1 Introduction

Certain verbs show an alternation between an eventive and a stative reading, apparently related to the agentivity of their subject (Rothmayr 2009). This is the case, for instance, of object experiencer psych verbs (1) and so-called extent verbs (2): both groups of verbs are eventive with agentive subjects ((1)a, (2)a), but stative with non-agentive subjects ((1)b, (2)b) (examples adapted from Wilson 2020).

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. John amused Bill. ≈
    2. ‘John did something that amused Bill.’                                                    [eventive]
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. John’s appearance amused Bill. ≈
    2. ‘Bill’s amusement was at John’s appearance.’                                        [stative]
    1. (2)
    1. a.
    1. John covered the screen. ≈
    2. ‘John put something on the screen that covered it.’                               [eventive]
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. The blanket covered the screen. ≈
    2. ‘The blanket lay over the screen.’                                                               [stative]

Here we are interested in a group of extent verbs (Gawron 2009; Bosque 2014) of the type of rodear ‘surround’ in Spanish (from now on, rodear-verbs) (3), which describe a locative relation between two entities that typically involves spatial and temporal coextension: the eventuality holds as long as the locative relation holds. In (4)a a locative relation of surrounding is established between the non-agentive subject una valla muy alta ‘a very high fence’ and the object la casa ‘the house’, in such a way that the former (una valla muy alta ‘a very high fence’) is understood to occupy an extension all around the latter (la casa ‘the house’). In (4)b the locative relation holds between the agentive subject los manifestantes ‘the protesters’ and the object el edificio ‘the building’, but in this case this relation is obtained as the result of the protesters moving all around the house.

    1. (3)
    1. rodear ‘surround’, atascar ‘clog’, bloquear, ‘block’, bordear ‘border’, cercar ‘fence’, cubrir ‘cover’, inundar ‘flood’, invadir ‘invade’, obstruir ‘obstruct’, ocupar ‘occupy’, tapar ‘hide’.
    1. (4)
    1. a.
    1. Una
    2. a
    1. valla
    2. fence
    1. muy
    2. very
    1. alta
    2. high
    1. rodea
    2. surrounds
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa.
    2. house
    1. ‘A very high fence surrounds the house.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. manifestantes
    2. protesters
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. (en muy
    2.   in very
    1. poco
    2. little
    1. tiempo).
    2. time
    1. ‘The protesters surrounded the building (in a very short time).’

In this paper, we will extensively argue that the stative reading of rodear-verbs ((4)a) corresponds to a target state, whereas their agentive/eventive reading ((4)b) has a composite denotation: it includes both a change of state and a subsequent (target) state (Kratzer 2000). Thus, we provide a new account where the eventive(-stative) and the stative versions of these predicates are connected: the stative version is contained in the eventive one.

The different way in which Spanish marks verbal passives (with ser ‘be’) and adjectival passives (with estar ‘be.loc’) is especially interesting for the study of rodear-verbs. As shown in the following examples, both agentive and non-agentive alternants are allowed in adjectival (i.e., stative) passives with estar ‘be.loc’ ((5)c). They differ, though, in their acceptability in verbal (i.e., eventive) passives with ser ‘be’: only the agentive version of extent verbs can be part of verbal passives ((5)a); the non-agentive version cannot ((5)b). This is evidence, on the one hand, of the fact that the agentive alternant ((5)a) involves eventivity, whereas the non-agentive alternant ((5)b) does not; and, on the other hand, of the fact that both alternants include a target state in their event structure that is compatible with the copula estar ‘be.loc’ ((5)c), which typically selects stage-level (SL) predicates (Leonetti 1994; Arche 2006; Marín 2010; among others).1

    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1.   El
    2.   the
    1. pueblo
    2. village
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. soldados.
    2. soldiers
    1.   ‘The village was surrounded by soldiers.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *El
    2.   the
    1. pueblo
    2. village
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1.  
    1. c.
    1.   El
    2.   the
    1. pueblo
    2. village
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. / por
    2.   by
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1.   ‘The village is surrounded by soldiers/by trees.’

From these data, we claim that, in fact, what we observe for rodear-verbs is not, stricto sensu, an eventive-stative alternation, but an alternation between a composite denotation (event + state) and a stative one. Therefore, the transition from one variant to the other does not involve an operation by means of which an event shifts into a state (or a state shifts into an event). Rather, these verbs can enter a configuration containing both the eventive and the stative part of the composite denotation, or a configuration in which the eventive part is absent and only the stative one is included: ⟨event + state⟩ / state. Besides, we contend that the different interpretation of the subject in the eventive and the stative alternants depends on the composition of the event structure configuration.

In section 2, we provide a detailed aspectual characterization of rodear-verbs. We concentrate first on the eventive and telic character of their agentive reading (§ 2.1), showing that it has a composite denotation (§ 2.2), and we focus then on the characterization of the states they describe (§ 2.3). In section 3, we deal with issues at the interface between argument and event structure so as to elucidate the nature of the subject of these verbs. We study the so-called Instrument-subject alternation (§ 3.1) and the role of by-phrases (§ 3.2), and we explore to what extent the (non-)agentivity of the subject determines the eventive or stative character of the constructions examined (§ 3.3). In section 4, we provide a non-derivational account of the eventive-stative alternation undergone by rodear-verbs. After a presentation of the neo-constructionist approach adopted (§ 4.1), we offer a syntactic analysis of the argument/event structure of each variant (§ 4.2) that accounts for all the properties observed, and we look into the theoretical consequences of the proposal (§ 4.3). Finally, in section 5, we summarize the main conclusions of the paper.

2 Aspectual issues

In this section, we demonstrate that rodear-verbs with non-agentive subjects describe states, while these same verbs with agentive-subjects have a composite denotation, including both an event and a state (§ 2.1 and § 2.2). Besides, we provide a detailed characterization of the states denoted by rodear-verbs (§ 2.3).

2.1 The agentive uses of rodear-verbs are eventive and telic

Most classical dynamicity tests (Dowty 1979) show that, indeed, the agentive readings of rodear-verbs are eventive, while their non-agentive readings are stative. Observe, first, that only the agentive uses of rodear-verbs can adopt a habitual interpretation in the present tense (6) and are allowed in pseudo-cleft sentences of the type of what happened was (7).

    1. (6)
    1. a.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. (cada
    2.   every
    1. semana).
    2. week
    1. ‘Soldiers surround the building (every week).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. (#cada
    2.   every
    1. semana).
    2. week
    1. ‘The trees surround the house (#every week).’
    1. (7)
    1. a.
    1.   Lo
    2.   the
    1. que
    2. what
    1. pasó
    2. happened
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. que
    2. that
    1. los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1.   ‘What happened was that the soldiers surrounded the building.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #Lo
    2.   the
    1. que
    2. what
    1. pasó
    2. happened
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. que
    2. that
    1. los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa.
    2. house
    1.   (‘What happened was that the trees surrounded the house.’)

There are also differences with respect to other dynamicity tests (Maienborn 2005). Unlike the stative versions of rodear-verbs (8), the agentive ones allow modification by (velocity) manner adverbs such as lentamente ‘slowly’, and they are allowed as infinitival complements of perception verbs (9).2

    1. (8)
    1. a.
    1. *Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pueblo
    2. village
    1. lentamente.
    2. slowly
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #Vi
    2.   I.saw
    1. los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodear
    2. surround
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa.
    2. house
    1.   (‘I saw the trees surrounding the house.’)
    1. (9)
    1. a.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. lentamente.
    2. slowly
    1. ‘The soldiers surround the building slowly.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Vi
    2. I.saw
    1. a
    2. DOM
    1. los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodear
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1. ‘I saw the soldiers surrounding the building.’

Rodear-verbs also differ with respect to passive constructions: in their agentive uses, they can be part of both verbal (eventive) and adjectival (stative) passives (10), while in their non-agentive versions they can only be part of adjectival passives (11). This suggests that in the former case rodear-verbs behave as predicates that involve both an event (which allows them to enter the verbal passive) and a state (which accounts for their availability in adjectival passives), whereas in the latter case they behave as states and lack eventive implications (and accordingly are only allowed in adjectival passives).

    1. (10)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. sido
    2. been
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. los
    2. the
    1. soldados.
    2. soldiers
    1. ‘The building has been surrounded by the soldiers.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. (los)
    2. the
    1. soldados.
    2. soldiers
    1. ‘The building is surrounded by (the) soldiers.’
    1. (11)
    1. a.
    1. #El
    2.   the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. sido
    2. been
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. los
    2. the
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1.   (‘The building has been surrounded by the trees.’)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   El
    2.   the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. (los)
    2.   the
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1.   ‘The building is surrounded by (the) trees.’

The events described by agentive rodear-verbs are, more specifically, telic. As we are going to show now, these verbs pass most tests on telicity (Dowty 1979). Observe, first, that they can be modified by en x tiempo ‘in x time’ or by tardar x tiempo ‘to take x time’, respectively ((12)a, (12)b), in contrast to their non-agentive counterparts ((12)a’, (12)b’).

    1. (12)
    1. a.
    1.   Los
    2.   the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. en
    2. in
    1. cinco
    2. five
    1. minutos.
    2. minutes
    1.   ‘The soldiers surrounded the building in five minutes.’
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. #Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. en
    2. in
    1. cinco
    2. five
    1. minutos.
    2. minutes
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Los
    2.   the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. tardaron
    2. took
    1. dos
    2. two
    1. horas
    2. hours
    1. en
    2. in
    1. rodear
    2. surrounding
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1.   ‘It took the soldiers two hours to surround the building.’
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. #Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. tardaron
    2. took
    1. dos
    2. two
    1. horas
    2. hours
    1. en
    2. in
    1. rodear
    2. surrounding
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building

Second, rodear-verbs with agentive subjects can also be complements of terminar or acabar ‘finish’ ((13)a); their non-agentive counterparts cannot ((13)b).

    1. (13)
    1. a.
    1.   Los
    2.   the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. han
    2. have
    1. terminado
    2. finished
    1. de
    2. to
    1. rodear
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1.   ‘The soldiers have finished surrounding the building.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. han
    2. have
    1. terminado
    2. finished
    1. de
    2. to
    1. rodear
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building

Third, agentive rodear-verbs ((14)a), unlike non-agentive ones ((14)b), can be part of absolute clauses (cf. Marín & McNally 2011).

    1. (14)
    1. a.
    1.   (Una vez)
    2.   once
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio,
    2. building
    1. los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. relajaron.
    2. relaxed
    1.   ‘Once the building was surrounded, the soldiers relaxed.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #(Una vez)
    2.   once
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio,
    2. building
    1. los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. secaron.
    2. dried.up

The tests to distinguish the agentive uses of rodear-verbs —which are eventive and telic— from their stative uses are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Aspectual behaviour of rodear-verbs in their agentive and stative versions.

Agentive eventive versions of rodear-verbs Non-agentive stative versions of rodear-verbs
Habitual interpretation in present ✔ ✖
Lo que pasó fue ‘what happened was’ ✔ ✖
Manner adverbs ✔ ✖
Complements of perception verbs ✔ ✖
En x tiempo ‘in x time’ ✔ ✖
Terminar ‘finish’ ✔ ✖
Absolute clauses ✔ ✖
Verbal passives (ser + participle) ✔ ✖
Adjectival passives (estar + participle) ✔ ✔

2.2 The agentive versions of rodear-verbs include a target state

In fact, rodear-verbs with animate —potentially agentive— subjects can refer to both eventive and stative situations. This is so because they have a composite denotation, which includes both a change of state ((15)a) and a subsequent (target) state ((15)b) (Kratzer 2000).

    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. repentinamente.
    2. suddenly
    1. ‘The soldiers surrounded the building suddenly.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. durante
    2. for
    1. tres
    2. three
    1. horas.
    2. hours
    1. ‘The soldiers surrounded the building for three hours.’

