The RPreds of (2) add a result to an activity description that otherwise includes none. In this respect, such true resultatives contrast with false resultatives (see Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995; Rapoport 1999; Mateu 2000; Rapoport 2019; and Zarka 2019), which are illustrated in (3).3

As shown in (3), the false RPred does not add a new result; rather, it specifies the result already present, the result inherent in the meaning of the verb.4 Consider, for example, (3a): The predicate contains a ‘sliced’ result that is part of the meaning of the verb slice, regardless of the presence of the RPred. The addition of the RPred thin simply specifies that sliced result; it does not itself provide a result.5 Likewise, (3d) contains a result, the constructed table, to which the RPred adds the specification that the table is strong.

Since the false RPred modifies a result that is already present, it is the lexical properties of the verb, and so of the verbal predicate, that distinguish true from false resultatives. Consider a comparison of the aspectual properties of the two types, as in (4)–(5) and (6)–(7).

The addition of a true RPred affects the aspectual classification of a clause. The RPred-less (a) examples are easily read as (atelic) activities and so are incompatible with the in-adverbial; the (b) examples in contrast, which contain an RPred, are (telic) accomplishments and so are compatible with the adverbial.

The addition of a false RPred, on the other hand, does not affect aspectual interpretation:

The clauses both with and without the false RPred are easily read as accomplishments.

One way to distinguish between the two RPred types, then, is to view the false RPred as explicitly connected to a specific feature of the verb’s lexical representation – the verb’s result. The true RPred, on the other hand, bears a less specific connection (if any) to the verb’s definition (and according to Washio 1997 is completely independent of it); it does however, have a direct connection to the verb’s thematic object.

The distinction between true and false RPreds in their connection to the verb’s object can be seen in the following contrast in entailments (adapted from Washio 1997 and Levinson 2010):

The true resultatives of (8) and the false resultatives of (9) entail different changes in the direct object as a result of the event. In (9), the sentence-final adjective does not modify the direct object at any point in the event. The entailments of the false resultatives are, rather (based on Levinson 2010: 154):

The present paper examines false resultatives in NG Arabic in a comparison of the facts of two different creation verb types. These facts argue for making a grammatical, as well as a conceptual and aspectual distinction between the two types.

We focus here on one property that divides adjectival false resultatives in NG Arabic into two: the agreement between the false RPred and the direct object.

The false RPreds of (12d-f) show agreement with the direct object, exhibiting exactly the same agreement in gender and number as that found between the two elements in main (verbless) predication structures.13 For example, (13a) shows the same agreement on the main adjectival predicate (feminine singular) as that found on the false RPred of (12f), repeated here as (13b).

Given this identity with main predication agreement, we will use the term MAIN AGREEMENT to describe that exhibited by the RPred in a subset of false resultatives. The false RPreds of (12a-c), in contrast, do not exhibit main agreement; they are consistently masculine singular, regardless of the direct object’s gender or number features. This lack of agreement on the RPred is illustrated by the contrast between (12b), repeated below in (14a), and the main predication of (14b):

This paper is concerned with the presence or absence of main agreement on the false RPred in Arabic and the reasons for this distinction. We begin with a brief description of the facts of Arabic agreement.

A few facts of NG Arabic number and gender marking and agreement:

Arabic nouns are marked for gender, either masculine or feminine (masculine singular is the default form), and they are marked for number, either singular, dual, or plural (Corbett 1991; 2000; Fassi Fehri 1999; Ryding 2005).14 The details of NG Arabic number and gender marking and of adjective-noun agreement are given in Table 1 and 2, respectively (and see Fassi Fehri 1984 for discussion of number agreement).

Given these facts, we can see that the NG Arabic false RPreds of (12) show two distinct patterns with respect to agreement, exhibiting either main agreement with the direct object, as described here, or surfacing as masculine singular.

The facts are not random. As we now demonstrate, whether or not the RPred shows agreement depends on the type of construction forming the base of the resultative; specifically, the nature of the verb. We propose that the false resultatives under discussion can be divided into two classes, each based on a different type of creation verb, the topic to which we now turn.

