On the Integration of Dative Adjuncts into Event Structures in Yapa Languages

Abstract

Warlpiri and Warlmanpa (Ngumpin-Yapa languages of Australia) exhibit a complex predicate construction in which a class of preverbs introduces a single argument that is not shared by the argument structure of the inflecting verb, nor is there necessarily any shared event structure. This is problematic for many theories of linking structures of complex predicates, since no arguments or events are shared between the predicative elements of the complex predicate. The same grammatical relation is instantiated by a beneficiary adjunct. In light of new research in event and argument structure, I propose a lexical rule which introduces an applicative argument to account for the beneficiary construction; and that the preverbs take another predicate as one of their arguments to account for the complex predicates. The applicative rule and the preverbs both introduce an argument of the same grammatical relation, leading to interesting interactions, given that two grammatical relations of the same type are not expected to co-occur within a single clause.

1. Introduction

This paper investigates a particular grammatical relation, referred to as ‘external object’, found in two Australian languages, Warlpiri and Warlmanpa. This grammatical relation can be introduced to a clause in two ways. Firstly, through an ‘ethical dative’, which signals a benefactive, malefactive, or possessive relation. This is an adjunct in the sense that it is not grammatically obligatory, and can be added to essentially any clause, yet is treated morphosyntactically akin to a core grammatical relation. Secondly, the grammatical relation can also be introduced in complex predicates. Specifically, in these complex predicates, one head, the ‘preverb’, serves only to introduce a dative-marked argument to the clause which is not shared by the ‘inflecting verb’ (a semantically underspecified verb, similar to light verbs in other languages). The resulting event structure cannot easily be captured by theories of complex predicate argument linking, as there is no argument shared by the two predicates of the complex predication in order for them to be linked.

I begin by overviewing the relevant aspects of the grammatical structure of Warlpiri and Warlmanpa in Section 2.1, and in Section 2.2, I detail the ‘external object’ grammatical relation in these languages. Section 2.3 provides a brief summary of the framework used in this paper.

A previous account of external objects (Simpson 1991) argues that it may be selected for by the dative case, which I argue against in Section 3.1. I attempt to build on Simpson’s analysis in light of new research on event structure, particularly in regard to Kifle’s (2011) treatment of applicatives (which itself is a revision of Bresnan and Moshi 1993, p. 73) to account for the ethical dative construction (Section 3.2), and Butt’s (1998, 2014) analysis of Argument Raising to account for the preverbs which introduce external objects (Section 3.3). The paper concludes by discussing two points of interest. Firstly, since this paper and Simpson (1991) treat external objects as grammatical relation, the analysis needs to account for the grammaticality of multiple external objects occurring in clauses in Warlpiri (Section 4.1), since uniqueness principles stipulate that each grammatical relation should only be instantiated by one argument in a clause. Secondly, the analysis needs to account for the preverbs which may introduce an external object but are also grammatical without an external object (Section 4.2).

2. Warlpiri and Warlmanpa

Warlpiri and Warlmanpa are Pama-Nyungan languages of Australia, exhaustively encompassing the Yapa subgroup of Ngumpin-Yapa (Figure 1).

Warlpiri has been the subject of extensive research, particularly in regard to phonological, morphological, and syntactic analysis, as well as language contact (Hale 1973, 1976, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1983; Nash 1980, 2008; Swartz 1982, 1991; Bavin and Shopen 1985; Simpson 1988, 1991, 2005, 2007; Laughren 1989, 1992, 2010, 2017; Bittner and Hale 1995; Hale et al. 1995; Legate 2001, 2002, 2008; Granites and Laughren 2001; Pentland and Laughren 2004; Harvey and Baker 2005; O’Shannessy 2005; Bowler 2014, 2016, 2017; Bundgaard-Nielsen and O’Shannessy 2019; Browne 2020). Warlmanpa has been less well-studied, but has been the subject of a vocabulary and grammatical analysis (Nash 1979; Browne 2021, respectively). The languages share extensive structural features (some explicit comparisons are made in Nash 1997, 2016). Here, I focus on the components of grammar pertinent to the realisation of (and distinctions between) arguments and adjuncts in a clause.

2.1. Grammatical Overview

Both Warlpiri and Warlmanpa are ‘free word order’ languages (constraints are analysed in Laughren 2002; Simpson and Mushin 2008) in which nominals co-referent with arguments are grammatically optional. The languages exhibit a second position phenomenon referred to as the ‘auxiliary’ or ‘auxiliary complex’ (see McConvell 1996a). The auxiliary is a complex locus of grammatical information; of particular concern to us will be the bound pronouns (or ‘pronominal enclitics’), which form part of the auxiliary complex. The function of the bound pronouns is to register the person, number, and grammatical relation of event participants (Laughren 1999, 2013; Mushin 2006). Notably, the bound pronouns only register core grammatical relations—adjuncts are not registered (and those which are registered are the topic of this paper). Bound pronouns distinguish subject from non-subject (objects and obliques are registered with syncretic forms), other than the third person singular series, which distinguishes oblique from non-oblique (where the non-oblique form is phonologically null). Non-animate event participants are generally not registered regardless of grammatical relation, although non-animate oblique arguments provide the exception, as they are generally registered with =rla regardless of number (Browne 2021, p. 320).

A Warlmanpa sentence is given in (1).1 In this sentence, the inflecting verb pa- ‘go’ is an intransitive motion verb, taking a single subject argument. This argument is first person singular, which is overtly expressed with the free pronoun ngayu ‘I’ and is registered by the bound pronoun =rna (which has encliticised to the first constituent of the clause). There is an allative-marked adjunct pulka ‘old man’ to indicate the goal of motion, but because this is an adjunct rather than a core argument, it is not registered by a bound pronoun.

1.	Ngayu=ma=rna	pa-nanga	pulka-ka.
	1=top=1sg.s	go-past.away	old_man-all
	‘I went to the old man.’2 (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 126)

The forms of the bound pronouns are given in

Table 1. Forms of bound pronouns in Warlmanpa (a) and Warlpiri (b).