In (15)a, repentinamente ‘suddenly’ modifies the event of surrounding the building, while durante tres horas ‘for three hours’ refers to the state of the building having been surrounded in (15)b.

Crucially, there are sentences, such as (16), where we can find both a modifier over the event (repentinamente ‘suddenly’) and over the state (durante tres horas ‘for three hours’). This clearly shows that the change of state and the (target) state are accessible at the same time.

    1. (16)
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. repentinamente
    2. suddenly
    1. durante
    2. for
    1. tres
    2. three
    1. horas.
    2. hours
    1. ‘The soldiers suddenly surrounded the building for three hours.’

Target states, like those included in both the agentive and non-agentive readings of rodear-verbs, are reversible, as shown by their compatibility with todavía ‘still’ in the adjectival passive (Kratzer 2000):

    1. (17)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. todavía
    2. still
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. los
    2. the
    1. soldados.
    2. soldiers
    1. ‘The building is still surrounded by soldiers.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. todavía
    2. still
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeada
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1. ‘The house is still surrounded by trees.’

In the next section, we provide a more detailed characterization of the states described by rodear-verbs.

2.3 The states described by rodear-verbs

In this subsection, we show, on the one hand, that the states described by rodear-verbs are neither Davidsonian states (§ 2.3.1) nor causative (§ 2.3.2). On the other hand, we demonstrate that they are target (SL) states (§ 2.3.3) and include a path component (§ 2.3.4).

2.3.1 The stative versions of rodear-verbs are not Davidsonian states

Jaque (2014; 2017) claims that rodear-verbs describe Davidsonian states.3 He supports this statement by two main pieces of evidence: (i) contexts allowing for an epistemic reading; (ii) inclusion relations between event time (E) and reference time (R).

On the one hand, according to several authors (Condoravdi 2002; Gennari 2002; Soto 2008; Lundquist 2012; among others), only stative predicates license an epistemic modal reading of the (synthetic) future and the deber + infinitive periphrasis (examples adapted from Jaque 2017: 185–186):

    1. (18)
    1. a.
    1. Tomás
    2. Tomás
    1. tendrá
    2. will.have
    1. 20 años/
    2. 20 years
    1. sabrá
    2. will.know
    1. inglés/
    2. English
    1. pesará
    2. will.weigh
    1. mucho.
    2. a.lot
    1. ‘Tomás will have 20 years/ will know English/ will weigth a lot.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Tomás
    2. Tomás
    1. debe
    2. should
    1. tener
    2. have
    1. 20 años/
    2. 20 years
    1. saber
    2. know
    1. inglés/
    2. English
    1. pesar
    2. weigh
    1. mucho.
    2. a.lot
    1. ‘Tomás should have 20 years/ know English/ weigh a lot.’
    1. (19)
    1. a.
    1. Tomás
    2. Tomás
    1. correrá
    2. will.run
    1. por
    2. through
    1. el
    2. the
    1. parque/
    2. park
    1. bailará/
    2. will.dance
    1. nadará.
    2. will.swim
    1. ‘Tomás will run through the park/ will dance/ will swim.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Tomás
    2. Tomás
    1. debe
    2. should
    1. correr
    2. run
    1. por
    2. through
    1. el
    2. the
    1. parque/
    2. park
    1. bailar/
    2. dance
    1. nadar.
    2. swim
    1. ‘Tomás should run through the park/ should dance/ should swim.’

In these contexts, stative predicates (18) are ambiguous between a temporal reading (the state of affairs takes place after the utterance time) and an epistemic reading (the speaker shows a low commitment to the truth of the respective propositions). In this reading, the sentences in (18) can be glossed as ‘It is likely that Tomás is 20 years old/ knows English/ weighs a lot’. By contrast, eventive predicates (19) only have a temporal reading.

According to Jaque (2014; 2017), non-agentive rodear-verbs also lack the epistemic reading, as illustrated in the following examples, adapted from Jaque (2017: 186):

    1. (20)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. valla
    2. fence
    1. bloqueará/
    2. will.block
    1. tapará/
    2. will.hide
    1. obstruirá
    2. will.obstruct
    1. la
    2. the
    1. entrada.
    2. entrance
    1. ‘The fence will block/ will hide/ will obstruct the entrance.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. valla
    2. fence
    1. debe
    2. should
    1. bloquear/
    2. block
    1. tapar/
    2. hide
    1. obstruir
    2. obstruct
    1. la
    2. the
    1. entrada.
    2. entrance
    1. ‘The fence should block/ hide/ obstruct the entrance.’

It is true that (20)a can only refer to the future, and that (20)b only has a deontic reading. However, it is not difficult to find contexts similar to those of (20) with an epistemic reading, such as (21).

    1. (21)
    1. a.
    1. Hay
    2. there.is
    1. agua
    2. water
    1. en
    2. in
    1. el
    2. the
    1. fregadero;
    2. sink
    1. los
    2. the
    1. restos
    2. remains
    1. de
    2. of
    1. comida
    2. food
    1. que
    2. that
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. colaron
    2. slipped.down
    1. por
    2. through
    1. el
    2. the
    1. sumidero
    2. drain
    1. atascarán/
    2. will.clog
    1. deben
    2. should
    1. atascar
    2. clog
    1. la
    2. the
    1. cañería.
    2. pipe
    1. ‘There is water in the sink; the remains of food that slipped down the drain will clog/ should clog the pipe.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Hay
    2. there.is
    1. un
    2. a
    1. gran
    2. big
    1. atasco
    2. traffic.jam
    1. en
    2. on
    1. la
    2. the
    1. carretera;
    2. road
    1. la
    2. the
    1. nieve
    2. snow
    1. bloqueará/
    2. will.block
    1. debe
    2. should
    1. bloquear
    2. block
    1. el
    2. the
    1. acceso
    2. access
    1. al
    2. to.the
    1. puerto.
    2. port
    1. ‘There is a big traffic jam on the road; the snow will block/ should block the access to the port.’

On the other hand, regarding the inclusion relations between event time (E) and reference time (R), Jaque (2017) notes that states show a pattern R⊆E (the reference time is included in the event time), while dynamic predicates show a pattern E⊆R (the event time is included in the reference time). Thus, states and events have a different interpretation in adverbial contexts entailing temporal quantification (Marín & McNally 2011). In stative sentences, such as (22), the reference time pointed out by the subordinate clause can be included in the event time of the state described by the main clause; that is, Juan may have been in bed before we entered the room.4 On the other hand, eventive sentences, (23), exhibit a strong preference for the pattern E⊆R (the event time (E) of the main sentence is included in the reference time (R) of the subordinate clause); that is, Tomás starts jumping when we arrive at the park.

    1. (22)
    1. Cada
    2. every
    1. vez
    2. time
    1. que
    2. that
    1. entramos
    2. enter.1pl
    1. en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. habitación,
    2. room
    1. Juan está
    2. Juan is.loc
    1. en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. cama.
    2. bed
    1. ‘Every time we enter the room, Juan is in bed.’
    1. (23)
    1. Cada
    2. every
    1. vez
    2. time
    1. que
    2. that
    1. vamos
    2. go.1pl
    1. al
    2. to.the
    1. parque,
    2. park
    1. Tomás
    2. Tomás
    1. salta.
    2. jumps
    1. ‘Every time that we go to the park, Tomás jumps.’

According to Jaque (2017), rodear-verbs (24) behave like events, i.e., they exhibit a strong preference for the pattern E⊆R; that is, the curtain covering is included in the interval related to our presence in the room.

    1. (24)
    1. Cada
    2. every
    1. vez
    2. time
    1. que
    2. that
    1. entramos
    2. enter.1pl
    1. en
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. habitación,
    2. room
    1. la
    2. the
    1. cortina
    2. curtain
    1. cubre
    2. covers
    1. la
    2. the
    1. ventana.
    2. window
    1. ‘Every time we enter the room, the curtain covers the window.’

However, in our opinion, it is not clear at all that the temporal pattern of sentences such as (24) is E⊆R. Observe, related to this, that a sentence such as (25) is perfectly interpretable as the window being covered by the curtain before Juan enters the room.

    1. (25)
    1. Cuando
    2. when
    1. Juan
    2. Juan
    1. entre,
    2. enters.sbjv
    1. la
    2. the
    1. cortina
    2. curtain
    1. cubrirá
    2. will.cover
    1. la
    2. the
    1. ventana.
    2. window
    1. ‘When Juan enters, the curtain will cover the window.’

In any case, most diagnostics on eventivity (Maienborn 2005) point to the same direction: rodear-verbs do not encode Davidsonian states. Thus, they do not accept modification by velocity manner adverbs such as lentamente ‘slowly’, and they are not allowed as infinitival complements of perception verbs:

    1. (26)
    1. a.
    1. *Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pueblo
    2. village
    1. lentamente.
    2. slowly
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #Vi
    2.   I.saw
    1. los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodear
    2. surround
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa.
    2. house
    1.   (‘I saw the trees surrounding the house.’)

2.3.2 The stative versions of rodear-verbs are not causative

Several authors have claimed for several languages that the states described by rodear-verbs are causative states (Kratzer 2000 for English; Rothmayr 2009 for German; García-Pardo 2017 for Spanish; among others). Here we will follow Rappaport Hovav (2018), who convincingly argues that the stative readings of rodear-verbs in English are not causative, by examining three of her tests: (i) causative paraphrases, (ii) detachability, and (iii) Instrument-subject alternation.

Regarding the first diagnostic, she points out that, unlike proper causative alternation verbs (27), rodear-verbs (28) do not have natural causative paraphrases in the stative uses.5

    1. (27)
    1. a.
    1. The cutaway collar broadens your face.
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. The cutaway collar causes your face to look broader.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. The increased amount of melanocytes darkens her skin near her chin.
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. The increased amount of melanocytes causes her skin to darken near her chin.
    1. (28)
    1. a.
    1.   The blanket covers the bed.
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. #The blanket causes the bed to be covered.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   The trees surround the garden.
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. #The trees cause the garden to be surrounded.

The Spanish counterparts of these verbs show the same behaviour, as illustrated in (29) and (30).

    1. (29)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. cuello
    2. collar
    1. de
    2. of
    1. camisa
    2. shirt
    1. cutaway
    2. cutaway
    1. te
    2. you.dat
    1. ensancha
    2. broadens
    1. el
    2. the
    1. rostro.
    2. face
    1. ‘The cutaway collar broadens your face.’
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. cuello
    2. collar
    1. de
    2. of
    1. camisa
    2. shirt
    1. cutaway
    2. cutaway
    1. {causa /
    2.   causes
    1. hace}
    2. makes
    1. que
    2. that
    1. tu
    2. your
    1. rostro
    2. face
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. vea
    2. look.sbjv.3sg
    1. más
    2. more
    1. ancho.
    2. broad
    1. ‘The cutaway collar {causes your face to look broader/ makes your face look broader}.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. aumento
    2. increase
    1. de
    2. of
    1. melanocitos
    2. melanocytes
    1. oscurece
    2. darkens
    1. su
    2. her
    1. piel
    2. skin
    1. cerca
    2. near
    1. de
    2. of
    1. la
    2. the
    1. barbilla.
    2. chin
    1. ‘The increased amount of melanocytes darkens her skin near her chin.’
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. aumento
    2. increase
    1. de
    2. of
    1. melanocitos
    2. melanocytes
    1. {causa /
    2.   causes
    1. hace}
    2. makes
    1. que
    2. that
    1. su
    2. her
    1. piel
    2. skin
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. oscurezca
    2. darken.sbjv.3sg
    1. cerca
    2. near
    1. de
    2. of
    1. la
    2. the
    1. barbilla.
    2. chin
    1. ‘The increased amount of melanocytes {causes her skin to darken near her chin / makes her skin darken near her chin}.’
    1. (30)
    1. a.
    1.   La
    2.   the
    1. manta
    2. blanket
    1. cubre
    2. covers
    1. la
    2. the
    1. cama.
    2. bed
    1.   ‘The blanket covers the bed.’
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. #La
    2.   the
    1. manta
    2. blanket
    1. {causa /
    2.   causes
    1. hace}
    2. makes
    1. que
    2. that
    1. la
    2. the
    1. cama
    2. bed
    1. esté
    2. be.loc.sbjv.3sg
    1. cubierta.
    2. covered
    1.   (‘The blanket {causes the bed to be covered / makes the bed covered}.’)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. jardín.
    2. garden
    1.   ‘The trees surround the garden.’
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. #Los
    2.   the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. {causan /
    2.   cause
    1. hacen}
    2. make
    1. que
    2. that
    1. el
    2. the
    1. jardín
    2. garden
    1. esté
    2. be.loc.sbjv.3sg
    1. rodeado.
    2. surrounded
    1.   (‘The trees {cause the garden to be surrounded / make the garden surrounded}.’)