The classic type of verbs of creation is exemplified in (15):

Sentences like those in (15) describe an agent causing a new entity, Geuder’s (2000) effected object, to come into existence as a result of the verb’s activity (see also Levin 1993; Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport 2000; Piñón 2008; Ježek 2009). For example, in (15c) a new physical object, a skirt, is created by Mary’s sewing activity. This new entity is realized, as seen in (15), as the direct object of the verb in each case; hence, Levinson’s (2010) term explicit creation verbs.

Our analysis of explicit creation verb structures follows Zarka’s (2019) adaptation of Piñón (2008), in which physically created objects can serve as ‘anchors’ for abstract templates via a relation of representation or instantiation. For instance, a template for a house (an abstract entity, such as a design) can be represented by an architectural blueprint of the house, as well as instantiated by the actual physical house built according to that design.18

Zarka (2019) offers a syntactic representation that simplifies Piñón’s analysis. In the structure we adapt, a mental concept is instantiated by the actual physical entity created according to that concept. The creation process is thus one in which the mental concept of an entity takes on concrete form.

Consider (16), the structure of the explicit creation verb build in the sentence Sara built a table.19

The representation of an explicit creation verb contains both the mental concept, here Ctable, and its instantiation, the effected entity: here the DP a table. The structure in (16) represents the meaning of the explicit creation verb build as causing a concept of a table to be transformed into an actual (created) table. The DP a table is thus the result of the creation process.

Structure (16) also contains the root of the verb and two functional elements, the light verbs v-originator and v-delimiter, vOrg and vDel (adapting Ritter & Rosen 1998). We assume that roots have semantics, but no categorial specification, and must merge with a category-assigning functional head in syntax (following Marantz 2001, for example); here, vDel merges with the root to create a verb.

In addition to their categorizing function, the light verbs vOrg and vDel take event argument as follows: vOrg takes the agent or causer of the event; vDel takes as arguments the delimiting theme.

The event arguments are thus typically contributed by these light verbs: the specifier of these categories is interpreted as the event originator and the event measurer/delimiter, respectively.20

In the explicit creation verb structure of (16), the element in spec,vDel that delimits the event is the concept Ctable. This reflects our claim that the Concept is the standard against which the actual, physical entity is measured as the creation event progresses.

This claim accords with that in Nehmad & Kempler (2018), for whom certain creation verbs involve both the creation of the mental concept and the representation of that concept in physical form. The completion of the representation phase is measured with respect to the abstract conceptualization. The actual table, as it is being built, comes to match the concept Ctable more and more as the building event progresses; so in fact, it is the Ctable that measures out the building activity.21 When the actual table is built, it is the mental Ctable, matched completely, that delimits the building event.

The representation of the second element of the creation process, the physically-created entity (the DP a table in (16)), is required for logical reasons, due to the fact that the Concept acts as the standard against which the actual table is built. As Piñón (2008: 2) notes, “the main condition for abstract entities which are created is that they be represented in some physical medium, for otherwise it would be unclear what their ‘coming into being’ amounts to.” Since the abstract Concept is the standard for the building of a physical entity, that physical entity is also required to be present in the representation.22

The result a table is also required by the v-Delimitation head which, due to its nature, requires a syntactically-represented result. That result can either be denoted by the root with which it merges (as in (18) below) or can be added as the complement of vDel-√root, as in (16).23

Event arguments are selected by the light verbs. We assume that roots themselves do not have argument structure.24 But the root itself is a semantic element (see Borer 2005a; 2013), whose interpretation can require the presence in syntax of certain other elements, as noted. (See also Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport 2005; 2010 for analyses of the requirements of lexical meaning components.)

We thus have the complete structure ‎(16), whose interpretation is that ‘Sara caused the concept of a table to be transformed into an (actual) table as a result of a building activity’. The physical entity that is the result of creation is syntactically and phonetically realized (whereas the concept Ctable in spec,vDel is not phonetically realized). With explicit creation verb structures, then, the effected entity is overtly expressed as the object of the verb. In these respects, this structure and its interpretation contrast with those of implicit creation verbs.

