1 Introduction

Intransitive Prepositional Verbs (IPVs) select a PP with argumental properties, the PP Complement (PPC) (Neeleman & Weerman 1999: 107–108).

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. L’Assumpta
    2. the=Assumpta
    1. pensava
    2. think.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. en una
    2. in a
    1. universitat
    2. university
    1. americana.                                                [Catalan]
    2. American
    1. ‘Assumpta was thinking of an American university.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. L’estudi
    2. the=study
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. set
    2. seven
    1. capítols.
    2. chapters
    1. ‘The study differs from your proposal.’

The PPCs in ‎(1) carry a thematic interpretation with respect to the verb. Thus, in ‎(1)a, an American university is the content of Assumpta’s thoughts. Crucially, these “arguments” need a preposition, a circumstance that would bring them close to VP adjuncts. Unlike VP adjuncts, however, PPCs cannot be stranded under a verbal proform replacement. Thus, the PP en una universitat americana of (1a) cannot be stranded under replacement of the VP by fer-ho ‘do so’, as in (2). With the non-IPV estudiar (3a), this PP behaves as a VP adjunct, and, as such, survives under fer-ho substitution, as in (3b).

    1. (2)
    1. #L’Assumpta
    2.   the=Assumpta
    1. ho
    2. it
    1. feia
    2. do.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. en
    2. in
    1. una
    2. a
    1. universitat
    2. university
    1. americana.                                              [cf. (1a)]
    2. American
    1.   ‘Assumpta was doing so at an American university.’
    1. (3)
    1. a.
    1. L’Assumpta
    2. the=Assumpta
    1. estudiava
    2. study.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. en
    2. in
    1. una
    2. a
    1. universitat
    2. university
    1. americana.
    2. American
    1. ‘Assumpta was studying at an American university.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. L’Assumpta
    2. the=Assumpta
    1. ho
    2. it
    1. feia
    2. do.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. en
    2. in
    1. una
    2. a
    1. universitat
    2. university
    1. americana.
    2. American

Also unlike adjuncts, the PPC of some IPVs cannot be dropped without producing severe ungrammaticality, ‎(4).

    1. (4)
    1. *L’estudi
    2.   the=study
    1. consta.                                                                                                                                            [cf. ‎(1b)]
    2. consist.3sg

English IPVs have been explored, to a certain extent, as regards case and theta-role assignment (e.g., Marantz 1984; Neeleman 1997; Castillo 2005), and the idiosyncratic relation between the root and the PPC (Merchant 2019). More literature has been devoted to the aspectual differences between an IPV and its transitive variant (Beavers 2006; MacDonald 2008). Concerning Romance, many studies deal with the proper characterization of the PPC as a grammatical relation —e.g., Rosselló (2008) for Catalan;1 Kuhn & Mollica (2013) for Italian; Gonçalves & Raposo (2013) for Portuguese; Demonte (1991) and Cano Aguilar (1999) for Spanish. The aspectual dimension of IPVs in Romance, however, has not been dealt with in any detail.

In this paper we examine the class of IPVs in Catalan from an aspectual perspective. Specifically, we explore whether the Individual-Level (IL) / Stage-Level (SL) distinction can be mapped onto a deep grammatical (i.e., argument-structure) distinction within this type of verbs. Our investigation is framed within a more general one on the categorial encoding of property-concept predicates (Thompson 1988; Francez & Koontz-Garboden 2017), like ‘be tall’, and how the IL/SL difference affects that encoding. Partly in line with the typological literature on the expression of property predicates (Wetzer 1996; Stassen 1997), Acedo-Matellán (2019) formulates the hypothesis that at least in certain languages, IL property predicates cannot be lexicalized as simple intransitive verbs, the Property Verbalization Constraint (PVC). A subset of the prima facie counterexamples to the PVC corresponds to intransitive verbs expressing property concepts that are unquestionably understood as IL, like Cat. diferir de ‘differ from’ and abundar en / de ‘abound in’.

In fact, all IPVs testing out as IL in our study would be potential counterexamples to the PVC unless it is shown that they involve a nonverbal (primary) predicate. This is what we argue is the case, based on two facts. First, all IL IPVs sport a robustly non-droppable PPC. Second, the subject of IL IPVs does not behave as an external argument. By hypothesis, it is merged below the event-encoding head and is thus an internal subject. Thus, for IL IPVs, the PPC is the real predicate, directly predicated of the subject.

We show that IL IPVs such as constar de ‘consist of’, which we label Class A IPVs, are not counterexamples to the PVC, since, even if they surface as verbs, the primary predicate is nonverbal. In a way, sentences headed by IL IPVs are “flavoured” copular sentences. By contrast, SL IPVs form a heterogeneous set. They can be (i) unaccusative predicates, with a non-droppable PPC: Class B IPVs (caure en ‘fall into’); (ii) unergative predicates with a fully droppable PPC: Class C IPVs (parlar de ‘talk about’); or (iii) unergative predicate with a PPC that cannot be dropped in pure activity contexts: Class D IPVs (aŀludir a ‘allude to’, coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’).2

As regards the theoretical tools that we use to approach the study of IPVs, we assume Kratzer’s (1995) theory of the SL/IL difference as a difference between eventive and non-eventive predicates. In the syntax, this difference is sustained by two eventuality heads (understanding eventuality in the abstract sense of Bach 1981): one for events and one for states, as in Arad (1999). More generally, we adopt Acedo-Matellán’s (2016) neoconstructionist theory of event and argument structure, where these notions are directly read off the syntactic configurations and where roots, as independent elements of the configurations, provide the conceptual content to linguistic expressions.

The paper is organized as follows. §2 scrutinizes the behaviour of the IPVs of our corpus as regards the IL/SL distinction. §3 explores the argument structure properties of the same IPV verbs: the grammatical status of the PPC and the status of their subject as an external or an internal argument. §4 discusses the results of §2 and §3, presents the theoretical tools that we use to analyze them, and provides morphosyntactic analyses of the four kinds of IPVs. §5 concludes and identifies challenges for further research. An appendix is attached that contains 1) our corpus of IPVs and 2) a table classifying IPVs based on the diagnostic tests of §2 and §3.

2 The IL/SL distinction in IPVs

The well-known IL/SL distinction (Carlson 1980 [1977]; Kratzer 1995; Chierchia 1995) distinguishes between predicates denoting properties of individuals (IL, know Welsh), and predicates denoting properties of stages (SL, sit in the couch). In this paper we follow the current assumption that the IL/SL difference does not correspond in nature to a difference between permanent vs. transient properties (Jäger 2001; Arche 2006; Camacho 2012; Silvagni 2017). Rather, it corresponds, quite simply, to the difference between states and events, understood as the difference between those eventualities that have a Davidsonian event argument and those that do not, as seminally proposed by Kratzer (1995) (also Hoekstra 1992; Silvagni 2017; for opposing views, see Maienborn 2005 and Jaque 2014).3

In this section we apply three established diagnostic tests of the IL/SL difference to our list of Catalan IPVs: embeddability under perception verbs (§2.1), compatibility with a locative modifier (§2.2), and embeddability under a temporal clause with a universal quantifier interpretation (§2.3).

2.1 Embeddability under perception verbs

In his seminal study, Milsark (1974: 101) first observed that predicates that can be embedded under perception verbs like see are SL predicates (his state-descriptive predicates), whereas those that cannot are IL predicates (his property predicates). We illustrate the IL/SL divide in IPVs with the next two verbs.

    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1. *He
    2.   have.1sg
    1. vist
    2. see.ptcp
    1. la
    2. the
    1. teva
    2. your
    1. tesi
    2. thesis
    1. constar
    2. consist.inf
    1. de
    2. of
    1. tres
    2. three
    1. capítols.
    2. chapters
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   He
    2.   have.1sg
    1. vist
    2. see.ptcp
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. parlar
    2. talk.inf
    1. d’en
    2. about=the
    1. Joan.
    2. Joan
    1.   ‘I have seen Maria talk about Joan.’

Other IPVs that cannot be embedded under a perception verb include patir de ‘suffer from’ (Class A). Together with parlar de ‘talk about’ (Class C), verbs like caure en ‘fall into’ (Class B) and aŀludir a ‘allude to’ (Class D) can be embedded under a perception verb.

2.2 Compatibility with locative modifiers

Kratzer (1995) points out that only SL predicates like sing opera, involving a Davidsonian event variable, are compatible with locative modification, while IL predicates like weigh 65 kilos are not. Before we apply this test to Catalan IPVs, an important qualification is in order. It has been noted that locatives and other modifiers do not constitute a homogenous class but can be subgrouped according to their interpretations and syntactic properties. Hernanz (1993) and Rigau (2008) have observed this for Catalan. Focusing on locatives, Maienborn (2001) observes the distinction between those related to the event and frame-setting locatives, illustrated in ‎(6).4 The latter set “a frame for the proposition expressed by the rest of the sentence” (Maienborn 2001: 192) and have a conditional or temporal interpretation.5

    1. (6)
    1. a.
    1. Eva signed the contract in Argentina.                                                                                    (Maienborn 2001: 191)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. In Argentina, Eva is still very popular.

In conformity with Kratzer’s expectations, frame-setting locatives, which are not event-related, are admitted by both SL and IL predicates.

    1. (7)
    1. In Argentina, Bill {sang opera/weighed 65 kilos}.
    2. = “When in Argentina, Bill {sang opera/weighed 65 kilos}.”

It is, thus, event-related locatives that can tease apart IL and SL predicates and are thus relevant for this test. Interestingly, in Catalan the two kinds of locatives show a different behaviour as regards pronominalization. While event-related locatives can be represented by the clitic hi ‘there’, frame-setting locatives cannot (Rigau 2008; Todolí 2008). This is presumably due to the fact that frame-setting locatives are generated outside of the VP. Thus, when two different locatives are combined in the same sentence, a frame-setting one and an event-related one, hi can only pronominalize the event-related one, as in ‎(8).

    1. (8)
    1. a.
    1.   A
    2.   at
    1. Barcelona
    2. Barcelona
    1. hii
    2. loc
    1. sopem,
    2. dine.1pl
    1. al
    2. at.the
    1. terrati.
    2. rooftop
    1.   ‘In Barcelona we have dinner there, on the rooftop.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *A
    2.   at
    1. Barcelonai
    2. Barcelona
    1. hii
    2. loc
    1. sopem
    2. dine.1pl
    1. al
    2. at.the
    1. terrat.
    2. rooftop

‎(8a) shows the event-related locative al terrat ‘on the rooftop’, which expresses where our dinners take place, and a frame-setting locative, a Barcelona ‘in Barcelona’, which is interpreted conditionally or temporally: it is when we are in Barcelona that we take our dinners on the rooftop. Note that al terrat is right-dislocated, as evidenced by the pause, represented via the comma. This goes hand in hand with the presence of the resumptive clitic hi. In ‎(8b), by contrast, al terrat cannot be interpreted as dislocated. This makes hi impossible as coreferent with al terrat, since adjuncts do not admit clitic doubling (see §3.1.1). Consequently, we are forced to understand hi as coreferent with the frame-setting adverbial a Barcelona, which is not possible.6

As expected, only SL predicates can coappear with hi when the pronoun is understood as referring to a locative modifier.

    1. (9)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Cecília
    2. Cecília
    1. (hi)
    2. loc
    1. cantava
    2. sing.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. òpera.                                  [hi = ‘in Argentina’, ‘in the shower’, etc.]
    2. opera
    1. ‘Cecília sang opera there.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Cecília
    2. Cecília
    1. (*hi)
    2. loc
    1. pesava
    2. weigh.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. 60
    2. 60
    1. quilos.
    2. kilo
    1. ‘Cecília weighed 60 kilo (*there).’

Having the above discussion into account, we use the pronoun hi, coupled with a dislocated event-related locative, to distinguish IL from SL IPVs.

    1. (10)
    1. a.
    1. *Aquesta
    2.   this
    1. tesi
    2. thesis
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. tres
    2. three
    1. capítols,
    2. chapters
    1. a
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. universitat
    2. university
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   A
    2.   at
    1. l’habitació
    2. the=room
    1. la
    2. the
    1. canalla
    2. children
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. parlava
    2. talk.ipfv.1sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. les
    2. the
    1. seves
    2. their
    1. coses.
    2. things
    1.   ‘In the room the children talked about their stuff.’

Other IPVs shunning event-related locatives include consistir en ‘consist in’ (Class A). By contrast, verbs like caure en ‘fall into’ (Class B) and aŀludir a ‘allude to’ (Class D) pattern with parlar de ‘talk about’ (Class C).

