1. science
2. social science
3. linguistics

MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC: DIFFERENTIAL MARKING OF SHARED ARGUMENTS
WITH SECONDARY PREDICATES
Monica-Alexandrina Irimia
University of Toronto
[email protected]
I. ONE ‘SPECIFIC’ PROBLEM:
 the less often discussed observation that the shared argument of depictives and
ECM/raising variants of Adj.Preds must carry differential object marking (DOM)

remark particularly salient in languages which distinguish classes of objects
formally (as seen in the examples in 5) along the line of specificity

in such languages, specific1 (animate and human) objects carry more complex
morphological marking (obligatory presence of preposition-like elements,
accusative case marking, reflexivization, etc.) especially when indefinite (see
Aissen 2003, Bossong 1991, 1997, de Swart 2007, Iemmolo 2010, Irimia 2011,
López 2012, Öztürk 2010, Rodríguez-Mondoñedo 2007, Torrego 2008, etc.)
DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH:
- the marker a is obligatory with animate specific objects, and unfelicitous/ungrammatical
with inanimate DOs (irrespective of specificity)
(1)
a)
b)
SPANISH
Ha
encontrado
Have.3.SG2. found
‘S/he has met the girl.’
Ha
encontrado
Have.3.SG.
found
‘S/he has found the book.’
*(a)
DOM
la niña.
the girl.
(*a)
DOM
el libro.
the girl.
vs.
DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN ROMANIAN
- the marker pe (with clitic doubling) is obligatory with animate specific objects, and
impossible with inanimate DOs (irrespective of specificity)
(2)
a)
ROMANIAN
Văd
un
copil.
See.1. SG.
a
child.
‘I see some child or other.’
1
Chastain 1975, Donnellan 1966, 1978, Carlson 1977, Ioup 1977, Kripke 1977, Fodor and Sag 1982, Heim 1988,
Enç 1991, Ludlow and Neale 1991, Condoravdi 1992, Diesing 1992, de Hoop 1996, etc.: an entity is made
salient/identified/individualized within someone’s mind, but the audience does not/cannot precisely identify which
entity the mind has individualized.
2
ABBREVIATIONS: Acc. = accusative, Clt. = clitic, Comp. = complementizer, Cond. = conditional, Cplx. Pred. =
complex predicate, Dft. = default, Dir. Ev. = direct evidential, Ep. V. = epenthetic vowel, Ess. = essive, F. =
feminine, Hrs. = hearsay, IE. = indirect evidential, Impers. = impersonal, Impf. = imperfective, Indir. Ev. = indirect
evidential, Infer. = inferential, M(asc). = masculine, Nom. = nominative, Part. = partitive, Pl. = plural, Pres. =
present, Prog. = progressive, Pst. = past, Sg. = singular, Specf. = specific, Top. = topic marker;
Page 1 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
b)
c)
(3)
a)
b)
Îl
văd
Clt.3.sg.m.
see.1. SG.
‘I see a specific child.’
*(Îl)
văd
Clt.3.sg.m.
see.1. SG.
‘I see a specific train.’
pe
un
DOM a
copil.
child.
pe
un
DOM a
tren.
train.
HINDI-URDU
laṛke-ne
machli
kaa-i.
boy-ERG.
fish.F.SG.
eat-PFV.F.SG.
’The boy ate fish.’
laṛke-ne
machli-ko
kaa-i.
boy-ERG.
fish.F.SG.-DOM
eat-PFV.F.SG.
’The boy ate the fish/a specific piece of fish.’
Functions of the marker – ko, as described in classical grammar (Kahru 2006, Agnihotri 2007,
Jain 2007, Hook 1974, Koul 2008, etc.). For example, Kahru (2006, page 175):
- the noun (phrase) is unique; or
- the noun (phrase) is animate, especially human; or
- if inanimate, the noun (phrase) is definite and specific; or
- the noun phrase is used in the double transitive construction (i.e. with secondary
predicates or other Adj. predicates)
HOWEVER, when a depictive is added to the structure, the object is normally marked as
differential, irrespective of animacy:
(4)
a)
b)
c)
d)
(5)
ROMANIAN:
*Mănâncă
un
peşte crud. (unless the adjective has an attributive function)
Eat.3.SG.
a
fish raw.M.SG.
Îl
mănâncă
pe
(un) peşte crud.
CLT.3.SG.M. eat.3.sg.
DOM (a)
fish
raw.
‘S/he eats the fish raw.’
Îl
mănâncă
crud pe
(un) peşte.
CLT.3.SG.M. eat.3.sg.
raw
DOM (a)
fish.
‘S/he eats the fish raw.’
L-a
trimis pe
acest manuscris
neterminat.
CLT.3.SG.M.-has
sent. DOM this
manuscript
unfinished.
‘S/he sent the manuscript unfinished.’
