Introduction

Posture verbs have been argued to express a co-event along with its non-dynamic meaning and to behave as a ‘light’ verb. Den Dikken (2010) provides excellent examples for posture verbs in English for the co-event use (46) and the ‘light’ verb use (47). While the former examples can be said to have a manner component in addition to the locative predication, the latter examples do not imply a posture specific to the figure DP.

(46) a. He was lying on the couch b. She was sitting on the sofa

c. They were standing on the corner d. The clothes were hanging on the line

(47) a. The problem lies in the fact that S b. The operator is sitting in SpecCP c. Water keeps standing in the basin d. It is hanging in the balance

(Den Dikken 2010:49, (46))

One may wonder what it is exactly that makes different the use of posture verbs as co-events and ‘light’ verbs. To further illustrate the difference, let us use examples from Dutch as a starting point (48). First, when the location is “an amount of space” such as France (Hengeveld 1992), as in (48), both copulas and posture verbs can be used. In this case, the posture verb does not contribute any information about the posture of the figure. Therefore, there is no implication of a sitting co-event in the predicate and the posture verb behaves simply as a linker between the subject (Jan) and the predicate (in

France). In a nutshell, posture verbs used as ‘light’ verbs do not imply that the figure is in a specific posture, that is, they are semantically empty in this specific aspect.

(48) Jan {is/zit} in Frankrijk (Dutch)

Jan cop/sit-pres-3-sg in France ‘Jan is in France’

(Hengeveld 1992:238, (3)) In Den Dikken’s (2010) analysis, this use of posture verbs presumes that the verb instantiates a stative aspectual operator be. I think that the intuition behind this analysis is correct, however, there are certain implications that need to be taken into account if we are operating under the assumption that verb roots instantiate different sub-eventive verbal phrases, as I have by adopting Ramchand’s (2008) framework. I will not dwell on the discussion of posture verbs as ‘light’ verbs here and postpone it to section 4.

(49) ^BE [SC=RP DP [^RELATOR [PRED=PPP^LOC DP]]]

(Den Dikken 2010:49, (47a))

On the other hand, consider the use of the posture verb in (50b), showing that when the location is an object (a sofa), posture verbs are the preferred option rather than copulas such as zijn ‘be’ (50a). In this example, the posture verb does not only serve to carry tense, aspect, or mood marks but also indicates that the figure (Jan) is, specifically, in a sitting position. Den Dikken’s (2010) analysis treats this use of posture verbs as the instantiation of a manner component adjoined to a stative aspectual operator equivalent to be (51). In this case, the posture verb contains conceptual content about the posture of the figure.

(50) a. *Jan is op de bank Jan ^COP-^PRES-3-^SG on the sofa ‘Jan is on the sofa’

b. Jan zit. op de bank Jan sit-^PRES-3-^SG on the sofa ‘Jan is sitting on the sofa’

(Hengeveld 1992:238, (3))

(51) ^BE+^MANNER [SC=RP DP [^RELATOR [PRED=PPP^LOC DP]]]

(Den Dikken 2010:49, (47b))

In Talmy’s (2000) framework, this amounts to the presence of a sitting co-event expressing manner (see figure 1).

FIGURE 1:CO-EVENT CONFLATION IN TALMY (2000:28)

Under the assumption that posture verbs can express a manner co-event, it would be possible to paraphrase them using a present participle in English, thus permitting the separation of the stative-locative meaning from the manner component specifying the posture of the figure (52).

(52) a. The lamp {stood/lay/leaned} on the table

b. The lamp is {standing/lying/leaning} on the table

Talmy (2000:27, (5))

The same is true of German in which the manner component could still be expressed by means of an adverb such as liegenderweise ‘lying-way’ if a copula were used instead of a posture verb, as shown in (53).

(53) a. Heidi liegt auf dem Sofa (German)

Heidi lies on the sofa

b. Heidi ist liegenderweise auf dem Sofa Heidi is lying-way on the sofa

Maienborn (2003: 86, (60)) apud Rothmayr (2009:150, (374))

Similarly, Koontz-Garboden (2009) presents a class of non-verbal predicates in Ulwa, a Misumalpan language from Nicaragua, used in locative predications that create an implication about the posture of the figure. For example, the predicate lau ‘sit’ (54) creates this implication whenever it is used along with a figure and a location.

(54) Dapak yal-ka laih û-ka kau lau ka (Ulwa) next woman-3SG TOP house-3SG at sit SENT.KA

‘And next, the woman is sitting at the house’

(Koontz-Garboden 2009:247, (2))

Clearly, these sentences are altogether impossible in Romance languages such as Spanish, which can only make use of a participle and the copula estar ‘be’ to express a meaning similar to that of the Germanic structures (55).

