Complex Predicates and Lexicalism

xiv I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES $ $ i f try. we also want to take the opportunity to thank our parents and siblings ,!f for continuing to show their love and giving moral sustenance,despite ,El perpetual bafflement about what we are doing and why we are doing it. we suspectthat some of them even feel that they have no choice, given that we persistently refuse to grow up! But we are grateful anyway. Complex Predicates and Lexicalism

I Overview of the Problems It is a commonplace of linguistic investigation that the information packaged into a single word in one language is sometimes expressed by several independent words in another language. This observation raises a classic challenge for linguistic theory: how can we represent what is the same among languages,while also accounting for the patent differences between them? In the present work we addressthis issue by examining a class of constructions, mainly exemplified by German, where the information ordinarily associated with a single clausal head is distributed among several (not necessarily contig0ous) elements in constituent structure. This informational head, irrespective of surface expression,will be referred to here as the predicate. We argue that there is a recurring class of predicate constructions acrosslanguages which should receive a uniform theoretical fteatment: we develop a lexicalist proposal that synthesizescertain results and architectural assumptions from Lexical-Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Construction Grammar, and the word-based tradition of morphology. The theory of predicates we propose is one which is respon- sive to many issues raised cross-theoretically in the recent literature on complex predicates, but which additionally, is designed to address certain clear patterns of grammaticalization or morphologization evident in the domain of predicate formation cross-linguistically. Ever since Chomsky (1965, 1970) it has been standard within generative frameworks to postulate a component called the lexicon. This component contains lexical entries minimally possessinginformation about their categorial status, morphological class, and semantic properties. In addition, if the element is an argument-taking entity, the lexical enby also provides information concerning its valence, i.e., the number of its arguments, the semantic roles of its arguments,as well as some representation concerning the syntactic status (i.e., grammatical relations) of these arguments. Lexical information such as valence, semanticrole, and grammatical relational values is presumed to help determine central properties of the clause. Moreover, it has seemednatural to assumethat the projector of such inforrration, leaving aside the special case of idioms, is associated with a single morphological object such as a verb, a noun, an adjective, etc. In accordancewith theweakLcxicalist Hypothesisthe morphological objects that express lexical representations are fully derived word forms, while on the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis they are both fully derived and inflected word forms. Additionally, these morphological word forms are 2I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM / 3 further constrainedto be phonologically integrated and syntactically atomic: which the case marked nominal nilatt'land' is interpreted as the OBJECTof 'plow', this follows from the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis which, roughly speaking, the verb aRz within a vP constituent: the suffix tal can, statesthat pieces of complex morphological objects are opaque to syntactic accordingly, be interpreted as concatenating with a vP, rather than with a operations that would treat these pieces as independent elements in phrase lexical category. structure. The challenge raised by such phenomena is obvious: how, given the Finally, the lexical operationsclaimed to alter the information associ- fundamental assumptions of lexicalism, could the relevant entities be ated with lexical entries are likewise standardly constrainedto relate objects lexical, if the morphology must apply to them as phrasal objects and if with a moqphological status. That is, they manipulate the information asso- morpho[ogical operations,by hypothesis, must apply prior to the appearance ciated with such categories as V(erb), N(oun), or A(djective). For example, of words within phrases? There is, of course, nothing wrong- with the lexical rules have been proposed to account for causative formatior, op- 34 observation that such a phenomenon presents a problem for (albeit i[ one plicative formation (dative shift), inversion (psych predicates), resultative ii prevailing) interpretation of lexicalism, but it is arguable whether such data formation, and passivization. i** should be construed as an argument against lexicalism per se or as The conception of lexicalism as constrained by some variant of the demonstrating the necessity '\1rii for a syntactic account of such facts. Lexicalist Hypothesis and Lexical Integrity has over the years been the main The type of challenge represented by nominalization phenomena ,if focus of proponents and detractors.l For detractors,demonstrated violations such as those cited above is particularly prevalent in the domain which rep- of Lexical Integrity have often sufficed to argue against lexicalism per E resents the major se ii focus of inquiry in this book, namely, predicate formation and, as a consequence, for the need io develop an alternative keyed to of several types. Consider the following representative-phenomenain this phrase structure representations.Lieber (1992), for instance, appearsto as- light. sume this standard view of lexicalism as a backdrop for developing her It is well-known that Russian contains morphological predicates con- view of the need for syntactic word formation. For example, she demon- -sisting of a prefix and a verbal stem These predicateJare itandardly ana- strates that some phrasal entities are clearly within the purview of morphol- ly??d as morphophonologically integrated unib representingatomic eitities ogy and concludes that, consequently, lexicalist theories are empirically with respect to the syntax. we will refer to them as synthetii forms of pred- .aroundi: problematic. In particular, following Subramanian (1988), she cites nomi- icates. An example is provided in (2), containing the prefix oD this nalization processeswith the suffix tal in Tamil which seem to operate on prefix correlates with an increase in ransitivity for the verbal stem yielding the phrasal constituent VP. the direct object argument 'lake'.

(1) (2) guljajuiEie pary obxodjat ozero N strolling pairs around-go-3/pl lake-ACC 'The ^ strolling couples walk around the lake' VP tal ^ As is to be expected, given the morphological status of this word form, predicates such as these have clear derivativis, both nominal (3) and '#fffi. j* adjectival (4), related to them: 'round' 'make (3) obxod N (as in the rounds') As can be seenin (l), the derived nominal nilatt-ai uRu tal'plowing the (4) obxodnyj A 'roundabout' land' can be accurately described by a phrase structure representation in 1r$ ii As in Russian, Hungarian has predicates where a preverbal (pv) el- lThete * is a rccent review ofthe role oflexical integrig in generativetheory found in Bresnan :& ement modifies certain lexical properties associatedwith the verbal stem. gn{ {qhomQo (l??5) and Ackermanand ksourd (1997t. There are twd interpretationsof ::,it lexical integnty whiclt gften get conflated and which will play a role in subsequentdiscussion. ;$ lrgadly characterizedthe rwo interpretationsarc as followsi lexical integrity can refer to the r{ (5) Andrds beleszolt avitAba claim that words are indivisible elernentsfully formed in the lexicon and thatiyntax cannot ef- Andr6s into spoke the dispute-Ill f"q morphologicalcomposition of word forms (this contrastswith claims in the Principles :i !h" :'g 'Andr6s and Parametersframework according to which "head" movement can createword forms), or l:t intervened in the dispute' lexical integrity gan refer to the notion that lexical representationsmust be associatedwith '3*:'E morphophonologically.integratedand syntactically atoriric morphological objects. Seediscus- i:t sion below for elaboration. ']r ,''ti; ,;$a rtf ,*+ 4I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM / 5

'into' For example, in (5) we see an instance where the preverb bele correlates with an alteration of both the casegovernment pattern and the meaning phrasal 'speak, Finally, the predicatesof Hungarian and Estonian resemble in associatedwith the verbal stem szol say, talk': whereasszol is a one- relevant ways one of the types of German predicates which will be closely place predicate, beleszol is a two-place predicate which governs the illative examined in chapter 10, namely, predicates containing so-called separabll. case for its oblique complement. particles.- An example is provided below containing the predicate abrufen Once again, as in Russian, the predicate appears to have a morpho- 'call up'. logical status, serving as a base for derivational processessuch as nominalization. In the present instance, the verb beleszol'interyene' correspondsto (9) weil wir die Informationen jetzt ab-rufen ktinnen the derived nominal be le szolds'intervention.' because we the information now up-call can These obvious parallelisms between the'predicates in Russian and 'because we can Hungarian clearly suggesta uniform analysis and such an analysis would be call up the information now' compatible with a lexical treatment. On the other hand, there is a property Wir rufen characteristic of Hungarian complex predicatesthat distinguishes them from (10) die Informationen jetzt ab we call the their Russian analogs:in Hungarian the preverb and the verb can function as information now up 'We independent elements in phrase structure. This independenceis exemplified call up the information now' in (6) where the presence of the sentential negation element nem'no' im- mediately to the left of the verbal stem correlates with the postposing of the As can be seen, the separable preverb ab appearsat the end of the fi- preverb: nite matrix clause in (10): the verbal stem and the preverb are discontinuous in the syntax. As in_Hungarian and Estonian, G-ermanphrasal predicates (6) Andrds nem szoltbele avitdba may serve as bases for derivational operations. This is exemplified by the Andr6s not spoke into the dispute-Ill possib_ility pr a ghrasal predicate to participate in adjective formation with 'Andr6s -bar'able' didn't intervene in the dispute' the suffix as in (l l): weil Formations whose pieces exhibit this sort of syntactic independence (11) die Informationen jetzt ab-ruf-bar sind because are often referred to as phrasal predicates given their analytic or periphrastic the information now up-call_able are 'because expression. the information is obtainable now, Estonian, like Hungarian, possessesphrasal predicates. In (7) the preverb 'away' iira is associatedwith the predicate rira ostma'comrpt, sub- - . The predicates in Russian, Hungarian, Estonian, and German all: (i) predicate orn'. This is basedon the simple verb stem ostfta'buy, purchase'. exhibit lexical effects, i.e., the preverb-v may differ-from the verb stem The preverb appears discontinuous from the verbal stem at the end of the with respect to argument adicity, semantics, case government, (and gram- clause. mati_calfunctions) and (ii) exhibit morphological iffects, i.e.,.tL priveru Td V together constitute a morphologi-cA Ua-sefor derivational and inflec- (7) mees ostab ta s6bra tira !on4 operations. on the other hand, Hungarian, Estoniaq and German differ man buy-3sg his friend-GEN away from Russian in allowing the preverb ind verb to exhibit syntactic inde- 'The pendence.3 man is bribing his friend' The existence of_pirasal predicates with the profile exhibited by Ilungarian, Estonian, and Predicates consisting of a separable preverb and a verbal stem can Germanls widespread cross-linguistically *o t elicited the following characteri serve as basesfor derivational operations.The following deverbal adjectival z.atronby \tatkins (lg6a:ioll>, "i and nominal forms related to ara ostrna'comrpt, suborn' typify this possibility: 'Though 'incomrptible' not addressedin the.presentwork, English particle (8) iiraosfinatu A thisproblem. verbconstructions also exemolifv 'incomrptibility' Forexarnple,.wliercasit d;;tabrJt'o say-.trrei;;;-&;;ffi";;'alffi{ iraosftnatus N therelated nominalizatibn is.preferablv ttre-i"acr,ei; 'venal, 'the a;rri"g;;;';ril;;;i##",ffi, iiraostetav A comrpt' teacher'sdressing ofthe 6oydownl' 'For additional 6raostetavus N 'venality' evidence.colgg1n1lc the- lexical status of Germanverb-particle combinations, seeStiebels and Wundertich (1992) inA StieGtsti996). 6I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM / 7

