Complex-predicate analyses in modern generative grammar

Although a de facto consensus has emerged in modern generative grammar that NP2 and XP

form an SC, a small parade of generative grammarians has attempted to make a case for com-plex-predicate analyses as a viable alternative to SC-theory by putting Chomsky's early sug-gestions on a more formal footing. Complex-predicate analyses have achieved some promi-nence in generative grammar after Larson's (1988) influential proposals concerning double-object constructions. The two postverbal double-objects of the ditransitive construction (cf. John gave Mary the book) and of the prepositional or indirect-object construction (cf. John gave the book to Mary) have traditionally been analysed as complements of the verb give and conse-quently as structurally on a par. Larson has challenged this standard view by proposing that in the indirect-object construction, the verb give and the indirect object to Mary form a complex constituent, which selects the direct object the book as a whole. He has effected this analysis by distinguishing between two kinds of theta-assignment: the matrix verb takes the indirect object as its complement and directly θ-marks it; the resulting phrase is reanalysed as a com-plex lexical item which then indirectly θ-marks the direct object. Viewed from a slightly dif-ferent angle, the complex predicate give-to-Mary takes the direct object a book as its 'subject' argument and thus forms a clause-like subject/predicate structure with it: '[a book] [give-to-Mary]' (Larson 1988: 342), roughly meaning 'x (= a book) come to be under control of y (=

give-to-Mary)' (Hale and Keyser 1992: 109). The sentential or external subject John is then predicated of the clause-like structure a book give-to-Mary with the help of an abstract causa-tive verb, usually formalised as the functional head 'ν' (cf. footnote 75; Grewendorf 2002: 54;

compositional s-selection

Larson 1988: 342). The following tree diagram illustrates the fairly complex underlying struc-ture that is credited to indirect-object constructions in Larson's account:⁹⁹

(140)

νP

external subject/ ν'

sentential subject

ν VP

inner subject/ V'

direct object

V PP

John ∅ a book gave to Mary

Larson himself suggested that this D-structure representation for indirect object constructions could be extended to secondary-predicate constructions such as Mary considers John foolish as well (1988: 349). In this view, the matrix verb consider assigns a direct θ-role to its sister

XP in V'. The V' constituent is reanalysed as a complex predicate (Larson 1988: 348-9), which then, as a whole, discharges an indirect θ-role to the direct object NP₂ in the specifier position of VP. The direct object would thus constitute the inner 'subject' of the clause-like configura-tion [John] [considers-foolish]. This subject/predicate structure is then predicated of the sen-tential or external subject Mary:

(141) [_νPMary [_ν'ν [VP John [V' considers foolish]]]].

This D-structure representation of a secondary-predicate construction differs crucially from the corresponding surface structure, where NP2 is placed between the matrix verb and XP. We will look at how this problem is tackled in generative accounts in 6.4.

The Larsonian analysis of secondary-predicate constructions has been picked up by sev-eral linguists in slightly modified forms. Contreras, for instance, opts for a combination of the small-clause and complex-predicate analyses: if XP is realised by an AP, she theorises, NP2 and

AP form a small clause, but if XP is realised by an NP, the matrix verb and NP combine as a complex predicate (1995: 136). The argument she adduces for this split analysis of

99 Larson hypothesises that the ditransitive construction John gave Mary the book can be derived from the D-structure representation of the indirect-object construction by some sort of 'passive' transformation, where the object of the clause-like VP a book gave to Mary — (to) Mary — becomes the derived inner 'subject', and the original inner 'subject', a book, becomes an adjunct of V'. We thus get the 'passive' verb phrase [VP Maryi [V' a book [V' gave ti], which, after the main verb has been moved to ν, results in the surface structure gave Mary a book (Larson 1988: 351-3). While this transformational account has been readily seized on by generativists, it has come under heavy attack from functionalist and cognitive grammarians because it blurs the semantic tions between the ditransitive construction and the indirect-object construction (for a description of these distinc-tions see, e.g., Lee 2001: 74-5; Wierzbicka 1988: 359-87).

predicate constructions is rather tenuous, though. She makes the claim that only SCs headed by APs constitute binding domains (142a), while structures with NPs in the XP-position are transparent for the purposes of binding (142b) (1995: 136). As has been shown in 5.2.2, how-ever, it is tricky to use binding evidence for the demarcation of structural domains: contra Contrera's assumptions, a reflexive in AP can indeed be bound by the matrix subject (142c), and a reflexive in NP can be bound by NP2 (142d).