	S	NS		S	NS
1sg	=rna	=ju	1sg	=rna	=ju
1du.excl	=ja(rra)	=jangu	1du.excl	=rlijarra	=jarrangku
1du.incl	=li	=ngali	1du.incl	=rli	=ngali(ngki)
1pl.excl	=rnalu	=nganpa	1pl.excl	=rnalu	=nganpa
1pl.incl	=lpa(lu)	=lpangu	1pl.incl	=rlipa	=ngalpa
2sg	=n(ku)	=ngu	2sg	=n(pa)	=ngku
2du	=npala	=ngupala	2du	=n(pa)pala	=ngkupala
2pl	=nkulu	=nyangu	2pl	=nkulu	=nyarra
(3)sg	∅	∅	(3)sg	∅	∅
(3)du	=pala	=palangu	(3)du	=pala	=palangu
(3)pl	=lu	=jana	(3)pl	=lu	=jana
refl/recp	–	=nyanu	refl/recp	–	=nyanu
Oblique	–	=rla	Oblique	–	=rla
(a)			(b)

. The core grammatical relations (following Simpson 1991) are subject, object, and objectθ (objectθ is prototypically the theme of a ditransitive verb); and the bound pronouns make a primary distinction between the subject series (S) and the non-subject series (NS). The bound pronouns have complex combinatorial properties when multiple arguments are cross-referenced in a given clause (see Hale 1973 for a more detailed overview; and Meakins et al., forthcoming for an overview of bound pronouns in Ngumpin-Yapa languages).3

The major parts of speech in both languages are nominals, inflecting verbs, preverbs (elsewhere referred to as coverbs for Warlmanpa), adverbs, and particles. A minimal clause comprises a predicate (which can be a nominal or an inflecting verb) and the auxiliary. An example of a minimal clause is given in (2). In this case, the inflecting verb is wa- ‘speak’ with a present tense inflection. The auxiliary is phonologically null, as the third person subject is singular and, therefore, not realised with an overt bound pronoun.

2.	Wa-nganya=∅.
	speak-pres=3sg.s
	‘He’s speaking.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 349)

Nominals have a rich case system: core relations are marked according to an ergative-absolutive pattern (Simpson 1988; Hale et al. 2015), and a large inventory of semantic cases, which marks various adjunct relations, as well as adnominal and derivational suffixes. Non-finite subordinate clauses utilise the nominal case system (and dedicated complementising suffixes) to mark constituents of the subordinate clause (Austin 1981; Simpson 1988).

Both languages have a small inventory of inflecting verbs: 45 inflecting verbs are reported in Warlmanpa (Browne 2021), and approximately 130 are reported in Warlpiri (Nash 2008). Inflecting verbs obligatorily take one TAM inflection (with the TAM value being realised in combination with the auxiliary base, particularly in Warlpiri). Warlpiri and Warlmanpa also exhibit a number of complex predicates. The focus of this paper is combinations of preverbs and inflecting verbs. Preverbs bear the main semantic load of predication, if present, and there are significantly more preverbs than inflecting verbs in both languages. These types of complex predicates are discussed in further detail in Section 3.3.

2.2. Simpson’s ‘External Object’

In the grammatical overview, the core grammatical relations listed were subject, object, and objectθ. These grammatical relations are best identified by a combination of (a) case marking of nominals, (b) the bound pronoun series used to register the argument, and (c) the control properties of the argument with regard to non-finite subordinate clauses (each type of non-finite subordinate clause can only be controlled by particular grammatical relations). Case marking and bound pronoun registration patterns of grammatical relations in Warlpiri are shown in

Table 2. Identifying core grammatical relations in Warlpiri.

Grammatical Relation	Subject	Object	Objectθ
Case marking	erg/abs	abs/dat	abs
Bound pronouns	Subject series	Non-subject series (=rla if 3sg.dat)	Non-subject series

(following Simpson 1991).4

Simpson (1991) argues for the need to recognise further grammatical relations in Warlpiri—of which one, the ‘external object’, is pertinent to an analysis of preverb + inflecting verb constructions and ethical dative constructions in these languages.

The external object can be added freely to essentially any (main) clause, is realised by dative case marking on the nominal (if overt), and is registered by the non-subject series of bound pronouns (=rla is used if 3sg.s; see also Browne 2021, pp. 317–20).5 When added to a clause, the semantic interpretation of the external object is that the entity being referred to is affected by the situation (referred to as ‘ethical dative’), specifically as a benefactive, malefactive, or possessor (these possible interpretations are cross-linguistically common: Lichtenberk 2002). The same construction is found in Warlmanpa: for example, (3a) is a transitive clause without an external object. There is an ergative-marked subject and absolutive (unmarked) object, and neither argument is overtly registered by the bound pronouns because they are both third person singular (as shown in Table 1). The clause in (3b) has the same predicate, kupa- ‘cook’, and this clause has an external object, which indicates that the cooking action was performed for the child. The external object here is realised with a dative-marked nominal kurtu ‘child’ and registered with the oblique bound pronoun =rla.

3.	a.	Nampijinpa-rlu	kupa-rnu-rra	yarnununju.
		<subsection>6-erg	cook-past-impf	veg_food
		‘Nampijinpa was cooking vegetables.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 112)
	b.	Yarnunju=rla	kurtu-ku	kupa-nnya.
		veg_food=3.obl	child-dat	cook-pres
		‘He’s cooking vegetables for the child.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 119)

As shown in Table 2, objects can be marked with dative case (this is often in the presence of an objectθ, though not necessarily; there are some predicates which select for an ERG or ABS subject with a DAT object). In Browne (2021), I distinguish between ‘indirect object’ and ‘object’, where the former is marked with dative case and the latter is marked with absolutive case. This distinction is not made in Simpson’s (1991) analysis (both are subsumed under ‘object’), or indeed LFG more generally, and as such, I have not made this distinction here.

The morphosyntax of objects and external objects is extremely similar: both are registered with the same series of bound pronouns, and with dative marking on any overt nominal. There are three notable differences between the two grammatical relations. Firstly, a predicate can select for an object, but external objects are typically not selected for; rather, they are added to a clause (though there are a small number of counterexamples, taken up below and in Section 3). Secondly, objects can control the subject of -kurra subordinate clauses, whereas external objects cannot. Thirdly, the two grammatical relations can co-occur, and a clause cannot contain two of the same grammatical relation (e.g., there cannot be two subjects in a clause), reinforcing that these are two genuinely distinct grammatical relations.7 An example of the two grammatical relations co-occurring is given in (4), where the object is karli-ku ‘boomerang-dat’, and the external object is registered by the bound pronoun =ju ‘(for) me’.

