Building Resultatives in Icelandic Matthew Whelpton University of Iceland

Transcription

1 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 1 1 Introduction Building Resultatives in Icelandic Matthew Whelpton University of Iceland This paper considers how Kratzer s (2005) analysis of adjectival resultatives in German, such as the example in (1), extends to Icelandic. (1) die Teekanne leer trinken the teapot empty drink to drink the teapot dry It evaluates two key hypotheses: that resultative adjectives must be uninflected; and that only unergative or unergative-like verbs can occur with adjectival resultatives. It also considers an important premise of Kratzer s account that adjectival resultatives are different from PP directionals, as she puts it (Kratzer 2005: 179): Inclusion of directionals in discussions of resultatives has obscured important generalizations that emerge clearly once we restrict our enterprise to resultatives built from adjectives. One finding of this paper is that there is indeed a difference between PP resultatives and AP resultatives in Icelandic but it will be shown that the distinction holds for PP change-of-state resultatives versus AP change-of-state resultatives as well; it will also be suggested that when AP resultatives express locational relations they can pattern with PPs. Kratzer s analysis is of particular interest from the point of view of linguistic interfaces as its central proposal concerning a causative analysis of resultatives is formulated in such a way that it ties together tightly the contributions of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics/natural language metaphysics. In brief, Kratzer draws together a radical version of the raising hypothesis for resultatives (cf. Hoekstra 1988) with the typological correlation observed by Snyder (1995:, 2001) between resultative formation and root compounding by offering a causativisation analysis for adjectival resultatives. The causativisation and serialisation processes involved are given an explicit formal semantic account; and the nature of the causation underlying the zero causative morpheme is explicitly discussed. Data from Icelandic proves to be of particular interest in assessing this account and this paper draws on data from Whelpton (2006); the current paper expands on Whelpton (to appear). Although no formal alternative analysis will be offered, a number of critical elements for such an analysis will be suggested. 2 Kratzer s analysis The first step in Kratzer s analysis is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: small clause formation

2 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 2 The DP die Teekanne the teapot is merged with the adjective leer empty ; the DP is interpreted as the holder of the state denoted by the adjective. The resulting AP is a property of states. Within Kratzer s compositional semantics this is the equivalent of a small clause in Hoekstra s account. The DP cannot check Case in this configuration; for this to happen, the AP must be merged as the complement of V so that the DP can raise to object and check its Case in the functional projection of the verb. Merging AP with V at this point however will produce a semantic problem, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Merging AP with V The AP die Teekanne leer the teapot empty is a property of states; the V trinken drink is a property of actions. An attempt to combine these by identifying s with e will produce as a denotation the empty set (nothing is both a state and an event). To solve the problem, the AP denotation must be converted to an event property denotation exactly like that of V. Kratzer follows Bittner (1999) in assuming that this conversion occurs by a process of causativisation, as the resultative does indeed have a causative meaning (the action denoted by the main verb, e.g. the drinking, causes or more precisely in Kratzer s terms, is equivalent to the causation of the adjectival state, e.g. the teapot being empty). However, she rejects Bittner s purely compositional type-shift rule on the grounds that rules of composition should be content-neutral and only individual formatives should be allowed to introduce lexical content (such as a description of causation). Instead, she argues that the causativisation rule is triggered by a zero affix which merges with the AP and which attracts and compounds with the adjectival head. This is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Compounding of A and CAUSE AP is merged with a zero verbal head which is a type-shifting causative affix. It converts the AP property of states into a property of events, such that the relevant event is an event in which the adjectival state is caused to obtain. Syntactically, A raises to the causative V and compounds with it. This new compound V has a denotation which is suitable for merger with the main verb, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Serialisation of causative V and main V