HINDI
Admi
machli-ko/*Ø
[kacha
karaha
Man.M.SG.
fish.F.SG.-DOM. raw.M.SG.
eat.PRES.PRT.M.SG.
‘The man is eating/eats the fish/a specific piece of fish raw.’
(6)
SPANISH
Juan encontró
al
libro roto.
Juan found.3.sg.
DOM.the
book broken.
‘Juan has found the book broken.’
Page 2 of 19
hɛ.]
be.3.INDIC.PRES.M.SG.
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(7)
This requirement also encompasses the ECM variant of adjectival predicates:
OBLIGATORY DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING WITH THE ECM VARIANT
HINDI-URDU (INDO-IRANIAN)
a) admi
kitab-ko/*Ø
[acha
səməjhta
hɛ.]
man.M.SG.
book.DOM.
good.M.SG.
think.PRES.PRT.M.SG.
be.PRES.3.SG.
‘The man considers the/a book good.’ (a book >> consider; *consider>> a book)
SPANISH (ROMANCE)
b) El professor
consideró
a/*Ø
un
estudiante
intelligente.
The professor
considered
(a= DOM)
a
student
intelligent.
‘The professor considered a specific student intelligent.’ (a student >> consider)
ROMANIAN (ROMANCE)
c) Profesorul
îl/*Ø
consideră
pe/*Ø
un student deştept.
Professor.the
CLT.M.SG.
considers
(pe= DOM)
a student smart.
‘The professor considers a specific student smart.’
TURKISH (ALTAIC)
d) Ali bir
öḡrenc-i-yi/*Ø
zeki
bulu-yor.
Ali a
student-EP.V.-DOM/*Ø
intelligent
find-PRES.PROGR.3.SG.
‘Ali finds/considers a (specific) student intelligent.’ (a student >> find; *find>> a student)
ARABIC
e) *ʔəʕtəbiru
Ta:lib-ən
1.SG.consider
student-ACC.
f) ʔəʕtəbiru
Ta:lib-ən
1.SG.consider
student-ACC.
‘I consider a specific student lazy.’
kəsu:l-ən.
lazy-ACC.
bi-ʕəyni-hi
in-same-him
kəsu:l-ən.
lazy-ACC.
As will shown later, the ECM variants differ from infinitives in that the latter do tolerate the non
DOM-instantiation of a raised shared argument:
(8)
a)
SPANISH
Vimos
al
avión
estrellarse
contra la
montaña.
Saw.1.PL.
DOM.the
plane
crash
against the
mountain.
‘We saw the plane crash into the mountains.’
b)
Vimos
estrellarse
contra la
montaña
el
avión.
Saw.1.PL
crash
against the
mountain
the
plane.
‘We saw the plane crash into the mountains.’
(Ormazabal and Romero 2013 – if the shared argument stays low, it cannot receive DOM)
-
-
there is strong syntactic evidence that the DOM shared argument is found high, in the
domain of the matrix predicate at least under tests like interactions with negation,
binding, etc. (Lasnik 1999, Lasnik and Saito 1991, Postal 1974, Ormazabal and Romero
2013, Torrego 2008, etc.).
DOM status indicates that such arguments are generated high (no examples seem to be
found in which specific/animate objects are in a position below the matrix predicate)
Page 3 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, it is not the case that DOM is present whenever further modification of the shared
argument is present (via a relative clause, etc.).
GOALS OF THE WORK REPORTED HERE:
- assemble a large-scale typology of AdjSPs, especially focusing on argument realization
and specificity
a) identify commonalities
b) evaluate parametric differences
- put forward a formal analysis that can account for the typological results, and for
interactions with other important phenomena such as reconstruction, sentential
complementation, evidentials, differential marking, relativization, etc.
- investigate how diachronic data provides support/disconfirms a unified analysis
PROPOSAL:
 the DOM restriction is imposed by the functional structure around the matrix and






secondary predicates
A. the matrix predicate of ECM variants contains a v specified with evidential semantics
o typological survey shows the required overt presence of evidential markers in
such instances
lexical evidential head is merged above the matrix predicate
the presence of the evidential explains not only the cross-linguistic split weak/strong
(DOM), but also other crucial properties of such configurations
o obligatory entailments of direct/indirect evidence
B. the DOM restriction on objects with depictives results from a presupposition of
partitivity in the depictive functional head introducing the SP (Motut 2012)
a complex predicate analysis, involving the Multiple Checking operation can account for
the restriction
The current account also provides strong support for DOM analyses (e.g, López 2012)
which require both syntactic conditions (a position above V) and semantic principles to
derive specificity and differential marking, while avoiding the problems with scrambling
for the ECM variants.
II. DOM, SPECIFICITY AND SCOPE
- The special status of shared arguments with adjectival predicates has been noticed since
-
at least Williams (1983)
The question: why do shared arguments with depictives show similar types of
restrictions?
