A micro-typological perspective on resultative secondary predicates: the case of nomination verb constructions

Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci

A micro-typological perspective on resultative secondary predicates: the case of nomination verb constructions Justine Métairy*, Peter Lauwers, Renata Enghels, Miriam Taverniers, Marleen Van Peteghem Department of Linguistics, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 February 2019 Received in revised form 18 September 2019 Accepted 10 October 2019 Available online xxx

The present paper investigates a subtype of (analytical) resultative constructions1, viz. Nomination Verb Constructions (e.g. Henry was proclaimed King of England), within a comparative Germanic – Romance perspective. Resultative constructions are a priori atypical of Romance languages, which belong to the so-called class of ‘verb-framing’ languages (cf. Talmy 1985, 1991) and hence are not expected to encode the result of an event outside the matrix verb. In light of this restriction, this paper offers a fine-grained corpus-based description of one particulardthough crucialdaspect of nomination verb constructions, viz. the resultative secondary predicate, from a contrastive point of view. Although there is an extensive literature on resultative constructions, it is rarely mentioned that the resultative secondary predicate can be instantiated by a noun in these constructions, as is the case with nomination verbs. The study of four different languages (i.e. Dutch, English, French and Spanish) shows (i) that, although bare nouns are the default option in these constructions, a whole array of morpho-syntactic categories are attested, (ii) that the resultative secondary predicate may be unmarked or marked in several ways (e.g. via the predicative markers to and as), and (iii) that the classical Germanic – Romance dichotomy is questioned by the existence of nomination verb constructions since the resultative construction does appear in Romance languages with these verbs, and is, in fact, syntactically less complex than in Dutch, which always needs additional marking. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Resultative constructions Nomination verbs Comparative linguistics Corpus-based Predication markers

1. Introduction: nomination verb constructions as (weak) resultative constructions Nomination verb constructions (¼ NVCs) are constructions in which a nomination verb selects for a direct object and a predicate which is interpreted as the result of the nomination process described by the verb. These constructions are, in this regard, very similar to analytical resultative constructions (¼ ARCs) and can therefore be regarded as a subtype of the latter. Thus, besides their formal resemblance, these two constructions share the same semantic interpretation: sentences (1a-d) imply, indeed, that Macron is president as a result of the process of electing, just as the metal is flat as a result of the process of

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Métairy), [email protected] (P. Lauwers), [email protected] (R. Enghels), [email protected] (M. Taverniers), [email protected] (M. Van Peteghem). 1 These resultative constructions are said to be analytical in that the resultative meaning is obtained via a combination of both the matrix verb and the secondary predicate (e.g. to hammer flat, as opposed to flatten). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101253 0388-0001/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

hammering in (2)2. However, these NVCs are characterized by specific properties: the resultative secondary predicate (¼ RSP) refers to a title, a position, a role or anything that can be understood as an officially acknowledged status attributed through a nomination process. Furthermore, while the RSP occurs as an adjective or as a prepositional phrase in ‘canonical’ ARCs, it is generally a (bare)3 noun in NVCs (e.g. president in (1a-d)). And finally, the RSP may be explicitly marked by a preposition-like item (e.g. tot in (1d)). (1) a. b. c. d.

De Fransen hebben Macron tot president verkozen. (Dutch) The French elected Macron president. (English) Les Français ont élu Macron président. (French) Los franceses eligieron a Macron presidente. (Spanish)

(2) John hammered the metal flat.

However, as is well known, a resultative construction like the one in (2) is said to be impossible in Romance. This alleged restriction has been accounted for by referring to a fundamental typological property (cf. Talmy, 1985, 1991; Aske, 1989): Romance languages are ‘verb-framing’ and, as such, encode the (abstract) path of an event (i.e. the goal, or the result) in the verbal root (e.g. French: entrer dans la chambre, aplatir à coups de marteau; Spanish: entrar en la habitación, aplanar a martillazos; ‘enter the room’, ‘flatten with a hammer’). By contrast, ‘satellite-framing’ languages – such as Germanic languages – encode such a path via a separate constituent outside the matrix verb (e.g. go IN(to) the room, hammer FLAT). While many linguists have tried to implement this idea in syntactico-semantic theories (cf. Levin & Rapoport 1988; Tenny, 1994, Snyder, 2001, 2012, Mateu 2000; Mateu and Rigau, 2010, Mateu, 2012, Acedo-Matellan 2012), others have come to recognize the existence of – albeit less productive – ARCs in Romance (cf. for Italian: Napoli, 1992, Folli and Ramchand, 2005; for French: Legendre, 1997, Riegel, 1996, Muller, 2000; for Spanish: Martinez Vazquez 1998, Arrizabalaga, 2016; for Romanian: Farkas, 2009, 2011). Romance would allow only so-called ‘weak’4 ARCs (cf. Washio, 1997), in which the RSP only specifies or emphasizes a result which is already encoded in the verb. In the case of nomination verbs, the ‘weak’ character can be deduced from the fact that, in most cases, the RSP can be omitted: (3) a. b. c. d.

He He He He

was was was was

elected (president). promoted (to CEO). crowned (King). proclaimed *(Pope)

Furthermore, the set of possible weak ARCs may vary from one language to another and is still to be determined: although example (4a) has no grammatical counterpart in French, nor in Spanish, we do find a similar construction in Romanian (4b): (4) a. The lake froze solid. b. Lacul a înghețat bocn a (Farkas, 2011: 69, (4a)) (lit.) the lake has frozen bone ‘The lake froze solid’ (¼ the lake froze as hard as the bone)

Moreover, while resultative constructions in Romance languages have been described as occurring only with certain verb classes (cf. Arrizabalaga, 2016), topbot of these alleged limitations has been subjected to systematic corpus based research5, and even less so from a comparative point of view. Several crucial aspects of these constructions still need to be determined, including their lexical scope: (i) which verbs and (ii) which kind of RSPs (i.e. in terms of morpho-syntactic categories) are accepted in these constructions? A further question is (iii) to what extent these RSPs are introduced by a predicative marker (e.g. tot in (1d)). The present work will answer these questions in relation to one specific verb class, viz. nomination verbs. This verb class is particularly interesting because of its productivity: some verbs are indeed not ‘nomination verbs’ per se, but are rather

2 As pointed out by a reviewer, the verb elect and hammer do not describe the same type of event: while the former is an achievement, and is, therefore, telic (with or without the RSP), the latter is an activity, and is, therefore, atelic (cf. Vendler, 1967). This difference is generally accounted for by referring to the strong vs. weak ARCs dichotomy (cf. Washio, 1997) discussed later in this section: while example (2) is a strong ARC – where the presence of the RSP ‘transforms’ the sentence into a telic structure, examples (1a-d) and example (4) (e.g. the lake froze solid) are instances of the weak type – where the RSP is generally assumed to be optional as it only specifies the result already encoded in the verb. 3 Bare nouns do not contain a 'covert' zero determiner as in argumental uses with singular mass nouns and bare plurals (cf. De Swart et al., 2007). We will see in Section 4 that these nouns differ in many respects from ‘canonical’ nouns (i.e. nouns preceded by a determiner). 4 Weak ARCs roughly correspond to Mateu’s (2012) incorporated resultatives which are derived by incorporation (or copy) of a result root into the verbal head (cf. (1a)). Strong ARCs, on the other hand, involve a conflation process whereby a manner root is directly merged with the verb (cf. (1b)) (on the manner/result complementarity in verb lexemes, see Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1998).

(1) 5

a. b.

The bottlej [V enteri [PP/SC tj OINTOi the cave]] (floating) The bottlej [[V OFLOAT-GO] [PP/SC tj into the cave]]

Except in Arrizabalaga (2016) for Spanish and Burnett and Troberg (2014) for Old French.

(Mateu 2012: 257, (10.9a)) (Mateu 2012: 257, (10.9b))

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

3

coerced by the construction (e.g. French: Ils l'ont bombardé chef, cf. Lauwers & Willems, 2011; Spanish: Lo subieron a jefe, ‘they promoted him to chief’)6. Note that these NVCs can be regarded as ‘strong’ ARCs (cf. Washio, 1997), which is particularly interesting in view of the alleged absence of this type of ARCs in Romance languages. As shown in (5), the omission of the RSP alters the meaning of the verb and the sentence, which suggests that the RSP is obligatory in this context7: (5) Ils l'ont bombardé. (lit.) They bombarded him

The remaining of the article is structured as follows: In section 2, we describe the methodology used for the corpus-based study that has been conducted for the purpose of the present work. We report and thoroughly discuss the results in Section 3 and 4, respectively. Finally, in Section 5, we list the various factors that contribute to the syntactic makeup of the RSP in NVCs. 2. Corpus and methods Our corpus-based research consists of a fine-grained analysis of 16 nomination verbs: four verbs per language that are cross-linguistically equivalent with respect to their semantics and, if possible, their morphology (cf. Table 1). Table 1 List of nomination verbs per language. Nomination verb/Language

