Publications

2023

Bachelor Thesis
Kujath, Nils Peter. 2023. What is the relationship between primary and secondary predicates in English Control Resultative Constructions? Bachelor Thesis. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Abstract

This thesis examines the relationship between primary and secondary predicates in English Control Resultative Constructions, i.e. resultative constructions in which the subject of the (resultative) secondary predicate is also a subcategorised argument of the primary predicate (and thus controlled by it; see especially Wechsler 1997, 2005a).

Crucially, only predicates that express the potential for change (identifiable by the ‘what happened to x is ϕ’ test) can occur as primary predicates in English Control Resultative Constructions (Beavers 2011: 360). As such, they already denote at least an event, its affected theme participant (expressed by the argument ‘shared’ between primary and secondary predicate), and the (kinds of) scale(s) on which this affected theme participant (or one of its properties) can ‘change’, i.e. progress along a (bounded or unbounded) scale that measures the change undergone by the affected theme participant or one of its properties (see Beavers 2011: 356–362, see also Beavers 2013: esp. 688-690).

Thus, due to the nature of the ‘shared’ argument, only XPs that appropriately express a bound on (one of) the scale(s) provided by the primary predicate (or that correspond to a pre-existing bound in the case of primary predicates expressing a quantised change) can serve as resultative secondary predicates in English Control Resultative Constructions (see Beavers 2013: 689). This is not to say, however, that the secondary predicate has no influence on the change expressed in the Control Resultative Construction. By providing an appropriate bound to (one of) the scale(s) provided by the primary predicate, the secondary predicate effectively selects the (kind of) scale along which a quantised change is expressed, i.e. it selects the facet or property of the affected theme participant that changes.

Furthermore, English Control Resultative Constructions typically express a quantised change that is ‘directly’ caused. This ‘directness’ of causation arises because the progress of the event is correlated with the progress of the affected theme participant (or a property of it) along the scale of change. The event progresses as progress is made along the scale, and the event ends when the scalar bound is reached (see Wechsler 2005a, and Beavers 2002, 2008; see also Krifka 1998, and Kratzer 2005). This homomorphism of event and scale not only ensures the ‘directness’ of causation (see Kratzer 2005: 194–199), but also requires that the resultative secondary predicate expresses a bound on a scale whose complexity type (i.e. complex vs. minimally complex) matches the complexity type of the event denoted by the primary predicate (i.e. durative vs. punctual), otherwise the acceptability of the construction suffers, or the construction appears marked (see especially Beavers 2008: 250–254). Thus, the secondary predicate is not only restricted by the (kinds of) scale(s) provided by the primary predicate, but it must also express a bound on a scale that matches the complexity type of the event denoted by the primary predicate.