3 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 3 Within Kratzer s system, the rule composing the two denotations is a serialisation rule. It involves simple unification of the two predicates by identification of variables and conjunction. This process requires that the serialised predicates have identical denotation types. As both predicates here must be simple event properties, the main verb must be intransitive (external arguments in Kratzer s system are added by higher functional structure). This semantic requirement also provides a syntactic solution to a syntactic problem: Case-checking for the complement of the Adjective. The complement of A can raise to be object of main V. This account is based on two important hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 All resultative adjectives are compounded with a derivational CAUSE affix and then serialised with the verb THEREFORE adjectives cannot have inflectional structure. Hypothesis 2 All verbs appearing with adjectival resultatives behave as unergatives transitives and unaccusatives do not occur with adjectival resultatives. This paper will consider each hypothesis in turn with respect to data from Icelandic. 3 Hypothesis 1 The Uninflected Adjective Hypothesis Kratzer cites Fabricius Hansen (p.c.) for pointing out problems with Hypothesis 1 from Norwegian, where adjectives can bear an inflectional affix (neuter agreement). This paper elaborates that challenge with data from Icelandic where predicational adjectives inflect richly. Nouns in Icelandic inflect according to Gender (Masculine (m), Feminine (f) and Neuter (n)), Case (Nominative (N), Accusative (A), Dative (D) and Genitive (G)) and Number (Singular (S) and Plural (P)). (2) hesta_map = Masculine, Accusative, Plural Not only attributive adjectives but also predicational adjectives agree with Nouns in Number, Gender and Case. (3) Hestarnir eru svartir. (Copular predication) horses_the_mnp are black_mnp the horses are black (4) Mér finnst hestar sætir. (Small Clause Complement) I_D find horses_mnp cute_mnp I think horses cute (5) Við kláruðum kjötbollurnar kaldar. (Depictive predication) We_N finished meatballs_the_fap cold_fap We finished the meatballs cold (6) Ég kýldi lögguna kalda. (Resultative predication) I_N punched cop_the_fas cold_ fas I punched the cop out cold Resultative adjectives with full predicational inflection can be found in Icelandic with each of the major verb classes: transitive, unergative and unaccusative. (7) Járnsmiðurinn hamraði málminn flatan. (transitive verb) blacksmith_the hammered metal_the_mas flat_mas the blacksmith hammered the metal flat (8) Dóra æpti sig hása. (unergative verb) Dóra screamed herself_fas hoarse_fas Dóra screamed herself hoarse

4 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 4 (9) Hann fraus fastur í ísnum. (unaccusative verb) he_mns froze stuck_mns in ice_the he froze stuck in the ice Recall that in Kratzer s account the adjective cannot bear inflection because it is compounded with a (zero) affix and must therefore be bare and uninflected (derivational compounding occurs before inflectional agreement). Despite the full agreement on resultative adjectives in Icelandic, it is nevertheless the case that when overt compounding does occur, as in the formation of adjectival passives which incorporate resultative adjectives, then the resultative adjective must indeed be bare of inflection. (10) svartlitaður black-coloured_mns (11) þunnsneiddu sveppirnir thin-cut_mnp mushrooms_mnp_the_mnp (12) fínmuldu piparkornin fine-ground_nnp peppercorns_nnp_the_nnp (13) hreinskrúbbuðu pönnurnar clean-scrubbed_fnp pans_fnp_the_fnp (14) mjúkbrædda súkkulaði soft-melted_nns chocolate_nns Here the compounded adjective is in root form and only the participle inflects. This suggests that compounded resultatives adjectives and free resultative adjectives are not formed by the same process in Icelandic the compounded version must have bare roots and the free version must have full inflection. Furthermore, there are marked contrasts in productivity between the resultative construction and the availability of compound adjectival passives based on resultatives. Although compounding of colour adjectives with adjectival passives formed on the verb mála (paint) is common as in (16), those based on sprauta (spray) are not, as in (18). (15) Hann málaði bílinn hans rauðan. he painted car_mas_the_mas his red_mas he painted his car red (16) rauðmálaður bíll red-painted_mns car-mns a red-painted car (17) Hann sprautaði bílinn hans rauðan. he sprayed car_mas_the_mas his red_mas he sprayed his car red (18) *rauðsprautaður bíll red-sprayed_mns car-mns a red-sprayed car The lexical idiosyncracy of compounding versus the regularity of syntactic resultative formation shows up particularly clearly with main verbs which compound a resultative adjective. Contra Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: 45), who offer (19) as a well-formed example in Icelandic, (19) is marginal for most speakers and attempts to use other colour adjectives is in most cases sharply out, as for instance in (20). (19)??Hann hvítmálaði húsið. he white-painted house_the he painted the house white