Implicit creation verbs differ from those of explicit creation. This latter term is employed by Levinson (2010), following Geuder’s (2000) analysis of implicit created objects in his discussion of resultant individuals.

Implicit creation verbs are those in which the entity created is not expressed by an argument of the verb, but is left implicit. Consider the following:

In these examples, the created element is not the direct object, in contrast with explicit creation verbs; the created entity is not overtly expressed at all. In (17a), for example, a slice (or slices) is created; in (17b), a braid (or braids). The created individual is denoted by the root of this type of implicit creation verb, following Levinson 2010.

We follow Rapoport (1999), Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport (2005), and Levinson (2010), in which this created result is structurally represented. The structure we propose is in ‎(18).

Structure (18) is interpreted as, roughly: ‘Sara caused the carrots to be transformed into slices.’ The structure also represents the fact that with implicit, as opposed to explicit creation verbs, it is the surface direct object that measures out and delimits the event, although in this case it is not the element physically created. Thus in ‎(18), it is the DP object the carrots that delimits the event, while it is slices, part of the meaning of the verb, that are created.

These two types of creation verbs, explicit and implicit, form the basis of the false resultatives under discussion.

We attribute this difference in agreement to the element modified by the false RPred. With explicit creation verbs, the false RPred modifies the direct object: the created table that results from the building is strong, the skirt that results from the sewing is tight. With implicit creation verbs, on the other hand, the false RPred does not modify the direct object: there is no result of ‘thin carrots’ or ‘fine beans’, for example. Rather (as argued by Pustejovksy 1991; Rapoport 1999; and Levinson 2010), the false RPreds modify an entity denoted by the lexical root of the verb: for instance, the braid creating by braiding is tight; the slices created by slicing are thin.

In both cases of creation, the false RPred does not add a result, but modifies a result that is already present in the structure, whether the effected DP object of explicit creation verbs or the result in the implicit creation verb root.

The distinction in modification between explicit and implicit creation as well as the distinction in agreement that follows are derived from the structures we propose for the false resultatives with the two creation verb types. The structure for explicit creation resultatives is shown in ‎(21) and the structure for implicit creation resultatives is in (22).

In structure (21) the RPred θābte ‘stable/strong’, modifies the direct object ṭṭawle ‘the table’, the actual table that is the result of the creation process.25 The small clause complement of the verb represents these two elements as the result of the creation event: a strong table.

Here, the result of the creation event, the strong table, compares to the result in the simple explicit creation structure (16), a table that is created. In both cases, the DP or PrP complement of the verb expresses a result. This is as required under our assumption that the complement position of the verb (that is, of vDel-root) is limited to phrases interpretable as results.

The small clause in (24) allows for the agreement between the RPred and its host. This is as expected, given our claim that since the adjectival predicate modifies an overt DP, it exhibits main agreement with that phrase.

Consider, in contrast, the implicit creation resultative structure:

Here, following Levinson, the false RPred modifies the syntactically-accessible created individual denoted by the root of the implicit creation verb.26 In (22), the created individual denoted by the root is the slice/s; modification thus yields the interpretation ‘big slices’.

Since the false RPred modifies the root rather than the overt direct object, we do not expect it to agree with the direct object. The false RPred exhibits no agreement at all.27 We attribute this lack of agreement to the fact that the element modified by the RPred is a root. Roots have no syntactic properties (following Borer e.g. 2005a; 2013)28 and thus there are no features available with which the RPred can agree. The consequence, we claim, is that the root-modifying RPred in implicit creation verb structures surfaces with default agreement, and so is masculine singular.

In this way, it is the distinction between the two creation verb types and the corresponding distinction in the structures they project that accounts for the distinction in agreement exhibited by the two types of false resultatives in NG Arabic.

We thus account for the appearance of the RPred in implicit creation contexts as consistently marked with masculine, singular, regardless of the features of the direct object. But this lack of agreement raises the possibility of two alternative analyses, which we consider, and reject, in the next section.

The idea that false RPreds are adverbs is not new – RPreds have indeed occasionally been described as adverbials (see Washio 1997; Mateu 2000; Kratzer 2005).

