Predicative XPs in English

Journal ofhttp://eng.sagepub.com/ English Linguistics Predicative XPs in English Bas Aarts Journal of English Linguistics 1997 25: 332 DOI: 10.1177/007542429702500407 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eng.sagepub.com/content/25/4/332 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Journal of English Linguistics can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eng.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eng.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://eng.sagepub.com/content/25/4/332.refs.html >> Version of Record - Dec 1, 1997 What is This? Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 Predicative XPs in English BAS AARTS University College London, United Kingdom In this article, I will discuss the treatment of a number of constructions that can be said to involve predicative phrases. These can be noun phrases, adjective phrases, or prepositional phrases that are predicated either of a subject or an object. In the literature, they are often called secondary predicates (Rothstein 1983, Aarts 1995). In the title of this article, I have called them predicative XPs, the X ranging over the variables noun, adjective, and preposition. I will argue that current descriptions of such phrases are often inadequate and that sentences involving them can be described more economically by doing away with such terms as subject complement, subject predicative, object complement, and object predicative. Consider the sets of sentences under (1) and (2), all taken from a paper by Noel Burton-Roberts (1991, 159-60): (1) Hamish is rather assertive. b. Hamish is a candidate. a. Hamish is in the ante-room. Melvin made the pudding too sweet. b. We all consider him a very subtle thinker. c. Stella put the fudge cake under the bed. c. (2) a. analysis (which is the same as that proposed in his 1986/1997 the sentences in ( 1 ) involve adjective phrase (AP), noun Sentences), book Analysing and prepositional phrase (PP) complements, respectively, to the phrase (NP), In Burton-Roberts’s copular verb be. To be more precise, the AP, NP, and PP following the copula are special types of complement in each case, namely what Burton-Roberts calls subject predicatives. The sentences in (2) involve a verb followed by a direct object noun phrase and a further complement which is termed object predicative. BurtonRoberts contrasts his analysis with that of Quirk et al. (1985). In their framework, the sentences in (la) and (lb) are analyzed as involving adjective phrase and noun phrase subject complements, whereas the sentences in (2a) and (2b) contain AUTHOR’S NOTE: I wish to thank Chuck Meyer for helpful comments and suggestions. Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 25 / No. 4, December 1997 332-339 0 1997 Sage Publications, Inc. 332 Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 333 adjective phrase and noun phrase object complements. (1c) and (2c), by contrast, involve what Quirk et al. call obligatory predication adjuncts ( 1985, 505-10). These are phrases (more often than not PPs) that look like complements, in that they are obligatory, but have adjunctlike qualities as well, because they specify adverbial properties such as location, state, and so on. Burton-Roberts criticises Quirk et al. for needlessly complicating the grammatical description of the constructions under investigation. Schematically for him, the sentences in (la-c) are analyzed as in (3a), whereas (2a-c) are analyzed as (3b). For Quirk et al. the patterns are as in (4a) and (4b): Obviously, the schemata in (3) are simpler than those in (4). Burton-Roberts in my view rightly points out that Quirk et al. forego the opportunity of making two generalizations. The first of these is that we can bring the three structures in both (1) and (2) into line with each other, as is reflected in (3a) and (3b). This can be achieved by treating the adjective phrase, noun phrase, and prepositional phrase as verbal complements in (1), and as object predicatives in (2). The second generalization that Quirk et al. miss is that in positing the existence of obligatory predication adjuncts, they cannot adopt the attractive idea that complements are generally obligatory units, whereas adjuncts are always optional. The term obligatory adjunct is a contradiction in terms for Burton-Roberts, and for theoretical frameworks in general. Burton-Roberts argues that, rather than a distinction between optional and obligatory adverbial, we need a distinction between complement and adverbial. Obviously, the general point that Burton-Roberts is making is that his grammar of predicative phrases is more attractive than that of Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 334 Quirk et al. simply because it is more constrained: it can dispense with the notion optional adverbial. Burton-Roberts discusses (5) a further set of sentences, namely those in (5): a. Hieronimo appeared in a