someone dressed the kid. ✗ Reflexive reading: The kid dressed himself.

114 Stative Inquiries

Kratzer (2002) noted that the disjoint reference effect does not hold with adjectival passives, which she took as evidence that there is no implicit external argument in adjectival passives (no VoiceP, in her theory). I reproduce her example for Spanish in (220). (220)

El escalador está asegurado con una cuerda. the climber isestar secured with a rope ‘The climber is secured with a rope.’ ✓ Disjoint reading: The climber was secured by someone. ✓ Reflexive reading: The climber secured himself.

Proponents of the VoiceP account for adjectival passives have challenged this author’s test for other languages (McIntyre 2013, Bruening 2014 for English, Alexiadou et  al. 2014 for German). In García-Pardo (2018), I provide experimental evidence that Spanish verbal and adjectival passives do in fact show the same split observed separately by Baker et al. (1989) and Kratzer (2000) for English: verbal passives show the disjoint reference effect and adjectival passives do not. My work in García-Pardo (2018) for Spanish, as well as the aforementioned literature on English and German, focused on PPrts derived from telic verbs. With estar-PPrts derived from stative causative verbs, we find an interesting situation. When they do not appear with a by-phrase, the reading of the notional external argument is vague, i.e. it can be interpreted as reflexive or disjoint, depending on the context (e.g. (221a) and (222a)). However, when the estar-PPrt has a by-phrase, it crucially cannot introduce a reflexive referent (e.g. (221b) and (222b)). In this respect, they behave like verbal passives. We cannot test whether this also holds for estar-PPrts derived from telic verbs since, as I mentioned, their distribution of by-phrases is very restricted. (221) a. Pedro está coordinado con los otros bailarines. Pedro isestar coordinated with the other dancers ‘Pedro is coordinated with the other dancers.’ ✓ Disjoint reading: Someone coordinated Pedro with the other dancers. ✓ Reflexive reading: Pedro coordinates himself with the other dancers. b. Pedro está coordinado {por el director/ *por sí mismo}. Pedro isestar coordinated by the director by him self ‘Pedro is coordinated {by the director/ *by himself}.’ (222) a. María está controlada. María isestar controlled ‘María is controlled.’ ✓ Disjoint reading: Someone or something controls María. ✓ Reflexive reading: María controls herself.



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 115

b. María está controlada {por una colonia de extraterrestres/ *por María isestar controlled by a colony of extraterrestrials *by sí misma}. her self ‘María is controlled {by a colony of extraterrestrials/ *by herself}.’



Bare-PPrts, on the other hand, differ with respect to the disjoint-reference effect depending on the base Aktionsart of the base verb. With telics and stative causative verbs, there is no disjoint reference effect without a by-phrase (i.e. just like we saw with estar-PPrts), as we can see in (223a) and (224a). With a by-phrase, however, the disjoint reference effect surfaces, just like with verbal passives (e.g. (223b) and (224b)). With non-causative states, as it turns out, the disjoint reference holds both with and without a by-phrase (e.g. (225)). This strongly suggests that the two readings in (223a) are due to the fact that the participle is ambiguous between a verbal and an adjectival passive: when the participle can only be verbal as in (225a) – remember that adjectival passives do not take non-causative states like love – the disjoint reference effect surfaces again. (223) a. Un niño vestido. a kid dressed ‘A dressed kid.’ ✓ Disjoint reading: Someone dressed the kid. ✓ Reflexive reading: The kid dressed himself. b. Un niño vestido {por su madre/ *por sí mismo}. a kid dressed by his mother by him self ‘A kid dressed {by his mother/ *by himself}.’ (224) a. b.

Unos actores coordinados {por Pedro/ *por sí mismos}. some actors directed by Pedro by them selves ‘Some actors directed {by Pedro/ by themselves}.’ Unos actores dirigidos {por Pedro/ *por sí mismos}. some actors directed by Pedro by them selves ‘Some actors directed {by Pedro/ by themselves}.’

(225) a. Un criminal odiado. a criminal hated ‘A hated criminal.’ ✓ Disjoint reading: Someone hated the criminal. ✗ Reflexive reading: The criminal hated himself. b. Un criminal odiado {por todos/ por sí mismo}. a criminal hated by everyone by him self ‘A criminal hated {by everyone/ by himself}.’

116 Stative Inquiries

4.3.4 Perfect semantics This last section takes a closer look at the claim that Spanish adjectival passives (RPPrts, in Bosque’s terminology) contain a hidden perfect, in particular a perfect of result. Perfects are usually taken to have three interpretations (McCawley 1971, 1981, Mittwoch 1988, Michaelis 1994, Iatridou et  al. 2001, Pancheva 2003, a.o.), as illustrated in (226). In the universal reading illustrated in (226a), which is triggered by adverbials like since x time or always, the interpretation is one in which the eventuality holds from the time denoted by the adverbial until the reference time – which, in the case of the present perfect, coincides with the utterance time. In the experiential reading in (226b), which is the reading obtained by default, the eventuality has happened at a past event in time and it does not hold at the reference time. The result reading in (226c) asserts that the result state of the event described by the verb still holds in the reference time. The result reading is restricted to telic verbs and the universal reading to either stative verbs or dynamic verbs in the progressive form. (226) a. b. c.

Paula ha vivido en Francia desde el 2012. Paula has lived in France since the 2012 ‘Paula has lived in France since 2012.’  Universal Fernando ha vivido en Polonia en numerosas ocasiones. Fernando has lived in Poland in numerous occasions ‘Fernando has lived in Poland in several occasions.’  Experiential Felipe ha llegado a Los Ángeles hace nada. Felipe has arrived at Los Angeles makes nothing ‘Fernando has just arrived in LA.’  Resultative

To be sure, the prediction is that estar-PPrts and bare-PPrts pattern with verbal passives in the perfect of result in terms of temporal interpretation. As it turns out, this prediction is not borne out: verbal passives in the perfect do not behave like estar and bare-PPRts in temporal terms. For one, estar-PPrts do not accept temporal modification of the event in the past (e.g. (227c)), whereas bare-PPrts and perfects of verbal passives do (e.g. (227a–b)). (227) a. La ciudad ha sido bombardeada hace tan solo unos minutos. the city has beenser bombarded makes much only some minutes ‘The city was bombarded just a few minutes ago.’ b. Una ciudad bombardeada hace tan solo unos minutos. a city bombarded makes much only some minutes ‘A city bombarded just a few minutes ago.’ c. * La ciudad está bombardeada hace tan solo unos minutos. the city isestar bombarded makes much only some minutes ‘A city bombarded just a few minutes ago.’

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 117



Second, the (Peninsular) Spanish perfect disallows positional adverbials that locate the event prior to the same day as reference time.8 However, bare-PPrts allow for such adverbials, as (228b) shows. (228) a. * La ciudad ha sido bombardeada ayer. the city has beenser bombarded yesterday (‘The city has been bombarded yesterday.’) b. La ciudad bombardeada ayer. the city bombarded yesterday ‘The city bombarded yesterday.’ c. * La ciudad está bombardeada ayer. the city isestar bombarded yesterday (‘The city is bombarded yesterday.’)

Also, the salient temporal readings of verbal passives of perfects, bare-PPrts and estar-passives differ notably in the absence of temporal adverbs. Let us look at PPrts derived from telic verbs first: the verbal passive in (229a) and the bare-PPrt in (229b) are ambiguous between an experiential and result reading – or vague, if one takes the result reading to be a pragmatic effect.9 The only possible reading of the estar-PPrt in (229c), on the other hand, is one in which the building is currently empty. (229) a. b. c.

El edificio ha sido evacuado. the building has beenser evacuated ‘The building has been evacuated.’ El edificio evacuado. the building evacuated ‘The evacuated building.’ El edificio está evacuado. the building isestar evacuated ‘The building is evacuated.’

With PPrts derived from stative causative verbs, this divide is more evident. With the perfect of a verbal passive (e.g. (230a)), the default reading is one of anteriority: the building has been surveilled in the past, and it is no longer under surveillance. Bare-PPrts and estar-PPrts behave quite differently in this respect: the default

8.  For discussion on the 24-hour rule and the hodiernal perfect in Spanish, see Schwenter (1994), Giorgi & Pianesi (1997), Brugger (2001), Xiqués (2012), a.o. 9.  This is indeed the take in McCawley (1981), Mittwoch (1988), who classify both the Experiential and the Resultative perfect as Existential perfects.

118 Stative Inquiries

reading of (230b) and the only possible reading of (230c) is one of simultaneity: the building is currently under surveillance. (230) a. b. c.

El edificio ha sido vigilado. the building has beenser surveilled ‘The building has been surveilled.’ El edificio vigilado. the building surveilled ‘The surveilled building.’ El edificio está vigilado. the building isestar surveilled ‘The building is surveilled.’

A point of convergence of these three constructions is the possibility of sinceadverbials with PPRts derived from stative causative verbs. In (231a), the sinceadverbial delivers a Universal perfect reading (Iatridou et al. 2001) in combination with the stative PPrt: the since-adverbial locates the starting point of the eventuality, which extends to reference time. As we can see, the bare-PPrts and estar-PPrts in (231b) and (231c) also allow since-adverbials. But this is not evidence that barePPrts and estar-PPrts are perfects, but rather that they are stative, since stative predicates, verbal or not (as well as habitual activities), can accept since-adverbials (e.g. (232)). In short, we really have no solid evidence that bare-PPrts and estarPPrts contain a hidden perfect in their decomposition. (231) a. b. c.

El país ha sido gobernado por la extrema derecha desde 2011. the country has been governed by the extreme right since 2011 ‘The country has beenser governed by the far right since 2011.’ Un país gobernado por la extrema derecha desde 2011. a country governed by the extreme right since 2011 ‘A country governed by the far right since 2011.’ El país está gobernado por la extrema derecha desde 2011. the country isestar governed by the extreme right since 2011 ‘The country is governed by the far right since 2011.’

(232) Pedro {está enfermo/ vive en Alemania/ corre por las mañanas} desde la Pedro isestar sick lives in Germany runs in the mornings since the semana pasada. week past ‘Pedro {is sick/ lives in Germany/ runs every morning} since last week.’

In short, perfects of verbal passives behave very differently in temporal semantic terms from estar-PPrts and bare-PPrts. Note that we do not even have evidence that there is a subset of the present perfect readings inside these PPrts, since the

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 119



tests that diagnose such readings (e.g. since-adverbials for the universal perfect, or locative adverbials for the experiential perfect) are not exclusive to the perfect. Estar-passives, however, do look a lot like perfects of result at first sight:10 However, I will argue in Section 4.4.1 that estar-PPrts do not contain resultative aspect, but just a stative projection. Note also that, whereas the resultative perfect allows for temporal modification of the process event (e.g.  (233a)), estar-PPrts do not (e.g. (233b)). (233) a. El edificio ha sido evacuado hace unos instantes. the building has beenser evacuated makes some instants ‘The building was evacuated some instants ago.’ b. * El edificio está evacuado hace unos instantes. the building isestar evacuated makes some instants (‘The building is evacuated some instants ago.’)

4.3.5 Summary of findings This section has provided an overview of the differences between perfects of verbal passives – E-PPrts – and PPrts, with and without estar. I have shown that perfects of verbal passives and bare-PPrts behave alike with respect to event and argument structure, and appear to have a rich structure that goes all the way to passivization. Estar-PPrts are impoverished in comparison, and they appear to denote mere states. I present a summary of the data discussed so far in Table 4.4.11 Table 4.4  Properties of estar-PPrts, bare-PPrts and perfect E-PPrts The base verb

The PPrt

ES

AS

ES

AS

Pass

Perf

haber ‘have’ + PPrt

all

all

all

tr

N.A.

✓

Bare-PPrt

all

IA

all

all

✓

✗

telic

IA

state

no EA

✗

✗

tr

✓

Estar-PPrt

StC

10.  Indeed, accounts positing that estar-PPrts have – at least sometimes – a perfect of result has been proposed for other languages (Kratzer 2000, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Alexiadou et al. 2015, Anagnostopoulou 2017, a.o.). See García-Pardo (2016a, 2017), as well as Section 4.6.2.4, for criticism of this view. 11.  In Table 4.4, AS stands for argument structure, ES for event structure, Pass for passive, Perf for perfect, Tr for transitive, IA for internal argument, EA for external argument, StC for stative causatives and N.A. for not applicable.

120 Stative Inquiries

4.4 The proposal 4.4.1 Estar-PPrts I argue that estar-PPrts come in two types depending on the Aktionsart of the base verb: if the base verb is telic, the estar-PPrt denotes a single unaccusative state, encoded in resP (e.g. (234)). If the base verb is a stative causative, the estar-PPrt has a full-fledged transitive verbal structure, comprised of initP and resP (e.g. (235)). Unlike Bosque (2014), I assume that estar-PPrts derived from telic verbs are adjectival, derived by an AdjP projection – remember that for Bosque only perfective adjectives are adjectival. (234) a. La ciudad está destruida. the city isestar destroyed ‘The city is destroyed.’ b. estar ‘be’

AdjP Adj

DP la ciudad





resP res′ XP

res

(235) a. La ciudad está vigilada. the city isestar surveilled ‘The city is surveilled.’ b. estar ‘be’

AdjP Adj

init

initP resP res′

DP la ciudad





res

XP

Let us look at estar-PPrts derived from telic verbs first, and why they do not retain their event and argument structure. I argue that the Adj head imposes the



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 121

restriction that the PPrt it combines with denotes a state. The head Adj can thus be modeled as a partial identity function whose domain is restricted to predicates of states (but see Section 4.6.3.2, where I refine this idea). (236) ⟦Adj⟧ = λP [λs. P(s)]

In addition, I propose that Adj has a selectional feature [u res] that needs to be matched with a resP projection.12 These two traits of Adj ensure that it will neither take a complement that denotes a dynamic event – telic or atelic – nor a state that does not contain resP in its decomposition – i.e. pure initP verbs like own, love, fear. The issue is how a telic verb appears in the syntax in a truncated form, i.e. as a mere resP (e.g. (234b)). Note that, in first-phase syntax, verbs are not specified for a particular Aktionsart in their lexical entry: rather, their lexical entry is specified for the category features that it can lexicalize in the syntax, which is the domain of grammar that ultimately builds meaningful event structure configurations. A verb like destruir ‘destroy’, for instance, has the lexical entry in (237). (237) destruir ‘destroy’ category features: [init, proc, res]

In this system, however, the verbal root does not need to lexicalize all the matching categories of its lexical entry in the syntax. Ramchand (2008), inspired by the Superset Principle (of which I give my own wording in (238)), proposes that category features of verbs may underassociate, i.e. they may not associate with a particular projection in the tree. (238) The Superset Principle (adapted from Starke 2009, Caha 2009) A morphological exponent can lexicalize a syntactic tree if its lexically-stored features are a superset of the features of that syntactic tree.

Going back to my estar-PPrts derived from telic verbs, my proposal is that these roots leave their proc (and init, if they have it) features underassociated.13 The syntactic structure of estar-PPrts cannot include a procP, given that it must be stative. However, since it includes a resP, any verb that has a category feature res in its lexical entry may in principle lexicalize the syntactic head res leaving its other 12.  See Folli & Harley (2016) for the proposal that also makes use of a selectional [ures] feature to derive manner-alternation parameters in Italian and English. 13.  I adopt a less restrictive view of the Underassociation principle than proposed in Ramchand. For Ramchand, underassociated features must be licensed by AGREE with matching syntactic features, i.e. the projections associated to category features of an exponent must be present even if lexicalized by a different exponent. I, on the other hand, assume that underassociated features need not be licensed in the syntax.

122 Stative Inquiries

category features – if any – underassociated. That is the case, I argue, with estarPPrts derived from telic verbs. I represent the structure in (239b). In the absence of a causing eventuality, the state denoted by resP is not a result state, but an aspectually simple state; As such, its associated event participant is not a Resultee, but a Holder, as expressed in (239c). (239) a. La ciudad está destruida. the city isestar destroyed ‘The city is destroyed.’ b. estar ‘be’ Adj [u res]

AdjP resP DP la ciudad

res′ resi

[init, proc, resi]

XP

c. λs[Holder(la ciudad,s) & destruida(s)]

Crucially, then, my structure does not involve a complex event structure for the base verb or resultative semantics for the PPrt. Thus, it stands in stark contrast to accounts that assume an underlying telic configuration for the PPrt (Bosque 2014, Arche et al. 2017 for Spanish, see also Kratzer 2000 for German and Embick 2004 for English) and a resultative semantics for the PPrt/adjectivizer (Bosque 1990 for Spanish, as well as Kratzer 2000, Maienborn 2009 for German). If my proposal is correct, we should expect to find estar-PPrt structures where a prior event is neither entailed nor implied. This turns out to be the case, as shown in the examples in (240). These examples are adapted from Gese (2011: 260), who makes the analogous observation for German. (240) a. b.



El tubo bronquial izquierdo siempre ha estado contraído. the tube bronchial left always has beenestar constricted ‘The left bronchial tube had always been constricted.’ El escultor esculpe formas a partir de bloques de granito que él the sculptor carves forms at from of blocks of granite that he cree que siempre han estado escondidas dentro de ellos. believes that always have beenestar hidden inside of them ‘The sculptor carves shapes out of blocks of granite that he believes have always been hidden inside of them.’

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 123



c.

Los párpados del murciélago común todavía están cerrados the eyelids of.the bat common still areestar closed al nacer. at.the being.born ‘The eye-lid slits of the vesper bat are still closed at birth.’



Let us move to estar-PPrts derived from stative causative verbs. Stative causative verbs have a lexical entry as in (241). Given that estar-PPrts may project both initP and resP, a verb with the category features init and res may lexicalize the corresponding syntactic heads. I provide an example in (242). In the semantic formula in (242c), I assume that the external argument variable is existentially quantified in the absence of a by-phrase. (241) vigilar ‘surveil’ category features: [init, res] (242) a. La ciudad está vigilada. the city isestar vigilada ‘The city is surveilled.’ b. estar ‘be’ Adj [u res]

AdjP initP initi

[initi, res]

resP res′

DP la ciudad

resi

XP

[init, resi] c. λs ∃s1,s2,x [s = (s1 → s2) & vigila(s1) & Initiator(x,s1) & vigila(s2) & Resultee(la ciudad,s2)]

The outcome, then, is a passive PPrt with the auxiliary estar. This full-fledged event structure allows for by-phrases and agent-oriented modification generally. Now, there is also a third possibility for estar-PPrts, namely that change-of-state verbs with init and res category features (e.g.  (237)) lexicalize a passive structure like

124 Stative Inquiries

that in (242b), leaving its proc category feature underassociated.14 I argue that this is a possibility, and it is indeed the underlying structure of the sentences in (243). (243) a. b.

Londres está contaminada {por el plomo/ *por Moriarty}. London isestar contaminated by the lead by Moriarty ‘London is polluted {by lead/ by Moriarty}.’  (From Fábregas 2014) El camino está cortado por los manifestantes. the path isestar cut by the demonstrators ‘The path is cut by the demonstrators.’  (From Navas-Ruiz 1987)

The above examples have been generally explained by resorting to the difference between agents and causers (Fábregas 2014 for (243a)) or the need for the agent to be somehow relevant for the result state (Navas-Ruiz 1987). These examples, I argue, can be uniformly accounted for by assuming that they have an underlying stative causative estar-PPrt configuration. I illustrate it for the Example (243a) in (244). (244) a. estar ‘be’

AdjP

Adj

initP by-P

initP initi

[initi, proc, res]

resP DP Londres

por el plomo res′

resi

XP

[init, proc, resi] b. λs ∃s1,s2 [s = (s1 → s2) & contaminada(s1) & Initiator(por el plomo,s1) & contaminada(s2) & Resultee(Londres,s2)]

In prose, the semantics in (244b) say that there is a stative eventuality of the lead maintaining London in a polluted state. The reason that el plomo ‘the lead’ is a felicitous agent  – in the sense of Folli & Harley (2008)  – for a stative causative structure is that it has properties to keep London in a polluted state. Moriarty, on the other hand, may pour polluting substances on the water or gas emissions 14.  A fourth possibility is that a stative causative verb (i.e. a verb with just init and res category features in its lexical entry) lexicalizes a single resP structure, i.e. an unaccusative estar-PPrt structure like (239b).

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 125



to the air, but he is not in itself the maintaining agent of the polluted state of the town. A similar explanation can be given for the example in (243b). I illustrate this in (245). (245) a. b.

Los manifestantes cortaron el camino con barricadas. the demonstrators cut the path with barricades ‘The demonstrators cut the path with barricades.’ El camino está cortado por barricadas. by barricades the path isestar cut ‘The path is cut by barricades.’

In (245a), it is not the demonstrators themselves who keep the path blocked, but rather, the barricades they set up. The demonstrators are thus not maintaining agents in (245a) and therefore that scenario cannot correspond to (243b). Rather, it corresponds to (245b), since the maintaining agents are the barricades. The point, then, is that typically telic verbs can appear in stative causative configurations if the resulting formal semantic meaning is compatible with world knowledge. In turn, this explains phenomena regarding by-phrases such as those discussed in (243) and (245). 4.4.2 Bare-PPrts This section presents my proposal with bare-PPrts. We saw that PPrts have no Aktionsart restrictions for the base verb and no by-phrase restrictions either, and they moreover show the disjoint reference effect. I argue that bare-PPrts are in fact bare verbal passives without tense or aspect operators. I provide an example in (246). I assume that verbal passives are formed by a specialized head Pass(ive)‍‍P, although it could very well be notated as a passive flavor of Voice, as Harley (2013) does. However, the external argument is semantically introduced below by initP, and the by-phrase adjoins to it saturating the variable. Pass does not introduce an external argument, but merely the disjoint reference effect.15 (246) a. La ciudad destruida por los bárbaros. the city destroyed by the barbarians ‘The city destroyed by the barbarians.’

15.  The disjoint reference effect can be modelled as a presupposition on the Pass head, as in (xxiii), from Spathas et al. (2015).

(xxiii) Presupposition: ∀fes,t.f(x)(e) → f ≠ theme

126 Stative Inquiries DP D La N ciudad

NP PassP initP

Pass

initP init

by-P procP

proc

DP la ciudad

por los bárbaros resP res′ res

XP

b. c. λe ∃s1,e1,s2 [e = (s1 → e1 → s2) & destruida(s1) & Initiator(por los bárbaros,s1) & destruida(e1) & destruida(s2) & Resultee(la ciudad,s2)]

My account of bare-PPrts is similar to that put forth by Harwood (2017) for English reduced relative clauses RRC – bare-PPrts are, indeed, RRCs (see also Rapp 2011 for German). Although we arrive at this conclusion for our respective languages for independent reasons  – his evidence is purely syntactic, while mine draws from the syntax-semantics of grammatical aspect and event structure – I note that his reasoning can for the most part be applied to Spanish bare-PPrts. Harwood adopts a “What You See Is What You Get” approach (Bošković 2014, Harwood 2013, 2015, a.o.), which contends that if an aspectual form is absent from the sentence, then it must also be absent from the underlying syntactic derivation.16 From this approach it follows that there cannot be a hidden have in the structure, contra Bosque (2014) and also against whiz-deletion accounts of RRC (Chomsky 1957, Smith 1961, Ross 1967, 1972), which claim that RRC are simply formed by deleting the wh-pronoun/complementizer and the auxiliary. The whizaccount, note, cannot explain why we cannot have RRCs such as those in (247), where the auxiliary haber ‘have’ is ellided. The first RRC in (247a) is an active perfect and the second one in (247b) is a passive perfect where the copula – either ser for the verbal passive or estar for the adjectival passive – is not elided (the strikethrough text in (247) represents the elided material). 16.  See also Fábregas (2007) for the broader Exhaustive Lexicalization Principle, which contends that every syntactic feature must be lexicalized.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 127



(247) a. * El hombre que ha robado los zapatos. the man that has stolen the shoes (‘The man who has stolen the shoes.’) b. * El perro que ha sido/ estado secuestrado. the dog that has beenser beenestar kidnapped (‘The dog who has been kidnapped.’)

Harwood (2017) argues that RRCs contain the first phase of the derivation – the clause-internal phase, or CIP. He assumes, following previous work (Harwood 2013, 2015, Wurmbrand 2013, 2014, Ramchand & Svenonius 2014, Aelbrecht & Harwood 2015), that the first phase boundary in the clause is either the progressive inflection or voice, as shown in (248a) and (248b), respectively, where ‘//’ is meant to represent a phase boundary.17 18 19 17.  The evidence in favor of the phasal view comes from there-existentials, VP ellipsis and VP fronting. I note that this evidence is not extrapolable to Spanish, since there-existentials have clashing properties in the two languages, and the VP ellipsis and VP fronting examples involve separating the auxiliary have from the participle by either omission or stranding, something that cannot be done in Spanish for independent reasons. I leave aside this issue for future work. 18.  See Akmajian & Wasow (1975), Tenny (1987), Cinque (1999), a.o. for the same hierarchical structure for auxiliaries. 19.  The representations in (248) are a simplification. Harwood in fact adopts a two-layered structure for aspectual projections: a lower one that hosts the inflectional head with uninterpretable features, and a higher vP that introduces the auxiliary verb, which checks those features. His full articulation is provided in (xxiv), from Harwood (2017: 28). TP T

vPperf have

PerfP Perf

vPprog progP

be prog

vP be

VoiceP Voice



(xxiv) 

VP Lex. V

128 Stative Inquiries

(248) a. [TPT [PerfP Perf // [ProgP Prog [VoiceP Voice [VP Lex. V ]]]]] b. [TP T [PerfP Perf // [VoiceP Voice [vp Lex. V ]]]]

Note that, since grammatical aspect projections are absent from bare-PPrts, CP and TP should be absent too – especially if we adopt Harwood’s account that RCCs are only comprised of the CIP. There is empirical reason to believe that CP and TP layers are indeed absent from bare-PPrts. Consider the following data from negation. (249) a. b.

La cocina no ha sido limpiada. the kitchen not has been cleaned ‘The kitchen has not been cleaned.’ La cocina no limpiada. the kitchen not cleaned ‘The uncleaned kitchen.’

The data from (249) suggest that negation is possible with bare-PPrts, just as it is with perfect passives. However, I contend that the negation in (249b) is not an instance of sentential negation. Sánchez López (1999) shows that there are are two types of negation in Spanish: morphological  – also known as constituent negation – and sentential negation. The former takes as its scope a single lexical unit whereas the latter has the clause as its scope. The author argues that sentential negation licenses negative polarity items, whereas constituent negation does not. As we can see in (250), perfects of verbal passives with negation can license negative polarity items such as ningún ‘any’ (e.g. (250a)), whereas bare-PPrts cannot (250b)). Also, Sánchez López (1999) shows that sentential negation allows for corrective phrases, since it has scope over other constituents in the clause. Again, it turns out that bare-PPrts with negation do not allow for corrective phrases (e.g. (251b)), unlike perfects of verbal passives (251b)). (250) a. La cocina no ha sido limpiada por ningún empleado. the kitchen not has been cleaned by any employee ‘The kitchen has not been cleaned by any employee.’ b. * La cocina no limpiada por ningún empleado. the kitchen not cleaned by any employee (‘The kitchen not cleaned by any employee.’) (251) a. La cocina no ha sido limpiada, sino fumigada. the kitchen not has been cleaned but fumigated ‘The kitchen has not been cleaned, but fumigated.’



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 129

b. * La cocina no limpiada, sino fumigada. the kitchen not cleaned but fumigated (‘The kitchen not cleaned, but fumigated.’)

Following the standard assumption, starting with Laka (1990), that sentential negation in Spanish is hosted by a projection below CP and TP (e.g. (252)), it follows that at least TP should be absent too, otherwise we could not explain why Neg cannot select it. (252) [cp C [NegP Neg [tp T … ]]]

It is also dubious that there is a CP projection – or a left periphery, in Rizzi’s (1997) terms. First, we cannot have an overt complementizer (e.g. (253a)). Of course, we could assume that the complementizer is simply elided, just as Bosque (2014) assumes for the perfect have in these constructions. But note that if we did have a CP domain, we should be able to find typical left periphery elements such as focalized material. However, this is not possible, as (253b) shows (the focalized phrase is represented in capital letters). (253) a. La cocina (*que) limpiada. the kitchen *that cleaned (‘The kitchen (that) cleaned.’) b. * La cocina EN CINCO SEGUNDOS limpiada. the kitchen in five seconds cleaned (‘The kitchen IN FIVE SECONDS cleaned.’)

In short, bare-PPrts are formed by a verbal passive projection with no other aspectual or temporal operators, and without a CP layer. The structure is then as in (246), repeated below for convenience. (246) a. La ciudad destruida por los bárbaros. the city destroyed by the barbarians ‘The city destroyed by the barbarians.’

130 Stative Inquiries

b.

DP D La N ciudad

NP PassP initP

Pass

initP init

by-P procP

proc

DP la ciudad

por los bárbaros resP res′ res

XP

c. λe ∃s1,e1,s2 [e = (s1 → e1 → s2) & destruida(s1) & Initiator(por los bárbaros,s1) & destruida(e1) & destruida(s2) & Resultee(la ciudad,s2)]

4.4.3 Perfective adjectives In Section 4.2 (see Table 4.2), I presented an overview of participles that have a cut-short form and a regular form (e.g. seco ‘dry’, secado ‘dried’). I propose that these share an adjectival base: these are, in their verbal form, deadjectival verbs. Their lexical entry then looks like (254). (254) secar ‘dry’ category features: [init, proc, res, A]

The cut-short participial form arises when only the AP projects, as in (255b).20 (255) a. La toalla está seca. the towel isestar dry ‘The towel is dry.’

20.  In this structure I abstract away from the extended projection of the adjective (Corver 1997, Kennedy 1997, Fults 2006, a.o.). Furthermore, I do not discard the possibility that the subject of predication is not introduced within AP but via a separate projection Pred(ication)‍‍P, as Baker (2003)) proposes for non-verbal predications.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 131



b. estar DP la toalla





AP A′ A

[init, proc, res, Ai]

XP

It is generally believed that when participles have two forms – a ‘cut short’ form and a full-fledged -en form – the -en form cannot appear in predicative position because of a blocking effect (Belletti & Rizzi 1988). However, this is not completely accurate. Although the cut-short form is indeed more common with estar-PPrts, the regular participial form is also possible. Fábregas & Marín (2015b) make this point with the following examples of estar-PPrts with participles that otherwise have cut-short forms (e.g.  (256)). Similar data is found for Sicilian in Bentley (2017), who – although not explicitly making that point – presents the examples in (257). On my part, I have found several instances of estar-PPrts with -en participles, see (258) for secado ‘dried’ alone.21 (256) a. Y mucho más cuando esa política, repito, está vaciada de and much more when that policy repeat-1sg is emptied of ideología. ideology b. estos vacíos estan llenados por las moléculas these gaps are filled by the molecules c. si usted no está contentada con el servicio que le han ofrecido if you not are contented with the service that you have-3pl offered puede inte[rp]‍‍oner una reclamación can-1sg present a complaint If you are not pleased with the service they offered you, you can present a complaint’ d. es un inculto que no sabe escribir y está molestado   is an uncultivated that not knows writeINF and he is annoyed (257) a. Stu quatru jè(ni) appinnutu ch’ i chiova. this picture.msg is hang.ptcp.msg with the nails ‘This picture is hung with nails. 21.  Although most of the examples I retrieved online were from texts from the 19th century, which suggests that estar-PPrts with these participles were more common in earlier stages of the language. I leave aside this diachronic issue for future research.

132 Stative Inquiries

b. U quatru jè(ni) appisu. this picture.msg is hang.ptcp.msg ‘This picture is hung/hanging.’ (258) a. …Los árboles […] están secados por las nevazones. the trees   areestar dried by the snows ‘The trees are dried by the snows.’   (Ensayo sobre la geografía militar de Chile, Volumen 2,F. Vidal Gormaz, 1886: 221) calor. b. El tapioka está secado al the tapioka isestar dried at.the heat ‘The tapioka is dried in the heat.’   (Higiene alimenticia de los enfermos, de los convalecientes y de los valetudinarios, J. B. Conssagrives, 1865: 147) c. No me trataré con aquel que está secado por la envidia. not me treat with that.one that isestar dried by the envy ‘I will not associate myself with he who is dried by envy.’   (La cruz, revista religiosa de España y demás países católicos, León Carbonero y Sol, 1879: 38)

Then, I simply propose that these estar-PPrts are deadjectival verbs verbalized by res with participial morphology attached  – i.e. just like my proposal in Section 4.4.1 for estar-PPrts that do not have a cut-short form. I exemplify it in (259) below. Thus, cut-short participles and -en participles do in fact lexicalize different structures, and hence the former do not morphologically block the latter, as Fábregas & Marín (2015b) observe.22 The reason why -en PPrts are not often seen with estar if they have a cut-short counterpart is because they both denote a state, and the cut-short counterpart is morphosyntactically a simpler structure. (259) a. La toalla está secada. the towel isestar dried ‘The towel is dried.’

22.  Fábregas & Marín’s (2015b) proposal, although within the same theoretical framework, is different from mine. They propose that cut-short participles are instances of resP > AP configurations, whereas the -en counterpart contains a procP in the structure. I have already argued why there should not be a procP. Also, I am not sure how a perfective adjective can be derived via a resP projection, given that res is a verbal head.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 133



b. estar

AdjP resP

Adj −da

res′

DP resi

[init, proc, resi, A]

la toalla



AP

Ai

[init, proc, res, Ai]



XP

Finally, what about irregular participles, i.e. those that have a ‘cut-short’ form across the board for passives and perfects? I assume that these forms have a listed entry as in (260), which includes an adjectival feature that precedes the verbal features. As such, these exponents can lexicalize the whole participle. The lexical entry of this exponents also include init and proc, since it also lexicalizes verbal passives and perfects.23 (260) roto ‘broken’ category features: [A, init, proc, res] (261) a. El vaso está roto. the glass isestar broken ‘The glass is broken.’ b. estar

AP resP

A

[A, init, proc, res] DP

res′ resi

[A, init, proc, res]

el vaso





XP

23.  But, of course, the complication arises that in verbal passives and perfects the participle is not adjectival, and a unified analysis would be desirable. See Larsson & Svenonius (2013), for a unified analysis of the -en participial suffix via a generalized Prt head that is also present in E-PPrts and perfects.