2.3 Quantification of the eventuality

Kratzer (1995) notes that only SL predicates are felicitous in when-clauses with a universal interpretation.

    1. (11)
    1. a.
    1.   When Mary speaks French, she speaks it well.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *When Mary knows French, she knows it well.                                                                          (Kratzer 1995: 129)

Kratzer (1995) argues that only SL predicates possess a Davidsonian event argument in their argument structure. Assuming that the semantics of the when-clause involves a covert universal quantifier (“always”), this quantifier is able to bind a variable, to wit, the Davidsonian event variable, in ‎(11a)‎, but not in ‎(11b). The ungrammaticality of (11b) is due to the general ban on vacuous quantification.

The diagnostic test yields the same results if consisting of just a temporal clause headed by an overtly universally quantified expression, like the temporal expression cada vegada que ‘every time that’.

    1. (12)
    1. a.
    1.   Cada
    2.   every
    1. vegada
    2. time
    1. que
    2. that
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Mary
    1. {parla/*sap}
    2. {speak.3sg/*know.3sg}
    1. francès…
    2. French…

The application of this test to our Catalan IPVs yields very sharp results.

    1. (13)
    1. a.
    1. *Cada
    2.   every
    1. vegada
    2. time
    1. que
    2. that
    1. “Remarks on nominalization”
    2. “Remarks on nominalization”
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. quatre
    2. four
    1. seccions, …
    2. sections
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Cada
    2.   every
    1. vegada
    2. time
    1. que
    2. that
    1. en
    2. the
    1. Marc
    2. Marc
    1. i
    2. and
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Núria
    2. Núria
    1. parlen
    2. talk.3pl
    1. de la feina…
    2. of the work
    1.   ‘Every time that Marc and Núria talk about work…’

Like constar de ‘consist of’ pattern dependre de ‘depend on’ (Class A). Like parlar de ‘talk about’ (Class C) pattern verbs like caure en ‘fall into’ (Class B) and aŀludir a ‘allude to’ (Class D).

3 Argument structure properties of Intransitive Prepositional Verbs

After studying the aspectual classification of Catalan IPVs into IL IPVs (Class A) and SL IPVs (Classes B, C, D), this section examines their argument structure properties. In §3.1, we scrutinize the syntactic status of the PPC: whether it behaves as an argument or an adjunct and whether it behaves as a PP or as a nominal category. In §3.2, we examine the subject of IPVs as regards its status as external or internal argument, thereby determining the unergative or unaccusative nature of the IPV.7

3.1 The nature of the Prepositional Phrase Complement

Most works in which the PPC has been dealt with for Catalan (Badia i Margarit 1994: 211ff; Fabra 1956: §77 and Appendix XVII; GIEC 2016: §13.5; Sanchis Guarner 1993: 271ff) have approached it as an argument of the IPV, rather than an adjunct. They have done so for good reasons. As shown in (2)-(3) above, PPCs behave unlike VP adjuncts regarding do-so substitution tests. However, things are more complex when we consider, on the one hand, PPC pronominalization, and, on the other, PPC omissibility. As regards the former, PPCs pattern differently from other arguments, namely, direct and indirect objects, and like adjuncts (see §3.1.1.). As for the latter, the PPC-drop tests allow us to further probe into the (non)argumenthood of the PPC, and make more fine-grained distinctions among IPVs (see §3.1.2).

3.1.1 The pronominalization of the PPC and its grammatical category

A long-debated question refers to the syntactic category of the PPC, whether a DP with some sort of spurious preposition or a real PP. For Catalan, Bel (2008) emphasizes the parallelisms between PPCs and direct objects, on the basis of different kinds of evidence,8 and argues that PPCs are argumental NPs with a preposition, governed by the verb (see also Demonte 1991 for Spanish). PP pronominalization, however, reveals that PPCs are substantially different from argumental DPs. Rosselló (2008) uses this evidence to show how PPCs behave in a different way from indirect (and direct) objects (see also Kuhn & Mollica 2013 for Italian).

Consider, first, the class of clitic pronouns used as proforms for indirect objects and PPCs. Indirect objects, when denoting humans, are represented by dative clitics, li in (14).

    1. (14)
    1. Li
    2. dat.3sg
    1. he
    2. have.1sg
    1. enviat
    2. send.ptcp
    1. el
    2. the
    1. carnet,
    2. ID
    1. a
    2. to
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria
    1. ‘I have sent her the ID, to Maria.’

PPCs headed by any preposition except de ‘of, from’ are represented by the locative clitic hi. Interestingly, even when a human indirect object and a PPC are headed by a ‘to’ (cf. ‎(15)b), they pronominalize differently.

    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1. Hi/*Li
    2. loc/dat.3sg
    1. he
    2. have.1sg
    1. optat,
    2. opt.ptcp
    1. per
    2. for
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria
    1. ‘I have opted for her, for Maria.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Hi/*Li
    2. loc/dat.3sg
    1. he
    2. have.1sg
    1. renunciat,
    2. renounce.ptcp
    1. a
    2. to
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria
    1. ‘I have renounced to her, to Maria.’

Thus, PPCs pattern with bona fide adjunct PPs. As the adjunct PPs illustrated in (16), the PPCs in (17) appear as the partitive clitic en when headed by the preposition de ‘of, from’, and as hi elsewhere.

    1. (16)
    1. a.
    1. En
    2. ptve
    1. queia
    2. fall.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. lava,
    2. lava
    1. del
    2. from.the
    1. volcà.                                                                           [Adjuncts]
    2. volcano
    1. ‘Lava flowed out from it, from the volcano.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Amb
    2. with
    1. la
    2. the
    1. màquina
    2. machine
    1. nova
    2. new
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Carla
    2. Carla
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. ha
    2. have.3sg
    1. cosit
    2. sewn
    1. el
    2. the
    1. vestit
    2. dress
    1. de
    2. of
    1. núvia.
    2. bride
    1. ‘With the new machine Carla has sewn up the wedding dress.’
    1. (17)
    1. a.
    1. En
    2. ptve
    1. parlàvem,
    2. talk.pst.ipfv.1pl
    1. del
    2. from.the
    1. volcà                                                                                               [PPCs]
    2. volcano
    1. ‘We were talking about that, the volcano.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Hi
    2. loc
    1. he
    2. have.1sg
    1. jugat
    2. play.ptcp
    1. amb
    2. with
    1. en
    2. the
    1. Joan,
    2. Joan
    1. als
    2. at.the
    1. escacs.
    2. chess
    1. ‘I have played with John, chess.’

That said, our study makes the novel empirical observation that a few IPVs reject the pronominal expression of their PPC: abundar en / de ‘abound in’, constar de ‘consist of’, and, for some speakers, consistir en ‘consist in’.

    1. (18)
    1. *El
    2.   the
    1. llibre
    2. book
    1. en
    2. ptve
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. (, de
    2.      of
    1. cinc
    2. five
    1. capítols).
    2. chapters
    1.   ‘The book consists of five chapters.’

As also observed by Rosselló (2008), a second difference between DP arguments and PPCs relates to the fact that, while accusative and dative arguments, when pronominal, require clitic doubling (cf. ‎(19)a, b), PPCs bluntly reject it (cf. ‎(19)c).

    1. (19)
    1. a.
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Pere
    2. Pere
    1. *(l’)ha
    2. acc.f.3sg=have.3sg
    1. vist
    2. see.ptcp
    1. a
    2. dom
    1. ella.                                                                      [DO]
    2. f.3sg
    1. ‘Pere has seen her.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Pere
    2. Pere
    1. *(li)
    2. dat.3sg
    1. va
    2. pst.3sg
    1. donar
    2. give.inf
    1. la
    2. the
    1. revista
    2. journal
    1. a
    2. to
    1. ella.                                                       [IO]
    2. f.3sg
    1. ‘Pere gave her the journal.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Jordi
    2. Jordi
    1. (*hi)
    2. loc
    1. pensa
    2. think.3sg
    1. en
    2. in
    1. ella.                                                      (PPC; Rosselló 2008: 1937)
    2. f.3sg
    1. ‘Jordi thinks of her.’

Note that, in this respect, PPCs behave as VP adjuncts, again (a benefactive in (20)):

    1. (20)
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Joan
    2. Joan
    1. rarament
    2. rarely
    1. (*hi)
    2. loc
    1. cuina
    2. cook.3sg
    1. per
    2. for
    1. al
    2. to.the
    1. seu
    2. his
    1. pare.
    2. father
    1. ‘Joan rarely cooks for his father.’

Assuming the theory that takes doubling to emerge from a structure where the clitic is a D and it is in some basic relation with the surface DP argument (Torrego 1994; Uriagereka 2005; Gallego 2012), the exclusion of both PPCs and adjuncts from this kind of doubling reveals that they are PPs, not DPs.

From the above considerations, we can conclude that, despite not being VP adjuncts (as shown, again, by the VP-substitution test), PPCs—with the exception of those of constar de ‘consist of’ and abundar en / de ‘abound in’—retain the properties that are common to all PPs, including adjunct PPs.

3.1.2 Argument status of the PPC and its omissibility

As discussed in §1, PPCs do not survive the fer-ho ‘do so’ substitution test, clearly confirming that they are not VP adjuncts. The question still remains whether they are arguments or something else. Traditionally, it has been claimed that PPCs are argumental since they cannot be omitted (e.g., Fabra 1956 or Bel 2008 for Catalan; Neeleman 1997 for Dutch; Cano Aguilar 1999 for Spanish). However, Rosselló (2008) and GIEC (2016), for Catalan, and Martínez García (1986) and Demonte (1991) for Spanish, observe that there are IPVs that can drop their PPC, raising back the question about its argument status. For instance, Demonte (1991) argues how a subclass of IPVs like discrepar de ‘disagree with’ and alardear de ‘boast about’ can drop their PPC both in referential and non-referential contexts, while another subclass containing verbs like consistir en ‘consist in’ and prorrumpir en ‘break out in’, cannot drop their PPC in any context.

When we take a look at the PPC drop facts from the perspective of Catalan, the resulting scenario is far more complex. This is due, again, to the fact that Catalan features PP pronominalization. We focus on two different non-anaphoric constructions featuring the omission of the PPC: (i) the sluicing construction and (ii) the stative habitual construction.9

The sluicing construction (Ross 1969; Merchant 2001; 2006), as implemented in (21)-(23), involves a contrastive coordination between a conjunct showing the IPV without its PPC, and the sluiced conjunct, with a wh-PPC. Any chance of interpreting the first conjunct as involving a contextually retrievable PPC is made impossible by the fact that the second conjunct asks, precisely, about the reference of the PPC. This forces a pure activity reading in the first conjunct, which is possible in (21) and impossible in (22) and (23).

    1. (21)
    1. Ha
    2. have.3sg
    1. parlat,
    2. talk.ptcp
    1. però
    2. but
    1. no
    2. not
    1. know.1sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. què.
    2. what
    1. ‘S/He has talked, but I don’t know about what.’
    1. (22)
    1. *Ha
    2.   have.3sg
    1. coŀlaborat,
    2. collaborate.ptcp
    1. però
    2. but
    1. no
    2. not
    1. know.1sg
    1. amb
    2. with
    1. qui.
    2. whom
    1. (23)
    1. *Ha
    2.   have.3sg
    1. aŀludit,
    2. allude.ptcp
    1. però
    2. but
    1. no
    2. not
    1. know.1sg
    1. a
    2. at
    1. què.
    2. what

Like aŀludir a ‘allude to’ (Class D) pattern constar de ‘consist of’ (Class A) and caure en ‘fall into’ (Class B). The two subclasses Di and Dii pattern identically with respect to this test.

A second test involves the use of the verbs in a stative, habitual construction without the PPC. In this construction, the verb identifies a property of the subject, rather than describing an activity. Interestingly, this test distinguishes Class Di verbs, (24a), from Class Dii verbs, (25a), the former patterning, in this case, with Class C verbs, (24b), and the latter with Class A and Class B (25b) (caure en in the intended IPV interpretation).

