Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-16T21:23:49.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structure, Aspect, and the Predicate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

T. R. Rapoport
T. R. Rapoport*
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University
*
Dept. of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics, Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105 Israel [tovarap@bgumail.bgu.ac.il]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the constraints on depictive predicates and their interpretation within the Aspectual Structure (AS) theory of the structural representation of aspect (Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport 1997). This model allows a simple expression of the relation between the depictive adjunct predicate and its host by means of a parallel-structures analysis. The depictive is contrasted with the resultative predicate and the similar but distinct modified result adjunct. AS structure type and aspectual focus account for the interpretations of the three types of secondary predicates. Their acceptability is shown to depend on interpretation rather than on grammaticality.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 653 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, Avery. 1982. A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 313–17.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Brown, Samuel. 1997. Interarboreal operations: Head movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 345–56.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 17.) Amherst: Linguistics Dept., University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from building 20, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1987. Right node raising. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 105–118.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, and Rapoport, T. R. 1997. Verbal projection. On interfaces in linguistic theory, ed. by Matos, G. et al., 129–48. Lisbon: APL/Edi$cSões Colibri.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1999. Rolling aspect. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, and Massam, Diane. 1994. Lexical/syntactic relations without projection. Linguistic Analysis 24. 175–217.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline, and Hoekstra, Teun. 1995. The temporal interpretation of predication. Syntax and semantics, vol. 28: Small clauses, ed. by Cardinaletti, Anna and Guasti, Maria Teresa, 77–107. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. (Lexicon Project Working Papers 10.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Linguistics department.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from Building 20, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta theory. Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, ed. by Roca, I. M., 145–74. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, and Mulder, Rene. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. Light predicate raising. (Lexicon Project Working Papers 27.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Linguistics department.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rapoport, T. R. 1988. Lexical subordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 24(l). 275–89.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1992. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion. Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, ed. by Roca, I. M., 247–291. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1995. The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 255–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1994. Adjunct predicates and the individual-stage distinction. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 12. 561–76.Google Scholar
McNulty, Elaine. 1988. The syntax of adjunct predicates. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1991. In defence of Vendler's achievements. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6. 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41. 47–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapoport, T. R. 1987. Copular, nominal, and small clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. R. 1991. Adjunct-predicate licensing and D-structure. Syntax and semantics, vol. 25: Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 159–87. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. R. 1993a. Verbs in depictives and resultatives. Semantics and the lexicon, ed. by Pustejovsky, J., 163–184. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, T. R. 1993b. Stage and adjunct predicates: Licensing and structure in secondary predication constructions. Knowledge and language, vol. 2: Lexical and conceptual structure, ed. by Reuland, Eric and Abraham, Werner, 157–82. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara T. 1996. Strong and weak predicates: Reducing the lexical burden. Linguistic Analysis 26. 29–62.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, 135–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. by Perlmutter, David and Rosen, Carol, 38–77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Schein, B. 1995. Small clauses and predication. Syntax and semantics, vol. 28: Small clauses, ed. by Cardinaletti, Anna and Guasti, Maria Teresa, 49–76. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. Papers in lexical-functional grammar, ed. by Levin, Lori et al., 143–57. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Slabakova, Roumyana. 1997. Bulgarian preverbs: Aspect in phrase structure. Linguistics 35. 673–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret J. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina M. 1998. Verbs of inherently directed motion are compatible with resultative phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 338–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1994. Event phrase and a theory of functional categories. Proceedings of the 1994 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, 559–70.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1999. The I-syntax/s-syntax boundary: Evidence from Austronesian. Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. by Paul, I., Phillips, V., and Travis, L. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Van Oirsouw, Robert. 1987. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Van Voorst, Jan. 1988. Event structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 39–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 31–43.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch. Semantics and the lexicon, ed. by Pustejovsky, James, 129–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar