Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

[pred adv] construction overlap

The overlap of pred and adv is the most common one on the construction level. But this overlap is different in that it includes languages with a partial overlap, languages with

a construction between
pred
and adv, and languages where constructions in the two

functions are closely related. In a partial overlap, the only structural difference concerns which verbs are used in pred and adv, respectively. In pred we find one or a small number of verbs (copulas, existential verbs, etc). In adv we find a larger number of (other) verbs. While the choice of verb is an important difference, the constructional similarities are also obvious. Partial overlaps of pred and adv are described in section
7.3.1. Not all attested encoding patterns of pred and adv are typical instantiations of
the two functions. A recurrent finding across languages is that there is a construction that is intermediate, or between pred and adv (cf. section 4.3). Such constructions are described in section 7.3.2. Finally, there are yet other encoding patterns that illustrate very subtle distinctions between pred and adv. These are discussed in section 7.3.3.

1. Partial overlap

Thirteen languages in the sample have a partial overlap of the pred and adv functions.
Here, the encoding of pred and adv only differs in terms of what verbs are allowed in
the verb slot of the constructional-typological notation: one or a few verbs can be used in pred, whereas the selection of verbs is larger for adv. While this is a very important difference in terms of meaning, it may also illustrate the affinity of pred and adv. Waiwai
(Cariban) has a partial overlap of pred and adv. At least 25 simple Adverbs that are
used both in pred and adv are attested here (cf. sections 5.2 and 6.4.2). In pred, they are combined with a copula, and in adv with a number of Verbs (Hawkins 1998: 125). In (7.9) two different members of this class are shown, in pred and adv, respectively.

(7.9) Waiwai (Cariban) (Hawkins 1998: 126)⁴
[pred adv]

1. 
   Ehcopo
   

unequal
Ø-xakne
3.sbj-be
noro
3
y-apo-rî.
gen-arm-poss
pred

‘His arms were unequal (in length).’

2. 
   Yohno
   

fast

yî-wya.
3-to/by
tît-mok-o
1.2sbj-come-hodpst

1. 
   kro-no-ma-rî
   

1.2-with-nmlz-vblz-nmlz.poss
ke
because
adv

‘We came fast because he helped us.’


These property items are particularly interesting in that the whole class appears to be restricted to pred and adv on the lexeme level (again, cf. section 6.4.2). The overlap is captured in constructional-typological notation in boldface in (7.10), along with another encoding form attested in adv.

(7.10)
pred and adv in Waiwai

preD

Function: property predication

Form: ADV cop S

Example: (7.9a)

aDv

Function: property modification within predicating expression

Form 1: ADV V

Form 2: adv-N-adv
Example: (7.9b), (211)

In Dutch, Predicative Adjectives and Adverbs take exactly the same form on the level of the lexeme (cf. section 6.4.2). But the entire constructions also show a partial overlap.

(7.11) Dutch (Indo-European) (Donaldson 1997: 108) [pred adv]

1. 
   Hij
   

he
is
be.3sg
snel.

quick

pred

‘He is quick.’

2. 
   Hij
   

he
rent
run.3sg
snel.

quick

adv

‘He runs quickly.’

Based on such examples, it is common to conclude that Dutch does not have a class of Adverbs, but rather that Adjectives are simply used adverbially, or that adjectives and adverbs belong to the same class (e.g. van Lier 2009: 16–17). In this monograph, such Dutch property items have been classified as general modifiers (see section 6.4.4).

However, the encodings of pred and adv can be argued to have more in common than
⁴ (7.9a) is a repetition of (6.5a) in section 6.2.2.

either of the two have with attr, since modifiers in attr inflect (agreeing with the head that it modifies) in most cases, with certain clear exceptions (see Dutch in appendix B).⁵

(7.12)
pred and adv in Dutch

preD

Function: property predication Form: S zijn _cop G.MOD Example: (7.11a)

aDv

Function: property modification within predicating expression

Form: S V G.MOD

Example: (7.11b)

Yimas (Lower Sepik-Ramu) has a partial overlap where the encoding differs from the patterns of the examples described so far. Here, adverbial incorporation is attested both

in pred and adv. There are two types of adverbial elements: those that only occur
incorporated, and those that may also be used independently (hence, the numbers in the constructional-typological notation in 7.15, where ADVL₂ can also be used independently: see appendix B for examples). The examples in (7.13) only illustrate incorporated versions and appear to be instances of pred.

(7.13) Yimas (Lower Sepik-Ramu) (Foley 1991: 100) [pred adv]

1. 
   kay
   

canoe.viii.sg
i-na-mamaN-ya-n
viii.sg.sbj-def-slow-come-prs
pred

‘The canoe is slow.’

2. 
   kay
   

canoe.viii.sg
i-na-kaykaykay-ya-n
viii.sg.sbj-def-fast-come-prs
pred

‘The canoe is fast.’
Most Yimas property words in


pred

are Stative Verbs (cf. appendix B), apart from

the items denoting speed in (7.13). The Verb ya- ‘come’ is perhaps a bit questionable in pred, and it may be that it is primarily the English translation that makes it look
like an instance of pred. However, since there does not appear to be any other way
to express ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ in pred, it will be analyzed as such here, noting that this

construction may perhaps also be analyzed as in between
pred
and adv (cf. section

7.3.2). An example that is clearly an instance of adv, with another Verb, is provided in (7.14).

(7.14) Yimas (Lower Sepik-Ramu) (Foley 1991: 342)
aNka-kaykaykay-cu-impu-pu-n
hort.du-quickly-out-go.by.water-away-imp
‘Let us go outside quickly.’
[pred adv]
adv

⁵ It should be noted that in Croft’s terms, it is not the case that pred and adv are unmarked as compared to attr in Dutch; rather, the inflection of attr is a type of behavioral potential, which does not change the function of the lexeme in question (Croft 2001).

The constructional-typological notation for pred and adv in Yimas is shown in (7.15). Any restriction on the Verb used in the adverbial incorporation in pred remains unclear. The constructional notation is based on the attested example with -ya ‘come’.

(7.15)
pred and adv in Yimas

preD

Function: property predication Form 1: S ADJ-n.cl.num anak _cop Form 2: N/S ST.V-k _irr-ncl.num

Form 3: (S) ADV₁-/ADV₂-ya ‘come’

Example: (231), (232), (7.13)

aDv

Function: property modification within predicating expression

Form 1: (S) ADV₁-/ADV₂-V

Form 2: ADV₂ V
Form 3: (S) ADJ/V-mpi _adv-V Example: (7.14), (8.27b), (234)

Table 7.2 lists all languages with a partial overlap of pred and adv.⁶ Note that since this is a comparison of partial overlaps, there is one column for the construction attested in pred and one for the parallel construction attested in adv (in contrast to how the [attr pred] encoding overlap was captured in table 7.1). In a few languages, there is more than one construction pair to compare.

overlap no overlap

Figure 7.2. Languages with partial [pred adv] construction overlap

⁶ Sango (Atlantic-Congo) is another language that could perhaps be placed here, but I have chosen to exclude it due to lack of data.

3. 
   [ pred adv] construction overlap
   

Table 7.2. Languages ^{with partial [pred adv] construction overlap}

Language