134 Stative Inquiries

4.5

By-phrases and agent/event-oriented modifiers in APass. Beyond Spanish

The effects observed in Spanish estar-PPrts regarding by-phrases are not exclusive to Spanish. In the literature of other languages it has been frequently pointed out by-phrases and other modifiers oriented to the external argument are also generally ungrammatical. I provide examples for German, Hebrew and English in (262), (263) and (264), respectively. I will refer to the counterparts of estar-PPrts in these other languages as adjectival passives (henceforth APass), and ser-PPrts as verbal passives (henceforth VPass). (262) a. Der Mülleimer ist {*von meiner Nichte/ *langsam/ *genüsslich/ the rubbish.bin is by my niece slow(ly) pleasurabl(e/‍y) *mit der Heugabel} geleert. with the pitchfork emptied (‘The rubbish bin is emptied by my niece/ slowly/ pleasurably/ with the pitchfork.’)  (From Rapp 1996: 246) b. * Die Tür war von den Polizisten geöffnet. the door was by the policemen opened ‘The door was opened by the policemen.’   (From Anagnostopoulou 2003: 18, via Winfried Lechner, p.c.)



(263) a. ha-mexonit rexuca (*al-yedey maks / *be-tsumet lev / *be-cinor). the-car washed by Max   in-attention     in-hose (The car is washed by Max / carefully / with a hose.’)   (From Meltzer-Asscher 2011: 819) b. Even ha-pina tihiye munaxat ba-makom (*al-yedey 5 po’alim). stone the-corner be.fut laid in+the-place (by 5 workmen) ‘The corner stone will be laid in the place.’   (From Horvath & Siloni 2008: 107) (264) The door seemed {broken/ opened/ painted} (*by Mary).   (From McIntyre 2013: 31)

Interestingly, the same effects regarding telicity that I have discussed for Spanish can be found in these languages (see also García-Pardo 2017). As the examples in (265)–(267) show, adjectival passives derived from stative causative verbs also allow by-phrases in these languages. The explanation typically found in the literature is roughly that by-phrases are acceptable if the agent participates in the state, or is understood as maintaining the state expressed by the participle (Rapp 1996 for German, Meltzer-Asscher 2011 for Hebrew, McIntyre 2013 for English and Bull 1965, Hengeveld 1986, Navas-Ruiz 1987 for Spanish). As I hope is now

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 135



clear from my discussion, this effect regarding the participation of the agent in the state follows from the aspectual structure of the participle: in the stative causative predicate, the agent’s participation holds throughout the state. (265) a. b.

Das Land ist gut regiert. the country is well governed ‘The country is well-governed.’ Die Arbeiter sind durch den Vorarbeiter überwacht. the workers are by the foreman supervised ‘The workers are supervised by the foreman.’  (Thomas Borer, p.c.)

(266) a. ha-ictadion šamur al-yedey šotrim xamušim. the-stadium guarded by policemen armed ‘The stadium is guarded by armed policemen.’   (From Meltzer-Asscher 2011: 826) b. Ha-bayit yihiye šamur al-yedey šloša šomrim. the-house be-fut guarded by three guards ‘The house will be guarded by three guards.’   (From Horvath & Siloni 2008: 107) (267) a. The road remained {blocked by police/supported by pylons}. b. The dictator remained {unsupported/propped up/underestimated} by the warlords.  (From McIntyre 2013: 31)

There are, however, instances of adjectival passives derived from telic verbs that nonetheless accept by-phrases, as well as agent-oriented and event-oriented modifiers, something that is not predicted by my proposal as it is. This phenomenon has been observed in the literature of Spanish as well as in other languages. In what follows I will review critically the current proposals regarding these facts so as to take stock on the matter. 4.5.1 State-relevance The state-relevance approach to the availability of by-phrases in adjectival passives maintains that by-phrases are possible if the agent they introduce is somehow detectable in the result state (Hengeveld 1986). In this view, the by-phrase in (268a) is licit because the ambassador is detectable in the final state of the letter thanks to his signature. Similarly, (268b) is fine because the editorial that published the book can be detected in the final state (e.g. by looking at the cover or the front matter of the book). A similar point can be made of instrumentals (e.g. (268c)) and manner adverbials (e.g. (268d)).

136 Stative Inquiries

(268) a. b. c. d.

El documento está firmado por el embajador. the document isestar signed by the ambassador ‘The document is signed by the ambassador.’  (From Hengeveld 1986) El libro está editado por Susaeta. the book isestar edited by Susaeta ‘The book is edited by Susaeta.’ Estos trozos de madera están unidos con tornillos. these pieces of wood areestar united with screws ‘These pieces of wood are held together with screws.’ La película está rodada con mucho gusto. the movie isestar shot with much taste ‘The movie is made with a lot of taste.’

This observation has been also made for other languages, notably for German (Rapp 1996, 1997), Hebrew (Meltzer 2005, Meltzer-Asscher 2011, Horvath & Siloni 2008) and English (McIntyre 2015). I show the relevant examples in (269) for German, (270) for Hebrew and (271) for English. (269) a. b. c.

Die Zeichnung ist von einem Kind angefertigt. the drawing is by a child produced ‘The drawing is produced by a child.’  (From Rapp 1997: 192) Die Haare waren schlampig gekámmt/ geschnitten. the hairs were sloppily combed cut  (From Kratzer 2000: 392,394) Der Brief war mit einem Bleistift geschrieben. the letter was with a pencil written ‘The letter was written with a pencil.’  (Adapted from Rapp 1996: 254)

(270) a. b. c. d.

ha-sefer arux al-yedey orex mecuyan. the-book edited by editor excellent ‘The book is edited by an excellent editor.’ ha-xulca ha-zot tfura be-xoser mikco’iyut. the-shirt the-this sewn in-lack professionalism ‘This shirt is sewn unprofessionally.’ ha-mixtav katuv be-et. the-letter written in-pen ‘The letter is written with a pen.’ ha-kelev kasur be-recu’ the-dog tied in-leash ‘The dog is tied with a leash.’  (From Meltzer-Asscher 2011: 823)

(271) a. The dog is tiedadj up with a rope (*by a policeman). b. The car is all sprayedadj with paint (*yesterday).

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 137



c. Some words are underlinedadj with a {highlighter/ blue pen/ *short pen}. d. This text is writtenadj by a {moron/ non-native speaker/ *tall person}.  (From McIntyre 2015: 942)

This proposal finds its most recent formulation in McIntyre (2015), who states it as follows: (272) State Relevance Hypothesis: Event-related satellites are unacceptable in (German, English, Hebrew) adjectival passives unless they contribute to the description of the state expressed by the participle or of the theme during the interval i during which this state holds. They are most acceptable if they provide information which can be inferred solely by inspection of the theme during interval i.  (From McIntyre 2015: 941)

4.5.2 Problems with the state-relevance approach It is not clear how a speaker could determine the degree of detectability of the agent from the result state for the by-phrase to be licit. Moreover, the general staterelevance proposal is riddled for counterexamples, as García-Pardo (2017) notes for Spanish. The sentences in (273) should be acceptable under this account, and yet they are not: by looking at the curtain in (273a), you could easily infer by the type of scratch marks that it was the cat who scratched it, or that it was scratched with a saw knife. Similarly, we could detect the stomping activity of the kids in (273b) by seeing the type of footprints on the sand. In (273c), it could be detectable by the kind of marks on the trunk that it was a bear who opened it. Again, all the sentences are very degraded with by-phrases, which diminishes the staterelevance proposal. (273) a. b. c.

La cortina está arañada (??por el gato). the curtain isestar scratched by the cat (‘The curtain is scratched by the cat.’) La arena está pisoteada (??por unos niños). the terrain isestar stomped by some kids indended: ‘The terrain is stomped on by some kids.’ El maletero del coche está abierto (por un oso). the trunk of.the car isestar opened by a bear (‘The trunk of the car is opened by a bear.’)   (From García-Pardo 2017: 24)

This proposal, note well, also fails to explain the availability of by-phrases with many participles derived from stative causatives. In all the examples below, the agent introduced by the by-phrase is not detectable from the state denoted by the

138 Stative Inquiries

participle, as the extra context clearly shows, and yet all the sentences are perfectly grammatical – which is something expected from my proposal in Section 4.4.1. (274) a. El jardín está vigilado por cuatro cámaras de seguridad que no the garden isestar surveiled by four cameras of security that not se ven. se see ‘The garden is surveilled by four security cameras that are out of sight.’ b. El museo está protegido por un sistema de rayos infrarrojos the museum isestar protected by a system of rays infrared invisible. invisible ‘The museum is protected by an invisible infrared rays system.’ c. El país está gobernado por una coalición de izquierdas que no the country isestar governed by a coalition of lefts that not ha cambiado nada. has changed nothing ‘The country is governed by a left-wing coalition that has not changed anything.’



The same problems arise with event-related modifiers and instrumental-PPs. The sentences in (275) do not accept event-related modification, even though it can be easily perceivable (especially for a geologist) that a rock has eroded progressively, or that an onion has been fried slowly, since such onions are quite different from those fried quickly in high heat. The same thing happens with PP-instruments in (276): even though one can tell by the shape of mark on the wall that it was done with a lighter, (276a) is out, and despite we can clearly see that the document was destroyed with a shredder (it is cut into countless long rectangles), (276b) is degraded. Again, no such problems arise with estar-passives derived from StC verbs (e.g. (277)). (275) a. b.

Esta roca está erosionada (paulatinamente). this rock isestar eroded progressively (‘This rock is eroded progressively.’) Esta cebolla está pochada ??(muy lentamente). this onion isestar pan-fried ??(very slowly (‘This onion is pan-fried very slowly.’)

(276) a. b.

La pared está quemada ??(con un mechero). ??(with a lighter this wall isestar burnt (‘The wall is burnt with a lighter.’) El documento está destruido ??(con un triturador) the document isestar destroyed ??(with a shredder (‘The document is destroyed with a shredder.’)

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 139



(277) a. b.



El museo está celosamente vigilado, aunque no lo parezca. the museum isestar zealously surveilled although not it seems ‘The museum is zealously surveilled, although it does not look like it.’ La calidad del agua está controlada con tecnología muy the quality of.the water isestar controlled with technology very sofisticada. sophisticated ‘The water quality is controlled with very sophisticated technology.’

Within estar-passives derived from telic verbs, we can find a – very limited, due to the restrictions on participial modification, see Section 4.5.5 for more discussion – number of them that allow manner adverbials (e.g. (278a)) and PP-instruments (e.g. (278b)) with a context that negates the perceptibility of the manner or the instrument in the result state. (278) a. Este vestido está confeccionado manualmente, aunque no se the dress isestar made manually although not refl aprecie. perceive ‘This dress is made manually, although you cannot tell.’ b. Estos héroes están dibujados a lápiz, aunque no se note. these heroes areestar drawn at pencil although not refl notice ‘These heroes are pencil-drawn, although you cannot tell.’

4.5.3 Event-kinds and pseudo-incorporation In a series of papers, Gehrke (2011, 2012, 2013, 2015) puts forth the proposal that adjectival passives in German denote the instantiation of the consequent state kind of an event kinds (inspired by the proposal in Carlson 1977 for the nominal domain). I provide an example in (279), where the subscript k signals a kind entity and where R is Carlson’s (1977) realisation relation – meaning that the state s is an instantiation of the state kind sk. (279) a. Die Tür ist geschlossen. the door is closed b. ∃ek,sk,s [become(ek,sk) ∧ theme(ek,door) ∧ closed(s) ∧ theme(s,door) ∧ R(s,sk)] (From Gehrke 2012: 192)

Gehrke focuses not only in by-phrases, but also in event-related modifiers more generally – i.e. modifiers that pertain to the causing or process part of the telic event, e.g. instrumentals, manner adverbials and so on. The author notes that in German, event-related modifiers in APass such as instrumentals and by-phrases

140 Stative Inquiries

tend to be discourse-opaque. For instance, the indefinites in (280a) and (280b) cannot have a specific reading, as shown by the ungrammaticality of referring to them as concrete entities in the discourse. (280) a. Die Karte ist mit [einem Bleistift]‍‍1 geschrieben. *Er1 ist blau. the card is with a pencil written he is blue  (German, from Gehrke 2015: 904) b. Die Zeichnung ist von [einem Kind]‍‍1 angefertigt. *Es1 hat rote Haare. the drawing is by a child produced it has red hairs  (German, from Gehrke 2015: 904)

In addition, these non-specific indefinites also need to be contextually well-established within the community of speakers. For instance, the examples in (281) are out because there is no well-established 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 (280). (281) a. * Der Mülleimer ist von einer Nichte geleert. the rubbish-bin is by a niece emptied (‘The rubbish bin is emptied by a niece.’) b. * Die Tür ist von einem Mann geõffnet. the door is by a man opened (‘The door is opened by a man.’)  (German, from Gehrke 2015: 923)

Gehrke further points out that specific definites and proper names may actually be possible in by-phrases, but again, they are subject to the well-established eventkind constraint: the proper name needs to refer to someone noteworthy among the community of speakers, e.g. the event of Chomsky citing a manuscript vs. Sandberger citing it in (282). (282) Das Manuskript ist von {Chomsky/ ?Sandberger} zitiert. the manuscript is by Chomsky Sandberger cited The manuscript is cited by {Chomsky/ (Sandberg)}.’   (German, from Maienborn 2009 via Gehrke 2015: 914)

The author also notes that by-phrases in APass derived from stative verbs do not show restrictions with respect to specificity or well-establishedness (e.g.  (283)). She points out that by-phrases with APass derived from telic and stative verbs have other fundamentally different properties: the former integrate prosodically with the participle and the latter do not (see also Schlücker 2005), and the former are impossible if the participle undergoes un-prefixation whereas the latter survive un-prefixation (see also Rapp 1996).

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 141



(283) a. b.

Das Haus ist von Studenten bewohnt. the house is by students in-lived Er ist von der Musik beeindruckt. he is by the music impressed 

(From Gehrke 2012: 190)

Gehrke (2012) then proposes the following structures for APass. First, the author assumes, following the traditional view (Wasow 1977, Bresnan 1982, Levin & Rappaport 1986), that APass may be derived by lexical adjectiviza-tion as in (284), where the adjectivizer Aaff is a zero suffix (Lieber 1980, Kratzer 2000). This structure would correspond, broadly, to Bosque’s (1999) Adj-PPrts, or Embick’s (2004) stative passives. (284) Lexical adjectivisation AP V geschlossen

Aaff Ø

For APass derived from telic verbs with event-related modifiers, Gehrke proposes that they undergo phrasal adjectivization (e.g. (285), see also Kratzer 2000). Gehrke proposes that a bare VP denotes an event-kind, at it is only if it is embedded under further structure (vP/VoiceP in Gehrke 2012 and tense and aspect in Gehrke 2015) that an event gets instantiated. In the case of APass, adjectivization prevents the event from being instantiated and hence it remains in the kind domain. Event-related modifiers will only be possible if they create a subkind out of the event kind denoted by the lexical verb (e.g. in (282), the subkind of Chomsky-citing event out of the event kind of citing). In more recent work, Gehrke (2015) further proposes that these event-oriented modifiers undergo pseudo-incorporation right before adjectivization, from which the well-establishedness restriction on modifiers would follow.24 (285) Phrasal adjectivisation: event-kind modifiers AP VP PP von Chomsky

Aaff Ø V zitiert

24.  For seminal work on noun incorporation and pseudo-incorporation, see Mithun (1984), Baker (1988), Massam (2001). For pseudoincorporation in Spanish and Catalan, see Espinal (2010), Espinal & McNally (2011).

142 Stative Inquiries

Finally, for state-oriented modifiers, Gehrke (2012) proposes a lexical adjectivization account, in which the modifier applies to the already built participle, in the lines of Rapp (1996) (e.g. (286)). (286) State modifiers: modifiers of AP AP PP von der Musik



V t1

A′ Aaff (un)beeindruckt1-Ø

Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco (2014) extend this proposal to Spanish in a corpus study. They argue that, just like German, the nominals introduced by by-phrases can only have narrow scope when they are indefinites (e.g. (287a)), cannot introduce discourse referents (e.g. (287b)), do not accept intersective modifiers (e.g. (287c)) or strong determiners (e.g. (287d)). (287) a. Todos los cuadros estaban pintados por un niño. all the pictures wereestar painted by a child ✓ Narrow scope reading of the indefinite: ‘All the paintings were painted by a child.’ (>1 child possible) ✗ W  ide scope reading of the indefinite: ‘There was a particular child that painted all the painting.’ b. El cuadro estaba pintado por [un niño]‍‍1. *pro1 Era pelirrojo. the picture was.estar painted by a child   was red-haired (‘The picture was painted by a child. He had red hair.’) c. * El cuadro estaba pintado por un niño pelirrojo. the picture was.estar painted by a child   (The drawing was painted by a red-haired child.’) d. * El cuadro estaba pintado por este niño. the picture was.estar painted by this child (The drawing was painted by this child.’)   (Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco 2014: 194–5)

The authors observe in their study that there is indeed a quantitative difference in by-phrases between adjectival and verbal passives – or estar and ser-passives, being found in much larger numbers in the latter construction. Also, event-related by-phrases introduce a much larger number of weak indefinites and bare nominals in estar-passives than in ser-passives, as expected under the event-kinds approach (see (287)). With participles derived from stative verbs, they observe no qualitative difference between the by-phrases of ser-passives and estar-passives (e.g. (288) for estar-passives).

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 143



(288) a. b.



Rufina estaba aterrada por esta situación. Rufina was.estar terrified by this situation ‘Rufina was terrified by this situation.’ … una casa vecina al Campo de Marte, cuyo quinto piso estaba a house close to the Camp of Mars whose fifth floor was.estar ocupado por su esposa y sus hijos inhabited by his wife and his sons ‘…a house close to the Camp of Mars, the fifth floor of which was inhabited by his wife and his sons’ (Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco 2014: 198)

Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco (2014) further note that by-phrases with estar-passives tend to introduce organizations or collective entities (e.g. (289a), see also Schlücker 2005 for German) and may introduce proper names if the referent is somehow noteworthy or famous enough within the speaker community (e.g. (289b), cf. (282)), which reinforces the view that estar-passives contain event kinds, and not event tokens. (289) a. b.



[…] el costo está amparado por el Ministerio.   the cost is.estar enshrined by the Ministry ‘The cost is covered by the Ministry.’ La labor de todos los equipos está supervisada por el doctor the work of all the teams is.ESTAR supervised by the doctor Francisco Arquillo Torres. Francisco Arquillo Torres ‘The work of all teams is supervised by doctor Francisco Arquillo Torres.’  (Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco 2014: 198)

4.5.4 Problems with the event-kinds approach While I agree with Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco (2014) that there is a tendency for event-related modifiers (i.e. with estar-passives derived from telic verbs) to be non-specific or generic, there are many counterexamples to the contrary. For example, one can find specific indefinites introduced by by-phrases, unlike what their hypothesis predicts. Note that none of the agents introduced in (290) can be said to be well-established or noteworthy in the community of speakers – in fact, they are just being introduced in the discourse. (290) a. Todos los justificantes estaban firmados por un niño que sabía all the sicknotes wereestar signed by a kid that knew falsificar la firma de todos los padres. forge the signature of all the parents ‘All the sicknotes were signed by a kid that knew how to forge all of the parents’ signatures.’



144 Stative Inquiries

b. Este puente está diseñado por un arquitecto amigo mío. this bridge isestar designed by an architect friend mine ‘This bridge is designed by an architect who is a friend of mine.’

Also, there are instances of constructions that do not contain an instantiated event, and yet they accept referential modifiers. This is shown by McIntyre (2015) for English (e.g. (291)), and his examples can be easily carried over to Spanish (e.g. (292)). (291) a. This chairi folds flat easily. I’ll let you fold iti for the first time. b. I just made a hook for opening that high windowi. I will now open iti for the first time.  (From McIntyre 2015: 946) dejaré que lai (292) a. Esta sillai se dobla fácilmente. Te you.dat allow-fut.1sg that it.acc this chair refl folds easily dobles por primera vez. fold-sbjv.2sg for first time ‘This chairi folds flat easily. I’ll let you fold iti for the first time.’ b. Acabo de hacer un garfio para abrir esa ventanai alta. Ahora Finishimp-1sg of make a hook for open that window high now lai abriré por primera vez. it.acc open-fut.1sg for first time ‘I just made a hook for opening that high windowi. I will now open iti for the first time.’

Furthermore, there are many instances of by-phrases in estar-passives with proper nouns that should in principle be modifying an event kind – the referent of the proper noun being noteworthy among the speaker community – and yet they are ungrammatical. For instance, (293a) is at least very degraded, even though Trump tweeting is a well-established event kind in the global community. The same goes for (293b), where the Jesus Christ healing sick people is a kind of event, and Jesus Christ noteworthy among the community of speakers (say, the Christians of that era, according to the New Testament). Note that referential locations are also degraded even if they refer to an event kind, such as the executing of prisoners in Sing-Sing in (293c). (293) a. ?? Este mensaje está tuiteado por Trump. this message isestar tweeted by Trump (‘This message is tweeted by Trump.’) b. ?? Este enfermo está sanado por Jesucristo. this sick.person.M isestar healed by Jesus.Christ (‘This sick man is healed by Jesus Christ.’) c. ?? Este prisionero está ejecutado en Sing-Sing. this prisoner isestar executed in Sing-Sing (‘This prisoner is executed in Sing-Sing.’)



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 145

McIntyre (2015) discusses another set of participle+modifier combinations that do not denote an well-established event, yet they are grammatical (in his examples from (294), the modifier combination for a well-estabished event is in brackets at the end, which would also be grammatical if substituted for the modifiers within the examples that are not well-established). While his examples do carry over to Spanish, I believe this is not really a problem for Gehrke, but rather that these modifiers apply to the result state. Note, for instance, that (295a) does not accept the modifier con guantes ‘with gloves’ if it is interpreted as an event-oriented instrumental, i.e. something the agent used to tie the dog. The other modifiers do not cause a problem because they are state-oriented modifiers, i.e. the dog ends up with those objects around him. Similarly, in (295b), it is very degraded to say the letter was written with the keyboard, since it is not a material that goes on the letter, unlike the Chinese ink or the chain lube for that matter. (294) a. b. c.

Der Briefkasten ist mit Armbanduhren vollgestopft. [mit Briefen] The letterbox is stuffed full with wristwatches. [with letters] Ihr Name ist mit Kettenfließfett geschrieben. [mit roter Tinte] Her name is written with chain lubricant. [with red ink] Der Hund ist mit einer Krawatte festgebunden. [mit einer Leine] The dog is tied up with a necktie. [with a leash]   (From McIntyre 2015: 948)

(295) a. b.

El perro está atado {con correa/ con una corbata/ *con guantes} with gloves the dog isestar tied with leash with a tie : ‘The dog is tied {with a leash/ with a tie/ *with gloves}.’ Esta carta está escrita {con tinta china/ con lubricante para this letter isestar written with ink Chinese with lubricant for engranajes/ ??con el teclado de mi ordenador}. with the keyboard of my computer gears ‘This letter is written {with Chinese ink/ with gear lubricant/ ??with my computer’s keyboard}.’



Note, as a final point, that the syntactic structures in Gehrke (2012) assume, following Kratzer (2000), that lexical adjectivization correlates with stative predicates whereas phrasal adjectivization corresponds to eventive predicates. It is not clear what it explains or what it follows from, other than the unwarranted assumption that somehow verbal heads can be stative but not eventive. In any case, the lexical vs. phrasal adjectivization divide disappears in a syntactic approach to APass formation such as the one we adopt here: all adjectival participles are phrasal in the syntactic sense.

146 Stative Inquiries

4.5.5 Where are we? As we have seen, neither the state-relevance nor the event-kinds approach fully explain the availability of by-phrases and agent/event-oriented modification. What then, allows for this modification? Are we wrong in assuming there is no implicit agent in adjectival passives? I answer the last question in the negative. First, accepting that adjectival passives contain an implicit external argument, or even causative semantics oriented to the external argument, immediately takes us back to the question of why by-phrases and other modifiers are so restricted. If it is the implicit causative semantics/ external argument that is responsible for licensing these modifiers, then we must assume that they can be sometimes missing and sometimes absent, abstracting now from the particular theoretical implementation. It is not so clear, however, that it is implicit causative semantics, or a passive voice structure, that licenses by-phrases with adjectival passives derived from telic verbs. Conti-Jiménez (2004) notes that by-phrases in estar-passives cannot co-occur with agent-oriented adverbs and purpose clauses (e.g. (296), from ContiJiménez 2004: 40). (296) a. b.



El documento está firmado (*/?voluntariamente) por Cervantes. the document isestar signed voluntarily by Cervantes (‘The document is voluntarily signed by Cervantes.’) Este cuadro está pintado por Velázquez (*/?para solicitar la gracia this painting isestar painted by Velázquez to request the grace del rey). of.the King (‘The painting is painted by Velázquez to request the King’s grace.’)

These restrictions noted by Conti-Jiménez (2004) for the estar-passive disappear in the ser-passive, as I show in (297). Crucially, these modifiers are allowed with participles derived from StC verbs both in verbal and adjectival passives (e.g. (298)). It appears, then, that by-phrases in estar-passives derived from telic verbs are not related to causative semantics or passive morphology in the same way as those derived from StC verbs. (297) a. b.



El documento fue firmado voluntariamente por Cervantes. the document wasser signed voluntarily by Cervantes ‘The document is voluntarily signed by Cervantes.’ Este cuadro fue pintado por Velázquez para solicitar la gracia this painting wasser painted by Velázquez to request the grace del rey. of.the King ‘The painting was painted by Velázquez to request the King’s grace.’  (Conti-Jiménez 2004: 291–92)



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 147

(298) a. La torre {está/ fue} custodiada por diez soldados para evitar que se the tower isestar wasser guarded by ten soldiers to avoid that se escape el prisionero. escapes the prisoner ‘The tower is/ was} guarded by ten soldiers so that the prisoner does not escape.’ {está/ fue} gobernado por una dictadura militar para b. El país the country isestar wasser governed by a dictatorship military to preservar los privilegios de la oligarquía. preserve the privileges of the oligarchy ‘The country {is/ was} governed by a military dictatorship to preserve the privileges of the oligarchy.’ c. La obra {está/ fue} dirigida voluntariamente por el propio the play isestar wasser directed voluntarily by the own dramaturgo. playwright ‘The play {is/ was} voluntarily directed by the playwright himself.’



This situation is congruent with my proposal, which denies the existence of passive voice, or even an implicit external argument in the structure of estar-PPrts. Moreover, I believe it is also consistent with my view that there is no dynamic event in the semantics of the estar-PPrt. If there was passive voice/ external argument structure, it would be the only instance of an eventive agentive predicate that suppresses the dynamic portion of the event but maintains the external argument. Deverbal passive-eventive nominalizations (Grimshaw 1990, Picallo 1991, a.m.o.) are a case in point: it is not the case that they suppress the process event when they appear with a by-phrase (e.g. (299)), as evidence by the possibility of eventive modifiers such as inmediato ‘immediate’ (e.g.  (299a)) and durative phrases that modify the event (e.g. (299b)). (299) a. El inmediato cierre de la unidad de residuos tóxicos por (parte de) the immediate closing of the unit of residues toxic by part of los agentes de seguridad. the agents of security ‘The immediate closing of the toxic residue unit by the security agents.’ b. La persecución de los infieles durante años por (parte de) la the persecution of the infidels during years by part of the Inquisición. Inquisition ‘The persecution of the infidels for years by the Inquisition.’

148 Stative Inquiries

Still the question remains of what licenses by-phrases in the instances where they are indeed possible. Conti-Jiménez (2004) presents examples similar to those discussed by Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco (2014) (although they do not quote her directly) and notes that the by-phrase needs to be highly informative: the DP needs to be an indefinite or a definite entity that is relevant within our world knowledge (e.g. (300)), or a contrastive complement (e.g. (301a)). I further note that a definite entity modified by a relative clause is also good in this kind of examples (e.g. (301a)). This provides support to Conti-Jiménez’s view, since the relative clause is highly informative in that it singles out the entity introduced in the discourse. (300) a. Este cuadro está pintado por Velázquez/ por un niño/ por un the painting isestar painted by Velázquez by a kid by an inexperto/ ?por Luis. inexpert by Luis ‘The painting is painted {by Velázquez/ by a kid/ by an inexpert/ ?by Luis}.’ b. El documento está firmado por Cervantes/ por un desconocido/ ?por the document isestar signed by Cervantes by an unknown by mi amigo. my friend ‘The document is signed {by Cervantes/ by an unknown person/ by my friend}.’  (Conti-Jiménez 2004: 39)



(301) a. El documento está firmado por mi amigo, y no por el tuyo. the document isestar signed by my friend and not by the yours ‘The document is signed by my friend, and not by yours.’   (Conti-Jiménez 2004: 40) b. El documento está firmado por el vecino ?(que vino a verme the document isestar signed by the neighbor who came to see.me el otro día). the other day ‘The document is signed by the neighbor who came to see me the other day.’  (Conti-Jiménez 2004: 39)

Still, this does not work for many other participial predicates, as (302) shows, where all types of by-phrases are ungrammatical across the board. It seems as if the participles derived from certain semantic classes of verbs – call them ‘creation’ and ‘performance’ verbs, broadly speaking: firmar ‘sign’, pintar ‘paint’, escribir ‘write’, interpretar ‘perform’ and so on  – lend themselves better to certain kinds of byphrases than others, which do not accept it. Perhaps these by-phrases could be analyzed as an authorship ‘by’ of sorts.



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 149

(302) a. ?? Este teléfono está {montado/ reparado} por {HTC/ un trabajador muy this phone isestar assembled repaired by HTC a worker very torpe/ Felisa/ el amigo del que te hablé/ mi amigo, y no clumsy Felisa the friend of.the that you.dat talked my friend and not por el tuyo}. by the yours (‘This phone is {assembled/ repaired} by {HTC/ a very clumsy worker/ Felisa/ the friend I told you about/ my friend, not by yours}.’) b. El rey está {guillotinado/ exiliado} por {el pueblo/ un verdugo banished by the people an executioner the king isestar executed cruel/ Felisa/ el amigo del que te hablé/ mi amigo, y no cruel Felisa the friend of.the that you.dat talked my friend and not por el tuyo}. by the yours (‘The king is {executed/ banished} by {the people/ a cruel executioner/ Felisa/ the friend I told you about/ my friend, not by yours}.’)

Note that event/agent-oriented modifiers are also very restricted – remember the ungrammatical examples in (214), which I repeat below for convenience. And yet, a few of these modifiers are possible, as shown in (278), also repeated below.25 (214) a. * La ciudad está implacablemente bombardeada. the city isestar relentlessly bombarded (‘The city is relentlessly bombarded.’) b. * La mesa está inteligentemente barnizada. the table isestar intelligently varnished (‘The table is intelligently varnished.’) (278) a. Este vestido está confeccionado manualmente, aunque no se manually although not refl the dress isestar made aprecie. perceive ‘This dress is made manually, although you cannot tell.’ 25.  Kratzer (2000) already observed that adverbial modification could be possible in APass, which she took as evidence that adjectivization was also phrasal. I reproduce her example in (xxva), noting that the Spanish counterpart in (xxvb) does not sound so good to my ear. (xxv) a. Die Haare waren immer noch schlampig gekämmt. the hairs were still sloppily combed   ‘The hair was still combed sloppily.’ b. (?) El actor está peinado con poco cuidado.   the actor is combed with little care ‘The actor is sloppily combed.’

150 Stative Inquiries

b. Estos héroes están dibujados a lápiz, aunque no se note. these heroes areestar drawn at pencil although not refl notice ‘These heroes are pencil-drawn, although you cannot tell.’

As an interim summary, I have argued for a view of estar-passives in which the event structure blocks that introduce external arguments and dynamic events are missing with telic roots. There remains the issue of how to account for the instances of by-phrases and other agent-oriented modifiers that I have discussed in the present section. Whichever the ultimate analysis of these modifiers turns out to be, the evidence presented so far points away from a view where there is an implicit external argument of the kind we find in verbal passives. 4.6 Crosslinguistic variation 4.6.1 Permissive languages: An introduction So far we have focused on Spanish estar-passives, also mentioning other languages like German, English and Hebrew where analogous constructions appear to behave as Spanish in terms of the restrictions on by-phrases and agent and event-related modification. However, there are several languages in which by-phrases and agent and event-related modifiers are perfectly fine and unrestricted not just with PPrts derived from StC verbs – as is the case in Spanish, German and Hebrew and English – but also with PPrts derived from telic verbs. This has been reported for Greek (Anagnostopoulou 2003, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2008, Alexiadou et al. 2015, Anagnostopoulou 2017), Russian (Paslawska & von Stechow 2003) and Swedish (Larsson 2009), and see Alexiadou et al. (2015) for an overview. I provide examples from Greek in (303) to illustrate this. I take Examples (303a–c) from Anagnostopoulou (2003: 18–19); Example (303d) from Alexiadou et al. (2015: 165) and (303e) from Alexiadou et al. (2015: 184). (303) a. b.

To psari itan tiganismeno apo tin Maria. the fish was fried by the Mary ‘The fish was fried by Mary.’  (By-phrases) To thisavrofilakio itan prosektika anigmeno/ skopima paraviasmeno. the safe was cautiously opened/ deliberately violated ‘The safe was cautiously opened/ deliberately opened.’   (event-oriented adverbs) c. Ta malia tis basilisas ine xtenismena me xrisi xtena. the hair the queen-gen are combed with golden comb ‘The hair of the queen is combed with a golden comb.’  (Instrumentals)

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 151



d. e.