PV V compositionsconstitute "single semantic words", comparable to simplelexical retic head of a clause.The distinction between two types of information cor- iteft.!; yet they permit tmesis,or syntacticseparation, suggesting that internalparts relates with a distinction between two basic sorts of predicates examined in areindependent syntactic entities. this book. First, each language possessesan inventory of basic predicates: these are lexical representationscontaining only functional-semantic infor- As with the compounds presentedby Lieber, phrasal predicates rep- mation, with respect to content. For example, the functional-semantic in- resentan "analytic paradox" with respectto standardassumptions of lexical- formation of the Hungarian predicate beleszol'interyene' in (5) above dif- 'speak ism [cf. Nash (1982)]. In particular, their semantic and morphological unit- fers from that for the related predicate seol with' respect to meaning, hood conflicts with their syntactic separability if the lexicon is interpreted as the semantics of their arguments, and the grammatical functions of those ar- the source for words employed as syntactic atoms and the syntax as a sys- guments. On the other hand, the two basic predicates with their different tem for combining and ordering them. basic contents can participate in the same paradigms concerning tense and In line with the basic representationalapparatus assumed in the pre- agreement:from the present perspective, this morphosyntactic content com- sent work we believe that it is illuminating to illustrate thesesimilarities and plements the functional-semantic information of the basic predicate and differences in terms of a type hierarchy: the transition from root node to yields what we will refer to as an expanded predicate. The content side of leaves in such a representation calibrates the relation between (possibly) the predicate can be schematizedas follows: universal to language-particular instantiations of types and subtypes of (complex) predicates. A schematicexample of such a type hierarchy can be Functional-semanticcontent : basic meaning, semantic roles, and seen below (a formal representation with different technical vocabulary will grammatical functions ; be developed in chapter 10 for the analysis of German verb-particle con- Morphosyntactic content: tense, aspect,negation, structions): agreement,etc.; Expanded predicate content: functional-semantic content + morphosyntactic content.

We contrast the content-theoretic aspect of a predicate with its form-theoretic aspect, i.e., those aspects of the sign which most closely relate to the - - - - inse p arable p artic I e p redi cat e se parable p ani cI e p redi cat e structure of the physical signal representing the sign's content as defined p y properties properties above:

Broadly speaking, there is a supefiype possessingcertain properties Predicate form: categorial properties (e.g., part of (indicated by s), referred to above as predicafq which comprises several speechand morphophonological subtypes:that is to say that the subtypesinseparable-particle-predicate and properties) separable-panicle-predicate possessthe same properties as their supertype, as well as their own distinctive properties. The sign as a whole (with predicates being one special case) is a combina- In this book we develop a lexicalist proposal for the construct predi- tion ofthe various aspectsof form and content: cate construedas the determiner of central properties of clauses.The lexical representationfor the predicate encodesboth the content and the form asso- The SausurreanAspects of a Sign ciated with the Sausurreansign. From a content-theoretic point of view it contains functional-semantic information concerning the meaning of the A. The Content-theoretic Aspect of the Sign predicate, its semantic arguments and their grammatical function status, as . Functional-semantic content well as morphosyntactic content providing values for such properties as . Morphosyntactic content tense, aspec! polarity, agreementetc.4It is in other words the content-theo-

4We usethe terrn "morphosyntacticcontent" in order to convey the sensethat this information is often associatedwith both classicallymorphological and syntacticproperties or features. Note that "morphosyntacticcontent" is a kind of content and not a kind of form. It expr€sses semantic.content of a predicate (its core meaning, the semantic roles it assigns, and their the kind of infornntion on predicatesthat in fonnal semantictheories is often modeled by op- grammatical functions) which typically is expressedby sternsor words belonging to an open erators(excluding quantifiers and WH-words), i.e., tense,aspect, or negation functions. This glqs patt of speechrather than a moqihologibal proceis or an auxiliary/particl-e.in drawirig a kind ofcontent is typica[y expressedmorphologically or by auxiliaries and particles and this is dlttercnce betweenthese two kinds of content and their prototypical linguistic expressions,we what motivatesour referenceto it as 'morphosyntacticcontent' as opposedto the functional- follow the lead of Sapir (1924). 8I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM / 9

B. The Forrn-theoretic Aspect of the Sign tion-based type-driven assumptionsthat we believe are conceptually as well . Categorial form as empirically superior to explanationsin terms of principles and parameters . Morphophonological form within approaches such as Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. with respect to the form-theoretic aspect of signs, predicates as in- It bears noting that the predicatesexamined here are also distinguish- terpreted here are not uniformly expressedby a singlelexical category such able from the enormous class of predicates made possible by such formal as v(erb), as on standard lexicalist assumptionsr nor can they be freely operations as lambda abstraction: as is well known, such a device makes it from syntactically lorme{ created phrases is is possible in logically in- feasible to confer predicate status on any expression with a free variable. formed linguistic theories such aJ Montague drammar and Lategorial That is, it permits the creation of predicates which constitute a superset of Grammar. So, we will accordingly focus on both the morphologica-l and the small class of natural predicates which have been demonstratedto recur syntactic expression-ofpredicates in this book as well. Thus, all of 6ur pred- cross-linguistically (see chapter 2for a more detailed discussion). icates will receive full representation in terms of both their conten? and The remainder of this chapter provides an informal introduction to fonn. the basic phenomena examined here, the problems they raise for linguistic Though we will address - _ both aspectsof the predicate sign, we argue theories and the nature of the answers proposed in the present work. After that the predicate representsa natural cbntent-theoietic unit lirithe sensJof presenting four types of predicates which will be closely examined in later "content-theoreticaspect ofthe sign"just discussed).The notion ofnatural- chapterswe provide an overview of standard lexicalist assumptionsin order ness appealed to here is simply this: there are several linguistically signifi- to place the present analysis of these phenomena among competing theoret- cant notions (e.9., tense-aspect, causative,or passive) which recur tros-sJin- ical accounts.Following this we identiff and discuss three central problems guistically and differ primarily in the surfaCeforms employed to express concerning theory construction in the domain of predicate formation. them. If what commonly recurs in quite different languagis ii entitled io be The first problem is referred to as the expressionprobrem. Roughly called natural, then the content-theoretic units lreferrJd t6 subsequentlyalso this concerns the fact that the same construction can receive differentlui- as "contentive units") examined here are prime candidates fortheoretical face expressionsacross languagesand sometimes within a single language. constructs in a theory of grammar that attempts to capture essential proper- The theoretical challenge, of course, is to provide an appropriatevocaLulary ties of language. and representations to reveal how languages can be similar in certain re- we provide evidence for the hypothesis of a content-theoretic predi--.ror* spects,while differing-sometimes radically-in others. The second prob- cate, often inclusive of morphosyntactic content, on the basis of tho." lem often arises in an effort to address the first. linguistic operations whictr affect lexical semantics, valence, case govern- What we will call the proliferation problem is a familiar one within m9l! and/or grammatical function assignmentsindependent of theiway in linguistics ever since Kiparsky (1973).In this classic article Kiparsky raises which these predicates are formally expiessed,i.e., their form-theoretic ex- the issue as to how abshact linguistic representationsshould be permitted to pression type. The cross-linguistic frequency of these informational config- be, using phonology as the domain of inquiry. one way in whiih abstract- urations and the tendency toward similar behaviors, both synchronic and dI- nessbecomes an issue is that representationalassumptions found to be use- achronic, associated with elements employed to exprerrih"-, suggests a explaining certain phenomena are exploited in increasingly abstract privileged status for these phenomena. $l-f.or fashion to account for new phenomena or different expressions-offamiliar A central concern of this book is the development of a representa- phenomena.The basic issue here is one of achieving tolerable abstractness. ti.onal system for a lexical submodule containing cdntentive aspects of the In this regard we will see that lexicalist frameworkJ make possible in prin- sign and another containing morphological aspeJtsof the sign: elements of ciple the proliferation of lexical entries, potentially yielding unconstrained these submodules are placed in cbrresfondence to yield predicates (at vari- homophony. Structure-oriented frameworks, in contrast, have proliferated ous levels of generality). Since discernible patternsbf regularity or marked- phrasal categories yielding structural configurations whose oniy effective ness in such correspondences are facilitat;d by several-of our representa- constraint is often a uniform two bar level expansion tional of binary branching assumptions, we regard them as a crucial prerequisite foi any ex- fees. planatorily adequatetheory. Throughout we therefore speculate on the na- Since our framework is lexicalist, the issue of protferation of lexical ture of the explanatory assumptioni that could accountior the widespr"uo entries arises as much as in other versions of lexicaiism. we will discuss recurence of certain predicates as well as their contentive and formai pro_ various ways of addressingproliferation and lay out the reasonsfor files. speci{.utty, our par- i,n chapter 4 we outline a theory of archetypal and lan- ticular choice of dealing with this problem guage-specific over other techniquesthat have templates which can provide explanations within the unifica- been proposed. COMPLEXPREDICATES AND LEXICALISM / 1I IO I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES

The last problem, the grammaticalization or diachrony problem,, Analytic ExPression: German takes as its foundation the widely held claim that the expression side of formation exhibits a similar profile cross-linguistically' That is, predicate weil ich ihn sehen werde ihe constructionsexamined here frequently trace a diachronic unidirectional 63) syntactically independent elements to synthetic morphological ^obi".tr.path from 'because Moieover, croisJinguistic researchreveals that a recurrent class of I will see him' prJdi.ut constructionstend io exhibit morphologization. Our treatment of the analytic expressionsof these constructions will associ- ate all of the contentive and expression properties of these entities with a 2 Representative Phenomena iingte lexical representation. This contrasts with syntactic proposals that Tluoughout this book we focus on the examination of several con- .oripot" the information of independent morphosyntactic content-bearing this is ac- tent-theoretiJ constructions. Recall that the term content-theoretic unit as elements with the information of a dependent lexical category: as in GB, used here covers both morphosyntactic content such as tense etc., as well as complished by positing an extended functional projection domain, multiple syntactic the functional-semantic information concerning lexical semantics, number or a single functional Jtructure set in correspondencewith of analysis in of arguments,argument structure, and/or grammatical function assignment co-headi, as in LFG (see below for a discussion of this type to arluments: both of these types of information, as mentioned previously, LFG.) are iiterpreted as information within lexical representations.In particular, *e e"a-ine expanded predicates containing morphosyntactic content as and Analytic Passives well as basic pridicates containing functional-semantic information which 2.2' Synthetic participate in berivational relations. In all instances we juxtapose synthetic The passive is one of the most conrmonly analyzed constructions and an.alyticexpressions of these construction types. That i.s,we investigate within linguistics. There are two frequently attestedpatterns for the encod- properties, al- constructions which share certain central content-theoretic ing of passive predicates.These are exemplified by the morphological (i.e.' as a single morphological word or as several though they may be realized synthetic) passive in Vogul [from Kulonen (1989: 75)] and the periphrastic In this section, we present examples of the four con- co-occurring words. (i.e., analytic) passive of German: struction types we examine in detail in later chapters of this book. noted that our presentation in this chapter is strictly in- It sfi-ouldbe Synthetic Expression: Vogul (Ugric) troductory and we forego explicit discussion of important properties of theseconstructions. (14) por-n€n art, fldwtam tot-Tes Por-woman-LAT now child-NoM take-PAss-3sg/past 'The ?^t Expanded Predicates and Morphosyntactic Content child was taken away now by the Por-woman' In Chapter 7 we will examine how our theory of predicates provides Analytic Expression: German analyses for predicate constructions containing morphosyntactic context such as tensefaspect, and agreement.Typically, these notions can either be (15) weil die Blumen dem Mann geschenkt wurden expressedsynthetically or analytically. For instance, both French and because the flowers the man given were German have a way of expressing future tense. However, as (12) and (13) 'because show, French expressesthe future tense synthetically whereas German uses the flowers were given to the man' a combination oi the infinitive of a main verb and an inflected form of the auxiliary werden'to become:' As can be seen, the passive morpheme appears as a suffix to the Vogul verb in (14), whereas passive is conveyed by the co-occulrence of a Synthetic Expression : French non-finite participle and an inflected auxiliary in German in (15). Chapter 8 provides an account of the relation between universals of (12) Je le verral passive formation and the language-particular encoding of passives.We pay I him will see particular attention to several German passives encoded analytically when 'I will seehim' :il 3r F' 'i*l' .er 12I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEXPREDICATES AND LEXICALISM I 13

used in a predicative function but encodedsynthetically when used in an at- to the interactions of grammatical function assignment, bi- vs. mono- tributive manner. clausality effects, and the synthetic vs. analytic expressiontypes associated with theseconstructions. 2.3 Synthetic and Analytic Causatives There are causative constructions in many languages. In typical in- 2.4 Predicates with Separable Particles stances the causativized predicate exhibits one more semantic argument than the base predicate, i.e., it has a causer argument. since this new argu- we have already seen in (z)-(ll) that several languagespossess predicates consisting of a verbal stem ment bears the subject function, the grammatical functions borne by the ar- and some element which precedesit. The preceding element can be either bound like a standard prifix (or guments of the base predicate must be readjusted in some manner. The se- the first member of a compound) or is separable from the verbil stem under mantics, argument valence, case government, and function assignment of some syntactic conditions. Despite formal differences concerning the base predicate are often affected by the operation of causativization. separability of the pieces of these compositions, many of the same lexica] That these effects can occur independent of the surface form of the semantic, argument valence,case government, and grammatical function ef- causativepredicate becomesevident from the folrowing pair of predicatesin fects are evident irrespective of the prefixal (compound) or preverbal status (16) and (17) from Hungarian: of the element accompanying the verb. That is, in an intuitive sensewe are confronted by the same phenomenon independent of whether we encounter Synthetic Expression: Hungarian a synthetic or an analytic expression type. chapter 10 will be devoted to various aspects of constructions ex- (16) emplifying this type of (complex) predicate. Given the variety and variable a firi elvonszoltatta Jr{nost degreesof regularity exhibited by this class of constructionsbbth within and the boy away-drag-CAUS-3sg/DEF John-ACC acrosslanguages, we focus on the analysis of German. We observe that this a hdlggyeUa h6lgy 6lral analysis provides an appropriate represlnhtional schemafor the whole class the lady-INSTWthe lady by of phenomena when adjusted to the properties of the constructions in other 'The languages. boy had Janosdragged away (by the lady)' Analytic Expression: Hungarian 2.5 Summary The preceding (17) 1fi6 hagyta Jdnost elvonszolni (a h

proto-principle Lexical Adicity since it cording to the role these concepts play in them. In this section we identify We will call the fust lexicalist conshaints on establishing a set of adicity structures for lexical thesethree proto-properties and use them to characterizethe nature of lexi- relates to calism propounded by several different recent approaches depending on items: which of the principles are recognizedin the particular theory. In addition, (19) Lexical AdicitY we can compile the views developedin the presentwork to these competing conceptionsof lexicalism. The adicityof a lexicalitem is lexically fully determinedand cannot be alteredby itemsof the syntacticcontext in which it appears. (18) Overview of Lexicalism Lexical adicity is intended to cover three different types of informa- don associatedwith a lexical item: the number and type of its semantic arguments, the number and type of its functional arguments, and the number and grammatical categories of its phrase-structural dependents.For a verb such as hit,lexicaladicity would require that its semantic arguments "hitter" and "hittee", its functional arguments "subject" and "object", and its categorial arguments "NP[nom]" and "NP[acc]" already be specified in its lexical entry. The passive lexical entry (or predicate) based on hit likewise would be lexically completely specified for semantic, functional, and categorial selection, because(19) reserves the power of specifying these selectional properties for the lexicon and expressly withholds this privilege from the mechanismsapplying in the syntactic component. As the table indicates, classical LFG and HPSG both incorporated (18) A The table in provides an overview of our comparison. lexical adicity. In the context of the theories presented in Bresnan (1982b) principles values that we have assignedto characterization of the and the or Pollard and Sag (1987) the selectional properties of lexical items were each theory are discussedbelow.6 completely determined in the lexicon and all changes in the meaning of a predicate or its selectional properties were achieved in the lexicon (via lexi- 5Theidentification of ClassicalLFG and HPSGwith respectto the threeprinciples discussed here underdeterminesan important difference betweenthese theories with respectto an insight cal rules) and were independent of the syntactic context into which the lexi- that guidesthe proposalin the presentbook. In particular, LFG has a tradition of distinguishing cal entry was inserted.T betweenfunctional (what we refer to as information theoretic) and structural lexicalism. This distinction is appealedto for the explanationof various grammaticalphenomena in early work by Simpson(1991) on Walpiri, Ackerman(1984, 1987) on Hungarian,Vogul and Ostyakand more rccently for the analysisof Japanesecomplex predicatesin Matsumoto (1996), to name Jackendoffsproposals: most notably,we adopt a variant of his metric for calculatingthe in- the work of only a few researchers.The architecturalassumptions of LFG permit one to distin- formationcost of lexical representationsin our discussionof archetypesand markednessin guish betweenthe functional and structural or categorialheads of phrasal domains: most chapter4. Finally, it shouldbe observedthat from an empirical perspectiveJackendoff (1995, importantly it permits there to be discrepanciesbitween the functional and structural headsof 1997)develops his proposalswith keen attentionto fixed phrasesand idioms (including id- syntacticconstructions. As mentioned,this view of distinctive headednessin different informa- iomatic phrasalverbs): due to considerationsof leng$ we do not discussidioms here, although tional domains underliesmuch of the conceptualmotivation for the theory of predicatespro- in other work fWebelhuthand Ackerman (1998)] we provide evidencefor accommodating idioms to the classof complex predicatestreated here. posed,as well as someof the implementationalassumptions discussed in chapter3. Moreover, lrerman/The it informs an important developmentconcerning the interaction betweenphrasal structure and view of Lexical Adicity repr€sentsin some sensea variant of Direct Syntactic Encoding functional structurein much recent work within LFG. (See footnote 4 in chapter 3 for further in LFG as formulated in Kaplan and Bresnan(1982:.32): discussion.) Direct fiMe refer the readerto Jackendoff(lgg5, lgg7) for cogentcriticisms of standardlexicalist as- SyntacticEncoding: No rule of syntax may replaceone function namewith another. representations in sumptionsas well as a rcconceptualizationof lexical which sharesmuch They spirit with the proposal here. This is not since the presentwork is formu- characterizethe consequentdifference betweenlexical versussyntactic operationsas fol- developed accidental, lows:(1982:32) lated within the architectural assumptionsreferred to and adopted by Jackendoff as general lexi- "representationalmodularity": this approachis characteristicof constraint-based "The principle calist theoriessuch as LF0 and HPSG which provide many of the representationalassumptions of direct syntacticencoding sharpensthe distinction betweentwo classesof present rules: rules that changerelations are lexical and range over finite sets,while syntactic rules that of the theory. Within this theorctical tradition there have been empirical motivations project adducedto challengecertain standard lexicalist assumptions. See for exampleAbaitua (1988), onto an infinite set of sentencespreserve grammatical relations." (1987), (1987), (1996) (1991). Ackerman Dahlstrom Matsumoto and Simpson Constraint- Lexical basedtheoretical assumptions and considerationsof certainempirical phenomenahave con- Adacity obviouslyadheres to this distinction,as well as makingexplicit that what ob- yield tains for grammatical functions also obtains for valence and lexical semantics(as well as case vergedin the presentwork to many conceptualparallelisms betweenJackendoff s work government). and our own. In addition, we haverelied explicitly in severalaspects of our tlreory on certain of 16I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM / 17

