tovarap@bgu.ac.il 6 October 2014

Tova Rapoport The Little Stative Workshop Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Paris 8 & CNRS, SFL tovarap@bgu.ac.il 6 October 2014 Stativity, Dynamicity, and the Verb 1. Introduction We know a stative construction when we hear one, despite poorly-behaved diagnostics. What is it we know? What are the ingredients of a stative interpretation of a construction? Stative constructions have been argued to have a particular functional structure, but a complete picture of stativity requires an examination of the role of the lexical elements in that structure: the verbs and prepositions. My focus today is on the verbal contribution to stative interpretation: - Some verbs appear in stative syntax. (e.g. know, own) - Some verbs do not appear in stative syntax. (e.g. Instrument verbs: cut, pierce) - A surprising variety of types of verbs can appear in both stative and eventive syntax. For example: experiencer-object (frighten, amuse), swarm-type Lexical theories that either stipulate a verb as [+stative] or associate a verb with a template, e.g. [x BE IN <STATE>] of Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998, etc.), do not explain the matching of verb with structure type/interpretation: Which kind of verb is [+stative]; why are particular verbs associated with a stative template? Theories in which a lexical root combines with some syntactic specification (e.g. Stative Phrases, or stative v, or lack of certain eventive phrases) allow for the necessary flexibility but the missing piece remains: Which kinds of verbs are compatible with stative syntax and stative interpretation? What distinguishes these verbs from those that are not compatible? I approach these questions from within the framework of Atom Theory (Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport (ESR) 1997, 2004, 2005, 2010, 2011), a theory of the lexicon-syntax connection, in which the meanings of verbs roots are broken down into atomic parts. Claim here: o verbs that can be stative involve a locative meaning component which is corollary to the more general: Hypothesis: o stativity always involves a locative relation

Many stative constructions have been analysed as locative. For example: (1) Some stative constructions that involve locativity: experiencer-object (e.g. Bouchard 1995; Arad 1998, 2002) experiencer-subject (e.g. Arad 1998; HK 2002; Landau 2010) possessor (e.g. Stassen 2009, ESR 2010, Lundquist & Ramchand 2010) swarm-with (e.g. Dowty 2000, Rapoport 2014) measure verb (e.g. Hale & Keyser 2002) In Atom Theory, this locativity, as well as the possibility of stativity, is derived from the nature of the verbs (and/or prepositions) in the constructions. This talk demonstrates how Atom Theory (AT) does this via specification of the meaning components (= "atoms") that define a verb and the structures the atoms project. Stativity, and dynamicity, are not lexically stipulated, but derive from atom type. (This within a research program aiming to: -Determine the relevant lexical properties of stative verbs and prepositions. I assume two basic types of stative verbs: those defined in the lexicon by atoms ("lexical verbs") and those that are the spellouts of features (see Copley & Roy), the copular and semi-copular type ("linking verbs"). -Uncover the language-internal connections between preposition types and stative construction types.) I focus here on the verbs that can appear in both stative and eventive constructions, e.g.: The experiencer-object construction (e.g. Van Voorst 1992, Bouchard 1995; Arad 2002) (2) a. Anna frightened Laura in order to make her go away. eventive b. Anna/Anna's behavior frightens Laura. (Arad 2002) stative The swarm-with construction (e.g. Salkoff 1983, Dowty 2000, Rapoport 2014): (3) a. Bees swarmed in the garden. eventive b. The garden swarmed with bees. stative 2. Atom Theory and Lexical Verbs Atom Theory is based on the flexibility of verb behaviour. Thus, - lexical items are not specified as dynamic or stative - the atoms defining the lexical items are not specified as dynamic or stative But the different atom types do lend a potentially dynamic or stative interpretation. In analyses of verbs' eventive alternations (e.g. causative, locative), AT proposes one lexical entry per verb, thus avoiding the problem of multiple lexical entries that results from the lexical specification of, e.g., theta-role number/type or aspectual class. The challenge here: to show that this minimal lexical approach accounts for verbs which appear in both stative and non-stative constructions. 2