To pedhi itan xtenismeno sto banio. the child was combed in.the bathroom ‘The child was combed in the bathroom.’  To spiti ine xtismeno to 1963. the house is built in 1963 ‘The house is built in 1963.’ 

(Locatives)

(Temporal modifiers)

As we can see in the examples in (303), by-phrases and agent and event-oriented modification in Greek (and also Russian and Swedish) is unrestricted in a way that event-related modification in languages like Spanish (and also German, Hebrew and English) is not. Let us call languages like Greek permissive languages and languages like Spanish restrictive languages. Greek, like Spanish and other languages, also has a two-way split between participles in terms of morphological and semantic complexity. Anagnostopoulou (2003) distinguishes two types of participles: -menos participles, which have event implications (e.g. (303)), and -tos participles, that do not have such implications and thus behave much like the perfective adjectives in Bosque (1999) (Adj-PPrts in Bosque 2014). I show some examples of these two classes on Table 4.5. Anagnostopoulou (2003) shows that -tos participles do not have event implications, whereas -menos participles do: as such, a context that negates a previous event such as that in (304) is contradictory in the case of -menos participles (e.g. (304a)) but not in the case of -tos participles (e.g. (304b)). Also, -menos participles allow event-related adverbs (e.g. (305a)) and by-phrases (e.g. (306a)), but -tos participles do not (e.g. (305b) and (306b)) (see also (303a) and (303b)). Table 4.5  Greek -menos and -tos participles (from Anagnostopoulou 2003: 11) vras-menos

vras-tos

‘boiled’

psi-menos

psi-tos

‘grilled’

zografis-menos

zografis-tos

‘painted’

skalis-menos

skalis-tos

‘carved’

gram-menos

grap-tos

‘written’

anig-menos

anix-tos

‘opened’, ‘open’

klis-menos

klis-tos

‘closed’, ‘close’

(304) a. b.

# Afti

I varka ine fusko-meni alla den tin exi fuskosi kanis akoma. this the boat is pumped but not it has pumped nobody yet ‘This boat is pumped up but nobody has pumped it up yet.’ Afti i varka ine fusko-ti alla den tin exi fuskosi kanis akoma. this the boat is pumped but not it have pumped nobody yet ‘This boat is of the type that can be pumped up but nobody has pumped it up yet.’  (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 11–12)

152 Stative Inquiries

(305) a. b.

Ta keftedakia ine prosektika tiganis-mena. the meatballs are carefully fried ‘The meatballs are fried carefully.’ Ta keftedakia ine prosektika tiganis-ita. the meatballs are carefully fried

(306) a. Ta keftedakia ine tiganis-mena apo tin Maria. the meatballs are fried by the Mary ‘The meatballs are fried by Mary.’ b. Ta keftedakia ine tiganis-ita apo tin Maria. the meatballs are fried by the Mary  (From Anagnostopoulou 2003: 13)

As a final note, Anagnostopoulou (2003) observes that the restrictions on Aktionsart regarding non-causative states and activities also apply to Greek APass. Activities are infelicitous in APass unless they appear in a “job-done” context (e.g. (307)). Statives, on the other hand, either lack a participle altogether (e.g. (308)) or are only possible as -tos participles (e.g. (309)). (307) a. b.

Ta karotsia ine idhi sprog-mena. the baby-carriages are already pushed I gata ine idhi xaidhemeni. the cat is already petted

(308) a. b.

O Janis kseri tin apantisi. the Janis knows the answer ‘John knows the answer.’ No participle related to the verb ksero ‘know’.

(309) a. b.

O Janis gnorizi tin apantisi. the Janis knows the answer ‘John knows the answer.’ I apantisi ine gnos-ti. the answer is known ‘The answer is known.’ 

(From Anagnostopoulou 2003: 14)

4.6.2 Previous accounts This section presents the proposal in Alexiadou et al. (2015), a recent extensive work – and the first one, if I am not mistaken – that tackles the cross-linguistic differences between APass. I will start discussing Kratzer (2000), since it presents a proposal for APass that was later the foundation of Alexiadou et al.’s (2015) account for the typology of APass.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 153



4.6.2.1 Kratzer (2000) In her influential work, Kratzer (2000) argues that there are two types of APass, with different semantics and derived by distinct operators: 1. Target state passives. They are derived from VPs that have a target state argument in their decomposition, i.e. a reversible result state of bi-eventive VPs.26 As a test, they accept the adverbial immer noch ‘still’ (e.g. (310)). They are derived by the operator in (311). (310) a. b.

Die Geisslein sind immer noch versteckt. ‘The little goats are still hidden.’ Die Reifen sind immer noch aufgepumpt.  ‘The tires are still pumped up.’

(Kratzer 2000: 385)

(311) ⟦∅⟧ = λRλs ∃eR(e)(s)

2. Resultant state passives. They have perfect semantics and may take any kind of VP except for simple states, which do not have an event argument. By resultant state the author means a state that holds forever after the culmination of an event, i.e. a perfect, following Parsons (1990). She assumes that these are the semantics of the perfects of verbal passives, their only difference being that in resultant state passives Voice does not project. Her diagnosis for resultant state passives is the unacceptability of immer noch ‘still’ (e.g. (312)). The operator at play is in (313). (312) a. b.

Das Theorem ist (*immer noch) bewiesen. ‘The theorem is (*still) proven.’ Der Briefkasten ist (*immer noch) geleert. ‘The mail box is (*still) emptied.’ 

(Kratzer 2000: 386)

(313) ⟦∅⟧ = λP λt ∃e [P(e) & τ(e) ≤ t] 26.  Although she does not deal with the event-modification asymmetries I have discussed in this chapter, Kratzer (2000) notes the possibility of forming APass from stative causative verbs, presenting examples like (xxvia), which she observes may correspond to a telic, eventive reading or a stative reading, the latter conforming to a context such as (xxvib). For Kratzer, both readings have a causing eventuality and a target state, but the causing eventuality in the eventive reading is a dynamic event and in the stative reading it is a stative eventuality. This departs from my proposal in that I do not believe that the eventive reading actually has a dynamic event in the decomposition of the participle. (xxvi) a. The blood vessel was obstructed. b. Because of a congenital malformation, tissue obstructed the blood vessel.   (From Kratzer 2000: 393)

154 Stative Inquiries

As Kratzer notes, activities are bad out of the blue in APass, but they nonetheless improve if a “job done” or “that’s over” context is provided, as we can see in (314). In these cases, given that they lack a target state argument, they combine with the resultant state operator. (314) a. b.

Die Katze ist schon gestreichelt. ‘The cat is already petted.’ Dieser Kinderwagen ist schon geschoben.  (Kratzer 2000: 388) ‘This baby carriage is already pushed.’ Context: It was my job to pet the cat or to push the baby carriage.

4.6.2.2 Alexiadou et al. (2015) Alexiadou et  al. (2015) make use of Kratzer’s (2000) distinction between target and resultant state APass to account for the crosslinguistic differences found in this construction. The authors also follow Gehrke’s distinction between event tokens and event kinds (see Section 4.5.3) as well as her view (Gehrke 2015) that event kinds only get instantiated when verbal structure is directly embedded under Tense and Aspect. The authors propose that Greek-type (i.e. permissive) APass are derived with an Asp operator denoting a Perfect of Result (i.e. (313)). A is merely an adjectivizer. Since Asp takes directly verbal structure (a specifierless VoiceP in their account) then the event gets instantiated and thus it can be freely modified. APass in permissive languages are then resultant states. They support this idea by showing that still is ungrammatical with event-related modifiers in Greek-type languages (e.g. (315), from Alexiadou et al. 2015: 158). The structure is represented in (316). (315) a. b. c.

Ta lastixa ine (*akoma) fuskomena apo tin Maria. the tires are (still) inflated by the Mary The tires are still inflated by Mary.’ Ta lastixa ine (*akoma) fuskomena me tin tromba. the tires are (still) inflated with the pump. The tires are (*still) inflated with the pump.’ To thisavrofilakio itan (*akoma) prosektika anigmeno. the safe was (still) cautiously opened ‘The safe was (*still) cautiously opened.’

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 155



(316) Greek-type resultant state passives AP A

AspP Asp

VoiceP vP

VoiceAGENT

RootP

v



On the other hand, German-type (i.e. restrictive) APass lack Asp and hence the event does not get instantiated. As a result, event-modification is restricted (e.g. (317) for German)). Their structure is given in (318).

(317) Der Mülleimer ist (*von meiner Nichte / *langsam / *genüsslich /*mit the rubbish-bin is by my niece / slowly / pleasurably / der Heugabel geleert. with the hayfork emptied

(318) German-type resultant state passives AP A

VoiceP VoiceAGENT



vP v

RootP

For target state passives – i.e. those that accept still modification – they propose a uniform structure for all languages under discussion. They observe two facts: first, target state passives freely allow by-phrases, instrumentals and agent-oriented adverbials, which they take to signal the presence of a Voice projection that introduces an agent semantically, i.e. those are Voice-related modifiers. Their second observation is that those modifiers must somehow relate or modify the result state directly, as repeatedly pointed out in the literature (see Section 4.5.1 for references and discussion). Their examples are provided in (319), from Alexiadou et al. 2015: 181). (319) 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.’

156 Stative Inquiries

b. c. d.

O skilos ine akomi demenos me skini. the dog is still tied with leash The dog is still tied with a leash.’ To stadio ine akomi filagmeno prosektika. the stadium is still guarded carefully The stadium is still carefully guarded.’ Ta axladia ine akomi voutigmena sto krasi. the pears are still soaked in.the wine The pears are still soaked in wine.’

To make sense of these facts, they posit posit a Voiceholder phrase introducing the result state above the adjectivizer, so that Tense and Aspect can locate the result state and allow for modification thereof. Their structure is provided in (320): (320) Target state passives (all languages) VoiceP VoiceHOLDER

AP A



vP v

RootP

4.6.2.3 Problems with Kratzer (2000) As I see it, Kratzer’s account has several problems.27 First, as it has been often discussed in the literature (Löbner 1989, Krifka 2000, Ippolito 2004, Greenberg 2006), still is an aspectual particle whose semantics include an assertion and two presuppositions,28 as we can see in (321). The assertion and the first presupposition are taken from Krifka (2000) and the second presupposition is taken from Michaelis (1993), via Greenberg (2006). (321)

The semantics of still a. Assertion: ɸ(t). b. Presupposition 1: ∃t′∝t[ɸ(t′)]. c. Presupposition 2: It is expected/ reasonable that ɸ at some time after t

In prose, the assertion states that the proposition holds at reference time. The first presupposition says that at some prior time that abuts (∝) the reference time, the proposition also held. Finally, the second presupposition tells us that it is 27.  See Maienborn (2009), Gehrke (2012) for further criticism of Kratzer (2000). 28.  For other uses of still, see Ippolito (2004).

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 157



reasonable or expected that the proposition will not hold at some future time after the reference time. My idea here is that the acceptability effects with still in APass does not really have to do with a two-way distinction in their semantics, but rather in the semantics of still itself and the presuppositions it triggers. Note, for instance, that the same predicate may give different results depending on the subject it takes. For instance, (322a) is fine since we can expect the city to be rebuilt after, say, a bombing, but (322b) is not since evidence is expected to be burned/ shredded when one wants to destroy it.29 I find the same effects in Spanish (e.g. (323)). (322) a. b.

Die Stadt ist immer noch zerstört. the city is still   destroyed ‘The city is still destroyed.’ # Die Beweises sind immer noch zerstört. the evidence is still   destroyed (‘The evidence is still destroyed.’)

(323) a. La ciudad todavía está destruida (la reconstrucción todavía no ha the city still is destroyed (the reconstruction still not has empezado). begun) ‘The city is still destroyed (reconstruction has not begun yet).’ b. # Las pruebas todavía están destruidas. are destroyed the proofs still (‘The evidence is still destroyed.’)

When still is not acceptable regardless of context (e.g. (312a), I assume that the incompatibility is due to the lexical semantics of the verb, but not to a difference in event decomposition – telic VPs have a result state in their decomposition regardless of whether it is transitory or permanent – or in the semantics of APass.30 For further discussion regarding the still test, see Gehrke (2012) and Alexiadou et al. (2014). Turning to Kratzer’s claim that activities become fine in APass with a “job done” or “that’s over” context (e.g.  (314)), I observe the same effect in Spanish (e.g. (324)). (324) a. (?) El gato ya está acariciado.   the cat already is petted ‘The cat is already petted.’ 

(Spanish)

29.  All the German examples in this Section (4.6.2.3) are due to Berit Gehrke, p.c. 30.  Note that even (312b) could be acceptable in a scenario where a mailbox is supposed to be constantly filled and emptied:‘The mailbox is still emptied: it’s time to fill it up again.’

158 Stative Inquiries

b. (?) Este carrito de bebé ya está empujado this carriage of baby already is pushed ‘This baby carriage is already pushed.’ CONTEXT: It was my job to pet the cat or to push the baby carriage.

However, it is unclear that these are derived by a perfect aspect operator, as Kratzer has it, that does not need telic VPs as an input. If so, it is at best unclear why activities in APass need context to improve, but activities in verbal passives in the perfect do not (e.g. (325)–(326)). (325) a. ?? Die Katze ist gestreichelt. the cat is petted (‘The cat is petted.’)  b. Die Katze ist gestreichelt worden. the cat is petted become ‘The cat has been petted.’ (326) a. b.

El gato está acariciado. the cat is petted (‘The cat is petted.’)  El gato ha sido acariciado. the cat has been petted ‘The cat has been petted.’

(German)

(Spanish)

Further evidence that APass do not have perfect semantics in German comes from the fact that positional adverbials (on Monday, yesterday…) are fine in the German present perfect (VPass included), but are out in APass (e.g. (327)).31 This, of course, is expected if German APass do not have an instantiated event, and hence temporal adverbials cannot locate it. The fact that these possitional adverbials are possible in the perfect thus points to the impossibility of German APass to have perfect semantics. (327) a. Die Töpfe sind am Montag abgespült worden. the pots are on Monday washed-up become. ‘The pots have been washed up on Monday.’ b. * Die Töpfe sind am Montag abgespült. the pots are on Monday washed-up (‘The pots are washed up on Monday.’)

Similarly, APass and perfects of verbal passives give different readings with today in German: in APass, the underlying event does not need to have happened 31.  I thank Roumi Pancheva for suggesting that I test positional adverbials in APass.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 159



today (e.g. (328a)), but in the perfects of verbal passives the event needs to have happened today (e.g. (328b)). (328) a. Heute ist der Boden gewischt. today is the floor swept ‘The floor is swept today.’ (The sweeping event did not necessarily take place today: it could have been swept before today) b. Heute ist der Boden gewischt worden. today is the floor swept become ‘The floor has been swept today.’ (The sweeping event necessarily took place today)

The empirical state of affairs presented so far is similar to that described for Spanish in Section 4.3.4 in our discussion about the perfect. Moreover, Kratzer’s proposal for target state structures posits a complex change-of-state semantics for the APass, something I explicitly argued against for Spanish in Section 4.3.1. Again, my criticism can be carried over to German. A more plausible explanation for the relative acceptability of activities in APass, as I see it, is that they can be coerced into telics when the context allows. “Job done” contexts, for instance, favor a coercion from activities into telics since the eventuality is understood as having an endpoint. In short, I do not accept Kratzer’s extra perfect (i.e. resultant state) operator, on the basis that the nuances it intends to capture can be explained by factors not pertaining to APass per se (e.g. how well the presuppositions triggered by still fare with respect to the context or the lexical semantics of a given verb) and, most importantly, because positing perfect semantics for APass makes the wrong predictions, as we showed. 4.6.2.4 Problems with Alexiadou et al. (2015) My criticism of Kratzer (2000) can be carried over to Alexiadou et al. (2015) since they follow Kratzer’s account, but here I will focus on the specific problems that their account faces with the crosslinguistic data. As we saw, the resultant vs. target distinction in APass is diagnosed by the (un-)‍‍acceptability of still. This view leads Alexiadou et al. (2015) to assume that German APass that refuse still are resultant state passives, as in (329) (repeated from (312a)).

(329) Das Theorem ist (*immer noch) bewiesen. the theorem is (*still)   proven

But it is unclear how the structure that Alexiadou et al. (2015) propose for German-type resultant state passives in (318) is “resultant”, given that it lacks the perfect operator encoded in an Asp head (e.g. (313)). Of course, the authors do not

160 Stative Inquiries

want to say that there is Asp in German adjectival participles, since it is Asp what they claim to license event-oriented and spatio-temporal modifiers in Greek-type APass (i.e. the permissive languages) (e.g. (316)). Their account for target states in (320) is not without problems either. First and foremost, it does not explain how agent-oriented modifiers (e.g. by-phrases, instrumentals…) are licensed, since their Voiceholder introduces the subject of a result state, and not that of a causative sub-event. In other words, what Alexiadou et al. (2015) do is displace the projection denoting the result state above the adjectivizer, but that does not explain why Voice-related modifiers – i.e. agent-oriented modifiers – are licensed, since what they call Voiceholder does not denote a causative sub-eventuality, but a resultative one. Moreover, their account for target-state passives makes the wrong predictions.32 Notice the Example (330a), taken from McIntyre (2015), which I reproduce for Spanish in (330b). (330) a. The dog is tied up with a rope (*by a policeman). b. El perro está atado con una cuerda (*por un policía). the dog is tied with a rope by a policeman

Alexiadou et al. (2015) would take (330) to be a target state passive (cf. The dog is still tied up with a rope, and see their practically identical example for Greek in (319b)), but yet, by-phrases are disallowed, contrary to their prediction that target state participles allow agent-oriented modifiers across the board by virtue of having a Voiceholder projection. The data presented by Alexiadou et al. (2015), I note, is not problematic for an account that dispenses with the target vs. resultant state distinction and instead takes an aspect-based approach, as I do in this monograph. Contrasts such as (330) are not surprising, because atado ‘tied up’ is a participle derived from a telic verb, and thus by-phrases, which modify the higher sub-event, will not be possible given that we are dealing with restrictive languages; modifiers such as con una cuerda ‘with a rope’, which modify the result sub-event, are predicted to be fine. Similarly, with telic verbs in permissive languages (e.g. (315)), still modification is unacceptable with by-phrases. This is so because APass are predicates of a result state which, in the case of telic verbs, temporally follows the causing subevent that by-phrases modify. Therefore, the addition of a by-phrase clashes with the presuppositions triggered by still that the proposition will stop holding at a later time: the result state brought about by the agent introduced by the by-phrase may be transitory or not, but it will have forever after been brought about by that agent, and that is undoable. Note that still necessarily takes scope over the by-phrase. 32.  I owe this observation to Roumi Pancheva.



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 161

The effects mentioned in the previous paragraphs do not happen with byphrases in APass with StC verbs, which do accept still: given that the intervention of the agent and the maintenance of the result state are coextensive, we can expect that the proposition will cease at a later time, i.e. when the agent stops acting to maintain the result state. This explains the grammaticality of (319a) and also of (319c), both of which are modifiers of the causing sub-event. The grammaticality of (319b) and (319d), on the other hand, is explained because the modifiers that appear in those sentences are result-oriented – and the result state can be understood as cancellable (remember our discussion of (330)). Recall our discussion on Section 4.5.2 regarding the oftentimes confusing observations in the literature that by-phrases – and, by extension, agent and eventoriented modifiers – are only acceptable in APass in restrictive languages if they somehow maintain, pertain to or are detectable in the result state: this is what Alexiadou et al. (2015) meant to capture with their target state structure in (320) and what other authors have tried to capture by other means.33 These observations are derived from my work as follows: by-phrases with StC verbs are acceptable not because they “maintain” or “pertain” to the result sub-event, but because the adjectival participle contains both the causing sub-eventuality and the result state, and both are temporally coextensive (see my proposal in Section 4.4.1). Other modifiers, in turn, are acceptable because they indeed pertain or are detectable in the result state: they are result-oriented modifiers, and since result states are always represented in APass, modification thereof is fully grammatical. There still remain restricted instances of by-phrases with APass derived from telic verbs in restrictive languages that remain to be accounted for, but they do not, in and of themselves, make a strong case for VoiceP, or an analogous projection, within the PPrt. 4.6.3 An alternative account I argued in Section 4.6.2.4 that the target vs. resultant state distinction is not useful for accounting for APass within or across languages. I have also argued throughout this chapter that there are no perfect or anteriority semantics in-built in APass in restrictive languages. The crucial divide, I contend, is aspectual: in restrictive languages, APass derived from StC verbs retain their external argument in their event structure and those derived from telic verbs do not, as (331) and (332) illustrate.

33.  Gehrke (2012), for instance, posited that there are two kinds of by-phrases: one that is event(-kind)-oriented, which can only introduce kind-level participants, and a second one that is result-oriented, which can introduce any kind of participants. This was discussed in Section 4.5.3 and illustrated in the Examples (285) and (286).

162 Stative Inquiries

(331) a. b. c.

APass derived from telic verbs (restrictive languages) La ciudad está destruida. the city isestar destroyed ‘The city is destroyed.’ AdjP

resP

Adj

(332) a. b. c.

APass derived from StC verbs (restrictive languages) La ciudad está vigilada. the city isestar surveilled ‘The city is surveilled.’ AdjP

initP

Adj



init



resP

For Spanish, I encoded the restrictions on Aktionsart (the underlying verb must have a result state and be itself stative) in the adjectivizer that derived estar-passives. I propose that this can be extended to restrictive languages as well (German, Hebrew), inasmuch as they also show the event structure restrictions observed for Spanish. Permissive languages like Greek, on the other hand, are less restrictive in terms of Aktionsart: they disallow (non-StC) states and activities (unless coerced), but they can have full-fledged telic verbs, i.e. without a truncated verbal structure as in restrictive languages. Their maximal structure is as in (333c) (Example (333b) repeated from (303a)). (333) a. b. c.

APass (permissive languages) To psari itan tiganismeno apo tin Maria. the fish was fried by the Mary ‘The fish was fried by Mary.’ AdjP

PassP

Adj Pass

initP init





procP proc

resP



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 163

4.6.3.1 Option 1: Parametrization of Adj (to be discarded) A possible analysis, which I will eventually discard, is that the locus of crosslinguistic variation is the head Adj. This head has a universal property and a parametric property. The universal one is schematized in (334a), an selectional categorial feature, [u res], that needs to match a syntactic category of the same type, i.e. resP. This derives why in APass crosslinguistically there is the restriction against activities and non-causative states: they do not contain resP in their decomposition and hence the uninterpretable res feature in Adj cannot be deleted. The parametric feature is illustrated in (334b), already introduced in Section 4.4.1 (see also (236)). Basically, it is a partial identity function that poses the condition in the verbal predicate it takes be stative. As such, telic predicates are also out, since they contain procP. This is the case with restrictive languages: I argued that in APass derived from typically telic verbs in such languages, the Adj takes as its complement a truncated verbal structure that only contains the result state. In permissive languages, however, no such restriction applies: the Adj head is semantically vacuous and has no restriction against eventive predicates: as such, a telic base can be adjectivized. (334) Parametric variation of Adj (to be discarded) a. Uninterpretable categorial feature: [u res]  Universal b. Semantic restriction to states: λP [λs. P(s)]   Only in restrictive languages

4.6.3.2 Option 2: StatP and AdjP The first option sketched on Section 4.6.3.1 faces difficulties when contrasted with languages like Chichewa, a Bantu language. In Chichewa, as described by Dubinsky & Simango (1996) (and references therein), there are two kinds of agent-demoting constructions analogous in their syntactico-semantic properties to VPass and APass in restrictive languages: the passive is exemplified in (335a) and the stative in (335b). The predicate in both constructions, crucially, is verbal. (335) a. b.

Nyemba zi-na-phik-idwa beans agr-past-cook-pass ‘The beans were cooked.’ Nyemba zi-na-phik-ika beans agr-past-cook-stat ‘The beans were cooked.’ (From Dubinsky & Simango 1996: 751)

They report from Mchombo (1993) the finding that, in passives, by-phrases are optional (e.g. (336a)), but are disallowed in statives (e.g. (336b)). Also, passives allow purpose clauses controlled by their implicit agent (e.g. (337a)) and agent-oriented

164 Stative Inquiries

adverbs (e.g. (338a)), whereas the stative construction allows neither (e.g. (337b) and (338b)). (336) a. Mbale zi-na-tsuk-idwa (ndi Naphiri) plates agr-past-wash-pass by Naphiri ‘The plates were washed (by Naphiri).’ b. * Mbale zi-na-tsuk-ika ndi Naphiri plates agr-past-wash-stat by Naphiri ‘The plates were washed (by Naphiri).’ kuti anthu a-sa-fe (337) a. Chakudya chi-na-phik-idwa agr-past-cook-pass [so].that people agr-neg-die food ndi njala from hunger ‘The food was cooked so that people should not die of starvation.’ b. * Chakudya chi-na-phik-ika kuti anthu a-sa-fe ndi njala plates agr-past-wash-stat by Naphiri       ‘The food was cooked so that people should not die of starvation.’



(338) a. Chitseko chi-na-tsek-edwa mwadala door agr-past-close-pass deliberately ‘The door was closed deliberately.’ b. * Chitseko chi-na-tsek-eka mwadala door agr-past-closed-stat deliberately ‘The door was closed deliberately.’   (From Mchombo 1993, via Dubinsky & Simango 1996: 751)

On their part, Dubinsky & Simango (1996) further observe that instrument phrases are only allowed in the passive (e.g. (339a)), but not in the stative (e.g. (339b)). Furthermore, they show that the stative construction is subject to Aktionsart restrictions, whereas the passive is not. Thus, while change-of-state verbs can have a passive and a stative form (see Table 4.6), non-change-of-state verbs can only form the passive, but not the stative (see Table  4.7). Again, we see how the stative construction behaves similarly to APass in the restrictive languages we have discussed.34

34.  For a full parallelism between the Chichewa stative construction and APass in restrictive languages, it remains to be seen whether stative causative verbs in Chichewa (govern, control, protect, etc.) allow the stative construction or not. These verbs are not discussed in Dubinsky & Simango (1996), but lack of data prevents me from knowing whether these in fact cannot form statives or they do but were overlooked by the authors – remember that a common assumption for APass in the literature is that they are only formed with change-of-state/telic verbs.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 165



(339) a. b.

Kalata i-na-lemb-edwa (ndi pensulo) letter agr-past-write-pass with pencil ‘The letter was written (with a pencil).’ Kalata i-na-lemb-eka (ndi pensulo) letter agr-past-write-stat with pencil ‘The letter was written with a pencil.’   (From Dubinsky & Simango 1996: 752)

Table 4.6  Change-of-state verbs in Chichewa with stative and passive Verb

Stative

Passive

a. phika

‘cook’

phik-ika

phik-idwa

b. swa

‘break’

sw-eka

sw-edwa

c. kumba

‘dig’

kumb-ika

kumb-idwa

d. pinda

‘bend’

pind-ika

pind-idwa

e. meta

‘shave’

met-eka

met-edwa

Table 4.7  Non-change-of-state verbs in Chichewa with stative and passive Verb

Stative

Passive

a. luma

‘bite’

*lum-ika

lum-idwa

b. omba

‘slap’

*omb-eka

omb-edwa

c. ombela

‘shoot’

*ombel-eka

ombel-edwa

d. kuwiza

‘jeer’

*kuwiz-ika

kuwiz-idwa

e. kumbatila

‘embrace’

*kumbatil-ika

kumbatil-idwa

I take the stative construction in Chichewa to be the verbal counterpart of adjectival passives in restrictive languages (Spanish, German, Hebrew…). If so, the inevitable analysis is one in which the stativizer and the adjectivizer functions are divided in two different projections. Let us call the stativizer projection Stat(ivizer)‍‍P, morphologically verbal, and the adjectivizer AdjP, with the properties in (340). The denotation of Stat in (340b) is a partial identity function whose domain is restricted to predicates of states, thereby preventing it to combine with activities and telic predicates (remember the discussion in Section 4.4.1 as well as the denotation of Adj in (340b), now carried over to Stat). The typology of APass observed so far, in turn, can be derived as in (341). (340) a. ⟦Adj⟧ = Semantically vacuous b. ⟦Stat⟧ = λP [λs. P(s)]

(341) a. Permissive languages (Greek, Swedish…) AdjP b. Restrictive languages (Spanish, German…) AdjP > StatP c. Chichewa StatP

166 Stative Inquiries

The adjectival participles in permissive languages like Greek and Swedish can contain a dynamic event in their decomposition, and therefore they are not formed with a StatP (e.g.  (342a)). Restrictive languages (German, Spanish, Hebrew…) require that the participle be stative, and hence they have a StatP in addition to AdjP (e.g. (342b)). Finally, Chichewa (and other potential languages like it) has a stativity requirement, but the verbal base is not adjectivized: therefore it only has a StatP (e.g. (342c)). The head Stat must also contain the uninterpretable feature [u res] discussed in Section 4.4.1, which ensures that the stative predicate it selects contains a resP. (342) a. Permissive languages35 AdjP Adj

init/proc/resP

init/proc/res XP b. Restrictive languages AdjP Adj

StatP Stat

init/resP

init/res c. Chichewa36

XP

StatP init/resP

Stat



init/res

XP

35.  I assume that the difference between -menos and -tos participles in Greek (see Table 4.5) lies in that the former target resP and the latter procP and (maybe) initP (see Larsson 2009 for the same proposal). Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (2008) derive the lack of eventive implications in -tos participles by proposing that they are unverbalized roots attached to Asp. However, Anagnostopoulou & Samioti (2013) present data from -tos participles with overt verbalizers that challenge that claim. The issue remains as to how to derive the context-sensitivity lexicalization of Adj as -tos or -menos if we do not want to say that they are different heads. 36.  I predict that Chichewa can have the stative construction with StC verbs as well as with telic verbs, but as of now I only have empirical evidence for the latter.

Chapter 4.  Stative participles 167



4.7

Towards a unified theory of participles

So far I have discussed adjectival passives and, to a lesser extent, verbal passives. I have remained silent, for the most part, with respect to the issue of participial syncretism, which extends not only to passives but to perfects. As is known, the same participial form may function as an adjectival passive (e.g. (343a)), a verbal passive (e.g. (344a)) or a perfect (e.g. (345a)). In this work, I have tentatively assumed that the participial morphology of adjectival passives is hosted in the adjectivizing head Adj (e.g. (343b)) whereas that of verbal passives is hosted in the passivizing head Pass (e.g. (344b)). By the same reasoning, the participial morphology in the perfect would be associated to a Perf head (e.g. (345b)). (343) a. b.

El portón está cerrado. the gate isestar closed ‘The gate is closed.’ Adjectival Passive AdjP

Adj



resP

−ado

(344) a. b.

El portón fue cerrado. the gate wasser closed ‘The gate was closed.’ Verbal Passive PassP

Pass



−ado

(345) a. b.

Pedro ha cerrado el portón. Pedro has closed the gate ‘Pedro has closed the gate.’ Active Perfect PerfP

Perf



initP

VoiceP

−ado

This account assumes that the morpheme -ado lexicalizes different syntactic heads whose common ground is not immediately obvious. In other words, why is it that adjectival, verbal and perfect participles share the same exponent, not just in

168 Stative Inquiries

Spanish – which could very well just be an idiosyncrasy of the language, just like English also uses -ed for the past tense) – but in so many other languages? This systematic syncretism of participial morphology calls, I believe, for a principled explanation. Although the issue goes beyond the scope of this chapter, here is a suggestion for an alternative analysis, drawing from Larsson & Svenonius’s (2013) discussion on the syncretism between the passive – verbal and adjectival – and the perfect participles in languages like English, German, Dutch and Danish. The authors argue for a single dedicated projection that hosts participial morphology with generalized semantics. I represent the projection in (346), which I call PPrtP. (346)

PPrtP PPrt

VP

−en

This projection is hosted within a phase lower than that which hosts passive and perfective syntax, and thus the prediction is that the phonological realization of the PPrt will be blind to passive and perfective syntax. Indeed, this is borne out not only in the languages discussed in Larsson & Svenonius (2013), but also in Spanish, as we have shown. That is, we do not encounter mismatches in the morphology of participles across passive and perfect environments, as (347a–c) exemplifies: when there is a mismatch in form, as with cut-short participles (e.g. (347d)), we are dealing with what Bosque calls “perfective” adjectives – i.e. those without any event structure whatsoever. (347) a. b. c. d.

Pedro ha {secado/ *seca} la toalla al sol. Pedro has dried dry the towel at.the sun ‘Pedro has {dried/ dry} the towel in the sun.’ Active Perfect La toalla fue {secada/ *seca} al sol. the towel was dried dry at.the sun ‘The towel was {dried/ dry} in the sun.’ Verbal Passive La toalla está {secada/ *seca} al sol. the towel was dried dry at.the sun ‘The towel was {dried/ dry} at.the sun.’ Adjectival Passive La toalla está seca (*al sol). the towel is dry at.the sun ‘The towel is dry (*in the sun).’ Adjective



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 169

Similarly, when we have an irregular PPrt (e.g. roto ‘broken’, and see the list in (196), it remains irregular across the board, i.e. a situation in which there is an irregular form for the passive and a regular form for the perfect, or viceversa, is not attested. Nor do we find such a situation between verbal and adjectival passives either. I exemplify the unattested patterns in (348) for hypothetical regular participles and in (349) for hypothetical irregular participles, where the non-existing participial form is represented in italics – and hence, the sentences in which they appear are ungrammatical. (348) Unattested patterns in Spanish with non-existing regular participles a. Pedro ha rompido el vaso. El vaso {fue/ está} Pedro has break-ptcp.reg the glass the glass wasser isestar roto. break-ptcp.irreg ‘Pedro has breaked the glass. The glass {was/ is} broken.’ Regular Perfect PPrt – Irregular Passive PPrt b. María ha escrito la carta. La carta {fue/ está} María has write-ptcp.irreg the letter the letter wasser isser escribida. write-ptcp.reg ‘María has written the letter. The letter isestar writed.’ Irregular Perfect PPrt – Regular Passive PPrt c. La mesa fue ponida. La mesa está puesta. the table wasser set-ptcp.reg the table isestar set-ptcp.irreg ‘The table was setted. The table is set.’ Regular verbal PPrt – Irregular adjectival PPrt d. El caso fue resuelto. El caso está resolvido. the case wasser solve-ptcp.irreg the case is solve-ptcp.reg ‘The case was solved. The case is solved.’ Irregular verbal PPrt – Regular adjectival PPrt (349) Unattested patterns in Spanish with non-existing irregular participles a. Fernando ha inflado el globo. El vaso {fue/ está} Fernando has inflate-ptcp.reg the balloon the balloon wasser isestar inflo. inflate-ptcp.irreg ‘Fernando has inflated the balloon. The balloon {was/ is} inflated.’ Regular Perfect PPrt – Irregular Passive PPrt b. Carmen ha cargo el móvil. El móvil {fue/ está} Carmen has charge-ptcp.irreg the cellphone the cellphone wasser isser cargado. charge-ptcp.reg

170 Stative Inquiries

c. d.