The second diagnostic on causativity is detachability, i.e., the cause can be detached from the predicate it causativizes, which means that the external argument can be omitted. Prototypical causative verbs pass this diagnostic (31), but (the stative uses of) rodear-verbs do not (32).

    1. (31)
    1. a.
    1. The sun darkened her skin.
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. sol
    2. sun
    1. oscureció
    2. darkened
    1. su
    2. her
    1. piel.
    2. skin
    1. ‘The sun darkened her skin.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Her skin darkened.
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. Su
    2. her
    1. piel
    2. skin
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. oscureció.
    2. darkened
    1. ‘Her skin darkened.’
    1. (32)
    1. a.
    1. Snow covers the mountain.
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1.   La
    2.   the
    1. nieve
    2. snow
    1. cubre
    2. covers
    1. la
    2. the
    1. montaña.
    2. mountain
    1.   ‘Snow covers the mountain.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #The mountain covers.
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. #La
    2.   the
    1. montaña
    2. mountain
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. cubre.
    2. covers
    1.   (‘The mountain covers.’)

As for the third diagnostic, according to Rappaport Hovav (2018), the different behaviour of rodear-verbs and proper causative verbs with respect to the Instrument-subject alternation (cf. § 3.1) is also related to causativity: with prototypical causative verbs (33), both variants (with and without the Agent) are eventive; with rodear-verbs (34), the sentence without the Agent is stative.6

    1. (33)
    1. a.
    1. We demolished the house with a D-9
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. The D-9 demolished the house.
    1. (34)
    1. a.
    1. I covered the couch with a blanket.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. A blanket covers the couch.

Thus, it is clear that, unlike proper causative verbs,7 rodear-verbs do not enter the Instrument-subject alternation. As we will extensively discuss in § 3.1, the seeming Instrument-denoting phrase they may combine with —which is rather a Means-denoting phrase— must be dissociated from a causative event, which further supports the claim that the stative versions of these verbs are non-causative.

2.3.3 The states described by rodear-verbs are target stage-level states

According to Kratzer (2000), the main semantic difference between resultant states and target states is that only the latter are reversible.8 Observe that only target states (36) are compatible with still and pseudo-copular verbs of the type of remain:

    1. (35)
    1. a.
    1. *The car is still repaired.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *The car remains repaired.
    1. (36)
    1. a.
    1. Traffic is still interrupted.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Traffic remains interrupted.

The (target) states described by rodear-verbs are also reversible, as they are compatible with aún or todavía ‘still’ and pseudo-copular verbs of the type of seguir or permanecer ‘remain’:

    1. (37)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. todavía
    2. still
    1. está
    2. is
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. (por
    2.   by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol).
    2. tree
    1. ‘The road is still blocked (by a tree).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. sigue
    2. remains
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. (por
    2.   by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol).
    2. tree
    1. ‘The road remains blocked (by a tree).’

It is worth pointing out that target states are, in fact, reversible SL states. This is more evident in Spanish thanks to the distinction between the two copulas (or auxiliary verbs) ser ‘be’ and estar ‘be.loc’: the former is the copula that combines with individual-level (IL) predicates and the auxiliary found in verbal (or eventive) passives, whereas the latter is the copula that combines with SL predicates (Marín 2016; Arche et al. 2017; Borik & Gehrke 2019; Gibert-Sotelo 2022).9 Crucially, target states in Spanish take estar, not ser:

    1. (38)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. (todavía)
    2.   still
    1. está/*es
    2. is.loc/is
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. (por
    2.   by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol).
    2. tree
    1. ‘The road is (still) blocked (by a tree).’

Yet, there is additional evidence that the (target) states described by rodear-verbs are SL, since they pass most tests on the IL/SL distinction in Spanish (Leonetti 1994; Marín 2010). Observe that, among other things, they can be modified by siempre que ‘whenever’ ((39)a) and by de nuevo ‘again’ ((39)b); their related participles are allowed in absolute clauses ((39)c) and in clauses headed by con ‘with ((39)d), and they are compatible with pseudo-copular verbs that only combine with resultative participles, such as quedar ‘become’ ((39)e).

    1. (39)
    1. a.
    1. Siempre
    2. always
    1. que
    2. that
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol
    2. tree
    1. bloquea
    2. blocks
    1. la
    2. the
    1. carretera, …
    2. road
    1. ‘Whenever a tree blocks the road, …’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Un
    2. a
    1. árbol
    2. tree
    1. bloquea
    2. blocks
    1. la
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. de nuevo.
    2. again
    1. ‘A tree blocks the road again.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera,
    2. road
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. por
    2. by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol, …
    2. tree
    1. ‘The road, blocked by a tree, …’
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. Con
    2. with
    1. la
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. bloqueada, …
    2. blocked
    1. ‘With the road blocked, …’
    1.  
    1. e.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. quedado
    2. become
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. (por
    2.   by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol).
    2. tree
    1. ‘The road has been blocked (by a tree).’

2.3.4 The states described by rodear-verbs also include a path component

The spatial semantics of extent verbs has been noted in the previous literature (cf. Gawron 2005, 2009; García Pardo 2017, 2020; among others). As already illustrated in section 1 with example (4), repeated below as example (40) for convenience, extent verbs of the rodear-type establish a locative relation between a Figure extended in space —una valla muy alta ‘a very high fence’ in (40)a and los manifestantes ‘the protesters’ in (40)b— and a Ground (or reference object) that allows determining the extension occupied by the Figure —la casa ‘the house’ in (40)a and el edificio ‘the building’ in (40)b.10 Such a locative relation involves no change in the stative uses of these verbs ((40)a), but it is understood as the result of a motion event in eventive uses ((40)b).

    1. (40)
    1. a.
    1. Una
    2. a
    1. valla
    2. fence
    1. muy
    2. very
    1. alta
    2. high
    1. rodea
    2. surrounds
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa.
    2. house
    1. ‘A very high fence surrounds the house.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. manifestantes
    2. protesters
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. (en
    2. in
    1. muy
    2. very
    1. poco
    2. little
    1. tiempo).
    2. time
    1. ‘The protesters surrounded the building (in a very short time).’

García-Pardo (2017) tries to capture the different entailments of the two readings by positing that rodear-verbs involve a PathP in eventive uses, while in stative uses they lack Path and only include a Place layer.

However, there seems to be evidence for the presence of a path component also in the stative uses, given that rodear-verbs admit path-denoting expressions both in their eventive ((41)a) and in their stative alternants ((41)b) (examples adapted from Google).

    1. (41)
    1. a.
    1. Cinco
    2. five
    1. hombres
    2. men
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. desde
    2. from
    1. el
    2. the
    1. jardín
    2. garden
    1. hasta
    2. to
    1. los
    2. the
    1. costados.
    2. borders
    1. ‘Five men surrounded the house from the garden to the borders.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. senda
    2. path
    1. rodea
    2. surrounds
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pueblo
    2. town
    1. desde
    2. from
    1. la
    2. the
    1. iglesia
    2. church
    1. hasta
    2. to
    1. el
    2. the
    1. puente
    2. bridge
    1. romano.
    2. Roman
    1. ‘The path surrounds the town from the church to the Roman bridge.’

Based on Jackendoff’s (1990) observations, Gawron (2005; 2009) indeed claims that a defining characteristic of extent predicates is that they allow the presence of a path phrase that delimits the space occupied by the Figure, and hence that they accept path expressions also in their stative readings. This is illustrated in (42) with Gawron’s (2005; 2009) example, in which cover co-occurs with a path phrase despite being ambiguous between an eventive and a stative reading (cf. § 3.3 for the availability of non-agentive subjects in the eventive reading).11

    1. (42)
    1. Snow covered the mountain from the valley floor to the ridge.

In fact, a crucial point to bear in mind is that, as noticed by Jackendoff (1990: 92), verbs like surround involve the stative idea of extension around the reference object both in the stative and in the eventive readings, given that the eventive sense of surround does not entail “travel around”, but, rather, “assume a position that extends all the way around the reference object”. In line with Gawron (2005; 2009) and Jackendoff (1990), we will also assume that the state contained in rodear-verbs’ denotation includes a path component.

3 On the type of subject of rodear-verbs

This section focuses on the nature of the subject of the verbs examined by delving into the connections established between their argument and event structure. We first show that, despite what may appear at first glance, rodear-verbs do not participate in the so-called Instrument-subject alternation (§ 3.1). Second, we verify that, unlike what is observed for most adjectival passives, estar + rodear-participle constructions allow by-phrases without any constraint (§ 3.2). Third, we check whether agentivity is always related to eventivity in rodear-verbs (§ 3.3).

3.1 Instrument-subject alternation

According to Rothmayr (2009), extent verbs of the type of surround, cover, or block can participate in the so-called Instrument-subject alternation. Consider the Spanish examples in (43), adapted from García-Pardo (2017: 235), and (44), adapted from Jaque (2017: 176).

    1. (43)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. policía
    2. police
    1. cubrió
    2. covered
    1. el
    2. the
    1. cuerpo
    2. body
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. manta.
    2. blanket
    1. ‘The police covered the body with a blanket.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Una
    2. a
    1. manta
    2. blanket
    1. cubría
    2. covered
    1. el
    2. the
    1. cuerpo.
    2. body
    1. ‘A blanket covered the body.’
    1. (44)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. policía
    2. police
    1. bloqueó
    2. blocked
    1. la
    2. the
    1. entrada
    2. entrance
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla.
    2. fence
    1. ‘The police blocked the entrance with a fence.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Una
    2. a
    1. valla
    2. fence
    1. bloquea
    2. blocks
    1. la
    2. the
    1. entrada.
    2. entrance
    1. ‘A fence blocks the entrance.’

In the (a) examples, there is an Agent and a PP-Instrument, whereas in the stative counterpart, examples (b), the Instrument has become the subject. However, as Jaque (2017) convincingly argues, the blanket in (43) or the fence in (44) are not properly Instruments, but Means (i.e., elements which must be present for the result state to hold, as opposed to Instruments, which affect the process but not the result; cf. Bosque 1999). Verbs such as abrir ‘open’ do enter the Instrument-subject alternation, as in the following examples (from Jaque 2017: 177):

    1. (45)
    1. a.
    1. Juan
    2. Juan
    1. abrió
    2. opened
    1. la
    2. the
    1. puerta
    2. door
    1. con
    2. with
    1. esta
    2. this
    1. llave.
    2. key
    1. ‘Juan opened the door with this key.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Esta
    2. this
    1. llave
    2. key
    1. abrió
    2. opened
    1. la
    2. the
    1. puerta.
    2. door
    1. ‘This key opened the door.’

Jaque (2017) points out relevant differences between verbs like abrir ‘open’ and rodear-verbs. First, the DPs highlighted in (45) are proper Instruments: they participate in the initial (eventive) phase of the eventuality, but not in the subsequent state. Thus, the key takes part in the opening of the door, but not in the state of the door being open. Observe that both examples in (45) are eventive, unlike what is observed in (43)–(44), where (a) examples are eventive, while (b) examples are stative.