A) WILLIAMS’ (1983) PUZZLE
 unexpected lack of weak (non-specific) readings of indefinite shared arguments with nonadjunct adjectival predicates (AdjPs) under intensional predicates
Page 4 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(9)
SHARED ARGUMENTS OF ADJSPs MUST BE SPECIFIC
ENGLISH
a) A student seems sick.
= A specific student seems sick.
# Some student or other seems sick.
b) The professor considers a student intelligent.
= The professor considers a specific student intelligent.
# The professor considers some student or other intelligent.
JAPANESE (ALTAIC)
c) Aru
seito
ga
byooki rasii. (information obtained by hearsay)
Some
student
NOM. sick seems.
= ‘A specific student seems sick.’/ # ‘Some student or other seems sick.’
d) Sono
kyoozyu-wa
aru
seito-o
titeki-to
minas-u.
that
professor-TOP. some student-ACC. intelligent-COMP.
consider-PRES.
= ‘That professor considers a specific student intelligent.’
# ‘That professor considers some student or other intelligent.’
FINNISH (FINO-UGRIC)
e) Miehet
pitävät
oppilaita
ilois-i-na.
Man.PL.NOM.
consider-PRES.3.PL.
student-PART.PL.
happy-PL-ESS.
‘The men consider the/ specific students happy. (exception to the ACC case requirement)
-
Williams (1983) took these observations to be crucial when deciding the correct syntactic
analysis of ‘consider + Adj. predicate’ sequences
(10)
The professor considers a student intelligent.
a) Small clause
b) Complex predicate (one possible structure)
(Ignoring further structure inside the SC)
The professor considers [a student smart]SC The professor ___ a student [considers smart]CPXPRED
……..VP
ru
V
SC
g
ei
considers a student intelligent
……
v
ei
vCOMPLX.
V
ei
DP
V
a student
ei
V
AdjP
g
g
considers
intelligent
Starting with the beginning: why are the readings in (9) problematic?
 AdjSPs contrast with infinitives, which allow both specific and non-specific readings:
Page 5 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(11)
ENGLISH
A student seems to be sick.
= A specific student seems to be sick.
= A non-specific student seems to be sick.
[i.e., Some student or other seems to be sick]
 May (1977, 1985): interpretational distinctions of the type seen in (11) can be explained
structurally. The classic pattern:
(12)
ENGLISH
Some politician is likely to address John’s constituency.
(May 1985)
[12] may be taken as asserting either that
(i) there is a politician, e.g. Rockefeller, who is likely to address John’s constituency, OR
(ii) that it is likely that there is some politician (or other) who will address John’s
constituency. (May 1985)
(i)
= introduces a specific referent
= corresponds to a structure in which the DP is (interpreted) above the matrix predicate
(is) likely, as shown simplistically in (5)
= specificity associated with the wide scope of the shared DP
= simplified structure in (13)
(13) …………
ei
a student ei
seems
sick
wide scope reading
A student seems sick.
[A (specific) student seems sick]
a student >> seems
(ii)
= non-specific reading
= corresponds to a structure in which the DP is read off a configuration in which
the DP is below the predicate (is) likely, most probably inside the infinitival clause, as
in (9)
= a process of covert quantifier lowering inside/adjoined to the non-finite clause allows
the reconstruction of the (existential) quantifier in the embedded domain.
(14)
…. ei
Some politician
…………
ei
is likely
IPINFINITIVAL
ei
Narrow scope reading
[Some politician or other is likely to address
John’s constituency]
Likely >> some politician
to address John’s constituency
Quantifier lowering
Page 6 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shared arguments with AdjSPs do NOT allow the narrow scope reading with non-modal AdjSPs
(i.e., a structure in which the DP would be below the matrix predicate seem):
(15)
ei
a student
a student >> seem
WIDE SCOPE
OF QUANTIFIER
……..
ei
seem
S(MALL) C(LAUSE)
ei
<a student>
sick
Reading not possible!
Seem >> a student
NARROW SCOPE
OF QUANTIFIER (EXISTENTIAL READING)
 Williams (1983): the absence of narrow scope (existential) readings is to be attributed to
the fact that secondary predicates are NOT small clauses (contra Stowell 1981, 1983,
Chomsky 1981, etc.)
 the correct structure for secondary predicates, instead, should be along the lines in (16),
following Williams (1983):
(16)
…ei
a student
……..
ei
seem
sick
ei
a student
ei
consider
intelligent
MORE PUZZLES
B) PUZZLE OF THE ABSENT SQUIRE (Matushansky 2002, Toivonen and Asudeh 2012, etc.)
 the speaker must establish at least ‘mental contact’ with the ‘referent’ of the shared
argument; in many cases, visual, direct contact is obligatory:
(17)
I walked into the squire’s room when he wasn’t there. I saw medicine bottles,
Kleenexes, and smelled a foul, sickly stench.
a.