‘Carmen has charged the cellphone. The cellphone is charged.’ Irregular Perfect PPrt – Regular Passive PPrt La falda fue cosida. La falda está cosa. the skirt wasser sew-ptcp.reg the skirt isestar sew-ptcp.irreg ‘The skirt was sewed. The skirt is sewn.’ Regular verbal PPrt – Irregular adjectival PPrt La vasija está moldeada. La vasija fue molda. the vessel wasser molded.irreg the vessel isestar mold-ptcp.regref ‘The vessel was molded. The vessel is molded.’ Irregular verbal PPrt – Regular adjectival PPrt

This state of affairs depicted in (348) and (349) receives a natural explanation if indeed participial morphology lies in a phase inaccessible to perfect and passive formation. A further advantage of this approach is that, under our framework, irregular participial exponents do not need to be multiply specified in the lexicon for the constructions that they appear in (e.g. for Pass, Perf…). Instead, an irregular participle like abierto ‘opened’ would only have to be listed as Part, as in (350), along with the rest of the verbal category features. (350) abierto ‘opened’ category features: [Part, init, proc, res]

While this approach is morphologically sound, it opens another can of worms altogether for the syntax and semantics of PPrts. If PPrts constitute a phase that is invisible to passivization and perfects, how can passive formation be restricted to transitive PPrts (i.e. those that contain initP in their decomposition)? How does adjectival passive formation know that we are dealing with a stative verbal predicate, under the assumption that it takes place above Part? Or how do we ensure that the perfect is fed a verbal participle, and not an adjectival one (e.g. stative versions of telic verbs)? A way around this would be to give up the idea that, while the locus of participial morphology is a single PPrt head, its projection does not constitute a phase boundary. As such, passive and perfect operators can access the information within the PPrt. Still, the question remains as to what syntactico-semantic component of this PPrtP is common to passives – adjectival and verbal – and perfects so that its appearance in all three constructions can be naturally accounted for. Such an issue goes well beyond the scope of this chapter, and so I put it aside for future research.



Chapter 4.  Stative participles 171

4.8 Conclusions This chapter has presented a case study of adjectival passives in the light of the theory of verbal aspect developed in Chapter 3. I have shown that Spanish past participles have different properties depending on whether they appear in attributive or predicative position. Differentiating participles in such a manner has helped us understand better the properties of verbal and adjectival participles in Spanish. For the latter, I have made a case for two main and related points: i) The key role of Aktionsart for the distribution of by-phrases and other agent-oriented modifiers and, ultimately, the structural makeup of the participle; ii) A view of adjectival passive formation that does not involve an perfect aspectual operator or change-of-state structure, but merely an underlying stative predicate which, in the case of telic verbs, is necessarily truncated. My main contribution in this Chapter has been to provide a novel view of what it means for these adjectival passives to be stative and resultative. The resultativity of adjectival passives, in the strict sense of result from a previous event, is just an inference from a verbal root that, despite being able to lexicalize fullfledged telic structures in other contexts, only lexicalizes a stative projection (resP) in adjectival passives. In other words, it is not a resultative structure, but only stative. On the other hand, adjectival passives from stative causative verbs are both stative and resultative, in the broader sense of the word: these involve causativeresultative configurations without a dynamic event, as I argued in Chapter 3, and thus they are stative. For the theoretical implementation of the aspectual typology of adjectival passives, I adopted a late-insertion approach governed by the Superset Principle, namely that the category features of a given root must be a superset, proper or not, of the contiguous syntactic heads they lexicalize in the syntactic structure. Thus, a root like break is listed with the category features init, proc and res, but that does not mean that all such features need to be associated to their corresponding syntactic head: they may very well associate to just proc and res, which delivers unaccusative break (e.g. The glass broke) or simply res, which I claim delivers adjectival participles (e.g. The glass is broken). Such a model allows us to build states out of typically change-of-state verbs without the need of additional resultative or perfective operators, which moreover make the wrong predictions. A bigger question that deserves further treatment is how to model the link between the morphosyntax and semantics of participles in the light of their polyfunctionality, i.e. that the same participial form may funcion as an adjectival and verbal passive and a perfect. The answer to that question will inevitably have to wait for future research.

Chapter 5

Stative psychological and locative verbs

5.1

Introduction

The last two chapters have been devoted to stative predicates across categorial domains – verbs and participles – and their morphosyntactic realization. I have studied stative causative predicates in Chapter 3 and the building of adjectival passives in Chapter 4. In so doing, I have discussed their implications for the modeling of the syntactic structure of the upper and lower layers of the VP, where causativity and resultativity arise configurationally, as well as the relationship between morphosyntax, semantics and the lexicon. This research has been undertaken from a neo-constructionist prism, pursuing a view in which the syntactic structure determines formal aspectual meaning and in which words – such as participles – are built from syntactic structure. The present chapter continues this neo-constructionist inquiry on stative predicates, shifting the focus to thematic interpretation. For these purposes, I focus on stative object-experiencer psychological verbs (henceforth OEPVs) and locative verbs in relation to their thematic structure. I exemplify OEPVs in (351) and locative verbs in (352). (351) preocupar ‘worry’, asombrar ‘amaze’, aterrar ‘terrify’, aburrir ‘bore’, molestar ‘annoy’… (352) rodear ‘surround’, cubrir ‘cover’, flanquear ‘flank’, bloquear ‘block’, cercar ‘fence’, obstruir ‘obstruct’…

It has been often argued in the literature for many languages that stative OEPVs have a specialized structure that inherently assigns an Experiencer thematic role to the direct object. The reasoning behind it is that these verbs display grammatical effects different from other stative verbs, and these are mostly related to the object (e.g. accusative case patterns in Russian and object clitic effects in Greek and Hebrew). These grammatical idiosyncrasies of OEPVs are known as psych effects. The goal of this chapter is to argue that stative OEPVs and locative verbs share a common syntax, and as such the view that there is specialized structure that assigns an Experiencer θ-role cannot be maintained. I make my case by showing that psych effects also appear with stative locative verbs. I show how this parallelism

174 Stative Inquiries

between stative OEPVs and locative verbs is crosslinguistically robust, drawing empirical evidence from Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, Greek and Russian. My proposal is that both verb types lexicalize verbal structure with a lower prepositional layer. Crucially, this P does not assign a thematic role to its complement – nor does any other head, for that matter, assign a thematic role to any other argument. Rather, this prepositional structure introduces an abstract relation betwen two arguments: if the verb that lexicalizes P is conceptually psychological (e.g. (353a)), then such abstract relation will be understood as mental, whereas if the verb is locative (e.g. (354a)), then the relation will be spatial. The event roles in the structures in (353b) and (354b) are then not thematic roles, but merely entailments from the event structure of the VP coupled with world knowledge about the conceptual type of verb involved. (353) a. La crisis aterra a las familias. the crisis frightens dom the families ‘The crisis frightens families.’ VP

PP

V aterra

P′

La crisis Stimulus P

a las familias Experiencer

b.

(354) a. La sábana tapa la entrada. the sheet hides the entrance ‘The sheet hides the entrance.’ VP

La sábana Figure

V′ PP

V tapa P

b.

la entrada Ground

This chapter is structured as follows. Section 5.2 provides an overview of OEPVs and psych effects crosslinguistically. Section  5.3 introduces locative verbs and shows that they also show “psych effects” across the board. In Section 5.4, I develop my proposal for the syntax and semantics of OEPVs and locative verbs. Before concluding, I devote Section 5.5 to argue against agentivity as a determining factor

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 175



of psych effects, showing that it is stativity instead. Finally, I present my conclusions in Section 5.6. 5.2 5.2.1

Psychological verbs: State of the art Experiencers and the linking problem

In their by now classic work, Belletti & Rizzi (1988) provided a three-way classification of psychological verbs for Italian, illustrated in (355) and (356). In (355), we have a pair of sentences with a transitive psychological verb that displays a standard nominative subject and accusative object configuration, whereas in (356) we have a verb that displays a nominative-dative configuration in which the order of arguments can go either way. (355) a. b.

Gianni teme questo. Gianni fears this Questo preoccupa Gianni. this worries Gianni

(356) a. b.

A Gianni piace questo. to Gianni pleases this Questo piace a Gianni. this pleases to Gianni 



(Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 291–92)

In the first class of psychological verbs illustrated in (355a), the nominative subject is the entity that experiences the emotional state: it bears the Experiencer θ-role. Belletti & Rizzi (1988) call it Class I, but I refer to them from now on as subject-experiencer psychological verbs (SEPVs). In the second class, exemplified in (355b), the Experiencer is the accusative object. Belletti & Rizzi (1988) label it Class II and I will call them object-experiencer psychological verbs (SEPVs). In the third class (Class III), the Experiencer is a dative argument: I call them dative-experiencer psychological verbs (DEPVs). This state of affairs is problematic for θ-theory (Chomsky 1981, Stowell 1981). In such theory, within the Government and Binding framework, verbs are assumed to have lexical entries that specify the number of arguments that they take, their grammatical role in the sentence as well as the θ-roles associated with them. Linking stipulations such as the Projection Principle (see also footnote 10, Ch. 2) ensure that the grammatical information included in the lexical entry is projected in syntax proper. In turn, the view that the thematic roles of a verb’s arguments (Agent, Theme, Goal…) correlate with the grammatical function of such

176 Stative Inquiries

arguments (subject, object…) was crystallized in Baker’s (1988) Uniformity of Thematic Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), stated in (357). (357) Uniformity of Thematic Assignment Hypothesis (Baker 1988: 46) Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure.

Intuitively, something like the UTAH appears to be correct. For instance, we do not (tend to) find languages where Themes are subjects and Agents are objects, but the other way around. That is, we do not find sentences like (358b), which depict imaginary verbs whose subject would be a Theme and their object an Agent. Under a UTAH approach, Agents are universally projected in, say, (Spec,VP) and Themes as complements of V, as in (359). (358) a. John hit/built/found/pushed/bought/cleaned/broke/described the table. b. * The table plit/puilt/vound/fushed/pought/bleaned/proke/tescribed John.  (Baker 1997: 76) (359)

VP V′

Agent



V

Theme

Psychological verbs, then, seem to contradict the UTAH, as it has been repeatedly observed. If we assume that the transitive sentences in (360) correspond to the same syntactic structure, it is a mystery how the Experiencer can be a subject in (360a) and an object in (360b) or, to put it differently, how we could have an Agent subject in (358a), an Experiencer subject in (360a) and a Theme subject in (360b) if we assume they project in the same syntactic position. (360) a. b.

John fears Mary. Class I/‍ SEPVs  Mary frightens John. Class II/ OEPVs 

Experiencer > Theme Theme > Experiencer

Several solutions have been proposed with respect to this asymmetry. One is to adopt a relativized version of the UTAH (RUTAH) (Belletti & Rizzi 1988, Grimshaw 1990, Pesetsky 1995), where the θ-roles that a verb assigns project in the syntax according to their relative order on a thematic hiearchy (e.g. (361), from Grimshaw 1990).1 1.  For more articulate versions of thematic hierarchies, see Van-Valin (1990), Van-Valin & LaPolla (1997), within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar.



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 177

(361) Agent > Experiencer > Theme

Approaches here differ as to whether they take the non-Experiencer argument to be a Theme in both cases or not. Belletti & Rizzi (1988) assume they are Themes in both cases: for them, the Theme subject in OEPVs is derived, i.e. OEPVs are unaccusative, and so the Theme does not c-command the Experiencer at D-structure in OEPVs. For SEPVs, the authors assume that they are transitive D-structures, with the Experiencer higher than the Theme. The second strategy within the RUTAH approach is pursued in Grimshaw (1990), Pesetsky (1995), who claim that the subjects of OEPVs are in fact Causers, not Themes. In SEPVs, the θ-roles of Experiencer and Theme are realized as subject and object, whereas in OEPVs the object is an Experiencer and the subject is a Causer, derived in Pesetsky (1995) by a null caus affix. The thematic hierarchy that Pesetsky assumes is provided in (362). Pesetsky refers to the Theme in OEPVs as the Target/Subject Matter (T/‍SM) of the emotion. (362) Causer > Experiencer > Target/Subject Matter

Another take that differs from the RUTAH is found in Dowty (1991). Instead of assuming a rich hierarchy of θ-roles, Dowty proposes that there are just two underspecified thematic roles: proto-Agent (realized as subject) and proto-Patient (realized as object), each associated to a cluster of different properties that determine the realization of a verb’s arguments as one or the other. Psych verbs, he claims, do not provide a clear-cut choice for the realization of their arguments: Experiencers are sentient, a typical property of Agents, whereas the Stimulus (following the terminology in Talmy 1985) brings about a reaction in the Experiencer, a property that is also typical of Agents. Therefore, both arguments are equally (weak) candidates for being subjects (proto-Agents). A final alternative would be to give up θ-theory altogether in favor of an aspectual role approach to argument structure, in the lines of Tenny (1987, 1994) and Hale & Keyser (1993). This approach fits well with stative-causative approaches to OEPVs (Pylkkänen 2000, Arad 1998b, 2002, Kratzer 2000): while the subjects of SEPVs can be generalized holders of a state (emotional or not), the subjects of OEPVs are Causers that maintain a certain state in an object, i.e. the object is the holder of that state (emotional or not). I will defend an aspectual-role approach in this chapter, but I will contend that the relevant structure for deriving Experiencer objects in OEPVs is locative (in the spirit of Landau 2010), rather than stative-causative.

178 Stative Inquiries

5.2.2 Psych effects In addition to the linking problem discussed above, psych verbs have been observed to have several properties that single them out from other types of verbal predicates in many languages. Landau (2010) refers to these properties as “psych effects”. These properties appear, for the most part, with OEPVs. I enumerate them below, drawing from Landau’s discussion in his 2010 monograph. The different proposals trying to account for these psych effects are too numerous to review here, so I will merely present the empirical data in this section and refer to specific accounts when relevant for the discussion of my own. Belletti & Rizzi (1988) note that experiencer objects are islands for wh-extraction. In (363a), we have a DP (il candidato) that is relativized out of a bigger accusative object DP (i sostenitori…). However, when the accusative object is an Experiencer, it constitutes an island for extraction (363b). The examples in (363) are from Belletti & Rizzi (1988: 325), following an original observation by Benincà (1986). (363) a. Il candidato di cui questa ragazza apprezza i sostenitori. the candidate of whom this girl likes the supporters b. * Il candidato di cui questa prospettiva impaurisce i sostenitori. the candidate of whom this perspective frightens the supporters

Furthermore, accusative experiencer objects can appear as clitics related to a leftdislocated DP with a dative marker a (e.g. (364a)). This is not allowed with other transitive-accusative verbs, SEPVs included (e.g. (364b)). This is noted by Belletti & Rizzi (1988: 334), following an original observation by Benincà (1986). (364) a. A Giorgio, questi argomenti non l’hanno convinto. to Giorgio these arguments not him.have convinced b. * A Giorgio, la gente non lo conosce. to Giorgio the people not him know.



Belletti & Rizzi (1988) also observe that periphrastic causatives in Italian are not allowed with OEPVs (but they are with SEPVs). This pattern is exemplified in (365). The authors further note that reflexivization of OEPVs is not possible, unlike SEPVs. This is illustrated in the examples in (366). (365) a. * Questo lo ha fatto preoccupare/ commuovere/ attrarre ancora più this him has made worry move attract even more a Mario. to Mario This made Mario worry/move/attract him even more.’

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 179



b. Questo lo ha fatto apprezzare/ temere/ ammirare ancora più this him has made estimate fear admire even more a Mario to Mario This made Mario estimate fear admire him even more.’   (Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 303)



conosco. (366) a. Io mi I myself know ‘I know myself.’ b. * Io mi interesso. I myself interest (‘I interest myself.’) 

(Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 296)

Another psych effect involves the genitive of negation. In Russian, when an object bears accusative case, it may shift to genitive under negation, as shown in (367a). Objects bearing other cases (e.g. instrumental), on the other hand, cannot shift to genitive under negation (e.g. (367b)). However, as pointed out by Legendre & Akimova (1993), the accusative objects of OEPVs do not show such asymmetry under negation, and accusative remains obligatory. (367) a. b. c.

Ja ne našel tzvety/ tzvetov. I not found flowers.acc flowers.gen ‘I didn’t find (the) flowers.’ On ne upravljal fabrikoj/ *fabriki. he not managed factory.inst factory.gen ’He didn’t manage a/‍the factory.’ (Pereltsvaig 1997, via Landau 2010: 25) Šum ne ogorčil ni odnu devočku/ *odnoj devočki. noise.nom not upset no one girl.acc one girl.gen ‘The noise didn’t upset a single girl.’   (Legendre & Akimova 1993, via Landau 2010: 25)

180 Stative Inquiries

Moving to Greek, Anagnostopoulou (1999) notes clitic doubling with accusative objects is optional. However, accusative experiencers do not easily allow for clitic dropping, as (368) illustrates.2,3 (368) a. b.

O Jannis (tin) ghnorise tin Maria se ena party. the John cl.acc met the Mary.acc in a party ‘John met (her) Mary at a party.’ O Jannis ?*(tin) endhiaferi tin Maria pano ap’ola the John cl.acc interests the Mary.acc more than-everything ‘John interests Mary more than anything else.’   (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 75)

Anagnostopoulou (1999) further discusses another peculiar property of Experiencer objects in Greek regarding cliticization. Dative objects can be relativized without the preposition being pied-piped provided a resumptive clitic appears, a property that accusative objects do not have (e.g. (369)). Experiencer objects behave as regular dative objects in this respect: the resumptive clitic is obligatory when the Experiencer is relativized, regardless of whether it bears morphological dative (i.e. DEPVs) or accusative (i.e. OEPVs). This pattern is shown in (370). (369) a. Simbatho ton anthropo pu o Petros tu edhose to vivlio. like.1sg the man.acc that the Peter.nom cl.dat gave the book.acc ‘I like the man that Peter gave him the book.’

2.  Anagnostopoulou further notes that clitic doubling in Greek is subject to the Prominence condition (i.e. the doubled object must be an anaphoric definite, not a novel/ accomodative one). She notes that object experiencers may violate this condition. (xxvii) a. Prin apo ligo kero eghrapsa mia vivliokrisia jia ena kenourjo vivlio pano sto clitic doublingi. ‘Some time ago, I reviewed a new book on clitic doubling.’ sinandisa ton sigrafeak se ena taksidhi mu. b. #Arghotera ton  cl.acc met-I the author.acc in a trip my later-on ‘Later on, I met him-the author during a trip of mine.’ c. I kritiki mu ton enohlise ton sigrafeak toso oste na paraponethi the criticism my cl.acc bothered the author.acc such that SBJV complain ston ekdhoti to.the editor ‘My criticism bothered the author so much that he complained about it to the editor.’  (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 76)



3.  The relation between psych predicates and the obligatoriness of clitic doubling has also been attested for other languages such as Amharic (Kramer 2014) and Bulgarian (Krapova & Cinque 2008).



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 181

b. * Simpatho ton anthropo pu ton sinandise o Petros like.1sg the man.acc that cl.acc met.3sg the Peter.nom ‘I like the man that Peter met him.’  (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 77) (370) a. b. c.

O anthropos pu *(tu) aresi i Maria ine ilithios the man that cl.dat like.3sg the Mary.nom is stupid ‘The man that Mary appeals to is stupid.’ O anthropos pu *(ton) endhiaferi i Maria ine ilithios. the man that cl.acc interests the Mary.nom is stupid ‘The man that Mary interests is stupid.’ O anthropos pu *(ton) provlimatizun ta nea bike mesa the man that cl.acc puzzle the news.nom came in ‘The man that the news puzzles came in.’   (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 77–78)

These relativization contrasts in Greek also hold for Hebrew, as Landau (2010) notes.4 In Hebrew, the absence of a resumptive clitic with relativized accusative objects is preferred, whereas its presence is required with relativized dative and oblique objects (e.g. (371a–b)). Experiencer objects behave like datives and obliques in that respect, as (371c) shows. (371) a. b. c.

ha-iš1 še-Rina hikira (?oto1) higia. the-man the-Rina knew (?him) arrived ‘The man that Rina knew has arrived.’ ha-iš1 še-Rina xašva al-*(av1 pro1) higia. the-man that-Rina thought of-*(him) arrived ‘The man that Rina thought of has arrived.’ ha-muamadim še-ha-toca’ot hiftiu *(otam) lo amru mila. the-candidates that-the-results surprised *(them) not said word ‘The candidates that the results surprised did not utter a word.’   (Landau 2010: 31)

Another pervasive psych effect involves the formation of verbal passives. OEPVs do not form verbal passives in many languages, a fact that has been repeatedly observed in the literature (Belletti & Rizzi 1988, Legendre 1989, Franco 1990, Legendre 1993, Grimshaw 1990, Roberts 1991, Landau 2010, Marín 2011, Fábregas & Marín 2015a, a.o.).5 The impossibility of forming verbal passives is not obvious in languages that do not distinguish morphologically between verbal and adjectival 4.  Landau quotes Arad (1998: 199–200) and a personal communication with Sharon ArmonLotem as the precedents of this empirical observation. 5.  But see Bouchard (1995), Legendre & Akimova (1993), Pesetsky (1995), Pylkkänen (2000), Gehrke & Sánchez-Marco (2015) for a different view.

182 Stative Inquiries

passives (e.g. French and Italian). However, many authors have shown upon careful testing that stative OEPVs indeed lack verbal passives. I will present below the discussion of Belletti & Rizzi (1988) for Italian, and see also Section  5.3.2.2 for Hebrew as well as Landau (2010) for a more general discussion. Belletti & Rizzi (1988) provide the following arguments for Italian. First, the past participle forms derived from these verbs cannot host clitic pronouns, unlike verbal passives and verbs more generally (e.g. (372–373)). (372) a. b.

La notizia comunicata a Gianni. the news communicated to Gianni La notizia ignota a Gianni. the news unknown to Gianni

(373) a. La notizia comunicatagli. the news communicated to him b. * La notizia ignotagli. the news unknown to him  (Chomsky 1981, via Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 309–310)

Further evidence comes from the different types of auxiliaries that verbal and adjectival passives may appear with. While they both take the auxiliary essere, the verb venire ‘come’, when used as an auxiliary, is only licit with verbal passives (e.g. (374)). As we can see in (375), SEPVs allow for venire, but OEPVs do not (e.g. (376)). (374) a. b.

La porta è chiusa alle cinque. the door is closed at five La porta viene chiusa alle cinque. the door comes closed at five 

(Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 310)

(375) a. Gianni viene temuto da tutti. Gianni comes feared by everyone b. Gianni viene apprezzato da i suoi concittadini. Gianni comes appreciated by his fellow-citizens c. Questa scelta viene rispettata dalla maggioranza degli elettori. This choice comes respected by the majority of the voters  (Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 310–311) (376) a. * Gianni viene preoccupato da tutti. by everybody Gianni comes worried b. * Gianni viene affascinato da questa prospettiva. Gianni comes fascinated by this perspective c. * Gianni viene appassionato dalla politica. Gianni comes excited by politics  (Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 311)



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 183

Third, some OEPVs do not allow a regular participial form, but only an irregular adjectival form. If these verbs could form verbal passives, it would be a mystery why regular participial forms are not allowed. The reason that regular participial forms are not allowed as adjectives with these verbs is due, in Belletti & Rizzi’s (1988) view, to Kiparsky’s (1973) Blocking Principle, which blocks the formation of a regular participial adjective if there is an irregular form available. (377) a. * Sono stufato/ stancato/ entusiasmato dalle sue idee. I am tired/ excited by his ideas b. Sono stufo/ stanco/ entusiasta delle sue idee. I am tired/ excited of his ideas  (Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 311)



Before concluding this section, a crucial clarification is to be made: these psych effects are claimed to only hold in non-agentive readings of OEPVs: when the psych verb is used agentively, it stops showing psych effects and behave like non-psych verbs (Kayne 1975, Franco 1990, Arad 1999, Anagnostopoulou 1999, Landau 2010, Fábregas & Marín 2015a, a.o.). The agentive/non-agentive alternation has also been connected to the stative/eventive aspectual alternation in many works (Arad 1998b, 2002, Rothmayr 2009, Landau 2010, Marín 2011, Fábregas & Marín 2015a) and it is yet another trait that sets OEPVs apart from OEPVs and III verbs, which seem to be strictly nonagentive/ stative across languages. I illustrate this alternation in (378) for English.6 (378) a. Storms scare me.  (Non-agentive, stative) b. John scared Mary (on purpose/ by knocking a glass over).   (Agentive, eventive)

While accepting this general view, I believe that the defining trait for psych effects is stativity, rather than lack of agentivity: the source of the confusion, I believe, stems from assuming a strict correlation of non-agentivity and stativity, which does not always hold. I will argue for this view more at length in Section 5.5.3. A summary of my discussion of psych verbs is provided in Table 5.1, where I present a list of the psych effects I have treated so far and the languages in which they have been observed.

6.  Not all OEPVs alternate aspectually with the same ease both within and across languages. Pesetsky (1995) notes for English that some verbs like scare favor an eventive reading, whereas others like depress are strictly stative. Marín (2011), on the other hand, notes that most OEPVs in Spanish are actually stative (see also Section 5.3.1 for further discussion on this point).

184 Stative Inquiries

Table 5.1  Psych effects crosslinguistically Psych effects

Language(s)

No verbal passives

Italian, Spanish, Hebrew

✓

✗

No periphrastic causatives

Spanish, Italian

✓

✗

No reflexives

Spanish, Italian

✓

✗

Dative left-dislocated objects linked to accusative clitics

Italian

✓

✗

No relativization extraction out of accusative objects

Italian

✓

✗

Obligatory resumptive clitic with relativized accusative object

Greek, Hebrew

✓

✗

Clitic doubling with accusative objects

Greek

✓

✗

No genitive of negation

Russian

✓

✗

5.3 5.3.1

Stative Other OEPVs transitive verbs

Psychological and locative verbs Spanish psych verbs and their effects

Spanish psychological verbs can be classified according to the tripartite classification put forth in Belletti & Rizzi (1988). I present the classification in (379) below. The examples for SEPVs and OEPVs are taken from Marín & Sánchez-Marco (2012).7

7.  The examples in (xxviiib) represent those verbs whose experiencer is strictly dative and, as it can be seen, they are very few in comparison to SEPVs and OEPVs. However, in Standard Spanish, many object-experiencer psych verbs display an accusative/dative alternation (i.e. Belletti & Rizzi’s Class II and III verbs), as shown in (xxviiia). Fewer are strictly dative (i.e. Class III), as shown in (xxviiib). (xxviii) a. A Pedro {lo/ le} molestan los niños. dom Pedro cl.acc cl.dat bother.3pl the children ‘(The) children bother Pedro.’ b. A María {*la/ le} gusta el chocolate. dom María cl.acc cl.dat likes.3sg the chocolate ‘María likes chocolate.’ (lit. ‘Chocolate pleases María.’)  (Standard Spanish) However, my variety (Castilian Spanish) neutralizes case distinctions in clitics in favor of gender distinctions, as in (xxix): le/les is an object clitic for masculine referents and la/las is an object clitic for feminine referents, as opposed to Standard Spanish, where dative clitics are le/ les regardless of gender and accusative clitics are lo/los for masculine referents and la/las for feminine referents (see Fernández Ordóñez 1999, for a dialectal study of this phenomena and



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 185

(379) a. SEPVs (Nominative experiencer) aborrecer ‘abhor’, admirar ‘admire’, adorar ‘adore’, amar ‘love’, anhelar ‘yearn’, apreciar ‘appreciate’, codiciar ‘covet’, compadecer ‘pity’, deplorar ‘deplore’, despreciar ‘despise’, detestar ‘detest’, envidiar ‘envy’, estimar ‘esteem’, lamentar ‘lament’, odiar ‘hate’, padecer ‘suffer’, preferir ‘prefer’, querer ‘love’, respetar ‘respect’, sentir ‘feel’, sufrir ‘suffer’, temer ‘fear’, tolerar ‘tolerate’, venerar ‘venerate’. b. OEPVs (Accusative experiencer) aburrir ‘bore’, acongojar ‘wring’, agobiar ‘overwhelm’, aliviar ‘relieve’, amedrentar ‘intimidate’, angustiar ‘distress’, anonadar ‘stun’, apaciguar ‘calm down’, apasionar ‘be passionate about’, apenar ‘sadden’, apesadumbrar ‘sadden’, asombrar ‘astonish’, asustar ‘scare’, atemorizar ‘terrify’, cabrear ‘make really mad’, compungir ‘to be remorseful’, conmocionar ‘move’, confundir ‘confound’, consternar ‘dismay’, consolar ‘console’, contrariar ‘displease’, deprimir ‘depress’, (des) animar ‘encourage/ discourage’, desesperar ‘exasperate’, honrar ‘honor’, deshonrar ‘dishonor’, ilusionar ‘excite’, desilusionar ‘disappoint’, deslumbrar ‘dazzle’, motivar ‘encourage’, desmotivar ‘discourage’, disgustar ‘upset’, distraer ‘distract’, enamorar ‘make fall in love’, enfadar ‘irritate’, enfurecer ‘enfuriate’, enojar ‘irritate’, entretener ‘entertain’, entristecer ‘sadden’, entusiasmar ‘enthuse’, espantar ‘scare away’, estimular ‘stimulate’, excitar ‘arouse’, fascinar ‘fascinate’, fastidiar ‘annoy’, frustrar ‘frustrate’, humillar ‘humilliate’, importunar ‘importune’, indignar ‘outrage’, interesar ‘interest’, molestar ‘bother’, mosquear ‘annoy’, obnubilar ‘bewilder’, obsesionar ‘obsess’, ofender ‘offend’, ofuscar ‘obfuscate’, oprimir ‘opress’, perturbar ‘disturb’, preocupar ‘worry’, seducir ‘seduce’, sorprender ‘surprise’. c. DEPVs (Dative experiencer) gustar ‘like’, agradar ‘please’, placer ‘please’, doler ‘hurt’, apetecer ‘feel like’.

5.3.1.1 Stative OEPVs Given that psych effects are found in stative OEPVs, and these verbs are known to alternate aspectually across languages, we first need to determine which of the its geographic distribution in European Spanish). In such variety, then, the distinction between OEPVs and DEPVs is blurred. (xxix) a. A Pedro {*lo/ le} molestan los niños. dom Pedro cl.acc cl.m bother.3pl the children ‘(The) children bother Pedro.’ b. A María {la/ *le} gusta el chocolate. dom María cl.f cl.dat likes.3sg the chocolate ‘María likes chocolate.’ (lit. ‘Chocolate pleases María.’) (Castilian Spanish -laísta and leísta variety)

186 Stative Inquiries

verbs in (379b) are non-agentive/stative. In his aspectual study of psych verbs in Spanish, Marín (2011) reaches the conclusion that most OEPVs in Spanish are in fact strictly stative (see also Marín & McNally 2011, Marín & Sánchez-Marco 2012): non-agentive OEPVs are always stative, he claims, whereas within agentive OEPVs we can find agentive and nonagentive ones. I present in (380) the nonexhaustive list of non-agentive/stative OEPVs, taken from Marín (2011).8 (380) Stative/Non-agentive OEPVs in Spanish aburrir ‘bore’, acongojar ‘wring’, afligir ‘sadden’, angustiar ‘distress’, anonadar ‘stun’, apasionar ‘be passionate about’, apenar ‘sadden’, apesadumbrar ‘sadden’, deprimir ‘depress’, desesperar ‘exasperate’, disgustar ‘upset’, enfadar ‘anger’, enfurecer ‘enfuriate’, enojar ‘upset’, enorgullecer ‘make proud’, entristecer ‘sadden’, entusiasmar ‘enthuse’, fascinar ‘fascinate’, indignar ‘outrage’, interesar ‘interest’, obnubilar ‘bewilder’, obsesionar ‘obsess’, ofuscar ‘obfuscate’, preocupar ‘worry’.

