* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *


LINGUIST List 24.2112

Mon May 20 2013

Confs: Semantics, Syntax/Netherlands

Editor for this issue: Anna Belew <annalinguistlist.org>

Date: 20-May-2013
From: Ora Matushansky <o.m.matushanskyuu.nl>
Subject: Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks
E-mail this message to a friend

Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks
Short Title: SPIFF


Date: 27-May-2013 - 27-May-2013
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Contact: Lotte Hendriks
Contact Email: < click here to access email >

Linguistic Field(s): Semantics; Syntax

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

Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks

May 27, 2013

Drift 21, Sweelinckzaal
Utrecht University

Program

8.45 Coffee

9.00 Casper de Groot (University of Amsterdam):
Cases as Markers of Non-verbal Predicates: Essive and Translative in Uralic (invited talk)

10.00 Annemarie van Dooren, Lotte Hendriks & Ora Matushansky (Utrecht University):
The DOR to the Result

10.40 Coffee

11.10 Heather Burnett (University of Montréal/ENS) and Michelle Troberg (University of Toronto):
The Shape of Variation and Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface: New Evidence from Old Romance Resultative Secondary Predication

11.50 Alexandra Motut (University of Toronto):
A Partitive Semantics for English Object-Oriented Depictives

12.30 Lunch

14.00 Maryse Grône & Philip Miller (Université Paris Diderot):
A pragmatic defense of the uniform analysis of English 'NP1 V NP2 RP' resultatives as raising constructions

14.40 Balázs Surányi (RIL Hungarian Academy of Sciences/Pázmány Péter Catholic University) and Veronika Hegedüs (RIL Hungarian Academy):
Dichotomies in Secondary Predication: A view from complex predicates in Hungarian

15:20 Monica Alexandrina Irimia (University of Toronto):
Specific evidence: differential arguments and (non-adjunct) secondary predicates

16:00 Coffee

16:20 Joost Zwarts (Utrecht University):
PPs, paths, and resultatives

17:00 Beth Levin (Stanford University):
Resultatives Revisited (invited talk)

In the evening: Conference Dinner



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 20-May-2013

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.