Dutch

English

French

Spanish

verkiezen promoveren uitroepen kronen

elect promote proclaim crown

élire promouvoir proclamer couronner

elegir ascender proclamar coronar

In an attempt to capture the whole spectrum of process types occurring in nomination verb constructions, these verbs have been retrieved from four different semantic subclasses. These imply verbs of (i) 'electing' (e.g. elect, appoint, designate, vote, etc.) (ii) 'abstract movement', (e.g. promote, elevate), (iii) 'communication' (e.g. proclaim, acclaim, declare, pronounce, etc.), and (iv) 'inauguration' (e.g. crown, dub, ordain, anoint, etc.). In a next phase, 200 randomized occurrences per verb – 3200 in total – were retrieved from roughly comparable Web Corpora (cf. Sketch Engine – henceforth SE – the TenTen corpus family, based on identical web crawling procedures) and annotated according to a number of variables. These include: (i) the morpho-syntactic category of the RSP (i.e. bare noun, definite NP, indefinite NP, partitive NP, or adjective), and (ii) the lexeme of the RSP marker, if there is one. Other variables were used in our annotation but turned out to be non-significant for the purpose of the present discussion (these include the syntactic function (i.e. subject or object), semantics of the predication base (i.e. animate or inanimate), the verb construction (i.e. transitive or intransitive), diathesis (i.e. active, passive, reflexive)). Note that two constructions have been excluded from the sample: (i) constructions like those illustrated in (6) where the RSP is embedded in a more complex structure involving non-finite insertions of the verb be, and (ii) constructions where the RSP with as is more likely to be associated with a depictive – rather than a resultative – interpretation. Indeed, in the example illustrated in (7), the secondary predicate does not ascribe any result whatsoever in which would be involved the direct object but rather describes it. (6)

a

a. La France est proclamée comme étant un pays laïc.a ‘France is proclaimed [as being] a secular country.’ b. Unetelle a été proclamée être une des femmes les plus belles du PAF [.]. ‘Someone has been proclaimed [to be] one of the most beautiful women of the PAF.’ If not specified otherwise, all the examples cited in the remaining of the article are from Sketch Engine.

(7)

6

De kuikens rennen snel, maar verkiezen toch de camouflage als ontsnappingsstrategie. ‘The chickens run fast, but prefer the camouflage as an escape strategy.’

The productivity of the verbal slot will, however, not be discussed in this paper but in a future publication. The verb bombarder ‘bombard’ in French describes an activity, and is, therefore, atelic not only in non-metaphorical uses (e.g. They bombarded the city (for days)), but also in other metaphorical uses than the one involved in NVCs (e.g. bombarder quelqu'un de messages/questions (pendant des heures) ‘bombard someone with messages/questions (for hours)’). More precisely, bombarder ‘bombard’ is an iterated semelfactive (cf. Smith, 1991), which means that, contrary to hammer, it describes a multiple–event activity, i.e. a series of bomb drops. We believe, then, that when bombarder ‘bombard’ occurs in the NVC, the verb is somehow coerced by the construction so that it only describes one single (punctual and telic) event (¼ one (metaphorical) drop) and be construed as a nomination verb, on a par with the verbs promote or elevate. In this way, we could say that, just like the RSP flat in example (2), the RSP chef ‘chief’ in example (5) incorporates a true telic component to the structure which, therefore, can be regarded as a strong ARC. 7

4

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

The results of our corpus-based study will be presented in the following section after which they will be thoroughly discussed in section 4. 3. Results 3.1. A brief overview of the data The data analysis suggests that two strategies are used to encode the RSP in NVCs: (i) a predicative strategy which involves nominal (cf. king in (8)) and adjectival phrases (cf. dead in (9)) and (ii) a locative strategy which involves prepositional phrases describing concrete (cf. to the US senatef in (10)) and abstract locations (cf. to the rank of captain and to the papacy in (11) and (12) respectively). Note that these locative prepositional phrases denote an official status through metonymy, by referring to the institution (e.g. elected to the US senate -> elected as a senator), the rank in the institution (e.g. promoted to the rank of captain -> promoted to captain) or the abstract quality (e.g. elected to the papacy -> elected as pope). (8) The king's sons, who should have succeeded him, having thus vacated the throne, Macbeth as next heir was crowned king, and thus the prediction of the weird sisters was literally accomplished. (9) On Sunday, February 6, guitarist Gary Moore was proclaimed dead after his body was found at a hotel in Spain. (10) Republican William Knowland was elected in 1946 to the U.S. Senate from California, for a two-month term. (11) On June 16, 1991, she was promoted to the rank of Captain and assigned to the Special Operations Division, as the Commander of the Special Events Branch. (12) But if a layman were elected to the Papacy, he would have to be consecrated as a bishop to fulfill his office, as Bishop of Rome.

Table 2 shows the frequency of the predicative and locative strategy by language:8 Table 2 Frequency of the predicative and locative strategy by language. RSP strategies/Languages

Dutch

English

French

Spanish

Total

Predicative strategy

790 98.7% 2.7 10 1.3% 8 800 (100%)

700 87.5% 0.7 100 12.5% 2 800 (100%)

689 86% 1.1 111 14% 3.2 800 (100%)

693 86.6% 0.9 107 13.4% 2.8 800 (100%)

2872 89.7%

Locative strategy

Total

328 10.3% 3200 (100%)

As shown in Table 2, the predicative strategy is cross-linguistically more frequent than the locative one (i.e. Dutch: 98.7%, English: 87.5%, French: 86%, Spanish: 86.6%). In other words, the RSP usually takes the form of a nominal or adjectival phrase (cf. (8) and (9)) in the four languages under study. However, the chi-square test statistics indicates that there are significant differences with respect to the frequency of the predicative and locative strategies across languages (c2 ¼ 94.76, df ¼ 3, p value < 0.001).9 Indeed, a closer look at the standardized residuals 10 indicates that the locative strategy is strongly underrepresented in Dutch (cf. Standardized Residuals, henceforth SR ¼ 8), which means that prepositional phrases are much less frequent than expected in this language, compared to English, French and Spanish. Since the locative strategy is relatively uncommon as a way of encoding the RSP in NVCs, our study will mainly focus on the predicative strategy. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 will provide a fine-grained description of the RSPs in terms of (i) the morpho-syntactic categories through which they are instantiated and (ii) the predicative markers that are used to introduce them.

3.2. The RSP morpho-syntactic categories in nomination verb constructions Table 3 gives an overview of the different RSP morpho-syntactic categories that have been attested in our sample, along with their frequency in Dutch, English, French and Spanish.

8

Observed frequency (raw frequency, column percentage, standardized residuals). The statistical analysis has been conducted in R Studio (cf. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.). 10 The standardized residuals show which cells contribute the most to the significance of the chi-square test result: standardized residuals greater than þ2 indicate that the observed frequency is significantly higher than the expected frequency (¼ there are more observations than we would have expected under the null hypothesis), while standardized residuals lower than 2 indicate that the observed frequency is significantly lower than the expected frequency (¼ there are fewer observations than we would have expected under the null hypothesis). The larger the residuals the greater the contribution (see Levshina, 2015). 9

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

5

Table 3 The frequency of the different RSP morpho-syntactic categories by language. RSP morpho-syntactic categories/Languages

Dutch

English

French

Spanish

Total

Adjectives (ADJ)

0 0% 3.5 0 0% 1.5 670 84.8% 0.6 82 10.4% 0.3 21 2.7% 1.4 17 2.1% 3.5 790 (100%)

18 2.8% 2.1 0 0% 1.4 471 67.3% 4.5 128 18.3% 6.1 79 11.1% 10.7 4 0.6% 1 700 (100%)

22 3.2% 3.4 6 0.9% 2.9 648 94% 3.2 13 1.9% 7.1 0 0% 5 0 0% 2.5 689 (100%)

5 0.7% 1.8 2 0.3% 0.1 592 85.4% 0.7 85 12.3% 1.2 3 0.4% 4.4 6 0.9% 0.2 693 (100%)

45 1.6%

Noun-adjectives (N-ADJ)

Bare nouns (BN)

Definite NPs (DNP)

Indefinite NPs (INP)

Partitive NPs (PNP)

Total

8 0.3% 2382 82.9% 308 10.7% 102 3.5% 27 0.9% 2872 (100%)

As shown in Table 2, the RSP mostly appears as a bare noun (cf. (13)) in the four studied languages (i.e. Dutch: 84.8%, English: 67.4%, French: 94.%, Spanish: 85.4%), i.e. the bare noun is the most prototypical form for the expression of the RSP in this specific construction 11. Other morpho-syntactic categories are attested: definite NPs (cf. (14)), indefinite NPs (cf. (15)), partitive NPs (cf. (16)), adjectives (cf. (17)) and a few bicategorical lexical items (noun-adjectives)12 13. (13) He took up a position as lecturer in physics at Macquarie University in mid-1985 and was promoted to senior lecturer13 in 1991. (14) John Fitzgerald Kennedy delivered his famous inauguration speech on January 20, 1961, when he was elected the 35th president of the United States. (15) Yet there's many in football who believe that the best time to rebuild is just after you've been crowned a Champion, [.]. (16) In this segment alone, 31 people were killed in crashes between 1992 and 2006, leading Readers Digest to proclaim it one of ‘America's Deadliest Highways’ in 2000. (17) According to the Emancipation Proclamation, we as a people were proclaimed free to go for ourselves.