5.3.1.2 Psych effects Spanish, just like all the languages discussed in Section 5.2.2, also exhibits psych effects. Verbal passives are not possible with stative OEPVs (e.g. (381a)): adjectival passives, however, are acceptable (381b). The claim that passives of stative OEPVs are always adjectival has been made for other languages (Belletti & Rizzi 1988, Grimshaw 1990, Levin 1993, Landau 2010, a.o.) and for Spanish by Vanhoe (2004), Marín (2015), Fábregas & Marín (2015a). Note that Spanish differentiates morphologically between verbal and adjectival passives: the former take the auxiliary ser ‘to be’ and the latter take estar ‘to be’, hence they are not ambiguous, unlike what happens in languages like Italian and English that do not distinguish morphologically between the two (remember the discussion in Section 5.2.2 about Italian adjectival passives). (381) a. * Tus padres fueron {fascinados/ interesados/ desesperados/ your parents wereSER fascinated interested despaired angustiados/ preocupados/ obsesionados} (por la situación). anguished worried obsessed by the situation (‘Your parents were {fascinated/ interested/ despaired/ anguished/ worried/ obsessed} (by the situation).’) b. Tus padres están {fascinados/ interesados/ desesperados/ your parents areESTAR fascinated interested despaired angustiados/ preocupados/ obsesionados} (por la situación). anguished worried obsessed by the situation ‘Your parents are {fascinated/ interested/ despaired/ anguished/ worried/ obsessed} (by the situation).’ 8.  But see Section 5.5.3.2, where take a closer look at the verbs in (380) and argue that, while they are indeed stative, some of them resist a clear-cut classification as non-agentive.



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 187

Just like we saw for Italian, Spanish does not allow periphrastic causatives with hacer ‘make’ with stative OEPVs (e.g. (382)). (382) * Esto hizo a María {aterrorizar/ impresionar/ fascinar/ desesperar/ this made dom María terrorize impress fascinate exasperate preocupar} a Juan. worry dom Juan (‘This made María {terrorize/ impress/ fascinate/ exasperate/ worry} Juan.’)



Another psych effect that we find in Spanish is the impossibility of having reflexive structures. This may not be evident at first sight, since it is very common to find stative OEPVs with reflexive morphology (see particularly Marín & McNally 2005, 2011). (383) María se aburre/ desespera/ angustia/ preocupa/ obsesiona. María refl bores despairs anguishes worries obsesses lit: ‘María bores/ despairs/ anguishes/ worries/ obsesses herself.’

Upon closer inspection, however, these are not reflexive structures, but rather more akin to reflexively marked anticausatives. The more obvious piece of evidence is that we cannot express reflexive meaning with reflexive morphology with stative OEPVs. For instance, if I want to express that Pedro does not find himself interesting, I cannot say (384a): I have to paraphrase it, as in (384b). The same goes for (385a): it is ungrammatical with a reflexive reading. For expressing the reflexive reading, one needs to resort to a paraphrase, e.g. with an adjectival passive, as in (385b). Reflexive structures, therefore, are not possible with stative OEPVs in Spanish. (384) a. * Pedro no se interesa a sí mismo. Pedro not refl interests at him self (‘Pedro doesn’t interest himself.’) b. Pedro no tiene interés en sí mismo. Pedro not has interest in him self ‘Pedro doesn’t have any interest in himself.’ (385) a. * Pedro se obsesiona. Pedro refl obsesses (‘Pedro obsesses himself.’) b. Pedro está obsesionado consigo mismo. Pedro is obsessed with-him self ‘Pedro is obsessed with himself.’

With agentive OEPVs (i.e. which can have an agentive reading with an animate subject), psych effects disappear, as argued for explicitly in Fábregas & Marín

188 Stative Inquiries

(2015a). These verbs are illustrated in (386), and are taken in part from Marín (2011), who labels them ‘agentive object-experiencer verbs’. (386) Agentive OEPVs acosar ‘harass’, agobiar ‘overwhelm’, aliviar ‘alleviate’, amedrentar ‘intimidate’, animar ‘encourage’, desanimar ‘discourage’, apaciguar ‘pacify’, asombrar ‘astonish’, asustar ‘frighten’, atemorizar ‘terrify’, confundir ‘confound’, consolar ‘console’, contrariar ‘displease’, honrar ‘honor’, deshonrar ‘dishonor’, deslumbrar ‘dazzle’, motivar ‘encourage’, desmotivar ‘discourage’, distraer ‘distract’, entretener ‘entertain’, espantar ‘horrify’, estimular ‘stimulate’, excitar ‘excite’, fastidiar ‘annoy’, frustrar ‘frustrate’, humillar ‘humilliate’, importunar ‘annoy’, molestar ‘disturb’, ofender ‘offend’, oprimir ‘opress’, perturbar ‘disturb’, seducir ‘seduce’, sorprender ‘surprise’.

Interestingly, (a subset of) these verbs do not show psych effects. Marín (2011) already points out that the verbs in (386) can form verbal passives (e.g. (387a)), and I observe that they can also appear in reflexive configurations (e.g. (387b)) and can form periphrastic passives (e.g. (387c)). I will nonetheless refine the classification in (386) and its relation to psych effects in Section 5.5.3. (387) a. b. c.

Pedro ha sido acosado/ excitado/ humillado/ seducido (por María). Pedro has beenSER harassed excited humiliated seduced by María ‘Pedro has been {harrassed/ excited/ humiliated/ seduced} by María.’ Juan se distrajo viendo una película. Juan refl distracted watching a movie ‘Juan amused himself watching a movie.’ Azarías hizo a sus amigos humillar a Paco. Azarías made dom his friends humilliate dom Paco ‘Azarías made his friends humilliate Paco.’

For psych effects, then, I will restrict my discussion to the stative verbs in (380). I will now discuss the class of verbs that I call ‘location’ verbs and show that they behave very much like stative OEPVs with respect to psych effects. 5.3.2 Locative verbs and their ‘psych’ effects 5.3.2.1 Spanish locative verbs There is a class of verbs in Spanish (and in many other languages) that denote a spatial relationship between two entities. I provide a non-exhaustive list in (388).9 9.  Note that the lexical semantics of these verbs sometimes makes the spatial relation more obvious (e.g. rodear ‘surround’, where the subject is around the object) and sometimes more obscure: for instance, it is not at first obvious that the verb decorar ‘decorate’ in a sentence such



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 189

(388) Locative verbs rodear ‘surround’, cubrir ‘cover’, flanquear ‘flank’, envolver ‘wrap’, tapar ‘cover/ hide from view’, bloquear ‘block’, cercar ‘fence’, obstruir ‘obstruct’, revestir ‘coat’, poblar ‘inhabit’, inundar ‘flood’, llenar ‘fill’, cobijar ‘shelter’, decorar ‘decorate’, illuminate ‘iluminar’…

This understudied class of verbs has been usually discussed together with OEPVs (Kratzer 2000, Rothmayr 2009, Jaque 2013).10 In particular, these authors have focused on the aspectual alternation that both classes show between a stative, nonagentive reading and an eventive, agentive reading. The former merely denotes a stative spatial relation whereas the latter involves a change of state/location. See Example (378) for OEPVs, repeated below, and (389) for locative verbs in English. This aspectual alternation also holds in Spanish, with the caveat that psych verbs in Spanish do not generally have eventive versions, as we discussed. (378) a. Storms scare me.  (Non-agentive, stative) b. John scared me (on purpose/ by knocking a glass over).   (Agentive, eventive) (389) a. The wall surrounds the house.  b. The police surrounded the house. 

(Non-agentive, stative) (Agentive, eventive)

as The flowerpots decorate the front porch is locative, yet note that for the sentence to be true the flowerpots need to be in a spatial relation to the front porch, just like in a sentence such as The flowerpots flank the front porch. What is important for our purposes is that the verbs in (388) have the same grammatical properties. 10.  Rothmayr (2009) calls them “instrumental alternation” verbs, on the basis that they can have two versions: an eventive one with an agent subject and a PP-instrument (e.g. (xxxa) and (xxxia)) and a stative one in which the instrument introduced by the PP is now the subject (e.g. (xxxb) and (xxxib)). (xxx) a. Die Irmi füllt die Vase mit Wasser. the Irmi fills the vase with water Irmi is filling the vase with water.’ b. Wasser füllt die Vase. water fills the vase Water is filling the vase.’ (xxxi) a. Der Poldi schmückt die Torte mit Kerzen. the Poldi decorates the cake with candles ‘Poldi is decorating the cake with candles.’ b. Kerzen schmücken die Torte. candles decorate the cake ‘Candles are decorating the cake.’ 

(Rothmayr 2009: 38)

190 Stative Inquiries

(390) a. b.

La corrupción humilla a los políticos. the corruption humiliates dom the politicians ‘Corruption humiliates politicians.’ María humilló a Juan (en apenas cinco minutos). María humiliated dom Juan in barely five minutes ‘María humiliated Juan in barely five minutes.’

(391) a. b.

La valla rodea toda la casa. the wall surrounds all the house ‘The wall surrounds the whole house.’ La policía rodeó toda la casa (en apenas cinco minutos) the police surrounded all the house in barely five minutes ‘The police surrounded the whole house in barely five minutes.’

These authors have proposed, from different theoretical perspectives, an analysis in terms of “flavors” of causation, so to speak: a stative causation version that takes a non-agentive subject and an eventive causation version that takes an agentive subject, most notably in the work of Rothmayr (2009). These authors’ proposals were mostly founded on analogous proposals for OEPVs (Arad 1998b, Kratzer 2000, Pylkkänen 2000, a.o.) (See Section 5.4.2 for further discussion as well as Section 5.4.3 for arguments against this view). What has not been noticed or pursued, at least as far as I am aware, is whether the quirky grammatical effects displayed by psych verbs (i.e. the psych effects) can also be observed with the stative version of locative verbs or not. They actually do. First, verbal passives are out under the stative reading (e.g. (392)). (392) a. * La casa era rodeada por una valla. the house wasSER surrounded by a fence (‘The house was surrounded by a fence.’) b. * El porche era decorado por macetas. the porch wasSER decorated by flowerpots (‘The porch was decorated by flowerpots.’)

Second, reflexive structures are also out. This is shown in (e.g. (393a), where we cannot use a reflexive structure to say that Pedro (statively) surrounds himself with stones, or (393b), in a scenario where María has painted herself with silver paint. Keep in mind that the sentences in (393) are not ungrammatical under the eventive reading, i.e. if they are interpreted as habitual. (393) a. * Pedro se rodea (de piedras). Pedro refl surrounds of stones (‘Pedro surrounds himself (with stones).’) 

(Non-habitual reading)

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 191



b. * María se decora (con pintura plateada). María refl decorates with paint silver (‘María decorates herself (with silver paint).’) 

(Non-habitual reading)

Just like with OEPVs, these psych effects dissapear when the verb is eventive: in that case, both verbal passives (394a) and reflexive structures (394b) are readily available. (394) a. b.

rodeada por la policía (en un minuto). La casa fue the house wasSER surrounded by the police in one minute ‘The house was surrounded by the police (in one minute).’ Pedro se cubrió (en un segundo). Pedro refl covered in one second ‘Pedro covered himself (in one second).’

Yet another parallelism is found with respect to OEPVs: locative verbs do not allow a periphrastic causative with hacer ‘make’ in their stative reading. Only the eventive reading is available, i.e. one in which something made the policemen get around the house, but not one in which no change of state would be involved (e.g. (395)). (395)

Esto hizo a la policía rodear la casa. this made dom the police surround the house ‘This made the police surround the house.’ ✗ Stative reading: this made the police be around the house. ✓ Eventive reading: this made the police get to be around the house.

5.3.2.2 Psych effects with locative verbs in other languages Interestingly, locative verbs also show psych effects in other languages. Take Hebrew, for instance. Landau (2010) argues that Hebrew, like all other languages, does not have verbal passives from stative, non-agentive OEPVs generally. Only agentive verbs allow for the verbal passive, as in (396a), where the agent is introduced by al-yedey ‘by’. However, Landau (2010) notes that there is a small set of stative OEPVs that may appear in this construction (e.g. (396a)). Landau labels them fake passives because, although morphologically verbal, he claims they are actually unergative: the demoted external argument cannot be introduced by the preposition al-yedei because it is in fact an internal argument, introduced by the preposition me- ‘of ’. (396) a. b.

Gil hu’alav al-yedey ha-bosit. Gil was-insulted by the-boss ‘Gil was insulted by the boss.’ Gil hufta me-/ *al-yedey ha-xadašot. Gil was-surprised of by the-news ‘Gil was surprised at/*by the news.’ 

(Landau 2010: 61)

192 Stative Inquiries

As it turns out, Hebrew stative locative verbs behave in a very similar fashion. Canonical verbal passives with a demoted external argument introduced by al-yedei are out/ degraded with these verbs, as (397a) shows. However, the demoted argument can be introduced by a different preposition, ba- ‘in’ in this case. (397) a. b.

? ha-bayit

mukaf al-yedei ha-gader ha-zo. the-house surround.caus.pass.prs by the-fence the-this (‘The house is surrounded by this fence.’) ha-bayit mukaf ba-gader ha-zo. the-house surround.caus.pass.prs in.the-fence the-this ‘The house is surrounded by this fence.’  (Itamar Kastner, p.c.)

Further commonalities between stative OEPVs and locative verbs in Hebrew are found in resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. As we saw previously, when the accusative object of stative object experiencer psych verbs is relativized, there is an obligatory resumptive pronoun (see (371c), repeated below). (371c) ha-muamadim še-ha-toca’ot hiftiu *(otam) lo amru mila. the-candidates that-the-results surprised *(them) not said word ‘The candidates that the results surprised did not utter a word.’   (Landau 2010: 31)

The same effect holds with locative verbs. In Hebrew, the relativized object of a locative verb needs to have a resumptive pronoun: its absence degrades the construction considerably, as (398) shows.11 ?(oto). ze ha-iš še-ha-rihut makif this the-man that-the-furniture surrounding.prs him ‘This is the man that the furniture surrounds.’ ze ha-iš {še-ha-panas meir/ še-ha-teura this the-man that-the-flashlight illuminates.prs.m that-the-lighting ?(oto) meira} illuminates.prs.f him ‘This is the man that the {flashlight/ lighting} illuminates.’ ?(oto) c. ze ha-iš še-ha-tsdafim mekaštot this the-man that-the-seashells decorating.prs him ‘This is the man that the seashells decorate.’  (Itamar Kastner, p.c.)

(398) a. b.

11.  Note that the sentences in (398 have question marks, rather than stars. However, my informant would also give question marks, rather than stars, to examples like (371c) with psych verbs. Indeed, the contrasts in (371) are not as sharp for my informant, who would give question marks across the board, instead of stars, as Landau does.



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 193

This same effect regarding resumptive pronouns happens in Greek too, as we saw (e.g. (370b), repeated below). Again, just like in Hebrew, stative locative verbs show a similar pattern: the relative clause is perfect with a clitic, whereas its absence degrades the sentence considerably, as (399) shows. (370b) O anthropos pu *(ton) endhiaferi i Maria ine ilithios. the man that cl.acc interests the Mary.nom is stupid ‘The man that Mary interests is stupid.’ (399) a. b. c.

O anthropos pu ?(ton) perikiklonun ta epipla ine omorfos. the man that him.cl surrounds the furniture is handsome ‘The man that the furniture surrounds is handsome.’ O anthropos pu ?(ton) kalipti i kuverta ine o Janis. the man that him.cl covers the blanket is the John ‘The man that the blanket covers is John.’ O anthropos pu ?(ton) fotizi o provoleas ine o sigrafeas. the man that him.cl illuminates the spotlight is the writer ‘The man that the spotlight illuminates is the writer.’   (Giorgos Spathas, p.c.)

Remember that we also discussed that, in Greek, clitic doubling of accusative objects is generally optional, but it becomes obligatory with accusative experiencer objects (e.g. (368b)) and (xxviia–b) below. Once again, these psych effects hold for locative verbs. Clitic doubling is generally disallowed with these verbs in Greek, as (400) shows.12

12.  My informant however notes that clitic doubling seems to be optional with illuminate, as shown in (xxxii). Then, not all locative verbs behave alike with respect to clitic doubling in Greek, a situation that I put aside for future investigation. (xxxii) O provoleas (tin) fotizi tin Maria. the spotlight her.cl illuminates the Mary ‘The spotlight illuminates Mary.’ Also, my informant notes that clitic doubling becomes optional again when the accusative object of stative locative verbs is inanimate, as in (xxxiii). Of course, we cannot test whether this holds with OEPVs too since an experiencer cannot be inanimate. (xxxiii) a. Ta epipla (to) kiklonun to ajalma. the furniture it.cl encircle the statue ‘The furniture surrounds the statue.’ b. O vraxos (tin) mplokari tin isodo. the rock her.cl blocks the entrance ‘The rock blocks the entrance.’

194 Stative Inquiries

(368b) O Jannis ?*(tin) endhiaferi tin Maria pano ap’ola the John ?*(cl.acc interests the Mary.acc more than-everything ‘John interests Mary more than anything else.’  (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 75) (400) a. b.

Ta epipla ?(ton) kiklonun ton Petro. the furniture cl.acc encircle the Petro ‘The furniture surrounds Petro.’ O vraxos ?(ton) mplokari ton Petro. the rock ?(cl.acc blocks the Peter ‘The rock blocks Peter.’ 

(Giorgos Spathas, p.c.)

Italian is another language where yet more psych effects can be observed in stative locative verbs. For one, the objects of stative locative verbs can appear as accusative clitics referentially linked to a dative-marked left-dislocated DP (e.g. (401)). This is exactly what we saw for OEPVs in (364), repeated below.13 (364) A Giorgio, questi argomenti non l’hanno convinto. to Giorgio these arguments not him.have convinced (401) A Giorgio, non lo circondano i palloni, lo circondano le dat Giorgio not cl.acc surround the balls, cl.acc surround the sedie chairs ‘Giorgio is not surrounded by balls, but by chairs.’  (Delia Bentley, p.c.) Context: there are several people with different objects around them. Speaker A believes that Giorgio has balls around him, but Speaker B corrects him by uttering (401).

We also saw that in Italian, experiencer objects are islands for extraction, as shown by the impossibility of relativizing a DP out of an experiencer object. As it turns out, the objects of locative verbs constitute islands for extraction as well. (363b) * Il candidato di cui questa prospettiva impaurisce i sostenitori. the candidate of whom this perspective frightens the supporters (402) * Il candidato di cui questi muri/ queste siepi/ queste inferriate the candidate of whom these walls these bushes these railings circondano i sostenitori. surround the supporters (‘The candidate whose supporters are surrounded by these walls/ these bushes/ these ralings.’)  (Delia Bentley, p.c.) 13.  My informant reports that she prefers (401) with the nominative argument ocurring postverbally, as in the example, and with such argument bearing constrastive focus.



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 195

Finally, stative OEPVs and locative verbs also behave alike in Russian with respect to the genitive of negation. Just like accusative experiencers block the genitive under clausemate negation (e.g. (367c)), so do the accusative objects of stative locative verbs (e.g. (403)).14 (367c) Šum ne ogorčil ni odnu devočku/ *odnoj devočki. noise.nom not upset no one girl.acc one girl.gen ‘The noise didn’t upset a single girl.’   (Legendre & Akimova 1993, via Landau 2010: 25) (403) a. b. c. d.

Zabor ne okružaet dom/ {?/??}doma. wall neg surrounds house.acc {?/??}house.gen ‘The wall does not surround the house.’ Odejalo ne pokryvaet divan/ {?/??}divana. blanket neg covers sofa.acc {?/??}sofa.gen ‘The blanket does not cover the sofa.’ Rojal’uže ne ukrašaet komnatu/ *komnaty. grand.piano.already neg decorates room.acc room.gen ‘The grand piano does not decorate the room anymore.’ ?doma. Fonar’ ne osveš’aet dom/ streetlight neg illuminates house.acc/ ?house.gen ‘The streetlight does not illuminate the house.’   (Ekaterina Chernova, p.c.)

5.3.2.3 Interim summary A summary of the discussion in this section is provided in Table 5.2. As we can see, stative locative verbs consistently show the same grammatical effects that stative OEPVs have been observed to have crosslinguistically, known as psych effects. I think that these parallelisms between psych verbs and locative verbs are too many to be attributed to chance, and strongly warrant a unified grammatical analysis of these two verb types. I will proceed to do so in the following section.

14.  An exception to this general pattern seems to be the verb pryatat’ ‘hide’, which allows for the genitive of negation just like any other transitive-accusative verb (e.g. (xxxiv)). I do not have an explanation for why this could be, so I leave it aside for future research, noting, once again, that it is an exception to the rule. (xxxiv) Šal’ ne prjačet litso/ litsa devočki. handkerchief neg hides face.acc face.gen girl.gen ‘The handkerchief does not hide the girl’s face.’ 

(Ekaterina Chernova, p.c.)

196 Stative Inquiries

Table 5.2  Psych effects with stative locative verbs Psych effects

Language(s)

No verbal passives

Spanish, Hebrew

✓

✓

✗

No periphrastic causatives

Spanish, Italian

✓

✓

✗

No reflexives

Spanish, Italian

✓

✓

✗

Dative left-dislocated objects linked to accusative clitics

Italian

✓

✓

✗

No relativization extraction out of Italian accusative objects

✓

✓

✗

Obligatory resumptive clitic with relativized accusative object

Greek, Hebrew

✓

✓

✗

Clitic doubling with accusative objects

Greek

✓

✓

✗

No genitive of negation

Russian

✓

✓

✗

5.4

Stative Stative Other OEPVs locative verbs transitive verbs

The analysis

5.4.1 A PP for experiencer objects: Landau (2010) My analysis takes as a point of departure the proposal in Landau (2010) for OEPVs, later adopted for Spanish by Fábregas & Marín (2015a). He takes the assumptions in (404) and (405) as a point of departure for his analysis.15 (404) Universally, non-nominative experiencers bear inherent case.   (Landau 2010: 20) (405) Universally, inherent case is assigned by P. 

(Landau 2010: 21)

Note that, as Landau points out, morphological case does not correlate uniformly with syntactic case, i.e. a nominal marked with inherent case may appear with either accusative or dative case. He proposes that experiencer objects are introduced by a PP complement of V, whose phonologically null head assigns inherent oblique case to its DP complement. The non-experiencer argument (Target/Subject matter T/‍SM) is introduced VP-internally (i.e. stative OEPVs are unaccusative). The structure is given in (406), adapted from Landau (2010: 9).

15.  With respect to (404), see Belletti & Rizzi (1988) for the earlier claim that accusative case in OEPVs is inherent.

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 197



(406) Structure of stative OEPVs VP V′

T/SM

PP

V



PΨ Ø

Experiencer

From this structure, two consequences follow, shown in (407). By dative behavior in (407a), Landau means inherent case behavior typically associated with dative case/ indirect objects, even when the ‘direct’ object shows morphological accusative case, a case typically associated with structural case. (407) a. The experiencer should display PP/dative behavior. b. The case of the experiencer should resist syntactic suppression.   (Landau 2010: 22)

This structure, Landau argues, is potent insofar as it succeeds in accounting for the psych effects he observes crosslinguistically (mostly discussed in Section  5.2.2). With respect to the dative-like behavior, the account explains why object experiencers in Italian can be left-dislocated with dative morphology, associated to an accusative clitic, whereas other transitive verbs cannot do that. It further accounts for the impossibility of accusative experiencers to switch to genitive case under clausemate negation in Russian, unlike structurally accusative objects. It also helps understand why Greek accusative experiencers pattern with datives in that they cannot drop the clitic associated to them (see Dimitriadis 1999, for further constructions in Macedonian Greek that also have oblique accusative objects and equally require clitic doubling). With respect to the PP structure, Landau’s account explains why experiencer objects are islands for wh-extraction in Italian, and why in Greek and Hebrew we encounter obligatory resumptive pronouns with relativized objects. The reason provided by Landau for the latter phenomenon is that relativization involves empty operator movement, which leaves a gap, and Greek Ps cannot be stranded. Finally, the unaccusative structure explains why these verbs lack verbal passives (universally, according to Landau). Crucially, Landau links this null preposition to the assignment of the Experiencer θ-role. In his own words: Here I follow the traditional distinction, introduced by Chomsky (1981), between inherent and structural case. Unlike structural case, which is assigned/checked in

198 Stative Inquiries

the syntax in certain configurations (government, spechead, Agree etc.) irrespective of thematic roles, inherent case is assigned in the lexicon and is tied to a specific θ-role. Indeed, one should see inherent case as an inseparable reflex of θ-role assignment. (Landau 2010: 20, emphasis mine)

5.4.2 Unifying psych and locative verbs I adopt Landau’s (2010) structure outlined in Section 5.4.1 for stative OEPVs in Spanish (see also Fábregas & Marín 2015a for Spanish).16 However, given that the grammatical effects that this analysis accounts for are also present in stative locative verbs, it stands to reason to propose that they are both associated to the same syntactic structure, as shown in (408a) and (409a). (408) a. La crisis aterra a las familias. the crisis frighten dom the families ‘The crisis frightens families.’ VP b. V′

La crisis

PP

V aterra





PΨ

a las familias

(409) a. La sábana tapa la entrada. the sheet hides the entrance ‘The sheet hides the entrance.’ VP b. V′

La sábana

PP

V tapa





PΨ

la entrada

Two logical options are in principle available. One is to assume that the lexicon comes with two different flavors of PΨ: one assigns an Experiencer θ-role and the other assigns a Ground θ-role, as in (410). Stative OEPVs would be lexically specified as taking the former and locative verbs the latter. 16.  Fábregas & Marín (2015a) adopt Landau’s analysis only partly: while they assume that the experiencer object (and indeed, all experiencers) is introduced by a null PP, they posit a transitive structure for stative OEPVs, not unaccusative.



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 199

(410) a. Stative OEPVs: PΨExperiencerθ b. Stative locative verbs: PΨGroundθ

I find it very counterintuitive, however, to propose that there exist two different heads that behave syntactically in exactly the same way, their only difference being the θ-role they assign. Why, then, only two flavors of PΨ and not, say, five? Note, furthermore, that other accounts of flavors of morphosyntactic heads (e.g. Folli & Harley 2005) are meant to capture different syntactic contrasts within the same grammatical category, but in our case, both of these Ps would happen to show a homogeneous syntactic behavior. A second option, which I pursue here, is to abandon the idea that the PΨ assigns a θ-role.17 In this view, there is no inherent case assignment with its concomitant θ-assignment, but simply structural oblique case assignment of PΨ to its complement. This proposal equally explains why these PΨcomplements do not behave like canonical accusative objects, which are assigned case by a higher transitive verbal projection, plausably VoiceP (Kratzer 1996). If so, then the challenge is to determine how the thematic interpretation of arguments comes about, i.e. what the common ground is between the event structure of these two verbs that would allow for a generalized aspectual event role to their arguments. Remember that, within our research program, the hypothesis is that it is the event structure of the verbal predicate that assigns thematic roles by entailment. For expository purposes, let us refer to the role the subject of OEPVs as stimulus (following Talmy 1985) and the subject and object of locative verbs as figure and ground, respectively (in the lines of Talmy 1975). (411) a. b.

La crisis aterra a las familias stimulus   experiencer ‘The crisis frightens families.’ La sábana tapa la entrada figure   ground ‘The sheet hides the entrance.’

17.  To this respect, note that nominals marked with dative case – typically analyzed as the prototypical inherent case  – do not have a uniform thematic interpretation. For instance, work on applicative arguments, which bear dative (Pylkkänen 2002, Cuervo 2003, Schäfer 2008, Fernández-Soriano & Mendikoetxea 2011, a.o.), has shown that their thematic interpretation is different depending on where in the syntax they merge: if the projection that introduces them (Appl(icative)‍‍P) merges low as a complement of V, the dative argument is interpreted as a GOAL; if ApplP selects a result-denoting projection, it is interpreted as a beneficiary/ maleficiary of the eventuality; if it projects above VP in an anti-causative context, then it is interpreted as an accidental causer.

200 Stative Inquiries

Many accounts regarding the thematic structure of stative OEPVs have proposed that they are in fact stative causative structures, their subject bearing a Causer role.18 Authors who adhere to the causative analysis of OEPVs either argue that they head transitive structures (Pesetsky 1995, Arad 2002 for OEPVs and Kratzer 2000 for both psych and locative verbs) or that they are in fact unaccusative (Arad 1998a, Pylkkänen 2000 for OEPVs and Rothmayr 2009 for both psych and locative verbs). Other accounts, however, have proposed that stative OEPVs are not causative. In this view, the subject is not a Causer, but a Stimuli (or Theme, to use a more neutral term). This is proposed, an implemented in technically different ways, by Belletti & Rizzi (1988) and Landau (2010). These authors argue that these verbs are in fact unaccusative. I am not aware of unaccusative accounts for locative verbs. With respect to the Causer analysis, I assume that a subject can only be a Causer inasmuch as it appears in a semantically causative structure (in the lines of Arad 1998b, 2002, Pylkkänen 2000, Rothmayr 2009). The reader will recall that Chapter 3 discussed the gobernar-verb type at length and argued that they were stative causatives. In the following section, I will argue against a causative analysis for stative OEPVs and locative verbs. Next, I will argue that these two verb types are not transitive, but rather unaccusative (in the lines of Pylkkänen 2000, Landau 2010 for OEPVs). 5.4.3 Stative psych and locative verbs are not causative As we discussed in Chapter  3, gobernar-verbs are characterized as being causative states, i.e. a macroeventuality constituted of two substates causally related. I showed that, while the classic Aktionsart tests classified them as states, they showed (at least) two key traits that distinguished them from other states such as know or love: (a) The possibility to appear in adjectival passives (which take the copula estar ‘to be’); (b) the existence of a scope ambiguity with again (see Table 3.2 for reference). I related the former property to the resultative component, and the latter to their bieventive composition. The structure I proposed, as well as the semantics, are illustrated with an example in (147), repeated below. As is clear, this is essentially the structure one would adopt for a causative analysis of OEPVs and locative verbs, especially if one 18.  Some of these accounts are aimed at accounting for the linking problem, as we discussed in Section 5.2.1 (Grimshaw 1990, Pesetsky 1995). Other accounts, on the other hand, have focused more in establishing a parallelism between the eventive and stative readings of the aspectual alternation, both for OEPVs (Pylkkänen 2000, Arad 2002) and locative verbs (Rothmayr 2009) (see also Kratzer 2000).

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 201



adheres to a model where the mapping from syntax to semantics is transparent (Hale & Keyser 1993, Ramchand 2008). (147) a. Berta gobierna el país. Berta governs the country ‘Berta governs the country.’ initP b. init′

DP Berta

init

resP

DP el país

res′ res

XP

c. λs ∃s1,s2 [e = (s1 → s2) & gobierna(s1) & Initiator(Berta,s1) & gobierna(s2) & Resultee(el país,s2)]

Stative OEPVs and locative verbs are, just like gobernar-verbs, stative. Also, like gobernar-verbs, they allow for adjectival passives with estar ‘to be’. This is shown in (412a) for OEPVs (see also (381b)) and in (412b) for locative verbs, as well as in (119d) for gobernar-verbs, repeated below. I discussed adjectival passives more at length in Chapter 4. (412) a. b.

Pedro está preocupado por su hijo. Pedro isESTAR worried by his son ‘Pedro is worried about his son.’ por un valle. La aldea está rodeada the village isESTAR surrounded by a valley ‘The village is surrounded by a valley.’

(119d) España está gobernada por un inconsciente. Spain is ruled by an irresponsible ‘Spain isESTAR ruled by an irresponsible person.’

Crucially, however, stative OEPVs and locative verbs part ways with gobernarverbs with respect to the scope ambiguity of again. With the former verbs, again can only take wide scope, but not narrow scope, i.e. the adverb cannot have the subject out of its scope (e.g. (413)). Gobernar-verbs, as we discussed in Chaper 3, can however have both readings with the adverb again (e.g. (141)). This suggests that OEPVs and locative verbs, unlike gobernar-verbs, are not bi-eventive.

202 Stative Inquiries

(413) a.

La crisis preocupa a María de nuevo. the crisis worries dom María of new ‘The crisis worries María again.’ ✓ Wide scope reading (again > crisis: The crisis worried María in the past, stopped doing it at sometime and now it is doing it again. ✗ Narrow scope reading (crisis > again): María was worried in the past (e.g. by earthquakes), that situation stopped and now there is a crisis that keeps María worried once again. b. Los monumentos rodean la montaña de nuevo. the monuments surround the mountain of new ‘The monuments surround the mountain again.’ ✓ Wide scope reading (again > monuments: The monuments surrounded the hill in the past, stopped doing it at some point (e.g. they were removed from the site) and now they are doing it again (e.g. they were placed back by human hands). ✗ Narrow scope reading (monuments > again): The hill was surrounded in the past (e.g. by a stone wall), that situation stopped (e.g. the wall was removed) and now there are some monuments that keep the hill surrounded again. (141)

La presa impide el paso de agua de nuevo. the dam preventes the pass of water of new ‘The dam prevents the flow of water again.’ ✓ Wide scope reading (again > dam: The dam prevented the flow of water in the past, stopped doing it at sometime and now it is doing it again. ✓ Narrow scope reading (dam > again): The flow of water was prevented in the past (e.g. by some debris), that situation stopped and now there is a dam that prevents the flow of water.

Also, gobernar-verbs and OEPVs and locative verbs fare differently with respect to whether they accept PP-instruments. The former allow them (e.g. (414)) but the latter reject them under their stative reading (e.g. (415)). Note that PP-instruments with gobernar-verbs are licit both with human (e.g. (414a)) and non-human (e.g. (414b)) subjects. I assume that instruments are licensed by causal meaning, following proposals that characterize instruments as intermediaries in a causal chain (Talmy 1976, Croft 1991, Goldberg 2002, Koenig & Davis 2006). (414) a. b.

Pedro vigila el museo con unos prismáticos. Pedro surveils the museum with some binoculars ‘Pedro surveils the museum with a pair of binoculars.’ El sistema de seguridad protege la entrada con rayos infrarrojos. the system of security protects the entrance with rays infrared





Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 203

‘The security system protects the entrance with infrared rays.’