Second, and related to this, rodear-verbs and those of the type of abrir ‘open’ show a different value in the present tense —a context favouring the stative reading of predicates:

    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1. Un
    2. a
    1. muro
    2. wall
    1. rodea
    2. surrounds
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1. ‘A wall surrounds the building.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Esta
    2. this
    1. llave
    2. key
    1. abre
    2. opens
    1. la
    2. the
    1. puerta
    2. door
    1. de
    2. of
    1. salida.
    2. exit
    1. ‘This key opens the exit door.’ (Jaque 2017: 177)

In (46)a the present tense has an episodic meaning: a state of affairs valid in the utterance time is described. By contrast, in (46)b the present tense has a generic or dispositional meaning: it does not describe a situation in which the key is being inserted into the door; it only indicates that the key has the capacity to open the door.

We observe, therefore, that a stative eventuality is involved in the event structure of rodear-verbs, since they admit an argument specifying the Means (and hence coextensive with the state involved) rather than the Instrument.

3.2 By-phrases

As has been pointed out by several authors (Hengeveld 1986; De Miguel 1992; Jiménez & Marín 2002; among others), Spanish adjectival passives (with estar ‘be.loc’), which are assumed to encode (result) states and not events (Mendikoetxea 1999; Gehrke & Marco 2014; Gibert-Sotelo 2022; among others), are reluctant to include the expression of the Agent by means of a by-phrase. This is the case of the following examples:

    1. (47)
    1. a.
    1. *El
    2.   the
    1. coche
    2. car
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. reparado
    2. repaired
    1. por
    2. by
    1. mi
    2. my
    1. hermana.
    2. sister
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *La
    2.   the
    1. puerta
    2. door
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. cerrada
    2. closed
    1. por
    2. by
    1. el
    2. the
    1. bedel.
    2. beadle

According to Mendikoetxea (1999), examples such as (47) are not acceptable because by-phrases are related to the action expressed by the verb, not to the result state, where the Agent is no longer present. As pointed out by Hengeveld (1986), by-phrases are only allowed in estar + participle constructions if the Agent is still recognizable, as in (48)a. Observe that when the Agent is no longer recognizable, (48)b, the by-phrase is no longer allowed.

    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1.   El
    2.   the
    1. documento
    2. document
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. firmado
    2. signed
    1. por
    2. by
    1. el
    2. the
    1. embajador.
    2. ambassador
    1.   ‘The document is signed by the ambassador.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *La
    2.   the
    1. paz
    2. peace
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. firmada
    2. signed
    1. por
    2. by
    1. el
    2. the
    1. embajador.
    2. ambassador

Interestingly, adjectival passives of rodear-verbs (both agentive and non-agentive variants) allow by-phrases without constraints:

    1. (49)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. la
    2. the
    1. policía.
    2. police
    1. ‘The building is surrounded by the police.’
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1. ‘The building is surrounded by trees.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. por
    2. by
    1. los
    2. the
    1. manifestantes.
    2. protesters
    1. ‘The road is blocked by the protesters.’
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. carretera
    2. road
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. por
    2. by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. árbol.
    2. tree
    1. ‘The road is blocked by a tree.’

Sentences in (49) are fully acceptable, we argue, because the argument recovered by the by-phrase is still present in the target state. Thus, for instance, (49)a is not interpreted as ‘the building has been surrounded by the police’, but as ‘the building is in a state of being surrounded by the police’. That is to say, the police should be present, drawing a circle around the building. This implies that it is the stative part of rodear-verbs’ denotation —not the eventive one— that is responsible for the acceptance of by-phrases.

Likewise, this stative denotation leads to think that the by-phrases in this type of sentences do not ‘recover’ any Agent argument, in contrast to the by-phrases of prototypical eventive (verbal) passives, such as La puerta ha sido cerrada por el bedel ‘The door has been closed by the beadle’. Related to this, several authors (Bosque 1999; Mendikoetxea 1999; Jiménez & Marín 2002) have pointed out that the subjects of sentences such as the ones in (50) cannot only be retrieved by por ‘by’ in their corresponding adjectival passives, but also by other prepositions, mainly de ‘of’ (51).

    1. (50)
    1. a.
    1. Grandes
    2. big
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. la
    2. the
    1. casa.
    2. house
    1. ‘Big trees surround the house.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nieve
    2. snow
    1. cubre
    2. covers
    1. las
    2. the
    1. montañas.
    2. mountains
    1. ‘The snow covers the mountains.’
    1. (51)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeada
    2. surrounded
    1. de
    2. of
    1. grandes
    2. big
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1. ‘The house is surrounded by big trees.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Las
    2. the
    1. montañas
    2. mountains
    1. están
    2. are.loc
    1. cubiertas
    2. covered
    1. de
    2. of
    1. nieve.
    2. snow
    1. ‘The mountains are covered by snow.’

To a certain extent, this is also the case of El cuerpo estaba cubierto con una manta ‘The body was covered by a blanket’, the corresponding adjectival passive of (43)b (Una manta cubría el cuerpo ‘A blanket covered the body’), in which the implicit external argument is introduced by the preposition con ‘with’ and hence understood not as an Agent that initiates a dynamic process, but as a Means coextensive with a (result) state.

The availability of other prepositions than por ‘by’ to express the implicit external argument in the adjectival passives of these verbs, therefore, provides evidence that por is not recovering the Agent (or Causer) of an event, but an argument related to the target state.

3.3 (Non-)Agentivity, stativity, and eventivity

Up to now, we have assumed the received view that rodear-verbs show an aspectual alternation related to argument structure: they are eventive with an agentive subject, yet they are stative with a non-agentive subject. However, we might wonder to what extent (i) agentive subjects are incompatible with a stative denotation, and (ii) non-agentive subjects are incompatible with an eventive denotation.

Regarding the first of these two questions, García-Pardo (2020) contends that agentive rodear-verbs can have a stative denotation. He provides as evidence cases such as (52), with a non-habitual reading of the present tense (a stativity test) co-occurring with a purpose clause (an agentivity test), or (53), where a universal reading of the present perfect (a stativity test) co-occurs with the Agent-oriented adverb a propósito ‘on purpose’ (examples from García-Pardo 2016: 293).

    1. (52)
    1. En
    2. in
    1. estos
    2. these
    1. momentos,
    2. moments
    1. los
    2. the
    1. bandidos
    2. bandits
    1. flanquean
    2. flank
    1. el
    2. the
    1. camino
    2. path
    1. para
    2. to
    1. poder
    2. can
    1. asaltar
    2. assault
    1. a
    2. dom
    1. los
    2. the
    1. viajeros.
    2. travellers
    1. ‘The bandits currently flank the path to be able to assault the travellers.’
    1. (53)
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. manifestantes
    2. demonstrators
    1. han
    2. have
    1. obstruido
    2. obstructed
    1. el
    2. the
    1. acceso
    2. access
    1. al
    2. to.the
    1. banco
    2. bank
    1. a
    2. on
    1. propósito
    2. purpose
    1. desde
    2. since
    1. las
    2. the
    1. seis
    2. six
    1. de
    2. of
    1. la
    2. the
    1. tarde.
    2. evening
    1. ‘The demonstrators have obstructed the access to the bank on purpose since 6 pm.’

Examples such as (52) and (53) are very interesting, yet they do not prove what García-Pardo (2020) tries to prove. The rodear-verbs in (52) and (53) are compatible with both agentivity and stativity tests, but this apparent compatibility is related to the fact, already demonstrated above, that the agentive versions of these verbs have a composite denotation, including a (telic) change of state followed by a subsequent target state. In (52) and (53), the agentive modifiers are allowed by the eventive part of the denotation, while the tests on stativity are allowed by the stative part. Thus, for instance, a propósito ‘on purpose’ in (53) modifies the event of obstructing the access to the bank, while desde las seis de la tarde ‘since 6 pm’ refers to the state of the access to the bank being obstructed. Thus, it should be concluded, contra García-Pardo (2020), that when rodear-verbs have a stative denotation, their subjects are no longer agentive.12

On the other hand, it has been observed that, under certain circumstances, rodear-verbs with a non-agentive subject can have, not only a stative reading, but also an eventive reading. Rothmayr (2009) notes that the eventive reading is possible when the non-agentive constructions involve a gradual change. According to Rappaport Hovav (2018: 10), this eventive sense may not be available for all argument choices of all rodear-verbs; she provides the following contrasts:

    1. (54)
    1. a.
    1.   Snow gradually covered the mountain.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *The cloth gradually covered the victim’s body.
    1. (55)
    1. a.
    1.   The clots gradually blocked the artery.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *The fallen tree gradually blocked the driveway.

Nevertheless, the non-agentive eventive meaning is not necessarily obtained gradually. In the following examples, it could be obtained rather suddenly:

    1. (56)
    1. a.
    1. Las
    2. the
    1. nubes
    2. clouds
    1. cubrieron
    2. covered
    1. la
    2. the
    1. ciudad
    2. city
    1. de repente.
    2. suddenly
    1. ‘Clouds suddenly covered the city.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. coágulo
    2. clot
    1. obstruyó
    2. blocked
    1. la
    2. the
    1. arteria
    2. artery
    1. en
    2. in
    1. un
    2. one
    1. momento.
    2. moment
    1. ‘The clot blocked the artery in a moment.’

In any case, observe that in sentences such as (56), non-agentive rodear-verbs denoting an event also include a target state in their denotation, similar to what happens with agentive rodear-predicates (cf. (16)). In the following examples, for x time adverbials refer to the (target) state, not to the event:

    1. (57)
    1. a.
    1. Las
    2. the
    1. nubes
    2. clouds
    1. cubrieron
    2. covered
    1. la
    2. the
    1. ciudad
    2. city
    1. durante
    2. for
    1. varios
    2. several
    1. días.
    2. days
    1. ‘Clouds covered the city for several days.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. coágulo
    2. clot
    1. obstruyó
    2. blocked
    1. la
    2. the
    1. arteria
    2. artery
    1. durante
    2. for
    1. varios
    2. several
    1. minutos.
    2. minutes
    1. ‘The clot blocked the artery for several minutes.’

The data just examined evidence that eventive rodear-verbs may allow non-agentive subjects, and that the event structure related to these uses is parallel to that of the agentive version of these verbs, composed of an event and a target state. The exact nature of the subject in such cases is discussed in § 4.3.1, where we provide a formal account of these constructions.

4 Formalizing the proposal

Founded on a neo-constructionist approach to argument/event structure (§ 4.1), we offer a non-derivational account of the eventive-stative alternation exhibited by the Spanish extent verbs of the type of rodear ‘surround’ (§ 4.2). On the basis of the diagnostics presented in sections 2–3, we claim that rodear-verbs may involve two different structural configurations: one which corresponds to that of a telic change of state encompassing a target SL state, and one which just corresponds to a target SL state. Besides, we explore the theoretical implications of the analysis proposed (§ 4.3).