The results show that the different syntactic categories are not evenly distributed across the four investigated languages (X2 ¼ 346,82, df ¼ NA, p < 0.001, based on Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 replicates). Bare nouns are more frequent in French (cf. SR ¼ 3.2) and less frequent in English (cf. SR ¼ 4.5). Conversely, definite NPs are more frequent in English (cf. SR ¼ 6.1) and less frequent in French (cf. SR ¼ 7.1). Indefinite NPs are also more frequent in English (cf. SR ¼ 10.7), and are rarer in Spanish (cf. SR ¼ 4.4) and in French (cf. SR ¼ 5), where this category is not represented at all. Partitive NPs are more frequent in Dutch (cf. SR ¼ 3.5). Finally, adjectives are more frequent in French (cf. SR ¼ 3.4) and in English (cf. SR ¼ 2.1), and less frequent in Dutch (cf. SR ¼ 3.5) where they are not attested. It appears then that, while English shows a wide range of different RSP morpho-syntactic categories, French seems to be almost limited to the bare noun. Dutch and Spanish, on the other hand, constitute intermediate cases. The data illustrated in Table 2 also suggest that there might be an implicational scale regarding the distribution of the nominal categories (cf. (18)): bare nouns constitute the most frequent option, followed by definite NPs – attested in every language – and then by indefinite and partitive NPs – attested in all languages but French. Hence, we could assume – according to this scale – that if a language has partitive and indefinite NPs occurring as RSPs in NVCs, it will also have definite NPs and bare nouns. Adjectives seem, however, to function independently of this scale.

11

The term ‘prototype’ is understood throughout this paper as the most frequent option (see also Jansegers et al., 2015). As is well known, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish bare nouns from adjectives when the latter occur in predicative position. Indeed, it is not clear whether chrétien ‘Christian’ in Jean est/se proclame chrétien ‘John is/proclaims himself B Christian’ is used as an adjective or as a noun (i.e. a Christian). In English, however, this potential ambiguity is less prominent as the indefinite article sometimes precedes the noun (e.g. John is/proclaims himself a Christian), clearly indicating the nominal character of the latter. In addition, in Germanic languages, predicatively used adjectives differ from bare nouns in that the former do not agree, neither in number nor in gender, with their nominal head (e.g. They are/proclaim themselves communist). In Romance languages, on the contrary, agreement also takes place with adjectives (e.g. Ils sont/se proclament communistes). It should also be stressed that some languages, like French, show a great ‘categorical permeability’ (cf. Lauwers & Van Goethem (subm.)) in the sense that adjectives easily convert into nouns and vice versa. 13 We have not analyzed the preposition to as the head of a prepositional phrase but as a predicative marker introducing the RSP, which is, in that case, a bare noun (e.g. senior lecturer). The same analysis has been applied to the whole set of predicative markers encountered in the four languages studied (see discussion in Section 3.3). 12

6

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

(18) Indefinite and partitive NPs > Definite NPs > bare nouns

3.3. The RSP markers in nomination verb constructions Two types of RSP markers have been identified in our sample: they will be referred to as ‘to-markers’ and ‘as-markers’. Tomarkers include directional prepositions (viz. Dutch: tot (cf. 19)), English: to (cf. (20)), Spanish: a (cf. (21))), while as-markers include comparatives (viz. Dutch: als (cf. (22)), English: as (cf. (23)), French: comme (cf. (24)), Spanish: como (cf. (25))): (19) De finale tegen Italië was zo spannend, dat die wedstrijd door het Nederlands publiek werd uitgeroepen tot het sportmoment van de vorige eeuw. ‘The final against Italy was so thrilling that this game was proclaimed the sports moment of the last century by the Dutch audience.’

(20) He took up a position as lecturer in physics at Macquarie University in mid-1985 and was promoted to senior lecturer in 1991. (21) Llegué de la Universidad de Chicago como profesor asistente y me ascendieron a profesor asociado justo antes de regresar a Chile. ‘I arrived from the University of Chicago as an assistant professor assistant and they promoted me to associate professor just before going back to Chile.’ (22) De VN had 2011 daarom uitgeroepen als internationaal Jaar van de Bossen. ‘The UN had therefore proclaimed 2011 as international year of forests.’ (23) “If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon”. (24) La manipulation de données sur le disque dur couronne Linux comme grand champion. ‘The data manipulation on the hard drive crowns Linux as great champion.’ (25) El pasado 18 de febrero, la Directora General de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (Unesco), Irina Bokova, proclamó a este 2010 como el “Año Internacional de Acercamiento de las Culturas”. ‘Last February 18, Irina Bokova, director-general of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco), proclaimed 2010 as the “International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures”.’

In our analysis, marked RSPs (cf. (19)–(25)) have been distinguished from prepositional RSPs (cf. (10)–(12)) 14. Indeed, the contrast between examples (26a) and (26b) on the one hand and examples (27a) and (27b) on the other shows that we are dealing with two different types of complement: one refers to a location, which can be concrete (e.g. the senate in (26a)) or abstract (e.g. the rank of captain in (26b)), the other refers to a characteristic (more specifically a status) (e.g. senior lecturer in (27a) and president in (27b)). These differences are reflected in the syntax by the fact that, in examples (26a) and (26b), the constituent selected by to cannot be semantically interpreted without some kind of preposition in copular uses - contrary to what we observe in examples (27a) and (27b) where to and as are used as RSP markers: (26) ¼>

a.

She was elected to the US senate

b.

She was promoted ¼> to the rank of captain

*she is the US senate ¼> *she is the rank of captain

¼>

she is in the US senate ?she is at the rank of captain

(27) a. He was promoted to senior lecturer ¼> he is a senior lecturer b. He was elected as president ¼> he is president

Although abstract locative PP RSPs (e.g. to the rank/position/role of X) may not be fully acceptable in copular uses in English (cf. example (26b)), they can perfectly occur in such a context in French, which is something that marked RSPs cannot do: (28) Une fois les 3 premiers dan passés, le judoka est au rang de "disciple". (cf. Google) ‘Once the judoka has passed the first 3 dan, he is at the rank of “trainee”’ (29) Voici un an qu'il est au poste de directeur général des services à la ville. (cf. Google) ‘He has been at the position of general manager of public services for a year now’

Furthermore, while in some contexts, abstract locative PP RSPs and marked nominal RSPs seem to be almost interchangeable (e.g. promoted to the rank of captain/to captain), in other contexts, they cannot be substituted for each other: for instance, in French, the verb élever ‘elevate’ can combine with both concrete (e.g. élevé à la papauté ‘elevated to the papacy’) and abstract locative PP RSPs (e.g. elevé au rang/poste de directeur ‘elevated to the rank/position of director’), but not with NP RSPs (e.g. *élevé directeur ‘elevated to director’). Such a contrast suggests that these two RSPs types constitute two different kinds of complements.

14

The former have been analyzed as belonging to the predicative strategy, the latter as belonging to the locative strategy (cf. Section 2.1).

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

7

Finally, as pointed out by Lauwers and Tobback (2018), although to- and as-markers are, to a certain extent, prepositionlike items, they show clear signs of decategorialisation. For instance, genuine prepositions are supposed to block movement out of a PP (i.e. the so-called island-constraint of Ross (1967)), as is the case in non-predicative uses of tot (cf. (30a)). However, when used as a predicative marker, tot seems to be a less strong barrier, as shown by the acceptability of the example in (30b)15: (30) a. *Daar is de berg waarvan hij tot de top klom. ‘There is the mountain from which he climbed to the top.’ b. Dat is de raad waarvan hij tot voorzitter is verkozen. ‘That is the council of which he has been elected president.’

Such a contrast strongly suggests that these apparent PPs are in a way less prepositional and that they should not be considered as true PPs but as marked NPs. The frequencies of the different marking strategies are shown in Table 4: Table 4 Frequency of the different RSP marker types by language. RSP marker type/Languages

Dutch

English

French

Spanish

Total

B

2 0.3% 20.2 730 92.4% 28 58 7.3% 4.6 790 (100%)

425 60.7% 3 157 22.4% 5.3 118 16.8% 2.5 700 (100%)

670 97.4% 16.3 0 0% 15.3 18 2.6% 7.7 688 (100%)

408 59% 2.3 95 13.7% 9.2 190 27.4% 10.1 693 (100%)

1506 52.4%

to-markers

as-markers

Total

982 34.2% 384 13.4% 2872 (100%)

As shown in Table 4, RSPs are for the most part not introduced by any explicit marker: this is the case for English (cf. 60.7%), French (cf. 97.4%), and Spanish (cf. 59%) – but not for Dutch where only two RSPs have been attested without tot or als: (31) Het Britse dagblad The Guardian kroonde Jacket 'the Prince of online magazines'. ‘The British newspaper The Guardian crowned Jacket 'the Prince of online magazines'.’ (32) Gisteren kroonden de dames van DCLA zich al de sterkste damesclub van het land in het eigen Kessel-Lo. ‘Yesterday, the ladies of DCLA already crowned themselves the most powerful ladies club of the country in their own Kessel-Lo.’

We observe significant differences across languages with respect to the different RSP marking strategies: X2 ¼ 2010.9, df ¼ 6, p-value < 0.001. A closer look at the residuals indicates that French – unlike Dutch – has a very strong preference for the non-marking strategy (cf. SR ¼ 16.3). In fact, there seems to be some kind of continuum with respect to the frequency of RSP markers: while Dutch and French are at the opposite extremes – the former showing the highest rate of RSP markers, the latter the lowest – Spanish and English are intermediate cases. It appears that the preposition tot in Dutch is much more frequent than its English and Spanish counterparts. This observation is accounted for by the fact that in these two languages to and a are only attested with directional nomination verbs (promote (cf. (33c)) and ascender (cf. (33b)), respectively). Tot, on the other hand, also occurs with other verbs than directional ones (cf. uitroepen, ‘proclaim’ in (19)). As can be seen in Table 4, French does not seem to allow the preposition à as a predicative marker in NVCs – even with a directional verb (compare the examples in (33))16:

15 Spanish seems to be in line with Dutch with respect to the categorical status of these items since sentence (1) has been judged as unacceptable by our informants – contrary to sentence (2) where a is used as a predicative marker. However, in English, sentences (3) and (5) turn out to be equally unacceptable, which means that extraction out of the to-phrase is not allowed whether to is used as a preposition as in (3) or as a predicative marker as in (4): Does the absence of contrast between sentence (3) and (4) suggest that to is more “prepositional” and, therefore, less desemanticized than its Dutch and Spanish counterparts ? For now, we will have to remain agnostic about the final analysis of to in English.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

*Allí está la montaña de la cual (el) subió a la cima. (lit.) 'That's the mountain from which he climbed to the top' Allí está la empresa de la cual (el) fue ascendido a director. (lit) 'That's the company of which (he) was promoted to director.' *That's the mountain he climbed to the top of. *That's the company he was promoted to director of.