(415) a. * Pedro aterra a Juan con un hacha. Pedro terrifies dom Juan with an axe (‘Pedro terrifies Juan with an axe.’)  (Non-habitual reading) b. * Carmen rodea a Ester con una cuerda. Carmen surrounds dom Ester with a rope (‘Carmen surrounds Ester with a rope.’)  (Non-habitual reading)

5.4.4 Stative psych and locative verbs are unaccusative OEPVs and locative verbs also differ with respect to gobernar-verbs in other nontrivial respects. First, as we observed, neither of the former classes can form verbal passives (e.g. (381a) and (392)). Gobernar-verbs, however, can (e.g. (416)). Note that stative SEPVs can form them too (e.g. (417)). (381a) * Tus padres fueron fascinados/ interesados/ desesperados/ angustiados/ your parents wereSER fascinated interested despaired anguished preocupados/ obsesionados (por la situación). worried obsessed by the situation (‘Your parents were fascinated/ interested/ despaired/ anguished/ worried/ obsessed (by the situation).’) rodeada por una valla. (392) a. * La casa era the house wasSER surrounded by a fence (‘The house was surrounded by a fence.’) b. * El porche era decorado por macetas. the porch wasSER decorated by flowerpots (‘The porch was decorated by flowerpots.’) {vigilado/ protegido/ custodiado} por la policía. (416) El museo era by the police the museum wasSER surveiled protected guarded ‘The museum was {surveiled/ protected/ guarded} by the police.’ (417) Carlos era {amado/ odiado/ respetado} por todos. Carlos wasSER loved hated loved by all ‘Carlos was {loved/ hated/ respected} by everyone.’

We also saw that stative OEPVs and locative verbs did not allow reflexive structures. This was shown, and repeated here, in (383) and (393), respectively. Note that (383) would be grammatical under an anticausative reading without the reflexive anaphor a sí misma ‘herself ’ (see discussion in Section 5.3.1.2 and compare with (383)). Departing once again for these verbs, we observe that gobernar-verbs

204 Stative Inquiries

allow for reflexive structures (e.g. (418)). So do SEPVs (e.g. (418)), as originally observed by Belletti & Rizzi (1988) for Italian. (383) * María se aburre/ desespera/ angustia/ preocupa/ obsesiona a sí misma. María refl bores despairs anguishes worries obsesses to her self (‘María bores/ despairs/ anguishes/ worries/ obsesses herself.’) (393) a. * Pedro se rodea (de piedras). Pedro refl surrounds of stones (‘Pedro surrounds himself (with stones).’) (Non-habitual reading) b. * María se decora (con pintura plateada). María refl decorates with paint silver) (‘María decorates herself (with silver paint).’)  (Non-habitual reading) (418) a. b.

Pedro se supervisa a sí mismo. Pedro refl supervises dom him self ‘Pedro supervises himself.’ Juan se controla para no gastar demasiado. Juan refl controls for not spend too.much ‘Juan controls himself so as to not spend too much.’

(419) a. b.

Carmen se quiere mucho. Carmen refl loves much ‘Carmen loves herself a lot.’ Pedro se detesta cuando hace eso. Pedro refl detests when does that ‘Pedro hates himself when he does that.’

Periphrastic causatives are yet another construction where stative OEPVs and locative verbs part ways with gobernar-verbs (and SEPVs as well). The former cannot be infinitival complements of the causative verb hacer ‘to make’ when used statively (382), whereas gobernar-verbs and SEPVs can. (382) * Esto hizo a María {aterrorizar/ impresionar/ fascinar/ desesperar/ this made dom María terrorize impress fascinate exasperate preocupar} a Juan. worry dom Juan (‘This made María {terrorize/ impress/ fascinate/ exasperate/ worry} Juan.’)



(395)

Esto hizo a la policía rodear la casa. this made dom the police surround the house ‘This made the police surround the house.’ ✗ Stative reading: this made the police be around the house. ✓ Eventive reading: this made the police get to be around the house.



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 205

(420) Esto hizo a Victoria gobernar el país. this made dom Victoria govern the country ‘This made Victoria govern the country.’ (421) Esto hizo a Juan admirar a Victoria. this made dom Juan admire dom Victoria ‘This made Juan admire Victoria.’

The discussion is summarized in Table 5.3. I take the lack of verbal passives and periphrastic causatives to signal the absence of an initP in the structure of the verb.19 Stative causatives, as we discussed, are formed by an initP and a resP (see (147)). For SEPVs we can assume, with Ramchand (2008), that they are formed by a single initP, and thus they can form verbal passives and allow periphrastic causatives. I provide an illustrative structure in (422). Remember that initP, in isolation, denotes a single, non-causative state. Table 5.3  Comparing stative causatives with stative psych and locative verbs Grammatical properties

Gobernar-verbs OEPVs Locative verbs

Scope ambiguity with again

✓

✗

✗

PP-Instruments

✓

✗

✗

(Anti-)‍‍causative alternation

✗

✓

✗

Reflexives

✓

✗

✗

Verbal passives

✓

✗

✗

Periphrastic causative with hacer ‘to make’

✓

✗

✗

Adjectival passives

✓

✓

✓

19.  Discussing the unavailability of reflexive OEPVs in Romance, Landau (2010) argues that it cannot be explained by the unaccusativity of the predicate, since DEPVs are also unaccusative and yet allow reflexives in many languages like Italian and French. Spanish behaves the same way (xxxv). (xxxv) Pedro se gusta mucho. Pedro refl pleases much ‘Pedro likes himself a lot.’ Landau adopts an unergative analysis of reflexives (Reinhart 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, Reinhart & Siloni 2004). Under this analysis, a reduction operation identifies the two θ-roles of a verb so that only one of them projects, and it absorbs the case of the verbal complement. Crucially, Landau argues, only accusative or dative case can be absorbed, but not oblique case: the restriction against reflexives would thus be explained. I remain agnostic here to the specific analysis of reflexivity, but I note that, inasmuch as our system does not take θ-roles to be grammatical primitives, the reduction operation should be recast in different terms.

206 Stative Inquiries

(422) a. Teresa respeta las leyes. Teresa respects the laws ‘Teresa respects the law.’ initP b. init′

DP

DP

init

Teresa

respeta



las leyes



I propose that OEPVs and locative verbs, in their stative reading, have a structure as in (423b) and (424b), where a birelational PΨ introduces the two arguments. For the verbalizer, we could assume that it is resP, which by itself denotes a state and it is syntactically unaccusative. However, I will simply model this as an empty unaccusative verbalizer V–I will talk a bit about my rationale behind this choice when I conclude the chapter in Section 5.6. The lexical entry of these verbs is given in (423c) and (424c). (423) a. La crisis aterra a las familias. the crisis frightens dom the families ‘The crisis frightens families.’ VP b. PP

V

P′

DP La crisis

PΨ

c. aterrar ‘frighten’ category features: [V, PΨ] (424) a. La sábana tapa la entrada. the sheet hides the entrance ‘The sheet hides the entrance.’

DP a las familias

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 207



b.

VP PP

V

P′

DP La sábana

PΨ

c. tapar ‘hide/ cover’ category features: [V, PΨ]

DP la entrada

5.4.5 The common thematic interpretation of Experiencers and Grounds The issue remains as to how Experiencers and Grounds are interpreted under the same structure. I pointed out that an account that posited two grammatically identical PΨ heads that assigned completely different θ-roles was neither economical nor intuitive. In this section, I propose that Experiencers and Grounds share a common generalized meaning, building on Landau’s insight that experiencers are, in some sense, mental locations. This will require proposing a more complex semantics for the prepositional head that Landau proposed for psych verbs. Straightforwardly, I posit that the PΨ head has the lexical entry in (425). (425) [PΨ] = λx,y ∃ε,V [eigen(ε,x) & project(V,ε)& endpoint(y,V)]

This formalization is partly inspired by the semantics that Svenonius (2006, 2008, 2010, 2012b) proposed for locative structures, but I extend it to psychological states as well as collapse his cartography into a single syntactic head. I assume a generalized variable ε that can be understood as a physical or a mental space depending on the root that lexicalizes the structure. Let us see how this works. eigen(ε,x) denotes a relation between an entity x and the space ε it occupies. Then we take that space and project a set of vectors V away from it, which I represent as project(V,ε’). The label project stands for whatever root lexicalizes the PΨ head. Finally, endpoint(y,V) gives us the final point y of the vectors. Let us exemplify this with a locative verb first, like rodear ‘surround’. I provide an example in (426a), with the syntax in (426b) – verbal structure aside – and the semantics in (426c). (426) a. El río Nilo rodea el desierto de Bayuda. the river Nile surrounds the desert of Bayuda ‘The river Nile surrounds the Bayuda desert.’

208 Stative Inquiries PP

b.

P′

DP El río Nilo

PΨ

DP

el desierto de Bayuda c. [PP] = ∃ε,V [eigen(ε,el desierto de Bayuda) & rodea(V,ε) & endpoint(el río Nilo,V)]

In the semantic formula, we have a certain abstract space ε of the Bayuda Desert, delivered by the eigen relation, and a set of vectors that project from it, which have the Nile as an endpoint. From the conceptual meaning of the verb surround, we infer that such a relation is of a specific locative sort: the relevant space ε of the Bayuda desert are – at least part of – its borders, with vectors that project away from such space and stop at the river Nile. I represent this idea in Figure 5.1.20 The locative relation is not always as clear with other verbs, as I already noted in footnote 9 of this chapter. Look at the examples in (427), for instance. While in both sentences there is a spatial relation described, the lexical item does not so much give information about the spatial position of one argument with respect to the other, but rather about the quality of their locative relation. For instance, the verb decorar ‘decorate’ in (427a) describes the relation as a decorative one: the Christmas ornaments are positioned somewhere with respect to the house in such a way that the spatial relation can be described as a decorative one. The same applies to iluminar ‘illuminate’ in (427b): the projector may be inside or outside the stadium, behind it or in front of it, on the ground or overhead, but what is relevant is that such a spatial relation involves an illumination. (427) a. b.

Los adornos de Navidad decoran toda la casa. the ornaments of Christmas decorate all the house ‘The Christmas ornaments decorate the whole house.’ El proyector ilumina el estadio olímpico. the projector illuminates the stadium olympic ‘The projector illuminates the olympic stadium.’

Let us exemplify OEPVs now, for instance with agobiar ‘overwhelm’, as in (428a). What I argue is that, when the verb that lexicalizes this prepositional structure is conceptually psychological, as in (428b), then the abstract space ε is understood as a mental state, rather than a locative one. The particular lexical item will not give us the spatial position of an entity with respect to another entity, but rather the 20.  Map taken from Too Late for Gordon and Khartoum, by Alexander MacDonald (1887: 161). Public domain, annotations mine.

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 209



Figure 5.1  Annotated map of the Nile passing around the Bayuda Desert (Sudan)

mental state of an entity with respect to another entity. In this case, what we have is the mental space of my friend Ester, which is in a state of being overwhelmed with respect to the Los Angeles climate. By entailment, my friend Ester is the understood experiencer and the Los Angeles climate is the stimulus. (428) a. El clima de Los Angeles agobia a mi amiga Ester. the climate of Los Angeles overwhelms dom my friend Ester ‘The Los Angeles weather overwhelms my friend Ester.’ PP

P′

DP El clima de Los Angeles

PΨ

DP

a mi amiga Ester b. c. [PP] = ∃ε,V [eigen(ε,mi amiga Ester) & agobia(V,ε)& endpoint(el clima de Los Angeles,V)]

210 Stative Inquiries

Since this abstract space ε is interpreted as a mental state, it follows that the entity associated to it – the complement of P – should be sentient, otherwise the sentence will be pragmatically odd (e.g. (429)). (429) a. b.

# El

clima de Los Angeles agobia a los edificios. the climate of Los Angeles overwhelms dom the buildings (The Los Angeles weather overwhelms buildings.’) # La crisis aterra a los coches. the crisis frightens dom the cars (‘The crisis frightens cars.’)

I define the two possible interpretations of this abstract space ε as in (430), which is esentially a reformulation in formal terms of my discussion so far: if the structure is lexicalized by a psychological verb, this abstract space will be interpreted as a mental state, and if it is lexicalized by a locative verb, it will be interpreted as a physical space. (430) a. If ∃V,ε [project(V,ε)] & project = psychological verb, then by definition ε is a mental state. b. If ∃V,ε [project(V,ε)] & project = locative verb, then by definition ε is a physical space.

From (430), we can derive the thematic entailments for OEPVs and locative verbs as in (431) for the complement of PΨ and as in (432) for the specifier of PP. (431) Thematic entailments of the complement of PΨ a. If ∃x,V,ε [eigen(ε,x) & psychological verb(V,ε)] then by entailment x is an experiencer b. If ∃x,V,ε [eigen(ε,x) & locative verb(V,ε)] then by entailment x is a ground (432) Thematic entailments of the specifier of PP a. If ∃x,V,ε [endpoint(x,V)& psychological verb(V,ε)] then by entailment x is a stimulus b. If ∃x,V,ε [endpoint(x,V) & locative verb(V,ε)] then by entailment x is a figure

5.4.6 Interim conclusions To sum up, this account derives the thematic interpretation of the arguments of both OEPVs and locative verbs through a common syntax and its associated formal semantic composition. I show how whether an argument is an Experiencer or a Ground – or a Stimulus or a Figure – depends on the argument’s role in the event structure of the PP coupled with our conceptual knowledge about the meaning of

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 211



the verb: it does not depend on inherent case, or θrole assignment, or any kind of thematic structure in the sense of the classic G&B theory: Experiencers, Grounds are so on are mere descriptions of the event entailments, but not thematic roles. I have also argued that these are not stative causative constructions – not in Spanish at least – and that they are syntactically unaccusative – at least in Spanish. Before concluding this chapter, I will discuss the issue of agentivity and its relation to psych effects. Authors generally associate non-agentivity with psycheffects-tacitly or explicitly associating non-agentivity with stativity. I will show in the following Section 5.5 how this association between nonagentivity and psych effects is incorrect – again, at least for Spanish. It will be argued that the true correlation is between stativity and psych effects: hence psych effects are a matter of aspect and not of thematic interpretation. 5.5

Agentivity?

As we have seen throughout this chapter, authors identifying psych effects in OEPVs have emphasized that they only hold with non-agentive versions of these verbs, whereas the agentive versions are eventive. In this section I will evaluate this assumption and conclude that source of psych effects is not lack of agentivity, but stativity. There are two main problems with the received view regarding the correlation between psych effects and agentivity. One is, I believe, the lack of a clear understanding and consensus of what it means for a subject to be agentive, linguistically speaking. The second is the common misconception, starting at least with Lakoff (1970), that stativity and non-agentivity go hand in hand. 5.5.1

The received view on agentivity

Let us start with the notion of agentivity. Although not clearly defined in most papers, grammarians tend to agree that a subject is agentive when it purposefully brings about the event denoted by the verbal predicate. From this it follows that agentive subjects need to be animate and volitional.21 The relevant grammatical tests to that effect are then the following (Ryle 1949, Lakoff 1970, Dowty 1979, a.o.): i. allowing adverbial modification by agent-oriented adverbs such as deliberately (e.g. (433)) ii. allowing the imperative form (e.g. (434)) iii. appearing as infinitival complements of decide (e.g. (435)) 21.  But see Folli & Harley (2008) for a different view, which I will discuss in Section 5.5.4.

212 Stative Inquiries

iv. forming pseudo-clefts with do (e.g. (436)) v. taking infinitival purpose clauses (e.g. (437)) The tests were originally proposed for English, but since they work similarly for Spanish I present the examples in the latter language. (433) a. * Verónica sabe matemáticas deliberadamente. Verónica knows Math deliberately (‘Veronica knows Math deliberately.’) b. Verónica colocó las pruebas al lado de la puerta deliberadamente. Verónica placed the proofs at.the side of the door deliberately ‘Verónica placed the evidence beside the door deliberately.’ (434) a. * ¡Posee tres apartamentos! own three apartments (‘Own three apartments!’) b. ¡Come más deprisa! eat more fast ‘Eat faster!’ (435) a. * Andrés decidió tener una casa en Ibiza. Andres decided have a house in Ibiza (‘Andrés decided to own a house in Ibiza.’) b. Andrés decidió comprar una casa en Ibiza. a house in Ibiza Andres decided buy ‘Andrés decided to buy a house in Ibiza.’ (436) a. * Lo que hizo Andrés fue creer en una deidad. it that did Andrés was believe in a deity (‘What Andrés did was believe in a deity.’) b. Lo que hizo Andrés fue fregar los platos. it that did Andrés was wash the dishes ‘What Andrés did was wash the dishes.’ para no ser dogmática. (437) a. * Gabriela duda de casi todo Gabriela doubts of almost everything for not be dogmatic (‘Gabriela doubts pretty much everything to not be dogmatic.’) b. Gabriela escribe libros de autoayuda para ayudar a otras personas. Gabriela writes books of auto-help to help dom other people ‘Gabriela writes self-help books to help other people.’

Agentive subjects tend to appear with eventive predicates and non-agentive subjects tend to appear in stative predicates (see (433–437), where the (a) examples are stative and the (b) examples eventive). Even though this was noted at least as far as

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 213



Dowty (1979) to be just a tendency, rather than a correlation,22 there is a myriad of work that assumes the latter. This is particularly true in the realm of psych verbs and locative verbs, where (non-)‍‍agentivity features have been built in the modeling of these predicates. For instance, Arad (1998a), in a Distributed Morphology account and under a causative view of stative OEPVs, proposes that the v head that verbalizes roots comes in two types: eventive, which licenses an agent (e.g. (439)), and stative, which licenses a stative causer (non-agentive, by definition). Her examples are given in (438) and her structures are shown in (439) and (440). (438) a. Mary frightened John (suddenly/ by turning off the lights).   (Agentive, eventive) b. Darkness frightens me.  (Non-agentive, stative) (439) Agentive, eventive structure v1 v1

agent v1 CAUS(e,s)



√P √

NP

(440) Non-agentive, stative structure v2 v2

stative causer

√P

v2 CAUS(s,s′)



√

NP

Switching to German, Rothmayr (2009) also puts forth a proposal that ties agentivity and eventivity together for both OEPVs and locative verbs. She argues, inspired by Dowty (1979), that there are different aspectual operators hosted in verbal heads, which build event structure compositionally. Common to all causative predicates is the presence of a cause operator, which expresses a result state. The simplest structure is that of stative causatives (i.e. the stative version of locative verbs), which lacks any activity or transition operators and is thus strictly stative. I provide her example in (441a) and its corresponding structure in (441b). 22.  See the table of verb types in Dowty (1979: 184), where he shows that agentivity cuts across aspectual types. For agentive states, he notes English verbs of bodily position with an animate subject, such as sit, stand and lie.

214 Stative Inquiries

(441) a. Die Haare verstopfen den Abfluß. the hair obstruct the sink ‘Hair obstruct the sink.’ 

(Rothmayr 2009: 48)

VP

V

DP

V

V

Die Haare

CAUSE

DP

V verstopfen

den Abfluß

b.

For the eventive version of locative verbs, Rothmayr proposes that there is an agentive DO operator that introduces an agent and acts as a dynamicity inductor. In other words, agentivity and stativity are incompatible. I provide her example in (442a) and its structure in (370b).23,24 23.  In her structure in 42, she proposes that instrumentals such as mit ihrem Lastwagen ‘with her truck’ would occupy the same syntactic position as the subject of the stative counterpart. This is her way of deriving the instrument-subject alternation (e.g. The truck obstructs the street). 24.  This is not to say that eventive predicates need to be agentive. Rothmayr notes this possibility and proposes a become operator for these cases, which denotes a gradual change of state and where the subject undergoing the change is not agentive. Her example is provided in (xxxvia) and (xxxvibs). (xxxvi) a. Das Gewebe hat nach und nach das Blutgefäß verstopft. the tissue has bit by bit the blood-vessel obstructed ‘The tissue obstructed the blood vessel bit by bit.’  (Rothmayr 2009: 51) VP V become

VP V

DP Das Gewebe

V cause

V DP



b. 

V verstopft

das Blutgefäß

In an earlier account of OEPVs, Arad (1998a) also notes the possibility that their eventive versions may be non-agentive (and have a causer argument). She posits that the subjects of eventive versions of these verbs are true external arguments, introduced by an eventive v that

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 215



(442) a. Die Irmi verstopft die Straße mit ihrem Lastwagen. the Irmi obstructs the street with her truck ‘Irmi is obstructing the street with her truck.’  (Rothmayr 2009: 49) vP

v

DP v

Die Irmi

DO

VP PP

V

mit ihrem Lastwagen

V cause

V DP

die Straße

b.

V verstopft

can introduce an agent or a causer. On the other hand, the subjects of the stative version cannot be agents, but mere stimulus (although Arad 1998a, like Rothmayr 2009, assumes that the unaccusative VP can have causative meaning: the stimulus would then be a stative causer). I introduce the structures from Arad (1998a: 15) in (xxxvii) and (xxxviii).

(xxxvii) Eventive structure vP v

agent/causer

VP

v NP

V V …

NP



(xxxviii) Non-agentive, stative structure VP VP stimulus

V VP

V NP



V …

216 Stative Inquiries

5.5.2 Agentive stative locative verbs García-Pardo (2016b) presents data from Spanish that challenges the claim that agentivity cannot be found in stative locative verbs. In particular, I showed that agentivity tests and stativity tests can coexist within the same clause that has a locative verb as its main predicate. In (443a), we find a non-habitual reading of the present tense, a stativity test, co-occur with a purpose clause, an agentivity test. In (443b), we have a universal reading of the present perfect, a stativity test, cooccurring with the agent-oriented adverb a propósito (on purpose). (443) a. En estos momentos, los bandidos flanquean el camino para poder in these moments the bandits flank the path to can asaltar a los viajeros. assault dom the travellers ‘The bandits currently flank the path to be able to assault the travellers.’ b. Los manifestantes han obstruido el acceso al banco a propósito the demonstrators have obstructed the access to.the bank on purpose desde las seis de la tarde. since the six of the evening ‘The demonstrators have obstructed the access to the bank on purpose since 6 pm.’  (García-Pardo 2016b: 293)

Crucially, the agentive reading of the subject with stative locative verbs does not cancel psych effects. The examples in (444) show that verbal passives are not allowed in stative contexts with a clearly agentive subject. The sentences in (444) would be fine if a habitual reading was imposed by adding a frequency adverb such as todos los días ‘every day’, but then of course we would have an eventive reading of the predicate, not a stative one. Note that the passives in the (444) examples are unequivocally verbal: Spanish morphologically marks verbal passives with a distinct auxiliary, ser ‘be’. (444) a. * El edificio es rodeado por la policía para que no escape el the building isSER surrounded by the police for that not escapes the sospechoso. suspect (‘The building is surrounded by the police so that the suspect does not escape.’) b. * La entrada del McDonalds es tapada a propósito por los the entrance of.the McDonalds isSER covered on purpose by the activistas animalistas. activists animalists (‘The McDonalds entrance is covered on purpose by the animalrights activists.’)



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 217



The impossibility of having a reflexive structure in a stative context, another psych effect, also holds when the subject is agentive. The examples in (445) are only grammatical under a habitual reading of the present tense, i.e. when they are eventive; they crucially are ungrammatical under the non-habitual (i.e. stative) reading reading of the present tense. (445) a. b.



5.5.3

Pedro se tapa concienzudamente porque tiene frío. Pedro refl covers thoroughly because he.has cold (‘Pedro covers himself thoroughly because he is cold.’) ✗ Non-habitual reading: Pedro is currently covered (stative reading). ✓ Habitual reading: Pedro usually covers himself (eventive reading). María se rodea de libros para que su madre piense que María refl surrounds of books for that her mother thinks that estudia. studies ‘María surrounds herself with books so that her mother thinks she is studying.’ ✗ Non-habitual reading: María is currently surrounded by books (stative reading). ✓ Habitual reading: María usually surrounds herself with books (eventive reading).

Agentivity and psych verbs

5.5.3.1 The classification in Marín (2011) Now, whereas it is clear that subjects of both stative and eventive locative verbs can be agentive in the classic sense, the picture is somewhat blurrier with OEPVs. As we saw in Section 5.3.1.2, Marín (2011) argues that OEPVs come in two types: non-agentive and agentive (i.e. verbs that can never have an agentive reading with an animate subject and verbs which can). The former are always stative and the latter are mixed: some are stative (most of them, Marín claims) and some are eventive. I illustrate both types in (380) and (386), from Marín (2011) (see also Martin 2006 for French). (380) Stative/Non-agentive OEPVs in Spanish aburrir ‘bore’, acongojar ‘wring’, afligir ‘sadden’, angustiar ‘distress’, anonadar ‘stun’, apasionar ‘be passionate about’, apenar ‘sadden’, apesadumbrar ‘sadden’, deprimir ‘depress’, desesperar ‘exasperate’, disgustar ‘upset’, enfadar ‘anger’, enfurecer ‘enfuriate’, enojar ‘upset’, enorgullecer ‘make proud’, entristecer ‘sadden’, entusiasmar ‘enthuse’, fascinar ‘fascinate’, indignar ‘outrage’, interesar ‘interest’, obnubilar ‘bewilder’, obsesionar ‘obsess’, ofuscar ‘obfuscate’, preocupar ‘worry’.

218 Stative Inquiries

(386) Agentive OEPVs acosar ‘harass’, agobiar ‘overwhelm’, aliviar ‘alleviate’, amedrentar ‘intimidate’, animar ‘encourage’, desanimar ‘discourage’, apaciguar ‘pacify’, asombrar ‘astonish’, asustar ‘frighten’, atemorizar ‘terrify’, confundir ‘confound’, consolar ‘console’, contrariar ‘displease’, honrar ‘honor’, deshonrar ‘dishonor’, deslumbrar ‘dazzle’, motivar ‘encourage’, desmotivar ‘discourage’, distraer ‘distract’, entretener ‘entertain’, espantar ‘horrify’, estimular ‘stimulate’, excitar ‘excite’, fastidiar ‘annoy’, frustrar ‘frustrate’, humillar ‘humilliate’, importunar ‘annoy’, molestar ‘disturb’, ofender ‘offend’, oprimir ‘opress’, perturbar ‘disturb’, seducir ‘seduce’, sorprender ‘surprise’.

Before discussing the evidence for this agentivity classification, let us review Marín’s (2011) evidence for his aspectual classification. As he shows, the nonagentive verbs in (380) are indeed stative. First, they do not pass telicity tests, so they must be either activities or states. As we can see in (446), these verbs do not pass the in x time test. Furthermore, they cannot appear as participles in absolute clauses introduced by una vez ‘once’, unlike telic predicates (e.g. (447), and see also Marín & McNally (2011) on this point). (446) a. * Esta situación ha angustiado/ obsesionado/ preocupado a tus this situation has anguished obsessed worried dom your padres en cinco minutos. parents in five minutes (‘This situation has anguished/ obsessed/ worried your parents in five minutes.’) b. Esta situación ha angustiado/ obsesionado/ preocupado a tus this situation has anguished obsessed worried dom your padres durante meses. parents for months ‘This situation has anguished/ obsessed/ worried your parents for months.’



(447) * Una vez aburridos/ obsesionados/ preocupados tus padres, nos one time bored obsessed worried your parents refl iremos de vacaciones. go-fut.1pl of vacation (‘Once your parents are bored/ obsessed/ worried, we will go on vacation.’)



Further tests show that these verbs are, in fact, stative. A sentence like (448) in the present tense does not yield a habitual reading. Also, dynamic modifiers such as lentamente ‘slowly’ are rejected (e.g. (449)). Furthermore, these verbs do not accept parar ‘stop’, which only takes dynamic predicates in Spanish (e.g. (450)).



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 219

(448) Esta situación angustia/ desespera/ ilusiona a tus padres. this situation anguishes despairs excites dom your parents ‘This situation worries/ despairs/ excites your parents.’ (449) * Esta situación angustia/ desespera/ ilusiona a tus padres lentamente. this situation anguishes despairs excites dom your parents slowly (‘This situation worries/ despairs/ excites your parents slowly.’) tus (450) a. * Esta situación ha parado de afligir/ fascinar/ interesar a this situation has stopped of sadden fascinate interest dom your padres. parents ‘This situation has stopped saddening/ fascinating/ worrying your parents.’ b. Esta situación ha dejado de afligir/ fascinar/ interesar a tus this situation has stopped of sadden fascinate interest dom your padres. parents ‘This situation has stopped saddening/ fascinating/ worrying your parents.’

With respect to the agentive verbs in (386), Marín (2011) notes that there is more aspectual variation. Most of them are stative both with a non-animate and animate subject, except for a few that seem to be telic with an animate subject (essentially two, according to Marín). The examples he gives are in (451). (451) a. b.

Agentive OEPVs (stative) agobiar ‘overwhelm’, animar ‘cheer up’, molestar ‘disturb’… Agentive OEPVs (telic) humillar ‘humilliate’, seducir ‘seduce’…

As evidence for this division, Marín (2011) notes that the verbs in (451a) do not pass telicity tests: they reject en x tiempo ‘in x time’ phrases (e.g. (452a)) but allow durante x tiempo ‘for x time’ phrases (e.g. (453a)), are unacceptable as complements of finish ‘terminar’ (e.g. (454a)) and are unacceptable in absolute clauses (e.g. (455a)). On the other hand, the verbs in (451b) pattern as telic: they allow en x tiempo ‘in x time’ phrases (e.g. (452b)) and are degraded with durante x tiempo ‘for x time’ phrases (e.g. (453b)). However, they are degraded as complements of terminar ‘finish’ (e.g. (454b)) and in absolute clauses (e.g. (455b)), but still they fare better in these constructions than the verbs in (451a). Furthermore, when the verbs in (451a) are in the progressive they entail the perfect (e.g. 456a), whereas those in (451b) do not (e.g. 456b). Finally, only the verbs in (451b) show an ambiguity with casi ‘almost’ (e.g. 457), which further supports their characterization as telic.

220 Stative Inquiries

(452) a. * Juan ha agobiado/ animado/ molestado a María en cinco Juan has overwhelmed cheered-up annoyed dom María in five minutos. minutes (‘Juan has {overwhelmed/ cheered up/ bothered} María in five minutes.’) b. Juan ha humillado/ seducido a María en cinco minutos. Juan has humiliated seduced dom María in five minutes ‘Juan has {humiliated/ seduced} María in five minutes.’

(453) a. Juan ha agobiado/ consolado/ molestado a María durante cinco five Juan has overwhelmed consoled disturbed dom María for minutos. minutes ‘Juan has {overwhelmed/ consoled/ disturbed} María for five minutes.’ b. ?? Juan ha humillado/ seducido a María durante cinco minutos. Juan has humiliated seduced dom María for five minutes ‘Juan has {humiliated/ seduced} María for five minutes.’ María. (454) a. * Juan ha terminado de agobiar/ consolar/ molestar a Juan has finished of overwhelm console annoy dom María (‘Juan has finished {overwhelming/ consoling/ disturbing} María.’) b. Juan ha terminado de humillar/ seducir a María. Juan has finished of humiliating seducing dom María ‘Juan has finished {humiliating/ seducing} María.’ (455) a. * Una vez agobiada/ molestada María,… one time overwhelmed annoyed María (‘Once María was {overwhelmed/ annoyed},…’) b. ? Una vez seducida/ humillada María,… one time seduced humiliated María ‘Once María was {seduced/ humiliated},…’ (456) a. Pierre está acosando/ agobiando/ animando/ consolando/ Pierre is harassing overwhelming cheering-up consoling fastidiando/ importunando/ molestando/ oprimiendo a María. → hassling disturbing annoying oppressing dom María   Pierre ha acosado/ agobiado… a María. Pierre has harassed overwhelmed dom María ‘Pierre is {harassing/ overwhelming/ cheering up/ consoling/ hassling/ disturbing/ annoying/ oppressing} María. → Pierre has {harassed/ overwhelmed…} María.’



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 221

b. Pierre está humillando/ seduciendo a María. → Pierre no ha Pierre is humiliating seducing dom María   Pierre not has humillado/ seducido a María. humiliated seduced dom María ‘Pierre is {humiliating/ seducing} María. → Pierre has not {humiliated/ seduced} María.’



(457) a. b.

Mario casi agobia/ importuna/ molesta a María. Mario almost overwhelms disturbs annoys dom María ‘Mario almost {overwhelms/ disturbs/ annoys} María. Mario casi humilla/ seduce a María. Mario almost humiliates seduces dom María ‘Mario almost {humiliates/ seduces} María.’

Evidence than the verbs in (451a) are not just atelic, but stative, comes from their incompatibility with velocity adverbs like lentamente ‘slowly’ (e.g. (458a)) and their inability to be complements of parar ‘to stop’ (e.g. (459a)). The verbs in (451b) (i.e. humillar and seducir), on the other hand, accept velocity adverbs (e.g. (458b)) and are not as degraded as complements of parar ‘stop’ (e.g. (459b)), which reinforces the view that they are dynamic. (458) a. * Juan agobió/ molestó a María lentamente. Juan overwhelmed annoyed dom María slowly (‘Juan {overwhelmed/ annoyed} María slowly.’) b. Juan humilló/ sedujo a María lentamente. Juan humiliated seduced dom María slowly ‘Juan {humiliated/ seduced María slowly.’ (459) a. * Juan paró de agobiar/ molestar a María. Juan stopped of overwhelm annoy dom María ‘Juan stopped {overwhelming/ annoying} María.’ de acosar/ humillar/ seducir a sus alumnos. b. ? Juan paró Juan stopped of harass humiliate seduce dom his students ‘Juan stopped {harassing/ humiliating/ seducing} his students.’

Going back to the issue of agentivity, Marín applies the usual battery of tests to support his division. Crucially, however, he restricts his data of agentive verbs to the telic ones, humillar ‘humiliate’ and seducir ‘seduce’. He shows that, indeed, the humillar class can be an answer to a what did X do? question (e.g. (460a), and see Martin 2006 for this test in French), can appear in pseudo-clefts (e.g. (461a)), can take agent-oriented adverbs (e.g. (462a)) and appear in the imperative form (e.g. (463a)). The non-agentive verbs from the (b) examples in (460–463) pass none of those tests, as expected.