Some recent work in LFG and HPSG approachesto complex predi- dent elements each functioning as a syntactic atom. It is precisely this op- cate phenomena, however, extend the privilege of creating new argument tion that is suggestedin Ackerman (1984, lgBT), Ackerman andLesouid structures from the lexicon to the syntax, in direct violation of Lexical (1997) and developed in greater detail in this book. In consequenceof this Adiciry.8 In the case of LFG, Alsini ltsslt iv, v, 280) admits "partially conflation of two independent aspectsof lexicality,ll it does nbt follow that specified predicates" whose adicity is only fixed in the syntactic componeni, if one adduces evidence "that the causative complex predicate in Romance as can be inferred from the two quotes below:9 does not correspond to one word (a morphologicat uiit) or even one single fl or terminal node in the syntax", that this fiJensesthe conclu sion ,,thal The it operationsthat affectthe way thatarguments are overtly expressedare assumed is, therefore notformed in the lexicon." to be operationson the argumentstructure of a predicateand are treated as partially within HPSG, the highly influential proposal of Hinrichs and specifiedpredicates that mustcompose with otherpredicates to yield fully specified Nakazawa (1989, 1994) allows lexical entries to subcategorize predicates.Thus, predicatecomposition is responsiblefor operationssuchas pas- for another lexical entry as a complement. sivization,causativization, applicativization, etc. As a consequence,the sele-ting lexical entry may inherit some or all of the selectional properties of thaicomplemeni. Most work within LFG and other lexicalist theories,has assumedthat predicate This yields a configuration where a selector with an initially underspecified composition,or the equivalentnotion in eachparticular theory, can only takeplace argument structure comes to have a fully specified argument structure. in the lexicon. However,the evidenceindicates that causative(and other) complex Thus, an auxiliary that selects for a main verb complement and inherits all predicates in Romanceare not derived in the lexicon becausethe two verbs that of that complement's arguments will have a different number of arguments composethe complexpredicates do not constitutea word.If the lexiconis the word depending on whether the embedded complement has zero, one, two, or formationmodule of the grammarand wordsare the terminalnodes of the c-struc- three arguments. since._theidentity of the verb that serves as the comple_ ture, we have to concludethat causativeconstructions in Romancecontain two ment to the auxiliary will only be known once the two verbs appeartogeiher wordsthat jointly determinethe predicateof the clause.This forcesus to designa in phrase structure, the argument structure of the auxiliary that allows predicatecomposition to result not only from combiningrior- *itt ue dnally {"ory specified gnly in the syntactic component phemesin the lexicon,but alsofrom combiningwords and phrases in the syritax.In as a function of tfre syntactic cori- text in which the auxiliary what follows, I willfirst presentevidence tlnt the causatiiecomplex pridicate in appears.This is in clear violation of the principle of Lexical Romancedoes not correspondto one word (a morphological unitj o, ir", one sin- Adicity. gtefl or rcrminalnode in the syntax,and tlnt it is,therifore notfonned in the lert- Thus, some recent work in LFG and HpsG exhibits a conceptual in- con; and I will thcn indicate thc necessaryassumptions for an LFG theory to allow novation in that the trends it displays effectively reset the boundaries be- predicate cornposition in the syntax.[Italics addedby Ackermanand webelhuth] tween the applicability of lexical and syntactic mechanismsin favor of the syntax: what we have referred to as the classic versions of both upprourh6 The italicized (inclusive portion of the latter passageis worth focusing on for a mo- of present variants that reflect classic assumptions in^ various ment, since it helps both to distinguish our assumptionsfrom the tend rep- yays) gave certain analytical privileges to the lexicon and withheld them resented by Alsina as well as to identify certain crucial assumptionsthat we from the syntax, whereas certain recent proposals within these frameworks share with LFG. From the perspective of certain basic assumptions within 4loy the syntax to move further into the territory once held exclusively by LFG (see footnote 6) it is evident that Alsina conflates two ind-ependentas- the lexicon. pects of "lexical integnty" in order to argue against the lexical composition In this connection_itis important to appreciatethat the empirical mo_ of Romance causative tivation predicates: he idJntifiei the structural conception of for this relative loss of distinction ori ttr" part of the lexicon is pre- "lexical" cisely gr"lnorphological" integrity (i.e., being azero level category oc- the set of phenomena dealing with analyiically expressed clausal cupying a leaf node in phrasal (i.e., predicates). structure) with the functional ronreptlonli."., !:?ar Alsina ot%), nutt iDl5j, and Hinrichs & being associatedwith information Nakazawa (1989, corresponding to a single predicator).iOIn lg94) all motivate the need for the cieation of new argu- principle, however, LFG permits ment the pbssibility that the information as- structures in the syntax on the basis of constructions involving u ,o--- sociated with a single predicator bination could be associited with multiple indepen- of two verbs which jointly define the semantic, functional,'and cat_ egorial properties of a clause, e.g., a combination of a causative verb and a Sptant main (1996)challenges syntactic composition accounts within LFG on the basisof Romance verb or a combination of an auxiliary and a main verb. auxrrary selecuon and reflexivization. We sharethe qtuitigg_sguiding this proposal although As the entry in the final row of taute indicaies, the we capturcrelevant effects for the dataexamined here in a differEnt fasiion. 1ta; theory of 'For p.redi.calegdeveloped in this book retains a similar view, seeBun (1995:chapter 5 and elsewherein her book). the stongly lexicalist position of ruWe classical LFG and thank Joan Bresnanfor discussionon this point. Seethe discussionsof Morpholosical HPSG: the lexicon and only the-texiconhas thi privilege Integnty and Morphological Expressionturther beitlowin the text foian-;dbrrffiffitil;i';; ^'See sues. Mohanan (1995) for an informative discussion of the theorctical notion ..lexicality,,. I8I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEXPREDICATES AND LEXICALISM I 19 of specifying the properties that make up the adicity of a phrase-projecting not subject to either of these two constraints and hence has a more privi- head. We believe that it is the wrong theoretical choice to weaken the influ- leged relation to morphology than the syntax. ence of the lexicon relative to the syntax in the face of analytically ex- Each of the theories compared in our overview table (18) claims this pressedpredicates and-as will be stated shortly-instead take the position morphological privilege of the lexicon over the syntax and in so doing they that this problem is most effectively solved by realigning the relative influ- all differ from other theories that do allow morphological and syntactic op ences of the lexicon and the syntax in the other direction. In other words, erations to be intermixed, e.g., many versions of Government and Binding the theory of this book will force the syntax to cede some further analytical Theory and classical Montague Grammar. ground to the lexicon and hence in this respectis an even more strongly lex- The third and final diagnostic entering into an explication of lexical- icalist theory than that explicitly formulated in classical LFG and HPSG. ism will be referred to as Morphological Expression: Our second proto-principle of lexicalism deals with the relationship between the lexical component and morphology: (21) Morphological Expression

(20) Morphologicallntegrity Lexical entries are uniformly expressed as single synthetic (syntactically atomic) word forms. Syntactic mechanisms neither make reference to the daughters of morphological words nor can they create new morphologi- The concept of morphological expression, we believe, has been mis- cal words in constituent structure. takenly conflated with morphological integrity as characterized above. Specifically, whereas morphological integrity constrains syntactic opera- In the words of Di Sciullo and Williams (1987), Morphological tions from creating morphological word forms, morphological expression Integriry creates a "bottle neck" represented by morphological words: the concernsassumptions about the surface means by which lexical representa- sole morphological information that syntax can accessis the morphology of tions are expressed. LFG and HPSG have traditionally held the lexicon to the topmost node of a morphological constituent structure tree. Syntax can- the strict requirement that each lexical representation be expressed by at not "look" lower in the tree at the word's daughter constituents. Bresnan most one single morphophonologically integrated word form. This require- and Mchombo (1995) present this point as follows (note that these authors ment privileges the syntax to create all collocations that consist of more prefer the term 'Lexical Integrity to the somewhat more specific than one morphologically free piece, even if the ensemble of words behaves M o rpln lo gical Inte g rity ) : as one content-theoretic unit with one argument sfucture, e.9., the analytical causativesdiscussed in Alsina (1993) and the auxiliary-verb combinations A fundamentalgeneralization that morphologistshave traditionally maintainedis the discussedin Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994). It is precisely this lexical integrity principle, that words are built out of different structural elements required connection between clausal heads inserted from the lexicon and andby differentprinciples of compositionthan syntacticphrases. Specifically, the single morphological surface forms that leads these three authors to aban- morphologicalconstituents of words are lexical and sublexicalcategories-stems don the restriction against the formation of new argument structures in the and affixes-while the syntacticconstituents of phraseshave words as the minimal, syntax as was discussedin connection with the principle of Lexical Adicity. principlesdo not apply to morphemic unanalyzableunits; and syntacticordering There is thus conceptual tension between Lexical Adiciry and structures... it hasbeen hypothesized that the lexical integrity principle holds of the Morphological Expression, and this tension becomes most obvious in the rnorphernicstructure of words, independentlyof their prosodic or functional structure, treatment of analytically expressedclausal heads. Classical LFG and HPSG maintained both principles but were unable to provide optimal analyses of We take Morphological IntegritJ to mean that syntax and morphol- thesetypes of heads. Two obvious types of responsesto this state of affairs ogy are separate but interacting domains of grammar. Syntax, interpreted as are imaginable and both involve a realignment of the relative privileges of phrasal structure, can neither "look into" morphological words to see inter- the lexicon and the syntactic component, albeit in opposite directions. If one considers nal structure nor can it create new morphological words.l2 The lexicon is it of paramount importance to retain the morphological restric- tions of the lexicon vis-i-vis the syntax, then one is led to create analytically expressedclausal heads in the syntax by allowing phrase-structural opera- l2Thir har led to what is referred to as 'Relativized Lexical Integrity' in Bresnan and Mchombo (1995), and Bresnan(forthcoming) [sec also Ackerman and LeSourd (1997)] and is adoptedhere: "Morphologically complete words are leaves of the constituent structure tree and each leaf corrcsponds to one and only one c-structure node." [Bresnan (forthcoming: 84)] 20 I ATHEORY OF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM I 2I