dangerous mood. b. Hamish remained in opposition to your plans. c. Martha left the bathroom in an awful mess. to Burton-Roberts, each of these sentences is ambiguous, and the function of the PPs in (Sa) and (5b), namely, in a dangerous mood and in opposition to your plans, can be either adjunct adverbial or subject predicative. In (5c), according to Burton-Roberts, the PP in an awful mess is either adverbial or object predicative. He observes that (5a) can be paraphrased as in (6), if we construe the PP in a dangerous mood as an adjunct: According Under this reading, the verb appear is intransitive. If, by contrast, PP as subject predicative, then (5a) can be paraphrased as in (7): we construe the Here appear is a raising verb: the matrix clause subject derives from the subordinate clause. The tree diagrams corresponding to the two different analyses are as in (8) and (9). (8) and (9) differ minimally, but crucially: (8) is the reading in which the PP is an adjunct, and therefore Chomsky-adjoined to the lower VP (9) is the reading in which the PP is a subject predicative. It is analyzed as a complement of the main verb and hence is represented as its sister in the tree diagram. Notice that, corre- sponding to the different syntactic structures and semantic readings, (8) and (9) are intonationally quite distinct: (8) involves a pause after appeared. There are a number of points in Burton-Roberts’s account that I would like to query. Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 335 Let us first turn to (5a) and (5b). I agree with Burton-Roberts that these sentences ambiguous, but I believe that saying that they are ambiguous between a reading in which the PPs in a dangerous mood and in opposition to your plans are subject predicatives, and a reading in which they are adjuncts is incorrect. The reason is that these PPs are predicative phrases under both readings. I will concentrate only on (5a) here and take the structure of (5b) to be the same as that of (5a), following Burton-Roberts.’ (5a) in my view should be paraphrased either as in (10) or as in are (11): (10) Hieronimo, appeared, and he, was in a dangerous mood. (11) Hieronimo appeared to be in a dangerous mood. The subscripted indices indicate coreferentiality. Notice that the paraphrase in (11) is the same as that in Burton-Roberts’s account. The paraphrase in (10), however, is different. Notice the comma in (10) which indicates the strong intonational pause that I mentioned earlier. What are the differences and what are the similarities between these readings? The difference between (10) and (11), and in this respect I agree with Burton/Roberts’s readings in (6) and (7), is that in (10) appear is an intransitive verb, whereas in (11) it is a raising verb. Recall, however, that for Burton-Roberts, the PP is an adjunct in (6)/(8). Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 336 The similarity between (10) and (11), and this is where I diverge from BurtonRoberts’s analysis, is that in both sentences, the PP should be analyzed as a phrase predicated of the subject Hieronimo. How can we represent the different structures in a tree diagram, taking into account the fact that both in (10), as well as in (11), the PP is to be analyzed as a predicative phrase? We can do so by analyzing both readings as involving a small clause which occurs in a different structural position. Small clauses are verbless clauses that involve only a subject and a predicative phrase. T’ypical examples of small clauses are given in (12): (12) I consider [sc him a competent conductor] b. She appointed him, [sc PRO, her secretary] a. (12a) the subject is him and the predicate is the noun phrase conductor. In the small clause in ( 12b) the subject is a phonetically competent silent pronominal element PRO which is coreferential with the direct object of the verb appoint. Coreferentiality is indicated by the subscript i, as in (10). The difference between ( 12a) and ( 12b) is that in the first of these sentences, there is no thematic relationship between the main verb and the postverbal NP, whereas in the second sentence there is. In other words, in (12b) him is a direct object, but not in (12a). After all, in (12a) it is not the case that &dquo;we are considering him.&dquo; Instead, we are considering the proposition that &dquo;he is a competent conductor.&dquo; In (12b), by contrast, we can say that &dquo;we appointed him.