AT: a verb's construction possibilities depend on meaning component ("atom") type. o verbs defined by certain atoms can appear in eventive structures o verbs defined by certain atoms can appear in stative structures The atoms, together with the structures they project, yield all necessary information. 2.1. AT Fundamentals: Atoms and Projection Introducing the fundamentals of AT: (a) atoms (b) atomic projection (c) verbal lexical entries -- (a) ATOMS The lexical semantic representation in AT consists solely of atomic meaning components. Atoms are minimal semantic units. Each verbal entry's atoms are taken from a universal inventory of types: (4) possible atom types for verbal entries: - Manner (Means, Manner, Instrument) - Result = State or Location (b) ATOMIC PROJECTION Atoms directly project structure. (There is no need for linking rules between the lexicon and syntax.) Following Hale & Keyser (HK: 1993, etc.), each atom type projects as a category in syntax: -the notional type "interrelation" = L, including spatial and locational relations P -the notional type "state" = S is realized categorially as A -the notional type "production/realization/ instance" = M is realized categorially as N (5) category N A P atom: Manner State Location Atoms project either as complement to the verbal head or as (modifying) adjuncts. Atoms merged as complements type the predicate (aspectual interpretations, à la HK): (6) V V V 2 2 2 V N V A V P atom: M S L predicate interpretation: activity change of state change-of-location (inchoative/achievement/unaccusative) 3

(These are eventive structures. Recall my claim: L atom types yield stative structures.) Atoms, like roots under certain views, have the property of representing meaning only. An atom is equivalent to a piece of root that independently projects structure. Full Interpretation Principle (applied to atoms) ensures well-formed projection. (c) VERBAL LEXICAL ENTRIES Atoms combine with a category and phonology to create a lexical entry: (7) possible types of lexical entries: (a) (b) (c) V M M V R M V R e.g. M,m: run R=L: arrive, enter M, R=S: cut jump advance melt, break laugh R=S: cool flash M, R=L: smear hit 3. Dynamicity in Atom Theory Atoms, and so verbs, are not lexically specified as dynamic or stative. But it is their atom type that explains why certain verbs appear in eventive or stative syntax. Two atom types that that yield structures with a default eventive interpretation: (I) Manner atoms: When projected in a verbal structure, the interpretation of 1- M-Instruments atoms (e.g. in cut, pierce) wielding that instrument 2- M-Means atoms (e.g. in break, melt) employing/harnessing that means 3- M-Manner atom (e.g. in run, laugh, hit) instantiating/producing that manner Manner effect on interpretation: instrument-wielding, means employing, manner producing dynamic (II) Plural atoms (yield incremental or iterated or sequential/path change): 1- scale State and Location atoms define degree verbs, e.g. L: advance, S: cool 2- "on-off" (away & back to original state)= instantaneous atoms define iterating verbs, e.g. flash, beep 3- Manner-of-progression atoms e.g. run, march, jump 4

PLURAL effect on interpretation: scale increments on-off iteration progression path dynamic (The LPLURAL scale atom allows both the simple and the iterated change reading. See Choi e.g. 2012 for analysis of interpretations of adjectival states.) PLURAL effect: the causer = initiator, an interpretation derived from Atom's plurality: plural causer controls the extent/increments of (path of) the theme's change of location (8) Examples of atom definitions: run: M-prog: quick advance: LPLURAL: spatial axis, forward cool: SPLURAL: temperature scale, downward An example of L-PLURAL projection: (9) a. The officer advanced the regiment. (ESR 2005) g g b. V 2 D V 2 officer V V 2 advance D V 2 regiment V P advance L c. The officer caused the regiment to go forward and controlled the increments/extent of that advance. L projects as a complement to a head V, typing the predicate: change of location. The V-V predicate (HK: = eventuality implicating eventuality) is interpreted as 'cause'. Equivalents to CAUSE, GO interpretations are derived, a la HK, via structural relations. The subjects of V-V 'cause' and V-P change predicates are interpreted as causer and theme. Causer of this plural atom verb also interpreted as initiator and controller of path of theme. This is what we find in the case of EO verbs, whose L atom is of a type that can be interpreted in either an eventive or a stative structure. 4. A stative-eventive case: experiencer-object (EO) constructions (stative causatives) Many EO verbs (frighten, amuse, disturb) appear in both eventive and stative constructions. 5