tions to invade into the previously exclusively lexical domain of the forma- the mappings of form and function associatedwith e.9., analytically ex- tion of.new argument structures.This leads io the departure from classical pressedtense and a verb is not stored as a part of a pattern for a predicate lexicalism that is-represented by works such as Alsina (lgg3) and Hinrichs paradigm in the lexicon, but is presumably only extant as a syntactic pat- and Nakazawa (1989, 1994). Accordingly, lexicalism is in a weaker position lern. Co-head analyses of the sort under discussion have been proposed relative to-the syntax in recent LFG in-d HpsG compared to the classical primarily for syntactic constructions containing auxiliaries bearing modal versionsof thesetheories (see the first and second,o*i in (lg). and inflectional (i.e., morphosyntactic)information.14 A questionarises as Alternatively, if one considers Lexical Adicity, i.e., the exclusive to how a co-head analysis would work when applied to the derivation of privilege of the lexicon to create the functional-semantic information asso- complex predicates,e.g., causatives,expressed by independentc-structure ciated with clausal heads, to be the conceptual heart of lexicalism, then one elements. If these latter should be lexically representedand derived, as ar- is more inclined to.lessen the strong constraint posed by Morphological gued in Frank (1996), the question naturally arises as to why a similar anal- Expressionconcerning the surface Jxpression oi lexicaf .epresentati"ons. ysis should not be assumed for the types of constructions ordinarily ad- Toning down the effects of this lattei principle by downgiading it to a dressedby co-heads expressing combinations of lexical and morphosyntac- preference qarfre{negs sfengthens the reiative anAy-ticatrole of the lexicon tic information? In fact, the uniform lexical treatment of the derivation of vis-i-vis- the syntax: whereasclassical lexicalism aliowed the syntax to deal complex predicates as well as the participation of all types of predicates in with collocations without joint_morphological status and withirera tni, op_ morphosyntactic content paradigms, irrespective of synthetic or analytic tion from the lexicon, M-orphotogical Ex/ression as a freference princif,te surface expression, is the position developed throughout this book. As pre- makes the syntax only the prefeled locus of .o.poriii* ro, *iryti.uiiy viously stated, our operative characterization of (complex) predicate in- expressedelements but extends this option to the lexicon as a marked cludes both those sorts standardly assumed in this connection, e.g., choice. causatives,analytically expressedpassives involving auxiliaries, as well as It- is important to mention that there is another and deft response analytic expressionsof tense, modality, etc. It will be seenin chapter 6 that compatible with classical LFG and licensed by LFG architectural ur.lu-p this broad view of the class of complex predicatesis one of the factors that tions which has bggn {ev9loped in severar recent analyses (see Kroeger motivates the adoption of word and paradigm models of morphology in our (19.91)' King (1995), Nordringer and Bresnan rrggol, Niino (i995, rggi), implementation: it will be seen that certain word-based morphological as- and Bresnan (forthcoming) foi detailed expositi,on.)15'tnpurticular, certain sumptions facilitate locating both the derivational types and the inflectional independent constituent structure elementi can be'analyied as constituent types of analytically expressedpredicates within the view of the lexicon es- orphrasal :truclure co-heads that contribute their combined information to a poused here. functional structure associated with a single clause *r"ur. In this way, To sum up our discussion of lexicalism as a cluster concept: this two or more independent categorial elements can be construed as constitut- book takes the view that the data from predicates expressed by syntactically ing a unit at some level of reprisentation, specifically at the functional level. independent elements do not warrant abandoning what we take to be foun- This type of proposal has provided elegant *utyr", oi anatytically ex- dational principles of lexicalism, in particular the principle we called pressed tense and other constructions inv6lving uuiitiury-tike elements. On I*xical Adicity which prevents the syntactic component from creating new such an approach morphological integrity is mintainrJ,iin"" the leaf nodes argument structures. The proposals developed in this book are guided by the of constituent structurl treeJ are runi rormed syntactic'utorrrr, while the in- conviction that this content-theoretic view of lexicalism should only be formation associatedwith these ryntu.ti" atoms is pooiJinto a single func_ abandonedif the puzzles created by (complex) predicates prove to be thor- tional structure. crucially, the reiulting f-structure is not interpreted as part oughly incommensurable with all defensible implementations of this view. of a lexical representation expressedb"y multiple syntactic atoms, as it is in From a more positive perspective, we will demonstrate that adherence to the present work: .ut"r tj is i comporitr of information created by the co- these content-theoretic principles raises important questions and yields im- occrurence of the co-heads in phrase structure. It is not interpreted u, u pro_ portant results. Accordingly, our overall view can perhapsbest be character- jection from the lexicon in the same manner that it would be if the skeletal ized as follows: f-structure derived fror-r. a single morphologicat entityln'tt" lexicon: the skeletal f-structures.ordinarilfassociaied *Itn t"*i"uirepresentations can also be associated with concaienations of syntactic In this resp€ct "o-tt"uir.

roblem which was basically inchoate at the time wedevelopedourtheorv. tts.oruuines are;i{";ii;til,i*l iri"i&"rili#tween structuratheads and thgwork functionaland lfqo-neaa analyseshave also-been proposedformixed categoryconstructions such as gerun- thatemployedihi;a'iJir.iid;d;;;i;ilt'y rn tti, chaprer. dlal constructionsin Bresnan(to appearb) and Mugane(1996). 221 ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM I 23

(22) The Primacy of Function over Form expressedclausal heads in terms of a to the problems posed by analytically svntacticizationof argument structure speclncauon" " rr "--- we ex- Lexicalism is first and foremost a hypothesis about content-theoretic By positing the notion predicate as an independent construct objects (containing grammatical operations ap- functional-semantic and/or morphosyntactic con- ,rect to fini empirical evidencl suggesting that tent) and secondarily a hypothesis about form.ls :-;i ; itrl* iust as it has been shown that they appeal to syntactic cat- "ntiiv (1979) for similar consid- 5""ri6 gra;matical relations [cf. Perlmutter It is important to recall that in the presenttheory lexical adicity refers ""a. In-chapter 2 we will addressthis issue in detail from the perspec- to the functional-semantic (1) several operations of information issociateO wlttr lexical preiicates. "i.,i""tf;i"r ;;,;" basii types of evidence: we adduce Another type of information, the natye of its formal as previously mentioned, comprises the mor- ;;;;i"gy that rei& to the predicate irrespective of phosyntactic content the notion predi- often expressedsynthetically by inflectional morphol- ,-pi"*i""'"nd (2) several syntactic operations that refer to ogy, but frequently expressed analytically by clitics,-particles, or auxiliaries cate. of several sorts. The specific manner in whictr each of these information We turn now to a discussion of three problems which any adequate types is encoded is the subject of chapters 3-5 in which we introduce our theory of predicatesmust satisfactorily address' representationsfor lexical predicates. g:leralperspective . 9iurn_this on lexicalism, we are led to postulate Problem the.profile of principles in the last line of the overview table of leiicalism. 4 The ExPression This proposal can be summed up for easy referenceas follows: This problem has already been amply demonstratedin sections 1 and 2 with data from preverbs, causatives, and passives. All of these construc- (23) present the Assumptions of the Book tions and others io be discussed later in this book uniformly display o-orrtn that what is content-theoretically essentially the same consffuction ' par- Only lexical and not syntacticrules can createnew argumentstructures ianRnO very different surface expressionsin the world's languages.In (LexicalAdicity). ticular, they can be expressed either synthetically or analytically' An ac- ' Only lexical but not syntactic rules can createor analyzemorphological ."pt"Ui" linguistic theory should have a design from which this observation words (Morpholo gical Integrity). ' follows readilY. Lexicalrepresentations are preferably expressed by singlesynthetic word forms but can_also be expressedby combinationsof w6rdswithout joint 'l morphologicalstatus (M orpholo gical Expression ). t, 5 The Proliferation Problem Familiar accounts of "lexical insertion" deal only with synthetically concerns itself with developing a theory of lin- expressedpredicates. on our alternative Modern linguistics view the queition ariies how the pfo- parts of guisticrepresentations. Tlte history of the field in the last few decades an _analytic predicate are associated with positions in syntactic that the explanatory force of a particular linguistic structure. [cf. Jackendoff (1997) for similar consi-derations conterning viAes ampte illustration on the types of linguistic constructs it lexical entities and lexical insertionl. This is one of several issues whic[ theory depends in large measure yield well will be addressed in due course. As can be seen, it is an immediate posits and the manner in which it manipulates them in order to consequenceof an interpretation of lexicalism that separatescontent_ formed linguistic representations.The task of identifying the right represen- theoretic notions frgg m_orp_hologicalstatus that the types of problems for tations and the appropriate relations between them is quite challenging. In lexicalism adduced by Lieber and alluded to earliei are limited to the practice it has proven easy to postulate representationsthat account well for standard view of lexicalism. In fact, it is precisely this type of challenging data that, we will argue, supports the itrengthened view or lexicalism l6Our notion of predicate obviou_slyresembles certain analYs,e.s^in.Montague propounded operative 'rhrs here and argues against alternativJs that would seek solutions Grammaiand CategorialGra;nmar [Dowty (1979),Bach (1983),Hoeksema (1991)J' be- comesparticularlyilear in Dowty (tgTgiwhere s.ynlactfcandmorphologlcal opera.tions..are distingriished-#ili;;;atilifrorir syntactic and lbxical rules. Lexical rules on-Dowty's accountrelate entltres re-, l5of thar expresseaby syntheticmorphological objeclsi for example,lnglish cou's"u theoryof signssuch as-is proposed here must necessarily (called in his account)are assoclatedwlth lexlcal rules anq theorctic addressboth content- sultativeconstructions factitives andform-theorctii aspeas orreiicir rcprcsentations.It is importantto observethat we tiniu"ti" Jp"iuiions. A somewhatsimilar view, of particllar relevanceto.our analysis of donor propose here a subsrantivetheory of thJF;ipla;;i";;'fi;;nt as associatedwith lexical-representations,is the.pro- that to rorm,but nore C"r1nunanityti" predicateexpressions thereseem importanr markednesj"onsiaeiutionl-iilr;;"d#;?i"ory mustaddress posalfound ii Siirwisch (199b).Some rpcent lexicalist analyses-oflhrasal verb constructions, here.(See Bresnan-(to aqrcar.b) (1990), & i;;-ifiFiig D r'vrvewproposatlo;G;*g vv.wrru'6' iirerll retation between iometimJi addressingother "related" constructions,are found in Booij Neeleman content, form, and markebness.t Weerman(1993), and Neeleman (1994). 24 I A THEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM I 25

certain syntactic phenomena.Moreover, in many instances, a notion global theoretical parsimony of (25) Functional Change: SUBJ osUO has suggestedthat the representations sumptions and as_ OBJ found serviceabrefor certain SUBJ phenomenabJpressed into service elsewhere. on the other hand, it has often been observedthat tational assumprions such represen_ Morphological Change: V (r) predict the existenr" orpt tpurtl testedor counrer-exemprified riorirnu which are unat_ in theranguages th" ;;il; dubious applicability a; ffi: The functional aspect of this rule can be regarded as universal: the beyond the phenomenawhich "f they address were formulated to formal expression is expected to vary from language to language. Indeed, since they entaii increasingly abstract ' int"rpre-t-ationswith respect to the only (implicit) assumption with respect to function and form in this for- these new domains of application." mulation appearsto be that the function changeswill be associatedwith a This relianc: ol.apparentry effective sourcesof expranation for morphological object. In the present case, the passive function assignments and more seemingry dirpara; more ;irtriiution. or-aui; ;;; consequence are associatedwith a participial form of the verb. we will refer to as ile pi_ottYera,tion-problem. that rtrt* iiiionr manifestations The preceding rule of passive is applicable to German without alter- in different approacheJ.r" i"-i.Ji.t'approu.hes it can lead to the prorifera_ ation. In particular we could posit lexical entries related by the passive lexi- tion of homophonous rexicar ,nt irr. iri certain ;;;rir;; of cal rule. The active lexical ennry approaches,in contrast, srructure based it has reo io a.proliferation oi functional rt orture in terms of 'show categories.Thir;;;ti', irru, (26) V, < SUBJ, coverage h;;tl'r*t"no the empirical zeigen, OBJ,OBL >' of a theory without suffering "f unacceptableproliferation of portu_ lated enriries. At the end of thisl;;" we w'r discusi this probrem is relatable in this manner to the passive lexical entry: nection with our own theory in con_ 'shown (27) gezeigt, V, ' 5.1 Proliferation inLexical_Functional Grammar Like its English counterpart, the observed participial form of German As mentioned in a previous section, German frequently has a use where it is associatedwith an active set of function assignments: passive analyticaty: expresses a non-finite form of the verb co-occurs with an aux'_ iary. one type of passive construction (28) weil Maria das Buch dem Jungen gezeigt hat consists of a participle and a finite form of the aux'iary werden'u".o*r'. because Maria the book the boy shown This is rrro*n in (24) has tains the participiar which con_ 'because form of tte verb'eeigen ,to Maria has shown the book to the boy' singular show, and the 3rd person present tense form of the uu*iti*y. The active and passive participial forms can be treated as ho- (24) weil dem mophonous entities: each lexical item is s p+ Jungenvon Marta gezeigtwird associated with its own function becausethe book the Uoy by assignments.The relevant entry for the active participle would be 'because Mary shown becomes the bookis shownto the boy 'shown by Maria, (29) gezeigt, V, < SUBJ,OBJ, OBL >' on the accountof passive, would "*tI ll9 rhe active form of the verb There are consequently at least three be reratedto its passiveform different but related lexical items at iia lexical rule. Ignoring for the is-suein the present case. In mentrecent deveropments in this mo_ an obvious sensethis representsa proliferation framew9rk,a rexicalo!"rution win of lexical items. that the argumentbearing trr" assure suB,Jdi tu;a;';;;#,i"" rexicar Now will correspondto an oglteur entry consider the following additional German passiveconstruction: function or an unrealizedargument passivelexical entry,.while dt"-onrccr in the of the urti;;;ili;orrespond weil' suBJEcr of the paisivelexicar to rhe (30) der Junge das Buch von Maria gezeig! bekommt guishes (l9g2a) formurationdistin_ because betweeniunrtiooa-*I ;#ffi"nrryl-nr"rlq,s the boy the book by Maria shown gets ;r;;;;', o'i,r,i, operation: 'because "si";i the boy gets the book shown by Maria, PREDICATESAND LEXICALISM I 27 261 ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEX

gelaufen In this construction we can see that the same participial form with (32) Sie hat die Schuhe krumm passiveforce appearsas in (24) above. However, in the present casethe OBJ she has the shoes crooked walked of the active does not appear as the SUBJ of the passive, rather the IN- 'She walked the shoescrooked' DIRECT OBJ does. Given this state of affairs one could posit a homophonous participial form with different function assignments than that (33) Die Schuhe sind von ihr krumm gelaufen worden hypothesized for (27), increasing the number of homophonous participial the shoes are by her crooked walked become forms to tlree: 'The shoeswere walked crooked by her' (31) gezeigt, V, 'shown' Die krumm gelaufenen schuhe zieht sie nicht mehr an (34) particle ttre croot"d ivalked shoes wears she not more The forms gezeigt that appear in both (27) and (31) must represent 'She crooked' two different (though related) lexical items, becausethe sentencesthey are doesn't wear the shoesany more that she walked contained in have properties which according to standardlexicalism must be intransitive, i'e', due to lexical differences: they display distinct function sets. As can be seen in (32), a verb which is ordinarily of the resulta- Given the fact that the same participle appears with different func- ,gelaufen', appearswith a direct object in the active variant (32). If there are n9 lexical passive tional-semantic (specifically, adicity) properties in conjunction with differ- ti"*. f lll is a personal passive analog of 'gelaufen' is the active per- ent auxiliaries, it might be argued that passive should be formulated over the outtiripf.r (in order to avoid proliferation), then which combines with the resultative participle and a particular auxiliary. Recent proposals within LFG [e.g., I*ipi"i.iile taten from thi lexicon to form an argument structure to which Alsina (1993)l and HPSG [e.g., Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994), ;;ilJ"ty predicate in the syntax the application of Kathol (1994)l have made possible such an account of analytically ex- o*rinr -ilfrt apply. Assuming that passive does apply, so that it becomes pressedpredicates. An analysis formulated within these assumptionsmight lussiur eitfr'eratiiri the categorial status of the participle 'a perfect. avoid the need to proliferate homophonous participial forms with different passiueparticiple or it doeJnot and the participle remains ' predicate function assignmentsin favor of permitting passive to apply to a participle If tfuefirsi option obtains, then some instances of syntactic within the in conjunction with an auxiliary when they actually co-occur, i.e., by neces- composition would seem to alter the lexical status of elements morphological sity in phrase structure. The proliferation problem would then be eliminated. ryniu*, thereby raising the issue of whether there can be Integrity In particular, one could extend the syntactic predicate composition opera- word formation in the syntax in LFG in violation of Morphological of inforya' tions proposed by Alsina for periphrastically expressed causatives to pe- after all: previously, it was assumedthat although certain types the rnorpholog' riphrastically expressed passives. The auxiliary participating in passive tion (i.e., argumentstructufes) could combine in the syntax, was deter- could be analyzed as an incomplete predicate on analogy with independent ical itatus of tfte elements participating in such compositions causativeverbs. The auxiliary would accordingly need to compose with an- mined in the lexicon. the participle in (33) other verbal entity bearing an appropriate argument structure. A passive If, in contrast, the second option is taken and as to how to relate the mapping algorithm would apply to the composite argument structure result- remains a perfect participle, then tie question arises 'krumm attributive form ing from the composition of the two syntactically independentpredicates.lT syntacticaily d gelaufen worden' to the 'Lrumm "ompo*e the participle has An analysis along these lines would lead to a loss of linguistically getaufenen'in (34), given that in the latter context it to signal such cate- significant generalizations, however, as can be shown by the interaction of undergoie the morphological processesthat allow nominal that the pas- German passives and resultatives a parallel from gories as number, eic. in which it agreeswittr the [following argument "use, English in Goldberg (1995)l: sivized resultative predicate modifies in (34). The theoretical and analytical issues which arise with respect to th9 German examples presented-4boveare paralleled by passive and related adjectival forms from Marathi.l8 Considei the following passivesentence con- 'hit' iuining two inflected verbal forms: the verb is followed by the verb 'go' which functions as a "passivizer" in such constructions' lTIt shouldbe noted that Alsina (1996) doesnot developsuch a proposal,but ratherone in which a passiveargument structure is associatedwith a passiveparticiple that combinesin the syntaxwith an auxiliary. That is, passiveis not interpretedas associatedwith the construction consisting participle of a and an auxiliary, but is associatedwith the participle alone. Seechap- lSThis'presentation (1993: l2). ter 8 for our analysisof passive. follows the discussionin Dalrymple 28 I A THEARYOF PREDICATES COMPLEXPREDICATES AND LEXICALISM I 29

