Adjectival predicators and approaches to complement realisation

2014. Lingua 140, pp. 83-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.007.

Adjectival predicators and approaches to complement realisation

Tor Arne Haugen

Ivar Aasen Institute for Language and literature, Volda University College

Abstract

Most research on complement realisation has been concerned with verbs, and a central

assumption, especially in theoretically oriented approaches, has been that complement

realisation, often referred to as argument realisation, is predictable from the structure of

events, i.e. (a part of) the semantic structure of the verb. I refer to this assumption as the

Predictability Thesis. Other valency carriers than verbs also need to be accounted for, and

the article investigates the neglected area of adjectival valency. Two major versions of the

Predictability Thesis are assessed: the aspectual approach and the causal approach. The

findings support the view that valency is not predictable from these facets of event structure.

Rather, the view that valency belongs to the idiosyncratic aspects of language is supported; it

is necessary to specify both the semantic structure and the realisation of complements in the

lexicon.

Keywords: Complement realisation; adjectives; predictability; aspectual approach; causal

approach

1 Introduction

Most research on complement realisation has been based on verbs, and different

approaches have been concerned with different facets of the event structure of verbs, see

Levin and Hovav (2005) for a comprehensive survey. A basic premise has been the

hypothesis that the realisation of complements is predictable from the structure of events, i.e.

(a part of) the semantic structure of the verb. I refer to this assumption as the Predictability

Thesis. Given the central role of the verb in the clause, it is hardly surprising that most

models of complement realisation have been developed on the basis of verbal valency.

There are also other valency carriers that need to be considered, however, and the present

article investigates the neglected area of adjectival valency.

The investigation is based on a corpus study of 181 polyvalent adjectives in

Norwegian, in which 956 valency constructions, i.e. a particular adjective in a particular

pattern, were recorded in a database. A polyvalent adjective is understood as an adjective

taking at least two complements denoting event participants in at least one of its valency

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.007


patterns. The focus is restricted to adjectives in predicative function.1 The term valency

construction has been adopted from Herbst and Schüller (2008), and a construction is to be

understood as a conventionalised pairing of form and meaning, as the term is used in the

construction grammars of Goldberg (1995, 2006) and Croft (2001). It should be noted,

however, that the notion of valency construction refers to a specific predicator in a specific

valency pattern. Hence, valency constructions are more specific than Goldberg’s (1995)

argument structure constructions.

Like verbs, adjectival predicators enter into constructions expressing different event

structures, and when it comes to governing the basic structure of the clause, adjectives can

play much the same role as the class of verbal predicators. Consider the following examples

from Norwegian:

(1) a. Han blir endelig kvitt problemet

He becomes finally rid.of problem.DEF

‘Finally, he got rid of the problem’

b. *Han blir endelig kvitt

He becomes finally rid.of

The adjective kvitt ‘rid of’ obligatorily takes a second complement, in this case the NP

problemet ‘the problem’, in addition to the complement in the subject slot. Complements in

this second slot will, for easy reference, be referred to as “objects”, but no claim is made that

they are equivalent to the objects of verbs. “Subject” and “object” should simply be

understood as labels for the different slots. Norwegian has two basic copulas used in

constructions with predicative adjectives: være ‘be’, which is mostly used in stative contexts,

and the inchoative counterpart bli ‘become’, exemplified in (1) above, which is predominantly

used in non-stative contexts.2 The choice of copula, however, does not alter the valency

features of the predicator in this case:

(2) a. Han er endelig kvitt problemet

He is finally rid.of problem.DEF

‘He is finally rid of the problem’

1 The different possibilities for valency realisation between attributive and predicative adjectives constitute interesting problems in their own right, see Haugen (2013) for discussion. Pre-head attributive adjectives do normally not take complements in Norwegian, but this will not be further discussed here. 2 The verb forbli ‘remain’ is also classified as copular in the Norwegian Reference Grammar (Faarlund et al. 1997), but this verb is much less frequent than bli ‘become’ and være ‘be’. We will return to this in Section 4.1.



b. *Han er endelig kvitt

He is finally rid.of

Hence, the adjective is the part of the predicator that seems to decide the basic structure of

the clause. This observation is in accordance with Heltoft (1995:220), who analysed

predicators in the form of adjectives in combination with copular verbs in Danish. He

concludes that, “[i]t is the combinatorial potential of the adjective that determines the number

and syntactic category of the nuclear participants of the clause”. For example, the adjective

kvitt ‘rid of’ determines the complements of constructions as in (1) and (2).

In Norwegian, adjectives can take basically the same complement types as can

verbs:

(3) a. Han er redd hunden

He is afraid dog.DEF

‘He is afraid of the dog’

b. Ho er klar over problemet

She is aware over problem.DEF

‘She is aware of the problem’

c. Dei er glade at sumaren kjem snart

They are glad that summer.DEF comes soon

‘They are glad that summer is here soon’

d. Seieren er verdt å kjempe for

Victory.DEF is worth to fight for

‘The victory is worth fighting for’

In (3a), the adjective redd ‘afraid’ takes an NP object-complement, in (3b) klar ‘aware’ takes

a prepositional complement, glad ‘glad’ takes a that-clause in (3c), whereas verdt ‘worth’

takes an infinitive in the object slot in (3d).

Like verbs, adjectives do seem to determine both the number and the types of

complements with which they occur in a clause. This means that models of complement

realisation also need to account for adjectival valency, and a first step towards assessing

predictability in the complement realisation of adjectives is to investigate whether facets of

event structure that have been hypothesised to play a role in the complement realisation of

verbs, also play a role for adjectival predicators. Hence, this investigation is also a

contribution to an overall assessment of the Predictability Thesis as such.



A brief overview of the Predictability Thesis is given in Section 3, and two major versions of

this thesis, the aspectual approach and the causal approach, are assessed against data from

adjectival valency in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. It is argued that complement realisation

should be considered item-specific knowledge, and a brief account of this view and its

consequences for grammatical theory is given in Section 6. In the next section we start with

an overview of the material investigated.

2 Data

In the research on complement realisation the emphasis has tended to be on theorising

rather than on large scale empirical investigations, cf. the survey in Levin and Hovav (2005).

As Faulhaber (2011:296) argues, “[i]t appears to be symptomatic for research on linking that

the claims that are made are often based on a number of handpicked examples which clearly

indicate a strong relationship between form and meaning but rarely on large-scale samples

which are selected without reference to their syntactic properties”. There is nothing wrong

with theorising per se, but it should, of course, be based on a solid empirical foundation.

Faulhaber also argues that research on complement realisation has tended to focus on NP

complements only, and that prepositional complements and complements in the form of

infinitives and different kinds of clauses have often been neglected. For this reason, too,

more large-scale empirical investigations are needed in this area, and all kinds of valency

carriers and all complement types should be included. Of course, other languages than

English also need to be investigated.

As already mentioned, the data analysed here come from a corpus-based

investigation of 181 polyvalent adjectives and their valency patterns in Norwegian. It is well

known that Norwegian has two written standards, Bokmål and Nynorsk, which were both

established around the turn of the twentieth century. Both written standards are represented

in the material, which comes from one lexicographical corpus of Bokmål (LBC) and a

corresponding corpus of Nynorsk (LNC). In addition, a large corpus based on Norwegian

Web pages has been applied (NWC).3

There are considerable frequency differences between the various adjectives, but

overall, constructions with polyvalent adjectives are relatively infrequent. For this reason,

it was necessary to base the investigation on written corpora; sufficiently large speech

corpora are not at hand for Norwegian. There are some polyvalent adjectives that are

conventionally used in one of the two written standards only, but most of the adjectives

investigated are used in both Bokmål and Nynorsk. No attempt is made to treat Bokmål and

3 More details about the corpora are found in Haugen (2012), on which this article is partly based.



Nynorsk separately; the two written standards are codifications of the same language. The

abbreviations used to refer to the different corpora above have been used to mark authentic

examples, whereas unmarked examples are self-constructed. In the next section we will turn

to the thesis of predictability in complement realisation.