Against this view, Levinson (2010) presents arguments that, at least in English, false RPreds are not adverbs.29 She notes that false RPreds, unlike manner adverbs, do not have manner paraphrases. Zarka (2019) makes the same point with respect to NG Arabic, as we see in the following contrast:

While the manner adverb of (23) has a manner paraphrase, the false RPreds of (24) and (25) do not. The false RPred in the implicit creation structure does not, then, behave like a manner adverb.

Levinson claims that another argument against the adverb status of false RPreds in English can be found in the impossibility of coordinating the RPred with a manner adverb:

However, the usefulness of the first test is questioned by the fact that we would not expect a result modifier to have a manner paraphrase. The second test must also be revised under the assumption that we would not expect manner and result modifiers to coordinate, regardless of category30.

For these reasons, Zarka (2019) proposes testing the adverb/adjective status of the false RPred in Arabic by coordinating it with a result adverb so as to ensure the best possible outcome. Yet, while each result modification is fine separately, as shown in (27a,b), the false RPred and the result adverbial cannot be coordinated, as shown in (27c) and again in the contrasts in (28) and (29).3132

We take the impossibility of coordinating the two types of result modifiers, the RPred and the adverbial, as evidence that the RPred is not an adverb.33

Further evidence against an adverbial analysis of the RPred can be found by employing Levinson’s point that when good in English is coordinated with a false RPred, it receives an intensifier reading. We note first that in English, good as an intensifier can coordinate with an adjective but not an adverb:

The coordination of the intensifier with a false RPred, however, is successful:

The contrast between (30b) and (31) is another argument against an adverbial analysis of the false RPred in English: since, in its intensifier use, the adjective good can be coordinated only with an adjective and since it can be coordinated with the RPred, we have evidence that the English false RPred is an adjective and not an adverb.

The facts are paralleled in Arabic. Zarka (2019) notes that Arabic mnīħ ‘good’ can be used as an intensifier.34 Mnīħ ‘good’ can be used adjectivally or adverbially, but its intensifier use is possible only when used in coordination with another adjective.35 (See Fassi Fehri 1998 for discussion of adverbs and adjectives in Arabic.)

When used in coordination with an adverb, the intensifier use of mnīħ is impossible; rather, mnīħ is interpreted adverbially:36

In Arabic, mnīħ must be the second of the two coordinated adjectives in order to receive the intensifier interpretation. (This is the opposite of the English order seen above.)37

Thus we conclude that the intensifier use of mnīħ is possible only when mnīħ is coordinated with an adjective and not when it is coordinated with an adverb. We therefore use the possibility of the intensifier interpretation as a diagnostic of the categorial status of the RPred.

Under our analysis of false RPreds as adjectives, we expect RPreds to coordinate with intensifier mnīħ. And such coordination is indeed possible, as (34) shows.

Given the fact that intensifiers can be successfully coordinated with the false RPred, and in general with adjectives but not with adverbs, we can conclude that the false RPred marked with default agreement in implicit creation structures in NG Arabic is adjectival.

We turn next to consideration of a second alternative analysis.

We have argued that the sentence-final adjectival element is a resultative predicate, directly modifying either the direct object, in explicit creation contexts, or the verbal root, in implicit creation contexts. We have claimed that modification of the root is responsible for the lack of agreement, or rather, the default agreement exhibited by the RPred. However, an anonymous reviewer, a speaker of a different Levantine dialect, has suggested that in fact the RPred does exhibit agreement and in fact agrees with a covert cognate object whose overt parallel is masculine singular. We note that cognate objects are prevalent in Arabic, appearing in a wide variety of verb types: transitive, unaccusative, as well as unergative. (See, for example, Al-Sammak 2012; Akkuş & Öztürk 2017; and Alqurashi 2020.)