    1. (24)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. nen
    2. child
    1. coŀlabora. = “he is cooperative”
    2. collaborate.3sg
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Núria
    2. Núria
    1. parla. = “she is talkative”
    2. talk.3sg
    1. (25)
    1. a.
    1. *La
    2.   the
    1. Berta
    2. Berta
    1. aŀludeix.
    2. allude.3sg
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *La
    2.   the
    1. Berta
    2. Berta
    1. consta/cau.
    2. consist/fall.3sg

A comparison of the two constructions just examined determines three classes of IPVs as far as PPC omissibility is concerned. Verbs of Class A, Class B, and Class Dii disallow PPC drop in both constructions. Class C verbs allow PPC drop in both constructions. Finally, Class Di verbs do not admit the sluicing construction, and accept the stative habitual construction. This fine-grained scenario is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Different types of PPC-omissibility tests.

constar de (A)
caure en (B)
aŀludir a (Dii)
coŀlaborar amb (Di) parlar de (C)
Sluicing * *
Habitual *

Going back to the argumenthood status of the PPC, in this paper we argue that the PPCs that turn out to be droppable in the habitual construction (Class C and Class Di verbs) are adjuncts. They cannot be VP adjuncts, however, since, as pointed out above, they do not survive the fer-ho ‘do so’ test. We propose, therefore, that they are low adjuncts, as suggested in Gallego (2010; 2012), but of different sorts. As for those PPCs that cannot be dropped in any context (Class A, Class B, Class Dii), they will be argued to be either predicates or what we will call copredicates, on the basis of other syntactic evidence. The result is a three-way syntactic distinction for the PPC: adjunct, predicate, or copredicate. The details of the analysis are in §4.2 and §4.3. One of the major contributions of this paper is thus to show that classifications like Demonte’s (1991), which involves a two-way predicate-argument distinction, developed as a predicate-adjunct distinction by Gallego (2010), are insufficient to account for all cases.

We end this subsection by observing an interesting correlation between the morphological format of the IPV and its (in)ability to drop the PPC in the sluicing construction: prefixed verbs very generally do not accept PPC drop in this construction (cf. a-ŀludir a ‘allude to’, co-ŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’, etc.), whereas unprefixed verbs may or may not allow it (parlar de ‘talk about’, optar per ‘opt for’).

    1. (26)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Núria
    2. Núria
    1. parla
    2. talk.3sg
    1. (de
    2. of
    1. l’Andreu).
    2. the=Andreu
    1. ‘Núria talks (about Andreu).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Núria
    2. Núria
    1. ha
    2. have.3sg
    1. optat
    2. opt.ptcp
    1. *(per
    2. for
    1. medicina).
    2. medicine
    1. ‘Núria has opted *(for Medicine).’

In §4.1.2 we offer an explanation of this correlation and also of the different behaviour of verbs like coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’ (Class Di) and verbs like aŀludir a ‘allude to’ (Class Dii) as regards PPC droppability in the habitual constructions.

3.2 The status of the subject of Intransitive Prepositional Verbs

In this section we inquire into the status of the subject of the IPVs of our corpus, specifically, whether it is an external or an internal argument. We first use Rosselló’s (2008) unergativity test consisting in the licensing of a “V3sg que V3sg” construction. Afterwards, we apply the well-known test involving the licensing of an arbitrary pro with existential reading in the 3rd person plural to distinguish between unaccusatives that select an internal argument and unergatives that select an external argument.

3.2.1 “V3sg que V3sg

Rosselló (2008: 1920–1921) observes that unergative verbs in Catalan can be used in a reduplicative construction of the format “V3sg que V3sg”, with the interpretation of an unceasing eventuality, (27). Unaccusative verbs reject this construction, ‎(28).10

    1. (27)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Marta,
    2. Marta
    1. sempre
    2. always
    1. plora
    2. cry.3sg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. plora.
    2. cry.3sg
    1. ‘Marta, she is always crying.’
    1. (28)
    1. *El
    2.   the
    1. mal
    2. bad
    1. temps,
    2. weather
    1. arriba
    2. arrive.3sg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. arriba.
    2. arrive.3sg

The application of this test to our corpus clearly distinguishes two classes of IPVs.

    1. (29)
    1. a.
    1.   La
    2.   the
    1. mama,
    2. mom
    1. parla
    2. talk.3sg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. parla
    2. talk.3sg
    1. (, dels
    2. of.the
    1. seus
    2. her
    1. amics).
    2. friends
    1.   ‘Mom, she is always talking (about her friends).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *L’estudi,
    2.   the=study
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. (de
    2. of
    1. set
    2. seven
    1. capítols).
    2. chapters

The construction is licensed by Class C verbs (29a) and also Class Di verbs like coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’ (30). This is expected, since these verbs allow their PPC to be dropped only in habitual contexts (see Table 1).

    1. (30)
    1. Els
    2. the
    1. estudiants,
    2. students
    1. coŀlabora
    2. collaborate.3sg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. coŀlabora.
    2. collaborate.3sg
    1. ‘The students, they are always collaborative.’

By contrast, Class B and Class Dii verbs behave like Class A verbs (29b).

3.2.2. Arbitrary pro with an existential interpretation

On the basis of Italian, Belletti & Rizzi (1988) point out that unaccusative verbs, when set in the 3rd person plural and used with a null subject, do not license an arbitrary (and human) interpretation of such pro subject.11 Similar observations are found in Jaeggli (1986) for Spanish, and Bartra Kaufmann (2008) and Rosselló (2008) for Catalan. Rosselló (2008: 1891) provides the following contrast between unergative dormir ‘sleep’ and unaccusative entrar ‘go in, enter’.

    1. (31)
    1. a.
    1.   Calleu,
    2.   shut.up.imp.2pl
    1. que
    2. that
    1. aquí
    2. here
    1. dormen.
    2. sleep.3pl
    1.   ‘Be quite, there are people sleeping here.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #Calleu,
    2.   shut.up.imp.2pl
    1. que
    2. that
    1. ara
    2. now
    1. entren.
    2. enter.3pl
    1.   ≠ ‘Be quiet, there are people entering now.’

However, neither Bartra Kaufmann nor Rosselló observe that a generic, rather than existential, interpretation of the null indefinite subject makes it acceptable with unaccusative verbs, as pointed out by Borer (2005: 118–119) for Hebrew, Italian, and Spanish. Catalan, we note, behaves in the same way as these languages.

    1. (32)
    1. (En
    2. in
    1. aquest
    2. this
    1. país/Aquí/etc.)
    2. country/here/etc
    1. moren
    2. die.3pl
    1. en
    2. in
    1. defensa
    2. defense
    1. de
    2. of
    1. la
    2. the
    1. democràcia.
    2. democracy
    1. ‘(In this country/Here/etc.) people die in defense of democracy.’

Bearing these qualifications in mind, we apply it to our list of Catalan IPVs. We illustrate the divide with parlar de ‘talk about’ (Class C) and constar de ‘consist of’ (Class A).12

    1. (33)
    1. a.
    1.   Han
    2.   have.3pl
    1. parlat
    2. talk.ptcp
    1. de
    2. of
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria
    1.   ‘Somebody has talked about Maria.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Consten
    2.   consist.3pl
    1. de
    2. of
    1. diferents
    2. different
    1. parts.
    2. parts

Class C (33a) patterns with Class Di and Class Dii, whereas Class A (33b) patterns with Class B.

4 Aspect as a predictor of syntax: Classes of Intransitive Prepositional Verbs

In this section we make sense of the results of the last two sections, summarized in Table 3 in the Appendix for all the verbs in our corpus. We have found four main types of IPVs according to their aspectual and syntactic properties, with one of them being split in two subclasses regarding their ability to drop the PPC.

First, verbs testing out as IL, class A, also test out as unaccusative and as utterly unable to drop their PPC. As regards those IPVs that, according to our tests, test out as SL, they turn out to be quite heterogeneous, showing a previously unobserved variation. Class B is comprised of SL IPVs exhibiting no external argument and also not allowing PPC drop in any circumstance. Class C contains SL IPVs with an external argument that allow PPC drop.13 Finally, there are also SL IPVs with an external argument and not generally allowing PPC drop: our Class D. We distinguish here two subclasses: Class Di allow PPC drop in the habitual construction; and Class Dii do not admit PPC drop in any circumstance. To our knowledge, Class D has not been identified before. The properties that characterize these four classes of IPVs, each one represented by a single verb, are summarized in Table 2 below, an abbreviated version of Table 3 of the Appendix.

Table 2: Classification of IPVs: a sample.

IL/SL distinction tests Argument structure tests
Perception verbs
[§2.1]
Locative modifiers
[§2.2]
Temporal clause
[§2.3]
PPC drop in sluicing construction
[§3.1.2]
PPC drop in habitual construction
[§3.1.2]
V queV
[§3.2.1]
Impersonal pro + 3pl verb
[§3.2.2]
A: INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL IPVS [§ 4.2]
constar de ‘consist of’ * * * * * * *
B: UNACCUSATIVE STAGE-LEVEL IPVS [§ 4.3.1]
caure en ‘fall into’ * * * *
C: UNERGATIVE STAGE-LEVEL IPVS ALLOWING PPC-DROP [§ 4.3.2]
parlar de ‘talk about’
D: UNERGATIVE STAGE-LEVEL IPVS DISALLOWING PPC-DROP [§ 4.3.3]
Di: coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’ *
Dii: aŀludir a ‘allude to’ * * *

It should also be observed that several IPVs test out as both SL and as IL, since they license two interpretations: an eventive (agentive or not) one and a non-eventive one: creure en ‘put one’s faith in’ (Class C) / ‘have the existence of someone/something as true’ (Class A), gaudir de ‘enjoy’ (Class C) / ‘have’ (Class A), disposar de ‘use’ (Class Dii) / ‘have at one’s disposal’ (Class A), patir per (Class C) / patir de (Class A) ‘worry about (per)’ / ‘suffer from (de)’, recolzar sobre ‘lean against’ (Class B) / ‘depend on’ (Class A), respondre a ‘reply to’ (Class C) / ‘be due to’ (Class A). In the interesting case of patir, each interpretation correlates with the use of a different preposition: patir per ‘worry about’ (SL: Class C) and patir de ‘suffer from’ (IL: Class A). To illustrate the ambivalence of this class of verbs, consider the behaviour of patir when embedded under a perception verb. Only patir in its SL, Class C ‘worry about’ interpretation admits the perception report ‎(34b).

    1. (34)
    1. a.
    1. *Veig
    2.   see.1sg
    1. l’Ona
    2. the=Ona
    1. patir
    2. suffer.inf
    1. de
    2. from
    1. miopia.
    2. myopia
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Veig
    2.   see.1sg
    1. l’Ona
    2. the=Ona
    1. patir
    2. suffer.inf
    1. per
    2. for
    1. la
    2. the
    1. seva
    2. her
    1. miopia.
    2. myopia
    1.   ‘I see Ona worry about her shortsightedness.’

After introducing our theoretical assumptions in §4.1, we provide a theoretical account of the above observations in §4.2 and §4.3.

4.1 The morphosyntax of argument and event structure. Theoretical assumptions

In this section we establish our assumptions about the syntax of argument and event structure, including our assumptions about the syntax of roots (§4.1.1) as well as the nature of prefixation and its relation to the underlying structure of verbs (§4.1.2).

4.1.1 Argument and event structure

We follow a theoretical tradition stemming from Hale & Keyser’s (1993; 1998; 2002) proposals on argument structure and including Mateu (2002) and Acedo-Matellán (2016). Building, specifically, on Acedo-Matellán (2016), argument-event structure is directly represented in the syntax. Roots, the units encapsulating conceptual content and a phonological representation, are inserted in the structures, but they do not determine them (Borer 2005). This allows a natural treatment of the verbal elasticity exhibited by verbs like patir per/de ‘worry about/ suffer from’, as indicated above. Argument structure configurations are thus articulated on functional heads denoting the grammatically relevant aspects of the semantics of linguistic expressions.

First, the head v expresses eventualities. In this study we assume v to come in two varieties (as in Ramchand’s 2008 two-fold ontology; see also Arad 1999): ve, expressing events, and vs, expressing states. The two heads correspond, respectively, to the two sorts that Maienborn (2007) proposes for events and Davidsonian states, on the one hand, and Kimian states, on the other hand. In this sense, we agree with Kratzer (1996) that SL predicates involve an eventive head and IL predicates do not, but we add, based on Maienborn’s (2007) treatment of Kimian states like resemble, that IL predicates must have some eventuality head that can be located in time and referred to with anaphora.14

Second, the head Voice (Kratzer 1996) introduces the external argument of an eventuality, as is standardly assumed.

Finally, in the lower part of the configuration, we can find Place, a head articulating the predication of a property with respect to an entity. A further projection, Path, can merge on top of a PlaceP. In combination with Place, Path expresses a transition. Place and Path, encode the notions of Central and Terminal Coincidence relations, respectively (Hale 1986; Hale & Keyser 2002; Mateu 2002). We note that the relationship established by Place can be satisfied immediately, by Spec-PlaceP, or via ‘‘delayed gratification’’ (Hale & Keyser 2002: 227), that is, by a later merged specifier (for instance, Spec-VoiceP). For a more recent minimalist implementation of this idea, see Wood (2015: 176).

The eventive head ve is able to take different configurations as complements: PathP, PlaceP, a nominal expression, or a mere root. Each selection impinges on the final interpretation of the eventive head. Thus, ve taking a PlaceP as complement denotes an event where a predicative relation is maintained for an interval of time (Jaque 2014). In turn, when taking PathP, the event encoded by ve is a change of location or state, whereas when taking a nominal expression or a bare root, it is an unergative or a transitive creation/consumption event (Dowty 1991; Ramchand 2008). In turn, vs combines with PlaceP to denote states, VoiceP merged or not on top of vsP.

We briefly illustrate this configurational model with a few intransitive examples (adapted from Acedo-Matellán 2016: 33). In the unergative structure in (35), the head Voice introduces the external argument and the root is selected as the argument of an eventive verbal head ve.

    1. (35)
    1. Unergative structure:
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nena
    2. girl
    1. balla.
    2. dance.3sg
    1. ‘The girl dances.’

The stative unaccusative structure in (36) involves the projection of a stative verbal head vs that takes a predicative relation PlaceP in the complement position.

    1. (36)
    1. Stative unaccusative structure:
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nena
    2. girl
    1. és
    2. be.3sg
    1. eixerida.
    2. smart
    1. ‘The girl is smart.’

Finally, the structure in (37) projects an eventive ve that combines with a Path-Place structure that represents the eventive change of state. In this case, the figure argument, la nena, undergoes a movement from Spec-PlaceP to Spec-PathP. As in Acedo-Matellán (2016), la nena is understood both as a figure with respect to the beach and also as a measurer of the transition introduced by Path (Verkuyl’s Generalization; see Verkuyl 1972; Tenny 1987; Borer 2005).

    1. (37)
    1. Unaccusative event of change of state:
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nena
    2. girl
    1. arribà
    2. arrive.pst.3sg
    1. a
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. platja.
    2. beach
    1. ‘The girl arrived at the beach.’

Turning to roots, we follow Marantz (1997), Borer (2005; 2013), and Embick & Noyer (2007), among others, that, even if they do not come with categorial features, they acquire them in syntax, by merging with functional heads as either complements or modifiers. With Acedo-Matellán (2010; 2014) and Acedo-Matellán & Mateu (2014), we assume that roots receive thematic interpretations by virtue of their syntactic position. For instance, a root like FEIN set-merged as the complement to the eventive head ve becomes non-distinct from a nominal category, which we represent below with Borer’s (2013) “C=N” formalism. Thematically, it is interpreted as an incremental theme, in parallel to the interpretation of a fully fledged nominal (feina ‘work’) in the same position.

    1. (38)
    1. a.
    1. [vP ve FEINC = N]
    2. “do work”
    1. = feinejar ‘work’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [vP ve [NP feina]]
    2. “do work”

Being properly categorized by virtue of their embedment under functional structure, roots may be able to project. In particular, they may take phrasal adjuncts, and we will see an example of this in §4.3.2.15 Note that their ability to project does not entail that roots can take complements. We think that they cannot, due to the independent fundamental assumption that they lack, of themselves, any proper semantic denotation, namely, that of an unsaturated proposition enabling them to take arguments (see Beavers & Koontz-Garboden 2020 and Ausensi 2021, among others, for a different view).

4.1.2 The morphosyntax of prefixation in Intransitive Prepositional Verbs

It has not gone unnoticed that many prepositional verbs in Romance display a (Latinate) prefix, such as a-ŀludir a ‘allude to’, which contrasts with e-ludir ‘avoid’. Gallego (2012), for instance, observes this for Spanish and argues, following Marantz’s (2001; 2005) syntactic approach to morphology, that the PPC of prefixed prepositional verbs is a double of the prefix, in the same way that DPs are doubles of clitic pronouns in clitic-doubling languages such as Rio de la Plata Spanish. In Gallego’s theory (which follows Torrego’s 1994, and Uriagereka’s 2005 approaches to the doubling of pronominal clitics), doubles originate as adjuncts of the head they “corefer with”. Thus, DPs in clitic-doubling structures would be adjuncts to the clitic, and PPCs would be adjuncts to the verbal prefix, the clitic or prefix eventually incorporating into an upper head. The problem with Gallego’s analysis is that PPCs of prefixed prepositional verbs do not always behave as doubles. Typically, doubles are optional. Thus, DPs doubling a pronominal clitic can be freely omitted.

    1. (39)
    1. Lo
    2. him
    1. vi
    2. see.pst.1sg
    1. (a
    2. at
    1. Juan).                                                                                     (Spanish; Torrego 1994: 199)
    2. Juan
    1. ‘I saw him (Juan).’

However, as we showed in §3.1.2, not all PPCs are optional, and, crucially, those of the Dii Class of prefixed prepositional verbs never are.

    1. (40)
    1. L’Ester
    2. the=Ester
    1. aŀludeix
    2. allude.3sg
    1. *(als
    2. at.the
    1. problemes
    2. problems
    1. de
    2. of
    1. gestió).
    2. management

By contrast, verbs that can drop their PPC unproblematically are typically unprefixed (Class C).

    1. (41)
    1. L’Ester
    2. the=Ester
    1. ha
    2. have.3sg
    1. somiat
    2. dream.ptcp
    1. (amb
    2. with
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Berta).
    2. Berta
    1. ‘Ester has dreamt (of Berta)’

Finally, prefixed verbs of Class Di, such as coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’, allow PPC drop in contexts like the habitual construction or the V que V construction.

    1. (42)
    1. a.
    1. L’Ester
    2. the=Ester
    1. coŀlabora
    2. collaborate.3sg
    1. (amb
    2. with
    1. els
    2. the
    1. companys,
    2. peers
    1. sempre).
    2. always
    1. ‘Ester (always) collaborates (with her peers)’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. L’Ester,
    2. the=Ester
    1. coŀlabora
    2. collaborate.3sg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. coŀlabora
    2. collaborate.3sg
    1. ‘Ester, she is always collaborating.’

We explain the causal relation between the presence of a prefix and the obligatoriness of the PPC in verbs of Class Dii by hypothesizing that the prefix and the preposition heading the PPC originate as one and the same item in the underlying syntactic structure: the Place head. In verbs like aŀludir a ‘allude to’, Place heads a constituent that is a complement of the eventuality head, and head movement may bring a copy of this head to the upper verbal heads (v and Voice). We endorse the Distributed Morphology hypothesis of Late Insertion (Halle & Marantz 1993; 1994), by which syntactic structures are endowed with phonological content via Vocabulary Insertion at PF after Spell-Out. Thus, at Spell-Out, the higher copy of the Place head of aŀludir is spelled out as the prefix a-, and the lower one as the preposition a (see further discussion in §4.2, §4.3.1, and §4.3.3). The prefix and the preposition turn out to be, thus, contextual co-allomorphs, the particular phonology determined, at Vocabulary Insertion, by the structural environment (Embick 2010).

As will be shown in §4.3.2, for Class C verbs that admit PPC drop in all non-anaphoric contexts, like somiar amb ‘dream of’, we propose that the PPC is an adjunct to a nominalized verbal root. Under the common assumption that head movement cannot operate from adjunct position, we expect the preposition not to be able to head-move to the verbal head in these cases, and hence, we expect these verbs not to be prefixed—at least not with a prefix identifiable as cognate with the preposition heading the PPC, as in a-ŀludir a ‘allude to’.

Finally, as regards Class Di verbs, we assume the same structure as the one proposed for verbs of Class Dii, that is one involving an adpositional projection, whose head is the source of the prefix. The difference between the two subclasses lies, we claim, in the status of the PPC. While for Class Dii verbs the PPC itself corresponds to that adpositional configuration, for Class Di verbs the PPC is just an adjunct of the same vP-internal configuration. Thus, we claim that Gallego’s (2012) adjunct approach to the PPC of prefixed verbs can only be applied to Class Di verbs.

In the remainder of this section, we deal with each class of verbs in our typology of IPVs.

4.2 Intransitive Prepositional Verbs testing out as Individual-Level (Class A)

The basic structure that we propose for IPVs encoding IL predicates is as shown in (43).

    1. (43)

We illustrate this configuration with an analysis of the verb raure en ‘lie in’ (we omit the A-movement responsible for bringing Spec-PlaceP to Spec-TP).16

    1. (44)
    1. El
    2. the
    1. valor
    2. value
    1. d’aquest
    2. of=this
    1. topazi
    2. topaz
    1. rau
    2. lie.3sg
    1. en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. seva
    2. its
    1. raresa.
    2. rarity
    1. ‘The value of this topaz lies in its rarity.’

Place, exponed by the locative preposition en, articulates a predication relation between the two DPs, that is, it attributes a property, here the rarity of the topaz stone, to an entity, here the value of the topaz stone. Since vs is interpreted as a stative eventuality, we derive the IL status of raure. The eventuality head has a root adjoined to it that provides it with a phonological interpretation.

The IL status of an IPV is a predictor of its argument structure properties. First, they disallow PPC drop. This is because the PPC is actually the real predicate: it articulates the lower portion of a PlaceP, encoding a property predicated of the subject. These verbs also do not license an impersonal null subject with existential semantics, since the surface subject actually originates within the vP, i.e., as an internal argument. They are, thus, unaccusative verbs, and hence are correctly predicted to disallow the “V3sg que V3sg” construction.

While all IPVs in this group show a robust behaviour as regards aspectual interpretation and the status of the subject as an internal argument, two of them, i.e., constar de ‘consist of’ and abundar en / de ‘abound in’, resist pronominalization of their PPCs, as pointed out in §3.1.1. This is something that merits some exploration.

    1. (45)
    1. *Sí
    2.   yes
    1. que
    2. that
    1. en
    2. ptve
    1. consta,
    2. consist.3sg
    1. la
    2. the
    1. llista,
    2. list
    1. de
    2. of
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians.
    2. Valencian
    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1. *Sí
    2.   yes
    1. que
    2. that
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. abunda,
    2. abound.3sg
    1. Catalunya,
    2. Catalonia
    1. en
    2. in
    1. esglésies
    2. churches
    1. romàniques.
    2. Romanesque
    1.  
    1. b’
    1. *Sí
    2.   yes
    1. que
    2. that
    1. n’abunda,
    2. ptve=abound.3sg
    1. Catalunya,
    2. Catalonia
    1. d’esglésies
    2. of=churches
    1. romàniques.
    2. Romanesque

We relate this unexpected behaviour to the fact that these verbs are existential. Indeed, they involve a figure and a location such that what they predicate of the location is the existence of the figure (Hoekstra & Mulder 1990; Freeze 1992; Jaque 2014).17 Our point of departure is the observation that both verbs may also function as non-IPV, unaccusative verbs with the location overtly realized as a locative PP, yielding an interesting argument structure alternation.

    1. (47)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. llista
    2. list
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians.
    2. Valencian
    1. ‘The list consists of Valencian last names.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. A
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. llista
    2. list
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. consten
    2. be.stated.3sg
    1. (els)
    2. the
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians.
    2. Valencian
    1. ‘On the list there are (the) Valencian last names.’
    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1. Catalunya
    2. Catalonia
    1. abunda
    2. abound.3sg
    1. {en/d’}esglésies
    2. {in/of=}churches
    1. romàniques.
    2. Romanesque
    1. ‘Catalonia abounds in Romanesque churches.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. A
    2. at
    1. Catalunya
    2. Catalonia
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. abunden
    2. abound.3pl
    1. (les)
    2. the
    1. esglésies
    2. churches
    1. romàniques.
    2. Romanesque
    1. ‘In Catalonia there abound Romanesque churches.’

The a examples illustrate the IPV uses of constar and abundar. The subject is interpreted as locative. The PPC denotes the theme, an entity whose existence somewhere is asserted, either neutrally (constar) or by way of indicating its abundance (abundar). The b sentences show the alternants where the locative is directly expressed as a spatial PP (together with the locative clitic hi) and the theme is an unaccusative subject. In the case of the IPV versions of these verbs, very noticeably with constar, we witness the often observed holistic effect on the interpretation of locative subjects in the locative-subject alternants of the locative alternation (Anderson 1971; Rosselló 2008). Indeed, in ‎(47a), but not in ‎(47b) we are to interpret that the whole list is made up of Valencian last names.

The existential character of these two verbs, coupled with the fact that they license two inverse ways of projecting their arguments, invites us to apply to them an analysis along the lines of the one proposed by Freeze (1992) for existential/locative/possessive sentences. Based on a survey of several languages, Freeze (1992) argues that these three kinds of sentences share a common underlying locative syntax, and that it is via syntactic displacement operations that the different surface orderings are obtained. Freeze’s (1992) basic locative configuration can readily be implemented in our framework as one articulated around Place. We illustrate first with constar.18

    1. (49)
    1. a.
    1. A
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. llista
    2. list
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. consten
    2. be.stated.3pl
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians
    2. Valencian
    1. ‘On the list there are Valencian last names.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. llista
    2. list
    1. consta
    2. consist.3sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians.
    2. Valencian
    1. ‘The list consists of Valencian last names.’

The theme-subject alternant of ‎(49a) undergoes the derivation of a run-of-the-mill unaccusative, the internal argument cognoms valencians ‘Valencian last names’ entering into an agreeing relation with T. As far as case is concerned, and also in conformity with what can be observed with unaccusative subjects in general, it may receive partitive case (as shown by ne-extraction: ‎(50a) if non-definite, and nominative case if definite (50b)).19

    1. (50)
    1. a.
    1. A
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. llista
    2. list
    1. n’hi
    2. ptve=loc
    1. consten,
    2. be.stated.3pl
    1. de
    2. the
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians.
    2. Valencian
    1. ‘On the list there are some, of Valencian last names.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. A
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. llista
    2. list
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. consten
    2. be.stated.3pl
    1. els
    2. the
    1. cognoms
    2. last.names
    1. valencians.
    2. Valencian
    1. ‘On the list there are the Valencian last names.’

As observed in the tree of (49a), the morphological realization of the head Place involves a certain degree of allomorphy. We take the prefix con- to be the direct realization of the Place head in its final site as affixed to vs. In turn, this eventuality head is directly realized as st, also by virtue of its adjacency to the prefixed Place head. Indeed, the verb constar does not seem to us to convey any conceptual content, and the representation of a verbal root is therefore not warranted in this case. The copy of the Place head stranded in situ is realized, by default, as a locative preposition: a, in this case. The movement of Place to vs and its allomorphic realization in its original and final positions is illustrated in the trees below:

    1. (51)
    1. a.
    1. A la llista hi consten cognoms valencians. (49a)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La llista consta de cognoms valencians. (49b)

The analysis of the IPV, locative-subject alternant in ‎(49b) largely coincides with Gallego’s (2010: 167) first analysis of the Spanish cognate IPV constar, finally rejected in the last part of his study.20 In particular, the PPC (de cognoms valencians ‘of Valencian last names’) is a spurious PP. In fact, it is a quirky subject of sorts, and the P de heading it, a case mark. We surmise that the theme in fact needs some exceptional licensing, since the other licensor in the structure, T, is in a case-agreement relationship with the locative argument (la llista ‘the list’). This, in turn, is related to the fact, we presume, that Place is defective in this alternant. Indeed, Place is not realized as a preposition, unlike in the theme-subject alternant, and cannot case-license its complement. Relatedly, it cannot sustain a formally canonical figure, as noted, instantiating a sort of Burzio’s generalization at the level of PlaceP.

The alternants licensed by abundar ‘abound’ receive a similar analysis, except for the fact that here a root is involved, both providing the phonological interpretation of the eventuality head and the conceptual content missing in constar:

    1. (52)
    1. a.
    1. A
    2. at
    1. Catalunya
    2. Catalonia
    1. hi
    2. loc
    1. abunden
    2. abound.3pl
    1. esglésies
    2. churches
    1. romàniques.
    2. Romanesque
    1. ‘In Catalonia there abound Romanesque churches.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Catalunya
    2. Catalonia
    1. abunda
    2. abound.3sg
    1. {en/d’}esglésies
    2. {in/of=}churches
    1. romàniques.21
    2. Romanesque
    1. ‘Catalonia abounds in Romanesque churches.’

Turning back to the phenomenon that initiated this discussion on IPVs constar de ‘consist of’ and abundar en / de ‘abound in’, a prediction of the proposed analysis is that their PPC, being a spurious PP, should not be able to pronominalize with en or hi, as is indeed the case.22

4.3 Intransitive Prepositional Verbs testing out as Stage-Level

Assuming Kratzer’s (1995) claim that SL predicates involve an event (see also Silvagni 2017), what unifies the verbs testing out as SL is the presence of a ve, by hypothesis. Beyond this fact, it is not a natural class as far as the presence of Voice or the nature of Compl-ve is concerned. According to our syntactic tests, we can distinguish three classes, B, C, and D, where Class D is further split into two.

Class B: Unaccusative IPVs like caure en ‘fall into’. They cannot drop the PPC in any context.
Class C: Non-unaccusative IPVs that can drop the PPC in non-anaphoric contexts, like patir per ‘think of’.
Class D: Non-unaccusative IPVs that 1) can only drop the PPC in habitual contexts, like coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’ (Class Di), or 2) cannot drop the PPC in any circumstance, like aŀludir a ‘allude to’ (Class Dii).

These results, together with our considerations in the last section, make us part ways with previous accounts. For instance, pace both Demonte (1991) and Gallego (2010) (for Spanish), not all unaccusative verbs pattern the same (cf. our Class A and Class B verbs). Also pace both authors, not all verbs with an external argument allow PPC drop (cf. our Class Dii).

From the point of view of their eventive-aktionsart properties, Classes B and D are heterogenous, as will be described below. Class C only contains atelic (activity) verbs. We deal with each of the three classes in the following subsections.

4.3.1 Unaccusative Stage-Level IPVs (Class B)

The SL IPVs of our corpus testing out as unaccusative, i.e., with an internal argument subject, are verbs like caure en ‘fall into’ and conviure amb ‘live together with’. Importantly, all these verbs strongly disallow PPC drop in any context.

    1. (53)
    1. a.
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Josep
    2. Josep
    1. mai
    2. never
    1. no
    2. not
    1. cau
    2. fall.3sg
    1. *(en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. temptació
    2. temptation
    1. de
    2. of
    1. comprar-se
    2. buy.inf=refl.3
    1. dolços).
    2. sweets
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. conviu
    2. live.together.3sg
    1. *(amb
    2. with
    1. la
    2. the
    1. seva
    2. her
    1. germana).
    2. sister

The disallowance of PPC drop is expected under a view of unaccusativity whereby the subject is an internal argument originating as a specifier of some vP-internal projection and the PPC is precisely what articulates the rest of the projection of which the subject is the specifier. We find two subtypes of unaccusative SL IPVs, according to their eventive-aktionsart properties: those that involve telicity, understood as a transition, like caure en ‘fall into’, and those that are atelic, like conviure amb ‘live together with’. These two verbs, for instance, show a different interpretation with a durative adverbial. Only the latter allows a non-repetitive reading.

    1. (54)
    1. a.
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Josep
    2. Josep
    1. va
    2. pst.3sg
    1. caure
    2. fall.inf
    1. en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. temptació
    2. temptation
    1. de
    2. of
    1. comprar-se
    2. buy.inf=refl.3
    1. dolços
    2. sweets
    1. durant
    2. during
    1. anys.
    2. years
    1. ‘Josep succumbed to the temptation of buying sweets for years.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. va
    2. pst.3sg
    1. conviure
    2. live.together.inf
    1. amb
    2. with
    1. la
    2. the
    1. seva
    2. her
    1. germana
    2. sister
    1. durant
    2. during
    1. anys.
    2. years
    1. ‘Maria lived together with her sister for years.’

IPVs like caure en involve a PathP encoding the transition traversed by the internal argument, i.e., the surface subject. Those like conviure amb ‘live together with’ involve a PlaceP, i.e., they establish some kind of predicative relation between two entities that is maintained during the interval in which the event introduced by ve holds.

    1. (55)
    1. a.
    1. Telic caure en ‘fall into’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Atelic conviure amb ‘live together with’

An observation is in order with respect to these representations. We assume the verbal root to originate in different loci. In Path unaccusatives, we take it to be an adjunct to Path. It is well known that transition predicates in languages like Catalan, which belongs to the verb-framed class, cannot express the manner in which the event takes place (Talmy 2000; Mateu & Rigau 2002; Acedo-Matellán & Mateu 2015). In our terms, the root could not be adjoined to the eventuality head, precisely because this clashes with the obligatory incorporation of the Path head into v in these languages. Thus, we take the root to originate as a modifier of Path, describing the type of transition involved (in this case, a metaphorical downward trajectory: caure ‘fall’).23

As far as morphology is concerned, verbs of Class B are expected to allow the prefixation of the Place head, since the prepositional structure corresponding to their PPC is merged as a complement to the eventuality head. Thus, see con-viure ‘live with’, in (55b), where Place is realized as con- in the final position, as adjoined to ve, and as the preposition amb ‘with’ in the tail position.

4.3.2 Non-unaccusative Stage-Level IPVs allowing PPC drop in non-anaphoric contexts (Class C)

The SL IPVs of our corpus testing out as non-unaccusative verbs that allow PPC drop in non-anaphoric contexts are verbs like parlar de ‘talk about’.

In §3.1.1, we have shown that PPCs of verbs like parlar de ‘talk about’ in Catalan pattern more like adjuncts than arguments. As a matter of fact, it proves quite difficult to determine the adjunct/argument-hood of the PPC on tests other than sheer droppability. It is well known (Den Dikken & Lahne 2013) that adjuncts are opaque to PP-extraction. This should produce a difference between those PPCs that can be dropped, if they are adjuncts, from those that cannot be dropped. However, PP-extraction from all sorts of PPCs, droppable ‎(56a) or not ‎(56b), is deviant.

    1. (56)
    1. a.
    1. *De
    2.   of
    1. quina
    2. which
    1. llengua
    2. language
    1. has
    2. have.2sg
    1. pensat
    2. think.ptcp
    1. en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. filiació?
    2. filiation
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *De
    2.   of
    1. quin
    2. which
    1. polític
    2. politician
    1. aŀludien
    2. allude.pst.ipfv.3pl
    1. a
    2. to
    1. escàndols?
    2. scandals

Complementarily, for those verbs that admit a non-finite clausal PPC, DP-extraction seems quite fine. This is independent, again, of whether the verb is of the PPC-drop kind ‎(57a)‎ or not (57b).24

    1. (57)
    1. a.
    1. Quin
    2. which
    1. actor
    2. actor
    1. han
    2. have.3pl
    1. jugat
    2. play.ptcp
    1. a
    2. at
    1. imitar?
    2. mimic.inf
    1. ‘Which actor have they imitated, in play?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Quin
    2. which
    1. càrrec
    2. post
    1. aspiraves
    2. aspire.pst.ipfv.2sg
    1. a
    2. at
    1. representar?
    2. represent.inf
    1. ‘Which post did you aspire to represent?’

Extraction facts are, thus, inconclusive as to whether droppable PPCs are adjuncts.

Demonte (1991), for Spanish, proposes that for IPVs belonging to her Class 2, like discrepar de ‘disagree with’, the PPC is a spurious PP and corresponds in fact to a direct argument, the preposition being a mark of structural case. The fact that the direct object of many transitive verbs can be dropped ‎(58) would seem to support Demonte’s hypothesis that her Class 2 verbs are underlyingly transitive.

    1. (58)
    1. L’Elna
    2. the=Elna
    1. i
    2. and
    1. en
    2. the
    1. Joan
    2. Joan
    1. van
    2. pst.3pl
    1. empènyer
    2. push.inf
    1. (el
    2. the
    1. cotxe).
    2. car
    1. ‘Elna and Joan pushed (the car).’

However, the pronominalization facts examined in §3.1.1 cast doubt on the idea that the PPC is a direct object. Gallego (2010), who tries to accommodate Demonte’s (1991) two-fold classification of prepositional verbs to Hale & Keyser’s (2002) theory of lexical syntax, claims that verbs that drop their PPC are unergatives, the PPC being a low adjunct. We concur with this author, who, however, does not offer the syntactic representation of the PPC as an adjunct.

Recall that, much as it may be droppable, the PPC does not survive a context where the VP has been replaced by a proform (see example (2) in §1). Under our theoretical assumptions, unergative predicates involve the projection of ve and of Voice, ve taking the verbal root as argument, and the predicate having a creation/consumption semantics, (59).

    1. (59)
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Marcel
    2. Marcel
    1. parlava.
    2. talk.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. ‘Marcel talked.’

The projection of ve ensures that an event is interpreted to take place. In turn, this event consists in “making talk”, as related to the root merged at Compl-veP. By virtue of this merger, the root is interpreted as non-distinct from a nominal category, and as an incremental theme. The question is where the PPC attaches, when parlar is used with a PPC. We know that, being a PPC, and not a VP-adjunct, it cannot attach outside veP. The only site left is the very root of the verb. In fact, we take the PPC to be an adjunct to the nominalized root, further specifying its content (in this case, the subject of the talking).