3 The Predictability Thesis

The Predictability Thesis, the assumption that complement realisation is predictable from

rules based on the semantic structure of the valency carrier, has been advocated in

approaches to valency connected to different versions of generative grammar; see Levin and

Hovav (2005) for a comprehensive survey. Chomsky (1986:87) suggests that, ‘‘if a verb (or

other head) s-selects a semantic category C, then it c-selects a syntactic category that is the

‘canonical structural realization of C’.“ Levin (1993:5) claims that, ‘‘[p]resumably, predictions

about verb behavior are feasible because particular syntactic properties are associated with

verbs of a certain semantic type’’, and Pinker (1989:62, emphasis in original) argues that,

‘‘[s]yntactic argument structures of verbs are predictable from their semantic structures, via

the application of linking rules’’.

The Predictability Thesis is not necessarily restricted to individual languages; two

major proposals have been made regarding the universality of complement realisation

(Rosen, 1999), viz. Perlmutter and Postal’s (1984) Universal Alignment Hypothesis and

Baker’s (1988) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis. The former was formulated in the

framework of Relational Grammar and states that, ‘‘[t]here exist principles of universal

grammar which predict the initial relation borne by each nominal in a given clause from the

meaning of the clause’’ (Perlmutter and Postal, 1984:97). A GB version of this idea is Baker’s

(1988:46) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis: ‘‘Identical thematic relationships

between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at

the level of D-structure’’. This means that there is a one-to-one relationship between

semantic complements and syntactic positions, and Rosen (1999:6) interprets this as follows:

‘‘Universal alignment predicts identical mappings of arguments into syntax across verbs and

languages’’. Hence, this very general idea reflects the Predictability Thesis on a universal

level, and the hypotheses of universal linking between the semantics and the realisation of

complements reflect the strong tendency towards building far-ranging theories in this area of

research.

Perhaps the most basic approach to complement realisation is the semantic-role

approach, where each predicator is associated with an inventory of roles, one for each of the

participants in the event denoted. If predictability is assumed, the realisation of complements

is hypothesised to follow from these roles. The semantic-role approach is applicable also to



adjectival predicators, although there are few studies that attempt to formulate semantic roles

for adjectives. One large-scale empirical investigation of English adjectives is Herbst (1983),

who does in fact formulate such roles. He shows that semantic roles are useful to compare

the semantic structures also of adjectival predicators, and he also considers the relationship

between the semantic structure of adjectives and their complement realisation. Although he

does identify some correlations between the semantic structure of adjectives and the valency

patterns in which they occur, a 1:1 correspondence between complements in specific

semantic functions and semantically-defined adjective groups is found only in three out of the

35 groups he defines. Haugen (2012) also explicates semantic roles for adjectives (in

Norwegian), and finds that most roles have multiple realisations across different predicators.

Hence, both these large-scale investigations of adjectival valency point in the same direction:

It seems to be very difficult to predict complement realisation based on the semantic

structure of adjectives.

Recently, Boas (2003) and Faulhaber (2011) have challenged predictability in

complement realisation also in English verbs. Faulhaber compares 87 verbs distributed over

22 semantic groups and concludes that “[i]f semantic determinism reflected language reality

then the syntactic differences between these verbs should be retraceable to their meaning.

For a considerable number of restrictions identified this was simply not possible” (p. 299).

Hence, also this large-scale empirical study suggests that complement realisation should be

considered to be item-specific knowledge. Faulhaber also compares verbs on the basis of

the semantic roles of their complements. Here, we will focus on two other main versions of

the Predictability Thesis, namely the aspectual approach and the causal approach. These

approaches represent different conceptualisations of the events that valency carriers and

their complements denote.

“Event structure” is commonly used to refer to the representation of the part of the

semantic structure of a predicator which is assumed to determine the realisation of

complements. According to Levin and Hovav (2005:78), this term, ‘‘reflects the consensus

that such representations encode properties of events’’, but there is no consensus as to how

events should be represented nor as to what parts of an event structure that are relevant to

predict the realisation of complements. The term “event” is used to refer to all aspectual

types of events, also to stative events; cf. Croft (2012:34). As discussed above, the

semantic-role approach is perhaps the most basic approach to event structure. Two more

recent approaches to event structure, which have figured prominently in the research on

complement realisation, are the aspectual approach and the causal approach. These

approaches represent different conceptualisations of events, and they attempt to account for



complement realisation by linking it to aspectual and to causal facets of events, respectively.

Hence, they can be seen as alternative versions of the Predictability Thesis.

In my view, the aspectual- and the causal approaches can be seen as alternative

ways of defining semantic roles; the aspectual and causal roles of events are also filled by

participants in some way, as starting points and ending points of temporal and causal chains,

respectively. Hence, the participants in the events described are central also in these

approaches. Clearly, the main facets of events that are highlighted here reflect the fact that

the research in this area has predominantly been carried out on verbs, and this raises an

important question: To what extent are these facets of event structure relevant in predicting

the complement realisation of adjectives? This is the question that will be explored in the

sections that follow.

4 The aspectual approach to complement realisation

The aspectual approach to event structure was not originally developed to account for

complement realisation (Levin and Hovav, 2005:87). From the outset, aspectual classification

was concerned with verbs, and Vendler’s (1957) sub-division of verbs into four aspectual

classes is probably the most influential (cf. Rosen, 1999:3; Levin and Hovav, 2005:88; Croft,

2012:33ff). Vendler’s classes can be distinguished through three pairs of semantic features

(Croft, 2012:35; following Mourelatos, 1981): STATIVE/DYNAMIC, DURATIVE/PUNCTUAL,

and TELIC/ATELIC:4

(4) States: stative durative atelic

Activities: dynamic durative atelic

Achievements: dynamic punctual telic

Accomplishments dynamic durative telic

Rosen (1999:3) gives the following examples of these classes:

(5) STATES

a. Terry knows the answer

b. Terry resembles his brother

(6) ACTIVITIES

a. Terry walked for an hour

4 Upper case letters are used to refer to components of semantic structure.



b. Terry is driving the car

(7) ACHIEVEMENTS

a. Terry reached the summit in 15 minutes

b. The vase broke

(8) ACCOMPLISHMENTS

a. Terry built five houses in two months

b. The child is drawing a circle

Frawley (1992:294, emphasis in original) defines aspect as, “the way that an event is

distributed through the time frame in which the event occurs’’, and it is an important point that

this definition does not specifically refer to verbs. It has been frequently demonstrated in the

literature that aspect cannot be ascribed to the verb only; also ‘‘characteristics of the object,

adjuncts, and other materials in the clause contribute to the event type of the entire clause’’

(Rosen, 1999:4). A common test to discern between atelic statives and activities on the one

hand and telic achievements and accomplishments on the other is to check for compatibility

with DURATIVE adverbials with for, indicating atelicity, and CONTAINER adverbials with in,

indicating telicity (cf. Croft, 2012:35f; Arche, 2006:63f). Based on these tests, the following

examples, taken from Rosen (1999:4), illustrate that various clause components other than

the verb can change the aspect of the clause:

(9) ADDITION OF DIRECT OBJECT

a. Bill ran for 5 minutes/*in 5 minutes (activity)

b. Bill ran the mile *for 5 minutes/in 5 minutes (accomplishment)

(10) SPECIFICITY OF OBJECT

a. Bill wrote letters for an hour/*in an hour (activity)

b. Bill wrote the letter *for an hour/in an hour (accomplishment)

(11) COUNT/MASS OBJECT

a. Bill drank coffee for an hour/*in an hour (activity)

b. Bill drank a cup of coffee *for an hour/in an hour (accomplishment)

(12) VERB PARTICLE

a. Terry thought for an hour/*in an hour (activity)



b. Terry thought up an answer in an hour/*for an hour (accomplishment)

(13) RESULTATIVE

a. Terry ran for an hour/*in an hour (activity)

b. Terry ran us ragged in an hour/*for an hour (accomplishment)

These examples indicate that aspect is compositional; it cannot be due to the aspectual class

of the verb only.

After this brief characterisation of aspect, we will take a look at how aspect has been

claimed to play a role in complement realisation. According to Levin and Hovav (2005:96),

the idea that there is a link between aspect and the realisation of complements can be traced

back to Hopper and Thompson (1980) and their seminal paper on transitivity. According to

Hopper and Thompson, telicity and punctuality are among the factors that contribute to

transitivity. They see transitivity as a gradual phenomenon connected to clauses; clauses

have different degrees of transitivity, and telicity and punctuality are factors that increase it. It

is an important point that transitivity is connected to clauses and not only to verbs per se,

because this is a feature that transitivity shares with aspect, as we saw in (9)–(13) above.

Aspectual approaches to complement realisation are rather limited in scope. The

main proposal is that certain kinds of direct objects are associated with telicity, or with what

Dowty (1991) calls incremental themes; cf. Levin and Hovav (2005:109). Borer (2005:50)

argues that, ‘‘only direct arguments interact with event structure’’, and Tenny (1994:10f)

argues that only direct internal complements, by which she means NP objects, can measure

out events, and, hence, realise the aspectual feature in question. Verbs taking other kinds of

complements do not fall under the Measuring-Out Constraint. Tenny’s notion of ‘‘measuring

out’’ is similar to Dowty’s ‘‘incremental theme’’, and we will now take a closer look at these

notions. For Dowty, an incremental theme is one kind of participant role.5 An incremental

theme is ‘‘an NP that can determine the aspect of the sentence, since the parts of the event

correspond to parts of the NP referent that are affected by the action; the event is ‘complete’

only if all parts of the NP referent are affected (or effected)’’ (Dowty, 1991:588). Consider the

following examples:

5 An important difference between the approaches of Dowty (1991) and Tenny (1994) is that for Dowty, the notion incremental theme is one of several factors that characterise prototypical instances of the role patient, whereas Tenny makes more direct claims about the correlation between the notion of ”measuring out” and direct objects.



(14) a. Han åt pølsa

He ate sausage.DEF

‘He ate the sausage’

b. Han åt

He ate

‘He ate’

In (14a), the direct object pølsa ‘the sausage’ is the realisation of an incremental theme

complement of the verb ete ‘eat’. The theme complement is incremental in that pølsa is

gradually consumed as the eating event progresses. The parts of the event of eating it

correspond to the parts of pølsa ‘the sausage’, and when it is fully consumed, the event

reaches its endpoint. Hence, the direct object makes the construction telic, which is clearly

demonstrated by contrasting it with the example in (14b), which is atelic. In Tenny’s (1994)

terms, the direct object measures out the event in that it brings the event to an endpoint

when it is fully consumed. This kind of measuring out is then extended to other kinds of

predicates:6

(15) a. Dei gjekk Besseggen

They walked Besseggen

‘They walked Besseggen’

b. Vinden tørka kleda

Wind.DEF dried clothes.DEF

‘The wind dried the clothes’

In (15a), we have what Tenny (1994:17) calls a ‘‘path object’’; in our case the path is the

mountain ridge Besseggen, and this path measures out the event in that the progress along

the path is the measure for the progress of the event, and the endpoint of the event is the

endpoint of the path. In (15b), we have an inchoative verb, whose patient complement Tenny

characterises as the measure of the event. In this case, the measure is not connected to the

extension of the object, but to the progress of the object on the scale of DRYNESS denoted

by the verb. As Tenny (1994:18) and Levin and Hovav (2005:95) argue, the common feature

of these verbs is that they involve a scale, and that progress through the event corresponds

to progress along this scale. In (14a), the scale is found in the physical extension of the direct

object, whereas in (15a), the scale is found as a path with an endpoint within the direct

object. It is the endpoint of the scale that gives telicity to the construction (ibid.). This is why it

6 The term ”predicate” here refers to verb + non-subject complements.



has been suggested that the notion of incremental theme should be reserved for the scale

which functions as a measure of the event, and that the complement that is realised as a

direct object is the complement about which a progress on the scale is predicated (Levin and

Hovav, 2005:99; citing Kennedy and Levin, 2001).

Tenny (1994:11) argues that, ‘‘[d]irect internal arguments are the only overt

arguments which can ‘measure out the event’ ‘‘, but this claim is challenged by evidence

presented by Dowty (1991:570f), who argues that examples like in (16a)–(16b) have

incremental theme subjects, whereas the one in (16c) has an incremental theme PP:

(16) a. John entered the icy water (very slowly)

b. The crowd exited the auditorium (in 21 minutes)

c. She walked across the desert in a week

Hence, the notion of incremental theme cannot be used to predict that a certain complement

will be realised as a direct object. Jackendoff (1996) argues that it is AFFECTEDNESS and

not ‘‘measuring out’’ that is most central to its realisation as a direct object, and he

demonstrates that not all affected objects are incremental themes (p. 312):

(17) John chewed/kneaded/jiggled/spun the loaf of bread for/*in an hour

With these verbs, the direct object the loaf of bread is affected, but it does not measure out

the event: the event is atelic. It is clear that not all direct objects are incremental themes;

rather, this is verb-specific, but in some cases there is a correlation between the presence of

a direct object and telicity. Hence, the relationship between aspect and complement

realisation is correlational rather than implicational.

4.1 The aspectual approach and adjectival predicators

After this brief outline of the aspectual approach to complement realisation, its main claims,

and some of the problems with which it is concerned, we will now turn our attention to

adjectival predicators. To what extent is the aspectual approach to event structure and

complement realisation applicable also to adjectives? To answer this, we have to take a

closer look at the composition of complex adjectival predicators. At clause level, adjectives

combine with various verbs to form complex predicators, but in the present investigation, the

focus will be restricted to combinations with full-fledged copular verbs. The goal of this



investigation is to reveal the valency properties of the adjective category, and predicators

composed of a copular verb and an adjective show more valency variation than combinations

with other verbs; cf. Daugaard (2002:107f) and Faarlund et al. (1997:734).

The full-fledged copulas have very schematic meanings. The three Norwegian verbs

that are regarded as copulas by Faarlund et al. are være (Nynorsk vere ) ‘be’, bli (Nynorsk

also verte) ‘become’, and forbli ‘remain’; see also Daugaard (2002:115), who concludes that

these three are also the full-fledged copulas in Danish. The semantic contributions of these

verbs in combination with adjectives seem to be restricted to expressing tense and aspect.