4.	Karli-ku=ju-rla	yapa-kanyanu-rlu	wayi-nnya.
	boomerang-dat=1sg.ns-3.obl	person-another-erg	search-pres
	Someone else is looking for a boomerangIO for meEO. (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 152)

So, despite not being subcategorised for by the main predicate, external objects are registered by the bound pronouns, just as core grammatical relations are (and adjuncts are not). As with other core grammatical relations, external objects do not require overt nominals to represent them, as in (5), where the only exponent of the external object is the bound pronoun =ngku ‘2sg.ns’. The major distinction between dative-marked objects and external objects is the inability for an external object to control a subordinate -kurra clause, whereas objects are able to control -kurra subordinate clauses (this will be discussed in further detail in Section 3).

5.	Kularda=ju	rdilyki	yu-ngka	Yungu=rna-ngku	ngurrju-ma-ni.
	Spear=1sg.ns	broken	give-imp	reas=1sg.s-2sg.ns	good-caus-npst
	Give me the broken spear so I can fix it for you. (Warlpiri: Simpson (1991), p. 383)

The core grammatical relations of Warlpiri, including external object, are given in

Table 3. Identifying core grammatical relations in Warlpiri, including external object.

Grammatical Relation	Subject	Object	Objectθ	Ext. Object
Case marking	erg/abs	abs/dat	abs	dat
Bound pronouns	Subject series	Non-subject series (=rla if 3sg.dat)	Non-subject series	Non-subject series (=rla if 3sg.dat)

.

Simpson (1991, pp. 396–400) identifies one inflecting verb in Warlpiri which selects for an external object: parda-rni ‘wait for’. There are no evident matrix predicates in Warlmanpa which select for an external object.

A class of preverbs constrain the interpretation of an external object. For example, in (6), the external object is first person singular, registered by the bound pronoun =ju. Its interpretation is constrained by the preverb marlaja, which specifies that the external object is the reason or cause of the main situation. The exact same structure without marlaja is grammatically acceptable, in which the interpretation of the external object would be the ethical dative (in this case, specifically a malefactive or possessive).

6.	Karli=ju	marlaja-kiit-wa-nganya	ngayi.
	Boomerang=1sg.ns	because_of-broken-speak-pres	really
	The boomerang is broken because of me really. (Warlmanpa: N_D02-007841, BN, 28:29 min)

The remainder of this paper aims to further investigate details pertinent to Simpson’s analysis of external objects, specifically: how are external objects integrated into the event structure of a clause?

2.3. The Framework

Before turning to a formal reanalysis of external objects in Warlpiri, I briefly present the framework. The underlying issues and solutions presented in this paper are intended to be relevant to any formulation of event structure regardless of specific theory; however, given Simpson’s (1991) analysis is grounded in LFG principles, I too attempt to follow these principles. To briefly summarise Simpson’s analysis, the argument structure of predicates can be represented by thematic roles, which are linked to feature specifications, and some further constraints/operations beyond the scope of this paper. These feature specifications determine the grammatical relations that the arguments are assigned to in a given clause. As Butt (2006) notes, it is the feature specifications represented by the thematic roles that are crucial to the argument structure of a predicate, and I will not dwell heavily on thematic roles here. The feature system for Warlpiri (and applicable to Warlmanpa) is given in

Table 4. Feature matrix of Warlpiri, adapted from Simpson (1991, p. 419).

	Feature	[Restricted]	[Object]	[Open]	[Direct]
Function
subject		−	−	−	+
object		−	+	−	+
objectθ		+	+	−	+
external object		−	−	+	unspecified

, adapted from Simpson (1991, p. 419), omitting a number of other grammatical relations that are not pertinent to this paper.

The linking rules between thematic role and features are described in detail in Simpson (1991, pp. 353–58, 417–21). The relevant aspect is that any argument which is [–r] can be linked to an external object. (Any objects will be assigned by virtue of [+object], and subjects will be assigned via the highest ranking thematic role, often leaving external objects as the only remaining [–restricted] argument.) Simpson (1991, pp. 417–18) justifies the assignment of [–restricted] to external objects on the basis of (i) the various thematic relations instantiated by external objects, and the external object’s ability to be registered by the bound pronouns, a morphosyntactic process only applicable to other [–restricted] grammatical relations. Two arguments can never be assigned the same grammatical relation (referred to as the ‘uniqueness’ principle).

To briefly exemplify, the predicate ma- ‘get, take’ in Warlpiri is specified for an agent and theme. Agents are intrinsically linked to [–object], and theme to [–restricted], and both to [–open] (Simpson 1991, p. 419). Both the agent and the theme are eligible for the subject grammatical relation (in terms of compatible features). Only the theme is compatible with the object grammatical relation (and neither are eligible for objectθ or external object grammatical relations). Since the theme is compatible with both grammatical relations but the agent is only compatible with the subject grammatical relation, to satisfy uniqueness, the agent is assigned subject and the theme is assigned object.

Naturally, the details of Simpson’s (1991) analysis are considerably more complex than presented here; however, this discussion will suffice for the issues presented in this paper. I now turn to the integration of external objects in Warlmanpa and Warlpiri.

3. Incorporating External Objects into Event Structure

This analysis will diverge from Simpson’s (1991) analysis of external objects in how the external object is introduced into a clause. Section 3.1 provides an overview of Simpson’s analysis, in which the dative case (and some predicates) can subcategorise for an external object, and provides arguments against this view. Section 3.2 introduces an applicative rule which accounts for the ethical dative uses of the external object, and Section 3.3 utilises Butt’s (1998) Argument Raising analysis of complex predicates to account for the preverbs which introduce external objects.

3.1. The Dative Case?

The most straightforward analysis is to attribute the function to the lexical specification of the dative case—such that the dative case (among its numerous other functions in the languages) can introduce an external object as an argument-taking predicate. This is the analysis pursued by Simpson (1991, pp. 382–84) and Hale (1981b):

The argument-taking predicate of an EXTERNAL OBJECT is the Dative case-suffix which marks the relation of an external participant to an event or an argument of the event.