&dquo; Elsewhere I have termed constructions like those in (12a) consider constructions and those like ( 12b) appoint constructions. For further discussion, see Aarts ( 1992, 48ff). In (13) and (14) below, the tree diagrams for the two readings in (10) and (11) In the small clause in a are given. There are a number of observations to make here. First of all, the differences and similarities between the two readings in (10) and (11) are brought out by these tree diagrams: in (13) appear is an intransitive verb which takes no complements. We have a small clause which functions as an adjunct and is therefore adjoined to the VP The subject of the small clause is the phonetically empty pronominal element PRO which is coindexed with the matrix clause subject Hieronimo to indicate coreferentiality. The predicate of the small clause is the PP in a dangerous mood. In (14) appear is a raising verb which takes a small clause as its complement. The subject of this small clause is raised to the subject position of the matrix clause. After movement the NP leaves behind a trace, indicated by t. The predicate of the small clause is the PP in a dangerous mood. An analysis like (14), where what is traditionally regarded as a copular verb is analyzed as a raising verb, was first proposed in Burzio (1986). The important point of difference between my analysis, in (13) and (14), and that of Burton-Roberts, in (8) and (9), is the presence of a clausal constituent of which the PP in a dangerous mood is the predicate. Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 337 Returning to (1) and (2), we can improve on the description of these sentences in the form of the schema in (15): If we compare (15) with Burton-Roberts’s and Quirk et al.’s schemata in (3) and (4), we find that it is even more constrained and economical. The saving is achieved by doing away altogether with the functions subject predicative and object predicative (see also Aarts 1997, 167-9). (la-c) can be analyzed as in (14) above, the so-called subject complements being regarded as the predicates of small clauses and the verb be as a raising verb. This analysis is shown in (16): (16) a. b. c. Hamish, is [sc t, rather assertive] Hamish, is [sc t, a candidate] Hamish, is [sc t, in the ante-room] (=la) (=lb) (=lc) Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 338 Sentences (2a-c) are analyzed as in (17):1 (17a) is analyzed as involving a direct object and a small clause adjunct, whereas (17b) involves a small clause as direct object. In (17c) the verb put takes two complements, namely, a direct object NP and a locative PP. The analyses in (16) and (17) are all captured by (15). Let us now turn to (5c). In this sentence we are faced with a slightly different situation. I would agree with Burton-Roberts that this sentence is ambiguous, but not between a reading in which the PP in an awful mess is either an adjunct or an object predicative. I believe that (5c) can mean two things: either the PP is predicated of the direct object, as in Burton-Roberts’s analysis, or it is predicated of the subject of the sentence, Martha. I do not get a reading in which in an awful mess is not a predicate. The two analyses available for (5c) are shown in (18) and (19). Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013 339 The only difference between (18) and (19) is that the PRO subject of the small clause is coindexed with the matrix clause subject in (18), but with the matrix clause object in (19). In conclusion, we can observe that the description of predicative phrases like those in (1), (2), and (5) has led to different treatments in the literature. I believe that Burton-Roberts’s description is an improvement on that of Quirk et al., but we can achieve an even more economical description if we do away with the superfluous functions of subject predicative and object predicative, and admit small clauses into our grammatical terminology. Our description of the sentences in (1), (2), and (5) can then be economically represented as in (15). Note 1. In fact, there is some doubt that (5a) and (5b) are structurally the same, witness the fact that we can say Hieronimo appeared to be in a dangerous mood (7), but not *Hamish remained to be in opposition to your plans. Perhaps this indicates that (5b) is in fact not ambiguous and that the putative reading (under which in opposition to your plans is an adjunct in Burton-Roberts’s analysis) is not available and the PP in question is in fact an afterthought. There would be a discernible intonational break before the PP: Hamish remained-in opposition to your plans. References Aarts, Bas. 1992. Small Clauses in English: The Nonverbal Types. Topics in English Linguistics 8. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1995. Secondary Predicates in English. In The Verb in Contemporary English, edited by Bas Aarts and Charles F. Meyer, 75-101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1997. English Syntax and Argumentation. Modern Linguistics Series. —. —. London: Macmillan. Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1986. Analysing Sentences. London: Longman. 1991. Prepositions, Adverbs and Adverbials. In Language: Usage and Description, edited by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and John Frankis, 159-72. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed in 1985 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club. —. Downloaded from eng.sagepub.com at University College London on December 3, 2013