    1. (60)
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Marcel
    2. Marcel
    1. parlava
    2. talk.pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria.
    2. Maria
    1. ‘Marcel talked about Maria.’

The root PARL merges with the PP de la Maria, PARL projecting. When PARLP is merged with the eventive head, the root (and its projection) is automatically categorized as a nominal, with the interpretation of an incremental theme. The PP is interpreted as a modifier of such nominal: “Marcel made talk about Maria”. The root ends up incorporating into ve, and the whole to Voice.

Since the PPC in this class of verbs is merged as an adjunct, it cannot constitute a source of the prefixation of the adpositional head, as in the other classes of verbs (see §4.2, §4.3.1, §4.3.3; see also §4.1.2). Thus, this class of verbs, allowing PPC drop in all non-anaphoric contexts, are predicted not to be prefixed. This prediction is born out, i.e. Class C contains mostly unprefixed verbs.25

4.3.3 Non-unaccusative IPVs disallowing PPC drop in activity contexts (Class D)

This class of verbs, to our knowledge, has not been previously identified as such (cf., for instance, Demonte’s 1991 and Gallego’s 2010 studies on Spanish). It contains verbs that take an external argument and embed an adpositional structure that is the source of the prefix, but with no direct object, like aŀludir a ‘allude to’ and coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’.

IPVs of Class D in Catalan, we argue, are non-native verbs that are learned as associated with certain non-Romance traits. Starting with verbs of the Dii class like aŀludir a ‘allude to’, which do not allow PPC drop in any context, we contend that the PPC itself corresponds to an adpositional configuration that articulates the VP. Thus, we take these verbs to involve a Voice head, which accounts for the presence of an external argument, a ve, and thus their eventive nature, and also a prepositional configuration, either PathP or PlaceP, where PlaceP does not contain a specifier. Since PlaceP in this case does not project a specifier, it does not function as a full predicate, but as a mere copredicate, forming a complex predicate with the eventive head.26 Its requirement of establishing a relation with an entity is met by “delayed gratification” (Hale & Keyser 2002: 227), when the specifier of Voice is merged. The external argument of the event, the agent, is therefore also interpreted as a metaphorical figure (Wood 2015: 176). Importantly, we take the root to be an adjunct to the eventive head, unlike what is generally the case in verb-framed languages like Romance.

    1. (61)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Sandra
    2. Sandra
    1. va
    2. pst.3sg
    1. aŀludir
    2. allude.inf
    1. *(a
    2. to
    1. l’alcaldessa).
    2. the=mayoress
    1. ‘Sandra alluded to the mayoress.’

These verbs do not feature any nominal at Spec-PlaceP that could function as a measurer of the event via movement to Spec-PathP. In spite of that, our theory predicts that, if they feature a Path head, a transition is interpreted to take place. This, we note, is shown by the fact that verbs like aŀludir a ‘allude to’ license a repetitive reading in the presence of a durative adverbial.

    1. (62)
    1. Al
    2. at=the
    1. debat,
    2. debate
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Sandra
    2. Sandra
    1. va
    2. pst.3sg
    1. aŀludir
    2. allude.inf
    1. a
    2. to
    1. l’alcaldessa
    2. the=mayoress
    1. durant
    2. during
    1. mitja
    2. half
    1. hora.
    2. hour
    1. ‘In the debate, Sandra referred to the mayoress for half an hour.’

By contrast, one must conclude that other verbs of this class do not project PathP. For instance, disposar de ‘use’ is not forced to be interpreted repetitively in combination with a durative adverbial. Rather, it allows a single event reading.

    1. (63)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. Sandra
    2. Sandra
    1. va
    2. pst.ipfv.3sg
    1. disposar
    2. use.inf
    1. del
    2. of.the
    1. cotxe
    2. car
    1. de
    2. of
    1. l’alcaldessa
    2. the=mayoress
    1. durant
    2. during
    1. tres
    2. three
    1. hores.
    2. hours
    1. ‘Sandra had the mayoress’s car at her disposal for three hours.’

For verbs like disposar de ‘use’, therefore, we propose the same configuration as for aŀludir a minus the projection of PathP.

    1. (64)

Verbs of Class Dii are predicted to allow prefixation. This is because they involve a non-adjunct vP-internal adpositional configuration whose head may successively raise to the eventive head, where it is interpreted as a prefix. The prefix and the preposition heading the PPC are different realizations—contextual co-allomorphs—of the same Place head: a- and a in the case of aŀludir aallude to’, and dis- and de in the case of disposar de ‘use’.

Turning to verbs of Class Di, they do allow PPC drop in certain non-anaphoric contexts like the habitual construction. We take this to indicate that, as with verbs of Class C, the PPC is an adjunct. If that is the right analysis, two questions emerge: what portion of the structure is the PPC an adjunct to? And what then is the source of the prefix of, for instance, co-ŀlaborar? Here we would like to adopt Gallego’s (2012) general approach to prefixed prepositional verbs in Spanish: the PPC is an adjunct to the prefix itself, and functions as a kind of double, specifying the general meaning of the prefix (see §4.1.2). In our terms, we take the PPC of Class Di verbs to be an adjunct to the VP-internal adpositional projection. In turn, this VP-internal projection contains a root that corresponds to the prefix, which ends up adjoined to the verb, (65).

    1. (65)
    1. En
    2. the
    1. Pere
    2. Pere
    1. ha
    2. have.3sg
    1. coŀlaborat
    2. collaborate.ptcp
    1. amb
    2. with
    1. diversos
    2. different
    1. lingüistes
    2. linguists
    1. durant
    2. for
    1. anys.
    2. years.
    1. ‘Pere has collaborated with different linguists for years.’

As mentioned, the adjunct amb diversos lingüistes ‘with different linguists’ further specifies the impoverished interpretation of the PlaceP whose complement is the very root of the prefix: CO ‘with’. Unlike with verbs of Class Dii, the PPC, as an adjunct, can be dropped, as in the habitual construction. This brings Class Di closer to Class C. The difference between these two classes lies in their underlying configuration. Class C verbs involve, by themselves, an unergative structure licensing an activity interpretation, and the PPC, as an adjunct to the root, just further specifies its content (see §4.3.2). By contrast, the absence of the PPC in Class Di verbs does not leave such a configuration, able to license an activity interpretation. This is the reason for the difference in grammaticality status of verbs of the two classes in the sluicing construction, where an activity interpretation is induced.

    1. (66)
    1. a.
    1.   L’Antoni
    2.   the=Antoni
    1. ha
    2. have.3sg
    1. parlat
    2. talk.ptcp
    1. però
    2. but
    1. no
    2. not
    1. know.1sg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. què.
    2. what
    1.   ‘Antoni has talked but I don’t know about what.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *L’Antoni
    2.   the=Antoni
    1. ha
    2. have.sg
    1. coŀlaborat
    2. collaborate.ptcp
    1. però
    2. but
    1. no
    2. not
    1. know.1sg
    1. amb
    2. with
    1. qui.
    2. who

By contrast, the habitual construction, being generic, is compatible with the lack of referential specification, and hence, with the drop of the PPC adjunct.

5 Conclusions

The main contribution of this paper is showing that the aspectual characterization of IPVs as IL predicates robustly predicts their argument structure properties (Class A: e.g., constar de ‘consist of’). These are verbs without an external argument, but with a compulsory PPC that involves a predicative relation between the PPC and a theme-like subject. They thus involve a nonverbal predicate, which is consistent with the hypothesis that IL predicates cannot be encoded as unergative verbs (Property Verbalization Constraint; Acedo-Matellán 2019). By contrast, IPVs testing out as SL, build a heterogeneous class as regards their argument structure properties, comprising unaccusative (Class B: caure en ‘fall into’) and unergative verbs, where the latter may freely drop their PPC (Class C: parlar de ‘talk about’), allow PPC-drop in certain environments (Class Di: coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’) or categorically reject it (Class Dii: aŀludir a ‘allude to’).

An analysis of all these classes of verbs has been developed in terms of two eventuality heads, an eventive and a stative one, and two adpositional heads, a scalar one, Path, and a stative-locative one, Place. We have shown that neither all unaccusative verbs pattern the same (IL Class A vs. SL Class B) nor do all verbs with an external argument allow PPC drop to the same extent in non-anaphoric contexts (impossible in Class Dii, restricted in Class Di, and unrestricted in Class C). It has been argued that binary distinctions within PPCs are insufficient to account for the structural variation found across IPVs. Thus, while Demonte (1991) distinguishes between argument and predicate PPCs and Gallego (2010) analyses IPVs as either predicates or low adjuncts, the finer-grained analysis conducted on Catalan results in a three-way syntactic characterization of PPCs: predicates, what we have termed co-predicates, and low adjuncts. Specifically, from the perspective adopted in this work, the PPC of verbs of Class Dii and that of classes A and B is integrated within the vP in the same way, as a non-adjunct. However, this is read as a predicate when PlaceP takes a specifier (Classes A and B) and as a co-predicate when it does not (Class Dii). By contrast, for verbs of Classes C and Di, the PPC is a low adjunct: an adjunct to the root (Class C) or the PlaceP (Class Di).

Interestingly, our assumptions about head movement, late insertion, and allomorphy allow us to make novel predictions regarding the morphological makeup of IPVs. In particular, only those IPVs whose PPC is not droppable in absolute contexts expressing an activity, that is, the sluicing construction, may exhibit a prefix that can be said to be a cognate of the preposition heading the PPC (cf., e.g., a- in aŀludir a ‘allude to’ and co- in coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’), thus establishing a causal relation between the presence of the prefix and the obligatoriness of the PPC in this kind of context in Class D IPVs. This is because Class D verbs integrate a non-adjunct prepositional structure, which either corresponds to the whole PPC, as in Class Dii, or hosts the prefix, as in Class Di. In both cases, this integrated prepositional structure can serve as source for the prefix, as it does not prevent head movement. By contrast, verbs whose PPC is droppable in absolute contexts expressing an activity, that is, Class C, are predicted not to exhibit a prefix cognate with the preposition heading the PPC, i.e. co-allomorphy. This is because these verbs do not integrate a non-adjunct prepositional structure within the vP that may serve as the source of the prefix, the PPC being merged as an adjunct to the root.

Additional, more specific empirical contributions refer to the existence of IPVs that ban the expression of their PPC as pronouns (e.g., constar de ‘consist of’), for which an explanation has been provided based on their underlying syntactic structure.

Among the remaining questions and challenges to be explored in future research is the potential existence of other ambivalent verbs like SL patir per ‘worry about / IL patir de ‘suffer from’. An interesting question regarding these verbs refers to the specific contribution the preposition makes in licensing one or the other interpretation.

While our study shows a robust correlation between argument structure and aspectual structure taking Catalan as an empirical basis, it remains to be seen whether the results obtained here are replicable in other languages, particularly the heterogeneity of the SL class of IPVs.

An unexpected conclusion of our study is that what has been traditionally considered as an unergative verb may correspond to different structural classes of verbs displaying different properties (i.e., classes C, Di, and Dii). Further research into unergative verbs in other languages should be conducted to discuss the nature of unergativity.

Abbreviations

acc accusative
dat dative
DO Direct Object
dom differential object marking
fut future
IL Individual-Level
imp imperative
inf infinitive
IO Indirect Object
ipfv imperfective
ipv Intransitive Prepositional Verb
loc locative
pl plural
ppc Prepositional Phrase Complement
pst past
ptcp participle
pvc Property Verbalization Constraint
ptve partitive
refl reflexive
sg singular
SL Stage-Level

Supplementary files

Supplementary file 1: Appendix. List of Catalan IPVs. Results of the IL/SL tests and argument structure tests, per IPV. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9976.s1

Funding information

This paper has been partially supported by project PID2022-136610NB-I00 (Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities) and the URV Program for Fostering Research. The first author acknowledges support from the Leverhulme Trust via International Fellowship IF-2021-26. The second author further acknowledges the Serra Húnter Program’s (Catalan Government) support.