As Daugaard points out, the full-fledged copulas complement each other aspectually (ibid.).

Være ‘be’ and forbli ‘remain’ are both stative. Bli ‘become’, on the other hand, is the

inchoative counterpart of være and expresses that the state denoted by the predicator comes

into being; see also Faarlund et al. (1997:734). This is the aspectual difference we will focus

on here:

(18) a. Huset er blått

house.DEF is blue

‘The house is blue’

b. Huset blir blått

House.DEF becomes blue

‘The house becomes blue’

The basic aspect of constructions with adjectival predicators in combination with være, as in

(18a), is stative, whereas constructions with bli ‘become’ are inchoative, as in (18b).7

As pointed out in our discussion above, telicity and the notion of incremental theme

have figured prominently in aspectual approaches to complement realisation. Therefore, in

an assessment of the extent to which the aspectual approach is applicable to adjectives, the

following questions are a natural starting point: Are constructions with adjectival predicators

telic, and do they include incremental themes? We will first consider telicity.

The difference between the constructions in (18) clearly involves a difference in

telicity. (18a) is atelic, whereas (18b) is telic. The difference between være ‘be’ and bli

‘become’ can also be demonstrated with the distinction between DURATIVE and

CONTAINER adverbials; see (9)-(13). DURATIVE for adverbials are expressed in Norwegian

with the preposition i, whereas CONTAINER in adverbials, are expressed with på :

7 We will return to some exceptions from these basic cases in (27).



(19) a. Jeg var sur i en uke (LBC)

I was sour for a week

‘He was grumpy for a week’

b. ?Jeg var sur på en uke

I was sour in a week

c. ?Jeg ble sur i en uke

I became sour for a week

d. Jeg ble sur på en uke

I became sour in a week

‘I turned grumpy in a week’

I ‘for’ adverbials are much more conventional with være , whereas på ‘in’ adverbials are

combined with bli. Hence, the constructions with være are most easily interpreted as atelic,

whereas the constructions with bli are interpreted as telic.8 We can conclude from this that in

Norwegian, the choice between the copulas være ‘be’ and bli ‘become’ is normally

associated with a change in aspect, more specifically with a change in telicity. A further

aspectual difference found with bli constructions is between durative events (20a) and

punctual events (20b):

(20) a. jeg ble god i matte (NWC)

I became good in maths

‘I became good at maths’

b. Skjermen ble svart (LBC)

Screen.DEF became black

‘The screen turned black’

Hence, according to Vendler’s classification in (4), (20a) is an accomplishment, whereas

(20b) is an achievement.

We will now turn to our second question: Do constructions with adjectival predicators

express incremental themes? We recall from our discussion above that incremental themes

are closely associated with telicity, and, hence, we would expect to find them in constructions

with the telic bli ‘become’, as in (20). We also recall from our discussion of the examples in

(15) that the notion of measuring out is associated with a scale; e.g. a scale of DRYNESS in

(15b). Adjectives are also frequently associated with a SCALE, and it is the

8 An alternative reading of (19) (c) is an iterative reading where the subject repeatedly turns grumpy for a week.



conceptualisation of a change on a scale that makes constructions like that in (20) telic. The

endpoint of the event is reached when the subject of the construction reaches the point on

the scale where the property denoted by the adjective is reached. For example, the endpoint

of the change in (20a) is reached when the subject hun ‘she’ reaches a certain point on the

scale associated with the adjective god ‘good’, specified as pertaining to MATHEMATICAL

SKILLS by the complementation i matte ‘in maths’; the construction expresses that her

mathematical skills have changed and that they have improved. Hence, this is parallel to the

construction in (15b), where the direct object is the complement which undergoes a change

on a scale of DRYNESS implied by the verb. In that case, the direct object is the complement

of which the change on the scale is predicated. With the adjectival predicator, however, the

incremental theme is associated with the subject, not with a direct object.

Now, an interesting question is whether this changes if the adjective takes an NP

object. Consider the following examples:

(21) a. Jeg ble lei håret (NWC)

I became tired hair.DEF

‘I became tired of my hair’

b. jeg ble redd denne læreren (NWC)

I became afraid this teacher.DEF

‘I became afraid of this teacher’

c. Tittelen ble lik tittelen på plakaten (LBC)

Title became like title.DEF on poster.DEF

‘The title became like the title on the poster’

d. Kroppen hans blir verdt millioner (NWC)

Body.DEF his becomes worth millions

‘His body will be worth millions’

In these cases as well, the changes taking place are predicated about the subjects, not about

the objects. I conclude from this that in adjectives, a change on the scale associated with the

adjective is always predicated about the subject, and this makes incremental theme a poor

candidate for predicting complement realisation. If we change the copula into være ‘be’, we

get stative constructions, but this has no consequences for complement realisation:

(22) a. Jeg var lei håret

I was tired hair.DEF

‘I was tired of my hair’



b. Jeg var redd denne læreren

I was afraid this teacher.DEF

‘I was afraid of this teacher’

c. Tittelen was lik tittelen på plakaten

Title was like title.DEF on poster.DEF

‘The title was like the title on the poster’

d. Kroppen hans er verdt millioner

Body.DEF his is worth millions

‘His body is worth millions’

The minimal pairs in (21)–(22), differing only in the choice of copula, are also a challenge for

a claim made by Arche (2006:107), that aspect is purely syntactic: ‘‘I will defend that there

are no inner aspect properties decided from the lexicon but it is the elements present in the

syntactic structure that gives [sic] the aspectual nature of the construction.’’ It seems clear,

however, that there is no syntactic difference between the constructions in (21)–(22). Rather,

the two copular verbs express different aspects. Nevertheless, let us have a look at the

background for Arche’s claim. A central factor in the discussion is the distinction between

individual-level and stage-level predicates, which, according to Arche, is due to Carlson

(1977). The former apply to individuals (23a), whereas the latter apply to stages or

happenings in which individuals participate (23b) (Arche, 2006:6):

(23) a. John is a mammal

b. John is in Los Angeles

In Spanish, adjectival predicators with the copula ser ‘be’ yield individual-level predicates that

are normally taken to be stative. Arche observes, however, that there are certain adjectives

in Spanish, like cruel ‘cruel’, amable ‘kind’ and mezquino ‘mean’ that can be used with the

copula ser (indicating that they are individual-level), but that can still be dynamic. The

following Norwegian examples can also illustrate this:

(24) a. Han er snill (LBC)

He is kind

‘He is kind’

b. Han er snill mot deg (LBC)

He is kind against you

‘He is kind to you’



In (24a) the combination of være ‘be’ and snill ‘kind’ yields a stative predicate, whereas the

construction in (24b), on the other hand, can be interpreted as a Vendlerian activity, i.e. that

he is acting in a kind-hearted way. Arche argues that constructions like those in (24b) imply

that the subject performs some action directed against the participant denoted by the PP,

although this action is not specified. Arche’s conclusion is that not all individual-level

predicates are statives, and that the non-stativity of such predicates correlates with the

presence of what she calls relational PPs, like mot deg ‘to you’ in (24b); she argues that the

difference between pairs like those in (24) suggests that the aspectual difference is to be

ascribed to the PP and the construction as a whole and not to the copula. This seems like a

very reasonable analysis. She also suggests, however, that the difference in (24) is evidence

that aspect is purely syntactic.

