On the syntactic nature of manner incorporation

1. Verbal Elasticity Workshop, UniversitatAutonoma de Barcelona, October 3rd-5th On the syntactic nature of manner incorporation BobanArsenijević, UniversitatPompeuFabra, Barcelona

2. Verbs expressing manner • This paper’s focus is on the syntactic status of the manner component in manner expressing verbs . • A verb expresses manner if next to the specification of a dimension of a participant carrying the dynamic nature of the eventuality, it also contributes specification of its way of participation, such that it can be paraphrased by a manner modifier. (working definition)

3. Standard assumption: opaque • Verbs expressing manner, such as hammer, fit or smear are derived “by a mysterious, parametrically varying, illunderstood process which [she]'ll call Manner Incorporation” (Harley2005:44). • Compositionally/syntactically opaque: a root merged with a verbal category via movement or not (conflation – Haugen2009, Mateu2011).

4. Incorporation vs. conflation • Haugen2009 introduces a distinction between incorporation and conflation(head mvt of a root) (external merge) VP VP V V’ V V’root V root … root V …

5. Roots and compositionality • Manner may contribute a complex meaning (e.g. Talmy’s co-events). • Eventualities are typically represented by syntactic non-primitives and are sensitive to syntactic restrictions. • Manner ‘co-events’ are subject to very particular such restrictions, e.g. of being atelic. (1) John danced/*killed Mary out of the room.

6. A transparent treatment of manner • This paper 1. provides arguments that ‘incorporated’ manner is syntactically complex and (somewhat) transparent (in Serbo-Croatian and in general). 2. sketches an analysis suggested by the empirical material discussed. 3. considers some more general issues in light of the consequences of the two points above.

7. Argument 1: proportional quantification • With manner-expressing verbs, proportional quantifiers such as half, show an ambiguity in selecting a scale (Bochnak2011). (2) John half washed the dishes. 1. amount of dishes washed (half of the dishes), 2. the evaluative degree of this event being an event of washing (half-satisfying the washing manner). • The evaluative scale is at the level of manner, giving a complex syntactic representation for it.

8. Argument 2: non-bridging verbs • Verbs which select complement clauses and trigger specific syntactic effects, including islandhood (Ross1968). (3) a. Who did John say that Mary kissed? b. *Who did John whisper that Mary kissed? • Non-bridging verbs (NBV) involve two classes of verbs taking clausal complements: factive verbs and manner-incorporating verbs (Kayne 1981).

9. Manner-incorporating NBV • A subclass of manner incorporating verbs, taking clausal complements. • The clausal nature of the complement makes visible certain syntactic effects of the lexicalized manner (enriching say into whisper). • The island effects point towards a non-primitive intervener. • Cf. verb-framed languages: manner blocks not only result incorporation, but its very presence.

10. Argument 3: other types of complex predicates • Languages with flexible parts of speech like Kharia or Muntari (Peterson 2010). • Even in IE languages: (4) a. Jovan je svoj-atao moje stvari. J aux Refl.Poss-Pcpl my things ‘Jovan treated my things as if they were his.’ b. Jovan je po-svoj-io moje stvari J aux over-Refl.Poss-Pcpl my things ‘Jovan made my things his possession.’

11. Argument 4: aspectual sensitivity • RappaportHovav&Levin2010: A verb expresses manner or result, never both. • Action verbs more prone to express manner. • Telic verbs are likely to express the result. • Agrees with the facts from (1): manner component of the meaning of the verb is aspectually sensitive. • A finer insight from Slavic prefixation.

12. Verb prefixation in S-C • Result verbs in Serbo-Croatian – telic, express both the argument and the predicate of result. • Manner verbs start out atelic and become telic under prefixation. • Aspectual restrictions on the manner co-event and the possibility of manner being action- and process-oriented suggest that manner is structurally complex.

13. Verb prefixation in S-C • Serbo-Croatian (S-C), as well as other Slavic languages, has a rich system of verb prefixation. • Two types of prefixation: internal (lexical) and external (superlexical). (5) Jovan je po-u-bacivao lopte u kutiju. J Aux over-in-throw balls in box ‘Jovan threw all the balls into the box.’ • Focus on internal prefixes (lexical effects).

14. Result expressing verbs • Result expressing verbs are only productive under prefixation; few constraints imposed on their results. (6) iz-kos-iti pod-jarm-iti o-bezglav-iti from-skew-Inf under-yoke-Inf around-headless-Inf ‘skew’ (verb) ‘yoke’ (verb) ‘decapitate’ *kos-iti *jarm-iti *bezglaviti skew-Inf yoke-Inf headless-Inf • A limited number of lexicalized prefixless result incorporating verbs all used to have prefixes.

15. Syntax • Result incorporating verbs incorporate the argument of result. • The prefix reflects the prepositional head of result, and can be analyzed as either a) an incorporated head (with a messed up linearization) (Žaucer 2010) or b) an instance of agreement between the verb and the result, triggered by an aspectual operator (Zeijlstra2004).

16. Manner expressing verbs • At prefixation, manner expressing verbs enrich their argument structure by a goal argument, switching in aspect from atelic to telic. (7) kotrlja-ti trča-ti baci-ti roll-Inf run-Inf throw-Inf ‘roll’ ‘run’ ‘throw’ do-kotrlja-ti iz-trča-ti u-baci-ti till-roll-Inf from-run-Inf in-throw-Inf ‘roll to X’ ‘runn out of X’ ‘throw into X’

17. Illustration (8) a. Jovan je trčao (do prodavnice / na brdo J Aux run (till shop on hill/ u školu). in school ‘Jovan was running (to the shop/hill/school). b. Jovan je do-trčao *(do prodavnice / J Aux till-run till shop *na brdo / *u školu). on hill in school ‘Jovan ran to the shop.’