The squire seemed to be sick./ b. # The squire seemed sick.
II. PROPOSAL:
- the shared argument is introduced high, above the matrix predicate. Just like other
constructions involving verbs of perception and cognition, a v specified with evidential
semantics is present in the structure:
- The high position of the shared argument, as well as the evidential component account
for the DOM as well as ‘specificity’
Page 7 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(18)
……ei
v EVID
AspP
ei
Shared argument Asp
ei
a student
Asp
V
ei
V
g
SP
consider
intelligent
 this hypothesis receives support from correlations holding in the domain of secondary
predicates, as well as in the area of evidentiality
EVIDENTIALITY:
 encodes the nature of the evidence supporting a specific statement (Squartini 2001, 2005,
Aikhenvald 2004, Aikhenvald and Dixon 2003, Speas 2008, etc.)
Direct
Attested
Types of
Evidence
Reported
Auditory
Other sensory
Second hand
Third hand
Folklore
(hearsay)
Indirect
Inferring
Results
Reasoning
FIGURE 1. EVIDENTIAL TAXONOMY (WILLETT 1988:57)
 interactions and correlations with AdjSPs:
a)
in languages in which certain evidentiality types are morphologically encoded, AdjSPs
can only be merged with those intensional predicates that accept evidentiality marking:
-
robust facts from Romanian (20) – (25) where only indirect evidentiality (Squartini 2004,
Irimia 2009, 2010, 2013) is morphologically overt, constructed via the so-called
presumptive mood
Page 8 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
(20)
a)
b)
similarly to other languages, the presumptive mood is not possible with impersonal
predicates (20a) vs. (20 b)3, which take default (3 SG.) agreement:
ROMANIAN
Copi-i-i
se
pare
[că
Child-PL.-the.PL.
SE.IMPERS.
seem.3.SG.PRES.
that
plecat]CP.
left.
LIT. ‘The children, it seems that they have left’
‘It seems that the children have left.’
*Copi-i-i
s-ar
Child-PL.-the.PL.
SE.IMPERS.-COND=IE.HRS. 3.SG.PRES.
[că
<copiii>
au
plecat]CP.
that
children
have.3.PL.
plecat.
‘There is hearsay that it seemed that the children have left.’
<copiii> au
have.3.PL.
fi
be
părut
seemed
 if se pare is replaced with the personal/control form pare, which obligatorily agrees with the
subject, the IE is well-formed (20a and 20b vs. 21 and 22). See also Rizzi (1978, 1986)
(21)
Copi-i-i
par
[că
au
plecat/mâncat]CP.
Child-PL.-the.PL.
seem.3.PL.PRES. that
have.3.PL. left/eaten.
LIT. ‘The children seem that they left/The children seem that they have eaten.’
(22)
Copi-i-i
or
fi
părut
Child-PL.-the.PL.
seem.3.PL.PRES.IE.
be
seemed
plecat/mâncat]CP.
left/eaten.
‘It appears that the children seemed that they have left/eaten.
-
au
have.3.PL.
Adj.Ps cannot be constructed from the impersonal/raising ‘seem'
as shown in Alboiu (2002), Cornilescu (2004), Hill (2000) etc., the impersonal variant of
seem involves raising from an embedded finite/non-finite clause, while in the control version
the (shared) argument is base generated in the domain of the matrix perception intensional
predicate (see also Alboiu and Hill 2012 for similar diachronic remarks)
(23)
*Copi-i-i
se
pare
Child-PL.-the.PL.
SE
seem.3.SG.PRES.
LIT. ‘The children it seems happy.’
(24)
Copi-i-i
par
Child-PL.-the.PL.
seem.3.PL.PRES.
‘The children seem happy.’
3
[că
that
[<copiii>
bucuroşi]SC.
happy.M.PL.
bucuroşi.
happy.M.PL.
Examples in (16) illustrate A/A´ movement across a finite domain; see more in Alboiu (2002), etc.
Page 9 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(25)
Copi-i-i
or
fi
părând
Child-PL.-the.PL.
INFER.3.PL. be
seem.IMPERF.PRES.
‘I infer that the children seem/look happy.’
bucuroşi.
happy.M.PL.
 it is a stable cross-linguistic tendency of AdjP to be constructed from the control (copy
raising) variants only (in languages in which perception predicates alternate between the
two configurations). See also Iatridou (1990), Toivonen and Asudeh (2012), Landau
2009, Potsdam and Runner (2001), Rogers (1971)
 evidentials do not normally tolerate non-specific indefinites as objects under the scope of
the evidence, as seen in examples (26) from Romanian:
(26)
-
-
ROMANIAN
O
pisică ar
fi
dormind
sub
pat.