It is clear that the aspectual difference between (24a) and (24b) is not due to the

copular verb, and hence that aspect is partly determined by the composition of the

construction as a whole. This does not mean, however, that there are no aspectual

differences between copulas per se. For example, it seems clear to me that the basic

aspectual meaning of the copula være ‘be’ (25a) is different from the basic aspectual

meaning of bli ‘become’ (25b), and hence that aspect is both connected to the copula per se

and constructional:

(25) a. Jeg er redd hunder (NWC)

I am afraid dogs

‘I am afraid of dogs’

b. Jeg blir redd hunder

I become afraid dogs

‘I become afraid of dogs’

In (24b), for example, it seems that the basic aspect of være ‘be’ is overridden when it

combines with mot deg ‘to you’ in that construction. As Croft (2012:31) argues, ‘‘[a]spect is

manifested both grammatically and lexically.’’ What the aspectual difference between the

examples in (24) demonstrates, however, is that it is too simplistic to regard all constructions

with the copula være + Adj as stative in Norwegian as well.

An interesting point that has emerged is that aspect is not only dependent upon the

choice of copula. Some adjectives arguably take AGENT-like subjects, and although these

adjectives, per se, do not specify any action, these constructions as wholes are clearly

dynamic and are to be classified as Vendlerian activities:



(26) a. Jeg er veldig forsiktig med å gå ut (NWC)

I am very careful with to go out

‘I am very careful about going out’

b. han var vel opptatt med å betale ut penger (NWC)

he was probably busy with to pay out money

‘He was probably busy paying out money’

It is also possible for constructions with bli ‘become’ to be given a stative reading; Faarlund

et al. (1997:735) give the example in (27a) below, where the construction contains a

continuative adverbial of time. In this example, the predicative is an NP, but a stative reading

is also possible with an adjectival predicative as in (27b). Furthermore, constructions with bli

can also express a stative aspect in combination with present participles as in (27c):

(27) a. Han ble en stakkar hele sitt liv

He remained a miserable.wretch all his life

‘He remained a miserable wretch all his life’

b. Hele vinteren ble kald

Whole winter.DEF remained cold

‘It remained cold for the whole winter’

c. Vi blir sittende

We remain sitting

‘We remain seated’

Even though it is not the case that constructions with være are always stative and that

constructions with bli are always inchoative and telic, this aspectual distinction is very often

found between minimal pairs, as in (25), where only the copula is changed. Hence, if aspect,

and telicity in particular, is important for complement realisation, the expectancy would be

that the choice of copula should influence the range of valency patterns that adjectival

predicators occur in. However, this seems to be the case only to a very limited extent.

Nevertheless, an investigation of the valency patterns of 181 polyvalent adjectives in

Norwegian shows that there are some restrictions on the use of the copulas være ‘be’ and

bli ‘become’ with some adjectives. Interestingly, however, in the restrictions that are found, it

is, in fact, the use of the inchoative and telic bli that is limited, whereas være can almost

always be used. Thus, to the extent that it makes a difference, telicity would appear to restrict

the valency patterns of adjectival predicators.



There are two main types of restrictions on the choice of copula. First, in the case of some

predicators, there is a strong preference for være rather than bli in all their valency patterns.

This applies to a few adjectives with the prefix u– ‘in–, un–’, like ukjent ‘unknown,

unfamiliar’:

(28) a. han var ukjent med denne saka (LNC)

he was unfamiliar with this matter.DEF

‘He was unfamiliar with this matter’

b. ?han blei ukjent med denne saka

he became unfamiliar with this matter.DEF

As Daugaard (2002:253) points out, predicators confined to the stative aspect are non-

scalar; they denote either-or states. In addition, the most common change when it comes to

knowing something is first to not know something, and then to get to know it. This is the

change expressed by (29b) below, which is fully conventional:

(29) a. han var kjent med denne saka

he was familiar with this matter.DEF

‘He was unfamiliar with this matter’

b. han blei kjent med denne saka

he became familiar with this matter.DEF

‘He became familiar with this matter’

In this case, the change is from the negative to the positive pole. When bli is combined with

ukjent, on the other hand, the change is from the positive to the negative pole, which is less

common. It is possible, however, in an example like the following:

(30) Han blei plutselig ukjent med denne saka då politiet ringde

He became suddenly unfamiliar with this matter.DEF when police.DEF called

‘He suddenly became unfamiliar with this matter when the police called’

Hence, this restriction is context-dependent and not absolute, and it is not the case that the

choice of copula influences the range of possible valency patterns in any absolute way.

The second main kind of restriction on the use of the copula bli ‘become’ is found with

some predicators when they take a subject in the form of an assertive finite clause (cf.

Daugaard, 2002:245). Among the 181 adjectives in my database, this is the case for



ansvarlig ‘responsible’; bevisst ‘deliberate’; medviten ‘conscious’; moden ‘mature’; sikker

and viss ‘certain’; and takknemlig ‘thankful’:

(31) a. Det var bevisst at enkelte kostnader ikke var tatt med i søknaden (NWC)

It was deliberate that certain costs not were taken with in application.DEF

‘It was deliberate that certain costs were not included in the application’

b. ?Det ble bevisst at enkelte kostnader ikke var tatt med i

It became deliberate that certain costs not were taken with in

søknaden

application.DEF

c. at det har vært brukt i tusener av år, er helt sikkert (LBC)

that it has been used in thousands of years, is totally certain

‘That it has been used for thousands of years, is certain’

d. ?at det har vært brukt i tusener av år, ble helt sikkert

that it has been used in thousands of years, became totally certain

When they combine with assertive finite-clause subjects, these predicators are used to

evaluate processes whose truth the conceptualiser is committed to, and the moment this

commitment is made, the processes are also evaluated as conscious (31a) or unconscious,

for example. At the moment of utterance, this evaluation cannot change, as the use of bli

‘become’ would express (31b). These restrictions on the use of bli, are, however, also

dependent on the context, and if the context is changed, bli is also possible:

(32) at det har vært brukt i tusener av år ble helt sikkert etter de nye

that it has been used in thousands of years became totally certain after the new

funnene

findings.DEF

‘That it has been used for thousands of years is certain after the new findings’

In other valency patterns, these predicators occur freely with bli:

(33) a. De har blitt mer bevisst på egen kunnskap (NWC)

They have become more conscious on own knowledge

‘They have become more conscious of their own knowledge’



b. Jeg er nok blitt sikrere på meg selv (NWC)

I have probably become more.secure on me self

‘I have probably become more secure in myself’

The clearest cases of correlations between the choice of copula and possible valency

patterns are found in the predicator pairs enig/uenig and samd/usamd , both meaning

‘agreed/disagreed’; cf. Daugaard’s (2002:250) analysis of the Danish equivalents enig/uenig.

These predicators allow bli when they occur with complements with the preposition om

‘about’ (34a), but not when they occur with the preposition i ‘in’ (34b). With være, on the

other hand, both complement types are possible, as demonstrated by (34c) and (34d):

(34) a. Vi ble enige om at de ikke skulle vente (LBC)

We became agreed about that they not should wait

‘We agreed that they should not wait’

b. ?Vi ble enige i at de ikke skulle vente

We became agreed in that they not should wait

c. Vi er enige om at den tredje verden skal få oppfylt sine grunnleggende

We are agreed about that the third world.DEF shall get fulfilled their basic

behov (LBC)

needs

‘We agree that those in the Third World should get their basic needs fulfilled’

d. Vi er enige i at den tredje verden skal få oppfylt sine grunnleggende

We are agreed in that the third world.DEF shall get fulfilled their basic

behov

needs

‘We agree that those in the Third World should get their basic needs fulfilled’

In this case, the different possible valency patterns correlate with a change in aspect: the

combination enig i is used in stative contexts only, whereas enig om is used in both stative

and inchoative, telic contexts. However, such cases seem to be very rare, and they do not

mean that aspectual properties can be taken to predict complement realisation.