Eventive EO construction: (10) Anna frightened Laura deliberately/in order to make her go away. (Arad 1998) Interpretation: Anna, by doing something, caused Laura to go to a frightened mental state. eventive: agentive, cause change of state in experiencer brought about by agent Stative EO construction: (11) a. Anna/Anna's behavior frightens Laura. (Arad 2002) Interpretation: Laura's perception of (some property/ the concept of) Anna triggers a concomitant, frightened state. When Laura thinks of Anna, she experiences fright. stative: non-agentive, cause a concomitant state is triggered by a stimulus (Arad) The (single) lexical entry of the EO verb frighten as analysed in AT: (12) AT: frighten's atom: L (interrelation-location): mental point of contact V LPL This analysis: adapts Bouchard 1995: EO verbs are contact (in mental space) locative follows Van Voorst 1992: instantaneous (on-off type) PLURAL ATOM in AT iteration, initiator causer (And see, e.g., Alexiadou, Iordachioaia & Soare, forthcoming (- AIS) re: psych nominals with iterative eventive reading.) Compare: Arad 2002: stativity-eventivity via type of little v The same root (e.g. fright) combines with (standard) little v on the agentive reading and with stative little v on the stative reading. EO structure: eventive/agentive reading: (13) AT: as projected by frighten (head Arad 2002: as projected by and atom): little v & fright V vp 2 2 D V NP v 2 agent 2 Jane V V v P 2 2 frighten D V fright NP 2 exp Mary V L frighten [fright point] = Jane caused Mary to go in contact with her eventive little v: agent subject; fright mental location. (= eventive reading) mental state root experiencer 6

Due to instantaneous atom type: upper cause subject is interpreted as an initiator - any manner of causing is fine - a duration interpretation coerces iterativity - the initiator has control over the extent of the change The addition of a durative (for-)adverbial yields iteration with punctual achievements (recall: Smith's 1991 analysis of semelfactives). eventive: iterated (causing) activities the agent causer has control over the duration (sequences): (14) Jane frightened Mary for three hours. = a series of frightening activities stative: modification of experience's duration via continual/iterated stimulus perception stimulus has control over the duration of the response = when no (perception of) stimulus, no response (15) Jane's behaviour frightened Mary for three hours. = Mary stayed in a frightened state for three hours after fright point by continual stimulus perception (e.g. thinking about it) Plural atom allows iteration, hence continual stimulus perception-response relation. Thus, in AT, both interpretations are possible from one verbal atomic analysis. Under AT, frighten behaves the way it does because of its atomic definition: The stative and eventive readings of an EO verb are derivable from the verb's L atom type. 4.1 Properties of the stative EO reading (a) concept interpretation of subject: Bouchard 1995: an external argument NP can refer either to an individual or to the properties of an individual The subject interpreted as Concept stative reading When interpreted as a Concept, the subject is in the realm of mental space. (b) plural atom type allows iteration, hence continual stimulus perception response relation Initiator causers are interpreted as both causing the response and controlling its extent - agent subjects: control by (series of) activity - non-agentive stimulus subjects: control by the continual perception of stimulus by the experiencer (c) subject is intensional -stimulus concept subject is intensional in the stative reading Cheung and Larson 2014 note the contrast between ES and EO verbs with a non-denoting expressing in object position, concluding that the object in ESCs is intensional: 7