(Simpson 1991, p. 383)

However, there are a few difficulties with this analysis. Firstly, as noted earlier, the nominal referring to the external object does not necessarily surface, as in (7a), where the only exponent of the external object is the registration by the oblique bound pronoun. This is not a violation of Simpson’s analysis, as the pronominal clitic =rla acts as the argument of the clause. However, in (7b), the preverb piki ‘hazard’ is used in a non-finite clause, and so its argument is not registered by a bound pronoun, nor is there an overt nominal (non-finite subordinate clauses are regularly reduced clauses comprising only a predicate and a complementising suffix).

7.	a.	Ali=ma=rla	Jungarrayi-rlu	karta-pu-ngunya.
		that=top=3.obl	<subsection>-erg	spear-act_on-pres
		Jungarrayi is digging that for him/her/it. (Warlmanpa: wrl-20180616-01, DK, 20:26 min)
	b.	Maliki-rli=ji	paju-rnu	piki-wanti-nja-kurra.
		dog-erg=eu	bite-past	hazard-fall-inf-objcomp
		The dog bit me when I fell in its way. (Warlpiri: Laughren et al. (2007))

This places a significant onus on the bound pronouns, which must be specified as representing the grammatical relation, rather than registering arguments (as noted by Simpson 1991, p. 384), and in the case of (7b), there is no overt bound pronoun or nominal, which can represent the grammatical relation.

Secondly, there is at least one inflecting verb in Warlpiri which subcategorises for an external object (Simpson 1991, pp. 396–97). Evidence for this comes from the general constraint that an external object cannot control a -kurra subordinate clause (contrasting with objects, which can). For example, the inflecting verb parda- requires an argument in the dative case, which Simpson argues is an external object, based on the ungrammaticality of sentences such as (8). If the dative-marked argument were an object, the clause would be grammatical, because an object is able to control a -kurra clause.

8.	*Ngaju	ka=rna-rla	parda-rni	Nakamarra-ku	[ngapa
	1	pres=1sg.s-3.obl	wait-npst	<subsection>-dat
	kardi-rninja-kurra-ku].
	fetch-inf-objcomp-dat
	I am waiting for Nakamarra while she is fetching water. (Warlpiri: Simpson (1991), p. 398)

Because of this, the analysis redundantly specifies the external object relation via two sources—unlike all other cases selected for by verbal predicates. Where the external object is selected for by a verbal predicate, the nominal is realised with dative case in its argument-relating function (in which the case relates the nominal to the grammatical structure of the clause). Yet, the dative case is also lexically specified as itself introducing an external object in its argument-taking function when it is not selected for by the matrix predicate (in which case, the case itself is the predicate and the nominal taking the case is its argument). These two predicates selecting for an external object can never co-occur in a clause (i.e., a verbal predicate cannot select for an external object argument in the same clause that an external object is introduced by dative case), which does not fall out from this analysis. Given that the external object relation is treated grammatically like a core relation, it would be expected that it cannot be the function of a case to subcategorise for an external object which is registered by a bound pronoun.

3.2. Applicatives

So far, we have seen that assigning the burden of introducing external objects to the dative case presents difficulties. Instead, I propose that external objects are introduced via a lexical rule. This lexical rule must introduce a new argument into the event structure of the predicate and link it to an external object. Adapting Kifle’s (2011, p. 230) analysis of applicatives in Tigrinya, which is revised from Bresnan and Moshi (1993, p. 73), this could be modelled as in (9).

9.	Applicative lexical rule (for Warlpiri and Warlmanpa)
				Ø
				⇓
	<	Arg1	…	Argappl	…	>
		[–o/–r]		[–r]

This rule expresses that a new core argument can be introduced into the argument structure of a predicate, and the argument must have the feature [–restricted] to allow it to link to the external object grammatical relation, following Simpson’s (1991, p. 419) analysis of grammatical relation features. In this view, the dative case marking ethical datives is not an argument-taking predicate, as analysed in Simpson (1991); rather it is an argument relater (i.e., the case is used to mark the nominal’s relation to the predicate). This treats the dative case in these instances as more akin to a core case, rather than semantic case (which primarily introduces adjuncts), reflecting the external object’s status as a core argument (as these arguments are treated by the grammars of Warlpiri and Warlmanpa).

The use of the feature [–restricted] naturally accounts for all cases of the applicative rule, including its ability to apply twice (but no more than twice), and the applicative argument’s capacity to (rarely) behave as an object grammatical relation.

The applicative rule must be able to apply twice, as a clause can have two applicative arguments, both registered in the bound pronouns, exemplified in (10).

10.	Kurdu-ku	ka=rla-jinta	jarnti-rni	yalumpuju	parraja.
	child-dat	pres=3.obl-3.obl2	trim-npst	that.near	coolamon
	‘He trims a coolamon for the child for its mother.’ (Warlpiri: Simpson (1991), p. 408)

The feature [–restricted] allows the applicative argument to link to the object grammatical relation (instead of the external object relation), which avoids two arguments being assigned the same grammatical relation (e.g., Bresnan’s 1982, p. 163 Biuniqueness of Function-Argument Assignments principle). Thus, if two applicative arguments are introduced, one can be realised as an external object, and the other as an object.

Relatedly, the analysis accurately predicts that the applicative rule cannot apply more than twice, since no other grammatical relations allow [–restricted] arguments (other than the subject, which will be obligatorily filled by a higher-ranking thematic role).

Finally, the rule also accounts for rare instances where an applicative argument can seemingly control a -kurra clause, as in (11), where the applicative argument ngatinyanu ‘her mother’ is controlling the non-finite predicate ngunanja ‘lying down’ (marked with -kurra). As discussed in Section 2.2, external objects are not expected to be able to control -kurra clauses, as this is restricted to the object grammatical relation. As before, the applicative argument being compatible with objects accounts for these cases.

11.	Kamina-rlu	ka=rla	mangarri	purra	ngati-nyanu-ku
	girl-erg	pres=3.obl	food	cook.npst	mother-self-dat
	nguna-nja-kurra-ku.
	lie-inf-objcomp-dat
	The girl is cooking food for her mother (who is) lying down. (Warlpiri: Simpson (1991), p. 385)

It is not clear what the constraints operating on this process are—clearly, the applicative rule prefers to link to an external object (rather than an object). I assume an object is only introduced by the applicative when there would otherwise be a violated constraint (i.e., only when there would be two external objects, or an unlinked -kurra clause), though clearly investigating the circumstances in which a (seemingly) external object can control a -kurra clause will help constrain this rule. Crucially, it can only apply to the ethical dative constructions—as discussed earlier, parda-rni selects for an external object (evidenced by its inability to control a -kurra clause), independent of the applicative rule (and so, the non-subject argument of parda-rni cannot be realised as an object).

