Secondary Predication Resultatives, depictives and Talmian patterns

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA; MARÍN, RAFAEL

Paris

Conferencia; Language in Contrast; 2015

University Paris VIII

1. IntroductionOn the matter of secondary predication, a massive amount of work hasbeen directed towards the fact that resultative constructions ((1)a) are afar more productive construction in languages like English vs. Romanceand the relevant correlation that this shows with respect to the eventintegration patterns noted since Talmy (1985) i.a.. In contrast, depictivesecondary predicates [DEP] (e.g. (1)b) have received considerably lessattention.2. GoalWe will attempt to broaden the focus of these earlier efforts toencompass DEPs by focusing on relevant connections between types ofsecondary predication (resultative/depictive) and the semanticcomponent encoded in V (manner vs. direction conflation patterns). Wewill also push this approach further to capture the fact that Englishresorts to an adverbial element to express what is conveyed by thedepictive AP predicate in Spanish (2), a language belonging to adifferent type according to the Talmian typology.3. DataAs a first step in our research, we will compare English and Spanishdepictive constructions found in the ACTRES parallel corpus (Izquierdoet al., 2008). The constructions paired are [internal]subject-related (theyencode a state/property of the DP); they are complements/attributes(encode an overt or covert element articulating a SC-like configuration);Language in Contrast59they are omissible. They part ways on the temporal/eventive situation ofthe state (DEPs characterize the DP in relation to the process denoted bythe verb, ??but as a concomitant, not a result, of the process? (Halliday,1967:63)).(1) a. The river run dry. Cf. *El rio corrió seco.b. John entered the room naked. Juan entró a la habitacióndesnudo.(2) a. Juan entró {arrogante/arrogantemente}.b. Juan came in {*arrogant/*boastful/arrogantly/boastfully}4. AnalysisAssuming that Spanish conflates the directional component in the verb,the secondary predication can remain a non-directional relation;accordingly, the reading is depictive rather than resultative. By contrast,as English typically leaves the directional component to be expressed bya satellite element (AP); hence, the fact that secondary predicate gets aresultative reading is expected. Pairings like (3) suggest so: whereas inEnglish the sequence DP-ergative verb-AP renders a (long-studied)resultative construction; in the Spanish construction the AP only gets toconvey the state/manner in which the subject traverses the path conflatedin the verb (oddities remaining strictly conceptual/encyclopaedic).Eventually, English admits DEPs with (Latin) borrowed path-conflatedverbs; however, the construction is restricted to few specific APs (4)and, crucially, the state rendered is (unlike Romance DEPs) notcoextensive with the event conveyed by V (rather, initial/result statesapparently not viable in Spanish).(3) a. Men {go/ run/ grow} wild, violent, crazy, loose, indifferent.b. Los hombres {van/ corren/ crecen} salvajes, violentos, locos,sueltos, indiferentes.(4) a. He entered the room {naked/ *triumphant/ *quiet/ unprepared/uninvited/ unannounced}.b. Entró al cuarto {desnudo/ triunfante/ callado/ desprevenido/*(sin estar) invitado/ anunciado}.5. ConclusionsThe data analysed indicates that the relation between secondarypredication and event (manner/direction) integration patterns may bemuch more relevant and generalizable than often assumed, both insyntactic and semantic terms.ReferencesHalliday, M.A.K.1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal ofLinguistics 3: 37?81.Izquierdo, M., Hofland, K., & Reigem, Ø.2008 The ACTRES parallel corpus: An English-Spanish translationcorpus. Corpora 3(1): 31-41.Talmy, Leonard1975 Semantics and syntax of motion. Syntax and Semantics 4: 181-238.