(16) a. The explosion scared a vampire. false b. John loves vampires. -- could be true But note the following contrast re: the subject in EOCs: (17) a. eventive: *The vampire frightened Mary. false b. stative: Vampires frighten Mary. -- could be true (d) physical verbs are non-agentive under psych reading (e.g. Ruwet 1972, Bouchard) Physical verbs of contact are also defined by L atoms. Thus, a stative use is predicted (assuming no interference by a particular Manner Atom). (18) a. Jane struck Mary with a bat. b. Jane struck Mary with her intelligence./ Jane's intelligence struck Mary. Adapting Bouchard: the interpretation of the subject as a concept puts that subject [and so the entire structure] in the realm of mental space. Agent subject cannot yield psych reading: Agent must be interpreted as causing with the lexically-specified Manner and the default reading is eventive. Concept subject cannot yield physical reading: Concepts can't control physical motion of theme to goal. But a concept can be the causer of the psych change with this type of verb. Thus, interpretation of the subject as a concept yields the stative reading: possible due to verbal atom type Bouchard: any 'affecting' verb can have a psych use. Other contact verbs with a psych use: stun, stab; impression V (Levin 1993): etch, imprint, impress (Specificity of Manner may preclude Concept interpretation of causer subject and so of psych reading of physical contact verbs, e.g. butt, smack (but note kick).) So far: AT predicts psych uses with verbs with L: contact atoms: frighten: verb of contact in mental space Concept interpretation of causer strike: verb of contact Concept interpretation of causer and so contact in mental space So far, so good; but note the following eventive psych sentences: (19) a. The answer suddenly hit me. b. Musing thus, an appalling thought struck me. Concept (vs. Agent) interpretation of subject doesn't seem to be enough to yield stativity. Moving on to the syntax of Stative EO constructions. 8

5. Structure, central coincidence, and stativity Stative verbs are defined by locative relations. Recall Hale & Keyser 2002: statives involve prepositional structures In principle, a verb whose lexical semantic entry is defined by a Location atom can be stative. Why should this be so? 1. An L atom not defined as a direction, scale, goal does not entail dynamicity. 2. L atoms can be specified by central coincidence. (AT: verbal State atoms are always plural (e.g. verbs of scale) in English.) Frighten's atom = LPLURAL, an instantaneous (on-off type). The dynamic interpretation of this L atom is the default interpretation: The default reading of a predicate structure with this LPLURAL atom is eventive. As for the stative interpretation, Here I consider an analysis under which a stative interpretation is derived via specification by a feature of CENTRAL COINCIDENCE, here viewed as a type of monovalent modifying feature, or tag. 5.1 The central coincidence tag CC Hale 1986: a fundamental semantic opposition exists throughout language and languages: The opposition parallels that between dynamic/change and stative/static. Hale proposes the term 'central coincidence' to describe two entities coinciding in a constant, unchanging relation. This is easiest to see in prepositional relations: (20) Some prepositions encoding the central coincidence relation: on, by, in, along at with (Rapoport 2014) Here, CC is viewed as a type of monovalent, modifying feature (as opposed to a head feature, adapting Wiltschko 2008, etc.): As a modifier, CC is optional, is not selected for. (This particular use of the modifying CC puts it more in the class of the HUMAN Index of Ritter & Wiltschko 2014, but) The CC tag attaches to lexical elements only. This central coincidence feature is not the same as the [+/- central coincidence] feature found in Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (e.g. 2000, 2004). (And it is not clear that the different effects are due to modifying vs. head status.) When CC is associated with an atom or category, the two elements mediated by that atom/category are specified as being in a constant, unchanging relation. 9