222 Stative Inquiries

(460) ¿Qué (es lo que) ha hecho? what is it that has done ‘What did he do?’ a. * Ha obsesionado/ preocupado a sus padres. has obsessed worried dom his parents (‘He {obsessed/ worried} his parents.’) b. Ha humillado/ seducido a Mafalda. has humiliated seduced dom Mafalda ‘He has {humiliated/ seduced} Mafalda.’ (461) a. * Lo que ha hecho es obsesionar/ preocupar a sus padres. it that has done is obsess worry dom his parents (‘What (s)‍‍he did was {obsess/ worry} his/her parents.’) Mafalda. b. Lo que ha hecho es humillar/ seducir a it that has done is humiliate seduce dom Mafalda ‘What (s)‍‍he did was {humiliate/ seduce} Mafalda.’ (462) a. * Obsesionó/ preocupó a sus padres intencionadamente. obsessed.3sg worried.3sg dom poss.3pl parents intentionally (‘(S)‍‍he {obsessed/ worried} his/her parents intentionally.’) b. Humilló/ sedujo a su vecina humiliated.3sg seduced.3sg dom poss.3sg neighbor intencionadamente. intentionally ‘(S)‍‍he humiliated/ seduced his/her neighbor intentionally.’ (463) a. * Obsesiónalos/ preocúpalos. obsess-imp.2sg-them worry.imp.2sg-them (‘{Obsess/ worry} them!’) b. ¡Humíllala/ sedúcela! humiliate-imp.2sg-her seduce-imp.2sg-her ‘{Humiliate/ seduce} her!’

I provide an expository summary of the discussion in Table 5.4, from Marín (2011).



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 223

Table 5.4  Marín’s (2011) classification of OEPVs Non-agentive

Agentive Inanimate

Animate molestar ‘annoy’

humillar ‘humilliate’

in x time

−

−

−

+

for x time

+

+

+

+

terminar/acabar ‘to finish’

−

−

−

?

absolute clauses

−

−

−

?

habitual reading in the present

−

−

−

+

lentamente ‘slowly’

−

−

−

−

parar ‘to stop’

−

−

−

−

V-ing implies V-ed

−

−

−

+

ambiguity with casi ‘almost’

−

−

−

+

5.5.3.2 Agentivity and psych effects in OEPVs Marín’s (2011) main assumptions, in line with the received view on psych verbs, are the following: (i) non-agentive verbs are always stative; (ii) (a few) agentive verbs are only telic or eventive when they have an animate subject. With respect to the latter point, remember that we discussed these telic verbs in Section 5.3.1.2 and showed that they indeed show no psych effects (e.g. (387), repeated below). (387) a. Pedro ha sido acosado/ excitado/ humillado/ seducido Pedro has beenser harassed excited humiliated seduced (por María). by María ‘Pedro has been {harrassed/ excited/ humiliated/ seduced} by María.’ b. Juan se distrajo viendo una película. Juan refl distracted watching a movie ‘Juan amused himself watching a movie.’ c. Azarías hizo a sus amigos humillar a Paco. Azarías made dom his friends humilliate dom Paco ‘Azarías made his friends humilliate Paco.’



So far, there is nothing surprising: agentive OEPVs have been repeatedly observed to lose their psych properties, grammatically speaking, and it is also the received view that the agentive subject versions are eventive. Our challenge is to figure out whether we can have agentive stative versions, and whether they show psych effects or not. Let us review the list of strictly stative/nonagentive OEPVs in (380).

224 Stative Inquiries

(380) Stative OEPVs in Spanish aburrir ‘bore’, acongojar ‘wring’, afligir ‘sadden’, angustiar ‘distress’, anonadar ‘stun’, apasionar ‘be passionate about’, apenar ‘sadden’, apesadumbrar ‘sadden’, deprimir ‘depress’, desesperar ‘exasperate’, disgustar ‘upset’, entristecer ‘sadden’, entusiasmar ‘enthuse’, fascinar ‘fascinate’, indignar ‘outrage’, interesar ‘interest’, obnubilar ‘bewilder’, obsesionar ‘obsess’, ofuscar ‘obfuscate’, preocupar ‘worry’.

As it turns out, a few of these stative verbs do pattern as agentive, albeit partially (i.e. they only pass some tests). Interesar ‘interest’, for instance, allows for the imperative form (e.g. (464a)) but disallows intentionality adverbs (e.g. (464b)). Aburrir ‘bore’, on the other hand, cannot appear in the imperative form (e.g. (465a)) but it can be an infinitival complement of decide (e.g. (464b)). (464) a. ¡Interesa a tus clientes en el producto! interest-imp.2sg dom your clients in the product ‘Make your clients interested in the product!’ b. ?? Pedro me está interesando intencionadamente. Pedro me is interesting intentionally (‘Pedro is interesting me intentionally.’) (465) a. ?? ¡Abúrreme! Bore-imp.2sg-me (‘Bore me!’) b. El cura hoy ha decidido aburrirnos con un sermón the priest today has decided bore-inf-us with a sermon soporífero. sleep-inducing ‘The priest has decided to bore us today with a dull sermon.’

Thus, while there is indeed a tendency for stative verbs to be non-agentive, the agentivity tests nonetheless give us inconsistent results across the board for the stative verbs in (380). Crucially, these stative OEPVs that can be partially classified as agentive show psych effects rather strongly: they do not accept verbal passives (e.g. (466a)), they cannot appear in reflexive (e.g. (466b)) and cannot form periphrastic causatives (e.g. (466c)). (466) a. Fui {??aburrido/ *interesado} por el cura. was.1sg bored interested by the priest (‘I was {bored/ interested} by the priest.’) b. * Yo me {aburrí/ interesé} a mí mismo. I me bored interested dom me self (‘I {bored/ interested} myself.’)



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 225

c. * Esto le hizo {aburrir/ interesar} a María. this him made bore interest dom María (‘This made him {bore/ interest} María.’)

It thus appears that the more precise generalization is that psych effects have stativity, rather than agentivity, as their source. Let us focus again on his agentive verbs from (386), repeated below. (386) Agentive OEPVs acosar ‘harass’, agobiar ‘overwhelm’, aliviar ‘alleviate’, amedrentar ‘intimidate’, animar ‘encourage’, desanimar ‘discourage’, apaciguar ‘pacify’, asombrar ‘astonish’, asustar ‘frighten’, atemorizar ‘terrify’, confundir ‘confound’, consolar ‘console’, contrariar ‘displease’, honrar ‘honor’, deshonrar ‘dishonor’, deslumbrar ‘dazzle’, motivar ‘encourage’, desmotivar ‘discourage’, distraer ‘distract’, entretener ‘entertain’, espantar ‘horrify’, estimular ‘stimulate’, excitar ‘excite’, fastidiar ‘annoy’, frustrar ‘frustrate’, humillar ‘humilliate’, importunar ‘annoy’, molestar ‘disturb’, ofender ‘offend’, oprimir ‘opress’, perturbar ‘disturb’, seducir ‘seduce’, sorprender ‘surprise’.

Further evidence that agentivity is not at the heart of psych effects comes from telic agentive verbs like humillar ‘humiliate’ and seducir ‘seduce’: they show psych effects in their non-agentive reading too (i.e. with inanimate ‘causers’). I provide examples from verbal passives in (467). Examples from reflexives and periphrastic causatives cannot be provided since these constructions require agents. (467) a. Durante muchos años, fui seducido por aquella imagen que se for many years he.wasSER seduced by that image that refl concretaba en las mujeres a las que amé. specified in the women dom the that he.loved ‘For many years, I was seduced by that image that materialized itself in the women I loved.’   (La sombra del amor, Antero Jiménez Antonio, 2006: 18) b. Magín Díaz, un ingeniero que fue seducido por la economía. Magín Díaz an engineer that wasSER seduced by the economy ‘Magín Díaz, an engineer that was seduced by the economy.’   (El Día, August 28th 2017, http://‍eldia.com.do)

Moreover, there appear to be many other verbs in (386) that are actually neither stative nor telic, but rather behave like activities. Such are, for example, acosar ‘harass’, amedrentar ‘intimidate’, consolar ‘console’, distraer ‘distract’ and entretener ‘entertain’. I present below the tests that show that these verbs are in fact not stative. First, they receive a habitual reading in the present tense (e.g. (468a)). Second, they do

226 Stative Inquiries

not receive a universal reading in the perfect in the presence of a desde ‘since’-adverbial (e.g. (468b)). Third, they can have both a temporal and degree reading with the modifier un poco ‘a little’ (e.g. (468c)). Fourth, the synthetic future only makes available a temporal reading for these verbs, not an epistemic one (e.g. (468d)). Finally, with a conditional sentence, we can only get a prospective reading of the dependent clause in the present tense when the main clause is in the future tense (e.g. (468e)). (468) a. Fernando {consuela/ distrae/ entretiene a Herminia} (*ahora/ con Fernando consoles distracts entertains dom Herminia now with frecuencia). frequency ‘Fernando {consoles/ distracts/ entertains} Herminia (*now/ frequently).’ b. *Rafael ha {consolado/ distraido/ entretenido} a Carmen desde 2010. *Rafael has consoled distracted entertained dom Carmen since 2010 (‘Rafael has {consoled/ distracted/ entertained} Herminia since 2010.’) c. Pedro me {consoló/ distrajo} un poco. Pedro me consoled distracted a bit ‘Pedro {consoled/ distracted} me a bit.’ ✓ Degree reading: Pedro consoled/ distracted me to some degree. ✓ Temporal reading: Pedro spent some time consoling/ distracting me. d. Gabriela {consolará/ distraerá/ entretendrá} a Mercedes. Gabriela console-fut distract-fut entertain-fut dom Mercedes ‘Gabriela will {console/ distract/ entertain} Mercedes.’ ✓ Deontic reading: Gabriela will console/ distract/ entertain Mercedes in the future. ✗ Epistemic reading: I find it possible that Gabriela consoles/ distracts/ entertains Mercedes. e. Si David {consuela/ distrae/ entretiene} a Fernando, Daniela if David consoles distracts entertains dom Fernando Daniela se enfadará. refl get.angry-fut ‘If David {consoles/ distracts/ entertains} Fernando, Daniela will get angry.’ ✓ Prospective reading of the dependent clause: David will console/ distract/ entertain Fernando at some point in the future, and then Daniela will get angry. ✗ Present reading of the dependent clause: David currently consoles/ distracts/ entertains Fernando at some point in the future, and then Daniela will get angry.



I show below that these verbs can indeed be agentive: it is something already claimed in Marín (2011), but he only presented tests for the telic subset of (386).



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 227

For completeness’ sake, I show that agentivity tests may also apply successfully to these atelic verbs. They accept agent-oriented adverbs (e.g. (469a)), the imperative (e.g. (469b)) and can be complements of decide (e.g. (469c)). (469) a. b. c.

Pedro me {distrajo/ amedrentó} intencionadamente. Pedro me distracted intimidated intentionally ‘Pedro {distracted/ intimidated} me intentionally.’ ¡{Distrae/ consuela/ entretén} a tu hermano! distract console entertain dom your brother ‘{Distract/ console/ entertain} your brothers!’ Paco decidió {distraer/ consolar/ entretener} a mi hermano. Paco decided distract console entertain dom my brother ‘Paco decided to {distract/ intimidate/ entertain} my brother.’

These verbs, just like the telic humillar-class, do not show psych effects. They accept verbal passives (e.g. (470)), they can appear in reflexive structures (e.g. (471a), and see also (387b)) and can furthermore form periphrastic causatives (e.g. (471b)). (470) a. En este momento fui distraído por una ballena flotando por el in this moment wasSER.1sg distracted by a whale floating on the Canal de Sir Francis Drake. canal of Sir Francis Drake ‘In that moment, I was distracted by a whale that was floating on the Sir Francis Drake Canal.’   (Noticias de ajedrez, April 19th 2005, http://‍es.chessbase.com) b. Varias parejas porteñas no se dejaron amedrentar por la several couples porteñas not refl leave.3pl intimidate by the superstición y se casaron hoy. superstition and refl married today ‘Several couples from Buenos Aires did not let superstition intimidate them and they married today.’   (La Nación, June 13th 2017, http://‍www.lanacion.com.ar)



(471) a. Régula se está {distrayendo/ entreteniendo} con el Scalextric para Régula refl is distracting entertaining with the Scalextric for no pensar en sus graves problemas. not think in her severe problems ‘Régula is {distracting/ entertaining} herself with the Scalextric so as to not think in her severe problems.’ mi hermano. b. Mi madre me hizo {entretener/ consolar} a my mother me made entertain console dom my brother ‘My mother made me {entertain/ console} my brother.’

228 Stative Inquiries

Crucially, the subject does not need to be agentive for psych effects to disappear with these verbs. Take (470a), for instance. The context is one in which two chess players are playing a chess game in a terrace by the sea and one of them spots a whale floating in the distance. This distracts him and he ultimately loses the game because of that, or so he claims. The whale (introduced by the by-phrase) is clearly not an agent since it was not acting volitionally: for all we know, maybe the whale was not even alive. And yet, the passive is well-formed. The received hypothesis that agentivity induces the loss of psych effects thus weakens further, at least for Spanish. The picture that emerges from my discussion in this section is summarized in Table 5.5. As the table shows, the correct empirical generalization seems to be that psych effects arise when OEPVs are aspectually stative, rather than when they are thematically agentive. I state this generalization in (472). (472) Empirical generalization about psych effects The source of psych effects with object-experiencer and locative verbs is stativity, not lack of agentivity (at least in Spanish) Table 5.5  Agentivity, aspect and psych effects with OEPVs Aktionsart type Stative

Eventive

Telics Activities

Agentivity

Psych effects

Non-agentive

✓

compungir ’to be remourseful’, enorgullecer ’make proud’

Somewhat agentive

✓

aburrir ‘bore’, deprimir ‘depress’, interesar ‘interest’ humillar ‘humiliate’, seducir ‘seduce’

Agentive

✗

Non-agentive

✗

Agentive

✗

Non-agentive

✗

Examples

acosar ‘harass’, consolar ‘console’

5.5.4 Agentivity as teleological capability: Folli & Harley (2008) As a final stop in our discussion on agentivity and psych effects, it would be worthwhile to consider an potentially alternative account, relying on a definition of agentivity different from the classic one. In a recent paper, Folli & Harley (2008) propose that agentivity is best seen in terms of teleological capability, rather than animacy and intentionality. Teleological capability is defined in their work, after Higginbotham (1997), as ‘the inherent qualities and abilities of the entity to participate in the eventuality denoted by the predicate’ (2008: 191).

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 229



The authors provide evidence from different constructions, mostly from Italian and English, which had been observed to be sensitive to animacy and/or agency in the past. They note that verbs of sound emission like whistle, hum and squeak, are unergative and therefore introduced in ‘Agent’ position in the specifier of vP or an analogous projection.25 Yet, these verbs can have both animate (e.g. (473)) and inanimate (e.g. (474)) subjects. In fact, some of them may only allow inanimate subjects (e.g. (475–476)). What seems to license the subjects in (473–476) is their capability to emit the sound, rather than animacy per se. (473) Gianni ha/*é fischiato John has/*is whistled (474) Il treno ha/*é fischiato The train has/*is whistled

(475) Questo tavolo/#Gianni scricchiola This table/#Gianni squeaks

(476) The phone/#John rang. 

(Folli & Harley 2008: 191–2)

The authors also review locative and possessive constructions with have in English and Italian, which they unify as involving abstract possession. They note that possessive have, unlike commonly assumed, is acceptable with both animate and inanimate subjects (e.g. (477–480)). The difference is that animates allow possession of both inalienable and alienable parts (e.g. (477) and (479)), whereas inanimates only allow for possession of inalienable parts (e.g. (476) and (478)). The restriction then is not so much about animacy as it is about the kinds of things that animates and inanimates can possess: animates have the teleological capability of controlling alienable objects, whereas inanimates are not. (477) a. b.

(478) a. b. c.

Gianni ha un braccio rotto John has a arm broken Gianni ha una macchina John has a car La quercia ha molti rami The oak has many branches # La quercia ha un uccello The oak has a bird ramo La quercia ha una famiglia di uccelli sul The oak has a family of birds on.the branch

25.  Evidence from their unergativity comes from the fact that they take the auxiliary habere ‘have’ in Italian, and not essere ‘be’ (e.g. (473–474)).

230 Stative Inquiries

(479) a. John has a broken arm b. John has a car (480) a. The oak tree has many branches b. # The oak tree has a family of birds c. The oak treei has a family of birds in iti 

(Folli & Harley 2008: 193)

They also apply their proposal to causation chain effects in causative changeof-state verbs. They claim that the Direct Causation condition (Shibatani 1976) can be recast in teleological terms: the storm in (481a) is too general of a cause to qualify as a felicitous Agent in the teleological sense; on the other hand, the branch in (481c) has the teleological properties to directly cause the event (e.g. it is sturdy enough to break a window when it is moving fast enough). See also the contrast in (481b). (481) a. b.

# Il

temporale ha rotto la finestra The storm broke the window ? Il vento/Il colpo di vento ha rotto la finestra The wind/The gust of wind broke the window Il ramo ha rotto la finestra The branch broke the window  (Folli & Harley 2008: 195)

Further support for the teleological view of agency comes from verbs of permission in Greek, Russian and English. They show how in these languages animate subjects of permission verbs are licensed both with perfective (e.g. (482a)) and imperfective (e.g. (482b)) aspect. On the other hand, when they have inanimate subjects, perfective aspect is out (e.g. (482c)), and only imperfective aspect is fine (e.g. (482d)). Again, they link this effect to the teleological properties of the subject. A license grants permission by its very existence. In the perfective, the event of permission is asserted to be over by reference time, although the subject and reference time overlap. This creates a conflict in the case of a license: The permission event is asserted to be over, and the license with it since it is, so to speak, the permission event. Hence it is a contradiction to presuppose it still exists at reference time. (482) a. O idioktitis mas epetrepse na exume skili, ala den det owner us permit.pst.pfv na have dog but neg ixame skili have.pst.pl dog ‘The owner permitted us to have a dog, but we didn’t have a dog.’



Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 231

b. O idioktitis mas epetrepe na exume skili, ala den det owner us permit.pst.impf na have dog but neg ixame skili have.pst.pl dog ‘The owner permitted us to have a dog, but we didn’t have a dog.’ c. # Ekini i adia mas epetrepse na exume skili, ala den that det license us permit.pst.pfv na have dog but neg ixame skili have.pst.pl dog ‘The license permitted us to have a dog, but we didn’t have a dog.’ d. Ekini i adia mas epetrepe na exume skili, ala den that det license us permit.pst.impF na have dog but neg ixame skili have.pst.pl dog ‘The license permitted us to have a dog, but we didn’t have a dog.’  (Greek, from Folli & Harley 2008: 196–7)

Folli & Harley’s (2008) account neatly explains the data observed in (467), repeated below. ‘Agentive’ OEPVs like seducir ‘seduce’ or amedrentar ‘intimidate’ may take inanimate subjects if they are agents in the teleological sense: an image may seduce because it has appealing properties and superstition may intimidate because they are thought to carry ominous consequences. Again, as we discussed, we have no psych effects in (467), which could reinforce the idea that agentivity dissolves psych effects. (467) a. Durante muchos años, fui seducido por aquella imagen que se for many years was.1sg seduced by that image that refl concretaba en las mujeres a las que amé. specified in the women dom the that loved-1sg ‘For many years, I was seduced by that image that materialized itself in the women I loved.’   (La sombra del amor, Antero Jiménez Antonio, 2006: 18) b. Magín Díaz, un ingeniero que fue seducido por la economía. Magín Díaz an engineer that wasSER seduced by the economy ‘Magín Díaz, an engineer that was seduced by the economy.’   (El Día, August 28th 2017, http://‍eldia.com.do)

However, the teleological view of agentivity, just like the classical view, fails to shed light on the existence of psych effects with stative OEPVs and locative verbs. Take (483), with the stative OEPV aterrorizar ‘terrify’. In (483a), we illustrate it with an animate and inanimate subject. Both, note well, are Agents in Folli & Harley’s (2008) sense: they both have properties that can arouse a state of fright in myself.

232 Stative Inquiries

Norman Bates is a serial killer, and the Psycho house is gloomy and sinister. And yet, these Agent subjects fail to license psych effects, as shown in (483b). We find the same situation with locative verbs (e.g. (484)). (483) a. {Norman Bates/ la casa de Psicosis} me aterroriza. Norman Bates the house from Psycho me terrifies ‘{Norman Bates/ the Psycho house} terrifies me.’ b. * Yo soy aterrorizado por {Norman Bates/ la casa de Psicosis} I am terrified by Norman Bates the house from Psycho (‘I am terrified by {Norman Bates/ the Psycho house}.’) (484) a. {Los escombros/ los niños} están obstruyendo la salida. the debris the children are obstructing the exit ‘{The debris/ the children} are obstructing the exit.’ b. * La salida es obstruida por {los escombros/ los niños} the exit is obstructed by the debris the children (‘The exit is obstructed by {the debris/ the children}.’)

To recap, agentivity defined in terms of teleological capability – i.e. the inherent properties of an entity that allows it to bring about the event by itself – also proves unuseful to account for the unavailability of psych effects. Once again, the only solid generalization that we can extract from our discussion is that the locus of psych effects is stativity, and not agentivity, however defined. I repeat the generalization in (472) below. (472) Empirical generalization about psych effects The source of psych effects with object-experiencer and locative verbs is stativity, not lack of agentivity (at least in Spanish)

5.6

Conclusions

This chapter has argued against the view that resorts to an Experiencer θ-role to explain psych effects with stative OEPVs. I have drawn evidence from stative locative verbs crosslinguistically and shown that the same psych effects appear with those verbs, despite their object is clearly not an Experiencer. I have argued for a common syntactic structure for these verbs, in which both the Experiencer and the Ground arguments are introduced as complements of a prepositional head PΨ. This shared syntactic structure explains the appearance of psych effects with both types of verbs. In turn, the birelational semantics encoded in the structure, along with the lexical meaning of the verb, derive the relevant event roles of the arguments of

Chapter 5.  Stative psychological and locative verbs 233



such verbs. The generalized semantics introduced by Pψ associate its complement to an abstract space, and locate the subject in (Spec,PP) with respect to that space. When this structure is lexicalized by an OEPV, that abstract space will be mental and the object will be an Experiencer, and the subject a Stimulus. When the structure is lexicalized by a location verb, that abstract space will be physical and the object will be a Ground, whereas the subject will be a Figure. (426) a. El río Nilo rodea el desierto de Bayuda. the river Nile surrounds the desert of Bayuda ‘The river Nile surrounds the Bayuda desert.’ PP

DP

P′

El río Nilo figure

DP

PΨ

el desierto de Bayuda Ground

b. c. [PP] = ∃ε,V [eigen(ε,el desierto de Bayuda) & rodea(V,ε) & endpoint(el río Nilo,V)] (428) a. El clima de Los Angeles agobia a mi amiga Ester. the climate of Los Angeles overwhelms dom my friend Ester ‘The Los Angeles weather overwhelms my friend Ester.’ PP

DP El clima de Los Angeles PΨ Stimulus

P′ DP a mi amiga Ester

Experiencer b. c. [PP] = ∃ε,V [eigen(ε,mi amiga Ester) & agobia(V,ε)& endpoint(el clima de Los Angeles,V)]

If on the right track, this is an important contribution to the neo-constructionist view that event roles are entailments from the event structure of the verb, rather than grammatical primitives, and that this event structure, in turn, is syntactically determined. This has been something explored in depth for causative verbs (Hale & Keyser 1993, Ramchand 2008, a.o., as discussed in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.4), and by now it is generally accepted that roles such as agent/causer and undergoer/ theme can be so derived. In this light, my chapter takes another step forward and

234 Stative Inquiries

shows that roles such as stimulus and experiencer are also entailments from the event structure, something that had not been seriously explored until now, as far as I am aware. Still, there are questions that remain. For instance, how should we derive SEPVs, i.e. psychological verbs where the subject, and not the object, is the Experiencer (e.g. (485a))? An option is to assume that the subject of SEPVs is in fact the same PP that derives OEPVs, as Fábregas & Marín (2015a) propose (e.g. (485b)), where their StatP is a stative verbal projection). Note that in their approach PΨ assigns an Experiencer θ-role. In principle, my analysis of OEPVs could be accomodated to this framework, assuming StatP is meaningless and the true predicate of the VP is in fact PΨ. Still, it is not clear how lexicalization would come about, given that the lexical item would not form a span: V/‍Stat and P are not syntactically contiguous heads. (485) a. Juan teme a María. Juan fears dom María ‘Juan fears María.’  StatP b. PP PΨ





(Fábregas & Marín 2015a: 258) Stat′

DP

Stat teme

DP

Juan a María Experiencer Emotion Target of emotion

Another issue is why we never find psych effects with eventive predicates. That is, as far as we know, psych effects are not attested with activities and change-of-state verbs crosslinguistically. I represent the nonexistent structures in (486) ((486a) for change-of-state and (486b) for activity configurations). (486) a. * [procP proc [resP res [PP DPStimulus/ Figure [P′ PΨ [DPExperiencer/ Ground]]]]] b. * [procP proc [PP DPStimulus/ Figure [P′ PΨ [DPExperiencer/ Ground ]]]]

This is a matter that deserves more discussion than what I am able to offer here, but I will nonetheless point towards a possible solution. With OEPVs and locative verbs, I have argued, it is a preposition what articulates argument structure and its associated event structure, rather than a verb. If so, we could think of PΨ as projecting its own first phase syntax domain, in which verbal heads such as init, proc and res do not come into play. The predicate and its arguments are articulated by PP, and the verbalizer V is inserted for morphological reasons – i.e. supporting tense and aspect morphemes.

Chapter 6

Conclusions

6.1

Summary of findings

This monograph has studied the morphosyntax and semantics of certain stative predicates in Spanish: stative causative verbs, OEPVs, locative verbs and stative participles. My main concern has been to provide a cross-categorial aspectual typology of stative predicates and to derive their thematic diversity from the event structures they lexicalize. I have conducted my research from the neoconstructionist view that the syntax of the VP determines its formal event structure and, indirectly, the thematic interpretation of their arguments, conceived as entailments from event structure. I articulated my research around the research questions in (7). (7) Research questions of this monograph: a. What syntactico-aspectual primitives derive the subclasses of stative verbs?  (Chapter 3) b. How do stative event structures assign thematic interpretation to verbal arguments?  (Chapter 5) c. What is the structural relationship between stative participles and their verbs?  (Chapter 4)

In Chapter  2, I presented a state of the art regarding the aspectual typology of verbs and their syntactic representation. I argued for a view of grammar in which syntactic complexity mirrors and determines event complexity, which is both theoretically more elegant and empirically more adequate. I also argued that a neo-constructionist approach to the VP must assume a rich event decomposition in order to adequately derive event types and thematic interpretation. All in all, the purpose of this chapter was to introduce the classic event typology that my research on Chapter 3 would later expand, as well as to introduce the first-phase syntax model, the theoretical framework I have adopted for the investigations carried out in this work. Chapter  3 analyzed gobernar-type verbs in Spanish. I argued that they are stative causatives, composed of two state-denoting projections which are related causally by virtue of their syntactic contiguity: initP and resP. I contrasted this view with others that deny that a causal relation can hold between states, as well as the

236 Stative Inquiries

view that characterizes gobernar-verbs as non-dynamic events. I also discussed the implications of my proposal regarding the connection between the external argument and the emergence of cause as a configurational phenomenon and reconciliated it other accounts that propose a split in the semantic and syntactic introduction of the external argument, on the one hand, and a cause relation in unaccusative configurations, on the other. In Chapter 4, I analyzed PPrts in Spanish. I showed that attributive PPrts are eventive – verbal passives without an auxiliary – whereas predicative PPrts with the auxiliary estar are stative. I further argued that there is a split within stative PPrts depending on the Aktionsart of the base verb: PPrts derived from stative causative verbs maintain their full argument and event structure  – two projections, initP and resP, and their associated states – whereas PPrts derived from telic verbs are truncated structures, composed only of a stative resP. This, I argued, follows from the requirement that the estar-PPrt construction be stative. I also provided a crosslinguistic typology of adjectival passives in terms of languages that behave like Spanish – notably German and Hebrew – and languages that do not, such as Greek and Chichewa. Chapter  5 challenged the idea that there is an Experiencer θ-role involved in the grammar of stative OEPVs. I showed that the idiosyncratic grammatical properties of these verbs  – the so-called psych effects  – also appear in locative verbs crosslinguistically, which clearly do not involve an Experiencer. I proposed a uniform syntactic structure for the two verb types with an associated abstract relational semantics. I argued that this relation can be understood as locative or psychological depending on the conceptual meaning of verb that lexicalizes that event structure. In turn, I proposed that the event role of the arguments involved was an entailment of the event structure coupled with the lexical meaning of the verb. Finally, I argued that these psych effects that OEPVs and locative verbs share do not have non-agentivity as their locus, but stativity. 6.2 Main contributions My work has augmented the classic Vendlerian taxonomy of event types with the addition of causative states. In so doing, I argued that, despite the received view, states can be aspectually complex: the notions of cause and result not only may apply to events, but also to states, and are indispensable for a comprehensive aspectual typology that includes gobernar-type verbs. I also showed that this richer typology can be derived assuming a minimum set of syntactic primitives  – the Ramchandian projections initP, procP and resP, which are here exploted to their full potential  – and semantic primitives  – the classic sortal distinction between

Chapter 6.  Conclusions 237



states and events and the generalized cause relation. In this view, states are not impoverished or defective primitives, but fully-functioning eventualities that can form complex event types following well-defined principles of syntactic and semantic composition. My research, in turn, has made non-trivial predictions for the morphosyntax and semantics of the VP. For the upper part of the VP – the VoiceP/initP area – I have explicitly argued that the semantic introduction of the external argument and the initiation state are inseparable since they are performed by the same head: in other words, I make the prediction that there are no languages where cause can appear without an implicit external argument. For the lower part of the VP – the resP area – I allow for telic roots to lexicalize a single resP in the syntax, following independently well-established morphosyntactic principles. This move allowed us to explain many properties of adjectival passives crosslinguistically, as well as clarify the recurrent confusion between stativity, resultativity and perfectivity in this domain. Furthermore, my work has provided further support for the view that thematic roles do not exist as primitives, but are merely entailments from event structure. This had been something hitherto pursued for the domain of causative events, where notions such as initiator and undergoer/ resultee could be easily derived from the aspectual configuration of the sub-events. However, I have shown that even roles such as Experiencer or Stimulus can be derived as entailments from event structure once we understand the joint work of the abstract aspectual configuration at play and the lexical meaning of the verb. These findings then provide another blow to classic θ-theory, which contends that θ-roles are primitives of the grammatical system. Seen as a whole, the research conducted here has been a contribution to the neo-constructionist research program in general, and to its research on stative predicates in particular. I have reinforced the view that event types and thematic roles are derived syntactically, thus adding to current neo-constructionist research on the syntax-semantics interface of the VP (Travis 2000, Borer 2005b, Ramchand 2008, Lohndal 2014, a.o.). It has also contributed to fill a void in this program, which has by large neglected stative verbal predicates (but see Alexiadou 2011, Husband 2012, Jaque 2013, Roy 2013, a.o. for notable exceptions). 6.3

Future work

As is commonly the case, the path that I have begun in this monograph has opened bifurcations that go beyond the distance I could travel. One of them is the analysis of the estar-PPrt construction with PPrts derived from locative verbs

238 Stative Inquiries

and OEPVs, as was briefly mentioned in the Example  (xvii) from footnote 40, which I repeat below. (xvii) a. b.

La finca está rodeada por tres colinas. the ranch isestar surrounded by three hills ‘The ranch is surrounded by three hills.’ Pedro está preocupado por la crisis económica. by the crisis economic Pedro isestar worried ‘Pedro is worried by the economic crisis.’

The estar-PPrt construction with PPrts derived from telic and stative causative verbs was thoroughly studied in Chapter  4, as were OEPVs and locative verbs in Chapter 5. However, I did not explore how OEPVs and locative verbs formed estar-PPrt constructions. Given the different structures I posit for OEPVs and locative verbs, on the one hand, and stative causatives on the other (Chapter 3), we should expect them to form different kinds of PPrts in the estar-construction. It seems to be the case: for one, the introduction of the Figure/Stimulus argument may or must be introduced by different prepositions depending on factors such as the lexical verb and the specificity of the argument (e.g. (487a–b)), whereas with stative causative verbs the Initiator argument is always introduced within a byphrase (e.g. (487c)). (487) a. b. c.

La ciudad está rodeada {de/ ?por} montañas. the city is surrounded of ?by mountains (‘The city is surrounded {of/ ?by} mountains.’) María está alucinada {con/ ?por} el nuevo edificio. María isestar astonished with ?by the new building (‘María is astonished {with/ ?by} the new building.’) está gobernado {?de/ ?con/ por} militares. El país The country isestar governed {?of ?with by military (‘The country is governed {?of/ ?with/ by} the military.’)