4.1 Theoretical apparatus

Our analysis assumes that the interaction between argument and event structure alternations can be better accounted for by means of a non-derivational approach in which arguments are interpreted depending on the position they take in the event structure (an idea which stems from Hale & Keyser 1993 and subsequent work). In particular, we follow the First Phase Syntax model proposed in Ramchand (2008) and further developed in Ramchand (2018), since it offers a fine-grained account of the internal composition of the domain of argument and event structure (i.e., the first phase) that is based on well-established primitives of syntactic combination: Merge and the distinction between specifiers and complements (Ramchand 2008: 16). The main idea of Ramchand’s proposal is that the first phase can be decomposed into three subeventive heads that syntax combines to generate the different verb types: Init(iation), a stative subeventive head that involves causation; Proc(ess), the subevent introducing dynamic eventivity; and Res(ult), a stative projection which, being in the complement of Proc, is configurationally defined as a result state.13

Ramchand (2008) defends that each subevent licenses an argument in its specifier, the interpretation of which is configurationally determined: the Init subevent is responsible for introducing the external argument, which is interpreted as an Initiator (i.e., as the holder of the state that leads to a process); the subject of the Proc subevent corresponds to an Undergoer (i.e., the entity that undergoes a process); and the argument that fills the specifier position of Res is understood as a Resultee (i.e., the holder of the state obtained after a process). This system, though, has been slightly modified in Ramchand (2018), where it is assumed, following Pylkkänen (1999) and Harley (2013), that the head introducing the external argument must be distinguished from the head that expresses causation. Accordingly, Ramchand (2018) argues that the Init head introduces causation but does not license the external argument (against Ramchand 2008), which is licensed instead by Ev(en)t, a head that is merged at the edge of the first phase to introduce the utterance situation.

The event decomposition that we assume, represented in (58), mainly corresponds to the one proposed in Ramchand (2018: 80), since the data on the eventive-stative alternation of Spanish extent verbs also point toward the need to sever the external argument from the causative subevent (see § 4.3.2 for more details). Notice, though, that departing from Ramchand’s model, and following Fábregas & Marín (2012), Jaque (2014), Berro (2015), and Gibert-Sotelo (2017), we assume that Proc does not necessarily involve dynamicity, but just eventivity. That being so, and taking into account Berro’s (2015: 74–75) observations, the Proc subevent is assumed not to introduce a DP argument in its specifier, since it is the locus of eventivity and introduces instead an event argument <e> (Davidson 1967) that saturates this position. Besides, we use the label State instead of Res, given that this head corresponds to a state and the result interpretation is configurationally obtained.14

    1. (58)

Given that in this system Init and Proc do not license arguments in their specifier positions, the interpretation of Initiator and Undergoer must be obtained otherwise. For an argument to be interpreted as an Initiator, we propose that it must be introduced in the specifier of an EvtP directly dominating Init. As for the Undergoer semantics, it is obtained in the specifier of an EvtP that directly dominates Proc.

Crucially, the domain of the first phase not only contains subevents, but it may also embed Rhemes, i.e., material in the complement of a subeventive projection that describes it by structural homomorphism (Ramchand 2008). Hence, for example, if a Proc subevent combines with a Rheme corresponding to a PathP, such a process will be understood as a dynamic event of change (cf. Fábregas & Marín 2012) which, depending on the (un)boundedness of the path, will receive a telic (bounded path; cf. (59)a) or an atelic (unbounded path; cf. (59)b) interpretation (examples from Ramchand 2008: 48).

    1. (59)
    1. a.
    1. Karena walked to the pool in ten minutes/*for ten minutes.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Karena walked towards the pool *in ten minutes/for ten minutes.

Ramchand (2008: 47) restricts the types of Rhemes that subevents can take as complements: a Proc subevent must combine with a Rheme providing a “topological extended structure” (i.e., a path-denoting element); whereas the Rheme of a stative subevent “must crucially not involve a path structure”. We will not assume this restriction, following Fábregas & Marín (2012) and Gibert-Sotelo (2017). Hence, in our system, a Proc subevent can combine with a rhematic complement that involves no path structure, in which case the event introduced by Proc is defined as non-dynamic (that is, as involving no change; see Fábregas & Marín 2012). Similarly, a State subevent can take a path-denoting complement, which yields a non-homogeneous state (namely, a SL state; see Gibert-Sotelo 2017: 35–36).

Regarding the decomposition of path expressions, we follow the standard assumption that they can be split into a directional layer (PathP) and a purely locative one (PlaceP), the former taking the latter as complement (cf. Jackendoff 1983; Gehrke 2008; Svenonius 2010; among others. See § 2.3.4, footnote 11, for the detailed semantics of these heads). As conforming to a localist approach to argument/event structure as developed in Acedo-Matellán (2016), an argument merged in the complement of Place (be it a DP or a root) corresponds to a Ground, whereas an argument in the specifier of Place corresponds to a Figure (cf. § 2.3.4, footnote 10). An argument in the specifier of Path, in turn, corresponds to a Measurer, that is, an entity that allows measuring the extent of the path component (see section 4.2 for more details).

    1. (60)

Finally, and differently from Ramchand (2008; 2018), we adopt a conception of roots (√) as elements which bear no category (along the lines of works within Distributed Morphology; cf. Marantz 1997) and are unable to project, their function being that of providing phonological and conceptual content to a particular structure. Because roots do not bear grammatically relevant information, they can enter different configurations (cf. Borer 2005), the only restriction being the compatibility of the root’s conceptual information with the structural meaning arising from the construction (Acedo-Matellán & Real-Puigdollers 2015: 129). Hence, and as in Acedo-Matellán & Mateu (2014), roots occupy a position in the syntactic derivation, and their structural interpretation depends precisely on this position. More specifically, roots are directly merged as complements or as adjuncts of an empty head and, by means of conflation (Hale & Keyser 2002), they are copied into the empty matrix of the null head, thus furnishing it with a phonological matrix (Acedo-Matellán & Mateu 2014: 17). This operation can be repeated, and the conflated element can then conflate with the immediately dominating null head, and so on.

4.2 Analysis: The eventive-stative alternation in rodear-verbs

Taking a neo-constructionist approach to argument and event structure as the one just presented, we claim that the eventive-stative alternation shown by Spanish rodear-verbs reflects that the roots of these predicates may enter two different structural configurations: one which gives rise to a stative reading (cf. (62)) and one which gives rise to an eventive and telic change-of-state reading (cf. (64)).

The stative reading (61) is obtained when a rodear-verb root is inserted into a configuration containing just a State subevent which, having a delimited path structure (Path + Place) in its complement position, is defined as a state that extends along a delimited path (a target state in the sense of Kratzer 2000), as in (62). This gives rise to the SL denotation of the stative alternants of these verbs (cf. § 2.3.3), given that, by subevent-Rheme homomorphism, the non-homogeneity of the path structure provides a non-homogeneous state (cf. Gibert-Sotelo 2017: 36).

    1. (61)
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pueblo.
    2. village
    1. ‘The trees surround the village.’
    1. (62)

The argument structure associated with the stative version of rodear-verbs depends on the syntax of their event structure. The internal argument (el pueblo ‘the village’) is first merged as the specifier of Place, where it is configurationally identified with a Figure that establishes a stative relation with the root of the verb (√rod), merged in the complement of Place and hence corresponding to a(n abstract) Ground (el pueblo ‘the village’ is understood to be in rod(eo) ‘surrounding’).15 From there, the DP internal argument moves to the specifier of Path, where it is configurationally identified with a Measurer (Acedo-Matellán 2016), which means that the PathP is measured according to the spatial extent of the entity denoted by this DP (see Helmantel 2002 for the idea that a DP in the specifier of a directional P [i.e., a Path] gets a path interpretation and maps its internal [spatially] ordered structure onto the path provided by the directional P).16 Finally, this DP moves from there to the specifier of State, where it is interpreted as a state holder. The external argument, licensed in the specifier of an EvtP that directly dominates the State subevent, corresponds to the entity that guarantees that the state holds (since it cannot be asserted that the trees surround the extension defined by the village if the trees are not present). Therefore, a plausible paraphrase for the analysis proposed in (62) would be the following one: ‘los árboles (‘the trees’) have el pueblo (‘the village’) in a state of rod(eo) (‘surrounding’) that extends along the path defined by the extent of el pueblo (‘the village’)’. Via conflation, the phonological matrix of the root is copied into the empty matrix of Place, the result is then conflated with Path, which in turn conflates with State, the outcome conflating then with Evt, thus ensuring that this set of heads is spelled out as rod-e(ar) (note that, to keep the structure as clear as possible, we have not represented these conflation operations).17

As for the eventive change-of-state reading (63), it emerges when the root of a rodear-verb enters a structure that contains the Init projection introducing causativity and the Proc projection introducing the event argument <e> and hence conveying eventivity, as illustrated in (64). Such a configuration also contains a State subevent that embeds a path structure encompassing a PathP and a PlaceP (which explains the extent reading that these verbs also have in the eventive version; cf. § 2.3.4). In this case, though, the state is in the complement of a Proc subevent, and accordingly it is interpreted as a result state, thus giving rise to telicity (cf. Ramchand 2008). Since this state has a path-denoting Rheme that maps its part-whole structure to the stative subevent, the state is defined as a target (SL) state.

    1. (63)
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodearon
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pueblo.
    2. village
    1. ‘The soldiers surrounded the village.’
    1. (64)

The internal argument of the eventive version of rodear-verbs is also first merged in the specifier of Place as a Figure, and then in the specifier of Path as a Measurer, moving then to the specifier of State, where it is configurationally read as the holder of a state which, unlike in the stative version, sits in the complement of Proc and is hence a result (therefore, the internal argument corresponds now to a Resultee, i.e., to the holder of a result state). The external argument, in turn, is also introduced in the specifier of Evt, but it corresponds now to an (agentive) Initiator, given that the complement of Evt is an InitP that directly dominates a ProcP. A possible paraphrase for the analysis in (64) would then be something as what follows: ‘los soldados (‘the soldiers’) have initiated an event which has resulted in el pueblo (‘the village’) being in a state of rod(eo) (‘surrounding’) that extends along the path defined by the extent of el pueblo (‘the village’)’. The subeventive and rhematic heads conforming this first phase configuration (i.e., Evt, Init, Proc, State, Path, and Place) are spelled out as rod-e(ar) by means of conflation of the root into the empty or affixal heads dominating it.

The proposed analysis is non-derivational, since it does not derive the stative uses of these verbs from their eventive uses, nor the other way around.18 However, the eventive and the stative configurations put forward are tightly connected: in both cases there is a state (State) involved which contains a delimited path (Path + Place) (which is the structure we assume for target SL states), but it corresponds to a non-causative state when directly dominated by EvtP (cf. (62)) and with a result state when complementing a Proc subevent (cf. (64)). Besides, in both cases the external argument is introduced at EvtP, even though its interpretation is different: it is configurationally defined as an Initiator when the complement of EvtP is an InitP that embeds a ProcP (the eventive reading; cf. (64)), and as the entity that ensures that the state holds when EvtP takes a StateP as complement (the stative reading; cf. (62)).

4.3 Implications of the proposal

Our proposal has a series of implications. First, it rightly predicts that the subjects of causative events can correspond to an agentive but also to a non-agentive Initiator (i.e., a Causer), whereas the subjects of stative eventualities can never correspond to an Initiator (§ 4.3.1). Second, it provides further evidence for the need to sever the projection that introduces the external argument from the one that introduces causation (§ 4.3.2). Finally, our analysis also has implications regarding the eventive (or verbal) vs. the stative (or adjectival) distinction within passive constructions (§ 4.3.3).

4.3.1 On the (non-)agentivity of the subject of rodear-verbs

The analysis just presented accounts for the well-known fact that these verbs are typically eventive with agentive subjects. However, and as already illustrated in § 3.3, the external argument in the eventive version of rodear-verbs must not necessarily correspond to an Agent. In the following sentence (taken from Rappaport Hovav, in press, and translated into Spanish), we obtain an eventive reading despite the non-agentivity of the subject la nieve ‘the snow’:

    1. (65)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nieve
    2. snow
    1. cubrió
    2. covered
    1. las
    2. the
    1. montañas
    2. mountains
    1. lentamente.
    2. slowly
    1. ‘The snow covered the mountains slowly.’