5 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 5 (20) *Hann rauðmálaði bílinn hans. he red-painted car_the his he painted his car red Significantly, the marginally-acceptable compound based on hvít- (white) does occur in a number of verbs but in some of those it has undergone semantic drift, as in (21). (21) Hann hvítþvoði gólfið. he white-washed floor_the_nas he washed the floor extremely clean hvít- here means extremely clean not white. These, together with other examples in Whelpton (2006), suggest that compounding of resultative adjectives is a different, more restricted and even more lexically idiosyncratic process than is involved with the formation of syntactic resultatives. One approach to such counterexamples is to argue that the examples in question are not really proper resultatives (involving direct secondary predication) at all but rather are examples of adverbial usage. This is an approach that Kratzer explores in response to some apparent counterexamples to her approach by observing that adjectives can be used adverbially and that adverbial uses are not truly resultative. Such an observation is certainly relevant to compounded examples like (12), repeated here as (22), given that the English equivalent would use an explicitly adverbial form. (22) fínmuldu piparkornin fine-ground_nnp peppercorns_nnp_the_nnp finely-ground peppercorns In fact, Icelandic does indeed make adverbial use of adjectives with resultative-like readings, especially in examples like (12); however, in such cases, the adverbial function triggers a default agreement form (neuter accusative singular) rather than a full predicational agreement form (though most speakers do find the agreeing form marginally acceptable). (23) Hann muldi piparkornin fínt. he ground peppercorns_the_nap fine_ nas he ground the peppercorns finely (24) Hvítlaukurinn er saxaður nokkuð gróft Garlic_the_mNS is chopped rather coarse_nas the garlic is chopped rather coarsely This means, however, that it is unconvincing to use the adverbial argument to dismiss counterexamples containing fully inflected adjectives because one would expect default agreement for adverbial uses. The problem for the compounding account set out above therefore still holds. The conclusion is that Hypothesis 1 fails for Icelandic. It is not the case that resultative adjectives in Icelandic are uninflected, even though their compounded equivalents (where available) are uninflected. The inflection itself is real predicational agreement and not adverbial agreement. Therefore the resultative construction cannot involve covert compounding of the adjective with a causative affix in the way that Kratzer describes. 4 Hypothesis 2 The Unergatives Only Hypothesis The second hypothesis upon which Kratzer s account is based is that only unergative verbs (and verbs which can act as unergatives by dropping their object) can participate in the resultative construction. Here Icelandic provides both challenges and support. Resultatives with an unergative verb and reflexive object are extremely productive in Icelandic, allowing broad use within particular subclasses of verb, as is nicely shown in (25).

6 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 6 (25) að öskra, tromma, klappa og stappa sig brjálaðan to scream drum clap and stamp oneself_mas crazy_mas to scream, drum, clap and stamp yourself crazy In some cases, the construction is so productive that it allows creative metaphorical extension. Resultatives involving a verb of vocal production and the resultative adjective hás (hoarse), as in (26), are extremely productive, so productive that Whelpton (2006) offers the example in (27), taken from a blog, which has an inanimate subject for hás (hoarse). (26) Dóra æpti sig hása. Dóra screamed herself_fas hoarse_fas Dóra screamed herself hoarse (27) Síminn getur bara hringt sig hásan. phone_the can just ring itself_mas hoarse_mas the phone can just ring itself hoarse However, the restriction to reflexive object is extremely strong in Icelandic. None of the standard examples in the literature of unergatives with disjoint reference objects (cf (28) and (29)) translate naturally into Icelandic and I have found no convincing examples. (28) *Hundurinn gelti hann vakinn/vakandi. dog_the barked him_mas awoken_mas/awake the dog barked him awake (29) *Háværa klukkan tifaði barnið vakið/vakandi. noisy clock_the ticked child_the_nas woken_nas/awake The noisy clock ticked the child awake Whelpton (2006) does offer an example of an adjectival resultative with an unergative verb and a pronoun referring to a body part. (30) Ég svaf hana [öxlina] flata í fyrrinótt I slept it_fas [shoulder] flat_fas in night-before-last I slept it [my shoulder] flat the night before last However, this is the exception which proves the rule as body-part reference is not truly disjoint. Further, this example is taken from a blog and most native speakers who were asked for a grammaticality judgement considered it marginal at best. Whelpton (2006) also footnotes a sexual example taken from the internet which is far too crude to repeat here but which technically has a disjoint reference object: however, the context makes it clear, shall we say, that the two bodies have become one. No examples with simple disjoint reference objects have been found. These exceptional examples suggest that the restriction is not that the object must be a grammatical reflexive but rather that the object be inherently effected by the main event in a way which only reflexives will normally guarantee. This in itself suggests that the simple raising analysis cannot be correct i.e. the subject of resultative predication is not completely independent semantically of the unergative verb of which it becomes object. Given this strong restriction on the objects of unergative verbs with adjectival resultatives, it is hard to simply treat apparently transitive verbs are really being used unergatively because they freely allow disjoint-reference objects. (31) Hún lakkaði kúplingsdiskinn rauðan she lacquered clutch-disc_the_mas red_mas she lacquered the clutch disc red

7 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 7 (32) Járnsmiðurinn hamraði málminn flatan. blacksmith_the hammered metal_the_mas flat_mas the blacksmith hammered the metal flat (33) að nudda þá slétta to rub them_map smooth_map to rub them smooth (34) Hann skrúbbaði pönnurnar hreinar. he scrubbed pans_the_fap clean_fap he scrubbed the pans clean The (at least potential) transitivity of these verbs appears to make a difference here, in that it is sufficient to allow the object to refer freely, as it would without the resultative. (35) Hún lakkaði kúplingsdiskinn she lacquered clutch-disc_the_mas she lacquered the clutch disc (36) Járnsmiðurinn hamraði málminn. blacksmith_the hammered metal_the_mas the blacksmith hammered the metal (37) að nudda þá to rub them_map to rub them (38) Hann skrúbbaði pönnurnar. he scrubbed pans_the_fap he scrubbed the pans clean The same is apparently true of potentially transitive verbs with unselected objects, suggesting that it is not thematic role/interpretation assignment per se which matters here but transitivity/case-assigning properties. (39) [Hann] reif hurðina opna he tore door_the_fas open_fas he tore the door open (40) Þeir dældu hana fulla af lyfjum they pumped her_fas full_fas of drugs They pumped her full of drugs Although the productivity of adjectival resultatives with unergatives and the occurrence of unselected objects with transitive resultatives suggests that the raising hypothesis might be correct, it does not in its current form account for the reflexivity restriction on unergative objects and its absence in transitives. Another apparently serious challenge to the raising hypothesis comes from the occurrence of unaccusative resultatives, as in (41). (41) Hann fraus fastur í ísnum. he_mns froze stuck_mns in ice_the he froze stuck in the ice However, when a broader range of examples is considered, Icelandic in fact provides much more direct support for the unergatives-only hypothesis than English. Most examples of adjectival resultatives with unaccusative verbs are ungrammatical. (42) *Tjörnin fraus gegnheil. lake-the froze solid the lake froze solid