To exemplify the simplest case of the applicative rule, consider (12), an example from Warlmanpa. The main predicate of (a) is an inflecting verb, pali- ‘die’, which is intransitive, taking a single absolutive argument, illustrated in (b). The first person singular external object has been integrated as a core grammatical relation (evidenced by being cross-referenced by =ju 1sg.ns), via the applicative rule, with the resulting event structure illustrated in (c).

12.	a.	Maliki=ju	ngayu-ku	palu-ngu.
		Dog=1sg.ns	1-dat	die-past
		‘The dog died on me.’ (Malefactive reading) ‘My dog died.’ (Possessive reading) (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 474)
	b.	pali- ‘die’
		die <	theme	>
			[–r]
			|
			SUBJ
	c.	pali ‘die’ + applicative lexical rule
		die <	theme	ben	>
			[–r]	[–r]
			|	|
			SUBJ	EX.OBJ

Similarly, for (10), where there was a transitive verb and two applicatives, the resolution of the applicative lexical rule would result in one being an object and the other as an external object. The argument structure of the inflecting verb purra is given in (13a), and the integration of the applicatives into this argument structure is given in (13b).8 Example (10) has an identical structure: an agent (realised as a subject), a theme (realised as an objectθ), and two applicative arguments (realised as an object and external object).

13.	a.	purra ‘cook’
		cook <	agent	theme	>
			[–o]	[–r]
			|	|
			SUBJ	OBJ
	b.	purra ‘cook’ + applicative lexical rule (applied twice)
		cook <	agent	theme	ben1	ben2	>
			[–o]	[+o]	[–r]	[–r]
			|	|	|	|
			SUBJ	OBJθ	OBJ	EX.OBJ

3.3. Complex Predicates

At the most basic level, a clause comprises a predicate and its argument(s). Complex predicates, i.e., mono-clausal predicates containing two or more predicational elements (Butt 2010, p. 74), have stimulated significant interest in their formation due to their multi-predicate nature (e.g., Amberber et al. 2010). This section will introduce complex predication in Warlmanpa and Warlpiri, and then, turn to ‘external object preverbs’, a subclass of preverbs which introduce an external object to a predicate and show how they can be incorporated into this analysis.

There are two major classes of complex predicates in Warlmanpa and Warlpiri: associated motion and light verb constructions. Associated motion constructions add an element of motion and/or path to another predicate (Browne 2021, pp. 241–47; see also Koch 2021). Light verb constructions comprise an inflecting (or ‘light’) verb, which are closed class items obligatorily hosting a tense/aspect/mood inflection, and one or more ‘preverbs’ (or ‘coverbs’), which do not inflect. For the remainder of this paper, I use the terms ‘inflecting verb’ and ‘preverb’. Inflecting verbs can stand alone in a clause, solely constituting the predicate, whereas preverbs generally require combining with an inflecting verb. Typically, inflecting verbs are semantically underspecified, with the preverb bearing the main semantic load, constraining the event or a participant in some way.

For example, in (14a), the predicate consists of an inflecting verb wa- ‘speak’, an intransitive verb of vocalisation. This inflecting verb can be combined with a preverb, such as warlku ‘bark’ in (14b), which constrains the interpretation of vocalisation.

14.	a.	Karnta	wa-nganya.
		woman	speak-pres
		‘The woman is speaking.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 264)
	b.	Wangani	warlku-wa-nganya.
		dog	bark-speak-pres
		‘The dog is barking.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 264)

Classifying preverbs in Warlpiri and Warlmanpa has not received significant attention (though cf. Nash 1982; Laughren 2010; Browne 2021, pp. 253–70). As a preliminary classification, preverbs in these languages fall on a continuum between ‘tight nexus’ and ‘loose nexus’ (following the terminology of Schultze-Berndt 2000, p. 536). In general, ‘tight nexus’ preverbs occur immediately preceding the inflecting verb, combine with a small number of inflecting verbs in the lexicon (often just one), can have unpredictable combinatorial meanings, and their combination can result in an argument structure which is distinct from the inflecting verb in isolation. An example is yina ‘sing’, given in (15). The inflecting verb in this sentence, nga- ‘eat’, in isolation means ‘to ingest solids’; however, in combination with yina ‘sing’, the resulting predication only refers to the activity of singing. The preverb is not known to combine with any other inflecting verbs in Warlmanpa.9 These combinations, prototypical of tight nexus preverbs, are best analysed as a single lexical entry.

15.	Ali-ngu=nya	jurlaka-rlu	yina-nga-rninya	pirnti-nga.
	that-erg=foc	bird-erg	sing-eat-pres	tree_top-loc
	That bird on the tree top is singing. (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 97)

Loose nexus preverbs generally occur immediately preceding the inflecting verb (but do not do so obligatorily), combine with a moderate number of inflecting verbs, have predictable combinatorial meanings, and maintain the argument structure of the inflecting verb. For example, the Warlmanpa coverb wuruly can combine with at least three inflecting verbs, illustrated in (16), where in each combination, wuruly adds the predictable meaning ‘out of sight’ to the event (Browne 2021, pp. 266–67).10

16	a.	jutpu-	‘run’	wuruly jutpu-	‘run out of sight’
	b.	kiya-	‘throw’	wuruly kiya-	‘throw out of sight’
	c.	ka-	‘take’	wuruly ka-	‘take out of sight’

When it comes to the formal analysis of compositional complex predicates, such as wuruly in Warlmanpa, a process of merging or sharing of argument structure takes place between the components of the predicate. To take an example from Jaminjung (Mirndi), in the combination of the inflecting verb -yu ‘be’ and the preverb burlug ‘drink’, the theme of the inflecting verb is linked to the drinker of the preverb, as represented in (17) (simplified, adapted from Schultze-Berndt 2000, p. 195).