Finally in this section, we will take a look at the only case in my material where an adjective

is restricted to a combination with the copula bli ‘become’. The case in point is var, which has

only been found with bli (Nynorsk also verte ) when it means ‘aware’:9

(35) Det var han som vart var henne (LNC)

It was he who became aware her

‘He was the one who became aware of her’

As previously mentioned, telicity and incremental themes are the aspectual notions that have

figured most prominently in aspectual approaches to complement realisation. The data

presented here, however, suggest that these notions do not play any major role for

complement realisation in adjectival predicators. With some exceptions, as in (27),

constructions with the inchoative copula bli ‘become’ are telic, but in most cases adjectival

predicators occur in the same valency patterns when they combine with bli as when they

combine with the stative være ‘be’. This finding is in accordance with Daugaard (2002:238),

studying Danish, who also concludes that være and bli can be used interchangeably with

most adjectival predicators in all their valency patterns. There are a few cases where the

choice of copula restricts valency patterns, but we have seen that the use of the telic bli is, in

fact, more restricted than the use of være; the adjective var ‘aware’ represents a rare

exception to this generalisation. Furthermore, the predictability of complement realisation

from aspect cannot be based on the evidence of a handful of predicators. There are too

many cases that cannot be accounted for with this approach, and the correlations we have

seen between choice of copula and valency patterns do not alter our main conclusion, viz.

that both copulas can be used interchangeably with most adjectival predicators in all their

valency patterns. Hence, my conclusion is that an aspectual approach to complement

realisation faces serious challenges when encountering data from adjectival valency.

Anticipating the account in the next section of the causal approach to complement

realisation, it should be pointed out that proposals have been put forward to also connect the

realisation of subjects to an aspectual notion. Voorst (1988) proposed that both subject- and

object realisation are linked to the temporal structure of events. Telic events, i.e.

achievements and accomplishments, are limited by a point in time that initiates the event,

and a point that terminates it. The initiation point is identified through the ‘‘object of origin or

actualization’’ (Voorst, 1988:10), whereas the endpoint is identified through the ‘‘object of

termination’’ (Voorst, 1988). In complement realisation, the object of origin is realised as

9 The adjective var can also mean ‘sensitive’, in which case it also combines with være ‘be’.



subject, whereas the object of termination is realised as object, albeit in ‘‘deep structure’’.

Except for the notion of ‘‘deep structure’’, this approach to complement realisation is in fact

not that dissimilar from the causal approach, where the initiators and endpoints of causal

chains play a central role in complement realisation; the difference being that the chain

between initiator (or originator) and endpoint is temporal in the aspectual approach and

causal in the causal approach. Levin and Hovav (2005:125ff) also discuss these similarities

and point out that ‘‘[t]emporal precedence often corresponds to precedence in the causal

chain’’ (ibid.). The causal approach to complement realisation is our concern in the following

section.

5 The causal approach to complement realisation

The causal approach to event structure is an approach that is most closely linked to cognitive

linguistics and has Talmy’s (1976, 1988) work on causation and force dynamics as an

important basis: ‘‘Force dynamics is a generalization over the traditional linguistic notion of

‘causative’: it analyzes ‘causing’ into finer primitives’’ (Talmy, 1988:49). Force dynamics

involves such concepts as, ‘‘the exertion of force, resistance to such exertion and the

overcoming of such resistance, blockage of a force and the removal of such blockage, and

so forth’’ (ibid.). Talmy also extends the force dynamics involved in physical interaction

between entities to psychosocial interactions. In the causal approach to event structure,

events are described as causal chains (Croft, 1991, 1998, 2012 ) or action chains

(Langacker, 1991), and common to both these approaches is the fact that such chains are

divided into segments that relate participants in the event, and that participants are linked by

relationships of causal directionality. The participant starting a causal chain is called an

initiator, whereas the participant ending it is the endpoint. Based on Talmy’s (1988) causation

types, Croft (1991:166f) distinguishes between four kinds of causation, where initiatiors and

endpoints are either mental or physical; see also Croft (2012:200):

Physical causation: physical initiator – physical endpoint

Volitional causation: mental initiatior – physical endpoint

Affective causation: physical initiator – mental endpoint

Inducive causation: mental initiatior – mental endpoint

For example, the clause in (36) can be given the causal chain representation in Fig. 1,

adopted from Croft (2012:222).

(36) Sue broke the coconut for Greg with a hammer



Fig. 1: Causal chain.

In the causal chain in Fig. 1, we have three different kinds of causations represented: a

volitional causation when Sue acts on the hammer, a physical causation when the hammer

acts on the coconut, and an affective causation when the coconut acts on Greg (in that its

breaking benefits him). Hence, causation is interpreted quite broadly, and what happens

between an initiator and an endpoint can be referred to as a transmission either of force or

some kind of concrete or abstract content.

Croft (2012:198) makes an attempt to reconcile the causal approach with the

aspectual approach to complement realisation, but he maintains that, ‘‘[t]he fundamental

semantic property that determines participant role ranking for argument realization is the

causal structure of events’’. In the causal approach, complement realisation is based on the

role of event participants in the causal chain and on their relations to other participants in the

chain: participant roles are ranked according to their position in the causal chain profiled by

individual predicators. This represents a difference from semantic-role hierarchies, which

include semantic roles that never occur with the same predicator; in the causal approach to

complement realisation, ranking between roles is determined by event structure, ‘‘in the

sense of participants in the same event’’ (Croft, 2012:177), i.e. in the sense of participants

denoted by individual predicators. The causal approach, however, also posits realisation

rules that are based on generalisations over different kinds of events (see Croft, 2012:207),

i.e. over the event structures of more than one predicator, so it is not clear to me that the

difference between this approach and other role hierarchies is necessarily that great.

Initiators and endpoints of causal chains are also one kind of participant roles, and the

ranking between these roles is assumed to hold across predicators and to account for

complement realisation. Hence, the causal approach is also an attempt to predict

complement realisation based on generalisations over event types and across different

predicators. The initiator and the endpoint of the event profiled by the predicator is linked to

the grammatical roles subject and direct object, respectively, whereas the realisation of

oblique grammatical roles follows from their position relative to the direct object.

In our example in Fig. 1, the predicator break profiles the causal chain from Sue,

which is realised as subject, to the coconut, which is realised as direct object. The profiled



part of the causal chain is indicated by the solid arrows. The oblique with a hammer is a

participant bearing an INSTRUMENTAL role; the preposition with is what Croft (1991:Ch. 5)

calls an antecedent oblique marker; antecedent obliques precede the direct object in the

causal chain. For this reason, antecedent obliques are also part of the event profiled by the

predicator. The oblique for Greg, on the other hand, is a subsequent oblique, which follows

the direct object in the causal chain. Subsequent obliques are part of the semantic frame of

the event, but are not profiled, as indicated by the stippled arrow. The central prediction

made by the causal approach to complement realisation is that the initiator of the causal

chain should be realised as subject, whereas the endpoint of the chain should be realised as

direct object.

5.1 The causal approach and adjectival predicators

Turning now to adjectival predicators, there are two basic problems that make it difficult to

apply a causal chain analysis to this class. First, as discussed in the previous section,

adjectival predicators combined with the copula være ‘be’ are stative in most cases, and

causal chains are only applicable to dynamic events. Furthermore, constructions with the

dynamic copula bli ‘become’ do not, with most predicators, describe causal relations either:

(37) a. Jeg ble kvitt problemet allerede etter 17 timer (NWC)

I got rid problem.DEF already after 17 hours

‘I got rid of the problem already after 17 hours’

b. Midtperioden ble lik flere av kampene lagene mellom forrige

Middle.period.DEF became like several of matches.DEF teams.DEF between last

sesong (NWC)

season

‘The middle period became similar to several of the matches between the teams

last season’

c. Salgsmessig har hiphopkulturen de siste årene blitt overlegen rocken

Sales.wise has hiphop-culture.DEF the last years.DEF become superior rock.DEF

‘In terms of sales, the hiphop-culture has in recent years surpassed the rock

culture’

(NWC)

d. Kroppen hans blir verdt millioner (NWC)

Body.DEF his becomes worth millions

‘His body will be worth millions’



In (37a), the NP complement problemet ‘the problem’ expresses what the subject got rid of

without expressing any cause of this event, and there is no causal relation between either the

subject or the object and the properties described by the adjectives lik ‘like’ in (37b),

overlegen ‘superior’ in (37c), or by verdt ‘worth’ in (37d) either. Hence, causal relations

cannot predict why these adjectives should be polyvalent. There are, however, some

predicators with which constructions with bli do express causal relations. Consider the

following examples:

(38) a. jeg ble redd hunden (NWC)

I became afraid dog.DEF

‘I became afraid of the dog’

b. han ble stolt av sin kone (LBC)

He became proud of his wife

‘He became proud of his wife’

With these predicators, however, it is often not evident which participant is to be considered

the initiator: the subjects or the object complements of these constructions. To claim a

correlation between the causal chain and realisation, we would have to say that the subject is

the initiator in these cases, and this might be argued for, based on the necessity of the

subject directing its attention to the participant denoted by the other complement. However,

in (38a) it is also the case that the object denotes a CAUSE of the feeling of being redd

‘afraid’ and in (38b) that the prepositional complement denotes the CAUSE of the subject

being stolt ‘proud’. Hence, these complements precede the subjects in the causal chain, and

the subjects are mental endpoints. These adjectival predicators impose the same problems

on the causal approach to complement realisation as do verbs of the kind Croft (1991:251)

calls reverse verbs, like hear, receive, suffer and undergo, whose subjects are also

endpoints and not initiators in the causal chain. Note that this problem would also apply to

aspectual, temporal chains discussed at the end of the previous section.

An additional difficulty with the causal approach, which is especially prominent when

dealing with adjectival predicators, is that a majority of adjectival predicators do not take NP

objects; of the 181 adjectives in my database, only 34 (19 per cent) actually occur with a

second NP complement. A large majority of adjectival predicators take prepositional

complements. If prepositional complements are classified as obliques, the causal approach

cannot account for them, since it only accounts for obliques relative to direct objects. Croft

himself (1991:176) also points out that, ‘‘[o]bligatory obliques, as in look for a book, are a

more direct problem for the causal structure analysis. If the verb meaning is just the causal



chain between the subject (initiator) and object (endpoint), then an obligatory oblique is an

anomaly’’. However, prepositional complements of the kind we have in (38b) are clearly

valency-bound, and need to be accounted for in a model of complement realisation. In

conclusion, the causal approach to complement realisation does not seem very promising

when it comes to predicting the complement realisation of adjectival predicators.

If the realisation of complements is not predictable, the following questions arise: How

do we account for valency? And what consequences does this have for our model of

grammar? These questions will be discussed in the section below.

6 Valency as item-specific knowledge

The evidence presented in the previous sections suggests that the realisation of

complements is predictable neither from aspectual nor from causal features. The present

investigation only includes Norwegian adjectives, but the Predictability Thesis is also

challenged by other large-scale investigations of valency. Herbst (1983), studying English

adjectives, and Faulhaber (2011), studying English verbs, also conclude that it seems very

difficult to predict complement realisations on the basis of the semantic structures of the

valency carriers (and their complements).

The question of predictability in complement realisation is fundamental to grammatical

theory. Two different conceptions of grammar can be juxtaposed: grammar as a rule-based,

generative system, and grammar as a repository of more or less schematic symbolic units (or

constructions). If complement realisations are predictable, this speaks in favour of the former

view, but if not, grammar looks more like a repository of symbolic units.

The Predictability Thesis can be seen as an attempt to minimise the lexicon: lexical

entries should contain as little information as possible, and if the realisation of complements

is predictable, this information can be left out. On the other hand, however, as many of a

predicator’s complementation patterns as possible should be predictable from the lexical

entry. Boas (2006:134) refers to this as the lexicalist paradox: “The lexicalist paradox is the

situation in which we would like to explain all of a verb’s argument realization options based

on a very minimal lexical entry and a number of generative mechanisms or constructions”. If

complement realisation is fully predictable, only semantic representations of complements

are needed in the lexicon, since realisations follow from general rules. If realisations are

item-specific, on the other hand, they need to be linked to the semantic representations of

the complements in the lexicon. We thus end up with symbolic representations not only of

the valency carriers, but also of the complements, and the representations of valency carriers

(with complements) end up very much like the constructions of construction grammars, i.e.

as (complex) pairings of form and meaning (cf. Goldberg, 2006; Croft, 2001). In such a



model, the basic structure of clauses relies heavily on a vast repository of stored symbolic

units (constructions), since valency carriers need to be stored together with all the patterns in

which they conventionally occur. Hence, valency is based on rich memory rather than on

generative rules.

On average, each of the 181 polyvalent adjectives in my database has been found to

conventionally occur in 5,3 different valency patterns (including only predicative uses and

where differing copulas are not counted as different patterns). Let us take the adjective redd

‘afraid’ as an example:

(39) a. Eg er redd! (LNC)

I am afraid!

‘I am afraid!’

b. Eg er redd deg (LNC)

I am afraid you

‘I am afraid of you’

c. Jeg er redd for deg (NWC)

I am afraid for you

‘I am afraid of you’

d. Eg er redd å vera åleine (LNC)

I am afraid to be alone

‘I am afraid to be alone’

e. du er redd at eg blir borte (LNC)

you are afraid that I become gone

‘You are afraid that I will disappear’

In (39), we see that redd can occur without a second complement (39a), with an NP object in

(39b), with a prepositional complement with the preposition for ‘for’ (39c), with an infinitive

(39d), and with a finite clause complement (39e). There seems to be no other adjective in

Norwegian that occurs in exactly the same patterns; hence, this is item-specific knowledge.

One way of modelling this is to posit a network of valency constructions where the individual

patterns are represented as nodes that are connected through the common element, viz. the

predicator redd, see Fig. 2.



Fig. 2: Network of valency constructions.

Valency constructions are equivalent to what Croft (2003, 2012) calls verb-specific

constructions and to Boas’ (2003, 2008, 2011) mini-constructions. It should be noted that

valency as item-specific knowledge might also be represented in a lexical model of valency;

as argued by Croft (2003, 2012) and Welke (2009), the differences between a constructional

model and a lexical model are not necessarily that great, but see Haugen (2013) for a

discussion of lexical vs. constructional models of valency and where it is argued that

adjectival valency does provide evidence in favour of a constructional approach. In any case,

however, the question of predictability in complement realisation is fundamental to how a

grammar should be modelled.

