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.
We encourage submission in all formal frameworks.
Abstracts must not exceed two A4 pages in length, including data and references, with 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins on all four sides, 12pt font size, single line spacing. Examples should be interleaved with the text.
Properly anonymized abstracts should be submitted in the PDF format via EasyChair, using the following link:
https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=spiff2013
Submission deadline: March 22, 2013
Acceptance notification: April 15, 2013
Presentation length: 30 minutes, excluding 10 minutes of discussion.
Organizers: Annemarie van Dooren, Lotte Hendriks, Ora Matushansky
Carrier, Jill, and Janet H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 173-234.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cormack, Annabel, and Neil Smith. 1999. Why are depictives different from resultatives? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11.
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ettlinger, Marc. 2008. The syntactic behavior of the resultative: evidence for a constructional approach. In CLS 41: The Panels. Proceedings from the Panels of the 41st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, ed. by Rodney L. Edwards, Patrick J. Midtlyng, Colin L. Sprague and Kjersti G. Stensrud, 145-160. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532-568.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part I. Journal of Linguistics 3, 37-81.
Heringa, Herman. 2011. Appositional constructions, Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101-139.
Kayne, Richard S. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. In Grammatical Representation, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron, Hans Obenauer and Jean-Yves Pollock, 101-140. Dordrecht: Foris.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 381-405.
Levinson, Lisa. 2010. Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 135-182.
Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2002. Bare resultatives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6, 1-52.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77, 766-797.
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport and Annie Zaenen, 143-157. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Stowell, Timothy A. 1980. Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Verspoor, Cornelia Maria. 1997. Contextually-dependent lexical semantics, Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Washio, Ryuichi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1-49.
Wechsler, Stephen. 1997. Resultative predicates and control. Texas Linguistic Forum 38, 307-321.
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the 'event-argument homomorphism' model of telicity. In The Syntax of Aspect, ed. by Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova R. Rapoport, 255-273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Edwin S. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 287-308.