When CC modifies an L atom: the two elements related by L are constrained to be in this constant relation When CC modifies a category, e.g. P: the two arguments of P are constrained to be in this relation CC has different effects depending on where it appears in a structure. 5.2 Central coincidence and stativity EO structures have a default eventive interpretation. When CC is associated with the projected L atom in an EO structure, the two elements mediated by L 'experiencer' and 'mental point of location' are fixed in a constant, unchanging relation: Mary consistently be with fright The interpretation of constancy or consistency can be viewed externally (continual contact). The constancy of the L relation necessitates the perception of stimulus to be constant too. perception of vampires co-occurs with Mary's fright (as per Arad 1998, 2002) The syntax: Compare two analyses: AT and Arad (2002), AIS (21) EO structure, stative reading: AT: structure projected by same V frighten head & atom) and DPs vampires, Mary: Arad 2002, AIS: stative structure, projected by stative v 2 & root fright V v 2 2 2 D V NP v 2 2 stative causer 2 vampires V V (stimulus) v 2 P 2 2 frighten D V fright NP 2 exp Mary V L - CC frighten [fright pt] CC tag constant relation stative little v stative causer subject AT: The proposed structure differs from the eventive only in the presence of the CC feature. (There is no stative syntax per se.) Arad: The stative structure differs from the eventive in the type of little v head. Both approaches assume the same verb or root appears in both eventive and stative EO. So both avoid multiple lexical specifications for EO verbs. Under AT, we also have a reason why a verb like frighten is potentially stative: L atom type 10

A central coincidence interpretation as a constant relation requires two elements. The semantic representation of EO verbs consists of an L atom, and an L ("interrelation") contact atom necessarily relates two elements. So an L:contact atom modified by CC has an interpretation. (CC specifying dynamic atom types uninterpretable (but: D-state flash, M-prog roll?)) L atoms whose specification does not entail dynamicity allow a stative reading. The claim that stativity involves L and a relation of central coincidence is not unlike: Hale & Keyser 2002's suggestion: The stativity of verbal constructions derives from a (covert) preposition of central coincidence. However, HKs themselves note that the claim that stativity is a matter of category that V structures are nonstative and P structures are stative is problematic, at least in English. (But see Hallman 2006, that stative propositional complement verbs are lexical little v's.) Here: the structure of EO constructions is verbal in both eventive and stative cases. 5.3 Central coincidence and eventivity Central Coincidence has different effects, depending on which element it specifies. Not all relations of central coincidence result in stativity. Adapting Hale's 1986 (Warlpiri) example: (22) The horse raced along the river. The relation of central coincidence is part of the meaning of the preposition along (which also includes a linear extension trajectory or linear arrangement of Figure). In (22) along relates its two arguments, the horse and the river, in this particular constant, unchanging relation. But (22) is not stative. The dynamic M atom, Manner-of-progression, of the verb race yields an eventive interpretation in the projected structure. Central coincidence merely constrains this eventive interpretation. 6. And, finally, what of stative verbs? Typically stative verbs are such because they are not defined by typically-dynamic atoms. Typically stative verbs, e.g., love, fear, know, and own, resemble, are defined by L relations unspecified for direction, scale, goal, -- i.e. dynamic atom types. In the absence of such dynamicity in the atomic definition, these atoms are stative. In a projected verbal structure, neither the verbal head nor the atom is specified as dynamic. Therefore, the default reading of a verbal structure projected by such an L atom is stative. 11