(55) La lámpara está en la mesa {levantada/tumbada/inclinada} (Spanish) The lamp is on the table standing/ lying/ leaning

As it was argued at the beginning of this chapter, the possibility of using the verbs equivalent to some of the examples above in Spanish, Catalan, or French is not allowed since their lexical entries contain three subevents: init, proc, and res. For example, the verb sentar ‘sit’ couldn’t be used as a stative due to its complex lexical entry (cf. (36), repeated below). Consequently, these verbs cannot be used to denote stationary motion.

I put forward that this apparent restriction is due to lexical availability rather than to the absence or unavailability of an operation in the syntax or semantics to conflate a manner component and a non-dynamic event. As a matter of fact, Romance languages also have a (somewhat limited) set of non-dynamic process posture verbs such as gésir in French, jeure in Catalan, and yacer in Spanish, which are equivalent to the English verb lie; or pendre in French, penjar in Catalan, and pender in Spanish, which are equivalent to the English verb hung (56-58).⁴⁴

44 The examples have been obtained from www.wordreference.com.

(36) a. *El niño sienta en el suelo (Spanish) The child sits on the floor

‘The child is sitting on the floor’

b. El niño está sentado en el suelo The child is sat on the floor ‘The child is sitting on the floor’

(56) a. Les soldats morts gisaient sur le champ de bataille (French) the soldiers dead lay on the field of battle

‘The dead soldiers lay on the battle field’

b. Un fil pend de sa chemise a thread hangs of his shirt ‘A thread hangs from his shirt’

(57) a. Les pomes pengen de l’arbre (Catalan)

the apples hang of the-tree ‘The apples hang from the tree’

b. El gos jeu a l’ombra d’un arbre the dog lies at the-shadow of-a tree ‘The dog lies in the shade of a tree’

(58) a. De los balcones penden banderas por toda la ciudad (Spanish) of the balconies hang flags throug all the city

‘From the balconies hang flags all around the city’ (Lit.) b. La muchacha yacía desmayada en el piso

the girl lay unconscious on the floor ‘The girl lay unconscious on the floor’

Following the discussion in section 4.3 in chapter 1, I have assumed that in Ramchand’s (2008, 2014) framework the existence of a co-event is dealt with assuming that a verb, realizing at least a proc head, may take an additional element, independent from the verb root, to express a result subevent, thus, creating a more complex event. The result obtained mimics the co-event semantics argued for in Talmy (1991, 2000). Remember

that the framing event corresponds to the bare first phase syntax, to which a co-event may be related by the existence of at least two roots with the relevant category labels instantiating process and result. The so-called manner meaning arises in the conceptual interface as the root contributes its conceptual meaning, or type-B meaning, which I assume is linked to the spatio-temporal unit introduced by process. Thus, in our framework, the relevant distinction between verb-framed languages and satellite-framed ones is the locus of the lexicalization of the path information, that is, whether the res head is instantiated by the verb root or a particle or satellite. The sequences in (59) are clear examples of co-event conflation of a manner or cause event, as denoted by the verbs slide, roll, bounce, or blow, and a result subevent, instantiating a path, realized by the particles down and off.

(59) a. The rock slid/rolled/bounced down the hill b. The napkin blew off the table

As for posture verbs, they cannot be regarded equivalent to the examples of co-event presented above. Essentially, they merely consist of a manner component codifying the posture of the figure and a location without resultative semantics, that is, they simply locate the figure in space. The existence of a co-event is based on the availability of at least two subevents: a main subevent of cause or manner of motion and a secondary subevent of path of motion, which assembled together constitute a macro-event.

Predicates of stationary motion with posture verbs can only be said to count with a main subevent of manner. As Berthele et al. (2015:84) point out, establishing a comparison between motion and static events is problematic since there is not a one to one correspondence in terms of the elements integrating the event schemata. For example, there are not any stative verbs with integrated path semantics expressing concepts such as ‘being inside’ or ‘being on top’, etc. That is, predicates of stationary location do not contain a path of motion but instead a place, or location. Similarly, there is no juxtaposition of two synchronous subevent components such as proc and res. Following Ramchand (2008), I would like to argue that the locational phrase that appears along with these verbs is an instance of a rhematic prepositional phrase. The figure is merged in the specifier position creating a predicational structure and, importantly, without the implication of a secondary event. Assuming the existence of a resultative state in this construction is counterintuitive since there is not necessarily a previous action of laying as a consequence of which a result subevent could be triggered. These sequences simply denote a state of location which includes the disposition of the figure according to parameters of posture and spatial coordinates with respect to a ground.

(61)

The analysis proposed here is based on previous work by Hoekstra and Mulder (1990) and Mulder and Wehrmann (1989), who argue for an unaccusative analysis of unergative verbs, where the surface subject is in fact the subject of a small-clause in complement position. Let us review the evidence they present to support the analysis above.