18. Manner orientation • Manner expressed by the verb may target the participation of the agent or the undergoer. (9) a. Jovan je u-štipao Petra. J Aux in-pinch Petar ‘Jovan pinched Petar.’ (act in a pinching way) b. Jovan je u-kotrljao loptu. J Aux in-roll ball ‘Jovan rolled the ball in.’ (move in a rolling way)

19. Syntax • An example of manner-result conflation? No. • Two different strategies indeed (confl./incorp.). • But: how to restrict the root to contribute only atelic co-events? or: how to specify a root to be agent-oriented? • Manner can be complex (modified) and compositionally contributes to the macro-event. • Implies a complex syntactic representation.

20. The model needs to account for: • The asymmetries between manner and result. • The blocking of result by manner. • The complexity of the manner component. • The aspectual restrictions on manner. • The orientation of manner. • The compositional contribution of manner. • Preferably: derive the result/manner nature of the predicates and their restrictions.

21. A semantic background • Quine1960, Denis&Muller2004: no individuals, stages only; a mereological structure of stages. • Arsenijević 2006: Subject of a sub-event is a stage, and the sub-event itself is part of this stage (a sub-stage). • Manner specifies the characteristic stage-kind of the respective sub-stage (i.e. sub-event). • Initiating substage+superstage (S+SS), Process S+SS and Result S+SS (Ramchand2008)

22. The inventory and the template • Three types of relevant elements: • super-stages (arguments/participants) • (sub-)stages (by characteristic predicates, ChP) • event-template relations (E-TR: t-adjacent, cotemporal, cause) • Sub-event template: [esubi[ssub [ssup] ChP] (E-TR [esubj])].

23. Syntactic structure: initiating/process vP/AspP tasp … esubi(VP) ssub(SC/DP) e’subi ChPt1(mann) ssup(DP) E-TR esubj

24. Syntactic structure: initiating/process vP/AspP tasp … esubi(VP) ssub(SC/DP) e’subi dancet1 John cause esubj 24

25. Syntactic structure: result esubi(VP) ssub(SC/DP) e’subi ChPt1(mann) ssup(DP) E-TR esubj ChPt2 ssup (result)

26. Some clarifications • The characteristic predicate may be a complex semantic (hence also LF-syntactic) structure, and still be lexicalized by a single lexical item. • A non-specific subject of initiation/process (i.e. the local super-stage) may in some languages incorporate together with its characteristic predicate (vanGeenhoven1996: universal semantic/LF incorporation)

27. Phrasal lexicalization esubi(VP) ssub(SC/DP) e’subi ChPt1(mann) ssup(DP) E-TR esubj ChPt2 ssupverb verb (manner =result)

28. Options (10) a. Jovan je očistio sto pomoću usisivača. J Aux cleaned table help.Inst hoover ‘Jovan cleaned the table by using a hoover.’ b. Jovan je usisao sto do pune čistoće. J Aux vacuumed table till full cleanness ‘Jovan vacuumed the table completely clean.’ c. Jovan je učinio sto potpuno čistim J Aux made table completely clean pomoću usisivača.help.Inst hoover

29. Argument 5: cognate objects • Two types of cognate objects in S-C, one really behaving like direct objects, and another with the properties typical of manner modifiers. • When manner-like cognate objects have the capacity to measure out the aggregate event, they may also appear as direct object-like cognate objects. • This suggests that whatever the syntactic representation of the manner lexicalized by the verb, it must be able to establish the relevant relation with its matching cognate object.

30. Two types of cognate objects • Old debate: arguments or adjuncts. • In a number of languages, there are two different types of cognate objects: type A which is adjunct-like and type B which is argument-like (bearing strong determiners,scoping out of the VP, measuring out, passivization, A’-extraction, Questions with How…?/What … ?, coordination with manner adverbs/direct objects, the case of the object/manner modifier) (Pereltsvaig1999). • Type A – manner modifiers, type B – direct objects.

31. Types of cognate objects and incorporation • Type A cognate objects are compatible with manner-incorporating verbs only (unergative and transitive). • Type B cognate objects are compatible with object- (i.e. theme-)incorporating verbs (only unergatives). • Additionally backs the assumption that cognate objects really lexicalize the incorporated element.

32. Illustration (11) A. Jovan je voleoogromnomljubavlju.J Aux loved great.Instlove.Inst ‘Jovan loved with a great love.’ B. Jovan je mučioteškumuku.J Aux suffered heavy.Accsuffer.Acc ‘Jovan suffered heavily.’ (In languages like Arabic, type A is the default strategy of manner modification for manner-expressing verbs – no adverbs)

33. A complication: type optionality • Certain S-C verbs can take either a type A or a type B cognate object. (12) a. Jovan je živeo srećnim životom. J Aux lived happy.Inst life.Inst b. Jovan je živeo srećan život.J Aux lived happy.Acc life.Acc ‘Jovan lived a happy life. • Only when the manner has the capacity to measure out the event (10b entails Jovan is dead).

34. Appositions to incorporated items vP/AspP t1 esubi(VP) ssub(SC/DP) e’subi ChP ssup(DP) E-TR esubj ChPt1(life) [happy life]t1(apposition)

35. Instrumental vs. accusative • Effectively, the movement from the apposition to manner to the aspectually active projectionbrings the moved material into a direct object position (hence accusative). • The movement also matches Caha2007’s peeling pattern.

36. Summary • Arguments for an analysis treating manner in manner-expressing verbs as syntactically complex. • An analysis proposed treating incorporated manner as internal to the specifier of the projection of the respective subevent. • Manner and result reduced to characteristic predicates of stages; their mutual asymmetries and exclusion at lexicalization by the verb derived in terms of their structural relations.

37. Thank you!