17.	<	drinker	entity.drunk	>	burlug ‘drink’ (CV)
		|
	<	theme		>	-yu ‘be’ (IV)

This basic linkage is crucial to the analysis of complex predicates, regardless of the particular theoretical framework (see, e.g., ‘Coindexation’: Baker and Harvey 2010; and ‘Argument Fusion’: Butt 1998, 2014 for more formal analyses in LFG). In the analysis of (17), the arguments are linked: the ‘drinker’ of the preverb burlug and the ‘theme’ of the inflecting verb -yu ‘be’ are coreferential, providing a linking point for the two predicational elements. Alternate processes link the subevents of the predicates. For example, in their analysis of preverbs and inflecting verbs, Baker and Harvey (2010) propose the process of Merger, following Wilson (1999). In Merger, the highest major predicate function of the preverb must be shared by the inflecting verb. Where this condition is met, the shared predicate function of the inflecting verb is merged with the predicate structure of the preverb (Baker and Harvey 2010, p. 25). This accurately captures the merged meanings and provides a constrained method to predict incompatible predicate combinations (there are a small number of other restrictions not strictly relevant to this paper: Baker and Harvey 2010, pp. 25–26). To exemplify Merger, Baker and Harvey provide the following example, from Marra:

18.	Birli=nga-Ø-ganji.
	go.in=1sg.s-3sg.o-take.pp
	‘I put it in(side).’ (Marra: Baker and Harvey (2010), p. 24)

In Marra, birli is a preverb meaning ‘go in’, and ganji is an inflecting verb meaning ‘take’, with the LCS structures as given in (19a) and (19b), respectively. The highest predicate function of the preverb birli is MOVE, which is found in the LCS of ganji, and so, Merger accurately predicts the combination given in (18), represented in (19c). Where two predicates do not share any predicate functions, Merger fails.

19.	a.	birli ‘go in’:	[Event MOVE ([Thing x], [Path IN])]
	b.	ganji ‘take’:	[Event CAUSE ([Thing y], Event MOVE ([Thing x], [Path ])])]
	c.	Birli + ganji ‘put in’	[Event CAUSE ([Thing y], Event MOVE ([Thing x], [Path IN])])]

I propose that a small set of preverbs in Warlmanpa and Warlpiri cannot be adequately captured by these analyses. These preverbs, referred to as ‘external object preverbs’ (Simpson 1991, p. 386), introduce an external object to a well-formed predicate, and are extremely productive, in that they seem to readily combine with most inflecting verbs with few apparent restrictions. By way of introduction, consider (20). In (a), the inflecting verb yula- ‘cry’ is the sole predicate, and takes a single subject argument. In (b), the same inflecting verb yula- combines with the preverb marlaja ‘cause, relate to, belong to’. Marlaja introduces an external object which is typically the instigator of the event or state denoted by the infecting verb. In (b), kurdu ‘child’ is the subject of the complex predicate, and the use of the preverb marlaja specifies the cause of the crying being the external object karnta ‘the woman’.

20.	a.	Kurdu	ka	yula-mi.
		child	pres	cry-npst
		‘The child is crying.’ (Warlpiri: Hale (1982), p. 217)
	b.	Kurdu	ka=rla	karnta-ku	marlaja-yula-mi.
		child	pres=3.obl	woman-dat	cause-cry-npst
		‘The child is crying because of the woman.’ (Warlpiri: Simpson (1991), p. 386)

The list of external object preverbs in Warlpiri is given in (21), from Nash (1980, pp. 48–49). The list of external object preverbs in Warlmanpa still requires further study, but at least includes jurnta ‘away’ and yirrkin ‘comitative, with dependent’. These preverbs generally exhibit features of loose nexus features (they need not immediately precede the inflecting verb, they combine productively with a number of different inflecting verbs, but unlike prototypical loose nexus preverbs, do appear to interact with argument structure).

21.	Jurnta ‘removal, adversity, away from, to the disadvantage of’
	Jirrnganga ‘comitative, with dependent’
	Yirrkirnpa ‘comitative, with dependent’
	Kaji ‘benefactive, because of’
	Ngayi ‘benefactive, because of’
	Marlaja ‘causative, made possible by’
	Piki(piki) ‘under threat of, in jeopardy from’

As shown in (22), utilising Schultze-Berndt’s (2000) representation, the complex predicate marlaja-yula- forms an incompatible structure, as neither argument of the complex predicate can be linked to the other. The single argument of yula- ‘cry’ is the clausal subject, and the single argument of marlaja ‘cause’ is an external object—there is no coreferentiality between the components of the complex predicate.

22.	<		causer	>	marlaja ‘cause’
	<	cryer		>	yula- ‘cry’

Marlaja, as with other external object preverbs, can combine with inflecting verbs of varying valency, including intransitive, transitive and ditransitive inflecting verbs, and in each case, there is no coreferentiality between the inflecting verb and external object preverb.

Evidence that marlaja and similar preverbs are not linked to an underspecified subject (i.e., evidence that they are indeed incompatible with the argument linking processes shown above) comes from the ability of preverbs to relate to different arguments. For example, the external object preverb yirrkin ‘with’ in Warlmanpa can also combine with a number of inflecting verbs of varying transitivity, and specifies accompaniment in the event (where the accompanying entity is dative-marked, just as with the argument of marlaja in Warlpiri as detailed above). In (23a), the dative-marked constituent ngurlu ‘seed’ pertains more to the object of the predicate yiwirti ‘tree’, whereas in (23b), the dative-marked constituent kurtu ‘child’ pertains more to the subject of the predicate Japanangka (a subsection name). Later, I will argue that the precise interpretation of the external object in these cases is pragmatic in nature, not lexical (the lexical specification simply links the preverb argument to the combined argument structure).

23.	a.	Yiwirti=rna-rla	yirrkin-paka-rnu	ngurlu-ku.
		Tree=1sg.s-3.obl	with-hit-past	seed-dat
		‘I will hit the tree with seeds.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 319)
	b.	Japanangka-rlu=rla	kurtu-ku	yirrkin-la-rnu	wawirri.
		<subsection>-erg=3.obl	child-dat	with-shoot-past	kangaroo
		‘Japanangka, with the child, shot the kangaroo.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 260)

Returning to Merger, it is difficult to propose an LCS for the external preverbs which would successfully predict their wide range of combinatorial possibilities. For example, as an intransitive activity predicate, yula- ‘cry’ has a single predicate function MOVE, and it can combine with marlaja as shown in (20b). However, marlaja can combine with inflecting verbs which do not have MOVE, such as with a stative verb ‘be’, as in (24), which has a single predicate function BE, among other types of predicates.