qulaa-naa (35) ryaa gurujiin-kaduun maarle laate The issue of how to capture the relevant generalizations while children-ACC that teacher_by' hit_Acn bnss_eCn 'Children avoiding the detrimental effects of proliferation arise in our theory as well, are (usually) beatenby that teacher' as in fact they do in every approach to the kinds of problems we are con- cerned with in this book. For the reasonsjust discussed in connection with possesses . . |Iarathi an adjective-forming suffix -raa wlichaffixes to a the German and Marathi passives, we believe that syntacticizing predicate verbal form to create lraa a new caiegory. when is affixed to active verbs it formation yields no effective solution to the problem of the proliferation of can appearin nominals such as in (36): homophonous lexical entries in heavily lexicalist theories of grammar. In fact, in our view splitting predicate formation between two components of (36) maarnaare mule the grammar not only does not present a solution but even standsin the way beat-RAA children of a principled solution to the proliferation problem! In contrast, a theory 'Children who beat/*Children who are beaten' that locates all predicate formation in one component can reduce proliferation to a minimum without losing generalizations. that in the approach . - --sit"ilarly, the presenceof this suffix on a passive construction yields Recall advocated in this book all predicates are the following: formed iq the lexicon, no matter how many words make up their surface exponence.lgAs a result, all predicates are accessibleto thi inheritance hier- (37) o.aarbi jaanaari mule archy of lexical types which allows generalizations acrosslexical entries to hit PASS-RAA children be extracted from them and expressed in a common lexical supertype. 'Children Besidesa specification of its supertypes, a lexical entry then only needs to who are beaten/*Children who beat, explicitly spell out those properties that it does not share with other lexical As -raa .go' entries.With this general approach it is possible for severaldifferent lexical can be seen, suffixes to the "passivizing" verb to yield an adjectival entries to all inherit the same morphological information (e.g., "participle") form with a passive sense:passives consis-t forma$ of two in_ dependent while being assigned different content-theoretic information depending on verbs. In both the clausal use ofthe passive and the adjectival use which predicate is being formed, e.g., predicative vs. the verbal forms exhibit agreement morphology. attributive, active vs. The German passive, etc. Each such lexical predicate formation process can determine and Marathi data create the following paradox: if analytically_expressed which auxiliary becomes part of the exponence of the newly formed predi- predicates must be .o*porrd syntaJtilally either becauseof cate if any. In this manner, the theory simultaneously defines a set of predi- the syntactic-independenceof their .o*pon#i parts or because we want to avoid catesincluding their surface exponencessuch that all those predicateswhich proliferation of homophonous lexical entries, then how they be related comprise a participial exponent will be related becausethey all inherit from 9an in a principled way to forms which clearly bear a derivational the same morphological type and all the passive predicates will be related relation to thim bui must have been created in the lexicon becausethey inherit from the same/znctional-semantictype. only one sort because they have undergone further morphologicut operationst one of entity is being proliferated in such a system, namely predicate construc- way to achieve des_criptiveadequac! *ould be to form the predicative structures tions which specify which combinations of exponents express which con- tt^rough predicate ro*porition in the syntax while deriv_ ing the attributive tent-theoretic units of information. This strikes us as the minimal core that forrr-through some mbrphological opJration in the lexicon..But cle-arly every adequatetheory of predicates will have to state and as an acceptable this solution undoes the anticipaied aavantagesof allowing passives to be solution to the proliferation problem.20 formed in phrase structure. Noi only do we have to list homophonous .gelaufen, entries (inclu&ng at least one passive rirt y) for tl+l after previously Frank (1996) provides all-avoiding this.was the goal of allowing +:tt!o-ned. an alternarivero syntacticcomposition preaicatelormation in the within LFG that is in the samespirit asthe pioposaldeveloped here. She &rtes i87): syntax to begin with-but 1t996: in addition t-hough we now do have a passive.entry of 'gelaufen'"u"ti "Our lexical nrle of complex pledicate formation ... then constitutesjust another the participle in the teiicon, we compose its classof lexical predicative igelaufen, rule' which appliesto two verb stems,to yield two discontinuousverb stems..." Talog in the syntax from the active p".tiripr" and an auxiliary -lexical rather than. elploiting the existenie of the passire Our lexical operatiory arefikewise designedtg addreggthe possibility of multiple exponence independentekfrunlf. It should nattlgiple. The linguistically releGnt generalizations that Pv_*Y"otlynq$g'll{ uen'oteo thar; the attributive and llprcsentedand defended in Jackendoff(1997). "atia"t,itttiririiti" predicative passives share thus fail to 6e captured. _"fl.traq"I! Eao mentioningmentiomng-thatthat Bresnan (19!4)(1994) prcposes,proposes, in effect,)nec[, an alternativealternarive allerna[ve waywav to avoldavoid the prouteratronoflexical entries within LFG. In particular, she posits a supralexical construction wni"n"ansu-pe'imposeit';;-;g"'*"i;fiargurnentstructure ffi ;:,iil;i'"iXffi.titi-rriiia"J"lii'Jand function assignmentson lexical el that would otherwise not meet thep lexical rcquirements rcouirements to participatenarticinateinin locative locarive invercinninversion. AND LEXICALISM / 31 30 I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEXPREDICATES

(38) hoPosed Category Source

5.2 Proliferation in Government and Binding Theory AGR4 Chomsky(1995) Government and Binding Theory also exhibits a proliferation prob- Agrlo Mahajan(1990) lem. What proliferates in GB are not lexical items (whose phonological ma- AGRN Johns(1992) trices provide evidence for their existence, if not for a multiplication of ho- AGRY Johns(1992) mophonous elements) but abstract binary branching structuresprojected by AGR1,AGR2 Collinsand Thrr{insson (1996) so-called/u nctional heads. Aspect Hendrick(1991) Government and Binding Theory, especially its classical version as Aux Mahajan(1990) describedin Chomsky (1981), hypothesizesthat phrase structure configura- Clitic voices Sportiche(1992) tions play a central role in the explication of syntactic phenomena.The the- Deg Corver(1997) ory further postulates that phrase structure in general is "projected" from F Uriagereka(1995) units of lexical size as are other important properties, e.g., argument struc- Gender Shlonsky(1989f- ture and Case features which enter into well-formedness conditions such as Honorific Kim (1992) the $-criterion and Case theory. These well-formedness conditions in turn K Bittnerand Hale (1996) refer to phrase structure configurations such as sisterhood, command" and Pesetsky(1989), Johnson (1991) government tr which are assumedto hold uniformly across categorial heads Neg Pollock( 1989),Benmamoun (1992) postulated (this and their uniformly syntactic projections is the X-bar theory Number Shlonsky(1989), Ritter (1991) ofphrase structure). Person Shlonsky(1989) Given this singular emphasis on phrase structural explanations over hedicate Bowers(1993) other kinds of explanations and the desire to achieve uniformity of phrase Tense Pollock(1989) structure configurations, it is not surprising that GB theory frequently postu- Z Stowell(1992) lates categorial heads to do work which is done through different means in phrase other theories. For instance, while tense and agreement marking are com- The theory of this book is conservative in the postulation of pletely handled in the lexicon in unification type theories, most versions of we posit structure. Following the spirit of much of the work within LFG, GB theory postulate the existenceof categorial headswhich expressthis in- Bresnan categorial structure only *-hen there is categorial evidencefor it [cf' formation in phrase structure: in Chomsky (1981) this information was categorially unmotivated iiqgiX. There will be no need to proliferate stored under the Infl(ection) node, but in more recent theories this node has phrasestructure representationsin the present account, since the interaction been "exploded" into a set of separatenodes whose precise number differs to if oth", independ-ently motivated sorts of information will be shown from author to author. "exploded pioneered Following the Infl" theory by cover the same ground. Pollock (1989) there have been many proposalsto solve problems by appealing to functional heads.The following table presentsa list of such heads that have been proposedin the literature over the years:2l 6 The Grammaticalization Problem It is a frequent observation in different grammatical traditions that a single lexical unil can consist of several syntactically separateelements' The basic issues can be conveyed by looking briefly at representativesfrom two traditions which explicitly addresscomplex predicatesin this fashion. These linguists *" ^roriuted with the descriptive linguistic Uaditions in Russia and Australia. Though the problems presented to X-bar theory and-the principles of expretsed predicates mly be novel, the no- 2lWe ignote here and in what follows more rEccntproposals, since the list of proposedheads lexical inser{ion by analytically continuesto grcw in unconstrainedand unexplanatoryfashion. ln addition, we do not discuss tion of analytic piedicates viewed-as members of paradigms is not' Soviet recentwork within the Minimalist hogram, since, to the degreethat it is "lexicalisf', it seems linguists trave traAitionally acknowledged the existence of synthetic and an- to adopt certain basic insights of standardlexicalist frameworks, while retaining some of the phrase-sEucturetheoretic commitments rendered superfluous by the formalisms ordinarily 22Reported employedin standardlexicalist theories. in Benmamoun(1992: 167,fn. 5). 321 ATHEORYOF PREDICATES COMPLEXPREDICATES AND LEXICALISM I 33

alytic forms: whereas-lexical and grammatical (i.e., morphosyntactic)in- lowing auxiliary (at leaston a descriptiveplane) has but grammaticalfunctions, information appeartogether within morphophonologically inlegrated units for dicatingmood, tense, subject, object etc. synthetic expression, these types of information-appear separately in ana_ lytic forms._The typical profile for an analytic expressionis tharacierized as Once again, on the origins of the auxiliary we find the following follows by Jartseva(1963: 53): 0976:640): The specific Propertyof analytic forms is that lexical and grammaticalmeanings are The auxiliaryis one of the simpleverbs [i.e., an independent,synthetic verb form; transmitted disjointly and that the degreeof coalescencJbetweenthe elemeits of theauthorsl ... which follows the head-verband carries most of the syntacticload of analytic word forms variesaccording to the historicaldevelopment manifest in a thecompound... Semantically, the lexicalmeaning of a simpleverb appears more of- givenlanguage. rcnthan not obscuredor neutralizedwhen functioning as an auxiliary.

She contends that these forms are not only distinguished by discrete The observations of these Russian and Australian descriptivists con- syntactic expression of different types of information , brit that 1op cit.): verge in two important ways: they both posit a distinction between lexical vs. grammatical (morphosyntactic) meanings and they both hypothesizethat The constitutive componentsof analyticforms, although representing a singlelexi- the manner in which these meanings are expressed viz. synthetic vs. ana- c.al are ynit, capableof altering their iinear relationsto 6ne anotherani of peimining lytic, is not criterial for determining the lexicality statusof ttre relevant pred- the interpositionof elementsbetween them. icates. It should be noted that the diachronic development of complex predi- Both disjoint expression . of information and syntactic separability of cates consisting of a preverb (or particle) and a verbal stem parallels, in rhe exponentsof this information are aspectsor comptei fredicates we have striking fashion, the development of v + v compositions presented above. already encountered. For example, Nichols (1986) presentsthe following data from Chechen: Meshchaninov (198^).is representativeof scholars describing the nature of the so-called auxiliary Mdu H[asa verb in these analytic predicates 1i9g2: (3e) Eaj-na Sieker 158): tea-DAT in sugar-NOM sprinkle-IMp 'Sprinkle Having some sugar in the tea' becomea linking verb, the verb loses one of its obligatory meanings- lexical meaning-and preservesanother meaning-syntactic rn""iring. n verb a predicate; [ile., Ca!-na Sieker Mdu-Hrasa the authorsI existsonly in the unionJr uoitr [meanings]. (40) tea-DAT sugar-NOM in-sprinkle-IMp Meshchaninov 'Sprinkle points here toward the common observation that verbs some sugiu in the tea' which function as auxiliaries typically derive from (or are sometimes syn_ chronous with) verbs which function as indepenoent preoicators. In addi- Shedescribes this as follows (1986: 84): h9 suggests lon that the analytic form resembles the sytrtfretic form in that for both the predicate, Mdu i.e., hii verb, is only complete as the integration of Herethe postposition governsthe dative case(as postpositionsregularly do in fu nctional-semantic gd .morphosyntactic,i e., tris synt""ti., meaning. chechen).In [40], it is a preverb,and its former objeit has now becomea second The (in characterization of analytic predicates provided by Rusiian lin_ object the dative,as aremost second objects). Both constructionsare possible in guists.is all possibleorders... remarkably similar to the descriptions ofiered by several linguists This exampleis a particularly strong demonstrationof the universalityof examining verbal constructions found in Australian aboiiginar headwardmigration, since Chechenand Ingush are among the randajes. world'smost The-qeare presented.in (r97q.23 consistentlydependent-marking languages. ?jTon A typical profiie of compound predicatesis proposed by v6szoryi (1976:6a0iror wunambat: Noting, as can be seen, that the development of such preverbal systems The non-finite arisesindependent of whether a language tends to mark its head or irp"n- head-verb,reminiscent of a gerundor infinitive, functionsas the se- manticnucleus dent elements, Nichols additionally obsirves that it cannot be explained of a compoundand carries itilexical *m"i;t i;"pp"ars thatthe fol- ei- ther in terms of the original linear orders of the participating piices. she concludes(1986: 85):