8 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 8 (43) *Ísinn fraus svo harður að við gátum ekki tekið hann upp með skeiðinni. icecream_the_mns so hard_mns that we could not take it up with spoon_the the icecream froze so hard that we couldn t scoop it out with the spoon (44)?*Súkkulaðið bráðnaði silkimjúkt. chocolate_the_nns melted silky-smooth_nns the chocolate melted silky smooth (45) *Pakkinn rifnaði opinn á hornunum. package_the_mns tore open_mns at corners_the the package tore open at the corners In most (but not all) cases, the transitive-causative equivalents of these sentences are also ill-formed or at best marginal. (46)??Hann frysti ísinn svo harðan að við gátum ekki tekið hann upp með skeiðinni. he froze icecream_the_mas so hard_mas that we could not take it up with spoon_the he froze the icecream so hard that we couldn t scoop it out with the spoon (47) *Barnið reif pakkana opna. child_the tore packages_the_map open_map the child tore the packages open There are however some exceptions to this pattern. (48) Hann bræddi súkkulaðið silkimjúkt. he melted chocolate_the_nas silky-smooth_nas he melted the chocolate silky smooth Kratzer goes to some lengths to underline Hoekstra s point that pseudo-transitivity should not be confused with strict transivity (Kratzer discusses the transitivising prefix be- in German but we will not discuss that further here). The contrast in Icelandic between causative-transitives (frysta [freeze], rifja [rip/tear]) and the other transitives given above (lakka [lacquer], hamra [hammer], nudda [rub], skrúbba [scrub]) suggests that this contrast is also relevant here. Notice that at least hamra [hammer], nudda [rub], skrúbba [scrub] are atelic force-contact verbs; whereas the causative-transitives are telic change-of-state verbs. It may therefore be the case that certain verbs (causative-inchoative change-ofstate verbs) are strictly transitive in a way that force-contact verbs are not. This strict transitivity is incompatible with adjectival resultative predication. However, the current raising account does not account for this contrast. Hypothesis 2 does not therefore fully account for the properties of unergatives and transitives in Icelandic; but nor does the data conclusively rule out an insightful extension of this approach. We have also left aside the problem of the one adjective which does indeed seem to occur with unaccusatives and causative-transitives fastur (stuck/fast/tight). (49) Hann fraus fastur í ísnum. he_mns froze stuck_mns in ice_the he froze stuck in the ice (50) Snædrottningin frysti hann fastan í ísinn. snow-queen_the froze him_mas stuck_mas in ice_the the Snow Queen froze him fast in the ice These examples are well-formed despite the fact that the same verbs with gegnheill (solid) and harður (hard) are unacceptable. (51) *Ísinn fraus gegnheill. icecream_mns froze solid_mns (52) *Ísinn fraus harður. icecream_mns froze hard_mns

9 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 9 One striking difference between fastur (stuck/fast/tight) and gegnheill (solid)/harður (hard) is that fastur expresses a relation (a tight relation!) between one object and another whereas gegnheill/harður express a simple property of an object (concerning its internal consistency). The difference between relation and quality therefore appears to be important here, which brings us to the issue of prepositions, which typically express relations. Many approaches to resultatives treat the nature of the predicate itself as incidental to the properties of the construction, so that the choice of AP and PP predicates is taken to be free relative to the construction (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). However, there is a clear contrast in Icelandic between the behaviour of adjectival resultatives on the one hand and prepositional and particle resultatives on the other, in particular with regard to the restrictions listed above. For instance, while the object of an unergative with an AP resultative must in most cases be reflexive, this is not the case with PP resultatives which often allow disjoint reference objects. (53) [Kisan] malaði mig í svefn cat_the purred me to sleep the cat purred me to sleep (54) Við hlupum sólana af skónum we ran soles_the off shoes_the we ran the soles off our shoes Even more strikingly, prepositional and particle resultatives with unaccusatives are fine and are in fact the preferred way of expressing these ideas. (55) Tjörnin fraus í gegn. lake-the froze in through the lake froze through (56) Súkkulaðið bráðnaði í mjúkan klump. chocolate_the melted into soft lump the chocolate melted into a soft lump (57) Pakkinn rifnaði upp á hornunum. package_the_mns tore up at corners_the the package tore open at the corners Notice, incidentally, that all of these cases fall outside of the general contrast which Kratzer assumes between AP (change-of-state) resultatives and PP directionals because the PPs here also express changes of state rather than directional paths (even (55) relates to the internal state of the lake rather than a path it travels, though this is of course a clear example of what McIntyre (2004) calls an event path). PPs therefore appear to be inherently specified with the required properties for forming changeof-state resultatives; APs generally lack the required relational mechanism to tie the pieces together and whatever must be added to make the AP resultatives acceptable also introduces additional restrictions, i.e. the reflexivity requirement on unergative objects and the exclusion of most unaccusatives and causative-transitives. The adjective fastur (stuck/fast/tight) then fits into this pattern as it precisely expresses a relational meaning rather than a simple qualitative meaning and can satisfy this requirement in the way that prepositions standardly do. Seen in this way, fastur would fall in with some problematic examples of adjectival resultatives in English, the interrelational uses of clear of and free of discussed by Wechsler (1997: 313, ex. 315). (58) The sailors managed to catch a breeze and ride it clear of the rocks. Seen in this light, the unaccusative evidence from Icelandic would support the raising analysis in Hypothesis 2 and in particular Kratzer s concern that strict transitivity be distinguished from apparent transitivity. It would also support the distinction between AP and PP resultatives. However, the analysis does not go far enough in characterising the difference between AP and PP predicates. PP predicates apparently fulfil straightforwardly a relational condition on resultative interpretations;