In (65), la nieve ‘the snow’ is a non-agentive subject, but it is however involved in the causative subevent: it is the entity that initiates the process that results in las montañas ‘the mountains’ being covered. In this case, hence, the subject is a non-volitional Initiator, that is, a Causer. As such, it enters in the event structure as the specifier of an EvtP that takes as complement a causative (Init) subevent followed by a process (Proc) subevent, as formalized below:

    1. (66)

Evidence that in (65) the subject la nieve ‘the snow’ is a Causer argument is provided by the fact that it can co-appear with a PP specifying the Means, as in (67)a (cf. § 3.1), in which case it naturally admits a causative paraphrase ((67)b) (cf. § 2.3.2). Agents also allow PPs encoding Means ((68)a) as well as the causative paraphrase ((68)b).19

    1. (67)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nieve
    2. snow
    1. cubrió
    2. covered
    1. las
    2. the
    1. montañas
    2. mountains
    1. {de
    2.   of
    1. blanco /
    2. white
    1. con
    2. with
    1. un
    2. a
    1. manto
    2. sheet
    1. blanco}.
    2. white
    1. ‘The snow covered the mountains {white / with a white sheet}.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. nieve
    2. snow
    1. causó
    2. caused
    1. que
    2. that
    1. las
    2. the
    1. montañas
    2. mountains
    1. estuvieran
    2. be.loc.ipfv.sbjv.3pl
    1. cubiertas
    2. covered
    1. {de
    2.   of
    1. blanco /
    2. white
    1. con
    2. with
    1. un
    2. a
    1. manto
    2. sheet
    1. blanco}.
    2. white
    1. ‘The snow caused the mountains to be covered {white / with a white sheet}.’
    1. (68)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. policía
    2. police
    1. rodeó
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla.
    2. fence
    1. ‘The police surrounded the building with a fence.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. policía
    2. police
    1. causó
    2. caused
    1. que
    2. that
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. estuviera
    2. be.loc.ipfv.sbjv.3sg
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla.
    2. fence
    1. ‘The police caused the building to be surrounded with a fence.’

Therefore, and in line with Ramchand (2018: chapter 3, footnote 14), we assume that the distinction between Agents and Causers is of encyclopedic or conceptual nature (it depends on world knowledge): both Agents and Causers occupy the same position within the first phase (they are Initiators licensed in the specifier of EvtP when Evt takes as complement an InitP embedding a ProcP).20 Accordingly, if the configuration to be spelled out includes an Init and a Proc subevent, then we expect to have an Initiator subject (i.e., a subject that identifies the entity that is responsible for an event to take place), which may correspond either to a Causer (i.e., a non-volitional Initiator) or to an Agent (i.e., a volitional Initiator).

Besides, the stative readings of these verbs are incompatible with Initiator subjects, pace García-Pardo (2020), who argues that agentivity can be found in the stative uses of rodear-verbs (see § 3.3 for a detailed refutation of García-Pardo’s 2020 claim). In a sentence like the one included in (69), the referent of the DP subject los soldados ‘the soldiers’ is an animate, volitional being, but it is not an Agent (the soldiers are not performing any event).21 Structurally, this DP subject just corresponds to the entity that guarantees that the state of el edificio ‘the building’ being surrounded holds.

    1. (69)
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. soldados
    2. soldiers
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. desde
    2. since
    1. las
    2. the
    1. ocho.
    2. eight
    1. ‘Soldiers surround the building since 8 o’clock.’

The analysis we propose for the eventive-stative alternation of rodear-verbs rightly predicts that the stative readings of these predicates disallow Initiator subjects, given that, in the absence of a causative event (i.e., in the absence of Init and Proc), the argument licensed in the specifier of Evt cannot be structurally identified with an Initiator (i.e., with an Agent or a Causer); cf. (70).

    1. (70)

4.3.2 The external argument and the causative subevent

The eventive-stative alternation shown by rodear-verbs demonstrates that it is possible to have an external argument in the absence of a causing subevent: the stative reading of these verbs is not causative, but it involves a transitive configuration with an external argument (the subject) and an internal argument (the direct object).

Rappaport Hovav (2018; in press) and García Pardo (2020) contend that the stative versions of verbs of the type of rodear ‘surround’ or cubrir ‘cover’ (which they label locative states and stative locative verbs, respectively) are in fact unaccusative and involve two internal arguments, one of them corresponding to the subject. This idea is partially compatible with our proposal, given that the eventive-stative alternation of these verbs can be considered a subtype of the causative alternation: the external argument is not suppressed in the non-causative (stative) alternant, yet it cannot be interpreted as an Agent or Causer (i.e., an Initiator) due to the absence of Init and Proc. However, in contrast to Rappaport Hovav (2018; in press) and García-Pardo (2020), we contend that the subject of the stative reading of rodear-verbs is an external argument, not an internal argument.

The external status of the subject of these predicates is demonstrated by the fact that this argument is demoted in the passive. As mentioned, and as further explored in the following subsection (cf. § 4.3.3), the stative alternants of rodear-verbs allow the so-called adjectival (or stative) passive (with estar ‘be.loc’), and in these constructions the external argument is suppressed and can only be recovered by a PP adjunct (a by-phrase). The direct object, which corresponds to an internal argument, is promoted to the subject position:

    1. (71)
    1. a.
    1. Un
    2. a
    1. coche
    2. car
    1. bloquea
    2. blocks
    1. la
    2. the
    1. salida.
    2. exit
    1. ‘A car blocks the exit.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. salida
    2. exit
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. bloqueada
    2. blocked
    1. (por
    2.   by
    1. un
    2. a
    1. coche).
    2. car
    1. ‘The exit is blocked (by a car).’
    1. (72)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. muralla
    2. wall
    1. rodea
    2. surrounds
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pueblo.
    2. village
    1. ‘The wall surrounds the village.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. pueblo
    2. village
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. la
    2. the
    1. muralla.
    2. wall
    1. ‘The village is surrounded by the wall.’

By contrast, unaccusatives tend to disallow this passive construction (73). Verbs entering the (canonical) causative alternation may allow the adjectival passive, but it is unclear if such a construction is licensed by the causative variant ((74)a) or by the unaccusative one ((74)b). In any case, in the adjectival passives related to these verbs the internal argument (which is the object in the causative version and the subject in the unaccusative one) is not demoted, but it is promoted to the subject position ((74)c).

    1. (73)
    1. a.
    1.   Ha
    2.   has
    1. llegado
    2. arrived
    1. el
    2. the
    1. tren.
    2. train
    1.   ‘The train has arrived.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *El
    2.   the
    1. tren
    2. train
    1. está
    2. is
    1. llegado.
    2. arrived
    1. (74)
    1. a.
    1. María
    2. Mary
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. roto
    2. broken
    1. el
    2. the
    1. vaso.
    2. cup
    1. ‘Mary has broken the cup.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. vaso
    2. cup
    1. se
    2. refl
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. roto.
    2. broken
    1. ‘The cup has broken.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. vaso
    2. cup
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. roto.
    2. broken
    1. ‘The cup is broken.’

In sum, according to the analysis put forward, the stative alternants of rodear-verbs are not causative, but nevertheless feature a subject that corresponds to an external argument. Our account, hence, backs up severing the projection that introduces the external argument from the projection that introduces causation (as proposed by Pylkkänen 1999, Alexiadou et al. 2006, Harley 2013, or Ramchand 2018), given that, for an external argument to be available, the presence of a causative subevent is not required.

4.3.3 Verbal and adjectival passives

Our approach to the eventive-stative alternation displayed by Spanish rodear-verbs has also interesting implications for the distinction between verbal and adjectival passives (Wasow 1977; Levin & Rappaport 1986), the former assumed to describe events and the latter assumed to encode states (cf. Borik & Gehrke 2019 and references therein).

As already illustrated in previous sections, rodear-verbs with agentive (or causative) subjects denoting both an event and a state, such as (75), admit both the verbal passive, (76)a, and the adjectival passive, (76)b.

    1. (75)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. policía
    2. police
    1. rodeó
    2. surrounded
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1. ‘The police surrounded the building.’
    1. (76)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. la
    2. the
    1. policía.
    2. police
    1. ‘The building was surrounded by the police.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. por
    2. by
    1. la
    2. the
    1. policía.
    2. police
    1. ‘The building is surrounded by the police.’

Related to our claim that the eventive alternants of rodear-verbs have a composite denotation, in these cases we contend that there is a direct link between the verbal passive and the eventive (part of the) denotation of the active sentence, and between the adjectival passive and the stative (part of the) denotation of the active sentence. To illustrate this point, both by-phrases and Means arguments are especially helpful.

Observe that (78)a, the verbal passive corresponding to (77), may include both the Means (con una manta ‘with a blanket’) and the by-phrase (por la policía ‘by the police’), while in the related adjectival passive, (78)b, the by-phrase cannot be included.

    1. (77)
    1. La
    2. the
    1. policía
    2. police
    1. cubrió
    2. covered
    1. el
    2. the
    1. cuerpo
    2. body
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. manta.
    2. blanket
    1. ‘The police covered the body with a blanket.’ (Adapted from García-Pardo 2017: 235)
    1. (78)
    1. a.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. cuerpo
    2. body
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. cubierto
    2. covered
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. manta
    2. blanket
    1. por
    2. by
    1. la
    2. the
    1. policía.
    2. police
    1. ‘The body was covered with a blanket by the police.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. cuerpo
    2. body
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. cubierto
    2. covered
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. manta
    2. blanket
    1. (*por
    2.    by
    1. la
    2. the
    1. policía).
    2. police
    1. ‘The body is covered with a blanket (*by the police).’

This is so, we claim, because in (78)b the subject of the active sentence recovered by the by-phrase plays no role in the target state —it is not recognizable, not even recoverable— contrary to what we observe in (76)b.

When rodear-verbs are used in their stative reading, combining with a subject that is non-agentive and non-causative, as in (79), they do not admit the verbal passive ((80)a), but the adjectival passive is still possible ((80)b).

    1. (79)
    1. Los
    2. the
    1. árboles
    2. trees
    1. rodean
    2. surround
    1. el
    2. the
    1. edificio.
    2. building
    1. ‘The trees surround the building.’
    1. (80)
    1. a.
    1. *El
    2.   the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. fue
    2. was
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. {por/
    2.   by
    1. de}
    2. of
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   El
    2.   the
    1. edificio
    2. building
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeado
    2. surrounded
    1. {por/
    2.   by
    1. de}
    2. of
    1. árboles.
    2. trees
    1.   ‘The building is surrounded by trees.’

The reason for this is that verbal passives describe events and need an eventive component (i.e., a Proc subevent) to be licensed, and the stative readings of rodear-verbs lack this eventive component. Adjectival passives, by contrast, need a stative component to be licensed (Rapp 1996), and in the constructions here explored this stative component is available both in the eventive alternant and in the stative one: it corresponds to the target state.

Quite interestingly, the adjectival passives of rodear-verbs can appear either with a by-phrase identifying an underlying external argument that is neither a Causer nor an Agent, and which corresponds to an entity which is present in the target state to guarantee that such a state holds (cf. (76)b and (80)b), or with an adjunct PP identifying the Means, which also corresponds to an element necessary for the target state to hold (cf. (78)b). Even though both the (non-causative and non-agentive) by-phrase and the Means-denoting PP are available in the adjectival passive ((81)a), they cannot co-occur ((81)b).