Acknowledgements

We are especially indebted to two anonymous reviewers for their accurate comments and suggestions, which led us to a substantial improvement of the initial manuscript. We are particularly thankful to Cristina Real-Puigdollers, Joana Rosselló, Jeroni Tutusaus, and Josep-Francesc Torres-Tamarit. We are also grateful to the audiences of the URV-ROLLING Seminar, the Oxford Romance Linguistics Seminar and the Anglia Ruskin – Cambridge Romance Linguistics Seminars (RoLinC), where previous versions of this work were presented. By all means, any remaining mistakes are our own.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Notes

  1. See also the uses of individual verbs in Ginebra & Montserrat (2021). [^]
  2. In §3.1.2 we argue that Class D must be split into two subclasses: D(i), represented by verbs like coŀlaborar amb ‘collaborate with’, which admit PPC drop in certain contexts like the habitual construction, and D(ii), represented by verbs like aŀludir a ‘allude to’, which disallow PPC drop in all contexts. [^]
  3. There is still up to this day some terminological confusion about what a state is, which warrants the use of the labels IL/SL. Authors like Maienborn (2007) use the same label state to refer to predicates that come with a Davidsonian event argument, like shine, and to predicates that do not (Kimian states), while for authors like Silvagni (2017), states are strictly those predicates that do not have a Davidsonian eventuality. [^]
  4. Actually, Maienborn (2001) distinguishes two kinds of event-related locatives. For the purposes of the IL/SL test used here, the distinction between event-related and frame-setting suffices. [^]
  5. See Gumiel-Molina, Moreno-Quibén & Pérez-Jiménez (2015) for the application of this test to the ser/estar alternation in Spanish. [^]
  6. If (8b) is modified so that the dislocate is the event-related locative and the frame-setting locative appears in a non-dislocated position, the result is grammatical, as expected.
      1. (i)
      1. Al
      2. at.the
      1. terrati
      2. rooftop
      1. hii
      2. loc
      1. sopem
      2. dine.1pl
      1. a
      2. at
      1. Barcelona,
      2. Barcelona
      1. no
      2. not
      1. a
      2. at
      1. Castelló.
      2. Castelló
      1. ‘We have dinner on the rooftop when in Barcelona, not Castelló.’
    [^]
  7. We leave for further research the interesting issue of whether the IPV admits an alternation of its PPC with a direct object, commonly attested in the literature (Fabra 1956; Rosselló 2008).
      1. (i)
      1. Hem
      2. have.1pl
      1. parlat
      2. talked
      1. (de)
      2. of
      1. molts
      2. many
      1. temes.
      2. topics
      1. ‘We have {talked about/discussed} many topics.’
    However, we cannot resist observing an interesting and pretty robust correlation: eventive IPVs only admit this alternation if they are unprefixed.
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. La
      2. the
      1. Joana
      2. Joana
      1. i
      2. and
      1. en
      2. the
      1. Pere
      2. Pere
      1. han
      2. have.3pl
      1. coŀlaborat
      2. collaborate.ptcp
      1. *(amb)
      2. with
      1. altres
      2. other
      1. professors.
      2. professors
      1. ‘Joana and Pere have collaborated *(with) other professors.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. La
      2. the
      1. Berta
      2. Berta
      1. ha
      2. have.3sg
      1. aŀludit
      2. allude.ptcp
      1. *(a)
      2. to
      1. la
      2. the
      1. Maria.
      2. Maria
      1. ‘Berta has alluded *(to) Maria.’
    This restriction could be explained under the assumption that prefixed IPVs involve a non-adjunct vP-internal PP, whereas unprefixed IPVs like parlar (Class C) are classical unergatives involving an eventive head and a nominal that can emerge as a DP (see §4.1.2, §4.3.2 and §4.3.3). [^]
  8. For instance, according to Bel (2008), PPCs, as direct objects, cannot be dropped (but see §3.1.2 for a detailed qualification), and neither can they be dislocated without pronominal resumption. Bel further observes that some verbs, like pensar ‘think’, allow the expression of their internal argument as either a PPC or a direct object. [^]
  9. Importantly, in anaphoric contexts, both IPVs with PPCs (pensar en una universitat ‘think of a university’) and verbs with PP adjuncts (estudiar en una universitat ‘study at a university’) disallow omission.
      1. (i)
      1. —L’Assumpta,
      2. the=Assumpta
      1. pensava/
      2. think.ipfv.3sg
      1. estudiava
      2. study.ipfv.3sg
      1. en
      2. in
      1. una
      2. a
      1. universitat?
      2. university
      1. ‘Was Assumpta thinking of/studying at a university?’
      1.  
      1. —No,
      2. no
      1. no
      2. no
      1. *(hi)
      2. loc
      1. pensava/
      2. think.ipfv.3sg
      1. estudiava.
      2. study.ipfv.3sg
      1. ‘No, she wasn’t.’
    [^]
  10. To the best of our knowledge, the V3sg que V3sg construction has not been well described or analyzed at all in the literature. It seems to us that it is indeed a fixed grammatical construction or formal idiom in the sense of Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor (1988). In fact, it has evident constructional features. Most saliently, the requirements on the identity and shape of the VPs that appear before and after the complementizer que are very strict. First, that VP has to be a one-word verb. Thus, while unergative verbs like feinejar ‘work’ license the construction, their “analytic” synonyms (Hale & Keyser 1993), i.e., fer feina, “do work”, do not. Moreover, the one-word condition prevents the verb to appear with any kind of dependent, clitic (iia) or not (iib).
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. *La
      2.   the
      1. Rut,
      2. Rut
      1. en
      2. ptve
      1. neteja
      2. clean.3sg
      1. que
      2. that
      1. en
      2. ptve
      1. neteja.
      2. clean.3sg
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. *La
      2.   the
      1. Rut,
      2. Rut
      1. neteja
      2. clean.3sg
      1. sabates
      2. shoes
      1. que
      2. that
      1. neteja
      2. clean.3sg
      1. sabates.
      2. shoes
    In addition, the construction requires reduplication of exactly the same verb (iiia), which has to appear in the present tense (iiib) and the third person singular, regardless of the person of the preverbal constituent interpreted as subject (iiic).
      1. (iii)
      1. a.
      1. *La
      2.   the
      1. Rut,
      2. Rut
      1. menja
      2. eat.3sg
      1. que
      2. that
      1. beu.
      2. drink.3sg
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. *La
      2.   the
      1. Rut,
      2. Rut
      1. {menjava
      2. eat.pst.ipfv.3sg
      1. que
      2. that
      1. menjava,
      2. eat.pst.ipfv.3sg
      1. menjarà
      2. eat.fut.3sg
      1. que
      2. that
      1. menjarà}.
      2. eat.fut.3sg
      1.  
      1. c.
      1. Els
      2. the
      1. nens,
      2. children
      1. {menja
      2. eat.3sg
      1. que
      2. that
      1. menja /
      2. eat.3sg
      1. *mengen
      2. eat.3pl
      1. que
      2. that
      1. mengen}.
      2. eat.3pl
    Finally, the complementizer que is required between the two instances of the verb, with no evident semantic import associated.
      1. (iv)
      1. La
      2. the
      1. Rut,
      2. Rut
      1. menja
      2. eat.3sg
      1. *(que)
      2. that
      1. menja.
      2. eat.3sg
    While space reasons do not afford us to develop a definite analysis of the construction at hand, we interpret these properties as follows. Tense and agreement in this construction are fixed (iiib, c), from which we can gather that the subject is also fixed, as a 3rd person singular null pronoun. If the subject is fixed, it should not be dependent on the verb, that is, on whether the verb is unaccusative or not. The subject should depend on something else in the structure, that is, Voice, and, hence, it should be an external argument. In addition, we hypothesize that the construction involves the coordination, via que, of a reduplicated VP, with the additional prosodic condition that the reduplicated VP corresponds to a single word. The fact that the subject is a fixed external argument together with the prosodic condition explains why only unergative verbs may appear in the construction. [^]
  11. This is a well-established test, although there is still, to our knowledge, no satisfactory explanation of the unavailability of existential null subjects with unaccusative constructions, and developing one falls outside the scope of this paper. For relevant discussion, see Jaeggli (1986), Belletti & Rizzi (1988), Cinque (1988), and, far more recently, Borer (2005: 112–120). [^]
  12. Demonte (1991) uses this test to establish a two-fold classification of IPVs in Spanish, but some of the sentences that she uses involve a generic, rather than existential interpretation of the null subject. For instance, she considers abusar de ‘abuse’ to have an underived subject on the basis of (i).
      1. (i)
      1. Aquí,
      2. here
      1. pro
      2.  
      1. abusan
      2. abuse.3pl
      1. de
      2. of
      1. los
      2. the
      1. empleados.                                                                (Sp.; Demonte 1991: 75)
      2. employees
      1. ‘Here they abuse the employees.’
    While abusar de ‘abuse’ does seem to us to have an underived subject, the example in (i), we note, is inconclusive, since its format is also licensed by verbs that Demonte herself qualifies as involving a derived subject, like prorrumpir ‘break out in’.
      1. (ii)
      1. En
      2. in
      1. los
      2. the
      1. teatros
      2. theatres
      1. de
      2. of
      1. Lima
      2. Lima
      1. prorrumpen
      2. break.out.3pl
      1. en
      2. in
      1. aplausos
      2. applauses
      1. nada
      2. nothing
      1. más
      2. more
      1. acabada
      2. finished
      1. la
      2. the
      1. obra.
      2. play
      1. (Sp.; our example)
      2.  
      1. ‘In the theatres in Lima they break out in applauses as soon as the play has finished.’
    [^]
  13. Three of these verbs, to wit, the ‘boast’ group: fardar de, presumir de, and the verb ‘enjoy’: gaudir de (SL version), do not pass the impersonal pro test. It could be relevant, we conjecture, that these verbs in fact select for a proposition involving a PRO and obligatory control, which could be meddling with the perception of the external/internal argument status of the subject.
      1. (i)
      1. L’Iui
      2. the=Iu
      1. farda/presumeix
      2. boast.3sg
      1. de
      2. of
      1. {bones
      2. good
      1. notes /
      2. marks /
      1. PROi
      2.  
      1. tenir
      2. have.inf
      1. bones
      2. good
      1. notes}.
      2. marks
      1. ‘Iu boasts about {his good marks / having good marks}’.
      1. (ii)
      1. L’Iui
      2. the=Iu
      1. gaudeix
      2. enjoy.3sg
      1. de
      2. from
      1. {la
      2. the
      1. pizza /
      2. pizza
      1. PROi
      2.  
      1. menjar
      2. eat.inf
      1. la
      2. the
      1. pizza}.
      2. pizza
      1. ‘Iu is enjoying {the pizza / eating the pizza}.’
    [^]
  14. That said, we do not share Maienborn’s (2007) view of the IL/SL difference or of which predicates count as involving the eventive head or the stative head. Maienborn (2007: 2) conceives of the IL/SL difference in rather traditional terms, SL predicates denoting “a temporary property” and IL predicates denoting “a more or less permanent property”. Importantly, for Maienborn, a predicate can be a Kimian state independently of whether it is interpreted as IL or SL. For instance, all copular sentences are, for her, Kimian states, including IL be Majorcan and SL be available. We do not agree with this position. Rather, for us, IL/SL corresponds to the difference between a state (in Maienborn’s terms, a Kimian state) and an event (any event, including Maienborn’s Davidsonian states). We further think that SL copular sentences like be available (which, tellingly, are expressed with the “copula” estar, rather than ser, in languages like Portuguese or Spanish) do involve an event. See Silvagni 2017: § 2.2 for related discussion. [^]
  15. Evidence that roots project comes from primary compounds in languages like English (cf. Zhang 2007 for similar effects in Chinese root-root compounding). Borer (2013: 253ff., 298ff.) discusses the structure of compounds like arrowhead and headarrow. On the one hand, primary compounds must involve roots, rather than inherently categorized members, since they can be freely used as either N or V, depending on whether they are embedded within a nominal or a verbal extended projection: an arrowhead, a headarrow, to arrowhead, to headarrow (see also Borer 2013: 325–326). On the other hand, it is a plain truth gathered from a simple comparison of the interpretations of the members of the minimal pair arrowhead/headarrow that one of the two components, the right-hand one (Williams 1981), is the head, that is, projects, providing the basic semantic characterization of the compound. The conclusion is that roots can project. [^]
  16. See the discussion below for the analysis of constar de ‘consist of’, which displays additional morphosyntactic complexities. [^]
  17. The relation between existential and locative notions goes back to Bach (1967), Fillmore (1968), Freeze (1992) and Kayne (1993), as discussed for Catalan in Rigau (1997), in the context of the analysis of the verbs ésser ‘be’ and haver ‘have’. As stated in Rigau (1997: 395), “the predicate in locative sentences is a preposition, an abstract or covert preposition”. In our analysis, IPV constar ‘consist’ is formed out of a vs that takes a (defective) adposition (a PlaceP). [^]
  18. See Juarros-Daussà (2010) for a different approach to the underlying structure of verbs like constar. This author, however, does not take into consideration the alternation that we are referring to, nor the pronominalization facts. [^]
  19. See Rigau (1997; 2013) and Mateu (2015) for relevant discussion on the merger site of locative expressions in existential constructions in Catalan. [^]
  20. Gallego (2010) does not mention or analyze the theme-subject alternant also licensed by Spanish constar. [^]
  21. We still do not have a satisfying explanation why the IPV version of abundar admits two quirky case marks: en and de. We do note, however, that en is far more common than de, most speakers using only the former. [^]
  22. For most of our informants, the non-existential IPV consistir en ‘consist in’ does not admit the pronominalization of its PPC either –but see Jané (2012).
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1.   El
      2.   the
      1. seu
      2. his
      1. berenar
      2. snack
      1. consistia
      2. consist.pst.ipfv.3sg
      1. en
      2. in
      1. una
      2. a
      1. pasta?
      2. pastry?
      1.   ‘Did his afternoon snack consist of a pastry?’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. *–No,
      2.   No
      1. no
      2. not
      1. hi
      2. loc
      1. consistia.
      2. consist.pst.ipfv.3sg
    In this case, the PPC is not introduced by de, which makes the hypothesis that the preposition is a case mark not immediately evident. In addition, as a non-existential verb, consistir does not admit the construction with a locative PP, like the one licensed by constar and abundar.
      1. (ii)
      1. *Al
      2.   at.the
      1. seu
      2. his
      1. berenar
      2. snak
      1. hi
      2. loc
      1. consistia
      2. consist.pst.ipfv.3sg
      1. una
      2. a
      1. pasta.
      2. pastry
    We leave the exploration of the pronominalization facts of consistir en ‘consist in’ for future research. [^]
  23. Folli & Harley (2020) also argue in favour of the idea that in verb-framed languages the verbal root can adjoin to Path. [^]
  24. It should be noted that the infinitival tests could be changing the relationship between the matrix verb and the infinitive via preposition change (cf., e.g., insistir ‘insist’ {en + DP > a + INF}), obligatory in Catalan. [^]
  25. The only counterexamples are dis-cutir de ‘have an argument about’ and pre-sumir de ‘boast’. However, we note that the Latin prefixes dis- and pre- do not add any identifiable meaning in these cases, and the Latinate roots cut and sum cannot be singled out as bearing any specific semantics to these forms, either. That is, no relationship can currently be established among the verbal root bases in Catalan, and there is no reason to analyze all these verbs as morphologically complex. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, the verb desconfiar de ‘mistrust’ does seem to be a true counterexample to our analysis. Interestingly, the base form of this verb is itself a Class Di prefixed verb, confiar en ‘trust’, because of its different PPC drop and sluicing properties.
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1.   Desconfia,
      2.   mistrust.3sg
      1. però
      2. but
      1. no
      2. not
      1. know.1sg
      1. de
      2. of
      1. qui.
      2. who
      1.   ‘He is suspicious, but I don’t know of whom.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. *Confia,
      2.   trust.3sg
      1. però
      2. but
      1. no
      2. not
      1. know.1sg
      1. en
      2. in
      1. qui.
      2. who
    Although we do not have a full analysis of desconfiar de ‘mistrust’, we believe that a full account of this verb depends on an understanding of the effect of the negative prefix des- (Gibert-Sotelo 2017; see also Fábregas 2005: 119 for negative prefixation in nominalized adjectives). [^]
  26. We use the term copredicate as close to Ramchand’s (2008: 34) notion of rheme, that is, “part of the description of the predicate”, rather than in the seminal use in Gawron 1986. [^]