10 ONLI Icelandic Resultatives 10 adjectives such as fastur can also fulfil this condition; however, most AP resultatives can only fulfil the relational condition with the assistance of some covert element. That element is excluded in unaccusative contexts and when it occurs in unergative contexts it apparently introduces a reflexiveaffect condition on the object. The simple raising analysis is therefore apparently inadequate precisely because it attempts to reduce the properties of the resultative to the contributions of a small clause on the one hand and an intransitive verb on the other. Although Kratzer s causative analysis addresses this problem by introducing a null causative morpheme, that morpheme does not adequately characterise the distinction between the behahaviour of AP and PP resultatives. 5 Conclusions and Open Questions This paper has considered Kratzer s analysis of the adjectival resultative with respect to data from Icelandic. It identified two key hypotheses: 1. that resultative adjectives are always involved in compounding and must therefore be bare and uninflected; and 2. that only unergative verbs (or verbs that can be used as unergatives) can participate in the adjectival resultative construction. Icelandic provides strong evidence that the first hypothesis is incorrect: resultative adjectives are fully inflected with predicational agreement morphology and in this respect they constrast with compounded adjectives which are bare and uninflected. Icelandic provides mixed evidence with respect to the second hypothesis. The sharp distinction between objects of unergatives (which must be reflexive) and object of transitives (which can be disjoint in reference) with adjectival resultatives suggests that transitive verbs in the resultative really are transitive in Icelandic and not just unergatives in disguise. However, the broad ungrammaticality of unaccusatives with adjectival (as opposed to prepositional) resultatives suggests that unaccusatives should indeed be excluded in a proper account of the resultative construction. The single counterexample with fastur can be seen to confirm the general spirit of the account as this adjective is relational rather than simply qualitative and therefore more like a prepositional predicate. Kratzer s account starts with an assumption that PP directionals must be handled separately from AP resultatives. However, it turns out that the crucial contrast is between PP change-of-state resultatives and AP change-of-state resultatives. In particular, the null causative element assumed in Kratzer s analysis does not adequately characterise the importance of relational versus qualitative elements in the resultative; a promising line of enquiry would be to see the restrictive conditions on adjectival resultatives in Icelandic as following from the need for a null relational element which imposes its own restrictions on interpretation. 6 References Bittner, M "Concealed Causatives", Natural Language Semantics, 7:1-78. Hoekstra, T "Small Clause Results", Lingua, 74: Kratzer, Angelika Building Resultatives. In Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, eds. Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McIntyre, Andrew "Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells", Linguistics, 42: Snyder, William Language Acquisition and Language Variation. The Role of Morphology., Ph.D. in Linguistics, MIT. Snyder, William "On the Nature of Syntactic Variation: Evidence from Complex Predicates and Complex Word-Formation", Language, 77: Wechsler, Stephen Resultative predicates and control. In Proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society, eds. Ralph C. Blight and Michelle J. Moosally, Austin: University of Texas. Whelpton, Matthew "Resultatives in Icelandic A Preliminary Investigation", Whelpton, Matthew. to appear. Building Resultatives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of WECOL 2006, ed. Brian Agbayani. Fresno, CA: California State University.