Such a direction could be suited to other Levantine dialects, which allow sentences with overt cognate objects, like the following (which have been provided by the reviewer):

However, the sentences of ‎(35) are not possible in the dialect under examination here, NG Arabic. In NG Arabic, the only way to modify the result in an implicit creation sentence is with an RPred, as we have described. No examples of overt cognate objects with implicit creation verbs are possible in NG Arabic,38 and therefore it does not seem to us likely that a null cognate object would be present in order to provide an element to be modified.

Complications for such an analysis are also found in dialects other than NG Arabic. Our consultants in a Lebanese dialect of Levantine Arabic, which does allow the cognate object sentences above, are able to accept cognate objects only with a subset of the implicit creation verbs that appear in the resultative constructions discussed in this article. Thus in contrast with (35), the following is impossible not only in NG Arabic but also in Lebanese Arabic:39

Thus not all of our RPred examples can be replicated with cognate object constructions even in a dialect that allows overt cognate objects. The contrast between (36) and (35) challenges any analysis of the RPred as a modifier of a covert cognate object and itself requires a distinct explanation.

These facts, taken together with the impossibility of overt cognate objects in NG Arabic implicit creation anyhow, exclude an analysis in which the NG Arabic RPred is actually a modifier of their covert equivalents.

To conclude, our proposed analysis of the false RPred with implicit creation as a modifier of the root’s resultant individual accounts for the default agreement found in one type of resultative of NG Arabic. And our analysis of the false RPred with explicit creation as a modifier of the overt object accounts for the main agreement found in this second type of resultative.

Analyzing the sentence-final adjectival element in both types of false resultatives in NG Arabic as a resultative secondary predicate allows comparison with other secondary predicate constructions. In the next section, we present two such cases.

Consider below the unexpected occurrence of main agreement exhibited by the RPred with implicit creation verbs. These are the same verbs and the same RPreds as those in (20) above, but in (20), the same RPred shows default agreement. The examples of (37) and (38) illustrate this contrast in agreement.

We have attributed the appearance or non-appearance of an overt result, and so the presence or absence of main agreement, to whether or not the verb is one of explicit or implicit creation. In fact, as the examples in (37)–(38) show, the situation is more complex.

In (37a)–(38a), the same implicit creation verbs that above are used in sentences that describe only an implicitly-realized result are used to describe events with an explicitly-realized result, a created individual. And the element modified here is not the root’s resultant individual as in ‎(20), but rather, the overt realization of the root’s implicit result, that is, the slices or knots themselves. This kind of sentence thus contains both of these result elements.40

Given this duplication of the result element, we have analyzed these sentences (see Rapoport & Zarka 2020) as a type of cognate object construction. This type is similar to those in Massam (1990) which have an explicitly-realized “result-of-action object” or Sailer’s (2010) “resultant object”, both of which are the results of creation, as is the case here.41

In sentences (37a)–(38a), the overtly-realized duplicated result is what is modified by the RPred, which therefore shows main agreement with it. We conclude that it is not only the creation verb type but also the position in which the created result is realized that determines the type of agreement on the RPred.

Thus, we have shown that when the modified element is overt, the modifying RPred agrees with it. We observe the same behavior with another type of secondary predicate.

One more type of secondary predicate that agrees with its overt object host is the depictive predicate.42 Consider again the object-hosted depictives of (39), repeated from (10) above.

In ‎(39), the hosts of the depictive secondary predicates soxne ‘hot’ and maksūr ‘broken’ are the overt DPs aljazara ‘the carrot’ and alkorsi ‘the chair’, respectively. The predicates exhibit obligatory main agreement with their hosts, as expected. Evidence for this agreement is found in the identical feature specifications on the adjective in the parallel main predications:

Depictive secondary predicates, like certain false resultative predicates, thus exhibit obligatory main agreement with their overt object hosts.

For a broader perspective, see Rapoport & Zarka (in preparation) for an analysis in which depictive predicates and false resultative predicates are analyzed as adjuncts. They thus contrast with true resultative predicates, which are arguments (assuming the discussion in Rapoport 2019). Since NG Arabic allows depictives and false resultatives but disallows true resultatives, we can thus form a thematic generalization describing possible secondary predication constructions in Arabic and also offer a promising direction for the description of the distribution of secondary predicate types cross-linguistically.