7 Conclusions

In this article two major approaches to complement realisation, the aspectual approach and

the causal approach, have been assessed against data from adjectival valency in

Norwegian. As is the case for most approaches to complement realisation, these have been

developed on the basis of verbal valency. Adjectival valency also needs to be accounted for,

however, and a first step towards such an account is to ask whether approaches to valency

developed on the basis of verbs are also applicable to adjectives. It has been argued that

constructions with adjectival predicators have event structures in much the same way as

constructions with verbal predicators. It has also been shown that especially aspectual but

also causal notions are relevant when describing the event structures of adjectival



predicators. In Norwegian, the primary copular verbs, være ‘be’ and bli ‘become’ complement

each other aspectually in that the latter is the inchoative counterpart of the former, which

primarily occurs in constructions describing stative events. However, aspect and causality

seem to be of very limited value when it comes to predicting complement realisation in the

adjectival predicators studied. Of course, these results are not necessarily valid for

languages other than Norwegian, but the data do draw into doubt the general relevance of

the notions of aspect and causality in predicting complement realisation.

The aspectual and the causal approaches to complement realisation are two of the

most prominent versions of what I refer to as the Predictability Thesis, i.e. the hypothesis that

complement realisation is predictable from general rules based on the semantic structure or

the event structure of the valency carrier. The Predictability Thesis reflects a strong tendency

in the research on complement realisation, viz. that valency is an area of research which has

been heavily theorised, but which has not been subject to empirical investigation to the same

extent. In more empirically-oriented approaches, like the valency grammars developed in the

German grammatical tradition (cf. Heringer, 1996; Ágel, 2000; Engel, 2004; Welke, 2011),

the idiosyncratic nature of valency is emphasised. This is also reflected in the existence of

valency dictionaries, which are found also for adjectives (Sommerfeldt and Schreiber, 1983).

In this tradition, with its stronger empirical orientation, no suggestion appears to have been

made that valency is predictable. Herbst (2007:15) argues that, “[t]he phenomenon of

valency is one part of the unpredictable, unsystematic aspects of language ... it can hardly be

considered a coincidence that valency research should have resulted in valency dictionaries

since valency structures represent idiosyncratic, word-specific types of information”. The

present corpus-based investigation of 181 polyvalent adjectives in Norwegian points in the

same direction. Two central versions of the Predictability Thesis, the aspectual approach and

the causal approach, do not seem very promising when it comes to predicting complement

realisation in adjectival predicators. Rather, the data from adjectival valency in Norwegian

would also seem to place valency among the idiosyncratic rather than general aspects of

language; it is necessary to specify both the semantic structure and the realisation of

complements in the lexicon, with all the consequences that this has for grammatical theory.



Corpora

LBC. The Corpus for Bokmål Lexicography. The Text Laboratory, Department

of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. URL:

http://tekstlab.uio.no/glossa/html/index_dev.php?corpus=bokmal

LNC. NO 2014 Nynorskkorpuset. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies,

University of Oslo. URL: http://no2014.uio.no/korpuset/

NWC. NoWaC (Norwegian Web as Corpus). The Text Laboratory, Department of Linguistics

and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. URL: http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nowac/

References

Ágel, V., 2000. Valenztheorie. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.

Arche, M.J., 2006. Individuals in time: Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Baker, M.C., 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. The University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Boas, H.C., 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI, Stanford.

Boas, H. C., 2006. A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements

of meaning. In Steiner, P. C., Boas, H. C., Schierholz, S. J. (Eds.), Contrastive studies and

valency: Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 118–149.

Boas, H.C., 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions

in construction grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 113–144.

Boas, H.C., 2011. Coercion and leaking argument structures in construction grammar.

Linguistics 49, 1271–1303.

Borer, H., 2005. The normal course of events, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford.


http://tekstlab.uio.no/glossa/html/index_dev.php?corpus=bokmal

http://no2014.uio.no/korpuset/


Carlson, G.N., 1977. Reference to kinds in English. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Chomsky, N., 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Praeger, New York.

Croft, W., 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Croft, W., 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, M., Geuder, W. (Eds.), The

projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp.

21–63.

Croft, W., 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Croft, W., 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Cuyckens, H., Berg, T.,

Dirven, R., Panther, K.-U. (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günther

Radden. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 49–68.

Croft, W., 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press, New York.

Daugaard, J., 2002. On the valency of Danish adjectives. Copenhagen. URL:

http://bach.arts.kuleuven.be/PA/papers/daugaard/

Dowty, D., 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.

Engel, U., 2004. Deutsche Grammatik. Iudicium, München.

Faarlund, J.T., Lie, S., Vannebo, K. I., 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk.

Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Faulhaber, S., 2011. Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. De

Gruyter, Berlin.

Frawley, W., 1992. Linguistic semantics. N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.



Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Goldberg, A., 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Haugen, T.A., 2012. Polyvalent adjectives in Norwegian: Aspects of their semantics and

complementation patterns. Dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian

Studies, University of Oslo.

Haugen, T.A., 2013. Adjectival valency as valency constructions: Evidence from Norwegian.

Constructions and Frames 5, 35–68.

Heltoft, L., 1995. Danish predicative adjectives and adverbials as valency bearers. In

Schösler, L., Talbot, M. (Eds.), Studies in valency I: Nouns, adjectives, verbs. Odense

University Press, Odense, pp. 211–235.

Herbst, T., 1983. Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer

Nominalisierungen. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.

Herbst, T., 2007. Valency complements or valency patterns? In Herbst, T., Götz–Votteler, K.

(Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 15–36.

Herbst, T., Schüller, S., 2008. Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Narr

Francke Attempto Verlag, Tübingen.

Heringer, H., 1996. Deutsche Syntax dependentiell. Stauffenburg, Tübingen.

Hopper, P., Thompson, S. A., 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56,

251–299.

Jackendoff, R., 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and maybe even

quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 305–354.

Kennedy, C., Levin, B., 2001. Telicity corresponds to degree of change. Washington, DC.,

Handout, 75th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.



Langacker, R.W., 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford

University Press, Stanford.

Levin, B., 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Levin, B., Hovav, M.R., 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mourelatos, A.P., 1981. Events, processes and states. In Tedeschi, P., Zaenen, A. (Eds.),

Tense and aspect. Academic Press, New York, pp. 191–212.

Perlmutter, D., Postal, P., 1984. The 1–advancement exclusiveness law. In Perlmutter, D.,

Rosen, C.G. (Eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

pp. 81–125.

Pinker, S., 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT

Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Rosen, S. T., 1999. The syntactic representation of linguistic events. Glot International 4, 3–

11.

Sommerfeldt, K.-E., Schreiber, H., 1983. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher

Adjektive. Niemeyer, Tübingen.

Talmy, L., 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, M. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics

6:The grammar of causative constructions. Academic Press, New York, pp. 43–116.

Talmy, L., 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49–100.

Tenny, C., 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantics interface. Kluwer Academic,

Dordrecht.

Vendler, Z., 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66, 143–160.

Voorst, J.V., 1988. Event structure. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.



Welke, K., 2009. Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für germanistische

Linguistik 37, 81–124.

Welke, K., 2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. De Gruyter, Berlin.


Adjectival predicators and approaches to complement realisation

Documents

Transcript of Adjectival predicators and approaches to complement realisation