Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:45:11.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A syntactic analysis of secondary predication in Spanish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Enrique Mallén
Enrique Mallén
Affiliation:
Department of Romance Languages and Literatures, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-2005USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article argues in favour of a syntactic analysis of secondary predication as first proposed in Williams (1980) and against the semantic approach to predication defended most recently in Napoli (1989). Most of the evidence to be adduced in the proposed analysis comes from Spanish. We posit that secondary predicates are base-generated inside VP in Spanish, confirming Culicover & Wilkins's (1984) and Roberts's (1988) analysis for English. Under this hypothesis, object-oriented (O-) predicates occur inside the c-domain of V as sisters to the verbal complement, whereas subject-oriented (S-) secondary predicates attach to VP as sisters to the subject. Based on this asymmetry and adopting Jaeggli's (1981) assumption that initial wh-traces must be lexically identified, we explain the fact that only O-predicates can undergo wh-movement in Spanish. This restriction on wh-movement follows from the syntactic configuration assigned to secondary predicates in which both predicates are governed by V, but only O-predicates are c-commanded by V.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , September 1991 , pp. 375 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bally, C. (1944). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1986). I-Subjects. LIn 17. 375–416.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. LIn 13. 343–434.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1985). Knowledge of language: its nature, origins, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. & Wilkins, W. (1984). Locality in linguistic theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. & Wilkins, W. (1986). Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle. Lg 62. 120–153.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (1986). Predication and passive. In Bordelois, I., Contreras, H. & Zagona, K. (eds) Generative studies in Spanish syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 51–66.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (1987). Remarks on secondary predicates: c-command, extraction, and reanalysis. The Linguistic Review 6. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessaintes, M. (1971). Recherche linguistique et enseignement. Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feuillard, C. (1988). La Relation prédicative en grammaire fonctionnelle. In Melis, L. (ed.). 33–49.Google Scholar
Frampton, J. (1990). Parasitic gaps and the theory of wh-chains. LIn 21. 49–78.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme. JL 3. 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1981). Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1988). Subjects. Ms. UCLA.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallén, E. (1989). The internal structure of Determiner Phrases. PhD dissertation, Cornell.Google Scholar
Mallén, E. (1990). Genitive clitics and nominal INFL. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 35. 237–263.Google Scholar
Mallén, E. (1991). Secondary predicates and lexical identification. Studia Linguistica.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1985). Syntaxe générale. Paris: A. Colin.Google Scholar
Melis, L. (ed.) (1988). La Prédication seconde. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. (1989). Predication theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Violations of the wh-island constraint in Italian and the Subjacency Condition. In Rizzi, L., Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Roberts, I. (1989). Complex inversion in French. Probus 1. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1988). Predicative APs. LIn 19. 703–709.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. (1989). Topic islands and the Subjacency parameter. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34. 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1983). The syntactic forms of predication. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1985). The syntactic forms of predication. The Linguistic Review 5. 163–172.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1990). Review of Napoli (1989). Lg 66. 598–606.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1988). Government and Binding in Hebrew nominals. Linguistics 26. 951–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington: IULC. 143–158.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1989). Le Mouvement syntaxique: contraintes et paramètres. Langages 94. 35–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). The origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and Logical Form. LIn 8. 101–104.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. LIn 11. 203–238.Google Scholar