A
cat
COND.=IE.HRS.
be
sleep.IMPERF.PRES. under bed.
a)
‘There is hearsay/people say that a specific cat is sleeping under the bed.’
b)
# ‘There is hearsay that some cat or other is sleeping under the bed.’
evidentials have been argued to require widest scope; this restriction is nevertheless not
universal; crucially Japanese is an exception (see McCready and Ogata 2009 for discussion
from Japanese)
see example in (27), in which the negation cannot take scope over the IE and the SpecIndef:
(27)
ROMANIAN
O
pisică n-ar
fi
dormind
sub
pat.
A
cat
not- COND.=IE.HRS.
be
sleep.IMPERF.PRES. under bed.
IE > NEG; SpecINDEF > NEG
a) There is hearsay that a specific cat (or one cat) is not sleeping under the bed.
b) *There isn’t hearsay that a specific cat is sleeping under the bed.
c) *There is hearsay that some cat or other is not sleeping under the bed.
ARE NON-SPECIFIC READINGS EVER POSSIBLE?
- Yes, but only when the AdjSP is a modal adjective:
- the weak indefinite readings are obtained when he modal adjective takes scope over the
shared argument
(28)
ENGLISH
The president considers a senator necessary.
= the president considers a specific senator necessary
= the president considers some senator or other necessary
DEPICTIVES:
- in many languages depictives show overt dedicated morphology
- many analyses derive these facts by assuming that depictives contain a functional
projection specified with ‘overlap’ semantics (Geuder 2002, et al.)
Motut (2012):
Page 10 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
(29)
Dep employs the part-of relation, ≤, reminiscent of the part-of relation used in the
semantics of partitives.
Following Ladusaw (1982), the partitive constraint explains the restrictions on NP
complements of partitive of in (29). Individuals can be group individuals, like defnite
plurals, but bare plurals and mass nouns do not denote individuals; therefore, these NPs
are not felicitous as NP complements [of part].
[ofpart] : λx.λP.λy[P(y) ˄ y < x]
The Partitive Constraint can be stated ... by requiring that the NP in a partitive phrase
always denotes an individual" (Ladusaw 1982:238)
a) Two of the beers
b) *two of beer
(30)
c)
d)
*two of beers
some of the beer
Depictives and shared arguments:
a) John drank the beer warm.
b) ??/#John drank beer warm.
c) ??/# John drank beers warm.
= the evidential component, as well as the presupposition introduced by the Dep can explain the
strong/specific readings of the shared arguments
= the observation that DOM are always high arguments argues in favor of a complex predicate
analysis
But, if the shared argument is not introduced locally, a mechanism for constructing complex
predicates is needed:
-
The account proposed here elaborates on the process of Multiple Agree as discussed in
Hiraiwa (2004) with respect to derivationally simultaneous argumental agreement
(31)
MULTIPLE AGREE (multiple feature checking) with a single probe is a single simultaneous
syntactic operation; AGREE applies to all the matched goals at the same derivational
point derivationally simultaneously. (Hiraiwa 2004, page 38)
(32)
MULTIPLE AGREE (P, ∀G)
Agree is a derivationally simultaneous operation AGREE (P, ∀G)
P > G1 > .......> Gn
(33)
THE PRINCIPLE OF SIMULTANEITY
Apply operations simultaneously at a probe level.
Page 11 of 19
(Hiraiwa 2004, 2.9)
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
this paper extends the Multiple Agree operation to the domain of complex predicates:
(34) MULTIPLE AGREE AND COMPLEX PREDICATE FORMATION:
- Value the Pred (and other uninterpretable) features of (two) predicates
- Process realized simultaneously and initiated by a functional projection endowed
with the capacity of valuing and transmitting the relevant features of more than
one predicate (as in 34)
(35)
-
PRINCIPLE OF COMPLEX PREDICATE FORMATION
[uPredicate/uφ] features of more than one predicate in the same phase are checked
derivationally simultaneously by a probe which can establish an AGREE
relation with a goal containing the relevant interpretable [φ] features.
Multiple agreement initiated by a functional projection vCMPLX. Checking initiated at v,
instead of T (see also Béjar and Rezac 2009), in order to explain the common crosslinguistic object agreement patterns with such constructions, as well as their complex
predicate nature (anti-reconstruction patterns in the interpretation of shared arguments,
binding effects, etc.).
(36)
vCMPLX > G1 > ....> Pred1> ........Predn
MULTIPLE
AGREE OPERATION,
PREDICATES INTO A COMPLEX
responsible for
THE INTEGRATION OF INDEPENDENT
……….
qp
vCMPLX
ei
[u CMPLX ]
Shared argument ei
Sit0
Vconsider
Value u CMPLX
1.Agree
wp
V
DEP
Set 1 Set 2 …..
ei
2. Initiate Multiple Agree
DEP
a
uγ
uγ
ei
u #
u #
a
√
….
…..
[uPred]
[uγ]
[u#]
[uCase]…..
MORE ON THE DIACHRONIC EVIDENCE FOR AN EVIDENTIAL/ COMPLEX PREDICATE ANALYSIS
 Indo-European reconstruction: intensional predicates like consider with small clauses are
accompanied by a marker with apparent evidential function (Jasanoff 1978 )
Page 12 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Hindi-Urdu dialects have developed a variant of AdjSPs in which the AdjSP must bear
parasitic agreement covalued with the matrix predicate (Irimia 2013):
(37)
HINDI - URDU
laṛke
puraanii/*puraana kitaab-ko]DP
boy.M.Pl.
old.F.Sg./old.M.Sg. book.F.Sg.-Specf.
acche/*/??acchi/*/??accha samajhte
good.M.Pl.//F.Sg.//Dft. think.Pres.Prt.M.Pl.
‘The boys consider the old book good.’
(i) Subject [SC Objectφi AdjSPφi/Dft] V
(ii) Subjectφj [SC? Objectφi AdjSPφj] Vφj


.
be.Pres.3.Pl.
(Expected agreement pattern)
(Dialectal variety of Hindi-Urdu)
Examples like cannot be derived under a minimalist implementation of agreement
(Chomsky 2001, 2004), if a small clause structure is assumed
Moreover, they also demonstrate that Adj.Ps cannot involve the presence of PRO
(see also Landau); PRO would block parasitic agreement between the predicates
(Bhatt 2005, Bošković 1997)
 fluctuating nature of objects (Pintzuk 2005, Pintzuk and Taylor 2004, and variability
(Longobardi and Giorgi 1991, Longobardi 2001); however, diachronically nonfluctuating
DOM marking and syntax in Hindi-Urdu (Kachru 2006, etc.) and Turkish shared
arguments with AdjSPs (see Taylan 2001)
 Some observations from Farsi: verb ‘think’ could select an AdjSP and an evidential
marking. Recategorization of the primary predicate to selecting an infinitive, but the
evidential appears to be lost (Irimia, in progress)
THANK YOU!
Comments are highly appreciated
REFERENCES:
Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural language semantics. 2, 83-135.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and Dixon, R.M.W. (eds.). 2003. Studies in evidentiality.
Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 21:435–448.
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan. 1988. The acquisition of aspect and modality. Cambridge University Press.
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2002. The features of movement in Romanian. University of Bucharest Press.
Page 13 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alboiu, Gabriela and Virginia Hill. 2012. Evidentiality and the dual A/A-bar nature of Romanian
raising to object. Ms. (available on first author’s webpage)
Alboiu, Gabriela and Virginia Hill. 2012. Verb movement in the Moldavian chronicles. DiGS 13
Proceedings.
Biberauer, Theresa (ed.). 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics
Today. John Benjamins.
Baker, Mark. 2001. The atoms of language. Basic Books. New York.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory. 19: 503-548.
Bošković, Želijko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. Mouton de Gruyter.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in
Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance
Languages 1988, eds. D. Wanner and D. Kibbee, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bossong, Georg. 1997. Le Marquage Différentiel de L'Objet dans les Langues d'Europe.
In Actance et Valence dans les Langues d'Europe, ed. J. Feuillet, 193–258. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyte.
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cavalli Sforza, Luca. 2010. Genes, peoples and languages. North Point Press. New York.
Chastain, Charles. 1975. Reference and context. In Gunderson K., (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, vol. VII: Language, mind, and knowledge. University of Minnesota
Press, Chicago.
Chomsky, Noam. 1955/1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York. Plenum.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht. Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. Praeger. New York.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT Press.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1992. Strong and weak novelty and familiarity. Proceedings of SALT II, 1737.
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2004. Direct Object movement and the Structure of the Romanian left
periphery.’ In Martine Coene, Gretel De Cuyper and Yves D’Hulst (eds.) Antwerp Papers
in Linguistics (APiL) 7: Current Studies inComparative Romance Linguistics, pp. 141-166.
De Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking, University of Nijmegen:
PhD Dissertation.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT Press.
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical review, 75, 281304.
Donnellan, Keith S. 1978. Speaker reference, descriptions, and anaphora. In Cole, P. (ed.),
Syntax and semantics, vol. 9, pp. 47-68. Academic Press, New York.
Enç, Murvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-26.
Fodor, Janet D. and Ian Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistic and
philosophy, 5, 355-98.
Fodor, Janet D. 1970. The Linguistic description of opaque contexts. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
Fox, Danny and John Nissenbaum. 2004. Condition A and scope reconstruction. In Linguistic
Inquiry 35.3: 475-485.
Page 14 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Givón, Talmy. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia
Linguistica Historica II/I. Societas Linguistica Europea.
Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure.
Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT Press.
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York and
London. Garland. Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics Series.
Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547-570.
De Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case configurationality and noun phrase interpretation. New York and
London. Garland. Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics Series.
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. The past, the possible and the evident. Linguistic Inquiry 21.