References

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions. Oxford: OUP. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2019. A new lexicalization constraint? Talk. 2019 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB 2019), Queen Mary University of London, 9–12 September.

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Mateu, Jaume. 2014. From syntax to roots. A syntactic approach to root interpretation. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Borer, Hagit & Schäfer, Florian (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 14–32. Oxford: OUP. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Mateu, Jaume. 2015. Parameters and argument structure I: Motion predicates and resultatives. In Fábregas, Antonio & Mateu, Jaume & Putnam, Michael (eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters, 99–122. London: Bloomsbury.

Anderson, Stephen. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic representation. Foundations of Language 7. 387–396.

Arad, Maya. 1999. What counts as a class? The case of psych verbs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35. 1–23.

Arche, María J. 2006. Individuals in time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ausensi, Josep. 2021. The contribution of roots: The division of labor between grammar and the lexicon in meaning composition. Barcelona: UPF dissertation.

Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Language 43. 462–485. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.2307/411547

Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 63–81. New York: Academic Press.

Badia i Margarit, Antoni M. 1994. Gramàtica de la llengua catalana: Descriptiva, normativa, diatòpica, diastràtica. Barcelona: Edicions Proa.

Bartra Kaufmann, Anna. 2008. La passiva i les construccions que s’hi relacionen. In Solà, Joan & Lloret, Maria Rosa & Mascaró, Joan & Pérez Saldanya, Manuel (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 2111–2179. Barcelona: Empúries.

Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/Oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.

Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2020. The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001

Bel, Aurora. 2008. Les funcions sintàctiques. In Solà, Joan & Lloret, Maria Rosa & Mascaró, Joan & Pérez Saldanya, Manuel (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 1075–1147. Barcelona: Empúries.

Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902

Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001

Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense. Volume III: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001

Camacho, José. 2012. Ser and estar: The individual/stage-level distinction and aspectual predication. In Hualde, José Ignacio & Olarrea, Antxon & O’Rourke, Erin (eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 453–475. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch22

Cano Aguilar, Rafael. 1999. Los complementos de régimen verbal. In Bosque, Ignacio & Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Gramàtica descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2, 1807–1854. Madrid: Espasa.

Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland Publishing Co.

Castillo, Concha. 2005. On the licensing of PP complements. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 13. 49–66.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 176–223. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Demonte, Violeta. 1991. Detrás de la palabra. Estudios de gramática del español. Madrid: Alianza Universidad.

Den Dikken, Marcel & Lahne, Antje. 2013. The locality of syntactic dependencies. In Den Dikken, Marcel (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, 655–699. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.023

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021

Embick, David 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001

Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010

Fabra, Pompeu. 1956 [18th edition 2007]. Gramàtica catalana. Barcelona: Teide.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for Case. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Fillmore, Charles J. & Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–38. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.2307/414531

Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2020. A Head Movement approach to Talmy’s typology. Linguistic Inquiry 51(3). 425–470. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00351

Francez, Itamar & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2017. Semantics and morphosyntactic variation: Qualities and the grammar of property concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744580.001.0001

Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3). 553–595. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.2307/415794

Gallego, Ángel. 2010. El complemento de régimen verbal. Lingüística Española Actual 32(2). 141–176.

Gallego, Ángel. 2012. A note on cognate objects: cognation as doubling. Nordlyd 39(1). 95–112. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7557/12.2289

Gawron, Jean Mark. 1986. Situations and prepositions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 327–382. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630274

[GIEC]: Institut d’Estudis Catalans. 2016. Gramàtica de la llengua catalana. Barcelona: IEC.

Ginebra, Jordi & Montserrat, Anna Maria. 2021 [1st ed. 1999]. Diccionari d’ús dels verbs catalans. Barcelona: Edicions 62.

Gonçalves, Anabela & Raposo, Eduardo. 2013. Verbo e sintagma verbal. In Raposo, Eduardo Buzaglo Paiva & do Nascimento, Maria Fernanda Bacelar & da Mota, Maria Antónia Coelho & Segura, Luísa & Mendes, Amália (eds.), Gramática do português, vol. II, 1155–1217. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.

Gumiel Molina, Silvia & Moreno Quibén, Norberto & Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel. 2015. The inference of temporal persistence and the Individual/Stage level distinction: The case of ser vs estar in Spanish. In Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel & Leonetti, Manuel & Gumiel, Silvia (eds.), New perspectives on the study of ser & estar, 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.05gum

Hale, Kenneth L. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In Muysken, Peter & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Features and projections, 233–254. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871661-009

Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 73–118.

Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001

Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–288.

Hernanz, Maria Lluïsa. 1993. A propósito de los adjuntos libres. In Viana, Amadeu (ed.), Sintaxi: Teoria i perspectives, 125–174. Lleida: Pagès Editors.

Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and Theta Theory. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Thematic structure. Its role in grammar, 145–174. Berlin: Foris. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872613.145

Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Arbitrary pro and pronominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4. 43–76. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136264

Jäger, Gerhard. 2001. Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18. 83–126. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/jos/18.2.83

Jané, Albert. 2012. Les eŀlipsis. Llengua Nacional 81. 31–34.

Jaque, Matías. 2014. La expresión de la estatividad en español: Niveles de representación y grados de dinamicidad. Madrid: UAM dissertation.

Juarros-Daussà, Eva. 2010. Obviation in argument structure: Spanish prepositional arguments and expanded unergatives in Italian and English. In Borgonovo, Claudia & Español-Echevarría, Manuel & Prévost, Philippe (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 38–49. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47. 3–31. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1993.tb00837.x

Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The Generic Book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5

Kuhn, Julia & Mollica, Fabio. 2013. Il complemento preposizionale. In Casanova Herrero, Emili & Calvo Rigual, Cesareo (eds.), Actas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, Tome II, 229–240. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110299915.229

MacDonald, Jonathan. 2008. The syntactic nature of inner aspect. A minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.133

Maienborn, Claudia. 2001. On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9. 191–240. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012405607146

Maienborn, Claudia. 2005. On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 31(3). 275–316. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.3.275

Maienborn, Claudia. 2007. On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In Comorovski, Ileana & von Heusinger, Klaus (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 107–130. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_4

Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201–225.

Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Paper presented at the WCCFL 20, USC, February 23–25.

Marantz, Alec. 2005. Objects out of the lexicon: Objects as events. Ms. MIT.

Martínez García, Hortensia 1986. El suplemento en español. Madrid: Gredos.

Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Bellaterra: UAB dissertation.

Mateu, Jaume. 2015. La inacusativitat i la selecció de l’auxiliar en català antic. In Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Pons-Moll, Clàudia & Bosch-Roura, Eva (eds.), Clàssics d’ahir i d’avui en la gramàtica del català, 127–152. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.

Mateu, Jaume & Rigau, Gemma. 2002. A minimalist account of conflation processes. Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. In Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals, 211–236. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.49.09mat

Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001

Merchant, Jason. 2006. Sluicing. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 271–291. Wiley Online. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch60

Merchant, Jason. 2019. Roots don’t select, categorial heads do: Lexical-selection of PPs may vary by category. The Linguistic Review 36(3). 325–341. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2020

Milsark, Gary L. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.

Neeleman, Ad. 1997. PP-complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(1). 89–137. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005700831534

Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred. 1999. Flexible syntax: A theory of case and arguments. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4289-2

Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319

Rigau, Gemma. 1997. Locative sentences and related constructions in Catalan: “ésser/haver” alternation. Supplements of Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 40: Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface. 395–421. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1387/asju.9572

Rigau, Gemma. 2008. Els complements adjunts. In Solà, Joan & Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan & Pérez Saldanya, Manuel (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 2045–2110. Barcelona: Empúries.

Rigau, Gemma. 2013. La preposició silent d’alguns verbs de moviment local. Els Marges 100. 125–132.

Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, Robert I. & Davidson, Alice & Green, Georgia M. & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago: CLS.

Rosselló, Joana. 2008. El SV I: Verb i arguments verbals. In Solà, Joan & Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan & Pérez Saldanya, Manuel (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 1853–1949. Barcelona: Empúries.

Sanchis Guarner, Manuel. 1993. Gramàtica valenciana. Barcelona: Editorial Alta Fulla.

Silvagni, Federico. 2017. Entre estados y eventos. Un estudio del aspecto interno del español. Bellaterra: UAB dissertation.

Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236931.001.0001

Talmy, Leonard T. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001

Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.

Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. A discourse approach to the category “adjective.” In Hawkins, John (ed.), Explaining language universals, 167–85. Oxford: Blackwell.

Todolí, Júlia. 2008. Els pronoms. In Solà, Joan & Lloret, Maria Rosa & Mascaró, Joan & Pérez Saldanya, Manuel (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 1337–1433. Barcelona: Empúries.

Torrego, Esther. 1994. On the nature of clitic doubling. In Campos, Héctor & Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, 399–418. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Uriagereka, Juan. 2005. On the syntax of doubling. In Heggie, Lorie & Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, 343–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.74.14uri

Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4

Wetzer, Harrie. 1996. The typology of adjectival predication. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813586

Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2). 245–274.

Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9

Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. Root merger in Chinese compounds. Studia Linguistica 61(2). 170–184. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00131.x