16 French used to have the preposition à as a predicative marker (e.g. prendre à femme, ‘take to wife’). It is still attested in expressions, for instance in prendre à témoin, ‘ask someone to bear witness’.

8

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

(33) a. b. c. d.

Il a été promu B chef. Fue ascendido a jefe. He was promoted to chief. Hij werd gepromoveerd tot chef.

As they are not limited to one specific verb subclass, as-markers tend to have a broader use than to-markers. However, they are rarely attested with directional verbs: we have found only one occurrence of such a combination in Spanish (cf. (34)), one in French (cf. (35)), and three in Dutch – although, in these contexts, the verb is associated with a more specific meaning: in (36), promoveren ‘promote’ no longer means ‘to raise (someone) to a higher position’ but ‘to graduate’. (34) Los soldados bachilleres que hayan sido distinguidos como dragoneantes para poder ser ascendidos como Subtenientes de la Reserva recibirán un entrenamiento acorde con las normas que determine cada Comando de Fuerza [.]. ‘The graduated soldiers who have been distinguished as ‘dragoneantes’ to be promoted as Second Lieutenants of the Reserve will receive a training according to the rules determined by each Force Command [ .].’ (35) [.] qui a réparé des injustices ou des déséquilibres de progression dans les itinéraires professionnels (des CDD, vacataires, saisonniers ont pu être promus comme "agent de restauration"). ‘[.] which has repaired injustices or imbalances in career progression (temporary, casual and seasonal workers could have been promoted as "catering agent").’ (36) Johan van Rhijn (1943) promoveerde als bioloog in Groningen. ‘Johan van Rhijn (1943) graduated as a biologist in Groningen.’

Now that we have established the range of morpho-syntactic categories and predicative markers available in NVCs, the question arises whether these two parameters interact and, if so, how this interaction contributes to the makeup of the RSP. For instance, a closer look at the Spanish data (cf. Table 5) reveals that most definite NPs are introduced by como (¼ 64/85), a predicative marker which turns out to be much less frequent in French. RSP markers seem, therefore, to play an important role in the licensing of certain RSP categories. In section 3.4 we further investigate this possible correlation and look for similar facts with other makers. We consecutively look into Spanish (3.4.1), English (3.4.2.), Dutch (3.4.3) and French (3.4.4). The statistical analysis will show that there is a clear correlation between the RSP morpho-syntactic category and the RSP marker type in Spanish and English, but not in Dutch. We will see that French constitutes the least clear case with respect to the interaction between these two variables since very few markers have been attested in this language. 3.4. Interaction between RSP categories and RSP markers 3.4.1. The case of Spanish As previously mentioned, Spanish has two different RSP markers: a ‘to’ and como ‘as’. The data shown in Table 4 suggest that there is, indeed, an interaction between the use of one of these markers and the RSP morpho-syntactic category. The chisquare test statistics indicate that these two variables are associated significantly: X2 ¼ 139.01, df ¼ NA, p value < 0.001 (based on Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 replicates). More specifically, as shown in Table 5, when the RSP is not formally marked, bare nouns are more frequent (cf. SR ¼ 6.6) while definite NPs are less frequent (cf. SR ¼ 6.8). Conversely, when the RSP is introduced by como, definite NPs are more frequent (cf. SR ¼ 10.7), whereas bare nouns are less frequent (cf. SR ¼ 10.7). As for indefinite and partitive NPs, there is very little evidence that they are also more frequent than expected in this context (cf. (37) and (38), respectively). In other words, full NPs tend to be more often marked by como than bare nouns. On the other hand, when the RSP is introduced by the directional preposition a, bare nouns seem to be the only option available since no other syntactic category is represented.

(37) El día de hoy celebramos el Día Internacional de la Paz, que fue proclamado por la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, como un día anual de cesación de fuego y hostilidades, así como de no violencia [ .]. ‘Today we celebrate the International Day of Peace, which was proclaimed by the United Nations Organization as an annual day of ceasefire and hostilities, as well as nonviolence [ .].’ (38) En el Festival de Karlovy Vary fue elegido como uno de los diez cineastas más relevantes del mundo. ‘At the Karlovy Vary Festival he was elected as one of the ten most relevant filmmakers in the world.’

3.4.2. The case of English As shown in Table 6, the use of the RSP markers to and as also correlates with the RSP morpho-syntactic category in English: X2 ¼ 106.15, df ¼ NA, p value < 0.001 (based on Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 replicates). Like in Spanish, when the RSP is formally marked by the directional preposition to, bare nouns are more frequent (cf. SR ¼ 4.8), while definite and

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

9

Table 5 Frequency of the RSP morpho-categories with respect to the different RSP marker types in Spanish. RSP morpho-syntactic category/RSP marker type

B

a

como

Total

Adjectives (ADJ)

5 1.2% 1.9 2 0.50% 1.2 379 93% 6.6 21 5.1% 6.8 0 0% 2.1 1 0.2% 2.1 408 (100%)

0 0% 0.9 0 0% 0.6 95 100% 4.33 0 0% 3.9 0 0% 0.7 0 0% 1 95 (100%)

0 0% 1.4 0 0% 0.9 118 62.1% 10.7 64 33.7% 10.7 3 1.6% 2.8 5 2.6% 3.1 190 (100%)

5 0.7%

Noun-adjectives (N-ADJ)

Bare nouns (BN)

Definite NPs (DNP)

Indefinite NPs (INP)

Partitive NPs (PNP)

Total

2 0.3% 592 85.4% 85 12.3% 3 0.4% 6 0.9% 693 (100%)

indefinite NPs are rarer (cf. SR ¼ 5.2 and 3.9). Indeed, definite (cf. (39)) and indefinite NPs (cf. (40)) have been attested only once without predicative marker. When the RSP is introduced by the marker as, definite NPs are more frequent (cf. SR ¼ 3.7). However, the data indicate that this trend is stronger in Spanish. Indeed, if we compare the percentages in Tables 5 and 6, we can see that the difference between the proportions of as-marked definite NPs and of unmarked definite NPs are greater in Spanish (cf. 33.7% vs. 5.1%) than in English (cf. 33% vs. 20.7%). Furthermore, contrary to what we observed in Spanish, indefinite NPs are more frequent when the RSP is not formally marked (cf. SR ¼ 2.3). (39)

Inspector Alexander Tolmer (who was later promoted to the Commissioner of Police) recommended to the state government that [ .].

(40)

In 1804, Napoleon promoted him to a Marshal of France, and later granted him the title of 'Prince of Pontecorvo', a town in Southern Italy.

Table 6 Frequency of the RSP morpho-categories with respect to the different RSP marker types in English. RSP morpho-syntactic category/RSP marker type

B

to

as

Total

Adjectives (ADJ)

17 4% 1.8 254 59.8% 1.8 88 20.7% 1.2 64 15% 2.3 2 0.5% 0.3 425 (100%)

0 0% 2 155 98.7% 4.8 1 0.6% 5.2 1 0.6% 3.9 0 0% 1 157 (100%)

1 0.8% 1.2 62 52.5% 1.9 39 33% 3.7 14 12% 0.2 2 1.7% 1.6 118 (100%)

18 2.6%

Bare nouns (BN)

Definite NPs (DNP)

Indefinite NPs (INP)

Partitive NPs (PNP)

Total

471 67.3% 128 18.3% 79 11.3% 4 0.6% 700 (100%)

3.4.3. The case of Dutch Table 7 shows no significant association between the RSP category and the RSP marker type in Dutch: X2 ¼ 17.799, df ¼ NA, p > 0.05 (based on Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 replicates). Indeed, topbot of the two RSP markers (i.e. neither tot nor als) is attested more or less frequently with one particular RSP category. It should be mentioned, however, that the RSP marker tot differs in many respects from its Spanish and English counterparts since tot not only occurs with non-directional verbs (cf. Section 3.3), but also with other morpho-syntactic categories than bare nouns, namely definite (cf. (41)), indefinite (cf. (42)) and partitive NPs (cf. (43)) as shown in Table 7 and illustrated by the following examples: (41) Annette de Boer, docent op het Gymnasium Celeanum, is verkozen tot de beste natuurkundedocent van Nederland! ‘Annette de Boer, a teacher at the Gymnasium Celeanum, has been elected the best natural science teacher in the Netherlands!’

10

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

(42) Het gebied is uitgeroepen tot een nationaal park. ‘The area is proclaimed a national park.’ (43) Met dit cijfer kroont dit filmfeest zich meteen tot een van de grootste evenementen van België. ‘With such a figure, this film festival instantly crowns itself as one of the biggest events in Belgium.’