24.	Jukurrpa	nyampu	kuja=ka=rla	marlaja-karri-karri.
	dreaming	this	rel=pres=3.obl	cause-be.npst
	‘This Dreaming is the creek that belongs to him.’ (Warlpiri: Laughren et al. (2007), p. 574)

Placing the burden of compatibility on external object preverbs such as marlaja does not lead to a parsimonious analysis. To account for external object preverbs in Warlpiri and Warlmanpa, I follow Butt’s (1998, 2014) analysis of Argument Raising. In this analysis, the external object preverbs are lexically defined as requiring another predicate as one of their arguments (Alsina 1996; Butt 1995, 1998), and are lexically specified to not link with arguments, that is, the argument structures merge without coindexation of individual arguments (Butt 2014, pp. 185–87). For example, marlaja would be defined as in (25a), where %Pred is a variable, which is completed by the argument structure of another predicate. When combining with karri ‘be’, given in (b), the resulting combination is as illustrated in (c) through Argument Raising. The variable %Pred of marlaja is ‘filled in’ by that of karri, with no argument roles being merged or linked. As such, the resulting structure requires a theme (realised as a subject) and a benefactive (realised as an external object).

25.	a.	marlaja	cause/relate	<	%Pred	ben	>
	b.	karri	be	<	theme	>
	c.	marlaja-karri	cause/relate	<	be	<	theme	>	ben	>

The choice of assigning the participant argument of marlaja to a benefactive thematic role ensures that it is linked to an external object.

4. Interactions between Applicatives and External Object Preverbs

So far, we have seen that external objects in Warlpiri and Warlmanpa can be introduced to a clause through an applicative lexical rule, or a small set of preverbs, called ‘external object preverbs’. I now discuss two remaining points of interest: interactions between multiple licensing of external objects, and variation in the argument structure of predicates formed with an external object preverb.

4.1. Multiple External Objects

As shown by Simpson (1991), a clause in Warlpiri may rarely license more than one external object. This was accounted for in Section 3.2 by the applicative rule inserting a [–r] argument, thereby claiming that one of the applicative arguments is actually realised as an object, rather than an external object (thereby satisfying uniqueness constraints). A number of predictions fall out from this analysis.

The co-occurrence of an external object preverb and an applicative is predicted as being grammatical: in this case, the external object preverb specifies an [–r] argument (thereby only accepting external objects), whereas the applicative insertion allows an argument to be realised as an object. This is exemplified in (26), where the preverb marlaja ‘cause’ combines with the inflecting verb luwa ‘shoot’. Luwa- selects for an agent (doing the shooting) and a theme (being struck); and marlaja selects for a %Pred and a ben (the causer of %Pred), where %Pred is completed by the argument structure of luwa- in this combination. Additionally, there is a beneficiary, introduced by the application of the applicative rule. The shooter is realised as a subject, the theme as an objectθ, the causer of the shooting as an external object, and the beneficiary as an object. Both the causer of the shooting and the beneficiary are registered in the bound pronouns =palangu-rla ‘3du.ns-3.obl’.

26.	Wati-ngku	ka=palangu-rla	marlu	kurdu-ku	marlaja-luwa-rni
	man-erg	pres=3du.ns-3.obl	kangaroo	child-dat	cause-shoot-npst
	karnta-jarra-ku.
	woman-du-dat
	‘Because of the two women, the man is shooting the kangaroo for the child.’ (Warlpiri: Swartz (1982))

The analysis also correctly predicts that there cannot be two external object preverbs in a complex predicate (as I have defined them for Warlpiri and Warlmanpa). Two possible interpretations are both ungrammatical: firstly, the two preverbs could constrain the same argument (i.e., Argument Merger), but this is blocked by the preverbs being lexically specified to not merge argument structures (following Butt 2014, p. 185). Secondly, the two preverbs could each constrain different arguments, as in (27), which is ungrammatical. In (27), piki would license warna-ku ‘snake’ (‘in danger of the snake’), and jurnta ‘away’ would license Japanangka-ku, a subsection (‘away from Japanangka’). However, this is ungrammatical between both preverbs which have the same lexical specification (selecting %Pred and ben), and so uniqueness is violated, as unlike the applicative rule, they both select for an argument which can only be realised as an external object (unlike the applicative rule which allows an object).

27.	*Nantuwu	ka=rla-jinta	Japanangka-ku
	horse	pres=3.obl-3.obl2	<subsection>-dat
	piki-jurnta-parnka-mi-rra		warna-ku=ju.
	hazard-away-run-npst-thither		snake-dat=eu
	‘The horse is running away from Japanangka and might get bitten by the snake.’ (Warlpiri [ungrammatical]: Simpson (1991), p. 404)

Essentially, an analysis which allows applicatives to be realised as external objects or objects, and which requires external object preverbs to only license an additional external object, correctly predicts the patterns found in Warlpiri. It is not clear whether Warlmanpa allows two applicatives, or one applicative in a clause with an external object. There are no cases in the Warlmanpa corpus—however, there is also no negative evidence, and so, this is an area for future research to ascertain. If it is indeed the case that Warlmanpa cannot have an applicative and an external object preverb, nor two applicatives in a clause, then this would be represented by a distinction in how the applicative insertion rule works. In Warlpiri, the rule effectively allows the applicative argument to be linked to an external object or an object, whereas in Warlmanpa, it could only link to an external object, thereby preventing co-occurrences with external object preverbs or another applicative.

4.2. Preverb Variation

The second point of interest is external object preverbs, which allow variation exhibited by both languages regarding whether an external object is required or not. For example, yirrkin ‘with’ in Warlmanpa can introduce an external object, as in (28a), where the external object karli ‘boomerang’ is the accompanying entity. Because it is an external object, it is registered by a bound pronoun =rla. However, this preverb does not require an external object, as shown in (28b). Here, the complete lack of external object is evidenced by the lack of a non-subject bound pronoun. Furthermore, the accompanying entity introduced by yirrkin can be realised as an adjunct, as in (28c), where kirtana ‘father’ is marked with the proprietive adnominal suffix (used to indicate accompaniment and/or possession), and an ergative case functioning as an agreement marker to indicate that this nominal is (secondary) predicated of the ergative subject of the clause, rather than relating to the predicate.