(142) a. We*i consider Maryi proud of herselfi. (from Contreras 1995: 136) b. Theyi consider John*i each other'si friend. (from Contreras 1995: 136) c. Johni considers Mary*i superior to himselfi. (ROS: 20)

d. John*i considers Maryi a danger to herselfi. (ROS: 0)

The most elaborate analysis of secondary-predicate constructions in the complex-predicate paradigm to date has been submitted by Rapoport (1993, 1995). Her main argument for ana-lysing the matrix verb and XP as a complex predicate is that the semantics of the main verb are not complete enough for independent predication and that, as a consequence, "[t]he second predicate is crucial to the interpretation of the action; the description of the action is not com-plete, or possible, without the participation of this second predicate phrase" (1993: 160). In contrast to Larson, she does not analyse XP as a complement of the main verb, but as a verb-modifier, and goes on to claim that the position of sister to the verb is, as a rule, not a com-plement position, but one that "modifies the action (or state or process) of the verb; it is part of the description of the action, narrowing that description" (1995: 160).¹⁰⁰ After the verb has incorporated its modifier XP, which is situated in its sister position, V' can act as a single com-plex predicate, assigning a combined θ-role to the direct object NP₂ in [SPEC,VP] as in Larson's account (1993: 165, 168, 1995: 161). Unlike Contreras, Rapoport does not make a distinction between APs and NPs in the XP-position; however, she does assume that not all secondary-predicate constructions should be treated uniformly. While she thinks that sentences with qualifying and resultative verbs lend themselves neatly to a complex-predicate analysis be-cause the respective XPs complete the description of the verbs' events (Mary considers-foolish John; The waitress wiped-clean the table) (1993: 164, 167), she posits a ternary analysis for

100 Rapoport thinks that the verb-modifier position can only be occupied by what she calls 'non-specific' elements such as adverbials or adjectives, but not, for example, by referential noun phrases. The way she effects the dis-tinction between non-specific noun phrases, which can act as verb-modifiers, and specific ones, which can only serve as the subject or object arguments of a verb, is very elaborate, but in the end not particularly convincing (1995: 154-61). Similar to Stowell, she assumes a distinction between specific noun phrases or complements as

DPs and non-specific noun phrases or verb-modifiers as NPs (1995: 166; cf. 5.3.2) — a distinction that has not worked in Stowell's account and does not work in hers, either. Moreover, it is doubtful that "anything that can narrow or complete the verb's description of an event" (Rapoport 1995: 171) should receive uniform treatment as a verb-modifier; Rapoport would, for instance, analyse the highlighted elements in hit the ball hard, build a house, consider sb. a genius as performing the same function of modifying the verb (1995: 168-9).

depictive constructions, arguing that the XPs do not specify the description of the verb's event here (John ate the steak hot) (1993: 169-70; see 7.2).

A third way of combining the complex-transitive analysis with existing analyses has been proposed by Stowell. He maintains that NP₂ XP-strings form small clauses at D- and S-structure, but are re-constructed to complex predicates at LF (1991a: 185). The main motiva-tion for this suggesmotiva-tion resides in scope effects (Stowell 1991a: 199-200), which can be illus-trated with the sentences in (143). The existential quantifier someone in (143a) allows only a wide-scope construal over the matrix clause (143a'), but its scope cannot be construed nar-rowly as extending over the putative SC only (143a''). This differs from the scope-relations in that-clauses (143b), where the scope of the quantifier is restricted to the subordinate clause (143b') and cannot extend over the main clause (143b'').¹⁰¹

(143) a. Mary considers someone angry at John.

a'. = ∃x [Mary considers x angry at John].

a''. ≠ Mary considers ∃x [x is angry at John].

b. Mary believes that someone is angry at John.

b'. Mary believes ∃x [x is angry at John].

b''. ≠ ∃x [Mary believes x is angry at John].

Stowell correctly concludes that "the unavailability of the narrow scope construal must hinge on the exclusion of the small clause as a possible domain of quantification" (1991a: 201). In-stead of giving up the SC-analysis as such, however, he retains this analysis for the D- and S-structure representations of consider-type sentences, but speculates that the SC is eliminated at LF because the predicative head X adjoins to and incorporates into the main verb, so that they form a complex predicate at this level (1991a: 185, 201; see also Basilico 2003: 18; Endo 1991: 63-4; Staudinger 1996: 56). Consequently, a quantifier can and must have scope over the matrix clause at LF since the clause-union effect of the restructuring process has made the SC unavailable as a scope domain at this level (1991a: 202). Stowell's implementation of SC-restructuring is purely ad hoc and based on many technicalities (1991: 208-11); an alternative explanation for the scope phenomena illustrated in (143) will be provided in section 11.3.

The complex-predicate analysis plays a minor role in generative grammar and is, as we have seen, usually combined with SC-analyses in one way or the other. Complex predicates

101 The notation used here is derived from the formal semantic representation of sentences and helps to clearly disambiguate the different scope properties of someone (see, e.g., Cann 1993: 151-4). Someone is a free variable because, unlike an individual constant such as John or the book, it does not have a fixed interpretation. A free variable must be bound by an operator/quantifier, in this case the existential operator ∃ (the restriction of the range of x to human beings is presupposed). The operator is written to the left of the bracketed expression over which it has scope. The relative placement of the operator, its scope position, thus shows whether it has scope over the whole sentence as in (143a') and (143b'') or only over an embedded clause to its right as in (143a'') and (143b').

are, however, the predominant way of analysing secondary-predicate constructions in Cate-gorial Grammar.