Table 7 Frequency of the RSP morpho-categories with respect to the different RSP marker types in Dutch. RSP morpho-syntactic category/RSP marker type

B

tot

als

Total

Bare nouns (BN)

0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 2 (100%)

621 85.1% 73 10% 20 2.7% 16 2.2% 730 (100%)

49 84.5% 7 12.1% 1 1.7% 1 1.7% 58 (100%)

670 85% 82 10.4% 21 2.6% 17 2.1% 790 (100%)

Definite NPs (DNP) Indefinite NPs (INP) Partitive NPs (PNP) Total

3.4.4. The case of French Although we have counted only 18 cases where the RSP is introduced by a predicative marker, the chi-square test statistics indicates that there is also a significant association between the RSP category and the RSP marker in French: X2 ¼ 19.941, df ¼ NA, p < 0.05 (based on Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 replicates) 17. Table 8 indeed provides very little evidence that adjectives and definite NPs are more frequent than expected when the RSP is marked by comme (cf. SR ¼ 3.2 and 2.8, respectively). Those results are partially in line with what we observed in Spanish and English, since definite NPs are also more frequently attested with as-markers in these two languages. However, it is impossible to verify whether this trend also applies to indefinite and partitive NPs in French since they have not been attested.

Table 8 Frequency of the RSP morpho-categories with respect to the different RSP marker types in French. RSP morpho-syntactic category/RSP marker type

B

comme

Total

Adjectives (ADJ)

19 2.8% 0.5 6 1% 0.1 635 85% 0.2 11 1.6% 0.5 671 (100%)

3 16.6% 3.2 0 0% 0.4 13 72.2% 1 2 11% 2.8 18 (100%)

22 3.2%

Noun-adjectives (N-ADJ)

Bare nouns (BN)

Definite NPs (DNP)

Total

6 0.9% 648 94% 13 1.9% 689 (100%)

3.5. Results: summary In the preceding sections, we have made a number of observations with respect to the makeup of the RSP in NVCs: first, we have shown that two strategies can be used to encode the RSP in these constructions: a predicative and a locative strategy – the former being the most frequent option across the four languages studied. Second, we provide evidence that the bare noun is the most prototypical RSP morpho-syntactic category in NVCs. Definite, indefinite and partitive NPs and adjectives are also possible, although they are less frequent. It appears that these morpho-syntactic categories are not evenly distributed across languages: while English allows a wider range of different RSPs, French shows a strong preference for bare nouns. In a next phase, we have shown that, in some cases, the RSP is explicitly marked (i.e. either by a directional preposition or by a comparative). There are considerable differences in the use of RSP markers: (i) as-markers – as opposed to to-markers – are not limited to particular verbs or morpho-syntactic categories (although there are strong tendencies, cf. Section 3.4); (ii) while Dutch shows a very strong preference for marking, especially with the preposition tot, in French explicit marking seems to be

17

The association between these two variables is weak (Cramer's V ¼ 0.17).

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

11

avoided. Finally, we have shown that the availability of particular RSP morpho-syntactic categories sometimes depends on the presence of specific RSP markers and vice versa: for instance, in Spanish, full NPs (i.e. definite, indefinite and partitive NPs) occur more frequently with the as-marker. As observed in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.4, this trend only applies to definite NPs in English and French – albeit to a lesser extent. By contrast, English indefinite NPs are more frequent when the RSP is not formally marked. In Spanish and English, when the RSP is introduced by a to-marker (i.e. respectively a and to), bare nouns are almost the only RSP morpho-syntactic category available. In other words, to-marking tends to follow the distribution of the most prototypical RSP. However, we have seen that, in Dutch, tot is attested with other nominal categories – and other verbs than directional ones – which suggests that tot has been generalized as a predicative marker in NVCs and is, as such, associated with a completely different function compared to its English and Spanish counterparts. 4. Discussion In the present section we discuss the results of our corpus-based study in more detail. The discussion is organized as follows: in Section 4.1, in order to account for the availability of (particular) adjectives in NVCs, we argue that the semantics of the RSP and the morpho-syntactic category through which it is realized is licensed and constrained by the semantics of the verb and the construction. Then, in Section 4.2, we account for the interaction between the RSP morpho-syntactic category and the RSP marker type within the theory of non-verbal predication marking (cf. Croft, 1991, Dik, 1997, and Tobback, 2005, among others), as it turns out that some RSP morpho-syntactic categories occur more frequently with a marker than others (cf. Section 3.4). We will see, however, that the cross-linguistic distribution of these morpho-syntactic categories (cf. Section 3.2) cannot always be explained by the presence or absence of specific RSP markers, but is sometimes determined by crucial micro-typological differences between languages. Moreover, the scope of as-markers and to-markers markers will be discussed since they seem to correspond to two different marking strategies, with to-markers being related to particular verbs, and as-markers being independent of specific verbs and rather acting at a supra-lexical level. 4.1. Semantic constraints on the RSP: the case of adjectives As mentioned in the preceding sections, several morpho-syntactic categories can encode the RSP in NVCs: bare nouns, definite, indefinite, and partitive NPs but also adjectives. Although the use of adjectives in these constructions is somewhat unexpected, we argue that it is not contradictory and that it can be, in fact, accounted for by the semantics of the construction. Indeed, if we consider the NVC to be a construction in terms of the Construction Grammar framework (cf. Goldberg, 1995), that is to say, as a specific form-meaning pairing, we have to assume that adjectives, just like nouns, may refer to a status (cf. Section 1). Since bare nouns are usually characterized as expressing a status (cf. infra), they appear, unsurprisingly, as the most frequent option in NVCs. They are followed by other nominal morpho-syntactic categories (i.e. definite, indefinite and partitive NPs). By contrast, adjectives are usually described as assigning a property rather than a status to their referent (cf. Hengeveld, 1992) but their availability in NVCs indicates, however, that they can also construe a status semantics. As a matter of fact, the semantics of the NVC also constrains the semantic nature of the adjectives observed in the construction: since the RSP must refer to a status (i.e. something that either one is or is not), these adjectives tend to denote nongradable properties (cf. 34/45, 75%), as evidenced by the fact that they resist modification by intensifiers: (44) Those conceived naturally without genetic screening are proclaimed (*very) "invalid" and only allowed menial jobs, despite the innate talents and skills they may possess. (45) L'Assemblée, effrayée par le soulèvement des soldats de Nancy, et mal renseignée sur les causes de l'agitation rendit, le 6 août, un décret qui proclamait (*très) coupable de haute trahison tout soldat qui refuserait l'obéissance. ‘The Assembly, frightened by the uprising of soldiers in Nancy, and ill-informed as to the causes of the agitation, issued a decree on August 6, which proclaimed (*very) guilty of high treason any soldier who would refuse obedience.’ (46) La lluvia se precipitaba con una intensidad desusada sobre Buenos Aires ese viernes 17 de noviembre de 1972 que el gobierno de Lanusse había proclamado (*muy) feriado. ‘The rain poured down with unusual intensity over Buenos Aires on Friday, November 17, 1972, which the government of Lanusse had proclaimed a day (*very) off.’

It should be stressed that the use of adjectives in NVCs is also constrained by the verb semantics since adjectives have only been attested with one specific verb or verb subclass, viz. proclaim-verbs, which is probably why they are, crosslinguistically, not so frequent compared to nominal morpho-syntactic categories (cf. Section 3.2). We know, however, that quite a few nomination verbs can select for adjectival predicates (cf. (47)). In fact, while some of them may only take adjectival predicates (cf. (47b-c)), others may take both nominal and adjectival predicates (cf. (47a)) – suggesting that (preferably non-gradable) adjectives can assign a status to their referent in NVCs – if the verb semantics allows it, as shown in (47).

12

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

(47) a. Déclarer X[þ human] successeur/mort ‘Declare X successor/dead’ b. Dépister X[þhuman] séropositif ‘Test X HIV-positive’ c. Certifier X[- human] halal ‘Certify X halal’

4.2. The theory of non-verbal predication marking This section deals with the interaction observed between the RSP morpho-syntactic category and the RSP marker type in NVCs (cf. Section 3.4). More precisely, it is shown that some morpho-syntactic categories such as definite, indefinite and partitive NPs are less inclined to occupy a predicative function and, as such, tend to occur more frequently with an RSP marker. By contrast, bare nouns, on a par with verbs and adjectives, constitute more prototypical predicates and do not need to be explicitly marked. We will see throughout this section that across the languages studied there are some exceptions to this generalization. 4.2.1. Less prototypical predicates tend to be formally marked In Section 3.4.1. we have seen that, in Spanish, full NPs (i.e. definite, indefinite and partitive NPs) are more frequently marked by como ‘as’ than bare nouns. This contrast has already been observed in the literature on object-oriented secondary predication in French (cf. Tobback, n.d.; Tobback and Defrancq, 2008; Willems and Defrancq, 2000). On the basis of Croft’s (1991) theory of markedness, Tobback, 2005 shows that full NPs are less prototypical predicates and, as such, tend to require marking by comme when they occur in a predicative position. Croft (1991) defines the fundamental morpho-syntactic categories, i.e. nouns, verbs and adjectives, on the basis of a combination of traditional semantic characteristics and pragmatic functions. Traditionally, nouns, verbs and adjectives are said to denote respectively ‘things’, ‘actions’ and ‘properties’. They are additionally associated with different pragmatic or discourse functions, which are ‘reference’ (i.e. what we are talking about), ‘predication’ (i.e. what we are saying about the referent) and ‘modification’, respectively. According to Croft (1991), if one of these morpho-syntactic categories is associated with a different pragmatic function (e.g. a noun or an adjective in a predicative position), such a syntactic category will constitute a less prototypical and, therefore syntactically marked lexical item. However, as noted by Croft (1991) and later by Tobback, 2005, although adjectives and nouns are both expected to be less prototypical predicates, adjectives are somewhat more inclined to occupy a predicative function than nouns. In this respect, adjectives are closer to verbs than to nouns and constitute, as such, an intermediate class between verbs and nouns: (i) while nouns are free lexical items (a prominent idea in Guillaume, 1973, 1985 “incidence interne”), adjectives and verbs require at least one argument (i.e. they have a non-zero valency), and (ii) while nouns are characterized by a full set of different properties (cf. Wierzbicka, 1998), adjectives and verbs are semantically unidimensional (cf. Goes, 1999: 76). Therefore, following the same reasoning, nouns – as less prototypical predicates – are expected to occur more frequently with additional marking18 19. However, full NPs have to be distinguished from bare nouns. As shown below, bare nouns correspond to a particular subclass of nouns since they differ in many respects from (canonical) nouns on the one hand, and show similarities with adjectives and verbs on the other. As such, full NPs are expected to be more frequently marked than bare nouns when used as predicates. This prediction has been borne out in Spanish since we found that, when the RSP is preceded by the predicative marker como, full NPs are more frequent while bare nouns are less frequent (cf. Section 3.4.1). In English too, less prototypical predicates tend to be formally marked. However, this only concerns definite NPs. Indeed, this category occurs more frequently with the predicative marker as than the other nominal morpho-syntactic categories (cf. Section 3.4.2). By contrast, contrary to what we observed for Spanish, indefinite NPs do not seem to require any explicit marking (i.e. most indefinite NPs in our sample are not marked ¼ 64/79, Table 6). They are also more frequent in English than in any other language under study (cf. Section 3.2). Nevertheless, these results are not so surprising considering the fact that, in English, nominal predicates are attested very often with the indefinite article, whereas in Dutch, French and Spanish, they occur obligatorily without a determiner in this syntactic context (cf. (48b–d)). (48) a. b. c. d.

He is a student. Hij is B student. Il est B étudiant. Es B estudiante.

(English) (Dutch) (French) (Spanish)

18 For instance, according to Ferguson (1971:147), nominal predicates tend to be more frequently marked by the copula than adjectival predicates across languages. 19 Such a generalization does not corroborate with French data. Indeed, we have very little evidence that adjectives, on a par with definite NPs, occur more frequently with comme (SR ¼ 3.2) in NVCs (cf. section 3.4.4). This observation could be accounted for by the fact that bare nouns constitute the most prototypical morpho-syntactic category, while adjectives are quite marginal (cf. Section 3.2) – and therefore less prototypical in these particular constructions.

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

13

In Langacker's view (1991: 67-9), although English indefinite nouns (cf. (48a)) and predicative bare nouns (cf. (48b–d)) are functionally equivalent, they differ with respect to their semantics: while predicative bare nouns indicate a “type specification” (i.e. the student type), indefinite nouns indicate an arbitrary instance of a type (i.e. an arbitrary member of the student type). Hence, contrary to indefinite nouns, predicative bare nouns lack ‘instantiation’ (cf. Langacker, 2006: 55–6) or – as Lauwers (2011: 37) puts it – “conceptual individuation”. However, it should be stressed that nominal predicates can or rather have to occur without the indefinite article when they refer to a single role holder (cf. Berezowski, 2011; 2014; Hundt, 2015). Indeed, there cannot be more than one president, king or pope at one time: (49) He was B president/king/pope.

According to Berezowski (2011), the indefinite article obeys a numerical constraint which implies that it can only be used when the referent described by the noun is interpreted as a member of a set, suggesting, therefore, that there is more than one member in this set. It should also be mentioned that the availability of predicative indefinite nouns is a rather pervasive phenomenon in English as they occur without marking in other contexts including consider-verb constructions (cf. (50)), depictive constructions (cf. (51)) and resultative constructions (e.g. NVCs (cf. (52)), chromatic change verb constructions (cf. 53))): (50) I consider him a fool. (51) ‘In the end this shall be for me sufficient, that a marble stone shall declare that a Queen, having reigned such a time, lived and died a virgin.’ (cf. Elizabeth I, Collected Works) (52) In 2007 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. (53) I painted the car a pale shade of yellow. (cf. Simpson,1983: 1, (2))

In short, these observations suggest that bare nouns and indefinite NPs are more prototypical predicates in English and, as such, do not require to be formally marked. However, the fact that definite NPs have a slight preference for marking (cf. Section 3.4.2) indicates that they also constitute less prototypical predicates in this language. 4.2.2. The intermediate categorical status of the default RSP morpho-syntactic category: bare nouns As observed in the preceding sections (cf. Section 3.4.1 and Section 3.4.2), bare nouns do not occur as much with RSP markers as full NPs do (with the exception of English indefinite NPs, as discussed in 4.2.1). In this section, we try to elucidate why these nouns in particular can occur in predicative positions independently of marking. In fact, as pointed out by many scholars (cf. Lauwers, 2007, 2011; Riegel, 1985; Tobback, n.d.; Van Peteghem, 1993), bare nouns constitute a particular use of nouns, which is very different from the one of full NPs from both a semantic and a syntactic point of view. First of all, when used as predicates, bare nouns have been described as less referential than definite and indefinite NPs, as evidenced by the fact that they cannot be recovered by a proform (cf. (52a)), while this is still possible for indefinite NPs (cf. (54b)): (54) a. Le chef de servicex qu'on vient de licencier est médeciny. *Ily/*Ce médeciny a passé des documents internes à ses anciens confrères. ‘The head of servicex who has just been dismissed is B doctory. *Hey/*This doctory gave internal documents to his former colleagues.’ b. Le chef de servicex qu'on vient de licencier est un médeciny. *Ily/Ce médeciny a passé des documents internes à ses anciens confrères. ‘The head of servicex who has just been dismissed is a doctory. *Hey/This doctory gave internal documents to his former colleagues.’

(Cf. Riegel, 1985: 55)

(Cf. Riegel, 1985: 55)

Second, bare nouns are also subject to specific syntactic constraints – which is presumably related to their nonreferentiality: indeed, they cannot be modified by a descriptive adjective (cf. (55) nor by a grounded relative clause (cf. (56)) in copular sentences. The fact that bare nouns resist modifications that typically apply to nominal heads further indicates that they are somewhat different from prototypical nouns (i.e. nouns preceded by a determiner): (55) *He was wonderful president. (56) *He was president we could be proud of.

Now, if we look at the types of nouns that are attested in the bare-construction, we can see that they actually show similarities with adjectives and verbs, which are predicates par excellence. According to Van Peteghem (1993), nouns describing occupations (e.g. lawyer), relationships (e.g. mother, husband), nationalities (e.g. French), religious and political affiliations (e.g. Muslim, socialist), social status (e.g. single), and those describing a particular role in a situation (e.g. witness,

14

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

victim) all occur very frequently without a determiner 20,21. As such, like verbs, nouns describing occupations refer to activities 22 , and nouns describing relationships intrinsically have a non-zero valency. Finally, with respect to the other subclasses, they are often described as less stable than prototypical nouns (e.g. single vs. man)23, a property usually attributed to verbs and adjectives (cf. Croft, 1991). Furthermore, according to Van Peteghem (1993), two types of ‘meanings’ may be ‘profiled’ in a noun: ‘primary’ meanings, which correspond to objective characteristics, and ‘peripheral’ meanings, which correspond to more subjective ones. The latter refer to a prominent quality that is allegedly representative of the whole group of individuals denoted by the noun. Crucially, bare nouns only profile primary meanings, whereas prototypical nouns may also profile peripheral meanings: while (57b) is associated with two different interpretations, namely that (i) Peter is a child or (ii) Peter behaves as such (i.e. he is immature), (57a) only allows the former interpretation. The bare predicate denotes an objective characteristic. It is then assumed that bare nouns are associated with a narrower semantics than prototypical nouns and are, de facto, similar to verbs and adjectives in this respect, which are described as unidimensional (cf. Goes, 1999). (57) a. Quand Pierre était enfant . When Peter was B child b. Pierre est un enfant. Peter is a child

Therefore, we can conclude that bare nouns form an intermediate category between ‘canonical’ nouns on one side (as they are still nouns) and adjectives and verbs on the other, since they are associated with nominal as well as adjectival/verbal properties. This has some consequences for predication marking: being close to prototypical predicates, bare nouns do not require marking as much as full NPs do (cf. Section 3.4). It appears then that Tobback, n.d.; Willems and Defrancq, 2000 and Tobback and Defrancq’s (2008) generalizations on secondary predication marking in French also hold for Spanish since we found out that, when the RSP is not marked, bare nouns are more frequent (cf. Section 3.4.1). We did not observe the same effect in English. However, as we have mentioned before, contrary to definite NPs, the proportion of bare nouns is relatively the same whether the RSP is marked by as or not (cf. Section 3.4.2)24. Until now, little has been said about to-markers. Nevertheless, as shown in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, the presence of such markers also constrains the RSP in NVCs. In the following section, we will see that the to-marking and as-marking strategies actually differ in many respects including (i) the verbs they occur with and (ii) the RSP morpho-syntactic categories they select for. 4.2.3. To-markers and as-markers: a lexical versus a supra-lexical strategy While as-markers occur more frequently with less prototypical RSPs, to-markers, by contrast, seem to follow the distribution of the most prototypical category, viz. bare nouns. These two predicate marking strategies are, in fact, very different from one another. First, to-markers in English and in Spanish are lexically selected by their respective directional verbs, i.e. promote and ascender (according to the mechanism called “lexical persistence”, cf. Hopper, 1991), whereas as-markers are not selected by one specific verb and are, in fact, attested with the whole set of verbs – including directional verbs, as observed in Section 3.4.1. Then, while there is a clear alternation between marking and non-marking by as, which mostly depends on the