28.	a.	Ngarrka-ngu=rla		yirrkin-paka-rnu	karli-ku.
		man-erg=3.obl		with-hit-past	boomerang-dat
		The man hit him with a boomerang. (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 267)
	b.	Yirrkin-pa-nya-nya=rna.
		with-go-mot.away-pres=1sg.s
		I’ll go together (with an unspecified entity). (Warlmanpa: wrl-20200225, DK, 12:33 min)
	c.	Ngayu=ma=rna	yulu	yirrkin-karta-pinyi	kirtana-parna-rlu.
		1=top=1sg.s	ground	with-spear-act_on-fut	father-prop-erg
		I’ll dig the ground with my father. (Warlmanpa: wrl-20200225, DK, 25:00 min)

Similarly, in Warlpiri, the preverb jirrnganja ‘comitative’ can introduce an external object, as in (29a), but does not require an external object present in the clause, as in (29b).

29.	a.	Kajika=nganpa	nantuwu	jirrnganja-wanti	rdaku-ngka.
		appr=1.pl.excl.ns	horse	comit-fall.npst	hole-loc
		A horse is likely to fall with us (on its back) into a hole. (Warlpiri: Laughren et al. (2007), p. 146)
	b.	Jirrnganja=lu	nyina-ya	yama-ngka.
		comit=pl.s	sit-imp	shade-loc
		Sit together in the shade. (Warlpiri: Laughren et al. (2007), p. 146)

It seems that these particular preverbs which allow (but do not require) external objects have two lexical entries, one with a participant argument, and one without.11 For yirrkin in Warlmanpa, this would be as given in (30), where (a) is the sense which involves an external object (as in (28a)) and (b) is the sense which does not (as in (28b–c)).

30.	a.	yirrkin	accompany	<	%Pred	ben	>
	b.	yirrkin	accompany	<	%Pred	>

Finally, the relation that these preverbs specify is particularly interesting. To exemplify, consider (23), repeated below. In (a), yirrkin introduces an external object ngurlu ‘seed’, and at the lexical level, this specifies that the seeds accompanied the event (of the speaker hitting the tree). Clearly, more enriched readings are either that the ngurlu ‘seed’ accompanies the yiwirti ‘tree’ (which is the object of the clause), or that the ngurlu ‘seed’ accompanies the speaker (which is the subject of the clause). The latter interpretation allows further enrichment, in that the seeds were involved in the event of paka- ‘hit’—that is, that the speaker used the seeds to hit the tree. In (b), similarly, yirrkin introduces an external object kurtu ‘child’. However, unlike (a), the more enriched meaning is that the kurtu ‘child’ is accompanying the subject Japanangka (subsection name), not the object wawirri ‘kangaroo’.

23.	a.	Yiwirti=rna-rla	yirrkin-paka-rnu	ngurlu-ku.
		Tree=1sg.s-3.obl	with-hit-past	seed-dat
		‘I will hit the tree with seeds.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 319)
	b.	Japanangka-rlu=rla	kurtu-ku	yirrkin-la-rnu	wawirri.
		<subsection>-erg=3.obl	child-dat	with-shoot-past	kangaroo
		‘Japanangka, with the child, shot the kangaroo.’ (Warlmanpa: Browne (2021), p. 260)

Based on the variability, it would seem that the exact interpretation of yirrkin in Warlmanpa (and the same is true of yirrkirnpa in Warlpiri) can be pragmatically enriched, beyond the lexical specification that an entity accompanies the event. This is unlike other preverbs in Warlpiri which may interact with different grammatical relations. For example, the loose nexus preverb muku ‘all’ in Warlpiri will quantify over the external object if one is available; otherwise, it will quantify over the object if available (if an external object and object are available, muku can quantify over either); if neither are available, muku will quantify over the subject (Simpson 1991, pp. 398–400). That is, if there is an absolutive argument (the subject of an intransitive clause or the object of a transitive clause), or an external object, muku can constrain it (resulting in possible ambiguity in cases where there is an absolutive argument and an external object). Unlike muku, where the interpretation is conditioned by grammatical relations, external object preverbs seem to allow pragmatic enrichment to specify the nature of their involvement (e.g., accompaniment for yirrkin), independent of grammatical relations.

5. Conclusions

This paper has built on the analysis of external objects in Warlpiri by Simpson (1991), utilising recent innovations in predication (in particular: Butt 1998, 2014; Kifle 2011), and extending the analysis to Warlmanpa, representing the first formal analysis of preverb + inflecting verb combinations and external objects in Warlmanpa.

External objects in these languages are particularly interesting as they exhibit features of arguments and adjuncts. They are adjunct-like in that they are not required for the grammaticality of a clause. Both the ‘ethical dative’ external objects and the external objects constrained by preverbs are optional. However, when they are found in a clause, external objects are treated akin to core grammatical relations, in that they are registered by the bound pronouns (in contrast to other adjuncts).

This analysis of external objects in Warlmanpa and Warlpiri has accounted for two interrelated phenomena, namely ‘ethical datives’ and external object preverbs. The proposed applicative rule introduces an argument which may be realised as an external object or object, and certain preverbs were shown to take another predicate as an argument, as well as an (optional) argument which is realised as an external object. This analysis correctly predicts a number of interactions between ethical datives and preverbs (and combinations of preverbs).

All other Ngumpin-Yapa languages exhibit a construction in which an ethical dative is registered in the bound pronouns (Hudson 1978, p. 25 for Walmajarri; Tsunoda 1981, p. 110 for Jaru; McConvell 1996b, p. 90; Meakins and McConvell 2021 for Gurindji; Meakins and Nordlinger 2014, pp. 131–33 for Bilinarra; Senge 2015, pp. 539–40 for Wanyjirra; Ennever 2018, p. 251; 2021 for Ngardi; Osgarby 2018, p. 143 for Mudburra), indicative of the ethical dative being treated akin to a core argument (the exact treatment of this grammatical relation differs across analyses). Interestingly, no grammatical analyses of these languages report preverbs like external object preverbs as in Warlpiri and Warlmanpa. Clearly, an applicative rule is warranted throughout the subgroup which introduces an oblique argument (for the ‘ethical dative’), but further research is required into which languages allow multiple ‘ethical datives’ and the extent to which the grammatical relation of ‘external object’ is warranted. Understanding these aspects with further cross-linguistic data would allow a more refined understanding of the parameters of the analyses presented in this paper, and the types of processes which can manipulate the event structures of predicates more generally.