Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:11:29.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secondary resultative predicates in Italian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Donna Jo Napoli
Donna Jo Napoli
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Swarthmore CollegeSwarlhmore, PA 19081, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

English exhibits PP, AP and NP resultative secondary predicates (SPs). Italian freely exhibits PP resultatives and, less commonly, AP resultatives. This difference follows from two facts. First, resultatives, being arguments of the V except in constructions involving ‘fake’ objects (see section 4), may appear only in positions that non-predicative arguments of the V of their same category can appear in (a correlation stated in (155) below). Since English allows PP, AP and NP non-predicative arguments in the position immediately following the direct object, all three categories can also appear as resultatives in the same position. But since Italian allows only the first two types of non-predicative arguments in this position, only PP and AP resultatives can appear there. Second, Italian sentences with AP resultatives are subject to a rule of semantic interpretation by which the primary predicate must be interpreted as focusing on the endpoint of the activity it denotes (as stated in (110) below). English sentences with AP resultatives are only slightly sensitive to this interpretation rule. As a result, AP resultatives are appropriate in fewer situations in Italian. That AP resultatives are sensitive to this rule of interpretation is consistent with the fact that AP arguments of verb that appear in post-object position are marked in a number of ways.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 53 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, A. (1982). A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries. LIn 13. 313–317.Google Scholar
Atkins, B., Kegl, J. & Levin, B. (1988). Anatomy of a verb entry: from linguistic theory to lexicographic practice. International Journal of Lexicography 1. 84–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1967). Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua 18. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1987). Adverbial nouns in English and Spanish. Ms, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (1973). Grammatical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, J. & Randall, J. (1988). From conceptual structure to syntax: projecting from resultatives. MS. Harvard University and Northeastern University.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (1984). Compositionality and polysemy. Unpublished ms. Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science. MIT.Google Scholar
Centineo, G. (1986). A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–35.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955/1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (1989). Remarks on secondary predicates: c-command, extraction and reanalysis. The Linguistic Review 6. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorrity, K. (1989). What do people think about think? Senior thesis, Swarthmore College.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1976). The verb particle construction in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. & Longobardi, G. (1991). The syntax of the noun phrase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, G. (1973). A syntactic syncretism in English and French. In Kachru, B. et al. (eds), Issues in Linguistics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 257–278.Google Scholar
Gross, D., Fischer, U. & Miller, G. A. (1988). Antonymy and the representation of adjectival meanings. Cognitive Science Laboratory Report 13. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 1. JL 3. 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua 74. 101–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. & Mulder, R. (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1973). The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Kiparsky, P. & Anderson, S. (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 345–356.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1989). Semantic structures. Ms, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1986). Passive. LIn 17. 587–622.Google Scholar
Jones, M. (1988). Cognate objects and the Case filter. JL 24. 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 173–281.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. LIn 12. 349–371.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1985). Bare-NP adverbs. Lin 16. 595–622.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rapoport, T. (1988). Lexical subordination. CLS 24. 275–289.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (1986). The formation of adjectival passives. LIn 17. 623–661.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (1989). An approach to unaccusative mismatches. NELS 19. 314–329.Google Scholar
Levin, L. (1987). A theory of relation changing rules in LFG. Report CSLI-87–115, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Levin, L. & Simpson, J. (1981). Quirky case and the structure of Icelandic lexical entries. CLS 17. 185–95.Google Scholar
Mallén, E. (1990). A syntactic analysis of secondary predication in Spanish. JL 27. 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. (1988). Reply to Jackendoff: ‘arguing one's way to a less radical conclusion’. Unpublished ms, University of California, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word formation. 2nd ed.Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1982). Adverbs and logical form. Lg 58. 144–84.Google Scholar
McNulty, E. (1988). The syntax of adjunct predicates. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Merlo, P. (1986). Secondary predication in Italian and English. Tesi di laurea, Università di Venezia. Venice.Google Scholar
Merlo, P. (1988). Secondary predicates in Italian and English. In Powers, J. & de Jong, K. (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus: Ohio State University. 338–348.Google Scholar
Miller, B. (1990). A thematic constraint on resultative predication. Ms, York University, North York, Ontario.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. (1978). English manner-of-speaking verbs revisited. In Farkas, D. et al. (eds), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 278–288.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1973). The two si's of Italian: an analysis of reflexive, inchoative, and indefinite subject sentences in Modern Standard Italian. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University; circulated by Indiana University Linguistics Club in 1976.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1988). Subjects and external arguments/clauses and non-clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 323–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication theory: a case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Nespor, M. (in progress). The prefix s– in Italian. Ms, Swarthmore College.Google Scholar
Poser, W. (1982). Lexical rules may change internal arguments. The Linguistic Review 2. 97–100.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1988). Event semantic structure. Computer science technical report, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1989). The generative lexicon. MS, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Randall, J. (1983). A lexical approach to causatives. Journal of Linguistic Research 2, 3.Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. (1986). Nonverbal predication in Hebrew. Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Foreign Languages V. Stanford University: Stanford Linguistics Association. 207–218.Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. (forthcoming). Secondary predication and the lexical representation of verbs. Machine Translation 4, 4.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1988). Predicative APs. LIn 19. 703–710.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1983). The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation. MIT; circulated by Indiana University Linguistics Club in 1985.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1989). Syntactic predication: a syntactic primitive or a thematic relation? Ms, Bar-Han University, Israel.Google Scholar
Sato, H. (1987). Resultative attributes and GB principles. English Linguistics 4. 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1982). Secondary predicates in English, Icelandic, and Finnish. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In Levin, L., Rappoport, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 143–157.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1986). Resultative attributes. Unpublished ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. 181–238.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T.(ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–149.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
van Voorst, J. (1983). Anaphor binding and directional PPs in Dutch. CLS 19. 386–395.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Vendler, Z. (ed.), Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingarelli, N. (1970). Vocabolario della lingua italiana. Bologna, Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Zucchi, A. (1989). The language of propositions and events: issues in the syntax and the semantics of nominalization. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1971). In a manner of speaking. LIn 2. 223–32.Google Scholar