My intuition, along with Conti-Jiménez (2004), is that estar-PPrts with locative verbs – and, by extension, OEPVs – are a cross-categorial instance of the locative alternation, i.e. a type of argument structure alternation that involves a locative relation (cf. the well-known spray/load alternation). Be as it may, it remains to be determined what the relation is between the VP-structure I defended for these two verb types in Chapter 5 and their associated estar-PPrt. Additionally, it would be informative to study the nominalizations of the stative verbs studied in my monograph. The theory put forth here – that deverbal morphology can consist of ‘defective’ structures that featurally-richer verbs can lexicalize – could shed light on the typology of nominalizations put forth in

Chapter 6.  Conclusions 239



Grimshaw (1990), which distinguishes between simple and complex nominals. I illustrate their properties on Table 6.1 (adapted from Alexiadou 2001, Borer 2013) and in the examples (488) and (489a) (from Alexiadou 2001: 11–12), noting that simple and complex nominals appear to be suspiciously parallel to estar-PPrts derived from telic and stative causative verbs, respectively. Table 6.1  Grimshaw’s (1990) typology of nominalizations Simple/ Result nominals

Complex event/ A-S nominals

– No event-related roles – No event reading (488a) – Complements are optional (488b) – No agent-oriented modifiers (488c) – Subjects are possessives (488d) – By-phrases are non-arguments (Spanish de, Hebrew šel) (488e) – No implicit argument control (488f) – No aspectual modifiers (488g) – Modifiers like frequent only with plural nouns (488h)

– Event-roles (i.e. T-roles) – Event reading (489a) – Complements are obligatory (489b) – Agent-oriented modifiers (489c) – Subjects are arguments (489d) – By-phrases are arguments (Spanish por, Hebrew al yedey) (489e) – Implicit argument control (489f) – Aspectual modifiers (489g) – Modifiers like frequent only with singular nouns (489h)

(488)

Simple/ Result nominals a. * the exam at noon b. * the exam of the papers c. * the intentional exam is desirable d. (* )‍the instructor’s examination e. a picture by a painter f. * the exam in order to pass all the students g. * the exam for three hours h. * the frequent {*exam/exams}

(489)

Complex event nominals a. the examination of the students at noon. b. the examination *(of the papers) c. the instructor’s intentional examination of the student d. the instructor’s examination of the papers e. the destruction of the city by the enemy f. the assignment of easy problems in order to pass all the students g. the examination of the papers in three hours h. the frequent {examination/*examinations} of the papers

It remains to be seen whether such a parallelism could be sensibly established. An obvious difference is that estar-PPrts derived from telic verbs never have the

240 Stative Inquiries

full event reading – but see my crosslinguistic discussion in Section 4.6 – whereas with nominals they have both readings. More strikingly, with telic verbs, the event reading does not include the notional result state in the event decomposition: in (490a), with the disambiguating result-oriented adverb hermético ‘hermetic’, the event reading in (490b) becomes impossible. (490) a. el aislamiento hermético de la unidad de residuos tóxicos (*por parte the insulation hermetic of the unit of residues toxic by part de los expertos). of the experts (‘The hermetic insulation of the toxic residues unit by the experts.’) b. el rápido aislamiento de la unidad de residuos tóxicos por parte de the quick insulation of the unit of residues toxic by part of los expertos. the experts ‘The quick insulation of the toxic residues unit by the experts.’



Ultimately, research on nominalizations should prove to inform – and hopefully strengthen – the proposal put forth in this work for the stative predicates under study. But that will have to be the subject of a different piece of research. The present monograph ends here.

Bibliography

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001 Aelbrecht, Lobke & Harwood, William. 2015. To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited. Lingua 153: 66–97.  https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.006 Akmajian, Adrian & Wasow, Thomas. 1975. The constituent structure of VP and AUX and the position of the verb be. Linguistic Analysis 1: 205–245. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.42 Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. Statives and nominalization. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 40: 25–52.  https://‍doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1991 Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. The problem with internally caused change-ofstate verbs. Linguistics 52(4): 879–909.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0011 Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. Structuring participles. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds), 33–41. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.4.187 Alexiadou, Artemis, Gehrke, Berit & Schäfer, Florian. 2014. The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua 149: 118–138.  https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.018 Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001 Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. On experiencers. In Studies in Greek Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey C. Horrocks & Melita Stavrou (eds), 67–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9177-5_4 Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. Participles and voice. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 1–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110902358.1 Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2017. Voice, manners, and results in adjectival passives. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel Gallego (eds), 105–128. Oxford: OUP. Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Samioti, Yota. 2013. Allosemy, idioms, and their domains: Evidence from adjectival participles. In Syntax and its Limits, Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 218–250. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0012 Arad, Maya. 1998a. Psych notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 203–223.

242 Stative Inquiries Arad, Maya. 1998b. VP Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. PhD dissertation, University College London. Arad, Maya. 1999. What counts as a class? The case of psych verbs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: 1–23. Arad, Maya. 2002. Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In Theoretical Approaches to Universals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 49], Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), 15–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.49.03ara Arche, María Jesús. 2006. Individuals in Time [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 94]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.94 Arche, María Jesús. 2012. On the aspectuality of the Individual-level/ Stagelevel dichotomy. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 1(2): 109–132. https://‍doi.org/10.7557/1.1.2.2385 Arche, María Jesús, Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2017. Towards a unified treatment of Spanish copulas. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11. Selected papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario, Silvia Perpiñán, David Heap, Itziri Moreno-Villamar & Adriana Soto-Corominas (eds), 33–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/rllt.11.02arc Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1): 5–16. Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219–251. Baker, Mark C. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 373–415. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of Grammar, Lilliane Haegeman (ed.), 73–137. Dordrecht: Springer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2 Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615047 Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 Benincà, Paula. 1986. Il lata sinistro della frase Italiana. Association of Teachers of Italian Journal 47: 57–85. Bennett, Michael & Partee, Barbara. 1972. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Santa Monica CA: System Development Corporation. Reprinted with an afterword by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, 1978. Bentley, Delia. 2017. Result state adjectives: Valence and voice. Talk given at the Cambridge Workshop on Voice, University of Cambridge, 22–24 May. Boeckx, Cedric. 2014. What principles and parameters got wrong. In Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, M. Carme Picallo (ed.), 155–178. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0008 Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Elena Benedicto & Jeff Runner (eds), 19–47. Amherst MA: GLSA. Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense, Vol. I: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP. Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Vol. II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense, Vol. III: Taking Form. Oxford: OUP.



Bibliography 243

Bosque, Ignacio. 1990. Sobre el aspecto en los adjetivos y en los participios. In Tiempo y aspecto en español, Ignacio Bosque (ed.), 177–214. Madrid: Cátedra. Bosque, Ignacio. 1999. El sintagma adjetival. Modificadores y complementos del adjetivo. Adjetivo y participio. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol 1, Ch. 4, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 217–310. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Bosque, Ignacio. 2014. On resultative past participles in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13: 41–77.  https://‍doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.155 Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/cilt.91.04bou Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1): 27–89. https://‍doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00148 Bresnan, Joan W. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan W. Bresnan (ed.), 3–86. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Brody, Michael. 2000. Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 29–56.  https://‍doi.org/10.1162/002438900554280 Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Review of Gillian Catriona Ramchand, Verb Meaning and the Lexion: A First-Phase Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 46: 260–270. https://‍doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990363 Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9227-y Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous. Language 49: 1–42.  https://‍doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0000 Brugger, Gerhard. 2001. Temporal modification, the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time. In Current Issues in Spanish Syntax and Semantics, Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Luis Silva-Villar (eds), 243–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110850536.243 Bull, William. 1965. Spanish for Teachers. New York NY: Ronald Press. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø. Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series, 1980. New York NY: Garland. Carrier, Jill & Randall, Janet H. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2): 173–234. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 22–59. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002 Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York NY: Praeger.

244 Stative Inquiries Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 291–321. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. https://‍doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Clark, Eve & Clark, Herbert. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4): 767–811. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/412745 Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP. Conti-Jiménez, Carmen. 2004. Construcciones pasivas con estar. ELUA 18: 21–44. https://‍doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2004.18.02 Corver, Norbert. 1997. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 289–368.  https://‍doi.org/10.1023/A:1005846812956 Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. PhD dissertation, MIT. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, Nicholas Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson, Donald. 2006. The Essential Davidson, 37–71. Oxford: OUP. de Miguel, Elena. 1999. El aspecto léxico. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2, Ch. 46, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 2977–3060. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1999. On clitics, prepositions and case licensing in Standard and Macedonian Greek. In Studies in Greek Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey C. Horrocks & Melita Stavrou (eds), 95–112. Dordrecht: Kluwer.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9177-5_5 Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67.  https://‍doi.org/10.1023/A:1023021423453 Doron, Edit. 2013. The interaction of adjectival passive and voice. In The Roots of Syntax and the Syntax of Roots. Hagit Borer, Artmis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (eds), 164–191. Oxford: OUP. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 546–619. https://‍doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 Dubinsky, Stanley & Simango, Silvester Ron. 1996. Passive and stative in Chichewa: Evidence for modular distinctions in grammar. Language 72(4): 749–781. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/416101 Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392.  https://‍doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402634 Ernst, Thomas. 2016. Modification of stative predicates. Language 92(2): 237–274. https://‍doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0042 Espinal, María Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120: 984–1009.  https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002



Bibliography 245

Espinal, María Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2011. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47: 87–128. https://‍doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000228 Fábregas, Antonio. 2007. The Exhaustive Lexicalization Principle. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers in Language & Lingusitics 34(2): 165–199. Fábregas, Antonio. 2014. Un análisis sintáctico de dos tipos de causante. Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante 28: 191–214. Fábregas, Antonio. 2016. Las nominalizaciones. Madrid: Visor. Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2012. Syntactic and semantic properties of Davidsonian state verbs. Talk presented at the 42 Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Southern Utah University, 20–22 April. Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2015a. Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs in Spanish. The Linguistic Review 32(2), 227–275.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0022 Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2015b. How insertion in non terminal nodes explains two participle puzzles. Talk given at Colloquium on Generative Grammar 25, IKER, May 21–23. Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2017. On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish. Linguistics 55(3): 451–488.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0001 Fernández-Leborans, María Jesús. 1999. La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol.2, Ch. 37, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 2357–2460. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fernández Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 1, Ch. 21, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 1317–1398. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Fernández-Ramírez, Salvador. 1951. Gramática española. El verbo y la oración, Vol. 4. Madrid: Arco Libros. Fernández-Soriano, Olga & Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2011. Non-selected dative subjects in anticausative constructions. Archivio Glottologico Italiano XCVI: 87–128. Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types an Nominal Reference. New York NY: Routledge. Fodor, Jerry. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving kill’ from cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4): 429–438. Fodor, Jerry & Lepore, Ernest. 1999. Impossible words? Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 445–453. https://‍doi.org/10.1162/002438999554138 Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Inquiries, Roumyana Slabakova & Paula Kempchinsky (eds), 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5 Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118(2): 190–202.  https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004 Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2016. Against deficiency-based typologies: Manner-alternation parameters in Italian and English. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from Going Romance 28, Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo & Sandra Pereira (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/rllt.10.06fol Franco, Jon. 1990. Towards a typology of experiencer verbs: Evidence from Spanish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 46–62. Fukui, Naoki & Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–172. Fults, Scott. 2006. The Structure of Comparison: An Investigation of Gradable Adjectives. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

246 Stative Inquiries García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2015. The aspectual structure of the VP: A case study in adjectival passives. Qualifying Paper, USC. García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2016a. The aspectual composition of adjectival passives. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 175–89. Chicago IL: University of Chicago. García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2016b. Deriving aspect-alternating verbs without θ-roles. In Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Vol. 1, Christopher Hammerly & Brandon Prickett (eds), 287–300. Amherst MA: GLSA. García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2017. Aspect and argument structure in adjectival passives. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 6(1): 21–52.  https://‍doi.org/10.7557/1.6.1.4095 García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2018. El agente implícito en pasivas verbales y adjetivales. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística 48: 199–214.  https://‍doi.org/10.31810/RSEL.48.6 García-Pardo, Alfredo & Menon, Mythili. 2020. The aspectual structure of the adjective: Spanish ser and estar. In Hispanic Linguistics: Current Issues and New Directions [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 26], Alfonso Morales-Front, Michael J. Ferreira, Ronald P. Leow & Cristina Sanz (eds), 138–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/ihll.26.07gar Gehrke, Berit. 2011. Stative passives and event kinds. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds), 241–257. Germany: Universaar – Saarland University Press. Gehrke, Berit. 2012. Passive states. In Telicity, Change and State. A Cross-categorial View of Event Structure, Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds), 185–211. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0008 Gehrke, Berit. 2013. Still puzzled by adjectival passives? In Syntax and its Limits, Raffaella R. Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 175–191. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0010 Gehrke, Berit. 2015. Adjectival participles, event kind modification and pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 897–938. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9295-7 Gehrke, Berit & Sánchez-Marco, Cristina. 2014. Different by-phrases with adjectival and verbal passives: Evidence from Spanish corpus data. Lingua 149: 188–214. https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.011 Gehrke, Berit & Sánchez-Marco, Cristina. 2015. Las pasivas psicológicas. In Los predicados psicológicos, Rafael Marín (ed.), 145–184. Madrid: Visor. Gese, Helga. 2011. Events in adjectival passives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds), 259–273. Germany: Universaar – Saarland University Press. Gili Gaya, Samuel. 1961. Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Bibligraf. Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio. 1997. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP. Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327–356.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 Gómez-Torrego, Leonardo. 1988. Perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Arco Libros. Gómez Vázquez, Diana & García Fernández, Luis. 2013. Estados controlados. In De la unidad del lenguaje a la diversidad de las lenguas: Actas del X Congreso Internacional de Lingüística General, José Francisco Val Álvaro (ed.), 335–346. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.



Bibliography 247

Greenberg, Yael. 2006. Structuring aspectual and temporal relations with two Hebrew adverbials and the semantics/pragmatics of still. In Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on Logic and Language, Beáta Gyuris, Lászlo Kálmán, Chris Piñón, & Károly Varasdi (eds), 62–69. Budapest: Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Theoretical Linguistics Programme, Eotvös Loránd University. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20. Essays on Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel J. 1997. Adjectives, other stative predicates and the roots of stativity. Ms, MIT. Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.  https://‍doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel J. 2005. Aspect and the syntax of argument structure. In The Syntax of Aspect, Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds), 11–41. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0002 Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays on Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hallman, Peter. 2013. Predication and movement in passive. Lingua 125: 76–94. https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.002 Hallman, Peter. 2015. The temporal nature of state/ event distinction. Talk given at the GLOW Workshop on States and Events, Paris (France), 18 April. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT. Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.  https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010 Harley, Heidi. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel Gallego (eds), 3–28. Oxford: OUP. Harley, Heidi, Tubino-Blanco, Mercedes & Haugen, Jason. 2009. Applicative constructions and suppletive verbs in Hiaki (Yaqui). In Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol.1, Linda Lanz, Amy Franklin, Jennifer Hoecker Elizabeth Gentry Brunner Michelle Morrison & Cassandra Pace (eds), 42–51. Houston TX: Rice Linguistics Society, Rice University. Harwood, William. 2013. Being Progressive is just a Phase: Dividing the Functional Hierarchy. PhD dissertation, Ghent University. Harwood, William. 2015. Being progressive is just a phase: Celebrating the uniqueness of progressive aspect under a phase-based analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 523–573.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9267-3 Harwood, William. 2017. Reduced relatives and extended phases: A phasebased analysis of the inflectional restrictions on English reduced relative clauses. Studia Linguistica 1–44. https://‍doi.org/10.1111/stul.12069 Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scale structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds), 127–144. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. Hengeveld, Kees. 1986. Copular verbs in a functional grammar of Spanish. Linguistics 24: 393–420.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.2.393 Higginbotham, James T. 1997. Location and causation. Ms, University of Oxford.

248 Stative Inquiries Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta theory. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, Iggy M. Roca (ed.), 145–174. Berlin: Foris.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110872613.145 Horvath, Julia & Siloni, Tal. 2008. Active lexicon: Adjectival and verbal passives. In Generative Approaches to Hebrew Linguistics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 134], Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon & Susan Rothstein (eds), 105–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.134.05act van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 60–83. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0003 Husband, Matthew E. 2012. On the Compositional Nature of States [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 188]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.188 Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorsky, Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), 189–238. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Ippolito, Michaela. 2004. An analysis of still. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, Robert B. Young (ed.), 127–144. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. Jaque, Matías. 2013. La expresión de la estatividad en español: Niveles de representación y grados de dinamicidad. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Kallulli, Dalina. 2006a. Argument demotion as feature suppression. In Demoting the Agent. Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 96], Benjamin Lyngfeldt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 143–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.96.08kal Kallulli, Dalina. 2006b. Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: A unified account. In Datives and Other Cases [Studies in Language Companion Series 75], Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds), 271–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.13kal Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kamp, Hans, Reyle, Uwe & Rossdeutscher, Antje. 2015. Perfects as feature shifting operators. Ms, Universität Stuttgart. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics. New York: St. Martin’s. Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Elsewhere in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 93–106. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Davis, Anthony R. 2006. The KEY to lexical semantic representations. Journal of Linguistics 42: 71–108.  https://‍doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003695 Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique. 1985. Theta theory and extraction. GLOW Newsletter 14: 57–88. Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. Subjects. Ms, University of California at Los Angeles.



Bibliography 249

Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua: 211–258. https://‍doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)‍90022-W Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 593–634.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0 Krapova, Iliyana & Cinque, Guglielmo. 2008. Clitic reduplication constructionsin Bulgarian. In Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 130], Dalina Kalluli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 257–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.130.15kra Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds), 125–175. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 385–399. Berkeley CA: BLS. Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. The event argument. Ms, University of Massachusetts. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Event Arguments in Syntax, Semantics and Discourse, Claudia Maienbaum & Angelke Wöllstein-Leisen (eds), 178–212. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and Contextual Expression, Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (eds), 75–115. Stanford CA: CSLI. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-005 Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical Matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szablocsi (eds), 29–53. Stanford CA: CSLI. Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. In Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 401–412. Berkeley CA: BLS. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12(1): 1–47.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/li.12.1.02kur Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD dissertation, MIT. Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson. Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers [Linguistic InquiryMonograph 53]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Larsson, Ida. 2009. Participles in Time: The Development of the Perfect Tense in Swedish. PhD dissertation, Göteborg University. Larsson, Ida & Svenonius, Peter. 2013. Phases and categories in passive and perfect participles. Talk presented at the Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop 28, University of Leipzig, 4 October. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1970. Towards a Semantic Description of English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 69]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.  https://‍doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001

250 Stative Inquiries Legendre, Géraldine. 1989. Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs. Language 65(4): 752–782.  https://‍doi.org/10.2307/414933 Legendre, Géraldine. 1993. Antipassive with French psych-verbs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 12, Erin Dunca, Donka Farkas & Philip Spaelti (eds), 373–388. Stanford CA: CSLI. Legendre, Géraldine & Akimova, Tanya. 1993. Inversion and antipassive in Russian. In The Second Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Sergey Avrutin, Steven Franks & Ljiljana Progovac (eds), 286–318. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth & Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 623–261. Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 26]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 Lewis, David. 1973. Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 70(17): 556–567. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/2025310 Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT. Lin, Jimmy. 2004. Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase. PhD dissertation, MIT. Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German schön – erst – noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 167–212.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/BF00627659 Lohndal, Terje. 2014. Phrase Structure and Argument Structure. A Case Study of the SyntaxSemantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677115.001.0001 Maienborn, Claudia. 2005. On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 275–316.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.3.275 Maienborn, Claudia. 2007. On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In Existence: Semantics and Syntax, Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 107–130. Dordrecht: Springer. Maienborn, Claudia. 2009. Building event-based ad hoc properties: On the interpretation of adjectival passives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 31–46. (4 June 2020). Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 200–225. Marantz, Alec. 1999. Creating words above and below little v. Ms, MIT. Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–168. https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012 Marín, Rafael. 2000. El componente aspectual de la predicación. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Marín, Rafael. 2004. Entre ser y estar. Madrid: Arco Libros. Marín, Rafael. 2011. Casi todos los predicados psicológicos son estativos. In Sobre estados y estatividad, Ángeles Carrasco Gutiérrez (ed), 26–44. Munich: Lincom. Marín, Rafael. 2015. Los predicados psicológicos: Debate sobre el estado de la cuestión. In Los predicados psicológicos, Rafael Marín (ed), 11–50. Madrid: Visor.



Bibliography 251

Marín, Rafael & McNally, Louise. 2005. The Aktionsart of Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, 212–225. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. Marín, Rafael & McNally, Louise. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(2): 467–502.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9127-3 Marín, Rafael & Sánchez-Marco, Cristina. 2012. Verbos y nombres psicológicos: Juntos y revueltos. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2: 91–108. https://‍doi.org/10.7557/1.1.2.2379 Martin, Fabienne. 2006. Prédicats statifs, causatifs et résultatifs en discours. PhD dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles. Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian. 2014. Causation at the syntax-semantics interface. In Causation in Grammatical Structures, Bridget Copley & Fabienne Martin (eds), 209–244. Oxford: OUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672073.003.0009 Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.  https://‍doi.org/10.1023/A:1006465130442 Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument Structure: Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. MacDonald, Jonathan. 2008. The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 133] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.133 McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds), 97–113. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. McCawley, James D. 1973. Pre-lexical syntax. In Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic and Semantic Topics, 343–356. New York NY: Academic Press. McCawley, James D. 1981. Notes on the English perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81–90.  https://‍doi.org/10.1080/07268608108599267 Mchombo, Sam. 1993. A formal analysis of the stative construction in Bantu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 14: 5–28.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/jall.1993.14.1.5 McIntyre, Andrew. 2013. Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In Non-Canonical Passives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 205], Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (eds), 21–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.205.02mci McIntyre, Andrew. 2015. Event modifiers in (German) adjectival participles: Remarks on Gehrke (this issue). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 939–953. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9285-9 Meltzer, Aya. 2005. Adjectival Passives and Adjectival Decausatives in Hebrew. M.Phil thesis, Tel Aviv University. 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. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9138-0 Michaelis, Laura A. 1993. “Continuity” within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still. Journal of Semantics 10: 193–237.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/jos/10.3.193 Michaelis, Laura A. 1994. The ambiguity of the English present perfect. Journal of Linguistics 30: 111–157.  https://‍doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016200 Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894. https://‍doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038

252 Stative Inquiries Mittwoch, Anita. 1988. Aspects of English aspect: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203–254. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/BF00632461 Mittwoch, Anita. 1991. In defense of Vendler’s achievements. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 71–84.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/bjl.6.05mit Moens, Marc. 1987. Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Moens, Marc & Steedman, Mark. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2): 15–28. Morgan, Jerry. 1969. On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics 1: 49–70. https://‍doi.org/10.1080/08351816909389106 Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, states and processes. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–434.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/BF00149015 Navas-Ruiz, Ricardo. 1987. Usos de “ser” y “estar”. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Librería. Neeleman, Ad & van de Koot, Hans. 2012. The linguistic expression of causation. In The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj & Tal Siloni (eds), 20–51. Oxford: OUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0002 Nishiyama, Atsuko & Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2010. What is a perfect state? Language 86: 611–646. https://‍doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0014 Olsen, Mari Broman. 1994. The semantics and pragmatics of lexical aspect features. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 24: 361–375. Olsen, Mari Broman. 1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. New York NY: Garland. Pancheva, Roumyana. 2003. The aspectual makeup of the Perfect participle. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 277–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110902358.277 Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Paslawska, Alla & von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 307–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/9783110902358.307 Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1997. The genitive of negation. In Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the Israeli Association of Theoretical Linguistics, Adam Z. Weiner (ed.), 167–190. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Akademon. Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jeri Jaeger (ed.), 157–190. Berkeley CA: BLS. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3: 279–316. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1991.3.3.279 Portner, Paul. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 459–510.  https://‍doi.org/10.1023/A:1024697112760 Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47–81. https://‍doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)‍90032-Y Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. On stativity and causation. In Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, Carol Tenny & James Pustejovsky (eds), 417–445. Chicago IL: CSLI.



Bibliography 253

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT. Ramchand, Gillian. 2014. Causal chains and instrumental case in Hindi/Urdu. In Causation in Grammatical Structures, Bridget Copley & Fabienne Martin (eds), 245–278. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672073.003.0010 Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46: 152–174.  https://‍doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 Ramchand, Gillian C. 2005. Post-Davidsonianism. Theoretical Linguistics 31(3): 359–373. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.3.359 Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 Ramchand, Gillian C. 2011. Minimalist semantics. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 449–471. Oxford: OUP. Ramchand, Gillian C. 2018. Situations and Syntactic Structures [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 77]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.  https://‍doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10911.001.0001 Ramchand, Gillian C. 2019. Verbal symbols and demonstrations across modalities. Open Linguistics 5(1): 94–108.  https://‍doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0006 Rapp, Irene. 1996. Zustand? Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten “Zustandspassiv”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15(2): 231–265. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1996.15.2.231 Rapp, Irene. 1997. Partizipen und semantische Struktur. Zu passivischen Konstruktionen des 3. Status. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Rapp, Irene. 2011. The attributive past participle: Structure and temporal interpretation. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 392–409. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Rappaport-Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Syntactic Constraints, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford CA: CSLI. Rappaport-Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, Malka Rappaport-Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds), 21–38. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002 Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Syntactic effects of lexical operations: Reflexives and unaccusatives. Ms, Utrecht University. Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The theta system: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. UiL-OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 00/01/TL. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Reinhart, Tanya. 2001. Experiencing deviations. In Proceedings of SALT 11, Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolensky (eds), 127–144. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290. Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2004. Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 288–331. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0007 Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–436. https://‍doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396881

254 Stative Inquiries Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Lilliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 Roberts, Ian. 1991. NP-movement, crossover and chain formation. In Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar, Hubert Haider & Klaus Netter (eds), 17–52. Dordrecht: Kluwer.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3446-0_2 Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Ross, John R. 1972. Doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 3(1): 61–86. Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The Structure of Stative Verbs. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 143] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.143 Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Blackwell: Oxford.  https://‍doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127 Rothstein, Susan. 2012. Another look at accomplishments and incrementality. In Telicity, Change and State. A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds), 60–102. Oxford: OUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0003 Roy, Isabelle. 2013. Non-Verbal Predication: Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543540.001.0001 Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Barnes and Noble. Sánchez López, Cristina. 1999. La negación. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2, Ch. 40, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 2561–2634. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)‍Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 126]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.126 Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(2): 641–681.  https://‍doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00127.x Schlücker, Barbara. 2005. Event-related modifiers in German adjectival passives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, Emar Maier, Corien Bary & Janneke Huitink (eds), 415–430. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. The grammar of measurement. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12, Brendan Jackson (ed.), 225–245. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. Schwenter, Scott A. 1994. The grammaticalization of anterior in progress: Evidence from a Peninsular Spanish dialect. Studies in Language 18(1): 71–111. https://‍doi.org/10.1075/sl.18.1.05sch Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 1–40. New York NY: Academic Press.  https://‍doi.org/10.1163/9789004368842_002 Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport Hovav & Annie Else Zaenen (eds), 143–158. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Smith, Carlota S. 1961. A class of complex modifiers in English. Language 37: 342–365. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/411077 Smith, Carlota. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. Language 59: 479–501. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/413899 Smith, Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7



Bibliography 255

Sorace, Antonella. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 243–268. Oxford: OUP. https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0010 Spathas, Giorgos, Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. Middle voice and reflexive interpretations: Afto-prefixation in Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(4): 1293–1350.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9279-z Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax – A short primer to a new approach to language. Special Issue on Nanosyntax, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Tarald Taraldsen (eds). Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø. Nordlyd 36: 1–6. Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT. Svenonius, Peter. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Special issue on Adpositions, Peter Svenonius & Marina Pantcheva (eds). Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø. Nordlyd 33: 49–77. Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Projections of P. In Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 120], Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds), 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.120.04sve Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 127–160. Oxford: OUP. Svenonius, Peter. 2012a. Spanning. Ms, University of Tromsø. Svenonius, Peter. 2012b. Structural decomposition of spatial adpositions. Talk presented at The Meaning of P workshop, Ruhr Universität Bochum, 24 November. Svenonius, Peter. 2016. Spans and words. In Morphological Metatheory, [Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today 229], Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), 201–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/la.229.07sve Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Cathy Cogen (ed.), 419–430. Berkeley CA: BLS. Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Syntax and Semantics, 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 43–116. New York NY: Academic Press.  https://‍doi.org/10.1163/9789004368842_003 Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, I: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed), 57–149. Cambridge: CUP. Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 199–220. Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT. Tenny, Carol. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. In Lexical Matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szablocsi (eds), 1–28. Stanford CA: CSLI. Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8 Tikagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event Structure in Syntax. In Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, Carol Tenny & James Pustejovsky (eds), 145–185. Stanford CA: CSLI.

256 Stative Inquiries Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner Aspect. The Articulation of the VP. Dordrecht: Springer. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4 Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split transitivity. Language 66: 221–260. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/414886 Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 Vanhoe, Henk. 2004. Aspectos de la sintaxis de los verbos psicológicos en español. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review 66(2): 143–160. https://‍doi.org/10.2307/2182371 Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://‍doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4 Verkuyl, Henk J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(1): 39–94.  https://‍doi.org/10.1007/BF00627398 Vivanco, Margot. 2015. Causatividad y cambio de estado en español: La alternancia causativoinacusativa. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Vlach, Frank. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. In Syntax and Semantics, 14: Tense and Aspect, Philip J. Tedeschi & Annie Zaenen (eds), 271–292. New York NY: Academic Press. von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 114], Urs Egli, Peter Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechov & Götz Wienold (eds), 81–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://‍doi.org/10.1075/cilt.114.05ste von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder again: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.2.87 von Stechow, Arnim. 1998. German participles II in Distributed Morphology. Ms, University of Tübingen. Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal Syntax, Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds), 327–360. New York NY: Academic Press. Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In The Syntax of Aspect, Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rappoport (eds), 255–273. Oxford: OUP.  https://‍doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012 Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. https://‍doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.81 Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. In Proceedings of NELS 42, Stephan Keine & Shayne Slogget (eds), 277–290. Amherst MA: GLSA. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 403–447.  https://‍doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00161 Xiqués, Teresa Maria. 2012. Re-examining the hodiernal present perfect: Towards a unified account. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XX, Enrico Boone, Marin Kohlberger & Maartje Schulpen (eds). Leiden: SOLE. Zubizarreta, María Luisa & Oh, Eunjeong. 2007. On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.  https://‍doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5132.001.0001

Index

A agent-oriented modifiers  112, 149–150, 160, 171, 239 Aktionsart  1–2, 4–5, 10 see also event type, lexical aspect and inner aspect

event type  10 eventuality  10

B bare nominals  142, 244 Blocking Principle  183

G Generative Semantics  29, 30, 39, 54–55 genitive of negation  179, 184, 195–196 Government and Binding  27, 175 Ground  4, 34, 198–199, 210, 232–234

C c-selection  27, 28 central coincidence  36–37, 62–63 Chichewa  163–166, 236 clitic doubling  180, 184, 193, 196–197 copula  37, 61, 108, 126, 200 counterfactual  30, 82–84 cut-short participles  103, 105, 132, 168 D D-states  69 deadjectival verb  34, 62 deontic  226 Direct Causation condition  230 disjoint reference effect  113–115, 125 Distributed Morphology  2, 50, 213 Dowty, David  244 dynamicity  10, 62, 64–65, 69, 72, 97, 214 E Embick, David  244 endpoint  2, 11, 20–22, 24, 26, 57, 159, 207- 210, 233 epistemic  14–16, 226 event structure  1, 3–4, 9–10

F Figure  4, 34, 199, 210, 233, 238 future  14–16, 26, 170–171, 226

H habitual  12, 59, 61, 64, 75, 118, 190–191, 203–204, 216–218, 223, 225 happen-anaphors  62, 64 Hiaki  89-90 I inherent case  196–199, 211 inner aspect  10 instrumentals  100, 112, 135, 139, 150, 155, 160, 214 islands  178, 194, 197 L l-syntax  2, 10, 31–33, 50, 54, 58 late insertion  49 left periphery  129, 254 lexical aspect  10 lexical entry  9, 27- 29, 43, 51, 121, 123–124, 130, 133, 175, 206–207 lexicalist  29, 38, 41–42, 46, 50 light verb  2 listeme  41, 43, 46 locative alternation  236, 238

locatives  69, 151 M maintain  60, 79, 81, 84–85, 96 manner  56–57, 62, 64, 68–71, 103, 105, 111, 121, 135, 139 minimalist  28 Mirror Principle  89 monotonic  53 N Nanosyntax  2 negation  128, 179, 184, 195–197 Neo-constructionism  9 Neo-Davidsonian  43 nominalizations  147, 238–239 O oblique case  7, 196, 199, 205 P Path  52–53, 62, 64–65, 79 perception verbs  62, 64, 67, 69 perfect  12, 13, 19, 27, 75, 106–108, 111, 113, 116–119, 126, 128–129, 133, 153–154, 158–159, 161, 167–171, 193, 216, 219, 226 periphrastic causatives  56, 178, 184, 187, 196, 204–205, 224–225, 227 Place  64 progressive  12–13, 15, 17, 19, 22–23, 25–26, 36, 38, 62, 64–65, 75, 111, 116, 127, 219 projection principle  28, 175 punctual  22–23, 25, 51

258 Stative Inquiries R reference time  12, 116–118, 156–157, 230 relative clauses  126, 192 resultant state  153-155, 159–161 resumptive pronoun  192 S s-selection  27–28 scope ambiguity  19, 23–24, 26, 74–75, 77–78, 81, 200–201, 205 Sicilian  131 spanning  50

subinterval property  10, 11, 61, 75 subject-of-quantity  43, 44 Superset Principle  121, 171 T target state  153–156, 159–161 telos  11 temporal coextensivity  82, 84–85 terminal coincidence  2, 34 thematic roles  4, 9, 27, 38, 174–175, 177, 198–199, 211, 237

Theta criterion  28 transitive-unaccusative alternation  74, 77, 79 U underassociation  121 UTAH  176 V vectors  207–208 W weak indefinites  142

This monograph studies stative predicates from a neo-constructionist perspective and integrates them in a comprehensive theory of event and argument structure. It focuses on two sets of stative verbs: govern-type verbs and object experiencer psychological verbs. For govern-verbs, it shows how notions such as causativity and resultativity can also be ingredients of stative predicates and be derived syntactically. The consequences of this proposal are further pursued in a crosslinguistic investigation of adjectival passives, which are stative predicates of sorts. For object-experiencer psychological verbs, it is shown that their Experiencer theta-role can and should be derived as an aspectual entailment mediated by prepositional structure. In defending this view, this monograph reveals a syntactic parallelism between location verbs and object-experiencer psychological verbs in many languages that has hitherto gone unnoticed. This book will primarily appeal to researchers interested in lexical aspect and its connection to morphosyntax.

isbn 978 90 272 0792 0

John Benjamins Publishing Company