njugationby auxiliariesin Australianverbal sys- COMPLEXPREDICATES AND LEXICALISM I 35 341 ATHEORYOF PREDICATES

of Harris and Campbell (1995) argues against assuming Whatis now neededis a positiveunderstanding of the mechanicsand motivation of The account and argues for cap- the processeswhich turn wordsinto affixes.One principlehas been given iere: de- an independenttheoretical statusfor grammaticalization, igrammaticalization change as pendents(or partsof them)become affixes on heads.A completeaccount of the cau- Uiiing effects" associated with diachronic pronominalcategories, and extension. iation must alsoestablish hierarchies of syntacticrelations, Lrinj facilitated by two mechanisms, namely reanalysis migration' indi- semanticfunctions, lexical classes, etc. which favor Th# mechanisms are described as follows (p. 50f; all footnotes and cation of emphasisomitted for convenience): It is our belief that it is desirable for this pre-theoretical and descriptive consensuson the diachrony of complex predicatesto be reflected in the Reanalysisis a mechanismwhich changesthe underlyingstructure of a syntactic formal account of these constructions: an optimal proposal would be re- oattern-anOwhich doesnot involve any modificationof its surfacemanifestation. (i) constituency, sponsive to the recurrent cross-linguistic developmental profile of these fue understandunderlying structure in this senseto includeat least (iii) labels, and (iv) grammaticalrelations. cbnstructions.24We believe that the representational apparatuswe develop (ii) hierarchicalstructure, category includes(i) morphologicalmarking, such as morphological for predicatesin this book does precisely that. iutfu.r manifestation agreement,and gender class, and (ii) word order. Beyond the Russian and Australian sourcescited above, analysis case, along similar lines has been the standard ^ssumption within Algonquian lin- Extensionresults in changesin the surfacemanifestation of a patternand which does guisticssince the pioneeringwork of Jones(1904, 1911)suggested that_prg- notinvolve immediate or intrinsicmodification of underlyingstructure. verb-V requenceJrepresentsome type of complex stem. Michaelson (1917: sequencesreflect a processof "loose composition", 50-52) argued that such As can be seen, reanalysis involves an alteration of content informa- that is to Jay a process that derives compound stems whose members retain tion, while extension concerns the manner in which content information is considerabie syntactic independence.Similarly within Ugric linguistics formally realized or exPressed. (1973 of some Vogul separablepreverbs that Rombandeeva 180) observes Harris and Campbell argue that these mechanismsare broadly opera- transitional function between word-formative affixes and "they evince a tive in historical changesand specifically evident in the development of par- words." This parallels the remarks of Solt6sz components of compound ticle-verb combinations of the sort presentedpreviously. For example, they (1959: Hungarian preverb-V constructions: 8) concerning demonstratethat within the Kartvelian family of Caucasian languages, exemplified by Svan and Georgian, there are numerous prefixed verb con- If certainprefixed verbs occupy a placebetween a compoundword and a derived structions that trace their origins to the combination of independent adver- word,the; from anotherperspective we mustlocate prefixed verbs along the border elementswith verbs. In several ways these constructions synchronically betweensyntagnata and compounds. bial still display different stages of development from independent elements to Similarly, Harris and Campbell argue that these mecha- In effect, the proposal in this book representsa formal reconstruction clitics, to affixes. are at ptay in the development of monoclausal from biclausal predi- of a pretheoreticalionsensus that predicates in many languages evince nisms cate constructions (see chapter 9 in the present book for an analysis of mismltches between their status as lexical items and their syntactic behav- causativeconstructions in which clausality plays a prominent role). iors. We treat synchronic instancesof such discrepanciesas the reflexes of a Whether one adopts some variant of the standard grammaticalization pervasive and well-documented tendency for certain types of syntactically hypothesesor the type of alternative proposed in Harris and Campbell, we independentelements to exhibit a historical development into lexical repre- believe that the representationsand assumptions of linguistic theory should sentations.This process is generally interpreted as grammaticalization [see be adaptable enough to reflect convergent patterns of diachronic develop- Steever(1993), Heine (1993), Hopper and Traugott (1993), and many oth- ment where they are attested. ers]. In addition, it is often observed, with requisite caveats [see Nevis Guided by the insights and observations of these historical and typo- (1988) on an analytic tendency in Estonian and Harris and Campbell logical studies, we will occasionally speculate that the surface form of par- (1995)1,that this historical change tends to display a unidirectional charac- ticular predicates in particular languages is due to factors involving di- ter toward creating synthetic units from analytic expressions. achronicchange and grammaticalization. From a synchronic theoretical perspective we have chosen to connect the cross-linguistic prevalence and consistency to the hypothesis that 2this view is alsoexpressed in an excellentarticle by B0rj-fus,Vincent, and Chapman(1996) evident in such historical development with respectto the syntheticversus analytic expressionof the morp_hosyntacticinformation many instances of reanalysis, in the sense provided, are best interpreted in traditionilly represenfedin paradigms.Oui proposalbears anatural affrnity with theirs in terms terms of the lexicalization in the form of analytically expressedpredicates of both some basic assuniptioni and ceriaid representationalcommitments. This will be particularlyevident in chafter 3 where we presentour reprcsentationsfor the information- of formerly syntactically related distinct predicates. theoreticaspects of predicates. 36I ATHEORYOF PREDICATES

7 Conclusions In this chapter we have discussed the synthetic and analytic expres_ sion of four predicate constructions involving alteration of various types of non-categorial information (Predicatett associatedwith a lexical representation. we The Construct have argued that the existence of a cross-linguistically r".uoing set of pred_ icate constructions which evince a unidirectional diachronic deveropment In the preceding chapter toward synthetic morphological we suggested that grammatical theory expression represents an instructive chal- represent the lenge for should notion predicate independent of iti surface expressioir theory constru-ctionwith respect to three important problems. The within particular languages.Discussing thi grammaticalization problr*, *" expressionproblem challenges the theoretician to tooi. purt obvious surface observedthat the predicate types of interest here exhibit a recurrEnt cross- differences between languages in order to see what is common between linguistic and diachronic profile: they tend to exhibit a unidirectional ten- them. In the service of this goal develop it raises the issue concerning the most ap_ dency to into morphophonologicalry integrated units from syntacti- posite and well-motivated independent elements. representation.This yields theproliferation prob- cally Pervasive parattetisms in this domain ,u**"r, lem since there is an understandable the possibili,ty that we may be dealing with desire on the part of theoreticians to be a natural class of entities.2 tio; parsimonious regarding generally, if the construct predicate representationarassumptions. sucrr parsimony is to be attributed a theoretical status, it yields proliferation often is to be expected that operations without obvious limit andiomewhat of grarnmar will appeal to it in much tLe more importantry way that sometimes without true explanatory same other theoretical constructs have beenmotivated empirically. force. Finally, what we have referred to as the grammaticalizatioi Accordingly, much of this chapter is devoted to an examination oi num"i- probtim sugg€sts that the expression of predi_ ous phenomena which seem to require appealing to the construct predicate cates falls into a small number of welidefined types *inu, representa_ in grammatical theory, independent of categoriality tional assumptions should and.*p."rribl" by u accordingry be developei to reflect this. single syntactic atom by multiple it is That is, 9r syntacticilly independentelements. desirable for our notions of leiical entries, ptrur" ,*rrur", and con_ Before examining the empirical evidence for a content-theoretic no_ structions to be representedin such predicate, a manner as to be ;;;r;;;;_ tion of it is.important to say a few things about traditional togica cipled correspondence with what "bb;; and generative linguistic we know about the morphological and interpretations of the lerm predicate in order to phrasal expressionsof predicates. better see how our use of the This is the position we deverop and argue term relates to them. we ihen turn to an inves_ for in the remainder tigation of this book. of both morphological and syntactic phenomena from numerous languages which motivate the theoreiicat neei for a linguistic construct predicate.

I Some Previous Views of predicates The functional division of clauses into subject and predicate has a venerable history. The standard interpretation tracei back to Aristotle where it corresponds to the bipartite division of proposition, into-rubject and pi"a_ icate. Following the disiussion in Kneale-andrnra" og6i: u):

may be takento indicateor refer to a numberof individuals rtourvery3: :lbj,".:-term dis_ oy expressmga pJop€rtyor group of propertieswhich theseindividuals have in common.fire copulattren e*piessesthi not further analyzablenotion of

nal ]rsourd for collaborationon someof thecen_ conceptualissues explorLi in tttiJ"rropi"r.' Se-- Ackermanffii;sJrfu (1997) sionrelating to sorrcissfes for discus- 'of consideredheri.- course' we anenot claiming that morphologization implies-that participating elementsare prcdicates:therc are numerousi-nstances oimorfirorogi-ttd;;iffi;;&-*1"r. observingthat the Rather,we ar' classof eleme"a intiipri"tifi;Edi ;il f;ft;;il""t reasons a tendencyto morphologize. exhibits