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking. Evidence from Romance
and beyond. Studies in Language 34:2, 239–272.
Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and
philosophy 1, 233-245.
Irimia, Monica - Alexandrina. 2009. How to disambiguate an evidential construct? Taxonomy
and compositionality of Romanian complexes with evidential semantics. STUF - (Journal of)
Language Typology and Universals, 63:4, 322-332.
Irimia, Monica - Alexandrina. 2010. Some remarks on the indirect evidential nature of the
Romanian presumptive. In Bok-Benema, Reineke, Brigitte Kampers-Mahne, Bart
Hollebrandse (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory. Selected papers from “Going
Romance”, Groningen, pp. 125-144. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/New
York.
Irimia, Monica - Alexandrina. 2011. Secondary predicates. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Toronto.
Irimia, Monica - Alexandrina. 2013. Indirect evidentiality and related domains: some
observations from the current evolution of the Romanian presumptive. In Labeau, Emanuelle
(eds.), Evolution of Romance Tenses.
Irimia, Monica - Alexandrina. 2013. Multiple agreement and secondary predicates in HindiUrdu. To appear in Journal of South Asian Linguistics.
Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins.
Kamp, Hans and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: introduction to model theoretic
semantics of natural language. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
Kim, Jong Bok and Peter Sells. 2010. Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean.
Studies in language 34, 602-635.
Jasanoff, Jay. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck.
Johanson, Lars, and Utas, Bo (eds.). 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranic, and neighbouring
languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter..
Nichols, Joanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time.
Kartunnen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In McCawley, J. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 7,
363-85. Academic Press. New York.
Kiparski, Paul. 1998. Partitive Case and Aspect. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.),
Projecting from the Lexicon. Stanford, CA. CSLI.
Kripke, Saul. 1977. Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In French, P. et al. (eds.),
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Epstein, Samuel David, and Norbert Hornstein
(eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 189-215. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.
The MIT Press.
Page 15 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Landau, Idan. 2009. This construction looks like a copy is optional. Linguistic Inquiry. 40 (2).
343-346.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. Structure of DPs: principles, parameters and problems. In Baltin,
Mark and Chris Collins (eds.), Handbook of syntactic theory, pp. 562-603. Blackwell,
Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK.
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Ludlow, Peter and Stephen Neale. 1991. Indefinite descriptions in defense of Russell. Linguistics
and Philosophy. 14, 71-2012.
Matushansky, Ora. 2002. Tipping the scales: The syntax of scalarity in the complement of seem.
Syntax 5: 219-276.
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT
Press.
McCready, Eric & Ogata, Naori. 2007. Evidentiality, modality, and epistemic probability.
Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2): 147-206
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
McNulty, Elaine. 1988. The syntax of adjunct predicates. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Connecticut.
Moulton, Keir. 2013. Raising from the dead. Linguistic Inquiry. 44.1.
Motut, Alexandra. 2012. A semantics for object oriented depictives. Ms. University of Toronto.
Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pintzuk, Susan. 2005. The syntax of objects in Old English, in Batllori, M. and Roca, F.
(eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric change, pp. 251-266. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pintzuk, Susan and A. Taylor. 2004. Objects in Old English: why and how early English isn't
Icelandic, York Papers in Linguistics 1, 137-150.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPS. In Joshi, A. et al. (eds.), Linguistic
structure and discourse setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: an inquiry into one rule of English and its theoretical
implications. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.
Potsdam, Eric, and Jeffrey Runner. 2001. Richard Returns: Copy-Raising and its Implications. In
Proceedings of CLS 37, ed. by Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston and
Sylvain Neuvel, 453-468. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Rapoport, Tova R. 1993a. Stage and adjunct predicates: licensing and structure in secondary
predication constructions. In Reuland, Eric and Werner Abraham (eds.), Knowledge of
language, vol. II. Lexical and conceptual structure, 157-182. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Press.
Rapoport, Tova R. 1993b. Verbs in depictives and resultatives. In James Pustejovsky (ed.)
Semantics and the Lexicon, 163-184. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Keyser, Samuel, Jay. Recent
transformational studies in European languages, pp. 113-158. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On chain formation. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics
(Syntax and semantics 19). New York. Academic Press.
Page 16 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The Syntax of Objects. Agree and Differential Object
Marking, University of Connecticut: PhD Dissertation.
Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three Kinds of Physical Peception Verbs. In Proceedings of CLS 7, ed. by
Douglas Adams et al., 206-222. Chicago: Univesrity of Chicago.
Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation. Massachussets
Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Published by Indiana Linguistic Club 1985.
Rothstein, Susan. 2001. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht. Kluwer.
Rothstein, Susan. 2003. Secondary predication and aspectual structure. In Lang, Eva et al. (eds.),
Handbook on adjuncts. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter.
