The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

225
.
(108) lo moxrim be-tel-aviv sfarim li-kri’a ba-matos
not sell-pl. in-Tel-Aviv books to-reading in+the-plane
Intended meaning: “Books to read on the plane are not sold in Tel Aviv.”
Roughly: ∀x ARB [books for x to read on the plane are not sold in Tel aviv]
5.5.2.3 The semantics of object-oriented secondary predicates: Rothstein (2000,
2003) provides a uniform semantic account for secondary predication. The central
claim of this account is that the interpretation of a sentence including a secondary
predicate involves asserting that there was a complex event constructed out of the
event introduced by the matrix predicate and that of a secondary predicate. The
semantic operator which creates this complex event is the PART-OF relation. There
are two constraints on forming such complex event (predicate): (i) The event denoted
by the matrix predicate must be temporally contained in the event introduced by the
secondary predicate. (ii) The two must share a participant.
In a sentence containing a resultative secondary predicate (109), the PART-OF
relation is argued to relate the culmination of the matrix event (cul(e)) and the event
of the secondary predicate, rather than relating the event arguments of the two events
(as in sentences containing depictive secondary predicates). In other words, (109) says
that ‘the event of wiping the table culminated in the event of the table being clean’.
The semantic formula for resultative secondary predication is given in (110):
(109) John wiped the table [ AP clean]
(110) λe. ∃e 1 ∃e 2 [e= ↑(e 1 Ue 2 ) ∧ PART-OF (cul(e 1 ),(e 2 )]
Using the Dowty style templates, Rothstein (2000) shows that the thematic
argument of cul(e 1 ) is the Theme argument of the matrix V (realized as the direct
object). Combined with the constraint that the resultative predicate must share an
argument with the matrix one, this derives the object-orientedness of resultatives in
Rothstein (2000).
I propose that essentially the same semantic mechanism is employed in the
interpretation of the OPC containing the le NP/PP secondary predicates (111):