    1. (81)
    1. a.
    1.   La
    2.   the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeada
    2. surrounded
    1. {con
    2.   with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla/
    2. fence
    1. por
    2. by
    1. soldados}.
    2. soldiers
    1.   ‘The house is surrounded {with a fence/ by soldiers}.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *La
    2.   the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeada
    2. surrounded
    1. con
    2. with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla
    2. fence
    1. por
    2. by
    1. soldados.
    2. soldiers

This is due, we claim, to the fact that the by-phrase recovering the underlying external argument and the Means-denoting PP adjunct occupy the same position in the structure of the adjectival passive, since they both identify the same type of participant: a participant that is necessary for the target state to hold. As illustrated in (82), the same participant can be encoded in the shape of a Means-denoting PP or in the shape of a by-phrase (cf. § 3.2).22

    1. (82)
    1. a.
    1. La
    2. the
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. rodeada
    2. surrounded
    1. {con
    2.   with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla/
    2. fence
    1. por
    2. by
    1. una
    2. a
    1. valla}.
    2. fence
    1. ‘The house is surrounded {with a fence/ by a fence}.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. El
    2. the
    1. cuerpo
    2. body
    1. está
    2. is.loc
    1. cubierto
    2. covered
    1. {con
    2.   with
    1. una
    2. a
    1. manta/
    2. blanket
    1. por
    2. by
    1. una
    2. a
    1. manta}.
    2. blanket
    1. ‘The body is covered {with a blanket/ by a blanket}.’

Accordingly, we propose that they are both merged as adjuncts of the target state, as illustrated below.

    1. (83)
    1. Analysis of (82)a

Notice that the analysis we propose for the adjectival passives of rodear-verbs assumes that they keep the entire configuration of the target state, but that they leave out the EvtP licensing the external argument as a DP specifier (Ramchand 2018) and the causative and eventive projections available in the eventive version of these verbs (i.e., Init and Proc). The participial morphology is the spell-out of a dedicated projection, Asp(ect) (Embick 2003; 2004), merged on top of the target state. The aspectual projection merges in turn with a Pred(ication) head (Bowers 1993; Baker 2003), spelled out by the copula (cf. Den Dikken 2006), that defines the construction as a (non-verbal) predicate and licenses the underlying object in its specifier position, where it is interpreted as the subject of the predication.

In sum, our account allows deriving the behaviour of rodear-predicates when included in passive constructions and supports the assumption that for a verbal passive to be available, an eventive component must be involved, whereas for an adjectival passive to be available, a stative component is needed. Besides, it shows the correspondence existing between the by-phrases of the adjectival passives of rodear-verbs and the adjunct PP specifying the Means.

5 Conclusion

This study has dealt with the argument/event structure alternation shown by Spanish extent-verbs of the type of rodear ‘surround’, which have an eventive reading that involves an Initiator (i.e., an Agent or Causer) subject and a stative reading that involves a non-Initiator subject. We have demonstrated that the eventive version is not just eventive, but that it has a composite denotation that includes both a change of state and a target SL state (Kratzer 2000). The stative version, by contrast, has been demonstrated to describe a non-causative state that corresponds to the target SL state included in the eventive version.

Following a neo-constructionist approach to the domain of argument and event structure, we have proposed that the roots of these verbs may enter two different event structure configurations, and we have derived the different interpretation of the subject in the eventive and the stative alternants from the syntax of each of these configurations. In the eventive reading, the subject is defined as an Agent or Causer (i.e., an Initiator) because the event structure contains a Proc(ess) subevent dominated by an Init(iation) subevent (cf. Ramchand 2008; 2018), i.e., a causative event. In the stative reading, it cannot be interpreted as an Agent or Causer because the event structure lacks these subeventive heads. In both cases, though, the subject is an external argument, introduced in the Ev(en)tP(hrase). As for the direct object (i.e., the internal argument), it in both readings corresponds to the holder of a target SL state, which is the type of state that embeds a path structure (cf. Gibert-Sotelo 2017). Such a target state is directly dominated by the EvtP introducing the subject argument in the stative reading, the subject being thus interpreted as the entity that ensures that this state holds. In the eventive reading, the target state is the complement of the Proc head, and accordingly it is structurally defined as a result state.

Our account has certain theoretical consequences: it assumes that Agents and Causers are structurally equivalent, it provides evidence in favour of the need to sever the external argument from the causative subevent, and it demonstrates that verbal passives can only be obtained from configurations containing an eventive head, whereas adjectival passives need a stative layer to be licensed. It also shows that the interaction between argument and event structure alternations can be elegantly accounted for by means of a non-derivational approach in which arguments are interpreted depending on the position they take in the event structure.

Notes

  1. In Spanish, eventive passives (ser + past participle) in imperfective tenses, such as El pueblo es/era rodeado por soldados ‘The village is/was surrounded by soldiers’, are quite unnatural, and their meaning rather corresponds to the passive progressive: ‘The village is/was being surrounded by soldiers’. To avoid this problem, we exemplify eventive passives in perfective tenses throughout the paper. [^]
  2. As is known, certain manner adverbials are compatible with states in cases such as Conocer a alguien personalmente ‘To know someone personally’ or Amar a alguien platónicamente ‘To love someone platonically’ (Mittwoch 2005). We use velocity manner adverbs as a more accurate diagnostic to separate states from dynamic predicates (Fábregas & Marín 2017). [^]
  3. According to Maienborn (2005), there are at least two types of states: Kimian and Davidsonian. Kimian states (e.g., belong, hate) are ‘pure’ states (Kim 1976), and as such they pass most tests on stativity (Dowty 1979) and do not include any extra argument. Davidsonian states (e.g., shine, wait) correspond to situations halfway between states and events, given that they exhibit stative properties (strict subinterval property, no anaphoric reference by this happened) as well as eventive properties (compatibility with perception verbs, manner and place modification). In a complementary way, Fábregas & Marín (2017) consider that Davidsonian states can be conceived as non-dynamic events; cf. also Silvagni (2017). [^]
  4. The opposite option is, of course, available, but it is not the most salient one. [^]
  5. All the English examples of this subsection (§ 2.3.2) are taken or adapted from Rappaport Hovav (2018), except for those included in (31). [^]
  6. An Anonymous reviewer points out that A blanket covers the couch has a progressive counterpart, A blanket is covering the couch, which would suggest that this predicate is not stative, but eventive —given that it is commonly assumed that only eventive predicates go in the progressive. While it is true that A blanket covers the couch has, strictly speaking, a progressive counterpart, the progressive sentence A blanket is covering the couch is only progressive in its form, not in its meaning: it does not refer to any eventuality in progress. In fact, some authors have recognized that the progressive is not a conclusive test on the eventivity of a predicate (see, e.g., García-Pardo 2020). Besides, the Spanish counterpart of the progressive sentence is not fully aceptable: #Una manta está cubriendo el sofá. [^]
  7. An anonymous reviewer wonders whether we understand causative verbs in terms of event structure (i.e., which sub-events are present). In fact, this is the case: we understand causative verbs as involving a causative subevent (Init in the terms of Ramchand 2008, 2018) in their event structure. As a side-effect, those predicates with a causative subevent allow the argument associated with it to bear causative semantics (and hence to be interpreted as an Initiator in the system here assumed). See § 4.1 for more details on the formalization we adopt in the analysis of event (and argument) structure. [^]
  8. Resultant states, in the sense of Parsons (1990) and Kratzer (2000), are related to perfect aspect and hence defined as non-reversible states that hold forever after an event has culminated. Target states are the final states obtained as natural outcomes of an event of change, and they “may or may not last for a long time” (Parsons 1990: 235). Target states are thus mostly equivalent to what other authors (e.g., Ramchand 2008) call result states (cf. § 4.1). Following insights in Kratzer (2000: 386), though, we also understand that target states must not necessarily have event implications (they may not be results to previous processes), describing “states that are in principle reversible” and which “hence can be transitory”. In this last sense, target states correspond to SL states. [^]
  9. On the original distinction between IL and SL predicates, see Carlson (1977). Like Maienborn (2005), we assume that both IL and SL predicates are Kimian states, as opposed to Davidsonian states. [^]
  10. Within Talmy’s (1975) system, Figure corresponds to the entity in motion or being located, whereas Ground refers to the reference object that allows establishing the position of the Figure. [^]
  11. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, determining the space that the Figure occupies could also be the job of a place-denoting expression. Note in this regard that, following Wunderlich (1991), Svenonius (2010), or Acedo-Matellán (2021), among others, we assume the Place head to define a region, that is, “a contiguous set of points in space” (Svenonius 2010: 131). As for the Path head, we understand it as an extended region (Wunderlich 1991), namely an ordered sequence of locations (Acedo-Matellán 2021) defined in relation to an axis along which change in location can be tracked and measured (Gawron 2005). Accordingly, we conclude that the PPs in (41) and (42), which determine a set of locations along which change in space can be measured, are related to Path and not to Place. [^]
  12. Note, moreover, that purpose clauses are in certain cases compatible with uncontroversial stative predicates, as in Pedro estaba sentado en primera fila a propósito/ para no perderse detalle ‘Pedro was sitting in the front row on purpose/so as not to miss any detail’, and not for that reason we assume that they are agentive. In these cases, the possibility of including a purpose clause could be linked to the fact that these predicates correspond to SL states, i.e., to states that are subject to change over time (Bosque & Gutiérrez-Rexach 2009: 313–315). As a general remark, we firmly believe that much more evidence is needed to change the widely accepted generalization, since the very beginning of aspectual theory (Dowty 1979), that stativity is not compatible with agentivity. [^]
  13. The idea that verbal predicates can be decomposed into smaller pieces so as to capture and classify their behaviour goes back to Dowty (1979) and has since then been approached from two main perspectives: the projectionist (or lexicalist) one, according to which argument structure is projected from the lexical semantics of the verb, and the (neo)constructionist one, which assumes instead that the grammatically relevant meaning of predicates is encoded in the syntax, which allows verbal roots to enter different syntactic contexts. See Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2005), Rothmayr (2009), or Acedo-Matellán (2018) for a critical survey. [^]
  14. Note that in Ramchand (2008), both Init and Res are assumed to be states, and accordingly in such a model both the Init and Res heads could be labelled State. However, in Ramchand (2018: 79) the claim is made that “the Init head introduces causation but not an external argument”, in contrast to the Res head, a proper stative head that licenses an argument in its specifier that is interpreted as the holder of a (result) state. [^]
  15. Even though the subject los árboles ‘the trees’ can be conceptualized as a located Figure and the internal argument el pueblo ‘the village’ as the Ground or reference object (cf. § 2.3.4), from a structural point of view the internal argument, merged in the specifier of Place, corresponds to the Figure, and the verb root, which appears in the complement of Place, is the (abstract) Ground. Notice, though, that the internal argument el pueblo ‘the village’ also corresponds to the Measurer of the Path, and hence it is understood to define an extension. [^]
  16. In fact, when a measure phrase is added to further specify the path, this measure phrase operates on the measure delimited by the DP internal argument. Hence, in a sentence such as Los árboles rodeaban la mitad del pueblo ‘The trees surrounded half of the village’, the measure phrase la mitad de ‘half of’ modifies the measure defined by the DP el pueblo ‘the village’, and so the path involved in the eventuality is understood to extend through half of the village. We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to our attention. [^]
  17. In the tree represented in (62), State is not an empty head, since it is associated with overt morphology, in particular, with the verbalizing suffix -e(ar). Like Hale & Keyser (2002: 47), we are assuming that a phonological matrix is inserted into the head that governs it if it is empty or affixal, thus producing a single word. Note further that the theme vowel (-a) is not allocated a position in the structure, given that its status is an issue still under discussion (see Oltra-Massuet 1999 for a seminal proposal within Distributed Morphology). [^]
  18. The non-derived nature of this alternation may be supported by information structure. It is widely claimed that a sentence with a broad focus interpretation is part of the basic syntactic patterns of a language (Erteschik-Shir 2007; Fernández-Soriano 1999; Jiménez-Fernández 2023; among others), and that the broad focus reading is confirmed when the relevant sentence may be used in an out-of-the-blue context (Fábregas et al. 2017). The two sentences in (61) and (63) have broad focus —since they can be uttered in an out-of-the-blue context—, which supports the view that one pattern cannot be derived syntactically from the other. [^]
  19. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, identifying the snow with an Initiator in (65) does not seem to account for the fact that it is an argument that also identifies the material that covers the mountain, which is in fact the interpretation corresponding to a Means. To solve this apparent puzzle, we argue that when no Means-encoding PP is present, the subject is understood to be both Initiator and Means, but it cannot be recovered through a PP because it would be uninformative (?La nieve cubrió las montañas {de/con} nieve ‘The snow covered the mountains with snow’). Even though PPs expressing Means are related to the target SL state and not to the eventive part of the structure (cf. § 3.1), their presence is only possible in the eventive and causative versions of these verbs and not in the stative non-causative ones. This is probably due to the fact that the subject of the stative (non-causative) reading receives an interpretation that corresponds to that of the Means phrase: both identify elements that are required for the result state to hold. Therefore, in the stative uses of rodear-verbs the subject is in fact a Means, and so it is never duplicated by a Means-denoting PP. See § 4.3.3 for evidence for this claim from the adjectival (i.e., stative) passives of these verbs. [^]
  20. Although it has often been argued that Agents and Causers should be structurally distinguished (Alexiadou & Schäfer 2006; see also Dowty 1979 or Reinhart 2000), we take the view that these thematic notions can be reduced to a more abstract category, that of Initiator, which identifies the “entity whose properties/behaviour are responsible for the eventuality coming into existence” (Ramchand 2008: 24). Evidence in favour of this claim comes from the fact that external arguments show the same behaviour when submitted to linguistic diagnostics for unaccusativity irrespective of their interpretation as Agents or Causers. Hence, and as illustrated below with examples adapted from Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2000), unaccusative verbs can be causativized and hence accept a Causer or an Agent subject (i); unergative verbs, by contrast, cannot causativize, and this is true for verbs with agentive subjects ((ii)a) and for verbs with non-agentive subjects ((ii)b):
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1. The bowling ball rolled (into the room).
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. {The bowler/The wind} rolled the bowling ball (into the room).
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. The children laughed. /*The puppet laughed the children.
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. The soup bubbled. /*The chef bubbled the soup.
    [^]
  21. The default reading of (69) is stative. Yet, if a purpose clause is added, as in Los soldados rodean el edificio desde las ocho para que nadie entre ‘Soldiers surround the building from 8 o’clock in order that nobody enters’, a previous event is also described, and so we are not dealing with the stative version of the predicate, but with the composite eventive one, which involves a change of state and a target state. In that case, it is not only relevant that the soldiers are placed around the building (from 8 o’clock), but also that they have been placed there actively (in order that nobody enters). The PP desde las ocho ‘from 8 o’clock’ would then refer to the stative part of the eventuality (the target state), whereas the purpose clause para que nadie entre ‘in order that nobody enters’ would take scope over the eventive part. See discussion in § 3.3. [^]
  22. In fact, even though it has been demonstrated in § 3.1 that rodear-verbs do not enter the Instrument-subject alternation, they however show an alternation that could be labelled the Means-subject alternation, since they allow the Means-PP available in many of the eventive occurrences of these verbs to emerge as a subject in the stative reading; cf. La policía cubrió el cuerpo con una manta ‘The police covered the body with a blanket’ vs. Una manta cubría el cuerpo ‘A blanket covered the body’ (examples adapted from García-Pardo 2017: 235). [^]