Of course, nothing precludes an eventive reading of such an L-projected structure, given the presence of other elements that contribute it. For example (HK 2002, p. 210): (23) a. Respect your parents! b. He is liking his new job. c. The troops respected their new commander in minutes. The AT approach allows, and predicts, such flexibility. As AT allows the possibility of the achievement reading of such typically-stative verbs (as noted in Dowty 1979): (24) a. When the examiner entered the room, I (suddenly) knew the answer. b. When I (first) saw him, I loved him. c. When the auctioneer's gavel hit the block, I owned the house. (I am restricting this discussion to English. See Boneh and Doron 2008: in Hebrew, only dynamic verbs allow punctual adverbials to be interpreted as coinciding with the initial time of the event; statives (Doron 2013: which lack an initial point) are interpreted only as overlapping the event of the when-clause.) Under AT, (24) are viewed as examples of the flexibility of atom behaviour in context rather than examples of coercion by elements in a context. Under AT it is not surprising that it is hard to find lexical verbs with exclusively stative readings. What are the L relations defining stative verbs? Most (experiencer-subject, experiencer-object, possessor, swarm with) have an L possessor analysis (see references above). And measure verbs, for example? For HK, these verbs are "true" statives (p. 214): (25) a. That house costs fifty thousand dollars. b. This bull weighs one ton. c. Two and two equals/makes four. d. Three books comprise the entire collection. HK analyze these verbs as copulas. This leads to the second type of verb in my research project: the "linking" verbs. These non-lexical verbs are not defined by atoms; they are analyzed as spellouts of features: The copula is semantically empty, supports tense (e.g. Rapoport 1986, Roy 2013). The semi-copulas (stay, remain, become) are analyzed adapting the [+/-change], [+/-energy] feature specifications of Copley & Roy (in prep.). Extending their analysis allows an account of verbs of position (stand, lie, hang). And possibly of HK's true statives in (25). This view of non-lexical, atomless verbs answers HK's question: why are copulas stative? They have no atoms to yield dynamicity. In general, under the analysis here, the dynamic reading of verbal atoms and so the eventive interpretation of verbal syntactic structures is the default case. 12

APPENDIX I Another stative-eventive case: the swarm alternation Central coincidence, prepositions, and verbal atoms interact in different ways. Compare (22) above, the eventive The horse raced along the river, which has (a) the central coincidence preposition along and (b) the dynamic Manner-of-progression verb race to the swarm-with construction (e.g., Salkoff 1983, Dowty 2000, Rapoport 2014): (1) a. Bees swarmed into the garden. eventive b. The garden swarmed with bees. stative (2) a. Ants crawled on the floor. eventive b. The floor crawled with ants. stative (3) a. Sweat dripped from her face. eventive b. Her face dripped with sweat. stative The (b ) alternant, also with (a) a central coincidence preposition, here with, and (b) dynamic M-prog verbs swarm, crawl (and L verb drip) is stative. In the stative: The garden is interpreted as being filled with bees. (#The garden swarmed with a bee.) The location of the first element must spatially control the location of the second element: the theme must accompany the location along its spatial extent. This holistic property is due to the semantics of the preposition relating the two, the P with: (4) Rapoport 2014: With defines as (locative) accompaniment a central coincidence relation of physical possession. The verbs in the swarm alternation are motion activities, M-prog / M-motion, or c-o-l. D-states L-atom sound/light/smell emission verbs, also participate in the alternation. (5) Verb classes in swarm alternation (adapting Dowty 2000)- all locative a. physical movements activities crawl, jump, hop, dance shake, pulse, vibrate change location drip, erupt, flow b. D-states: sound emission: hum, buzz, whistle, fizz, cream, rustle, echo, rumble light emission beam, blaze, glow, flicker, glisten, shimmer smell emission reek, smell c. 'full' predicates abound, teem The D-states, being L-atom emission verbs, are expected to exhibit stative behaviour. But how do these dynamic atoms appear in a stative construction? Rapoport 2014: (2)b's basic interpretation is: 'The floor was with ants': - with is the main predicate, taking as arguments the two NPS the floor and ants 13