20

Some nouns (e.g. French, Muslim, socialist and single) have, in fact, already acquired a double categorical status ‘noun/adjective’. This classification is based on Romance languages, namely French, Italian and Romanian. As observed earlier, different constraints apply to the bareconstruction in English (cf. numerical requirement). 22 The dynamicity of these nouns can actually be captured by the following French examples. It appears that this verbal construction seems only compatible with complements describing an activity: unlike coiffeuse ‘hairdresser’ and ministre ‘minister’, épouse ‘wife’ and victime ‘victim’ are not allowed in the construction as they describe a relationship and a role in a given situation, respectively. 21

(1) J'ai fait de la guitare pendant 5 ans. (lit.) I did guitar for 5 years ‘I played the guitar for 5 years.’ (2) J'ai fait coiffeuse/ministre/*épouse/*victime pendant 5 ans. (lit.) I did hairdresser/minister/*wife/*victim for 5 years ‘I was a hairdresser/minister/*wife/*victim for 5 years.’ 23 This idea, however, has come to be challenged by some authors (cf. Lauwers, 2007, contra Kupferman, 1991: 63, Engel and Rossi-Gensane, 2004: 191), who argued that bare nouns can perfectly well denote permanent properties (cf. (1)) and, conversely, that nouns preceded by a determiner can denote transitory properties (cf. (2)). As a matter of fact, the relevant difference seems to be the one-dimensionality of the bare noun predication (vs. nouns as bundles of properties), which once more shows that bare nouns are akin to adjectives. As such, bare nouns allow for the coordination of competing properties (He is X and Y).

(1) Pierre est orphelin. Peter is B orphan (2) Pierre est un bon président. Peter is a good president 24

As shown in Table 6 (cf. Section 3.4.2), bare nouns are not significantly less frequent than expected when the RSP is not marked.

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

15

RSP category, the presence or absence of to-markers seems to be lexically determined. Indeed, as promote and ascender imply a goal-oriented movement, these verbs are logically followed by their corresponding directional prepositions (to and a respectively), as is the case in other contexts in which those prepositions are used: (58) a. I'm going to Paris b. Voy a París.

It should be mentioned here that there is presumably no directional predicative marker in French that is comparable to the other to-markers, precisely because of the fact that the preposition à in French is a less prominent marker of directionality as it occurs in directional (cf. (59a)) as well as stative contexts (cf. (59b)): (59) a. Je vais à Paris. I'm going to Paris b. Je suis à Paris. I'm in Paris

While the use of to-markers is thus motivated by a factor related to lexical semantics, the distribution of as-markers seems to depend on other conditions, such as the degree of prototypicality of a morpho-syntactic category in a predicative position, among other things. As-markers ‘strengthen’ the predicative relationship that holds between the RSP and its predication base in contexts where the latter may turn out to be ambiguous or unclear (e.g. in front of less prototypical predicates). However, other parameters might play a role in the licensing of as-markers: for instance, in Spanish, there are more heavy RSPs 25 after como than after zero marking: 52.6% against 39.7%26. However, although the weight of the RSP may be another determining factor in the use of these markers, this may turn out to be an indirect consequence since more than half of these heavy RSPs have a determiner (¼ 53%). As we know, modified predicates tend to require a determiner and, as a consequence, to be syntactically marked (cf. section 4.2.2). In addition, word order has to be considered, especially in a language such as Spanish, which has the freest word order: among all the sentences with the RSP marker como (¼ 190), 18 show a non-canonical word order where the RSP is anteposed to the left periphery of the clause (cf. (60) and (61), or directly after the verb (cf. ((62) and (63)), leaving the predication base behind. It should be stressed that, while in (62) and (63), the predicative marker is still optional, in (60) and (61) – when the RSP is preverbal – it is mandatory: (60) Como Primer Secretario del Partido Comunista de Cuba, fue elegido Raúl Castro Ruz, quien tuvo a su cargo las conclusiones del evento. ‘As First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, was elected Raul Castro Ruz who was in charge of the conclusions of the event.’ (61) También estaba claro que como mejor actor secundario se elegiría a Heath Ledger, fallecido tras el rodaje de El Caballero Oscuro, y cuya encarnación de Joker ha fascinado a crítica y público. ‘It was also clear that as best supporting actor would be chosen Heath Ledger, who died after the shooting of The Dark Knight, and whose incarnation of the Joker has fascinated critics and audiences’ (62) La Dirección General de Ordenación de las Migraciones procederá a proclamar como Consejeros titulares a los candidatos que hubieren obtenido el mayor número de votos y como suplentes a los que les sigan en número de votos. ‘The board of directors for the Regulation of Migration will proceed to proclaim as full members the candidates that have obtained the greatest number of votes and as substitutes those who follow them in number of votes.’ (63) La madrugada del sábado fue coronada como señorita Moquegua 2010, la bella moqueguana: Ingrid Tatiana Zapata Atoche, 19 años. ‘Early Saturday morning was crowned as Miss Moquegua 2010, the beautiful Moqueguana: Ingrid Tatiana Zapata Atoche, 19 year-old.’

This non-canonical word order is presumably a consequence of a particular organization of the information structure. As such, given the weight of the constituents – the predication base is particularly heavy in those sentences – and their respective position in the sentence, we could assume that the predication base is the focus of the sentence (i.e. what is new), and that the predicate is the topic (i.e. what is given). Those sentences are in this respect very similar to specificational sentences in which the predicate subject “[.] behaves as a variable (or as if it contains a variable), and the predicate complement serves to provide a value for that variable ” (Mikkelsen, 2005: 3, referring to Akmajian, 1970:19 and Higgins, 2015:153, 234; see also Halliday, 1967: 227ff). Tobback, 2005 and Tobback and Defrancq (2008) have actually made similar observations with respect to sentences with comme and have accounted for the use of such a predicative marker relying on Lambrecht’s (1994) work: as they tend to exhibit a non-canonical organization with respect to information structure, these sentences correspond to syntactically and prosodically marked structures. As previously mentioned, another important difference between these two RSP marking strategies concerns the RSP category they select for: to-markers only occur – with a few exceptions – with bare nouns (cf. Section 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). This

25 Heavy RSPs include RSPs that are modified either by one complex phrase (e.g. president [of the French Republic]) or by two phrases and more (e.g. [best] actress [of the year]). 26 However, the proportion test result indicates that the difference between these two proportions is not significant: p > 0.05.

16

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

implies that, in a language such as English, although the use of the indefinite article has spread across nominal predicates (cf. Section 4.2.1, examples (50)–(53)), and has almost become the norm, there are still some contexts that are reluctant to allow predicatively used indefinite nouns. In fact, this restriction had already been noted in Bolinger (1980). Our explanation is straightforward: as they describe motion, promote in English and ascender in Spanish require non-instantiated RSPs. In other words, someone can be promoted or elevated to a certain class, but not to one (arbitrary) member of a class. The syntactic restriction that applies to the indefinite article is then related to the verb semantics. In the following section, we will see that the above-mentioned restrictions do not hold in Dutch. As shown in Section 3.4.3, Dutch behaves quite differently from English, Spanish, and French with respect to RSP marking. 4.2.4. Dutch RSP markers: a particular case As observed in Section 3.4.3, tot is compatible with the four verbs under study and all the RSP morpho-syntactic categories. Indeed, contrary to English and Spanish to-markers, tot also occurs with non-directional verbs – which may turn out to be a sign of decategorialisation. The very high frequency of tot gives further evidence that the RSP in Dutch NVCs is marked by default by this specific marker. Moreover, we have seen that the RSP can alternatively be introduced by the RSP marker als. However, contrary to what we have observed in English, French and Spanish, there seems to be no correlation whatsoever between the use of these markers and the distribution of the RSP morpho-syntactic categories in Dutch. Indeed, neither tot nor als is attested more or less frequently with one particular morpho-syntactic category. It should also be stressed that, although it seems that tot and als can sometimes substitute one another, as is the case in (64), some contexts preclude the use of als. For instance, if the verb is not a nomination verb per se, but is coerced (cf. bombarderen ‘bombard’ in (65)), the use of als is felicitous but the sentence can no longer be interpreted as a NVC (cf. (65b)). In such a context, the use of the other predicative marker – tot – is the only possible option. Being default, tot clearly indicates to the hearer that the sentence illustrated in (65a) is a NVC. (64) a. Hij werd tot president verkozen. b. Hij werd als president verkozen. ‘He is elected to/as president’ (65) a. Hij werd tot directeur gebombardeerd. (lit.) ‘He is bombarded to director’ b. (*in nomination interpretation) Hij werd als directeur gebombardeerd. sHij werd als directeur gebombardeerd. (lit.) ‘Being (the) director, he was bombarded.’