Abbreviations

1 = first person, 3 = third person, dat = dative, dom = differential object marking, DP = determiner phrase, ipfv = imperfective, loc = locative, pl = plural, PP = prepositional phrase, refl = reflexive, sbjv = subjunctive, sg = singular

Funding information

The first author acknowledges support from the Serra Húnter Programme (Generalitat de Catalunya) and the research projects PID2022-136610NB-I00 and PID2021-123617NB-C42 (MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and ERDF/EU).

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their accurate comments and suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the quality of the paper. We also wish to thank the editors of this special issue for their continued support. Thanks also go to the audiences of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (online, 2021) and the 31st Colloquium on Generative Grammar (Palma, 2022), where previous versions of this work were presented.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

References

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

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2018. Exoskeletal Versus Endoskeletal Approaches in Morphology. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Online Publication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.585

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2021. Goal, source, and route preverbs in Latin: Their interaction with spatial datives. The Linguistic Review 38(2). 233–266. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2064

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: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Real-Puigdollers, Cristina. 2015. Location and locatum verbs revisited: Evidence from aspect and quantification. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 62(2). 111–140. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1556/064.2015.62.2.1

Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.4.187

Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Instrument Subjects Are Agents or Causers. In Baumer, Donald & Montero, David & Scanlon, Michael (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 40–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Arche, María J. 2006. Individuals in Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.94

Arche, María J. & Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2017. Towards a unified treatment of Spanish copulas. In Perpiñán, Silvia & Heap, David & Moreno-Villamar, Itziri & Soto Corominas, Adriana (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11. Selected papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario, 33–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.11.02arc

Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615047

Berro, Ane. 2015. Breaking verbs: From event structure to syntactic categories in Basque. University of the Basque Country dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/10810/16077

Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001

Borik, Olga & Gehrke, Berit. 2019. Participles: Form, use and meaning. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1). 109. 1–27. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1055

Bosque, Ignacio. 1999. El sintagma adjetival. Modificadores y complementos del adjetivo. Adjetivo y participio. In Bosque, Ignacio & Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 217–310. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

Bosque, Ignacio. 2014. On resultative past participles in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13. 41–77. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.155

Bosque, Ignacio & Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2009. Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal

Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178835

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.

Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: modals for the present and for the past. In Beaver, David & Kaufmann, Stefan & Clark, Brady & Casillas, Luis (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81–94. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.2307/jj.13027259.6

De Miguel, Elena. 1992. El aspecto en la sintaxis del español: Perfectividad e impersonalidad. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7

Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological identity. Studia Linguistica 57. 143–169. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0039-3193.2003.00102.x

Embick, David. 2004. On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 355–392. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402634

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001

Fábregas, Antonio & Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2017. ‘What’s up’ with dative experiencers? In Lopes, Ruth E. V. & Avelar, Juanito & Cyrino, Sonia M. L. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12. Selected Papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil, 29–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.12.03fab

Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2012. Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs. LSRL 42. Cedar City, UT: Southern Utah University. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WM2NzQ5N/FabregasMarin_2013_LSRL.pdf

Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2017. On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish. Linguistics 55(3). 451–488. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0001

Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 1999. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: Locative and dative subjects. Syntax 2(2). 101–140. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00017

García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2016. Deriving aspect-alternating verbs without θ-roles. In Hammerly, Christopher & Prickett, Brandon (eds.), NELS 46, vol. 1, 287–300. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2017. Location verbs and the instrument-subject alternation. In Kaplan, Aaron & Kaplan, Abby & McCarvel, Miranda & Rubin, Edward J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 232–240. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/34/paper3316.pdf

García-Pardo, Alfredo. 2020. Stative inquiries: Causes, results, experiences, and locations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.264

Gawron, Jean Mark. 2005. Generalized paths. In Georgala, Effi & Howell, Jonathan (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XV. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Gawron, Jean Mark. 2009. The lexical semantics of extent verbs. Ms, San Diego State University. https://gawron.sdsu.edu/submitted_spatial_aspect.pdf

Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events (LOT Dissertation Series 184). Utrecht: LOT Publications.

Gehrke, Berit & Marco, Cristina. 2014. Different by-phrases with adjectival and verbal passives: Evidence from Spanish corpus data. Lingua 149. 188–214. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.011

Gennari, Silvia. 2002. Spanish past and future tenses: Less (semantics) is more. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics, 21–36. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9780585475295_004

Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth. 2017. Source and negative prefixes: On the syntax-lexicon interface and the encoding of spatial relations. Girona: Universitat de Girona dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/461414

Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth. 2022. Los participios adjetivales: Clasificación y análisis sintáctico. Revista Signos 55(109). 501–531. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342022000200501

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

Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001

Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125. 34–57. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010

Helmantel, Marjon. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain (LOT Dissertation Series 66). Utrecht: LOT Publications.

Hengeveld, Kees. 1986. Copular verbs in a functional grammar of Spanish. Linguistics 24. 393–420. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.2.393

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jaque, Matías. 2014. La expresión de la estatividad en español: Niveles de representación y grados de dinamicidad. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/10486/661873

Jaque, Matías. 2017. Causatividad y estatividad: algunos ejemplos del español. Boletín de filología 52(1). 167–211. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-93032017000100167

Jiménez, Silvia & Marín, Rafael. 2002. Por activa y por pasiva. IV Congreso de Lingüistica General, 1501–1514. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz.

Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2023. The heterogeneous nature of verbal alternations: What information structure can tell us about it. Isogloss 9(4)/6. 1–44. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.309

Kim, Jaegwon. 1976. Events as Property Exemplifications. In Brand, Myles & Walton, Douglas (eds.), Proceedings of the Winnipeg Conference on Human Action, 159–177. Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9074-2_9

Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Conathan, Lisa J. & Good, Jeff & Kavitskaya, Darya & Wulf, Alyssa B. & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 385–399. Berkeley, CA: BLS. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1131

Leonetti, Manuel. 1994. Ser y estar: Estado de la cuestión. Barataria 1. 182–205.

Levin, Beth & Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 623–661.

Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479

Lundquist, Björn. 2012. Localizing cross-linguistic variation in Tense systems: On telicity and stativity in Swedish and English. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(1). 27–70. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/S033258651200011X

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

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis & Siegel, Laura & Surek-Clark, Clarissa & Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2), 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Linguistics Club.

Marín, Rafael. 2010. Spanish adjectives within bounds. In Cabredo, Patricia & Matushansky, Ora (eds.), Adjectives. Formal analyses in syntax and semantics, 307–331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.153.09mar

Marín, Rafael. 2016. Ser y estar. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (ed.), Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, vol. 2, 13–24. London/New York: Routledge. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713441

Marín, Rafael & McNally, Louise. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity. Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 48(1). 35–70. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9127-3

Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Bosque, Ignacio & Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 1575–1629. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.

Mittwoch, Anita. 2005. Do states have Davidsonian arguments? Some empirical considerations. In Maienborn, Claudia & Wöllstein, Angelika (eds.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, 69–88. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.69

Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 1999. On the notion of theme vowel: a new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. SM Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pylkkänen, Liina. 1999. Causation and external arguments. In Pylkkänen, Liina & van Hout, Angeliek & Harley, Heidi (eds.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon, 161–183. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35.

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

Ramchand, Gillian C. 2018. Situations and syntactic structures: Rethinking auxiliaries and order in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262037754.001.0001

Rapp, Irene. 1996. Zustand Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten “Zustandspassiv”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15(2). 231–265. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1996.15.2.231

Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2018. Scalar structure as an aspectual property of state roots. BCGL 11: The syntax and semantics of aspect. Brussels: CRISSP, KU Leuven.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka. In press. Uncovering the scale: On the interaction between the semantics of roots and functional structure. In Autry, Robert & de la Cruz, Gabriela & Irizarry-Figueroa, Luis A. & Mihajlovic, Kristina & Ni, Tianyi & Smith, Ryan & Harley, Heidi (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2000. Classifying single argument verbs. In Everaert, Martin & Coopmans, Peter & Grimshaw, Jane (eds.), Lexical Specification and Insertion, 269–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.13hov

Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta system: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. UiL-OTS Working Papers. University of Utrecht.

Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.143

Silvagni, Federico. 2017. Entre estados y eventos: un estudio del aspecto interno del español. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/405516

Soto, Guillermo. 2008. Sobre el llamado futuro de probabilidad. Algunas condiciones del valor modal de -ré. Boletín de Filología XLIII. 193–206.

Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Cartography of syntactic structures, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimbal, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 181–238. New York: Academic Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368828_008

Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Culicover, Peter (ed.), Formal Syntax, 327–360. New York: Academic Press.

Wilson, Michael. 2020. The reversible core of object experiencer, location, and govern-type verbs. In Baird, Maggie & Pesetsky, Jonathan (eds.), Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 3, 285–294. Amherst: GLSA.

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29(4). 591–621. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591