- the verb in this construction (and the adjective in The floor was black with ants) is required in English due to the impossibility of predicative with with a non-human subject The verb simply picks out a salient property of the relevant theme (ants), its role essentially reduced to that of a functional element. AT analysis of this stative structure: M does not project as complement to the V head, but rather as a modifier of the withobject/theme, with which it is therefore identified. Identification is possible because ants are defined as crawlers (/black). So the complete interpretation of (2)b is: 'The floor was with ants (which crawl)'. This projection of the M atom as an adjectival modifier does not clash with the stativity of central coincidence with, the main predicate. The two distinct central coincidence prepositions, along and with, interact with the projection of the verbal atoms (as complement or as adverbial/adjectival modifier) to make different contributions to the structure's interpretation. APPENDIX II The contribution of Information Structure In AT, identification in a verbal structure of a structural subject with a verb's L atom yields a possessive stative structure, or substructure, as in for example: The double-object construction in AT (e.g. ESR 2011): (1) a. Jane gave Mary the book. b. = [ Jane give [Mary = L give the book ] ] The result of identification of the lower subject Mary with the verb give's L atom: Mary is interpreted as possessor of the book the lower subject defines the stage topic ( individual-level interpretation) Stativity thus derives from the Information Structure and the manner of atomic projection. The experiencer structural subject in the stative EO construction is also a Topic: (2) Topic diagnostics: Tell me about Mary. The dark frightens her. The dark frightens some/*sm girls. When the experiencer (lower subject) defines the stage topic I-level interpretation: = It is true of Mary, at all times and places, that the dark frightens her. (vs. the eventive Yesterday, Jane frightened Mary in which the stage topic yesterday is the more-typical here-and-now of the discourse.) The subject of swarm-with has also been analyzed as a possessor (Rapoport 2014). This subject has also been analyzed as the default discourse Topic. (Dowty: the stative characterizes the location in a way that is relevant to the discourse.) Work on the connections between atomic interpretation and Information Structure remains. 14

Selected references Alexiadou, A., G. Iordachioaia, & E. Soare. Forthcoming. The Structural Source of Stative Nominalizations from Psych Verbs, in E. Labeau & Q. Zhang (eds.), Taming the TAME systems. Cahiers Chronos 27. Rodopi, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Arad, M. 1998. Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10. Arad, M. 2002. Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In A. Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Boneh, N. & E. Doron. 2008. Habituality and the Habitual Aspect. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 321-347. Bouchard, D. 1995. The semantics of syntax. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cheung, C. & R. Larson. 2014. Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. NLLT. Choi, J. 2012. Two classes of adjectives in Korean: pure vs. inchoative states. Ms. University of Nantes. Demirdache, H. & M. Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 157-186. Demirdache, H. & M. Uribe-Etxebarria. 2004. The syntax of time adverbs. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 143 179. Doron, E. 2013. Stative. In G. Khan (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. Dowty, D. 2000. 'The garden swarms with bees and the fallacy of argument alternation, in Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy. Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: OUP. 111-128. Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. 1997. A Theory of Verbal Projection. In G. Matos et al. (eds.), On Interfaces in Linguistic Theory -- Selected Papers from the International Conference on Interfaces in Linguistics. Lisboa: APL/Edicoes Colibri. Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. 2004. Bare Aspect: A Theory of Syntactic Projection. In J. Gueron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. 2005. Path Predicates. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. 2010. Contacts and other results. In M. Rappaport-Hovav, E. Doron & I. Sichel (eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. 2011. "Projecting possession: The syntax of give". Talk given at Approaches to the Lexicon (Roots III). The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Hale, K. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and Projections. Dordrecht: Foris. Hale, K. & S.J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hallman, P. 2006. A Categorial distinction between stative and eventive verbs. In C. Davis et al (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. GLSA: Amherst, MA. Iordăchioaia, G. & E. Soare. 2008. Two Kinds of Event Plurals: Evidence from Romanian Nominalizations. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Bonami (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 7, online publication, ISSN 1769-7158. 193-216. Lundquist, B. & G. C. Ramchand. 2012. Contact, animacy and affectedness in Germanic. In P. Ackema et al (eds.) Comparative Germanic Syntax: The state of the art. John Benjamins. 223 248. Rapoport, T. 2014/To appear. Central coincidence: The preposition with. Faits de Langues 44:2. Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford CA: CSLI. 97 134. Ritter, E. and M. Wiltschko. 2014. From cognitive category to grammatical feature. Ms. Ben-Gurion University and University of British Columbia. Roy, I. 2013. Nonverbal predication: Copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: OUP. Salkoff, M. 1983. Bees are Swarming in the Garden. A systematic study of productivity. Language 59:2. Stassen, L. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, C.S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Van Voorst, J. 1992. The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 15. Wiltschko, M. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:3. 639-694. 15