Rothstein, Susan. 2006. On secondary predication. In Everaert, M. and H. van Riemsdjik. (eds.),
The syntax companion, vol.3. Oxford. Blackwell.
Slobin, Dan I. and Ayhan A. Aksu. 1982. Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the English
evidential. In Hopper, Paul I. (ed.), Tense-aspect: between semantics and pragmatics, pp.
186-200. Typological studies in language, vol.1. John Benjamins.
Speas, Margaret. 2008. ‘On the syntax and semantics of evidentials’ Language and linguistics
compass. 2/5: 940-965.
Squartini, Mario. 2001. ‘The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance‘, In Studies in
language. 25(2): 297-334.
Squartini, Mario. 2005. ‘L’evidentialità in rumeno e nelle altre lingue romanze’. Zeitschrift für
romanische Philologie21(2): 246-268.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2001. Semantic versus syntactic reconstruction. In Kamp, Hans, Antje
Rossdeutcher and Christian Rohrer, Linguistic form and its computation, pp. 145-182.
Stanford, California. CSLI Publications.
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Stowell, Tim. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review. 2, 285-312.
Stowell, Tim. 1986. Null antecedents and proper government. In Berman, S. et al. (eds.),
Proceedings of the Sixtinth Annual Meeting, NELS. GLSA. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Raising in Irish, and the projection principle. Natural language and
linguistic theory 7: 317-359.
Stowell, Tim. 1991. Small clause restructuring. In Freidin, Robert (ed.). Principles and
parameters in comparative grammar, pp. 182-219. Cambridge. Massachusetts. MIT Press.
Taylan, Eser E. 2001 (ed.). The verb in Turkish. John Benjamins.
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 34.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Vainikka, Anne. 1993. Three structural cases in Finnish, in A. Holmberg & U. Nikanne (eds.),
Case and other Topics in Finnish Syntax, pp. 129- 159. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Holland.
Toivonen, Ida and Ash Asudeh. 2012. Copy raising and perception. Natural language and
linguistic theory.
Webelhuth, Gert (ed.). 1995. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program.
Principles and Parameters in syntactic theory. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA. Blackwell.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. ‘A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality’.
Studies in language. 12: 51-97.
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry.14.2: 287-293.
Page 17 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT
Press.
Winkler, Susanne. 1997. Secondary predication and focus. Mouton de Gruyter.
Yeom, Jae-Il. 1998. A presuppositional analysis of specific indefinites. Common grounds as
structured information states. New York and London. Garland. Outstanding dissertations in
Linguistics Series.
Yokoyama, Tomohiro. 2013. Small clauses: evidence from Japanese. Proceedings of the
Canadian Linguistics Association.
Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 1992. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural
language semantics. 1: 149-180.
APPENDIX A
WEAK
STRONG READINGS
READINGS
- EXISTENTIAL:
(a) Unicorns were eating grass
[There were unicorns eating grass]
-
- SPECIFIC/REFERENTIAL
(a) The unicorns were eating grass.
(b) Those unicorns were eating grass.
(c) A friend of mine is a biologist.
EXISTENTIAL readings of quantifiers like
MANY, FEW, SOME
(a) There were many people in the room.
(b) There were few people writing poems.
(c) Some people drink a lot.
[There are people who drink a lot]
- CARDINAL readings (of numerals)
(a) There were three kids in the lounge.
- MASS nouns
(a) There was sugar all over the counter.
- PARTITIVE
(a) Many students enjoy linguistics.
Many of the students…]
(b) Few students like snakes.
[Few of the students]
(c) Three kids liked snakes
Three of the kids…]
- GENERIC
(a) Unicorns eat grass.
(b) A unicorn is a mammal.
- GENERIC COLLECTIVE
(a) Five books are always better than two.
TABLE 1: STRONG VS. WEAK READINGS OF NPs
APPENDIX B - LIST OF LANGUAGES
Albanian
Albanian
Armenian
Armenian
Basque
Celtic
Irish
Welsh
Fino-Ugric
Estonian
Finnish
Hungarian
Germanic
English
Page 18 of 19
MONICA IRIMIA
MAY 27TH, 2013
HOW TO BE SPECIFIC
SECONDARY PREDICATES IN FORMAL FRAMEWORKS, UTRECHT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
German
Icelandic
Hellenic
Greek
Indo Aryan
Hindi-Urdu
Iranian
Persian
Kartvelian
Georgian
Romance
French
Italian
Latin
Romanian
Spanish
Japanese
Korean
Mayan
Q’anjob’al
Tzotzil
Salish (restricted examples)
Halkomelem
Sino-Tibetan
Cantonese Chinese
Mandarin Chinese
Balto - Slavic
Russian
Lithuanian
Bulgarian
Polish
Czech
Ukrainian
Sino-Tibetan
Mandarin Chinese
Cantonese Chinese
Thai
Turkic
Turkish
Page 19 of 19