Finally, regarding the RSP morpho-syntactic category, we have seen, in Section 3.1, that the RSP is very rarely instantiated by a locative PP RSP. Indeed, recall that, compared to English, French and Spanish, the locative strategy is strongly underrepresented in Dutch (cf. SR ¼ 8, Table 1). Such observation could be, in fact, attributed to the Dutch prepositional system: crucially, Dutch has no general (factotum-like) preposition similar to à ‘to’ in French which can select for both concrete and abstract nouns as a way of referring (metonymically) to a function. As such, contrary to French à, the preposition in ‘in’ in Dutch is still too strongly committed to the ‘container’ relation and is, therefore, very often inadequate to refer to abstract locations to designate titles, roles or functions. For instance, one can say he has been elected in het parlement ‘in the parliament’, in de raad ‘in the council’, and in het directiecomité ‘board committee’ – which are already sufficiently conventionalized as metonymic locations related to the corresponding function – but locations such as in het bisdom ‘in the bishopric’ and in de stoel van X ‘in the X's chair’ remain too concrete to refer to a role or function, contrary to their French equivalents. In addition, Dutch in can neither combine with abstract nouns of the type in het pausdom ‘in the papacy’, in het presidentschap ‘in the presidency’, and in het lidmaatschap ‘in the membership’ which refer to a function by means of the quality associated with that function. The combination of all these factors, which are completely orthogonal to the issue of ARCs, may explain why the locative strategy is poorly represented in our sample of Dutch NVCs.

5. Conclusion This paper offers a fine-grained description of the RSP in NVCs in four different languages (i.e. Dutch, English, French and Spanish). The results of our corpus-based study has shown that the make-up of the RSP is determined by various factors, namely: (i) the semantics of the verb and the construction: the RSP can be realized by many different morpho-syntactic categories as long as they can be construed as denoting a status. This requirement implies that nouns but also (preferably nongradable) adjectives are allowed in the NVC. (ii) cross-linguistic principles of adjustment of less prototypical predicates (i.e. in terms of morpho-syntactic categories, but also syntactic weight and position in the sentence – at least in Spanish) through explicit marking. Two RSP marking

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

17

strategies have been identified: (i) a generalized supra-lexical strategy that includes as-markers and the Dutch marker tot and (ii) a lexical strategy for particular nomination verbs, viz. promote-verbs, that includes to-markers. (iii) typological differences with respect to the general categorical make-up of predicative positions, of which the RSP in NVCs is a specific instance: English – as opposed to Dutch, French and Spanish – is characterized by a pervasive use of the indefinite article in front of nominal predicates. Importantly, we have shown that the Germanic vs. Romance dichotomy with respect to ARCs is not always respected since it appears that the ARC (i) is attested in Romance languages with particular verb classes (e.g. the nomination verb class), and (ii) is, actually, less complex in terms of RSP marking than in Dutch – a satellite-framing language – in such a context. These constructions, therefore, challenge Talmy’s (1985, 1991) typological generalization according to which the result of an event denoted by the verb cannot be encoded in a separate constituent (i.e. outside the matrix verb) in verb-framing languages such as Romance. Naturally, it would be interesting to investigate other aspects of NVCs, including the productivity of the verbal slot (i.e. which verbs are allowed in these constructions?). This question deserves to be investigated thoroughly in future research. References Acedo-Matellán, Víctor, 2012. Adjectival resultatives cross-linguistically: a morphophonological account. In: Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII, vol. 1, p. 25. Akmajian, Adrien, 1970. Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Arrizabalaga, Beatriz Rodríguez, 2016. Construcciones resultativas en español. Caracterización sintáctico-semántica. Philol. Canar.. Aske, Jon, 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: a closer look. In: Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 15, pp. 1–14. Berezowski, Leszek, 2011. The Myth of the Zero Article. Bolinger, Dwight Le Merton, 1980. Syntactic Diffusion and the Indefinite Article. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Burnett, Heather, Troberg, Michelle, 2014. On the diachronic semantics of resultative constructions in French. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, 37–54. Croft, William, 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. de Swart, Henriëtte, Winter, Yoad, Zwarts, Joost, 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25 (1), 195–222. Dik, S.C., 1997. The theory of functional grammar. In: Functional Grammar Series 20–21. Berlin, 2nd, rev. ed ed. Mouton de Gruyter, New York. Engel, Dulcie M., Rossi-Gensane, Nathalie, 2004. Semantique et frequence: etude de c’est/il est dans un corpus journalistique. Rev. Romane 39 (2), 177–202. Farkas, Imola-Ágnes, 2009. Some differences between English and Romanian resultative constructions. In: Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics. Farkas, Imola-Ágnes, 2011. Resultative expressions in Romanian. Ianua Rev. Philol. Romanica 11, 67–88. Folli, Raffaella, Ramchand, Gillian, 2005. Prepositions and results in Italian and English: an analysis from event decomposition. In: Verkuyl, Henk J., de Swart, Henriette, Angeliek van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on Aspect, vols. 81–105. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Goes, Jan, 1999. L’adjectif: entre Nom et Verbe. De Boeck Supérieur 777 (2033). Goldberg, Adele E., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Guillaume, G., 1973. Principes de Linguistique Théorique. Klincksieck, Paris. Guillaume, G., 1985. Grammaire particulière du français et grammaire générale. Presses Univ. Septentrion. Halliday, M.A.K., 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part II. J. Linguist. 3, 177–274. Hengeveld, Kees, 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Functional Grammar Series 15. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter, New York. Higgins, Francis Roger, 2015. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Routledge. Hopper, Paul J., 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language, vol. 19. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 1–17. Hundt, Marianne, 2015. Who is the/a/Ø professor at your university? A construction grammar view on changing article use with single role predicates in American English. Lang. Comput. 79. Jansegers, Marlies, Vanderschueren, Clara, Enghels, Renata, 2015. The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: a behavioral profile analysis. Cogn. Linguist. 26 (3), 381–421. Kupferman, Lucien, 1991. Structure Événementielle de l’alternance Un/Ø Devant Les Noms Humains Attributs. Langages. Langages (102), 52–75. Lambrecht, Knud, 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Langacker, Ronald W., 2006. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif. Descriptive Application. Nachdr. Lauwers, Peter, 2007. Nous Sommes ø Linguistes. Quelques Nouvelles Pièces à Verser à Un Vieux Dossier. Neuphilol. Mitt. 108 (1), 247–283. Lauwers, Peter, 2011. The modification of predicative bare nouns in French: a functional Analysis1: modification of predicative bare nouns in French. Trans. Philol. Soc. 109 (1), 12–40. Lauwers, Peter, Tobback, Els, 2018. La Contribution Du Paradigme comme, pour, de et en Au Marquage de La Relation Attributive. In: Quand Les Formes Prennent Sens: Grammaire, Prépositions, Constructions, Système/Vaguer-Fekete. Céline [Edit.], pp. 249–260. Lauwers, Peter, and Kristel Van Goethem. n.d. “L’adjectivité Face à La Perméabilité Catégorielle. Examen Contrastif Du Néerlandais et Du Français.” Lauwers, P., Willems, D., 2011. Coercion: Definition and Challenges, Current Approaches, and New Trends. Linguistics 49 (6). Legendre, Géraldine, 1997. Secondary predication and functional projections in French. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 15 (1), 43–87. Levin, Beth, Rapoport, Tova R., 1988. Lexical subordination. 275-289). In: CLS. Papers from the General Session at the... Regional Meeting, pp. 275–289, 24–1. Levshina, Natalia, 2015. How to Do Linguistics With R: Data Exploration And Statistical Analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam ; Philadelphia. Martínez-Vázquez, Montserrat, 1998. Effected objects in English and Spanish. Lang. Contrast 1 (2), 245–264. Mateu, Fontanals, Jaume, 2000. “Why can't we wipe the slate clean? A lexical-syntactic approach to resultative constructions. Catalan Work. Pap. Linguist. 8, 071–095. Mateu, Jaume, 2012. Conflation and incorporation processes in resultative constructions. Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, 252–278. Mateu, Jaume, Rigau, Gemma, 2010. Verb-particle constructions in romance: a lexical-syntactic account. Probus 22 (2). Mikkelsen, Line, 2005. Subject Choice in Copular Clauses. Ms. UC Berkeley. Muller, Claude, 2000. Les constructions à adjectif attribut de l’objet, entre prédication seconde et complémentation verbale. Lang. Fr. 127 (1), 21–35. Napoli, Donna Jo, 1992. Secondary resultative predicates in Italian. J. Linguist. 28 (01), 53–90. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Levin, Beth, 1998. Building verb meanings. In: Butt, Miriam, Geuder, Wilhelm (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 97–133. Riegel, Martin, 1985. L’adjectif Attribut. Paris PUF.

18

J. Métairy et al. / Language Sciences 78 (2020) 101253

Riegel, Martin, 1996. Les Constructions à Élargissement Attributif: double Prédication et Prédicats Complexes? Dépendance et Intégration Syntaxique: Subordination, Coordination, Connexion 351, 189. Ross, John Robert, 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Smith, C.S., 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Snyder, William, 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 324–342. Snyder, William, 2012. Parameter theory and motion predicates. Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, 279–299. Talmy, Leonard, 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3 (99), 36–149. Talmy, Leonard, 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17, 480–519. Tenny, Carol L., 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. In: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 52. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Tobback, E., 2005. Les Constructions à Attribut de l’objet et Le Marquage de La Relation Prédicative Seconde. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Gand. Tobback, Els, Defrancq, Bart, 2008. “Un comme qui marque une fonction qui se démarque. L’attribut de l’objet en comme et les verbes de nomination. Lang. Fr. 159 (3), 116. Van Peteghem, Marleen, 1993. La Détermination de l’attribut Nominal: Étude Comparative de Quatre Langues Romanes (Français, Espagnol, Italien, Roumain). Brepols. Vendler, Z., 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Washio, Ryuichi, 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. J. East Asian Linguist. 6 (1), 1–49. Wierzbicka, Anna, 1998. Anchoring linguistic typology in universal semantic primes. Linguist. Typol. 2 (2). Willems, Dominique, Defrancq, Bart, 2000. “L’attribut de l’objet et les verbes de perception. Lang. Fr. 127 (1), 6–20.