(1) a. ...make [PrP John [Pr' [Pr OP] [AP crazy]]] b. ...regard [PrP John [Pr' [Pr OP/as] [AP crazy]]]
In our talk we will first show that many different types of element may lexicalise the predication operator. We then go on to argue that a given visible element is often multifunctional in that it may potentially lexicalise different types of functional operator, and we propose that syntactic representations are structured objects essentially composed by functional operators that are made visible by various types of element by insertion or movement. We end our talk by a detailed investigation of how a given projection is determined as regards its syntactico-semantic content.
(2) a. ...anse [Jon som gal]. (...consider Jon as crazy.) b. ...sende [pakken som ilpost]. (...send the parcel as urgent mail.)
We then argue that til in resultative small clauses like (3a) and for in small clauses like (3b) lexicalise the predication operator, as well.
(3) a. ...gjøre [Jon til forbryter]. (...make Jon to a criminal.) b. ...ta [Jon for kelner]. (...take Jon for (being) a waiter.)
Among the evidence that is brought to bear on the issue is the fact that small clauses headed by til or for (like small clauses headed by som) may contain an expletive or expletive-like subject, indicating that the bracketed parts in (4) are indeed clausal expressions.
(4) a. ...gjøre [det til noe skittent at jeg har sagt dette]. (...make it to sm.thing dirty that...) b. ...ta [det for gitt at jeg har sagt dette]. (...take it for a given that...)
We will also argue that copular verbs lexicalise the predication operator. Generalising that idea, we argue that ordinary main verbs lexicalise the predication operator, thus in effect defending an analysis reminiscent of the 17th century Port Royal thesis that a given verb is constituted by a concealed copula and an attribute.
(5) a. Jon må ha dratt. (Jon must have left, i.e. it is pretty certain that he did) b. Jon har måttet dra. (John has been obliged to leave)
In particular, we will discuss the relative contribution of the underlying predication operator and the inherent descriptive content of the visible marker in the case of main verbs, showing how the verb´s inherent Theta-properties interact with the operator, among other things to yield the subject requirement (EPP).
(6) a. Clark Kent is a man. (= pure predicational reading) b. Clark Kent is Superman. (= equative reading) c. Clark Kent is outside. (= existential/spatial reading)
If time permits, we will also investigate to what extent our encyclopedic knowledge plays a role in the interpretation of the syntactico-semantic projections and relations at hand.
References:
Bouchard, D. (1995) The Semantics of Syntax. A Minimalist Approach to
Grammar, Chicago University Press.
Bowers, J. (1993) "The Syntax of Predication", Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656.
About the PLC23 Committee
Previously held Penn Linguistics Colloquium: PLC22 (1998), PLC21 (1997)
Penn Department of Linguistics
University of Pennsylvania