Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login

The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2017 Fund Drive.

E-mail this page

Conference Information

Full Title: Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks

Short Title: SPIFF
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Start Date: 27-May-2013 - 27-May-2013
Contact: Lotte Hendriks
Meeting Email: click here to access email
Meeting Description: Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks
May 27, 2013
Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

This symposium dedicated to non-verbal secondary predication, and more specifically to depictives, as in (1), or resultatives, as in (2).

(1) a. I ate lunch naked. (Carrier and Randall 1992: 219)
b. I ate the carrots soft. (Ettlinger 2008: 147)
(2) I painted the car yellow. (Simpson 1983:143)

Questions to be addressed include but are not limited to:

- What is the syntactic structure of secondary predicates? Are they small clauses (Stowell 1980) or extended projections of lexical heads (cf. Williams 1983)? Should depictives and resultatives be treated differently?

- How do secondary predicates combine with main predicates? While depictives are usually assumed to involve control (Chomsky 1981), resultatives are often hypothesized to combine with their subjects directly, with the resulting small clause merged as the complement of the lexical verb (Hoekstra 1988, see also Ramchand 2008). Do the lexical verb and secondary predicate form a syntactic ‘complex predicate’ (Williams 1983, Larson 1988, Cormack and Smith 1999, Neeleman and van de Koot 2002, etc.)? What semantic mechanisms ensure the interpretation of the resulting structures?

- Are there several types of depictives, as argued by Halliday 1967? And should resultatives not be viewed as a single phenomenon (Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004, cf. also Ettlinger 2008)?

- What is the syntax of so-called ‘subject-oriented resultatives’ (Verspoor 1997, Wechsler 1997, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2001, Wechsler 2005)?

- How do strong resultatives differ from weak (or pseudo-) resultatives (Washio 1997, Levinson 2010)?

- Is there a connection between depictives and appositives, as in (3) vs. (4) (cf. Heringa 2011)?

(3) a. Mary arrived home drunk. (depictive)
b. They dragged John unconscious into the ambulance.
(4) a. Mary arrived home, drunk. (appositive adjective)
b. They dragged John, totally unconscious, into the ambulance.

Invited Speakers:

Casper de Groot (University of Amsterdam)
Beth Levin (Stanford University)

Organizers: Annemarie van Dooren, Lotte Hendriks, Ora Matushansky
Linguistic Subfield: Syntax; Semantics
LL Issue: 24.2112

Calls and Conferences main page